Social Housing Bill [HL]

Baroness Coffey Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 15th June 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Coffey]

36: Clause 11, page 9, line 15, at end insert “, or the dwelling is in a rural area”

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I have a number of amendments in this group, some of which I have co-signed with the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham of Droxford. I think we were probably both approached by the same organisation. There is one I have tabled which he has not co-signed, but I will not steal his thunder, apart from on the one that is in my name, Amendment 39. If necessary, I will come back to other amendments later, as I do not want to talk over what the noble Lord may have already prepared.

I will start straightaway. In the previous debate, I said that rural people should have the right to buy, disagreeing with some of the proposals in the Bill and some of the arguments made by other noble Lords. Amendment 36 is basically saying that housing associations and local housing authorities should not be allowed to sell properties in rural areas. If somebody cannot buy it, why is it that a housing association should be able to sell it to the private market directly? The reason I say this is that, if we are concerned about the housing stock, and that is the reason to not allow a property to be sold to those already living in it and paying rent on it, then I do not understand why other private providers or private buyers should be able to come in, just because they have the money.

Noble Lords may wonder why a housing association would want to sell in a rural area. My experience is that, as housing associations have got larger and larger, people are starting to come from further away. Principally, they have discovered a need to try to build homes quite some distance away. I referred to this at Second Reading, so I will not labour the point, but I have seen it happen in places such as Aldeburgh and Orford, in Suffolk. What has ended up happening is that homes are being built in Essex or in Cambridgeshire, not in the local area. It does not feel right to me that we can now, through this legislation, ban somebody who has been living in a home from buying it but we are not stopping the provider that owns it from selling it.

That links strongly to my Amendment 48B, on the supplementary list, which says let us not have cash purchases; these properties cannot be sold for cash. My experience is that, quite often, a local housing association will try to sell off a dwelling, and there are two ways you can sell in an auction. You can sell for the unconditional auction approach, where you give up 10% of the price straightaway and then have to provide the 90% within 28 days, or you can go for the modern market auction, where you can potentially get a mortgage and you have 56 days to come up with the money. I do not know how many people would necessarily be able to come up with a spare £250,000—as happened in a recent sale—for the initial deposit or be able to come up with the rest of the money within 28 days, but that is the basis on which housing associations are selling property around the country. I do not think that is right.

How is it that some wealthy person—a developer or entrepreneur—can buy such properties? The property I am thinking of could probably have had two or three houses built on it, with the size of the garden, and yet local people and the local council were not in the position to be able to buy that property. My amendment is quite blunt in seeking to prohibit cash purchases. It is done deliberately to provoke a discussion about who is buying when there is this big sell-off.

I can visualise another property: a block of flats traditionally used by older people. Four years after the sale, again as a cash purchase, it is, surprisingly, still sat there; nothing has happened to the property and it is starting to look downgraded. I wonder if the real strategy is that the property becomes so bad that the purchasers end up getting permission to knock it down. The Minister will recall that, in previous legislation, I tried to encourage noble Lords to get to a situation where we could compel the council—this was for assets of community value, which is a slightly different matter—to use its powers to make sure that properties are kept in good nick. In this case, that has not necessarily been the case. I am trying to stop such behaviour and see what can be done with rural housing, if we are not going to allow people who live there to buy it.

I have a series of other amendments. I have already explained that I have co-signed those which the Local Councils Network suggested. They merit debate and, although I do not agree with every single one of them, I thought it was important to discuss some of the wider points. As I said, I will leave that to the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham of Droxford.

Straightforwardly, Amendment 39 would extend the notification period to eight weeks. The Local Councils Network has suggested that four weeks is simply not enough time for a council or housing association to make a financial decision to purchase a property, which typically requires a formal cabinet decision. It suggests that eight weeks is the minimum needed and that, during that period, if the council or another housing association submits an offer, on the existing use value for social housing, the selling housing association must accept it; if no offer is received, the property could proceed to open market sale, as it does now. I do not know the motive for four weeks, but the case has been reasonably well made for why, if this is intended to allow councils to step in and purchase those properties, eight weeks is more sensible, giving them more time to get their act together.

On Amendment 47, I appreciate we have covered this issue in previous debates. I forgot to mention it earlier, but I had not tabled amendments to those amendments. If I think about areas with populations of about 3,000, for house occupation we are talking, on average, about 1,400 houses. What most people would consider to be rural is probably quite a bit smaller than that, so I have proposed the figure of 1,000, so that we can think that through. I am conscious that we have already had the debate on what rural is, so I do not expect the Minister to respond on Amendment 47. Amendment 46 is still there, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, will not be upset by my tabling an amendment to his amendment.

Having moved Amendment 36, I may come back to some of the other amendments to which the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham of Droxford, will speak.

[Lord Best (CB)]

My Lords, my name is on Amendments 37, 38 and 44 in this group, all relating to the disposal of social housing to other buyers—which is quite separate from the right to buy for existing tenants, as they are sales to other purchasers. I have a good deal of sympathy with the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey.

Amendment 37 is supported by the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham of Droxford, and would require notification of the proposed sale, by a housing association selling social housing, to the regulator of social housing—as well as to the local authority, as is already in the Bill. Amendment 38 would require the notification to be submitted not four weeks in advance of a disposal, as the Bill specifies, but eight weeks in most areas and 12 weeks in a designated rural area, which I will come back to. I support Amendment 41 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, which he will explain in a moment. Finally, Amendment 44 in my name relates to adaptations made to properties that are going to be sold.

Disposals—sales to any buyer—of social housing have become a bone of contention in a number of places. They mean a loss of accommodation at social rents at a time when there is such a desperate shortage of affordable accommodation. Selling the family silver—even if it needs a good polish—is a short-term solution to the problem of social providers needing to balance the books. Some existing stock is in poor condition, requiring expensive repairs, while some is in places that are at an inconvenient distance from the organisation’s management and maintenance services. Sometimes the social landlord is simply taking the opportunity to sell valuable assets to fund development or major repairs elsewhere.

The Bill’s response to this phenomenon, which has become surprisingly extensive, is to require notification of the plan to sell to be given to the local authority and to local social housing providers. The housing association would be prevented from selling the home for four weeks after it had served notice of its intention. This is a very modest step to discourage loss of stock, which may then be acquired by less scrupulous landlords. Disposals are particularly undesirable where the same local authority may see the property relet by a private landlord at a much higher rent, not least as temporary accommodation. This is not good value for money.

The Chartered Institute of Housing makes the additional point that housing associations need to notify local authorities of a planned sale so that councils’ strategic plans for future development can be determined on the basis of what is happening to the existing stock. But the four-week notice period to be given of a sale presents a very tight timetable for local authorities to find another housing association to purchase the home, to do so themselves or to find funding for the same association to repair and improve the property it owns.

Amendment 37 would require notification to the social housing regulator, as well as to the local authorities, and would enable the social housing regulator to keep a record of what is going on, assess the impact and decide whether changes in its own policy are worth while. The housing associations are complaining that the reason they need to sell property that would otherwise have a decent life is that the regulator is imposing upon them all kinds of additional burdens that they then have to fund: regulatory measures, minimum energy-efficiency standards, building safety costs following the ghastly Grenfell Tower tragedy, and Awaab’s law where housing associations must now complete works on cold and mould in fixed timescales. All these measures are requiring and pressurising housing associations to spend more on their existing stock of property, and that is given as a reason for needing to sell to make up the balances they need. Notifying the social housing regulator is important in informing the regulator of what these pressures mean in real life to the housing associations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

I wonder if the noble Baroness realises that we covered Amendment 4 earlier.

[Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)]

I did realise that, which is why I made the point that I just wanted to make some general references because it is the first time that I have spoken. I will continue on to my point. I had wanted also to say something about the impact on rural affordable housing, but I echo so much of what others have said.

I will move on to the point about disposals. Given our acute shortage of social housing, concerns about any social housing being sold by registered providers is understandable. However, a nuanced approach to the issue of disposals and stock management is needed as far as housing associations are concerned.

It is also important to put a limited number of social housing disposals in a wider context. The number of social homes owned by housing associations has consistently grown in recent years, increasing by over 26,000 per year for the last three years, so the sale of housing association homes out of the social rented sector has not resulted in any net loss of social homes.

Some housing associations have a proactive strategy to sell a limited proportion of their homes. It is standard practice as part of wider stock management planning, where the proceeds of sale enable the landlords to invest in building more new, higher-quality homes. One sale often funds the development of more than one home, so a flexible approach to disposals enables housing associations to contribute to the Government’s target of building 1.5 million new homes over the course of this Parliament. For example, one mid-sized housing association has a 3:2 disposals programme, where three social homes are built for every two sold. Importantly, all five of these homes are subsequently part of the overall housing mix.

Disposals can be a proportionate, effective and constructive tool used by housing associations as part of their long-term stewardship of social housing. The National Housing Federation has argued that requirements under new Section 171A strike an appropriate balance between a line for effective collaboration between housing associations and local authorities without placing undue restrictions on effective stock management. However, housing associations have emphasised the importance of retaining flexibility to make the best decision for individual properties. Anything which limits this choice risks having a detrimental effect on housing associations’ ability to make prudent decisions about the best way to manage their homes in the long term. A right of first refusal to local authorities, as set out in Amendments 41 and 42, would impose restrictions on this flexibility.

--- Later in debate ---

I will turn finally to the government amendments in this group, Amendments 50 and 67. These are minor and consequential amendments and simply address drafting ambiguity in Section 320 of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008. Section 126A of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 provides for the Secretary of State, by regulations, to alter who may be the health and safety lead for a registered provider of social housing. Currently Section 320(3)(d) of the Act provides for regulations made under Section 126A to be subject to the affirmative parliamentary procedure. Section 320(7)(d) provides generally for regulations under Part 2 of the Act to be subject to the negative procedure, with the exception of regulations made under a small number of specified sections. Section 126A is not currently specified as an exception to this, despite the intention that it be subject to the affirmative procedure. These amendments therefore correct this inconsistency by amending Section 320(7)(d) to make it clear that regulations under those sections referred to in subsection (3)(d) are subject to the affirmative procedure, regardless of them. I hope everyone got all that. I will move Amendments 50 and 67 in my name when they are reached.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I thank everybody who has contributed to this important debate. As has been said, the main reason for the Government bringing forward this Bill is to try to stop the reduction in social housing stocks. I was genuinely surprised that the Government are happy that, basically, if you are in a rural area and you are poor, you cannot buy the house you have been living in, but if you are rich and have the cash, you can buy somebody else’s house that they have been living in—if the housing association decides to sell it. I am genuinely surprised to hear that coming from a Labour Government.

Going forward, I will think carefully about a number of the amendments. I am sure I will not be the only person considering what to bring back on Report. I think there is some practicality here, and I am glad the Minister said she would reflect on the four weeks to eight weeks idea, thinking of democratic processes. Of course, we all want to make sure people have good housing. We need to be careful about the freedoms we give to social housing providers: that they can sell a property in one place and build 100 miles further afield rather than thinking about the local community. With that, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 36.

Amendment 36 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 48 and all other amendments in my name in this group. All the amendments in this group, whether they concern AI, data or interoperable systems, are predicated on a number of straightforward questions. Do we believe that, when it comes to social housing, for those providing and maintaining social housing, and for those tenants living in social housing, the considered and thoughtful deployment of AI, data and new technologies could be assistive in those endeavours? If we believe that there is something in that then we should look to the Bill, as currently drafted, and see that it is curiously silent on all these new technologies and data possibilities.

That is important, not just because there is currently nothing in the Bill on those matters but because the Government’s stated position on artificial intelligence is to not have cross-sector AI legislation. There is nothing unusual or party political in this; it is exactly the same position that the previous Government adopted. However, I believe that both Governments have taken a suboptimal and unfortunate approach to AI regulation and legislation in this respect. If we accept the position of the current Government—no cross-sector AI legislation and a domain-by-domain approach—here we have such a domain, social housing, so where are the domain-specific AI provisions in the Bill?

In looking at the amendments I have set out, it is helpful to take a purposive rather than literal approach to their interpretation. This is always a far more productive approach, whether one is doing statutory analysis or Bill consideration. To that effect, on Amendment 48, we can take out the technology blockchain and simply ask whether it would be beneficial to have a system of audit trail in these circumstances that is tamper-proof and immutable, and a record of which everybody has the same view in real time, at any time. Would that be a positive thing to have? Similarly, when it comes to using data, having the right mechanisms and frameworks for sharing data across agencies and departments for the benefit of housing associations, landlords and tenants, with all the right privacies and consents put in place, is at least worth considering.

Amendment 60 is about zero-knowledge proofs. Would it not be worth the Government at least considering whether they could provide—and through their action enable housing associations, landlords and other interested parties to have—a far safer and more secure means of supporting and assisting tenants, particularly vulnerable tenants, who are often at the sharpest end of horrific situations in our society? Would not zero-knowledge proofs be worth considering and potentially piloting? We could have credentials which could enable support and assistance to be provided for those vulnerable tenants without any sense of being able to identify who they were.

If we suggest that AI may be of benefit, it would make sense to experiment and look to proof cases across the social housing landscape. If that were the case, would it not be helpful for government to offer flexible support and guidance—not prescriptive but certainly principles-based—to further enable and empower housing associations and landlords to have greater comfort and confidence when they seek to procure and deploy AI and algorithmic systems across their operations?

All these amendments have the potential to support and assist the underlying approaches set out in the Bill and the landlords and housing associations that seek to do best by their tenants, and indeed to empower and enable tenants themselves—yes, to have greater safety, security, privacy and protection, but also to have more empowerment through the considered development, proof case and deployment of certain technologies, including AI, in this space.

If the Government are not going to have cross-sector AI legislation, which they are not, what will the approach be to AI use for social housing, so that tenants can be protected and so that, through the deployment and use of predictive analytics, for example, potential horrific harm situations can be avoided before they even occur? Similarly, predictive analytics could produce a repair schedule that kicks in before the need for any of those repairs becomes acute. Those are but two examples—there are hundreds and thousands more.

How will tenants, landlords, and anyone else across the social housing ecosystem be enabled, empowered and supported, and have the comfort and the confidence to use and to be alongside these new technologies, not least AI, if the Bill stays silent on these important matters?

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, in this group I have Amendment 114, which is about freedom of information.

I start by commending my noble friend for being forward-thinking in his consideration of AI and the impact it will have. I particularly like his Amendment 99. I appreciate that his explanatory statement says:

“Compliance with the standard is a precondition for any AI deployment in connection with functions under the Act”.


However, the broader point made is simple and straightforward, and would help not only central government but local government and those involved in more regional planning, as is anticipated, with Acts already passed in this Parliament, to have a better grip of what is going on. Having said that, I am surprised by quite how many Answers come back from Ministers—not necessarily the Minister answering today—saying that it would cost too much money to work out an answer to a Question tabled by a Peer. Let us get AI, or indeed data, to help us in this regard.

I turn now to Amendment 114, which again is quite a broad-brush amendment about the Freedom of Information Act. Recognising the special situation that private registered social housing providers are in, I think there is something more that we, the public, should be able to understand about how they operate their business. This is not unique; it is already undertaken in Scotland. In 2019, the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act was extended to include registered social landlords. This was done on a limited basis—not the entire range of what the FoI Act does in the rest of the UK, or certainly in England and Wales—but it is there to increase openness and transparency by allowing people to understand how they work, how decisions are taken, how public services are delivered and how they spend their money.