Flood Plains: Housing Development

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Thursday 24th June 2021 Grand Committee

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP) [V]]

My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, my friend from the other side of the Chamber. I support what she and the noble Lords, Lord Whitty and Lord Kirkhope, said. Quite honestly, it is ridiculous that anybody builds on flood plains. I could understand it if we were skilled at building on stilts, an idea alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, and skilled at accessing places on water, but building the sort of houses we build on flood plains is madness.

We all know that flooding is becoming increasingly severe and is expected to get worse and worse as climate change worsens. The Climate Change Committee warned just last week that the climate is changing,

“as studies into extreme weather events show that human-induced climate change has increased the likelihood of some observed UK precipitation extreme events linked to significant flooding impacts.”

That basically means there will be more flash floods as rain hits us harder and faster than we are used to, so we are likely to see more flooding. The Environment Agency has estimated that the number of houses built on flood-risk areas will double to 1 million homes in the next 50 years, and I think that will be a gross underestimation unless the Government change something quickly.

One argument the Secretary of State for Housing, Robert Jenrick, put forward for building all these new homes was that it would help young people on to the housing ladder. I do not know how many young people can afford a house in the south-east of England, but I suspect not very many. Of course, developers do not care. They get the money for the houses regardless; they just want to build as many homes as they possibly can as quickly and as cheaply as they can.

The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, talked about starter homes, community land trusts and affordable homes. These are options we must look into and be more serious about. For some reason, although the Government talk about them and set up ways to have them, they never seem to happen. We cannot solve Britain’s housing crisis—it is not just in Yorkshire but is a national crisis—by building shoddy homes in dangerous places, which is what this is. We need high-quality, safe, energy-efficient homes situated in ecologically sound places. That means that they stay dry. If the Government live up to their stated environmental ambitions or have the slightest bit of common sense, the way forward is obvious: we simply do not build on flood plains.

This should not even be a debate. I hope the Minister will state the obvious today— that will not happen—but I fear we will get some woolly answer about consultations and things happening in due course. It is a national problem that we cannot fix once these houses are built, because they will not be safe, dry or good to live in and, as several noble Lords have already said, it will be impossible to insure them. Once again, the Government are building for failure, and I do not understand why any Government would do that.

Private Landlords: Tenants with Pets

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Tuesday 15th June 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, we are happy to look at any ideas that encourage wider pet ownership, and I will certainly take that back to the department to consider.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

The Minister keeps talking about encouraging flat owners to do the right thing and allow pets, but he did not answer the question put by the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler: what are you actually doing to encourage this?

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, we have set out a model tenancy agreement that encourages wider pet ownership. It also ensures that the landlord must give a clear reason why they will not accept a pet. This agreement strikes a balance between making it easier for responsible tenants to keep pets and ensuring that landlords are not forced to accept them.

Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Bill [HL]

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 14th June 2021 Grand Committee

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP) [V]]

I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, on her clear exposition of her very sensible amendments. It is obvious to everybody that rogue landlords have an easy ride in this country. It is far too easy for such unscrupulous landlords to get away with far too much, and that extends to freeholders abusing leaseholders with exploitative ground rents. In shorthold tenancies, a lot of wrongdoing occurs unintentionally by uninformed or incompetent landlords, but that is not the case in freeholder-leaseholder relationships, where the freeholder is usually a big corporate entity that is professionally managed and legally advised. For that reason, any breach of this Bill is likely to be wilful, intentionally exploitative and involve large sums of money.

It is obvious, then, that the penalties currently contained in the Bill are paltry and unsuitable to deter or to punish the criminal behaviour. As a proportion of these massive landowners’ revenues and profits, a minimum penalty of £500 is irrelevant. I would much rather see financial sanctions on companies being similar to those under the data protection laws, which specify penalties as a percentage of a company’s global turnover. That is how you get companies to sit up and pay attention. At the very least, these penalties should be much higher than they are in the Bill. I am sure that the Government know that, so I have no idea why they chose this figure of £500, which is absolutely ludicrous.

[Lord Stunell (LD) [V]]

My Lords, as my noble friend Lady Grender has clearly set out, the current provisions in the Bill to enforce compliance by those who are determined to do wrong will not work, and that view has been strongly supported by the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, and by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. The three reasons for that are quite clear: the penalties themselves are trivial; the enforcement system will be ineffective; and rogue landlords will prosper.

First, the penalties themselves are trivial. The noble Lord, Lord Naseby, has made the point perhaps better than I can, but in many cases £500 will be less than the current annual leaseholder charge. Indeed, with escalation clauses in place, over the lifetime of the lease £500 might be seen as very small change indeed. The case for making these penalties bite is overwhelming, simply because the unscrupulous who carry on as though the law has not changed will readily write off these penalties as essentially meaningless. I shall not engage in a bidding war with the noble Lord as to how high we should go, but each of us in our different ways would make the point that £500 is nowhere near enough to be effective as a deterrent.

It is not just nowhere near enough to be effective as a deterrent; it is not anywhere near enough to pay for a sound enforcement policy. The enforcement system will be ineffective. It is supposed to be paid for by the pitifully small fines, which will be paid not by all those who offend but all those who are successfully prosecuted—only those fines will contribute to the funding of the trading standards department. It will therefore be the case that the trading standards department exercises passive power only, exercised, if at all, only when a big fuss is made about a particular case, perhaps by a local councillor or an MP.

It is extremely doubtful that any responsible financial officer of a local authority, when building a budget for the next year, would authorise the recruitment of staff to enforce legislation on the basis that it would be funded by £500 for each case that is won. Of course, it would need recruitment of staff because, as my noble friend Lady Grender pointed out, there has been a 50% reduction in staff in trading standards over the past decade and a loss of skills to go along with that. This new burden, to be dealt with effectively, would have to have additional resources. I am sure that the Minister is not content simply to put in place a deliberate paper tiger of enforcement—unless that does in fact suit the Government’s purpose: something that looks okay in the Bill but about which their landlord friends can be told, “Don’t worry, just keep your head down and carry on.”

That brings me to Amendment 16, to which I have added my name. We have to stop rogue landlords prospering. Of course, they already do prosper, and that is what the Bill is all about: stopping abuses or restricting behaviour which, though lawful, ought not to be. Those with a great deal of power in a contractual relationship, the landlords, are imposing oppressive terms on those with very little power, the leaseholders. And those who impose the most care the least. Rogue landlords will weigh up the risks and rewards and reach a commercial judgment. They can easily afford to treat the penalty system as a small marginal cost as it stands; they know it will not even cost them £500 per breach but only £500 per breach which leads to a successful prosecution—that is quite a different thing.

That successful prosecution will be rare without Amendments 14 and 15, which seek to generate the money for there to be a team of people who can enforce it. That is where the importance of Amendment 16 lies, in introducing an effective banning order regime. Only with a clear process for banning repeat offenders, driving them out of the market, can the stakes be raised sufficiently high to deter rogue landlords and, in the most egregious cases, drive them out of business.

I want to hear the Minister say to your Lordships that he genuinely wants this Bill to deliver an effective regime of penalties and punishments that will safeguard the good intentions of this legislation against the small minority of unscrupulous landlords who seek to bypass it and who continue to exploit leaseholders regardless. One way the Minister can do that is by accepting these three amendments. The Bill as drafted certainly does not give us those assurances. If he does not accept the amendments, he surely has a duty to your Lordships, and to leaseholders themselves, to explain what alternative mechanisms he proposes to put in their place instead.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]]

My Lords, I support Amendment 19, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Lord Lennie, and Amendment 20, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock.

Like other noble Lords, I pay tribute to the 72 people who lost their lives in the Grenfell tragedy some four years ago. There have been many lessons from that tragedy for housing management purposes, and I hope that the Government and housing organisations learn much from them.

As it currently stands, this legislation will undoubtedly have a potential long-term financial impact for existing long-term leaseholders, as they will be excluded from it. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, who said that, while the legislation is welcome—I definitely welcome it, and the Northern Ireland devolved authorities introduced similar legislation—it barely scratches the surface. There is no doubt that existing leaseholders will have to pay onerous ground rents with no sense of freehold. Amendment 18, which the noble Lord did not move, referred specifically to the need to remove ground rent for all leaseholders.

This legislation is quite limited and the Government have promised other legislation. When will that be brought forward? Can the Minister give us a revised timeframe with exact dates therein? The delay in bringing forward this limited legislation and the need for other aspects in relation to enfranchisement were raised at Second Reading and again today. I welcome the Bill’s proposals, but I feel that enacting the amendments would ensure that the Government could bring forward legislation at a later stage and provide the important financial assessment on the holders of long leases that is urgently required.

To introduce fairness and equity into the property market, the new clause introduced by Amendment 19 should be accepted by the Government to ensure that an assessment takes place of the financial impact for tenants in long leases of dwellings that examines lease forfeiture, transfer fees, redress schemes and enfranchisement. The Law Commission report made recommendations in respect of enfranchisement following promises by Theresa May’s Government in 2017 to tackle unfair and unreasonable abuses of leasehold, particularly the sale of new leasehold houses and onerous ground rents. With the legislation applying only to new leases, why are the Government allowing developers to exploit home owners through exorbitant ground rents? Why the piecemeal approach to this legislation? Why did the Government not bring forward more comprehensive legislation?

I believe the Government should accept Amendment 19. If enacted, it would enable the Government to have an assessment of the current housing situation to indicate whether further legislation to ameliorate the situation is required. I fully agree with Amendment 20, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, which tries to help those facing fire remediation work. Again, I think of the whole area of Grenfell.

There is also a view in some quarters, particularly in the management of the property sector, that the government impact assessment accompanying this Bill demonstrates the negative impact of this legislation on the housing market: increasing house prices and creating more barriers to entry for consumers trying to get on to the property ladder. It has been suggested that, without proper and careful consideration of the detail and, in particular, the effects of these changes on apartment buildings, this legislation could have far-reaching implications across a range of issues, including building management, accountability and, crucially, the safety of apartment buildings. This is on top of the immediate impacts on the price of flats and the ability of prospective owners to buy new builds, which have been revealed in the impact assessment. Would it be possible for the Minister to comment on these observations in relation to the management of the property sector? Do the Government have any solutions in mind?

I look forward to the Minister’s answers to all these questions. I support the amendments in the names of my noble friends Lord Lennie and Lord Kennedy of Southwark, and of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP) [V]]

My Lords, I regret to say that I found the Minister’s rejection of the previous group of amendments extremely thin. I have always been puzzled why, when we have so many experts in your Lordships’ House—I do not include myself in that number—the Government would not listen to common sense and accept amendments that would have an impact and massively improve the legislation. I very much hope that we will bring these amendments back on Report and win a majority of the House round, so that the Government have to listen and improve the legislation, which is extremely thin.

When I was on the London Assembly, I was chair of the housing committee at one time. Just a few years before Grenfell we had a very similar incident in the area I lived in. Because it was so close to me, I was able to visit the block and see the problems. The housing committee wrote a short report and, although very short, the things we found wrong with the building—Lakanal, down in Camberwell—were almost exactly the same things that went wrong at Grenfell. We could have learned from Lakanal; we could learn from Grenfell and the awful death toll experienced there. We have to say that we cannot let people get away with making the same mistakes again and again.

It is welcome that the Bill bans exploitative ground rents in new leases, but it offers absolutely nothing to the thousands of leaseholders already trapped in exploitative ground rent arrangements. I think in particular of the dreadful time that the thousands of residents in hundreds of flammable apartment blocks are currently experiencing. Again, I do not live in such a block and do not have a vested interest. There is sheer chaos and uncertainty, particularly in blocks recently deemed safe but which have since been re-categorised as dangerous and needing expensive remedial work. Many of these blocks now need waking watches to patrol 24 hours a day—a little bit like in your Lordships’ House—and ensure that the building is evacuated in the event of fire. Fire systems that were previously deemed state of the art are now considered woefully inadequate and have to be totally replaced, so that every single apartment unit is individually alarmed.

Rogue Landlords Register

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Wednesday 26th May 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, the majority of private rented sector landlords provide decent and well-maintained homes; in fact, the proportion of non-decent homes has declined dramatically from 41% in 2009 to 23% in 2019. We have committed to exploring the merits of introducing a national landlord register and we will engage with a range of stakeholders across the sector to understand the benefits of different options for introducing one.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

That was a complacent answer from the Minister because this has been going on for a long time, and a national register would be an excellent thing. After hearing this debate, how much urgency will the Minister put into speeding up the introduction of that register?

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

There is no complacency; I am merely outlining that we are considering the introduction of the register as part of our commitment to introduce a White Paper in the autumn. That will contain a number of measures designed to redress the balance between landlord and tenant.

Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Bill [HL]

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Monday 24th May 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. It is of course a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra. I will sign his amendment to make all ground rents peppercorns, so I ask him to get it tabled as soon as possible.

Many years ago, when I was on the London Assembly and sitting on the housing committee, an officer from Newham Council said that there are many more incompetent amateur landlords than rogue landlords, and plenty of rogue letting agents managing properties poorly on their behalf. In fact, the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, said that much more forcefully. Personally, as a feudal serf of Lambeth Council—albeit that I own my flat, to which it holds the leasehold—I would like to say that not all leaseholders are incompetent; Lambeth Council is superb.

But when we do have rogues and incompetents, councils are hopelessly underresourced to tackle them. I am concerned that the Bill adds more statutory enforcement powers to local authorities without any corresponding increase in funding for them to carry out those functions. Enforcement officers are inevitably faced with choices about which issues to prioritise and will usually have to focus on the worst cases. I noted what the Minister said about being able to recoup costs and that sort of thing, but that sounds to me like a complete failure. The Government need to start seeing housing enforcement as an investment in levelling up the country’s housing stock. Those bad or incompetent landlords act as a drag on our housing. They suck up scarce housing supply, they fail to invest to maintain it and then they sell it back to renters at unjustifiable rates. Local authorities are on the front line in tackling that problem but, without a significant uplift in their resources, they will continue to struggle.

Ground rents on long leases are inherently exploitative, and the Bill recognises that. The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, called it a timid Bill. I sense that he will probably not vote against it, but the fact is that it needs updating and improvement. It acts only on future leases, as other noble Lords have mentioned. We need to think about what will happen to leases that people are tied into that could last anywhere from 100 to 1,000 years. People are already seeing spiralling ground rents. Although there is a legal process to challenge this, it is quite difficult. For example, there are supermarket companies which own the land on which a block of flats is built, with the supermarket on the ground floor. We have seen cases where the supermarket then uses the leases of the flats as cash machines to fund improvements that really benefit only the supermarket company and, because they have some negligible benefit to the owners of the flats, it becomes very difficult to challenge. It is wrong for people’s homes to be used to subsidise big business like that.

There is a notable exception to this exploitation of leaseholders, and I am very pleased that the Government have included it as an exemption in the Bill. That is the exemption for community housing leases where the landlord is a community land trust or a co-operative society. That is an excellent thing to put in the Bill. As community land trusts and co-operatives exist to serve their community and their members, the usual exploitative nature of the landlord/tenant relationship falls away. There are housing models that should be encouraged, and I should be very happy if the Minister would share his thoughts and plans to support community land trusts and co-operatives to tackle Britain’s housing crisis.

I must say that I am really looking forward to Committee, because noble Lords who have already spoken in this debate brought up a host of issues that will clearly mean a lot of wonderful amendments to the Bill to make it the best Bill it could possibly be—and obviously that will be very exciting.

Tower Blocks: Cladding

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Wednesday 12th May 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, mentioned the fact that the Prime Minister has not honoured his promise so far on this issue. Is there anybody in government or in the wider Conservative Party who can either make the Prime Minister honour his promises or stop him making any further false promises?

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

I simply do not accept that personal attack on the Prime Minister. This is a Prime Minister who has committed an unprecedented sum of money. Let us remember that, when I took office, only £600 million had been committed to the remediation of unsafe cladding. In the first Budget in his time as Prime Minister, £1 billion was committed—and now a further £3.5 billion. This is a Prime Minister committed to ensuring that the tragedy of Grenfell Tower never happens again.

Leaseholders and Property Management Companies

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Thursday 29th April 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, the Government have already put an unprecedented sum of money—over £5 billion—on the table to support the remediation of unsafe cladding. We made it very clear that the steps that we are taking can be covered without statutory intervention.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I declare my interests as in the register. If a company knowingly supplies substandard goods and dozens of people die because of it, but the company walks away with billions of pounds of profit without renovating or replacing all the other substandard products that they have already put in place, is that just good business practice?

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

Clearly not, my Lords.

Planning: Net Zero Emissions Targets

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Monday 19th April 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, national planning policy statements are a matter for the relevant Secretary of State, but I would point out that Project Speed is at the moment reviewing national infrastructure planning reform and ensuring that we build projects faster, better and, of course, greener.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, it is obvious to me from my own experience as a councillor, and from speaking to planning experts and local planning inspectorates, that they just do not have good enough, strong enough guidance from the Government. I accept what the Minister says about the review but, quite honestly, writing better information for planning inspectorates is vital. We are going to be very embarrassed at COP 26 if we do not get to grips with this.

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, we believe that the current National Planning Policy Framework is clear on how planning plays an important part, but we will look to ensure that the guidance is optimised for our planning inspectors, who play an important role in ensuring that we reach the net-zero economy that we all want.

Non-Domestic Rating (Lists) (No. 2) Bill

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading (Hansard) & 2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 18th January 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP) [V]]

My Lords, I welcome both these pieces of legislation. They seem an odd coupling, though, so I hope that the Minister will manage to separate out all the comments on the two. I declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

First, I want to talk about taxing online businesses. They were already outdoing physical businesses before the pandemic, but now, our rapid transition to a digital life over the past 12 months has concentrated commerce into a very small number of online businesses while small high street businesses are really struggling—much more than they did before. It is obvious that we need some sort of online sales tax so that online businesses do not have unfair tax advantages relative to physical businesses. The revenue should go to the local authority of the delivery address. It is a real pity that the Bill does not include such a measure, because this is an opportunity not to moan but to encourage local businesses, which is what we should be doing.

It is good that the Government are finally delivering on their promise to scrap business rates for public toilets. Public toilets are important for everyone but they are especially important for people who might need to use the bathroom more due to age, illness, disability and a whole host of other reasons. Should we be doing more to support their provision? Rather than just scrapping business rates, we could employ a negative rate so that public toilets could earn a rebate based on their rateable value. Businesses and premises that allow the public to use their toilet for free—that is, without needing to buy anything—would therefore benefit. The Explanatory Notes give the example of a toilet in a library premises not being eligible for the zero rate. This is a missed opportunity to encourage more premises to make their toilets readily available to the public. Of course, if, like the Victorians, we were prepared to build new public toilets—or even open the Victorian ones—we would not need to do this.

Finally, I shall talk more broadly about the old system of land taxation. It is a long-standing and fundamental policy for the Green Party that all land should be subject to a land value tax, which would share the unearned value of land use among the community. A policy of taxing land value would act as an incentive to encourage good stewardship and to reduce corporate land ownership—and, of course, the practice of land banking. It would encourage the best use of all land, compatible with the agreed permitted use, encouraging urban land to be used to its full extent and discouraging land ownership for investment purposes only.

A policy of taxing land value would bring many benefits to a large majority of the population, whether urban or rural, including owner-occupiers in small or medium plots and those who do not own land. Taxing land value thus contributes to the creation of a decentralised and sustainable society. Eliminating speculation in land and stabilising prices should make land more available at cheaper prices, enabling more workers’ co-operatives, small-scale enterprises and other community ventures to flourish.

The key difference of a land value tax compared to business rates and council tax is that the tax is levied on the unimproved value of the land itself, not the rentable value of the buildings placed on that land. The level at which the tax would be levied would be based on the full value of the current permitted use of the land, so permitted use would mean, for example, that the taxable value of land deemed by the community to have special amenity or habitat value would inhibit use for a possible greater financial return. When it is considered desirable to change the use through the land use planning framework, this new permitted use would then form the basis of the assessment, so communities would be able to keep what they see as valuable land, which might be open space or habitat for animals, without incurring huge costs.

I would love to hear the Minister’s views on land value tax and for him to take the issue away to explore further with officials. We should be taking a much deeper, longer-term look at reforming the whole of land taxes in this country. This is perhaps not the moment—but if not now, when?

Housing: Leasehold

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Tuesday 5th January 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, I assure my noble friend that some of the “fleecehold” practices that we have seen around ground rent escalations are absolutely abhorrent. That is one of the things that the Competition and Markets Authority is looking at, and I take my noble friend’s point very seriously indeed.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP) [V]]

My Lords, can the Minister confirm two things: first, that reform of leasehold means moving towards commonhold, and secondly, that the reforms will exempt community land trusts, which use this system in a very productive way?

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, I will not make such a statement today in the House but a statement will be made very shortly. Community land trusts are a separate policy matter. I agree with the noble Baroness that community land trusts are a way forward—not always the right way but one way to use land for the benefit of a particular community.