Social Housing Bill (Third sitting)

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 29th October 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Lewis Cocking]

I thank the hon. Member for his kind words; I have great respect for him too. He makes an interesting point, but it is a wider issue than that. It is about appropriate development in the right place, followed up by infrastructure.

I agree that brownfield sites are usually in the centre of towns. As I said on Second Reading, we are all fed up with driving past sites with all the hoarding up. The sites have planning permission: either they have gone through the planning committee, and the local council has said, “Yes, we will give permission based on these circumstances,” or unfortunately it has not, but permission has been won on appeal. It creates a certain feel in a town centre when someone goes down and sees all the hoarding up on the brownfield sites.

In the heart of my constituency, in Cheshunt, we have a care home waiting to be built. It is a long-overdue facility in the local community that we really want to see built, but it has been left empty for years and years, and we just see the hoarding up. It creates a real sense of loss of pride in a place when someone goes down to the town centre and sees site after site like that. We have sites in Hoddesdon that got planning permission in 2014 and have only just started moving through this process.

Lots of things affect house build-out rates, but this Government could do much more to give powers to local councils to get these brownfield sites off the ground, because there are thousands of sites across the country that have planning permission but remain unbuilt.

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

Can the hon. Gentleman give us an example of the powers he has in mind that councils do not currently enjoy, but should?

[Lewis Cocking]

I know that the Minister has a lot of expertise in this area. One example is that when standard planning permission is issued, a developer might get three years to build. As we have seen in my local area, that does not necessarily mean that something gets built; it just means that they have started on site. That could be digging a hole or building the first wall; nothing is actually produced at the end of it. I would like councils to have a “use it or lose it” power, which would mean that someone cannot necessarily finish building just because they have started digging on site.

[Matthew Pennycook]

That is a very interesting line of argument. Is it now the Conservative party’s official position that “use it or lose it” powers should be introduced for brownfield sites?

[Lewis Cocking]

I think we have to explore all options. I want to protect as much of the green belt as possible. We all have brownfield sites in our constituency that we want used to meet the social housing targets and bring down waiting lists.

Unfortunately, the Bill talks about stopping the right to buy. I just want to put it on the record that if we do that, the people who bought those houses will still be in them. Those people, and the waiting lists, will not magically disappear if we get rid of the right to buy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Patrick Spencer]

We would not argue against that statement one bit. I am not trying to expunge social tenants from rural England. Suffolk is not just a load of farms and tractor driving; we have a lot of working-class towns. We need social housing, but we are talking about the future of social housing, the future of our economy and the future of our dynamism. We have always moaned jealously about the French, the Germans and the Americans for having dynamic economies with engines of prosperity outside the capital city, while we are stuck with a unimodal economy that is so rooted in London—it is crazy that I am making the Prime Minister’s arguments for him from the Opposition Benches, but anyway.

Surely this is an opportunity. If we are going to build 50,000 to 100,000 or 150,000 homes, and if we are going to tackle the 1.3 million people who are stuck on the waiting list for social houses, why do we not make sure that that is aligned with our responsibility for economic growth? We are all bored with hearing from experts, friends and family members about the lack of joined-up policymaking across Government. This Bill, which is not an inconsequential Bill but is one piece of a wide patchwork of legislation, is a good example of how we can align with a wider economic agenda that we can all get behind.

[Matthew Pennycook]

It is a pleasure to continue our proceedings and to see you in the Chair, Sir Roger. After the Opposition’s—to put it candidly—languid approach in our previous sittings, I welcome the fact that they have clearly woken up and are now fully participating in the debate. Partly for that reason, we had a remarkably productive first day in Committee on Tuesday. Our debates on many of the clauses and amendments were predictably spirited; nevertheless, they remained civil and, in the main, constructive. I hope we can proceed in that vein today.

Before I respond to the new clauses, I will make a general point—a point that the shadow Minister is clearly struggling to grasp. Our ambitions to deliver the biggest increase in social and affordable house building in a generation will benefit from the Bill, but they are not entirely dependent on this one piece of legislation. The supply statistics speak for themselves. Let me give the statistics from 2024-25. Overall social and affordable house building: 64,921, the highest level since 2014-15. Social housing on its own: 12,267, the highest level since 2012-13. Council-delivered homes: 10,600, the highest level since 1991-92. That is this Government’s record on social and affordable housing—and, by the way, this was all prior to the initial allocations from our social and affordable housing programme, which have now been made. We have increased supply, we will increase it further, and the Bill will make a material impact on doing so.

I turn to new clause 1. As the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington is fully aware, we are committed, in line with our manifesto, to delivering the biggest increase in social and affordable house building in a generation, to prioritising the building of new social rented homes and to supporting councils and housing associations to make a greater contribution to affordable supply. In the 27 months for which we have been in office, we have faithfully sought to honour those commitments. We have made the biggest long-term investment in social and affordable housing in recent memory, an investment that was topped up in yesterday’s Budget by a further £1.5 billion pounds, as the hon. Member rightly recognised. We are vigorously prioritising social rented housing, we are rebuilding the capacity of councils and housing associations to borrow and invest in new and existing homes, and we are reinvigorating council house building.

In his more generous moments, the Liberal Democrat spokesperson acknowledged the transformative impact of what this Government have done on social housing supply. I understand—indeed, I welcome and embrace—his encouragement and support for raising our ambition further. However, given the nature of our inheritance from the Conservative party, with social housing supply averaging a historical low of fewer than 8,000 units per year from 2013 to 2024, following the purposeful and deliberate pivot to affordable rented tenures, a target of 150,000 new social homes per year is not currently realistic. A statutory requirement to produce a strategy for delivering such volumes within 12 months of Royal Assent is not a proposition that we can support.

I say gently to the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington that his party continues wildly to underestimate the costs of supplying social housing on the scale that he proposes. The Government’s estimate of the grant funding required to support the delivery of 150,000 social homes is in excess of £20 billion per year. For obvious reasons, the hon. Member’s party has escaped the kind of scrutiny to which the Government and the official Opposition are subject, but if his party wants that 150,000 figure to be taken seriously it will have to set out a credible funding strategy. To date, it has not done so.

[Gideon Amos]

We shall certainly be setting that out prior to going into government. The Minister makes an extensive argument that 150,000 is not the right target. Shelter and the National Housing Federation say that a minimum of 90,000 are needed per year. What is the Government’s target?

[Matthew Pennycook]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, because we have had this debate many times, to date we have not set a national social and affordable housing target. That is because, as I have explained on numerous occasions, social and affordable homes come through grant funding and through the section 106 process; it is for local authorities to set out the needs for their particular areas as part of local plans. As he knows, through the NPPF we have strengthened some of the expectations in that area.

I turn to the hon. Gentleman’s new clause 4. The Government have already taken several steps to rebuild the capacity of councils to borrow and invest in new and existing homes, including the fundamental reform of the right-to-buy scheme at the heart of the Bill, as well as a 10-year social housing rent settlement, and social rent convergence.

In the Budget yesterday, it was confirmed that preferential borrowing rates for council house building will remain in place until at least March 2028 to support councils to borrow more cheaply for house building. There are no current restrictions exercised by central Government on the amount that councils can borrow via their housing revenue accounts for house building purposes. Councils are now free to borrow in line with the prudential code, which requires them to demonstrate that any borrowing is affordable, prudent, sustainable and proportionate. Those are precisely the types of test that the hon. Member’s new clause envisages. They are essential to ensure that local authority finances are managed sensibly and sustainably while ensuring sufficient flexibility to meet local housing targets. As such, in our view it is not necessary to accept the new clause as there are no restrictions to remove.

I turn to new clause 34, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Orpington. The Government are strongly committed—as was the previous Government, as several hon. Members have fairly pointed out—to a brownfield-first approach, including for the development of social housing. Let me be clear. I say this on every occasion I can: once permissions are granted, we expect to see them built out as quickly as possible. Opposition Members will not have to wait long for the build-out transparency package, on which we consulted some time ago, to be brought forward.

On 17 August, the Government published a new national planning policy framework that makes it clear that authorities should plan to meet as many of their development needs as possible on brownfield land. To strengthen support for the development of brownfield land, the new NPPF encourages higher densities in sustainable locations and greater intensification of urban and suburban sites. It also introduces a presumption that development inside settlements should be approved unless any adverse effects would substantially outweigh the benefits of doing so.

Furthermore, through the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026, the Government have committed to make regulations requiring strategic planning authorities to have regard to the desirability of prioritising development on previously developed land. That arose from a challenge we received from the Opposition during the passage of the Act. Taken together, those measures demonstrate the Government’s strong and continued support for brownfield development in national policy.

On social housing in particular, national planning policy reflects our commitment to the delivery of social rent homes. It requires local planners to set out minimum proportions of social rent required on new development. As everyone knows, the NPPF is a material consideration of critical importance in planning decisions and local plans are required to be prepared with regard to it. It is therefore the right place to set clear expectations for how and where development should come forward. A requirement to produce a separate brownfield land social housing development strategy would be unnecessary and duplicative, as existing policy and relevant plans already sufficiently achieve its aim.

On the point made by the hon. Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich, policy in this area is already aligned; we do not need a separate brownfield land strategy. Such strategies are, as I have previously dubbed them, the last refuge of an Opposition scrabbling around for meaningful policy amendments to a Bill. For those reasons, and having given those assurances, we cannot accept the new clauses.

[Gareth Bacon]

This is starting to become quite fun. I do not accept the Minister’s comments. We will seek to divide the Committee on new clause 34 at the appropriate moment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gareth Bacon]

I rise to speak to my new clause 53. Many people in social housing have come into their new home after a past marred by hardship and a lack of safety. When tenants finally have a roof over their head and a place to call home, they must not be left to face unsanitary or unsafe living conditions because of their property owner or manager. That is why we tabled new clause 53, which the hon. Member for Ealing Southall was absolutely correct to describe as a probing amendment. It would add an extra layer of protection for tenants and a fresh route to direct accountability for registered providers.

The new clause would enable tenants of a registered provider to request an inspection by the Regulator of Social Housing, giving tenants new powers to ensure that their home is not just four walls, but a sanctuary. It is vital that social housing tenants be able to make the most of the regulator’s functions and that the regulator be not just a bureaucratic machine, but a voice for the vulnerable.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the hon. Members for Taunton and Wellington and for Orpington for tabling and speaking to their new clauses. This Government are determined to ensure that social housing tenants live in safe and decent homes, and that they are listened to and have access to redress when things go wrong. However, I am not persuaded that these amendments are necessary.

In the spirit of cross-party generosity, I will say that the powers taken under the Social Housing (Regulation) Act 2023 under the previous Government did not do all bad things; there were some good things that the previous Government did, and we should acknowledge them. The Act provided the powers for that regulatory framework, which provides strong mechanisms for tenant voice and regulatory oversight.

In 2024, the regulator introduced a new proactive regulation regime and has since begun inspecting all large landlords at least once every four years. The regulator issues a consumer grading after those inspections, so that it is clear to tenants and the public how well the landlords are performing. In addition, the regulator retains the ability to engage with landlords outside these routine inspections if concerns are raised.

[Lewis Cocking]

I thank the Minister for giving way; he is always very generous with his time. Does he believe that the Regulator of Social Housing has enough powers to deal with the issues that he describes? That is just me, in a good spirit, asking a genuine question about how he thinks it is operating.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I am always open to evidence that it does not have sufficient powers. My judgment is that it does, and that the consumer ratings it hands out—we are getting a steady stream of them now—really do have an impact in driving improvements in landlord behaviour.

Central to the regime is the regulator’s independent and risk-based approach. That allows the regulator to target its engagement and interventions to areas where there is the greatest risk of harm to tenants. It is worth clarifying that tenants and other members of the public can refer matters to the regulator where they believe that a registered provider may not be meeting the outcomes of the standards, and the regulator may take those concerns into account as part of its wider regulatory activity, including inspections. However, in our view, introducing tenant-triggered inspections risks cutting across that approach by potentially diverting regulatory resource away from higher-risk providers or issues, while undermining the regulator’s ability to act independently. Our view is that the existing framework already ensures that tenants’ concerns can inform regulatory action, by allowing the regulator to determine where intervention is most needed.

On new clause 53, which the shadow Minister made clear is a probing amendment, I would have particular concerns about introducing a mechanism whereby the regulator would inspect individual tenant’s dwellings. Although individual tenants can escalate issues to the regulator, as I have made clear, it considers performance against the regulatory standards at a landlord level and seeks assurance that the landlord is delivering the outcomes set out in the regulatory standards.

The regulator directly inspecting individual homes would move away from its co-regulatory approach and would require significant additional resource. In addition, tenant views already play an important role in the existing regime, and the regulator draws on a range of sources as part of its inspections, including through the landlords complaints process, the Housing Ombudsman and direct referrals. The existing framework ensures that tenants already play an important role in the system, without the need for a statutory mechanism to trigger inspections.

For those reasons, I respectfully ask hon. Members not to press their new clauses.

[Gideon Amos]

I wish to press new clause 3 to a vote.

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Gideon Amos]

The new clause stands in my name and in the name of my Liberal Democrat colleagues. The run-up to Remembrance Sunday and Armistice Day is the appropriate time to consider and take account of the needs of service personnel and veterans under the Bill. About 3% of rough sleepers are veterans, according to the No Homeless Veterans campaign. Government research found that 2,180 veteran households were assessed as at risk of experiencing homelessness. One of the most significant reasons for that is post-traumatic stress disorder, which obviously affects many veterans, and one in three veterans are also disabled.

The new clause would require the Secretary of State to review and report to Parliament on the provision of social housing for former members of the armed services. To anticipate the point that this is simply a review, surely no group can be more important to review the performance of social housing for than our veterans and those who have put their lives at risk for our country.

I shall speak now to new clause 12, which also stands in my name and those of my Liberal Democrat colleagues, rather than having to sit down and stand up again—a great tradition in this House. New clause 12 is on reviewing access to social housing for rehabilitated offenders. There has been a staggering 26% year-on-year increase in the number of households requiring homelessness support due to leaving care, custody or hospital.

When it comes to rehabilitated offenders, the last thing we want are offenders whose rehabilitation is not sustained or supported due to their having nowhere to live. One in 10 of those sleeping rough were recently discharged from an institution. That is a massive number. We need to do better by those who need that support. One in six prison leavers had no fixed abode on their first night in 2025-26. About 1,000 a month were released to rough sleeping in 2024-25, up about 40% in a year. I therefore respectfully submit both new clauses to the Committee for consideration.

[Matthew Pennycook]

As the hon. Member set out, new clauses 5 and 12 would require the Secretary of State to publish reports on access to social housing for former members of the armed forces and for former offenders, respectively.

We want to ensure that the social housing allocation system works fairly and effectively. Current and former members of the armed forces community benefit from strong protections within the allocations framework, including receiving the highest preference where they have a housing need. Where local connection or residency tests apply to determine who qualifies for an allocation of social housing, legislation exempts the armed forces community, regardless of when they last served. That ensures that they are not disadvantaged when applying for social housing due to the mobility required by service life. New clause 23, which we debated on Tuesday, will also ensure that veterans do not face local-connection barriers when seeking homelessness assistance.

Statutory guidance is in place on improving access to social housing for members of the armed forces. There are not specific protections in the system for former offenders, who will have their housing need considered in the same way as other groups. They may fall within other existing statutory reasonable preference categories—for example, where they are homeless, need to move on welfare grounds or need to move because of medical or other relevant needs. Work is already under way to update statutory guidance on social housing allocation to ensure that allocations reflect local need and effectively support vulnerable households. Our call for evidence on this issue recently closed, and we are now working with partners to prepare updated guidance. We plan to consult on that updated guidance next year.

With that comprehensive review already under way, we do not consider that there is a need to conduct separate reviews for specific groups such as former members of the armed forces or former offenders. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington is sufficiently reassured to consider withdrawing the new clause.

[Gideon Amos]

New clause 5 is not a burdensome amendment; it is a review of access to social housing for former service personnel. I hear what the Minister says about the Government keeping these matters under review, but surely a Social Housing Bill should commit to supporting our veterans and armed service community in this way. I will press the new clause to a vote.

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Gideon Amos]

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

The new clause relates to the requirement for wheelchair-accessible social housing. Social tenants are worse served now than they were in terms of access to wheelchair- accessible housing. In 2022-23, a third of wheelchair users in the social sector were placed in homes that were neither accessible nor adapted, according to Age UK.

The planning system is also something of a postcode lottery. Only 170 out of 311 local plans set targets for wheelchair user homes. Nationally, one wheelchair-accessible home is planned per 538 people; the south-west plans one per 810 people; London plans one per 210 people; and the north-west plans one per 2,006 people. The NPPF does not require any M4(3), which relates to homes that are wheelchair-accessible under the building regulations. It leaves it to local plans to assess need, and we have already seen how this is something of a lottery.

London already has a 10% requirement in its local plan, which proves that 10% is achievable. The Minister may say that this is a matter for devolution, so that local communities rather than central Government can decide, and that councils are free to follow that example. However, we say that a minimum floor of 10% is reasonable, and it has been considered by a previous Government. We respectfully submit that 10% of new social housing should be wheelchair-accessible.

[Matthew Pennycook]

New clause 6, tabled by the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington, seeks to ensure that at least 10% of new social housing dwellings meet the M4(3) wheelchair-accessible standard in the building regulations. I very much commend where he is coming from with the new clause.

The Government recognise the importance of increasing the supply of housing for older people and those with disabilities. The hon. Gentleman is right that for many years it has been something of a postcode lottery. That is why the new national planning policy framework recognised the need to drive up, through planning policy, rates of M4(2) requirements, and we have set a minimum floor of 40%. It is also why, when it comes to M4(3), the NPPF requires plans to set out the proportion that should be delivered to that standard to meet or exceed identified need. In our view, that is a significant step forward in ensuring that more wheelchair-accessible housing is delivered. However, we recognise that M4(3) is a specialised product for wheelchair users, with levels of need differing considerably between local areas.

Our approach acknowledges that local authorities are best placed to assess accessible housing needs in their areas and to set out appropriate exemptions. A blanket 10% M4(3) requirement would risk undermining policies set at a local level. To support the locally led approach, we have committed to producing guidance to assist local authorities in assessing the housing needs of disabled people, to ensure that assessments of need are robust and consistent. Social and affordable homes programme funding can also be used to support the delivery of much-needed new supported housing, including new accessible homes.

In our view, national policy remains the most effective route through which planning reform should be pursued. Imposing such a requirement in legislation rather than in policy, as this new clause seeks to do, would be unduly rigid, could limit an authority’s ability to respond to local circumstances and could constrain growth. We therefore think it is right to continue addressing these matters through planning policy and guidance.

For those reasons, I kindly ask the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington to withdraw the new clause.

[Gideon Amos]

I hear what the Minister says, but we have had these expressions in guidance and policy before, and we are still a long way from having suitable provision for wheelchair-accessible homes. With the leave of the Committee, I will therefore press new clause 6 to a vote.

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

--- Later in debate ---

My intention is to press new clause 7, but not new clause 9, to a vote.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington for tabling new clause 7, which I will start with. He is absolutely right to draw attention to overheating, and I assure him that the Government recognise the scale of the challenge it presents.

Overheating in homes is already a severe public health issue, and one that will grow only more acute in the years ahead, for the reasons that the hon. Gentleman has rightly stated. We know there are health risks and implications for excess deaths for particularly vulnerable populations. We take it extremely seriously, and we agree that new homes should protect everyone from the risks of overheating. That is why part O of schedule 1 to the Building Regulations 2010 requires that new residential buildings in England are built to mitigate the risk of overheating. The Government continue to keep these requirements under review, and a full technical review of part O is currently under way to ensure that the framework remains effective and proportionate. These requirements already apply to newly built social housing, ensuring that residents benefit from the same standards of overheating mitigation regardless of their tenure type. The accompanying statutory guidance, approved document O, sets out how these requirements can be met.

The new clause would require active cooling, such as air conditioning, to be installed wherever an indoor temperature of 21°C cannot be maintained. Conversely, part O assesses the risk to health posed by overheating through an evidence-based methodology and does not rely on a single prescribed temperature threshold. Part O also prioritises passive measures, such as shading and natural ventilation, which help to prevent homes from becoming too hot in the first place. In many cases, overheating can be effectively mitigated through passive measures alone, so part O helps to create homes that are resilient to hot weather while limiting energy use, carbon emissions and energy bills for residents.

[Gideon Amos]

I apologise for interrupting the Minister’s flow. To clarify, the new clause proposes active cooling only where that temperature cannot be achieved otherwise. The priority of passive measures would continue with this new clause.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I welcome that clarification. I was going to say that part O does not prohibit any form of active cooling where designers can demonstrate that it is appropriate.

As I say, part O encourages passive design measures before relying on mechanical systems. In many cases, as I have said, overheating can be effectively mitigated through passive measures. Mechanical cooling, such as air conditioning, can be used to mitigate overheating where all reasonably practicable steps have been taken to minimise it through passive means. For those reasons, we think that the new clause would likely increase the unnecessary use of mechanical cooling, with associated costs for both developers and residents. I therefore ask the hon. Member kindly to withdraw the new clause.

New clause 9 concerns zero-carbon standards for new social housing. The Government fully recognise the importance of ensuring that new homes, including social housing, support our legally binding net zero target. We share the hon. Gentleman’s ambition to deliver homes that are energy efficient, low carbon and fit for the future. That is exactly what the future homes standard will achieve. The reassurance that I was going to give him in my intervention was that that is not affected by the Chancellor’s announcement yesterday of an effective moratorium on major new regulations, setting aside the qualifications that he set out at Dispatch Box with regard to building safety issues.

The Government legislated for the future homes standard in March, and it will come into force for non-higher-risk buildings from 24 March 2027, and for higher-risk buildings from 24 September 2027. It will apply to all new homes, including social housing. Homes built to this standard will have high levels of energy efficiency, use low-carbon heating and, in most cases, generate renewable electricity on site. These homes will also be zero-carbon ready, meaning that they will produce very little carbon and will become zero carbon once the national grid is fully decarbonised, without requiring further retrofit.

That is the really important point: we are retrofitting homes that have been built over recent years—at great cost—because of a previous Government’s decision to remove the required standards that were in place. We could go into that and the costs that that entails, but they are outside the scope of the Bill. We are ensuring that the new homes that come forward, once the standard is in place, are zero-carbon ready, so they will not require further retrofit.

The Government have also worked carefully to set a standard that delivers substantial carbon savings while remaining proportionate, technically feasible and deliverable at scale. In our view, introducing further new standards would risk creating a separate and potentially inconsistent regulatory regime for social housing, as well as additional cost and delivery pressures for the sector. Although I agree with the objective behind the new clause, I consider that the future homes standard already provides the appropriate means of achieving its aims. For those reasons, I respectfully ask the hon. Gentleman not to press new clause 9 to a vote.

[Gideon Amos]

On new clause 7, the cool rule, I appreciate that, as the Minister points out, there is no prohibition on active cooling being used in new homes, but the fact is that we need to secure cooling. We cannot just leave it so that only the most luxury accommodation has cooling in the extremely hot summers that we are having. Just as we have habitable standards for space, daylight and heating, we need a statutory standard for cooling. If it does not come today, I believe it will come, so I wish to press new clause 7 to a vote.

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

New clause 10 seeks to prevent local planning authorities from agreeing to any reduction in the number or proportion of social homes required through a planning obligation or condition. The Government are committed to strengthening the system of developer contributions to ensure that new developments provide necessary affordable homes and infrastructure, and we have already taken a number of steps to that end.

The new NPPF, published on 17 August, seeks to promote greater clarity on expected contributions at the plan-making stage, and to reduce cases of unnecessary site-specific viability assessment by clarifying when it may be appropriate at the decision-making stage. That certainty will help to minimise lengthy negotiations over developer contributions, including affordable housing, on specific sites. At the same time, the framework will retain flexibility for cases where negotiation is genuinely needed to enable sites to come forward.

We are also acting to minimise friction and reduce the complexity involved in the negotiation of section 106 agreements, which are, and will remain, an essential mechanism for delivering social and affordable housing, but which in recent years have become synonymous with inefficiency and delay. The new NPPF formally introduces the category of “medium development”—sites of up to 2.5 hectares with between 10 and 49 units. It also provides the basis for the use of model obligations, as policy DM6(4) states:

“Where national model planning obligations are relevant to the development, they should be used unless there are strong reasons for using a different planning obligation.”

Following that, we launched a consultation on four standardised planning agreements for medium-sized sites, which will be expected to become the default for relevant applications in future. The consultation closed on 20 October 2026, and we are considering the responses received.

The proper process for modifying or discharging planning obligations is set out in section 106A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. I know that the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington knows this; he has great experience in this area from before he came to the House. As set out in my letter to the Planning Inspectorate earlier this year, attempts to revisit fundamental issues of viability or planning obligations through section 73 applications should be carefully scrutinised and supported by robust justification, with due weight given to the impact of any reduction in affordable housing delivery and to the wider merits of the scheme.

[Gideon Amos]

I am grateful to the Minister for engaging on all these amendments, including this one. My question is whether he and the Government recognise that, as in the example I cited, most authorities in southern England cannot meet the five-year housing supply because of the standard method, and that, as a result, social and affordable housing is being removed from planning permissions. Are the Government concerned about that? Are they doing any assessment of how much this is happening?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I am going to be careful, because—as the hon. Gentleman will be fully aware—given the role of Ministers in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government in the planning system, I obviously cannot comment on particular local plans or applications, and I do not know the specific circumstances of the case he cites.

I make the general point—picking up on something that I think the hon. Member for Orpington mentioned earlier—that when we arrived in office, house builders across the country were telling us that the planning system was, in the main, probably the biggest barrier to house building they faced. Following the reforms we have made to national planning policy, they no longer say that; as the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington rightly highlights, viability is the chief concern at the moment. Viability pressures are acute across the country, and in certain parts they are particularly severe—London is a good example—so they are bearing on schemes and what they can bring forward.

If I am honest, I struggle to see the direct link between the standard method, the five-year housing land supply and the housing delivery test concerns that I know the hon. Gentleman has raised in the past, but he and I could have a wider discussion on that outside the Committee. I am trying to remain focused on the intent behind the new clause, which concerns planning obligations and conditions.

Let me just set out the Government’s position on section 73. Alongside ongoing work relating to the implementation of section 73B of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, the Government intend to undertake a wider review of the statutory framework for modifying or discharging existing planning obligations, and we will provide further details about this in due course. I hope that will reassure the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington on section 73B, but I am clear that our intention in reviewing this matter is not to allow developers to more easily reduce planning obligations already entered into, including for affordable housing.

The Government have also acted to deal with the detrimental consequences of a declining market for section 106 affordable homes. We have already taken a number of steps to support demand for section 106 units, not least spending review measures designed to rebuild the capacity of registered providers. As a result, we are seeing tentative signs of improvement in appetite for acquiring section 106 homes.

However, despite that positive shift in sentiment post spending review, we know there are still housing schemes where developers remain unable to secure an RP buyer for the affordable homes set out in an original section 106 agreement, and where local planning authorities and developers have not discussed or reached agreement on variations to planning obligations, with the result that many of these sites are stalling.

It is for that reason that we made it clear in a written ministerial statement on 28 January that we expect all local planning authorities to take advantage of existing planning flexibilities to renegotiate section 106 agreements, and to allow the tenure of homes to be varied to secure a buyer where affordable homes secured in section 106 agreements remain uncontracted or unsolved. As the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington will know, this can be effected by a deed of variation that makes amendments or revisions to existing section 106 agreements, either by agreement of the parties to the section 106 agreement, or by formal application under section 106A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

To pick up directly on new clause 10, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington, our concern is that it could create unintended consequences that may be contrary to our shared objective to boost the supply of social and affordable housing. Notwithstanding his concerns, which I recognise, it is important that the system retains sufficient flexibility for local planning authorities to respond to significant changes in site or economic circumstances after planning permission has been granted, such as a recession or a similarly significant economic change. We are concerned that new clause 10 could unduly restrict that flexibility, which could—this is the ultimate point—cause sites to stall and subsequently reduce overall housing delivery, including overall social and affordable housing delivery.

I suspect that I will not have convinced the hon. Gentleman entirely, but I hope he agrees that, as it stands, the system carefully balances the need for that flexibility with trying to ensure that we maximise the amount of social and affordable housing supply that can be secured. We should avoid legislation that imposes, in our view, an unreasonable degree of rigidity, while obviously continuing our efforts to increase affordable housing delivery overall. On that basis, I hope he might be persuaded to withdraw the new clause on this occasion.

[Gideon Amos]

I appreciate the Minister’s correct analysis that there is a balance to be struck with individual sites, and I accept that. There is a direct link between the standard method and the loss of social housing. The standard method, having been introduced, means that most local plans now cannot meet their five-year housing supply, which means that most of them are no longer effective.

Therefore, if a developer presents an inspector with a site that has both social housing and private housing, the inspector will be forced to conclude, on the section 73 application to amend the plan, that there is no longer an exception that justifies social housing, because all the sites have to come forward, and they all have to be market housing. That is the effect of imposing the standard method and rendering so many local plans no longer effective.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I am not responding to the hon. Gentleman’s point, but I want to make an offer to him, because he will know that I am genuinely interested. He will know that we have tried to strengthen national policy on rural exception sites through the NPPF, so I am very interested in whether he thinks there are particular reasons why that strengthening will not have the desired effect, or whether there are other barriers to bringingforward those sites. We want more of those sites to be brought forward, precisely for the reasons that he has set out.

Draft Private Rented Sector Database Regulations 2026

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Wednesday 28th October 2026 General Committees

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

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Private Rented Sector Database Regulations 2026.

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Wishart. In our manifesto, we promised to overhaul the regulation of an insecure and unjust private rented sector. Our transformative Renters’ Rights Act 2025, which received Royal Assent on 27 October last year, delivered on that commitment. On 13 November, we published an implementation road map setting out our intention to switch on the provisions of the Act in three distinct phases.

The first phase, which entailed the introduction of the new tenancy regime, was implemented on 1 May this year. We are now progressing with the second phase of our reforms. That entails establishing a landlord ombudsman for the PRS to improve dispute resolution, settling issues between tenants and landlords without costly court proceedings, and introducing our innovative database of PRS properties to bring together key information for landlords, tenants and councils.

The regulations we are considering today concern the latter. They set out the registration framework for the database and are essential to enabling its roll-out, which will commence regionally from 15 December. The database will record information about private landlords and privately let properties in England. It will help landlords understand their obligations, give tenants better information before entering into a tenancy and support local authorities with enforcement. The service will be known publicly as the “Register your rental property” service, but I will refer to it as the database for the purposes of the Committee.

The regulations determine how registering for the database will work in practice. They cover who can make entries, what information must be provided and how the database can be kept accurate over time and up to date. Landlords will be required to make a landlord entry, which will include their name and contact information. Entries for organisational landlords will include information about the organisation and its management. Joint landlords will share the dwelling entry for the property, but each will need their own landlord entry.

Landlords will be required to make a dwelling entry for each property, which will contain information including its address, ownership, property type, rent level and relevant management details. Once occupied, it must include tenancy and health and safety information, including uploaded certificates and information relating to gas, electrical and energy performance information. Landlords will be legally responsible for registration, payment, renewal and compliance. Under regulations, they may, however, delegate the supply of certain information to an agent or property manager to reduce administrative burden.

The regulations also allow entries to be made, updated or renewed by certain third parties in discrete circumstances—for example, where a landlord lacks capacity or where a possession restriction is in place when a mortgage provider requires a court order possession of an unregistered property. Entries will need to be kept up to date for an entry to be deemed active. Recorded information will be treated as out of date where details no longer reflect the landlord, property, tenancy or relevant compliance position. It must generally be updated within 28 days. Regulations give the database operator the ability to correct errors and remove entries that do not meet the requirements for inclusion. We will issue guidance on the operational detail, including on the verification of entries by local authorities.

The regulations require landlords to pay a fee to make or renew a dwelling entry. The instrument does not set the fee, but it does delegate that to the database operator. The operator is required to set the fee by reference to the relevant costs as specified in the Renters’ Rights Act. We have separately announced the fee of £65 per property per year, pro-rated during the initial roll-out to ensure that costs remain fair and that those registering first are not paying more.

This is the first of two statutory instruments needed to implement the database. Following parliamentary approval of this first instrument, roll-out of the database will commence on 15 December. Each region will be rolled out in one-month intervals. When a region’s registration window goes live, landlords will have three months to register properties in the region. We have issued guidance showing the order and timings for that. All relevant entries are required to be made by the end of 14 November 2027.

A second statutory instrument will cover the public-facing side of the database, the addition of specified breaches and offences committed by landlords, and further data sharing. We will commence that as soon as possible following completion of the initial roll-out. It will concern what information is made visible to the public and wider data-sharing arrangements. Those matters are not in the scope of these regulations.

To conclude, these regulations put in place the operational requirements needed to begin the roll-out of the PRS database. They are a critical step toward a more transparent and enforceable PRS system, supporting compliance while giving tenants better information about the homes they rent. I commend the regulations to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

I think it is the first time in this Parliament that I have seen the Liberal Democrats and Conservative party in unison. [Interruption.] But if they will let me finish, given that His Majesty’s Opposition opposed the Act outright, I am not surprised by their opposition to this measure, although I am somewhat surprised by the Liberal Democrats’ opposition. I take the challenges on the various points in good faith, however, so let me try and reassure hon. Members about what we are trying to achieve here.

First, on how the data is uploaded, I will make it clear that it is not the case that each landlord needs to log on and upload the same information each year starting from scratch. They need to update the information only if the information they have already entered has changed. Once the initial information has been uploaded, they will not need to change it if it remains unchanged.

We have explored options for enabling bulk uploads—something I have pushed officials on. I started from the same position that Opposition Members did: “Can’t we just allow bulk uploads?” We have concluded, after looking into the issue in some detail, with quite a significant amount of sector engagement, that due to significant challenges with data validation and error handling, traditional solutions such as uploading Excel files—one of the options put to us—would add complexity for the user. We are designing the service to be as straightforward as possible for landlords, including those with larger portfolios. To meet their needs, we will enable organisations to add multiple employees to their accounts, enabling easier administration.

We are looking at how to make it easier for landlords, particularly those managing large portfolios, to connect their existing property management systems directly with the service and to create some efficiencies in that respect. We will look to provide a secure digital connection that landlords and their technology providers can choose to integrate with, reducing the need to enter the information manually to register their properties. We will continue to explore opportunities to improve functionality and reduce burdens as the service develops. I hope that that has answered some of the points about bulk data entry.

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

Not at all!

[Matthew Pennycook]

Well, we are going to look to integrate the management systems of large portfolio holders. I was asked, “Does each large portfolio holder have to sit there and add in each entry every year?” That is not the case. I am trying to clarify some of the misconceptions that have been put to me.

On selective licensing, as we debated at length through the passage of the Act, selective licensing and the database have different purposes. The database will not duplicate or replace selective licensing. We recognise the important role that licensing can continue to play where it is used appropriately. The national database will provide consistent information about private landlords and rental properties across England, supporting transparency, compliance and local authority enforcement.

We will, however, continue to review how selective licensing and the national service interact as implementation progresses, with a specific view to reducing duplication. I very much agree that, in terms of the information currently held when a selective licensing scheme is put in place, there are ways to reduce the amount of that required once the database is in place.

The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Orpington, asked why letting agents cannot register on behalf of landlords. One of the key goals of the database is to improve landlord awareness and capability. Responsibility for ensuring that registration requirements are met will remain with the landlord throughout. Letting and property agents will not have a mandatory role in registration and will not be separately registered through the service. Requiring landlords to initiate registration ensures that they engage with their legal responsibilities from the outset.

We do, however, recognise that letting and property agents play an important role in supporting landlords to meet these responsibilities. To reflect that, agents will be able to support landlords by providing certain information once the landlord has started the registration process. Again, I come back to the importance of the initial registration in this first phase of the roll-out. Where an agent agrees, the landlord will be able to delegate the provision of specific tenancy and health and safety information to them.

A series of points were put to me about the fee. The fee is set at £65 to fund a national service. It is fair, sustainable and capable of supporting effective enforcement. I think the shadow Minister has put to me on several occasions, as has the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington, the need to properly fund local authority enforcement in the private rented sector—here we are with the means to do so. Every landlord is required to pay the annual £65 fee for each property they register on the database. As the fee is charged per property, landlords must pay each time they register a different property.

The fee has been set in that way to balance fairness and sustainability for landlords with the cost of operating the service and tackling non-compliance in the private rented sector. The shadow Minister is absolutely right that the NRLA and other organisations support the database in principle, because it will allow us to bear down on the unscrupulous landlords in the market who do much to colour the reputation of the good landlords out there.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

In my constituency of Bridgwater in Somerset, there is a chronic shortage of rented accommodation. I am concerned that this expensive and cumbersome system will deter further private landlords from renting their properties. If the Minister does not have a system that can process bulk uploads, he should tell his officials to think again—to go out into the private market and get a system that works. He should scrap these regulations and tell his civil servants to think again.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I do not think we need to think again, because we are already thinking about this issue. I say to the hon. Gentleman again that we are exploring how we can make it easier for landlords, particularly those managing large portfolios, to connect their existing management systems directly with the service and integrate them.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

indicated dissent.

[Matthew Pennycook]

The hon. Gentleman shakes his head at me, but if landlords have a way of integrating their service and of providing that faster upload, that is precisely what we are trying to look at already.

[Gareth Bacon]

Would it not, then, be better for the Minister to pause these regulations now, explore that fully and come back once he has adapted the system, so that that can be incorporated? This comes back to the point I was making about regulating now and trying to fiddle with it later. It is not going to work, as large landlords are telling the Minister. Why not pause, work it out and then come back?

[Matthew Pennycook]

We are not going to pause—I say this to the shadow Minister quite plainly—because we want the database in place. It has benefits for landlords in understanding their legal responsibility, and it has benefits for tenants. This is the first of two statutory instruments, as I have made clear. We think we can do that work, working with the sector to understand how we might integrate their management systems.

[Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will give way, and then I am going to make some progress, because the same points continue to be raised.

[Sarah Bool]

I was formerly a commercial property lawyer, so I want to bring up a practical point about enforcement. The ambition behind the regulations—to make sure that everybody, including tenants, has the information that they need—is positive, but the practical reality is that if they cannot be enforced properly, it will cause problems and delays in the rental sector. I advocate for a pause—that is essential. If information needs to be gathered and uploaded for potentially up to 10,000 properties—an extremely large number—it will probably take a year or more to get that information up. Have we thought through the knock-on impacts? I encourage exercising caution, having seen the practical reality of being on the other side when I was a lawyer back in the day.

[Matthew Pennycook]

We have thought through the timetable and the implementation, and we are confident that we can proceed as we intend to.

[Sarah Bool]

Will the Minister give way one more time?

[Matthew Pennycook]

No, I will make some progress.

Fees will support activity to identify and act on non-compliance with the reforms in the Renters’ Rights Act. The funding will support councils, ensuring that they have the staff and skills required to identify and tackle non-compliance and to drive landlords who persist in breaking the law out of the sector. Fees will be pro-rated during the initial roll-out, ensuring that landlords in regions required to register early are treated fairly. To go back to my opening remarks, we will roll-out the measure on a regional basis from December. I think I have answered all the points put to me.

[Gideon Amos]

As always, the Minister is being very generous with his time. He has answered a number of the points raised—I will give him that—but if institutional landlords are paying millions of pounds in fees, the least they should expect is to have a database that works. I welcome the Minister saying that he is continuing to look at the issue, but could he go a smidgen further and commit, on the record, that the Government will ensure that bulk uploads can be achieved? That is the huge failure of the system.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I cannot give the hon. Gentleman that commitment. The Government have looked into the practicality of bulk uploads, and we do not think it is, in the terms he has put it to me, a workable solution. As I have tried to make clear at several points, we are looking at how we can integrate the management systems of larger landlords into the database in a way that does not require them to manually input each of their properties, as has been put to me in this debate. We are looking for those efficiencies—why would we not look for those efficiencies?

On the hon. Gentleman’s point about fees, to be clear, it is not the Government’s intention to use the fees to fund wider costs that are not connected to the private rented sector, but some of the fees will go towards local authority enforcement. As we have debated previously, it is incredibly important that local authorities have the resources to properly enforce the Act.

To conclude, the regulations set out the practical steps required to deliver the PRS database, and set the registration framework that landlords, local authorities and the database operator will follow. In commencing the roll-out of the database, the regulations will support landlord compliance, strengthen local authority enforcement and give tenants better information about the homes that they rent. I therefore commend the regulations to the Committee.

Question put.

Social Housing Bill (Second sitting)

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 27th October 2026 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:

Amendment 3, in clause 12, page 12, line 5, at end insert—

“171AA Right of first refusal: registered providers

(1) This section applies where—

(a) a sale notice has been given under section 171A in relation to a dwelling, and

(b) the dwelling—

(i) is let at social rent, or

(ii) was previously transferred from a local housing authority.

(2) During the period specified in section 171A(3), any registered provider which received a sale notice under section 171A(2) may make an offer to acquire the dwelling.

(3) Where an offer is made under subsection (2), the private registered provider must dispose of the dwelling to the registered provider at existing use value for social housing.

(4) A dwelling acquired under this section must be retained as social housing within the meaning of Part 2 of this Act.

(5) Any dispute as to the existing use value for social housing shall be determined by an independent valuer appointed by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors.

(6) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about the operation of this section.”

This amendment gives registered providers a right of first refusal to acquire social rent dwellings and dwellings previously transferred from local authorities at existing use value for social housing.

Amendment 10, in clause 12, page 12, line 5, at end insert—

“171AA Right of first refusal: local affordable housing providers

(1) This section applies where—

(a) a sale notice has been given under section 171A in relation to a dwelling, and

(b) the dwelling—

(i) is let at social rent, or

(ii) was previously transferred from a local housing authority.

(2) During the period specified in section 171A(3), where a qualifying local affordable housing provider makes an offer to acquire the dwelling, a private registered provider must dispose of the dwelling to the qualifying local affordable housing provider at existing use value for social housing.

(3) A dwelling acquired under this section must be retained as social housing.

(4) In this section, a ‘qualifying local affordable housing provider’ means—

(a) a community land trust;

(b) a housing co-operative;

(c) a community benefit society;

(d) a charity whose purposes include the provision of affordable housing; or

(e) such other locally based not-for-profit housing body as may be prescribed by regulations,

which operates, or intends to operate, affordable housing within the local housing authority area in which the dwelling is situated.

(5) Any dispute as to existing use value for social housing shall be determined by an independent valuer appointed by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors.

(6) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about the operation of this section.”.

This amendment seeks to extend the right of first refusal to not-for-profit community-led housing organisations and other non-registered providers capable of retaining homes as affordable housing within the local area, and provides that the disposal must be at existing use value.

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

It is an absolute pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Western. When we finished this morning’s sitting, I was responding to a point from the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington, who is not in his place; I know he is a trusty reader of Hansard, so I am sure he will see my remarks.

Essentially, I was saying that it would not be appropriate for me to share any specific advice that I have received on the matter that we are debating. It is not the standard procedure for the Government to put official advice in the public domain. I again draw the Committee’s attention to the fact that the decision taken by the Office for National Statistics back in 2015 clearly identified the approval of disposals by the Regulator of Social Housing as a key control that resulted in the reclassification of the housing association sector to public.

It is the Government’s considered opinion that many of the suggestions for further controls over housing association assets, which go beyond the notification requirement in the Bill, would likely be a significant classification risk. I have committed to writing to the hon. Gentleman if there is any further detail that I can provide, but we are somewhat limited in what we can say about how the ONS makes those decisions.

[The Chair]

As we have heard, Gideon Amos is not present. Mr Dillon, do you know what his wishes are? Does he want to withdraw the amendment?

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Gareth Bacon]

I have heard the Minister’s response. As always, I do not in any way doubt his sincerity, but unfortunately he will not always be in post. We would prefer to keep the Government honest on this point, so we intend to press amendment 82 to a Division.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- 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.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 41—Shared ownership strategy—

“(1) Within 12 months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish and lay before Parliament a strategy for increasing opportunities for access to the shared ownership scheme.

(2) The strategy under this section must include proposals relating to—

(a) first-time buyers,

(b) key workers,

(c) housing association provision, and

(d) staircasing arrangements.

(3) For the purposes of this section, ‘staircasing’ means the practice of buying additional shares in a Shared Ownership home in order to increase overall equity.”

This new clause would require publication of a strategy for expanding shared ownership.

New clause 45—Model shared ownership agreement—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, publish a model shared ownership agreement.

(2) The model shared ownership agreement must include standard provisions relating to—

(a) rent reviews,

(b) staircasing,

(c) service charges,

(d) administrative fees,

(e) sales and resales, and

(f) capital improvements undertaken by shared owners.

(3) Registered providers must have regard to the model agreement when granting shared ownership leases.”

This probing new clause would require the publication of a standardised model shared ownership agreement.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Shared ownership is an important route into home ownership and has enabled hundreds of thousands of people to get on to the property ladder who otherwise would not have been able to do so. However, the Government are fully aware that shared owners continue to face serious difficulties relating to affordability, transparency, management, staircasing and resale challenges. Although some of these challenges affect leaseholders more widely—high and rising service charges are a good example—they can have a disproportionate impact on shared owners, given that the product is aimed at households on lower-to-middle incomes.

Yesterday, I tabled a written ministerial statement setting out the Government’s position on shared ownership and the action we are taking to improve the experience of shared owners. We are determined to ensure that shared ownership is fair, transparent and affordable across its life cycle. That is why we are taking forward a phased programme of targeted improvements. The first phase, which has been under way for some time, has focused on improving the customer experience and giving providers greater certainty, stability and confidence to deliver new shared ownership homes.

We have set clearer expectations for registered providers receiving funding through the social and affordable homes programme, including giving greater consideration to long-term customer affordability, increasing transparency and fairness around costs, and allowing customers to opt out of fees for optional services. We have also made it clear that fees charged to shared owners should not be used as a source of profit or to cross-subsidise other activity.

Work is now under way on the second phase of our improvement programme. This will include reducing barriers and costs associated with staircasing; exploring options to support resales; improving information and guidance for existing shared owners; and reviewing buy-backs as an exit route for those who either cannot afford to remain in or cannot sell their home. Alongside that, we will improve shared ownership data quality and collection, helping us to better understand the experience of shared owners over time and pressures such as long-term affordability.

Clause 13 would require a statutory review of shared ownership. I recognise the concerns that motivated the amendment in the other place—Lord Young has been a consistent and forceful champion for shared owners and I commend his work in doing so—but these are precisely the issues the Government are already focused on and will continue to progress through the improvement programme that is already under way.

As is set out in the written ministerial statement I made on Monday, we have done lots to date. There is more to come on those issues I identified. For that reason, we feel that a statutory review would duplicate that rather than deliver the practical improvements that shared owners need beyond the work that the Government are already undertaking. I urge the Committee to oppose the question that clause 13 stand part of the Bill.

[Gareth Bacon]

I rise to speak to new clauses 41 and 45, which are in my name. I was obviously aware that it is the Government’s intention to strike down clause 13 and remove it in its entirety from the Bill. I heard what the Minister just said about what the Government are doing at the moment. The Opposition are not convinced that the clause would require unnecessary duplication. What it would do is make sure that a review is actually done and published, so we disagree with the Government.

My noble Friends in the other place worked hard and successfully on a cross-party basis to bring shared ownership into the debate and into this Bill. Shared ownership issues have gone on for far too long and for far too many people it has been a logistical, legal and financial nightmare when it should have been their first and proudest step on to the housing ladder. This is an important national issue, and the commitments that my noble Friends made must not be stripped from the Bill. Indeed, we must build on them. That is why I tabled new clause 41, which would require publication of a strategy for expanding shared ownership. I call on the Minister to repair shared ownership, back first-time buyers and support this new clause.

New clause 45 asks the Secretary of State to publish a model of shared ownership agreement within six months of the Bill receiving Royal Assent. The Opposition believe this is a crucial development for the future of shared ownership. What should be a pathway towards owning a first home is for so many people, as I have just said, a logistical and legal labyrinth of rent reviews, service charges, admin fees and staircasing costs, which makes the dream of home ownership a nightmare. A model shared ownership agreement would provide a consistent framework with clear protections for buyers, and it would also require registered providers to have regard to it. Not only do I hope the Minister agrees with that, but I hope he will give assurances as we debate the new clauses, even if the Government choose not to support them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. I have lived in a shared ownership home, so I thought it only right to support this part of the Bill. Usually on Bill Committees, I speak against and ask the Government to take something out of a Bill, rather than keep it in.

This is important. The Minister, on opening, summed up the issues that lots of constituents with shared ownership face right across the country. If the Government are already doing part of the review anyway, and if they are committed to that review, I do not see why it cannot stay part of the Bill. The cynic in me thinks that the only reason why the Government want to remove it from the Bill is so that they can change their mind and not actually do that review of shared ownership, which has been a long-standing feature of the housing market for a number of years. It is high time that we do a review.

The hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip spoke eloquently about the issues that his constituents face in some of the developments in his constituency. That is not too dissimilar from developments in my constituency. Staircasing has major issues, particularly if ownership is shared with a large social housing provider, such as one of those that operate all across the south-east and London. Residents who buy those shared-ownership homes feel that the social housing provider is unaccountable. They lack transparency on their fees, and I have heard some horrific stories about people buying into shared ownership and wanting to use that as a stepping stone to buy a house on the open market, but having to buy selling packs off the social housing provider at extortionate costs, or the provider not getting back to them and the sale of their property falling through.

New clauses 41 and 45 are trying to solve a number of issues in the Bill. If the Government are doing some of the work already and think that this review is needed, I urge them to keep it in the Bill. As I said, the cynic in me thinks that the Government want to leave it out so that a few months down the line they can say, “We’ve changed our mind. We’re not doing a review.” Do the Government really want a review of shared ownership and to listen to shared owners? The Minister outlined quite eloquently some of the issues that affect shared owners, such as leasehold and commonhold—we look forward to that Bill coming forward—but shared ownership does tend to fall through the cracks.

We have not spent enough time speaking about the issues that shared ownership tenants face, so I really urge the Government to change their mind. I was left with the impression on Second Reading that clause 13 would remain part of the Bill and that the Government would accept the amendments tabled in the other place. I hope that the Government can reflect and keep this clause as part of the Bill.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank hon. Members for their contributions. I said this in my opening remarks, but let me reinforce it: we absolutely appreciate that shared owners across the country face issues, but I do think that there is a regional element to this. From the feedback I receive, it seems to me that the experience of shared owners in London and other parts of the south are far more problematic than shared ownership in parts of the north, where it is quite a successful product and does not have the issues that are often confronted. Serious affordability, transparency, management, staircasing, and resale challenges are being experienced. I know that from my own postbag; I have lots of shared owners in my constituency.

I speak as someone who grew up with a single parent myself, but lots of shared owners are often single women who got a mortgage on the basis of an affordability calculation and have seen, within two or three years, service charges and other costs increase to the point that their home is no longer affordable and would not be counted as such on that affordability check. They are under real pressure. We recognise those pressures and I understand that any shared owners watching will see this clause as a sort of lifeline.

Notwithstanding the points made by the right hon. Member for Melton and Syston about the frequency with which Ministers in previous Conservative Administrations were cycled through, I think I am right in saying that if I make it to Thursday I will be the longest serving Housing Minister since 2010.

[Hon. Members]

Hear, hear!

[Edward Argar]

Don’t tempt fate!

[Matthew Pennycook]

We have better form on permanence of our policy and our ministerial certainty and stability. Notwithstanding the right hon. Member’s attempts to beguile and flatter me, I cannot accept the new clauses, for two reasons. I will take them in turn, but essentially I do not think that either is proportionate or necessary.

New clause 45 would require the Secretary of State to publish a model shared ownership agreement, but model shared ownership leases are already available, and they contain the fundamental clauses governing how shared ownership operates—including many of the matters raised by the right hon. Gentleman. Providers delivering grant-funded shared ownership are required to use leases containing these clauses and comply with wider grant funding requirements.

To give Members a sense that we are thinking about these things, part of the reason that I made the written ministerial statement on Monday was because we have done a huge amount of work in this area, but we have never brought it together into one place in the context of a wider improvement programme. The fault for that is on me and I throw my hands up, but a lot of work has already been done, and a lot of work is to come.

Tackling specific issues, we know that shared owners who want to staircase can face barriers such as transaction costs, a lack of information, rising property values and wider affordability pressures. HomeOwners Alliance estimates typical transaction costs of around £2,000—that was two years ago, in 2024. In the WMS, we have committed to considering measures to reduce existing barriers to staircasing, such as those up-front and ongoing transaction costs.

The issue of buy-backs arose in the context of the Renters’ Rights Act 2025, again from Lord Young pressing the case for shared owners. I am absolutely and acutely aware that buy-backs can be a lifeline for shared owners who, through no fault of their own, find themselves unable either to afford to remain in their home or to sell it, whether due to building safety defects, high service charges or lease-related restrictions. Again, we have committed and made clear in the WMS that we are intent on undertaking a comprehensive review of the functioning of buy-backs, to better understand practical barriers and solutions, and to look at specific issues such as the current use of recycled capital funding grants. That work is under way.

It is also worth saying that lots of the problems that affect shared owners go beyond them to affect other leaseholders. The actions we are taking in several areas will benefit shared owners along with other long residential leaseholders.

A good case is the standardisation and transparency measures that we are introducing in respect of service charges using powers in the previous Government’s Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024. We will lay those statutory instruments in the very near future, so hon. Members can look forward to that. Shared owners who are experiencing those high and rising service charges will benefit from those provisions.

The right hon. Member for Melton and Syston got to the point of the substantive matter at hand, which he framed as an “extra opportunity”. If he can put his ministerial hat on from when he stood here for many years, I gently ask him whether it is reasonable and proportionate to require, through a Social Housing Bill, a statutory review of shared ownership, given all that the Government are doing. Is it really proportionate to require a statutory review just to give that extra opportunity?

We already consult the Shared Owners’ Network and other representative groups. If hon. Members are telling me that we can do more, I am happy to work with them to get shared owners and their experiences into the Government’s thinking so that they are better reflected. If there is more that we can do to improve the improvement programme that is already under way, I am more than happy to hear about that, but it is a little stretching to say that it is absolutely essential just for, to quote the right hon. Member for Melton and Syston, that “little extra opportunity” to cover those issues. We are looking at issues in the round. We are considering the comprehensive set of challenges that shared owners face.

[Edward Argar]

On that basis, is the Minister prepared to commit—whether explicitly in the Bill or not—to the Government’s launching a formal review of this?

[Matthew Pennycook]

In some ways, it is pure semantics. We have a comprehensive improvement programme under way. If the right hon. Member looks at my written ministerial statement from yesterday, he will see the work that we have already undertaken: material changes, including to the social and affordable homes programme, where we are setting firmer expectations for providers that receive grant funding. A lot of work is already under way. Whether the right hon. Member calls it a review or an improvement programme, shared owners across the country will rightly focus not on what we term the work that is under way, but on the benefits they see coming out of that work. They can already see some of those in the expectations that we have set, but there will be more to follow.

[Lewis Cocking]

To draw out the point a little further, will the Minister commit to making an oral statement on the Floor of the House in the near future so that Members from across the House can ask questions and he can update us on what he is doing about shared ownership and improvements to shared ownership?

[Matthew Pennycook]

My Whip whispers in my ear that that is a matter for Mr Speaker. The hon. Member and any other Member of the Opposition can secure a Westminster Hall debate or an Adjournment debate on this subject. I am more than willing to debate shared ownership or any other housing matter.

[Lewis Cocking]

Will the Minister make a statement?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I have made a written ministerial statement that sets out the Government’s work in this area.

Taken together, the existing framework of model leases and guidance, alongside the substantive programme of improvements that is already under way, address the issues at the heart of both new clauses. We continue to have constructive engagement with Lord Young and others in the other place who have concerns about this issue, but we do not believe that a further statutory model agreement or a separate statutory strategy is necessary. I therefore ask the shadow Minister not to press new clauses 41 and 45.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendments 22 to 25, 46, 47, 26, 29, 27, 28, 30, 31, 48 to 57, 32, 58, 33, 59, 34, 60, 35, 61, 36 to 42, 62 to 65, 43, 44, 66 to 72, 45 and 73.

Amendment 12, in schedule 1, page 34, line 27, at end insert—

“3A In section 160ZA of the Housing Act 1996 (allocation only to eligible and qualifying persons: England), after subsection (11) insert—

‘(12) In deciding what classes of persons are not qualifying persons under subsection (7), a local housing authority must disregard housing-related debt or any other priority debt that was accrued, either by an applicant for housing accommodation or by a member of their household, where that debt was accrued in connection with domestic abuse.

(13) For the purposes of subsection (12), “domestic abuse” has the meaning given by section 1 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021.’

3B In section 166A of the Housing Act 1996 (allocation in accordance with allocation scheme: England), after subsection (14) insert—

‘(15) A local housing authority in England must, in preparing or modifying their allocation scheme, disregard housing-related debt or any other priority debt that was accrued, either by an applicant for housing accommodation, or by a member of their household, where that debt was accrued in connection with domestic abuse.

(16) For the purposes of subsection (15), “domestic abuse” has the meaning given by section 1 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021.’”

This amendment is intended to ensure that people in England who have incurred housing-related or other priority debt, for example rent arrears, as the result of domestic financial abuse are not prevented from bidding for social housing.

Schedule 1.

New clause 30—Domestic abuse protections: implementation review—

“(1) Within the period of 12 months beginning with the day on which section 14 and Schedule 1 (Protection for victims of domestic abuse) come into force, the Secretary of State must publish and lay before Parliament a review of the effectiveness of those provisions at protecting victims of domestic abuse who hold social housing tenancies.

(2) The review under this section must include an assessment of—

(a) the effectiveness of the courts and relevant agencies at identifying when incidents of domestic abuse have occurred within social housing dwellings; and

(b) the ability of local authorities and other relevant agencies to identify previous victims and perpetrators of domestic abuse when allocating social housing tenancies.”

This new clause would require the Government to assess the effectiveness of the provisions on protecting domestic abuse victims.

[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?

[Edward Argar]

I will speak briefly to this grouping, simply to reiterate what the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington, has just said. In a Bill of this sort, there is inevitably much that we will to-and-fro across this Committee about and disagree on. However, throughout my time as Victims Minister, and under the new Government now, there has been significant consensus about a shared desire, on both sides of the House, to make progress in supporting victims of domestic violence and domestic abuse. I therefore just reiterate my hon. Friend’s and my party’s support for what the Minister seeks to do here. There is genuinely a high degree of consensus on this group; we want to move forward and make that difference.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the hon. Member for Newbury, the shadow Minister and the right hon. Member for Melton and Syston—I never know whether I am pronouncing that entirely correctly—

[Edward Argar]

The Minister pronounces it immaculately.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I welcome the cross-party support for the intent behind these provisions and their effect. In some ways, I would go so far as to say that they are groundbreaking in what we have tried to achieve. As I said, there has also been very effective cross-departmental working.

On the specific point that the hon. Member for Newbury raised, there are mandatory grounds for possession in the Bill, but they apply only when a breach of a relevant order has taken place. The changes we have made to the discretionary possession grounds are to allow for the existence of an order to be relevant grounds for the court, rather than a breach having to take place. However, there are mandatory grounds in place. I am happy to set that out in more detail for the hon. Member, in writing, if he is interested. I know that he takes a keen interest in these matters.

I will turn to the two non-Government amendments that have been tabled, starting with amendment 12. This issue, and a version of the amendment, was raised in the other place by Baroness Neate. I would like to give the Committee the same reassurances that we gave the noble Baroness, and that she accepted, in debates in the other place.

First, the Government agree, as I think we all would, with the principle that survivors of domestic abuse should not face unfair barriers to social housing because of debt arising from that abuse. That is why, in the national plan to end homelessness, we committed to addressing the barriers faced by survivors of domestic abuse with debt when applying for social housing through our update to the statutory guidance on social housing allocations.

We continue to believe that primary legislation is not the right approach in this area. There are sensitive and inherently complex cases at play here, and the amendment would introduce a rigid rule that would not allow local authorities to take proper account of individual circumstances. Updated statutory guidance will allow us to set clear national expectations while preserving the flexibility needed to reach fair and sustainable decisions in individual cases. Work is already under way to review the guidance, and we will consult on the updated guidance early next year.

We continue to believe that guidance is the best route to resolving this issue, as I made clear on Second Reading—I think my hon. Friends the Members for Uxbridge and South Ruislip and for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips) pressed me on that. I am happy to reiterate that if guidance proves insufficient, we have the option of making regulations to amend the relevant legislation. The Government’s position has not changed. We support the objective of removing unfair barriers for survivors, but believe that updated statutory guidance, backed by existing regulation-making powers, if necessary, is the more proportionate and effective route.

[Danny Beales]

I thank the Minister for referencing our previous debate on this topic. I welcome the Government’s action in developing guidance. I have seen worrying cases in my constituency of rent arrears being a barrier to victims of domestic violence getting a tenancy. There is concern that, even though rules have already been changed about local connection tests, they may not always be applied effectively, and local connection tests may still be used as a route to block victims of domestic violence. I welcome the development of guidance, but will the Minister commit to collecting evidence about the effectiveness of the guidance and whether further measures might be needed?

[Matthew Pennycook]

We will absolutely keep the effectiveness of that guidance under review. I reiterate the commitment I have made, which I have tried to put as plainly as possible: if that guidance is not effective, we will introduce regulations to ensure that we resolve the issue. However, we believe that there is a high chance that the guidance will be successful in achieving the outcomes we want. That is our preferred route in the near term, but I am determined to ensure that the issue is addressed. The Baroness accepted the commitments we made in the other place, and those regulations are available if we require them.

Turning to new clause 30, the Department already collects data through CORE— continuous recording of lettings and sales in social housing—on how many new tenancies were given to victims who left their previous tenancy because of domestic abuse, which provides an important baseline for monitoring outcomes as the reforms are implemented. The Ministry of Justice also publishes quarterly statistics on landlord possession proceedings in the county courts of England and Wales. Those cover claims, possession orders, warrants and repossessions, including for social landlords. We will work with the Ministry of Justice, social landlords and the domestic abuse sector on implementation—the hon. Member for Orpington would expect nothing less. That includes developing clear guidance so that landlords know how and when to use the measures and how to support victims.

The new clause would also require an assessment of how courts and other organisations identify domestic abuse. On 5 October, the Government launched the judicial finding of domestic abuse, a significant step forward in improving the identification and management of domestic abuse offenders across the criminal justice system. As part of sentencing, judges will be required to make a judicial finding of domestic abuse in open court where the evidence supports such a finding as defined by the Domestic Abuse Act 2021. That will provide a formal record where an offence involves domestic abuse. Those findings will be recorded in court records and shared with police and probation. The judicial finding will enable police, courts, prisons and probation services to recognise domestic abuse offenders and respond to the risks they pose more effectively.

Subsection (2)(b) of the new clause extends beyond the purpose of these measures. The Bill does not alter the way local authorities identify previous victims or perpetrators when allocating new social housing tenancies. That is a matter for local authorities to determine when assessing need and priority for an allocation of social housing.

The measures that the Government have put forward in this part of the Bill will help ensure that our reforms can operate effectively. The Government amendments provide the necessary technical changes to support the operation of the provisions and ensure that the legislation works as intended. I welcome the cross-party support for the measures and ask the Committee to support Government amendments 22 to 73.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 14 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 1

Protection for victims of domestic abuse

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendment 74.

Schedule 2.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Clause 15 introduces schedule 2, which gives the Secretary of State the power to create one new general consent and removes the need to obtain the Secretary of State’s consent for certain transactions altogether. There are a range of circumstances in which local authorities must obtain the Secretary of State’s consent to undertake certain actions relating to their social homes, including how they account for them and when and how they can dispose of them. Some of the consents also apply to private individuals who own property that was once owned as social housing by a council or a new town corporation.

The first measure gives the Secretary of State the power to issue a general consent to non-housing assets—for example, shops or recreation grounds—that are being accounted for in the housing revenue account in accordance with part II of the Housing Act 1985. That will enable the Secretary of State to permit all such accounting practices when they meet certain criteria. That will remove one obstacle from the process of planning new council developments. It will also make it easier for councils to include these additional premises in their developments, supporting the creation of thriving, liveable communities.

The second measure streamlines the process by which local authorities can serve demolition notices, when homes are due to be demolished, that suspend or end tenants’ right to buy. Under schedules 5 and 5A to the 1985 Act, initial demolition notices can be issued for up to seven years, and final demolition notices, which can be issued once the local authority has acquired all the relevant properties for demolition or entered into binding agreements to acquire them, for up to two years. The provision removes the requirement for the Secretary of State’s consent when local authorities need to serve further interim or final demolition notices if demolition cannot be completed during the time of the original notice, and it sets out requirements that local authorities must follow when serving further interim or final demolition notices. Those changes will help local authorities to manage redevelopment schemes more efficiently while still requiring them to follow clear statutory conditions.

Finally, the measure amends or repeals provisions in a number of Acts that require the Secretary of State’s consent for the onward sale of homes that have previously been owned by a local housing authority or new town corporation, even if those homes are already in the private market. The changes do not have effect in Wales, where the previous regime will continue. The changes will take away a completely unnecessary brake on these housing transactions in the private market. There is no longer any rationale for these now private homes to be subject to the Secretary of State’s consent, and consent is never in practice denied. All the changes are part of a suite of measures planned by the Government to simplify and streamline the council housing consent system in England and to empower local authorities who know their communities best.

Government amendment 74 makes minor and consequential amendments to schedule 2. Paragraph 1(3) of the schedule omits section 171D(2) of the Housing Act 1985. That subsection currently requires the Secretary of State’s consent for certain onward disposal of homes already sold under the right to buy. As a consequence of that omission, references elsewhere in the Housing Act 1985 to consent under section 171D(2) are no longer required. Amendment 74 removes those redundant references, ensuring that the legislation will operate coherently once the requirement for consent is removed. The amendment does not make any further substantive change to policy; it simply makes necessary consequential amendments to give full effect to paragraph 1(3) of schedule 2.

I commend clause 15 and schedule 2 to the Committee, and ask the Committee to support Government amendment 74.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 2

Social housing: consent requirements

Amendment made: 74, in schedule 2, page 37, line 22, at end insert—

“1A ‘(1) Schedule 9A (land registration and related matters where right to buy preserved) is amended as follows.

(2) In paragraph 4 (entries on register protecting preserved right to buy), in sub-paragraph (2), omit paragraph (b) and the ‘and’ preceding it.

(3) In paragraph 5 (change of qualifying dwelling-house), in sub-paragraph (2), omit paragraph (b) and the ‘and’ preceding it.”—(Matthew Pennycook.)

Section 171D(2) of the Housing Act 1985 is omitted by paragraph 1(3) of Schedule 2 to the Bill. This contains amendments that are consequential on that omission.

Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 16 

Vacant higher value local authority housing

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Matthew Pennycook]

It is essential that local housing authorities have the flexibility to manage their stock in the way that best enables them to meet the needs of their local communities. Clause 16 therefore removes provisions in the Housing and Planning Act 2016 that would have forced councils to sell their highest-value council homes whenever they became vacant. I say, “would have forced” because these provisions were never implemented by previous Governments. Even so, the presence of the provision on the statute book has a negative effect on local authorities’ spending plans, since they could not be certain of the income streams from these properties, which typically earn higher than average rents and are cheaper to maintain.

The policy was intended—I recall this because, as a relatively new Member, I sat on the Committee that considered the Bill that became the 2016 Act—to raise capital to supply new social homes, but it would ultimately have led to a net loss of social homes. Furthermore, when the 2016 Act was passed, a major aim of the policy was to help to fund the extension of the right to buy to housing associations. This Government have made it clear that they do not intend to take that extension forward. The last Conservative Government chose never to implement the measures due to the negative impact that they would have had on local authorities, and we are now going one step further by repealing the provisions altogether. I commend the clause to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 17

Secure tenancies, introductory tenancies and demoted tenancies

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Clause stand part.

Government amendments 75 to 77.

Schedule 3.

New clause 40—Fixed-term tenancies for social housing—

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

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

New clause 58—Review of lifetime secure tenancies—

“(1) A local housing authority must review each lifetime secure tenancy at intervals of no more than five years.

(2) A review under subsection (1) must consider—

(a) whether the tenant continues to require the accommodation having regard to their housing needs,

(b) whether the accommodation remains suitable having regard to the size and composition of the tenant’s household,

(c) whether the tenant has developed a local connection with another local housing authority area,

(d) whether the tenant requires support to move to more suitable accommodation, and

(e) such other matters as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State.

(3) Following a review under this section, the local housing authority may—

(a) confirm the continuation of the tenancy,

(b) offer alternative suitable accommodation, or

(c) take such other action as may be provided for by regulations.

(4) The Secretary of State must issue guidance to local housing authorities on the conduct of reviews under this section.

(5) Local housing authorities must have regard to guidance issued under subsection

(6) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”

This new clause requires local housing authorities to review lifetime secure tenancies every five years to ensure that social housing continues to meet tenants’ needs and that existing stock is being used effectively.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Clause 17 introduces schedule 3, which will repeal uncommenced provisions of the Housing and Planning Act 2016 that would have phased out lifetime secure tenancies and required new social housing tenants to be given fixed-term secure tenancies instead. As with the provisions that we have just debated, the rules were never brought into force and would have reduced security for tenants. Indeed, the inclusion of the fixed-term provisions in the 2016 Act received strong objections throughout the Bill’s passage.

The Government support the use of lifetime tenancies because they provide stability and security for households, and help people to put down roots in their communities. Security of tenure matters, particularly for families, older residents, disabled people and others for whom a settled home is the foundation of wider wellbeing and opportunity. That was the rationale for the changes we recently implemented through the Renters’ Rights Act 2025.

Although we promote the use of lifetime tenancies, the Government expect landlords to make the best and most effective use of their homes to meet housing need. Landlords can support tenants to downsize, transfer or mutually exchange their homes if their circumstances change. That helps people to move to properties that are better suited to them and ensures that social housing is used in the fairest way possible.

Retaining the option for landlords to grant fixed-term tenancies is an important tool that allows councils to respond to specific circumstances, such as supporting time-limited resettlement schemes. The schedule also retains the existing approach to succession by reinserting the relevant provisions from the 2016 Act, ensuring that there are no substantial changes to how succession works in practice.

The repeal of the uncommenced provisions will provide greater certainty to tenants and landlords, and ensure that the law continues to work properly after they are removed. The previous Government confirmed in their 2018 social housing Green Paper, after listening to residents’ concerns, that they had no intention of implementing those provisions. Once again, this Government are going a step further and repealing them from the statute book.

Government amendments 75 to 77 make minor and technical changes to the succession provisions in schedule 3. Amendment 77 corrects the provision dealing with demoted tenancies so that it refers only to changes that apply to those tenancies. References to provisions that apply only to introductory tenancies are removed, as those cases are already covered separately. Amendments 75 and 76 make it clear that the sections 143H and 143J to which the provisions refer are sections of the Housing Act 1996. The amendments do not change policy or tenants’ rights; they simply clarify the Bill’s wording and make sure that references are correct and in order. I commend clause 17 and Government amendments 75 to 77 to the Committee.

[Gareth Bacon]

I rise to speak to new clauses 40 and 58, which I tabled.

Social housing is not a one-size-fits-all, and new clause 40 would protect the invaluable and expert knowledge of local authorities by giving them a greater say over the type of tenancy that they can offer to local people. That would preserve local authorities’ discretion to use fixed-term tenancies for social housing. Used appropriately, fixed-term tenancies allow a landlord to review a household’s circumstances at the end of a term and make sure that the home can be put to best use for those who need it most. They allow for the flexibility necessary to ensure that when a tenant’s situation has improved, a home can be made available for local people with the greatest need. The new clause is about empowering local authorities and delivering an efficient social housing system—two things that the Bill fails to do in many ways. Importantly, it imposes nothing and takes nothing away. It protects local knowledge, expertise and discretion.

Social housing exists for the express purpose of providing those who are most in need with not just shelter, but a place to call home. In a system under severe financial strain and lacking in adequate supply, it is essential that social homes are allocated to those in genuine need who are at the most severe risk, not just those who once needed them but no longer do. That is why we have tabled new clause 58, which would require local housing authorities to review lifetime secure tenancies every five years to ensure that social housing continues to meet tenants’ needs. It would also ensure that existing stock is used as effectively as possible. With 1.34 million people on the waiting list, a record number of people sleeping rough and a staggering 178,000 children in temporary accommodation, not a single social home can afford to be filled by somebody who could reasonably afford market rent or buy their own property.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gareth Bacon]

As I said earlier, the Bill will not add a single social home to this country’s current tally. If social housing was in abundant supply, I would agree with the hon. Gentleman, but it is not. It is a scarce resource and the important thing that we are trying to make clear is about how we use that scarce resource.

Right to buy generates receipts that can be reinvested in building more social housing. Given that the overwhelming majority of people living in social housing are in lifetime tenancies, regardless of their circumstance, that housing is not available to people on the waiting list. It is already occupied and nobody is saying that that should change. So, it is not the case that right to buy causes a depletion of available social housing stock— it simply does not.

New clause 58 is not an eviction notice. It would not grant new powers to remove people from their homes. It is a common-sense move to assess how best to ensure that scarce resources are used for those who need a home most.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Let me start with new clause 40, which seeks to clarify that social landlords can continue to grant fixed-term tenancies.

Fixed-term tenancies will no longer be available within the assured tenancy framework once the relevant Renters’ Rights Act 2025 reforms take effect. I therefore understand that the proposal is aimed principally at ensuring that local housing authorities and other secure tenancy landlords can continue to grant fixed-term tenancies when appropriate.

I want to be clear that the new clause is not needed. Nothing in the Bill prevents secure-tenancy landlords from granting fixed-term tenancies. As I have said, the Bill repeals uncommenced provisions in the Housing and Planning Act 2016, which would have required most new secure tenancies to be fixed-term tenancies. As we have just debated, those provisions were never brought into force and we are now removing them in order to provide clarity. Secure-tenancy landlords will still be able to offer fixed-term tenancies where they consider it appropriate to do so; as I have said, the Bill does not change that. The proposed measures risk repeating what is already the case in law for secure-tenancy landlords and would create confusion by suggesting that the Bill removes flexibility in this area when it does not. For those reasons, I ask the shadow Minister not to press new clause 40.

New clause 58 would require local housing authorities to review lifetime secure tenancies every five years. I made it clear when speaking to clause 17 that the Government support the use of lifetime tenancies because they provide stability and security for households and help people to put down roots in their communities. That is precisely why we are repealing uncommenced provisions in the 2016 Act that would have phased out lifetime secure tenancies in favour of mandatory fixed-term tenancies.

We expect local authorities and other social landlords to make the best and most effective use of their stock to meet housing need. However, we do not believe that a statutory requirement for local authorities to review every secure tenancy once every five years would be an appropriate way to support them in doing so, given the administrative burden that that would entail. We also believe that it would have detrimental impacts on tenants and communities. Those are some of the reasons why the previous Government did not commence the provisions they had legislated for in the 2016 Act.

[Patrick Spencer (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)]

I am losing track of the narrative in this debate. The Government do not want to sell the unit to the tenant, but that means they will forgo all the long-term health, economic, social and community benefits of home ownership. At the same time, you want to lock them into lifelong tenancies, which would take their house out of action and reduce its availability to other households that are more in need. Perhaps I have misunderstood the Bill, but that is the narrative that I understand the Government are setting out. Can the Minister confirm that for me?

[Patrick Spencer]

I apologise, Mr Western.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I fear that the hon. Gentleman does misunderstand the Bill in a number of respects. First, we are not abolishing or phasing out the right to buy. As I have persistently made clear, we want to ensure that the right to buy is available for long-standing tenants who have lived in—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman can intervene once I have answered his first question. I refer to those tenants who have lived in and paid rent on their homes for many years.

I have already made it clear in a previous debate that landlords can already consider the changing needs of tenants through a variety of methods, ranging from tenant surveys to direct engagement. They can already support tenants to downsize, to transfer or to mutually exchange their home if their circumstances change. The new clause would mandate, through primary legislation, a review of every secure tenancy once every five years. I simply put it to the hon. Gentleman—this picks up on the precise reason why the previous Conservative Government did not bring into force the provisions in their own 2016 Act—that that would entail huge administrative burdens for local authorities. We think, because we believe in the principle of secure tenancies in social housing—in terms of the benefits for tenants and for communities more widely—that we should not impose such a statutory review every five years. I am struggling to see how that is incompatible with trying to place the right-to-buy scheme on a fairer and more sustainable footing.

The Government are reviewing how effectively social housing providers are using their stock. That work is considering issues such as under-occupation, overcrowding and how landlords are supporting tenant movement. We will set out findings from that review and the next steps in due course. We think social landlords can, in some instances, make better and more effective use of their stock. That does not necessarily require, as a means to support them to do so, a statutory requirement to review every secure tenancy every five years.

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

Regarding social landlords reassessing the use of their stock, does the Minister agree that there needs to be more focus on the needs of disabled members of our community? My constituent Keeley Callan came to see me on Friday. She is disabled, and I would argue she is actually disabled by the social housing system because she has been waiting for at least five years to move into her own accommodation. That is totally unacceptable, given her equal rights to housing in law. Will the Minister briefly reflect on that as he sums up?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I am sorry to hear about that case; if my hon. Friend wants to write to me with further details, I am more than happy to look into it. I would make two points: local authorities are best placed to decide the types of social homes their communities need and to plan for them appropriately. Local authorities also have a statutory duty to promote adaptations for disabled people in all housing tenures, subject to a needs assessment, and the Government provide the disabled facilities grant to support them. I am happy to write to my hon. Friend with more details about the support that should be in place and the expectations that the Government have in respect of local authorities. If he wants to write to me, I am more than happy to come back to him on the particular points that might arise from the case he has mentioned.

We cannot accept new clause 58 and I have already spoken to new clause 40, tabled by the shadow Minister. I ask the Committee to support Government amendments 75 to 77 and I commend clause 17 to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 17 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 3

Secure, introductory and demoted tenancies: uncommenced legislation etc

Amendments made: 75, in schedule 3, page 41, line 1, after “143H” insert

“of the Housing Act 1996”.

This would clarify that this sub-paragraph amends the Housing Act 1996.

Amendment 76, in schedule 3, page 42, line 5, after “143J” insert

“of the Housing Act 1996”.

This would clarify that this sub-paragraph amends the Housing Act 1996.

Amendment 77, in schedule 3, page 42, line 23, leave out “to (10)” and insert

“, (9) and (10)(c) and (d)”.—(Matthew Pennycook.)

This would clarify that only sub-paragraph 10(c) and (d) are relevant to sub-paragraph (13). Sub-paragraph 10(a) and (b) concern introductory, rather than demoted, tenancies.

Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 18

Rents for high income social tenants

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 42—Review of income eligibility for social housing—

“(1) Within two years of the passing of this Act and every five years thereafter, the Secretary of State must review income eligibility thresholds for social housing.

(2) A review under subsection (1) must include consideration of the following trends over the previous five years—

(a) household earnings,

(b) regional housing costs,

(c) housing affordability, and

(d) levels of demand for social housing.

(3) The Secretary of State must publish the findings of each review and lay them before Parliament.”

This new clause would require regular reviews of income eligibility thresholds for social housing.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Clause 18 will repeal unimplemented provisions that would have required councils to charge higher rents to higher-income social tenants. We are now removing them to provide certainty and clean up the statute book. The provisions, as with others we have debated this afternoon, were never implemented. Once again, I note that the original provisions in the Housing and Planning Act 2016 received strong objections during the passage of that legislation.

A mandatory pay-to-stay scheme would be difficult and costly to administer. Indeed, the previous Government, despite legislating for this policy, chose not to commence it on the explicit basis that the costs outweighed the benefits. Income alone is also not the only determinant of who is allocated social housing. Some households may have additional needs or circumstances which mean that social housing remains the only viable or appropriate option for them. That can be the case even where their income may be somewhat higher than others on the waiting list.

Social housing is targeted at those who need it most, but some tenants’ incomes may rise over time. Our focus is on keeping rents affordable and supporting all social tenants, not penalising tenants for improving their circumstances. As we debated in the previous group, landlords can encourage tenants to move if their circumstances change. Where tenants want to move or downsize, we expect landlords to support them to do so through transfers or mutual exchanges, which helps people move to properties that are better suited to them, and helps to ensure that social housing is used in the fairest way possible. Where councils and private registered providers choose, they can run voluntary pay-to-stay schemes, which allows landlords to decide whether a scheme is suitable for their area.

Councils can also consider an applicant’s income and financial circumstances when deciding whether they qualify for social housing and what priority they should receive. Households with higher incomes may be given less priority, or may not qualify at all. However, councils will also consider whether the household has other needs, as I have referenced, which can mean that social housing is still the right option for them.

Repealing these measures provides a fairer and more workable approach. This change will help keep rents affordable for social tenants, especially those on lower and middle incomes, avoid disincentives to work and mean that tenants are not incentivised to reduce their working hours to avoid higher rent. I commend clause 18 to the Committee.

[Gareth Bacon]

I rise to speak to new clause 42. If the Bill fails to build any new social housing, which we know it will, it could at the very least ensure that stock is allocated to those most in need. We believe that one of the fairest and most suitable ways to do so is to review the income eligibility thresholds for social housing. At present, up-to-date figures from the English housing survey suggest that around 186,000 social housing households have incomes above £50,000. That is both an injustice and an inefficiency in need of fixing, yet the Bill will not do so.

We must ensure that any changes to the structure of the social housing system are made to enable a fairer and more effective programme for the most vulnerable to find shelter. Social housing is a safety net, not a guarantee. People’s circumstances change over time. Those who have the means to pay market rent should do so, and that is why new clause 42 would require regular reviews of income eligibility thresholds. Without the new clause, the Bill would provide no avenue through which we can manage stock to free up more homes, no route towards building more social housing, and no light at the end of the tunnel for the 1.34 million people on the waiting list.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Before I respond to new clause 42, I must address something that the shadow Minister keeps saying, which is that the Bill does not build any new social housing. I have made this incredibly clear, and I encourage him to go and talk to his local authority, although I am not sure its record on social housing is a particularly good one. Local authorities are very clear and have said to us in plain terms that the measures in the Bill will incentivise them to build more social homes. Of course, it is not the case that this piece of legislation is the only means by which we are building new social and affordable housing. We have a £39 billion social and affordable homes programme, which dwarfs anything that the previous Conservative Government allocated in this area, and there is additional funding to come on top of that.

New clause 42 would require the Secretary of State to review income eligibility thresholds for social housing within two years of the Bill’s passage, and every five years thereafter, and to publish the findings and lay them before Parliament. Each review would consider trends over the previous five years in household earnings, regional housing costs, housing affordability and demand for social housing.

I recognise the importance of considering income to ensure that social housing is targeted at those most in need. Indeed, it is a sad truth that the residualisation of social housing over many years—not least because of the engineered decline of it under previous Conservative Governments, with increased right-to-buy discounts explicitly targeted to ensure that more is sold—has meant that, in most cases, it has become targeted to those on very low incomes, but we do not believe that the new clause is necessary.

Eligibility for social housing is considered through the allocations process, and there is no general national income eligibility threshold for social rented housing. As I have made clear, local authorities can take financial resources into account in determining qualification and relative priority under their allocation schemes, subject to statutory requirements, and private registered providers also operate their own lettings polices. This allows local and individual circumstances to be taken into account.

[Rachel Blake]

The Minister has been incredibly generous. I wonder whether he will reflect in his closing remarks on the clause—which repeals what were, in my view, ideological attacks on something that is a very practical solution to a range of market needs and the affordability options open to people—that the previous Government did not enact these measures because they were found to be impractical, and because their implementation would actually cost the taxpayer money due to the risks of an additional administrative burden on local authorities and increasing homelessness; or will he remain as gracious and generous as he has been in our discussions so far?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank my hon. Friend for the invitation to become ungracious in respect of Opposition Members. I remember the debates in that 2016 Bill Committee. Those were deeply ideological measures, but I think it says everything that Conservative Ministers decided they were impractical, unworkable, could not be implemented, and made it clear—[Interruption.] They did. I encourage Opposition Members to go and read the 2018 social housing Green Paper, in which Conservative Ministers made it very clear that huge administrative burdens would come from some of these measures, in addition to their detrimental impact on tenants and communities. What we are doing is going a step further, as I have said, and removing these measures, and the uncertainty they create, from the statute book.

On the new clause, it is important to be clear that only a very small minority of social housing lettings are to high-income households. This is based on household income, not individual income, and in many cases could reflect two people each earning a modest salary, rather than a single person on what anyone would reasonably describe as a high income. Some households may have additional needs or circumstances that mean that social housing remains, as I have said, the only viable or appropriate option for them. That can be the case even when their income may be somewhat higher than that of others on the waiting list.

Income should be considered alongside a household’s wider housing needs and circumstances, but we do not believe that this duty is necessary, or that it would be an appropriate use of resources for the Government to review every one of these independently set thresholds. In repealing the pay-to-stay provisions in the Housing and Planning Act 2016, councils and registered providers will still be able to operate voluntary pay-to-stay schemes for households earning over £60,000 if they wish to do so. That discretion is important and it remains, but there will be no mandatory national requirement. That approach will, as I have said, avoid disincentives for people to work or increase their earnings, and will support a more sensible system overall. I therefore ask that the new clause not be pressed, and I commend clause 18 to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 18 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 19

Health and safety lead: Parliamentary procedure

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Clause 19 will make a minor technical amendment to the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008, section 320 of which sets out the parliamentary procedure that applies to regulations made under its provisions. Regulations made under sections 70, 72 and 126A are subject to the affirmative procedure, which means that a draft of the regulations must be laid before and approved by both Houses of Parliament before they can be made.

However, the provision governing the negative procedure currently excludes only regulations made under sections 70 and 72; it does not also refer to section 126A. Clause 19 corrects that inconsistency and ensures that all regulations that section 320 specifies as being subject to the affirmative procedure are properly excluded from the negative procedure. The clause does not confer any new powers or reduce the level of parliamentary scrutiny; it simply ensures that the existing statutory provisions operate clearly and consistently. I commend the clause to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 19 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 21

Management of local authority housing by TMOs

“Schedule (Management of local authority housing by TMOs) makes provision about the management of local authority housing accommodation by tenant management organisations.”—(Matthew Pennycook.)

This would introduce NS1 which provides for a revised and expanded legislative regime about the management of council housing by tenant management organisations.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Matthew Pennycook]

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government new schedule 1—Management of local authority housing by TMOs.

Government amendment 79.

[Matthew Pennycook]

The right to manage can be a powerful tool through which social housing residents can take greater control of the housing services that they receive, but it must operate within a clear, robust framework that protects residents and clarifies respective responsibilities. Taken together, these changes will update and strengthen the right to manage, making it easier for social housing tenants to exercise that right with confidence, while ensuring that appropriate safeguards are in place.

These reforms have been informed by the findings of the review of the right to manage that was undertaken by the Government. Through the review, we heard clearly from stakeholders that the current right to manage framework has not kept pace with wider regulatory change. They highlighted the need for governance that is more proportionate and for greater clarity on roles, responsibilities and information sharing.

We also heard from landlords and residents that the current routes for intervention if things go wrong can be slow and cumbersome. Within schedule 1, proposed new sections 27AD to 27AF of the Housing Act 1985 will enable a more proportionate approach to governance requirements. They will put in place lighter-touch requirements where residents take on more limited services, and stronger requirements where tenant management organisations assume more complex functions, including building safety responsibilities.

Those provisions will also provide broader powers to strengthen the framework governing right to manage arrangements, helping to ensure that it keeps pace with wider regulatory requirements, including on the safety and decency of social homes and quality of services to tenants. These are enabling powers that will allow us to update the right to manage regulations and guidance to govern management agreements, ballots of residents, regular reviews and information sharing. The powers will come into effect on Royal Assent, but we will consult on the detail before introducing the new regulations and guidance.

Proposed new sections 27AG to 27AL will also require regular reviews of the management agreements, strengthen the requirements for residents to be balloted on continuation of TMO arrangements, and require better information sharing between TMOs and their landlords. They will also strengthen requirements on landlords to consult TMOs on policy changes affecting functions exercised under management agreements.

Proposed new sections 27AM to 27AQ will create a targeted court-backed route for intervention in exceptional cases, including removal of board members where there is serious mismanagement of a TMO or a risk to residents’ safety. That route will be subject to judicial oversight, with the court required to be satisfied that urgent intervention is appropriate. That will help to address the concerns raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) about the ability of councils to act swiftly where serious failings are putting residents at risk.

We know that many TMOs work hard to deliver good-quality housing services that respond to local priorities and are supported by tenants who give up their own time to serve on committees. These reforms will make the right to manage easier to exercise, clearer to operate and safer for residents. They will support resident empowerment while ensuring that landlords have the tools they need to meet their regulatory requirements and safeguard residents.

Question put and agreed to.

New clause 21 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 22

Duty of private registered provider to offer accommodation after local authority request

“(1) After section 193C of the Housing Act 1996 insert—

‘193D Duty of private registered provider to offer accommodation after local authority request

(1) This section applies where—

(a) a local housing authority in England has a duty under section 193 to secure accommodation for an applicant, and

(b) the authority has made a written request to a private registered provider of social housing to provide low cost rental accommodation in the authority’s district for the applicant.

(2) The provider must make an offer of low cost rental accommodation in the authority’s district to the applicant within a reasonable period, unless the provider has a good reason not to.

(3) If the provider considers that there is a good reason not to make an offer of low cost rental accommodation in the authority’s district, the provider must, as soon as reasonably practicable, give written notice of the reason to the local housing authority.

(4) In deciding whether to make a request under subsection (1)(b), the local housing authority must have regard to—

(a) the type and amount of low cost rental accommodation that the provider in question owns or manages in the authority’s district, and

(b) the extent to which the provider is already providing accommodation in the authority’s district to persons who are homeless.

(5) The local housing authority may by written notice require the provider to provide the information described in subsection (4)(a) or (b), unless it is not reasonably practicable to do so.

(6) A notice under subsection (5) may require the information to be provided—

(a) within a specified period;

(b) in a specified manner or form.

(7) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for the purposes of subsection (2) as to what constitutes—

(a) a reasonable period;

(b) a good reason.

save-line2(8) “Low cost rental accommodation” has the same meaning as in the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 (see section 69)

(9) An offer made under this section is not an offer of accommodation under Part 6 (allocation of housing).’”—(Matthew Pennycook.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Matthew Pennycook]

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

Many councils and housing associations already work closely together to secure settled homes for people facing homelessness. We are committed to building on the many examples of good practice and collaboration that exist, but informal agreements between councils and other providers do not always work. Private registered providers are less likely than councils to offer accommodation to homeless households. New clause 22 will give local housing authorities an additional tool to help them to discharge the main homelessness duty.

Where a council owes a household the main homelessness duty, it will be able to ask a private registered provider with social housing in its area to offer social housing to that household. The provider must respond and offer suitable accommodation within a reasonable period unless it has good reason not to do so. We will consult councils, housing providers and other relevant providers before setting out in regulations what constitutes a reasonable period and a good reason, but, to give an example, a private registered provider would not be expected to offer accommodation if they do not have anything suitable available in a reasonable timeframe.

The power includes important safeguards. Before making a referral, the council must take account of the type and amount of accommodation that the provider has locally, and the extent to which it is already housing homeless households. That will ensure that referrals are fair and proportionate and that they reflect local circumstances. The approach builds on established practice in Scotland and delivers a commitment in our national plan to end homelessness. I commend the new clause to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

New clause 22 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 23

Referral of homelessness cases to other local housing authorities

“(1) Section 198 of the Housing Act 1996 (referral of case) is amended in accordance with subsections (2) and (3).

(2) After subsection (4) insert—

‘(4ZA) The Secretary of State may by regulations specify circumstances in which—

(a) the conditions for referral mentioned in subsection (2),

(b) the conditions for referral mentioned in subsection (2ZA), or

(c) the conditions for referral mentioned in subsection (4),

are not met for the purposes of referral of a case by a local housing authority in England.’

(3) In subsection (7) after ‘order’, in the first two places it occurs, insert ‘or regulations’.”—(Matthew Pennycook.)

This would allow the Secretary of State to make regulations specifying circumstances where a local housing authority in England cannot refer a person who is homeless to another local housing authority.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Matthew Pennycook]

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government new clause 24—Duties of specified bodies to collaborate and act on homelessness.

[Matthew Pennycook]

New clauses 23 and 24 will strengthen homelessness prevention and ensure that support reaches those who need it most, as quickly as possible.

We owe a debt of gratitude to those who have served in our armed forces. They have given so much of their life in service to their country, and it is right that we support them to have a safe home on leaving active service. The number of former armed service personnel seeking homelessness support is thankfully relatively small, but the Government recognise that those who do so can face challenges, particularly if they seek to establish themselves in an area where they may have no existing local connections. The existing legislation permits a local housing authority to refer someone who is seeking housing support, but does not have any connections to their local area, to the area of another local housing authority where they do.

New clause 23 provides a power for the Secretary of State to define in regulations where that should not apply. We propose to use that power to exempt our armed forces veterans from local connection referrals. That means that there will be no barriers or delays to veterans receiving homelessness assistance. They will be able to seek support from anywhere in the country, and the local authority will be required to provide assistance. This builds on the action that we took last year to exempt veterans from any local connection test that councils might apply to determine who qualifies for an allocation of social housing.

[Rachel Blake]

I strongly welcome the move to remove the local connection test for armed forces veterans. It indicates this Government’s recognition that the local connection sometimes creates barriers for people to making their way off the streets, particularly when they are vulnerable. I welcome the Bill’s acknowledgment of the issue. I hope that there can be an ongoing conversation about the role of local connection tests, particularly regarding rough sleeping and how we support people to stop sleeping rough.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I very much welcome my hon. Friend’s support for this measure. I am more than happy to have an ongoing dialogue about the issue with her, as I do with so many others. It is absolutely right that we look to do everything possible to support our veterans.

I turn to new clause 24. We know that homelessness rarely occurs without warning. Yet too often, people come to the attention of local housing authorities only when they have already reached crisis point. Many of them will have been in contact with different public services long before, but opportunities to identify risk, co-ordinate support and intervene early are often missed. People often face homelessness despite engaging with services that are well placed to help prevent it. The new clause addresses this challenge by introducing new duties on specified bodies to identify and act on a person’s homelessness or risk of homelessness. This supports the Government’s commitment to prevent and relieve homelessness at the earliest possible stage.

The specified bodies will also be required to take meaningful action as part of the existing functions to address or relieve homelessness. The duty will replace and extend the existing duty to refer. It will mandate earlier engagement with local housing authorities, alongside notifying them if someone requires support. It also mandates continued engagement with the local authority to enable it to support an individual as effectively as possible, and will require specified bodies to consider other sources of support for the individual.

Preventing homelessness should not be the responsibility of a single organisation. People at risk of homelessness often have multiple and overlapping needs, including poor health, unemployment, financial hardship or involvement with the justice system. No single service can address these issues effectively alone.

[Danny Beales]

On the point about specific bodies, can the Minister clarify whether this provision would extend to hospital trusts and prisons within the criminal justice system? I am sure he knows that one of the most significant routes on to the street is from both of those public sector institutions. Unfortunately, hospitals rarely if ever count those who are likely to sleep rough on discharge or are currently doing so. Positively, the Government’s rough sleeping strategy is committed to ending discharge to street from hospitals, but getting that engagement from the NHS and trusts as well as the asylum system and prisons will be crucial to making that happen. Will this new clause be a step forward in that regard?

[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—

Social Housing Bill (First sitting)

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 27th October 2026 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Clause stand part.

New clause 55—Strategy relating to Right to Buy: 16 to 25 year olds.

“Within 12 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must publish a strategy for promoting awareness of the Right to Buy scheme to people aged 16 to 25.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to issue a strategy for promoting the Right to Buy scheme among young people.

New clause 57—Transitional arrangements relating to qualifying period for right to buy.

“(1) Section 119 of the Housing Act 1985 (qualifying period for right to buy) is amended as follows.

(2) After subsection (A1) insert –

‘(A2) Subsection (A1) does not apply in relation to a secure tenancy entered into before the coming into force of section 1 of the Social Housing Act 2026.

(A3) In relation to a tenancy within subsection (A2), the right to buy does not arise unless the period which, in accordance with Schedule 4, is to be taken into account for the purposes of this section is at least three years.’”

This new clause seeks to extend the transition period for the commencement of provisions in Clause 1 in relation to secure tenancies

Amendment 84, in clause 22, page 16, line 27, leave out paragraph (a).

This amendment would prevent section 1 of this Bill coming into effect on the day on which the Act is passed. Together with amendment 85, section 1 would come into force at the period of three years beginning on the day on which the Act is passed.

Amendment 85, in clause 22, page 17, line 16, at end insert—

“(3A) Section 1 (right to buy: qualifying period) comes into force at the end of the period of three years beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.”

This amendment together with amendment 84 would prevent section 1 of this Bill coming into effect on the day on which the Act is passed, instead making the commencement of section 1 to be three years following the day on which the Act is passed.

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

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Vickers. Before I speak to clause 1, I would like to put on the record once again my sincere thanks to my ministerial colleague Baroness Taylor of Stevenage for ably shepherding the Bill through its House of Lords stages. I also thank all noble Lords who took part in the debates on the Bill in the other place. It goes without saying that we did not agree with all the arguments made—we cannot accept the incorporation into the Bill of clause 13, for reasons that I will detail in due course—but overall the expert scrutiny and challenge provided by peers have helped to improve the Bill. A number of Government amendments that we have tabled arise directly from the issues raised and the points made during the debates in the Lords.

The Bill has three core objectives. The first is to protect much-needed social housing stock and thereby to incentivise the building of more social rented homes. The second is to create a fairer tenancy system with greater protection for tenants who are victims of domestic abuse. The third is to reduce unnecessary bureaucracy and give providers greater regulatory certainty so that they can invest in new social and affordable homes with confidence.

At the heart of the Bill are comprehensive reforms to the right-to-buy scheme that are designed to put it on a fair and sustainable footing for the future. They are informed by the feedback that we received in the public consultation, which ran from November 2024 to 2025, and are set out in clauses 1 to 10.

More than 2 million tenants have exercised the right to buy since it was introduced in 1980. However, as we all know, many of the homes sold under the scheme have not been replaced, which has depleted social housing stock. There is now an insufficient supply of good-quality social housing to meet demand. More than 1.3 million households are on the social housing waiting list, and almost 180,000 children are living homeless in temporary accommodation. The right-to-buy scheme has also reduced the motivation and confidence of councils to build, since new homes can be sold before the council can recover its investment.

Although we respect those who believe that right to buy should be abolished outright, the Government’s position remains that social housing tenants who have lived in and paid rent on their homes for many years should retain the opportunity to purchase them at a reasonable discount. However, as I argued on Second Reading, there is a pressing need to radically reform the right to buy to reduce the significant outflow of stock that has taken place since discounts were drastically increased by the coalition Government in 2012, to incentivise councils to once again build at scale, and to attract broader investment in council housing.

As things stand, to qualify for the right to buy an individual must be a secure tenant and must have spent at least three years as a public sector tenant—in other words, their landlord must be a public body, usually a council or a housing association. The three years do not have to have been continuous, and an individual can add together any time they spent as a public sector tenant. They are also able to count any period when their husband, wife or civil partner was a public sector tenant.

Until 2014, the minimum eligibility requirement was five, not three, years. The main rationale given at the time for reducing the qualifying period by two years was explicitly to drive an increase in the take-up of right to buy. The decision was taken in the full knowledge that a tenant occupying a property for three years is extremely unlikely to have paid rent that equates to the available discount.

The Government believe that a more sustainable balance must be struck to support councils to rebuild their stock of homes. Clause 1 therefore amends section 119 of the Housing Act 1985 to increase the minimum eligibility requirement from three to 10 years. As under the existing law, a combination of present and previous tenancies will continue to count towards the qualifying period.

Increasing the minimum eligibility period in that way has received strong support from stakeholders. In our consultation on reforming the right to buy, 81% of respondents, including 62% of tenants who responded, supported increasing the minimum period of tenancy required to at least 10 years. In fact, the majority of respondents supported someone having to be a public sector tenant for longer than 10 years before becoming eligible for the right to buy.

The Government believe that 10 years strikes the right balance between allowing long-standing tenants the opportunity to own their own home and protecting much-needed social housing stock. Incidentally, 10 years is also the average length of tenancy for someone buying under the scheme currently. This targeted change will maintain access to the right to buy for long-standing tenants, but in a way that provides for a fairer and more sustainable scheme and better supports the long-term supply of social housing.

[Gideon Amos]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Vickers.

I rise to support the clause. For Liberal Democrats, this is the most important and significant clause in the Bill, as it constrains the selling off of council houses. It is concerning that the Conservatives have tabled an amendment that would essentially reverse it. With 1.32 million people on the housing waiting list and 177,000 children in temporary accommodation, the last thing that we need is to continue the gradual loss of social housing. There has been a net loss of 2 million social homes since the introduction of right to buy. If that does not show that we cannot fill the bath with the plug taken out, nothing does. We stand squarely in support of the clause, although we would go further and give local authorities the ability and power to suspend right to buy completely if that is right for their area so that they can rebuild their stock of council housing and social rent homes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gareth Bacon]

No. More than 2 million households have exercised the right to become homeowners and gain a stake in society. Until 1980, that would have been out of reach for far too many British people, but the Government are determined to wind back the clock to the 1970s and cut off the right for hard-working families up and down the country to own their own home.

Amendments 84 and 85 would take out the extended qualifying period from the day the Bill is passed, thus preventing clause 1 from coming into effect for three years following Royal Assent. That would delay the Government’s dogma and continue to support the right of 5 million people to find their place in the community, and to feel the pride and safety that comes with owning one’s own home.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the hon. Member for Orpington for tabling new clauses 55 and 57 and amendments 84 and 85, and for speaking to them. I should say at the outset that, in political terms, he and I could not be further apart. However, he is a decent and diligent shadow Minister, as is the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington—I do not want to leave him out. I very much look forward to the robust yet civil debates we will have over the coming sessions.

I do not want to dwell too long on the more general points made by the hon. Member for Orpington, but I think it is worth responding to two of them. We are not extinguishing the right to buy through the Bill. We could have abolished the right to buy outright, but that is not what we are doing. We are ensuring that those who benefit from the scheme are long-standing tenants who have lived in and paid rent on their homes for many years.

In response to the hon. Gentleman’s point about the Bill having no impact on supply, he really ought to get out and speak to local authorities. They tell us that the benefits that they will see from the regulatory certainty and stability that we are providing, as well as the grant funding, will give them the confidence to go out and build new social homes, safe in the knowledge that, thanks to clause 1, they will not be immediately sold off after three years.

[Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)]

I thank the Minister for giving way; he is always very generous with his time, and I think he is a very competent and diligent Minister in the Department. Can he provide the evidence base for what he has just said? I was the leader of a local authority, and I never once met a housing provider that told me they cannot build any more social housing because of the right to buy.

[Matthew Pennycook]

That is not my experience from discussing the matter with councils, and it does not reflect the feedback that we received in the consultation. Councils up and down the country tell us that they could build more if they had certainty that their stock would not be lost in the proportion that it is—and certainly not after a minimum qualifying period of three years.

[Danny Beales]

Having been a cabinet member responsible for council house building in Camden for seven years, and building 1,000 homes, I can say that it is a challenge when council homes can quickly leave our stock through right to buy. Having built them at great public expense, and having borrowed on a 30-year basis to deliver them, the possibility of losing that asset at a discount without recouping the investment is a material consideration. Does the Minister agree that authorities that do not build council homes but rely on housing associations might not see this as a problem, as housing associations are not included in right to buy in the same way?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank my hon. Friend for sharing his very considerable experience. There is a difference in experience between local authorities that have housing revenue accounts and those that do not, and those that build at scale and those that do not. However, it is certainly the case that councils knowing they can lose stock three years after building it without recuperating that investment is a disincentive to build.

[Patrick Spencer (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)]

Will the Minister give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman but then, in the interests of getting to the Opposition new clauses, which I am told they want to speak to, I will make some progress.

[Patrick Spencer]

I appreciate the Minister’s point about recouping councils’ investment, which is why there are elements of the Bill that change that deal for councils. What my residents and I do not understand—and what people across this country do not understand—is why the Government are restricting access to right to buy for a whole group of people, including young people, young parents and people at the beginning of their professional lives, who might want to get on to the housing ladder. It seems they are tackling one problem by focusing on the completely wrong element of the issue.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I think I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point, but I respectfully disagree. It is a problem that local authorities up and down the country build new social homes but then, after three years, they can be purchased. That is leading to an unsustainable outflow of social housing stock from the system. We are not net positive on social homes—we have not been for many years—but the Bill will ensure that we are. It gives an incentive to councils to build, as they will know that they are building more than they are losing, and therefore the 1.3 million people on waiting lists will not increase but decrease over time.

I must turn to the amendments and new clauses tabled by the hon. Member for Orpington. New clause 57 would exempt existing secure tenants from the new 10-year minimum qualifying period introduced by the Bill. As I have said, a core aim of the Bill is to protect social housing stock better and to ensure that more social homes are built than lost. If existing tenancies were excluded from the changes to eligibility rules, the vast majority of tenants would be unaffected by our qualifying period reforms. I have no doubt that that is the hon. Gentleman’s intention, but the result would be homes continuing to be sold as little as three years after a tenancy was secured, and the continued loss of significant amounts of social housing stock. That is not the Government’s aim or the aim of the Bill. For that reason, the Government cannot accept the new clause, and I hope that the shadow Minister will not press it.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause 3 stand part.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Clauses 2 and 3 further tighten the eligibility criteria for right to buy, to ensure that the scheme is fair and well targeted. Clause 2 prevents existing residential property owners from exercising the right to buy, which we believe is a reasonable and rational approach. We have set out what we think is an appropriate definition of a residential property owner in the clause. The clause will apply to anyone who owns a residential property, whether owned outright or with a mortgage. Leasehold and freehold properties will be captured, with exceptions for short-term leases of less than 21 years, as will properties in joint ownership or owned outside England, including those held in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and abroad.

Exemptions will be made for victims of domestic abuse who have moved from the accommodation that they were occupying for reasons connected to the abuse. As part of the application process, tenants will be required to declare to the landlord whether they own another property, and landlords will be able to check the information that the tenant provides. If tenants are seeking exceptionally to buy under the right-to-buy scheme where they already own a residential property because they have been the victim of domestic abuse, they will also be required to provide evidence of that to the landlord.

Clause 3 prevents those who have previously exercised the right to buy from doing so again, with exceptions in place for cases of domestic abuse and irretrievable relationship breakdown. I hope hon. Members will agree that repeat purchases would undermine the objectives of the right-to-buy scheme. It would lead to more social housing stock being lost to those who have already benefited from a publicly funded discount to buy their own home.

During our consultation on reforming the right to buy, 91% of respondents stated that they would support preventing someone who has either previously benefited from the right to buy or owns another property from being able to access the scheme. The terms of the referenced exceptions are set out in the clause and will be reinforced by updated guidance when the Act comes into force. It will be for social landlords to be satisfied that the exceptions apply, for which they will be able to ask for evidence from the applicant as part of the application process. Obviously, councils are already well practised at doing this as, under the current rules, those who have previously exercised the right to buy have their discount reduced if they seek to exercise the right to buy again.

We think clauses 2 and 3 are fair and proportionate. They are designed to appropriately restrict access to the right-to-buy scheme.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 2 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4

Timescales

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to debate clause 5 stand part.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Clause 4 concerns the statutory periods in which local authorities have to consider applications under the right to buy. The clause amends sections 124 and 125 of the Housing Act 1985 by extending the periods within which landlords must serve notices either admitting or denying a tenant’s eligibility for the right to buy, which relates to section 124, and setting out the purchase price and other required information, which is section 125. The period under section 124 will be extended from four to eight weeks where the tenant has been a tenant of the same landlord for the qualifying period and from eight to 12 weeks in any other case. The period under section 125 will be extended from eight to 12 weeks for freehold properties and from 12 to 16 weeks for leasehold properties.

The revised statutory periods are intended to provide additional flexibility where applications are complex, for example where there are valuation issues or safeguarding concerns. Importantly, they will give landlords more time to verify eligibility based on the new criteria and support them in carrying out preliminary counter-fraud and money laundering checks. Although we are extending the time period that landlords have to respond to right-to-buy applications, I stress that these timescales are an upper limit, not an expectation. We expect landlords to continue to process applications as quickly as they can.

Clause 5 inserts proposed new section 124A into the Housing Act 1985, enabling a landlord to suspend a right-to-buy application where there is reason to suspect that the claim may be fraudulent. A suspension under section 124A does not cancel the application; it temporarily pauses the statutory process while an investigation is carried out and must end no later than six months after the date of the suspension, or sooner if the investigation is concluded.

In response to the consultation on reforming the right to buy, we committed to carry out more effective fraud prevention, including mitigating vulnerable tenants being pressured into buying and cracking down on third-party backed applications. We are clear—I hope the Committee will support us in this principle—that fraudulent applications backed by unscrupulous lenders have no place under right to buy. They undermine the scheme. By ensuring that social landlords have more time to investigate suspected fraud when managing applications, the clause will help to prevent fraudulent applications from slipping through the cracks and maintain the integrity of the scheme.

During the period of suspension, the procedural requirements of the Act, including statutory time limits, will not apply. The tenant will, therefore, not be able to issue delay notices during this period. Guidance will make it clear that timelines for processing applications can be extended only where fraud is suspected and are not to be used by landlords as a way to delay the processing of more routine applications.

We will also strengthen guidance for landlords and tenants on fraud prevention, including third-party companies lending money for purchases. Any such companies will need to be registered with the Financial Conduct Authority, which will support both the FCA and landlords with enforcement.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 4 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6

Discount

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 29—Report on the impact of changes to right to buy discounts—

“Within the period of 12 months beginning with the day on which section 6 (discount) comes into force, the Secretary of State must publish and lay before Parliament a report assessing the impact of the changes made by that section on—

(a) overall rates of home ownership,

(b) the number of social housing tenants exercising the right to buy,

(c) social housing supply, and

(d) the provision of replacement social housing.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to assess the impact of the Bill’s changes to right to buy discounts on home ownership, right to buy uptake and housing supply.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

As I have already set out, the Bill’s reforms aim to ensure that the right-to-buy scheme is sustainable, including by ensuring that discounts are set at the right level to enable long-standing tenants to buy under the scheme but without depleting levels of social housing stock.

This Government already took action in November 2024 to reduce the maximum cash discounts, returning those to pre-2012 levels. We subsequently committed to revise the discounts available as a percentage of the property value, so that they align better with the revised cash cap amounts. Clause 6 delivers on that commitment by reducing percentage discounts so that they start at 5% of the property value after 10 years of public sector tenancy, and increase for every extra year of a tenancy up to a maximum of 15%. As is the case now, the percentage discounts will be subject to cash caps that set out the maximum cash discount that a tenant can receive in their area. Aligning the discounts available as a percentage of the property value with the cash caps ensures that those who have been in their homes the longest benefit the most, while avoiding disproportionately large discounts in high-value areas.

The revised percentage discount aims to strike a balance between the responses received during the right-to-buy consultation, in which many respondents supported setting the percentage discounts lower than those proposed by the clause. We are also simplifying the rules by applying a single set of discount arrangements to both houses and flats to make the scheme clearer and more consistent for tenants.

[Patrick Spencer]

Would it be possible for the Government to present some kind of analysis on the impact that this policy will have on the number of sales made available to tenants? That would be important to establishing the long-term economic impact on properties across the country.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I simply refer the hon. Gentleman to the impact assessment. If he has further, detailed questions about it, I am more than happy to answer, but we have set out our analysis of the impact of the Bill and in particular that of the ambition to go net positive on new social housing as a result of the changes we are making.

The clause also extends the discount repayment period from the current five years to 10 years after the original sale, during which time a repurchaser looking to resell the property will be required to repay all or some of the discount on a sliding scale. That measure was supported by 72% of respondents to our consultation and it will ensure that there is less incentive for early resale, which can undermine the purpose of the scheme. It will encourage people buying to retain the property and discourage profiteering.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 6 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

We come next to clause 7.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

You did not bob, Gareth. We will move on.

Clause 7

Right of first refusal

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Clause 7 extends the existing right of first refusal for councils to buy back homes that were previously sold under the right to buy when they are resold. The right of first refusal period is currently 10 years after the original sale, and councils have eight weeks to decide whether to buy back the home when informed by the owner that they plan to sell; following that period, the property can be sold on the open market. Under the clause, the period in which councils must be given the right of first refusal will increase, so that it applies in perpetuity, meaning that councils will have the opportunity to buy back a property every time it is resold.

This proposal received strong support from respondents to the Government’s consultation. The change will apply only to applications to exercise the right to buy after the measures come into force. Homes already sold under the right to buy will be subject to the terms of the covenants that were attached to them when they were sold under the scheme.

Giving social landlords greater opportunity to buy back properties sold under the scheme increases their ability to acquire social housing that may otherwise be lost to the open market. That directly supports the Government’s ambition to grow the volume of council housing. Clause 7 is an important safeguard that supports the effective operation of the right-to-buy scheme. It will help to ensure that public subsidy is protected, discourage short-term purchases for financial gain and support the Bill’s wider objective to protect social housing stock. I commend the clause to the Committee.

[The Chair]

I can see no one bobbing, so I will put the Question.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 7 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8

Exceptions to the Right to Buy

--- Later in debate ---

[Gideon Amos]

I am somewhat surprised that the Opposition spokesperson has entered into the realm of social housing supply, given the record of the previous Conservative Government. Of course, we need to increase supply as well as saving the stock that has been built with public funds—taxpayer’s money—for the community, rather than giving over discounts, sometimes to the extent of a £70,000 or £80,000 transfer of cash, from the taxpayer into the hands of individual property owners for no good reason.

We need to increase supply. That is why the Liberal Democrats have a target to build 150,000 social rent homes per year. I do not know the hon. Gentleman’s party’s target for the delivery of social housing—they did not build many when they were in government. We need to give local authorities the power and flexibility to decide for themselves whether it is right to continue with right to buy in their areas. If we believe in local communities and local democracy, we should give them the ability to say that right to buy and the loss of more council housing stock is no longer right for their area. I commend new clause 2 to the Committee and urge all Committee members to vote for it.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will speak to clause 8 and amendments 13 to 18, tabled in my name, and then I will turn to various amendments that have been tabled and spoken to.

Clause 8 amends schedule 5 to the Housing Act 1985 to introduce new and updated exceptions to the right to buy. Under the scheme, exceptions already include homes suitable for occupation by the elderly, sheltered housing and homes due to be demolished. Of respondents to our consultation, 76% agree that the existing exceptions should be retained, and we are doing so. The clause does, however, make a small change to amend outdated terminology in the current exemption for dwellings for persons of pensionable age, to update the reference to resident or non-resident wardens to resident or non-resident managers.

The clause introduces three new exceptions. First, it exempts newly built social homes from the scheme for 35 years, giving councils the confidence to invest in new supply. At present, councils are disincentivised from building because homes can be sold before costs are recovered through rent, undermining housing revenue accounts. A 35-year exemption period reflects the typical pay-back period and ensures that councils are not losing new homes prematurely. Despite what the shadow Minister continues to assert, that is a significant supply-side reform that helps to deliver the Government’s commitment to back councils to build at a scale not seen in decades.

Councils have been clear to the Government that the risk of early sale deters investment. Removing that risk provides greater certainty over stock and income and supports new development. We recognise the frustration of seeing newly built homes sold so quickly before they can meet local need. The Government’s manifesto committed to better protecting newly built social housing from the right to buy, and the introducing the exemption was supported by the vast majority of respondents to our consultation on the basis that it will give councils, as I have said, greater confidence to build new homes and provide greater protection than the existing cost floor rules.

Secondly, the clause exempts homes in national parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty and designated rural areas from the right to buy. That recognises the particular pressures on rural housing where land and planning constraints mean that homes are significantly harder to replace once lost from the social sector. In many cases, replacement is not feasible at all, exacerbating already acute shortages in those areas. There was clear recognition of these challenges in the other place, where the difficulty of replacing rural homes and the importance of protecting stock in these areas was highlighted. This measure responds directly to those concerns and will help safeguard rural social housing.

Existing rural designations will continue to have effect for the purpose of this exemption until we implement the new framework for local authorities to self-designate as rural, as set out in Government amendments 13 to 18, which I will come to shortly, as well as clause 8. The covenants attached to homes that have been sold under the right to buy in rural areas, which restricts sale to a local person or a social landlord, will also continue to apply.

Thirdly and finally, council-owned market rent homes will also be excluded, supporting councils to use mixed tenure and cross-subsidy models to deliver more housing. That recognises the important role that market rent homes can play in enabling councils to generate additional income to reinvest in social and affordable homes. These changes are part of the wider package of reforms to ensure that more homes are built than lost.

Government amendments 13 to 18 deliver on commitments made during the Bill’s passage in the other place to put the criteria for rural designation into regulations. That was a call that came from noble peers on the Opposition Benches. The regulations will use the long-established criteria of a population density of no more than two persons per hectare and a population of 3,000 or fewer. That criteria will be applied using census-derived population data, and local authorities will be expected to ensure that the criteria will continue to be met in relevant areas every 10 years, as new census data becomes available.

It was also agreed in the other place that the Government would explore whether the existing process under which local authorities need to apply to the Government for designation could be replaced with a new system under which local authorities will be able to self-designate rural areas where they meet the criteria. I can confirm that we do intend to implement that change, and these amendments will enable that. These changes will provide transparency on the criteria for rural designation. They will also empower local areas and reduce bureaucracy for both local authorities and the Government compared with the current process, which, as I have said, requires local authorities seeking designation to apply to the Secretary of State, and secondary legislation to be made for each individual designation.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Gareth Bacon]

We do not share the Government’s position on this. We will be pressing for a Division on amendment 90. On amendment 83, I understand the point that the Minister made about recouping the cost. However, we believe that that is a convenience for local authorities, not for local people, and we are more interested in local people.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

This simple and straightforward clause ensures that the reforms to the right to buy are applied fairly and consistently. It protects tenants who have already made a valid application by ensuring that applications received by landlords ahead of the reforms coming into force will continue to be subject to the existing rules. That will avoid retrospective changes that could disadvantage applicants partway through the process.

The clause also makes important provision in relation to rural exemptions, which links directly to the reforms in clause 8 and Government amendments 13 to 18. It provides that existing rural designations will continue to have effect after commencement, as if they were made under the new powers introduced by clause 8. That means that there will be no gap in protection for rural areas while the new framework in which local authorities self-designate as rural is implemented.

Together, these provisions ensure a smooth and legally certain transition, protecting both tenants’ rights and the integrity of rural housing protections. Overall, the clause provides legal clarity, fairness and continuity as the reformed right to buy scheme is introduced.

Clause 9, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 10

Right to Buy: receipts

[Gareth Bacon]

I beg to move amendment 92, in clause 10, page 10, line 19, leave out “a determination” and insert “regulations”.

This amendment removes the power of the Secretary of State to make a determination, but that changes to the use of capital receipts must be made by regulations instead.

--- Later in debate ---

[Edward Argar]

The very simple fact that there would be no vote on it by Members of this House, regardless of whether that was in a Committee, which is of course a subset of the House where we can debate and raise issues. I have a lot of time for the hon. Lady. I spent almost 10 years sitting on her local council before I was elected to this place, and I still closely follow Westminster politics. Consequently, I know that she is a hard-working and diligent Member who engages with all these issues particularly closely. However, the simple answer to her question is that Members would not have a vote on the Secretary of State’s determination.

With that, I will conclude by again reiterating my support for the intent behind the amendments that my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington has tabled.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Let me say to hon. Members that I have never found the process in Delegated Legislation Committees particularly fast in any instance, but I recognise the reasonable concerns that have been put. I think they are unfounded, and for the reasons I will set out, I hope to reassure hon. Members.

Clause 10 simplifies and modernises how the rules on right-to-buy receipts are managed. Its intent is to improve administrative efficiency and to provide flexibility. To understand our purpose behind the clause, it is important to have an accurate view of the current arrangements. As things stand, every stock-holding authority has an agreement with the Secretary of State, allowing it to retain all its net right-to-buy receipts, provided that it spends those receipts on replacement social housing.

In practice, this is hugely administratively burdensome. There are over 160 stock-holding local authorities, all of which must be issued with identical section 11(6) retention agreements whenever the rules change. That requires issuing, tracking and chasing agreements for signature across every one of those authorities, creating unnecessary bureaucracy for both councils and central Government.

Clause 10 replaces that with a simpler approach. It provides the Secretary of State with a power to disapply or modify the requirements on the use of receipts set out in regulations by determination, which will then apply consistently across all local authorities. That removes the need to replicate the same agreement process many times over.

Concerns were raised in the other place that we may be seeking to use the clause to require councils to start repaying a portion of their receipts to the Treasury. Let me reassure the Committee that that is absolutely not the case. We fought hard to ensure that local authorities could retain 100% of their receipts. Hon. Members may recall that the previous Government temporarily made that change, but reversed it before the last election.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

Clause 11 concerns the right-to-acquire scheme for housing association tenants, which is broadly modelled on the right-to-buy scheme, with most of the same rules applying. The right to acquire applies to housing association homes built or acquired with social housing grant after 1997. The Committee has already discussed the effect of and rationale for clauses 1 to 10, which amend the Housing Act 1985 to alter rules regarding the right to buy. Under section 184 of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008, those changes also apply to the right-to-acquire scheme for housing association tenants. The Committee will understand that it is only right for the same eligibility criteria and exemptions to apply to both schemes, to ensure consistency and fairness for social housing tenants, regardless of whether they live in a council home or a housing association home. My officials have engaged with relevant stakeholders, such as the National Housing Federation, which is supportive of our consistent approach.

Clause 11 also supports the broader policy objective of protecting social housing stock. That is a core objective of this Bill, and the Committee has debated it at length. As the discounts for the right to acquire are set out separately from those for the right to buy, they remain unaffected and will continue to be £9,000 to £16,000, depending on the location. Increasing them to align with the right-to-buy discounts would contradict our objective of better protecting social housing stock.

The clause is consequential on previous clauses, and reflects the changes made to the rural area provisions, which is currently an area of divergence between the two schemes. Under the right to acquire, homes in designated rural areas are already exempt from sale, in recognition of the challenges of replacing stock in such areas. The clause helps to ensure that the new rural exemptions in the Bill apply consistently across both schemes. The clause will provide fairness for social housing tenants, support our objective of protecting social housing stock and ensure that the new rural exemptions operate coherently across both schemes. I commend it to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 11 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 12

Restriction on certain sales of social housing by private registered providers

--- 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.

[Lewis Cocking]

I ask genuinely about disposals, in a nice and polite way, so I wonder what the Minister’s comments will be. When housing associations or councils dispose of properties, they generally do so for a reason—for example, not being able to spend the money to get it up to a certain EPC grade that the Government have set for them. What evidence does he have that, where one company cannot do something for a social home, such as spending the money to increase the EPC rating, and therefore is selling it, another social housing provider will be able to do it? I want to understand where we are going with these amendments and this part of the Bill. When properties are disposed of, it is usually done for a reason. What makes him think that where someone cannot do it, someone else in the industry could?

[Matthew Pennycook]

That is a fair point. The particular reasons that individual providers dispose of stock vary wildly across the country. In the case of disposals that are driven by increases in standards, we are seeing some of that, but it is also the case that there are occasions when local authority or other providers are, for their own reasons, based on their own assessment of the stock, able and willing to take those homes on. I do not think that we can specify a general rule. What we are trying to do here is to give local authorities and other providers the maximum possible opportunity to pick up those stocks and to retain them in the social housing sector, if that is possible. To be very clear and honest with the hon. Member, that may not always be possible, and those homes may be disposed of on the open market, but we want to increase the chances of them being able to be retained in the sector, for all the reasons that we have gone into.

Amendments 1 and 5 would add the Regulator of Social Housing to those bodies that must be notified prior to a disposal. The regulator plays a vital role in ensuring that our social landlords deliver the quality homes and services that their tenants deserve. As part of the regulatory framework, private registered providers must be able to demonstrate a strategic rationale for disposals and understand the implications for their total social housing stock. I am not persuaded that requiring private registered providers to notify the regulator of a future disposal would enable it to better regulate against the standards that it sets. The regulator plays no role in approving such disposals; that decision properly rests with the landlord. The regulator is already notified once a disposal has occurred, so it has an overview of the numbers and types of disposals that are occurring.

Amendment 101 would, similarly, require community land trusts with social housing in the area to be notified. Of course, community land trusts that are registered with the Regulator of Social Housing would already be notified under the requirements of the clause. I am aware that not all community land trusts are registered with the regulator, and that is their choice, but the focus of the clause is to keep homes in the regulated sector where it is possible to do so. The notification process is therefore focused on notifying providers that are registered with the regulator.

Amendment 99 would require a sales notice provided to the local authority and other registered providers in the local area to be published on the website of the private registered provider intending to dispose of the property. One of the main aims of the clause is to increase transparency around disposals. However, there is a balance to be struck between the benefits of transparency and the burdens and costs to private registered providers. We believe that the amendment would introduce an unhelpful level of bureaucracy around the disposal notification process. While some providers may choose to publish notifications of sale on their websites, requiring publication via legislation is disproportionate.

[Gideon Amos]

If we are after transparency, I have difficulty with the Minister’s basing his argument on the massive cost of putting something on a website. I understand that it is a tradition of this place that the Government resist all amendments that come from all quarters other than their own, but this seems to be taking things to an illogical conclusion.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gideon Amos]

I will be brief. Amendment 2 would give local housing authorities right of first refusal to acquire social rent dwellings and dwellings previously transferred from local authorities at existing use value for social housing. The acquisition of those properties at existing use value for social housing, rather than at market value or existing use value, is significant, because obviously the existing use value for social housing is lower. It is important that local authorities have the ability to acquire homes that are being disposed of, so that the net reduction in social housing is not increased. I commend the amendment to the Committee.

[Matthew Pennycook]

As the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington set out, amendments 2 and 3 would introduce a right of first refusal for the local authority and other registered providers notified via a sale notice during the notice period. That right would be on the condition that the home would remain as social housing and would require the private registered provider to sell the home at the existing use value for social housing. The corresponding amendment 10, tabled by the hon. Member for St Ives, would extend the right of first refusal to specific types of bodies that provide affordable housing. Some of those bodies would be registered with the Regulator of Social Housing, and therefore would already be included within amendment 3, but amendment 10 would also extend the right of first refusal to unregistered housing providers.

I have heard clearly, both on Second Reading and today, the desire of hon. Members to protect social homes. I very much share that desire, but that must be balanced with the ability of private providers to operate efficiently and manage their housing assets, including by investing in more new homes or their existing stock. Sometimes that can mean selling a social home out of the sector. I can assure the Committee that I have fought long and hard, and challenged officials—they can verify that with nods—to ensure that we look in a lot of detail at what requirements can be put in place, and what levers we can try to pull, to keep as many social homes in the regulated sector as possible.

A key consideration when thinking through possible interventions is the reality that interfering with private registered providers’ freedom to use and sell their assets as they wish would present a significant risk of reclassifying the sector. Not only would that bring £110 billion of debt on to the public books, but it would bring with it risk and uncertainty that could impact on the investment in the sector that is so needed.

As I have said, I hope the disposals measure in the Bill will ensure greater transparency around disposals and support better dialogue between private registered providers and local authorities. I hope it will also focus minds to ensure that we minimise any negative impact resulting from disposals. Of course, there is nothing to prevent a private registered provider from choosing to sell to another provider at a lower price on the understanding that it remains social housing. I hope that the notification requirement introduced by the Bill will support such discussions. I am very open to ideas about what more can be done to support that dialogue, and I have tasked my officials to work with the sector to identify and promote good practice, as well as to explore what more the Government might do to reinforce it.

Given the issues that I have highlighted, I believe we will get the best results by working together with private registered providers and local authorities to explore what more they can do and where we can support them to keep homes in the regulated sector. For the reasons that I have set out, primarily around reclassification risk, we cannot accept the amendments, and I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment 2.

[Gideon Amos]

I appreciate the Minister’s response. The amendments are genuinely intended to provide councils with the ability to acquire stock rather than see it lost from the social housing sector. This is a particularly important area and, I believe, an important amendment. I understand the risks of reclassification on to the public sector balance sheet. I wonder whether the Minister would be willing to publish the advice he has received on that, because the sector will want to understand why first refusal cannot be given to local authorities.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I appreciate the attempt, let us say, to have confidential advice to Ministers published in the round. That is not the usual practice—

[The Chair]

Order.

Housing: Shared Ownership

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Monday 26th October 2026 Written Statements

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

As a low-cost home ownership product, shared ownership has enabled hundreds of thousands of people to get on the property ladder who otherwise would not have been able to do so. However, despite improvements made to the model over recent years, the Government are fully aware that shared owners continue to struggle with a range of serious affordability, transparency, management, staircasing and resale challenges.

Some of these challenges are not unique to the shared ownership model but they frequently have a disproportionate impact on those who have purchased their homes using the product. For example, high and rising service charges are affecting residential long leaseholders across the country irrespective of their management or freehold structure. Yet, because shared ownership is explicitly aimed at those on lower-to-middle incomes, sharp increases in service charges often create acute financial pressures for shared owners despite the fact they only own a partial equity stake in their home.

While the Government remain committed to shared ownership as an important route into home ownership for those who cannot afford to buy on the open market, we are determined to ensure that the model is fair, transparent and affordable across its lifecycle. That is why, in addition to progressing an ambitious leasehold reform agenda and accelerating the remediation of unsafe buildings to the benefit of shared owners and other long leaseholders, we are taking forward a phased programme of targeted improvements to the shared ownership model to ensure it provides an effective and sustainable route into home ownership.

I am today updating the House on the progress made in phase one of our improvement programme and setting out our intentions in respect of phase two.

Phase one

The focus of the first phase of our improvement plan has been twofold: improving customer experience, and giving shared ownership providers greater certainty, stability and confidence to deliver new shared ownership homes.

In terms of customer experience, we made clear that we expect registered providers who secure grant funding through our social and affordable homes programme to make improvements, including through giving greater consideration to long-term customer affordability, through increasing transparency and fairness on costs, and through giving customers the ability to opt out of fees for services that are optional.

We also specified that fees charged to shared ownership customers should not be used as a source of profit or a means by which to cross-subsidise other areas of work. These improvements have been reflected in capital funding guidance, found at www.gov.uk/guidance/capital-funding-guide/1-shared-ownership for providers, and the key information documents, found at www.gov.uk/government/collections/ahp-2021-to-2026-and-sahp-2026-to-2036-key-information-documents which are provided to prospective buyers of shared ownership homes.

In terms of supporting the delivery of new shared ownership homes, we have provided long-term certainty by confirming that, in the period to 2036, we will not change the provision in our model lease that permits rents to increase by CPI+1% each year. In addition, we have removed right to shared ownership as a contractual requirement of new grant funding and enabled providers to adjust initial shares to meet their target viability on shared ownership sites outside of London.

We have also acted to support shared owners to manage specific challenges, including those resulting from the building safety crisis. Recognising the plight of shared owners living in buildings that require remediation, many of whom are facing unaffordable costs and are more likely to experience failed property transactions, we made changes to the Renters’ Rights Act 2025 to ensure that, subject to certain conditions, shared owners are exempt from the 12-month no re-let period and can return to subletting where an attempted sale falls through.

Finally, we have supported industry efforts to improve standards and consistency for shared ownership. We recognise the voluntary shared ownership code as a constructive, sector-led initiative to improve standards, transparency, and consumer protection for shared ownership buyers and owners.

Phase two

Work has now begun on the second phase of our improvement programme, focused on further steps to address specific barriers and difficulties experienced by shared owners. The work in this phase will be wide-ranging but will include, at a minimum, the following:

Considering measures to reduce existing barriers to staircasing such as up-front and ongoing transaction costs.

Exploring options to support resales, including an assessment of the efficacy and reasonableness of nomination periods and the fees charged by providers.

Developing better information and guidance to help existing shared owners understand and navigate the options available to them.

Undertaking a comprehensive review of the functioning of buy-backs—or leasehold repurchases—as an exit route for shared owners who, through no fault of their own, find themselves unable either to afford to remain in their home or to sell it.

To support our efforts in this phase of the improvement programme, we will take steps to significantly improve our data quality and collection so that we fully understand the experience of shared owners over time and build a fuller picture of pressures such as long-term affordability. As part of this, we will consider how we can increase compliance with the existing requirement for registered providers to submit data on shared ownership.

As we look to make these further improvements, we want to ensure that shared ownership remains accessible to households on lower-to-middle incomes. Household income eligibility caps for shared ownership have been frozen since 2016. In recognition of the impact of inflation and earnings growth in the period since, I am today announcing that the Government are raising them from £80,000 outside London and £90,000 in London to £90,000 outside London and £110,000 in London.

The new caps will take effect in the new year. For outside London, this change will be reflected in the Homes England capital funding guide, and for London it will be reflected in the next annual monitoring report for the London plan.

We look forward to working in partnership with shared owners, providers, lenders, consumer representatives and other interested parties as we continue our efforts to improve the shared ownership experience.

[HCWS417]

Draft Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications, Deemed Applications, Requests and Site Visits) (England) (Amendment and Transitional Provision) Regulations 2026

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Wednesday 21st October 2026 General Committees

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

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications, Deemed Applications, Requests and Site Visits) (England) (Amendment and Transitional Provision) Regulations 2026.

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir John. The original draft regulations were laid before Parliament on 16 July. Following the identification of omitted text affecting the calculation of two fee categories, they were withdrawn, corrected and re-laid on 1 September.

Local planning authorities are integral to delivering the new homes and infrastructure that our country needs, and the Government appreciate fully that, to do so, they require sufficient capacity and capability. Yet for too long, local authority planning departments across the country have wrestled with significant financial pressures that have constrained their ability to recruit and retain skilled planners, invest in modern systems and make timely, high-quality planning decisions.

For that reason, the Government have invested significant sums to boost capacity and capability in local planning authorities. At the 2024 autumn Budget, the then Chancellor announced a £46 million package of investment into the planning system as a one-year settlement for 2025-26. At the Budget on 26 November last year, she announced a further £48 million of investment over three years to support local planning authorities to attract, retain and develop skilled planners over a sustained period. Of that funding, £28.8 million has been allocated to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government’s planning capacity and capability programme, equating to an additional £9.6 million per year for the next three years. That allocation will supplement existing budgets.

In total, the programme now aims to deliver around 1,325 planners by the end of this Parliament, significantly exceeding our original manifesto commitment to deliver 300 new planning officers. Wider cross-Government recruitment and investment in planning capacity and capability will increase that figure further to approximately 1,400 planners. That new funding will support both graduate and mid-career entry routes into planning, including by expanding the Pathways to Planning graduate scheme.

For local planning authorities, fees are an important contributor to resourcing requirements. Planning application fees are set nationally and are intended to cover the cost to a local planning authority of processing and determining a planning application. However, as things stand, the fees do not fully cover the costs of providing the service. Based on the most recent local government spending data for 2024-25, that has led to an estimated funding shortfall of £330 million per year, which means that local planning authorities are not adequately equipped to deliver an efficient planning service. That is why the Government acted through regulations to increase planning fees for householders and introduce fees for certain minor applications from 1 April last year, and why our landmark Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 included powers to allow local planning authorities, subject to safeguards, to set their own planning fees through a local variation model.

The draft regulations amend the Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications, Deemed Applications, Requests and Site Visits) (England) Regulations 2012. Their objective is twofold: first, to reduce funding shortfalls and improve the financial sustainability of local authority planning departments, which they will achieve by providing a significant and immediate increase in funding for planning application services; and secondly, to establish a more robust baseline for the operation of future local fee-setting arrangements, which will be implemented through separate regulations later this year.

[Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)]

Will the new planning fees be ringfenced so that councils have to spend them on their planning departments?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will address that more fully in my closing remarks, but we do expect the fees to be ringfenced. The hon. Gentleman may recall that we took powers in the Planning and Infrastructure Act to ensure that that is the case.

The draft regulations will establish that baseline by providing for a national default fee that will continue to apply unless a local planning authority chooses to set a different fee to reflect its costs.

Earlier this year, we carried out a consultation on fees for planning applications, seeking views on a proposed national default fee schedule, including in respect of the appropriate level of fees, whether structural changes should be made to specific fee categories, and the wider framework for local fee setting. The feedback indicated broad support across the sector for increasing fees, provided that the additional income is reinvested in planning application services and results in improved performance.

The Government are clear that the additional funding should support measurable improvements in performance. We expect authorities to use the additional income to strengthen their planning application services, reduce delays and provide a better service to applicants. We will of course continue to monitor performance through planning statistics and the existing planning performance regime.

In general terms, planning application fees typically account for less than 1% of overall development costs, while delays and uncertainty in the planning process can impose far greater costs on development and investment. Ensuring that planning authorities are properly resourced is therefore in the interests of applicants, communities and the wider economy. However, it is of course important that any changes to planning fees strike the right balance, ensuring that authorities can recover their costs while remaining proportionate for applicants and supporting continued investment and development. Having considered the consultation responses carefully, we think the revised schedule does just that.

Let me briefly set out the main changes made by the regulations. First, they introduce a revised set of national fees, which we refer to as a national fees schedule. Fees will increase by varying amounts across existing application categories, with the aim of recovering approximately 90% of the estimated processing costs for each application type. The increases are informed by benchmarking work undertaken by the Local Government Association and the Planning Advisory Service, which showed that every application category operates below cost recovery.

Increasing all fees to approximately 90% of estimated costs will provide a significant and immediate increase in funding for planning application services. We are not moving to full cost recovery through a nationally set fee schedule because the cost of processing applications varies significantly among authorities. A uniform national fee set at 100% of estimated average costs could therefore lead to over-recovery in some areas.

Secondly, the regulations simplify and restructure selected fee categories. This includes aligning the household fee thresholds with the medium-sized development category introduced through the national planning policy framework, and simplifying the fee bands applying to certain agricultural, minerals, waste and other operational development. These changes will make the national fee schedule clearer and easier for applicants and local planning authorities to operate.

Thirdly, the regulations introduce a standard fee of £310 for prior-approval applications that currently attract no fee. Prior-approval applications require local planning authorities to devote time and resources to their assessment, so it is right that applicants contribute towards the costs. As part of this third change, the regulations also enable the £310 fee to apply where prior approval is required for larger electricity substations. The separate statutory instrument introducing that prior-approval requirement was laid before Parliament on 30 September and comes into force on 21 October.

Finally, the regulations correct omissions in existing indexation provisions. This will ensure that mixed-use outline application fees and the new standard prior-approval fee are subject to annual inflationary increases in the same way as other planning application fees. Subject to parliamentary approval, the regulations will come into force on 8 December 2026.

To conclude, the regulations will provide an immediate increase in funding for local planning authorities, support the Government’s wider programme of planning reform and establish a stronger baseline for the future operation of local fee-setting powers. In return, applicants should expect improved performance, more timely decisions and greater certainty across the planning system—a better resourced planning system that is better able to deliver the homes, infrastructure and growth that this country needs. I commend the regulations to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the shadow Minister for his response and the questions he put to me. Before I address each of them in turn, I want to reinforce a general point that I made concerning the rationale for the regulations. As it stands, based on the most recent local government spending data for 2024-25, councils are facing an estimated funding shortfall of £330 million per year, as a result of the gap between the fees they are able to charge and the cost of processing and determining planning applications. It is entirely reasonable, on the principle of the matter, that we seek to close that gap so that local authorities are able to deliver a timely service.

The shadow Minister spoke at some length about viability pressures and the role of regulations in those pressures. I gently say to him that lots of the regulations either that we are bringing into force or that were in force were introduced by his Government—the requirement for second staircases is a good example. We recognise that developers must meet a range of costs when bringing forward development. We are acutely aware that viability pressures remain pressing in many parts of the country—London is a good example—and that they have become, in many cases, more acute over recent months as a result of the conflict in the middle east. The shadow Minister will know the statistics when it comes to the increase in, for example, building materials costs that all developers are facing.

I come back, though, to the point I made in my opening remarks. Planning application fees are typically a very small proportion of overall development costs. The purpose of the regulations is to ensure that planning application services are properly resourced so that they can process applications efficiently, because there is a cost to delays resulting from planning application services that are not efficient. I argue that by ensuring that local planning authorities can make high-quality and timely decisions we can support viability and investment, just as much as by keeping application fees proportionate.

[Gareth Bacon]

I do not doubt the Minister’s sincerity on that point but, to take him back to what I said in my speech, the Government expecting something to happen is not the same as their requiring it to happen. If that does not happen, what steps will the Government take to make sure that it does?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will come to that, and I will answer the specific point on ringfencing as well, because I think the shadow Minister slightly misrepresented my response to the hon. Member for Broxbourne.

On a related point about viability—the shadow Minister tempts me to stray way beyond the the regulations before us—it is important to say that we consulted on the fee schedule that we are discussing. We received 173 responses to that consultation and, overall, 59% of respondents supported the proposed national fee schedule. The support included 68% of local planning authorities and 52% of developer respondents. There is, then, support out there for the fee increases, provided, as I said, that they result in an improved service.

On ringfencing, the Government are clear that planning fee income should be invested in planning application services. I slightly take issue with the shadow Minister saying that we are just relying on moral suasion to ensure that planning departments do that. The Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 introduced a statutory ringfencing requirement to ensure that fee income is retained and applied to the delivery of the planning function. The ringfencing measures will come into force through separate regulations at the same time as the local fee-setting measures I mentioned earlier are introduced.

The ringfencing duty will apply regardless of whether fees have been set nationally or locally, so the shadow Minister can be assured that, in due course, as soon as we have commenced those regulations, the ringfencing will apply. While those provisions are not in force, the Government expectation remains that planning fee income should be reinvested into planning application services. Once we have commenced those regulations, that will not be an option for authorities.

On general planning performance, the shadow Minister will know that we monitor through planning statistics and our planning performance regime. Many of his colleagues have squirmed at their local authorities being put on to that performance regime for not making timely decisions and not performing as required. We will continue to monitor where we need to intervene using the powers available for us in respect of individual local authorities.

To conclude, the regulations are a key step towards improving local planning authority resourcing, thereby enabling faster decision making, higher service standards and stronger overall performance across the planning system. As I have said, they will facilitate an immediate funding uplift for all local planning authorities and, by providing for a new national fee schedule, provide a more robust baseline for the operation of future local fee-setting arrangements, which we will debate in respect of a future statutory instrument. A fast, effective and reliable planning service is essential to support housing delivery, economic growth and the provision of infrastructure. The regulations will ensure that local planning authorities are sufficiently resourced to determine applications in a timely and high-quality manner. I commend them to the Committee.

Question put.

Social Housing Bill: Commons Committee Stage Amendments

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Wednesday 21st October 2026 Written Statements

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

The Social Housing Bill will protect much-needed social housing stock, give affordable housing providers the clarity and confidence they need to build more social homes, and better protect tenants who are victims of domestic abuse by providing them with greater security and stability.

I have now tabled a group of Government amendments to further strengthen the Bill and advance its core objectives. Taken together, these amendments deliver on the commitments made during the Bill’s initial House of Lords stages and various announcements set out in my written ministerial statement of 12 October which is available at: https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-statements/detail/2026-10-12/hcws363

Protecting existing social housing stock

After years of marginalisation, this Government have emphatically and unashamedly asserted the necessity and the value of social rented homes. They are a crucial national asset to be proud of, to invest in, to protect and to maintain.

At the heart of the Bill are comprehensive reforms to the right-to-buy scheme designed to protect much-needed social housing stock and thereby incentivise the building of more social rented homes.

The Bill also introduces a new requirement for private registered providers of social housing to notify councils and other private providers in their area before disposing of a home, in order to maximise opportunities to retain homes within the social housing sector.

In response to points made by peers during the Bill’s initial House of Lords stages, I have tabled an amendment that will extend the period that must elapse between the notification being made and any sale being completed from four to eight weeks. This will maximise opportunities for councils and other private providers to buy and retain social rented homes.

I have also tabled an amendment that will require private registered providers to include in their disposals notice information on the type of rent the home was previously let at. This will give councils and other private providers the information they need to consider whether to purchase a property and retain it as a social rented home.

We have also acted to enable local authorities to better protect rural social housing. In recognition of the severe challenges of replacing social housing stock in rural communities, the Bill already exempts properties located in designated rural areas from the right-to-buy scheme.

The amendments tabled will empower councils to designate eligible rural areas themselves where these areas meet specified criteria, thereby reducing the bureaucracy associated with the current designation process.

We will set out in regulations the criteria for rural areas and the process for self-designation. The long-established criteria—that areas should have a population density of no more than two persons per hectare and a population of 3,000 or fewer—will remain in place.

Strengthening protections for tenants

No one should be forced to remain in an unsafe situation because they fear becoming homeless, yet last year about 15,000 households in England had to find a new social home as a result of domestic abuse.

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 or losing their home.

To ensure that victims of domestic abuse can access safe and secure housing, the Bill provides for stronger legal mechanisms to remove a perpetrator from a social housing tenancy and enable victims to stay in their home or move to alternative accommodation as a sole tenant.

I have now tabled amendments to bolster the revised discretionary grounds for possession under the Bill’s new domestic abuse provisions. Where a relevant protective order—a domestic abuse protection order or non-molestation order—is already in place, its existence will be sufficient for the court to determine whether it is reasonable to make a possession order, rather than requiring it to have been breached. This change will help streamline and accelerate the possession process and give greater confidence to landlords and victims when seeking possession.

The Bill already includes a new mechanism to facilitate the transfer of a joint tenancy into the sole name of the victim, where a victim wants to remain in the home as a sole tenant, and it already contains powers to enable the courts to make an order to provide the victim with suitable alternative accommodation, where it is not appropriate for the victim to remain in a home and the landlord has this accommodation available.

The amendments tabled will ensure that where the court makes an order, either on the basis that the joint tenant victim remains in the home as sole tenant or that they are to be provided with suitable alternative accommodation, the perpetrator’s interest in the joint tenancy will be brought to an end.

The right to manage gives local authority tenants a statutory route to take on responsibility for managing housing services through a tenant management organisation. The Government response to the Grenfell Tower inquiry, published in 2025, committed to reviewing oversight arrangements for delegated management organisations, including TMOs.

In the light of the findings of that review, which we have published today at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/social-housing-right-to-manage-review I have now tabled amendments to modernise the current RTM framework for social housing, to make it easier for social housing residents to take control of their housing services, and to strengthen oversight and accountability, including the creation of a court-backed intervention route for use in exceptional cases—for example, where there is a serious governance failure, misconduct or a risk to residents’ safety.

Tackling homelessness

In the national plan to end homelessness, published in December 2025 and available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/a-national-plan-to-end-homelessness the Government committed to considering levers to require social housing landlords to rehouse statutory homeless households referred by councils, where joint working is not operating effectively. Having done so, we have decided to legislate for the introduction of a new statutory power.

I have now tabled an amendment that will enable local authorities to refer homeless households to PRPs, requiring providers to offer accommodation to that household, unless they have good reason not to. This measure is designed to strengthen co-operation between local authorities and PRPs, and to ensure that allocations are used effectively to prevent homelessness.

The Secretary of State will set out through regulations what constitutes a reasonable period for responding to a referral and the circumstances in which a PRP may be regarded as having a good reason not to offer accommodation. We will work closely with the sector to develop these regulations.

In the national plan to end homelessness, we also committed to legislate for a duty to collaborate, which will compel public services to work together to prevent homelessness and support those who are at crisis point. I have now tabled amendments to provide for this duty, which will build on and replace the existing duty to refer by requiring specified bodies to take proactive steps to identify households at risk of homelessness, to assess their needs, and to work together, including with other key stakeholders, taking co-ordinated action to prevent homelessness or address it sooner.

Finally, UK armed forces veterans should not be prevented from accessing homelessness support simply because of a lack of local connection. I have now tabled an amendment to allow us to specify the circumstances in which a local housing authority may not refer a case to another authority. We will use this power to ensure that where those who have served our country seek homelessness assistance from a local authority, they will not be referred elsewhere simply because they lack a local connection, thereby allowing them to seek support wherever they present.

[HCWS401]

Draft Electrical Safety Standards in the Private Rented Sector and Social Rented Sector (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2026 Draft Hazards in Social Housing (Prescribed Requirements) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2026

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Monday 19th October 2026 General Committees

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

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Electrical Safety Standards in the Private Rented Sector and Social Rented Sector (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2026.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to consider the draft Hazards in Social Housing (Prescribed Requirements) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2026.

[Matthew Pennycook]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Desmond. I will speak to both sets of regulations, and note that the draft hazards in social housing regulations are commonly referred to as phase 2 of Awaab’s law.

Alongside our commitment to delivering the biggest increase in social and affordable house building in a generation, the Government are driving a lasting change in the safety and quality of social housing. Both regulations are integral to that effort, and once brought into force they will play an important role in keeping social tenants safe by ensuring that social landlords are clear as to their responsibilities and respond to complaints in a timely manner. I will take each of the regulations in turn, starting with the second phase of Awaab’s law.

As hon. Members know, Awaab’s law is named in memory of Awaab Ishak. Awaab was just two years old when he died in December 2020 as a result of a severe respiratory condition caused by prolonged exposure to mould in the social home that his family rented from Rochdale Boroughwide Housing. His parents repeatedly expressed concerns about the conditions that the family were living in, but their landlord failed to act. Confronted with the grief of a loss so overwhelming, Awaab’s parents determined that they would secure justice for not only their son but all renters. We remain deeply grateful to them for the dignity and tenacity that they have shown in fighting for change and bringing us to this point.

Awaab’s law is vital legislation that empowers social tenants to hold their social landlords to account, using the full force of the law if landlords fail to investigate and fix hazards in tenants’ homes within set timeframes. When it comes to those hazards, I want to be clear that social landlords had legal obligations to keep homes fit for human habitation, free from HHSRS—housing health and safety rating system—category 1 hazards, and to remedy disrepair before the first phase of Awaab’s law commenced in October last year. Awaab’s law does not introduce new obligations in respect of new hazards; it is designed to compel and expedite the meeting of existing obligations by introducing clear time-bound requirements and a robust route to enforcement.

As I mentioned, phase 1 of Awaab’s law, covering significant damp, mould and emergency hazards, came into force in October last year, and it is helping to drive up standards in the social housing sector. The draft hazards in social housing regulations extend the requirements of Awaab’s law to the following significant hazards: excess cold and excess heat, falls, structural collapse and falling elements, fire and explosions, electrical safety and hygiene.

In addition to expanding the range of hazards that are within scope of Awaab’s law, we are drawing on feedback and lessons learned from the roll-out of phase 1 to make two groups of changes, with a view to ensuring that policy works as effectively as possible. First, we have clarified thresholds for the types of hazards covered by Awaab’s law and updated the definitions of “emergency” and “significant” in respect of the hazards that fall within the scope of it. That will help landlords to make more effective assessments, will provide tenants with greater clarity as to when landlords must act and will support a more consistent application of the requirements across the sector.

Secondly, we have made changes to avoid duplication with existing fire safety rules. Where fire risks relate to parts of buildings that are already covered by existing fire safety legislation, such as communal areas, we have clarified that those are to be managed under those rules, rather than also being subject to the requirements of Awaab’s law. The changes are reflected in updated guidance that we have published covering all phase 1 and 2 hazards, with a view to helping tenants and landlords determine precisely what is and is not within scope of the requirements.

Once the draft hazards regulations are in force, Awaab’s law will operate as follows: potential significant hazards must be investigated within 10 working days; following the conclusion of an investigation, landlords must send written summaries to tenants within three working days, and they must take action within five working days; and potential emergency hazards must be investigated and made safe within 24 hours. If the landlord cannot make the home in question safe within the relevant timescales, they are required to secure suitable alternative accommodation. Additional works to prevent the hazard from recurring must begin as quickly as possible, but no later than 12 weeks from the time of the investigation, and they must be completed within a reasonable time period.

Once the draft hazards regulations are in force, all social landlords will have to comply with the requirements of Awaab’s law in respect of the wider range of hazards covered. If they do not, tenants can take legal action through the courts for a breach of contract or seek redress through the Housing Ombudsman.

I should point out that Awaab’s law provides for a statutory defence in instances where a landlord can prove they have used all reasonable endeavours to comply with the requirements but have been unable to do so. In other words, if failure is due to circumstances completely beyond the control of the landlord, they will not be liable for a breach of the regulations.

As per the commitments we have made, next year we will expand the requirements of Awaab’s law to apply to the remaining hazards, as defined by the HHSRS, excluding overcrowding. In doing so, we will continue with the “test and learn” approach we took to phase 1, so that any beneficial lessons arising from the implementation of phase 2 can be addressed. To return to a point I made earlier, the phased approach we are taking does not mean that social landlords have leeway when it comes to meeting their existing duties to provide safe and decent homes for their tenants.

It is important that tenants are aware of the protections they are entitled to and that landlords are clear on their responsibilities. The Make Things Right social housing information campaign will launch in January to raise awareness of the new protections among social housing tenants and residents. Ahead of the regulations coming into force in November, I will write to all social landlords in England, setting out clearly what the regulations require and the standards landlords must meet.

I will now turn to the Electrical Safety Standards in the Private Rented Sector and Social Rented Sector (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2026. As hon. Members may recall, last year we brought social housing into scope of the electrical safety requirements that private landlords have had to meet since 2020. As a result, all landlords must now check the electrical installations in their properties at least every five years.

The regulations are required to ensure that those existing requirements align with the latest version of the relevant British standard, namely BS 7671. As a result of the changes required, the existing references to “further investigative work” are no longer relevant and have been removed. We are also clarifying that a pre-tenancy inspection and test is not required if the previous inspection and test took place within the last 5 years and the report is still current.

These changes will make sure there is clarity and consistency on the standards that are expected of landlords in both rented sectors. With that, I commend both sets of draft regulations to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank hon. Members for those contributions. I am pleased that there is general support for both sets of draft regulations and their intentions in respect of improving the safety and quality of social housing. A series of questions have been put to me, and I will endeavour to respond to each in turn.

The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Orpington, put to me two questions on who enforces the electrical safety requirements and what the implications are of that enforcement duty in respect of local government reorganisation. Local councils enforce the regulations, as the shadow Minister made clear. If a local council has reasonable grounds to believe that a landlord is in breach of one or more of the duties in the regulations, they must serve a remedial notice on the landlord requiring remedial action. Should a landlord not comply with the notice or should urgent remedial action be required, the local council may arrange itself for remedial action to be taken.

I note the point the shadow Minister made about the burden that that places on local councils. I do not immediately make the link between local government reorganisation generally and that point. He is more than welcome to write to me with further details, or if he has evidence of particular local authorities that think they will have problems enforcing these quite simple and straightforward regulations, because I would be interested to know about that.

The shadow Minster then asked what if the hazards in question are caused by the tenant—they are the tenant’s fault? First, it is important to say that the Government are completely clear that it is unacceptable for social landlords to assume that a hazard such as damp, mould or pests are based on a tenant’s lifestyle. In fact, Awaab’s family had that allegation put to them. The Housing Ombudsman has been incredibly clear on that point. It is rightly the responsibility of landlords to identify and address underlying causes, where they exist, such as structural issues, repairs or inadequate ventilation. The same goes for other hazards such as pests. However, landlords should, of course, continue working with tenants to make small, reasonable adjustments to their behaviour if that is required and appropriate to reduce those risks.

The shadow Minister then put to me a series of points about the cost to the sector. We have taken a approach to regulation generally that ensures that it is proportionate and that timescales, in particular, are sufficient for social landlords to enact those regulations in a proportionate way. We have done that with minimum energy efficiency standards and the modernised decent homes standard, and we are doing it with Awaab’s law by rolling out the requirements in phases to give landlords time to adjust and to embed the necessary processes and so that, through that approach, as I referenced in my opening remarks, we can test and learn what works and what needs clarifying.

In terms of the cost, we have published a final stage impact assessment for phase 1 of Awaab’s law. Having updated the policy in the light of consultation feedback from both the sector and tenants, we have assessed that costs have been kept to a reasonable level while delivering the necessary impact for tenants. Social landlords that will incur the greatest costs are those not currently meeting their obligations regarding hazards and decency. I come back to the point I made in my opening remarks: these are existing obligations that we are trying to ensure are better enforced.

Alongside laying phase 2 regulations, we are publishing an impact assessment. Our estimate is that the total cost to the sector of the proposals will be £146.3 million over the 10-year appraisal period for phase 1 and £190.2 million over a 10-year appraisal period for phase 2. However, as I said, the duty to make repairs is not a new burden on landlords, and the costs associated with the investigation and repair timescales are likely to be the result of additional staffing, familiarisation costs and the preparation and postage of written summaries.

To the point from my hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire, I have Shelter’s letter here. I was not going to detain the Committee by responding to the two main points that it has made, but he has challenged me to do so, so I think it is important to just put them on the record.

In respect of the definition of “significant hazard”, we heard very clearly from tenants and landlords in our phase 1 “test and learn” that it was difficult to distinguish between an emergency hazard and a significant hazard. We have therefore changed the definitions of both emergency and significant hazards to remove the ambiguity around the previous language, which asked landlords to assess whether they would “take steps to” address the hazard and

“as a matter of urgency”.

We have instead made it clear that landlords must make an assessment of whether a reasonable landlord would make the hazard safe within 24 hours for an emergency hazard, or within 15 working days for a significant hazard, to determine whether the hazard falls within the scope of Awaab’s law. For a significant hazard, the 15 working day period has been used to align with the existing timescale of 10 working days to investigate and then five working days to make safe upon the conclusion of the investigation.

There is an objective test of what a notional reasonable landlord would do, and landlords should not factor in their own considerations, such as budget or staff availability. To determine what a reasonable landlord would do, we would expect landlords to take into account the risk to the tenant, information about their health circumstances and how feasibly the hazard can be made safe within three weeks. Landlords should also consider whether a reasonable landlord would use temporary measures to make hazards safe, where that is a necessary as a first step.

Shelter also raised concerns about fire hazards in communal areas not being covered. I can see the Committee urging me to bring my remarks to a conclusion, but my hon. Friend can be assured that we will respond to Shelter in full on both points. I am more than happy to share that response with colleagues if they are interested.

Lastly, on the point from the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington, about why we have excluded overcrowding, Awaab’s law is intended to address hazards that result from defects, disrepair or a lack of maintenance for which landlords are responsible. We came to the conclusion that overcrowding is a complex issue that is not usually the result of disrepair or something that can be fixed via repairs or maintenance. We therefore took the decision to remove overcrowding from the scope of Awaab’s law, to ensure that these regulations are focused on repairs issues.

Social landlords will obviously still be expected to take overcrowding issues seriously, and the sector must continue to address those through transfer and allocation policies. Tenants concerned about overcrowding will be able to seek redress through the Housing Ombudsman Service, and tenants in housing association properties can obviously report overcrowding issues to their local councils. Beyond that, as the hon. Member knows—I know he shares my ambition in this area—we need to boost the supply of new social and affordable homes to ensure that more families who are overcrowded or severely overcrowded can be moved into appropriate accommodation.

To conclude, it is imperative that we continue to work to improve the safety and quality of social housing. These regulations will enable us to do so. They will play a vital role in ensuring that social landlords are clear as to their responsibilities and respond to complaints in a timely manner. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Draft Hazards in Social Housing (Prescribed Requirements) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2026

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the draft Hazards in Social Housing (Prescribed Requirements) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2026.

Housing Availability and Affordability

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Monday 12th October 2026 Written Statements

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

Everyone deserves to live in a safe, secure, decent and affordable home. Our vision is for a housing market which allows families at all income levels to access good housing at rents they can afford and that expands opportunity to a new generation of homeowners. We will achieve it by expanding housing choice and availability and improving security and affordability across tenures. The Government are also determined to strengthen public control over the housing system so that it better serves the public interest and gives people and communities a greater say over local homes and neighbourhoods.

Over recent weeks, we have announced a series of measures to improve housing availability and affordability and bring housing back under stronger public control. These include new support for first-time buyers; enhanced powers to help councils bring long-term empty homes back into use; new legislative provisions to strengthen homelessness prevention and better protect social housing stock; and new rights and protections for leaseholders, homeowners and tenants. I am today updating the House on those measures.

Supporting first-time buyers

On 26 September, the Government announced that a new equity loan scheme, Your First Home, will be confirmed at this month’s Budget, to support more people into home ownership. The scheme will enable prospective first-time buyers who cannot rely on help from the bank of mum and dad to purchase a new build home from a participating house builder with a 2.5% deposit, supported by a 20% Government-backed equity loan.

People will be able to access equity loans with an initial interest free period, meaning that those who use the scheme could save hundreds of pounds per month compared to a 95% mortgage. Household income and local house price caps will ensure support is targeted at those who most need it, and participating house builders will be expected to contribute towards the costs of the scheme. Further details, including costs and implementation timelines, will be announced by the Chancellor at the Budget later this month.

Empty dwelling management orders

On 27 September, the Government announced reforms to the empty dwelling management order regime to help councils bring more long-term empty homes back into use. EDMOs allow councils to take over the management of qualifying homes and return them to occupation for up to seven years, while ownership remains with the property owner. We will reduce the qualifying period from two years to six months and remove evidential requirements relating to matters such as antisocial behaviour or community support.

Together, these changes will simplify the EDMO process, empower local authority empty homes officers to act more decisively and with greater speed, and accelerate the return of empty homes to use. We are also exploring further changes to strengthen the regime and support councils to use these powers more effectively.

Homelessness prevention and social housing disposals

On 28 September, the Government confirmed that they would bring forward amendments to the Social Housing Bill to strengthen homelessness prevention and better protect much-needed social housing stock. A new duty to collaborate will be incorporated into the Bill that will require public services to work together to identify people at risk of homelessness and jointly consider what action they could take, within their existing responsibilities, to help to prevent it. Councils will also be given a new power to refer homeless households to private registered providers of social housing.

The Government also announced that they would amend the disposals notification requirement in the Bill to extend the period that must elapse between the notification being made and any sale being completed from four to eight weeks. This will maximise opportunities for councils and other social housing providers to buy and retain social homes to ensure that they stay within the social housing sector.

Strengthening leaseholder protections and the regulation of property agents

On 29 September, the Government announced further measures to provide leaseholders and homeowners on privately managed estates with greater rights and protections. We will legislate to give the Secretary of State powers to cap exorbitant permission fees and administration charges, with a public consultation to follow to help determine the scope and level of those caps.

We also announced our intention to legislate for the independent regulation of property agents. A regulator can set codes of practice, such as standards of conduct and proper complaint handling for those they regulate. Property agents will be required to obtain a licence to do the job, as well as appropriate qualifications to operate. If they fall foul of the required standards, a regulator would have the power to take their licences away. Further information will be set out in due course.

[HCWS363]

Grey Belt Land: Definition and Application

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Tuesday 15th September 2026 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dame Siobhain. I congratulate the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) on securing this debate. He is an assiduous and highly effective parliamentarian, whom I have the upmost respect for, and he opened the debate with a characteristically incisive and challenging contribution. I thank him for the opportunity he has given the Chamber to debate this issue, and I will seek in the course of my remarks to respond to each of his specific points.

I also thank the hon. Members who have spoken in the debate. I appreciate fully that this topic provokes strong views, to put it mildly, but in the time I have available, I hope to provide some further clarity on the Government’s green belt policy, specifically the nuances of national policy relating to grey belt. Hon. Members and the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam will appreciate that, due to the quasi-judicial nature of the planning process, I will be unable to comment in detail on individual local plans, planning applications or how individual local planning authorities may interpret national planning policy.

As the right hon. and learned Member made clear in his opening remarks, the definition of grey belt is set out in the glossary of the “National Planning Policy Framework”. It is defined, for the purposes of plan making and decision making, as

“land in the Green Belt comprising previously developed land and/or any other land that, in either case, does not…contribute to any of purposes (a), (b), or (d)”,

as set out in NPPF policy GB2. As I make that point, it is also worth making it clear that we have not altered the five purposes of the green belt that we inherited. They remain as they were, and we do not propose to alter the general extent of the green belt either.

I will come on to expand on the role of local planning authorities in the process. It is for individual local planning authorities to undertake the necessary assessments to identify if land is grey belt, either through plan making or through considering specific applications that come forward. Let me take each of those in turn, starting with plan making, and in doing so gently push back on the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Woking (Mr Forster).

This is, and is intended to be, a plan-led approach. The NPPF allows for local planning authorities to alter green belt boundaries using the local development plan process in “exceptional circumstances”. That includes situations where a local authority is unable to meet its identified need for development, having examined all other reasonable options for doing so, including making as much use as possible of suitable previously developed land, optimising the density of development and assessing whether sufficient sites can be identified outside the green belt. As set out in NPPF policy GB2, any decision to alter green belt boundaries should be informed by a green belt assessment, which identifies grey-belt land within the green belt.

Following the publication of the revised NPPF in December 2024, the Government awarded over £9.3 million to 133 local planning authorities to support them with the costs of undertaking such green belt reviews. An assessment of the strategic role of the green belt should also inform the preparation of spatial development strategies, as legislated through the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025, where these will be setting the strategic context for land release.

[Gideon Amos]

The Minister is always generous with his time and in responding to interventions, which is appreciated by all of us. If the intention is that this should be a plan-led approach, will he remove the provisions in the NPPF that allow developers to claim that their land is grey belt through an application by reference to the policies that have been put in the NPPF for such grey belt decisions to be made outside of the local plan process through individual planning applications?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will say two things in respect to that, and I will come on to detail how the approach works in relation to decision making very shortly. In general terms, developers can make whatever claims they like about any particular site across the country; it is for the local authority to assess whether, in its view, that site constitutes grey belt, if that is part of the application that is submitted. Where there is disagreement and it goes to appeal, I have set out exactly how planning inspectors need to determine such applications.

It is crucial to note that where grey belt is identified, it does not automatically follow that it should be allocated for development or released from the green belt, or that development proposals be approved in all circumstances. Other considerations in decision making are relevant, as I will expand upon shortly. I also want to stress that any alterations to green belt boundaries must promote sustainable patterns of development by ensuring that any alterations, taken together, do not fundamentally undermine the five green belt purposes of the remaining green belt when considered across the plan area. Considerations also include giving priority to the release of previously developed land in the green belt, then considering low-quality grey-belt land, which will include disused petrol stations and other previously developed land of that kind, although not necessarily be limited to it, and only then exploring other green belt locations.

To respond to the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam on whether allocating grey-belt land for development will necessarily lead to the cumulative erosion of the green belt over time, I would point out two things. First, as I have already mentioned, development proposals on grey-belt land must respond to a demonstrable unmet need—I will come to his points about the standard method shortly. Secondly, it is precisely to avoid the situation that we inherited—which was a haphazard and piecemeal approach to green belt land designation and release—that this Government have implemented the approach that we have. Its effective working is predicated on ensuring that designation and release take place in a strategic manner over time through local plans with a 10-year horizon, and in due course—because they are just as important—through spatial development strategies with a 20-year horizon. We want the approach to be plan-led.

[Sir Jeremy Wright]

I know that the Minister recognises the point that the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) was making to him is that, although we all want this to be a plan-led process, the NPPF still allows for grey belt designation to be achieved through an individual application, and that is what the Conservatives are also concerned about. I wanted to test him on this question of cumulative impact. He may come on to this later, in which case I apologise, but I put to him in my speech that if we look at an individual application or site, it may be difficult to make a credible argument that building there would undermine the purposes of the green belt across the plan area. On the other hand, if we look at a series of grey belt applications and their cumulative impact on the green belt across the plan area, it might be easier to demonstrate. Can he clarify which of the two the Government believe it should be?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I am more than happy to do so; it is a fair question. In terms of the sequential approach that local authorities need to take with grey belt assessment and green belt release through local plans, the test of fundamentally undermining is at a plan level. Local authorities look at all the sites they have assessed through a review to constitute what is grey belt and then select those that they might need to bring forward to meet assessed housing need. I cannot go into detail, but the joint local plan for south Warwickshire, which includes the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s constituency, is instructive in that regard. It has gone through its regulation 19 consultation and the authority is looking towards submitting that emerging local plan. That will release land equating to 1.54% of Stratford-upon-Avon and 6.99% of Warwick. That is a plan-led approach to green belt release that will meet need in that area. I will come on to speak about decision making, but that is the test, in terms of fundamentally undermining the five purposes in the remaining green-belt area. I will briefly speak about what the guidance says in that respect as well.

There have been several questions about decision making. It goes without saying that we want local planning authorities to get up-to-date plans in place. I repeat that ad nauseum; we inherited a dreadful situation, where less than a third of plan coverage was up to date. We cannot have a plan-led system with such low levels of coverage; we are doing lots as a Government to ensure that we are driving towards universal coverage, including intervening where necessary. However, when development proposals come forward outside of a local plan, the NPPF also provides a limited route for development proposals of grey-belt land in the green belt in certain circumstances.

When considering development proposals, decisions should be informed by green belt assessments, as I have previously referenced. Where grey-belt sites are not identified in existing plans or green-belt assessments, authorities should consider evidence, informed by our guidance, on whether the site strongly contributes to the relevant green belt purposes.

It is important to note that where a site is judged to be grey belt, development proposals on grey-belt land must also respond to demonstrable unmet need for the type of development proposed. If that does not exist, that is grounds for the local authority to refuse. It must also be sustainably located and meet our golden rules, which, as hon. Members are aware, require additional benefits to be provided to local communities— including higher levels of affordable housing, new or improved green spaces and improved local infrastructure where the green belt is developed—in recognition, and rightly so, of the value placed on that type of land.

As previously mentioned, the contribution that a specific plot of green-belt land makes to the relevant green belt purposes is only one consideration involved in the decision on whether to develop there. Decisions should also be informed by an overall application of the relevant policies in the NPPF. That includes policies in the natural environment chapter, which safeguard areas of importance for the landscape, geodiversity or biodiversity value, including protected landscapes and designated sites for nature.

To assist local planning authorities and other decision makers in both plan making and decision making, and to support a consistent approach to determine whether land is grey belt, my Department published updated planning practice guidance on 27 February last year. That PPG sets out a range of considerations to help to determine whether land is grey belt and how to consider proposals on potential grey-belt land. When considering how any given land performs against the relevant green belt purposes, the guidance also sets out illustrative features to help to inform judgments.

The PPG does not—we have been challenged on this point, so I want to address it head on—provide an exhaustive or overly prescriptive list that accounts for all possible scenarios. It is ultimately for the decision maker to consider those factors in accordance with national policy and guidance. It is right that they exercise their judgment in doing so, given that local context and development-specific considerations will vary markedly across the country. We want that flexibility to allow expert local judgment to be applied. The more prescriptive we get in national policy, the more edge cases and difficulties we will create. Our system is discretionary in nature; it is for local authorities and decision makers to make that judgment in the round.

To the point made by the hon. Member for Woking, in instances where a given application goes to appeal, and the relevant inspector is asked to determine whether a site is classified as grey belt, they will consider relevant legislation and national planning policy, including the NPPF and PPG, and any relevant local development plan policies and material considerations.

I want to briefly address the standard method and the urban-rural balance. This issue is put to me frequently in debates and I attempt to set the record straight, but it appears in the next debate none the less. The targets we have introduced are ambitious—they entail uplifts in many areas, and we expect rural areas to play their part in providing the homes the country needs—but the formula does direct housing growth to larger urban areas. It does not, though—this is the significant change we made—direct it by applying an arbitrary 35% urban uplift to the 20 largest cities and urban centres. That was the previous Government’s approach; we think it was arbitrary.

Instead, the standard method that we have introduced increases targets by 20% across city regions. It also better directs housing growth to a range of urban areas, including smaller cities and other areas of growth, as well as to the larger cities. We think that is a fairer approach. It is not the case that we have uniformly dropped housing targets across metro areas.

Before I conclude, I want to touch briefly on villages—

[Sir Jeremy Wright]

Before the Minister does that, I understand his point earlier about guidance, and I am certainly not asking him to comment on an individual application, but the purpose of the point that I made to him earlier was to suggest that the reality of grey-belt designation is that grey-belt sites are likely to be further away from urban settlements rather than closer to them, because those closer are more likely to remain as green belt. As the Minister says, there are three purposes—A, B and D—that would enable a site to remain as green belt rather than be designated grey belt. Can he see circumstances in which a field in my constituency that is not on the outskirts of an urban settlement could possibly satisfy the test of those three requirements and remain as green belt rather than be redesignated as grey belt?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will address the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s specific question in due course. Before I do so, I want to put on the record the policy in relation to villages. He can rest assured that I will address the point; if he is unsatisfied, he is more than welcome to intervene again.

A number of hon. Members mentioned villages. The PPG that I have referenced throughout my remarks makes it clear that, in assessments of contribution to the relevant purposes, large built-up areas and towns do not include villages. However, neither the NPPF nor the PPG includes a definition of a large built-up area, town, historic town or village. Considering whether any particular settlement constitutes a village is, again, a matter for the given local planning authority to judge, and it may be informed by the adopted local settlement hierarchy in that area. Where authorities may wish to restrict development in villages for other reasons, a range of tools are available, such as conservation areas or normal development management policies.

On the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s specific point, I say to him directly that I do not recognise his assertion that grey-belt land, in every part of the country, is likely to be predominantly in open countryside. The guidance that I have referenced is clear that land that is likely to be assessed as grey belt is more likely to include “existing development” or “other urbanising influences”, with land that is free from development more likely to make a strong contribution to the three relevant green belt purposes listed in policy GB2.

A point that needs to be made generally is that this issue is incredibly place-specific across the country. It will vary widely, given the significant variation in how green-belt land is constituted in different geographies throughout the country, so it is very hard to apply a blanket or generalised approach, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman has, to say, “In all circumstances, such will apply.” It varies across the country and, as I have said, our policy as a whole ensures that development is directed towards sustainable locations, which will act to prevent development from coming forward in isolated or unsustainable locations. That hopefully clears up the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s point about open countryside—one of three.

[Sir Jeremy Wright]

Will the Minister give way?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will give way to the right hon. and learned Gentleman one last time, but I am more than happy to set out the full policy in writing.

[Sir Jeremy Wright]

That may be very helpful, and I am genuinely grateful to the Minister, because I know he is doing his best to provide clarity. I know he would accept that the starting point for all these decisions will be the NPPF definition. I accept his point about guidance and the other qualifying criteria; we have spoken a little about the limitations that there might be on those qualifying criteria.

The substantial point remains, does it not, that the definition in the NPPF of grey-belt land overwhelmingly—perhaps not in every instance, but overwhelmingly—will be met by fields, farms and greenfield sites that are not near to urban settlements. A, B and D in the list clearly each relate to the fringes of urban settlements, and the Minister knows that the green belt encompasses more than just such sites. It is inevitable, is it not, that the starting point will be that grey-belt land will be those sites that are not on the fringes of urban settlements, which is of course the direct antithesis of how the Government originally described the concept.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I understand the point that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is making. I am afraid I do not agree with his characterisation of the policy, which is, again, in essence that grey-belt land in every part of the country is more likely to be found predominantly in open countryside.

All I can do is to repeat again our approach: land that is likely not to make a strong contribution to the relevant green belt purposes is likely to contain existing development or other urbanising influences. But I say again that it is for individual local planning authorities to make green belt assessments and to make judgments about sites that might constitute grey-belt land. If some of those sites—in most cases not all of them, but some of them—are required to meet demonstrable unmet need, it is for the authority to select the most appropriate and sustainable sites from that list. I refer the right hon. and learned Gentleman to his local plan, which is hopefully on the verge of submission—a small percentage of green belt will be released over the plan period to meet demonstrable unmet need.

[Sir Jeremy Wright]

Will the Minister give way again on that specific point?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I think I am testing the Chair’s patience. I will give way one more time.

[Sir Jeremy Wright]

I am sure the Chair will remind the Minister that we have plenty of time left in this debate.

On the specifics of the local plan, the Minister is right, of course, to point me to the specific statistics in relation to my local plan area. But he will recognise that, as was said earlier, there is a difference between decisions that a local authority makes about what to seek to extract from the green belt, and subsequent decisions about whether part of the green belt is in fact grey belt. The Minister has referred me to statistics relating to the former, not the latter.

[Matthew Pennycook]

This is where I come back to the importance of having up-to-date local plans. If a local planning authority has in place an up-to-date local plan, it may or may not include grey-belt sites, as the policy feeds through the system. At the point that an authority has a plan in place that meets demonstrable unmet need, it has robust safeguards against grey-belt applications that come through the decision-making route. That is why we are encouraging local areas to get local plans in place.

We have inherited a situation in which we have extremely low up-to-date local plan coverage. That has exposed communities to speculative development, and it is happening all over the country. We have to put in place policies that, through the decision-making route, allow homes still to be brought forward in that interregnum, but then we have to push heavily to drive towards universal plan coverage. At that point, the protections are in place. Over the 10-year plan period and, as we roll out spatial development strategies on a sub-regional level, over a 20-year horizon, that will ensure that there is a strategic plan for green-belt land designation and release.

To come back to the point I made earlier, it is not as if no green-belt land was released before 2024. I know the Conservative party likes to give the impression that it did not, but it oversaw plenty of green belt release, in a completely haphazard and unplanned way. We are taking a strategic approach, which we think is right.

I have addressed the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s point about what is likely to constitute grey-belt land. Let me directly address his other two specific points. Is this a significant policy? Absolutely, and it has been judged as much by the Office for Budget Responsibility and other external commentators. Is it deliberate? Absolutely. We want, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman asserted, to release more land into the system. This is where I take a principled different view from the CPRE and other commentators that say we can simply meet housing need through existing brownfield land. There is not enough land on existing brownfield land registers to meet the volume of homes that our country needs, let alone enough that is viable and in the right location. Where it is necessary, we want to see green-belt land released to meet demonstrable unmet need. It is right that when we look to release green-belt land, we focus on the lower-quality grey-belt land that does not make a strong contribution to those purposes.

To conclude, I again thank the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam for securing the debate, and other Members for their contributions. I hope that, while I may not necessarily have been able to convince Members in my response, I have been able to provide some valuable clarity on the national policy with respect to grey-belt land, and particularly the different approaches to plan making and decision making.

As set out in the Government response to the consultation on the new NPPF that was published last month, we have already recognised that further guidance may be helpful to support spatial development strategy-led strategic reviews of the green belt, and we will consider producing guidance on the considerations that should inform that process. As we update PPG to fully reflect the changes made in the new NPPF—and we absolutely must do that—we will of course consider whether any further clarity might be helpful to inform decision makers. To that end, I will reflect on a number of the points made in the debate.