How are speeches selected and edited?
- Quotes and speeches are selected on the basis of their relevance and notability - whether they bring new information to a debate, are rhetorically interesting, or whether they are interesting in the context of their speaker.
- Omissions to speeches are noted by ellipses (...) but are otherwise as recorded in Hansard.
- Not all speeches are selected here.
- AI is used to draft articles summarising Parliamentary debates. All summaries are reviewed and edited manually before publication. You can read the script used to generate the summaries.
The Social Housing Bill 2026
Edited by Peter Warrington, 2026-07-21 Peers debate reforms to Social Housing, including Right to Buy.The Commons may be in recess but the House of Lords is still sitting! The Lords held a session to debate the Report stage of the Social Housing Bill - including home ownership, local stock preservation, and how best to support vulnerable tenants in a national housing crisis.
Key Quotes:
“It is probably every Minister’s worst nightmare to stand up in the House just a few minutes after the Secretary of State has announced that he is no longer part of the Government.” - Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Labour)
“Laying the table for tea often means laying the bed for tea. I have seen a GCSE student with nowhere to work but sitting on the toilet. I have seen a baby who could not be put down to crawl because there was no space between the beds.” - Baroness Neate (Crossbench)
“The danger is that we mistake reporting for better performance. You really do not fatten a pig by continuing to weigh it.” - Baroness Thornhill (Liberal Democrat)
“I do not agree with what she [Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb] just said about ending right to buy. I am a strong supporter of it, as are many current and former Cabinet Ministers of this Labour Government, who have taken advantage of it personally—or their families have. I do not criticise them for that; it was a very wise thing to do.” - Baroness Coffey (Conservative)
“The reality is that the Government do not know whether the current model [of shared ownership] is actually working… They do not know how many shared owners suffer equity loss when they sell, or how many homes become effectively unmortgageable because service charges become too high or leases become too short.” - Lord Young of Cookham (Conservative)
“We believe that these amendments [to review secure tenancies every five years] send exactly the wrong message to people in social housing: work hard, get promoted, earn a little more and improve your family’s prospects and your rent for your home may come under review and increase, or you may be asked to leave. To us, that is not fairness; it is a penalty on aspiration.” - Baroness Thornhill (Liberal Democrat)
“Retaining a social home does not mean that it is available for a new tenant. The family still live there; it is just that they have been denied the opportunity to own their own home.” - Lord Jamieson (Conservative)
“I walk past many empty homes in the West End of London and out where I live, in Cambridge. Why can we not declare an emergency and use those homes? … We want to get into a situation where you can make money out of social housing but for the benefit of the most disenfranchised people in British society.” - Lord Bird (Crossbench)
“A local Victory Housing association close to where I live, which was originally spun out of North Norfolk District Council some 15 years ago, is now part of a huge combine where the shots are called in Gloucester, 200 miles away.” - Lord Fuller (Conservative)
“Social housing should be seen as a long-term public asset, not simply a resource to be steadily diminished while demand continues to grow.” - Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (Green)
Social Housing Bill (House of Lords) — July 20th 2026
Debate on Right to Buy Reforms
The House of Lords met to consider amendments to Clause 1 of the Social Housing Bill, focusing on the qualifying period for secure tenants to access the Right to Buy scheme.
Lord Jamieson (Conservative) moved Amendment 1 to extend the transition period, defending the legacy of the scheme:
“My Lords, we begin with the amendment standing in my name and that of my noble friend Lady O’Neill of Bexley. … the right to buy has brought transformational benefits for 2 million families across the country. I do not wish to focus on the benefits to those who access right to buy, as I believe that case is inarguable, but rather I wish to debunk the argument against right to buy, which has focused on the loss of social housing. … Retaining a social home does not mean that it is available for a new tenant. The family still live there; it is just that they have been denied the opportunity to own their own home. … Can the Minister explain how denying a home to 4,000 families a year fits with the Prime Minister’s announcement this afternoon about eliminating homelessness?”
Proponents of stock preservation argued that the unlimited selling of social homes has continuously drained the system. Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (Green) spoke to her amendment calling for greater transparency, while expressing support for a complete end to the policy:
“My Lords, my Amendment 9 asks for information that is necessary to understand the full situation. … In Committee, my noble friend Lady Bennett argued that the most effective way to protect our social housing stock is to abolish the right to buy. I also support that. Scotland abolished the policy in 2016 and Wales followed in 2019; neither has chosen to bring it back. … Social housing should be seen as a long-term public asset, not simply a resource to be steadily diminished while demand continues to grow. … Every home lost is one fewer home available for the next family on the waiting list.”
This drew a swift response from Baroness Coffey (Conservative), who co-signed the call for reports but strongly disagreed on abolishing the Right to Buy:
“My Lords, I co-signed Amendment 9 from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, because I thought it was very sensible. … For what it is worth, I do not agree with what she just said about ending right to buy. I am a strong supporter of it, as are many current and former Cabinet Ministers of this Labour Government, who have taken advantage of it personally—or their families have. I do not criticise them for that; it was a very wise thing to do. However, this would just show that it has not had quite the impact that everybody thinks.”
Turning to how sales receipts are managed, Lord Fuller (Conservative) moved Amendment 24 to mandate that proceeds are kept and reinvested locally rather than absorbed by larger, distant combines:
“My Lords … My Amendment 24 is a repeat of an amendment I tabled in Committee. Quite simply, it seeks to ensure that, when a social home is sold, the proceeds are recycled locally within the same strategic housing market area. … I now want to talk about RSLs, which are a significant part of the mix. … A local Victory Housing association close to where I live, which was originally spun out of North Norfolk District Council some 15 years ago, is now part of a huge combine where the shots are called in Gloucester, 200 miles away. The effect of my amendment would be to ensure that, if one of the old Victory homes was sold in Norfolk under right to buy, Victory would be compelled to replace that home close by rather than in other parts of the country.”
Responding for the Government, Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Labour) faced the Chamber under highly unusual circumstances following sudden ministerial departures, before addressing the Right to Buy changes:
“My Lords, it is probably every Minister’s worst nightmare to stand up in the House just a few minutes after the Secretary of State has announced that he is no longer part of the Government. I hope noble Lords will forgive me for thanking our Secretary of State, Steve Reed, for his service to housing, local government and communities. … Our Government are delivering the biggest increase in social and affordable housing in a generation. … Excluding existing tenancies would mean that the existing rules continued to apply to the great majority of council housing tenants, and we would continue to see homes being sold as early as three years after a tenancy was secured.”
Following the debate, Lord Jamieson pressed Amendment 1 to a vote. The amendment was disagreed to by 220 votes to 162.
Shared Ownership Reforms
The debate moved to the structural flaws within the shared ownership model. Lord Young of Cookham (Conservative) moved Amendment 25, calling for a thorough independent review to tackle issues around affordability, staircasing, and the lack of buyback options:
“My Lords, I will speak first to Amendment 25 in this group, supported by the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornhill and Lady Watkins, which calls for a review of shared ownership, before I move back to the more specific but related Amendment 23, which focuses on the need for buybacks. … The reality is that the Government do not know whether the current model [of shared ownership] is actually working… They do not know how many shared owners suffer equity loss when they sell, or how many homes become effectively unmortgageable because service charges become too high or leases become too short. … But it is the second factor, the absence of buyback, that is the most important area of disagreement.”
Lord Young pressed Amendment 25 to a division. The review of shared ownership was agreed to by the House of Lords by 232 votes to 146.
Protections for Domestic Abuse Survivors
Baroness Neate (Crossbench) introduced Amendment 76, which aimed to stop social landlords from disqualifying domestic abuse survivors from housing eligibility over debt incurred due to coercive control or economic abuse:
“My Lords, I wish to speak briefly to Amendment 76 standing in my name … This amendment would mean that landlords could not prevent domestic abuse survivors accessing social housing on the basis of debt incurred under coercive control or economic abuse. … Laying the table for tea often means laying the bed for tea. I have seen a GCSE student with nowhere to work but sitting on the toilet. I have seen a baby who could not be put down to crawl because there was no space between the beds. I have seen families having to live on unhealthy and expensive takeaways because they have no cooking facilities. Add all these challenges to the unimaginable trauma of domestic abuse followed by homelessness and you can easily see why many women literally risk their lives by staying with the perpetrator to spare their children from homelessness.”
Following assurances from the Minister that the Government would update statutory allocations guidance to address these barriers and utilize secondary legislation if necessary, Baroness Neate chose not to press her amendment.
Review of Lifetime Secure Tenancies
Lord Young of Cookham (Conservative) then raised the controversial issue of reviewing lifetime tenancies every five years under Amendment 77, arguing that subsidised housing must remain targeted at those in active, urgent need:
“My Lords, Amendment 77, in my name, is similar to Amendment 66, which we debated in Committee. It would require local authorities to review secure tenancies every five years to see whether there are other options available to the tenant which might free up social housing for others in desperate need. … Today, you currently get a lifelong tenancy because of your vulnerability at one point in time, and, crucially, it is never reassessed. Tackling homelessness is not just about increasing supply; it has to be about allocation if it is to be serious.”
This proposal was strongly rejected by Baroness Thornhill (Liberal Democrat), who warned that reviewing secure tenancies would penalize tenants for improving their lives:
“My Lords, I am very disappointed to say that we oppose Amendments 77 and 78 … We believe that these amendments [to review secure tenancies every five years] send exactly the wrong message to people in social housing: work hard, get promoted, earn a little more and improve your family’s prospects and your rent for your home may come under review and increase, or you may be asked to leave. To us, that is not fairness; it is a penalty on aspiration. Social housing should be a foundation for opportunity, not a ceiling on ambition. … Frankly, they would be quite unworkable. Who is going to monitor the incomes, carry out the reviews, process the appeals and reassess thousands of tenancies?”
Following further debate, Lord Young withdrew the amendment.
Social Housing Bill (House of Lords) — July 20th (Evening Session)
Protecting Adapted Stock
As the evening session commenced, Lord Fuller (Conservative) moved Amendment 79, urging the Government to prevent the costly removal of wheelchair access and wet rooms when social properties change tenancies:
“My Lords, I am disappointed that a Bill that purports to protect the supply of new homes fails to consider the texture of protecting certain types of adapted homes. … Wet rooms are important because poor personal hygiene is a leading cause of infection and hospital admission among the elderly. Keeping yourself clean down there is not just about dignity; it helps keep our hospital wards clear. … My amendment is about protecting the adapted stock—protecting that £1 billion per year investment—and about dignity for the most vulnerable in society. … When, as so often happens, a tenant passes away or moves on and the home is readvertised, with the exception of certain specialised sheltered accommodation, no credit can be given for those expensive and hard-won adaptations when a new family moves in. Tenants can ask them to be removed, and they do. It is crazy; it is a waste of money.”
The amendment was withdrawn after the Minister committed to addressing the use of adapted homes within updated statutory guidance.
Prison Leavers and Stock Management Strategy
Lord Farmer (Conservative) moved Amendment 82, aiming to mandate cooperation and transparent reporting regarding social housing provision for prison leavers to halt cycles of homelessness and reoffending:
“My Lords, Amendment 82 is in my name … Summarising briefly the arguments I made in Committee, which are still all valid, I would say that this amendment does not require local authorities to house ex-prisoners but aims to improve their rehabilitation by prisons and local authorities working better together to prevent post-release homelessness. Releasing prisoners into homelessness, and especially rough sleeping, makes their rehabilitation almost impossible. Unsurprisingly, they will be more than twice as likely to reoffend as those released into settled accommodation. … Given today’s remarks, he [the Prime Minister] clearly remains profoundly exercised by this.”
Speaking to a broader group of amendments regarding the management and utilization of existing social housing stock, Baroness Thornhill (Liberal Democrat) cautioned against creating further administrative frameworks:
“My Lords, in speaking to this group of amendments I echo the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, regarding the loss of the noble Lord, Lord Timpson, from the Front Bench. … The danger is that we mistake reporting for better performance. You really do not fatten a pig by continuing to weigh it. A national strategy will not relet an empty home and another set of metrics will not house a family; good management does that, as does investment and building more homes.”
Lord Farmer withdrew Amendment 82 following assurances of the Government’s commitment to consult on a duty for public bodies to collaborate to prevent homelessness.
Empty Dwelling Management Orders
To conclude, Lord Bird (Crossbench) moved Amendment 89, urging the Government to reinstate the timeline for councils to take over long-term empty properties via Empty Dwelling Management Orders back to six months instead of two years:
“My Lords, I am very pleased that I am being given the opportunity to speak to these two interesting amendments, Amendments 89 and 90. … If we have the opportunity of returning to that [six month] time period then we could start kicking holes in the fact that there are so many empty houses out there, and that we have 160,000 children and 174,000 families in temporary accommodation. … I walk past many empty homes in the West End of London and out where I live, in Cambridge. Why can we not declare an emergency and use those homes? … We want to get into a situation where you can make money out of social housing but for the benefit of the most disenfranchised people in British society.”
Following the debate, Lord Bird withdrew the amendment, and the House adjourned at 10:40 pm.