Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)
Can the Minister clarify whether those are 18,000 vacant new homes, or 18,000 homes that currently have social tenants?
Conservative and Unionist Party MP for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich since (defected).
Parliament recordVoting recordWritten questionsEarly day motions
Entries on this tracker
115
Each filed under the party they sat for that day
Register entries
0
As currently published
| Party | Office | Area | Period | Began | Ended | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Conservative | MP | Central Suffolk and North Ipswich | – | elected | left the party | Party history |
| Conservative | MP | Central Suffolk and North Ipswich | – present | defected | — | Party history |
Every entry the member has in the Register of Members' Financial Interests, as Parliament currently publishes it. The wording and values are the member's own declarations; nothing here has been assessed by this site.
Totals add only the entries that declare an amount received: payments for work, donations, gifts, and funded visits (register categories 1.1, 2, 3, 4 and 5). Ongoing employment is listed but not added, because its figure is a rate rather than a sum received. Each entry is dated by when the benefit happened, not when it was registered, and placed under the party the member sat for on that date. A member who changed party therefore has a separate total for each.
Not yet retrieved from the register. Parliament's register page
Can the Minister clarify whether those are 18,000 vacant new homes, or 18,000 homes that currently have social tenants?
New clauses 25 and 26 are really an effort by the Opposition to force the Government to use the Bill to secure new homes. I wish the Minister a very happy birthday; I will expedite my speech so that we can pop down to the Two Chairmen and pick up where the Chancellor left off last night.<span id="149" class="column-number" data-column-number="149"></span> On Second Reading, I was intrigued to hear the hon. Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) say: “Our right to buy reforms will mean a net gain of 18,000 social homes over the next 10 years”.<span id="vol790_col1300" class="cross-reference" data-house-id="1" data-column-number="1300" data-volume-number="790" data-external-id="096C88D8-FD38-4822-B126-89586D2170EC">—[<em>Official Report</em>, 10 September 2026; Vol. 790, c. 1300.]</span> That is the same claim that the Minister has made today. I have studied the impact assessment produced by the Government, and, sure enough, on page 25 there is this line: “Following implementation of the Bill, the model instead estimates a net gain of around 18,000 homes over the same period.” Dig into that figure, however, and it is not quite what it seems. It is not that 18,000 new homes will be available to new tenants who are languishing on the housing register. The 18,000 net increase in homes is made up entirely of retained stock and, importantly, retained tenants. That is not 18,000 new homes; that is 18,000 homes with someone already living there, who has probably been living there for some time. In fact, the impact assessment shows—I assure the Committee that I am not repeating the shadow Minister’s points—that whereas more than 50,000 new houses were due to be built under the old regime, the Bill will now deliver only half that, approximately 28,000 new homes. The impact assessment says that there will be a reduction in the new homes built as a consequence of the Bill, because fewer homes are being sold and there is less funding available for new builds. The real irony is that the Bill effectively tackled the economic problems of right to buy through the admirable inclusion of clauses 6 and 10, which rebalance the economic viability of right to buy in the LA’s favour. Those measures make right to buy economically viable, allowing councils to retain funds from the sale of units at a more appropriate price. I can understand and accept the fundamental problem that right to buy posed to councils by making the deal too favourable to prospective buyers and tenants. Even if we take into account higher prices and higher rates of retention, councils will still be substantially short-changed under the Bill. That point leads me on to the shadow Minister’s new clauses 25 and 26, because of what a one-for-one replacement policy means within the Bill. I return to the impact assessment: on the pre-November baseline, there is a deficit to the tune of 26,000 from housing being lost. As I understand it, each council would be bound to replace the lost house with a new house. If we follow the new clauses to their conclusion, there could be 26,000 additional new homes, which, funnily enough, would chime with the point that the hon. Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green made in the Chamber.
There is a lot to unpack there. I am sure that previous Governments have made mistakes on housing policy that have partially been corrected in this Bill, and funding has been attached where it should have existed before. However, I struggle to understand—and will always struggle to understand, despite the Minister’s eloquent speeches, superb oratory and rational arguments—how preventing old stock from leaving the system is somehow beneficial to the 1.3 million people who are languishing on the waiting list.
Again, there is a lot to unpack there. My speech and this new clause are focused on delivering new houses. On the Minister’s point about the cost of one equalling the sale price of three, I recognise that economic imbalance—
I feel as though we are going around in circles. The purpose of new clauses 25 and 26 is to get new houses on the market and available to social tenants. I believe that the new clauses would secure adequate numbers of new council houses, and that is why I support them.
Earlier today, the Institute for Fiscal Studies published a statement regarding the Budget yesterday that said that household disposable income will continue to decline over the coming years as a result of the dire economic situation that the country is in. At the same time, we are looking at change to the make-up of social housing in this country, which would further disadvantage taxpayers in this country. Would the shadow Minister like to comment?
Good!
I would challenge that. This is not an issue of penalising; it is not an attack. It is an issue of equity and of standing up for what is fair. When asking someone to subsidise something else we must take into account whether it is fair.
The hon. Member is making a very good speech. She alluded to her constituents in Barking. Everyone in this Chamber, even the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington, has constituents who are concerned about the social contract. Where would her constituents draw the line on what is fair for the welfare state to hand out to people who are not British citizens?
I will not speak for long, but I thought it would be relevant to raise the fact that twice in my life I have been an immigrant in countries with astringent approaches to my access to public services. I did not think that was divisive; I thought it was logical. I remember specifically when I moved to America being told, “Don’t get yourself into any healthcare trouble or into a situation where you might need to call an ambulance because you will be charged thousands of dollars if you have to do so.”