Lord Jamieson (Con)

My Lords, I would like to begin this debate by stating our concerns with Clause 6. Perhaps they are the same concerns that the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, has. The right of first refusal dictates that, if you bought a property through the right-to-buy scheme and decide to sell it within 10 years, you are required to offer the property back to your former social landlord before putting it on to the open market. The current measure provides an opportunity for previous social landlords to reacquire. However, extending it indefinitely raises a number of potential complexities and practical issues. It also undermines the principle of property ownership. What happens if you leave the property to your children? Does it impact any subsequent sales if the landlord decides not to reacquire it the first time? Many owners will decide to stay on their properties well beyond the 10 years before they even think of selling, or they may decide, as I mentioned, to pass it on to their children. If the right of first refusal is extended in perpetuity, what happens if a former social housing landlord has changed? A council may have merged with another or split into two—or in some cases three, under the current local government reorganisation—and it is not clear who the former landlord is. The housing association may have closed. Have the Government considered these practicalities and scenarios, and who is responsible in each of them for ensuring that the right of first refusal is upheld? Perhaps that is one for my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond to consider with technology and blockchain. Turning to Clause 7, we have several concerns. Amendment 17 in my name probes the necessity of replacing the specific and widely understood term “warden” with the general and less specific term “manager”. I would appreciate the Minister providing some justification for this change.