Social Housing Bill [HL]

Committee (1st Day) (Continued)

20:29:00

Clause 11Restriction on certain sales of social housing by private registered providers

Amendment 36

Moved by

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 propertya 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.

20:45:00

The final amendment in this group, Amendment 44, would require the housing association planning to sell to identify whether the home is accessible, either because of its original design or because it has been adapted for people with disabilities or for people with mobility difficulties of the kind that face any family over a lifetime. This knowledge will influence whether a council will decide the property should be retained in the social sector and it is worth funding that retention, either because the property is now equipped exclusively for people with disabilities or people using a wheelchair, or simply because it has been adapted along the way, such as if a DFG—a disabled facilities grant—has been granted in the past to the property and it is more suitable for people with a disability than anybody else. Those properties will be especially treasured and the least likely to be sold.

In all these ways, one is taking the Government’s four-week notification period as the most modest possible way of trying to ensure that more social housing is retained for the purposes for which it was grant-aided in the first place, extending that timescale and including within it the notification to the social housing regulator, as well as ensuring that any properties that have been adapted and improved for people with disabilities are the most likely to be retained.

Lord Stoneham of Droxford (LD)My Lords, I am most grateful to the Local Councils Network for its help with the amendments in this group in which I am involved. I am also grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for her support for a number of them. I am pleased to support the amendments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Best.

Basically, the thinking behind all these amendments is that with social housing units that are sold off and disposed of, we are always in danger of losing a valuable social asset. So it is important that whenever a social housing unit is coming up for sale, everything is done to make sure that it is used as a unit for social housing, if it can be, and that we do not lose that in the community. I am not dealing with rural areas in my remarks, but I understand the importance of social housing units disappearing in rural areas.

There is also an issue with housing associations becoming larger and across wider geographical areas; they sometimes lose their connection with the localities because of their spread. Therefore, it is essential that where these sales and disposals take place, they are held to account.

I obviously support the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Best. The noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, made the same point about extending the one month to two months so that the regulator can be informed and there is a proper period of time for whoever could purchase this social housing unit to look at how they can do it. In Amendment 45, we have put in some requirements for information about the housing unit, as to whether it is decent homes-compliant and on its energy performance. It is about getting all the details of the property together at the same time, so that the process does not become overbureaucratic and prolonged and can instead be quite straightforward.

The main amendments I have put forward in this group are Amendments 38, 41 and 42. These go further than just informing the local authority or other local housing association that a property is being disposed of, and would actually put a right to refuse in the hands of a local authority or the local registered provider to obtain the property at existing use value. It would strengthen the mechanism and the incentive for somebody to step in to save this property for social use, rather than allowing it to go out into the private market.

That is why these amendments are importantthey would give the right of first refusal both to local authorities and to local housing associations to buy the properties. Social housing is very valuable, and we must keep it as much as we can. Obviously, there will be circumstances where it might not be appropriate, but these amendments are intended to put safeguards in and to give every incentive for a local authority or a housing association to participate and acquire these properties so we do not lose them as social housing units. I hope that the Minister will give very close consideration to accepting some of these improvements.

Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB)My Lords, I rise to support Amendment 46, and I start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Best, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, for their support.

As I explained at Second Reading and as we have heard already today, the shortage of affordable housing in rural areas has had, and continues to have, long-term social and economic consequences for our rural communities. It has led to school, shop and pub closures and reductions in transport and other services, quite apart from the effect on the viability of local businesses. Traditional social networks have also collapsed, and recent evidence now suggests—as the noble Lord, Lord Best, said—that the lack of supply caused by low levels of new provision of affordable housing to rent is being exacerbated by registered providers disposing of their rural stock. Very often, this rural stock is old and in need of expensive modernising, particularly the need to achieve energy efficiency and modern EPC targets. Furthermore, to make matters worse, they are often high market value rural homes, whose sale receipts could possibly help pay for larger housing projects in more accessible locations that offer economies of scale without the extra costs and complexities of small rural schemes.

The business case for these disposal decisions is irrefutable, but the evidence suggests that these decisions are not recognising the important role that an affordable home plays in a rural community. The evidence shows that there has been a significant increase in rural disposals over the last five years, particularly by the larger registered providers. Once sold, it is difficult to replace these homes in the affected rural community, as opportunities for new affordable developments are scarce, particularly in high-value landscapes or areas affected by ecological constraints or in coastal areas.

There is a need for both our amendment and the Government’s existing Clause 11. The Bill’s current amendment to the Housing and Regeneration Act simply requires registered providers to notify local authorities of a disposal, but with very short notice, as has been noted. It would not prevent such disposals, nor open the opportunity for the registered provider and the local authority to explore other options that would avoid the disposals in rural communities, where these may be the last social housing in a rural area.

My amendment would give the rural local authority early visibility of stock conditions, asset plans and disposal strategies and would enable local authorities to plan for likely losses as well as new supply. It would open opportunities to consider purchase, retrofit, renovation, rural regeneration or other interventions before homes and land are lost permanently. Could local authority funding be available to fund replacements in the communities concerned? Could local authority funding help modernise the property or properties, making a sale unnecessary? Perhaps a package of rural sales and rebuilds could attract Homes England regeneration funding. Or, given the large plots of some of these homes, could everyone get together to redevelop the site to provide more homes?

In effect, this would be a pre-emptive stage before any decision to sell is taken. I hope that this kind of information sharing would also lead to a better partnership working between registered providers, local authorities and community stakeholders. However, I should say that to find the right solutions takes time—hence the need in our amendment for a 12-month notice.

As it stands, the current amendment in Clause 11 is more suited to non-rural areas, where there is more social housing and there are more opportunities for replacement. A disposal in these locations would not be as catastrophic as losing the last affordable home in a village or undermine the local authority’s strategy priority to support rural affordable housing delivery and sustainable communities. The notification of a proposed sale will still be important, giving the local authority some time to consider repurchase or using resources to bring a home up to standard. However, I am very concerned that four weeks is a totally inadequate period for local authorities to master the necessary resources for these actions; even 12 weeks would be pushing it. In rural areas, where a long-term strategic approach is necessary, I believe that constant communication and at least 12 months’ notice of an intention to sell will be the least amount of notice necessary.

Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)My Lords, I will say something about disposals, but as this is the first time I have spoken in the debate, I will make some general comments in support of the Bill.

Social homes are a vital resource for low-income families, and the current system has depleted that stock for decades. I therefore welcome measures in this legislation to protect social housing stock by reforming right to buy. With over 170,000 children currently living in temporary accommodation, it is essential that social homes are protected so that housing associations and councils have the confidence they need to build more social homes at pace. Measures to increase the minimum qualifying period for right to buy to a period of 10 years, reform right to buy discounts and introduce a new 35-year exemption for newly constructed social housing will boost councils’ confidence to build while ensuring that right to buy is more sustainable and better value for taxpayers’ money.

The proposed reforms to right to buy in this legislation have been broadly welcomed by the social housing sector. That is because the current system is not sustainable; it has led to a depletion of social housing stock that is desperately needed, as several others have said. Councils in particular have been unwilling to invest in new social homes that may be quickly sold at a discount.

Amendment 4, tabled by my noble friend Lady Taylor, seeks to remove right-to-buy eligibility from residents who own other residential property. It is a sensible measure to ensure that a new, reformed right-to-buy system is fair, proportionate and offers value for money.

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.

21:00:00

Similarly, Amendments 38 and 39 risk unnecessarily prolonging effective stock management by increasing the required sale notice period from four to eight weeks, or 12 weeks in a rural area. Such extensions would need to be clearly evidenced. Is four weeks insufficient for housing associations and the local authority to be notified of a disposal and explore opportunities to transfer stock? Disposals are often unviable for social landlords to manage in the long term and bring up to the standards that residents rightly deserve, although I am sure that housing associations will look very closely at the examples that have been provided in this debate to judge their own behaviour in relation to those. The vast majority of disposals are unoccupied, so a well-evidenced case must be made for a requirement to leave homes standing empty for eight to 12 weeks to prolong a sale notice requirement.

Baroness O’Neill of Bexley (Con)My Lords, this has been a thoughtful and wide-ranging debate. I thank noble Lords who have taken the time to table these amendments. In particular, I thank my noble friend Lady Coffey for her diligent work.

On Amendment 36, we need to look at where social housing is most effective, but we must also consider legitimate reasons why a sale could be beneficial. With regard to Amendment 47 in her name, and Amendment 46 in the name of the noble Lords, Lord Cameron of Dillington and Lord Best, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, we stated our position in the last group. Defining what counts as a rural area is beyond the scope of this debate and deserves much more scrutiny. That said, we recognise that local authorities and private registered providers should try to work together more closely in the interests of local communities.

Amendments 40 and 41, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham of Droxford, and my noble friend Lady Coffey seek to give registered providers a right of first refusal to acquire social rented dwellings and dwellings previously transferred from local authorities as existing use value for social housing. Noble Lords have made an interesting case and we need to look at this proposal further. Certainly, I could add some fruity stories from Bexley: the frustration of losing nomination rights and an elderly person’s block being sold at auction and turned into a cannabis factory that was then set light to. There are some things out there that we should be aware of.

Amendment 37 seeks to extend the notification of a proposed sale to cover the regulator of social housing. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response on the appropriateness of this. Amendment 45 adds details to what must be included in a sale notice and Amendment 44, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Best, seeks to add to this list information regarding the accessibility of a dwelling to wheelchair users and people with mobility problems. These are important considerations and it is right that these sale notices are comprehensive, to provide a full picture.

Turning to Amendment 43 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Jamieson, we felt it important to draw the House’s attention to the operational and financial independence of private registered providers. We must be careful not to infringe on their independence or on property rights to ensure that relationships between private providers and local authorities are based on genuine co-operation and partnerships to deliver better outcomes.

Finally, we welcome the Government’s amendments in this group. We do not want uncertainty on the statute book over which resolution procedure applies, and we are pleased that the Government have sought to fix this issue. I once again thank noble Lords for the issues they have raised, and I look forward to hearing from the Minister.

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have taken part in the debate on this group of amendments, which consider a range of issues relating to the operation of the disposals measures in the Bill. The Bill is about supporting the supply of new social housing and to achieve this we must ensure that we are taking steps to protect the existing housing stock. In addition to the right-to-buy reforms we have discussed, the Bill’s new disposal notification requirement will ensure that councils and other social housing providers in the local area are notified before social homes are sold. That will improve transparency and provide earlier visibility where homes may be lost from the social housing sector, maximising opportunities for social housing providers to buy and retain social homes.

It is important that this new requirement is balanced against the need to ensure that private registered providers are still free to take their own responsible decisions about how they manage their assets, so they can keep their homes safe and decent and continue to invest for the long term. In some cases, this means selling homes, as we have heard from my noble friend Lady Warwick, which we do not seek to inhibit or restrict with this measure. Rather, this measure aims to strike the right balance, maximising opportunities to keep housing in the social sector while ensuring that registered providers can determine their own responsible approach to asset management.

Amendments 37 and 40 from the noble Lords, Lord Best and Lord Stoneham, 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 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 them to better regulate against the standards that they set. The regulator plays no role in approving such disposals and that decision properly rests with the landlord. The regulator is already notified once a disposal has occurred, so that gives them an overview of the numbers and types of disposals that are occurring.

The amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Best, would increase the period between notification and when a sale can occur from four weeks to eight weeks generally, and to 12 weeks in designated rural areas. Amendment 39 from the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, also seeks an extension to eight weeks. I hope noble Lords will appreciate there is no right or wrong period here for the time that must elapse before sale. It is a balance that seeks to ensure that enough time is provided as a minimum for the local authority, or any interested private registered provider, to ask questions and engage in dialogue but avoids unduly delaying the many sales that will continue to proceed. I should also emphasise that this is the minimum period that must elapse. Where there is serious and active interest from other landlords, I would expect that a private registered provider would wish to engage and be flexible beyond that four-week minimum. However, I absolutely understand the noble Baroness’s point about the short length of time if decisions have to be taken, for example, through a democratic approval process or sometimes through other processes, so I shall reflect on this further.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, for Amendment 43, which seeks to ensure that, when exercising the regulation-making power in new Section 171B(6), the Secretary of State

“has regard to the operational and financial independence of private registered providers”.

I hope I can reassure, and already have reassured, the noble Baroness that the Government fully appreciate that private registered providers are just that: private bodies that should be left to make the decisions that deliver the best outcomes for them and their tenants.

Clause 11 is a light-touch measure to improve transparency and reflect good practice. The measure does not prevent disposal or restrict the means of disposal or to whom a property can be sold. It therefore does not cut across how private registered providers operate or how they legitimately manage their assets. New Section 171B sets out the type of sales that will be exempt from the notification requirement. These include sales to another registered provider and sales of shared ownership homes to the tenant. The regulation-making power that the amendment relates to enables categories of sales that are exempt from the notification provision to be extended. Imposing a constraint on the regulation-making power, as proposed by the amendment, would therefore achieve no benefit for providers. I also reassure the noble Baroness we have no imminent intention of using this regulation-making power. The power future-proofs the provision in Clause 11, allowing other categories of sale to be added in future if necessary—for example, should a new model of affordable housing be developed.

Amendment 44 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Best, would require that a notice included information as to whether it was a property that had been adapted to make it accessible for wheelchair users or others with mobility issues. The noble Lord may have predicted that I am sympathetic to what lies behind the amendment; losing properties from the social sector that have already been adapted to meet particular needs is particularly concerning. I will further consider this issue with the sector and whether that can be achieved without any unintended consequences, and I will work with the noble Lord on that.

Amendment 45 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, would extend further the information that must be required in all notices to include, for example, whether a property complied with the decent homes standard and its EPC rating. Amendment 48A would also require the private registered provider to inform the local authority and the regulator of the outcome of the proposed disposal. However, the particulars that must be included in the notice and contained in new Section 171C(1) are those that will be relevant and always of interest to other providers, such as the address and type of dwelling. Again, we have tried to strike a balance here about what legislation needs to identify as a statutory minimum to minimise burdens on landlords, recognising the ability of individual providers to make further inquiries on matters that might be of particular interest to them. Similarly, we do not wish to impose additional requirements on providers for further notifications post sale.

Amendment 46 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, would add additional requirements for disposals in designated rural areas, while Amendment 47 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, would restrict the number of areas caught by this measure by reducing the threshold to areas of 1,000 people or fewer—I think she agreed that we debated that part earlier on today. Again, I am sympathetic to what lies behind the amendment. As the noble Lord has set out, it is intended to ensure that a private registered provider and the relevant local authority discuss appropriate solutions to the possible disposal of affordable housing in sensitive rural communities well before a disposal has taken place. However, I am not entirely persuaded that the best way to achieve that outcome is by requiring annual reports on stock condition and statutory consultation on options for the regeneration of social housing prior to disposal. The provision in the Bill will ensure that a local authority is aware of a potential disposal, and I hope that will provide a local authority, particularly perhaps in rural areas, an opportunity to ensure that there is an effective dialogue about particular disposals and, perhaps more strategically, where it is aware of more than one. Requiring statutory consultation on the regeneration of social housing would likely place significant time and administrative costs on both local authority and registered provider and would materially impact the ability of 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 private registered provider-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 these existing rigorous requirements and an unnecessary additional burden on providers. Therefore, while I am entirely sympathetic to what lies behind the amendment, I am not sure that legislating in this way is the best way to achieve that goal.

21:15:00

Amendment 36 from the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, would prevent any disposal in a rural area. I am afraid I cannot support an outright ban that would prevent landlords making legitimate business decisions about how they best manage their stock. I have similar concerns regarding the noble Baroness’s Amendment 48B, which seeks to prevent disposals on a cash-only basis. This seeks, in effect, to prevent relevant sales via auction. It is important that private registered providers are free to manage the homes that they own in the most effective manner. They should also be free to choose the means of sale. Sometimes, particularly given the nature of the home they are selling, the most effective means of disposal may be auction. The amendment would impose an outright ban on such sales, which I do not support.

We should also remember that the notification requirement in Clause 11 now means that a provider would not be able to proceed straight to sale by auction without anyone being aware—something which I believe has happened in the past and which can cause understandable concern.

Amendments 41 and 42 from the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, would introduce a right of first refusal for the local authority and other registered providers notified during that notice period. This right would be on condition that the home remained social housing but would require the private registered provider to sell the home at the existing use value for social housing. I share the noble Lord’s desire to see social homes remain in the sector where possible. However, it is ultimately for private registered providers to make the best use of their assets. Sometimes this may mean selling a property on the open market to maximise the amount they have to invest in more new homes or in their existing stock. There is nothing to prevent a private registered provider choosing to sell to another provider at a lower price on the understanding it remains in social housing. I would hope that the notification requirement introduced by this Bill ensures that those discussions happen. I would therefore kindly ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.

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.

Amendments 37 to 47 not moved.

Amendment 48

Moved by

48: Clause 11, page 11, line 36, at end insert— “171E Blockchain audit trail for disposal notifications(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations require each private registered provider to maintain an immutable distributed ledger record (“the disposal audit trail”) in respect of every sale notice given under section 171A.(2) The disposal audit trail must record—(a) the date on which each sale notice was given and to whom;(b) any response received from a local housing authority or other notified person within the period specified in section 171A(3);(c) the outcome of the proposed sale, including whether the dwelling was acquired by a notified person and retained within the social housing sector.(3) The Secretary of State must publish annually an analysis of disposal audit trail data, cross-referenced with local housing need data, identifying areas of net social housing stock loss.(4) Records in the disposal audit trail must be cryptographically secured against retrospective alteration and retained for not less than 12 years.”Member’s explanatory statement This amendment requires private registered providers to maintain a tamper-proof blockchain audit trail of all section 171A disposal notifications, recording responses and outcomes. It also requires annual publication of disposal data cross-referenced with housing need, identifying areas of net stock loss.

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.

21:30:00

That is particularly true not only in the financial well-being and governance arrangements but in the housing services that they provide—as well as, going further, the prevention and alleviation of homelessness, which I am sure we all are concerned about, and the management of housing accommodation let under a tenancy. It is not intended to get into every aspect of what a registered provider might do. But, as I say, they have such a special privilege, often being given tens of millions of pounds of assets, if not more, from other places—from councils in the past and under the special arrangement whereby every taxpayer subsidises social housing in one way or another. Whether indirectly in rent or in the capital amounts, the subsidy comes from taxes that other people pay—yet they are some of the most secretive organisations going.

As a consequence, recognising the important role that they play, it is time we get some transparency so that, when they start to decide to sell properties that only rich people with cash available can buy, we know a bit more about that and why they have come to that decision. I hope the Minister will consider that carefully.

Baroness O'Neill of Bexley (Con)My Lords, I thank my noble friends Lord Holmes of Richmond and Lady Coffey for their contributions and amendments. We absolutely recognise the need for legislation to keep up to date with changes to the way personal data is processed, especially where it relates to cases of domestic abuse.

My noble friend Lord Holmes is right to point out the potential role of AI in housing allocations and that human oversight is needed, with an accessible appeals mechanism. His Amendment 117B would require the Secretary of State to publish draft guidance on responsible AI procurement, deployment and oversight, and on cyber security standards. The Government should lead the way on these issues without hindering innovation. More national oversight may be required, and I would be interested to hear from the Minister whether the mechanism my noble friend suggests in Amendment 99 is the most suitable approach.

Accountability is crucial when it comes to reliance on technology, so we agree with the intent behind my noble friend Lady Coffey’s amendment on applying the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to private registered providers, as well as my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond’s Amendment 117 on giving better oversight over complaints. These are thoughtful and well-intentioned amendments, and I hope the Government will give them due consideration.

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for the amendments on data, digital systems and technology within the social housing framework. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Coffey and Lady O’Neill, for contributing.

Amendments 48, 49, 59, 60, 97 to 99, 114, 117 and 117B raise important questions about transparency, security and the effective use of data in delivering housing services. I will take each amendment in turn, beginning with Amendments 48 and 49 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes. Amendment 48 sets out the details that the noble Lord would like to be included in a ledger prepared by housing providers. It would require the Secretary of State to publish annually an analysis of disposal data, cross-referenced with housing need data, that identifies areas of net social housing stock loss.

I appreciate that the noble Lord wishes to ensure that private registered providers maintain a robust record of their disposal notices. In turn, this supports the analysis he wishes government to undertake each year on disposals, housing need and the net loss of social homes. However, again, I think we must remain alive to avoiding undue requirements on registered providers, and indeed government, and also recognise the information and data already available.

The Regulator of Social Housing already collects and publishes data annually on sales by all large private registered providers. Local authorities already, as part of the plan-making process, publish their assessment of housing need. Finally, the Government already publish on GOV.UK statistics on affordable housing supply in England, including annual social housing sales and demolition figures, and statistics on the delivery of new affordable housing supply.

Amendments 59 and 60 seek to place cyber security requirements on landlords when handling data connected to the domestic abuse protections and would require the Secretary of State to establish a pilot programme to test zero-knowledge proof techniques. I must admit, that is not a term I had heard before I got involved in this debate. It is critical that the domestic abuse protection measures work in practice. I welcome the intent of this amendment and recognise the importance of landlords working sensitively and safely with data when considering cases and making a possession claim to the courts.

Social landlords work with tenants on a range of complex issues and can make possession claims on other sensitive issues such as anti-social behaviour. They are therefore very experienced in considering these matters. As the responsible data controllers, we expect landlords to handle tenant data responsibly. Social landlords are required to handle sensitive information securely and lawfully under UK data protection law, including the UK general data protection regulation—GDPR—and the Data Protection Act 2018. These laws are regulated and enforced by the Information Commissioner’s Office.

We will be working with landlords and the wider sector to ensure effective implementation in practice. That will include considering whether additional or further guidance or best practice is needed on data protection and confidentiality to support the safeguarding of victims as a result of these reforms. It is right that these considerations are alongside wider implementation, working with the sector. I therefore ask the noble Lord not to move his amendments.

Amendments 97 to 99 and 117B, also tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, seek to put in place frameworks for data handling and sharing and the use of artificial intelligence in the social housing sector. I recognise and welcome the intent behind the amendments and support the aim of ensuring effective data protections. However, the amendments are not necessary. They would introduce prescriptive frameworks for data usage in social housing decisions, which would not be the right approach to achieving the desired aims. In gathering evidence and making decisions related to social housing, individual social landlords and multi-agency partners are best placed to identify the systems and approaches that best meet their needs. Local housing authorities, registered providers of social housing and government departments must already operate within UK data protection law, and decisions on data protection are taken within that context. On Amendment 98, AI, if used well, has the potential to make organisations more efficient, effective and innovative. However, social landlords and other agencies should continue to be mindful of their data protection responsibilities and ensure compliance with UK law. When considering whether and how to use artificial intelligence, landlords and multi-agency partners must still consider data protection, including its lawfulness, fairness and transparency. Again, the Information Commissioner’s Office has published guidance on AI and data protection within this context. The amendments take a significantly prescriptive approach, requiring social landlords and partners to work within centrally set frameworks. We are of the view that the objectives of the amendments are better achieved within the current data protection legislative framework.

Amendment 117B seeks to require the Secretary of State to publish a report on the use of artificial intelligence and cyber security governance in social housing provision. I recognise the intention behind this proposal and the importance of ensuring that new technologies are used responsibly and securely. However, I do not consider a specific statutory reporting requirement to be necessary. Social landlords already operate within established data protection and cyber security frameworks, and wider work is under way across government to consider the appropriate use of artificial intelligence in public services. This would be an additional statutory requirement and risks duplication with existing work.

The amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, seeks to bring private registered providers within the scope of the Freedom of Information Act. We have already taken forward a targeted and proportionate approach to improving transparency for social tenants through the introduction of the social tenant access to information requirements, known as STAIRs. This will ensure that private registered providers proactively publish more information about their activities and share information with their tenants on request.

Following a direction issued to the Regulator of Social Housing in September 2025, this scheme will come into force on a phased basis over the coming year. From October 2026, private registered providers will be required to proactively publish information about the management of their social housing and, from April 2027, tenants and their representatives will be able to request access to information relating directly to the management of their homes. Unless it is reasonable not to, landlords will be required to fulfil their tenants’ requests for information within set timeframes. These requirements have been carefully designed to ensure that tenants have access to the information that matters most to them. With this in mind, the Government’s view is that a targeted, tenant-focused approach through STAIRs is the more appropriate way to deliver meaningful transparency for tenants.

I turn to Amendment 117, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, which would require local authorities to publish data on complaints received related to measures in this Bill. I hope that our commitment to introducing STAIRs demonstrates our commitment to transparency, which I share with him. However, we think it is important to look at complaints data in the round, looking at the whole service rather than focusing on specific measures. As such, the Housing Ombudsman publishes annual complaints reviews providing an assessment of complaints received across the whole sector. All registered providers of social housing are also required to collect and publish tenant satisfaction measures annually, including metrics on how satisfied tenants are with their landlord’s approach to complaints handling.

For all the reasons I have set out, while I recognise the important issues raised around data use, transparency and emerging technologies, the Government consider that these matters are best addressed through existing frameworks and ongoing policy development. I therefore ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.

Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate and thank the Minister for her response. My only comment is on the Minister’s statement that landlords and those in social housing should observe UK law. The difficulty is that, when it comes to so many elements of AI, there is no UK law. If tenants find themselves on the wrong end of an algorithmic decision, for example, there is no current UK law. There are some provisions, as rightly identified, when it comes to data, but not in many of the specific contexts as set out. So, currently, we have a largely analogue Bill in an increasingly digital environment, where much of that digital could be so assistive, not only to landlords and those involved in social housing but, most importantly, to those who are all too often at the sharpest end of some horrific situations where digital and AI could help. Currently, this Bill does not bring forth any of that potential help, but, for now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 48 withdrawn.

Amendments 48A to 49 not moved.

Amendment 50

Moved by

50: Clause 11, page 11, line 39, leave out paragraph (b) Member’s explanatory statement This would be consequential on new Clause (Health and safety lead: Parliamentary procedure). That would insert a generally-worded exclusion into section 320(7)(d) HRA 2008, and therefore remove the need for the specific exclusion inserted by clause 11(3)(b).

Amendment 50 agreed.

Clause 11, as amended, agreed.

Amendment 51

Moved by

51: After Clause 11, insert the following new Clause— “Large-scale housing stock transfersAfter section 92K of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 (fundamental objectives) insert—“92KA Code of Guidance on large-scale housing stock transfers In pursuance of the objective in section 92K(2)(b), the regulator may issue a Code of Guidance on large-scale housing stock transfers, to which registered providers must have regard.””

Lord Lansley (Con)In my view, this group is focused on what is in some ways the most important question, which is not just how we protect the public housing stock, but how we increase the availability of social homes, particularly social homes for rent. I think pretty much every noble Lord here was present at Second Reading, and they will recall that I spoke to that and, in particular, cited a report I had read from L&G about the capacity for large-scale stock transfer schemes from housing associations into partnership providers remaining within the regulated registered provider regime, but combining housing association stock with institutional investment would have the capacity to bring the latent value of that housing stock into play and enable housing associations, through the substantial receipts that they would generate, to re-enter the market in building more social homes.

21:45:00

The point of this amendment is that the report said that one of the mechanisms that would help to promote this innovation and the extension of large-scale stock transfers would be the publication of supportive guidance by the social housing regulator to this purpose. This amendment is designed to promote that guidance. From my point of view, I do not want to repeat anything that I said before; I just want to make it clear that I do not want us to underestimate the importance of looking at how we generate more building of social homes.

The Government, as the Minister has rightly reminded us on a number of occasions, are investing £39 billion over 10 years. That is, on good estimates, potentially going to deliver 5,000 more affordable homes per year and it is Home England’s intention that 60% of those should be for social rent. Of course, that is alongside the factors we all know: the principal delivery of affordable homes overall has been through Section 106 obligations, and we are in a position where many housing associations are not in a position to take up those contracts. The reason is essentially, as I understand it, because they are no longer necessarily in a position to borrow for this purpose, because many of the larger housing associations now no longer have interest cover—that is, the interest costs on their outstanding debt now exceed their operating income, so they are not in a position to take on more debt and undertake more purchases.

We have seen some change in the last few years by the introduction, after the 2020 legislation, of some for-profit registered providers, but they are generating only 13% of overall delivery. The situation with contracts for Section 106, as the Minister will recall, is such that now we are seeing some councils themselves buying the contracts for social housing from private developers under Section 106 agreements. I think this is a position we do not want to arrive at, really. We want the council housing revenue account to be building new homes, in addition to the homes that are available through Section 106 agreements. We want, in addition to that, to have Homes England grant beyond Section 106 to deliver more social homes. We are significantly below the numbers overall that we want to achieve.

We had the benefit of the Minister telling us about the impact assessment, and she reiterated the point that the net result is that, instead of a loss of 26,000 homes, there was going to be a gain of 18,000. I would just caution the Committee to remember that what we are talking about there is a loss on the one hand and a gain on the other, to the public housing stock. The 18,000 gain is a gain in the size of the public housing stock: the council house stock.

When one looks at the impact assessment, which I have had the opportunity to do during the dinner break, it reminds us that the Government’s right-to-buy reforms will lead, over 10 years, to an estimated reduction in the number of council house sales overall from 51,600 to 28,500. But a different measure is the extent to which we are building more homes as a consequence of the right-to-buy receipts, and that is a reduction of 22,000. Because there are 66,000 fewer sales of council houses, the council housing stock is going up by 18,000, instead of going down by 26,000. But there are many of us who say that we should be focused on whether we are building more homes for social rent. Are we reducing the level of need that is as yet unmet?

This is where the scenario that is presented of large-scale stock transfers leading to recapitalising the housing association sector is important. On an estimate of one-third of the housing association stock over 10 years transferring into partnership registered providers, it is estimated potentially to lead to 18,500 more affordable homes per annum. The amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, in this group wants us to understand what we are talking about when we are talking about affordable homes, social homes and so on. Clearly, probably no more than half of those would be homes for social rent. In this context, we want to be focused on homes for social rent as well as other forms of social housing, such as home ownership at below market rates.

But the benefit of this scenario is also that it would move significant numbers of people from temporary accommodation into social housing. That could yield the Exchequer up to £710 million a year and it would also lead to a move of tenants from private rented property into public housing association and council housing. That is a £125 million benefit as well. So, from the Treasury’s point of view, this is an attractive scenario. From the broader economic point of view, an increase in social housing supply over 10 years of 180,000 could increase the long-run level of GDP by around 0.2% relative to baseline. The construction activity over that 10-year period could also increase annual GDP by more than 0.1% relative to baseline.

I am grateful to the Minister for her positive response at Second Reading. I am also grateful to officials for the time that they gave to discuss these ideas. I know that Ministers are willing actively to consider innovative solutions of this character. I hope that the social housing regulator will be key to ensuring that partnership registered providers fall within the regulatory regime, that all the standards are met and that the long-term interests of tenants will be protected. But, at the same time, I hope that the social housing regulator and Ministers give their support to large-scale stock transfers through the publication of additional guidance.

Today, I hope that the Minister will be able to give me and the Committee confidence that the amendment is not necessary and that Ministers have, in any case, the powers under the 2008 Act to ask the regulator to bring forward guidance of this kind. There are things we can do: for example, creating long-term certainty about the social housing rent settlement and, where Section 106 is concerned, extending the stamp duty social landlord relief to all regulated affordable housing, including under Section 106 which does not have public grant. All this would help us to increase the numbers of homes that are built and that are available for social rent at below-market rents. This is key to us meeting presently unmet need. I commend these ideas and I hope that the Minister will be able to respond positively, as she was kind enough to do at Second Reading. I beg to move Amendment 51.

Baroness Eaton (Con)My Lords, Amendments 86, 87 and 88 in my name address the subject of mayors and their role in social housing delivery. As we know, local authorities have a major role to play in social housing delivery and maintenance. Under this Government, reforms have been pushed to further empower mayors in their areas over ordinary councillors, as we saw in the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act. Therefore, it is only right that we question to what extent existing and future mayors should be held responsible for social housing delivery.

Amendment 86 would require the Secretary of State to carry out a review of what mechanisms are and should be available to hold mayors to account, specifically in relation to social housing delivery. This review would take place within 12 months of the Bill being passed and it must consider the performance of social housing delivery, the accountability of the mayor to local electors in this regard and what accountability mechanisms exist.

So much work to deliver social housing may take place behind the scenes, and mayors deserve credit where they do well or to be held accountable when they are not doing as much as they could or should do. This will also make it clearer to voters how the social housing system works and how performance can be measured and attributed to different actors. Of course, individual mayors are not all-powerful beings, and their performance can be impacted by other factors, but they are being empowered by this Government and so we need to look again at how they can be held accountable.

Amendment 87 calls for a review of the incentives that are there for mayors to deliver social housing—more carrot, less stick, if you will. This review would look again at performance but also assess what financial incentives there are to perform well, what funding streams and accessibility to grants exist, what savings authorities can make elsewhere when social housing is delivered well, and so on. Social housing delivery needs to be supported by a positive policy environment, and this amendment would give Parliament better oversight of what incentives exist. Amendment 88 would look at mayoral remuneration as a mechanism for holding mayors accountable. Mayors who are not performing well bring into question how much remuneration they deserve, particularly as we see more mayoral combined authorities rolled out over the coming years through the Government’s reforms. This framework would link a proportion of that remuneration directly to the performance of social housing delivery, taking into account their delivery targets.

This is a probing amendment to explore how the changing role of mayors can be clarified and to ask whether the current mechanisms for accountability are sufficient and appropriate. If the Government want mayors to have more powers, there should be mechanisms of accountability and incentives to reflect that. I look forward to hearing from other noble Lords on this subject and I hope the Minister will take these ideas on board to investigate this further.

Baroness Thornhill (LD)My Lords, I will speak a little bit more briefly than I had intended on this group of amendments and will speak specifically to my Amendment 92. I am shamelessly using the Bill to raise an issue and to correct a problem that we in this House have discussed many times. My Amendment 92 would insert a new clause to ask the Government to publish very clear guidance to distinguish affordable housing from social housing. Why? Because it has real consequences for supply policy, credibility and public trust.

22:00:00

There is a widespread belief that affordable and social housing are the same thing—I hear it even in speeches and read it in articles. In reality, affordable is a vague term without a clear definition. The Minister will say that we have official definitions, and of course they come from the National Planning Policy Framework. In the NPPF, affordable rent can be set at up to 80% of local market rates. In high-pressure areas, 80% of local market rent is still completely out of reach for many ordinary working families; it is affordable in name only. Interestingly, when this tenure was introduced by the then Minister, Grant Shapps, he called it “intermediate rent”, less confusingly. Social housing is entirely different, because it is pegged to local wages and national formulas. There are arguments about how effective that is, but at least it is an attempt to tie it in some way to affordability and not the volatile private property market. It remains the only housing truly accessible to low-income households.

Because the public and policymakers conflate the two, developers and local authorities can and do claim that they are building affordable homes, while the stock of genuine social housing continues to plummet. As was said, there was a net loss last year. Likewise, Ministers often use the same terminology. Without real distinctions, this masks the reality of what is actually happening to social housing. We must stop talking about affordable housing and start explicitly demanding social housing, and I am sure the Minister would say she is all in favour of that.

My true desire is to see that the word affordable is dropped from housing vocabulary. There is clearly some agreement on this, as a quite long recent report— some 73 pages—by the Housing, Communities and Local Government Select Committee looked into this. The chair, Florence Eshalomi MP, has spoken out strongly on exactly the same lines. Perhaps it is time to make a very clear distinction.

Amendment 72 talks about the cumulative regulatory burdens which are impacting on the delivery of social housing, I simply say that, in my experience, developers regularly lobby and complain about regulatory burdens, regardless of what form of tenure they are building. The legitimate issue with building social housing is the cost of delivering it, and the Government are trying to make social rented housing stack up financially with the more recent changes which the Minister has already outlined to us. Noble Lords will have to forgive my cynicism, as we have lived with the so-called viability loophole for many years, where developers try to renege on building social housing, or defer it until the very end of the scheme—sometimes years later, in larger schemes—or say that they are delivering affordable housing.

Amendments 86 and 87, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, are on mayoral accountability, and we have some serious sympathy with them. We have an issue with her Amendment 88, as I am not sure about bringing performance-related pay into this arena; I am quite nervous about that. But let us look at Amendments 86 and 87, which are worth considering. We support these amendments, as they are intended to reinforce delivery and to shift our attention to outcomes on the ground, equating powers with responsibilities and accountability. As I have said in this House many times, mayors now have significant planning and housing powers, so it is surely entirely reasonable to ask how these powers translate into delivery performance. In our opinion, these amendments would introduce accountability without overreach.

However, the bottom line is that without clear definitions and a common understanding of the terminology currently used, we risk misleading ourselves about success, and without accountability we risk failing to deliver it to the scale that we need. My Amendment 92 simply ensures that we speak honestly about what we are building, and Amendments 86 and 87 ensure that we are actually building it.

Lord Jamieson (Con)My Lords, this has been a short but I believe important debate, and I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to it. Although these amendments address different aspects, there is a key theme to all of them, which is the theme that we believe is the key to addressing the housing crisis that we face: how do we increase the supply of homes, particularly social and affordable homes, in a system that too often struggles to deliver them at the scale required?

Amendment 71 in my name and that of my noble friend Lady O’Neill of Bexley raises the importance of prioritising brownfield land, which I know the Minister agrees with. However, as we have discussed before, this needs to be more than words: it needs action. Our amendment seeks to put that aim into action.

Amendment 72 is in a similar vein. It asks the Government to review regulatory blockers to regeneration of existing housing estates. We all know of older housing estates that are somewhat tired and built for a different time, and in many cases they provide the opportunity for additional housing through gentle densification. We have all seen those estates. My friend in the other place, James Cleverly, has highlighted the excellent Kidbrooke Village regeneration in Greenwich, where build quality has improved, and the area, the environment and flood resistance were improved, while adding nearly 3,000 homes.

The debate has rightly touched on a number of barriers to delivery. My noble friend Lord Lansley drew attention to the role that large-scale stock transfers could play in unlocking investment and renewal. The amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, raised the equally important issue of accountability. If mayors are to be entrusted with significant powers for housing delivery, it is entirely reasonable that Parliament should consider how their performance is measured and assessed. The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, also raised the issue that I think we all face: what is social, what is social rent, what is affordable, and so forth? There is confusion, but we have to live with the definitions that we have today.

I believe this is a constructive debate, but the key ishow do we deliver more housing? My noble friend Lord Lansley raised the issue of the impact assessment. I have had the opportunity for a quick scan, but I think we should come back to this on Wednesday when we debate this further, because I think there are some rather interesting figures in it.

With that, I hope the Minister will fret on the issues raised, because each amendment seeks in its own way to address the central challenge that lies at the heart of the Bill: how do we deliver more homes?

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)That is a good place for the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, to finish and a good place for me to start, because a central mission of the Government is to deliver the biggest increase in social and affordable housing in a generation, and a core objective of this Bill is to incentivise the building of more social housing.

I thank all noble Lords who have participated and submitted amendments in this group. We have already taken a significant wider step with the significant long-term investment—which I have spoken about many times—of £39 billion to build over 300,000 social homes over the next 10 years. I thank all noble Lords for the range of amendments on how we could further enable new supply and for the constructive debate on these important issues.

To respond to the amendments in turn, I will start with Amendment 51 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, which introduces a power for the Regulator of Social Housing to issue guidance relating to the large-scale transfer of stock. In addition to the power for the regulator to issue guidance, the amendment would require providers to have regard to any guidance issued, and the regulator’s guidance would relate to its fundamental economic objective, which includes supporting the supply of new homes and promoting private investment in social housing. The regulator already has a power in Section 195 of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 to issue codes of practice on matters relating to both its consumer and economic standards. Given that, I do not believe it is necessary to pursue this amendment.

However, I am aware that the aim of the amendment is to place a particular focus on the potential opportunities of large-scale transfers of homes to bolster the capacity of the sector to deliver more new homes. The noble Lord spoke enthusiastically at Second Reading about the need to explore new ways to increase the sector’s capacity to invest. In particular, he said we should be looking at how providers can, using the considerable assets that they own, partner with private investors to address the financial capacity constraints that many often face.

I assure the noble Lord that the Government are open to innovative ideas that meet our core principles, delivering more homes for social rent and creating high-quality sustainable places for the long term. I understand that the noble Lord had a fruitful meeting last week in relation to the ideas that he has. From those discussions, I hope he is reassured that my department is considering the many ideas that are being generated in this space.

In addition, the Regulator of Social Housing published last week, on 9 June, a discussion document, More and Better Social Homes , focusing on how its model of economic regulation could be updated to respond to a changing social housing sector. I met the Regulator of Social Housing last week to discuss this subject. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, is reassured that the Government are alive to the new ideas to bolster supply. Similarly, the regulator has just started an important discussion with the sector about how regulations should adapt to continue to be open to further innovation and change while effectively managing risk.

Turning to Amendment 71, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, the Government are strongly committed to a “brownfield first” approach, including for the development of social housing. We have been clear that brownfield land should be the first port of call. To support this ambition, the National Planning Policy Framework was revised in December 2024 to set out that proposals for brownfield should normally be approved unless substantial harm would be caused. We have expanded the definition of previously developed land in the framework and have recently consulted on further measures to strengthen support for development on brownfield land, including encouraging higher densities in sustainable locations and greater intensification of urban and suburban sites, and introducing a presumption that development inside settlement should be approved unless any adverse effects would be substantial enough to outweigh the benefits of doing so. In April, the Government committed to making regulations to ensure that strategic planning authorities have regard to the desirability of prioritising development on land that has been previously developed. All this demonstrates our strong commitment and continued support for brownfield development. As such, a requirement to produce a separate brownfield land social housing development strategy is unnecessary and duplicative, as the existing policy and relevant development plans already sufficiently achieve this aim. Amendment 72, also tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, would introduce a new clause for the Secretary of State to conduct a review of regulatory burdens on social housing providers. We are committed to the regulatory system ensuring that landlords deliver quality homes and services while ensuring that providers can simultaneously drive up supply. Our decade of renewal plan, published in July last year, gave the sector much-needed clarity on the regulatory requirements they will need to meet in the coming years and confirmed a number of capacity-boosting measures to support them to do this.

We also engage closely with the sector in developing regulatory measures, with close consideration of the impact on it. We have published impact assessments for new measures that impact landlords. We continue to work closely with the sector to ensure that regulatory requirements are clear and deliverable. In the light of this and the impact assessments that we have already published regarding regulatory requirements, we believe that this amendment would be duplicative and therefore unnecessary.

Amendments 86 to 88 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, would introduce three new clauses for the Secretary of State to conduct reviews into accountability mechanisms and incentives for mayors and to establish a statutory framework to link their pay to performance. I am glad the noble Baroness is considering the role of elected mayors in our mission to deliver the biggest increase in social and affordable housing in a generation. For example, increased provision represents one way in which mayors can demonstrate progress against their integrated settlement objectives for housing and strategic planning, as well as supporting outcomes to reduce homelessness. Mayoral performance against these objectives and outcomes is monitored, with mitigations in place to deal with underperformance. That includes the possibility of direct government intervention, with the reintroduction of delegated funding limits, settlement suspension or funding clawback all options in the most serious cases.

22:15:00

To avoid the need for mitigations, we have also taken decisive action to enable mayors to act on these incentives. Delivering on a commitment from the English Devolution White Paper , established mayoral authorities now possess the ability to set the strategic direction of our £39 billion social and affordable homes programme in their communities. Mayors have set out their social and affordable housing ambitions and will work with Homes England and social housing providers on development priorities, identifying key sites and supporting investment opportunities to shape delivery. Crucially, this represents an interim step as, over time, we will seek to move towards full devolution of funds and delivery for social and affordable housing. The English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act provides mayors with broad and flexible powers regarding housing and strategic planning, including the ability to acquire land and housing, produce spatial development strategies and set up mayoral development corporations. It further strengthens the accountability mechanisms for mayors through the introduction of local scrutiny committees, and we are currently revising the English devolution accountability framework with an updated version to be published by the end of 2026.

I hope that shows that the legislative changes we have made align with the purpose in the noble Baroness’s amendment and therefore that it is not necessary to accept these amendments, as these existing powers are sufficient to deliver the outcomes that she envisages without the need for additional statutory provision and to link performance directly to mayoral remuneration.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, for her amendment, which would introduce the requirement for the Secretary of State to publish guidance on a distinction between affordable housing and social housing for the purposes of this Act. In addition, the amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult before introducing the guidance. Where necessary, the Bill adopts the definition of social housing as defined in the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008. This definition encompasses both low-cost rental accommodation and low-cost home ownership. Clause 7 of the Bill makes reference to affordable housing in relation to exceptions to the right to buy. However, text inserted by subsection (3) of that clause, in new paragraph 18(1)(d), makes it clear that the relevant exception used is the definition of social housing from the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008. More broadly, affordable housing and social housing are defined elsewhere in relation to specific aspects of government policy, and that includes a definition of affordable housing within the National Planning Policy Framework. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, is reassured that in this Bill we have taken a consistent approach by adopting the definition in the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 and that further definition is not necessary at this point.

As the noble Baroness mentioned the MHCLG Select Committee report, I should say that we have received the report. We are considering the recommendations made by colleagues in that report, and we will respond in due course.

For all the reasons I have set out, while I recognise the shared ambition behind these amendments to support delivery of more social housing, I do not consider they are necessary or proportionate. Our focus is on giving councils, providers and local leaders the confidence and flexibility to deliver new supply without adding further statutory duties or reporting burdens where existing frameworks already provide the right levers. I therefore ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.

Lord Lansley (Con)I think we are most grateful to the Minister for that very positive response, and I am personally very grateful for that very encouraging response to Amendment 51. It would be great to finish day 1’s proceedings with some violent agreement that we all want to build more social homes. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 51.

Amendment 51 withdrawn.

Amendment 52 not moved.

House resumed.