Leaseholder Remediation (Building Safety) Bill [HL]

Baroness Fox of Buckley Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 11th September 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, on this building safety Bill. I admire it for its hard-line radicalism in firmly establishing that, if a residential leasehold building has serious systemic defects, the leaseholder who did not design, build or sign off the works should not be the person who pays for the clean-up.

One proposed change that is quite radical, as we have heard, is the no minimum height or storey threshold. Although I tend to agree with both the Labour Government and the Tories before them that there are fewer fire safety issues in lower-level buildings, I would rather the law was less rigid about risk assessment than using the tape measure approach and fetishising 11 metres. I also appreciate that the Bill is aiming to expand protections for all leaseholders, when it comes to building safety and regardless of which storey their flat is on.

But I have one concern: could this backfire and share the miseries caused by the building safety regime downwards, even to ground-floor flats? This matters because of the unintended consequences of excessive risk-averse regulations. After the tragedy of Grenfell, there was a rush to caution that was understandable, but that then sometimes led to the law resulting in unnecessary work being commissioned under the banner of safety.

I tried to push back against the “remediation at all costs” mentality driving debates on the then Building Safety Bill. That well-intentioned legislation has created layers and layers of costly bureaucracy—think of Part 4— and has contributed to spiralling and exorbitant service charges and maintenance costs for buildings over 18 metres. This in turn has had a devastating impact on individual leaseholders and even the leasehold property market. According to Hamptons, 37% of England’s leasehold flats have service charges exceeding a threshold at which many mortgage lenders will not lend, leaving affected flats effectively unmortgageable, hard to insure and extremely difficult to sell. Do not let us make lower-storey leasehold flats fall into that sort of quagmire.

I appreciate that this Bill intends to move building safety away from service charge recovery towards a more punitive enforcement mechanism to make developers, construction, the supply chain et cetera pay, but all the time I was reading the Bill I kept considering that the real culprit here is leasehold itself. Indeed, leaseholders want to take responsibility for their own homes, but cannot. You have bought your home, and you assume that you will have control over ensuring it is safe, but then you discover that, due to some feudal legacy, you are a mere tenant in bondage to a landlord or freeholder, dependent on them to decide what actions are needed to keep you and your home safe.

What we really need to do is to end leasehold for good, but we have been talking about abolishing leasehold since the 1880s. The inherent draconian unfairness of the system has been accepted by Ministers from all parties and championed, indeed, so eloquently and frequently by our own Chief Whip—well, when he was in opposition. Abolition was then a totemic commitment of the Labour manifesto, and I was excited. But here we are, depending on the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, to pick up the rotten pieces of another Government reneged-on promise to end what, to be honest, is bleeding people dry and causing widespread misery for millions of householders.

The personal tragedies that this causes are documented very well by groups such as the Free Leaseholders campaign, and it is just shameful. We are reduced to trying to make ever greater numbers of organisations liable for flat safety to take the pressure off leaseholders. Even if this Bill delivers leaseholders better rights—certainly it does on paper—I am worried that its sweeping powers to make everyone else pay will create other regressive social consequences: for example, building owners swamped with information requests; or developers facing pipeline paralysis; or the floodgates being opened to multiple litigation disputes.

At a time when housebuilding numbers are so low—it is actually a crisis that we are not building enough houses—I would like the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, to respond on how she believes we can balance the warning from the law firm Devonshire that some of the sanctions in the Bill will

“grind construction to a halt, put a pause on ongoing work … until every deficit is rectified”.

Is not that just the sort of barrier to growth that we do not need when it comes to urgently needed housebuilding? The country needs that kind of growth to happen.

To finish, as the Bill covers conversions and refurbishments as well, it will not be just big construction but small building firms and contractors as well that could be in scope for blame, and that just worries me.

Housing: National Tenant Body

Baroness Fox of Buckley Excerpts

Thursday 10th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I agree with the noble Baroness. Following the findings of the Grenfell inquiry, it is clear that the social housing system was not fit for purpose and that tenants were ignored. It is quite right that apologies were made, and those failings definitely contributed to the Grenfell tragedy. As the noble Baroness will be aware, we are delivering an extensive programme of reform to drive up standards in social housing through regulation and enforcement. We are about to bring Awaab’s law before the House, strengthening the tenant voice and improving access to redress. Those new standards put the tenant voice at their heart. My understanding is that the tenants themselves were very keen that this be both funded and driven by the sector itself. The Government are very keen to do whatever we can to assist with that.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

I am not usually very keen on quangos, but at the heart of this is the issue of trust. Tenants feel as though they are getting mixed messages: when the Housing Ombudsman suggests something, the Government say it is a good idea but then dilly-dally, and trust is undermined. The Government should be clearer on this. Also, there are issues involving tenants that need a national voice. Could the national body, for example, deal with the challenges of rental properties being turned into houses in multiple occupancy—an issue that I know worries tenants—and with the rumours that Serco is repurposing HMOs for asylum seekers, to replace hotels? I am not saying that is happening, but there is a lack of clarity. Can the Minister clarify this, and does she see the need for a national body that will help reassure tenants, rather than simply being a dead quango?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I can only repeat what I have said: if tenants want this body, we will work with them and do our best to make it happen. I do not think that anyone is dilly-dallying, but it is very important that the tenant voice be made clear in how this is set up, what it will do and how it will move forward. I am very pleased to work on that and to do what I can to move it forward, as I know my fellow Ministers in the department will be. It is particularly important now, given the massive investment the Government are bringing forward in social housing. The Secretary of State has already said that she wants 60% of the housing from that £39 billion to be social housing. We need to move this forward as quickly as possible, so I will do everything I can to move that on.

Holocaust Memorial Bill

Baroness Fox of Buckley Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 11th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Carlile was kind enough to mention that I was a member of the Select Committee that looked into the whole matter of the Holocaust memorial, and security in particular. As the Minister will recall, the Select Committee said:

“We recommend that the Secretary of State gives serious consideration”


to the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Carlile—or something similar—and the promoter, that is the Secretary of State, agreed. Furthermore, and I would very much like the Minister’s reply to this point when he comes to make his final speech, we followed that part in our report by narrating three important recommendations that the promoter accepted. Are these recommendations still accepted?

Going back to the point from the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, we understood that the decision is to be taken under delegation—not by the Secretary of State himself but by a Minister. The recommendations were what the Minister was to do should the planning application come back for decision.

These are important recommendations, because they require a good deal of consultation with people who really know what they are talking about, including the National Protective Security Authority, the Metropolitan Police, the Community Security Trust and others. The next recommendation says:

“The Promoter will make available to MPs and to members of the House of Lords the Promoter’s representations to the Secretary of State”,


and deposit them in the Library of both Houses. Of course, the recommendations fall far short of what the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, recommends, but it is very important that the Minister assures us that those recommendations, which the Secretary of State accepted before us in our inquiry, are still to be respected. I hope that he will do so.

I come back to the Buxton memorial. Of course, it was moved; it used to be in Trafalgar Square, I think. The noble Lord, Lord Reid, is perfectly right that it was moved and taken into the gardens. Under the plan before us, the Buxton memorial is to remain where it was placed. It is not to be moved, but its appearance would be greatly affected, because it would be very close to all the uprights that mark the entrance to the underground memorial. The whole appearance of the Buxton memorial will be completely framed by this new development. It is not a question of moving it; it is concealing it. That is a very important point when we consider the importance of that memorial and what is has to tell us about slavery.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I want very briefly to take on a couple of inferences in what was said by the noble Lords, Lord Evans and Lord Harper. The sentiment was that we must show courage and face down terrorist supporters. Some of us have been arguing that for some time and, to be honest, there has been an almighty silence from many people in Parliament. I just did not like the inference that, somehow, the movers of this amendment were cowering when, in fact, they are the very people who have argued in many instances for fighting back against the antisemitism that has been on our streets. That was my first point.

I also thought that the suggestion that we in Parliament are so brave and can protect the learning centre next door in the park was slightly ill judged, given that Parliament seems increasingly like Fort Knox. We are, in fact, not in a situation where we are all wandering around freely and bravely, yet we are suggesting that we open up the park to the public for a learning centre and that they can just wander in, whereas we need armed guards, big barriers everywhere and so on. It is an unfair and ludicrous comparison.

There will be, and there should be, a memorial in the gardens—everybody agrees with that. It will be a hugely important symbol. The idea that anyone who does not want the learning centre to be there therefore does not want a learning centre misses all of the hours and hours of debates in which we explained where we did want a learning centre—a fitting learning centre—to be. To be honest, the plan for an underground learning centre is rather insulting, in my opinion. We should recognise that the people putting forward this amendment are doing so in good faith, not because they are frightened of terrorist supporters but because they are being sensible about the real consequences of what we are deciding here today.

[Lord Young of Norwood Green (Lab)]

My Lords, I do not doubt that those people are acting in good faith; they just happen to be wrong. I can give noble Lords an assurance that my noble friend will not go home to a divorce tonight if this amendment is not agreed. I respect that he has been a Minister in more senior positions than I can ever aspire to.

Local Authorities (Changes to Years of Ordinary Elections) (England) Order 2025

Baroness Fox of Buckley Excerpts

Monday 24th March 2025 Lords Chamber

My heart would like to support the fatal Motion and, had it been more prompt, there would have been strong reasons and precedent from 2000 to do so, as the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, said, but I am conscious of the conventions of the House and, importantly and practically, that elections must be called tomorrow. It is too late to cancel them now, not just for the parties to get their candidates in place but for the officials who need to book the village halls and staff the count. So I will support the regret Motion, but my biggest regret is that it was, for the most part, my Conservative councillor colleagues who turned into the biggest losers, by conniving with Labour on their own destruction while allowing the Labour Party to pick and choose the elections it does not want to fight.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I support the spirit of all three of these Motions and I especially commend the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lady Pinnock, for making their Motions fatal. I was interested to hear the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, reassure us and tell us, in effect, not to worry our pretty little heads and to stop panicking—he did not use that language, I am. It was then interesting that there was quite a lot of laughter on the Benches opposite; there is this sense of, “What is all the fuss about?” I suggest that this is not a game and it really matters for voters. There is a lot at stake here, not least the reputation of the democratic process.

For the last week or so, Government Ministers have talked about a fictional drama as though it is factual evidence, concluding that a Netflix series should inform policy on countering the radicalisation of young boys, so maybe the Government will accept my factual, if anecdotal, evidence of how the cancellation of council elections is fuelling the radicalising of young people to become cynical about democracy. I was recently giving a talk to a student group about the importance of democratic engagement to a free society, and I was taken aback by just how cynical they were. The majority said, “Democracy is a sham”—that was the popular sentiment. I was even more surprised when their evidence centred on councils, not something that the young generally chat about. One of them summed it up when he said, “They cancelled the Romanian presidential elections and banned the popular candidate from standing. Now our Government have cancelled the council elections because they are scared that austerity Labour will get a drubbing”. Whether we like it or not—and I argued against that slightly conspiratorial tone, by the way—we can see why they might draw that conclusion.

Beyond those young cynics, there is a lot of anger about this issue. Five and a half million people feel that they have had their votes cancelled and they feel cheated. It is being discussed in workplaces, in the pub, on phone-ins and on social media. People will say things like, “There are challenger parties doing well in the polls. They don’t want to see how they get on”. There is a certain volatility around politics at the moment and people want to make their views heard. People are frustrated that, for example, just when voters are facing council tax rises and horrible cuts in local council services, they do not get a chance to comment locally. In rural areas, where those on family farms are so worried about recent policies, so worried that their livelihoods are going to be destroyed, they do not get a chance to vote. We have been told that these are being postponed for only a year, but a lot can happen in a year: in less than a year, some devastating policies have been brought in by the Government that people might have a view on. That will be true as well, so I would rather that people were given a vote, even if then they had to have the election again, than just be told, “Don’t you worry, you’ll get a vote eventually”.

Local issues matter to people. If noble Lords were listening this morning to the discussions on the media about rats as large as cats and the bin strike in Birmingham, they will have heard people passionately talking about what is happening in their local area. We have to understand that people want their voices and their views to count, and many feel robbed by this decision. They do not want to be fobbed off by technical excuses about the importance of devolution and somebody at the top making a decision that will give them more democracy at some time. They are basically being told that voters’ access to the ballot box should be trumped by a policy reorganisation. Also, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, suggests, it seems to make a mockery of the notion that these devolution changes will bring more accountability.

The lack of consultation mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Byford, is especially egregious. Although I have a lot to say on devolution, on these devolutionary forms and their shortcomings, now is not the time and I will not say it now, but I think it would be wrong for the Government not to at least note that people feel that this is a contemptuous disregard for voters’ aspirations to exert their rightful right to vote for or vote out politicians as they choose, as they expected to. They are disappointed and many people are actually looking at parliamentary TV, for once, to see which way we go today. Who would have thought that that would happen? But there you go.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a councillor in Central Bedfordshire who is not participating in this process. I speak in support of the regret Motion tabled by my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook. As chairman of the Local Government Association, I campaigned vigorously for greater devolution, and I am still very supportive of devolution. I also led a unitary council for 10 years and can testify to the benefits of unitary councils. However, if we are genuinely to have devolution and well-run services, it needs to be locally led, with real powers and local accountability. We cannot treat local government as little more than a delivery arm of central government, tied up in regulation, with budget controls and with central targets and funding pots.

When this country saw the biggest improvement in health, education, social support, infrastructure and so forth, it was all locally led. If you go back to the turn of the 20th century, local government was truly empowered, delivering education, health, social care, social support, infrastructure and even gas and water supplies. It was genuinely financially independent of central government. Over the last century, central government has steadily eroded the role of local government, placed more controls and reduced its financial freedoms while increasing burdens on local councils.

I am a believer that form should follow function. We should see real devolution which would enable genuine financial independence from central government, with a much greater role in economic development, community health, education and skills for getting people back to work; this would enable every area to flourish with real levelling up. This is what the Government should have started with, because locally we could have then answered the question of what would be appropriate structures to deliver this. It would also significantly reduce local argument as the prize and objective would have been clear to all.

Instead, we have top-down reorganisation. The Government have been clear that they intend to use their large majority in the other place to force through unitarisation and have mayors across the country. There is a clear message that funding will be tight, so councils will have to make significant savings, which the Government expect to be delivered by unitarisation. It is understandable that, in these circumstances, many councils have concluded that it is better to participate in order to have some control over their destiny and potentially some meagre rewards, rather than be done to by government diktat.

So I have sympathy with those councils that, due to the need to meet a government-imposed timetable, asked for a delay in their elections. But it did not need to be this way. The Government could and should have worked with local government. They should have brought forward real proposals for real devolution with a clear timetable that respected the democratic process. They should have brought forward proposals to address some of the biggest issues in local government, such as social care and SEND. They should have looked at how, by addressing the perverse incentives, the blockages in the system and creating genuine local place-based working, these could have been addressed.

You cannot look at local government reorganisation without looking at, for instance, the healthcare system and how that works. But, no, this Government are favouring imposition over co-operation, avoiding the difficult decisions and not delivering real devolution. That is why I will be supporting by noble friend Lady Scott’s Motion to Regret.

Holocaust Memorial Day

Baroness Fox of Buckley Excerpts

Thursday 13th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, what special maiden speeches we have heard today—I welcome them all. I make special mention of the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Sealand, which is up the road from Buckley, so we are almost neighbours.

Some of my Academy of Ideas colleagues are organising a summer school in July entitled, “Upheaval: Why Politics Needs a New Language”, so I have been thinking a lot about disputes over meanings of words. In this House of late, we have had tortuous debates about the meaning of everything including extremism, hate speech and terrorism. God knows what far right means these days, and some cannot even define what a woman is.

One word that is increasingly becoming unmoored from its meaning is “Holocaust”. The Holocaust is now used as a free-floating catch-all to describe every violent geopolitical event or even general human evil. But my plea is that words matter. Very much in the theme of the spot-on speech from the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, we must insist that the “Holocaust” word refers to a particular unique event in history. The Nazi death camps were not generic; they were part of what camp survivor Elie Wiesel explains:

“The Holocaust was conceived to annihilate the last Jew on the planet”.


Despite this, even Auschwitz—a death camp designed for the genocide of the Jews—has been turned into an all-purpose symbol of human cruelty. UNESCO describes the world heritage site as a universal

“symbol of humanity’s cruelty to its fellow human beings in the 20th century”.

In this way, the Holocaust is being ripped out of its historical context.

Meanwhile, celebrity social justice activist Naomi Klein said the quiet bit out loud in an essay in the Guardian last year. She wrote that we are entering a new intellectual era, one in which people are openly asking if the Holocaust should

“be seen exclusively as a Jewish catastrophe, or something more universal”.

Klein goes on to argue that perhaps the Holocaust was not

“a unique rupture in European history”

but rather

“a homecoming of earlier colonial genocides”.

This anti-western decolonising lexicon should be a red flag. Remember, in the decolonisation narrative, Israel has been identified as the epitome of the colonial settler state and Jews branded as the embodiment of white supremacy who deserve our ire and Hamas’s actions.

Klein also notes that increasingly, people are demanding greater recognition for other groups targeted for extermination by the Nazis, as though this was in any way on a par with the targeting of the whole Jewish race for extermination.

Beyond the Guardian’s comment pages, it seems that, because we live in an era which treats victimhood as a virtue and confers moral authority on it, a queue of identity groups is laying some claim to the Holocaust experience. There even seems to be resentment in that, when Jewish voices demand that we recognise that it was they who were central to the Holocaust, it is treated as though they have been driven by narcissism.

Gradually, this has expanded into demands that any reference to the Holocaust must also mention victims of other international atrocities, whether it is Rwanda, colonial era massacres or, inevitably, contemporary events in the Middle East. The Islamic Human Rights Commission wrote to UK town halls asking them to boycott this year’s Holocaust Memorial Day on the grounds that it is “morally unacceptable” that Gaza is not considered a genocide alongside the Holocaust.

The problem is that wrenching the Holocaust from its historically specific context, in which all are victims, relativises and almost normalises it and renders it banal. One of the most devastating consequences is that it makes it difficult for the public, especially new generations, to understand the true nature of this industrialised act of anti-Semitic barbarism, and to even remember at all that the Jews were the targets. The consequences of this trend, what Brendan O’Neill’s new book, After the Pogrom, calls the “dejudification of the Holocaust”, were more than evident on Holocaust Memorial Day this year. The noble Baroness, Lady Deech, reminded us that a whole swathe of commentators and politicians forgot even to mention the Jews, listing almost everyone else who was killed, apart from the victims: the Jews.

I am not suggesting such errors of omission are conscious acts of erasure. It somehow feels even more chilling that they are more likely examples of unconscious bias and careless forgetting. The problem with relativising the specific Holocaust is that it makes a mockery of “lest we forget”—and we can expect a lot more forgetting if we are not careful.

In my mind, the consequences of this dejudification of the Holocaust is that increasing numbers, especially of young people, do not even recognise when the iconography and language of historic Nazi period Jew hatred rear their ugly heads today. It is always so jolting when I talk to students involved in BDS campaigns and critique their calls for boycotts of Israeli foodstuffs as they wrench them off supermarket shelves, or their demands to blacklist and censor entire countries’ academics, artists, scientists and sportspeople. When, looking at scenes of blood-like red paint daubed on shop fronts, I mention that it echoes 1930s Germany, they look at me blankly.

I rather nervously disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Dubs—I know that is nerve-wracking—about his Elon Musk arm gesture point. Whole swathes of young activists I know have been queuing up to denounce that as a Nazi salute, seeing far-right fascists around every corner. But when the same people see starving, emaciated Jewish hostages paraded, jeered at and humiliated by Jihadi baying mobs, or when they see political activists standing outside UK synagogues screaming “baby killers” at Jews—and those activists are my tribe—suddenly, they get a blind spot and they cannot see any Nazi salutes, symbolism or anything. They do not recognise the dejudification trends of the Holocaust past and their re-emergence today, and that is worrying.

So, how do we counter this fake news of a Jew-light Holocaust? We all reach for more education, but it bodes badly for the educational boasts that the new Holocaust memorial museum next door to Parliament is going to solve it all when, shamefully, our very own Parliament banned a Holocaust memorial exhibition from Westminster Hall because it was too political. I am not Jewish, and it is exactly more politics—political solidarity—that I think we need. It is why I was so pleased that grass-roots campaigners Our Fight UK took the Auschwitz Album, Yad Vashem’s street exhibition, to Parliament Square the weekend before Holocaust Memorial Day. Young people like Miles explained that their aim was to urgently

“inform the public what a”

real

“genocide looks like”,

and centre that on the murder of 6 million Jews.

Our urgent educational and political task must include exposing the rise of the newly powerful forces which are acting to exterminate the Jews now—“Never again” is now. Yes, I mean Hamas, Iran and the Houthis, but closer to home there are the radical Islamists and their numerous apologists, who, if we are honest, are influential in many political, cultural and media institutions. Too many of us look the other way, bite our lips, and will not name and shame. It is about time we spoke up, loudly.

Religious Hate Crime

Baroness Fox of Buckley Excerpts

Tuesday 15th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

Yes.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, can the Minister reassure us that concern about religious hate should not lead to backdoor blasphemy laws or assaults on free speech and legitimate criticism, or even ridicule, of religion? Does the Minister agree that, three years to the day after the brutal murder of Sir David Amess by an Islamist fanatic, it is not helpful when some conflate concerns about Islamism with religious hatred of Muslims? That stirs up tensions too.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, as I said before, a new definition must be given careful consideration so that it considers multiple perspectives and the potential implications for different communities. We are actively considering our approach to Islamophobia, and that includes a definition. I pay tribute to the work of Sir David Amess. Religious hatred should not be allowed to cause violence or damage, and the Government will work to eradicate all forms of it. On the point raised by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, I will speak to my colleagues in the Department for Education to get more clarification.

Recent Home Office statistics show that 71% of hate crimes were Islamophobic or anti-Semitic: 38% of them constituted Islamophobia, while 33% were anti-Semitism. We will look at tackling all religious hatred, and we have to make sure we work on our manifesto to improve monitoring and, I hope, help to alleviate this scourge on our society.

Holocaust Memorial Bill

Baroness Fox of Buckley Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 4th September 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, no one doubts the good intentions of a desire to memorialise and pass on more learning about the Holocaust to new generations. However, I have a lot of sympathy with the concerns articulated so well by the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and her numerous supporters here today. I worry that the project is likely to be counterproductive and divisive, as the noble Lord, Lord Black of Brentwood, has just explained.

Of course we can all support learning, but just repeating the word “learning” does not guarantee learning. Education depends on the content of what is being taught. If this learning centre relativises the Holocaust, you can count me out. But it is difficult to have a serious discussion when we do not know what it is that we are going to be learning. We can all agree on the importance, especially now, of putting the fight against anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial at the heart of our democracy, but to see this as a geographical question rather than a moral one—to think that by placing the learning centre and memorial literally next door to Parliament will solve a problem—seems superficial to say the least, and lacks imagination.

I want us to use our imagination to consider what is being envisaged and to ask whether it matches up. As a visitor arriving at this new learning centre, you might assume that it must be at least as impressive as the superb Holocaust collections at the Imperial War Museum, already praised here today. Surely this new venture will or should be a world-class facility, including perhaps a comprehensive new museum to help people understand Jewish culture and history, with a detailed historic account of the changing forms that Jew-hatred has taken—or maybe not, because then we read those dread words, “high-tech immersive experience”. Those words should send a chill down all our spines. This is little more than a grandiose visitor centre, with limited intellectual depth. How do I know that? Because each visit is expected to last only 45 minutes. What an insult. This is a TikTok version of the Holocaust learning experience.

We then emerge from this underground, fully digital exhibit and face the magnificent site of the non-digital Palace of Westminster. I suppose this is where I worry about the motivations around the location. I worry that we are using the Parliamentary Estate as a prop for a narrative; the creation of an optical link between British democracy and “never again”. I find it somewhat unsettling that we would force visitors’ gaze away from the victims of Nazi extermination and shift it to our own Parliament, as though it was a bulwark against anti-Semitism and genocide. This, uncomfortably, is close to self-congratulatory in tone.

I am usually the kind of person who warns about the fashionable war on the past, with, for example, the decolonisation movement insisting on an entirely negative account of British history and accomplishments. However, the antidote to that trend is not to construct a simplistically positive rendition of history. If this project wants the public to gaze up at the Palace and celebrate the British Parliament as a saviour of the Jews in the Second World War, I find that problematic. I am sure that we do not want to be accused of spreading historic misinformation by forgetting to mention the many obstacles that Parliament put in the way of Jews fleeing fascist Germany, or the well-documented virulent and widespread anti-Semitism in the most senior ranks of the Civil Service at the time, and so on and so forth.

Let us imagine today visitors emerging from the learning centre and looking up from Victoria Tower Gardens to Parliament. What would they see, if we were being honest? This week, they would see a betrayal—British politicians attempting to disarm the Jewish nation after it suffered the worst act of anti-Semitic barbarism since the Holocaust. Turn the gaze the other way: I worry that politicians will look out to Victoria Park Gardens at this new memorial and conclude, complacently, “We built that. It proves that we’re fighting anti-Semitism and, what’s more, we’re now stamping down on far-right bigotry”. So dazzled by its own creation, Parliament will turn a blind eye to the tens of thousands of progressives carrying placards featuring swastikas defiling symbols of Israel, or turn a deaf ear to the ugly pro-Jihadist, anti-Semitic chants in the Westminster vicinity. There is a lot more to fighting anti-Semitism than props. Finding a fitting memorial and a proper way of teaching and learning is not contained within this proposal.

Leaseholders: Management Companies

Baroness Fox of Buckley Excerpts

Monday 20th May 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I disagree with the noble Lord opposite. I think many of those things my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has said have made the Bill, and I know from talking to him that he wishes he had more time and more capacity to do more.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, one pithy slogan that has come from the Government is that those who pay should have a say. I could not agree more. Will the Minister agree that, ultimately, the best solution for giving a say and empowering leaseholders would be ensuring that they have right to manage? I am not going to nag about this Bill, but does the Minister not agree that the best way of empowering for the future would be that all new flats are sold as commonhold or at least with a share of freehold? Even if this Bill cannot deliver because the Minister does not have time, and because of the complications that have been alluded to, would it not be resolved by having a sunset clause that would guarantee that this will happen in the future, so this Bill could at least leave that as its legacy?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I can only reiterate what I have said many times at the Dispatch Box: the Government remain committed to the widespread uptake of commonhold for flats. We have stopped commonhold for houses in this Bill, and we will set out our next steps in due course.

Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill

Baroness Fox of Buckley Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 29th April 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)]

My Lords, my main focus so far has been boosting leaseholder control over service charges by removing barriers to the right to manage. However, we must dramatically reform the law for leaseholders who cannot gain this control and who wish to stand up to their freeholder on service charges. It is positive that the Government are enforcing service charge transparency and disclosure with the new right-to-inform scheme in Part 4, Clause 55, which makes changes to the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, but I believe we need to go further and make it easier for leaseholders to challenge rip-off freeholders with their service charge.

Tribunals are very stressful: they take a long time and often do not have the power to enforce their decisions. This leaves leaseholders in a very strong predicament. Leaseholders normally have to file another application with the county court to get their money back for any overcharging, at least as they see it. My Amendment 78A is all about enforcement and giving teeth to tribunals’ decisions, where it has been determined that the service charges that the leaseholders have paid were not payable or were unreasonably incurred.

Various rules in Parliament have been passed in an attempt to regulate this behaviour of freeholders; again, I mean poor freeholders—the whole market is not like this. Often, these work only when leaseholders have the time, money and energy to enforce them at tribunal, which then is not always guaranteed when residents are up against armies of layers. Freeholders often hold many freeholds and have a big financial backing behind them and can just tire out leaseholders—they can work them into the ground and threaten them with forfeiture, for instance, should something go wrong. The Secretary of State was right to say that we need to put the squeeze on freeholders, but that means making freeholders actually fear leaseholders bringing cases against them at tribunal.

In my Second Reading speech, I mentioned that research from Hamptons has shown that leaseholders paid £7.6 billion in service charges. Many of those service charges were overcharge, and we want to create a situation where leaseholders can fight back. The annual service charge for flats in England and Wales has increased by 8.4% since the beginning quarter of 2023. Around 270,000 leaseholders are now paying more than £5,000 a year in service charges, which could quickly become a second mortgage for many leaseholders.

My Amendment 78A seeks to amend the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 regime for service charge disputes to try to make service charge tribunals against freeholders more serious by taking three important steps. One is by providing an opt-out. At the moment, leaseholders have to sign up for a case to benefit. Even if the tribunal determines that they have been overcharged, unless they have signed up their neighbour may receive a payment but they will not because they did not sign up. That is unfair in modern life: you could be elderly; you could have children; you could just be away when all these things are going on. Your neighbour would receive benefit and you would not, even though you would also have overpaid. That is why we need an opt-out, not an opt-in, to make it more serious.

Secondly, after a successful Section 27A challenge by any leaseholder in a block, the freeholder would be under a duty to account to all leaseholders within a two-month period of the decision being handed down. This means that any money overpaid would have to be paid back within two months, because leaseholders—many of them owning a place for the first time, many of them young people, many of them elderly people on fixed incomes—have paid out this money which they often could not afford. They should get it back in a speedy fashion.

Thirdly, there should be interest after a two-month period if the freeholder has not paid back money owed to the leaseholders. This is to give the sanction some bite and to make sure that a freeholder does not just wait out hapless leaseholders because they have all the power and the financial power.

I would like to see some more action in this Bill to deter and punish bad behaviour by freeholders and ensure that leaseholders can swiftly get their money back where overcharging has been determined by a tribunal. My Amendment 78A gets us closer to that position.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, Amendment 78 is about one part of service charges that sometimes gets neglected: the lack of consultation about major works that remain uncapped, opaque and difficult to challenge. This mainly affects those who have brought homes where the landlord or freeholder is a council. The amendment is also about the failed attempts by the law to help them in the past and whether we can use the Bill to rectify that.

In Committee last Wednesday it was implied that leaseholders are mainly wealthy home owners of luxury flats. These leaseholders deserve fair treatment, however wealthy they are, and they should not be ripped off, but many leaseholders do not fall into that category, with 49% of leaseholders being first-time buyers. We also have right-to-buy leaseholders who bought their own council homes, and leaseholders who bought former council homes because they were cheaper and therefore home ownership was within their grasp, rather than them being priced out of the market. I declare an interest as one of those people.

Leaseholders living in former council homes now face enormous refurbishment bills of tens of thousands of pounds, despite a legal cap being introduced 10 years ago, which is being circumvented by local authorities. The reason for major works is no doubt exacerbated by years of weak investment and cuts. Social housing estates do need to be maintained, and I understand that councils have difficulty doing that. However, neglect builds up and leaseholders end up being the ones who pay the price. The bill for entire blocks has been divided between the local authority and individual leaseholders because council tenants cannot be charged. Therefore, we end up with situations such as that of George and Alma, a couple who were suddenly landed with a £45,000 bill for windows in the roof of the estate, which do not even affect them, making them sick with worry. As has already been discussed, the disrepair that accumulates on estates ends up not just increasing service charges but coming as one large bill. George said, “I pay a service charge and I have not seen any work being done on a yearly basis—then suddenly we get this big bill”.

I am a Haringey leaseholder of a maisonette. I noted one extreme case that came to light during lockdown, when 76 leaseholders in Wood Green were told to find between £56,000 and £118,000 to cover Haringey repairs and improvements. One young woman, when she bought her maisonette in 2015, was told that major works planned would cost £15,000. Instead, after losing her job because of lockdown, she ended up with a bill of £110,000. Another couple, when buying their property, were given an estimated bill for major works of £12,500. Mid-completing buying their house, that had swelled to £25,000 with no explanation whatsoever for the increase, and they could not find out why. There was then stalling for five years, again with no explanation. Haringey then added in some other major works—roofs, windows and door replacements—so now the final bill is a whopping £108,450. To quote them, “We will be ruined”. The bill will be a third of what they paid for their home.

This is happening all over London, and councils’ responses have been complacent. Lambeth Council said: “We appreciate that major works can place a financial burden on leaseholders, which is why we offer a number of repayment options”. However, even those which break it down over five years, for example, which is one of the options available, can almost double some people’s mortgage, and this is even beyond increasing service charges.

--- Later in debate ---

Certainly, if the principle of my amendment is accepted by the Government today—I hope very much that it will and they will be willing to have further discussions about it—perhaps at a later stage we could also look at a slightly different approach in respect of owner-occupied properties in such multi-tenure high-rise buildings.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, my Amendment 104 is very much part of the amendments I have—both today and on other days—that look at the way the law, as it was previously made, might not be doing what it is intended to. I am interested in restoring Section 24 management for leaseholders suffering at the hands of some predatory freeholders, suffering sky-high service charges and run-down buildings—some of the things we have been talking about.

Like many other noble Lords here, I still have the scars from scrutinising the Building Safety Bill when I first arrived here. It was the most hugely complicated piece of legislation, but it went through the House relatively quickly because of the importance of the topic. As I think we are all aware now, that speed probably led to a number of unintended consequences that have since come to light. One surely unintended consequence of the Building Safety Act is the way that its accountable person regime undermined Section 24 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987. Due to the wording of the Act’s accountable person policy, Section 24 court-appointed managers are barred from assuming their duty-holder role. Until that point, these tribunal-backed managers would be entrusted with all of the building’s management, when it was determined that the freeholder could not be trusted to remain in control of a development and leaseholder service charges.

I am not commenting in general on the accountable person policy per se, although there are problems with it. But it is odd that there is such a wide range of entities that can be the accountable person, including leaseholder-controlled resident management companies and right-to-manage companies, yet strangely, the Act prohibits a Section 24 manager from taking on the role, despite the fact that a Section 24 manager would have been appointed by a tribunal panel, which was satisfied that they had the credentials and experience needed to steward a development that had fallen foul of a poor freeholder. I do not understand how this happened, or why.

It is important to note that Section 24 has been a lifeline right for ripped-off leaseholders unable to buy their freehold or claim the right to manage because of costs or strict qualifying criteria. This is an attempt to ensure that Section 24, which is the ultimate backstop scheme, is restored in the Bill, to give leaseholders a clear route to remove freeholders and their management agents if it has been shown that they have actually been ripped off and it is the only route open to them.

This issue came to my attention in February, when Melissa York in the Times reported a devastating story of Canary Riverside in Tower Hamlets. This story really made an impact on me, because there the leaseholders have benefited from court protection, with Section 24 management, since 2016. A Section 24 manager was installed because the freeholder, a Monaco-based billionaire, John Christodoulou, had lost the confidence of the tribunal due to his company’s seeming financial mismanagement and poor estate maintenance. After years of fighting by the leaseholders, in March this year the Upper Tribunal found that the freeholder had used a related firm to overcharge the development by £1 million in secret insurance commissions—the kinds of issues we were discussing earlier today.

Yet despite this and other well-evidenced service charge abuses, and the fact that the leaseholders have benefited from independent Section 24 management, The Times reports that

“an oversight in the new Building Safety Act means the same court that removed his management company could put Christodoulou back in control of service charge moneys and safety works, including £20 million for cladding remediation”.

It seems to me that the Building Safety Act’s seemingly arbitrary exclusion of Section 24 managers from its accountable person regime did not intend to do this, but its effect is that those Canary Riverside leaseholders, among others, are faced with the prospect of their landlord staging a comeback and regaining control over block management, even though the leaseholders’ work over years, accumulating evidence to prove fault, has been accepted at tribunal level. That work is now undermined because a statutory right that leaseholders relied on for years is now blocked by the Act.

This is so frustrating, and it needs to be tackled in Parliament, as the courts are bound by the laws we make here. In December, in the first test case on this—Canary Riverside—the First-tier Tribunal confirmed that the Building Safety Act does not allow a Section 24 manager to be the accountable person. In March the Upper Tribunal agreed. Despite those tribunal decisions going against them, I commend the leaseholders at Canary Riverside, and say all power to them. They are still appealing in order to keep their Section 24 protection.

This is heroic work, which should remind us all of the real-life toll of the sort of issues leaseholders have to take on. They are ordinary people who bought leasehold flats, and who have ended up going in and out of court regularly—and there is not just the toll, but the costs. Nearly £200,000 has been committed in legal fees already. This is a sharp reminder that the unintended consequences of laws we make here can have wide-reaching, even devastating, effects on real people’s real lives.

We need to put right this wrong, here in Parliament, and to use the Bill to do so. The Section 24-accountable persons clash was raised in January with MPs on the Public Bill Committee by Free Leaseholders, End Our Cladding Scandal and Philip Rainey KC, who all drew this to our attention. As a consequence, the MPs Nickie Aiken and Barry Gardiner moved amendments on this issue in the other place. I would really appreciate it if the Minister looked into fixing this, because I do not think it is what we ever intended to do with the Building Safety Act. It is a loophole, and it has the most devastating consequences for leaseholders, which I am sure we could simply put right.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, I admire the persistence of my noble friend Lord Foster of Bath in his indefatigable pursuit of the perhaps unsexy but very important issue of electrical safety defects, as evidenced in his Amendment 95A.

The first group of amendments relates to building safety—a subject that we have debated many times in this Chamber in recent years, following the tragic events of the Grenfell Tower fire. Amendments 82C to 82M, in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, relate to a proposal that higher-risk buildings should have a building trustee. The trustee would be an impartial figure, whose role would be to ensure that the interests, rights and responsibilities of the landlord and leaseholders were balanced, that the building was properly maintained, and that the service charge provided value for money—a practice that exists elsewhere. We find the noble Earl’s proposal interesting, and certainly worthy of consideration in the future. However, it is quite a detailed proposal which may not have the chance to be scrutinised further in the context of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Fox of Buckley]

84: After Clause 69, insert the following new Clause—
“Marketing of residential leasehold property(1) Within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must make regulations to regulate the marketing of residential leasehold property.(2) Regulations under subsection (1) may—(a) require residential leasehold property without a share of the freehold to be marketed and sold as “lease-rental”,(b) require that residential leasehold property without a share of the freehold be advertised with a disclaimer containing the words that “leasehold is a lesser title and management and service charges at this property are controlled by a third-party entity that is not subject to democratic resident control”,(c) provide information about the rights and responsibilities of leaseholders and landlords under a long lease to be given to prospective home buyers by sellers and property agents in the form of a document produced by the Secretary of State or another person,(d) require sellers and property agents to clearly state material information, including lease length, ground rent and service charge, in the marketing of residential leasehold property,(e) define “prospective home buyers”, “sellers” and “property agents”,(f) provide that the document to be given is the version that has effect at the time the requirement applies, and(g) specify cases where the regulations do not apply.(3) Regulations under subsection (1) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would provide for a scheme to regulate the marketing of residential leasehold property. The scheme involves requiring leasehold homes without a share of the freehold to be marketed and sold as “lease-rental”, which adopts a key recommendation of the leasehold report by the House of Commons’ Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee, published on 11 March 2019.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

Last week, after I spoke in the debate, I received a message from someone I know quite well. It said:

“I’m currently in the final stages of trying to buy a leasehold flat and am pretty worried about what I’m getting myself into. The freeholder, a Housing Association, has increased the service charge by 27% since I had my offer accepted and there seems to be nothing to stop them doing so again. They claim they just do it to cover costs … I get the impression this is a rentier business pretending to be something else”.


The aim of the amendment, which in some ways might appear to be quite glib, is that everyone should stop pretending this is something it is not. When you become a leaseholder you are not actually buying a home, and I want to clarify that to say so is mis-selling.

Of course, I am hopeful that the Government will accept my earlier amendment for a sunset clause on leasehold and that commonhold will become the new normal, but in the meantime those buying homes on leasehold should be frankly told what they are buying into. I have noticed in this Committee, and in the wider debate on the issue, that developers and big freehold often defensively retort when we complain about treatment of leaseholders, “You knew you were buying a leasehold property. You knew the rules. Why didn’t you read the small print?” It is a form of victim blaming—“This is what leasehold is”—but it is disingenuous.

I want to tackle that by regulating the marketing of residential leasehold properties so that they are sold as lease rentals, which in fact was a key recommendation of the leasehold report by the House of Commons Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee that was published in March 2019. I stress that when you buy a leasehold property, you think you are buying a house or entering into the home-owning classes. That is how it is sold to us by politicians. For example, a DLUHC spokesperson, defending the mess that is shared ownership, stated:

“Shared ownership has a vital role to play in helping people onto the property ladder, and since 2010 we have delivered 156,800 new shared ownership homes”.


The whole idea, when you buy into shared ownership or you buy a leasehold flat, is that you are joining the property-owning classes. You think of it as the aspiration to own your own home, and all that that entails. That is what you are buying.

We need to consider the ideology of home ownership. I thought about that particularly when watching an excellent lecture entitled “Making our homes our own” by Professor Nicholas Hopkins, a Law Commissioner for property, family and trust law. When you are renting somewhere to live, there is a sense of dependence on a landlord. You have no conception that you own the property, and it is all very clear. I remember my father saying to me, “It’s time to grow up and stop renting”, and eventually I bought a flat—not until I was 40, mind. It was a leasehold flat, and I thought, “I’m all grown up now. I’m taking responsibility. No landlord—it’s up to me”. Little did I know.

When you buy a home, you think you are buying independence, autonomy and control. Yes, it provides greater security, stability and permanence, but what about what Professor Hopkins calls the “x-factor” benefits—the idea that you buy a property, make it your own and personalise it? Do noble Lords remember those symbolic new front doors that everyone put on their council flats after right to buy came in? It was like saying, “I bought mine, so I’ve got a red door”—it meant something. I am not saying that in a sniffy way; it did mean something. It was about saying, “I’m going to take pride in maintaining this. I’m going to improve it”. People were in control over their houses, how and when to dispose of them, and so on—they had taken that grown-up responsibility. The notion that there is no landlord controlling your home is very important, but it is an illusion in relation to leasehold.

When the Commons Select Committee did an inquiry into leasehold in 2018 to 2019, it

“found a system which stacked the odds in the favour of developers, freeholders and managing agents, leaving leaseholders with all the financial responsibilities and without matching safeguards to protect them. Leaseholders were too often treated not as homeowners or customers, but as a source of steady profit”.

That is exactly what it feels like, but they do not tell you that at the estate agents. They do not say that the leasehold form of home ownership means that, while you pay for the maintenance of your home, you have no control over the amount, quality or cost of work undertaken. The whole experience is disempowering. You are being done to—the object of other people’s decisions.

I will give an example. When Storm Eunice battered Britain a few years ago, the roof of one lady’s top-floor two-bedroom leasehold flat started to leak badly. She said that rain was coming down through the light sockets and switches. Most home owners would try to get someone in as soon as possible to identify the leaks and get the problem fixed urgently via a claim on their buildings insurance—there is a storm, there are leaks and it is dangerous, so you get it fixed properly. But, because Liz’s flat is leasehold, she had to rely on a managing agent to sort things out. Despite countless calls and emails, she could not get anything done. Eventually, the water stopped—they stemmed the flow—but that failed and mould started to grow in the increasingly sodden flat, so Liz had to move out. There was more pleading with the managing agent to find suitable temporary accommodation, and eventually they did, albeit to a dodgy area in which Liz said she did not feel safe.

The Minister said earlier that one reason she was nervous about giving consultation rights to leaseholders in relation to local authorities was that the leaseholders might hold up works and that, somehow, the freeholders would be rushing to get them done. Is there a historic example of that ever happening? Generally, what has happened is that leaseholders are in a rush to sort out problems in their own homes and would know how to do so, but the freeholders, or their managing agents, are less inclined to.

Mis-selling leasehold properties as property ownership is, in my opinion, a con in so many ways. People who save hard for a deposit, and who budget and work hard to get a mortgage, see their new home as a financial asset: a home to pass on. But, as Professor Hopkins explains, the effect of leasehold, in essence, is to put financial value in the landlord’s hands at the expense of the leaseholders, and

“the more a person’s home is used as a financial asset to benefit their landlord, the less it is an investment for the individual. The more a leaseholder’s money is providing an investment for their landlord, the less their money is providing an investment for their own future, their family and their next generation”.

So, for leaseholders, the question is: would they buy that flat if their home was actually a source of investment for someone else—a profit for someone else—and not even something they could easily pass on to their family?

When you look in an estate agent’s window, there are two sections: for sale and for rent. There is no mention, under “for sale”, that there is a two-tier system of property and that leaseholders do not get sold their homes outright but are tenants of a freeholder who owns the land. Would-be buyers may hear their solicitors mumble the word “leasehold”, but the implications are not spelled out. For example, Natalie Walton explained in an article that, when she bought her new-build two-bedroom flat in Wakefield for £105,000, she had no idea that, on top of her £1,600 annual service charge—uncapped—her ground rent would be increased every 20 years. She said:

“It’s not easy when you’re a first-time buyer to understand all of the implications of ground rents. I had a copy of the lease but the solicitor didn’t go through any of it with me”.


So, yes, I know that the paperwork exists, but, without signposting it, and a regulated demand for honesty and frankness through the buying and selling process, many more people will be hoodwinked until we get rid of leasehold for good.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Gascoigne (Con)]

My noble friend asks for clarity. I can completely understand some of the circumstances that people face; that is something on which we share the concerns of the noble Baroness in what she is trying to do, and it is something that we will continue to look at—ways of ensuring that people are aware of the information when they are purchasing a property. We will continue to look forward to engaging with all noble Lords in this House. With that reassurance in mind, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, will agree with me that this proposed new clause is not necessary, and I respectfully ask that it is withdrawn.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, the proposed new clause is totally necessary—I disagree with the Minister on that—but I understand the need to withdraw. The only thing that I would just clarify is that all the organisations that are run for leaseholders are no good to people who do not know what a leaseholder is when they buy their flat and then find out that they are leaseholders. You do not think of yourself as a leaseholder; you think that you are a home owner. The only people who call themselves leaseholders any more are activists who have discovered how awful it is to be a leaseholder, who then get a different identity. That is what I am getting at.

The Government’s information is very good, and they should make more of it. That is what the noble Lord, Lord Bailey, was saying—why do they not plaster it around a bit? It is not fair on first-time buyers, who are the people who are being sold out by this. I know that the Government do not want to do that, but they should do something about it. I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment 84 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Fox of Buckley]

85: After Clause 69, insert the following new Clause—
“Prevention of leaseholder abuse in retirement housing(1) Within one year of the passing of this Act, a Minister of the Crown must publish a report assessing the state of the United Kingdom’s retirement leasehold sector with special regard to the treatment of elderly and vulnerable leaseholders.(2) The report must consider whether the government should introduce legislation on retirement housing to address consumer detriment while encouraging downsizing, a larger, healthier retirement housing sector and a better functioning property market.(3) The report must also include—(a) an assessment of the extent to which the following factors harm leaseholders in retirement housing—(i) service charges not subject to resident control;(ii) inability to easily switch managing agents to remove predatory or poorly performing service providers;(iii) license and permission fees;(iv) short leases;(v) shared ownership structures;(vi) exit and event fees;(vii) resale values, and(b) an update on the government’s implementation of the recommendations in the Law Commission report “Event Fees in Retirement Properties”, published on 30 March 2017,(c) the Older People’s Housing Taskforce report and a statement on the government’s implementation of its findings,(d) legislative options to address the significant financial loss and emotional distress of leaseholders in retirement housing and those of their families, and(e) a recommendation as to whether the housing-with-care model, license to occupy schemes and commonhold developments should be promoted by the government as preferred alternatives to leasehold tenure in the retirement sector.”Member's explanatory statement
This new Clause would require a Minister of the Crown to publish a report to establish the experience of leaseholders in retirement housing and to outline legislative options to improve consumer outcomes in this sector.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I am bored of my own voice, too, so bear with me. It is just that I think that this is an important issue. Through this amendment, I am asking the Government to bring out a review of the specific leasehold property market for pensioners and the elderly, which I would have thought would be of particular interest to all of us in this House who might be looking in that market area.

To be serious about it, I became interested in the issue after watching a “Pensioners Against Leasehold” video, one excellent example in a series of investigative campaign films produced by Free Leaseholders. Jane, who presented the video, made me realise that leasehold is especially devastating for those selling their family home and downsizing into a flat then realising that, rather than doing the sensible thing, they have potentially bought into a debt trap. I have just been talking about first-time buyers, and I am now talking about buyers who are very experienced home owners but who are buying into a new type of home. For example, there is Nick from Bournemouth, who is in the film, who bought into a retirement block of 61 flats and who described having a toxic relationship with management agents.

The other reason why I raised this was that the mother of a friend of mine made that big decision to move later in life and into an Anchor property—and Anchor’s motto is “later life is for living”. All I can say is, “If only”. Having made that big decision to move into a special category of living accommodation and selling up her house, she is faced suddenly with huge service charges and the burden of worry. One resident facing all this said, “We just feel as though they’re waiting for us to die, because we’ve become a nuisance”. Somebody else made the point, “The whole point of selling up and moving into this retirement home was because I didn’t want the burden of worrying about things—and now we spend all of our time checking on our management committee, because they keep ripping us off”. So I think there is something going on.

Retirement properties in Britain are typically made up of individual flats with communal areas and access to emergency health support. They are almost always sold as leaseholds by builders, who then sell the freehold to a management company. Those companies are entitled to charge leaseholders fees for upkeep along with ground rent. They are a novel form of tenure, which I am quite enthusiastic about in some ways, but the system is open to misuse—and, over recent years, there have been a number of scandals, suggesting that we need a close look at this sector. It is taken as a given that retirement homes should be granted exemptions from leasehold reforms in a lot of the discussions, but actually a lot of the problems in this sector are created in exactly the same way as leasehold creates problems.

Newspapers have been full of tales of exploitation of those buying retirement homes. They are sometimes seen as easy targets, perhaps because they are older and suffering bereavement or illness. They certainly see these homes as appropriate for the latter part of their life, and we would be scandalised in any other circumstances if older people were being exploited.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, for her Amendment 85, which seeks to commit a Minister of the Crown to publishing a report assessing the state of the UK’s retirement leasehold sector within one year of the passing of this Act.

The Government recognise that leaseholders make up a significant proportion of the retirement sector, and are committed to ensuring that older people have access to the right homes in the right places to suit their needs. That is why the independent Older People’s Housing Taskforce was established in May 2023. The task force has been asked to look at the current supply of older people’s housing, to examine enablers to increase supply and to improve housing options for older people later in life. The task force has been commissioned to run for up to 12 months, and over this period has undertaken extensive engagement with stakeholders and gathered a great deal of evidence to inform its thinking and recommendations. The task force, as we have heard, will make final recommendations to Ministers this summer. I say to noble Lords who say we already have the review that I am not aware of that.

In addition, the Government have previously agreed to implement the majority of the recommendations in the Law Commission’s leasehold retirement event fees report. This includes approving a code of practice as soon as parliamentary time allows, to make event fees fairer and more transparent. The code will set out that these fees should not be charged unexpectedly, and developers and estate agents should make all such fees clear to people before they buy, so that prospective buyers can make an informed decision before forming a financial or emotional attachment to a property.

More widely, the Bill already introduces many elements that will help leaseholders, including those who live in retirement properties. As we move forward, the Government will continue to be mindful of the needs of leaseholders in retirement properties. The Government’s aim is to make sure that older people can live in the homes that suit their needs, help them live healthier lives for longer and, crucially, preserve their independence and their connections to the communities and places they hold dear. To reiterate, we have committed to making event fees fairer and more transparent and will bring forward legislation as soon as parliamentary time allows. With these reassurances in mind, I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, will agree with me that this proposed new clause is no longer necessary, and I ask that the amendment be withdrawn.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

Briefly, I thank those who have spoken, as it is the last group of the day. The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, has made some excellent contributions throughout, but really summed up why I tabled this amendment in the first place. The noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, has obviously been reflecting on this issue too, as has the Minister. Particular thanks go to the noble Lord, Lord Best, who made the speech I wish I had made and obviously understands the issue in far greater depth than I do: I appreciate it. I hope that, none the less, the amendment has been useful in raising the profile of the issue.

I want to clarify one other thing. There is always a danger when we talk about the elderly as vulnerable people who might be preyed upon. We here are in a situation in which we might notice that people who are older can be the most ferocious and active, and not remotely vulnerable. In the film from the Free Leaseholders I was talking about, it was more that the elderly people interviewed said they had made a decision to be less active in fighting for their rights and maybe relax a bit and go into a lovely flat. They then found themselves in a situation where they had to become civil liberties fighters all over again, or lawyers or whatever, and that took up all their time and drained them. I do not want to want in any way to sound patronising. I want the sector to grow, but I do not think it will with leasehold. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 85 withdrawn.

Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill

Baroness Fox of Buckley Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 24th April 2024 Lords Chamber

Amendment 41 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Borwick, which would give a fixed formula based on the bank rate, appears attractive at first sight, except that no one can possibly know where the rank rate will be in the future. It looks too high at the moment, and the bank rate plus 5% looks overly generous. If the noble Lord can later advise the Committee on where investors can currently achieve certain returns of over 10%, I would be very grateful.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Truscott, explained very well what I would have liked to say, so “hear, hear” to that. I was beginning to worry that the debate might be getting a bit dull—until the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, spoke. He so infuriated me that I feel I have to say something. I am not able to stay for the rest of the evening, but I wanted to clarify a number of things.

It is true that there are some people who own lease- hold flats who are not poverty stricken, but the characterisation of the 5 million leaseholders in this country as wealthy is ludicrous. The main reason why people—certainly me—are forced to buy leasehold flats is that they are cheaper than non-leasehold flats. As I will indicate in an amendment to be discussed on the next day in Committee, very few of us were originally aware of what a leasehold meant. We thought that we were entering into the housing market and buying a house, having saved up very hard to do so, without realising that we were, in effect, pseudo-tenants with very few rights. That has all been discussed often in this House.

The other thing that I wanted to clarify—I hinted at it, and it will come up again—is the notion that any charity that is a freeholder is doing good in the world; that strikes me as at least open to question. Many of the problems that leaseholders face are due to their being local authority—local authorities are not charities, but there are real problems with local authority flats. Also, housing association leaseholders have endured incredible problems with how the leasehold is set up. It is not appropriate to assume that, because charities say that they are doing charitable work, they are not accountable for some of the uncharitable consequences of the fact that they are, in effect, freeholders making a huge amount of money out of leaseholders.

In that sense, what really wound me up was the idea of this being a limitless expropriation scheme. Leaseholders have felt for some time that they are on the receiving end of a limitless expropriation scheme. The reason why this Bill is here and why people across the political parties, from right to left and in between, are so committed to tackling leasehold is that the inequity is in that capacity to expropriate, via the service charge, ground rent and so on. It means that leaseholders feel there is no way to defend themselves against a freeholder who can just take, take, take. Having paid quite a lot in service charges, I know that you do not necessarily get a service and there is not very much you can do about it, which is what the Bill is trying to address. I am pleased that the Government are addressing this, although they are not going far enough.

This is whipping up a climate of fear, and the notion that mad socialists are going around stealing property from freeholders is absolutely mythical. It is very important that we do not allow myths to emerge in the midst of this discussion, and that we have a proportionate sense of how to respond. I do not think that all freeholders are evil, but the system is iniquitous. I mentioned before that it has taken a few years of me being here to hear so much enthusiasm for feudalism, but it seems to be coming up again. It might make it difficult to untangle the law—as the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, explained, this goes back many hundreds of years—and I am not trying to be glib, but there have been a lot of commissions looking into this. However, it is not appropriate to sing the virtues of feudalism, either. Feudal property rights are not in the interest of modern democrats, whether they are on the left or the right. The idea that this is the equivalent of the difficulties of expropriating from Putin does not make any sense.

As to the European Court of Human Rights: the irony of the position of Conservative Peers! By the way, I am one of the people who would leave the ECHR— I know everyone here will hiss and boo when I say that —because I do not think it should determine the decisions we make in this or the other House. But Conservative Peers, who would otherwise say that the European Court of Human Rights is unreliable, defending it for hedge fund managers is ludicrous. Freeholders are not necessarily virtuous, benevolent, benign landowners; some are, but most are money-making rentiers. It is actually a criticism of the failures of capitalism that the only way anyone thinks they can make money is by ripping off leaseholders—and then describing them as rich, just because they have got a decent flat. Noble Lords get the gist.

[Lord Sentamu (CB)]

My Lords, I remind the noble Baroness, in light of what she has just said, that it was in this place in 1215 that the barons said to the King, “This is the Magna Carta”. This principle was established and made very clear that a person’s property could not be seized by the King, except by the lawful judgment of his Peers over the law of the land. The assumption is that if you take the property, compensation must follow, even if you are taking such property because you want to convert some or all of it into leaseholds, so that they too can become owners. The Magna Carta will tell you, “Have you forgotten your history? Have you forgotten your law?” The rule of law in this country is what gives us liberty. It is not just a question of the European Court of Human Rights; it is also Magna Carta, which is really the foundation of all these things. To seize somebody’s property, even by an Act of Parliament, would go against the whole reason why Magna Carta came out and gave us the rule of law, in the end.

Let us be very careful in this Bill. If you take away somebody’s property without compensating them, those barons from 1215 will be rising up and saying, “Remember your history, remember your law, remember the tradition that it has created, and safeguard it”.

I do not think that freeholders are simply wanting to hold on to things, in the way that the noble Baroness described some of them, or are not doing any good charitable thing. I live in Berwick in Northumberland, and the duke there has plenty of other things. I have also seen some of the charity work that is being done.

Let us not use language and words because we are enthusiastic in one direction or another and ignore the Magna Carta. It is what has given freedom and liberty even to newcomers such as me. My friends, the rule of law cannot ever simply be brushed aside because of a desire to correct a particular question. The rule of law matters. The Magna Carta matters.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Howard of Rising (Con)]

I thank the Minister for her comments. On human rights, I neither supported nor did not support them; I commented that human rights will prove a fortune for lawyers, as they argue for years and years over whether assets have been expropriated fairly or unfairly. The Minister referred to complexity; that really will bring complexity to what is at present a relatively simple situation.

When everybody is talking about this and how unfair it is on leaseholders, we should also remember that all a leasehold is is a discount on the freehold value. Somebody has paid less for that asset than they would have done had it been a freehold. If you take that logic to its full extension, why not go to the motor car industry, for example, and say that everybody who has bought their car on hire purchase should be able to have it without having to pay any more? They bought it under certain terms, as the leaseholder did—

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

I suggest that one of the problems is that those who buy cars under hire purchase do not think that they are buying the car to own it. One clarification that has emerged only recently is that most people did not know when they bought a home, advertised as being sold to them, that the lease was a hire-purchase arrangement. I hope that is one of the things being clarified by this law.