Social Housing Bill [HL]

Lord Jamieson Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 1st June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a councillor in Central Bedfordshire. I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to today’s debate. There seems to be a fair degree of consensus that we have a housing crisis and that something needs to be done about it, though we may differ on what the solutions are. In particular, we welcomed those speeches focused on protecting vulnerable tenants and strengthening safeguards of victims of domestic abuse. Those protections matter and we will continue to engage constructively as this Bill progresses to ensure that they are as robust and as effective as possible. But, as raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rook, and other noble Lords, it is not just about bricks and mortar; it is also about the need for social support.

However, having listened carefully to the debate, we remain concerned that this Bill does not adequately address the fundamental causes of pressures facing social housing. The central challenge is not difficult to identify—we have a housing crisis because this country has not built enough homes that people can afford. We have not built enough homes for ownership, private rent or social housing to meet demand.

Yet instead of focusing relentlessly on increasing supply, this Bill concentrates largely on restricting existing routes into home ownership and expanding ministerial powers. As the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, just raised, the Bill is not about building one extra home. That is why we believe it risks treating some of the symptoms rather than the fundamental cause. The answer to a housing shortage is straightforward: build more homes that people can afford. That requires political will, difficult decisions and a willingness to support development where it is needed.

As an example, my own authority, Central Bedfordshire, has delivered more than 1,000 homes in the last six months alone. The noble Lord, Lord John, raised the increasing costs of housing in London—London has registered fewer than 1,000 homes in the first quarter of this year across the entire capital. That is a buildout rate around a 20th of that of Central Bedfordshire. Is it any surprise that housing is so expensive in London? Central Bedfordshire is not unique. I can name a list of neighbouring authorities, such as Milton Keynes, Bedford, Northamptonshire and South Cambridgeshire, which have all had good buildout rates, and there are many others across the country, though I am not quite as familiar with them.

Too often, we see Labour councils resisting development locally while demanding more powers and more funding nationally. When areas with the greatest housing demand fail to build enough homes, those pressures do not disappear; they are simply transferred to neighbouring authorities and communities which are forced to build, often on green fields. That is not a sustainable approach to solving a national housing crisis.

Much of this Bill is centred on weakening the right-to-buy scheme. We believe that that is a mistake. The right to buy was one of the most significant social mobility policies of recent decades, as mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Bailey of Paddington, and the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill. It gave millions of people, many from working class backgrounds, the opportunity to own a home for the first time, build security for their families and establish a greater stake in their communities. My noble friends Lord Jackson of Peterborough and Lady Eaton raised the research from the London School of Economics, which noted how right to buy enabled an increase in human capital.

When managed properly, with receipts reinvested effectively, it can also lead to an increase in housing supply. Surely it is better to have two homes: one for the existing tenant exercising their right to buy; and a second new home, funded by the proceeds from that right to buy, for a family on the waiting list. That is known as a “buy one, get one free”. Two homes must be better than one. It has the benefit of allowing specialist accommodation, such as disability accommodation and so forth, as the noble Baroness, Lady Teather, raised. If you get those proceeds, you can start doing that. I do not say this in isolation. When I was leader of Central Bedfordshire, we used the proceeds to build more homes than we sold. Is that not a win-win? It can be done, as we did in Central Bedfordshire and as has been done elsewhere.

We have a generation of young people who increasingly feel locked out of ownership altogether. Many are paying substantial rents every month while finding it impossible to save for a deposit or satisfy affordability requirements. In 1980, London renters spent on average 14% of their income on rent. Today, private renters in London are paying close to 50%. Is it surprising that council housing waiting lists continue to grow? The right to buy is not the primary cause of the pressures facing social housing. The deeper problem is that housing stock has too often not been replaced and that overall housing delivery has lagged behind for many years.

We need to have an honest discussion about the management of social housing, as raised by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill of Bexley. Recent figures from the English Housing Survey suggest that around 186,000 social housing households have incomes above £50,000, while approximately 389,000 households are under-occupying social housing. I do not cite these figures to criticise tenants; they simply illustrate the scale of the mismatch that can emerge over time if scarce housing stock is not managed actively and fairly. Social housing is supported by substantial public subsidy. It is entirely reasonable for taxpayers to expect that it is allocated fairly, managed effectively and focused on those in greatest need, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, and the noble Lords, Lord Jackson of Peterborough and Lord Bird, with his focus on the unemployed. At a time when many families remain on waiting lists for years, these are questions that Parliament should not shy away from addressing.

The Bill misses opportunities elsewhere. As the noble Baroness, Lady Watkins of Tavistock, raised, it will do little to tackle the well-known shortcomings of shared ownership, despite the fact that many shared owners continue to face significant costs while enjoying only limited benefits of ownership. As raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, and the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham of Droxford, while there are many excellent housing associations, not only is there insufficient focus on accountability where housing associations or registered providers fail tenants through poor management or declining standards but we need to ensure efficient and effective operation and delivery. As my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook said, they need to be accountable.

Alongside new housing delivery, also raised by the noble Lord, Lord Best, we should be thinking much more seriously about regeneration. Across the country, there are communities with enormous potential for renewal, regeneration and improvement, yet this remains largely absent from the Bill.

There is a broader difference of principle at the heart of this debate. We believe that more homes of all tenures are needed. We on these Benches believe that home ownership matters. We believe in aspiration and regeneration. We believe people should have the opportunity to build stability, independence and security for themselves and their families. Of course social housing has a vital role to play; nobody disputes that. It provides an essential safety net for those facing hardship and circumstances beyond their control. However, a successful housing system should do both: provide support for those who need it while helping those who aspire to ownership to achieve it. This Bill does not strike that balance.

As my noble friend Lady Scott said in opening, there are elements of the Bill that we welcome and will support constructively, but there are also significant concerns that this House has a duty to examine carefully. Ultimately, the public want more homes, regeneration, greater affordability, fair access to social housing and, wherever possible, the opportunity to own a home of their own. That is a principle that on these Benches we will continue to defend. I look forward to the further scrutiny of the Bill in Committee.

Social Housing Bill [HL]

Lord Jamieson Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 17th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I was going to say I was grateful to all noble Lords who had spoken in the debate, but I am certainly most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, for doing so. She identifies a couple of critical issues: the need for more housing and the need for clarity and information. That is important.

It is important that we keep a sense of perspective here about right to buy. It does not mean that that home disappears, or that the family living in it disappear; they are still in that home, and in many cases they will remain in it for many years, irrespective of whether it is a social home or they actually acquire it. The issue is therefore not about the loss of physical dwellings but about the change in tenure and the availability of social housing for other tenants. That is precisely why the questions raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, and the amendments that we have tabled address the serious discussion about replacement. We need reliable, current information and data.

Equally, if there is a case for one-for-one replacement which we believe, that should be examined openly and supported by evidence rather than assumptions. We have now had the opportunity to look at the impact assessment for this Bill, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, rightly raised the issue of how we can reduce housing lists by increasing supply. If you look at table 4, what is the impact of removing right to buy? After five years or so, when it settles down, it means that over 3,000 fewer houses every year are built. That is 3,000 fewer homes for families and 3,000 more families on the council waiting list every year. We need more homes, and right to buy is an opportunity to increase that.

Think what would happen if the Government were to focus on building more homes rather than stopping families having the opportunity to own their own home. As we seek a minimum of one-for-one replacement, we could be seeing over 5,000 extra homes every year. That is 5,000 more families given the opportunity for a social home and 5,000 fewer people every year on housing waiting lists.

The amendments in my name and that of my noble friend Lady O’Neill do not seek to prescribe a particular outcome; they seek to ensure that Parliament and the public have the information necessary to assess the effectiveness of the policy and make informed decisions about its future.

I was going to say that this has been a constructive debate—maybe I should say this has been a constructive discussion—but we all recognise the need to increase housing supply and the opportunities for home ownership. I hope the Minister will reflect on the arguments made, the case for greater transparency and the need for more homes.

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

My Lords, before I speak about the Social Housing Bill, may I just wish our team England—well, it is “our team England” for some of us—all success this evening, and I hope we will be finished in time for some of us to see some of it.

I thank everyone for the lively and constructive debate we had on this Bill on Monday; it is a pleasure to be back to continue discussing it. Amendment 54, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, would require the Secretary of State to reconsider our one-for-one replacement policy. Relatedly, Amendments 55 and 56, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, would require a report assessing the viability of this requirement. Amendment 53, put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, would insert a clause requiring reports to the Secretary of State on sales and replacements. Separately, Amendment 58B from the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, would require a report to Parliament within a year on the impact of Clause 5 specifically.

We announced in our response to the consultation on right-to-buy reforms that we are removing the formal one-for-one right-to-buy replacement target. However, and I say this very specifically, this does not mean we are complacent about replacing homes sold. Far from it: we call on councils to go over and above replacing sold stock and to play a central role in the Government’s commitment to deliver a generational increase in social and affordable housebuilding. The one-for-one target was introduced in 2012, when the only social and affordable housing delivery that councils were asked to do was to replace homes sold under right to buy.

Our ambition far surpasses this now. We want to see more than one-for-one replacement and do not want a target that limits that ambition. As I set out my letter following Second Reading, this Bill is not the extent of our delivery ambition. Our ambition is to deliver 300,000 social and affordable homes over the course of the programme, and we are taking decisive action to reinvigorate council housebuilding, including supporting councils in our £39 billion social and affordable homes programme. We also invested £17 million last year to boost council housebuilding skills, and we have permitted councils now to combine their right-to-buy receipts with grant funding.

The Government’s impact assessment for the Bill forecast that England was on course to lose 26,000 social homes between 2026 and 2036. However, through our package of right-to-buy reforms, including allowing councils to keep all the receipts from sales—something we have long campaigned for from local government—and reducing cash discounts, alongside the provisions in the Bill, we now expect a net gain of around 18,000 homes over the same period, instead of what would have been a loss.

--- Later in debate ---

On right-to-buy discounts, it is difficult to assess the impact of discount changes in isolation. We will, however, keep discount levels under review and ensure that the right balance is being struck between protecting social housing stock and enabling tenants to access home ownership. On these grounds, and on the basis that we do not want a replacement target that limits ambition, we are going to resist these amendments, but we will continue to work in partnership with councils to reinvigorate council housebuilding and ensure we are consistently replacing more homes than are lost through right to buy. On that basis, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

May I ask for some clarification from the Minister? Clearly, table 4 in the impact assessment shows that under the pre-November 2024 baseline, if we take the 2034-35 figures, 4,750 homes would be built from the right-to-buy receipts and, under the new baseline, 1,550 would be built. That is 3,200 fewer homes. The assumption that we are going to have more homes available for social tenants relies on the fact that those tenants who might have bought their home will leave that home anyway. If they stay there, we will have fewer homes for new social tenants.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Jamieson]

68: After Clause 16, insert the following new Clause—
“Local connection requirements(1) The Secretary of State must, using powers under section 166A(7) and 167(3) of the Housing Act 1996, require that local housing authorities ensure that reasonable preference in allocations policies takes account of local connection.(2) For the purpose of subsection (1), local connection includes—(a) residence,(b) employment,(c) family association, or(d) service in His Majesty’s Armed Forces.(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations issue guidance on the implementation of subsections (1) and (2).(4) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would strengthen local connection considerations in social housing allocations.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments 68, 69, 74, 81, 82, 84 and 113 in my name and that of my noble friend Lady O’Neill of Bexley. All amendments in this group are united by a simple principle: social housing is a scarce and valuable resource. As we have heard in previous debates, demand exceeds supply in many parts of the country. It is therefore essential that allocation policies are fair, transparent and command public confidence. Data from the House of Lords Library shows that each new social rent home requires a grant of between £80,000 and £100,000 in order to be built. Those figures are for outside of London; I do not have the figures for London, but I suspect that they will be higher.

Amendment 68 seeks to strengthen the consideration given to local connections when allocating social housing. If we are to build homes, we need to bring the communities affected with us. As a councillor in Central Bedfordshire, I have frequently experienced local concern that housing is being built for Londoners, not locals. In many cases, that is not the case, but it is the concern. The Minister has related stories of the difficulties she faced from the locals when Stevenage was originated as a new town. Communities are more likely to support new housing development when they can see that local people who have lived in, worked in and contributed to the area are given appropriate consideration. Strong local connection policies can help maintain confidence in the system while ensuring that housing is directed to those with genuine ties to the community in the area.

Amendment 69 concerns eligibility for social housing among those who are not British citizens. Given the pressures that exist on housing waiting lists across the country, it is important that the Government are clear about who is eligible for social housing and that we ask whether reform is needed. Ultimately, this amendment is about the principles that underpin allocation of scarce public resources.

As of March 2023, there were approximately 1.33 million households on the local authority housing registers in England—the highest figures for a decade, and significantly higher than in recent years. Behind those statistics are families, pensioners, young people and vulnerable individuals, all waiting for access to secure and affordable accommodation. At the same time, 431,000 households in social housing had a lead tenant who was a non-UK national, representing around 10% of all social housing households. These figures inevitably raise legitimate questions about eligibility, prioritisation and fairness.

The purpose of this amendment is not to diminish the contribution that many non-citizens make to our country or to ignore the complexity of the individual circumstances. We are not saying that we should not support those who come to this country and contribute—but that does not mean that they should be entitled to potentially a lifetime council house at well below market rent. Indeed, that is why we want to have this debate—an honest and mature debate. When demand substantially exceeds supply, who should social housing be intended to serve? That reflects some of my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham’s comments in the previous debate.

Many members of the public would reasonably expect that access to social housing should be closely linked to contribution, long-term commitment and belonging to this country. At the very least, Parliament and the public should have a clear understanding of who social housing is for. Public confidence in the social housing system depends greatly on the perception of fairness. I refer back to my comments that this requires a substantial upfront subsidy, which is particularly important at a time when waiting lists remain at historically high levels.

Amendment 74 similarly seeks greater clarity regarding the guidance on social housing eligibility in respect of certain foreign public officeholders and associated persons. This amendment arises in part from concerns highlighted by a recent high-profile case involving the First Lady of Sierra Leone. That case raised significant public concern and has rightly received widespread scrutiny. I appreciate that that has now been resolved, but it took 12 months from the public becoming aware. It is not about a single individual or a single country. Rather, where individuals hold senior public office overseas or are closely associated with those who do, is it not reasonable to ask whether existing eligibility rules are sufficiently clear and robust? We seek clarity from the Government on this. Are existing checks and information-sharing arrangements sufficient? Are local authorities equipped to identify circumstances in which an applicant’s position, assets or access to resources overseas may be relevant to eligibility decisions?

Amendment 81 would require regular reviews of income eligibility thresholds. It is important that eligibility criteria remain aligned with economic realities and reflect changes in incomes, housing costs and local circumstances. Thresholds that are not regularly reviewed risk becoming detached from the conditions they were designed to address.

Amendments 82 and 84 seek better information. One would require estimates of social housing demand arising from net migration. The other would require an assessment of the impact of temporary asylum accommodation on local social housing demand. Whatever views noble Lords may take on wider immigration policy, effective public policy depends on understanding demand. Local authorities cannot plan effectively unless they have a clear picture of the pressures affecting housing needs in their areas.

Amendment 113 would require housing register applications to be reviewed periodically to ensure that waiting lists remain accurate and up to date. Given the pressures on social housing supply, it is important that waiting lists reflect genuine and current need.

I was particularly interested in Amendments 93 and 94, concerning prison leavers and former offenders. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, for his long-standing work on prison reform and rehabilitation. The cost of reoffending both to society and to the public purse is enormous. Amendment 94 is a measured proposal that seeks to improve the sharing of information between prisons and local authorities, and I am grateful to the noble Lord for bringing this amendment forward.

Together, these amendments seek to ensure that social housing policy is informed by accurate information, fairer eligibility criteria and a clear understanding of housing demand, seeking to get local community support. I beg to move.

[Baroness Teather (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak in favour of Amendment 91 in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville. It is a modest amendment, asking simply that the Secretary of State conduct review of veterans’ access to social housing and report to Parliament within 12 months of this Act passing. It does not prescribe outcomes or impose new burdens on local authorities; it asks the Government to look and just tell us what they find. I recognise that much action has been taken here, but it is difficult for us to make reasonable judgments about what is working and what is not without us getting the data and being able to see how things are working out in practice.

I turn to the case for this amendment. Between 2018 and 2024, the number of homeless veteran households in England rose by nearly 25%, from 1,820 to 2,270, according to MHCLG’s homelessness data. The most recent figures, for 2024-25, record over 2,000 veteran households at risk of or experiencing homelessness, and those are only the ones who have approached a local authority for help. The ONS veterans survey suggests that the true number may be closer to 7,500 people, many of whom will never appear in any official count.

The Government have made some welcome changes in recent months, and I really acknowledge that. The December 2024 regulations removed the five-year sunset on the local connection exemption, ensuring that no veteran, regardless of how long ago they left service, can be turned away from a housing register simply for lacking local ties. Updated guidance now explicitly extends additional preference to veterans with service-related mental health conditions, including PTSD. Those are real improvements, and they deserve recognition, but guidance is not the same as accountability. Additional preference does not guarantee placement in the highest band and, in many authorities, even the highest bands involve long waits, because there is just not enough social housing stock. Shelter has noted that the rights veterans hold in practice depend heavily on individual local authority policy and can vary enormously from one area to the next.

There are particular concerns about veterans with service-related disabilities and complex needs. Around 16% of veteran households receiving new social lettings include someone injured or disabled as a result of their service. Specialist adapted accommodation is limited— I spoke about this at Second Reading. I feel particularly passionately about the need to improve the stock of adapted housing because my husband is disabled and we know how difficult it is to find any housing in the private sector or the social sector, which we have not benefited from. If there is simply not enough anywhere, it is difficult for anybody with any disability to do anything other than find themselves waiting for a long time on the social housing waiting list.

Operation Fortitude’s 900 units of veteran supported housing typically run at full capacity. A 2021 review found no new policy introductions for wounded, injured or sick veterans since 2016. The data picture is deeply inadequate. The Government do not publish national figures on how many veterans are on social housing waiting lists. MHCLG’s own lettings statistics acknowledge that between 18% and 44% of local authorities provide complete information on veterans on their registers—that is quite a variation. We cannot evaluate whether the system is working when we cannot see it clearly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, this group of amendments is about access to and eligibility for social housing. I want to make two opening points. First, it is important that debate on these issues is conducted carefully and respectfully, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, said. Language that stigmatises or mischaracterises people living in or applying for social housing is simply not acceptable. Secondly, I remind noble Lords that there is an extensive review of social housing allocations statutory guidance currently being undertaken, which will consider many of the issues raised as part of this group.

I will address specifically Amendments 69, 74, 82 and 84, from the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill. In 2024-25, 89% of lead tenants in new social housing lettings were UK nationals, 4% were European nationals and 8% were from outside the European Economic Area—broadly the same as the previous year. Eligibility for social housing is tightly controlled. If a person’s visa prevents access to state benefits or local authority housing assistance, they are not eligible for social housing. Only eligible people can join waiting lists and receive a tenancy. Where foreign nationals are eligible, they will have their housing needs considered on the same basis as other eligible applicants, in accordance with the local authority’s housing allocation scheme.

On 20 November, the Government announced the biggest reforms to the legal migration system in 50 years. These reforms will build a fairer immigration system for British people, while doing the right thing by migrants who have built their lives here and contributed to our community, the economy and public services. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, that I do not think we need to take lessons on asylum from the party opposite, which totally lost control of the system. That is still having an impact on housing and social housing now. We are addressing the system as a whole, which is the right approach, rather than stigmatising those who live in social housing. That is why we oppose Amendment 69. As the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, clearly outlined, the problem here is the lack of available social housing. We cannot blame other people for that —what we need to do is crack on and build some more.

Amendment 74, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, would give the Secretary of State power to issue guidance on eligibility for foreign public office holders and associated persons. That power and guidance are unnecessary. The Secretary of State already has a power under Section 196 of the Housing Act 1996 to issue guidance on social housing allocations. Foreign public office holders and associated persons are already subject to local authority allocation rules. Authorities can apply qualification rules such as local connection and income tests to reflect local priorities. I remember the very same debate in my own authority around the five-year local connection test. There is therefore no need for this power. It would not be appropriate for me to comment here in the Chamber on the specific case raised by the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, but I draw Members’ attention to the statement from Southwark Council on that issue.

Amendments 82 and 84, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, would both require assessments that we do not think are necessary. Amendment 82 would require an assessment of social housing demand arising from net migration. Social housing demand depends on many factors and the effect of migration is not direct, so a yearly assessment would not be proportionate. Demand for social housing comes from a multitude of factors that are likely to be correlated, including economic conditions and a range of government policies. It is artificial and potentially misleading to seek to neatly and reliably separate the impact of net migration from other factors.

Amendment 84 would require an assessment of the impact of temporary asylum accommodation on local social housing demand. It is important to reiterate that asylum seekers are not eligible for social housing, so they will not be adding to demand for social housing. Where an individual is granted refugee status, they may subsequently approach a local authority for housing support. Whether they access social housing will depend on meeting local authority allocation policies, including any local connection or residency tests.

I want to highlight the progress made on sharing asylum pressures more fairly across the country. Since 2022, the Home Office has shifted from a model where asylum accommodation was concentrated in a small number of areas to one where all local authorities share responsibility, with each allocated a defined, evidence-based share of demand.

Much of the data sought in the amendment is already available. My department collects and publishes extensive information on social housing waiting lists and allocations, including data on new lettings and household characteristics. The Home Office regularly publishes a breakdown by local authority of accommodated asylum seekers, and my department publishes the homelessness duties owed to those as a result of leaving asylum support as part of statutory homelessness statistics. With this explanation, I kindly ask that the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, does not press these amendments.

Amendment 68, also tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, seeks to require local housing authorities to take account of local connection when considering if an applicant for social housing should be awarded reasonable preference for an allocation of social housing. Local connection tests help local housing authorities manage social housing stock and are best placed to set the rules to ensure homes meet local housing pressures and that policies take account of the local context. We seem to have a bit of a theme of wanting to centralise these issues, but local authorities can set out in their allocation scheme that they will consider local connection as part of prioritisation. The vast majority, 89%, are choosing to consider it at an earlier stage as part of the qualification for the housing register, and we do not see the need to remove this choice from local housing authorities. I ask the noble Baroness not to press this amendment.

Amendment 113 would require local authorities to review applications on their housing register every three years. I of course support accurate and up-to-date housing registers and expect local authorities to review data regularly. However, it is for local authorities to determine how best to do that as part of how they manage their local social housing allocations schemes. This enables them to design schemes in a way that fits local priorities. A full review of the housing register might not always be the most efficient way to maintain an effective register. An applicant’s eligibility and qualification for social housing will be reassessed at the point of a home being allocated, so having ineligible households on a housing register does not mean that they will get social housing. With that, I kindly ask the noble Baroness not to press her amendment.

Amendments 91 and 93, tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Teather and Lady Bakewell, would require the Secretary of State to publish a report on access to social housing for former members of the Armed Forces and former offenders respectively. This Government are committed to making sure that those who have served and their families have access to social housing. Current and former members of the Armed Forces community benefit from strong protections in the allocations framework, including receiving the highest preference where they have housing need. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Teather, for recognising the work that the Government have done on that. Where local connection or residency tests apply, legislation exempts the Armed Forces community, regardless of when they last served, ensuring that they are not disadvantaged. There is also statutory guidance in place on improving access to social housing for members of the Armed Forces.

The noble Baroness, Lady Teather, referred to access to social housing even for those in the highest bands. I understand her point. That is why our Government have placed such a high priority on the delivery of new social housing. It is the lack of housing that prevents people in high bands getting it, not whether they are a priority. I will make further remarks on her valid points on adapted housing when they come up in a later group.

With our review of statutory guidance on social housing allocations already under way, we do not need to conduct separate reviews for specific groups such as former members of the Armed Forces or former offenders, so I kindly ask the noble Baronesses, Lady Teather and Lady Bakewell, not to press their amendments.

Amendment 94, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, seeks to ensure that local housing authorities get the information necessary to provide housing to prison leavers at risk of homelessness. This amendment focuses on an issue that my department and the Ministry of Justice are committed to tackling. I spoke to my noble friend Lord Timpson just yesterday about this, and my officials also met with the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, yesterday, as he said, to discuss his proposal in more detail. I am very grateful for the noble Lord’s work on this issue.

Supporting people into stable accommodation from their first night out of prison is critical to reducing homelessness and reoffending, as those without stable accommodation are more likely to reoffend, as we have heard. I support the intent of this amendment in reducing prison leaver homelessness. All prisons and probation services are already subject to the duty to refer under Section 213B of the Housing Act 1996. This requires them to refer anyone who is homeless or at risk of becoming homeless to a local housing authority of the person’s choice. We continue to work with colleagues in the Ministry of Justice to ensure that this process works as effectively as possible. My department also already collects data on the number of prison leavers provided with social housing by local housing authorities on release from prison and publishes this annually. Therefore, I ask that the noble Lord does not press his amendment, but my officials remain happy to have further conversations with him, if that would be helpful.

Finally, Amendment 81 seeks to create a new statutory requirement for the Government regularly to review income eligibility thresholds for social housing. As I have made clear, eligibility for social housing is considered through the allocations process. The Government do not set income eligibility thresholds; they are set by local authorities and private registered providers. This allows them to set thresholds that reflect the local context. I do not believe that it would be an appropriate use of resources for the Government to review every one of those independently set thresholds. The evidence is that it would cost more to implement than it would raise in revenue. A regular review would also penalise tenants for earning more and could lead to incentives to reduce working hours to avoid higher rent.

Income should not be equated with housing need or a lack of housing need. Some households may have additional needs or circumstances that mean that social housing remains the only viable or appropriate option for them. This can be the case, even where their income may be somewhat higher than others on the waiting list. Therefore, I ask that this amendment is not pressed.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

I would like to go back to one point that the Minister raised on the review of housing waiting lists. She made the perfectly valid point that someone may have registered on the housing waiting list with a certain series of circumstances and that those will be tested at the allocation point. I accept that. However, the point we were trying to make is that the housing waiting list includes data that is used in making a variety of decisions on the prioritisation of what should be built and so on. Our view is that that data needs to be accurate. What can the Minister say on that point?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

In my experience, most local authorities do exactly what the noble Lord is suggesting: they very carefully take account of the information submitted by applicants for the waiting register when they apply for it. I think that those processes are already in place.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

I am sorry; I must be talking at cross-purposes. My point is that, given the length of time that people will be on the housing register, circumstances will change, and therefore what was put on one or two years ago may no longer be accurate. This is about having up-to-date, accurate data on the housing register, so that the council can make good decisions on policy, not on a particular allocation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

Local authorities take a great deal of care when people apply for the social housing register, because they need to make sure that they meet their local provisions. That includes local connections, whether they have income eligibility and so on. They take great care in that respect. Most local authorities conduct regular reviews of the information they have—I will not say “all local authorities”, because I do not have the evidence in front of me to suggest that, but I think that nearly all of them do so.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. There have been a variety of views, so I will begin on the bits on which I think we generally agree.

I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Farmer for his eloquent contribution, as well as to the noble Baronesses, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville. They looked at how we can better support former offenders and those leaving prison. We support the intentions behind both of their amendments, and we believe that local housing authorities should at least be given more information about prison leavers in need of housing.

I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Teather, for her strong case on behalf of veterans. We too agree that those who have served in His Majesty’s Armed Forces should be prioritised in social housing allocation processes. She is right to highlight the needs of those with potential disabilities arising from their time serving in uniform. When I first became a councillor, one of the first cases I dealt with was a military family that fell between the cracks of the regulation and the allocation. That was before the Armed Forces covenant, so I was very pleased that we were able to change council policy to have much greater flexibility. That family was then housed to great benefit.

I raise the issue of disabilities. I am very conscious that we do not have enough good-quality social housing for people with high and complex disability needs. One of the points that I made earlier in the debate about right to buy is that it provides the resources to look at new housing. I give the example of Central Bedfordshire: we were using right-to-buy receipts to develop specialist housing. The Minister knows that we were doing that for older people’s housing, but we also did it for disabilities. It was an absolute delight when we went to see families. I know one person who was constrained in a wheelchair and had very little movement. He said that that was the first time he had ever been able to open the front door of his own home, because he had one of those little infrared buzzers. It can be transformational, and we need to look at that.

We are also in agreement, which the previous amendments reflect, that there is a need to look at prioritisation, whether for offenders, military or other groups. That is why we have some of our amendments in the group. We can all say the solution is more social homes, but we need to recognise that, for the moment, demand massively outstrips supply, and therefore, difficult choices will be made. For every family or person who gets a social home, there will be many who will miss out—all with good and deserving cases. We suggest that there needs to be an open and honest discussion on prioritisation.

As my noble friend Lord Jackson asked—and I thank him for his eloquent support, both for my amendments and for the other amendments in the group—where else do non-citizens get priority? Why should UK citizens not be a higher priority? Why should UK military personnel not be a higher priority than a non-UK citizen? This is a debate that we need to have. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 68 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Jamieson]

76: After Clause 16, insert the following new Clause—
“Standards relating to maintenance of social housing(1) The Secretary of State must publish guidance relating to standards for maintenance of social housing, in line with the Hazards in Social Housing (Prescribed Requirements) (England) Regulations 2025 (S.I. 2025/1042).(2) Guidance under subsection (1) must include provision relating to—(a) damp and mould,(b) electrical safety,(c) response times for repairs, and(d) tenant complaints procedures.(3) Registered providers must have regard to guidance issued under this section.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would require guidance relating to maintenance standards in social housing.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, the amendment is in my name and that of my noble friend Lady O’Neill of Bexley. As we seek to increase housing supply, how do we ensure that social housing is not only available but safe, well maintained, accessible and capable of supporting thriving communities? The debate about housing often focuses on numbers, and understandably so, when we face such a shortfall. However, quality matters just as much as quantity. People deserve homes that are safe, healthy and fit for modern living. Equally, they deserve neighbourhoods that are well designed and capable of supporting long-term community cohesion. Amendment 76 concerns maintenance standards in social housing. The purpose of the amendment is to probe whether the existing guidance is sufficient and whether tenants can have confidence that standards will be maintained consistently across the sector.

The importance of this issue has been brought into sharp focus in recent years following the tragic case of Awaab Ishak. His death exposed serious failures in housing management and highlighted the consequences when basic maintenance problems were not addressed quickly and effectively. The introduction of Awaab’s law was an important step forward, but it remains essential that providers have clear guidance and that expectations are consistently understood across the sector. Safe housing is not simply about the condition of a property when it is first built; it is also about how the property is maintained over the many years of occupation. Good maintenance protects tenants, preserves housing stock, and reduces costs in the long term. I look forward to hearing from my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond regarding his amendments. I beg to move.

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 100 and the other amendments in my name. We have the Equality Act 2010, and the public sector equality duty, but it is clear that in social housing, as in so many other sectors of our society, these pieces of legislation and regulation, though well constructed and well intended, are not in every circumstance delivering for disabled people in their local communities, not least when it comes to their social housing needs and aspirations.

In Amendment 100, I suggest that it would be a thoroughly positive thing to have an inclusion by design standard set out in the Bill. Though it appears duplicative at first instance because of the previous legislation I referred to, it would be additive, clarifying, enabling and empowering, not just for disabled people but—by nature of being inclusive by design—for all people. Through that clarity, it would enable and empower the local authority and the landlords, who are working at the sharp end when it comes to the current social housing situation across the country. An inclusion by design standard would be something to rally around and a gleaming light that could focus attention and deliver for disabled people and all people, far more than what the current legislation specific to equalities achieves.

In Amendment 102, I seek to bring that starkly to life by suggesting accessibility and adaptive housing standards. There are standards that exist in this area currently, but to have something that brings together accessibility and adaptive housing in a clear statutory statement in the Bill would be empowering for all people, not least those who are trying to do their best to deliver on this provision. The amendment suggests a register which would clearly set out the list of adaptive and accessible housing countrywide. I know that the Minister will consider this to be centralisation, but I believe it would be empowering to all local authorities. In a sense, it is something that any other organisation and business would do. It is nothing more than having an asset register—a clear, up-to-date and real-time set of registers of what the provision is. It will enable local authorities to have clarity as to what might be available just across the way in enabling authority. I know that local authorities and landlords work incredibly hard with adjacent authorities and neighbouring organisations, but to have this provision in real time available to them would be assistive in that process. Because of new technologies, it would not need to be expensive, bureaucratic or burdensome. In fact, with some neat coding, it could very much take care of itself once established.

Similarly, on my amendment on accessibility of digital, it is right that local authorities and landlords seek to use digital means wherever they can, but it is critical that all those digital means are accessible to all in our local communities, and indeed that alternative means are always available.

The amendments are not duplicative, because what is more significant than housing? It is about the safety and security of having somewhere you can go, and when you close your front door, you can say, “This is me. This is us”. That provision, safety and security should be available and accessible to everybody across our communities, not least to disabled people. It cannot be right that just by dint of being a disabled person, for lack of accessible and adaptable accommodation, you have a longer wait on a list than a non-disabled person. These amendments would be assistive in that process. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

--- Later in debate ---

On Amendment 119B, the Government cannot support linking the commencement of the Act to the introduction of these regulations. While accessibility is a critical consideration, it should not act as a precondition that delays implementation of the wider reforms in the Bill. For those reasons, while I share the noble Lord’s commitment to accessible and inclusive services, the Government are unable to support these amendments and I respectfully ask him not to press them.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have contributed on this group. This debate has focused on the fundamental point that housing policy is not simply about providing a roof over someone’s head; it is about ensuring that people live in homes that are safe, healthy, accessible and capable of supporting a good quality of life.

The debate has also highlighted broader questions about design, accessibility and the environments in which people live. As we consider these issues, it is important to continue to focus on the creation of mixed, sustainable communities. Good design should not be reserved for one tenure or another. The aim should be to create places where people want to live, regardless of whether they are tenants, shared owners or owner-occupiers. I have listened carefully to the Minister’s response and will reflect on the points raised during the debate. For the time being, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 76 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Jamieson]

79: After Clause 16, insert the following new Clause—
“Shared ownership strategy(1) Within the period of 12 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must publish a strategy for increasing opportunities for shared ownership.(2) The strategy must include proposals relating to—(a) first-time buyers,(b) key workers,(c) housing association provision, and(d) staircasing arrangements.(3) The strategy must be laid before Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require publication of a strategy for expanding shared ownership.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments 79, 105 and 106 in my name and that of my noble friend Lady O’Neill of Bexley. These amendments concern shared ownership, which for many years has provided an important route into home ownership for people who may not otherwise have been able to purchase a home outright. In a housing market where affordability remains a significant challenge, in particular with the difficulty of saving for a deposit, shared ownership has the potential to play an increasing and important role in helping individuals and families to take their first step on the housing ladder.

While the principle of shared ownership may enjoy broad support, concerns are frequently raised about its operation in practice. It is not only that the system can be difficult to navigate, with inconsistency between providers; the risk and cost splits between the shared-equity owner and the landlord are skewed in favour of the landlord. The rent on the non-owned portion is frequently more costly than either an affordable rent or a mortgage. The costs of ownership—including management fees, lease fees and so forth—tend to fall on the equity owner and not on the landlord. Yet, when the house is sold, the landlord gets their full share of any uplift in value and equity.

In the sales process, the equity owner ends up paying 100% of the sale costs, yet they may receive only 25% or 35% of the sale proceeds. As we have seen, particularly with flats, there are many unexpected costs. Rightly, with regard to fire safety, we need to do things to improve our blocks of flats. But we are talking about affordable housing for people who do not have much money and cannot afford to pay a sudden lump of money.

Some landlords raise additional administrative charges. When we look at the legal response times for landlords to the equity owner, particularly when they are looking to buy and sell, we need to recognise that these people are often in chains and that the response rate can be very important in order to secure a sale.

Right now, many people who are aiming for 100% ownership through staircasing face too many obstacles. For example, in designated protected areas you may be able to buy only up to 80%. We have to start shifting the balance. We need to be on the side of people who want a hand up, not a handout: people who want to mark their places on the housing ladder in their communities, for the security of their future and that of their family. We need to change the balance so that the shared equity owner gets a fairer deal.

Amendment 79 would require the publication of a strategy for expanding shared ownership. The purpose of this amendment is to understand the Government’s ambition in this area. Do Ministers see shared ownership as a central part of the housing offer in the years ahead? If so, what steps are being taken to increase its availability and attractiveness?

Amendment 105 seeks a review of the operation of shared ownership schemes and the barriers faced by shared owners, some of which I outlined earlier. We know that many people are attracted to shared ownership because it offers a more affordable route into home ownership. However, there are genuine concerns about service charges, maintenance responsibilities, staircasing and the practical experience of ownership, particularly with flats. Before expanding the model further, it is important that we understand where it is working well and where improvements may be needed.

Amendment 106 proposes the publication of a standardised model or template shared ownership agreement. One of the recurring criticisms of shared ownership is the variation in terms and conditions between schemes and providers and the differences in legal documentation. Greater consistency could help prospective purchasers understand their rights and responsibilities more clearly, improve transparency and strengthen confidence in the model.

These are probing amendments, intended to stimulate discussion about how shared ownership can be improved, simplified and expanded. If we are serious about widening access to home ownership, we should ensure that one of the principal affordable home ownership products is operating as effectively as possible. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response. I beg to move.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I intervene to indicate a preference for Amendment 105, which calls for a review of shared ownership, rather than Amendment 79, which calls for a strategy for increasing shared ownership. This is because there are features of shared ownership that need addressing before we increase the opportunities.

The Minister will recall the problems facing shared owners in flats with safety issues post-Grenfell. I am grateful to her for agreeing to amend the Renters’ Rights Act to reflect that. But that indicated how the law on conventional tenures such as owner occupation, leasehold or tenancy finds it difficult to accommodate the special nature of shared ownership, which is in fact a combination of all three.

I welcome the recent changes to the scheme, particularly the 10-year guarantee against certain costs. But the review proposed in Amendment 105 should take as its starting point recent critical reports from the National Audit Office, the HCLG Select Committee report on the affordability of home ownership, and the findings of the Housing Ombudsman on shared ownership.

The NAO found that shared ownership helps many people buy a home who otherwise could not. However, it said the scheme is complex; many buyers do not fully understand its long-term costs and risks; affordability pressures can hinder progression to full ownership, and government lacks the data needed to judge whether the scheme is delivering good outcomes for consumers. While recent reforms have improved transparency and protection, the NAO concluded that important gaps in understanding and oversight remain.

The HCLG report was more critical. The committee found that legal and valuation fees made staircasing expensive. The buyers have to pay all those costs, which can run into thousands of pounds, and do so each time they staircase. It found that rising house prices can make additional shares unaffordable and many shared owners never reach full ownership. It questioned whether the scheme is genuinely delivering the aspiration for full home ownership for many participants.

Then we have the ombudsman. Complaints to the Housing Ombudsman regarding shared ownership properties have surged by nearly 400%, jumping from 324 cases in 2020 to 1,564 complaints more recently. That sharp rise reflects growing resident frustration with hidden costs, building defects and the difficulties of staircasing or selling.

The ombudsman highlighted several reasons for this escalation. Many residents face staggering increase in service charges and rent hikes, which can feel disproportionate. Landlords frequently fail to chase developers or effectively restore defects such as cladding or fire safety issues after they are raised. On the sales process, he found incorrect charges at the point of moving in, miscommunication regarding staircasing—buying larger shares of the property—and general delays from solicitors.

The ombudsman summed up the problems by saying that there is a “mismatch” between the expectation and understanding of the shared owner and the landlord. He concluded that the Government should address the

“fundamental inequities in the way in which shared ownership is designed”—

a point made by my noble friend Lord Jamieson.

Bringing all that together may explain why there is such a low satisfaction rate with shared ownership, and the largest providers have the lowest satisfaction rate—frequently below 30%. Any review should liaise closely with the Shared Ownership Council, Shared Ownership Resources, which has produced several documents indicating how the scheme might be improved and has first-hand evidence of existing pinch points. I very much hope that the Government will take this opportunity to review the scheme, put this form of tenure on a more secure foundation and rebalance the responsibilities as between the talent and the landlord.

--- Later in debate ---

Amendment 106 seeks to introduce a model shared ownership agreement. I do not believe this amendment is necessary simply because shared ownership model leases are already available. The model leases contain fundamental clauses that govern how shared ownership operates, including in respect of the provisions outlined by the noble Lord. Shared ownership providers offering grant-funded properties must use a lease containing these fundamental clauses, and it is expected that properties delivered via Section 106 agreements also do so. In addition, shared ownership providers are required to adhere to guidance regarding the provisions raised as a condition of receiving grant funding. For those reasons, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

I thank noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. As ever, I am in awe of my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham’s vast knowledge and the amount of work that he has done on this. I also appreciate the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, who has also raised this issue many times. I think there is universal acceptance on this side of the Committee that something needs to be done. It is a little bit more fundamental than looking at the “customer experience”, which, if I may say so, feels like a glib marketing throwaway, although I know the Minister does not mean it as that.

The purpose of these amendments has been to explore whether the current arrangements are delivering. Quite clearly, we have the National Audit Office and so forth saying that they are not delivering. I do not think that we can be satisfied with, “We are looking at it”; I think this needs a fundamental review. The Minister said that it is a widely understood scheme. I think conceptually it is widely understood, but I do not think that the consequences of being a shared owner, particularly of a flat, are widely understood. The potential financial ramifications, where the risk lies and the risk-sharing between the equity owner and the landlord are not appreciated. I think many of the complaints that we have seen out of this are because people did not understand what they were letting themselves in for, particularly for flats. I press the Minister to think again between now and Report and to look at how we can formally come up with a thorough review that looks at all aspects of this.

I would be interested to understand a bit more about what the Minister said about model clauses. Some model clauses and a thorough template are quite different. I would like to take up the Minister’s offer of discussions on this. This is an area where we need to make significant improvements because it is a real opportunity, when done right, to get people on the housing ladder, particularly, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, said, in more expensive areas, who otherwise may not have that opportunity, but that is going to work only if we have a scheme that works. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 79 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Jamieson]

118: Clause 17, page 13, line 11, leave out subsection (2)
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment removes the consequential power to amend or repeal provision made by an Act of Parliament passed before, or in the same session as, this Act by regulations.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to this final group of amendments in my name and that of my noble friend Lady O’Neill of Bexley. Clause 17(2) gives the Secretary of State the power to

“amend or repeal provision made by an Act of Parliament passed before, or in the same Session as, this Act”.

Amendment 118 would remove this power.

Amendment 119 would require an affirmative parliamentary procedure for any regulations made under Clause 17. This would give Parliament stronger oversight of secondary legislation.

The theme of both amendments is to give Parliament stronger oversight of the Secretary of State’s powers. I would be interested to hear from the Minister why these powers were included in the first place and how the Government intend to use them in the future if this Bill is passed as currently drafted. The House deserves to know to properly consider these provisions, so I look forward to an answer from the Minister. I beg to move.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, and the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, for the amendments on powers in Clause 17. I note that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee concluded:

“There is nothing in this Bill which we would wish to draw to the attention of the House”.


That conclusion gives important context for these amendments.

On Amendment 118, this is a standard consequential power that is found in many Bills and is limited to making a provision that is consequential on the Act. It cannot be used to introduce new policy; its purpose is to ensure that the legislation operates coherently once enacted, including by making any necessary technical changes to existing legislation. The Bill already provides an important safeguard where regulations under Clause 17 amend or repeal primary legislation. They are subject to the affirmative procedure, so both Houses must actively approve them. Removing the power entirely could leave technical inconsistencies or gaps on the statute book and make implementation less effective. It would mean that even minor consequential amendments to primary legislation would require further primary legislation. For those reasons, we consider the power necessary, proportionate and appropriately safeguarded.

On Amendment 119, the Bill already ensures enhanced scrutiny where regulations amend primary legislation. Applying the affirmative procedure to all consequential regulations would be disproportionate. Additionally, the power is limited to making provision that is consequential on the Act, and it is intended to be used only to ensure the effective implementation of the Act and to maintain a coherent legislative framework. I believe that the existing approach strikes the right balance. I hope the points I have made have provided some comfort to the noble Lord and the noble Baroness, and I ask them to withdraw their amendment—and come on, England!

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

I thank the Minister for her reply and her brevity, such that we can go and say, “Come on, England”. We still have concern about giving the Secretary of State powers without, in our view, proper parliamentary scrutiny, so we will continue to scrutinise the Bill in relation to secondary legislation and making provision for the affirmative parliamentary procedure. This is to protect the balance of power and to ensure that noble Lords continue to have oversight of changes made after this Bill becomes law.

We will review Hansard, and I thank the Minister again for her answers throughout Committee. We have had an insightful and worthwhile debate about this Bill’s provisions, and I look forward to working together with noble Lords ahead of Report.

As we close Committee, I would like to reflect on our key concerns. Our focus should be on building more homes, not restricting opportunity. We believe that right to buy not only provides an opportunity for families to own their homes but provides the resources to build more homes. This Bill not only denies the opportunity for families to move on in life but risks tens of thousands more families languishing on council housing waiting lists. We have also sought amendments to make housing allocations fairer and more transparent, to address issues with shared ownership, and to ensure better performance of registered providers. I beg to leave to withdraw our amendment.

Amendment 118 withdrawn.

Social Housing Bill [HL]

Lord Jamieson Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 20th July 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Jamieson]

1: Clause 1, page 1, line 6, after second “years” insert “subject to subsection (A2)”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, and another in the name of Baroness O’Neill of Bexley, seeks to extend the transition period for the commencement of provisions in clause 1 in relation to secure tenancies.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, we begin with the amendment standing in my name and that of my noble friend Lady O’Neill of Bexley. As we discussed in Committee, the right to buy has brought transformational benefits for 2 million families across the country. I do not wish to focus on the benefits to those who access right to buy, as I believe that case is inarguable, but rather I wish to debunk the argument against right to buy, which has focused on the loss of social housing.

Let me first be clear that we believe in one-for-one replacement or better, which was why I was pleased that the last Conservative Government introduced 100% retention of right-to-buy proceeds, which enabled councils, including my own, Central Bedfordshire, to deliver more council housing than was lost through right to buy. If this could spread across the country, there would be no loss of social housing. This should be the focus of the Government: delivering one-for-one replacement, not seeking to deny the opportunity to some of our most disadvantaged families to own their own home, which has proven to be one of the greatest mechanisms for social mobility in this country.

I turn to why right to buy can increase access to social housing. Some might find this counterintuitive, so forgive me if I get a little into the weeds. I refer to the Government’s impact statement, in particular to table four on page 24, which shows that, in 2026-27, the pre-November 2024 baseline was 8,050 right-to-buy sales supporting some 5,450 replacement homes. That is the “do nothing” scenario. It also shows that, once the restrictions are fully in place from this Bill and the legacy impacts wind down in the period 2031 to 2035, annual right-to-buy sales are projected to fall to around 1,100 a year, with around 1,450 replacement homes.

I applaud the Government’s ambition for one-for-one replacement—in fact, rather better than that—but, despite that, by the Government’s own analysis, there will be 4,000 fewer new social homes funded every year, or 6,600 if there were a one-for-one replacement. The Minister has argued that more social homes will be retained and, yes, there will be around 3,000 per year. Notwithstanding that this assumes a failure to deliver one-for-one replacement, I would like to examine the impact of this figure, because it ignores a critical factor. Retaining a social home does not mean that it is available for a new tenant. The family still live there; it is just that they have been denied the opportunity to own their own home.

Based on figures from the House of Lords Library, around a net 3% of social homes become available each year for new tenancies, so, of the 3,000 additional homes that are retained, only around 90 would be available each year for a new tenant. Compare that with the 4,000 new social homes if the current right to buy were to continue. The cumulative impact over 10 years would be 35,000 fewer families having the opportunity to own their own social home and, if the Government focused on one-for-one replacement, 65,000 families. As we discussed in Committee, when we are having a housing crisis, this will result in 4,000 fewer homes being delivered every year. Can the Minister explain how denying a home to 4,000 families a year fits with the Prime Minister’s announcement this afternoon about eliminating homelessness?

That is why we have tabled amendments which seek to retain important features of the existing framework, including qualifying arrangements, discount provisions and other safeguards that have formed part of the scheme for many years. Amendments 1 and 2 would protect those who are already secure tenants when the legislation comes into force. The principle is straightforward: existing tenants accepted their tenancy with a legitimate expectation that, after three years, they would become eligible for right to buy under current arrangements. It is one thing to change arrangements for future tenants; it is quite another to make retrospective changes for existing tenants. This is about fairness and a fair transition.

Finally, Amendment 6 is in my name and that of my noble friend Lady O’Neill of Bexley. The Government are proposing to retain a right of first refusal in perpetuity for the local council whenever a right-to-buy property is sold by the owner. The current position is 10 years, which seems proportionate. Perpetuity is a very long time. This raises multiple questions about inheritance, redevelopment, long-term blight and evidencing many years after the event that you actually did offer it. This is bad law and risks inevitable problems for the future.

There is a simple choice before us. Do we support aspiration? Do we support the opportunity for families to own their own home? Do we support increasing the availability of social housing for those on council waiting lists? Do we support building more homes in a period of housing crisis? Or, for ideological reasons, will the Members opposite deny tenants the opportunity of home ownership? Will they deny those on council waiting lists the opportunity of a secure and affordable social home, while cutting housebuilding? We should not seek to stop right to buy. The better approach would be to strengthen replacement, reinvestment and local delivery. I beg to move and look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB)]

My Lords, I have Amendment 7 in this group and must once again refer to my interests as a retired member of a Somerset farming family which lets some houses on the farm.

During the passage of this Bill, I have explained how the shortage of affordable housing to rent in rural areas has had and continues to have long-term social and economic consequences for our communities. It has led to school, shop and pub closures and reductions in transport and other services—quite apart from the effect on the viability of local businesses. Traditional family and social networks have collapsed, and all this has been caused by a lack of affordable housing to rent in our countryside. We must protect this stock, both where it remains and where, hopefully, it is soon to be added to. I will not say any more about all this because your Lordships have heard it all before and I have had support from noble Lords on all sides of the House.

I thank the Minister and her team for meeting to discuss our concerns about how the strict interpretation in how Section 157 of the 1985 Housing Act was implemented resulted in over 60% of rural parishes being excluded from the exemption to the right to buy. Thus 60% of all rural parishes remained exposed to the near certainty of losing their council houses—and they did. We must not let this happen again. The problem was, and remains, that in the 1985 Act, Section 157 regulations require that local authorities apply to the Secretary of State for rural area designation of their rural parishes: that is, parishes that have a population below 3,000, with less than two persons per hectare. The problem was and is that few local authorities applied. Most local authorities did not realise that this was a requirement, had transferred their stock to a registered provider or did not have the resources to put together the necessary evidence. The point is that they did not apply and therefore we lost 60% of conforming rural parishes.

At our meeting with the Minister and her team, we all agreed that this must not happen again—hence my amendment, which I tabled in Committee and repeat here. We also agreed that it was not strictly necessary for the definition of a designated rural area to be in the Bill. Therefore, I agreed not to press my amendment to a vote, provided we had some sort of undertaking that, at least in the short term, all parishes that fitted the criteria could be included, whether or not their local authority had made an application following the 1985 Act. It would be unfortunate, to say the least, if the Government merely rolled over the post-1985 list of parishes with designated rural area status. I am counting on the Minister to reassure me on that point.

--- Later in debate ---

On the basis of the reasons that I have set out and the reassurances I have given, I ask that noble Lords do not press their amendments.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I should have declared at the outset that I am still a council member in Central Bedfordshire.

This debate has highlighted a number of important issues concerning the future of right to buy. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, for raising the issue of access to rural housing. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and my noble friend Lady Coffey for raising the issue of transparency, which is important, and my noble friend Lord Fuller for raising the issue of retention of local receipts.

However, I return to my main theme, which I discussed earlier. Right to buy and recycling the receipts from it gives an opportunity for people to own their own home. It enables the building of more social housing and reduces the housing list, because a new home is 100% available: you do not have to wait, on average, 30 years for that house to become available. It also increases the housing stock of this country. That is win-win-win. Stopping right to buy is lose-lose-lose. It stops aspiration. It will mean longer council housing waiting lists and fewer homes being built. It is particularly egregious that those who are already secure tenants will be denied the opportunity to buy their own home after three years, something that they could reasonably expect to do.

I am therefore still minded to press my Amendment 1 and its consequential Amendment 2, because this is about fairness and opportunity. On these Benches, we think this is an important issue and we wish to protect it. I would like to test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Best (CB)]

My Lords, for once I rise to oppose—at least in part—an amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham: Amendment 77. I want to defend the concept of providing secure social housing tenancies for life. The review proposed in Amendment 77 envisages five-yearly reviews of whether a tenancy should continue, with the possibility of a consequent requirement for a tenant to move elsewhere if their circumstances have changed sufficiently. This would engender a constant state of uncertainty and insecurity for every social housing tenant.

Apart from the administrative overload, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, has drawn attention, I suggest there are some powerful reasons why denying social housing tenants a secure lifetime tenancy is likely to have undesirable consequences. First, the section of the Housing and Planning Act 2016 that has not been introduced to date, and which the Bill intends to repeal, would have required social housing tenants to pay a higher rent if their income improves. In theory, this would pressurise tenants to move on into the private rented sector or, less probably, to buy their own home elsewhere. I maintain that no regime should penalise tenants in social housing who improve their position in life by working hard and earning more. They should not be expected to pay for their success by facing higher rents. A system of rising rents for rising incomes brings disincentives to work longer hours, or even to work at all.

Secondly, if a tenant leaves subsidised housing because their improved financial position has meant a penalty in their rent, what happens if they have a reversal of their fortunes? The PRS property to which they have moved will no longer be affordable on their now reduced income, but it would be virtually impossible for them to regain a social home lost in this way.

Thirdly, if tenants are pressurised to move out of social housing and into private renting when their personal circumstances improve, they are likely to encounter the problem that their income will drop on retirement. A market rent that was affordable when they were working can swiftly become unaffordable when they are retired. The taxpayer will then get lumbered with a further increase in the housing benefit bill.

Fourthly, keeping households on an estate of social rented housing, despite their circumstances improving, has social and community advantages. A mixed-income estate that includes some tenants on rather higher incomes means successful neighbours providing role models for other families, often demonstrating community leadership for resident-led activity.

Fifthly, if tenants are encouraged or compelled to move out when they do well, those who remain could be stigmatised as losers and failures. This stigma can seriously affect children’s life chances, as American research into concentrated poverty has revealed.

Finally, there is the argument that tenants should be compelled to move on if they no longer need the space they are occupying—for example, if they have a spare bedroom. For this, the bedroom tax presents a case study. This reduction in housing benefit was intended to incentivise underoccupying tenants to move out but, in reality, very few of those facing the bedroom tax proved willing or able to move. Rather, the withdrawal of benefit from those with a spare room has served only to reduce the incomes of those affected. It has seldom been possible for the downsizing tenant to find a suitable home elsewhere. They have simply been made poorer through losing some of the housing benefit that previously covered their rent.

Instead, carrots rather than sticks have been shown to work in persuading older tenants to downsize into later living homes, such as a cluster of smart new apartments that replaced redundant garages on a council estate. Rather than pressurising elderly tenants to downsize, the incentive of a more suitable home—nearby accommodation that is more accessible and manageable —produces better results for everyone.

For all these reasons, I caution against a review that considers alternatives to secure-for-life social housing tenancies. These alternatives are likely to diminish the quality of life for tenants, especially measures that pressurise tenants unwillingly into an enforced move. Like most of us who are home owners, tenants in social housing thrive on the knowledge that they are secure in their own homes for as long as they choose.

On Amendment 78, I do not support the unhelpful provision in the Housing and Planning Act 2016 to terminate fixed-term secure tenancies, which has never been implemented. This Bill is right to repeal that measure and preserve long-term security of tenure for social housing renters.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I will not seek to elaborate on the excellent speech by my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham, who made a powerful case that, where we have an asset with a finite supply and excessive demand, we need to look at how we can use it effectively.

I say to the noble Lord, Lord Best, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, who spoke about the impact on the tenant: what about that person who is not able to access social housing because it is occupied by somebody who could comfortably afford their own private rented home or could afford a higher rent? I am not suggesting that everyone can but, where we have a finite resource, we need to use it efficiently. Ultimately, that is about fairness, not just to the existing tenant but to families, often in difficult circumstances, for whom the opportunity of a social home could turn their lives around—as it has turned around the life of somebody who has moved on and been successful. It is also about fairness to taxpayers. Why should someone who is struggling to pay their private rent see their taxes fund a subsidised home for someone earning more than they are? Again, I am not saying that they all are. This is about moving on.

I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Best, raised the issue of incentives and carrots, so I was surprised that, earlier on, he did not support the incentive of the ability to buy your own home under the right to buy. Surely that is a tremendous incentive for anyone who could afford to do it, thereby creating, through building, another social home for somebody in tremendous need.

With that, I very much support my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham’s amendment and the retention of the previous Conservative measure, because it is about fairness. It is about using stock wisely and about ensuring that it does the maximum amount of good for the maximum number of people.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, for Amendment 77. I recognise that the intention is to ensure that social housing stock is being used as effectively as possible by requiring local housing authorities to review lifetime secure tenancies at least every five years. But the Government’s position is clear: we support secure tenancies because they provide stability and certainty for social housing tenants in the long term, and for the communities in which they live. This is especially important for families, older people, disabled people and other vulnerable households, who need a stable and secure home and the ability to put down roots in their communities that comes with the certainty that lifetime secure tenancies offer.

Local housing authorities already have tools to manage their housing stock and to support tenants who wish to move to accommodation that better meets their needs. Local authorities can carry out checks to assure themselves that tenants are meeting the terms of their tenancies. I agree that social homes should be used as effectively as possible to support housing need and that we should support landlords to ensure that this is the case. That is why the Government have launched a review into how effectively social housing providers are using their properties. This work is considering how landlords understand tenants’ changing needs and support tenant movement, including where changes result in tenants underoccupying homes. I wrote to all noble Lords ahead of Report with further details of this review. It will report later this year and will be used to help inform future policy development. It is important that we let this work conclude to better understand current practices and challenges before taking action.

On the extensive social housebuilding programme, the answer to lack of supply and to the people on the waiting list is: build more social housing. We have an extensive social housebuilding programme. Inevitably, it had a lead-in time but, now that funding is being allocated, it will quickly accelerate—and I suspect it might accelerate even more quickly now we have new management in place, but that is to be seen later.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

I feel it is important to comment on that. That programme was announced over a year ago—I am pleased that the Minister has told me now that the allocations are available—and it will be interesting to see when the cash is out of the door. It will not deliver housing for at least another 18 months to two years. That is not making the step change that we need now.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

But it is a programme that we started on, immediately we came into power, to fill the gap left by not building social homes for all those 14 years before we were in power. I appreciate that it takes a bit of time to get going, but we need to make a start on it, get the money out to those who will build the homes, and get them built.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, for Amendment 78. I understand that this amendment seeks to ensure that social housing is focused on those most in need. However, we do not believe that this is the right approach. As I outlined in Committee, the provisions on high-income tenants contained in the Housing and Planning Act 2016 have never been implemented. To provide regulatory certainty, Clause 17 repeals the provisions. The noble Lord, Lord Young, spoke about ducking tough decisions. These measures were never implemented by the previous Government due to concerns that administrative costs would likely outweigh the revenue raised. We also want to avoid creating disincentives for tenants to increase their earnings.

Furthermore, income should not be equated with housing need or indeed a lack of housing need. Some households earning higher incomes may have additional needs that mean that social housing is the only appropriate option for them. This is an important consideration. Social landlords already have flexibility to run discretionary schemes for higher-earning tenants if they wish to do so, and they will retain this flexibility. For those reasons, I ask that these amendments are not pressed.