Social Housing Bill [Lords]

Debate between Matthew Pennycook and James Naish

2nd reading
Thursday 10th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Pennycook]

I am sure that we will have ongoing discussions about that and other issues. The hon. Gentleman may wish to hone his private Member’s Bill—the Homes and Planning Bill—so that it focuses on this issue among others. As I said at oral questions on Monday, I recognise the strength of feeling in the House on disposals. I want to ensure that every opportunity is taken to retain homes in the social housing sector.

The new disposal notification requirements in the Bill, which I will address later, will maximise opportunities for social housing providers to buy and retain social homes, but housing associations remain independent organisations, responsible for their own asset management decisions. Yes, we are looking at what more we can do to protect much-needed social housing stock, but there are limits to the extent to which we can go. Further to that point, we are also taking equally important steps to ensure that councils are in a better position to buy any disposals—by raising the gap on grant funding for acquisitions, for example.

Taken together, those measures will fundamentally alter the trajectory of social housing supply. Between April 2012 and March 2024, there were over 124,000 council right to buy sales, with fewer than 48,000 homes replaced in the same period. Under the previous, pre-reform baseline, we could have expected to see an approximate net loss of another 26,000 council homes between 2026 and 2036. Following the implementation of this Government’s right to buy reform package, including the measures in the Bill, we instead expect to realise a net gain of around 18,000 homes in the same 10-year period. To put it more simply, instead of vainly watching the loss of precious social homes massively outpace their building, we will, for the first time in decades, build considerably more than we are losing thanks to this Labour Government and this Bill.

[James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)]

The Bill rightly prioritises the building of social rented homes. Back in 2003, however, Rushcliffe borough council transferred all its council housing stock away and has built none since, yet it has praised itself repeatedly for being debt free, despite being much poorer asset wise as a result of that decision. Does the Minister agree that, if the Bill is to succeed, we cannot treat stock transfer as virtuous and that we have to get to the point where housing revenue accounts are not treated and talked about as being traditional debt for local authorities?

[Matthew Pennycook]

There is lots I agree with in what my hon. Friend said. We want to see councils once again directly delivering homes at scale. We also want councils working in far closer partnership with housing associations to increase the number of homes that are built and managed by local authorities. The point my hon. Friend made about his local authority is on the record for people in his area to see.

In addition to introducing comprehensive reforms to the right to buy, the Bill will require private providers of social housing to notify the relevant local authority and other social housing providers in their area before they sell a social home, which is relevant to the point the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) made. There can be good reasons why private registered providers sometimes choose to dispose of social rented homes, and we do not propose to prevent them from doing so, but when a social home is to be sold, councils and other social housing providers should have the opportunity to consider whether they are interested in purchasing it. Legislation to provide them with that opportunity will prevent homes from being lost to the private market when they do not need to be.

Chinese Embassy

Debate between Matthew Pennycook and James Naish

Tuesday 13th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Pennycook]

We have reviewed transnational repression through the defending democracy taskforce; we take it incredibly seriously, and I note the hon. Gentleman’s concerns. I am here on behalf of my Department as the Housing and Planning Minister to make clear what the process is for making a decision on this embassy application.

[James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)]

This debate on the mega-embassy is not just about a building and 208 secret rooms; it is primarily about national security and the safety of those from the Hongkonger, Chinese, Uyghur and Tibetan diasporas in the UK—approximately 700,000 people. We have learned that in 2018, the then Prime Minister committed to no delays in granting permission for the mega-embassy, which has an air of predetermination. What reassurances can the Minister give me and this House that that opinion has not compromised the independence of the planning process?

Chinese Embassy Development

Debate between Matthew Pennycook and James Naish

Monday 9th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Pennycook]

The right hon. Gentleman is asking for details, and it would not be appropriate for me to comment. On the particular issue of whether representations have been made, as I made clear in answering the initial question, the Home and Foreign Secretaries made a joint representation to the Planning Inspectorate ahead of the start of the inquiry, and that will be taken into account alongside all other relevant matters.

[James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)]

From a response to a freedom of information request, which I have with me, we now know that just two protests at the Royal Mint Court site in February and March this year required the deployment of nearly 600 officers in total, including 101 in February and 485 in March. The FOI request reveals that the cost of policing these two protests alone amounted to £345,000. This is a staggering use of resources for a site that is not yet operational, and it reflects the serious concerns among the Hongkonger, Tibetan and Uyghur diasporas in the UK. These are communities that fear that the embassy will become a hub for transnational repression. What assessment have Ministers made of the cost implications of this proposed development on policing, and will they commit today to rejecting this super-embassy?