Baroness Thornhill (LD)

We on these Benches positively welcomed the Bill. Anything that preserves social housing is particularly welcome, so the right-to-buy proposals were indeed very valuable, as was the work to protect vulnerable tenants—those who were victims of domestic violence—and the tidying up and repealing of old legislation that, frankly, was never used because it was completely unworkable. With all that said, I think that, across the House, we were all disappointed with the very narrow scope of the Bill, and that was reflected in the number of amendments and the quality of the debate. I think we had wanted more but understood the Minister to say, “Yes, it is a narrowly focused Bill, but this is what it is doing”. Therefore, we on these Benches seek reassurance on the two strands the Minister mentioned: the excellent work done by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, on shared ownership, and by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, on the plight of rural housing. Those came through so strongly that we feel we have to have some follow-up, and we will pursue and support that. I thank the Minister for her willingness to engage with us; she was, and is always, very generous with her time. I also praise the constructive spirit of the newish Opposition Front Bench. It has to be said that, although we strongly disagreed with their stance on the eligibility of social housing and opposed their efforts to restrict it, we agreed on lots of other issues around transparency and accountability and on better than one-for-one replacement, and we shared their concerns about some RSLs, although not all—I say to the noble Lord, Lord Best—around their effectiveness, particularly with regard to anti-social behaviour. These are all issues that I am sure we can visit in other ways. With that said, we are very pleased to see the Bill progress and thank everyone who had anything to do with it—I will not repeat a long list—and all noble Lords who took part in the debates.