Social Housing Bill [HL]

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 20th July 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Young of Cookham]

23: After Clause 12, insert the following new Clause—
“Shared ownership homes: buybacks, affordability and stock retention(1) The Secretary of State must ensure that arrangements are in place under the Social and Affordable Homes Programme, or any successor programme, to support the acquisition or buyback of shared ownership homes which are unsellable or unmortgageable, to prevent the loss of affordable housing stock through open market sale.(2) The Secretary of State must publish guidance on the operation of those arrangements within six months of the passing of this Act.(3) The Secretary of State must collect and publish annual data on shared ownership homes which leave the affordable housing sector through open market sale. (4) The data published under subsection (3) must be disaggregated by the primary reason for sale, where known, including—(a) financial hardship or affordability pressures experienced by the shared owner;(b) repossession;(c) mortgageability issues as a result of building safety defects, remediation liabilities or associated costs;(d) lease length, lease terms or other lease-related restrictions;(e) simultaneous staircasing to 100% and resale;(f) such other categories as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.(5) The Secretary of State must publish annually a summary analysis of the data collected under subsections (3) and (4), including an assessment of the extent to which sales are attributable to affordability pressures, mortgageability issues, or other structural features of the shared ownership model.(6) The Secretary of State must collect and publish annual data on—(a) the number of shared ownership homes identified as unsellable or unmortgageable;(b) the number of such homes acquired or bought back by registered providers of social housing or local housing authorities;(c) the number of such acquisitions supported through the Social and Affordable Homes Programme or any successor programme, Recycled Capital Grant Funding, or registered providers’ own funds;(d) the number of such homes converted to social rent or other affordable housing tenures;(e) the proportion of shared ownership households whose housing costs exceed 40% of net household income.(7) The Secretary of State must publish annually—(a) the number of registered providers of social housing operating a shared ownership buyback policy,(b) the number of buybacks completed under such policies,(c) whether such policies are publicly available, and(d) the total number of shared ownership homes retained as social housing stock as a result of buybacks under the Social and Affordable Homes Programme or any successor programme, Recycled Capital Grant Funding, or registered providers’ own funds.(8) In this section—“housing costs” includes mortgage payments, rent, service charges, ground rent, and any other mandatory charges payable under a shared ownership lease;“unsellable or unmortgageable” means a shared ownership home in respect of which there is no reasonable prospect of sale, staircasing or mortgage lending on normal market terms due to affordability pressures, building safety issues, lease-related restrictions, valuation issues, or other material barriers.”

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak first to Amendment 25 in this group, supported by the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornhill and Lady Watkins, which calls for a review of shared ownership, before I move back to the more specific but related Amendment 23, which focuses on the need for buybacks.

We had an extensive debate in Committee about the problems facing shared owners. I will not repeat them but I can briefly summarise the main themes, which have since been reinforced by organisations representing shared owners, in particular Shared Ownership Resources and the Shared Owners’ Network. I am grateful to Sue Phillips and Carine Marzin for their help. The problems facing shared owners are basically ongoing affordability, service charges, fees, problems with staircasing and lease extension and, finally, barriers to sale and, crucially, the absence of buyback when misfortune strikes.

Concerns about shared ownership have been raised not simply by the media, individual owners or campaigners. They have also been identified by two separate Select Committee inquiries, questioning the degree to which shared ownership, as currently constituted, remains affordable for households once they have entered the scheme. Following our debate in Committee, the Minister kindly held a meeting with me and colleagues—she has always been very generous with her time. She agreed to reflect on what we said. True to her word, she then wrote to us on 13 July. It is a detailed letter, seven pages long, for which I am most grateful. At the outset, the Minister recognised that there is an issue here. Of the problems we raise, she says:

“These are practical concerns which can have a real impact on shared owners experience and I fully recognise the importance of addressing them”.


Later on, she says:

“The Government accepts that shared ownership needs to work better for shared owners”.


So we start in agreement that there is an issue here.

She then makes the point that the existing programme of work going on in her department largely covers these issues. That means that the review we propose will not start from scratch but can build on work in progress—but, crucially, much of the work in her department so far focuses on changes for new buyers and planned work. It does nothing for existing owners, because lease-based features will not be retrospectively amended. The gap between us is, first, that we specify a timescale, publication and proposed action, pinpointing six particular issues that we believe need clarification or amendment, whereas the internal review does none of that.

Crucially, the Minister’s letter makes it clear that some of the key issues that need addressing are not for discussion, principally the model of shared ownership and the division of responsibility between shared owners and landlord, and the need for radical change in the provisions for buyback. On the first, the model, where a shared owner with as little as 10% of the equity is still exposed to 100% of all the associated costs, often unknown at the time, she argues that looking at this would create uncertainty for providers and investors and that the risks of a review outweigh its potential benefits. Our view is that the uncertainty and inequity are already there, with associated risks primarily borne by shared owners. A review could put shared ownership on a more equitable and sustainable basis.

--- Later in debate ---

Finally, the Government have taken care to create an environment in which social and affordable housing can be delivered with confidence. Therefore, we wish to ensure that any further changes to shared ownership do not undermine that. For those reasons, we are resisting this amendment. However, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Young of Cookham, Lord Jamieson and Lord Fuller, and the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill of Bexley, for their continued engagement on shared ownership matters. I look forward to working with them further on the practical steps that the Government can take to improve shared ownership. In the meantime, I hope that they will not press their amendments.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all those who took part in the debate—my noble friend Lord Fuller, the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornhill and Lady Watkins, the noble Lord, Lord Best, and my noble friend Lady O’Neill on the Front Bench. There is agreement that shared ownership is a useful stepping stone to home ownership. The trouble is that, at the moment, for far too many people, the stepping stones do not reach the other bank.

I listened to what the Minister said, but she basically repeated what was in her letter and did not go as far as I would have liked. For example, she said that social landlords could buy and could implement buyback, but we have had email after email over the weekend explaining that the social landlords are not buying back. She went on to say that the answer is remediation, but remediation will not be complete until 2031 at the earliest. These people simply cannot wait.

The Minister also made it clear that she is not prepared to review the model of shared ownership, for the reasons she gave. I had hoped that she would produce a rabbit out of a hat. She produced a hat, but sadly there was no rabbit in it. It would be greedy of me to test the patience of the House by voting on both Amendment 23 and Amendment 25. My view is that Amendment 25 picks up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Best, and that paragraphs (e) and (f) of subsection (2) cover the key point about buyback. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 23 and, when the time comes, I will move Amendment 25 formally.

Amendment 23 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Young of Cookham]

25: After Clause 12, insert the following new Clause—
“Review of shared ownership and staircasing(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, conduct and publish a review of the operation and effectiveness of the shared ownership scheme in England.(2) The review must consider in particular—(a) the affordability of shared ownership for leaseholders;(b) the extent to which shared ownership provides a viable route to full home ownership; (c) the operation of staircasing arrangements, including the costs, fees and valuation requirements associated with the purchase of additional shares;(d) barriers faced by shared ownership leaseholders in staircasing to higher levels of ownership or to full ownership;(e) the impact of service charges, repairs obligations and other housing costs on shared ownership leaseholders;(f) whether legislative or regulatory changes are required to improve transparency, affordability and access to full ownership.(3) The Secretary of State must lay the review before Parliament together with a statement setting out any proposed actions in response to its findings.”

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

I wish to test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Young of Cookham]

77: After Clause 16, insert the following new Clause—
“Review of lifetime secure tenancies(1) A local housing authority must review each lifetime secure tenancy at intervals of no more than five years.(2) A review under subsection (1) must consider—(a) whether the tenant continues to require the accommodation having regard to their housing needs,(b) whether the accommodation remains suitable having regard to the size and composition of the tenant’s household,(c) whether the tenant has developed a local connection with another local housing authority area,(d) whether the tenant requires support to move to more suitable accommodation, and(e) such other matters as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State.(3) Following a review under this section, the local housing authority may—(a) confirm the continuation of the tenancy,(b) offer alternative suitable accommodation, or(c) take such other action as may be provided for by regulations.(4) The Secretary of State must issue guidance to local housing authorities on the conduct of reviews under this section.(5) Local housing authorities must have regard to guidance issued under subsection (4).(6) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires local housing authorities to review lifetime secure tenancies every five years to ensure that social housing continues to meet tenants’ needs and that existing stock is being used effectively.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 77, in my name, is similar to Amendment 66, which we debated in Committee. It would require local authorities to review secure tenancies every five years to see whether there are other options available to the tenant which might free up social housing for others in desperate need. After inflicting the first defeat on the new Burnham Administration with my Amendment 25, I do not propose to try again.

The case for this amendment was actually made by the Minister in the letter she sent to all of us on 14 May when she introduced the Bill. She said:

“Yet too many families in need of a social rented home are languishing on local authority waiting lists”.


She was right. At the end of last year, there were more than 175,000 children living in temporary accommodation, with the figure going up for each of the last three years. Some 20% have been in temporary accommodation for more than five years. This is no way to spend one’s childhood.

Building more social rented homes is part of the answer, but that programme is behind target. Last year, just over 12,000 new social rent homes were built, but—and this goes to the heart of my amendment—there were a quarter of a million social housing re-lets. On those figures, those on the waiting list are 20 times more likely to get a social home through a re-let rather than through a new build—hence the imperative to see what might be done through generating more re-lets, at a fraction of the time and cost of new builds.

I quoted the noble Lord, Lord Bird, previously. He said of social housing that

“the bar has been raised by local authorities and now it takes only the most desperate, largely, whereas in the good old days it was a reflection of the working class, the upper working class and even the lower middle class”.—[Official Report, 1/6/26; cols. 722-23.]

Access to social housing has now become a safety net, and a safety net of limited capacity. Just look at the guidance issued by the Government on 10 July 2025:

“The government has made clear that we expect social homes to go to people who genuinely need and deserve them … priority for social housing continues to be given to those in the greatest housing need”.


Today, the “greatest housing need” probably means the statutory duty to rehouse a family in emergency accommodation—for instance, in a bed and breakfast—or a family granted asylum who are now living in a hotel. It could be a mother and children fleeing domestic violence or a family whose illegal HMO has been cancelled by the local authority and closed. There is not enough social housing even for all of them.

You get social housing today because you are in the greatest need, to quote the government circular. The question then arises about what happens if you are allocated a tenancy because you were in the greatest need and then, with the help of that tenancy and perhaps wider support, you put your life together and have the ability to move on. Should you not then make way for someone who is now in the same desperate position as you were and give them the opportunity to rebuild their life in the same way? That is the question behind my amendment. It should be seriously considered by any party that claims to look after the most vulnerable.

The point was well made in an article in the Times on Saturday, headed:

“More than 100,000 households in social housing are in richest 20%”.


It went on to say:

“Andy Burnham’s promise to embark on the biggest expansion of social housing for a generation will not solve the housing crisis unless the politically toxic question of who should be entitled to subsidised homes is tackled, experts say”.


It pointed out that 389,000 social tenancies were

“under-occupying their homes by at least two bedrooms”.

So, today, you currently get a lifelong tenancy because of your vulnerability at one point in time, and, crucially, it is never reassessed. Tackling homelessness is not just about increasing supply; it has to be about allocation if it is to be serious. My amendment encourages a dialogue between the tenant and landlord to outline the options once it is clear that a family can afford to move. They may include shared ownership, help with a deposit, or help with the cost of moving.

I do not think the Minister, in her response to my amendment in Committee, did justice to the case I made or the seriousness of the current position. She said:

“Nothing in the Bill prevents local housing authorities from granting fixed-term tenancies where they consider it to be appropriate—for example, to support time-limited resettlement schemes for Afghan and other refugee cohorts”.


But my amendment is not about fixed-term tenancies in certain limited circumstances; it is about reviewing a secure tenancy every five years to see whether it is still appropriate. Further, as proposed new subsection (3) of the amendment makes clear, the secure tenancy can be confirmed.

The Minister went on to say:

“We want to make it clear that we support lifetime tenancies because they provide stability and security for tenants and help people put down roots in their communities. It is not right to require that most new tenants be offered fixed-term tenancies, as this would reduce their security”.—[Official Report, 17/6/26; cols. 292-93.]


But that is to duck the tough decision that Housing Ministers should now take: weighing the need for security and stability for one tenant, who may well be able to replicate that security and stability with another form of tenure, against the need for a decent home for someone in a bed and breakfast, who deserves the same chance that the first tenant had a few years ago. I beg to move.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, I am very disappointed to say that we oppose Amendments 77 and 78, but those who heard my comments in Committee will not be surprised. I totally agree with the noble Lord’s concerns and analysis, but I disagree with his solution. We believe that these amendments send exactly the wrong message to people in social housing: work hard, get promoted, earn a little more and improve your family’s prospects and your rent for your home may come under review and increase, or you may be asked to leave. To us, that is not fairness; it is a penalty on aspiration. Social housing should be a foundation for opportunity, not a ceiling on ambition. Families should not have to think twice about taking on extra hours, accepting a promotion or starting a small business because they fear it could jeopardise the security of their home. Many social housing tenants are in receipt of some sort of benefit, which indicates that they would not be able to leap forward into other forms of housing.

Let us not ignore the sheer bureaucracy of these proposals. Frankly, they would be quite unworkable. Who is going to monitor the incomes, carry out the reviews, process the appeals and reassess thousands of tenancies? Housing officers are already stretched to breaking point; in the middle of a housing crisis, should they be helping people into homes or policing pay rises? It is obvious which we would prefer. Let us also be clear that the housing crisis is not caused by social tenants doing a bit better than when they went into the social home; it is caused by decades of failing to build enough homes. The answer is more social housing, not more scrutiny of the lives of the people who live in it.

We believe that a secure home should give people the confidence to get on in life. We should be building opportunity, not bureaucracy, and rewarding ambition, not regulating it. These amendments do the opposite. For that reason, we cannot support them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

But it is a programme that we started on, immediately we came into power, to fill the gap left by not building social homes for all those 14 years before we were in power. I appreciate that it takes a bit of time to get going, but we need to make a start on it, get the money out to those who will build the homes, and get them built.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, for Amendment 78. I understand that this amendment seeks to ensure that social housing is focused on those most in need. However, we do not believe that this is the right approach. As I outlined in Committee, the provisions on high-income tenants contained in the Housing and Planning Act 2016 have never been implemented. To provide regulatory certainty, Clause 17 repeals the provisions. The noble Lord, Lord Young, spoke about ducking tough decisions. These measures were never implemented by the previous Government due to concerns that administrative costs would likely outweigh the revenue raised. We also want to avoid creating disincentives for tenants to increase their earnings.

Furthermore, income should not be equated with housing need or indeed a lack of housing need. Some households earning higher incomes may have additional needs that mean that social housing is the only appropriate option for them. This is an important consideration. Social landlords already have flexibility to run discretionary schemes for higher-earning tenants if they wish to do so, and they will retain this flexibility. For those reasons, I ask that these amendments are not pressed.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all those who took part in this relatively short debate. I recognise that my proposition on Amendment 77 has not commanded the breadth of support needed to convince your Lordships to change the law. The noble Lord, Lord Best, mentioned the bedroom tax. I remember the hostility from the Labour Party when the coalition Government introduced what Steven Webb called the “spare room subsidy”. I note, however, that there are no plans to change it at all from the incoming Labour Government.

I will say a word in defence of Amendment 77, which did not propose that somebody’s rent should go up if their income went up—that is Amendment 78. It would also not be my proposition that, if somebody is on benefits, they should be made to forgo their tenancy. The gap between my proposition and what the Minister has just said is relatively small. I wanted a dialogue, with no compulsion, outlining the options available to somebody whose circumstances had improved, perhaps offering some help with a deposit or, as I said, with shared ownership. In response, the Minister said that social landlords can already do this.

You can give lifetime tenancies, but there are consequences: people in real need will not get access to a secure tenancy as fast as they might if there were more mobility through the social housing sector. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 77 withdrawn.

Home Ownership: First-time Buyers

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Monday 22nd June 2026 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Young of Cookham]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to promote home ownership for first time buyers.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)]

My Lords, the Government are reforming the broken home-buying and home-selling system to slash delays, cuts costs and stop sales falling through. Last week—it was on Friday, so it may not have got the attention it deserved, like my noble friend’s announcement—we published a road map setting out actions the Government are taking. Our new changes will cut home-buying times by around four weeks and save first-time buyers an average of £650.We are supporting first-time buyers through a range of routes, including shared ownership and the lifetime ISA, while addressing the root causes of unaffordability by increasing house supply and investing in affordable homes.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome the announcement on Friday. The Minister listed a number of schemes to help first-time buyers, but actually none of them has moved the dial, leaving many young people who are renting and want to be owner-occupiers paying more in rent than they would with a mortgage. Recently, the Prime Minister said:

“For my family growing up, the roof over our heads was everything. But for so many families today, home ownership is a distant dream. My Government will make it a reality once again”.


Would it not be a fitting part of his legacy if, within the next few weeks, he was able to make an announcement that brought those dreams closer?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

We are already doing that. We made that announcement on Friday. From speaking to lenders, we know that many first-time buyers are not aware of all the innovative mortgage products that might help them, or that recent mortgage reforms may help them get on the housing ladder. I had a meeting with the Building Societies Association just a couple of weeks ago, and I met again with the round table that developed this road map last week. It is true that mortgage brokers can help potential homebuyers to find options that may be suitable for them. There are some fantastic new products coming forward. Anyone who read the Metro last week may have seen a wraparound from Lloyds saying it was introducing £5,000-deposit mortgages, back for the first time since 1996. So things are moving and changing, and the road map will help that even further.

Social Housing Bill [HL]

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 17th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Eaton (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak briefly to Amendment 75, tabled by my noble friends Lady O’Neill of Bexley and Lord Jamieson. As my noble friend noted, I oversaw the passing of the Prevention of Social Housing Fraud Act 2013 through this House. This criminalised the unauthorised subletting of social housing dwellings and gave landlords stronger powers.

Back then, the number of unlawfully sublet social housing dwellings was estimated to be approximately 98,000. The statistics my noble friend referenced are shocking and show that, while the laws are there, swift enforcement to crack down on fraud is severely lacking. Indeed, it begs the question of why the Government are pursuing what appears to be an ideological assault on the right to buy when a determined crackdown on fraud could return many thousands more homes to the social housing stock. Those 148,000 dwellings my noble friend referenced are, in effect, withheld from those on waiting lists, who are in genuine need. I urge all noble Lords to reflect on this. If the Government published a review, as proposed by Amendment 75, we would understand not only the rates of prosecution and recovery of properties but exactly what the barriers to proper enforcement are. Given the estimates, the Government should be much more proactive on this issue, which should be a much greater priority in this Bill.

I emphasise that we must consider different forms of tenancy fraud. It is not just illegal subletting; it can include providing false information as part of a tenancy application, failing to use a property as a principal home, leaving it empty or selling the keys to a third party. Between now and Report, I hope we can look into this, and I hope the Minister will give this issue the attention it certainly deserves.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, very briefly, I will speak to Amendment 57, moved by my noble friend. My noble friend started by making a very valid point: if the Government have a firm commitment to build, say, 1.5 million new homes and a certain number of new social houses, there is a real risk that, when looking at the capital programme within the department, that commitment trumps funding for existing estates and the regeneration of existing housing stock. That is why Amendment 57 is important: it would make sure that we do not ignore the needs of the existing housing stock.

I draw attention to housing action trusts—an initiative under the Housing Act 1988 that focused very sharply on the most difficult-to-let estates in the country. This was an initiative from my noble friend Lord Heseltine, and, as one might expect, it was highly interventionist. A housing action trust was a time-limited body that took over the management and redevelopment of a local authority estate. However, before that could happen, there was a vote of the local authority tenants to seek their agreement to that time-limited transfer. Speaking from memory, I think there were seven housing action trusts, including one in Stonebridge, in Brent; one in Tower Hamlets; one in Castle Vale, in Birmingham; one in Liverpool; and one in Hull. They were highly successful, and they transformed those estates.

It was interesting that, at the end, the tenants were given a vote: they could either go back to the local authority or transfer to a resident-run or tenant-run association of their own. Speaking from memory, I think they all decided to stick with the alternative to the local authority. If one is looking at ways of transforming the most challenging estates in the country, it is worth looking at the history of housing action trusts, which, by common consent, were highly successful. They were expensive, but we should not ignore that model when deciding how to take further the regeneration of social housing estates.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness O'Neill of Bexley (Con)]

My Lords, it appears that the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, withdrew from this section at a late time so, if it is the Committee’s pleasure, I will listen to the debate and the Minister, and save my comments till the end.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

Would it be in order to speak to Amendment 66?

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)]

For clarification, the question before the Committee is that Clause 14 stand part.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

Amendment 66 in my name is a probing amendment relating to the paragraph which abolishes the provision in earlier legislation to phase out tenancies for life. It has much in common with Amendments 77 and 78, which are in the names of my noble friends.

There were two speeches at Second Reading which made me think the time had come to review the assumption that life tenancies are the best way to allocate a scarce resource. Neither speech, as it happens, was from these Benches. One was from the noble Lord, Lord Bird, and this is what he said:

“Why is it that social housing is now nothing like what it was? Having been brought up in the slums of Notting Hill, I was stuck in a Catholic orphanage for a few years and then moved to Fulham ... there we had our own beautiful piece of social housing. In that block of flats were trainee police officers, trainee teachers, drivers and all sorts of people, including disabled people and those who were old. It was sociable and socially mixed”.


He went on to say:

“Unfortunately, what has happened to social housing is that it is under threat. It is under threat because the bar has been raised by local authorities and now it takes only the most desperate, largely, whereas in the good old days it was a reflection of the working class, the upper working class and even the lower middle class”.—[Official Report, 1/6/26; cols. 722-23.]


The other speech was from the noble Lord, Lord John of Southwark, and this is what he said:

“There are some policies pursued by Governments which are very much of their time. Perhaps regrettably, we do not review those policies sufficiently regularly and they become enshrined in our body politic, but they were the answer to the question of a different era”.


He was talking about the right to buy, but it struck me that the same might be said of security of tenure. It was the right policy at the time, but that does not mean it is the right policy for today. The noble Lord went on to make the point that times had changed, saying:

“Councils have ever-increasing waiting lists for council housing, and they face the massive financial and social challenge of dealing with the need for and cost of temporary accommodation. There is no spare housing, let alone properties which are hard to let; there is a housing shortage”.—[Official Report, 1/6/26; cols. 693-4.]


Times have indeed changed. I looked at the speech which Nye Bevan gave on 16 March 1949, when he introduced the Housing Bill. He said:

“We shall, of course, go on providing additional homes until we have reached the position of providing a separate home for every family in the country. The House must reflect that when that is done—and we shall do it before very long—it will be the first time that any nation has done it in the recorded history of mankind”—


would that he had been right about that. But he went on to say that

“we should try to introduce in our modern villages”,

and towns, housing where

“the doctor, the grocer, the butcher and farm labourer all lived in the same street … in ... the living tapestry of a mixed community”.—[Official Report, Commons, 16/3/1949; cols. 2124-27.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments 79, 105 and 106 in my name and that of my noble friend Lady O’Neill of Bexley. These amendments concern shared ownership, which for many years has provided an important route into home ownership for people who may not otherwise have been able to purchase a home outright. In a housing market where affordability remains a significant challenge, in particular with the difficulty of saving for a deposit, shared ownership has the potential to play an increasing and important role in helping individuals and families to take their first step on the housing ladder.

While the principle of shared ownership may enjoy broad support, concerns are frequently raised about its operation in practice. It is not only that the system can be difficult to navigate, with inconsistency between providers; the risk and cost splits between the shared-equity owner and the landlord are skewed in favour of the landlord. The rent on the non-owned portion is frequently more costly than either an affordable rent or a mortgage. The costs of ownership—including management fees, lease fees and so forth—tend to fall on the equity owner and not on the landlord. Yet, when the house is sold, the landlord gets their full share of any uplift in value and equity.

In the sales process, the equity owner ends up paying 100% of the sale costs, yet they may receive only 25% or 35% of the sale proceeds. As we have seen, particularly with flats, there are many unexpected costs. Rightly, with regard to fire safety, we need to do things to improve our blocks of flats. But we are talking about affordable housing for people who do not have much money and cannot afford to pay a sudden lump of money.

Some landlords raise additional administrative charges. When we look at the legal response times for landlords to the equity owner, particularly when they are looking to buy and sell, we need to recognise that these people are often in chains and that the response rate can be very important in order to secure a sale.

Right now, many people who are aiming for 100% ownership through staircasing face too many obstacles. For example, in designated protected areas you may be able to buy only up to 80%. We have to start shifting the balance. We need to be on the side of people who want a hand up, not a handout: people who want to mark their places on the housing ladder in their communities, for the security of their future and that of their family. We need to change the balance so that the shared equity owner gets a fairer deal.

Amendment 79 would require the publication of a strategy for expanding shared ownership. The purpose of this amendment is to understand the Government’s ambition in this area. Do Ministers see shared ownership as a central part of the housing offer in the years ahead? If so, what steps are being taken to increase its availability and attractiveness?

Amendment 105 seeks a review of the operation of shared ownership schemes and the barriers faced by shared owners, some of which I outlined earlier. We know that many people are attracted to shared ownership because it offers a more affordable route into home ownership. However, there are genuine concerns about service charges, maintenance responsibilities, staircasing and the practical experience of ownership, particularly with flats. Before expanding the model further, it is important that we understand where it is working well and where improvements may be needed.

Amendment 106 proposes the publication of a standardised model or template shared ownership agreement. One of the recurring criticisms of shared ownership is the variation in terms and conditions between schemes and providers and the differences in legal documentation. Greater consistency could help prospective purchasers understand their rights and responsibilities more clearly, improve transparency and strengthen confidence in the model.

These are probing amendments, intended to stimulate discussion about how shared ownership can be improved, simplified and expanded. If we are serious about widening access to home ownership, we should ensure that one of the principal affordable home ownership products is operating as effectively as possible. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response. I beg to move.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I intervene to indicate a preference for Amendment 105, which calls for a review of shared ownership, rather than Amendment 79, which calls for a strategy for increasing shared ownership. This is because there are features of shared ownership that need addressing before we increase the opportunities.

The Minister will recall the problems facing shared owners in flats with safety issues post-Grenfell. I am grateful to her for agreeing to amend the Renters’ Rights Act to reflect that. But that indicated how the law on conventional tenures such as owner occupation, leasehold or tenancy finds it difficult to accommodate the special nature of shared ownership, which is in fact a combination of all three.

I welcome the recent changes to the scheme, particularly the 10-year guarantee against certain costs. But the review proposed in Amendment 105 should take as its starting point recent critical reports from the National Audit Office, the HCLG Select Committee report on the affordability of home ownership, and the findings of the Housing Ombudsman on shared ownership.

The NAO found that shared ownership helps many people buy a home who otherwise could not. However, it said the scheme is complex; many buyers do not fully understand its long-term costs and risks; affordability pressures can hinder progression to full ownership, and government lacks the data needed to judge whether the scheme is delivering good outcomes for consumers. While recent reforms have improved transparency and protection, the NAO concluded that important gaps in understanding and oversight remain.

The HCLG report was more critical. The committee found that legal and valuation fees made staircasing expensive. The buyers have to pay all those costs, which can run into thousands of pounds, and do so each time they staircase. It found that rising house prices can make additional shares unaffordable and many shared owners never reach full ownership. It questioned whether the scheme is genuinely delivering the aspiration for full home ownership for many participants.

Then we have the ombudsman. Complaints to the Housing Ombudsman regarding shared ownership properties have surged by nearly 400%, jumping from 324 cases in 2020 to 1,564 complaints more recently. That sharp rise reflects growing resident frustration with hidden costs, building defects and the difficulties of staircasing or selling.

The ombudsman highlighted several reasons for this escalation. Many residents face staggering increase in service charges and rent hikes, which can feel disproportionate. Landlords frequently fail to chase developers or effectively restore defects such as cladding or fire safety issues after they are raised. On the sales process, he found incorrect charges at the point of moving in, miscommunication regarding staircasing—buying larger shares of the property—and general delays from solicitors.

The ombudsman summed up the problems by saying that there is a “mismatch” between the expectation and understanding of the shared owner and the landlord. He concluded that the Government should address the

“fundamental inequities in the way in which shared ownership is designed”—

a point made by my noble friend Lord Jamieson.

Bringing all that together may explain why there is such a low satisfaction rate with shared ownership, and the largest providers have the lowest satisfaction rate—frequently below 30%. Any review should liaise closely with the Shared Ownership Council, Shared Ownership Resources, which has produced several documents indicating how the scheme might be improved and has first-hand evidence of existing pinch points. I very much hope that the Government will take this opportunity to review the scheme, put this form of tenure on a more secure foundation and rebalance the responsibilities as between the talent and the landlord.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Young-of Cookham, and also the sense behind Amendments 105 and 106. There is an asymmetry between the risk and the reward involved in shared ownership—all the costs but only half the uplift, if there is one. The risks include very large unexpected costs, which my noble friend raised and I do not intend to repeat. There is 100% of the costs, but only half the capital.

This has been sold to people who one might say, without patronising, are less financially sophisticated, as a lower cost way of getting their foot on the ladder. But the facts bear out the assertion that mortgage costs on the whole would be less than the rent they are paying on the half. It is not necessarily low cost at all; one might go far as to suggest that there has been a degree of mis-selling here.

So, I support Amendment 105, which calls for a review. We cannot carry on as we are. My experience in my own council work when I was the leader showed that the popularity of this tenure has gone down and down. There is now very low take-up. It is possibly a tenure whose time has passed. But the review could reinvigorate it. There is a case for low-cost housing for people to establish and build capital in their society. With this review, which I support entirely, there is the opportunity to try to get it back on track.

Affordable Housing: Young People

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Monday 8th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend. We continually look at issues around the viability of building and are working very closely, with both the development sector and our local authorities, to make sure that land pricing and other issues around viability are taken into account. The £39 billion we have put into social and affordable housing will make sure that we can give some support to those who are trying desperately to get some social housing built in the country; we continue to work with them on that. The bold planning reforms we have introduced will also assist with that process.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, young people are paying more in rent than they are on a mortgage, and so they would not need to join the queue for affordable housing if they had some help with a deposit. I put again to the Minister the question I posed to her in April, when she conceded that there was more work to be done. What progress has she been able to make in discussions with the developers, the financial institutions and the Treasury to bring forward a successor to the Help to Buy scheme, on which the then Government made a profit of £1.4 billion last time?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

A detailed analysis has been done of the Help to Buy scheme, and we will learn lessons from it. We will not reintroduce it as it was, but I agree with the noble Lord that, for many young people renting property, their rent is higher than a mortgage payment would be. Since I gave him my previous answer, I have been working with the sector. A wide variety of mortgage products are available in the UK, including a range of products available at a high loan-to-value ratio, such as 95% and even 100%. I met the Building Societies Association last week, and it is very keen to offer more innovative products that can help first-time buyers, including some that take account of a track record of paying rent, as they deal with a mortgage application. These are innovative systems. We know that many first-time buyers are not aware of the mortgage products that may help them, so we are working on a communications campaign. The Building Societies Association is doing its own, and the Government will also do something to make people aware of the steps they can take to get on to the housing ladder.

Social Housing Bill [HL]

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 1st June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick. I will develop part of the argument she adduced—that there is sometimes a case for disposing of social housing.

I want to address the ongoing controversy whereby the right-to-buy policy led directly to the shortage of social housing. I voted for the 1980 Housing Act; more relevant is that I was a junior Minister under Michael Heseltine and was responsible for implementing it and then defending it. That brought me into conflict with the late Baroness Hollis—then Councillor Hollis and chairman of the housing committee in Norwich—who refused to implement the policy. I had to put in the commissioners and suspend her. We met again 30 years later, when I joined your Lordships’ House. She was emollient, if unrepentant, and we became good friends.

I understand the argument that all the receipts should have been reinvested in social housing. But suppose I had gone to Geoffrey Howe, the Chancellor at that time, and put that argument to him. He would have said, “George, that is not how it works. When we privatise Heathrow and Gatwick, we don’t build more airports. When we privatise the docks, we don’t build more docks. What happens is that the money goes into a pot, along with North Sea oil, income tax and everything else, and there is then a collective decision about how to spend it. You, George, have inherited from the outgoing Labour Government very generous provision for social housing and you’re telling me you want to keep the billions from right-to-buy receipts all to yourself, not just for this year but for every subsequent year. That would be wholly unfair to the Secretary of State for Health, who cannot sell the hospitals and add to his baseline, and to the Secretary of State for Defence, who cannot sell the nuclear deterrent”. I would have come up against the policy that dare not speak its name in the Treasury—namely, hypothecation.

Under hypothecation, all the fuel duty and vehicle excise duty would go to transport and be spent on potholes, and health would have to survive on parking charges and prescription charges. So there are very good reasons why all the capital receipts did not automatically go back to the department that generated them. I see a former Permanent Secretary at the Treasury, the noble Lord, Lord Macpherson, smiling—if not nodding.

Even if I had won that argument and all the receipts had been kept by my department, it would have made no sense in housing policy terms to allow each local authority to spend 100% of the receipts on housing. In the 1980s, all the receipts stacked up in the shire districts, where there were houses with gardens and the housing pressure was much less, and there were relatively few receipts in the inner cities, where the predominant stock was flats. The policy of requiring the local authority to reduce its debt by 80% of the receipts enabled the department to recycle the receipts. We would say to South Bucks, for example, “You’ve got to use all the receipts to reduce your debt”, and to Islington or Tower Hamlets or Southwark, “You can increase your debt by the corresponding amount in order to invest in housing”. It was a progressive policy, which annoyed a lot of Conservative councillors, but which should be supported by the other side.

Right to buy brought additional benefits in addition to being popular—so popular that no one has ever repealed it. All the evidence that I saw at the time showed that those households that exercised their right to buy looked after their property better than the cash-strapped local authority they had bought it from—they had a real incentive to do that as home owners—so the nation’s housing stock benefited. Also, the newly enfranchised residents on the estates joined forces with existing tenants’ associations, or in some cases set up new ones, to campaign for improved conditions on the estates, and everyone benefited from that.

I would also argue that there were wider social benefits in that the predominantly single-tenure estates became pepper-potted with owner-occupiers, leading to more diverse and less polarised communities. On some estates there are now third-generation owner-occupiers—a continuity that the Minister herself commended in her opening speech.

However, I have to concede that there was one consequence of the policy that we did not foresee and which has done much to discredit it. Once the properties had changed from tenancy to owner-occupation, we assumed that the owners would stay there. The whole thrust of Conservative policy was to promote owner-occupation. We did not envisage, nor did I personally want, properties then to be bought by landlords charging market rents, often underpinned by housing benefit. For the first decade or so, that was not actually an issue; it became an issue after 1996, when buy-to-let mortgages were introduced.

This is not the right time to argue whether it makes sense for the nation’s savings to be spent buying existing assets—pushing up the price—or to be invested in government stock and then in infrastructure, or in stocks and shares and then in industry, providing wealth and jobs. That imbalance is now being slowly put right by making ISAs more attractive than buy to let and encouraging institutional investment in new build.

In conclusion, what basically happened is that the right-to-buy receipts went into the pot. No homes were lost; the tenure simply changed. The pot was then spent on schools, hospitals, aircraft carriers and the rest, from which everyone benefited. The decision not to spend enough on social housing after 1980 was a collective decision by successive Governments after considering all the other demands on the public purse, as the Minister said in opening. I end where I started. The right-to-buy policy was not inevitably going to lead to the loss of social housing. The consequence of enfranchising millions of tenants has been a bonus. The lack of social housing, as I said, is a reflection on successive priorities by successive Governments.

Donations to Political Parties

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Monday 1st June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

We are introducing tougher rules on political donations to protect UK elections. The limits have changed because circumstances change. That is an important part of the system. We have to strike the right balance between safeguarding against foreign interference and making sure that legitimate donors can continue to fund election campaigns.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

Further to the suggestion from the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, that those who make political donations should be criminalised, hundreds of thousands of people in this country subscribe to their political parties because they share their values. Surely that should be encouraged and not criminalised.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I absolutely agree with the noble Lord—and not for the first time. It is important that people are not only able to donate to a political party if it meets their values, principles and objectives for our country but that they can be absolutely reassured that that money is used in a legitimate way by political parties for their aims and can have confidence in the system that that is the case.

Home Ownership: First-Time Buyers

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Thursday 23rd April 2026 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Young of Cookham]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to promote home ownership for first-time buyers.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)]

My Lords, we are increasing housing supply across all tenures to improve affordability for young people. Our ultimate objective is to help more people get the keys to their first home, increasing the overall home ownership rate. We support first-time buyers through government-backed schemes, including shared ownership, and the Treasury will shortly consult on a replacement for the lifetime ISA. Following FCA clarification, most buyers can borrow around 10% more, and this year we will publish a home-buying and selling reform road map, which is expected to save buyers £180 million a year and shave a month off transactions.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Recently, the Prime Minister said:

“For my family growing up, the roof over our heads was everything. But for so many families today, homeownership is a distant dream. My government will make it a reality once again”.


For millions of people renting or living with their parents, it remains a dream. Many of them could actually afford the mortgage repayments, but without access to generous relatives, they cannot afford the deposit. Back in January, when I asked the Minister about hope for first-time buyers, she said:

“A great deal of work is going on in my department and with financial institutions to make sure that we make this process work for first-time buyers and others in the housing market”.—[Official Report, 8/1/26; col. 1314.]


Should there not now be a fresh initiative to deliver the Prime Minister’s promise?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

The noble Lord will not be surprised to know that I always agree with my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. Of course I also welcome the HCLG Select Committee’s work, which has particularly looked at the types of inequalities that the noble Lord highlights. Three in 10 people get help from family or parents and, increasingly, access is being determined by family wealth, not earnings. We are working hard on this. From speaking to lenders, we know that many first-time buyers are not aware of all the innovative mortgage products and recent mortgage reforms that may help them get on the housing ladder. We speak regularly to lenders on how to raise awareness of different options among first-time buyers, including hosting two major industry round tables last year, both of which were covered in the mainstream media. Of course, there is more work to do, and the Government are keen for all stakeholders who work with potential first-time buyers, including estate agents and brokers, to play their part in helping them understand their options.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 13th April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)]

My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Borwick’s amendment. He has done as much to empower disabled people when it comes to transport as anybody in this country, not just in Parliament.

To continue my noble friend Lord Shinkwin’s theme, this is about the unacceptability of waiting—not waiting for legislation to pass but waiting on the kerb-side for an accessible taxi which may never come and waiting on the phone to be told there are no accessible cabs in your local area. Imagine that being told to any other group in society and it being accepted and acceptable for 31 years. It is not even a matter of passing legislation; it is on the face of a Bill—though after 31 years, I imagine the text is already rising off that vellum as we speak. How many more years do disabled people have to wait on that kerb-side or in their homes, or on the end of a telephone, to not get an accessible taxi?

The Government talk about growth as their overriding principle for government, and quite right, but if that is their overriding objective then policy across all departments has to be focused on that. If the Government want more disabled people in work, we need accessible taxis; if the Government want greater health equality and health outcomes for disabled people, we need accessible taxis; and if they want bright, diverse, talented, disabled people to be fully empowered to bring those talents to bear in their local communities, we need accessible taxis.

There is nothing overreaching about these amendments from my noble friend. They are modest and merely seek to bring about something which should have happened not years but decades ago. The noble Lord, Lord Hendy, has the great good fortune to have the power of a Minister of the Crown. I suggest that he uses that power to empower disabled people and accept these amendments. If he will not do that, who will? If not now, for all those disabled people who have waited for 31 years, when?

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I want to make a very brief contribution to this short debate. I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Borwick for his tireless advocacy for improved mobility for those with a disability. It is sad that we will no longer have that advocacy available at the end of this Session.

I want to pick up three points arising from the Minister’s response when we debated this in Committee. First, he said that there would not be enough time. He said:

“We will need to consult on them”—


that is, the new standards—

“and there is a risk that setting a deadline could negatively impact our ability to undertake a meaningful consultation”.

The deadline in the amendment is three years. The Cabinet’s guidance for a consultation period is actually 12 weeks. Honestly, to plead the lack of time is not a good excuse for resisting the amendment.

Secondly, the amendment was criticised because it applied only to taxis, and therefore it potentially excluded disabled people in those parts of the country where there was reliance on private vehicles. It seems to me that that is an argument for actually extending the provisions to private hire vehicles, rather than using it as an excuse to resist the amendment.

Then we had an argument which I simply did not understand. It says in Hansard that

“the noble Lord’s amendment would require every taxi in England to comply with a single set of standards, taking no account of the variety of access needs that disabled people have”.

The position in London is that we have a standard for the whole of London—we have had that for 30 years. I believe it is the case that, within London, we have the same range of disability as exists elsewhere in the country, so I did not follow that argument. The Minister then said:

“This approach would not only be exclusionary but would risk infringing the Government’s legal public sector equality duty to consider the impact on people with all protected characteristics”.


I do not believe that any case has been raised in London that the existing single standard for taxis is in breach of the Disability Act. I did not follow that at all.

Finally, I appreciate that the Minister wants to do the right thing, but his response was simply to rely on that fact that:

“Existing government ‘best practice’ … recommends that each licensing authority develops an inclusive … plan”.


He went on to say:

“I encourage them to act to ensure that there are sufficient wheelchair-accessible vehicles”,—[Official Report, 5/3/26; cols. GC 547-49.]


and that they will look again at “other accessibility standards”. But there was nothing in his speech that gave any certainty or guarantee at all that the position would change by a specific date.

Unless the Minister can move a little from what he said in Committee, I again will be with my noble friend in the Division Lobby if a Division is called.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Report stage
Thursday 26th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, I was delighted to add my name to Amendment 93 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale. As we have heard, this Bill aims to put English devolution on to a stronger footing so that local leaders can drive economic growth and close the persistent and deep gaps between regions. But at the same time as we legislate to empower those places, the Government have decided to withdraw core support from the pan-regional partnerships that operate at the real economic scale of labour markets, transport corridors and investment decisions.

In my own region of the south-west, we saw partnerships such as the Western Gateway and Great South West show what can be done when local leaders come together across traditional boundaries. For example, Great South West set out a vision which would lift the region’s GVA by as much as £45 billion and create 190,000 additional jobs, if fully realised. The Government have chosen to end core funding for those pan-regional partnerships, and are offering only a short, time-limited extension in the case of the south-west, despite the scale of the prize. That risks hollowing out the strategic capacity that has been built up with relatively modest sums of public money but considerable voluntary effort from councils, businesses and universities across the peninsula.

As we have heard, this amendment does not seek to create a new tier of government or impose any kind of uniform model from the centre. It seeks simply to ensure that, where there is a clear economic geography, there is an enabling framework in statute so that collaboration can be sustained over the long term and is not vulnerable to short-term funding decisions or changes of ministerial fashion and that we at least have a fighting chance of delivering those tens of billions in extra output and hundreds and thousands of better jobs. I know that Ministers have said that they remain committed to pan-regional collaboration, they want it to be flexible and locally led, and that scarce resources must be concentrated on mayoral institutions. I agree absolutely with the Government that collaboration should be bottom up, and I recognise the fiscal pressures, but the sums involved in supporting these pan-regional partnerships are tiny compared with the potential returns of unlocking major investment in areas with so much underemployment.

As Jim O’Neill, the noble Lord, Lord O’Neill, and others have argued in their work on regional growth, those returns depend critically on raising education and skills and giving every young person and adult access to training that matches the needs of the local economy. Pan-regional frameworks are precisely the scale at which universities, colleges, employers and mayors can align skills, from apprenticeships to advanced manufacturing to reskilling programmes in digital and creative industries and others, so the projected jobs in these fields become real opportunities for local people. If we are serious, as all of us in this House want, about spreading high-quality jobs beyond London and the south-east, our regions need both the strong leadership and the ability to act together at scale.

Our amendment is modest and permissive and is entirely consistent with the Government’s stated aims, but it would help to turn those headline ambitions into tangible outcomes for jobs and growth and for people across our country to benefit from.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 119 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale. As he said, this has its genesis in the Select Committee which we both sat on—the Social Mobility Policy Committee. The noble Lord referred to the fact that we reported on 18 November. I just say in passing that the Government are meant to reply to Select Committee reports within two months; in other words, by 18 January, we should have had a response. It is not the responsibility of the Minister—it is another department—but when I tabled a Question about this, I discovered that on 29 occasions the Government have failed to reply to Select Committee reports on time. I just put on record what I think is a discourtesy to the House.

Renters’ Rights Act: Definition of Court Readiness

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Tuesday 24th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I do not think we should exaggerate the situation as it currently stands. The Ministry of Justice quarterly possession statistics show that median timeliness for claim to order is 7.3 weeks and that the median average time from landlord claim to repossession is 27 weeks. However, not all landlords will experience the whole court process. Of the landlord possession claims issued in 2024, only 28% progressed to the stage where bailiff enforcement was necessary. Bailiffs are responsible for a range of sensitive work. HM Courts & Tribunals Service is working to make sure that the timeliness of bailiff enforcement is improved.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, further to my noble friend Lord Jamieson’s Question, the Master of the Rolls has warned that ending Section 21

“will undoubtedly create more contested possession cases than we have had hitherto”.

As we have heard, the average delay last year, according to the MoJ’s figures, was eight months. Ministers have repeatedly said that court readiness is a prerequisite for the success of the system. The courts are not ready. They will not be ready in six weeks’ time, when Section 21 will no longer be operative. What is the Minister going to do?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I do not know how many times I am going to repeat this, but I will carry on doing so. We are working very closely with the Ministry of Justice and HM Courts & Tribunals Service to prepare county courts for implementation of the tenancy reforms. These are very important reforms for landlords and tenants; landlords do not want to see the actions of bad landlords helped and tenants want to make sure that they are secure in their tenancies. Existing possession processes will be updated to reflect the reforms in the Act and we will ensure that sufficient capacity is in place for the courts to handle new cases. There is an increase in capacity, including an additional 115 court staff, in anticipation of the increased demand for hearings under the Section 8 claim process. Staff managing possession claims are receiving detailed training, supported by refreshed training materials and process guidance. Working practices have been reviewed and best practice shared in readiness for 1 May, and the Judicial Office is taking forward judicial training on the new legislation.