Social Housing Bill (Fifth sitting)

Debate between Lee Dillon and Matthew Pennycook

Committee stage
Tuesday 3rd November 2026 Public Bill Committees

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Dillon]

These are simple new clauses and we hope that Members on both sides of the Committee will support them. In effect, new clause 62 would allow social tenants the opportunity to have an electric charging point on existing stock, and new clause 63 seeks the same for new builds.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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 (First sitting)

Debate between Lee Dillon and Matthew Pennycook

Committee stage
Tuesday 27th October 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Mr Dillon]

No, it wasn’t.

[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.

[Mr Dillon]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way and for speaking to amendment 104. In the light of Government amendment 13 and the commitments we have just had from the Front Bench, I would be happy not to press my amendment to a vote.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

Social Housing Bill (Second sitting)

Debate between Lee Dillon and Matthew Pennycook

Committee stage
Tuesday 27th October 2026 Public Bill Committees

[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?

[Mr Dillon]

And amendment 7.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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?

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

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—

Commonhold and Leasehold Reform

Debate between Lee Dillon and Matthew Pennycook

Tuesday 27th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[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?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lee Dillon and Matthew Pennycook

Monday 3rd March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Pennycook]

The Government have no plans to cap service charges for tenants and leaseholders, given that would prevent necessary funds from being raised for legitimate purposes, but we do plan to tackle unregulated unaffordable ground rent provisions through legislation. As the White Paper published today makes clear, we want to make the process of converting to commonhold as easy as possible, and we will set out proposals in the draft leasehold and commonhold reform Bill, which is to be published later this year.

[Mr Lee Dillon (Newbury) (LD)]

I welcome the Government’s announcement today of changes to leasehold and the introduction of commonhold, but thousands of leaseholders across the country are still crippled by both high service charges and failing delivery. I am sure that the inboxes of Members across the House are full of complaints from constituents, particularly in relation to FirstPort management company. What can the Government do to hold individual management companies accountable for the services they deliver to our residents?

[Matthew Pennycook]

As the hon. Gentleman will know, we intend to bring into force this year the provisions of the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024, which is designed to drive up the transparency of service charges so that leaseholders can challenge them more easily if they consider them to be unreasonable. We intend to strengthen the regulation of managing agents, imposing minimum standards in relation to, for example, qualifications. I would say to any managing agent—and I know that Members across the House have been holding them to account—that they should improve their performance in the light of the changes coming forward in the near future.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lee Dillon and Matthew Pennycook

Monday 20th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lee Dillon (Newbury) (LD)]

Will the Government look at redefining affordable housing in national policy so that it is pegged to average local income rather than at the whim of an overheated housing market?

[Matthew Pennycook]

We did make changes to some of the definitions around affordable housing in the recently revised national planning policy framework, by separating out the definition of social rent, but I hear the hon. Gentleman’s concerns. I will certainly bear them in mind as we develop policy.

Council Tax

Debate between Lee Dillon and Matthew Pennycook

Thursday 14th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lee Dillon (Newbury) (LD)]

The Liberal Democrats are deeply concerned that people are simply paying more council tax for fewer services. That is quite clearly the result of Conservative tax cuts and their failure to tackle social care. As a former council leader, I know that the burden on councils has increased to such an extent that they are forced to make impossible choices. The burden and the costs that councils of all colours have to shoulder as a result of the Conservative Government’s policies must be reviewed. Will the Minister ensure that councils do not have to close libraries, cut bus routes and reduce road repairs in order to meet the growing demands of the most vulnerable members of our community? Despite the announcement in the Budget, will the Minister recognise the LGA analysis that councils face a £6.9 billion shortfall because of inflation, increased wage demands and demand pressures on local services?

[Matthew Pennycook]

The Government certainly recognise the pressures on local authorities and the burdens placed on households as a result of 14 years in which local government was run down. We are determined to turn that situation around, as I have said, by providing the headroom that local authorities need to get ahead of some of the challenges that they have faced for many years. That is why the more than £4 billion in new local government funding announced at the Budget, including an additional £1.3 million in the local government finance settlement, has been so warmly welcomed. That brings the total real-terms increase in core spending to around 3.2%. We remain committed to the 5% referendum cap—we believe that is the right threshold. To protect the most vulnerable, we are also committed to the single-person discount and local council tax support schemes, under which, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware, more than 8 million households do not pay a full council tax bill.