Rachel Reeves declares that Labour has no plans to reform Right to Buy
Speaking at the National Housing Federation Housing Summit last September, Shadow Housing Minister Matthew Pennycook, said
“But as well as boosting social housing supply, we need to better protect the social housing stock we still have. One cannot fill a bath by increasing the flow of water from its taps if the majority of it is still vanishing down the plug hole.
Let me be clear, Labour are not proposing the abolition of the right to buy.
We believe it is right that those social tenants who have lived in their homes for many years retain the right to purchase their property at a reasonable discount.
But with only a fraction of social homes sold off through right to buy replaced and with many quickly making their way through subsequent sales into the private rented sector, with all the implications that has for a rapidly rising housing benefit bill, the dramatically increased discounts introduced in 2012 cannot possibly be justified.
A Labour government would significantly reduce them.
Alongside the introduction of strengthened protections for newly-built social rented homes and the conclusive abandonment of the government’s flawed proposals to extend the right to buy to housing association tenants, we will seek to reduce the number of social homes sold off each year with a view to ensuring we go net positive on social housing numbers within the early years of the next parliament.”
So this was a commitment to reduce the discount for RTB and “strengthened protections for newly built social rent homes”; logically restrictions on their sale.
The National Policy Forum document which was voted through at the October 2023 conference said:
“To maintain the stock needed to support community-held assets, we will introduce a better approach on right to buy. Labour recognises the need to protect our social housing stock and we will seek to decrease the number of social homes being rapidly sold off through right to buy without like-for-like new social housing being built to replace them. We will review the increased discounts introduced under the coalition government in 2012, as well as strengthening covenants to protect new social homes built from being quickly sold off.”
Not withstanding the somewhat equivocal formulations, there was clearly a commitment to change the current rules on RTB.
Recently Andy Burnham talked about stopping RTB for new council homes built, using a similar bathtub metaphor. Questioned by the media as to whether Labour agreed with Burnham, Rachel Reeves said
“It’s an incoming Labour government that would determine the rules around Right to Buy, we have no plans to reform that.”
This suggests that the NPF document and Matthew Pennycook’s commitments have been ripped up. His assertion that Labour will go “net positive on social housing numbers within the early years of the next parliament” (i.e. more homes bult or acquired than lost through RTB) is dependent on reducing the number of social homes sold off each year. Without that, without any changes in the rules of RTB, then the loss of social housing stock can only continue. This is especially true because Matthew has declared, with a nod to the ‘fiscal rules’, that there will be no additional funding for council housing. A Labour government would stick to the parsimonious funding currently available in the Tories Affordable Homes Programme.
If Labour’s position is as Rachel Reeves says – there will be no change in the rules of RTB – then that would mean that even Labour’s inadequate policy of ‘net positive’ social homes would be abandoned.
From its inception in 2019 the Labour Campaign for Council Housing has campaigned for an end to RTB, a disastrous policy which is one of the main drivers of the housing crisis. We will continue to argue that there can be no resolution of the housing crisis without ending it. However, cutting the discount and stopping the sale of new homes, is better than the status quo. We therefore oppose this apparent U-turn that Rachel Reeves comments suggest.
We have written to Angela Rayner and Matthew Pennycook to clarify what the position is and oppose such a U-turn. We suggest you do likewise.
Martin Wicks
Labour Campaign for Council Housing 