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.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 5th March 2026 Grand Committee

[Lord Bradley (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak very briefly to this group of amendments, which I fully support. I can be even briefer than I thought I might be because of the eloquence of the speeches already made, and any repetition I make will be to reinforce the message and the value of those amendments, having been pleased that the Government have increased the scope of the Bill to include taxis during its passage—that is not meant to be a pun.

I want to reinforce the point on Greater Manchester, where I live and where I was the chair of the licensing committee many years ago. The noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, mentioned its “Local. Licensed. Trusted” campaign, which the Mayor of Greater Manchester, Andy Burnham, and the 10 district leaders fully supported. As we have heard, in Greater Manchester, over 50% of private hire vehicles are licensed outside it, particularly in Wolverhampton but also in St Helens on Merseyside. That is totally unacceptable in terms of proper enforcement of their activities across the country.

We have also heard of the audit of grooming gangs and child sexual exploitation by the noble Baroness, Lady Casey. Again, that has a great resonance in Greater Manchester because of the issues that were faced there. It continues to be a great, urgent public safety concern. It is believed that this Bill is the quickest and most appropriate way to tackle that issue that so desperately needs tackling.

I will not go through the details of the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, to which I have added my name. I fully support it. She eloquently presented it to the Committee. My noble friend Lord Blunkett made a point on transition. There clearly needs to be a transition period, certainly in Greater Manchester and in other strategic authorities, so that it could align with licence renewal, which would reduce the costs and disruption of an immediate transition and provide sufficient time for local authorities to rebuild capacity in their licensing departments, while supporting the Government’s aim for all regions to move towards strategic authorities.

I welcome the constructive meetings that I have had with both Ministers responsible for this Bill, my noble friends Lady Taylor and Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, and their desire to make progress to address licensing and enforcement across the country. I also recognise that there are many more difficult issues that need to be addressed about taxi and private hire vehicles, and this is just one particular aspect that this Bill enables us to address. I strongly believe that this group of amendments would take a significant step forward for the benefit and safety of the public across the country, and I am sure that we will receive a positive response from the Minister.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I will make a very brief speech in support of the excellent speech made by my noble friend Lord Borwick in moving Amendment 235A, an amendment beloved in Committee: delete the word “may” and insert the word “must”.

I commend in passing the moving speech made by my noble friend Lord Holmes. I have a paternal interest in this in that when the Disability Discrimination Act was put on the statute book in 1995 by my noble friend Lord Hague, I was Secretary of State for Transport and therefore had responsibility for taxis. My department was responsible for Section 32 of the DDA which, as my noble friend said, made provision for regulations that taxis should be accessible to wheelchair users and that they should be carried safely. It is interesting to see what happened in London. In 1989, the then Transport Minister Michael Portillo said that all new London taxis had to be wheelchair accessible. We were actually the first capital city in the world to take that step. By 1 January 2000, all licensed London taxi cabs—some 20,000 of them—were wheelchair accessible. That gives an indication of the timescale in which it is reasonable to expect the taxi trade to make the transition from where it was to where it is now.

As we know, Section 32 was repealed and replaced by a similar provision in the Equality Act. I wanted to see what Members of your Lordships’ House thought would happen when that section of the Bill was debated. The Minister at the time was Lord MacKay of Ardbrecknish. Reading his speech, it was quite clear that he did not think that 30 years later we would be where we are today. He said,

“more accessible taxis will be a boon for more than just wheelchair users”.—[Official Report, 22/5/1995; col. 890.]

At the time, the Opposition spokesman was the late Lady Hollis. She said this:

“My Lords, we on this side of the House broadly support the Government’s position on taxis. We believe that they are public service vehicles. Taxis are an important ingredient of public service transport and, therefore, they must be accessible to disabled people on a flexible and realistic basis. We believe, as the Bill lays down, that new vehicles introduced must be fully wheelchair accessible”.—[Official Report, 20/7/1995; col. 442.]


They would both be surprised at the position that we are now in. One cannot possibly blame the Minister for any inaction on his part, but what we are entitled to on Report is some timescale by which the rest of the country will be brought into line with what has already happened in London. I hope that when he replies, the Minister will give us some reassurance that that will be the direction of travel and that there might even be a date at which we reach the destination.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their thoughtful contributions to this important debate, which goes to the heart of both public safety and the need for flexibility within our transport system. The proposed introduction of national minimum standards has an important role to play in delivering consistency across the country, but it is to be run alongside a system where local licensing authorities can add to those standards, as local flexibility and responsiveness is of course important. The Government’s responsibility in this context must be to ensure that such variations do not place unnecessary burdens on operators.

There is also the issue of cross-border services, which are essential for many passengers. While these services continue, they raise legitimate concerns about how they are to be regulated. In her report, the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, recommended more rigorous standardised statutory requirements across all licensing authorities in order to close the loophole whereby a driver can be licensed in one area but work exclusively in another. Ultimately, it is important that the Government recognise the need for a licensing framework that comprehensively deals with abuses, supports operators and keeps public safety at its core.

Regarding the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Borwick, he is right to point out that all London taxis are accessible. He has long been a consistent and principled advocate on this issue. Over many years, he has drawn attention to the importance of ensuring that those with disabilities are not left behind by our transport system. His work has helped keep accessibility firmly on the policy agenda. The case he advances appears to be both practical and fair. He makes a compelling argument: accessibility should be viewed not as an aspiration but as a standard that passengers across the country can reasonably expect. Although achieving this may present challenges in some areas, the progress made in London demonstrates what is possible in the right circumstances. As I say, my noble friend has made persuasive arguments as to why this requirement should apply more widely, strengthening independence for disabled passengers and promoting a more inclusive transport network. I therefore look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say in response to this important point.

New Homes: Target

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Thursday 8th January 2026 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Young of Cookham]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what progress they have made in meeting their target of building 1.5 million new homes in England within this Parliament.

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

We have always been clear that building 1.5 million homes, which is vital given that we inherited the worst housing crisis in living memory, is an ambitious target. It will require a rate of housebuilding and infrastructure construction not seen for more than 50 years. We recognise the scale of the challenge, and we are driving progress through bold planning reforms, including the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 and a record £39 billion investment in social and affordable housing. Our bold planning reforms will drive UK housebuilding to the highest rate in 40 years.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome many of the Government’s planning reforms, but the OBR made it clear in November that they would not be enough to hit the target. Recent completions were at a nine-year low. Many sites with planning permission are no longer viable because of escalating costs, and where sites are viable, builders are reluctant to build out because of weak consumer demand—the Treasury, rather than the Minister’s department, is partly to blame for both those things. If the Government want to get close to the target, will they not have to have a discussion with developers and in conjunction with them bring forward a successor to previous schemes to help first-time buyers?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am pleased to tell the noble Lord that I have been given the buying and selling process in my portfolio very recently. I have been looking at it in great detail, and I had a meeting with developers yesterday as part of the New Towns Network on how we improve the buying and selling process. 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.

Building Safety Regulator (Establishment of New Body and Transfer of Functions etc.) Regulations 2026

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Monday 15th December 2025 Grand Committee

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

My Lords, I want to take this opportunity to congratulate Andy Roe, who has been leading the work to improve the performance of the building safety regulator and whose peerage was announced on 11 December.

The establishment of the building safety regulator was the most significant reform of the building safety regime in decades. The building safety regulator has removed significant risk from the system and placed residents at the heart of housebuilding. The regulator is an important and non-negotiable part of our built environment, particularly as we deliver 1.5 million homes and accelerate the remediation of unsafe buildings.

The BSR was first established within the Health and Safety Executive. The HSE provided invaluable leadership and experience during the establishment and early operations of the BSR. It is now time for a new phase for the BSR. In June, my department announced reforms to the regulator, including investing in strengthened and dedicated leadership for the BSR; operational improvements, including the creation of a new innovation unit to improve the processing of gateway applications; and bolstered, long-term investment in the capability of the BSR and its capacity to work with industry. Alongside this, we announced the intention to move the BSR out of the Health and Safety Executive, establishing it as an arm’s-length body of the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. That is the specific purpose of these draft regulations.

These regulations set up a new arm’s-length body sponsored by MHCLG that will exercise the functions of the building safety regulator, as established under the Building Safety Act. The regulations transfer the functions of the building safety regulator from the Health and Safety Executive to this new body. The provisions of these regulations will come into force on 27 January 2026.

The regulations enable the smooth transfer of powers so that the BSR has the legal basis to continue to perform its functions without interruption. They include transitional provisions to cover the period where staff and services will move over in stages from the HSE to the BSR. The regulations provide that the BSR will maintain its operational independence, with its own powers, strategic plan and programme of work, as outlined in the Building Safety Act. This move does not change the functions of the regulator or the ministerial powers and responsibilities set out in the Building Safety Act.

This change will support the building safety regulator for the coming years, strengthening accountability and providing a singular focus and dedicated leadership for building safety regulation. Importantly, this is also the first step towards establishing a single construction regulator, a key recommendation of phase 2 of the Grenfell Tower Inquiry. The new body for the building safety regulator will form the basis of the single construction regulator. The regulations will make sure that the building safety regulator continues to deliver its statutory functions under the Building Safety Act, while leading it into a new era. This will provide the foundation for a stronger, more accountable system that prioritises safety while supporting innovation across the built environment.

I hope that noble Lords will join me in supporting the draft regulations, which I commend to the Committee.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I join the Minister in congratulating Andrew Roe on his peerage. The experience that he will bring to your Lordships’ House from London Fire Brigade and the building safety regulator will be enormously welcome.

This instrument was debated in another place last week, on 10 December, and it completed its consideration in 12 minutes. On 11 December, the Industry and Regulators Committee produced its report, headed Building a Better Regulator. Within that report is a chapter on exactly the subject that we are debating this afternoon—namely, the single construction regulator—and it gives the background to the decision to which the Minister referred: the need to have a single construction regulator. It goes on to say that witnesses were broadly supportive of the proposal for the single regulator, with several suggesting that the current system was “fragmented”.

However—and this is the point that I want to make in this very short intervention—there were notes of caution. The Chartered Institute of Architectural Technologists argued that

“it is more important that these functions be delivered effectively, than that they be delivered by a single body”.

The institute suggested that the priority should be addressing current regulatory challenges rather than merging functions. Philip White questioned whether this was the right time to establish it and, as with the BSR’s move from HSE to a body within MHCLG, he argued that the organisational change would lead to “disruption”, while suggesting that the regulator would do its best to

“keep business going as usual”.

The Select Committee listened to that argument and to the argument for going straight ahead, and concluded, in paragraph 106:

“We support the Government’s broad proposal to establish a single construction regulator. However, we heard concerns that organisational changes could distract from the immediate imperative of improving operational performance. The implementation of this further organisational change should wait until the BSR is delivering its building control decisions within statutory timeframes”.


As we know, that is not what it is doing, so the question that I want the Minister to answer is: why is she going ahead, it seems, in defiance of a very clear recommendation from a Select Committee? I appreciate that it reported last week, after the instrument had been laid, but none the less it is a clear recommendation that we should not go ahead in January. I wonder how the Minister would respond to that clear recommendation from a unanimous report by one of your Lordships’ Select Committees.

[Lord Elliott of Ballinamallard (UUP)]

My Lords, I will make a very short intervention. I was quite interested to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Young, about what the Select Committee said about this. Some noble Lords will be aware that I have taken an interest in this matter because of some communications I have received over the last few months in relation to delays in getting the building safety regulator’s approval, which have caused huge difficulties for the construction industry, the housing industry and individuals who want to move into a new property or premises.

In principle, I have no issue with a single construction regulator—on the basis that it will be an improvement. I am not yet convinced that it will be an improvement, because we have not seen that with our current system. I would like to see much better progress with the system we have before we move it to an arm’s-length body, because you sometimes lose a level of control with an arm’s-length body. I listened to the Minister indicate that there will still be a control mechanism. I am keen to hear what that control process will be because, if it is to be a more accountable system, it must be more accountable to both this House and the other place. Otherwise, we will not get the improvements that we are looking for and desire.

I am broadly supportive of having a single construction regulator, but we are not getting the process properly implemented as it is, so I am keen to know how it will be improved under the new process.

London Boroughs: Financial Support

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Monday 3rd November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

There is much to be done in looking at local authority pension funds—I agree with the noble Baroness on that. We are working through that process. Of course, there is a balance to be struck between how you might use that for capital spending, which would be an investment that there may be a return on, and using it for some of the pressures that we are experiencing on revenue spending, which is the real pressure for local authorities at the moment. It would not be a long-term solution for that, but the noble Baroness makes a very good point. We are exploring what more can be done around the pension funds and using that money for local spend.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, further to the reply given to my noble friend about transitional relief, if, as is widely forecast, there will be substantial losses in the London boroughs, can the Minister guarantee that in any one year no London borough will have to reduce its expenditure by more than 5% to safeguard essential services?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

The noble Lord will have to wait for the announcement of the funding for local government, because that work is still under way. We have done extensive consultation and, as I said, we are keen to make sure that, where there is a need for transitional relief, it will be paid for by additional funding for those local authorities suffering from that.

New Homes Target

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Tuesday 21st October 2025 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Young of Cookham]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what progress they have made towards their target of building 1.5 million new homes.

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

My Lords, our Government remain committed to delivering 1.5 million homes over this Parliament. Through major planning reform and investment, we are breaking through the barriers to development and will build the homes this country needs. Our bold planning reforms alone will drive housebuilding in the UK to its highest rate in 40 years. The spending review confirmed the biggest boost to social and affordable housing investment in a generation, alongside significant investment through the national housing bank, reforms to the building safety regulator, a new mortgage guarantee scheme, a support package for SME builders and work on a comprehensive construction skills package. We are laying the strong foundations for a generational rocket boost to housebuilding.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, 1.5 million is exactly what the country needs, but few outside government believe that this target is achievable. One in four of those homes would have to be built in London. London’s target for this year is 88,000 homes; by June, 4,000 had been completed. One reason that developers give for this slow progress is the target for affordable homes of up to 35%. Sites that were viable until recently are no longer. Can the Minister confirm that discussions are now taking place in Birmingham and London with a view to watering down the Government’s affordable homes programme in order to drive up completions? As one developer said, 35% of nothing is not a sensible policy.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I know the paper to which the noble Lord refers. With his ministerial experience, he will know that I cannot comment on leaked documents. However, let us make no mistake that London and the mayor are extremely ambitious about delivering the housing that London needs. The Government recognise its unique challenges, including higher build and labour costs, which have contributed to falls in starts and completions in the capital. We are working in partnership with the mayor and the GLA to accelerate housing delivery and are supporting the development of an ambitious next London Plan. We are already taking action to accelerate housebuilding through planning reform and unlocking large-scale developments such as at Euston. We are also supporting stalled sites in the capital via the new homes accelerator. London will be allocated up to 30% of the £39 billion social and affordable homes programme, granting approximately £11.7 billion to the GLA to support housing delivery in London.

Building Safety Levy (England) Regulations 2025

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Wednesday 15th October 2025 Grand Committee

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

My Lords, these regulations were laid before the House on 10 July 2025. The Government are committed to the remediation of residential buildings with unsafe cladding in England. Our remediation acceleration plan sets out how we will remove barriers so that buildings are fixed faster. Crucially, this will allow residents to be and feel safe in their homes.

The Government have already committed £5.1 billion of taxpayers’ money to the cost of remediation. We want to protect leaseholders and residents from further costs that are not of their making. The building safety levy is an essential step in achieving this. The purpose of the levy is to fund the Government’s building safety remediation programme. We estimate that we need to raise around £3.4 billion over 10 years. The draft regulations enable the levy to be imposed. The levy will be charged on certain building control applications for new residential floorspace in England. Subject to the approval of the Committee, it will start being charged from 1 October 2026.

Local authorities will collect the levy on behalf of central government. They are well placed to carry out this role as custodians of local building control, with tax collection expertise. I thank local authorities for the vital role they will play and for the steps they are already taking to prepare. My officials are supporting local authorities to ensure that they are ready for the levy launch. We will provide collecting authorities with grant funding for set-up costs. All ongoing costs will be recoverable from the levy revenue received.

The levy provides essential funding to deliver a safe built environment that meets residents’ needs. It complements our broader housing goals, including the delivery of 1.5 million high-quality homes over this Parliament. The levy is designed to minimise detrimental impact on housing supply while securing the required revenue. To achieve this, there are different levy rates for each local authority, which reflect local house prices. This protects viability in areas where house prices are lower. The differential rates are set out in the instrument. Development on previously developed land will benefit from a 50% discount rate. This discount compensates for the often higher cost of developing this type of land, ensuring that more sites remain viable.

The Government are committed to getting Britain building again. Small and medium-sized builders play a crucial role in driving up housebuilding rates but have faced significant challenges in recent years. In fact, just before I came here, I had a very interesting meeting with a round table of SME builders, so I know the immediate challenges they are facing. We are therefore helping SME developers by exempting developments of fewer than 10 dwellings from the levy charge.

Earlier this year, we announced the biggest boost to social and affordable housing investment in a generation. The building of more good-quality, affordable housing must be accelerated. With this in mind, all affordable housing is exempt from the levy charge. However, we have gone further, and any housing built by a non-profit registered provider of social housing is also exempt. Profits from sales of such homes are often reinvested into the provision of further much-needed affordable housing. Supported housing and other types of important community facilities, such as hospices and care homes, are also exempt from the charge. We will keep the rates and processes under review and will report at least every three years. With that, I beg to move.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her explanation of this substantial SI. Although the formula on page 15 may have deterred the casual reader, I found the Explanatory Memorandum at the end a helpful summary of what is proposed.

I welcome the measure as it is a key part of the package proposed by the previous Government to fund remediation costs after the Grenfell tragedy. Although there is an element of rough justice here, in that developers which were not even around at the time of the Grenfell tragedy will have to pay, the alternative—the remediation costs in those cases where the developer was not remediating the building falling entirely on the taxpayer and/or the leaseholder—was even less palatable.

As the Minister said, this SI originates from the Building Safety Act 2022. At first sight, a delay of four years before it is introduced and a further delay before any money is paid are difficult to justify, given the urgent need to make progress with remediation. However, that does not matter; perhaps the Minister can confirm this. Although the taxpayer contribution is capped at £5.1 billion, the Treasury is, as I understand it, prepared to lend the department additional funds should that cap be reached; it will then recoup the money from future levies. As there is no sunset clause, the levy will remain in place until the Treasury is back in funds.

I have two main concerns about the building safety regime: the speed at which it is happening and the exemptions from the Building Safety Act. I made these criticisms of the previous Government, as noble Lords who were there may recall, and tabled amendments—unsuccessfully—to a variety of Bills. So there is nothing partisan about my remarks.

First, on speed, the department published its remediation portfolio dashboard showing the position as at the end of August this year. Of the 5,554 buildings covered by the Act—buildings are still being uncovered—35% had had their work completed and 14% had work under way. This means that, more than eight years after Grenfell, work has not actually started on over half of the buildings at risk.

The dashboard does not label this as “work not started”. Instead, there is a Whitehall euphemism describing it as “in the programme”. The next time my wife asks me why I have not unloaded the dishwasher, I will say that it is in the programme. Seriously, though, this means that thousands of people are still trapped in unsellable homes with unsafe cladding and fire safety defects, often with high service charges and high insurance—

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Scott of Needham Market) (LD)]

My Lords, I apologise for interrupting the noble Lord but the House is about to divide; the Bells will ring in a moment so this would be an appropriate time to adjourn the Committee for 10 minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I was explaining that the publication of the remediation portfolio dashboard showed that thousands of people are still trapped in unsellable homes with unsafe cladding, fire safety defects and, often, high service charges and insurance. That is why, writing in the British Safety Council magazine in July, the organisation End Our Cladding Scandal said:

“But on the ground—in the eyes of residents and leaseholders who remain trapped—nothing has changed”.


It went on to say:

“Labour … is failing to deliver on its manifesto commitments on building safety”.


Those are its words, not mine. The Government have a target to complete remediation by 2029 for high-rise buildings and by 2031 for 11-metre to 18-metre buildings. Some 14 years after the tragedy, surely we can do better than that. The Government’s initiative is called the remediation acceleration plan, so might we have some acceleration?

My second point concerns exemptions. The original proposition was that leaseholders, who bear no responsibility at all for what has gone wrong, should not have to bear the costs of putting things right, but that principle has been eroded: some buildings, leaseholders and defects do not qualify. For example, buildings under 11 metres do not qualify even if they have the same cladding as the Grenfell Tower.

The previous Government argued that, in those cases, there was no threat to life as people could escape. But that left the leaseholders in difficulty. In one case, Aviva insisted on cladding removal within 4 months as a condition of insurance cover, with no one else prepared to quote. Leaseholders had to pay £45,000 each. There are many other examples, such as insurers wanting combustible balconies replaced or people being unable to sell because their lender insisted on an EWS certificate, which could not be provided. Those leaseholders have no protection.

The latest RAP—remediation acceleration plan—announces the Government’s intention to

“provide funding in those exceptional cases where multi-occupied residential buildings under 11 metres have life-critical fire safety risks from cladding and do not have an alternative route to funding”.

However, what the insurers and lenders insist on is often not “life-critical”, but the property is unsellable or uninsurable without the work, so the leaseholders have to pay to put the defects right.

There is a separate category of non-qualifying leaseholders—people who invested their life savings in a small number of buy to lets. Where the block is being remediated not by the developer but by the building safety fund, they are exposed to the full costs of non-cladding remedial work—often a high five-figure sum. As this work is carried out at the same time as the cladding, this can hold up remediation for everyone, as the freeholder will not have the cash to pay if a non-qualifying leaseholder cannot pay or sell. In Wales, there are no non-qualifying leaseholders. Those leaseholders are no more responsible for the defects than any other leaseholder. It is a distinction that should be removed, not least to accelerate the progress of remediation.

Some defects are not covered. The 2025 update to the remediation acceleration plan refers only to “unsafe cladding”, often leaving leaseholders exposed to other costs. Again, that is a distinction that should not be there. The leaseholders have no more responsibility for the non-cladding defects than the cladding defects. Those leaseholders who enfranchised, encouraged by successive Governments, are now in a worse position than those leaseholders who did not enfranchise—another inequity.

I make two final points. The Government said in their manifesto:

“We will put a renewed focus on ensuring those responsible for the building safety crisis pay to put it right”.


This SI is about the developers, but what about the construction materials industry, found by the Grenfell inquiry to have been guilty of “systematic dishonesty” and “making false claims” and by which not a penny has been paid? Eight years after Grenfell, the latest update tells us that the Government are consulting on

“robust sanctions, penalties and liabilities for manufacturers”.

Again, progress has been far too slow.

Finally, we know that the Government plan to legislate to address some of the problems I have been outlining. On 6 October, the Secretary of State wrote to End Our Cladding Scandal, saying:

“This will include a new Bill in Parliament to ensure that delinquent buildings get fixed”.


I understand that the Bill will have a hard end date for remediation, with criminal prosecution if it is not done. But this suggests that delinquent buildings will not get fixed until we have the Bill, implying yet further delay. We are told it will be introduced when parliamentary time allows, but that sits uneasily with the Government’s commitment to move things at a faster pace.

Does the Minister understand the frustration of those who, through no fault of their own, face hardship and risks? What can she do to reassure them that the Government will address with renewed urgency the problems that confront them?

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a freeholder of a mixed-use building, 15 metres tall, constructed in 2018—post Grenfell—in Norwich. Addressing the consequences of the use of aluminium composite materials in pre-Grenfell tall buildings is the priority that the Building Safety Act is meant to resolve and a commitment that should remain undimmed. Unlike my noble friend Lord Young, I will constrain my comments to the effect of the proposed regulations, which are contemplated to be introduced on 1 October, on the construction of new homes, not existing homes. That does not mean I do not care about the existing homes, but I think we need to view part of these regulations through the lens of the construction industry.

It is common ground that we need more homes, driven not only by the UK population, which the ONS tells us is now just shy of 70 million, but because you cannot sell capitalism to people who cannot accumulate capital—and the best way of doing that, for most families, is by building a stake in their own home. Nothing we do should discourage or disincentivise the need to build the homes our nation needs.

There are enough headwinds in construction already and the Minister probably has some of those ringing in her ears from her lunchtime meeting with SME builders. There are more headwinds to come. The BSA levy is potentially one of those headwinds and could chill construction still further at a very delicate fiscal moment. That is important because if there is no building, there is no levy and there is no money to fix the cladding.

We know that there is a crisis of confidence in London’s building industry. I will focus on London for the moment because a lack of housing starts in London is going to imperil the Government’s nationwide housebuilding ambitions. All historic sources on housing starts point to London being in crisis. The Molior data shows that just 2,000 private homes were started in the first half of the year—a record low. MHCLG data shows that the total number of homes started in the entirety of the 12 months to quarter 1 2025 is 60% lower than the previous record low, set in 1990. The GLA’s affordable data shows that only 347 homes were started in Q1—a record low, following lows in 2024-25. Right up to date, the interim statistics show that in the last quarter for London new starts were 40% lower than the previous low point, with nothing over 18 metres started anywhere.

Developers in London are on strike, and if we cannot sort out building in London, we will never get roofs over people’s heads nationally. This is not just about the levy holding things back; house prices have risen in the capital by 1% since 2015, a previous high point. Berkeley Homes tells me that the bill costs have risen by over 40% in the same period—directionally, half on materials and half on regulatory burdens. So we know that viability is under threat. Planning has previously been fingered as the hold-up for development, but now if you get your planning consent, you need to get building safety regulator approval before you start digging foundations for all the dwelling homes that are excluded from the levy. It is therefore the building safety regulator that is putting speed bumps in the way.

These regulations provide for applications to be made to the regulator before 1 October next year or the levy will apply. That sounds like a long way away, but I am told it is currently taking 44 weeks, at best, for the regulator to reply to an application. More often than not, that reply is in the negative. I have heard of a refusal from the regulator that was evidenced by a single word: “Roof”. That is just not good enough. It is already too late to apply and hope for an approval, with just 50 weeks to go until 1 October 2026. That is also not helping many of the thousands of already completed homes in London that are doing nothing but eating their heads off in interest for want of a final approval.

I have done some research and learned that the reasons for all this relate to the fact that staffing and the transition have not been sorted out between the HSE and the building safety regulator. There is far too much subjective interpretation between professionals, each of whom may be correct in their difference of preference, but either option could be safely implemented. The regulator’s IT system is incompatible with the software that all developers use, particularly because it does not use the indexes. That is important because rather than someone going online, clicking on the screen and being transported instantly to one of the thousands of A0 plans through the index, the regulator’s IT system—I am told—means that you have to search manually through all 1,000 sheets. It is hardly surprising that it is taking so long. We then have the numbers: an additional £60 to £70 per square metre in London—and up to £90 in Fulham—and directionally £25 to £35 elsewhere.

I have consulted developers. More than ever, time is money. Reluctantly, they are prepared to accept the levy—that is good news; there is an alignment on the need and the willingness to pay. But their view— I agree with this, and I ask the Minister whether she does too—is that, before the levy comes into play, the building safety regulator needs to sort out its relationship with the HSE. The software needs to be made compatible with BIM, so that we actually get some productivity. We have to agree to objective, accepted standards for what is an acceptable way of building new homes, rather than be subject to arbitrary preference. There needs to be a response within four weeks and not 44 weeks.

If the builders are making that proposal, I think that it is a fair bargain and that the Government should accept it. Unless they do, the developers’ strike will continue and then no levy will be created at all. That does not help anybody, still less the people for whom my noble friend Lord Young is most concerned.

It is important that we think also about the cash flow. I have looked carefully at the regulations and the implementation. I am concerned that, particularly for a large-scale flatted development, should one go ahead, the entirety of the levy—remember, that it is £90 per square metre in Fulham—would be paid on the entire development at the point at which the very first part of that development had a completion certificate. Just at the point at which the developer is suffering greatest cash stress, the entire bill would be due. I am concerned for the cash-flow viability of these organisations, noting that the Financial Times has reported that, in the entirety of London—a city of 10 million people—in the last quarter, fewer than two dozen new flats have been sold. That is a real crisis point.

Will the Minister recognise that until the system is working smoothly, nobody will start anything over 18 metres and that unless we can get the workability, timescales and IT right, the strike will continue? Will she give a commitment that, at the point at which the levy is introduced, approval times will be down to, say, a reasonable four weeks, because time is money and money is risk? On that basis, there will be a grudging acceptance—but an acceptance none the less—by the industry that we can move forward, and then the people for whom my noble friend Lord Young is most concerned can be remediated more quickly. Unless we get an accommodation between the Government and the development industry on going forward positively, this will not be sorted out and the Government will stand zero chance of meeting their ambitious housing targets, which we should all endorse.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

I declare my interest as a councillor in central Bedfordshire. Fortunately, we do not have many high-rise buildings in rural areas.

In response to the Building Safety Levy (England) Regulations 2025, the principle is absolutely right that those who have profited from residential development should contribute to the cost of making homes safe. It is both fair and necessary. This levy was set up by the Building Safety Act 2022 under the previous Conservative Administration, and it is an important part of wider efforts. I make very clear that we support this, but some issues need addressing.

The Government anticipate that the levy will raise approximately £3.4 billion over the next decade to help fund remediation of historic safety defects, including dangerous cladding. For too long, thousands of residents have lived in buildings that they know are unsafe. They suffer the stress and emotional toil of being in an unsafe building and, as my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham pointed out, they are unable to sell and to move on with their lives. The situation is not of their making. My noble friend made a number of points, and it is crucial that this is done faster and better. I would very much like to know whether the Minister believes that the two deadlines of 2029 and 2031 will be achieved given that, as my noble friend pointed out, around half have not even started. I cannot remember the exact phrase—

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

In programme.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Tuesday 14th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, I support Motion C1 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell. I repeat my interest, in that my wife owns properties in London which she rents out, from which I occasionally benefit. I thank the Minister for meeting the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, and me to discuss the matter. Her engagement with us was much appreciated.

I want to emphasise what the Minister in the House of Commons said when the Lords amendment was defeated. He said:

“We recognise that there will be occasions when landlords regain vacant possession of their property using ground 1A but are unable subsequently to sell it despite repeated attempts to do so”.—[Official Report, Commons, 8/9/25; col. 637.]


So the Government expressly acknowledge that there will be landlords who are unable to sell, having intended to do so, and who are acting in perfect good faith. The issue is whether it is really appropriate in this Bill to penalise such good faith landlords by preventing them renting out their property for 12 months because of abuse—and there is abuse—by other landlords.

I suggest to the House that this is a plain and obvious case of a disproportionate sanction. It is a sanction against those who have done no wrong and who have acted in perfect good faith. This Government are often eager to emphasise the importance of human rights law. It is important to acknowledge that human rights law does not just protect prisoners and illegal entrants; it also protects law-abiding citizens who own property and who wish to rent it out.

It is a basic principle of the common law, adopted by the Human Rights Act, that any interference with the right to property requires a fair balance between the interests of the property owner and the interests of the community. I suggest to the House that to penalise a landlord who has acted in good faith by preventing them renting out their own property for 12 months when they have done no wrong defies the need for a fair balance. It is manifestly disproportionate. The modest amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, to reduce the period to six months is fair and balanced, and if he divides the House, as he has indicated he will, he will certainly have my support.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords—

[Lord Hacking (Lab)]

I do not know if the noble Lord is wanting to speak. I am perfectly prepared to give way to him, although I seem to have the Floor of the House.

The noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, made a very powerful case, which was well supported by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. The noble Lord and others will remember that I supported him on this measure in Committee, and I think also on Report. It covers a wider ground than just the landlord who has been unable to sell. There is another ground, where the landlord has got possession of a property to put members of their family in. I cited the example of a landlord having done that for, let us say, parents coming in, one of whom then has a stroke, meaning that the landlord then needs to do something with the property that involves putting it back on the market. In that situation, the landlord is penalised in exactly the same way as when a landlord fails in a genuine attempt to sell, as the noble Lord has described.

In Committee, and I think also on Report, I proposed a better way of dealing with this problem: a prohibition on any landlord putting property on the market again at a higher price than the price at the time of the change of ownership. I should have succeeded in that argument, but I did not. However, I am certainly supporting the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, as supported by noble Lord, Lord Pannick. I hope that your Lordships have heard the arguments from the noble Lords and will support them on this issue.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Motion D1 in my name, which the Minister referred to sympathetically at the beginning of our debate.

As we have heard, the Bill currently precludes a landlord who gives notice to a tenant because he wants to sell from re-letting that property for 12 months if that sale falls through. The Government want all tenants to be protected against abusive eviction by landlords, and I have no difficulty with that principle. However, in the case of shared owners, there are already safeguards against such abuse that are not there for conventional landlords, and their sales are more likely to fall through, through no fault of their own.

The amendment exempting shared owners from this provision was carried on Report in your Lordships’ House by the largest majority of any amendment to the Bill. While sympathy was expressed by Ministers in the other place for the plight of shared owners, the amendment was overturned there. Last week, the Government tabled their Motion asking your Lordships not to insist on that amendment. On 10 October, the Minister followed that up by writing to all Peers, hoping that they would support her Motion not to insist. Then last week, we had a Damascene conversion, and here I obviously had more good fortune than the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell. I am most grateful to the Minister for the time she spent with me on this last week, and indeed earlier, and to Matthew Pennycook and the officials. The amendment in my name is the outcome of those discussions and represents a deal that I can accept.

To briefly summarise the case, shared owners are social housing residents. They own a portion of their property and rent the rest of it from the housing association. They purchased a share of their home because they could not afford to buy on the open market. They are a distinct, legally identifiable group of people, and they are actually precluded from subletting without permission from their registered provider.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Young of Cookham]

At end insert, “and do propose Amendments 19B to 19D in lieu—

19B: Clause 15, page 25, line 10, at end insert—
“(3) Subsection (4) applies where the relevant person relies on Ground 1A and—
(a) before the assured tenancy was entered into, a relevant person had given the tenant under the assured tenancy (“T”) a written statement that the landlord under that tenancy (“L”) is a shared owner of the dwelling-house and that section 16E(2) or (3) might not apply to a subsequent letting, or grant of a licence, of the dwelling-house (because of this subsection and subsection (4)),
(b) when the assured tenancy was entered into, L was a shared owner of the dwelling-house, and
(c) before the date specified in the notice as mentioned in section 8(3)(b), a relevant person had given the landlord under the shared ownership lease of the dwelling-house a written statement that L intends to assign L’s interest under that shared ownership lease.
(4) Section 16E(2) or (3) does not prohibit a relevant person from carrying out a controlled activity if—
(a) before the relevant person carries out that activity—
(i) the dwelling-house has been valued by a member of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors in connection with the assignment of L’s interest under the shared ownership lease, or
(ii) L has advertised, or made an arrangement under which another person has advertised, that the dwelling-house is or may be available for acquisition by way of the assignment of L’s interest under the shared ownership lease, and (b) when the relevant person carries out that activity, L is a shared owner of the dwelling-house.
(5) In subsections (3) and (4)—
“controlled activity” means an activity that would (if subsection (4) did not apply) be prohibited by section 16E(2) or (3); “shared owner”, in relation to a dwelling-house, means a person—
(a) who is the tenant of the dwelling-house under a shared ownership lease, and
(b) whose share in the premises demised by the lease is less than 100%; and for this purpose, the tenant’s share in the premises demised is the tenant’s initial share in those premises, plus any additional share or shares in those premises which the tenant has acquired; “shared ownership lease” means a lease—
(a) granted on payment of a premium calculated by reference to a percentage of the value of the premises demised by the lease or of the cost of providing them, or
(b) under which the tenant (or the tenant’s personal representatives) will or may be entitled to a sum calculated by reference, directly or indirectly, to the value of those premises.”

Minimum Energy Efficiency Standards: Cost Caps for Landlords

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Monday 15th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords—

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

I defer to the noble Lord.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

That is very generous of the noble Baroness. Further to the Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, has the Minister seen a survey by the National Residential Landlords Association indicating that 31% of private landlords are planning to leave the market in the near future, aggravating the existing shortage? What steps is the Minister taking to encourage long-term institutional investment by institutions—insurance companies and pension funds—to remedy this shortage?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

The Government value the contribution made by responsible landlords and believe that they must enjoy robust grounds for possession and so on, but there is good reason for them to think about these reforms. They have nothing to fear from our reforms. The sector has doubled in size since the early 2000s. There is no evidence of exodus since reform has been put on the table. Our proposals make sure that landlords have the confidence and support that they need to continue to invest and operate in the sector. However, we are determined to level the playing field between landlords and private tenants by providing the latter with greater security. The noble Lord mentioned institutional investment. There is already institutional investment taking place through our major banking organisations to support private landlords to do the work that they need to do. That goes alongside a range of government funding, which will help with the differences that we all want to see.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 11th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 185SG in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, and I shall add a very brief footnote to what he has just said.

It of course makes sense for there to be co-operation and co-ordination between public authorities as they develop community infrastructure. Otherwise, as the noble Lord has just said, you get housing estates without the shops, schools and medical centres that are needed. A local plan would normally do this. The amendment askes the Secretary of State to identify which authorities do it best. It is some time since I was a Planning Minister, but it was certainly the case that some planning authorities were exemplary in how they led the planning system and others fell far behind. The amendment askes the Secretary of State to identify the leaders in the field, publish the best practice and invite local authorities to follow that best practice. That seems to me to be in everyone’s interest, because the whole planning system depends on high-quality, up-to-date local plans. The amendment is seeking to do that. If a new clause is a step too far for the Minister, perhaps it could be incorporated into the NPPF or other guidance.

I shall say a final word on my noble friend Lady Coffey’s amendment about involving local MPs, which in some cases is linked to what I have just spoken about. Her amendment would simply add the local MP to the list of interested parties in a development that has national implications. It would not give them any additional rights; it would simply ensure that, if there is a development, one of the people who has to be notified is the local MP. My noble friend Lord Blencathra outlined the case very well. Any sensible developer would have involved the local MP at a much earlier stage, so I see this as a long stop, so that if for any reason the local MP has not been involved he is not at a loss when the local paper rings him up just before deadline asking him whether he has a view on what has just been proposed. It seems to me to be an eminently sensible amendment, and I hope the Minister is able to smile on it.

[Lord Elliott of Ballinamallard (UUP)]

My Lords, I will make a couple of brief points on these amendments. They are a wee bit difficult to link up in some respects. I understand that most of them are about providing checks and balances within the system, or as the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, framed it, more transparency.

I support the broad principle of these amendments, including the duty of candour, if we can refine that in the planning system. On Amendment 185SG, the key is getting public authorities and local authorities to work together. I support public authorities having a general principle for their schools, health authorities, hospitals or whatever, provided that it gives enough flexibility for local areas to make decisions, which might be different in a rural area from decisions in London. We need to make sure there is that flexibility.

Finally, we need to ensure that it does not delay the processes. Sometimes, if you put additional checks and balances in planning, local authorities will use them as an excuse for why there is a delay in a planning decision being taken at a much earlier stage. In broad principle, I support the basis of these amendments, but we need to make sure that they would not delay the processes.