PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Social Housing Bill [Lords] - 10 September 2026 (Commons/Commons Chamber)

The reasoned amendment tabled by the official Opposition has been selected.

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

Good housing is the foundation of a flourishing life. Decent, safe, secure and affordable homes provide a platform for families to live, grow and build a better life. They make for stronger, healthier and happier communities. Everyone—and I mean everyone—deserves to have one. Yet, as we all know, far too many families in need across the country are languishing on social housing waiting lists, struggling in the private rented sector or in expensive temporary accommodation as a result, and driving up rents and the housing benefit bill in the process. At the same time, the ability and willingness of councils to invest in the building of new social rented homes has been undermined by the steady and significant loss of existing stock through the right to buy scheme.

It was for those reasons that the Government committed in our manifesto to delivering the biggest increase in social and affordable house building in a generation, prioritising the building of new social rented homes, enhancing protections for existing and new build social housing, and supporting councils and housing associations to make a greater contribution to affordable housing supply. In the 26 months we have been in office, we have faithfully sought to honour those commitments, making the biggest long-term investment in social and affordable housing in recent memory, vigorously prioritising social rented housing, rebuilding the capacity of councils and housing associations to borrow and invest in new and existing homes, reinvigorating council house building, and taking initial steps to better protect existing stock.

The Bill supplements those efforts. It builds on the funding and regulatory certainty that we have already given the sector, and it supports the five-step plan we published last summer to deliver a decade of renewal for social and affordable housing.

The Minister starts strongly by highlighting the real reason behind the Bill. He is absolutely right: for many families, social housing is the only option to achieve dignity, security and stability. In my community, 25,000 adults are waiting for social housing, so I welcome the Government’s ambition for £39 billion to be spent on social and affordable housing over the next 10 years. The Minister alluded to this in his earlier submissions, but will he make it clear that all resources and flexibility will be available to local councils to deliver on that pledge?

My hon. Friend is right: we absolutely need to give local councils flexibility. We have already helped councils to build their capacity. We have, as I will mention later, allowed them to keep 100% of right to buy receipts. We are considering everything we need to do to move the dial when it comes to house building, to build on the steps that we have already taken.

The Bill has three core objectives: first, to protect much-needed housing stock and thereby incentivise the building of more social rented homes; secondly, to create a fairer tenancy system with greater protections for tenants who are victims of domestic abuse; and thirdly, to reduce unnecessary bureaucracy and give providers greater regulatory certainty so that they can invest in new social and affordable homes with confidence. Let me provide further detail on each objective in turn, starting with the measures designed to better protect existing social housing stock and incentivise the building of more social homes.

At the heart of the Bill are comprehensive reforms to the right to buy scheme. In addressing them, I emphasise that we are not abolishing the right to buy—I know and respect the fact that some right hon. and hon. Members object to that decision on principle—but the Government remain firmly of the view that social housing tenants who have lived in and paid rent on their homes for many years should retain the opportunity to purchase them at a reasonable discount. However, we need to radically reform the right to buy in order to reduce the significant outflow of stock that has taken place since discounts were drastically increased by the coalition Government in 2012, to incentivise councils to build, and to attract broader investment in council housing.

As hon. Members will know, we have already acted to reduce maximum right to buy cash discounts, to increase the cost floor protection period, to ensure—as I just said to my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain)—that councils keep 100% of right to buy receipts, and to allow council to combine those receipts with developer contributions and grant funding. The Bill delivers the broader set of reforms necessary to put in place a fair and sustainable right to buy scheme for the future, informed by the feedback we received in the public consultation that ran from November 2024 to January 2025.

Key measures in the Bill include increasing the right to buy eligibility requirement from three to 10 years, amending percentage discounts to better align with new maximum cash discounts so that long-standing tenants benefit from the largest reductions, and exempting newly built social homes from sale under right to buy for 30 years. The Bill also exempts homes from sale under right to buy in areas designated as rural, given that homes in those areas are extremely difficult and expensive to replace. In the other place, peers sought to persuade the Government to set criteria for rural designation in regulations, and we have committed to amending the Bill to enable that.

The Minister will know that clause 12 includes provision restricting housing associations from disposing of stock, including, for example, housing for which it is expensive to achieve an energy performance certificate rating of C. My area is haemorrhaging larger numbers of social homes because of that rather than because of right to buy. Will he ensure that rural communities, where there is a scarcity of social housing, are protected and supported in retaining those properties?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some 27 years ago, my local authority, the London Borough of Bexley, sold all its council housing stock to Orbit and L&Q. L&Q now routinely sells those former council homes at auction. Will the Minister commit to looking further at how we can ensure homes remain social housing, because the council has no intention of buying those homes back?

It is disappointing to hear that my hon. Friend’s local authority is not interested in any way in trying to bring those homes back under local authority control. As I said, there are limits to what we can do. Housing associations remain independent organisations. I am sure that hon. Members will be aware of the risks concerned with the steps the Government might take on reclassification, but we are exploring what more can be done to protect much needed social housing stock. As I said, it is just as important that we ensure that those councils and other providers that do want to buy—there are plenty of them—are in a position to do so.

On the issue of disposals, having listened carefully to the debate in the other place on this matter, we have committed to introducing an amendment to extend the window of time that must pass between notification and the sale of a property to give councils and other providers more time to consider whether homes can be purchased and retained in the social housing sector, which we want to see.

Will the Minister also consider extending the option to consult community groups, community land trusts and housing co-ops? They could take on these properties, rather than their leaking out into the private sector. In areas like mine, if properties leak into the private sector, they will most likely become second homes.

Indeed. That is precisely why we are introducing the notification window: we want to give local authorities and other providers the maximum opportunity to bring those homes back under their control. It is just as important that they are able to do so in practice. There are other issues affecting local authorities. A number of my hon. Friends in oral questions at the start of the week spoke about pressures on housing revenue accounts. All those issues are bearing down on the ability of councils to buy homes. We are looking at reforms to this area, not least the cap on acquisitions.

Will the Minister give way?

I will make a bit of progress, because there are a lot of Members who want to speak, but I will come back to my hon. Friend later.

I now turn to the Bill’s second core objective: increasing protections for tenants who are victims of domestic abuse. No one should be forced to remain in an unsafe situation because they fear becoming homeless, yet last year about 15,000 households in England had to find a new social home as a result of domestic abuse. Existing legislation provides scant protection for social housing tenants who are victims of domestic abuse and who wish to remain in their current home without their abuser. Landlords can evict perpetrators, but only in cases where the victim has already left. That means that all too often victims are forced to choose between staying in danger or losing their home. This is an utterly unacceptable state of affairs, and through the Bill, we will end it, as part of our Department’s ongoing efforts to deliver the Government’s unprecedented commitment to halve violence against women and girls in a decade.

I thank the Minister for giving way; he has been very generous with his time. I strongly support the provisions in the Bill to support victims of violence, who far too often have to be evicted or leave while the perpetrator stays with the tenancy, as the Minister said. Rent arrears also prevent victims from gaining a tenancy or moving out of temporary accommodation into settled accommodation. Requirements that prevent those with rent arrears from getting a new tenancy do not take into account whether someone has been a victim of domestic violence. I know that the Department is looking at consulting and guidance on that. Could the Bill be a key mechanism for changing that across the country?

I know that there is interest in this issue in the Chamber. There is certainly interest in the other place about it. I assure my hon. Friend that we appreciate fully that survivors of domestic abuse with debt can face barriers when applying for social housing. We continue to believe that guidance is the best route to resolving this issue, but we have been clear in the other place, and I am happy to reiterate it in this Chamber, that if that guidance proves insufficient, we do have the option of making regulations to amend the relevant legislation.

It is very good to hear the Minister commit to checking whether guidance is enough. Many of us who have tried to rehouse victims of domestic abuse, even after great laws have been written into legislation in this place, will know that getting them the priority need status under the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 still takes a huge amount of advocacy. I therefore really welcome the commitment that, if guidance alone does not work, the Government will look at legislation. I offer to work with the Department to ensure that we assess whether the policy is working not from Whitehall but from the frontline.

My hon. Friend knows that I have the utmost respect for her and all that she has done to make women and girls safe. In response to the points made by my hon. Friends the Members for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales) and for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), the Government have committed in our national plan to end homelessness to address this issue. There is consensus on that point. I am more than happy to make it clear that, if the guidance is not effective and does not have the intended effects that we all want to see, we will not hesitate to pursue changes through regulations. My hon. Friend has my commitment on that.

Will the Minister give way?

I am not going to give way. Madam Deputy Speaker is glaring at me because I am taking too much time. I know that many Members want to speak. I will try to come back to colleagues as I progress through my remarks.

To ensure that victims of domestic abuse can access safe and secure housing, the Bill provides for stronger legal mechanisms to remove a perpetrator from a social housing tenancy and enable victims to stay in their home or move to alternative accommodation as a sole tenant. In response to constructive debate on the subject in the other place, we intend to bolster the discretionary possession ground so that the existence of a relevant protective order can provide the basis for proceedings, rather than evidence that the order has already been breached being required. The new powers will apply where the victim is personally connected to the perpetrator tenant and is a current or former occupant of the property. By aligning the approach with the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, the Bill will cover a broader range of relationships, including partners, former partners and family members.

The Bill’s third core objective is reducing unnecessary bureaucracy and providing regulatory clarity so that providers can invest in new social and affordable homes with confidence. The Housing and Planning Act 2016—incidentally, the Bill Committee of which I happened to serve on as a young Parliamentary Private Secretary to the then shadow Housing Secretary, now Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Member for Rawmarsh and Conisbrough (John Healey)—contains a series of social housing provisions that have never been brought into force. The Bill will repeal the following measures to clarify the statute book and provide the sector with certainty that they will never be implemented. First, this Government have no intention of implementing provisions that would have required councils to charge higher rents to higher-income social tenants, also known as mandatory pay to stay. The policy could have incentivised tenants to reduce work hours to avoid higher rent, so we are removing it from the statute book.

Secondly, the Bill will repeal provisions that would have required councils to grant fixed-term tenancies of between two years and 10 years generally to all new tenants. This Government will continue to encourage landlords to make the best and most effective use of their homes to meet housing need, but we have no intention of prohibiting lifetime secure tenancies, which provide much-needed security for many households and support social mobility, and so we are removing that policy from the statute book.

Thirdly, the Bill will repeal provisions that would have required councils to sell off higher-value vacant housing stock and make annual payments in respect of expected sales to the Treasury. This Government have no intention of implementing this policy and want to see these assets remain for councils to manage and use as they see fit, so we are removing it from the statute book.

As well as repealing provisions from the 2016 Act, the Bill reforms the outdated housing consents regime, which can be time consuming and resource intensive for councils and often leads to delays in delivering new social and affordable housing. The Bill will streamline the consents process to empower councils and remove bureaucratic impediments that restrict councils’ flexibility in managing their housing stock, while retaining checks and protections where appropriate.

Did my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Luke Murphy) want to intervene?

Or have I caught him unprepared? I was going to give him a chance there.

To conclude, after years of marginalisation, this Government have emphatically and unashamedly asserted the necessity and value of social rented homes. They are a crucial national asset to be proud of, to invest in, to protect and to maintain. This Bill will protect precious social homes for future generations and incentivise the building of many more of them. It will give social housing providers the confidence they need to invest in new social and affordable homes, and it will support social tenants who are victims and survivors of domestic abuse.

There is part of the Bill that the Minister has not referred to: part 2 on a review of shared ownership. Shared ownership is a tenure that provides a great opportunity to get into home ownership for many people, yet far too many people find themselves indebted and in a difficult position because of the service charges imposed on them and the quality of shared ownership. I am particularly interested in the different models of shared ownership that come forward. I am interested to know what this review will cover and how its outcomes might be reflected in any future investment in genuinely affordable homes.

I thank my hon. Friend for her question and her passionate advocacy on behalf of her constituents and others around the country on housing issues generally. On shared ownership, I know the pressures that shared owners face; I see them in my own constituency postbag on a daily basis. We have already taken positive steps to improve the shared ownership model such as introducing new expectations for landlords who bid for shared ownership grant funding to improve fairness and transparency. We are supporting shared owners affected by specific challenges, such as building safety issues. Clause 13, which hon. Members might be aware was added to the Bill in the other place, requires a review of the shared ownership model to be carried out within 12 months of the Bill passing. We do not believe a review is necessary as we are already actively considering specific issues that have been raised in debates, including data and long-term affordability for customers, and we will of course consider what more we can do to act on those issues within our wider programme to improve shared ownership.

Will the Minister give way?

I will make some progress.

I am immensely grateful to my noble Friend, Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, for the customary skill with which she oversaw the passage of the Bill through the other place and for the extensive engagement she undertook with peers throughout the initial Lords stages. A number of important issues were raised during the debates in the other place and, as a result, my Department is undertaking rapid policy work to determine whether there is a case for strengthening the Bill further in a series of areas.

For example, in response to concerns raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) and the noble Lord Best, we are giving serious consideration to what more might be done to provide greater security of tenure for social tenants who are fleeing violence, including serious youth violence. We are also considering what more can be done to bolster public control of social housing to ensure that it serves and supports those who need it most.

Will the Minister give way?

I will not; I am just about to conclude—apologies to my hon. Friend.

I look forward to engaging with hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber in relation to these and other matters as we look to improve the Bill further, and I commend it to the House.

I call the shadow Minister.

As somebody who, I would wager, has rehoused more victims of domestic abuse than almost anybody in this House, I just want to say on behalf of victims of domestic abuse that building more council housing and ensuring that more council housing is in the system is literally the thing that almost every victim in the country would ask us to do. With that, I commend the ideology of the Bill and suggest on the hon. Gentleman’s point about “wedging it together” that they are the same issue.

I am not right honourable, although I am right. [Laughter.]

Will the hon. Member give way?

I speak as the granddaughter of Jamaican immigrants who came to this country and had a council house, and then bought that council house and profited from right to buy. The conversation we had around our dinner table was, “Isn’t right to buy great? The problem is they are not rebuilding the houses.” The idea of changing the policy is to stop the leakage out of the system. We cannot continue to pour more into the top while it comes out of the bottom. I hope we can agree that building more social homes is everyone’s objective, but keeping them in the system will also alleviate the pressure on social housing.

While we are talking about statistics, between April 2012 and March 2024 there were over 124,000 right-to-buy sales and fewer than 48,000 homes built to replace them. Which party was in charge during that period? [Interruption.]

Is it not slightly misleading to suggest that the delivery rate for those homes pledged in the manifesto will be constant throughout the term of this Government? In fact, we have to do the enabling work in terms of legislation and then we will see more of those homes built towards the end. Is it not also right and good that we have a target that stretches us? I would hope that the Opposition would join us in helping to deliver that target.

Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that while under the current right-to-buy rules only 20% to 25% of the receipts go back to the local council, under the Government’s proposals it will be 100%, which will make it much easier to build those homes? Richard Parker, the West Midlands Mayor, has already delivered nearly 2,000 new homes and is on target to deliver 5,000. Would he therefore agree that it is possible to deliver the target?

On housing numbers, there is no Reform MP present this afternoon, but Reform-led Rochford district council has just published its regulation 19 local plan. During the May elections, Reform made a great thing of defending the green belt, and in the intervening period its councillors intimated to lots of local campaign groups that, when the plan came out, they would be all right. Yet we now find that nearly every single one of those green-belt sites has been recommended for development. Does my hon. Friend agree that if they do not really mean to defend the green belt—clearly they do not—they should never have said that?

Unprecedented!

The shadow Minister is giving his view eloquently on social housing, but in 2010, the then coalition Government cut the affordable housing budget by 60%. Five years later, there was a 97% fall in the building of social rent homes. Would he like to apologise to the House for that record?

My hon. Friend will be aware that the Mayor of London has been in power for over 10 years, and that London’s housing starts have fallen through the floor. Over 300,000 Londoners are estimated to be on housing waiting lists, the majority of them in Labour boroughs. Does he find the rhetoric today somewhat confusing, given that even though the Government have cut Sadiq Khan’s affordable housing target by 22%, he continues to miss it?

I want to clarify the point about people born in other countries and living here. If a person is born somewhere else, it does not mean that they are not a British citizen, or that their children were not born in this country. Being in social housing does not mean not being in work. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that, if someone becomes a British citizen after moving to this country, they should have a different tier of support in the system, even if they have paid into it?

Would you like to clarify?

Order. There is an immediate four-minute time limit for Back-Bench contributions.

Safe and secure housing is the foundation of a good life, and the availability of social and affordable housing plays an important part in the provision of housing in this country, in what should be a mixed housing picture.

I would like to begin by talking about the right to buy. Between 2012 and 2024, 124,000 right-to-buy sales took place, but fewer than 50,000 of those properties were replaced in the same period. The maths alone demonstrate what is happening to social housing. I therefore particularly welcome the Government’s commitment to reforming right to buy, including measures to exempt newly built affordable and social housing from sale under the right-to-buy scheme for 35 years. I also welcome 100% of right-to-buy receipts being left to local authorities. As an ex-council leader, I recall the frustration I felt about being unable to plough that money back into affordable homes. Councils will now be able to combine that money with developer contributions and grant funding; it will mean that councils that are committed to affordable and social housing can build more.

I thank the hon. Lady for giving way, and it is good to see her in the Chamber. She mentioned her frustration, when she was council leader, at not being able to use 100% of right-to-buy receipts. Seeing as the last Conservative Government gave her the power to do that, why did she not?

There were a number of reasons hindering us from delivering affordable homes. The Conservatives’ measure did not go as far as the proposals that the Government are setting out today. The other reasons included record interest rates, which completely decimated housing revenue accounts for councils up and down the country.

In my constituency of Barking, rising rents and bills take a bigger piece of people’s household spending each month. That is the result of a housing crisis in this country that has got progressively worse because building simply is not keeping up with demand. Every week, I speak to constituents who tell me about their experience of the housing crisis, which leaves them with anxiety that they may be left without a roof over their head at any moment—and that is in a local authority that is building at a record rate.

I would also like to speak about the new powers to support domestic violence victims. Like many Members in this place, I speak to constituents who tell me about their fear of being left homeless, should they speak out and leave their secure home. I very much welcome the changes in the Bill, which will mean that women and children can sleep safer.

One of the issues that we discussed at my constituency women’s safety summit back in January was the gender debt gap and economic abuse, and particularly how it affects rent arrears. As a result of that, North Lanarkshire council, Aberlour Children’s Charity, the violence against women and girls sector and registered social landlords in North Lanarkshire are adopting an authority-wide common approach to supporting women. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is an excellent example of voluntary action for the Minister to take forward?

There are excellent examples up and down the country of local authorities doing very good work. With the backing of a Labour Government, we can see real progress in supporting women who are the victims of domestic violence, and their children.

Part 2 of the Bill requires the Secretary of State to conduct and publish a review of the operation and effectiveness of shared ownership. Barking has a significant number of shared ownership properties, and I speak to constituents who tell me that a move that was full of hope is quickly turning into a nightmare. Many constituents have told me about the increase in their charges, in some cases from £2,000 to £4,000, and some are paying up to £6,000 in charges for a three-bedroom property. Simply put, a shared ownership property that is categorised as affordable has become unaffordable for many of my constituents. I welcome the Government’s commitment to reviewing this, to ensure that affordable means affordable. Where charges mean that properties become unaffordable, my constituents should not feel as though they are trapped in them.

Housing and the provision of decent homes, including social and affordable housing, were the reason why I ran for public office. I am delighted to support the Government’s Bill. We need to build more social and affordable homes, we need to protect them, and we need to invest in them, so that they are fit for the future. I welcome the Bill and look forward to it being rolled out, so that my constituents in Barking can benefit.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

I draw the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my experience as a social landlord.

The Liberal Democrats have long called for a major programme of social housing—150,000 homes per year—so there are elements of the Bill that we welcome and we will support it today. Extending the qualifying period to 10 years and cutting discounts will slow the loss of social homes, as we have been hearing. Protecting a newly built social home from sale for 35 years should give councils more confidence to build again, as will the improved right of first refusal. The protections for tenants fleeing domestic abuse are welcome and overdue, and we support them. So there are important steps in the right direction, but the Bill as a whole is nowhere near the scale of what is needed.

As other hon. Members have pointed out, right to buy was not on its own the biggest issue; it was the complete failure to replace properties, home for home. Thanks to the Conservatives, in Taunton and Wellington, as in the rest of the country, there are thousands fewer council homes than there used to be, all while the need for social housing has grown and grown. There are 4 million fewer council houses in this country than there were in 1980. Even taking into account replacements, social housing and registered social landlords, the number of social homes in this country has dropped by 1.5 million homes.

I agree with the majority of what the hon. Gentleman has said so far; he may come on to things that I do not agree with later in his speech, but we will have to wait and see. Will he reflect on the fact that the impact of councils losing their council housing stock has been that they have had to spend more and more money on temporary accommodation? It is a zero-sum game for local councils and the impact on families and young people has been particularly difficult, including in my constituency of Harlow.

I thank the hon. Member for I forget where—he does not mention it very often, but maybe it is Harlow. He is right and I will come to exactly that point about temporary accommodation.

The Resolution Foundation found that only one home was replaced for every five sold. That is a direct failure of Governments of all persuasions to build enough social housing. The Conservatives reversed their policy of allowing councils to spend 100% of receipts soon after they introduced it. In comparison, in 2004, a Labour Government required three quarters of receipts to be sent straight to the Treasury. Homes were sold at around half their value, and what money there was from receipts went elsewhere, not into building new social homes, and building rates plummeted.

I am glad that the new Prime Minister talks a good game on devolution, but even under the measures in this Bill, councils will remain unable to stop the loss of council homes from right to buy. The Liberal Democrats would give councils that power to end right to buy in their areas, if that is right for them and their communities. The Government should trust councils to understand their communities and their own housing markets.

When it comes to the Conservatives, who seem to be chasing their ideological bedfellows in the Reform party, apparently the priority is not building housing; it is finding a minority to blame for the problem—a group to alienate as “the other” when we should be focusing on building for the whole of the UK and everyone who lives here. Their amendment banning people who are not full British citizens from social housing overlooks the fact that people subject to immigration control are already ineligible for social housing—that is the law—but they want to go further.

The nurse on the ward at Musgrove Park hospital, in my constituency, would not be welcome under this Conservative amendment and would not be allowed to have a social home or a council house. The care worker who looked after people during the pandemic would not be welcome under this Conservative amendment. Under a Conservative Government, they would have nowhere to live when it comes to council and social housing. That is ironic for a party that has produced two Prime Ministers born outside Britain. As the Member of Parliament for Taunton and Wellington, I do not know whether I should inform his grace the Duke of Wellington that the first Duke of Wellington would not fully be a British citizen under the Conservative amendment tabled today because he was born outside Britain.

I suggest the hon. Gentleman reads the Conservative amendment that refers to reserving social housing for British citizens.

No, the Duke of Wellington was not born in Britain—the hon. Gentleman needs to have a look at his history books—[Interruption.] Regardless of the history of the Duke of Wellington, attempts to use the Bill to pump up divisive culture-war claptrap does not deserve our attention. Rather than pointing the finger of blame at minorities, we should be talking about how to build more social homes, and that is exactly what I will go on to do.

The failure to replace social homes, among other factors, means that more and more people are in temporary accommodation. There are 132,000 households in temporary accommodation, and councils spent £2.8 billion on it last year. The scourge of poor-quality temporary accommodation exists for far too many children, and that is why we need a big public housing programme to match the scale of the challenge. If for no other reason, we must do that because it is incumbent on all of us in this House, across parties, to end the tragic loss of children’s lives. The Shared Health Foundation has highlighted that temporary accommodation was found by a coroner to be a contributing factor in the deaths of 104 children in the last five years.

I have almost 180 families in Woking in temporary accommodation, and it is tragic for them. Some 20 of them are located outside the borough. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to ensure councils can locate people in temporary accommodation locally so that it does not devastate their lives as much as it does at the moment?

My hon. Friend is entirely right. People should be able to stay in their communities, and we need local, affordable housing and social housing at scale to deal with that issue.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Tory idea of capping the local housing allowance would mean that families who cannot afford to stay in their area will have to move out of the area, tear their children out of school and turn their lives upside down?

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about the local housing allowance and the huge effect that it has on local families and housing markets. It needs to be uprated. I must return to my speech, or you will start giving me looks, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Among other things, we must free up councils to build. My Lib Dem colleagues on Somerset council would build 600 council houses; they are already building council housing in parts of the county for the first time in a generation. The council has sites for another 600 houses and wants to build them, but it does not have the headroom in its housing revenue account. The Government promised to confirm their approach to a discounted borrowing rate for housing revenue accounts in the autumn, so we and councils eagerly await that news. If Ministers will not raise the £3.9 billion per year to the £6 billion per year that we have put in our manifesto for social housing, will they use some additional funds to write off some or all of that housing revenue account debt so that councils such as Somerset can get building again, as Shelter and others have called for?

On the scale of the need, the Government have reannounced that 60% of their programme for 300,000 homes will be social housing, which is 18,000 a year. That is welcome, but when that was first announced in July 2025, we said that it was not enough, and reannouncing it this summer does not make it enough. Will the Government raise the target for social homes—if not to our target of 150,000, then to a number higher than 18,000 a year?

In addition, the Bill does very little to address the unique issues of affordable housing in rural areas. In Taunton and Wellington, all that people are seeing is unprecedented plans for private housing, which many cannot afford. The council has been instructed to consent homes for 180,000 people in the next 15 years. The population of Somerset has never grown by 25% in any 15-year period in its history, and it will not do so in the next 15 years, but acres of beautiful countryside will be gobbled up for private housing permissions that many people in my constituency cannot afford.

Proposals to eat up the green belt have a consequence for social housing. My hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George) has brought to my attention an inspector’s decision in Gweek in Cornwall, following the Minister’s own policies, in which all social housing was removed from a previous consent on appeal, because, under new, mandatory Government housing targets, the new five-year supply could not be met. All private housing must now be allowed, and all social housing must be removed from the scheme. That needs to be addressed.

However, this is not just an issue in Cornwall. Most of England—at least, most of southern England—is covered by councils that, thanks to the new standard method, can no longer achieve the new five-year land supply. With the majority of those councils, we have a planning free-for-all in which social homes are not being safeguarded. The standard method has to go. We should replace it with a return to properly researched household projections that take into account movements between regions and safeguard exception sites for social housing, which are being lost. Fortunately, my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives has thought about this issue, and he has a Bill that would do exactly that. Permission in principle capped at nine dwellings sits below the affordable housing threshold, so that, too, means that sites are being lost.

The Government’s Bill does protect rural social homes from being sold, which I and my Liberal Democrat colleagues welcome. However, as long as the planning system that runs alongside it closes down the supply of new ones, it will simply not be enough. Overall, this Bill does not go far enough. In contrast, our Liberal Democrat Housing Bill—I had the privilege of presenting it to Madam Deputy Speaker not so long ago—would establish a target of 150,000 new social homes a year, including a new wave of rent to own, allowing young people to get on the housing ladder. It would require the Secretary of State to report on progress on meeting that target and would give local authorities the proper powers over social housing they will need to achieve it, including the right to end the right to buy in their area if it is right for them and their community. That is the Liberal Democrat vision for a revolution in the delivery of social homes, and I commend it to the House.

The housing crisis in Kensington and Bayswater is one of the biggest drivers of inequality in our community, with overcrowding, damp and mould, families stuck in temporary accommodation, and a lack of options for people with accessibility issues. It is a huge drag on life chances and opportunity, including for children.

The issue is not helped by Conservative-run Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea receiving a C3 rating from the Regulator of Social Housing—a staggering failure nearly 10 years after the Grenfell Tower tragedy, in which the inquiry found major failings at the council. It certainly would not be helped either by an entirely arbitrary £4 billion cut in housing benefit, which would dramatically increase homelessness, require the local authority to spend more on temporary accommodation and dramatically change the socioeconomic make-up of communities such as mine. It is a truly shameful policy. I will happily take an intervention from Conservative Front Benchers if they want to defend it, but it certainly would not address any of the issues we are talking about today.

My area is probably like my hon. Friend’s, in that local housing allowance does not nearly meet market rates. Market rates are well above the national average, and wages in my area are below it, so does he agree that the Conservative policy of capping local housing allowance and the lack of social housing building over the past decade have exacerbated the issues we are now seeing in our constituencies?

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. As the Prime Minister said yesterday, that policy would increase homelessness and would be entirely self-defeating, because it would just shift the bill to local authorities that would then have to deal with the problem, rather than tackling the problem, as we are doing today through this Bill. What we actually need is more social and genuinely affordable housing, and I welcome the steps this Bill takes to address the issue, because there is no doubt that unchecked right to buy has contributed to the problem.

The measures in the Bill are sensible and will make a difference. They build on policy changes that the Government have already made, including making permanent the retention of 100% of right-to-buy receipts. However, the implementation of these measures in communities such as mine will obviously be vital. In many of our council estates and buildings, the current owners of right-to-buy properties are actually open to selling. That is partly because of estate regeneration costs and concerns about service charges and quality, and because unlike other private leaseholders, those leaseholders may not necessarily benefit to the full extent from the easier path to commonhold and resident-run buildings that the Government will be bringing in for leaseholders in general. I would welcome further information about how local authorities can be supported to buy back properties in blocks where the council is already the freeholder.

I fully understand that this is an admission of the failure of the historical right-to-buy policy, and the situation certainly would not be helped by retaining the three-year eligibility requirement that the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon), supported in his speech. Changing the requirement to 10 years makes much more strategic sense for councils, because it incentivises both those buy-backs and investment in new council housing.

My constituency is in the borough of Ealing, where 3,000 families are in temporary accommodation and 7,500 are on the housing list. Some 9,000 homes were sold off under the right to buy since the 1980s. Does my hon. Friend agree that this Bill strikes the right balance between continuing social mobility for long-standing tenants while protecting homes for those most in need?

I do agree. We have to increase supply in any way we can, and my point about buy-backs is that they demonstrate the false economics of the system. Councils are buying back at a premium, and often they have to buy back only for temporary accommodation—because that is where the costs are so high—rather than for lifetime secure tenancies, which is what we need.

We also have a real challenge on housing association disposals, which I know other Members will speak to. The classic examples are Victorian-era street properties in North Kensington and Notting Hill. I am hearing of accelerated sell-offs as housing associations raise revenue to deal with their recent challenging financial situation, given remediation costs and the requirements to improve standards. Given that the Government have now backed the sector with access to the building safety fund, a 10-year rent settlement, low cost loans and more, I hope that those disposal numbers will drop. I know from experience that those homes in my constituency are unlikely to be replaced in the same community.

The new four-week period for housing associations to notify the council is therefore extremely welcome, but it must lead to more purchases by local authorities of these properties. I would therefore welcome further information from the Minister on what impact he expects these notification periods to have. What guidance can be provided to housing providers, given their independence, to make it clear that private sector sales should be a plan B? What support will local authorities have to purchase these properties?

Moving briefly on to shared ownership, I welcome the Minister’s close attention to the operation and effectiveness of shared ownership. Ministers will know about the case of Shaftesbury Place, because I have raised that building near Earls Court before. It has approximately 30 shared ownership flats that have experienced a twenty-onefold increase in building insurance due to a disputed fire risk assessment. The shared ownership leaseholders have consistently raised issues—broken security gates, cleaning, unauthorised access requests and late accounts—with the management of the building by Notting Hill Genesis,. In many ways, these residents are experiencing the same challenges that many leaseholders have with managing agents in the private sector, for which I hope the Government will introduce a new independent regulator. Can the Minister assure me that how housing associations manage shared ownership properties will be considered not only under forthcoming leasehold reforms, but in the Department’s work to review the challenges of shared ownership?

I welcome the new measures in this Bill to keep victims of domestic abuse safer, and I look forward to seeing those powers used by landlords.

Clearly, there is no one solution to the housing crisis in a community like mine in Kensington and Bayswater, but today’s Bill is an important step forward, and I strongly welcome it.

I put it on record that I am a passionate advocate for social housing. I have lived in it and I have worked in it. For the 14 years before I entered this House, I worked for a social housing provider in customer service, community development and housing management—my wife still does. I have seen the passion of staff who deliver those services every day, and I saw the frustration of customers who relied on them. I know how good the sector can be, and I know where it can sometimes fall short. As MPs, we see casework where tenants demand and deserve more, whether on housing allocation, repair issues or antisocial behaviour.

I am happy to put it on record that this Government have helped, not hindered social housing since coming to power. We have had rent convergence and long-term rent settlements, and they have listened to the sector about phasing in additional safety checks. Those things are real, and I welcome them, and they deserve recognition from those on the Opposition Benches.

I welcome the Government bringing forward more necessary changes, but I have to be honest that I am disappointed that the Bill is limited in scope, and I genuinely ask the Government to reflect on that. In particular, will they reflect on the report from the Regulatory Policy Committee on the Bill? On 24 July, the RPC rated the Bill’s impact assessment as “not fit for purpose”, based on its scrutiny of the evidence and the analysis put forward to justify the case for regulation. That is not a technicality; it is a warning that the case for what this Bill does and does not do has not been properly made. If we are to legislate on something as important as the future of social housing, the evidence base should be beyond question.

I will briefly address the four main areas of the Bill. On right to buy, I support increasing the minimum tenancy requirements and reforming discounts so that they start at 5% of property value and go up to a maximum of 15%. Exempting newly built social and affordable homes for 35 years will have a real impact, despite what the official Opposition say about house building.

I will move on to disposals, where I feel the protections are not adequate to empower local communities. I note that the National Housing Federation believes that the new requirement strikes the appropriate balance, but I have to disagree. In constituencies like mine, large-scale voluntary transfers of stock were the reason that providers got the stock that they did. In west Berkshire, the main registered provider has been created from an LSVT, and that stock must be protected. It is not enough for the local council to be notified; we must be told the reason for the sale and how, when and where the council will replace the stock within the local authority area. If that is not possible, a financial contribution must be made to a section 106 pot, following the practice of local authorities keeping right-to-buy receipts.

As my constituency has many rural areas, I welcome exempting rural properties from the scheme, but I also think that we should consider exemptions for much-needed larger homes, such as those with four or five bedrooms, so that they are not lost forever from the social housing stock. Of course, I support the protections for victims of domestic abuse. I have live casework on this very issue, so my constituents will be relieved that the Government have acted. The housing sector will be supportive of greater powers to help those who need it.

I have no major concerns about the repealing of unused legislation, but there are other areas where the Bill is completely silent, from protecting existing stock and empowering existing tenants and young people to have a stronger voice, to helping make homes safer by supporting housing associations to gain access for safety work.

In Salford, around 3,500 applicants are on the housing waiting list, with 1,335 children living in temporary accommodation. Across England, more than 1.3 million households are waiting for a social home, but at the current rate of delivery, Shelter estimates that it would take 119 years to clear the waiting lists.

The crisis did not happen overnight, and it was not inevitable. We did not suddenly discover that council housing did not work; previous Governments sold it off. They stopped building it, cut the funding and hollowed out the housing departments that had given local government the skills, capacity and ability to build at scale. In their place, we became increasingly dependent on a private housing market whose primary purpose has always been to generate returns, so it is no surprise that the market did not deliver the social homes that we needed—it was never going to do that.

That is why I really welcome the measures in the Bill to protect existing social housing, particularly the reforms to right to buy, but it is only the first part of the story. We now need to build council houses at scale and to give councils the powers, funding and confidence to do it. We know it can be done, because in the greatest city on earth, Salford, we have already shown how to do it. In 2017, Paul Dennett and Salford city council established Dérive, a council-owned housing company that was created to develop land and increase the supply of council and genuinely affordable homes. The first homes were delivered in 2019, and 513 had been built by April this year, with another 700 in construction or development.

That is public ownership in practice, and it is particularly significant because much of this happened during austerity, when councils were on their knees. We used our land, our democratic mandate and our own housing company to rebuild the capacity that successive Governments had allowed to disappear, and we did it on a shoestring. Imagine what could be achieved with Government support! That is the lesson that I want the House to take from Salford: councils can acquire land, develop it and build high-quality, energy-efficient homes, but crucially, they can retain those homes as public assets for generations to come.

I very much welcome the Government’s ambition to put councils back at the heart of house building, including the £39 billion affordable housing programme and the commitment to a major expansion in council house building, but if we are serious about delivering that ambition, we need to see the detail that will make it real—not in 10 years’ time, but now. How many of those homes will actually be owned by councils? How much funding will go directly to local authorities? Will councils have the borrowing capacity that they need to deliver, and will grant rates make genuinely social rent homes financially viable?

Finally, we have to be honest about what we mean by affordable. A home does not become affordable simply because we put the word “affordable” in front of it. For a family on a low wage, 80% of an inflated market rent can still be completely unaffordable. Social rent has to be different, because it is designed for what people can genuinely afford. We have to invest in council house building and make that a central pillar of our industrial strategy. There has been lots of talk this week about crowding in private investment, but that will happen only if the Government set the strategic direction and put the funding on the table for councils to deliver.

Order.

As someone who grew up in rented accommodation, with all the uncertainty that goes with it, I fully understand the pressures faced by so many families who just want a permanent home of their own. So I welcome many of the provisions in this Bill, notably the reforms to right to buy and the strengthened protections for tenants who are victims of domestic violence.

Right to buy transformed the lives of millions of social housing tenants, letting them own a home when that seemed a distant dream. However, its implementation ravaged the social housing stock in this country, with over 2 million homes sold, but only 500,000 new social rent homes built since 1980. That is why I welcome the provisions protecting what remains of that stock by extending the minimum tenancy requirement, curtailing discounts and the number of times a tenant can exercise the right to buy, and giving local authorities first refusal when a social home is resold. These are positive steps towards redressing the balance between social and private rented housing.

The Liberal Democrat-run council in Eastleigh has invested heavily in housing across the borough through partnerships with house builders and housing associations, and by commissioning homes directly. The recent announcement that Eastleigh will be one of three strategic partners in Homes England’s social and affordable homes programme for 2026 to 2036 is testament to its success.

For too long, the victims of domestic abuse have been forced to escape their homes. Clause 14 and schedule 1 begin to correct that, giving survivors a simplified legal mechanism to remove an abuser from a joint social tenancy, so it is the perpetrator who loses the home they use as a weapon of control. Crucially, this Bill closes a loophole that has too often been exploited. Currently, an abuser can end a joint tenancy on a technicality through a notice to quit while possession proceedings against them are ongoing, leaving the survivor with nothing. This Bill stops that, giving housing associations the clear, workable powers they have lacked to help survivors remain safely in their own home or move to suitable alternative social housing without losing tenancy rights.

My constituent Karen and her two children fled domestic abuse. She was refused social housing because she jointly owns a property that her ex-partner deliberately keeps off the market as a form of control. After a year spent living in a single room in a refuge, Karen and her children were served a notice to leave with nowhere secure to go. They have since found a home, but she should never have had to fight this hard to get one. Her case shows that a joint tie to a property can trap a domestic abuse survivor just as surely as a joint tenancy can, and the same is true of housing-related debt caused by an abuser.

Clause 17 removes uncommenced provisions from the Housing and Planning Act 2016 that would have phased out lifetime secure tenancies. I strongly support this. It gives tenants housing security and lets a family build a life within a community, not just occupy a home.

The Bill would simplify what never needed complicating, and protect what matters to tenants. I support it, and trust that Members will ask in Committee how it could go further to ensure everyone has a home to call their own.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister on bringing the Bill forward. It is a manifesto commitment, and one that will matter enormously to communities such as mine in Southampton by prioritising the building of social homes and better protecting the stocks we already have. Although we are talking a lot about bricks and mortar, these measures speak directly to whether children have a stable place to grow up, whether survivors of abuse can live their lives in safety, and whether places such as Southampton can offer residents decent, affordable housing as a reality, not a pipe dream.

Our city council manages about 18,000 homes, and there are another 2,500 leasehold and shared ownership properties. It is a huge and valuable asset, but it is an asset under strain, with more than 8,000 people on the waiting list. In that time, families live in overcrowded flats and temporary accommodation, and workers who come and contribute enormously to our city cannot afford a home that is genuinely affordable or secure. Those are the kinds of situations that come up in my surgeries and, I am sure, in those of other Members.

Does my hon. Friend find, as I do in my patch, that those who are on the social housing waiting list for the longest are often those with a disability who need a fully adaptable home? Does he agree that it is vital, when we spend public money on building new homes, that they should be built to an accessible and adaptable standard from the off?

I thank my hon. Friend for making that very salient point. That is true in my patch as well, where tenants need homes with adaptations either for themselves or for disabled children, so I hope the Minister is able to speak to that.

Those are all reasons why one of the most important and welcome aspects of the Bill is its central measure to protect existing social housing stock by reforming the right to buy. Since 1980, this country has sold more than 2 million social homes through right to buy and replaced only a fraction of them. I remember growing up in three council homes as a child with my family. I have great memories of the secure home that we had, but I often wonder whether they have been lost to the system.

Southampton has felt that loss directly, and at the same time it is facing rising costs for emergency accommodation for homeless families. The measures in the Bill on extending the qualifying period, on tapering the discount and on exempting new social homes are sensible and proportionate changes. They preserve a genuine route into home ownership for long-standing tenants, while removing the perverse incentive that has, for decades, discouraged councils like mine from building. I welcome the new requirement for private registered providers to give notice before selling a home, so that the council or another provider has a chance to keep it in the social sector. That is a small but practical protection, and one that I will strongly encourage Southampton city council to use.

I particularly welcome the provisions in part 3 relating to survivors of domestic abuse. As other Members have said, a home should be a place of safety, yet for many victims, housing insecurity is what stops them from escaping abuse. That is unforgivable and we must remove that barrier. The measures will make it easier for survivors to remain in safe accommodation. I hope Members across the House are able to unite behind that principle.

Can I ask the Minister to address two questions when winding up? First, how will the Government ensure that the protections translate into a genuine long-term increase in social rented stock in high-demand areas such as Southampton, where waiting lists and temporary accommodation costs are already straining local services? Secondly, what support will be available to local authorities and housing associations to implement the Bill successfully? Legislative reform is essential, but councils need the financial and operational capacity to deliver the outcomes that we are all behind. Will the Department match the ambition of the Bill with the capital investment needed to ensure that authorities such as Southampton, which already carry a decent homes backlog on more than half its stock, can genuinely invest?

As others have said, legislation alone will not solve every aspect of the housing crisis that faces Southampton and the rest of the country, but the Bill takes bold and meaningful steps in the right direction: protecting social housing and stopping the leaks in the bucket; protecting survivors of domestic abuse in their own homes; and giving councils the tools and the confidence to build again. For residents in Southampton and across the country who need a safe, affordable, secure home, that progress matters. That is why I will proudly vote for that progress today.

Some £7.9 billion a year: that is how much the Chartered Institute of Housing estimates is spent on housing benefit for tenants renting privately. In my local area, a lot of that will be going to people living on the St Helier estate, one of the largest London council estates built during the interwar period, much of which has been sold under right to buy over the past few decades. That means that instead of our local authority receiving rent from those properties, the national Government are paying market rates to private landlords on homes that we built. That is maddening and it surely makes the scale of right to buy sales, alongside the failure to replenish the stock, one of the single greatest policy failures for a generation.

I know the St Helier estate well, but would the hon. Gentleman not agree that it was his party, the Liberal Democrats, in coalition with the Conservatives, that massively increased the discounts for right to buy that caused the very problem he is talking about?

I am sure the hon. Member is aware that right-to-buy sales were happening throughout the ’90s and under the last Labour Government as well, so there is a stain on all parties from what has happened over the last few decades.

The loss of stock has an impact not only on the taxpayer but on our constituents. My inbox is full of people struggling in the housing market. It is by far the biggest issue that I face in my patch, and it is the one I end up feeling the most hopeless about. Sure, we can get things fixed when it comes to the condition of people’s housing, and sometimes we are able to get people’s position on the waiting list successfully reviewed, but a lot of the time, the fundamental issue is supply. Thousands of people are waiting, and just a couple of hundred properties become available each year, and for that I have no magic wand.

I have families living in one-bedroom accommodation where teenagers are sharing the only bedroom and parents are sleeping on the sofa. I have hard-working families come up to me all the time who are frustrated by being told that there is no point in them even applying to get on the list. It did not used to be that way. I benefited first hand from growing up in council accommodation. My parents are working class—a scaffolder and a cleaner—and they raised their family well. When my youngest brother was born—the third sibling —we managed to move from a two-bedroom flat into a three-bedroom house. That was considered normal back then, but now that sort of situation feels like a luxury.

We have turned social housing into an emergency provision for the vulnerable, instead of being the foundation of our society. To fix the supply problem is going to require bold reforms to local authority resources and powers. They need greater staffing capacity, relief from the unjustified housing revenue account debts, and to be liberated to build directly. The right-to-buy reforms that form the centrepiece of the Bill are welcome, and will stem the losses, but they must only be the first step if the Prime Minister’s ambition in this area is to be realised. Given how precious legislative time is in this place, I hope that more work will be done as the Bill progresses through the House to also increase the supply of homes.

What has happened to social housing in this country is part of a broader public policy failure, where the Government are forced into throwing good many after bad, and into intervening later rather than investing early. In the future, I hope we can recognise social housing as national infrastructure—part of our national resilience. The Government must invest to save more often. I welcome the Bill as a first step on the journey, and I look forward to the Government going further to reverse the failures of the past.

As I have the time, I will make one more remark. It is notable that the Conservative party has put forward a wrecking amendment today that picks on minorities, but not a single Conservative Back Bencher has come to defend it. What a disgrace! They should have the bravery to make the argument in full, if that is what they want to do.

I will introduce a three-minute time limit after the next speaker.

I am mindful of time, so I will make just two points. First, no one would dispute that the right-to-buy scheme has helped many families achieve the dream of home ownership, which might otherwise have been beyond their reach, but its ideological implementation has had consequences.

More than 2 million social homes have been sold since the scheme was first introduced, yet far too many of those properties were never replaced. The result has been a significant reduction in the stock of good-quality affordable social housing available to meet today’s demand. The risk that newly built homes could be lost before the investment costs can be recovered has weakened the confidence of providers to invest in new social housing at anywhere near the scale required. We have more than 1.3 million households on social housing waiting lists, while close to 180,000 children are growing up without the security of a stable home.

I welcome the measures that seek to place right to buy on a more sustainable footing, protect existing social housing stock, encourage new house building and ensure that more people can access the decent, safe, secure and affordable homes that every family deserves. However, I would like the Bill to go further in ensuring that homes sold at a discount through right to buy do not immediately end up being let out for private profit. The New Economics Foundation estimates that 41% of homes sold through right to buy are now in the private rented sector—that cannot be justified as a good use of public money. I hope that the Government will consider amendments to prevent this from occurring in future, at least for a period of time after a property is sold. I would be happy to speak to the Minister about how we can bring that forward.

Finally, I turn to the introduction of meaningful safeguards for survivors of domestic abuse. These measures recognise that access to safe and secure housing is often fundamental to a survivor’s ability not only to escape, but to rebuild their lives afterwards. We know that perpetrators can exploit housing insecurity as a means of control, leaving victims facing an impossible choice: remain in an abusive situation and continue to endure harm, or leave and risk homelessness and further insecurity. No survivor should ever be forced to make that choice.

It is therefore a significant step forward that we are giving social landlords stronger tools to respond, particularly in relation to complex cases involving joint tenancies. Giving survivors the ability to seek the removal of an abusive partner from a tenancy, and enabling them to remain in the safety and familiarity of their own home, is extremely positive. However, I would like the Bill go further by introducing specific measures to tackle furniture poverty among survivors.

Escaping an abusive relationship often requires people to leave home at extremely short notice, taking with them little more than a few personal belongings. Worse, many survivors have been subjected to financial abuse, leaving them without savings, access to credit or the means to replace the items needed to create a new, safe and secure home. While it is fundamentally important that victims of domestic abuse are always given priority access to social housing, the reality is that many of the allocated properties are entirely unfurnished. As a result, families who have already experienced trauma can find themselves moving into an empty property without beds, kitchen appliances, flooring, curtains or other basic household items. In those circumstances, the challenge is not simply accessing housing, but being able to live in it. A safe and secure home should be the foundation from which survivors rebuild their lives, not the start of another period of hardship.

The Bill is an important pillar of the Government’s work and commitment to create a social housing system that is fairer and more secure and that works better for the people who depend on it. I am proud to support the Bill and the positive changes it seeks to address across our social housing sector.

I support the Bill. It is the beginning of what the Government should be doing, but they can and should go a great deal further, both to address the need for significant growth in the scale of social housing being built and to support particularly vulnerable groups, including, as the Bill rightly says, victims of domestic violence.

I am surprised that the protections from right to buy have not been extended by preventing sales of the homes held by community land trusts, housing co-ops and not-for-profit housing providers, which have very small stocks that really do need to be protected. I am also surprised that the Government have not brought forward measures to stop the bedroom tax, which Labour campaigned against during the coalition Government. At that time, I introduced a private Member’s Bill, the Affordable Homes Bill, which Labour supported, but the Government have not included its provisions in this Bill.

I do hope that the Minister will take a second look at the issue of disposals and clause 12, on which I intervened on him earlier. At present, stock is haemorrhaging out into the private sector as a result of understandable requirements from the Government to achieve higher energy performance certificate levels and the decent homes standard. Where it becomes too expensive for housing associations to deliver on those requirements, there should be a presumption in favour of disposal to democratic bodies such as community land trusts at a value consistent with affordable housing. The problem is that housing associations sell those homes at open market value, when in fact they could be taken on by local charitable bodies and still be provided to local people in housing need.

The Minister referred to my private Member’s Bill. There are a number of provisions in it that I hope that he will consider that I do not need to propose myself. We need to strengthen the protection for areas that immediately adjoin communities, and to protect the rural exceptions policies, which were mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos). We need to work out how we can deliver more social housing when hope value is being fuelled by counterproductive housing targets. That is undermining so many measures that should be available to communities to help them to deliver what is desperately needed.

Housing remains one of the biggest challenges in my inbox, and I meet weekly with constituents who are stuck on a waiting list for social housing. In fact, almost 5,000 families in Gloucester are waiting for somewhere to call home. I am proud to support this Government, who are committed to the biggest increase in social housing in a generation. That is in stark contrast to the record of the Conservatives; rough sleeping went up 165% under their Government, and the number of children living in temporary accommodation more than doubled. Their current plan to add another 100,000 to that list is simply not acceptable—not on our watch.

I welcome the Bill. I agree that it is right that we incentivise the building of social homes. We need to build more in Gloucester, and I stand ready to work on a cross-party basis with Gloucester city council, local housing associations and Homes England to deliver this. It is also important that we improve the quality of existing social homes and follow through on the promises made to local residents in Podsmead and Matson, who have been promised regeneration of their areas for far too long without seeing it delivered.

Finally, I am pleased to see the work that this Department is doing with other Departments to tackle violence against women and girls. No one should be forced to stay in an unsafe situation because they are worried about becoming homeless. I welcome measures to support survivors and victims of domestic abuse, especially new mechanisms to remove perpetrators from their tenancies, not victims.

Alongside our Government’s commitment to offer everyone sleeping rough a roof by Christmas—there is £1.6 million for Gloucester city council to deliver this—we are making a clear argument that everyone deserves a safe, decent place to call home. Those are the foundations that we need to rebuild hope in Gloucester and deliver the better future that my constituents deserve.

I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests; I am an East Cambridgeshire district councillor—a district council that erroneously boasts of being debt free because it sold its housing stock many years ago, and that criticises the other district council in my constituency, South Cambridgeshire, and indeed Cambridge city, for having major debts, without mentioning that those councils have retained their council houses, built more, and continue to build more. I agree with the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) that we have to address that.

Average house prices in my constituency are about 10 times the average salary, and the average rent is over £1,000 a month, so it is not surprising that a lot of emails in my inbox are about social housing need. I have had people in my surgeries in tears because they cannot get a decent home for their family. We must build more council houses; I support that. I would like the Minister to consider rural areas carefully. In such areas, we might be able to accommodate only two or three units, but we really do need them. It is not just a case of building large quantities in the bigger towns; we need a good mix of council housing, including larger houses for larger families, and bungalows for people who are getting older and want to downsize.

We also need to make sure that the houses that we have are in really good condition. I really welcome the warm homes social housing fund, which is helping many of my constituents to replace their oil-fired boilers with air source heat pumps, but I wonder if there could be a similar sort of grant to bring those houses up to a good standard. Many of them were built in the ’20s and ’30s, and were then very poorly insulated around the ’70s, which added to the damp problems. Addressing those problems is a huge cost for social housing providers. As we have heard, when those houses become empty, because the providers cannot make the figures stack up—the cost of the repairs versus the future income stream from rent—they sell the houses in the private sector. Some of those houses are in my villages, where we already do not have anything like enough social houses. Providers really need financial help to bring that stock up to a decent standard.

People are also worried about shared ownership. They feel trapped into paying very high service charges that they cannot afford, but when they try to sell their property, potential buyers see the charges and pull out of the sale. I am glad that the Government will review that.

I welcome the Bill and the Government’s commitment to a decade of renewal for social and affordable housing. I will use my time to speak on behalf of the villages in my Rushcliffe constituency, and to draw the House’s attention to the work of the Labour Rural Research Group.

Affordable housing is too often discussed as if it is purely an urban and metropolitan problem—it is not, as we have just heard. In villages in my constituency and across rural Britain, families are being priced out of the places they grew up, young people are leaving because they cannot find a home, and the social housing stock that once anchored our rural communities is shrinking, not growing. The LRRG’s March 2026 report, on rural poverty in England, sets that out starkly. In 2024-25, just 17,506 affordable homes were delivered in rural local authorities, compared with 47,256 in urban ones. Rural delivery fell by 2% on the year before, while urban delivery rose. In a significant number of rural councils, only 4% of homes are affordable for someone on an average local income, compared with 10% of homes in urban authorities. That is why I welcome the fact that the Bill already exempts properties in designated rural areas from the right to buy. That principle reflects exactly what the LRRG called for in its report: recognition that rural housing is structurally different and policy needs to treat it accordingly.

However, I will press the Minister to go further in three specific areas. First, on the disposal of rural social housing stock, we would particularly welcome a local replacement guarantee, so that rural communities are not subsidising urban housing waiting lists at the expense of their own when stock is disposed of. Secondly, rural exception sites deliver important housing opportunities in rural areas, but LRRG has called for them to be placed on a statutory footing, alongside the Bill’s right to buy reforms, and for the policy to be strengthened and simplified, so that planning authorities can accelerate delivery. Thirdly, on measurement and targets, as it stands we do not properly track rural affordable housing delivery as a distinct category. The LRRG has called for a dedicated rural affordable housing delivery target, with separate monitoring by tenure type. Without that data, we cannot know whether the policies are working for rural communities.

Might I suggest that producing social housing that includes flooring as standard is a fourth area in which the Minister could go further? That is delivered by the private market, but it is not a requirement for social housing providers at the moment.

There are several areas in which we make further interventions to support our rural communities.

The Bill is a good and necessary step. It protects social housing stock, gives greater security to survivors of domestic abuse and reduces unnecessary bureaucracy for providers. However, if we are serious about a decade of renewal that reaches every postcode, rural Britain cannot be an afterthought. I hope that the Minister will look closely at the LRRG’s recommendations as the Bill progresses, so that rural communities are not left behind.

Green MPs welcome the Bill as a step in the right direction—it includes important changes—but it does not match the scale of our housing crisis. It needs to be braver and bolder, and deliver the council homes that our communities desperately need.

Social housing is not just a roof over someone’s head. It is the secure home they come back to after a long day; it is where their kids grow up and their grandkids come round. It means knowing their neighbours and having somewhere safe and secure to put down roots. That is the kind of security that everyone deserves. However, more than 1.3 million households are waiting for a social home, and more than 170,000 children are living in temporary accommodation. That statistic alone should shame us into action.

Councils are giving millions of pounds to private landlords, and I see what the lack of council housing means for people in Gorton and Denton every single day. Across Manchester and Tameside, 3,180 households are in temporary accommodation, including 5,368 children. There are parents and four children, including twin babies with additional needs, squeezed into a two-bedroom home; a family of seven, including a child with a rare genetic disorder, are living in an overcrowded three-bedroom home; and a couple who have been on waiting lists for over 10 years, and are now approaching retirement, are terrified that they simply will not be able to afford their rent when they have to stop working.

We need to do three things. The first is to stop selling off the homes that we already have. We need to abolish right to buy. The Bill makes it harder for homes to be sold off, but if more than a million households are waiting for a social home, how can we justify selling off any of them? That is not to criticise anyone who has bought their council home; those people are not to blame —the policy is. Scotland ended right to buy in 2016, and Wales has done the same; it is time for England to join them.

Secondly, we need to build more social homes. After the second world war, councils built more than 120,000 social homes a year on average. We need that ambition again, because today, councils in England are building an average of just 1,320 social rent homes a year, and by my maths, that is an average of about four per constituency. When the Prime Minister was campaigning to be MP for Makerfield, he said that all of the £39 billion affordable housing fund should be dedicated to building council homes, but he has now backtracked on that. Why? We need to get building again, properly and at scale.

Thirdly, we need to buy back the council housing stock. Green MPs are fully behind councils that are buying homes to bring them back into council housing. “Buy the supply” is an idea brilliantly championed by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry). We need more of that. My message to the Government is simple: be braver, abolish right to buy, build social homes at scale, and do more of “buy the supply”.

I declare an interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for council and social housing. The scale of the housing crisis in our communities today represents, in a crowded field, the most consequential and damaging retreat of the public realm in the UK, and a dereliction of its most basic duties. Everyone deserves a safe, comfortable and stable home where they can put down roots, so it is very welcome that, through this Bill, our national politics begins to recognise that the provision of things that people cannot live without cannot be left to private markets, which respond to demand, not need—and those will never be the same thing in a deeply unequal society like ours.

The consequences of the failure to understand that fundamental economic reality are writ large across our nation. More than 130,000 households are trapped in temporary accommodation; many of them are stuck in bed and breakfasts and hostels, which are no place to raise a family. Frankly, it will remain difficult to talk seriously about national pride while 170,000 kids are homeless in this country, and are left without the space to learn, play, grow and simply enjoy their childhood. The human cost, measured in the futures and happiness of a generation, is proof enough of the urgent need for a change in direction.

The choice before us, then—our new Prime Minister is absolutely right on this—is whether we continue with a model that provides unsuitable accommodation at extortionate prices, or put the public back in the driving seat. I welcome the attention in the Bill to retaining the social housing stock we already have. For far too long, we have lost social homes faster than we have built them. Putting a firm stop to that trend, alongside the Prime Minister’s commitment to a new generation of council homes, puts us in a position finally to get the housing crisis under control.

I remind the House that in six years—at a time of shortages, debt, constraints and even greater competing demands on public expenditure than we face now—the post-war Labour Government oversaw the construction of more than 800,000 council houses, some of the best ever to be built in this country.

Now is the time to recognise once again that the only way to get high-quality homes that those on waiting lists can actually afford is to directly plan and deliver council housing for people on low incomes, and that only the Government on behalf of the people can mobilise the patient capital capable of realising all the wider benefits that decent homes for all will secure for our society. With fresh leadership in the Department, I look forward to supporting this important legislation to ensure that we deliver the quality social homes that our communities need.

In 2021, there were 6,145 social housing units in my constituency, representing just 14.2% of the housing stock, compared with 17.1% across England and Wales. More than 300,000 people are currently on rural social housing waiting lists, and at current build rates, it would take 89 years to clear the backlog. I welcome the Bill’s measures to disapply right to buy in national parks and designated rural areas. In places where social housing is already scarce, we cannot afford to lose more of it. It is therefore right that we protect the limited stock we currently have.

More than anything, though, I welcome the Bill’s protections for the victims of domestic abuse, because this is where the question of housing becomes a question of safety. If someone knows that leaving means homelessness, temporary accommodation or being separated from their children, family and support network, the decision to leave an abusive relationship becomes enormously harder. The Bill rightly proposes protections allowing victims in joint social tenancies to remain in their home while the perpetrator is removed, as well as helping victims secure alternative accommodation.

Stephanie was forced to leave her family home with her four-year-old son, Neo, because of verbal and emotional abuse from her former partner, who was a joint tenant. Neo has cerebral palsy and has recently undergone back surgery. He is learning to walk again using mobility aids. Stephanie is temporarily staying with her mother and urgently needs suitable housing, but because the rent on the family home is not up to date, she has been told that assistance cannot be provided until the arrears are resolved. She is terrified that she will be placed in temporary accommodation away from Bridport, away from her support network that her son relies on.

Cases like hers are precisely why housing-related debt arising from domestic abuse must not become a barrier to accessing social housing. A survivor should not be punished for financial circumstances created or exacerbated by their abuser, and I therefore strongly support strengthening the Bill so that survivors can leave unsafe homes, retain their tenancy rights where appropriate, or secure suitable alternative housing without being trapped by the financial consequences of the abuse.

I also want to raise the point that a home is not necessarily suitable simply because it is technically available. Ruby was offered a first-floor flat in Bridport despite having serious physical disabilities. She was told that she could not refuse the property as she would not be offered alternative housing. I have numerous other cases that time simply will not allow for me to get to, which is a shame. I want to see the Government go further in ensuring that social housing allocation in rural areas reflects local needs, accessibility, disability, age and family circumstances, but otherwise I support the Bill.

I was disappointed by the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon), who sounded complacent when he talked about the aspiration to buy a house. Of course, there is that aspiration, but does he not understand the aspiration of people on the waiting list? Millions of people, including 170,000 children in temporary accommodation, aspire just to have a key for a council house. Has he ever seen the gleam in a family’s eyes when they get that key and manage to get a secure home, knowing it is there for the future? It is not good enough to simply say that the aspiration to buy a house is more important than the aspiration to have a home, and one that is warm and secure.

Also, there was no sense of contrition that the right to buy legislation resulted in 2 million council houses being sold, whereas only 250,000 new houses were built in that period. Of those 2 million that were sold, 800,000 now belong to private landlords. That is quite shocking because the rents that private landlords charge are a multiple of what a council or social landlord would charge.

In my constituency, 6,000 homes have gone to private landlords. The council received about £140 million in capital receipts for those 6,000 houses. They are now worth £1.1 billion. This has been a racket; it has been like the gold rush in the Klondike, a race for money. In the meantime, rent levels in the remaining social housing are only 61% of the rents charged by the private landlords.

It is totally anomalous that for two or three houses on the same street in the same estate a higher rent will be charged by a private landlord than that for the people next door who are still renting from a social landlord. The Government need to move fast. We cannot allow so many children and families to be left in that perilous situation—55,000 individuals are struggling in the district of Wakefield.

Let me make one final point. The Treasury’s dead hand of economic orthodoxy prioritises house building by housing associations over house building by councils, which is a mistake. The Bill does not address that, but I wonder whether the Minister could respond on that in some way. A council can borrow money to build an asset worth more than what it has borrowed and receive an income from it through rent, yet that counts towards the national debt; for a housing association, it is different. I think those rules explains councils’ retreat from committing to build more housing rather than social landlords.

I welcome much of what is in the Bill—the reforms to right to buy are overdue and the new protections for tenants experiencing domestic abuse are an important step—but it lacks the ambition needed to address the wider social housing crisis and does little to address a problem hollowing out village after village across South Devon: the disposal of social housing by registered providers. Since 2018-19, housing associations have sold over 25,000 social and affordable homes on the open market. In 2024-25 alone, they sold 5,250, which was the highest figure on record. In the South Hams, one housing association has sold 49 homes since 2022, with the heaviest losses in Salcombe and Dartmouth, where property is extremely expensive. In Kingswear, 36% of social housing stock has been lost in just three years. The primary school has since closed due to a lack of pupils. With so little affordable housing left, there is little prospect of new families moving in.

Over the last five years, 3,600 new homes have been built across my constituency, yet more than 2,500 families remain in housing need. Most of those homes are at full market price, way beyond the reach of local people. I absolutely reject what was said by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon)—the answer is not to build more open market homes that cost £1 million. When a single social rented home became available in Malborough, 119 households bid for it, and in Brixham 190 people bid for one social home, yet councils have no power to stop housing associations disposing of the few affordable homes that remain.

I am really proud that council housing was introduced by the Liberal party under Lloyd George. I am furious that the Conservatives enabled so much of it to be lost. Just this morning, I heard from a constituent whose disabled son was offered a bungalow perfectly suited to his needs, allowing him to live independently while remaining close to his family. The family were then told that the housing association intended to dispose of it. A home that could have transformed someone’s life is being sold—it is heartbreaking.

I will also address the need for smaller developments of affordable—including social rented—homes in villages. We must build small amounts of social housing around villages so that young people who have grown up in the village can afford to stay there and older people can downsize, yet social housing providers are fixated on large developments on the side of towns. The future of rural communities depends on homes that local people can afford. Without real powers for councils to protect social housing and hold developers to their affordable housing commitments, we will keep watching schools shrink, shops close and villages empty out, one sale and one broken promise at a time. It is not good enough.

The housing crisis is the single biggest issue facing my constituents. Every single year since I was first elected as a local councillor on the same day that the coalition Government came into power in 2010, I have watched the housing crisis deepen and become more entrenched in my constituency. Our local council had vital grant funding for new social homes withdrawn; subsequent Conservative Governments froze and cut council rents, leaving gaping holes in the housing revenue account and hamstringing our councils on repairs and investment; and right-to-buy changes have haemorrhaged council homes out of the system and into the private sector, sometimes only for them to be let back to our councils as temporary accommodation at extortionate rents.

After 14 years of harmful policies, the impacts are clear: tens of thousands of families living in temporary accommodation and in unsafe, damp, mouldy conditions that harm health and undermine the essential stability and security that every one of us needs to thrive. This is not only a housing crisis, but a public health crisis, a cost of living crisis and a basic human decency crisis.

I rise to speak in particular to the campaign that I have been running since 2022: a reform to social housing regulations called Georgia’s law. Georgia is a former constituent who had been a social housing tenant for five years when her eldest son, having done nothing wrong, was threatened by gang members. The police told Georgia that his life was at risk and that she needed to move. The move into temporary accommodation was catastrophic for Georgia and her family, ultimately resulting in the murder of her second son—a horrific act that would never have happened had that family’s life not been destabilised in that way. What we discovered was that Georgia had no security of tenure as a social housing tenant in those circumstances; her family had to move through no fault of their own, because they were the victims of a threat of serious violence.

I welcome my hon. Friend the Minister’s commitment and engagement on this issue, and I particularly thank the noble Lord Best for picking up this issue in the Lords and for the debate and discussion that happened there. I look forward to engaging further with the Minister on the amendments that might be tabled to secure in law the protection for social housing tenants who have to move because of a threat of violence, where police deem that move necessary, so that they do not suffer the compounding trauma of the destabilisation of their lives in temporary accommodation. I will table an amendment on Report if necessary, but I look forward to further engagement with the Minister on the issue in the meantime.

Of course we need more council homes and social homes, and it is welcome that the Bill makes provision for just that. But for the lack of social housing, we would not see the growth in houses in multiple occupation, which are blighting communities up and down the country. That indicates a clear need for council homes and social homes of the right kind and in the right place.

It is also essential that we take action now because it is anticipated that, by 2024, an additional 1.3 million pensioners will be living in rented accommodation. Whether they are just state pensioners or have some private pension as well, as their earnings start to level out and become more restricted, the private rented sector will not necessarily be the kindest place for them. Social homes will be the places that provide them with security and comfort in their older years.

The Minister will not be surprised to hear me move on to the issue of empty homes—this is not the first time that I have mentioned it to him. There are nearly 2,000 in my constituency. While we talk about building new social homes, we have an opportunity not just to look at building new social homes, but to look at houses in the private sector that have been empty for a long time. We could make it easier for local authorities and third sector voluntary organisations to get access to those homes and use them. That could include apprenticeships to help in bringing them back into use for local communities.

The hon. Lady makes an important point about empty homes. When I was shadow Housing Minister 20 years ago, the Empty Homes Agency estimated that there were 700,000 empty homes in England and Wales alone. That number has barely shifted, and no Government have brought forward appropriate policies to alter it, so I do hope that this Minister will look at that closely.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman very much for supporting me on that point; this is an issue that affects many constituencies across the country.

Housing associations are purveyors of social homes, so there needs to be a review of their accountability and the expectations of how well they work with local authorities. We often see disputes over land management and trees, about who looks after the land, but the people living in that area should not have to worry about who has responsibility. It is a real sticking point that I see all the time in my area.

Housing associations often hold on to empty land. In my constituency, about 700 people were accommodated in high-rise flats that the housing association decided to tear down. That space has been an eyesore since 2016, and another housing association, the council or the charitable sector could easily access it and build much-needed new homes in the town centre, to prevent the doughnut effect of town centres being hollowed out.

Despite the Government not really wanting the measure in the Bill—the other place voted it in—the shared ownership rules, I am pleased to say, will be looked at again. When shared ownership properties are owned by housing associations, they are often the last consideration in their portfolios. People who buy those properties to get on the first rung of a bit of the housing ladder often suddenly find themselves trapped, taking up a home that would be somebody else’s first step on the ladder, and there is no requirement for housing associations to take that more seriously.

One major driver of the housing crisis has been the selling off of our council homes under Thatcher’s right-to-buy scheme. Not only has that greatly reduced the supply of social housing, exposing more people to higher rents and the insecurity of private renting, but we now know that it has indirectly inflated private rents by shifting low-income households into market-rate renting. That is why I welcome the Bill’s aims of protecting existing social housing stock and incentivising the building of more social rented homes. I also commend its commitment to provide greater social security and stability for social tenants who are victims and survivors of domestic abuse.

However, while the Bill turns over a new leaf in our housing policy, I am concerned that it does not go far enough on right to buy. New social homes will only be protected for 35 years, and existing tenants will wait seven more years to buy their homes at a discount, so we will still lose our social housing stock, just at a slower pace. The argument we often hear against removing right to buy from existing social housing is that it would be unfair to those hoping to buy their homes at a discount, but selling public assets to private individuals at a loss to the state is accelerating the housing crisis for all.

Since council homes began being sold off at a discount, the state has effectively given away an estimated £194 billion, and to add insult to injury, 41% of those homes are now in the hands of private landlords. The Government rightly recognise that we need to replenish our social housing stock, so as well as a mass programme of council house building, we must help local authorities to recover former council homes through grants and a stronger right of first refusal policy. These measures will, in the long term, pay for themselves.

A typical private tenant spends over a third of their income on rent today, compared with only 10% in 1980, so we need more drastic measures to tackle the housing crisis, and that includes stabilising our social housing stock. We should be ending right to buy completely, as Wales and Scotland have, because every year delayed is another year that we fail the hundreds of thousands of people without a secure home, the over 170,000 children in England who are in temporary accommodation and, of course, the millions paying extortionate rents to their landlords.

I wholeheartedly welcome the Bill and all it will do to support the very Labour promise that everyone should have access to a safe and secure place to call their home. While the Leader of the Opposition apparently believes that if nurses, teaching assistants and tradies cannot afford to live in Bracknell Forest, with its high rents and house prices, they should be forced to move out, I believe the answer is more social and council housing to support people from Bracknell Forest to stay in Bracknell Forest. That is why I support the push by the leader of Bracknell Forest council, Helen Purnell, to make the council a leading force in delivering new council housing.

I welcome the measures in the Bill on the disposal of social houses by registered providers, but the Minister will not be surprised to hear that I think we need to go further. Since 2018, housing associations have permanently sold 28,585 social homes to private and other non-social purchasers, with 5,806 sold in 2024-25 alone, the highest annual figure on record. Some 87% of those went at open market value, far beyond the reach of a local authority’s purchasing power. Unlike right to buy, these homes are not being sold to the families living in them—they are being sold out of the sector entirely into private ownership. In my constituency, 154 homes have been sold since 2018, including bungalows and several three and four-bedroom properties, which are the very homes Bracknell Forest families most need.

As it stands, the Bill asks housing providers to give local authorities notification of any disposals that they are planning, but the measures are not sufficiently strong. On Third Reading in the other place, the Minister confirmed that the Government are planning a Commons amendment on the notification period, so may I press the Housing Minister for more information on that and on what we can do to strengthen that measure?

Will he also consider two further changes to the Bill? First, Homes England should develop a code of responsible disposal practice, with the regulator and the sector more widely, to which housing providers can be held as a condition of holding long-term partner status under the social and affordable homes programme. That is a very simple principle: if they are receiving Government money, they should not be disposing of homes, wherever possible. Secondly, when a social home is disposed of, the Government should do more to ensure that the income is reinvested in replacement social rent homes in the same local authority area.

I know my right hon. Friend the Housing Minister shares my concerns about this issue and I am committed to working with him and the Government to ensure the Bill addresses disposals properly. I look forward to constructive conversations with the Minister as the Bill progresses.

As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on domestic violence and abuse, and as a survivor of domestic abuse with direct experience of how that issue relates to social housing, I hope that the Bill can truly ensure that it leaves no survivor behind. Indeed, survivors and survivor-led organisations that have been campaigning for decades welcome many provisions in the Bill, but they have also expressed concern that some of the proposed protections would apply to too small a proportion of survivors.

With criminal justice outcomes for domestic abuse so poor, it is clear that civil outcomes should be considered as part of the mandatory grounds for eviction. I am glad to have heard today that the issuing of a protective order will be introduced to schedule 1. I also believe that we should consider enhancing these grounds to include victims and survivors of rape and other sexual offences, including where a perpetrator is not an intimate partner, for instance a flatmate. Will the Minister clarify how the Bill will incentivise or ensure that these powers are actually used by landlords, rather than leaving them as wholly discretionary?

On joint tenancies, there are grounds to say that the proposals exclude many survivors who are not listed as tenants, disproportionately affecting younger survivors and survivors of familial abuse. Will the Minister clarify if the Government have considered or are considering expanding these protections by accepting established evidence of residency in place of named tenancy? Furthermore, when a perpetrator has been removed from a joint tenancy, an unsustainable financial burden might arise for a survivor holding sole custody. With the benefits system likely too slow to respond, Women’s Aid, Refuge and others have called for consideration to be given by the Department for Work and Pensions and the Minister’s own Department as to how to incorporate affordability assessments at the point of transfer.

Provisions on alternative accommodation raise the issue of furniture poverty, which is faced by far too many survivors. There are calls from experts to introduce a statutory duty for social housing provided to survivors to come furnished, and I hope the Government will pick up on that.

Although I have raised many different points for consideration, there should be no doubt that the ambition of halving violence against women and girls in a decade will require painstaking efforts across all Departments and the examination of all frameworks. On housing, there is still far more to be done, and that mean listening to the VAWG sector and to survivors when they point out shortfalls in these proposals. I hope that the Minister will listen to these concerns and offer to meet members of the APPG to discuss our concerns and the implementation of the measures.

I had a much longer speech prepared for this debate, but with the constraints on time I do not think I will be able to make it. Let me reflect on the fact that for the majority of this debate, the Conservative Benches have been next to empty, with almost no contributions from Conservative Members other than those on the Front Bench. I posit that that may be because of an element of shame on the part of Conservative Back Benchers regarding the contribution that we heard from those on their Front Bench. This is a Tory party—that, not too long ago, was led by somebody born on the upper east side of New York—deciding that it will start defining the value of people as British citizens based on whether they were born here. For shame! I am more than happy to get fully behind this legislation.

Cornwall’s social housing shortage is not only a major contributor to our severe housing crisis, but one of the greatest blockers of economic regeneration. In the Conservative years, the construction of new social housing in Cornwall plummeted—for example, in 2015-16, just six new homes were built for social rent across the entire duchy. Combine that with 14,000 second homes and nearly 24,000 Airbnb listings, which further reduce the overall housing stock, and it comes as no shock that our social housing waiting list stands at a staggering 25,000. That incurs vast costs for emergency and temporary accommodation. The size of that register will only grow in coming years unless urgent action is taken.

In the light of our acute housing crisis, I warmly welcome measures in the Bill to protect our existing social housing stock, particularly the right to buy exemptions for new social homes and for those in designated rural areas. However, the scope of the Bill addresses just one element of Cornwall’s housing crisis. I welcomed the former Chancellor’s stamp duty increase for second homes from 3% to 5%, and I also welcomed the confirmation last week by the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport that a new registration scheme for short-term lets will be live by March, but we must go further. To that end, I have three quick asks of the Government.

First, I urge the Government to review Cornwall council’s £90 million housing revenue account debt associated with the 2012 self-financing settlement. Servicing that inherited debt settlement diverts key resources away from repairs to existing homes and delivering additional affordable housing. Secondly, the Government have already recognised the value of low-cost development finance through 0.1% loans to housing associations. Extending those opportunities to councils would unlock significant additional housing delivery. Thirdly, Cornwall must not be locked out of further powers and funding for social housing simply because we will not be joining a mayoral strategic authority. A strategic place partnership with Homes England would give us not only the framework to deliver social housing for Cornwall, but the funding, which so far has gone only to mayoral strategic authorities.

Cornwall cannot build a stronger economy on a foundation of housing insecurity. The only sustainable answer is to increase our stock of genuinely affordable social homes and to do that at scale. To that end, I strongly welcome this Bill.

It is a great pleasure to speak in this debate. I welcome this Bill, particularly the very important measures to support victims of domestic violence and the sensible measures to reform the right to buy. In the limited time available to me, I will point out how valuable that is to my constituents in Reading and other similar parts of the country where there is growing demand on public services, a growing population and a shortage of housing. Both as an MP and as a councillor, I have been very aware of the housing shortage in our town.

Let me describe some of the issues that residents face; they are quite severe. The cost of housing is high—where I live, a two-bedroom terraced house can cost up to £370,000. That means that for many people, it is extremely difficult to become an owner-occupier, and social, affordable and council housing is extremely important in our community. I have seen terraced houses split up and subdivided into HMOs or two flats for residents, who are under extreme pressure. I have also seen families having to live in emergency housing, so I am very much in favour of more social and council housing, in particular, and I believe that the Bill will help and support that. We are lucky that our local authority is already taking steps, but I believe that the Bill will help it and other local authorities to go much, much further.

One of the great pleasures I have had recently as an MP was visiting the opening of new council houses in Coley in Reading and seeing wonderful modern homes that are being built by Reading borough council next to existing council properties—it is using land more efficiently, finding more space for houses and improving local facilities, such as a children’s play park. I would like to see more of that, and I believe the sensible reforms in the Bill will help and support it. I look forward to working with Ministers on exactly that.

I should commend my local authority, because it has a number of other sites where building is under way. Other local authorities are doing the same, but I would like to see a broader movement across the country with more councils taking up these sensible policy options, investing in council housing and providing more council homes to residents who unfortunately are unable to buy a home of their own.

I would like to flag to the Minister that, as part of that, he has announced the excellent policy of liberalising development near stations. That will help hugely with the supply of housing, particularly in my area—only about 10% of the land near Reading station has been regenerated. I hope the Minister will be able to link up those two policies, and I look forward to talking to him more about that, or perhaps hearing some more about it this afternoon.

I also look forward to further action to crack down on irresponsible landlords and support tenants. I know that the Minister is working very hard on a number of measures in that regard, including on management companies. I look forward to hearing more from the Minister, and I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to participate in the debate.

I welcome the Bill that the Government have laid before us today. I want to use my time to talk about community-led housing and its role in delivering on the Government’s social housing ambitions. I have supported such projects in my constituency for many years, because they embody exactly the sort of innovation and local empowerment that we should be encouraging.

I would like to acknowledge the work of Eddy Morton, the chair of Stourbridge Community Development Trust and the development manager of West Midlands Urban Community Homes. Through its engagement with Birmingham city council, West Midlands Urban Community Homes has successfully helped to secure the adoption of community-led housing policy, creating a valuable precedent for how local authorities can work positively with community-led organisations. Too often, that process highlights the structural barriers that continue to hold back community-led housing.

The reality is that many community land trusts face years of delays before a single home can be built, and every one of those delays has a consequence. Money that could have been used to reduce rents locally or improve environmental standards is instead absorbed by additional development costs, and for small organisations those pressures are especially acute. One of the most consistent concerns I hear is not about a lack of ambition, but about a lack of understanding within parts of local government. Officers may support affordable housing in principle, yet lack the knowledge, guidance or confidence needed to engage constructively with community-led organisations. The result is delay, inconsistency and missed opportunities. If the Government are serious about unlocking the full potential of community-led housing, financial support must be matched by practical support for local authorities and housing associations.

There is also a broader point about trust and confidence. Partnerships between housing associations and community organisations must remain true to the principles upon which the projects are founded, and—as has recently been highlighted by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns)—these agreements do not always play out as planned. Could the Minister provide some assurance and guidance to ensure that housing associations honour their commitments to communities and work constructively to deliver genuinely community-led schemes? Will he also set out what steps the Government will take to ensure that local authorities have the knowledge, training and guidance necessary to support community land trusts and other community-led housing? Will the Government consider encouraging councils to identify dedicated officers or champions for these issues to give greater consideration to community organisations when disposing of public land? Finally, what mechanisms do the Government believe are necessary to ensure that community-led housing partnerships remain financially viable and community ownership remains at the heart of the movement?

As someone for whom a council house was a lifeline out of the cycle of homelessness, I strongly welcome this Bill and the Government’s actions outlined in it. I was homeless not because of someone born abroad, but because of decades of Government inaction, the mass sell-off of council homes without them being replaced, and the housing crisis that has developed in this country over decades. The comments made today by the Conservative party and by its spokesperson, the hon. Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon), were absolutely shameful—people in temporary accommodation in my constituency will not be served better by the actions the Conservatives are proposing. They will be served better by the measures in this Bill.

I strongly welcome the Government’s action to support victims of domestic violence. Many of us will have seen victims having to leave their accommodation instead of the perpetrators and the awful situations that result. I strongly welcome the measures on that in the Bill. As I said to the Minister earlier, I hope for action on rent arrears. Only about one fifth of local authorities specifically exclude the rent arrears provisions for victims of domestic violence. I welcome the guidance, but I encourage the Minister to outline the timeline for that guidance and how its effectiveness will be assessed.

I support the measures to review shared ownership. I have been contacted by Fiona and David and so many other constituents who were sold a dream that turned into a nightmare. They have a percentage of ownership, but all the responsibility when things go wrong. I encourage the Government to make that review comprehensive and thorough.

Finally, we have heard from a number of other Members about the trap of furniture poverty. I heard from Shannon, who was a victim of domestic abuse. She said:

“At times, I considered returning to the abusive relationship so my daughter would have a bed to sleep in.”

We have to end furniture poverty. It is not a luxury to have a bed or white goods; they are essential, and not having them traps people in a debt cycle and pushes them towards rent arrears and future homelessness. I encourage the Minister to meet me and other colleagues who are interested in ending furniture poverty to explore how the Bill could genuinely do that.

Order. There is now a two-minute time limit.

The housing crisis is urgently felt by local people in South East Cornwall, and I warmly welcome the fact that this Government are taking action. In Cornwall, we need first homes, not just second homes. We need genuinely affordable homes for local people that allow them to stay in the communities where they have built their lives. This Bill is good news for our rural communities, because when a social home is lost, replacing it can be exceptionally difficult in areas like mine. Our land is constrained, development costs are high and the pressure from second homes and holiday lets can make it harder for local people to compete in the housing market.

I am working with local people to support greater financial literacy and women’s financial independence, because I believe that everyone needs that knowledge to be secure. I welcome the focus in the Bill on protecting victims of domestic abuse, because for a woman who is living with an abusive partner, the question of whether she can leave is often tied to the question of where she can go.

In South East Cornwall, I have been encouraging key businesses and developers to build genuinely affordable homes and to consider how they do so. I want to see my community benefit from Government investment. Each year, Cornwall’s infrastructure is put under strain by the influx of tourists. While that seasonal increase helps our economy, it puts pressure on our services. Cornwall council is ready to work strategically with Homes England to make sure that development strengthens communities and does not put them under greater strain. Will the Minister work with Cornwall to secure that strategic partnership and give them more power to make our communities resilient?

I welcome the Prime Minister’s focus on growth in every postcode. It might interest the House to know that in South East Cornwall, we have many Plymouth area postcodes. We must see our PL postcodes included in a Homes England deal in Plymouth. I invite the Minister and the Secretary of State to see how much that investment could matter for our area.

I know that the Minister wants to see lots of progress, and I am glad to support the Bill. I want to see urgent implementation with Cornwall. I want to see that partnership, and the same applies to Plymouth.

I welcome the measures in the Bill on right to buy, including those on exempting properties in designated rural areas and council homes for market rent from the scheme. I welcome Baroness Taylor’s commitment to look at introducing a power for those rural areas to be designated in regulations, and potentially with local authorities. Between 1979 and 2025, Cornwall council sold off nearly 11,000 council houses, which is more than the current remaining HRA council housing stock. Meanwhile, we have nearly 25,000 households on the housing register and more than 800 people in temporary and emergency accommodation.

Too often, homes that were once part of the social housing stock have been converted into holiday lets or student accommodation, which places huge pressure on an already stretched housing market. The covenants and deeds of ex-council houses, which are intended to prevent them from being used for profit, could and should be properly enforced. I recently found a former council home on the Beacon in Falmouth being advertised on a website for £2,500 a week. That is not right.

Our ambition for council homes must reach every corner of the country, including rural and coastal communities such as those in Cornwall, where the need is so acute. One of the barriers to delivering more council housing locally is the level of HRA debt, which is an important factor alongside repairs, the state of the construction market and council expertise in building. Will the Government please look at options to help councils build when they are faced with such barriers?

That brings us to the Front-Bench contributions. I call the shadow Minister.

It is a pleasure to speak opposite the new Minister, with whom I very much enjoyed working on the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee. Now that she is on the Government Front Bench, I suppose it is left to me to ask the tough questions.

The Government have said that the Bill has been designed to encourage social housing providers to invest in the building of new socially rented homes. They want to encourage councils to build by restricting right to buy. That is the wrong approach. Yes, waiting lists for councils homes are far too high, but making it harder for tenants to get on in life and escape the clutches of the public sector is not the right solution. Instead, Ministers should look at what their policies are doing. Despite their promises, Labour is going backwards on house building.

As our reasoned amendment states, last year there were

“12,810 fewer net additional dwellings delivered in England compared to the previous year”.

Why are the Government not pledging to take on the developers, who are sitting on thousands of unbuilt planning applications? The Institute for Public Policy Research—Labour’s favourite think-tank—has found that 1.4 million homes have been left unbuilt since 2007, despite planning permission being granted. The figure of 1.4 million homes sounds rather close to the Government’s challenging target of 1.5 million new homes.

People are fed up with the eyesores in their neighbourhood—levelled ground left abandoned, surrounded by hoardings. I can show the Minister many examples in my Broxbourne constituency, and I am sure that hon. Members from right across the House can do the same. Taking on the land-banking developers would have widespread public support, but this Government only seem interested in making it easier to build on the green belt. We are still waiting for them to reveal what action they are taking to speed up building following the consultations held more than 12 months ago, so there is clearly no urgency.

The Government should also consider who should be eligible for the help of a social home. People who come to this country and wish to live here should not rely on the generosity of taxpayers. Making Britain your home should be earned by working hard and integrating; it should not come with a free ride on the benefits system. That is why the Conservative party will end social housing tenancies for foreign nationals. Ensuring that only UK nationals can access social housing would free up 230,000 homes for British families. That change would make an immediate and significant difference to those stuck on council house waiting lists, but the Government would prefer that they sit around waiting for the Bill.

Sadly, this Government, and especially their Back Benchers, are blinded by their ideological dislike of right to buy. It is clearly—[Interruption.] A number of Members have asked where Conservative Members were today. As I said in a Westminster Hall debate, Members of Parliament have a lot to deal with. When we do surgeries in our constituencies and people say, “When I turn on the TV, I see hardly anyone in the Chamber,” we all explain why that is. I suspect there will be times when all hon. Members cannot make it to important debates that their constituents want them to attend.

It is clearly the view of Labour Members that if we had no right to buy, social housing waiting lists would disappear, but where do they think the 2 million families that have utilised the scheme would be without it? Well, I can tell them: they would probably be in the same home, but it would be subsidised by the taxpayer rather than privately owned. Abolishing right to buy is not the silver bullet that they think it is.

The Government are placing huge burdens on social housing providers to help Ministers meet their own net zero targets. The cost of complying with new energy regulations is causing significant pressure, and getting 713,000 homes up to minimum energy efficiency standards is estimated to cost £4.5 billion. The Chartered Institute of Housing told the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee that housing associations do not want to buy properties with gas boilers because they know that it will cost them more money to strip them out and make properties energy efficient. That is pushing up council house waiting lists.

The National Housing Federation is clear about what that means: spending billions to comply with net zero regulations will make it harder to build new homes. Ministers already know this, as they reduced energy efficiency targets for social housing in January on the basis that providers could not build new homes because of the financial burden of upgrading their existing stock. If Ministers want councils to be incentivised to build, entirely getting rid of those expensive regulations would be a good place to start.

What is positive in the Bill is the review of the shared ownership scheme, and I hope the Minister, when she gets to her feet, can confirm that the Government intend to keep that review in the Bill. This obligation was added by the Government only due to the diligent work of the Conservative team in the other place. I have lived in a shared ownership property, and I know that—as for other forms of ownership, such as leasehold—reforms are desperately needed to fix the many problems residents face. The Opposition agree that the provisions to protect victims of domestic violence are needed, but a separate legislative measure would have been the right way to bring those forward.

I gently say to the many hon. Members who have made impassioned speeches that, when I was a council leader, I had a number of meetings with housing providers and housing associations, and not once in the hundreds of hours of meetings I had with social housing providers did they say to me that they could not build new social homes in Broxbourne, or in fact across the country, because of the right to buy. It was never mentioned as a reason why housing associations are not building social homes.

Providers did, however, when the Conservatives were in government, point to the 60% cut in the affordable housing budget, which nearly led to the abolition of social rent under the Conservative Government. There was a 97% reduction in builds between 2010 and 2016; that is the record that the hon. Member’s party stands on.

The hon. Member has intervened on me quite a lot, and we have had quite a ding-dong in this Chamber. I say gently to him that when I speak to housing providers, they tell me that one of the reasons why they cannot build new social homes is the Government’s increase to employer national insurance contributions, which means that they spend more money on taxes, rather than on building new social homes.

In summary, this Bill is the wrong approach, and it is fundamentally built on the wrong beliefs. It will not build a single new social home, but it will deny many families the opportunity of ever owning a home of their own. The Conservative party will always be on the side of aspiration and opportunity, and that is why we will vote for our reasoned amendment.

I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for bringing their experience and expertise to today’s debate. Like many of them, I was fortunate enough to live in social housing, which my family secured following a period of homelessness in my childhood. My hon. Friend the Member for Normanton and Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) mentioned the relief, and that light in your eyes when you get a set of keys and know that you and your family do not have to move yet again with plastic bags and a suitcase. The relief that social housing brought us, the safety and security of having a roof over our heads, was priceless. I share the disappointment and anger expressed by Members from across this House about the fact that this is not available to many families today. Many Members highlighted the importance of social housing to communities up and down the country.

I turn first to the reasoned amendment to the Bill, tabled by the Opposition. While I am happy to see the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking), a fellow former member of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, I am worried to hear Opposition Front Benchers contradicting themselves. They welcome our support for protections for victims of domestic abuse, but I am disappointed with their contradictory response to our wider reforms. They both want to permit homes to be sold under the right to buy at the unsustainable rate that is discouraging our local councils from building more of them, and say that we should support more councils in building and increasing the supply of social homes, but it cannot work like that.

I am mindful of time—we do need to finish—but I want to reflect on some remarks made. My constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), spoke about protecting tenants who are fleeing violence. I am sad to say that I have had to help three families in my constituency who, tragically, have lost young people due to knife crime. It is important that we look at this issue and highlight some of the changes that were outlined by my right hon. Friend the Housing Minister.

Many Members raised the issue of shared ownership. As the Housing Minister outlined, we have taken positive steps to look at the shared ownership model, including the expectations on landlords who bid for shared ownership funding. As the Minister highlighted, we do not believe that a review is necessary, but we are already considering specific issues that have been raised, including about data and long-term affordability for customers. We will report back on that at a later date.

Is my hon. Friend aware of how difficult it is to sell a shared ownership home when the previous owner is deceased? The estate can end up paying service charges and rent for quite a long period. Will she consider whether there is further action that the Government could take on that?

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point. I think that will be one of the areas that we consider when my right hon. Friend the Housing Minister looks at shared ownership.

A number of right hon. and hon. Members mentioned domestic abuse and debt. It is really important to know that this is a key area for survivors of domestic abuse. The Government are committed to addressing this issue in their national plan to end homelessness. We believe that the best route for doing so is to ensure that the regulations are amended and the relevant legislation is looked at. My understanding is that the Housing Minister will look at that. I am due to meet the all-party parliamentary group on domestic violence and abuse, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum), and I would welcome other hon. Members attending that meeting.

A number of hon. Members mentioned council disposals. I recognise the strength of feeling in the House on this matter. I want to reassure hon. Members that we take the issue very seriously. We want local authorities and housing associations to, where possible, retain homes in the social housing sector. We believe the new disposals notification requirements in the Bill will help to maximise opportunities for social housing providers to retain homes. I repeat what my right hon. Friend the Housing Minister highlighted: housing associations remain independent organisations, responsible for their own asset management decisions. However, we will continue to explore what further steps we can take to stop social housing stock being sold.

Our right to buy reforms will mean a net gain of 18,000 social homes over the next 10 years, whereas there would be a loss of 26,000 homes if we retained the current system. The right to buy remains a crucial route into home ownership, but we must also confront the reality: social house building has struggled to keep pace with sales under the right to buy, and that has resulted in an increase in the number of families in costly temporary accommodation and expanded social housing waiting lists across the country. Our right to buy reforms, notably the new build exemption, will give councils the confidence to get building again.

We refute the accusation that we are doing nothing to ensure that social housing is being used effectively. The Government expect social housing landlords to maximise the use of existing homes, as well as to build more. We have launched a review of how effectively social housing providers use their properties. We will report on its findings later this year.

On the Opposition’s concerns about the allocation of social housing to non-UK nationals, the Government do not support restricting social housing solely to British citizens. Such an approach would be unworkable and would cut across legal obligations, including obligations relating to EU citizens with settled status and the Equality Act 2010. Eligibility for social housing is already tightly controlled by local councils. If a person’s immigration status does not allow them recourse to public funds, they are not eligible for social homes. The racist rhetoric and the demonising of people who want to work has to stop. The vast majority of those allocated social homes in the UK are UK nationals. That is a fact, so I hope that the Opposition will withdraw their amendment on the issue.

When the Prime Minister stood on the steps of No. 10, he put building more council homes at the heart of this Government’s agenda. For far too long successive Governments have failed to deliver the homes that we need up and down the country, while simultaneously failing to protect our housing stock. We know we can and must go further.

The Bill is about bringing an end to the era of failure on social housing; it is about protecting the homes that we have and supporting the building of the new homes we need; it is about ensuring that the system works fairly for those who need it the most; and it is about reducing the overreliance on temporary accommodation that is crippling so many councils, up and down the country. Collectively, London councils are spending £5.5 million a day on temporary accommodation. That is unsustainable.

We need to turbocharge social housing, up and down the country. Social housing is not just about a roof over people’s heads; it creates strong connected communities, enables families to live happily, enables healthy lives and provides long-term sustainable housing. The Government are making progress to reverse the decline of social housebuilding, as represented by the latest figures from Homes England showing a 65% increase in social rent completions.

Across the country, almost 180,000 children are growing up in temporary accommodation. As many hon. Members have mentioned, over 1.3 million people are on the housing waiting list. That has a devastating impact on the wellbeing of our children and families, who are facing poor conditions, lacking the space to grow. How can we expect those young children to contribute to society in later life when they do not have a safe place to call their home? The Bill brings an end to that failure.

The Bill provides the crucial step that many families want to see—the same step my family was given many years ago. It ensures that when families face homelessness and women are fleeing domestic abuse with their children, they are not the ones who are evicted—the perpetrator is. The Bill ensures that we restrict right-to-buy sales, and that 100% of the receipts go back to councils so that they can reinvest in their local areas.

The Bill will ensure that we turbocharge and bring a new lease of life to local council building across the country, working with our councils, providers, housing associations and private developers to get the housing right. It is important that we continue to progress the Bill. I commend it to the House.

Order. Before I put the question, I need to inform the House that in the event of a Division—I pass no comment on whether there will be one—some of the pass readers in both Lobbies are currently not in operation. I ask all Members to follow the directions of Doorkeepers and Division Clerks and use the working pass readers, which have notices on them. The Parliamentary Digital Service are working hard to restore the remaining pass readers for any Divisions tomorrow.

Question put, That the amendment be made.