Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 9th September 2025 Lords Chamber

To conclude, we should be honest with the public; words matter and to call something affordable when it is patently not is misleading. Worse, it erodes trust in both government and developers. If we are serious about tackling the housing crisis, we must return to clear, robust definitions that are understood by all and linked to local incomes and not the inflated market, which is what my Amendment 171 seeks to do by giving local authorities more power to be more specific about what “affordable” means in their area. I know the Minister shares our passion and recognises the need for more social housing, as do her Government. I therefore look forward to her reply.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 122 in this group, along with others that relate to the provision of social housing. This group and the next are of major interest to those of us who are concerned about housing provision.

There is not actually very much in the Bill itself about housing. If you look through the first few pages of the Bill, headed “contents”, the word housing appears nowhere. In the whole 21 pages of Chapter 2 on spatial development strategies, I found the word housing twice on page 73. That was it, apart from a reference to the definition of affordable housing on page 74. The amendments in this group are not actually amending anything in the Bill, they are all inserting additions after Clause 52. Apart from future debates about housing for the elderly and modern methods of construction, this group of amendments and the next will have to do much of the heavy lifting on housing provision.

Amendment 122, ably moved by the noble Lord, Lord Best, will hold the feet of developers to the fire when it comes to the provision of social housing under Section 106. We have heard debates in the past about ensuring that social housing does not miss out by being built out last, and the developer then pleading extenuating circumstances for so-called financial viability assessments. As the noble Lord, Lord Best, said, since nearly half of all affordable houses are now provided under Section 106, we simply must maximise this resource.

The noble Lord, Lord Best, explained what happens in practice. The developer will tend to build the affordable houses last in order to maximise the cash flow by selling the market houses first. Then, towards the end of the development, when the developer finds the sums do not quite add up, the last thing he wants to do is anything which impacts on the value of the market houses. He will not want to touch the green spaces, the playgrounds or the car parking, so he will try to squeeze out the affordable housing.

Research by the CPRE shows that developers and land promoters have used viability assessments to get out of building almost half the affordable houses required; in its sample, 18% was achieved instead of 34%. The system at the moment favours the big developers, which can overbid the smaller developer and then use sophisticated financial viability assessments to outwit the under-resourced local authorities.

More recently, we have had the opposite problem: developers providing social housing but there being no registered social landlord to take it over. I raised this before the recess, on 3 July, and the Minister kindly wrote to me on 9 July. She told me that the Government set up the Homes England clearing service last December, and we can judge the scale of the problem, in that 113 housebuilders and 114 local planning authorities registered. The Minister told me in that letter that “more action is needed from all parties to ensure Section 106 homes are built to a good quality, are marketed at a reasonable price, and are purchased quickly and efficiently by social housing providers”. Can the Minister tell me what that further action might be and what progress has been made? Last December, the HBF estimated that there were 17,000 affordable homes stalled due to a lack of registered providers in the market to buy the homes. How many are there now?

Amendment 141, to which I have added my name, refers to social rent housing. It is worth asking why we need social housing. The market can provide most of the essentials in life—food and clothing—but no country in the world has a market that has met housing need. Worldwide, social housing provides affordable homes for families and individuals. Looking at the more prosperous European countries, they have a higher proportion of social housing than we do. All Governments have supported the housing market in this country: by supporting home ownership, initially through mortgage interest tax relief and then Homebuy in 1999, the starter home initiative and Help to Buy, or by supporting social housing—which is what this amendment is about—through Section 106, housing association grants or the affordable homes programme.

We did try an alternative approach—a market approach—under Nicholas Ridley. He wanted to move local authority rents up to market rents and let housing benefit take the strain. Under that scenario, there would have been no social rents; it was an explicit shift from bricks and mortar subsidy to personal subsidies. I am happy to say that Margaret Thatcher removed me from the Government before the Housing Act 1988 was introduced, because the experiment simply did not work. It did not work because it meant an annual increase in rents, which was unpopular, and the price was paid in local elections; it had an impact on the retail prices index and so on public expenditure, so the Treasury was concerned; and it assumed that the DHSS, as it then was, would be happy to finance an ever- growing housing benefit bill, which it was not— I remember Tony Newton complaining that he was funding the housing programme. We have reverted, rightly in my mind, to the traditional method of providing rents below market rents, with capital subsidies, Section 106, or surpluses retained by social landlords.

I was struck by one sentence in the Shelter briefing for this debate:

“Today, social housing has lost its universal status as a home for everyone, becoming an overstretched ambulance service and relying on ageing infrastructure”.


Shelter is right. Nearly 60 years ago, when I first became a local councillor, if home ownership was beyond your reach, you put your name down for the council waiting list and, in due course, you would get an offer. Now, that is no longer the case: social housing is strictly targeted at those in the most pressing need under the provisions of the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act, and local authorities are struggling even to meet those commitments, which will be accentuated as the asylum seekers are moved out of hotels.

It is the ambulance analogy—which is Shelter’s and not mine—that I focus on for a moment, at the risk of being controversial. The real ambulance takes you to a hospital and, when you are better, you are discharged. When the Shelter ambulance, to follow the analogy, takes you to social housing, and when, with the benefit of that housing, you put your life together again, you are not discharged, but there are still people in the Shelter ambulance. It raises the contentious issue of security of tenure for social housing and whether, given the pressure on social housing, there should be some incentives—I emphasise carrots, not sticks—to encourage those who have benefited to move on and to make way for someone who is now in the desperate circumstances that generated the original tenancy.

This is not to detract from the powerful case for more social housing made by the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Best, but it is to raise the question, given the changed circumstances over the last 60 years, of whether we need to have another look at lifelong security if we are to make the best use of the scarce resource that social housing is.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Banner (Con)]

My Lords, I will say a few words in support of Amendment 132 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, concerning the purpose of planning. To my mind, there would be some advantage in following the precedent in Scotland, where a similar purpose clause exists in its planning legislation. It would provide a guiding light to remind everybody involved in the planning system what planning is for and why we are doing all this.

There are two advantages in practice to this. First, it would remind those responsible for planning decision-making that that is not only about those who shout loudest, who very often tend to be the vocal minority as opposed to the silent majority who may wish to live in an area, and work in the area, but cannot find or afford a home there. It would provide a daily reminder that planning is about long-term public interest and not short-term expediency. For reasons I outlined in a previous debate, it would—in combination with the proposal for a statutory chief planning officer that was discussed in the debate on my noble friend Lord Lansley’s amendment—buttress the independence of professional planning officers from undue influence. That would be all the more important in the world where the national scheme of delegation exists, to give full effect to that scheme and for it not to be undermined by undue pressure from members or officers. I have a few quibbles with the drafting—that is not for today, but maybe something we can take up later. I urge the Government to consider this amendment very carefully.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Levitt, would have been proud of the speech delivered on her behalf by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile. I support the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, and commend him for continuing a campaign that he has promoted for some time, through a Private Member’s Bill and amendments to then Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill promoting healthy homes, but the challenge that faces him is that health and homes are in two different government departments. Successive attempts to bring them together have so far failed. Paradoxically, 100 years ago, the Ministry of Health was responsible for housing and health, and between the two World Wars, that led to a more integrated approach to both health and housing. Indeed, my great uncle, Sir Hilton Young MP, was Minister for Health in the 1930s, and as Health Minister he introduced the Housing Act 1935, which set down standards for accommodation—something which the noble Lord’s amendments seek to build on.

Winding forward, the importance of bringing health and housing together was central to the Black report, published in 1980, about inequalities and health outcomes. It said:

“The consequences, and importance, of housing policies for other areas of social policy, including health policies, have received increasing recognition in recent years—as have the problems of co-ordination deriving in part from the location of responsibilities for housing and personal social services … and Health services”.


Then we had the Acheson report. What I found compelling was the Resolution Foundation’s recent report which said that poor-quality housing doubles the likelihood of someone experiencing poor general health.

I looked at the debate in the other place on this amendment—it was for new Clause 9. There were two Back-Bench speakers, and it was all over in under a quarter of an hour—I see a smile on the face of the noble Lord on the Government Bench—including two other new clauses. That underlines the importance of this House in scrutinising legislation. The Minister there dismissed the need for a new duty to promote health because he said existing policy was adequate. There may be a copy of what he said in the folder in the Minister’s possession.

Grenfell Tower: Bureau Veritas

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Tuesday 9th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

To respond to my noble friend’s important points, the Grenfell Tower Inquiry thoroughly and independently examined the cause of the fire and the roles of various actors and set out its findings publicly. Although referenced within the final report, the inquiry did not criticise Bureau Veritas for its role in lift inspection or cladding testing. The ISO 9001 certification and cladding assessment certification are two different things, and it is important that we do not confuse them. ISO 9001 is an international standard widely used to assess a company’s quality management system; it is not specific to a product. Bureau Veritas certified Arconic to ISO 9001 standards, but the product certification for the cladding that was used on Grenfell Towers was issued by the British Board of Agrément. The inquiry finding suggests that Arconic concealed test data from the British Board of Agrément. Any legal or investigative matters relating to this now rightly sit with the appropriate authorities.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, further to the Question from the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, on cladding, data published by the noble Baroness’s department a few days ago showed that of the 5,214 high-rise blocks with unsafe cladding, eight years after Grenfell over 50% had not started remediation, meaning that thousands of families are living in unsafe flats. What reassurances can the noble Baroness give to those people?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Young. Over eight years on from the Grenfell tragedy, there is no justification for any building to remain unsafe. Our goal is clear: to remove all barriers to remediation, get buildings fixed faster and allow residents to feel safe in their homes. That is why in December last year we launched the Remediation Acceleration Plan, a comprehensive strategy to fix buildings faster, identify those still at risk and support affected residents. In July this year we published an update to this plan, introducing further measures to remove the barriers, strengthen accountability and expedite remediation. At present, 57% of all 18 metre-plus buildings identified with unsafe cladding have started or completed remediation, and for 18 metre-plus buildings with the ACM cladding, such as that in Grenfell, 97% of the identified buildings have started. We need to move quickly on this one to make sure that people are safe in their homes and feel safe.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 4th September 2025 Lords Chamber

I stress again that this is only an enabling provision. The details of the bespoke process would need to be worked out before the enabling power was implemented, but I respectfully ask the Minister: why not at least allow for the option of doing this by accepting this amendment?

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, my noble friends Lady McIntosh, Lord Parkinson and Lord Banner have made powerful cases for their amendments. I will briefly take survivors of LURB back two years to Amendment 235, which I had proposed in Committee, and which was proposed on Report by my noble friend Lady Pinnock, and which effectively did what is now in Clause 48. Crucially, it enabled or authorised local authorities to recoup the costs of their planning department, but it did not require them so to do. I take the point that my noble friend Lady Scott made in her speech as to why the words “and require” were not in the original request by the local authorities. On Report, the Government resisted the amendment. They were defeated, and I confess that I played a modest role in that defeat. To the Government’s credit, they then accepted it in the other place and it came through.

The crucial question—one touched on by my noble friend Lord Banner—is whether this is going to be enough to solve the crisis in our planning departments. Reforms to the national planning policy introduced by the last Government are still working their way through the system. Earlier this year, only a third of local authorities had adopted a plan in the last five years, while 291 had plans of more than five years old, and they have to get those plans up to date. The moment they have done so, they are then confronted by local government reorganisation, with smaller units turning into larger, unitary ones. The Government have then said that, where reorganisation occurs, new unitary authorities are expected to promptly prepare a local plan covering the whole of their area. So they basically have to start again.

At the same time, the Government want to reduce all the current delays in processing planning applications so that we can get on with infrastructure, and a large majority of applications are not processed within the statutory timescale. Shortly, we will come to Chapter 2 of this part of the Bill, which introduces spatial development strategies. Again, under the Bill, the planners in these new strategic authorities must produce spatial development strategies providing strategic policies for the use of land in their area.

In a masterly understatement, the Government said:

“We are aware that areas undergoing local government reorganisation and devolution will experience a transition period where responsibility for spatial development strategy might transfer between authorities”.


The crucial question that the Government must answer is whether planning departments will, even with these reforms, be able to respond to the Government’s requests. If planning departments were fully staffed with the necessary skills, they might rise to the challenge. However, there is an additional problem in that many planning officers will have to reapply for their jobs. Some may well take redundancy as a consequence of the merger of local authorities. The LGA workforce survey found that 62% of councils have difficulties recruiting planning officers and 45% have difficulties retaining planning officers, many being tempted by higher salaries elsewhere—a point mentioned by my noble friend Lord Banner.

Finally, we are going to have new town development corporations. They will need planning departments. When the Minister replies, I hope that she can reassure the Committee that there will be the capacity within the planning system to respond to the Government’s ambitious agenda.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, I am not a planner, but I do have the joy of owning a small property in Cornwall, which is part-listed. I took a lot of advice when I wanted a new kitchen at the back of the building on whether I needed listed building consent. The answer was, “If it’s in Cornwall, yes, but if it’s in London, no”. There are many differences between areas of this country, which we have not talked about this morning but will come into the assessment of how the criteria are done.

In Cornwall, they are trying to keep the villages and towns looking good and beautiful, which is fine. However, you then hear comments from people like a friend of mine who wants to put a summer house at the far end of the garden, away from the listed house, and must get listed building consent. Everybody is moaning about that and the cost. On the other hand, if you do not have some criteria like that, you will have a mess. On Amendment 97, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, it is a great idea to say that these charges should be waived, but an awful lot more needs to go into it. Frankly, the amount of money needed to pay for listed building consent for the average small house is not that great. Therefore, I do not support Amendment 97. I hope that we can accept that there will be pros and cons but that the need to have listed building consent in a reasonable way overturns everything.

Housebuilders: Information Sharing

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Tuesday 15th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

The CMA is continuing its work on this, and on 9 July it announced that it is consulting on its intention to accept commitments offered by the housebuilders in relation to the investigation. That consultation closes on 25 July, and I have already set out some of the commitments that the seven companies have made. The £100 million payment, the largest secured through commitments from companies under investigation, will be split between affordable housing programmes across all our four nations. I hope that will make a significant contribution to delivering the affordable housing we all want to see.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, if the Competition and Markets Authority confirms this £100 million payment for anti-competitive activity, can the Minister give an assurance that none of the affordable homes to be built with that money will be built by the volume housebuilders responsible for this activity, otherwise they will simply get their money back?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes a very good point. I am sure that the Competition and Markets Authority, as part of its consultation, will be looking at the best way of distributing that money, so it is not just recycled to the people who caused the problem in the first place.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Monday 7th July 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Young of Cookham]

59: Clause 14, page 24, line 28, at end insert—
“16GA Exemption for shared ownership leaseholders(1) Sections 16E and 16F do not apply to any relevant person who gives notice under Ground 1A in Schedule 2 if on the date such notice is given that person is a tenant under a shared ownership lease.(2) For the purposes of this section “shared ownership lease” has the same meaning as in section 13 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and “tenant” shall be construed accordingly.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to protect shared leaseholders whose sales fall through, as is common. The current drafting of clause 14 would leave the shared ownership leaseholder with an empty property if notice is given and the sale falls through.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, when I spoke to this amendment last Tuesday, I said I was minded to test the opinion of the House if the Government could neither accept the amendment nor give an assurance that shared owners letting flats in blocks affected by the cladding scandal could sell the flats back to the housing association they bought it from when a sale falls through to save them from the financial problems that will confront them with the proposed 12-month ban on re-letting. Although I was grateful to the Minister for the meeting she held with me, and for her sympathetic remarks at the end of that debate, and read with interest the letter that she sent me this morning, I am afraid that it falls well short of the assurances I was looking for, so I beg leave to test the opinion of the House.

Housing Associations: Financial Assistance

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Thursday 3rd July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

As I have discussed before at the Dispatch Box, summer is quite a flexible concept in the Civil Service, but we expect the report of the New Towns Taskforce imminently. I would like to say how successful it has been with the task force running an extensive round of consultation around the current new towns, with people with lived experience of what it is like to live in a new town, both to learn the lessons where things did not work and to see what did work to inform its work. So I am pleased to have been working with Sir Michael Lyons and the task force on that, and I very much look forward to its report.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

Does the Minister recall the exchange last December, when I raised the problem of private developers completing affordable homes on a site but being unable to find a housing association to take them over, leaving those homes empty and in some cases leaving the site uncompleted? Can the Minister give me an assurance that that problem has now been resolved and that there are housing associations ready to take over these Section 106 homes?

Renters’ Rights Bill

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Tuesday 1st July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Eaton (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interests as a vice-president of the Local Government Association and as the part-owner of a small number of rented properties in West Yorkshire.

I will speak in support of Amendments 29, 34, 35 and 36, which are in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, and the noble Lord, Lord Carrington. Your Lordships may recall from my contribution at Second Reading that I am deeply concerned about the impact of this Bill on rented housing supply. I remain concerned about this issue. However, these amendments provide me with the reassurance that I know the rental market is also looking for. The amendments are technical, but sensible and clearly thought through.

If the Government are to get anywhere near reaching their ambitious 1.5 million new homes target, we need to support and give clarity to the responsible institutional build-to-rent landlord sector, which is building thousands of new, high-quality rented homes each year. I know that this part of the rental market supports the Government’s aim to raise standards across the private rented sector. However, with the uncertainty it faces around how much rent it may reasonably receive and how many rent increase challenges it may receive, I worry that its development pipelines will slow or, at worst, completely halt, while it assesses this new landscape where any renter can challenge any increase without any jeopardy.

Amendments 29, 34, 35 and 36 would allow for those providing new, net additional high-quality rental homes to the market to continue to do so without undue impact from Section 13 rent increase challenges. They would allow the institutional landlord sector to continue delivering the net additional rented homes we need without uncertainty. Crucially, the amendments would deter spurious rent increase challenges and allow vulnerable renters the access to justice that they rightly deserve.

I acknowledge the Government’s amendments on Section 13 notices, but they also leave me concerned that, in this place and indeed in the rental market, we and the sector are being asked to place a significant amount of faith in the Government, and the data they have but will not publish, on how many renters might challenge their rent increases. If a renter can save themselves months of rent increase for free and without any jeopardy, why would they not?

I am therefore strongly of the opinion that the amendments in names of the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, and the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, provide the requisite amount of clarity to the sector, while ensuring renters’ rights are improved. I urge the Government to take them on board to give everyone clarity while improving renters’ rights and access to justice for vulnerable renters.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I will be very brief. I strongly support Amendment 29 so ably moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf. I recall that, when we debated this in Committee, the noble Baroness got a favourable response from the Front Bench, and it may be that on this amendment the ice is beginning to melt.

I am also struck by the contrast between the certainty that we get with Amendment 36 from the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and the absence of any clarity and certainty from government Amendments 37 onwards. As the noble Lord, Lord Carter, said, it is normal procedure in law if a rent increase is valid to backdate it from the date that it was due, so the Government are introducing a wholly new concept in law in their Amendment 67, which does not actually take the trick because, as I understand it, they are going to wait until the system is gummed up before they activate the process.

This is simply no way to govern. The Government ought to accept Amendment 36 with its clarity and certainty, rather than this doubtful procedure whereby there remains every incentive to appeal and only when the system becomes even more clogged will the Government intervene. That cannot be good government, and I urge the Minister to think again about Amendment 36 or the other amendment that achieves the same objective in the name of my noble friend Lord Howard of Rising. I just do not think that this takes the trick.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, I do not know which amendment to start with really, but I will start with the least contentious. We agree with Amendment 42 that a review is imperative and should definitely happen.

On Amendment 30 from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, it seems absolutely right to us that, when the taxpayer funds lovely, significant improvements that will raise the value of the landlord’s asset, the tenant in the house should be protected from a rent rise at least during that tenancy. That seems only right and fair.

Amendment 29 from the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, which I supported in Committee and co-signed, is a sensible amendment that several noble Lords have said they would support. I think she has explained it at length and with clarity, so I need say no more. But anything that acts as a triage system in this process should be looked at seriously.

On the controversial bits, the rent tribunal is clearly causing concern. I say to the Minister that I think there was an invitation in the last speech to look at this again—there will be Third Reading. It seems to me that a lot of work has gone into these amendments that would justify perhaps a little more time and effort than we have now. The Minister has a lot to justify in order to gain support from the House. We are minded to support the Government, but clearly we need answers on the very detailed and sensible proposals put forward today.

What worries us about Amendment 31 is that it risks allowing a tribunal to determine the level of rent increase, which could actually be unaffordable. The idea that a rent tribunal could decide that the rent should be such-and-such would fuel a market in which rents are rising exponentially, more than they have at any other time—the amendment would seem to fuel that further. We certainly do not agree with rent controls, but we believe that some brakes could be put on this; that would seem eminently sensible.

Perhaps I am looking at this through the wrong lens, but I would have thought that a tenant might expect an annual rent rise: “I am in my rented apartment and I am expecting the landlord to put up the rent in a year because I know what’s going on in the area, so I can kind of suss out how much it might be”. But, looking at it from the other way, if we assume all the things that noble Lords have said about everyone applying to the tribunal—Martin Lewis will be saying they should apply and the student unions will be on it—why would a landlord, knowing all that, impose a stupid rent rise if he knows that his tenant can then appeal against it? That should put an instinctive brake on unjustified, unrealistic rises. The system should work with those natural tensions.

We are not happy with it, but we have had conversations and thoughts about the proposal. We would ask the Government to look again at some of the detail. Perhaps with some assurances from the Dispatch Box, we could avoid a load of votes now and at Third Reading because I think that we would want the Minister to look in more detail than I personally, I admit, have done, if that is fair to say.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Best (CB)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 25 in my name and those of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, I will also speak to my related Amendments 26 to 28. I declare my interests as a vice-president of the Local Government Association, the Chartered Trading Standards Institute and the Town and Country Planning Association, and a past chair of the Affordable Housing Commission. My wife owns rented property in Dorset.

I fear the Bill still contains a fundamental flaw in its provisions for rent increases. Quite properly, the Bill seeks to ensure that tenants are not subject to huge rent rises, which can have the effect, as the Renters’ Reform Coalition and Shelter have made so clear, of evicting them from the property. But the Bill’s way of solving this problem creates considerable hazards for tenants and landlords alike.

To prevent exorbitant rent increases, the Bill relies on the renter taking their case to the First-tier Tribunal, which will determine a market rent that cannot be exceeded. That arrangement is fraught with difficulty. The first problem with a system dependent on a tribunal’s judgment is that deciding on a market rent is not a science. The outcome of tribunal hearings can be unpredictable and sometimes appear arbitrary. The second drawback is that renters must take on a daunting task. They are likely to fall out with their landlord, on whom they depend for continuing service, and to appear in person they may need to give up a day’s work, incur travel expenses and experience a troublesome and intimidating process. Thirdly, the tribunal’s decision on what is the market rent may still involve a big rent hike, well ahead of rises in incomes, and can thereby present an impossible affordability obstacle for the tenant, which is the very problem the process was intended to avoid.

From the perspective of the landlord, many of your Lordships have been concerned that the tribunal will get clogged up with thousands of time-consuming appeals. I was pleased to hear that the Minister is looking at an amendment to make use of the Valuation Office Agency to weed out appeals that are likely to fail. She is also introducing an amendment that reduces incentives for renters to appeal by enabling the Secretary of State to allow at a later date a backdating of the rent increase that is determined by the tribunal. By making the appeal process more risky, this new measure could deter renters who have a good case for pursuing an appeal. In any case, it is a fallback, a long-stop that might not be introduced for some time, if at all.

More helpfully, Amendments 25 to 27 would provide clarity and security for the renter and the landlord and give confidence to responsible investors. The amendments would mean rent increases being capped on an indexed basis using either CPI or the rise in earnings averaged over the previous three years. The indexation would be limited to three annual increases, after which the landlord could charge a market rent, if necessary determined by using the process of appeal to the First-tier Tribunal. This model surely represents a fair solution to the need for moderation of rent increases without reliance on appeals to the FTT and all the problems that brings.

In returning to this matter on Report, I have added the new Amendment 28, which addresses a criticism of the indexation approach. This amendment tackles the valid objection that there may be exceptional circumstances in which an indexed increase would not be fair to the landlord; for example, the landlord may have spent substantial funds to improve the property which could justify a rent increase that contributes towards the cost. The new amendment enables the landlord—not the tenant—to ask the tribunal to approve the setting of a rent in excess of the otherwise automatic indexation.

The amendments cut out the need for renters to take matters to the tribunal and therefore to enter into a battle with their landlord. Most tenancies do not last more than four years, so for most tenants, the arrangement would mean the certainty of indexation of rent increases, whereas the fickle market might have meant much greater rent increases. I believe this is a far better way of limiting increases than currently in the Bill. It cannot be described as rent control. It is time limited—and not comparable with failed rent control measures in other countries. It is fair to landlords and entirely preferable to the hassle and uncertainties of them being taken to the tribunal. It avoids the clogging-up problem that may mean that the tribunal system is going to be overwhelmed. Here is a package that has real benefit for landlord and tenant alike. With thanks to my co-sponsors, I beg to move.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I have added my name to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Best. I will add a brief footnote to what he has just said. As we heard in the last debate, there has been considerable concern about the capacity of the courts to handle the volume of appeals that will go to the tribunals when the Bill becomes an Act. The backlog has been going up: in the first quarter of 2025, the average time between a landlord submitting a claim and getting possession was over seven months—32.5 weeks, up from 29.8 weeks a year ago.

The Minister uses a different figure—eight weeks—but that covers only getting a possession order, not actually getting the property back. In an earlier debate, the Minister implied that it was actually quite difficult for a tenant to challenge an increase in rent. I respectfully disagree with that. There is a whole range of organisations that will give tenants advice on how to challenge an increase from the landlord.

This Government have made it clear that, unlike the previous Administration, they are not prepared to wait until the necessary reforms to the court processes are in place before they activate the Bill. That is a decision they are perfectly entitled to take, and it will be welcomed by tenants. However, a necessary corollary of that decision should be a process to minimise the chance of the courts being overwhelmed, which would be in the interest of neither tenant nor landlord. That is what Amendment 25 does.

The likelihood of the rent—a market rent when it was fixed—diverging significantly from CPI or RPI over four years is quite small. The certainty that goes with that guarantee will be welcomed, I think, by both tenant and landlord. If, after four years, there is a divergence, as the noble Lord, Lord Best, has explained, the rent can then catch up. As someone who voted for the Housing Act 1988, which abolished rent control, I see no problem with this measure to simply smooth increases over a four-year period. Again, speaking personally, if at the end of the four or five years the courts have shown themselves to be up to speed, with no backlog, I would be happy to see this provision lapse, but in the meantime, I hope the Government will smile on it.

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

If I may add one note to what the noble Lord has just said, it is very common in commercial contracts to have CPI over a series of periods followed by a reset to market level, in part because CPI may take it up too high and it comes back down to market level. I think that needs to be part of this amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

My Lords, Amendment 58 is in my name. I express my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, who apologises that he is unable to be with us today but who has added his name to the amendment, and of course to the noble Lord, Lord Hacking —and indeed to the Minister and her officials for the time they have taken to discuss the background to this with me.

This amendment is at heart a simple and technical one. The Bill says that if you ask a tenant to leave on the grounds that you are selling the property but then the property fails to sell, as happens in about a third of cases, you are not allowed to rent the property out for a period of 12 months. It simply has to stand empty and impossible to rent out for a year. That means that numerous properties would, for the crime of not selling, be punished by standing empty and unrentable. My amendment does not seek to change the principle or any other element or clause of the Bill. It simply introduces a rational and balanced obligation to stand empty in this way for six months rather than 12. That is all that it does. I will now set out the reasons why.

On financial logic, when I and others suggested that 12 months was too long, the answer given was that 12 months’ lost rent would prevent evil landlords from claiming they were selling simply as a means to eject a tenant and then re-letting the property at a higher rent. The theory was that after the tenant had left, the landlord would jack up the rent to a high level, both to recoup their interim losses and make profits. Let us look at that proposition rationally.

First, if the landlord has a valid claim to increase the rent, the Bill already provides for that. A landlord would simply seek a normal rent increase rather than going to the dramatic and expensive process and risk of requiring a tenant to leave and then hoping to re-let at a much higher rent.

Secondly, in Committee I set out the mathematical calculation behind a six-month void period; noble Lords will be relieved to know that I do not propose to repeat the numerical details here tonight, or those that I provided subsequently in a meeting with the Minister and her officials. However, the numbers demonstrated clearly that the supposedly avaricious landlord, even if having the property empty for only six months, as I propose, rather than 12, would have to put the rent up by a very substantial amount—in excess of 200% or even 300%—to recoup their rental losses. I say nothing of the other costs, including the council tax surcharge bills and the risks of leaving a building empty. Such a huge rent hike would be impossible. The rent asked would be completely uncompetitive against other properties not carrying such an inflated rent level. In short, being obliged to leave a property empty for six months is more than enough of a financial burden and barrier so as to make the strategy so feared by the Minister simply untenable.

Thirdly, it was suggested that those nasty landlords might lie about selling a property or put it on the market at an absurdly high price, presumably in collusion with a disreputable estate agent—there are some, I believe. I therefore draw noble Lords’ attention to the second part of the amendment. This requires the landlord to provide, if necessary, to the local authority or the court hard evidence of marketing, pricing and offers, et cetera. A landlord flouting these requirements would be breaking the law and punishable accordingly. I understand that an agent colluding with them would also be acting contrary to the law. I remind noble Lords that any landlord taking this approach would face not only the legal risk of a false sales process but ending up with the property back on the rental market at an absurd and uncompetitive level of rent and, on top of that, losing six months’ rent.

Turning to other reasons, having made the argument on the rental conspiracy theory advanced in defence of the 12 months of standing empty, I heard that the landlord might have “other reasons” for wanting to get rid of the tenant, such as those that the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, touched upon. Let us examine this argument. Whatever these other reasons might be, the Minister has confirmed that the Bill makes it perfectly clear that the landlord has only four grounds for requiring a tenant to leave: sale, anti-social behaviour, moving in a relative or persistent failure to pay rent. If the landlord cannot demonstrate that one or more of these cases applies—for example, through not providing conclusive evidence of a genuine sales process—that landlord will be in breach of the law as well as having the financial penalty of the months of lost rent. It is a fundamental of the Bill to block any attempts to get around Section 21 by other means. I entirely agree with that. However, as I hope that I have demonstrated, this amendment is no such thing. The “no renting out” mechanism to prevent abuse remains, but the amendment makes it proportionate rather than excessive and heavy-handed.

Standing back from the detail, we are frequently assured that most landlords are good landlords. Perhaps some in this House have friends who are landlords. Perhaps some Members of this House let out property. This provision to leave a property unlet will not apply just to a subset of bad landlords. It will apply to anyone who rents out a property and genuinely wants or needs to sell their property but does not manage to do so. It also, for the same 12 months, deprives the market of rental properties—a market already bedevilled by a lack of available property to rent. That does not help tenants. This is not only unnecessary but manifestly unfair and will actively harm the supply of rental property. The Minister has accepted in a letter to the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, that landlords will lose out, but says that it will be in a small number of circumstances. Where is the evidence for that—or that the six-month penalty is not enough?

I underline that I am no lobbyist for landlords. I have spoken repeatedly in this House about the need to protect the poorest and the most vulnerable tenants who are abused and evicted by genuinely unscrupulous landlords. I have a later amendment seeking to prevent illegal evictions which is specifically on that theme. However, as the Minister has stressed, a successful rental sector is about a balance of rights. The amendment that I am speaking to does not do away with the relevant part of the Bill. It simply reduces the punishment —and it is a punishment—for not managing to sell a property from 12 months to six months. Those six months of costs and no income are, as I have demonstrated previously, more than sufficient punishment to make unworkable the avoidance strategies that so vexed the Minister and to meet the objectives of the Bill.

To be frank, a prohibition on renting out for 12 months is an impractical and disproportionate sledgehammer level of overkill that does not belong in a Bill that creates a set of checks and balances to produce a new, fairer environment for property rental. It also works against its own objective by artificially restricting the availability of property that is available to rent. That is why I feel strongly that this amendment is proportionate and needed. I will listen carefully to what any others and the Minister have to say, but I may need to test the opinion of the House in due course.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I speak to my Amendment 59. I am grateful to the Minister for the time that she spent with me and a representative of the Shared Owners’ Network after Committee, when we discussed in further detail the problems facing shared ownership leaseholders in blocks that have been blighted by the cladding disaster. This amendment is needed to protect shared owners, who are accidental landlords, from the financial problems that they will face if they are unable to finalise a sale after issuing a ground 1A notice.

Many shared owners, of course, continue to live in the property which they half-bought from the registered social landlord. Many shared owners have simply had to move to get on with their life; they have been unable to sell the property in the meantime, so they have sublet. Shared owners are allowed to sublet—they have to get permission from their RSL to do this—but the rent that they receive from the subletting may not actually be enough to cover their costs, with the mortgage, the rent, the service charge and the insurance charges on a block affected by the cladding disaster. Those costs may well exceed the local market rent.

Many shared owners who have been subletting for a number of years have seen their financial situation considerably weakened, with many effectively losing hundreds of pounds every month as a result of subletting. These are people who employed all the professional people that they should have employed when they bought the property owned by a registered social landlord. They took every precaution available to them and bear no responsibility at all for the problem that has engulfed them.

When we met, although she expressed sympathy for this group, the Minister could not offer any mitigation for the unsustainable costs which a 12-month ban on re-letting would create for these shared owners. This is not a satisfactory outcome for a cohort who qualified for an affordable home because their income was not high enough to buy on the open market; this was their first step on the ladder. The Minister argued that the proposed ban protects tenants, but it fails to protect shared owners who are actually also tenants.

Shared owners face a much riskier sales process with the Bill. They have to give four months’ notice to their tenants, and that means they have no certainty at all that the offer to buy the flat will actually result in an exchange, or indeed a completion. Shared owners have to give the first option to buy their flat back to the registered social landlord so they can find another shared ownership owner, and there are strict qualifications, so they are fishing in a relatively small pool. Prospective buyers need to meet the criteria for shared ownership, and that means that the risk of a failed sale, even at a late stage, is actually much higher for a shared owner, and particularly high if you are selling a flat in a block with unsafe cladding.

Should a sale fall through, as is frequent, particularly for these types of properties, shared owners, like other landlords under the Bill, face the prospect of a 12-month void when they will be banned from re-letting their empty property and forced to cover its costs without any rental income.

These people never planned to become landlords. It was not part of their vision at all. They will have had no ability to plan for this outcome or make provision for extended void periods. This will become completely unaffordable for the vast majority of shared owners who, as I have said, are not as financially resilient as other leaseholders, otherwise they would have bought a property on the open market. They will have to pay for the property they now live in, as well as the property they have been unable to sell.

Of course, they will continue to market their property for sale after the first sale has fallen through, but facing the mounting unmet costs of an empty property will actually put their homes at risk of repossession if they fall into arrears, as is very likely. Also—and this is worse—it puts incredible pressure on them to accept any offer from a buyer as soon as possible, even if the offer is below the RICS pre-sale valuation. If they do that, due to the rules of the scheme, they will have to compensate the registered social landlord for the loss of value on their share, as well as losing out on their own share. So, the unintended consequence of the 12-month ban on re-letting is that it puts shared owners selling a property on the back foot, unable to wait for a suitable offer at a fair market value.

It is just not acceptable to punish shared owners who have had to become accidental landlords, including as a result of the building safety crisis, and have already suffered considerable financial harm. In her correspondence, the Minister explained that shared owners would have the option to ask their provider whether a buyback would be possible rather than leaving the property empty.

This could provide a solution, but it will need the Minister to make some changes, As the Minister knows, buybacks are currently very much at the discretion of the registered provider. At the moment they have only limited access to funding to do this, using either their own funds or recycled capital grant funding.

If the Minister is unable to accept my amendment, will the Government ring-fence some of the dedicated funding to registered providers in its affordable homes programme so that they can swiftly buy back properties from those shared owners who fail to sell after issuing a ground 1A notice? This would enable housing associations to add to the stock of affordable property to rent at well below the cost of a new build and avoid leaving a property empty. If the Minister can neither accept the amendment nor give that guarantee, I am minded to test the opinion of the House at the appropriate time—probably next Monday.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 25th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, may I say how much the whole House will miss the contributions of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, from the Dispatch Box? We welcomed the clarity of his contributions, and the Back Benches will be reinforced by his presence now that he is free to say what he actually thinks.

Here we go with another planning Bill. I start with a quote:

“Conflict is not uncommon between those in both the public and private sectors who wish to change the use of land … The planning system provides the framework for resolving these inevitable conflicts. The Bill brings the system up to date, and enhances its credibility”.—[Official Report, Commons, 12/3/1991; col. 816.]


That was me, as Planning Minister in the other place, introducing the then Planning and Compensation Bill in 1991. My imprint on the planning system did not last long. We then had the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004; the Planning Act 2008; the Localism Act 2011; the Housing and Planning Act 2016; the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, which was another planning Bill—and now this. The 1947 planning Act lasted until the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Since then, we have kept on digging up the foundations without, apparently, making the structure any more durable, so I wish the Ministers well.

In the time available, I want to make just one point: the success of the Bill will depend on the efficiency of local government departments in responding to the challenge in the Bill. On 5 February, the Government told all councils in two-tier areas and small neighbouring unitaries to produce, by March, plans to go unitary. Professionals in planning departments are probably more affected than anyone else because all the plans will have to change. They will, understandably, be worried about their own future and the turbulence of reorganisation as they apply for jobs in the new structures or accept redundancy.

The Bill’s success depends on up-to-date plans to deliver certainty and avoid appeals. The Government state:

“Succinct and up-to-date plans should provide a positive vision for the future of each area; a framework for meeting housing needs and addressing other economic, social and environmental priorities”.


However, as of March 2024, only a third of local authorities had adopted a plan in the last five years and 291 had plans which were more than five years old. As they attempt to address the backlog—which will still be necessary until the Bill becomes an Act—they will also have to start all over again producing a plan for the new unitary authority. The Government have stated:

“Where reorganisation occurs, new unitary authorities are expected to promptly prepare a local plan covering the whole of their area”.


This all came on top of the December 2024 devolution White Paper. In another reorganisation, all of England is to be part of one of three new categories of local authority: foundation strategic authorities, mayoral strategic authorities and established mayoral strategic authorities. Under the Bill, the planners in these new strategic authorities must produce spatial development strategies, providing strategic policies for the use of land in their area. At the moment there are only three of these. In a masterly understatement, the Government said:

“We are aware that areas undergoing local government reorganisation and devolution will experience a transition period where responsibility for spatial development strategy might transfer between authorities”.


At the same time, the Government want to reduce all the current delays in processing planning applications so that we can get on with the infrastructure and with building the 1.5 million homes that we need.

If planning departments were fully staffed with the necessary skills, they might rise to this challenge, but they are not. The Local Government Association workforce survey found that 62% of councils have difficulties recruiting planning officers and 45% have difficulties retaining planning officers, many being tempted by higher salaries elsewhere. Two-thirds of councils rely on agency staff to address capacity issues. The RTPI says:

“We continue to have concerns about the chronic under-resourcing of our planning system and therefore … a long-term resourcing and capacity strategy should be published alongside the Bill”,


but it has not been. The new town development corporations will also require planners. The Government have recognised the problem, but the steps that they have taken to address it fall way short of what is needed and risk undermining the purpose of the Bill.

I remember a discussion, when I was a Treasury Minister, with a senior economist in the Treasury. When I suggested a new policy that had been tried in New Zealand, he said, “It may work in practice, but it doesn’t work in theory”. The risk with the Bill is exactly the opposite: it may work in theory, but it will not work in practice—unless planning departments are resourced.

Planning: Energy Efficiency and Fire Safety

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Monday 23rd June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for making that point so powerfully. We all know how urgent this work is. Retrofit work in support of decarbonisation must comply with building regulations, including those concerning fire safety. As the regulations state, the building’s compliance should be no worse than it was before the work started. No additional measures are needed to ensure that fire safety is integrated into retrofit. Under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order, a fire risk assessment will be completed for all new builds, other than individual private homes. Building regulations require building control bodies to consult the local fire and rescue authority to ensure compliance with the order. There is a further requirement under the order for a responsible person to review the fire risk assessment for those premises where material changes, such as a significant retrofit, are made to the building in question.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, the National Audit Office estimated that the work to which the noble Baroness just referred will not be completed until 2035. Is that not far too late a date for people to live in unsafe buildings? What action are the Government going to take to bring that date forward?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am sure that the noble Lord paid full attention to the remediation action plan that the Government published, and we want to move this forward as quickly as possible as there is a lot of work to be done on remediation. My honourable colleague in the other place, Minister Alex Norris, is moving forward the remediation action plan as quickly as possible, as we have to make sure that we get on with this now. Eight years is far too long not to move this forward, but we are getting on with the job now and cracking on with it as quickly as we can.

Cladding: High-rise Buildings

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Tuesday 17th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, the Cabinet Office announced investigations into seven organisations, a few of which the noble Lord mentioned. These organisations were named in the Grenfell Tower Inquiry report, enabled by the Procurement Act 2023, which came into force on 24 February 2025. The Cabinet Office is considering options under this Act. This is rightly independent. While this process must run its course, further actions outside the debarments regime against those involved in this tragedy have not been ruled out.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, eight years after the Grenfell tragedy, the Public Accounts Committee in the other place reported that 3 million people are still living in unsafe buildings, unable to sell their properties and move on with their lives, facing high service charges and high insurance premiums, and in some cases facing repossession. The Minister’s own department says that this ordeal will not be completed until 2035, 10 years away. These leaseholders are the innocent victims of negligence and, as the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, has said, of greed. Do they not deserve a better deal?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Lord speaks with great expertise and makes a very important point. This Government have been taking decisive action to address the building safety crisis so that residents do not need to wait a day longer than necessary to feel safe in their homes. We continue to work closely with industry, local authorities and residents to accelerate remediation efforts while ensuring that those responsible for unsafe buildings cover the costs. On the important point of insurance, work has been ongoing to reduce building insurance premiums for leaseholders. On lending, we have seen improvements for leaseholders who previously found themselves unable to sell or remortgage their homes, but we will remain vigilant and continue to hold the 10 major lenders to account following their commitment to lend on properties even if remediation is not yet complete.