Social Housing Bill (Fifth sitting)
Lee Dillon ExcerptsTuesday 3rd November 2026
(1 day, 21 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Social Housing Bill [HL] 2026-27 View all Social Housing Bill [HL] 2026-27 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 3 November 2026 - (3 Nov 2026)
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
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.
Matthew Pennycook
I will begin by speaking to new clause 39. I welcome the shadow Minister’s comments on standards and decency. It is reassuring to know that his deregulatory zeal does not extend to Awaab’s law, the decent homes standard or minimum energy efficiency standards.
As well as delivering the biggest increase in social and affordable house building in a generation, we are determined to drive a transformational and lasting change in the safety and quality of social housing. Maintenance is a critical part of that. We have set out the standards required for social housing through the decent homes standard. In the coming months, we will provide more detailed guidance on how landlords can meet that standard. We have also published electrical safety guidance that sets out rights and responsibilities for landlords, local authorities and tenants.
On complaints, social landlords are already subject to the Housing Ombudsman’s statutory complaint handling code. We are working closely with the ombudsman to ensure that it has the resources and capacity to meet increased demand and support better complaint handling by landlords. We have also introduced Awaab’s law, with its clear time-bound requirements on social landlords to investigate hazards and take action. Ahead of phase 2 of that law coming into force on 30 November, we have published updated guidance to support landlords to comply with its requirements.
Awaab’s law promotes a person-centred approach, putting the need to make individuals safe at the heart of legislation. Again, I commend the Opposition, because it was a Conservative Act of Parliament that provided the powers to introduce Awaab’s law into the social rented sector. However, in our view it would not be appropriate for the Government to tell landlords how to put individuals at the heart of the legislation, as the solutions will vary depending on individual circumstances. For that reason, we do not believe that the additional guidance called for in the new clause is necessary.
Mr Dillon
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
As members of the Committee know, I worked in social housing for 14 years before entering this place. One of the more challenging elements of my role was ensuring the safety of our residents, particularly with annual gas safety checks. We had to make three attempts to carry out the check before going to court and seeking an injunction to access the property, not only resulting in legal costs for the social provider, but extending the time that a tenant was residing in a property without the boiler having its approved checks done. The same problem can also extend to five-year electrical safety checks. Only yesterday, I hosted a roundtable with the British Pest Control Association, where we spoke about how delays to access in such instances are causing further damage through pest infestation. Bedbugs, for example, often move within a block of flats, so quick access to all dwellings in that instance is key to stopping the spread and its impact.
The new clause has come from experience of working in the sector. I have never known a judge not to grant an injunction when a social landlord has been able to prove that it has made those three attempts. Although article 8 and the right to a private life may come up, that is of course a qualified right. As long as the access is in accordance with the law, necessary or proportionate, or pursuing a legitimate aim, article 8 considerations can be laid aside.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the hon. Member for Newbury for tabling and speaking to the new clause. It raises an important issue that we recognise has been an area of growing concern, and on which there were some particularly considered and constructive debates in the other place; I express my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Best, for his engagement. Those debates reinforced the incredible complexity of the issue, which involves the interaction of the fundamental rights of tenants, the legal duties placed on landlords and the safety of both residents and their neighbours.
I reassure the hon. Gentleman that, since those debates in the other place, the Government have been undertaking an intensive process of engagement and policy development to examine the issue. In that respect, we are grateful for the input and expertise that we have received from a range of residents’ groups, landlords, representative bodies and charities. That engagement has put it beyond doubt that this is an issue that must be resolved. However, it also made it clear that we cannot act in haste and risk creating new systemic problems, and there are a range of challenges that arise from various options in this area.
For that reason, the Government cannot support new clause 60, but we will shortly bring forward a consultation that will examine the issue in the round to get at some of those challenges and find out what the potential solutions might be. It will also look at the design and the necessary safeguards for any new law in this space. To support the sector with practical advice, we will bring forward plans to develop best practice guidance on access procedures.
I absolutely understand and recognise the expertise of the hon. Member for Newbury in this area. He raises a valid point, but for the reasons I have given, I hope he will withdraw his new clause.
Mr Dillon
I thank the Minister for his reply and for his Department’s understanding of the wider impact. I welcome the consultation being launched. I agree that the balance between a landlord’s rights and a tenant’s rights needs a lot of thought. When I was drafting new clause 60, I did not include pests as a hazard; I appreciate that that should have been included as well. I look forward to seeing the Government’s progress. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 62
Ability of tenants to request an electric vehicle charging point
“(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must, by regulations made by statutory instrument, make provision to enable tenants to request and install a domestic Electric Vehicle Charger.
(2) Regulations made under subsection (1) made under this subsection must include—
(a) the grounds on which a request can be declined including—
(i) electrical standards,
(ii) planning requirements, and
(iii) cost; and
(b) a requirement for social housing providers to respond to the request within one month.
(3) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”—(Mr Dillon.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 63—Provision of electric vehicle charging points in new social housing developments—
“(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must, by regulations made by statutory instrument, make provision to require new social housing developments to include electric vehicle charging points.
(2) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”
Matthew Pennycook
I can assure the hon. Member that the Government are committed to improving access to convenient home charging for tenants, including in social housing. However, we do not believe that new clause 62 is the right way to achieve that objective.
Tenants can face hurdles in getting landlord or freeholder approval, sometimes without a clear reason; that is not in dispute. The Department for Transport is already consulting on an ability to charge for tenants and leaseholders. That consultation, published on 21 October, considers both legislation and non-statutory guidance to give residents clearer routes to request permission for a charge point. It also seeks views on setting clearer expectations for landlords and freeholders when responding to those requests, including in social housing.
New clause 62 would pre-empt that consultation by introducing requirements before the Government have considered any evidence or fully assessed the impacts. In our view, that risks introducing grounds for refusal, which could be inappropriate and have the unintended consequence of deeming certain scenarios unreasonable when they are not, limiting access to home charging for tenants rather than making it more accessible. We want to ensure that any intervention is workable for tenants, while also taking proper account of the legitimate responsibilities and constraints on landlords and freeholders.
New clause 62 would risk creating an inconsistent approach between different property types, which could cause confusion for housing providers and leave other tenants without the same protections. Support with installation costs is already available, with existing Government grants providing up to £500 towards the cost of installing an eligible charge point.
New clause 63 seeks to require new social housing developments to include electric vehicle charging points. I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Newbury about the importance of ensuring that new homes are equipped for the transition to electric vehicles. In schedule 1 to the Building Regulations 2010, part S, which was introduced in 2021, already requires charging infrastructure in new residential buildings and those undergoing major renovations in England, including in social housing developments. In our view, the new clause is therefore not required. The Government are also currently considering whether those requirements should be strengthened via the DFT consultation.
Mr Dillon
I happily accept the Minister’s considered view about the consultation. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 66
Review of the use of empty homes as social housing
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, publish and lay before Parliament a review on the use of empty homes as social homes.
(2) A review under this section must include information on—
(a) the number of empty homes in England and Wales that could be used for social housing,
(b) the potential merits of a scheme to bring empty homes into use as social housing, and
(c) any challenges involved in establishing such a scheme.”—(Gideon Amos.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington for speaking to new clause 66, tabled in the name of the hon. Member for Eastleigh. He rightly pointed out that there are currently more than 300,000 homes that have been empty for six months or more. The Government absolutely want to see more empty homes brought back into use across the country, but we do not believe that a national review or a national empty homes strategy supported by a new ringfenced fund is the right approach.
The scale and causes of empty homes vary considerably between places, as do local housing pressures and the interventions that will be most effective. Therefore, we believe that local authorities and mayoral strategic authorities are best placed to understand those circumstances and determine the right approach for their areas. Local authorities can already access funding to bring homes back into use, including through the social and affordable homes programme, the local authority housing fund and the long-term rough sleeping innovation programme. Loan funding is also available through the Public Works Loan Board to support the acquisition of empty homes.
We are also strengthening local authorities’ powers to bring empty homes back into use by reforming empty dwelling management orders, removing evidential requirements and reducing the period that a property must be empty before it is eligible for an EDMO from two years to six months.
Mr Dillon
The Minister has outlined a number of funding packages and processes that are already set up to tackle empty homes. Can he say how well they are working, and whether the Government need to go further? A national strategy, with a regional breakdown or local levers within it, could help tackle the problem.
Matthew Pennycook
The hon. Gentleman asks me a very specific question. I commit to give him, in writing, a sense of the local and regional breakdown of the use of EDMOs and these powers. Funding is available, but the point I am making is that although funding can be a barrier, it is only one part of the solution. Local authorities have a range of powers and incentives available to tackle empty homes. We want to continue empowering them to use those, but we think it is right that they retain the flexibility to respond to particular local priorities.
Although the Government agree with the sentiment behind the new clauses, we do not believe that this Bill is the best route forward. On that basis, I hope the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington might consider withdrawing new clause 66.
Social Housing Bill (Second sitting)
Lee Dillon ExcerptsTuesday 27th October 2026
(1 week, 1 day ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Social Housing Bill [HL] 2026-27 View all Social Housing Bill [HL] 2026-27 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 27 October 2026 - (27 Oct 2026)
Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)
I draw Members’ attention to my category 8 —miscellaneous—interest.
Mr Lee Dillon (Newbury) (LD)
My wife works for a social housing provider.
Clause 12
Restriction on certain sales of social housing by private registered providers
Amendment proposed (this day): 2, in clause 12, page 12, line 5, at end insert—
“171AA Right of first refusal: local housing authorities
(1) This section applies where—
(a) a sale notice has been given under section 171A in relation to a dwelling, and
(b) the dwelling—
(i) is let at social rent, or
(ii) was previously transferred from a local housing authority.
(2) During the period specified in section 171A(3), the local housing authority for the area in which the dwelling is situated may make an offer to acquire the dwelling.
(3) Where an offer is made under subsection (2), the private registered provider must dispose of the dwelling to the local housing authority at existing use value for social housing.
(4) A dwelling acquired under this section must be retained as social housing within the meaning of Part 2 of this Act.
(5) Any dispute as to the existing use value for social housing shall be determined by an independent valuer appointed by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors.
(6) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about the operation of this section.”—(Gideon Amos.)
This amendment gives local housing authorities a right of first refusal to acquire social rent dwellings and dwellings previously transferred from local authorities at existing use value for social housing.
Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.
The Chair
I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:
Amendment 3, in clause 12, page 12, line 5, at end insert—
“171AA Right of first refusal: registered providers
(1) This section applies where—
(a) a sale notice has been given under section 171A in relation to a dwelling, and
(b) the dwelling—
(i) is let at social rent, or
(ii) was previously transferred from a local housing authority.
(2) During the period specified in section 171A(3), any registered provider which received a sale notice under section 171A(2) may make an offer to acquire the dwelling.
(3) Where an offer is made under subsection (2), the private registered provider must dispose of the dwelling to the registered provider at existing use value for social housing.
(4) A dwelling acquired under this section must be retained as social housing within the meaning of Part 2 of this Act.
(5) Any dispute as to the existing use value for social housing shall be determined by an independent valuer appointed by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors.
(6) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about the operation of this section.”
This amendment gives registered providers a right of first refusal to acquire social rent dwellings and dwellings previously transferred from local authorities at existing use value for social housing.
Amendment 10, in clause 12, page 12, line 5, at end insert—
“171AA Right of first refusal: local affordable housing providers
(1) This section applies where—
(a) a sale notice has been given under section 171A in relation to a dwelling, and
(b) the dwelling—
(i) is let at social rent, or
(ii) was previously transferred from a local housing authority.
(2) During the period specified in section 171A(3), where a qualifying local affordable housing provider makes an offer to acquire the dwelling, a private registered provider must dispose of the dwelling to the qualifying local affordable housing provider at existing use value for social housing.
(3) A dwelling acquired under this section must be retained as social housing.
(4) In this section, a ‘qualifying local affordable housing provider’ means—
(a) a community land trust;
(b) a housing co-operative;
(c) a community benefit society;
(d) a charity whose purposes include the provision of affordable housing; or
(e) such other locally based not-for-profit housing body as may be prescribed by regulations,
which operates, or intends to operate, affordable housing within the local housing authority area in which the dwelling is situated.
(5) Any dispute as to existing use value for social housing shall be determined by an independent valuer appointed by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors.
(6) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about the operation of this section.”.
This amendment seeks to extend the right of first refusal to not-for-profit community-led housing organisations and other non-registered providers capable of retaining homes as affordable housing within the local area, and provides that the disposal must be at existing use value.
The Chair
As we have heard, Gideon Amos is not present. Mr Dillon, do you know what his wishes are? Does he want to withdraw the amendment?
Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)
I beg to move amendment 82, in clause 12, page 12, line 31, at end insert—
“(7) In exercising functions under this section and section 171A, the Secretary of State must have regard to the operational and financial independence of private registered providers.”.
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to have regard to the independence of housing associations when exercising powers under new sections 171A and 171B of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008.
Gareth Bacon
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. I will be relatively brief. I tabled amendment 82 to introduce a vital legal safeguard to protect the structural integrity of the UK housing association sector.
Private registered providers are independent, non-profit businesses. They work hard to run a fair and efficient sector providing social housing and to see much-needed homes built. The amendment would protect registered providers from overreaching state interventions that could have serious, if inadvertent, financial consequences.
Housing associations can rely on private debt to fund development, and any perception that central Government can arbitrarily dictate their financial operations is a threat, both to business independence and to the positive outcomes that they effect. We must ensure that even well-intentioned regulatory oversight does not compromise the financial viability and building capacity of some of the most important businesses in our housing industry. We will seek to divide the Committee on the amendment.
Mr Dillon
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Western. I would like to speak to amendments 100 and 7. Amendment 7, which in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington, really gets to the “what”: what is being offered for disposal, whether it is at social rent and what the energy performance certificate rating is. Amendment 100 is a follow-up to that: the “why”. Why is a property being disposed of? Is it for financial viability? Is it because of the cost of retrofit? If we were to collate that data, the Government would be able to reflect on the success of this policy in later years.
Matthew Pennycook
Government amendment 20 requires sales notices from private providers to include information about whether the rent standard applies to the dwelling and, if it does, the rent category of the dwelling. Engagement with the sector has highlighted the importance of potential purchasers knowing the rent category of a home when taking decisions about purchasing it. That is because the rent category has implications for the future rent that can be charged, and therefore the future income potential of the property.
I remain mindful of the need to ensure the disposal notification is proportionate and limited to the information that is most useful to those considering purchasing the property. We believe information relating to the dwelling rent category is a useful and reasonable addition to the information requirements. I therefore urge the Committee to support the amendment.
Amendment 82 would require the Secretary of State to have regard to the operational and financial independence of private registered providers when making regulations under proposed new sections 171B or 171A of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008. A common theme in my responses to the amendments on the disposals measure in this Bill is that I recognise that private registered providers are private bodies that need to be allowed to make their own business decisions. In short, for that reason, I do not think the amendment is required. If making regulations, the Secretary of State would necessarily be aware that housing associations are private bodies. I reassure the shadow Minister that we have no current intentions to use these powers.
I believe that the hon. Member for Newbury spoke only to amendment 100. Am I wrong?
Matthew Pennycook
I will deal with both, in that case. Amendment 7, in the name of the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington, would significantly expand the information required to be included in sales notices where a private registered provider intends to dispose of a property outside of the regulated sector, to include, for example, whether a property complies with the decent homes standard, its EPC rating and whether it has been adapted for accessibility.
The Government’s view is that adding requirements for more information to be included in the sale notice would not be proportionate. We do not want to impose additional unnecessary burdens on providers, and we certainly would not wish to see information requirements introduced that would mean additional reports need to be produced, or surveys carried out, though I note the hon. Member’s amendment does seek to avoid this.
Our view is that extending the notification window to eight weeks will allow providers to have the opportunity to request further information that they judge to be necessary to their consideration of a potential purchase. However, I do not think that requiring the inclusion of all this information by law is a proportionate response. Our aim is to capture the basic elements that will always be relevant to providers when considering purchasing a home, and provide more time for inquiries to be made where needed. That point has come up previously. The provisions in the Bill do not prevent those notifications and requests for further information between the parties in question from being made. That is the basis on which I brought forward amendment 19, which requires information on the category of rent, which we think is an important improvement.
Amendment 100, which is in the name of the hon. Member for Newbury, would require providers to categorise their reason for disposing of a property as either financial viability, the cost of energy efficiency retrofits, stock rationalisation or some other reason that might be specified through secondary legislation. My concern is that seeking to prescribe particular categories of reason in the notice might result in a less helpful notification. Let me explain why.
First, it requires providers to identify one particular reason behind the sale. It is possible that the proposed sale will be based on more than one of these categories. It is also possible that there might be a different driver entirely. In response to a very reasonable question from the hon. Member for Broxbourne, I tried to give a sense of the variety of reasons that individual providers might be disposing of particular stock.
Secondly, there is a risk that by setting out the categories in legislation, providers will just use the default descriptions of the reason and fail to provide a fuller and more helpful description for those being notified. Thirdly, although I do not think this was the intention of the hon. Member for Newbury, the amendment would have the effect of preventing sales from going ahead. No sale can proceed without a notice, and the notice must be valid. To be valid with this amendment in place, the notice must include one of a limited list of reasons. The Government cannot support an amendment that would prevent legitimate disposals. For those reasons, I hope that the hon. Member will not press the amendment to a Division.
Mr Dillon
I beg to move amendment 4, in clause 12, page 13, line 23, at end insert—
“171CA Requirement to consult with a relevant local authority before a planned disposal in a designated rural area
(1) A private registered provider must provide the relevant local authority in a designated rural area with a report on social housing stock condition information on an annual basis.
(2) A private registered provider must consult with the relevant local authority on options to regenerate social housing in the designated rural area before any decision to dispose of a property in the area has taken place.
(3) For the purposes of this section, a designated rural area is defined as any area with a population density of no more than two persons per hectare and a population of 3,000 or fewer.”
This amendment seeks to ensure that the private registered provider and relevant local authority discuss appropriate solutions to the possible disposal of affordable housing in sensitive rural communities well before a disposal has taken place.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 11, in clause 12, page 13, line 23, at end insert—
“171CA Impact on rural communities
(1) Before making a relevant sale in relation to a dwelling located in a rural area, a private registered provider must undertake an assessment of the likely impact of the proposed disposal on the local community.
(2) An assessment under this section must consider—
(a) the availability of affordable housing within the settlement;
(b) local housing needs;
(c) the total loss of social housing within the parish, town or settlement over the preceding ten years, if any;
(d) the contribution of the dwelling to maintaining a balanced and sustainable community; and
(e) the availability of replacement social housing within the same settlement.
(3) A copy of the assessment must be provided to—
(a) the local housing authority;
(b) the parish or town council, where one exists; and
(c) the Regulator of Social Housing.
171CB Regulator of Social Housing and rural communities
(1) In exercising its functions under this Part, the Regulator of Social Housing must have regard to—
(a) the impact of social housing disposals on the sustainability of rural communities; and
(b) the maintenance, availability of, and need for affordable housing provision within rural settlements.”
This amendment requires registered providers and the Regulator of Social Housing to consider the impact of disposals on rural communities.
Clause stand part.
New clause 17—Rural exception sites—
“(1) A social housing dwelling developed on a rural exception site may not be disposed of on the open market.
(2) Any disposal of a social housing dwelling developed on a rural exception site must preserve affordability restrictions in perpetuity.
(3) No social housing dwelling developed on a rural exception site shall be eligible for—
(a) Right to Buy;
(b) Right to Acquire; or
(c) any successor scheme.
(4) A planning obligation securing social or affordable housing on a rural exception site may not be modified or discharged if the effect would be to reduce the number of social or affordable dwellings or weaken any affordability restrictions.
(5) In determining any—
(a) application,
(b) appeal,
(c) permission in principle,
(d) technical details consent application,
(e) local development order, or
(f) development consent,
relating to social or housing affordable housing on land which is, or has previously been, a rural exception site, the absence of a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites does not constitute a reason for granting permission for a development that would reduce the number of social or affordable dwellings secured on that site.
(6) The presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply where its application would result in—
(a) the loss of social or affordable dwellings secured on a rural exception site;
(b) the reduction of affordability restrictions applying to such dwellings; or
(c) the substitution of market housing for social or affordable housing secured for local housing need.”
This new clause seeks to preserve social housing and affordable homes provided under rural exception site policies for future generations of local residents.
New clause 64—Replacement of disposed rural social housing stock—
“(1) Within 12 months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must, by regulations made by statutory instrument, make provision to require disposed social housing providers to guarantee rural social housing is replaced like for like.
(2) Under subsection (1) ‘like for like’ means housing that is—
(a) in the same local area, and
(b) with the same number of bedrooms.
(3) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”
This new clause would require a local replacement guarantee where rural social housing is disposed of.
New clause 65—Rural social housing targets—
“(1) Within 12 months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must set rural social housing targets, and every year thereafter, publish a report on progress towards those targets.
(2) The ‘rural social housing targets’ under subsection (1) should include individual targets for the amount of social housing that is available for—
(a) social rent,
(b) affordable rent, and
(c) shared ownership.”
This new clause would require the Government to create and publish progress towards targets for rural social housing, broken down by tenure type.
Mr Dillon
Amendment 4 seeks to ensure that registered providers and local authorities discuss solutions to possible disposal in sensitive rural communities well before that disposal has taken place. I will not rehearse the arguments that we had this morning about rural communities and the exceptions that they face, but I think the Minister will understand our concern that they should have as much protection as possible.
Matthew Pennycook
As I have set out, the Government are committed to protecting our much-needed social housing stock. As it stands, there is no requirement for advance notification of disposals of social homes, meaning that opportunities to retain them within the social housing sector can be missed. Although private registered providers may choose to dispose of homes for valid reasons, including to support investment in new supply and the effective management of their stock, we understand that that can have a particularly acute impact in areas where the supply of social housing is already constrained.
It is therefore important that opportunities to retain homes within the social housing sector are not missed, particularly in areas with significant demand or where replacement is particularly difficult. Clause 12 will achieve that by requiring providers to notify the relevant local authority and other registered providers in the area before a sale can be completed. It creates a short window during which completion of a disposal cannot take place, while still allowing providers to market the property and continue with their disposal plans as usual. The window was set at four weeks upon introduction of the Bill, and the Government are seeking to extend that window to eight weeks, in response to concerns raised by both Houses and by stakeholders that it was too short.
The new window of time allows local authorities and other providers to consider whether they wish to acquire the property, helping to retain homes within the social housing sector. To help them in that initial assessment, the notice is required to provide certain basic information such as the address, the number of bedrooms and bathrooms and its estimated value. Earlier, I spoke to an amendment to include the category of rent in the sale notice, which we think is a reasonable and fair addition.
The clause is targeted and proportionate. It includes sensible exceptions such as sales to another registered provider, sales to the tenant and certain low-cost home ownership transactions. It is important to be clear that this is not a consent regime. The clause does not prevent disposals, does not restrict who a property may be sold to, and does not interfere with providers’ ability to make legitimate stock management decisions. It is a light touch and proportionate measure to improve transparency, embed consistent good practice across the sector—I have detailed some of the non-legislative means where we intend to work with the sector to go further— and support the Bill’s broader objective of safeguarding and sustaining social housing stock.
Amendment 4, in the name of the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington, would introduce additional requirements for disposals in designated rural areas. I support the intention behind it: to ensure that a private registered provider and the relevant local authority discuss appropriate solutions to possible disposals of social housing in rural communities well before a disposal has taken place. I am not convinced, however, that the best way to achieve that outcome is by requiring annual reports on stock condition and a statutory consultation on options for the regeneration of social housing prior to disposal.
The provisions in the Bill will ensure that a local authority is aware of a potential disposal. I hope that that gives local authorities, particularly in rural areas, an opportunity to ensure that there is an effective dialogue before the disposal takes place. Requiring statutory consultations on the regeneration of social housing would likely place significant time and administrative costs on both local authorities and private registered providers, and materially impact the ability of private registered providers to make the necessary commercial decisions required to manage their assets effectively and safely.
More broadly, through information published by the Regulator of Social Housing, local authorities can already access information about PRP-owned social housing stock within their local authority area, including information relating to whether stock meets the decent homes standard. An annual report on stock condition would be duplicative of the existing rigorous requirements. I am sympathetic to what lies behind the amendment, but I am not convinced that we need to legislate in this way to achieve our shared aim.
Mr Dillon
I thank the Minister for that reply. I hope that local authorities and housing providers are listening to this debate, and understand that the Government expect them to work in a collaborative manner for the best outcome for social tenants. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 12, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 13
Review of shared ownership and staircasing
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 41—Shared ownership strategy—
“(1) Within 12 months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish and lay before Parliament a strategy for increasing opportunities for access to the shared ownership scheme.
(2) The strategy under this section must include proposals relating to—
(a) first-time buyers,
(b) key workers,
(c) housing association provision, and
(d) staircasing arrangements.
(3) For the purposes of this section, ‘staircasing’ means the practice of buying additional shares in a Shared Ownership home in order to increase overall equity.”
This new clause would require publication of a strategy for expanding shared ownership.
New clause 45—Model shared ownership agreement—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, publish a model shared ownership agreement.
(2) The model shared ownership agreement must include standard provisions relating to—
(a) rent reviews,
(b) staircasing,
(c) service charges,
(d) administrative fees,
(e) sales and resales, and
(f) capital improvements undertaken by shared owners.
(3) Registered providers must have regard to the model agreement when granting shared ownership leases.”
This probing new clause would require the publication of a standardised model shared ownership agreement.
Mr Dillon
Clause 13 relates to the review of shared ownership and staircasing, which the Liberal Democrats support. However, new clause 41 refers to
“a strategy for increasing opportunities for access to the shared ownership scheme”.
It seems to me that it would be logical to carry out the review of shared ownership first, before committing to increasing shared ownership opportunities.
Edward Argar
It is always a pleasure to give way to the hon. Gentleman. I am seeking to make the point that this review has the potential to underpin a much longer-term approach to this important sector. That is why the clause is important. I do not see the new clauses tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington as in contradiction to that, but rather as complementary to it. There may be a question about phasing and how it works, but I do not believe that that is a reason not to retain the clause for what it seeks to do. The Minister is always a reflective man, so I hope that he will reflect on that carefully.
Matthew Pennycook
Clause 14 and its associated schedule 1 will address a clear legal gap in respect of social housing tenancies, namely that existing legislation provides scant protection for social housing tenants who are victims of domestic abuse and who wish to remain in their current home without their abuser. Landlords can evict perpetrators but only in cases where the victim has already left. That means that, all too often, victims are forced to choose between staying in danger and losing their home. As I argued on Second Reading, that is an utterly unacceptable state of affairs; taken together, the clause and schedule will end it.
Schedule 1 will introduce stronger powers for landlords to enable them to take possession of a property where domestic abuse has taken place without the requirement for the victim to leave. It also strengthens protections to help victims remain safely in their homes where possible or move to suitable alternative accommodation where necessary. These measures form part of the Government’s wider commitment to tackle violence against women and girls, ensuring that the housing system supports, rather than frustrates, a victim’s route to safety and recovery. The new mandatory grounds in the schedule seek to provide a clear framework by which courts must grant possession if the threshold has been met. Crucially, under the discretionary grounds in the schedule, the court must take into account the opinion of the victim before making the decision, helping to ensure that victims remain at the centre of the process.
A key focus of the measures is providing certainty in cases of joint tenancies. The schedule ensures that, if conditions are met for joint tenancies, the court will transfer the perpetrator’s interest in the joint tenancy so that the victim becomes the sole tenant. Where it is not appropriate for a victim to remain in their current home, the Bill allows a court to order suitable alternative social housing where the landlord has such accommodation available. The court must, as far as possible, take into account the victim’s views when considering the suitability of alternative accommodation. If a landlord cannot satisfy the court that a suitable home will be available, the victim will not be forced to move under these provisions.
Clause 14 and schedule 1 provide that the new measures will apply where the victim and perpetrator are personally connected and the victim currently lives in the property or has left due to domestic abuse. The measures critically remove the requirement for the victim to have fled the property before possession action can be taken. They also protect victims of modern slavery where the victim and perpetrator are personally connected and the other conditions in the Bill are met.
We will continue to work with the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner, the Home Office and the wider sector to ensure effective implementation. It would be remiss of me not to say that our work with the Ministry of Justice and the Home Office has been, in my view, an exemplar of cross-departmental working to resolve a pressing issue. In aligning with the definition of domestic abuse under the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, the measures also cover a broader range of conduct. They protect those most at risk who currently live, or previously lived, in a property with a perpetrator, while remaining clear and workable in practice.
Government amendments 22 to 73 address concerns raised in the other place about the evidence needed to use the discretionary grounds in domestic abuse cases. We have listened carefully to those concerns and we have acted. The amendments strengthen the discretionary domestic abuse grounds by ensuring that the existence of a relevant protective order is sufficient to satisfy the first stage of the ground ahead of the court’s determining whether it is reasonable to grant possession.
Where either a non-molestation order or a domestic abuse protection order is in force against a perpetrator, landlords may rely on it as evidence for the courts to then progress to consider whether it is reasonable to grant possession. That removes the need to separately establish whether domestic abuse has taken place where an order is in place, making it easier for social landlords to take possession action where a court has already made an order protecting the victim. An order will be disregarded if an appeal remains unresolved or results in the order being overturned.
The amendments do not make possession automatic. The courts will still need to consider whether it is reasonable to make a possession order, retaining judicial oversight through the existing reasonableness test. The amendments will simplify the process and give greater confidence to landlords and victims when seeking possession.
The amendments also make technical and consequential changes to the domestic abuse provisions in schedule 1. They align the terminology used in the Bill with the definition of domestic abuse in section 1 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, make consequential changes and align wording across equivalent provisions in the Bill and, finally, clarify how the tenancy transfer and possession provisions operate.
The amendments will ensure that, where the conditions for making a possession order on the basis of suitable alternative accommodation apply, the transfer of tenancy provision will also operate. The effect is that the perpetrator tenant’s interest is severed in all cases where the ground for possession is met and the court is satisfied that an order should be made. That will help deliver more consistent outcomes for victims in joint tenancy cases.
Taken together, the amendments improve the clarity and consistency of schedule 1 and ensure that the domestic abuse provisions operate as intended. I commend clause 14, schedule 1 and the Government amendments to the Committee.
Mr Dillon
I will speak to amendment 12, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington. The amendment looks at the impact of rent arrears on a victim of domestic abuse and quite simply asks that that not be a consideration when bidding for a future social home.
While on my feet, I will also talk about clause 14 in its totality. We Liberal Democrats welcome the amendments that the Government have tabled on domestic abuse, but will the Minister outline why the Government use only discretionary powers rather than mandatory powers, such as ground 7A, which is mandatory for antisocial behaviour?
Gareth Bacon
I will speak to new clause 30, which stands in my name. This is a probing amendment. There is much in this Bill that is fundamentally political or ideological, but I am sure that I speak for all Members when I say that supporting victims of domestic abuse is an issue that we all agree needs critical, cross-party work. We will not oppose any of the 52 amendments that the Government have tabled to this part of the Bill, because it is vital that anyone stuck in an abusive household receives the urgent care, support and access to legal pathways that they need.
That is why I have tabled new clause 30, which would require the Government to assess the effectiveness of the provisions in protecting domestic abuse victims. If the Bill is to make real change in this area, I believe it is only right that the Government give victims a guarantee that they will closely analyse and monitor the effectiveness of these measures. I look for an assurance from the Minister on that when he sums up.
The Chair
With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendment 74.
Schedule 2.
Matthew Pennycook
I appreciate my hon. Friend’s points. We will set out the specified bodies in due course. I hear what he says about hospital trusts in particular. I think engagement is to take place on the precise scope of the specified bodies that we want to be caught by the new duty. On the point of principle—these are broad enabling powers—effective prevention depends on earlier identification, co-ordinated action and shared responsibility across services.
Importantly, this is not about creating an entirely new system. Many services already undertake these activities to support homelessness prevention, whether by identifying vulnerabilities, signposting support, making referrals or working with partners to resolve housing issues. These new duties build on existing good practice and should drive a consistent national framework to support those who are most vulnerable.
The Government intend to define in secondary legislation the bodies within scope and the actions required to comply with the duty, but my officials and I have heard the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip makes.
Mr Dillon
The new clause refers to identifying the local housing authority to which the notification could be made. In additional legislation, is it possible that H could notify more than one local housing authority— if they had a local connection, say, in Liverpool and in Berkshire—to get them off the streets as soon as possible?
Matthew Pennycook
If the hon. Member will allow me, I will write to him on that specific point; I do not have an answer to hand. I am more than happy to set out how these provisions might work where multiple local authorities are involved. I take his point on that. ‘relevant steps section 213AC(3)’; ‘specified body section 213AB(2)’.”
As I say, we intend to define in secondary legislation the bodies within scope and the actions required to comply with the duty. This will allow us to work closely with stakeholders to ensure that implementation is proportionate and effective and that it reflects the differing functions of individual services. Ultimately, the new clause is about ensuring that services work together to identify risks earlier and intervene before people reach crisis point. By creating a more joined-up approach to homelessness prevention, we can help more people to remain in their homes, shift the system away from crisis response and deliver our ambition on homelessness and rough sleeping, as the Prime Minister has rightly outlined. I commend the new clauses to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
New clause 23 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 24
Duties of specified bodies to collaborate and act on homelessness
“(1) This section amends the Housing Act 1996.
(2) After section 213AA insert—
‘213AB Specified bodies must identify actual or possible homelessness
(1) A specified body must take reasonable steps to identify persons in England in relation to whom it exercises functions who it considers are or may be—
(a) homeless,
(b) threatened with homelessness, or
(c) otherwise at risk of becoming homeless.
(2) When a specified body becomes subject to that duty in relation to a particular person (taking into account any effect of regulations made under section 213AG(1)), the body must comply with the duty promptly.
213AC Specified bodies must act on actual or possible homelessness
(1) A specified body must comply with the duty to notify the local housing authority (see section 213AD) in relation to a person (H) if the body identifies H as a person who the body considers is or may be—
(a) homeless, or
(b) threatened with homelessness.
(2) But the specified body does not need to comply with the duty to notify if it is satisfied that—
(a) H has already made an application for assistance, and
(b) the application has not been disposed of.
(3) A specified body must comply with the general duty to act (see section 213AE) in relation to a person (H) if the body identifies H as a person who the body considers is or may be—
(a) homeless,
(b) threatened with homelessness, or
(c) otherwise at risk of becoming homeless.
(4) A “relevant step”, in relation to H, means a step to—
(a) prevent H becoming homeless,
(b) reduce the risk of H becoming homeless,
(c) relieve H’s homelessness, or
(d) alleviate the effects of H’s homelessness.
213AD The duty to notify the local housing authority
(1) The “duty to notify the local housing authority” in relation to H consists of the duties set out in this section.
(2) The specified body must ask H—
(a) whether H has made an application for assistance under this Part, and
(b) if so, to which local housing authority the application was made.
(3) If H has not made an application for assistance, the specified body must ask whether H agrees to the body notifying a local housing authority in England—
(a) that the body considers that H is or may be homeless or threatened with homelessness, and
(b) how H may be contacted by the local housing authority.
(4) If H agrees to the specified body making the notification, the body must ask H—
(a) whether H consents to the body sharing with the authority such information as is necessary to make the notification (including information provided by H and information already held by the body), and
(b) to identify a local housing authority in England to which H would like the notification to be made.
(5) If H agrees to the specified body making the notification and consents to the body sharing the information that is necessary to make the notification, the body must notify the local housing authority in England to which H would like the notification to be made.
213AE The general duty to act
(1) The “general duty to act” in relation to H consists of the duties set out in this section.
(2) The specified body must—
(a) consider the question of what relevant steps could be taken by it or other persons, and
(b) raise that question with such persons as the body considers appropriate, who must include any other persons that could take relevant steps.
(3) After complying with subsection (2) the specified body—
(a) must take any relevant steps which it concludes it can take, and
(b) must provide to the persons with which it has raised that question reasonable assistance to assist or enable them to take relevant steps.
(4) This section does not affect any right of the specified body, whether by virtue of a contract, enactment or other law, to seek to obtain vacant possession of any accommodation.
(5) If a specified body must also comply with the duty to notify in relation to H, making the notification under section 213AD(5) does not satisfy the general duty to act in relation to H.
(6) A reference in this section to a relevant step—
(a) includes a relevant step that can be taken with the assistance of another person;
(b) in relation to a specified body, only includes a relevant step that the body can reasonably take in the exercise of its functions;
(c) in relation to a person who is not a specified body, only includes a relevant step that the person can reasonably take in the exercise of their functions or in carrying out their activities.
213AF Duty to engage with local housing authorities
(1) This section applies where a local housing authority in England considers—
(a) that a person is or may be homeless, threatened with homelessness or otherwise at risk of becoming homeless, and
(b) that a specified body exercises functions in relation to that person.
(2) The local housing authority may ask the specified body to engage with them for the purpose of assisting the authority with the discharge of their functions under this Part in relation to that person.
(3) The specified body must engage with the local housing authority in such manner and to such extent as the body considers reasonable in the circumstances.
213AG Regulations and guidance
(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about how specified bodies can or must comply with—
(a) the duty to identify homelessness,
(b) the duty to notify the local housing authority,
(c) the general duty to act, or
(d) the duty to engage.
(2) Regulations made under subsection (1) may, in particular, make provision about the following matters—
(a) factors to be considered by a specified body when identifying whether a person is homeless, threatened by homelessness or otherwise at risk of becoming homeless;
(b) what information is necessary to make a notification to a local housing authority in England;
(c) what relevant steps by a specified body in the exercise of its functions are reasonable;
(d) the process to be followed by a specified body when identifying which persons it is appropriate to raise the question in section 213AE(2)(b) with.
(3) Regulations under subsection (1) may not be made unless a draft of the statutory instrument containing them (whether alone or with other provisions) has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.
(4) The Secretary of State may issue guidance to specified bodies in relation to any of the following duties—
(a) the duty to identify homelessness;
(b) the duty to notify the local housing authority;
(c) the general duty to act;
(d) the duty to engage.
(5) Specified bodies must have regard to guidance issued to them under subsection (4).
213AH “Specified bodies” and other interpretation
(1) In sections 213AB to 213AG and this section—
“duty to engage” means the duty imposed by section 213AF for specified bodies to engage with local housing authorities;
“duty to identify homelessness” means the duty imposed by section 213AB;
“duty to notify the local housing authority” has the meaning given in section 213AD;
“general duty to act” has the meaning given in section 213AE;
“H” has the meaning given in section 213AC;
“relevant step” has the meaning given in section 213AC;
“specified body” means a body or other person that is—
(a) specified in regulations, or
(b) of a description specified in regulations.
(2) Regulations made under this section may provide that a person is a specified body only in relation to a particular function exercised by that person.
(3) If a provision under subsection (2) specifies a particular function of a specified body, any reference in sections 213AB to 213AG to the functions of a specified body has effect in relation that body only as a reference to that particular function.
(4) In this section, “regulations’ means regulations made by the Secretary of State.
(5) Regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the statutory instrument containing them (whether alone or with other provisions) has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.’
(3) Omit section 213B (duty of public authority to refer cases in England to local housing authority).
(4) In section 218 (index of defined expression Part 7) insert in the table at the appropriate places—
—(Matthew Pennycook.)
This would amend the Housing Act 1996 to introduce a duty for specified bodies to identify and act on homelessness.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned.—(Laurence Turner.)
Social Housing Bill (First sitting)
Lee Dillon ExcerptsTuesday 27th October 2026
(1 week, 1 day ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Social Housing Bill [HL] 2026-27 View all Social Housing Bill [HL] 2026-27 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 27 October 2026 - (27 Oct 2026)
Mr Lee Dillon (Newbury) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Vickers. I rise to speak to my own amendment 104, as well as amendment 9, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George). I agree with the Opposition that amendment 104 is about seeking clarity from the Government around how a rural area would be designated.
I welcome the Government amendments tabled since the publication of the Bill that hand more power to local authorities to determine the designation. Amendment 104 would provide some certainty regarding what classification could be used in that determination. What decision-making process would the Minister use to arrive at a designation whereby he has the power to make regulations for a rural area?
On amendment 9, as a party we believe that social housing is a crucial element of a settled society and protecting that stock is a must. That is why we support the overall objectives of the Bill, but we seek to go further than what the Government have currently legislated for by ensuring that community-led housing is included in the prohibition on losing stock to the private market. That is why my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives, who represents west Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, has tabled amendment 9.
Gideon Amos
I rise to speak to our Liberal Democrat amendments. New clause 2 would provide local authorities with the power to suspend right to buy in an area completely and bring it to an end. Perhaps for the first and last time, I agree 100% with the hon. Member for Orpington, completely and wholeheartedly; he said that local areas are best placed to decide what is right for them on council housing provision and council housing stock. That is why we would give local authorities the ability to say that they have lost enough council housing. Some 2 million council homes were lost to right to buy and 4 million social homes have been lost altogether. Enough is enough. Local communities should have the right to decide whether they want to continue to see the loss of council homes in their area.
Matthew Pennycook
My apologies; it was tabled in the name of the Liberal Democrats. The amendment would require the Government to use the urban-rural classification system when determining whether an area is rural or urban for the purposes of the designated rural area exemption. As I have made clear, our intention is to continue with the long-established criteria for rural designation. Areas will need to have a population of 3,000 people or fewer and a population density of two persons or fewer per hectare, and we intend to set out those criteria in regulations. In our view, that strikes the right balance in defining designated rural areas for exclusion from the right to buy. Including areas with a population of 10,000 or fewer would bring far too many areas into the scope of the exclusion. For those reasons, I will not be able to take—[Interruption.] I can see the hon. Member for Newbury, and I give way.
Matthew Pennycook
I welcome that clarification from the hon. Gentleman.
Amendment 91 would require regulations made under section 37 of the Housing Act 1985, which allows restrictions to be imposed on the disposal of a home in a rural area, to be approved by both Houses before they could come into force. I understand that the intention of the amendment may have been to require the affirmative procedure to designate areas as rural for the purposes of the right to buy. Under self-designation, rural areas will be designated by local authorities instead of by regulations, so no parliamentary procedure will be needed.
The new power to prescribe the criteria will be, as I have said, subject to the negative resolution. In any event, the Government do not accept the premise that the affirmative procedure is required in that instance; there may be a principled point of disagreement on that. The current powers are subject to the negative procedure—that is the existing arrangement—which, in our view, provides an appropriate, proportionate level of parliamentary scrutiny. The powers amended or created by the Bill are also subject to the negative resolution procedure. Requiring the affirmative procedure would add an additional parliamentary step without affecting the substance or effect of the policy. For those reasons, I respectfully ask the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Orpington, not to press amendment 91.
Amendment 83 would reduce the exemption from the right to buy for newly built social homes from 35 to 10 years. The Government cannot support the amendment. Our starting point is that the exemption should reflect the time needed for rental income to repay the costs of building a new social home. That payback period is generally between 30 and 50 years, depending on the viability of the site. We therefore concluded that 35 years strikes the right balance. It protects councils from losing newly built homes before they have recovered their investment while retaining a route to home ownership for tenants over the longer term. Reducing the exemption to 10 years would not provide sufficient protection and would act in direct contradiction to our commitment to back councils to build again at scale. It would allow homes to be sold long before their development costs have been recovered. A 35-year exemption will give councils the certainty and confidence to build, knowing that new homes will remain available as social housing for a meaningful period.
New clause 2 was tabled by the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington. I recognise the concerns that motivated this proposed new clause. However, the Government cannot support a proposal that would allow individual local authorities to suspend or abolish the right to buy in their area. We remain committed to a reformed right to buy that continues to provide long-standing council tenants with a route into home ownership while better protecting social housing stock, and we are reforming the scheme nationally to strike that balance. This new clause would create inconsistent access to that statutory right, with a tenant’s position depending on the local authority in which they live. That would, in effect, create a postcode lottery and make it difficult for tenants to understand whether the right to buy is available to them.
We believe that the right approach is a consistent national framework, supported by national reforms that better protect council housing stock. That will ensure a fair and consistent offer for council tenants across the country. We also recognise that housing markets vary significantly across England. However, rather than creating different rights in different areas, the Government’s reforms reflect those differences through the discount regime. As I have already set out, discounts are calculated as a percentage of a property’s value and are subject to regional cash caps, helping to ensure that the scheme responds to local property market conditions while maintaining a fair and consistent national entitlement for eligible tenants.
Amendment 9, which was tabled by the hon. Member for St Ives, has been spoken to by the Liberal Democrat members of the Committee. Again, I recognise the intention behind this amendment. Community-led housing is established to meet local needs and often includes arrangements intended to protect affordability for the long term. This Government have done a huge amount in this area and there is more to come to better support community-led housing. But in our view, the amendment is not necessary in relation to the principal form of community-led housing it identifies. Homes owned by community land trusts and fully mutual housing co-operatives are already outside the right to buy, and for those reasons the amendment would not provide the protection intended, beyond that which already exists. For those reasons, I would respectfully ask that hon. Members withdraw all their amendments, and I commend clause 8 to the Committee.
Edward Argar
The hon. Lady appears to be making a point that I was not actually making in my remarks. My point is about the process. As I said before she intervened, I am not making a judgment on the decisions the Secretary of State may or may not make about those capital receipts; I am making a point about democratic accountability and transparency.
Going back to the earlier group of amendments praised by my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington, the procedure that is used when legislation comes before Delegated Legislation Committees in this House is not complex. It does not engender lengthy delay; it just ensures that our constituents can see that we are considering that legislation, that we are debating it and that the Minister can answer the questions put to him. I have no doubt, in the case of this Minister, that he will be able to answer them; sadly, it has not always been the case that every Minister, on both sides of the House, has been capable of doing that. However, I am sure this Minister would have no challenges in coming before a Delegated Legislation Committee and answering the questions put to him.
Amendment 98, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington and supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne, would require consultation before determinations were made on capital receipts. Again, consultations do not have to be overly complex or lengthy. If Members go on gov.uk, they will see that there are myriad Government consultations out there at any one time on very significant issues, down to issues such as, for example, the methodology used for reporting land use statistics in the country. The Government routinely consult on a whole range of things, whether that be a significant, detailed and lengthy consultation on something complex or, often, a very short and sharp consultation. They give people the opportunity to have their say, and those who genuinely have something in the way of expert knowledge to contribute.
Mr Dillon
On amendment 98 and the consultation, have the right hon. Member and the Opposition considered whether, if a local authority felt it had not been consulted, that would open up a legal route to delay the allocation of capital financing and therefore slow down the growth of house building?
Edward Argar
Over many years, I have found that consultation done properly leaves very limited legal risk. Where Governments get it wrong—I do not want to overly speculate on what has happened with the Government’s consultations and process around local government reorganisation—the hon. Member is right that there is a potential for JRs, although I would highlight that a judicial review can focus only on process, not on whether the decision should be relitigated.
If consultation is done well—I would have thought that consultation on this issue should be fairly simple—I believe it can enhance the transparency that is important in bringing our constituents with us and in ensuring that the Government are directly accountable to hon. and right hon. Members in this House. When the legislation is introduced, under our amendments as a regulation, that consultation is there to be drawn on. I genuinely believe—I have seen it for myself—that when a Government are willing to listen to a consultation response, they can, if they do things openly, often come up with a slightly better or tweaked outcome.
Mr Dillon
I beg to move amendment 102, in clause 12, page 11, line 24, at end insert—
“(1A) In the case of a dwelling—
(a) in a designated rural area, or
(b) with four bedrooms or more,
condition D also applies.”
This amendment, along with Amendment 103, would require written consent from a local authority for the sale of certain social housing properties.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 101, in clause 12, page 11, line 33, at end insert—
“(ba) each community land trust providing social housing in that area at the time the sale notice is given, and”.
Amendment 5, in clause 12, page 11, line 35, at end insert—
“(d) the Regulator of Social Housing.”
This amendment seeks to extend the notification of proposed sale to cover the Regulator of Social Housing.
Amendment 99, in clause 12, page 11, line 35, at end insert—
“(2A) Condition AA is that a copy of any notice given in relation to the relevant sale is published on the registered provider’s website.”
Government amendment 19.
Amendment 6, in clause 12, page 11, line 36, leave out “four weeks” and insert
“eight weeks, or twelve weeks if the property is in an area designated as a rural area under paragraph 17(1)(c) of Schedule 5 to the Housing Act 1985,”.
This amendment seeks to extend the timescale for notice to be given of a sale.
Amendment 1, in clause 12, page 12, line 2, at end insert—
“(4A) A sale notice given under subsection (2) must be given to the Regulator of Social Housing at the same time as it is given to the persons specified in that subsection.”
This amendment requires the Regulator of Social Housing to receive a copy of every sale notice at the same time as local housing authorities and registered providers are notified.
Amendment 103, in clause 12, page 12, line 2, at end insert—
“(4A) Condition D is that, in the case of a dwelling in a designated rural area or a dwelling with four bedrooms or more, the local authority has given written consent for the sale.”
This amendment, along with Amendment 102, would require written consent from a local authority for the sale of certain social housing properties.
Amendment 8, in clause 12, page 12, line 31, at end insert—
“171BA Extension to the notification period
(1) Where condition B under section 171A is met but condition D is also met, the period of four weeks beginning with the relevant day is extended by a further four weeks beginning with the day after the end of the four weeks.
(2) Condition D is that a local housing authority or registered provider has—
(a) notified the disposing provider that steps are being taken to offer to acquire the dwelling; and
(b) provided evidence of substantive steps taken towards making an offer, including but not limited to—
(i) obtaining a valuation of the dwelling,
(ii) securing funding for the offer, or
(iii) seeking necessary approvals for the offer.”
This amendment seeks to extend the four week notification period for the disposal of social housing where a local authority or another registered provider can provide evidence that it is preparing to offer to purchase the property.
Mr Dillon
Before I begin my remarks on amendment 102, I declare an interest: my wife works for a social housing provider. I apologise to the Committee for not declaring that before my earlier contribution.
Amendment 102 is a simple amendment that would protect larger homes within social housing stock. It refers to designated rural areas, which the Committee covered during earlier consideration, but also to homes with four or more bedrooms. The reason for that is simple: of all our social housing stock, larger homes are the most precious commodity.
We know that the social housing market makes up 48% of properties that are considered overcrowded in the UK. If we look at Merton or Westminster council, for example, there is a 90 to 99-year wait for a three or more bed property; if we go north to Rochdale, about 550 families there were registered for a four-bed home, but only 14 became available in a year; if we go to Bath in the west of the country, an officer there said that, in principle, a family could be on the register for a four-bed for over 200 years, and added that four-beds are popular under right to buy but are also expensive to build. When you add those comments to our ambition to ensure that overcrowding impacts as few people as possible, making four-bed or larger homes exempt means that we protect the homes we really need.
Amendment 101 is similar to a previous amendment, which went into more detail. It would make sure that each community land trust that provided social housing was also given notice of a sale. It would expand the remit of who is notified, so that if providers were willing to take up those social homes when they were being disposed of, we would retain them in some sort of community ownership.
Gideon Amos
I will speak to amendments 5, 6, 1 and 8. Amendment 5 would extend the notification of proposed sale to cover the Regulator of Social Housing.
Amendment 6 would extend the timescales of notice from four to eight weeks. I note that, since we tabled the amendment, the Government have come up with their own amendment to extend the timescales; they have obviously been reading everything we table closely. I am glad that we are already having an impact on the Bill and I will be happy to press the amendment to a vote if necessary, to ensure that the Government succeed in getting the change in timescale that they clearly want. Otherwise, depending on the order of voting—I still sometimes have a problem following that—I am sure that one or the other will fulfil the same purpose.
Amendment 1 would require the Regulator of Social Housing to receive a copy of the notice. Amendment 8 is effectively a stop-the-clock amendment, whereby, if negotiations are ongoing for the acquisition of a social home by a local authority, the time period would be extended by a further four weeks. I recognise that the amendment refers to the four-week period in the Bill, which may be extended to eight weeks through other amendments. However, the principle of allowing an extension of time when negotiations are ongoing is significant, and something that the Local Government Association would support. Although I will not push amendment 8 to a vote, it would be helpful if the Minister considered whether an extension could be provided where negotiations are ongoing, so that there is a real chance for the purchase of that property to be completed and for the local authority to succeed in that endeavour.
Matthew Pennycook
I will speak to Government amendment 19 and respond to each of the eight amendments in this rather large group. I have listened to concerns raised by parliamentarians and stakeholders over recent weeks and months that a four-week period between a private provider notifying a council or other provider in their area of the sale of a social home and the disposing of that home is not sufficient for local authorities to consider purchasing the property.
I appreciate that local authorities were concerned that a four-week window would not align with their internal timing constraints, such as monthly cabinet or committee meetings. On that basis, the Government have tabled amendment 19 to extend the window of time that must pass between notification and the sale of a property from four to eight weeks. We think the amendment strikes the right balance between maximising opportunities to retain social homes and not causing undue delays to sales. I will come to the specific point that the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington made about negotiations that are in train.
Amendments 6 and 8, tabled by the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington, seek to extend the disposal notification period. Amendment 8, as he just argued, would require an extension of the window to eight weeks where a provider could demonstrate they were taking steps towards purchasing the property. The Government’s amendment 19 goes further than that proposal by requiring eight weeks in all cases, so I hope he will support it.
Amendment 6 would require a further extension to 12 weeks in areas designated as rural. We are not persuaded by the case for a longer notification window specifically for rural areas. A statutory minimum of 12 weeks could unnecessarily delay sales and require providers to deal with the additional burden and costs associated with having homes left unoccupied for extended periods. I should also stress that the notification period is just a minimum. I would expect private registered providers to engage and be flexible beyond that period where there is a serious interest from another landlord in the social housing sector.
Mr Dillon
The Government do not accept that there is a compelling case to extend the period to 12 weeks for rural areas, but an organisation may be looking to buy a property in an area of outstanding natural beauty or where there is no hard-wired infrastructure. Does the Minister not accept that more consideration needs to be given when taking on a social home in a rural area than in a well-developed town, and that someone in that situation should be given longer—on top of what the Government have already graciously accepted—to go through the sale and make sure they have all their ducks in a row and can convert the property however they might want to under restrictive planning laws?
Matthew Pennycook
I appreciate the concern. I will make two points in response to the hon. Gentleman. First, it is just a matter of fact that there will be different challenges in different areas. What we have tried to get to with the increase in the notification period from four to eight weeks is a period in which we think it is reasonable for all local authorities to consider these matters. What I have not had is compelling evidence—if he has any, I would like to see it—to suggest that local authorities would not be able to deal with these matters in an eight-week period. I stress again that the notification period is just a minimum. We would expect private registered providers to engage and be flexible beyond this period where there is a serious interest from another landlord in the social housing sector. I hope that reassures him.
Amendments 102 and 103, tabled by the hon. Members for Newbury and for Taunton and Wellington, would require written consent from the local authority for the sale of a social home in a rural area or one with four or more bedrooms. Again, I recognise the strength of feeling on this matter. I and the Government want to ensure that every opportunity is taken to protect much needed social housing stock. I would expect private registered providers to think particularly carefully before selling homes that meet acute housing needs in local areas. However, housing associations remain independent organisations responsible for their own asset management, and the Government cannot support an approach that would prevent landlords from making legitimate business decisions about how to manage their stock without the agreement of the local authority. I am happy to go into the reclassification risks that arise in this area with the hon. Members. I have debated those points at length with a number of Members on both sides of the House.
I should also point out that the previous restrictions that required approval by the Regulator of Social Housing for disposals of homes had to be removed in 2017—the hon. Member for Newbury, with his experience in the sector, will remember this—to reclassify the housing association sector back to private. I fear that introducing a requirement for local authority approval would represent a significant classification risk. It is not the only classification risk—these things are considered by the Office for National Statistics in the round—but nevertheless it is a material risk from our point of view.
Matthew Pennycook
I certainly do not make it a point of principle to resist all amendments despite how sensible some will be. The hon. Member will see in the list of Government amendments that we will be debating many points that were raised by noble peers and that we have taken on. I will go away and reflect on how much of a burden this would be, but let me make a general point. This is my third Bill Committee as a Minister, and I sat on probably 13 while in opposition. The natural tendency of Oppositions is to call for further requirements, further regulations, further reviews and further assessments, because often they have nothing more to say on the point of principle of the particular clause. There is a cumulative impact of layering all of that on top. We want to ensure that the balance is struck properly, and that the disposals process is proportionate and is streamlined to an extent, but I will go away and reflect on the particular point and review whether requiring private registered providers to do what he suggests would be as burdensome as we think.
Mr Dillon
I support the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington and appreciate the Minister’s commitment to go away and reflect on them. May I just add a plea? There is concern, when stock is being disposed of in local communities, that the community does not know what is going on. Having disposal notifications published online would not just allow the sector to know what is going on, but allow the local community to know what is going on with its housing stock.
Matthew Pennycook
I take the hon. Member’s point and, as I committed to doing in response to the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington, I will go away and reflect. I am happy to provide a fuller, written answer to both hon. Members.
Mr Dillon
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed: 99, in clause 12, page 11, line 35, at end insert—
“(2A) Condition AA is that a copy of any notice given in relation to the relevant sale is published on the registered provider’s website.”—(Mr Dillon.)
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Social Housing Bill [Lords]
Lee Dillon ExcerptsThursday 10th September 2026
(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Social Housing Bill [HL] 2026-27 View all Social Housing Bill [HL] 2026-27 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 33-I Marshalled list for Report - (16 Jul 2026)
Mr Lee Dillon (Newbury) (LD)
I put it on record that I am a passionate advocate for social housing. I have lived in it and I have worked in it. For the 14 years before I entered this House, I worked for a social housing provider in customer service, community development and housing management—my wife still does. I have seen the passion of staff who deliver those services every day, and I saw the frustration of customers who relied on them. I know how good the sector can be, and I know where it can sometimes fall short. As MPs, we see casework where tenants demand and deserve more, whether on housing allocation, repair issues or antisocial behaviour.
I am happy to put it on record that this Government have helped, not hindered social housing since coming to power. We have had rent convergence and long-term rent settlements, and they have listened to the sector about phasing in additional safety checks. Those things are real, and I welcome them, and they deserve recognition from those on the Opposition Benches.
I welcome the Government bringing forward more necessary changes, but I have to be honest that I am disappointed that the Bill is limited in scope, and I genuinely ask the Government to reflect on that. In particular, will they reflect on the report from the Regulatory Policy Committee on the Bill? On 24 July, the RPC rated the Bill’s impact assessment as “not fit for purpose”, based on its scrutiny of the evidence and the analysis put forward to justify the case for regulation. That is not a technicality; it is a warning that the case for what this Bill does and does not do has not been properly made. If we are to legislate on something as important as the future of social housing, the evidence base should be beyond question.
I will briefly address the four main areas of the Bill. On right to buy, I support increasing the minimum tenancy requirements and reforming discounts so that they start at 5% of property value and go up to a maximum of 15%. Exempting newly built social and affordable homes for 35 years will have a real impact, despite what the official Opposition say about house building.
I will move on to disposals, where I feel the protections are not adequate to empower local communities. I note that the National Housing Federation believes that the new requirement strikes the appropriate balance, but I have to disagree. In constituencies like mine, large-scale voluntary transfers of stock were the reason that providers got the stock that they did. In west Berkshire, the main registered provider has been created from an LSVT, and that stock must be protected. It is not enough for the local council to be notified; we must be told the reason for the sale and how, when and where the council will replace the stock within the local authority area. If that is not possible, a financial contribution must be made to a section 106 pot, following the practice of local authorities keeping right-to-buy receipts.
As my constituency has many rural areas, I welcome exempting rural properties from the scheme, but I also think that we should consider exemptions for much-needed larger homes, such as those with four or five bedrooms, so that they are not lost forever from the social housing stock. Of course, I support the protections for victims of domestic abuse. I have live casework on this very issue, so my constituents will be relieved that the Government have acted. The housing sector will be supportive of greater powers to help those who need it.
I have no major concerns about the repealing of unused legislation, but there are other areas where the Bill is completely silent, from protecting existing stock and empowering existing tenants and young people to have a stronger voice, to helping make homes safer by supporting housing associations to gain access for safety work.
Oral Answers to Questions
Lee Dillon Excerpts(8 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Steve Reed)
On 27 January, we published the draft Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill, marking the beginning of the end for the feudal leasehold system and supporting millions of families with the cost of living. We are reinvigorating commonhold and capping ground rent. We are analysing the responses to our wide-ranging consultation to drive up transparency of service charges and make it easier for leaseholders to challenge unreasonable costs. We will implement these measures as soon as possible.
Steve Reed
I know the Housing Minister is looking forward to meeting my hon. Friend and his constituents next week. HorNets have been strong and vocal campaigners for homeowners’ rights, and I welcome their engagement. The Government are committed to ending the injustice of fleecehold. Leaseholders should not be subject to the kind of legalised extortion that they have experienced in recent years, and the Government remain committed to bringing these practices to an end.
Mr Dillon
I thank the Secretary of State for his response and welcome the support being given to leaseholders; however, many of the problems they face could be addressed through stronger regulation of managing agents. Persistent failings by companies such as FirstPort continue to fill my inbox. In Newbury, we have a block of flats where a lift has been out of order for two years, and one constituent told me that, because it was broken, her son had to carry her husband down the stairs when he moved into a care home. No family should ever have to face that. Will the Secretary of State outline what steps the Government have taken to strengthen the regulation of managing agents and ensure that they are properly accountable to residents, who pay for their services?
Steve Reed
I recognise what the hon. Member says about FirstPort because Members across the whole House have been raising similar concerns for a very long time. He will be aware that we launched a consultation last summer that will include looking at how we can better and more tightly regulate managing agents so that leaseholders are not subject to the kind of abuses that he describes.
Commonhold and Leasehold Reform
Lee Dillon Excerpts(9 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Matthew Pennycook
I am more than happy to have a separate conversation with my hon. Friend about the specific conditions pertaining to leasehold houses. She will know, of course, that the Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Act 2022 made a number of changes in that area. In general, we want to arrive at a situation, once our reform agenda is enacted, where existing leaseholders can choose to remain in leasehold ownership but can take advantage of the new rights and protections made available to them, including a cheaper and easier enfranchisement process if they want to extend their lease or buy their freehold, or convert to commonhold. That is why it is so important that the Bill contains an easier mechanism to convert to commonhold, which, as I said in the statement, we are clear is not only an alternative to leasehold ownership but a radical improvement on it.
Mr Lee Dillon (Newbury) (LD)
I welcome the introduction of this draft Bill and, as a member of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, I look forward to scrutinising it. I wonder whether the Minister will make available to the Committee evidence around the peppercorn rent and the 40-year requirement. I suspect is to do with investor confidence, but could that time period be brought forward? My overarching feeling, which I know will be reflected in my inbox when I get back to my office, is that people across the country would have expected to see within the draft Bill action on service charges; we are consistently contacted about managing agents not performing their duties and charging too much for it. The Bill was meant to be presented at the back end of last year and I know that the Government concluded a consultation in September. We want service charges to be addressed as soon as possible. Will we be able to get an additional clause on this issue into this legislation?
Several hon. Members rose—
Oral Answers to Questions
Lee Dillon Excerpts(9 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Steve Reed
My hon. Friend makes the important point that we are trying to build not just homes but communities. Those communities need the facilities and infrastructure that allow them to meet their wider aspirations for the places where they are located. Some of those points will be addressed in the new NPPF that we have brought forward, but I am more than happy to ensure that she gets the meeting that she wants to ensure that the detail of what her constituents want to see is included in the changes that we bring forward.
Mr Lee Dillon (Newbury) (LD)
The Secretary of State talked about increasing the pace of build-out, but as we strive to achieve the target of 1.5 million new homes, quality is important too. Will the Secretary of State say whether he will use the powers in the Building Safety Act 2022 to make the New Homes Ombudsman Service mandatory, because only 60% of developers are currently signed up to that scheme?
Steve Reed
We are making changes to building standards and the Building Safety Regulator, as the hon. Gentleman will be aware. I am happy to look at the proposal that he makes and to engage with him further if it would be helpful.
Oral Answers to Questions
Lee Dillon Excerpts(11 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Steve Reed
I thank my hon. Friend for her question and for her petition, which the Department will respond to in the usual way. Planning authorities have the power to limit the number of HMOs within their locality, and they may withdraw a permitted development right in a specific area using an article 4 direction, but we are keeping this policy under review. I am aware of the concerns that her constituents have expressed to her, and those that others have expressed to their own MPs.
Mr Lee Dillon (Newbury) (LD)
The Government’s affordable homes programme will contribute 180,000 social homes over the 10-year period, but Shelter has called for 900,000 homes over that period. Could the Secretary of State tell the House how much he expects social providers to provide on top of the 180,000 to be provided by the affordable homes plan?
Steve Reed
The hon. Gentleman will be aware, as I am and as Shelter is, that we inherited a housing crisis from the previous Government, who failed to build sufficient numbers of social and affordable homes. The £39 billion that this Government are investing over 10 years will give us the biggest increase we have seen in a generation. We know that in the long term we need to go further than that, but I hope he will agree that this is a very positive first step.
Social Housing: South Cotswolds
Lee Dillon Excerpts(1 year ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Samantha Dixon)
I congratulate the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) on securing this important debate and I thank the other hon. Members who have made contributions today. I have noted their comments carefully.
The Government recognise the acute housing pressures facing rural communities, and are committed to ensuring that the homes built reflect genuine local need, are affordable and are supported by appropriate infrastructure. This Government are committed to building 1.5 million homes during this Parliament, and social and affordable homes will make up an essential part of that. We also acknowledge that not enough social and affordable housing has been delivered in recent decades. That shortfall is now being felt acutely in areas such as the South Cotswolds, where 80% of the district lies within protected national landscape and further development must be carefully planned.
Mr Lee Dillon (Newbury) (LD)
I support the Government’s ambition to build 1.5 million homes. This debate refers more to social housing and I wonder whether you could give an indication from the Dispatch Box—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. The hon. Gentleman must refer to the Minister. He cannot keep saying “you”. It is exhausting.
Samantha Dixon
I will come to that point for the hon. Member’s benefit.
A crucial first step is ensuring that local authorities plan for the right number of homes. That means assessing housing need and then identifying how much development is realistically deliverable, taking into account land availability, environmental constraints such as flood risk and protected landscapes, and other relevant factors. Local authorities can choose to go beyond their assessed need to support wider goals, such as economic growth and infrastructure investment, and to accommodate housing from elsewhere. We expect local authorities to explore all options, including maximising brownfield land, collaborating across boundaries and, where necessary, reviewing green-belt land.
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
Lee Dillon Excerpts(1 year, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lee Dillon (Newbury) (LD)
I congratulate the Chair of the Select Committee on securing the debate, and on the robustness of her speech holding the Government to account.
The Department covers many areas and councils themselves cover more than 700 services, but I shall concentrate on housing, hopefully in the spirit of constructive opposition. Like many others who are in the Chamber today, I support the Government’s headline ambition to build 1.5 million homes—it is a goal that I share, as do many in the housing sector—but I remain concerned that the Government are still unwilling, or unable, to answer my question about how many of those homes will be genuinely affordable. Far too many people across the country are priced out of home ownership, with house prices rising at an unsustainable rate.
Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)
My observation is that there is simply no such thing as affordable housing in my constituency. If someone is earning £12 an hour and £20,000 a year, a house that costs £30,000 is not affordable. Does my hon. Friend agree that the only sort of housing that people can afford in my constituency is social housing?
Mr Dillon
My hon. Friend will know the needs of her constituency better than I do, but as someone who worked in social housing for 14 years, I will always advocate for the delivery of more social housing units.
In my constituency of Newbury, the average house price in April was £398,000—up by 6.2% on the previous year. Owning a home is fast becoming a distant dream not just in west Berkshire, but across the country. Although I welcome the target for new homes, I urge the Government to make affordability central to their plans.
The homes we build must reflect the needs of real people, not just developers or investors. I was pleased to see the allocation of £39 billion over a 10-year period in the recent spending review—one of the most ambitious long-term investments in affordable housing for decades. I hope that it kick-starts the generational step change that we need to deliver affordable homes, but it must include council homes and social rented homes.
We Liberal Democrats have been clear that we need 150,000 social homes built every year—homes that people can genuinely afford and that are linked to local infrastructure and services. Sadly, with the reduction of neighbourhood planning, that will now be less likely to happen. I challenge the Government to match their ambition by setting their own target for social housing delivery. Without that, our housing mix will be dictated by the private market, and that is simply not a viable solution to the housing crisis we face.
I also welcome the £13.2 billion commitment to the warm homes plan. The decision by the Conservatives to scrap our home installation policies have had a real cost, and an estimated 1.6 million homes have been built with lower energy efficiency and higher bills as a result—a Conservative legacy. With 6.1 million households now in fuel poverty, we must act urgently to fix Britain’s cold and leaky housing stock.
As the hon. Member for Milton Keynes North (Chris Curtis) said, the spending review included a 10-year social rent settlement at CPI plus 1%, which I again welcome. Housing associations have long been calling for that, and I am grateful that the Government have listened. That is a positive move, but we must ensure that rents remain affordable and that social landlords are held to account. We cannot allow social rents to drift higher and tenants to be priced out once again, and let us not forget the 1.5 million people who are still waiting for social housing.
As the Member of Parliament for Newbury and a member of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, I will continue to hold this Government to account—not just on how many homes they build, but on how many people they help.