Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill

Debate between Baroness Fox of Buckley and Baroness Scott of Bybrook

Committee stage
Monday 22nd April 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I forgot to declare my interest as a leaseholder. I feel as though I might have to declare an interest to the noble Earl, Lord Devon, as a serf, or at least somebody who is rather pleased that democracy has allowed me to move from that particular interest.

In her response, the Minister said that all this change needs to be managed. In response to my amendment, she said there should not be a ban without due consideration. Fine, but this was a sunset clause in five years; it is hardly rushing it. The endless contributions that have been made suggest that this has been talked about for a very long time. The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, made the point that we can all go back. This sort of response, saying that we need to go slowly and that it needs to be managed, makes it seem a little unclear as to what the Government are responding to. Nobody here is exactly rushing through.

Also, can I have some clarification on the idea of a danger to the supply of new homes? I was glad that the Minister responded to the noble Earl, Lord Devon, saying that there does not appear to be any evidence of that, but she said we had to be careful about a ban without due consideration. She herself said that it could damage the supply of new homes, and to be honest I think that is an unjustified threat—although not by the Minister. I keep hearing this: “If we rush this through, nobody will ever build a flat again. We have a housing crisis; what are we going to do?” I know the developers are saying that, but I was interested in the fact that Lendlease is one of those saying that this may disrupt building supply, but actually it seems to be building away and thriving, with massive developments in Australia, where it is from and where, indeed, there is a form of commonhold of which Lendlease was supportive. It is not going to stop the development of houses. We can build, build, build—just not build, build, build leaseholds, surely.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My response to the noble Earl, Lord Devon, was a response on commonhold. My response to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, was more about the fact that her amendment would just ban the sale of leasehold, which I suggest would give an uncertainty to the market.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, the descriptions that have been put forward—the right reverend Prelate described these thriving communities, which sounded idyllic, and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, talked about making sure that we understood that there might be some bad players but that there are also some very enlightened players—made it sound as though this is really just a question of having the right people in charge, whereas I think it is a systemic problem.

One of the reasons why I am anxious about this is that although it is always nicer to have friendly, non-rip-off freeholders—that is genuinely a positive thing—we should not be grateful that we are not being ripped off in the homes that we live in. The system problem is that people lack autonomy and control over where they live and their destiny. I just throw in that a successful community depends on people retaining their autonomy rather than being grateful that they are being looked after.

What the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, pointed out is incredibly important; the noble Lord, Lord Truscott, also made an excellent speech laying some of this out. There are thriving communities with mixed-use abilities all over the world that do not use leasehold. We are now getting to a point where we are saying, “If we don’t have leasehold here, we’ll never have a local swimming pool and there will be no community centres. What will happen to all the shops?” That is mythological. Although I agree that one needs to look at the complexities, and I for one am actually all for nuance in relation to this and not just blunderbussing away, we should also stop myth-building about the wonders of the system, when in fact the reason why we want enfranchisement in the first place is that when our citizens buy a house they should have control over it. It is their home, and they can work collectively on building the community. At the moment they are denied that, which is why we are trying to tackle the problem of leasehold in the first instance.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions, and I start by thanking especially the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, for Amendment 17, which seeks to amend the description of premises that are excluded from collective enfranchisement rights, where leaseholders would otherwise qualify. I know the amendment is well intentioned, with the aim that there is flexibility to amend the description of exceptions without new primary legislation. The amendment introduces a broad power for Ministers to change fundamental elements of the structure of the regime, which are substantive areas of policy. The Government are already making changes to primary legislation by increasing the non-residential limit from 25% to 50%, following extensive consultation, which is right and proper. The powers in this amendment would affect the very core of the regime and how it is structured rather than amending mere procedural changes.

To make sure that stakeholders have certainty as to how the law will work in practice, changes to the fundamental structure of the statutory regime should be clear and stable. Although the intention behind the amendment is noble, the Government are not able to accept it as it is not proportionate or reasonable for the proper functioning of the regime. It would be a sweeping power to change the fundamental structure of the enfranchisement regime after it has been approved by Parliament.

This amendment would introduce uncertainty into the new system, meaning that both leaseholders and landlords would need to second-guess whether changes may be made at relatively short notice, introducing volatility to the regime. This could potentially lead to undesirable outcomes, such as undermining confidence in long-term investment decisions for mixed use-premises, or lead to irregular design of floor-space in anticipation of future changes. I want to make it clear that the Law Commission has spent years considering qualifying criteria and assessed different options in its consultation process before putting forward its recommendations to increase the non-residential threshold to 50%.

The amendment could also remove rights of leaseholders or landlords in a disproportionate way and create unnecessary uncertainty and divergence likely to complicate the overall regime, with consequential effects on the behaviour of different stakeholders in different ways. Therefore, I hope that I have convinced the noble Baroness that the amendment is not proportionate, and that it is not moved.

I thank my noble friend Lord Sandhurst for Amendment 17A, which would exclude long leases held by overseas companies from being qualifying tenants for the purpose of collective enfranchisement. The Government’s aim is to improve leasehold as a tenure and address the historic imbalance of power between freeholders and leaseholders. The Bill does not confer different rights on leaseholders by how their leases are held. The Government do not think that implementing such a definition, in respect of which leaseholders have rights and which do not, is workable or desirable.

Amending the definition of a qualifying tenant for collective enfranchisement will make it harder for other leaseholders in a building to meet the numbers required to enfranchise, should they so wish. Attempting to restrict some leaseholders may well disenfranchise others, meaning that many leaseholders up and down the country could lose the opportunity to exercise their rights. Furthermore, it would remove the existing rights of some leaseholders and complicate the system overall, contrary to the aims of the Government.

I understand that the intention of the amendment may be to safeguard against circumstances in which non-resident or overseas companies do not take an active interest in the management of a building or are slow to respond. However, we expect that most multi-occupancy buildings will be managed by professional management companies on behalf of freeholders, as they are now.

I thank my noble friend again for the amendment, but I cannot accept it because it runs contrary to the aims of the Government and may restrict leaseholders’ rights. I therefore hope that he is content not to move his amendment.

I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby for speaking on behalf of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, with whom I have had a number of meetings about this issue. I am happy if the right reverend Prelate takes back the fact that I will continue that discussion if the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester so wishes.

I thank my noble friend Lord Moylan for his clause stand part notice. Clause 28 increases the non-residential limit for the collective enfranchisement claims to proceed in mixed-use buildings from 25% to 50%. The clause implements a Law Commission recommendation that has been subject to comprehensive consultation by the Law Commission and the department. I note the right reverend Prelate’s and my noble friend’s concerns, which have been raised through various consultations with freeholders and landlords.

The Bill’s impact assessment considers the impact of increasing the non-residential limit for collective enfranchisement claims, including the potential impact on freeholders, high streets and businesses. The increase to 50% strikes a fair and proportionate balance and will ensure that leaseholders are not unfairly prevented from claiming the right to manage in respect to buildings that are majority residential. It protects the freeholders and commercial leaseholders in buildings that are majority commercial. Freeholders can also protect their commercial interests by taking a leaseback of the commercial unit, securing their interest with a 999-year leaseback at a peppercorn rent.

We recognise the importance of the responsibility of building management and, as I have said, would expect that those who exercise their right to take over their buildings will employ professional managing agents—ensuring that the building is managed with the appropriate expertise, as we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Truscott, about the issues that he is aware of.

The Government consider that this increase is proportionate, and I ask the right reverend Prelate and my noble friend to support Clause 28 standing part of the Bill.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, for Amendment 18, which seeks to apply a residency test to the collective enfranchisement claims in buildings with more than 25% non-residential floorspace. As we have discussed, Clause 28 amends the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 to increase the non-residential limit for collective enfranchisement claims from 25% to 50%.

Clause 28 implements a Law Commission recommendation that seeks to broaden access to collective enfranchisement for leaseholders living in mixed-use buildings where the non-residential elements constitute up to 50% of the floorspace. The existing qualifying criteria require leaseholders representing at least 50% of the flats in a building to participate in a collective enfranchisement claim. When combined with these existing criteria, the noble Lord’s amendment would allow claims only in mixed-use buildings with more than 25% non-residential floorspace, where at least 25% of the flats are owner-occupied.

For leaseholders in mixed-use buildings where less than 25% of the flats are owner-occupied but more than 25% of the floorspace is non-residential, this new clause would have the effect of removing all the benefit of Clause 28. This would leave leaseholders unable to collectively buy the freehold of their building because of how their neighbours chose to use their properties. It would also complicate all claims in buildings with over 25% non-residential floorspace, as participating leaseholders would be required to demonstrate that they are owner-occupiers. This could lead to claims taking longer and costing more, and would provide freeholders with another opportunity to frustrate leaseholders’ right to buy their freehold. This is counter to the Government’s aims in this area to broaden access to collective freehold ownership for all leaseholders, and to simplify, not complicate, the system leaseholders use to do so.

Leasehold Properties: Managing Agents

Debate between Baroness Fox of Buckley and Baroness Scott of Bybrook

Monday 17th July 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, the estate agents Hamptons estimates that England’s leaseholders will collectively pay a crippling £7.6 billion in service charges this year. The Minister will have heard from the individuals. Although it is tempting to say that the case is therefore for statutory regulation of managing agents, could she comment on the real solution, which is that leaseholders should have the right easily to hire and fire managing agents themselves, as suggested by Commonhold Now, and that they should have some control over their own properties?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

The noble Baroness is right. That is exactly why we are looking at a code of conduct, which will have teeth, and the role more widely of leaseholders when we look to the leasehold Bill that will come through.

Residential Leasehold

Debate between Baroness Fox of Buckley and Baroness Scott of Bybrook

Wednesday 17th May 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

No, we do not intend to extend legal aid. For leaseholders who are considering what to do in future, we have made it very clear that it will be in this Parliament, and they just need to wait and take advice at this time until we can get these changes in place.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

What is the Minister’s response to the revelation from the Commonhold Now campaign that, according to polling, 60% of those who voted Conservative in 2019 support the abolition—not the reform—of leasehold? Perhaps that might concentrate minds.

The Minister says that she cannot at the Dispatch Box pre-empt what is in the King’s Speech, but it is at the Dispatch Box here and in the other place that the Minister and the Secretary of State have constantly assured the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, and others that leasehold will be abolished. If it is too difficult for this Government to do, maybe that says more about them than it does about leasehold law.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

We have made it very clear that we wish to extend the benefits of freehold ownership to more home owners. That is why we have committed to ending the sale of new leasehold homes and houses to reinvigorate commonhold, so it can finally be a genuine alternative to leasehold. But, as I have said before, we know that, on commonhold work for flats, the Government, industry and consumers will all need to work together, which is why we established the Commonhold Council to prepare home owners and the market for what we want to do, which is to give this freedom to more home owners.

Leasehold Reform

Debate between Baroness Fox of Buckley and Baroness Scott of Bybrook

Tuesday 6th September 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I think noble Lords will find that every department thinks that its legislation is as important or more important than that of others. But I agree with the noble Lord that these are important pieces of legislation, and I shall talk to Ministers as they come in, and to the department.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I watched all the hustings that have taken place throughout the summer and was reassured by people talking about the need for affordable housing and home ownership as part of democracy, but there was no specific reference to leasehold. Would the Minister try to get the message through to the new Prime Minister that although she may think, as many of us did when we bought our flats, that you are buying into home ownership, actually, if you buy as a leaseholder, you do not own anything—you are just tenants by any other name, with very few rights? Maybe the new Prime Minister does not know the details. I urge the Minister to draw her attention to this very important issue, or it makes the home ownership rhetoric only just that.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I am taking back from this Question a very clear view of what this House wants doing about these leaseholder issues. It was in the Government’s manifesto, and we are due to deliver these changes within this Parliament, but I shall certainly take back the views of this House, which have come across very strongly this afternoon.

Crime, Reoffending and Rehabilitation

Debate between Baroness Fox of Buckley and Baroness Scott of Bybrook

Thursday 30th June 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, it is humbling to follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf. I welcome this important debate, so I have a special thank you for the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, and for his thought-provoking speech. There is so much to say on the topic. I am glad that many have referred to IPPs and that the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, will continue to try to do something about this ongoing blight on the criminal justice system. I hope that imprisonment for public protection sentences will, one day, for ever be gone.

Showing such regard for these or any prisoners can grate with the public. Too often, attempts to raise issues of prison reform can be met with an angry rolling of the eyes. “What about the victims of crime?”, people say. At present, I note that this goes far wider than the hard-line trope to lock them up and throw away the key or a repetition of the myth that prisons are cushy holiday camps. It reflects a larger problem of public despair at the state of criminal justice and the crisis of trust in the UK, in particular with policing.

On the one hand, many citizens feel that the criminal justice system is becoming oppressive and inconsistent in the application of laws over policing and penalising what were erstwhile non-criminal activities—whether that is a protest from the one-man foghorn Steve Bray or those at the Sarah Everard vigil, or the seeming obsession of some police forces with trawling through social media and threatening those who tweet offensive or hateful comments, in their opinion, with criminal sanction.

I also look at the squandering of resources spent on investigating tens of thousands of non-crime hate incidents, despite the fact that these NCHIs have never been voted for by Parliament and have even been declared unlawful by the courts in the Harry Miller case. In 2018, Sara Thornton, the chair of the National Police Chiefs’ Council, stated that the police should

“solve more burglaries and bear down on violence before we make more records of incidents that are not crimes.”

Yet the investigation of these NCHIs continues, while burglaries and violent crime are neglected, and the public feel that they are being ignored. So many feel underprotected by agencies charged with their safety.

As an example, you need look only at the story in the news this week about the release of the report on the Oldham grooming gangs. It is shocking reading and many still feel it is too evasive and a whitewash. Vulnerable young girls, who no one in authority would listen to, were drugged, raped and sexually abused with seeming impunity, as the police and local authorities looked the other way, refusing to investigate for fear of providing

“an opportunity for far-right racist elements to capitalise politically”.

This politicisation of policing adds to a sense of grievance, especially as similar stories have emerged from Rotherham, Rochdale, Telford and so on. This set of failures of the criminal justice agencies to live up to the public’s expectations can breed a wider cynicism about the importance of focusing on the plight of criminals and rehabilitation initiatives. We must not be deterred, but we cannot ignore that either.

I have some points on how we can improve prison life—a vital tool in deterring reoffending, as many have said. I recently visited the new early days centre at HMP Bronzefield, a Sodexo-managed women’s prison for the MoJ. It made a real impact on me: it is a hugely impressive initiative, enthusiastically backed by management and staff, which allows a smooth settlement into custody. This has been shown to have a positive reduction on self-harm, violence and suicide, as the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, explained that these initiatives do. These early days centres really work to cut down the volatility that new prisoners feel when entering the prison estate, allowing them to reach out for help without fear of repercussion, providing access to practical rules and being taught all the ropes of the prison regime by peer mentors.

I met three peer mentors—or young women residents as they were known then, or prisoners now; I cannot keep up—whose dedication to their role was meticulous. Their attention to detail was so impressive and they were organisationally competent. That not only contributed to their accumulation of skills for their own rehabilitation—I hope they might get a job at the MoJ when they are released—but helped to take some of the time burden from hard-pressed officers.

I make special mention here of Michael Campbell-Brown, who arranged over 160 of these specifically trained peer mentors. There are 15 of these early days centres; a new one opened earlier this week at HMP Addiewell, and HMP Peterborough is launching one in its female prison this week. I hope the Minister will back rolling out these programmes far more widely and look at these kinds of innovative new initiatives.

We now understand that setting the right tone at the start of the prison sentence is important, creating a positive contract between prison and prisoner, ensuring that incarceration is not just an extension of a turbulent, fearful and violent life outside. But this can all be undone by the circumstances of release, which so often set people up to fail. All that good work is ruined when prisoners are just dumped into the outside world. Often, those released are given unachievable tasks by probation officers; many are not given travel warrants or means to attend probation meetings and they end up being recalled to prison.

Often the focus of post-prison rehabilitation is on helping prisoners to gain employment, which is a good thing, but there is less focus on leaving jail without accommodation. Tens of thousands leave prison without anywhere to live. Not everyone has a family home to go to. This is crucial, and we know that there is a clear link—

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I remind the noble Baroness of the six-minute limit.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

I apologise. There is a link between homelessness and reoffending. I hope the new Minister, whom I welcome heartily, will look at it too.

Building Safety Bill

Debate between Baroness Fox of Buckley and Baroness Scott of Bybrook

Committee stage
Monday 28th February 2022 Grand Committee

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

Perhaps I should combine my question so that the Minister will not have to stand up twice. Saying that safety comes first and calling somebody a building safety manager does not mean that a building safety manager is going to make a building any safer. I do not think that it is entirely fair to suggest that those of us who are querying some of these things do not care about safety. We would not be sitting in this Committee, I assume, if we did not.

I want it clarified because I liked the Minister’s points about a common-sense approach to safety day by day and about eyes and ears. That all sounds sensible and in some ways I understand that point, but I am confused because it is not clear how many days someone will be there being the eyes and ears. The Minister read out that the competent person will have skills, knowledge and experience, but skills, knowledge and experience of what? It is still not clear. The idea of a volunteer, as described by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, keeping an eye on things—items being broken or the fire door being replaced by B&Q—is slightly different from how it was discussed by the professionals when they were talking about what kind of person would be a building safety manager. They kept saying that they must be competent and experienced with some skills in fire engineering and personnel management because they will have to go around to tell people off. I think that in the end this is a job creation scheme that will not add to the safety of the building, as do many leaseholders, and they are on the receiving end of it.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I find it quite simple really, but then I am a simple person. The accountable officer is the accountable officer responsible for that building or many other buildings in the case of organisations that might have more than one building. They then ask a building safety manager to be there on a much more daily basis and to report back to them on issues within the building that might reflect on its fire or structural safety. Therefore, the skills, knowledge and experience required by such an officer are experience of fire and structural safety in high-rise buildings. We cannot expect the top level to be there day in, day out going around those buildings. How much will be required by each building will depend on that building, I suggest.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Debate between Baroness Fox of Buckley and Baroness Scott of Bybrook

Report stage
Monday 17th January 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

A question was asked earlier about what will happen to people who already have their information—what can we do about that? It is important that drafting takes time; in Committee I spoke about the problem of the drafting of these guidelines and said I wanted good drafting. But I was a bit concerned, as the Minister said that free speech is already protected by the Human Rights Act, but that does not console me because free speech is under attack. We have heard of many instances of where non-crime hate incidents are being used to chill free speech and this—

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I remind the noble Baroness that she should not be speaking if she did not speak before the Minister.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

I did not understand that, and I apologise. The guidelines are reputation destroying and they need to be reviewed.