Council Tax

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Tuesday 19th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, it is quite a stretch from council tax to farmers’ inheritance tax. However, we are listening closely to farmers’ concerns. In fact, the Environment Secretary met the NFU to clarify the changes in the Budget, and he met representatives again yesterday. The approach we have taken is fair and balanced, and the majority of farms will remain unaffected. Currently, 40% of agricultural property relief goes to 7% of the wealthiest claimants. That is not fair or sustainable and has been used by some to avoid inheritance tax. That is why we are maintaining the 100% relief up to £1 million and 50% after, which is an effective 20% tax rate, half the normal 40% rate. We have ensured that tax due can be paid over a 10-year period, interest free, and if land is transferred seven years before death then farmers pay no inheritance tax. I am assured that my colleague the Secretary of State for the Environment is listening to farmers and will continue to do so.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I have relevant interests in the register. Since 2016, the previous Government imposed the social care precept on councils which have those responsibilities, and this nearly doubles the council tax rise each year. In my council, the social care precept accounts for over £220 of the council tax on average. Given that council tax is regressive, does the Minister agree that this is not a fair way to fund social care?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness makes a good point. We have all seen the crisis in social care caused by the previous failure to face up to the issues that were confronting that sector, and we heard earlier from my noble friend Lady Merron about some of the steps that have been taken to address it. This year, the Government are providing at least £600 million of new grant funding for social care as part of the broader estimated real-terms uplift to core local government spending power of around 3.2%. We are committed to reforming adult social care and improving the quality of care for people in need, and that is why we have invested an additional £86 million next year for the disabled facilities grant, to enable people to stay well, safe and independent at home for longer. In October, we introduced legislation to bring in the fair pay agreement to ensure that those vital care workers, who we know so many of our vulnerable residents rely on, are recognised and rewarded for the important work that they do.

Barnsley and Sheffield (Boundary Change) Order 2024

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Monday 11th November 2024 Grand Committee

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

My Lords, the order before us today was laid before the House on 7 October. This instrument provides for the boundary between Barnsley and Sheffield to be revised so that the whole of the Oughtibridge Mill housing development will be in the city of Sheffield. It also provides for consequential changes to the corresponding ward and parish boundary. Both the councils concerned support the boundary change, as do both the affected parish councils.

Prior to coming on to the detail of the order, I must, with sincere apologies, draw the Committee’s attention to the correction slip issued to correct minor drafting and formatting errors. The first correction removes “Ministry of” where the order refers to the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government. That is in the first and second paragraphs on page 1; in Article 2 on page 2; in the signatory box on page 5; and in paragraphs 2 and 6 of the Explanatory Memorandum.

The second correction provides a clearer map of the boundary change for the Explanatory Memorandum. A formatting issue meant that the map lacked clarity when it was inputted on to the order. With the help of the statutory instrument registrar, the correction slip now enables that same map to be sufficiently clear and to cover a full page. These minor errors in the original draft order are now corrected. The substance of the order, however, is unchanged. I hope that the reformatted map provides greater clarity for all.

Few reviews of the external administrative boundaries of local authority areas in England have been carried out since 1992. As a consequence, from time to time, there are small-scale boundary anomalies between local authorities caused by new developments and population change. Although, in practice, local government will put in place informal arrangements to deal with such situations, the very fact that it needs to do so is not conducive to effective and convenient local government. Such anomalies can also impact on perceptions of community identity: where residents do not feel part of an area, for whatever reason, they are potentially less likely to take an interest in their council.

On 14 April 2022, the Local Government Boundary Commission for England received a formal request for a review of the boundary in this area, made jointly by Barnsley Council and Sheffield City Council. The existing boundary runs along the River Don, but this has resulted in the Oughtibridge Mill development being split between the two councils. Both councils told the Local Government Boundary Commission for England that, due to the geography of the local communities and the existing road layout, the impact on service demand would mostly be felt by Sheffield Council, and that services would be best delivered by that council.

The Local Government Boundary Commission for England undertook a review of the boundary and consulted those affected. Of the 19 responses, there was a majority in support of the boundary change. Following the consultation, the final recommendation of the Local Government Boundary Commission for England was to transfer the area of the Oughtibridge Mill housing development in Barnsley into Sheffield.

This would move a section of the councils’ shared boundary at the River Don to encapsulate the Oughtibridge Mill development of 12 existing and 284 future dwellings. A recommendation to realign the ward boundaries was also made, as well as a suggestion for the realignment of the parish boundaries. After having received the final recommendations, the Secretary of State also allowed four weeks for interested parties to make representations. The department received no such representations.

The instrument I have brought forward provides for the boundary between Barnsley and Sheffield to be revised so that the whole area of the Oughtibridge Mill housing development will be in the city of Sheffield. I beg to move.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her introduction to this statutory instrument and for highlighting the changes made. I know she has the misfortune of being from the south of England but, in Yorkshire, we call it “Orterbridge”, rather than “Outerbridge” as the Minister pronounced it. I know we have a lot of strange pronunciations in Yorkshire, but I think people there would appreciate it being pronounced as they do.

This is a sensible proposal. Populations move and expand; in response, political and administrative boundaries should move to make them fit local perceptions of place. While local government can and do respond informally to boundaries that do not make practical sense, such as by making arrangements about bin collections, local government boundary changes per se are less frequent. I wonder whether this is because the process is quite long. In this case, as the Minister said, the relevant local authorities made a formal request in April 2022, and despite broad agreement—the two local authorities in fact proposing the change—it has taken over two years to reach this final stage. Does the Local Government Boundary Commission encourage proposals for boundary changes that are supported by the relevant local authorities, especially where there is a clear anomaly?

One situation that is not raised in the Explanatory Memorandum is what happens if a councillor of either the existing parish or the existing council lives in the area to be moved to another council. If the councillor qualifies only by residency, I presume that that would result in their being unable to continue once their term of office ends. It would be helpful if the Minister could confirm that that is the case. I assume that, in this instance, that will not arise, because otherwise—I hope—it would be within the explanation. It would be useful to understand what will happen if somebody wants to continue serving their population but is then moved. From Barnsley to Sheffield, that is a big move. I jest not.

I have spoken to colleagues in Barnsley who agree that residents in Oughtibridge will feel that they belong to Stocksbridge in Sheffield, which is where they are moving, so they support the proposal in this statutory instrument.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, as the Minister said, this order provides for the boundary between Barnsley and Sheffield to be revised so that the whole of the area of Oughtibridge Mill housing development will be in the City of Sheffield, as well as providing for consequential changes to corresponding wards and parish boundaries. I am pleased that the councils concerned both support boundary change, as do the affected parish councils. I also note that the LGBCE published a draft of this and asked for responses locally. There were 19 responses, I understand, including six from residents, five of whom were in favour and only one opposed. Therefore, one can say that the proposal is accepted locally.

His Majesty’s loyal Opposition do not oppose these sensible boundary changes, as they suit not only local residents but the relevant public authorities and bodies. I also accept the late minor changes in the draft SI.

Social Housebuilding

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Monday 21st October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Best, for his work with the Devon Housing Commission; I have been very interested to read about its work. The Government believe it is right that long-standing social tenants should retain the right to purchase their property at reasonable discounts, and so we will not be ending the right-to-buy scheme. However, many of the homes sold since 2012 have not been replaced and, as our manifesto said, the Government are reviewing the increased right-to-buy discounts, introduced in 2012. We will bring forward more details and secondary legislation to implement changes later this year. We will also review right to buy more widely, including looking at eligibility criteria and, in particular, protections for newly built social housing. We will bring forward a consultation on that shortly.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that affordable housing and housing for social rent are quite distinct offers? Frequently, the Government, previous and current, seem to fall into the pattern of using the word “affordable” for housing that is seriously not affordable and not distinguishing social housing for rent. Will the Minister be very clear that, when we talk about the need for social housing, we talk about social housing and not affordable housing?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I have made my views on that subject very clear in this Chamber many times before. We intend to support the delivery of the right kind of affordable homes to meet local needs. Our proposed changes to national planning policy will set out clear expectations that housing needs assessments must consider the needs of those requiring social rent homes. Local authorities should specify their expectations for social rent as part of a broader affordable housing policy. We are also removing the prescriptive requirements that currently tie local authorities’ hands, with respect to particular types of home ownership products. This will allow them to judge, as they are best placed to do, which type of housing is best for their local area.

Holocaust Memorial Bill

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 4th September 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I am speaking from the Liberal Democrat Front Bench but nothing I say commits individual Members to share my opinion. As we have heard in the debate, there are differing views across the House. As this is a hybrid Bill, I will not attempt to reflect on what has already been said. Rather, I will give my personal interpretation of the Bill and its implications.

It is astonishing that it has taken nearly 80 years for our nation to commit to a fitting national memorial to the Holocaust. It is just as surprising that it has taken over 10 years since it was first mooted for a decision to be made. It is thoroughly disappointing that a proposal to commemorate the Holocaust and to learn from its horrors has become so mired in controversy.

The proposal for a memorial and learning centre has overwhelming support. The disagreements have arisen, first, from the way the site in Victoria Tower Gardens was chosen, as it appears to have bypassed normal consultation processes. The commission report of 2015 identified three sites, none of which was Victoria Tower Gardens. This was first proposed by the UK Holocaust Memorial Foundation, which had been tasked with creating the memorial. The Government accepted its recommendation to use Victoria Tower Gardens in 2016. Widespread consensus was lost at that point, to the detriment of the whole project. However this was done, whoever did it must take some responsibility for creating a controversy from a consensus.

The second key area of disagreement arises from the practical implementation of the principle of a memorial and learning centre in Victoria Tower Gardens. The co-chairs of the UKHMF have stated:

“To establish a new national Memorial at the very heart of Westminster is an ambitious aim. Only the most serious, momentous and profound subject matter could justify such a step. With the Holocaust—the systematic attempt by a modern, civilised state to exterminate the whole Jewish people—we have exactly such a reason”.


It seems that the gardens site was chosen because, although nearly always connected with conflict and war, the Holocaust and other genocides were the consequence of particular decisions made by Governments.

Making the controversial decision about the site was just the start of a series of challenging decisions to be made. The first was whether the learning centre and the memorial should be co-located. I accept that putting the memorial and the learning centre together could be very moving and a powerful statement. However, I am not convinced that what is being proposed achieves that noble aim.

The next decision was how to fulfil the aims of the project while accepting the differing and legitimate demands for use of the gardens. By minimising the footprint of the design, just 7.5% of the gardens is used. Of course, the footprint omits the wider impact on the gardens, which, as we have heard, is closer to 20%. The consequence is that the project’s sincere desire for a prominent statement of purpose and intent has been seriously compromised.

A number of designs were submitted to the competition to create the design for the memorial and learning centre. These may have been bolder in concept and thus succeeded to a greater extent in achieving the visual prominence at the heart of the project. Perhaps the Minister can share what those designs were like and we can see them and decide whether we think they are better than what is before us.

As we have heard throughout this debate, there is huge concern about the consequences of having 1 million additional users of the gardens each year—apparently there is an expectation of about 3,000 people every day. I have read the 408 pages of the planning inspector’s report. It goes into significant detail on the practical implications of the design on listed buildings, heritage sites, UNESCO world heritage sites, trees, transport and security. Nevertheless, it gave a green light to the planning application. However, what cannot be ignored is that the nature of Victoria Tower Gardens will change forever due to the number of visitors that are expected.

Finally, I want to question the clarity of thinking around the fundamental purpose of the memorial and learning centre. We have heard during the debate today that many Members believe that the learning centre will focus on the Holocaust against the Jews. I would support that if that were the case, but it is not. As some Members have indicated, what is being proposed is that the Holocaust against the Jews should be seen in the context of other genocides perpetrated at the time against Roma Gypsies, gays in Germany and other parts of western Europe and disabled people, and subsequent genocides such as those in Rwanda and Darfur—we could go on—and sadly many others.

The learning centre apparently aims—and I think the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, pointed to this—to expose the response of democracies and Governments to the challenges of the Holocaust and genocide. I am not convinced that a digital and immersive experience is appealing to schoolchildren, in particular. They respond to seeing things that link with the past. I live near Huddersfield and am a vice-chair of the university where the Holocaust centre is established. I went round and saw the shoes, the labels, the striped suits and the tiny suitcases. They are the moving part of that learning centre. It is not the photographs so much; relating to human beings who were exterminated is what is moving. That is what a learning centre should achieve if we are to tackle not only anti-Semitism but, as the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, said, discrimination, racism, intolerance and hate in our society.

Having listened throughout this debate to many well-argued and evidenced assessments, both in favour and against, I can only say how relieved I am that, having spoken today, I am disqualified from sitting on the Bill Committee.

I will end by quoting from Eleanor Rathbone MP, who said in the debate on this very issue of the Holocaust in the House of Commons in 1943,

“let no one say: ‘We are not responsible.’ We are responsible if a single man, woman or child perishes whom we could and should have saved”.—[Official Report, Commons, 19/5/1943; col. 1143.]

Perhaps that should be the abiding goal of the memorial.

King’s Speech

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd July 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, for making such a powerful case for change. I shall read his speech in Hansard, because it is a cry to all Members of this House, particularly those on the Government Benches, for what we have to do to change the nature of governance in this country.

In a different tone, I welcome the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hermer, particularly because he put such emphasis on upholding the rule of law. It was so powerful to hear that. I look forward to many exchanges with the noble Lord, Lord Khan, in this House in the months, and maybe years, ahead.

My noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford was right when he said that the Liberal tradition is always to want more reform. In the light of that comment, I say this: our creaking constitution and outmoded governance arrangements, at every level, are in urgent need of reform. The paltry offerings from the Government in this gracious Speech leave much to be desired. It would be good for them to make a bit more of a challenge.

It is not surprising that much of the time in this debate has been spent making different arguments about reforms to this House. On the one hand, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, made a robust defence of the status quo; on the other, my noble friends Lord Wallace and Lord Thurso made the powerful case for fundamental reform and an elected House. We have heard lots of ideas in between, which I hope the Government will listen to and reflect on, because there were some good ideas in the huge array of what has been said today.

That moves me on to democracy—maybe—and elections. My noble friend Lord Rennard said that we hope that the Labour manifesto pledges to introduce automatic voter registration and to remove voter ID will be enacted in the lifetime of this Parliament. He is right to make the case for doing it more promptly than perhaps is suggested in the gracious Speech.

As my noble friend stated, the Liberal Democrats want fairness in all our electoral system and an equal voice for all in making the decisions that affect them at the most local level possible. Therefore, we welcome the principle of devolution to all parts of England. However, what is not clear is whether this will just be further delegation of resources with many Whitehall strings attached—which has been the nature of it so far—or something more meaningful. As my noble friend Lord Scriven argued, fiscal devolution, as well as policy devolution, will be very important. If that is unleashed, it will result in the economic growth that this Government want and that the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, pointed to.

Unfortunately, it seems that the model adopted will continue to be that of a single elected mayor. That creates a whole new democratic deficit whereby key strategic decisions will be made by an elected mayor, but without the proper accountability provided by democratically elected members of different political persuasions. That arrangement will not do and will not stand the test of time.

I move on to devolution to the nations of our country. We have heard calls from noble Lords who have direct experience of devolution in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, and my noble friends Lady Humphreys and Lord Bruce referenced the importance of change within those devolution settlements and that a more comprehensive settlement is long overdue. A piecemeal approach to nationwide devolution is in no one’s best interests, least of all those of the people it is meant to serve. We on these Benches will always press for a constitutional settlement that includes a federal settlement for all the nations of our country.

Meanwhile, in the great regions of England, we are still waiting for real devolution. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Warner, for what he said about Yorkshire, and remind Members opposite that my home county of Yorkshire has a similar population to that of Scotland, and double those of Wales and Northern Ireland. Yet that great county of Yorkshire has had only fragmented and limited devolution, and it is singularly lacking in its democracy. Give us devolution, so that we in Yorkshire can get on and make our county thriving again.

That leads me to talk about what I regard as the appalling lack of reference to local government in this gracious Speech. The noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, talked about that, as did my noble friend Lady Hamwee. The one positive announcement that has been made is to restore “local government” to the title of the department—thank you. All politics is local and all public service delivery is local, and I hope that the Government will be mindful of this. According to the LGA, almost one in five councils is teetering on the verge of issuing Section 114 notices. In unitary councils, including metropolitans in big urban centres, about 80% of their budgets will be spent on adult social care, support for vulnerable children and SEND. A steeply declining resource is left for all other local services, which may explain the state of our roads. This is not sustainable, even in the short term. The Government have ambitious targets for housebuilding and planning reform, but these services cannot be divorced from the rest of local government. Planning applications require assessments by many local services, including highways and the environment. I sincerely hope that the Government understand the predicament facing local government, and that that understanding will lead to desperately needed further resources.

This wide-ranging and fascinating debate has demonstrated that many in this House are urging the new Government to use their huge majority to transform our politics and governance. Unfortunately, the meagre offerings in this gracious Speech leave room for much more. Having said that, it is at least positive that the changes proposed will make a small progressive step in the right direction.

Renters (Reform) Bill

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 15th May 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I remind the House of my relevant interests as a councillor, a vice-president of the Local Government Association and an accidental landlord. I too thank all the groups that have provided informative briefings on a wide range of issues, which I and my colleague, my noble friend Lady Thornhill, have found immensely useful.

There is much in the Bill that we support. Legislation that rebalances the rights and responsibilities of landlords and tenants in the private rented sector is long overdue. However, the context in which the Bill is being debated is important. Much has changed in the rental sector since the Housing Act 1988. The private rented sector has continued to grow, with, according to the latest figures from the ONS, 5 million households renting from a private landlord—the equivalent of 20% of the housing market—whereas 17%, or 4.2 million households, are renting in the social housing sector.

The private rented sector has doubled since 2002. The stark fact is that for many households, especially families with children, private rent is the only option. Even 20 years ago, the first choice for families on low incomes would be social housing. Rents in social housing are within the local housing allowance, and there is a much higher degree of security. That is not to deny that some social housing fails to be of a decent standard, and that some social landlords neglect the needs of their tenants. However, the right-to-buy legislation without the right-to-build replacement housing has resulted in a large reduction in social housing, putting the most vulnerable households at risk of homelessness or leaving them with limited, or often no, choice as to where to live.

The solution to this fundamental problem is not provided by the Bill. What is needed is a substantial increase in the number of homes for social rent being built every year. This is not “affordable housing”—the vast majority of homes provided through that route are not for social rent. The Government have a much-vaunted principle of choice for consumers but tenants needing housing at a social rent are not given that choice. Can the Minister explain why the Government deny the choice of housing at a social rent to so many families in need?

I will be more positive now. Many of the changes in the Bill are positive, although they do not go far enough, as my noble friend Lady Thornhill will demonstrate. The key change must be the abolition of Section 21 eviction notices—without delay. The disruption to family life by the constant need to find another rental property is not considered anywhere near enough by the Bill. Children having to change schools on a regular basis because of the insecurity of tenure must be a thing of the past. Ending Section 21 and implementing the decent homes standard are key to the Bill.

Apart from the fundamental policy changes that the Bill offers, there are inevitably consequences for areas of housing provision that may not be fully recognised by the Bill as it stands. My colleague in the other place, Helen Morgan MP, raised the issue of decent housing standards being required for military accommodation. The Government gave her a commitment that they would table an amendment to do so. On these Benches, we look forward to that amendment from the Government in Committee.

Student accommodation is the first issue I want to raise. On Report in the Commons, the Government introduced new provisions regarding student accommodation, as the Minister outlined. This has the effect of enabling landlords of student accommodation to ensure that student tenancies end with the academic year. I ought to say, perhaps, that I am vice-chair of the council of the University of Huddersfield. I know that many courses start in January and many, particularly master’s degree courses, last 15 months. Many students, particularly international ones, need permanence in their accommodation. I would like to hear from the Minister what protections there are for these students. Can she explain the reasons for expecting students to pay six months in advance for accommodation?

I turn now to what I hope are the unintended consequences of the Bill. With regard to social housing, the National Housing Federation raised concerns in its briefing about the impact of ground 1B, rent to buy, in the possession orders because in its current form it prohibits social landlords from converting rent-to-buy properties into social or affordable rented homes. Perhaps the Minister can consider concerns from the sector on this and on ground 6 where social landlords are redeveloping properties. I am sure that we can overcome these issues but I think they are very important to social landlords.

In its helpful briefing, the Domestic Abuse Housing Alliance seeks remedies for specific concerns regarding the use of the repossession order at ground 14, where safeguards are especially needed for the victims of domestic abuse; and ground 8A regarding rent arrears, where women in controlling relationships may not have the financial oversight of domestic bills and fall foul of that particular reason for repossession.

Finally, there are 10 clauses which give new statutory responsibilities to local housing authorities. For these reforms to be effective, it is vital that enforcement powers are clearly defined and able to be implemented; therein lies the crux of the challenge for government. Councils are experiencing very significant financial pressure—local authority external auditors are regularly making that case. The Bill gives councils the right to retain financial penalties but, quite obviously, that will be inadequate to fund the enforcement teams necessary. The Minister rightly pointed out that the new burdens agreement between government and local authorities is to fully fund new duties. However, in practice that rarely occurs in full, so the Bill relies on strong enforcement; the powers are there, but currently not the means. I really look forward to the Minister reflecting on that, because the whole of the Bill depends on enforcement powers being effective.

It is good that the Bill is tackling some of the long- standing injustices in the sector. However, to be the sea-change Bill that was promised, it needs to put consideration of individuals and families at its very heart —and on that important test, currently the Bill fails.

Combined Authorities (Finance) (Amendment) Regulations 2024

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Tuesday 7th May 2024 Grand Committee

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I remind the Grand Committee that I have relevant interests as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

As we heard from the Minister, these regulations extend the provisions of the 2017 order so that it applies to the new combined county authorities. As the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, said, mayoral authorities require funding to operate as organisations. However, in extending the number of mayoral authorities, as has been said, the Government failed to publicise that the consequence would be an addition to the overall council tax bill for households in those areas. Perhaps the Minister could tell us what the average mayoral precept currently is for combined authorities. She may not know, but it is all right; I have some examples, so it will be okay.

Greater Manchester’s mayoral precept, which includes its fire and civil defence authority, is £112.95 for band D. I dug further into that figure and, on its own, the mayoral precept is only £31.75. What I want to raise here is that, in the interests of transparency and accountability, that precept ought to be separated on people’s council tax bills. Currently, the council tax is set by the local authority and there is the adult social care precept, which the Government insist on. Then there is the police precept and the mayoral precept, which includes fire and civil defence authority funding. The latter should be separated out, so that there is a clear indication of what is for the fire and civil defence authority and what is for the mayoral function. I hope the Minister can assure me that that will happen or, if she cannot, can tell me what we can do to ensure that it does.

My next point is that the 2017 order, which I have found, sets the governance requirements for acceding to the mayoral precept. The Minister said that a two-thirds majority would usually be required—I wrote it down—to confirm a mayoral proposal for the precept. If it is not “usually”, what is it? I think it needs to be clearer than “usually”. The 2017 order says two-thirds, but that a three-fifths majority is required for Tees Valley alone. I think this needs to be clearer than it usually being two-thirds.

Those are my two concerns: the first is about getting transparency and the second about the governance arrangements for decision-making. Obviously, if we have combined authorities and mayors then they have to be funded, which is an additional ask of council tax payers. For most authorities, the social care precept and this would add around £250 to people’s council tax bills, so we need to know whether they will get value for money.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, as this is the first local government item on the agenda since the elections, I think it is right to congratulate all those who stood for election and took part in the democratic process at a local level. It just shows, again, that local government matters. My congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, on her election.

Democracy was the winner on Thursday. There is no better illustration of that than the West Midlands election, which was won, in an electorate of some 3 million, by 1,500 votes. Apparently, there were 1,500 ballot boxes in that election, so, if there had been one extra vote in each of those ballot boxes, the result might have been different. That is a great illustration of why local democracy is important.

We have no intention of creating any unnecessary controversy over this straightforward SI, which extends the powers already granted to mayoral combined authorities to the more recently created combined county authorities. I am pleased to see that different geographic, social and economic issues that exist in the two-tier areas of the country are now being recognised and accommodated, and that this SI puts in place the financial mechanism to enable that.

As the Minister will be aware, during the passage of the then Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, we had the opportunity to express our reservations regarding the governance arrangements for combined county authorities. It will take some testing of those new arrangements in practice to see whether the topics we were concerned about create any ongoing issues. For example, the lack of representation of district councils, which have the planning, housing and economic development powers, on combined county authorities has the potential to frustrate mayoral plans, if they are not used properly. I hope that enough thought will be given to the mayoral structures as they move forward to smooth this path; the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, referred to this issue.

That said, it is absolutely appropriate that all areas, including those with two-tier government, can benefit from the combined authority approach. How much flexibility will the Government allow to those authorities outside of urban areas to create county combined authorities that work for the geography, particularly the economic geography, of their areas? As an illustration, the inflexibility of Boundary Commission reviews can, on occasion, act as a blocker to structural arrangements that would facilitate the progress of developing economic areas. It would be a shame if people were stopped from doing that just because of an arbitrary boundary somewhere.

It would be wrong to consider any SI relating to local government finance without referring to the wider picture of the extreme financial pressures facing local government. I am sure that the Minister will have all those stats that get rolled out to us every time we mention this in the Chamber—they are the Government’s smoke and mirrors to make it look as though they are piling cash into our sector—but, of course, those on the front line know better. The increasing demand driven by costs in adult care, the increasing number of young people needing an urgent and comprehensive response to their special educational needs and the tsunami of homelessness as rents in the private sector soar ever upward, leading to mass evictions on affordability grounds—as well as the unfunded inflationary pressures across the board—are seeing councils struggle to make ends meet and, as we have seen on occasion, be unable to continue without intervention. Nothing in this SI will change any of that.

We all know that the bulk of the new funding for local government is coming from the pockets of hard-pressed council tax payers—another issue referred to by the noble Baronesses, Lady Pinnock and Lady McIntosh. The Local Government Association talks about figures

“based on the assumption that councils will raise their council tax by the maximum permitted without a referendum”,

leaving councils with tough choices about whether to increase council tax bills in order to bring in desperately needed funding at a time when they are acutely aware of the significant burden that this places on households in the middle of a cost of living crisis.

Can the Minister tell us the overall cost of the new mayoral combined authorities? The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, talked about individual levels of precept but do we have a figure for the overall cost for those combined authorities and county combined authorities? None of these new structures comes free. It will be interesting to see, over time, whether the economic growth that the new structures are intended to generate justifies the cost of setting them up.

The Minister spoke about transparency in combined authority and combined county authority finance, but we all know of the dysfunction there has already been in the local authority audit sector. Some 300 councils missed the deadline for audit at the end of 2022-23. Only three of them—1% of councils—were on time. Some 150 have not been audited since 2020-21; 61 have not been audited since 2019-20; 22 have not been audited since 2018-19; and 10 have not been audited since 2017-18. This is a really important reassurance for the public about how public money is spent. There is no better illustration of the importance of this than the issues that have arisen in Tees Valley.

The Government’s stated objective for setting up these new structures is to enable the levelling-up agenda. However, this year has seen the fifth one-year settlement in a row for councils, which continues to hamper financial planning and financial sustainability. Only with adequate long-term resources, certainty and freedoms can councils or combined authorities deliver world-class local services for our communities, tackle the climate emergency and level up all parts of the country. Can the Minister tell us what work the Government are doing to ensure that short-term funding settlements will not continue to hold back councils and combined authorities from achieving the ambitious aspirations that they have for their communities? Until those long-term funding arrangements are in place and designed to provide the stable, sustainable platform to deliver what is necessary, all this tinkering about is just moving deckchairs on the “Titanic”.

That said, we agree that there is a financial and democratic need for transparency in the funding of combined authorities; in granting equal powers to mayoral combined authorities and combined county authorities in this regard, this SI does the job it is intended to do. We will not oppose it but I am interested to hear the Minister’s answers to our questions.

--- Later in debate ---

On the comment about the two-thirds majority, perhaps I could reiterate, to avoid confusion, that what I was referring to is that the constituent members of a combined county authority may impose amendments to the mayor’s draft budget if supported by a significant majority—usually two-thirds. I say “usually two-thirds” because, by all accounts, the numbers are not always easily divisible. Therefore, it needs to be as close thereafter to a two-thirds number as we can get. Given that that will not necessarily be a whole person, we need to take that into account. The two-thirds is indicative and an alternative measure may be needed if it is not divisible easily.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

Well, this is going to be interesting. The East Midlands will have eight constituent members with two from each authority, as I understand it, so neither two-thirds nor three-fifths works numerically. Do we take the bigger number or the smaller? Do we round up or down?

[Baroness Swinburne (Con)]

I am going to write to the noble Baroness with the exact number and calculation that will be used in the East Midlands situation. Ah—somebody knows the answer. It works out as two-thirds or more, so it would go up not down. There we go.

On the precept overall, the regulations provide for decision-making processes applying to those mayors who set a precept, a process which involves the constituent members who have the ability to challenge and, with a significant majority, amend the mayor’s plans for that precept. Where the mayor exercises police and crime functions, the referendum principle for the PCC component of the mayoral precept has been set at the same level as for PCCs. The Secretary of State has been clear that he will consider any increases set by mayors when determining referendum principles in future years, so there are measures that allow us to intervene if need be.

It is true that local audit is vital to support democratic accountability and in providing the assurances for local people that their elected representatives are doing what they should be doing with the budget that they have. The Government are working with the Financial Reporting Council and others in taking action to deal with the significant backlog of local audits in England and put the system on a sustainable footing. In February this year, system partners, including the Government, issued a joint statement setting out a package of measures to meet these challenges. During February and early March, DLUHC and the National Audit Office consulted on core elements of these proposals. We are reviewing that consultation response and will set out our intentions and respond in due course. It is an urgent matter and we are trying to get to grips with it. I am not taking it lightly; it really does need to be dealt with.

A number of other questions have been put but I think it will be of interest to Members to have proper, detailed answers, rather than what I am scrabbling together here. I will come back with written responses to those, but in the meantime I commend the instrument to the Committee.

Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 24th April 2024 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Baroness Scott of Bybrook) (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, for her Amendments 23 and 24 on development value. I also thank her very much for meeting me on this subject.

The amendments would introduce a scheme where enfranchising leaseholders would not pay development value if they guaranteed that they would not develop for a period of 10 years. Under the current law, lease- holders are sometimes required to pay development value when collectively enfranchising a block of flats. This is the value of the potential future development of the property, such as through adding another storey to the building, as we have heard. We recognise that development value can make the cost of enfranchisement prohibitively high.

We are committed to bringing forward a workable scheme and are exploring this area further. It is, as we have found, however, an area fraught with loopholes and technical detail. To be honest, it will take us time to get this right.

Before I finish, I want to bring up permitted development, because all noble Lords have brought this up. As noble Lords probably know, the Government have recently consulted on making changes to various permitted development rights. The consultation ran for eight weeks from 13 February to 9 April. We are considering the responses and I am sure we will have a debate on those in this House in due course.

The noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, is right about this issue. We know about it and we support her, but it is difficult. I would like to meet her again, and anybody else who would like to come, to go through her amendments in detail and take things forward in that way.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

Could the Minister tell the Committee whether the problem that the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, has defined could be resolved by removing permitted development rights altogether on these blocks of flats? This goes back to what was the case. If any development was proposed, it had to go through the normal application to the local planning authority.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I do not think that would be a sensible solution, because there might be times when permitted development might be the correct thing to do and everybody might be happy about it, including those leaseholders who have enfranchised. We need to take this steadily because it is fraught with complexity.

--- Later in debate ---

There is one last point here, which has been made already. This is a matter of confidence in the system that we have: do we have a rules-based system or do we not? What would happen to our wider reputation as a country where investment in property and this sort of thing can be made? What else might be taken away at a moment’s notice? I fear for that. If we are not to have greater reticence and a response to risk in terms of short-termism and a degree of hedging of bets—which, in valuation terms, leads to higher costs and lower values—we need to be very careful about what we are doing. On that point, I will sit down.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, the debate on this group of amendments has taken an interesting turn. I was not expecting to be discussing expropriation or to hear reference to the European Court of Human Rights, particularly from those who have in the past criticised it. I was not expecting the debate to hinge on the rule of law, of which I had thought we had a good example in previous days.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. If there is any suggestion that I have been critical of the European Convention on Human Rights, if that remark was addressed to me, I should be glad to know when that was the case because I have never said that we should withdraw from that convention. I do not know whether the remark was addressed to my noble friend Lord Howard of Rising and not me. If that was the case, I apologise for intervening.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

There was, of course, no mention of or reference to any noble Lord in this Chamber. It was a general reference to criticisms of that court under the human rights legislation. We have heard in debates in your Lordships’ House over the past weeks that have hinged on the rule of law. So it is most interesting, for those of us who have felt that the rule of law had been breached in the decisions that have been made, that it is now being raised in defence of these amendments. The debate has become emotive on this issue.

I hope that we can draw back from that rather, because what we have here is the Government’s intention to rebalance the rights of leaseholders as against the rights of freeholders. From these Benches, we support the rebalancing of those rights. In many cases, we think that the Government are not going far enough, but there ought to be a rebalancing of those rights. That is not referencing in this case the fact that there seems to be an argument among those who have moved or supported the amendment, that the loss of value can be defined as an expropriation. I find that difficult to accept because all along, in changes to legislation on major infrastructure projects, property is infringed and property holders feel abused. But it is for the state to make those decisions. So I am not sure why we are going to the barricades on this issue.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. In the case of infrastructure, it is certainly true that private property owners can have their property taken away from them to allow infrastructure to be built. But this is under a compulsory purchase regime whereby they receive something approaching the market value, normally plus a premium of so many per cent on top. My amendment would ensure that those expropriated of their marriage value would receive that. Is the noble Baroness, in fact, swinging in behind my amendment? There is a clear difference between what is proposed today and the compulsory purchase regime.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

I thank the noble Lord for his intervention. To me, the issue here is quite simple. We expect leaseholders to fund the enfranchisement of their lease—to pay the costs of the enfranchisement—and then to share the increased value of the lease with the freeholder, who has made no financial input to the extension of the lease. From a leaseholder’s point of view—although I do not have a leasehold myself—that seems to me to be the wrong balance. This is what the proposals in the Bill are attempting to put right. From that perspective, we would want to agree with that.

We are constantly warned that no investments can be regarded as safeguarded for all time. That must be true for property as it is for any other investments. We have heard arguments this afternoon about protecting freeholders, seemingly for ever. I accept the argument of the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, that phasing might be an answer to freeholders’ difficulties, but you cannot keep things in aspic for ever. Change is on the move and the Government are right to try to provide a better balance of rights and responsibilities between freeholders and leaseholders.

We on these Benches would prefer to move entirely to commonhold—but that argument has yet to be completed. I accept that the situation is very complex. Whenever we have a substantial change in legal rights, there is a loss on one side and arguments about that, and benefits on the other. Nobody can be absolutely clear and certain how the balance will be reset.

[The Earl of Lytton (CB)]

I take the noble Baroness’s point about things changing, but I ask her to cast her mind back—although she was not there at the time, any more than I was—to the great reforms in the Law of Property Act 1925. There was a big discussion about all sorts of matters to do with tenure and getting rid of things such as entails, and modernising the system. If we are to make a seismic change—and I think this Bill will produce something of a wobble—there ought to have been that big discussion about the fundamentals of property law. Does the noble Baroness not agree that, instead of tinkering around piecemeal with this and trying to shoehorn it into the unfortunate focal point of leasehold reform and the balance between leasehold and freehold, that discussion should have taken place first?

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

I thank the noble Earl for that intervention, because he is right in many cases. I am not a lawyer, but I know that the 1925 property Act made a huge change away from the old system, which was feudal at that point, and modernised property legislation. This Bill may do the same. In some instances, as we have heard this afternoon, it will have big consequences—for freeholders, in the context of this set of amendments. I accept that maybe there ought to have been—as we heard on Monday from the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham—a draft Bill on commonhold. Maybe it requires an in-depth, cross-House, cross-party committee to get into the detail, rather than the 300 or so pages of the Bill that we have in front of us, in order to get to grips with the consequences of what is being proposed.

I go back to the principle, and the principle has to be right. We are trying to rebalance the rights between freehold and leasehold. There is frequent talk on the Conservative Benches that the basis of Conservative philosophy is a property-owning democracy, but leaseholders will not be full participants in that until these changes are made. So it will be interesting to hear what the Minister has to say with regard to this very challenging debate.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, this has been a more wide-ranging debate than was anticipated at the beginning of the group. The noble Lords, Lord Howard and Lord Moylan, made some interesting points in introducing their amendments, and it is for the Minister to clarify and address her noble friends’ concerns. All three amendments in this group attempt to make changes to Schedule 4, which is where the market- value element of the premium for any enfranchisement claim is determined.

I listened to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, in relation to the European Convention on Human Rights. Although we have differing views on that, it is interesting how legislation and the regard for international law are debated in different debates in this House—without pinpointing any noble Lord in particular.

The noble Baroness, Lady Deech, laid out and stipulated the complexity of the issue as a teacher in property law, while the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, as a student of property law, made some interesting points about complexity and about working and bringing change in a fair manner.

In conclusion, I ask the Minister what consideration the Government have given to the principles of grandfathering for leases of various lengths and other conditions when developing the Bill? For example, in the instance of a lease of a very short length, when the Bill becomes law, what are the ramifications of the Bill as it is written? Do the Government think that some shorter leases are going to be treated in a way that may be fairer on wider principle but do not seem appropriate, given the shorter lengths? If so, did they consider any mitigation?

I finish by referring to my noble friend Lord Truscott, who advocated in a diligent manner the ending of marriage value and talked about the wider unfairness in leasehold properties. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Lytton (CB)]

I believe it means that it cannot be disposed of away from the purposes of the charity. I am not a lawyer and I am afraid I do not know exactly, but I understood it to be the term contained in the Minister’s letter to the right reverend Prelate, which is why I used it.

I want to make it clear that the organisation of a charity is necessarily of a commercial nature but devoted, ultimately, to its charitable purposes. It cannot be otherwise; it must use its assets optimally, and it is required to do so. I can see no discernible difference between something like the National Trust and an organisation such as the Church of England. Any such charity acquires, disposes and otherwise deals with its land assets as a matter of course. It is required to do so if it is disposing according to a set of rules, with which I am familiar, under the Charity Commission: CC 28, which state that you have to get best value for the asset, or words to that effect.

I am concerned about the potential hybridity aspect of the Bill, to which the right reverend Prelate did not refer, but it is implicit in what he is asking. It is a question that needs to be raised and is a procedural one for this House. I would very much like to know the answer, and if the Minister, who has not had any warning, cannot give it today perhaps she would be kind enough to write and copy in other noble Lords who are listening.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester for drawing our attention to the fact that when you make complex changes, the consequences cannot always be predicted and may not be ones we would wish to support.

The issue is one I hope the Minister will be able to help us resolve. The right reverend Prelate cited the balance between justice and simplicity. He said to always come down on the side of justice, and so would I. However, in this case, we have competing justices. The principle being advocated throughout the Bill is the justice of rebalancing the rights and responsibilities between freeholders and leaseholders to the benefit of leaseholders—a principle most of us support. The difficulty is that the justice we support has a consequence we would not support: reducing the funds available to charities whose income is based on freehold property. So, there is a conundrum for us.

The right reverend Prelate listed the charities that he thought were affected by these changes. I noted they were all London-based, no doubt because of land values in London. It is important for us to know whether this is a more extensive problem, or a London-based one. The first question we need to ask is, what other charities will be affected?

I do not have an answer to the next question: is there a workaround that mitigates the effect of the principal changes the Bill seeks to implement? I am sure the bright young things in the department could come up with a way of mitigating the outcome, so that charities do not lose their income, which is in nobody’s interest. I am confident that somebody will come up with a great way of overcoming this problem, while retaining the other justice: fairness towards leaseholders.

So, there are questions but no answers, and I look forward to hearing what the Government might be able to do.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, this debate has again outlined what a huge benefit it would be to have proper, detailed pre-legislative scrutiny of Bills such as this. I hope that will take place when we get a commonhold Bill, whoever brings it forward.

In principle, I am in much of the same mind as my noble friend Lord Truscott when it comes to special pleading on marriage value. I fear that the amendments in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester are in danger of being an almighty sledge- hammer to crack not a very big nut, and my comments are made on that basis.

First, I thank the right reverend Prelate and Lynne Guyton, from John Lyon’s Charity, for meeting me yesterday to explain the issue in more detail. The issues set out by the right reverend Prelate affect a very small number of charities, such as the ones in central London that he has outlined. They have been in place for centuries and, as was explained to me, use marriage value on lease extensions as a critical contribution to the funding of their charitable work. The leaseholders of these properties are largely offshore companies or non-residential wealthy owners, so the argument put forward by the charities is that, in this case, the benefit of marriage value has what the right reverend Prelate described as the “reverse Robin Hood effect”. The benefit currently accrues to the beneficiaries of the charity, such as youth clubs, arts projects, emotional well-being initiatives, supplementary schools, parental support schemes, sports programmes, academic bursaries and similar projects. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bailey, for his personal testimony in this respect.

The fear is that, after the Bill has passed, the benefits will then accrue to the said wealthy offshore companies and leaseholders. I believe the Government have been in conversation with the charities concerned and have promised to look at what can be done to ensure that a very limited exception is considered. However, it is our understanding that this has not been forthcoming, and I hope the Minister will tell us where the Government have got to. Have the Government carried out any impact assessment of the way the Bill will affect charities that have long-standing property endowments solely for the purpose of enabling their charitable aims?

However, as with group 2, these amendments would amend Schedule 4, which is where the market value element of the premium for any enfranchisement claim is determined. The second amendment tabled by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester has also applied it to the later section on loss suffered, in paragraph 32, which refers back to assumption 2. Straightforwardly, these amendments would disapply assumption 2 for charities, and thereby include marriage and hope values in determining market value.

As I said during the first Committee sitting on the Bill, we genuinely appreciate the intention behind supporting what is argued to be the unique circumstances of this small group of charities. However—and it is a big “however”—the amendment as drafted is almost certainly far too broad to encompass only their very unusual circumstances. Perhaps the Government will continue to work with right reverend Prelate and the charities concerned to see what can be done to support them; otherwise, we fear that a general amendment such as the one tabled could open a big Pandora’s box and encourage those wishing to avoid the new system of enfranchisement—which we support, of course—and there may be plenty who wish to do so, to misuse charitable status for that purpose.

The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, referred to exemptions created for the National Trust, which the Government felt were justified. Presumably, the Government feel that some exemptions are justified.

While we do not feel that the amendment as tabled would avoid some of the obvious pitfalls of creating a loophole in the stated aims of the Bill—with which we agree—I look forward to the response of the Minister about whether any progress can be made in this respect.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Borwick for allowing what I hope will be a short debate on the deferment rate. I am conscious that I am a very inadequate substitute for the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth.

The deferment rate is very important, as my noble friend Lord Moylan explained. It is the current value of the vacant possession of a flat when the lease expires. According to what deferment rate you choose, it affects the premium that is paid by the leaseholder. My understanding is that the current deferment rate was set in a Court of Appeal case in 2007—the so-called Sportelli case—which ended up with the two rates that I think my noble friend Lord Moylan referred to: 4.75% for houses and 5% for flats. That was fixed nearly 20 years ago. There was a recent appeal decision in a Welsh court—I have the name in front of me but, like many Welsh names, it has a large number of consonants and very few vowels, so I am afraid that I cannot pronounce it. The appeal failed because the land valuer was not an economist, but it opened the way to an appeal to alter the rate. My noble friend Lord Moylan touched on my first question: when will the Secretary of State come to a decision? It affects what leaseholders do at the moment: whether they should wait for a preferential rate, which might be fixed by the Secretary of State, or whether they should try now, in case it moves the wrong way.

I want to raise a totally different point. At the moment, there already is a deferment rate set by the Government under the personal damages Act 1996. Using exactly the same basis as a deferment rate for leasehold, the Lord Chancellor sets the deferment rate for personal injury damages. Unlike what is proposed in this Bill, that rate changes quite often. In 2017, the rate was changed, and it was a negative rate for some time. It was changed again in 2019, and then again in 2023. It is now 0.5% for short-term cases and 3% for long-term cases. My question for the Government is: will we have two separate Secretaries of State fixing deferment rates at different times and coming up with different rates, or is there a case for rationalising the Government’s view as to what is an appropriate deferment rate?

One opportunity would be for the Secretary of State simply to replicate what the Lord Chancellor does. The Lord Chancellor has recently had a consultation on how to fix deferment rates and has come up with a short-term rate and a long-term rate. It seems odd to me to have two totally separate systems in the Government for basically coming to the same decision—that is, deciding what the long-term rate is on a risk-free investment. I wonder whether my noble friend the Minister has had discussions with the Lord Chancellor’s department to see whether we can have a common approach to this important issue.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, for me, this is a very technical set of amendments, but they are very important. As we have heard, this issue can have significant implications.

I always go back to first principles. One of the aims of the Bill is to make enfranchisement cheaper than it is currently, and so more readily available. However, as we have heard, that will entirely depend on the deferment rate and how it is set. My understanding was that the current deferment rate was set by the Court of Appeal in 2007, as the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, said. The debate is around whether it is right for that to continue; whether another process should be used, such as that proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Borwick, in his amendment about using the bank rate as a base for setting a deferment rate; or whether, as in the Bill, the responsibility is passed to the Secretary of State to determine the deferment rate. I have to agree with the noble Lords, Lord Moylan and Lord Young of Cookham, that the latter does not seem right.

When I was investigating the deferment rate issue, I noticed that Homehold Services Ltd gave evidence to the Commons Public Bill Committee that was very telling. It criticised the fact that the “applicable deferment rate” was referenced throughout the Bill

“without specifying what this will be”.

It provided an example of what effect a change in the deferment rate could have on the cost of enfranchisement. It said:

“A lease extension … on a £200k flat with 80 years unexpired and no ground rent would be c. £4,000”.


That is the example given by Homehold Services Ltd; as it is one of the experts, I thought it might be right. It continues:

“If the deferment rate was reduced from 5% to 4%, the premium would increase to c. £8,500. At 3.5% it would be … £12,000”.


Those small changes in percentages have very high consequences for the leaseholders. This is important—that is what the evidence told me when I read it.

The argument from Homehold Services Ltd was that the deferment rate must be set no lower than that set by the appeal judgment in 2007. Otherwise, the consequence is that the rate can escalate considerably, as the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, pointed out. The cost of enfranchisement would increase, removing the ability of many leaseholders to continue with the process—contrary to one of the objectives of the Bill. Can the Minister say what consideration the Government have given to the deferment rate?

The noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, said that the Chancellor’s department has had a consultation on this and come up with some figures. Why are those not being adopted in this instance to set the rate in the Bill? As we have heard, it is very important to know exactly what the deferment rate will be. I do not believe that it is satisfactory to leave the applicable deferment rate to be set by a statutory instrument some time in the future. Surely, if the Government’s intentions are as they are set out in the Bill—to make it cheaper for leaseholders to enfranchise—one of the key rates must be this one. Therefore, I would have thought that we would want to see it set during the course of this Bill, rather than wait for a statutory instrument.

I have a lot of sympathy with the arguments that have been made by the mover of the amendment and others about the need for certainty here, rather than a principle and uncertainty as to the exact figure at which the deferment rate will be set.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 42 in the name of my noble friend Lady Taylor of Stevenage, which was well supported by my noble friend Lord Truscott in his earlier remarks.

Deferment rates are a phenomenally complex area to understand, and the standard valuation method in Schedule 4 is extremely technical. The Law Commission set out options. It did not make recommendations, but the Government have chosen to allow the Secretary of State to prescribe the applicable deferment rate. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Borwick, for his contribution and for seeking to make the process for setting the deferment rate more efficient and asking for more clarity and certainty.

Our amendment is clear and would ensure that, when determining the applicable deferment rate,

“the Secretary of State must have regard to the desirability of encouraging leaseholders to acquire their freehold at the lowest possible cost”.

We understand that the 2007 Cadogan v Sportelli judgment, which has broadly set deferment rates, was made in the context of 0.5% interest rates. If the Government are minded to remain of the view that the Secretary of State should fix the deferment rates, how best should they do that? Although it may work in London, what would need to be taken into account for other parts of the country? Is there a need to set multiple rates for different parts of the country to deal with the variations?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Mann (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I shall make a brief contribution to support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham. I want to make one additional point to add to the problems he clearly outlined for a person in this situation—to quote him unfairly—and the impact that has on them.

I have not been an elected representative for some years, but I took on many cases involving every kind of issue, and I have dealt with these issues. My files were rightly shredded some years ago when I entered this House, so I do not have the precise detail available, only my vague memories. However, I have one distinct memory. There are two types of people who have this kind of problem—those who have solicitors and are used to dealing with solicitors, and those who do not.

Occasionally those who had solicitors would come to me, normally when they were wondering whether there was a way of minimising the costs. I always used to listen for the mention of counsel’s opinion having been suggested: the thousands then started to ring up on the till instantly, because not all solicitors had quite the expertise in such matters as others might have had.

The more concerning cases were the people who came to see me who were not familiar with dealing with solicitors, and who were horrified at the predicament they were in, and the potential costs—not just the costs from the other side, but they costs that they might have to bear. The prospect was one of an unlimited amount of costs, well beyond their comprehension, their budget and their expectations. The psychological impact of that, as well as the risk, would lead to an incredible feeling of relief if someone like me, in an amateur but persistent way, was prepared to take on their case. That I remember distinctly, in precisely this kind of case. So the common sense that has been suggested is worthy not just of consideration but of enactment, by all sides of the House. I commend the amendment, which is highly appropriate.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lords, Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Berkeley, on exposing and exploring the exceptions to the general rule in the legislation and its application. If we live in a democracy, the rule of law should apply to everyone without heed or hindrance, so I am grateful to both noble Lords for bringing this to the attention of the House. I hope that when the Minister responds she will be able to confirm that the Bill will apply to the Crown Estate and the Duchy of Cornwall, because it ought to.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, I rise briefly to thank the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, and my noble friend Lord Berkeley for providing the detail, with diligence and eloquence, in calling for what the noble Lord, Lord Young, called a level and equitable playing field for all leaseholders in that situation, particularly in relation to Crown land. I want to press the Minister on getting information from the Government about to what extent Crown and Duchy of Cornwall land would be affected by the amendments, and on providing clarification on the important and pertinent points that both noble Lords raised.

Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 24th April 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 55, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, because it seems to me, as it does to the noble Baroness, that this is one of the clear injustices in the current leaseholder-freeholder relationship. The amendment is rightly restricted to the abolition of forfeiture of a long lease.

I thought it was straightforward until I heard the noble Lord, Lord Truscott, outline some of the issues that he believed could be addressed only through forfeiture. I was surprised that we have to go to such draconian ends to deal with a fairly straightforward neighbour dispute.

[Lord Truscott (Non-Afl)]

The problem is that, if you try to enforce a lease, what is your route? The only other route would be to go to the High Court, and that would be a very lengthy process. I am saying that the threat of forfeiture is often enough for people to see sense. I have never come across a case in which people have actually gone through the whole process of forfeiture.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

I thank the noble Lord for expanding on that.

It would be interesting to hear from the Minister whether there are any statistics regarding freeholders using the forfeiture system to address not the issues that are normally referenced—failure to pay ground rent or an accumulation of three years or more of debt—but breaches of the lease. It would be helpful to understand all that.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, has said, if the payment in lieu is more than £350, or is outstanding for more than three years, the freeholder is entitled to claim repossession—and then all the equity in the property is lost, of course. When I first looked at this, I could not see how it could possibly be right. I remember that, at Second Reading—I was just trying to find it in Hansard—the Minister said that the Government were considering bringing forward an amendment to address this issue. It is unfortunate that that has not been forthcoming in the time that has elapsed between Second Reading and Committee. Perhaps in her reply, the Minister can say whether the Government intend to bring an amendment on Report. It would help us resolve what is, on the face of it, a complete injustice. It would be sufficient if the Minister said that that is going to happen, and maybe those of us who have signed the amendments could have a meeting with her to discuss it, if necessary.

[Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)]

I support this amendment. Although in his intervention the noble Lord talked about how to control peoples’ behaviour when they have misbehaved and breached their lease, it should be taken into account that the threat of forfeiture is held over leaseholders, in a very draconian fashion, for the smallest infraction. More importantly, it is used to enforce such things as the flagrant and inequitable boosting of service charges. If you are in dispute in this situation, you are told you will end up having to pay court fees. You are told that, if you do not pay—

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Pinnock]

63: After Clause 50, insert the following new Clause—
“Report: restrictions around ground rent investments(1) Within six months of the day on which this Act is passed the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report outlining the impact of this Act on ground rent investments.(2) The report in subsection (1) must also make an assessment of the impact of—(a) prohibiting future ground rent investments, and(b) encouraging divestment from existing ground rent investmentson leaseholders and freeholders.(3) In this section “ground rent investment” means investment by a pension fund or other type of fund in leaseholds for the purpose of collecting ground rent.”Member’s explanatory statement
This is a probing amendment that would require the Government report on the impact of this Act on ground rent investments, and the impact of prohibiting future ground rent investments and encouraging divestment from existing ground rent investments on leaseholders and freeholders.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, Amendment 63 in my name was tabled to probe the impact of the proposals in the Bill on ground rent investments, and the effect of prohibiting future ground rent investments, and encouraging divestment from existing ground rent investments, on leaseholders and freeholders. The Government’s intentions appeared to be clear. In 2022, the Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Act effectively set the ground rent on new leases at zero, so the direction of travel seemed set. Further, last November, the Government launched a consultation on ground rents, which included capping the charge at a peppercorn rate for existing leaseholders.

The Secretary of State said at the time that the aim was to help protect those leaseholders who

“can be faced with ground rent clauses in their leases which result in spiralling payments with no benefit in return”.

Now, apparently, the Government have backed off from a fundamental reform and seem set on phasing out ground rents over a period of 20 years and setting a cap on ground rents at £250 per annum.

The fundamental question we have to ask is: what benefit do leaseholders accrue from paying a ground rent of, for example, £250 a year? The answer, is, of course, that ground rents really are a something-for-nothing payment—I bet you would not get away with this in Yorkshire. If the Government are determined, as they initially said they were, to bring fairness to leaseholders, then ground rents would be consigned to history.

However, on the other hand, ground rents provide a steady income for institutions as well as individual freeholders. It seems that the pressure on the Government to row back from abolition or peppercorn was sufficient to cause considerable backpedalling.

The Society of Pension Professionals—which the noble Lord, Lord Truscott, referred to six hours ago—has examined this issue as a result of much being made about the potential impact on pension funds of reducing ground rents to either £250 or zero. The following is a statement from the Society of Pension Professionals:

“Freeholders are already prevented from charging ground rents on new long leases (of more than 21 years), so it’s perhaps understandable that the government wants something similar for existing long leaseholders. The government estimates that capping ground rents at £250 a year would decrease the value of affected property assets by £14.6 bn or £27.3 bn if rents are reduced to a peppercorn. If these proposals become law, there may be some short-term impact on pension fund investors through asset values being written down. Certain pension funds may also be impacted where they own freehold titles directly, although that will be less common. The effect of these proposed adjustments is likely to be more significant for such investors than the loss of annual ground rent income over the term of the lease”—


I emphasise this next part—

“but the scale relative to total assets is probably not that significant for most in the long-run”

That is an authoritative statement, and I would like to hear a full response from the Minister—probably in writing given the late stage of the evening—as this reform is a critical part of leasehold reform. Before Report, we need to see the detailed proposals from the Government and a full explanation of their reasons.

In conclusion, these Benches want the iniquitous system of ground rents to be abolished or at least reduced by introducing a peppercorn as the set fee. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

The Government have no control over what goes into the media, and it is something that the Government have to accept.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

Let us end on a positive. I thank the Minister for her response. There is agreement that unregulated ground rents are unacceptable, and that some freeholders are unscrupulous and exploit their leaseholders, holding them to ransom, as the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, said.

However, it would be really helpful if, as we complete the various stages of the Bill, the Minister could confirm that the Government will be able to bring forward a detailed amendment regarding ground rents before Report; otherwise, those of us who raised this issue in Committee will raise it again on Report. Unfortunately, this will put the Minister in a difficult position, one in which she has to say, “In due course, something is going to turn up”. Let us send a message to the department that “in due course” means “before Report”.

Amendment 63 withdrawn.

Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 22nd April 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

I want to raise a slightly different point from the one raised by the noble Baroness, who is worried that there are loopholes in the schedule. My concern is slightly different, in that the schedule currently bans a form of lease that is actually beneficial. I refer to an arrangement called Home for Life, which has been operating for some time and is based on somebody who is over 60 selling their home. Homewise, which operates Home for Life, then buys the property to which the person moves and grants them a lifetime lease. That enables them to vacate a large family home, gives them the security of the home they move to and, in many cases, releases a sum of money that enables them to expand their income.

There are a number of exemptions under the schedule; this scheme is not one of them. This is, in fact, contrary to what the Government said when they consulted on this a few years ago, when they made it absolutely clear that they would exempt these leases. I quote from paragraph 252 of the Government’s response to a consultation document, Implementing Reforms to the Leasehold System in England:

“It is not the intention of the policy to affect lease-based financial products (home reversion plans—equity release, home purchase plans—lifetime leases and Islamic/Sharia compliant finance), so long as they do not provide a loophole from which to evade the ban. For both home reversion and home purchase plans the provider acquires the freehold and the consumer has a non-assignable lifetime lease. Because these leases are not assignable to another party there is no risk of such leasehold houses coming onto the open market”.


They concluded:

“We will provide an exemption from the ban for these financial products”.


The product I have just mentioned falls squarely within the terms of the exemption that I just read out, but I am afraid it is caught by the Bill as it now stands. I hope my noble friend the Minister will be able to say that this is an unintentional capture of a worthwhile type of lease and that the Government will provide the necessary amendment downstream so that Home for Life can continue to provide a worthwhile service, which I do not think is a loophole of the kind described by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, this Bill is really very important. It has been a long time since Second Reading, so I think it is worth reiterating some of the fundamentals that we hope it will achieve.

The first is that this is obviously a huge opportunity to reform the leasehold/freehold property rights and relationships. That is certainly one of the key aspects that we on these Benches will pursue with vigour. It is also an opportunity to tackle the huge omissions in the Building Safety Act to provide remedies for those leaseholders and tenants living in blocks of flats that are under 11 metres or five storeys. As we have all through the debates and discussions on the Fire Safety Act, the Building Safety Act and the levelling-up Act, we on these Benches will continue to pursue the safety of leaseholders and tenants in those blocks of flats, because that is the right thing to do.

On these amendments, we on these Benches acknowledge that there will, of course, be areas in the leasehold/freehold arrangement where the abolition of leasehold impinges on other important rights, so we accept that there will be examples where an exception is justifiably made. However, the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, is absolutely right to probe the reasons for these exceptions, in this group and in the following group, and has drawn attention to them individually. For example, the noble Baroness drew attention to a situation where the developer has a head lease and has yet to build out to the development. She asked the pertinent question of what happens if leasehold is going to be abolished for houses. Where does that fit in with a development that is ongoing that will be developed under the terms of a leasehold? That is not explained either in the Bill or in the Explanatory Notes.

We on these Benches understand the importance of this for historic estates that are now owned by the National Trust in England, Wales and Scotland. The purpose of the leases in those instances ought to be protected, because the overwhelming responsibility is the protection of our national heritage. That makes good sense. However, although the schedule provides details of which properties are eligible for what was described as “permitted leases” under the tribunal certification, what is not clear in either the clauses or the schedule, or in the Explanatory Notes, is what criteria the Government are using to enable some leaseholds to be described as permitted. Can the Minister provide the reasons for the choices made by the Government in determining permitted leases in Schedule 1? This is important because the legislation will be challenged in the future. It is therefore vital that, before we get to Report, we understand the reasons, as well as the purpose, behind the tribunal certification. Perhaps the Minister can provide the details of the regulations that are to be provided to the tribunal for making those decisions.

The two examples used by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, and the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, relating to retirement housing and homes for life, strike me as being very important in our discussions. Those of us who have been involved in leasehold, and in the debate about leasehold and some of the criticisms of the way in which leasehold is implemented in practice, have been astonished by the way in which some retirement housing service charges have risen exponentially, without, it seems, any recourse to an explanation or a reduction. It is important to understand, for both homes for life and retirement housing—one of which is referred to in the schedule and the other which is not, as the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham has said—how protections will be provided for these very important areas of housing in order to provide protection for the leaseholders in these arrangements.

We support the probing amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, and look forward to the detailed response, I hope, from the Minister.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Baroness Scott of Bybrook) (Con)]

My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to open Committee on the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill. Before turning to the debate on the amendments that have been tabled, it would be remiss of me if I did not take this opportunity to thank those Peers who have engaged with the Bill and those who have long championed the rights of leaseholders. I also thank colleagues from the Law Commission, without whose advice much of this vital legislation may not have been possible.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

Before the Minister sits down, she referenced in the early part of her response the number of houses that were likely to be developed under circumstances where a lease had already been granted before the commencement of this Bill. Is she able to give the Committee a ballpark figure of the number of houses that would be caught up in this situation?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I am not prepared to give any ballpark figures from the Dispatch Box, but I will look into it and let the noble Baroness know. I apologise that I do not have that figure with me today.

Before I finish on this group, I have government Amendment 8, which makes minor clarificatory changes to the definition of shared ownership leases permitted under the leasehold house ban to clarify its intent. The amendment adds a further condition to permitted shared ownership leases, confirming that where a shared ownership leaseholder has acquired 100% of the equity in the house, they will then be transferred the freehold of the house at no extra cost. This brings the definition into line with government funding programmes and definitions elsewhere in the Bill. I look forward to hearing—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 7 in my name, which deals with shared ownership—one of the issues touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Khan. Shared ownership was developed in the 1980s and I claim some paternal responsibility for it. It was a route into affordable homes, and there are now some 200,000 shared owners.

There is a risk that shared owners will fall between the cracks between conventional leaseholders and those who rent. The Government are doing a lot for the conventional leaseholder. Under the Renters (Reform) Bill, they plan to do a lot for the conventional renter, and as I said, there is a risk of shared owners falling between the cracks. If one looks, for example, at the New Homes Ombudsman Service, which I greatly welcome, and the new homes quality code under it, the protection does not extend to affordable homes—namely, those sold under a shared-ownership scheme.

The reason for this amendment is a report, which I am sure my noble friend has seen, from the Select Committee in another place published on 26 March entitled Shared Ownership. The crucial thing to remember about this is that it was published after the Bill left the other place. Therefore, these are comments on the Bill as we see it today. I will briefly quote from three relevant paragraphs from that report.

Paragraph 80 states:

“When we asked Baroness Penn about this issue”—


shared ownership—

“she told us that the provisions of the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill are intended to make it easier for those on the old form of the lease to extend when needed. However, Shared Ownership Resources have said that shared owners will not benefit from the leasehold enfranchisement reforms included in the Bill, as, as assured tenants, they do not have statutory rights to leasehold enfranchisement”.

I hope my noble friend can assure me that shared owners do have the right referred to in that statement—the right to enfranchise—and that the fact they are technically assured tenants does not mean they are precluded from the rights in the Bill. Paragraph 92 reaffirms that point:

“We also believe that it is unacceptable that shared owners do not have the same statutory right to leasehold extension as other leaseholders”.


My final quote is from paragraph 94:

“Finally, the Government should ensure that any legislation passing through Parliament which has provisions to reduce the cost of, and simplify, the process of leasehold extension (for example, as in the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill) also applies to leaseholders in shared ownership properties, so that shared owners have the same statutory right to leasehold extensions as all other leaseholders”.


It is clear from those quotes from the recent report that the Select Committee holds serious doubts about the entitlement of shared owners to some of the rights in the Bill.

Shared-ownership leases are often complex. Leases on flats, for example, with multiple sub-lessees with different rights and responsibilities, can add further complexity. It is worth mentioning that shared owners are liable for all legal and other administrative costs of superior leaseholders and freeholders, although they only own, for example, 50% of the property. As a result, they can be paying more in service charges than other people in the block, simply because they have that extra relationship with the registered provider as well as the freeholder.

When a shared-ownership owner, for example, extends the lease and the property is valued, they pay 100% of the legal costs, although they only own 50% of the property. The explanatory notes to the Bill state, on page 8, paragraph 20:

“The Bill also gives shared ownership leaseholders the right to a lease extension for 990 years”.


However, the registered provider—the shared ownership’s immediate landlord—may have only a short-term interest in the lease as a head lessee or a sublessee. So, what happens when the shared-ownership leaseholder exercises the right, but the registered holder says, “I’m very sorry but I don’t have 990 years available; I only have a short lease”? Is there an obligation in the Bill for that registered provider to get a long lease, which, in turn, is passed on to the shared owner?

Turning to Condition C in the Bill, which my probing amendment addresses, I wonder whether this precludes certain shared owners from the right to a lease extension. Paragraph 6(6), on page 136, states:

“Condition C: the lease allows for the tenant’s share in the house to reach 100%”.


However, some shared-ownership leases have caps. They have caps at 80% in a designated protected area, and a cap of 75% in older persons shared ownership. So, are these groups excluded, or does paragraph 6(2) come into play, which says that the Secretary of State can exclude Condition C if the lease is of a description he has specified? Again, I would be grateful for an assurance on this.

My final point, which was also raised by the Select Committee, is that there is a broader risk of a two-tier market in shared-ownership leases following the changes in lease terms as part of the affordable homes programme.

My noble friend the Minister may want to reply to this in a letter, but shared owners want an assurance that their entitlements have been properly take on board during the Bill’s drafting, particularly against the background of the Select Committee report that I have just referred to, which makes it clear that there are anxieties that the interests of shared owners are not adequately reflected in the Bill.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, there are two elements of this category of permitted leases that are worthy of further exploration. One—on which the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, has gone into great detail, questioning how it will work—relates to shared ownership. The second is to do with agricultural leases.

I would like the Minister to explain, first, why agricultural leases cannot be subject to tribunal certification, rather than the current self-certification process. There does not seem to be a reason why that does not occur under the first element of permitted leases.

There are other issues, such as shared ownership and self-certification, that are not necessarily covered in the details the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, went into, but which are very important. I would like to understand how self-certification will be subject to challenge, what the process is and how such situations can be resolved. Will it be a costly process? If so, granting permitted leases for shared ownership, and agricultural leases, becomes an expensive legal minefield for those caught up in it.

So, I would like to understand why agricultural leases are not in the first set of certifications for permitted leases, and how challenges can be resolved. I look forward to what the Minister has to say.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, for Amendments 5, 6, 9, 10 and 11. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Khan, for speaking to those amendments to Part 2 of Schedule 1. These amendments would remove exemptions to the ban on the grant of new leases on houses.

As I stated when addressing Amendments 1 to 4, the Government are aware that certain housing or financial products which support home ownership rely on granting a lease. We have therefore consulted extensively on scenarios where this may be justified. For example, shared ownership, a vital home-ownership product, relies on the use of a lease. We cannot surely be saying that the thousands of new shared ownership houses built each year should not be sold any longer. Equally, we cannot say that the use of home purchase plans—including, for example, through use of Islamic finance, a vital option for the purchase of houses for those who cannot, for faith-based reasons, apply for an interest-charging mortgage—should not be allowed, or that owners of existing leasehold houses cannot extend their leases.

For any of the exceptions in Part 2 of the schedule, including shared ownership, home finance plans, lease extensions, agricultural tenancies, or contracts on leases agreed pre commencement, it should be clear and unambiguous to consumers buying these that they are getting a lease on a house, and why that lease is needed. Because of this, the Government will not require these types of leases to obtain tribunal certification. However, again, we have taken powers in the Bill to adjust the definition if there is evidence of abuse, or to move permitted leases into Part 1 of the schedule, should there be a need for tribunal involvement. The Government will continue to monitor market behaviour and act accordingly.

The noble Lord, Lord Khan, asked for some more details of these groups of homes or products. On exempting shared ownership, I should say that shared ownership is one of the Government’s key affordable housing products, which helps consumers to get on to the property ladder. Consumers purchase shares in the property over time through the payment of rent to a provider, and a lease facilitates this arrangement between the two parties. The Bill therefore permits the grant of new shared ownership leases on houses.

When we go to financial products, the Bill includes an exemption to the ban on new leasehold houses for lease-based financial products, as I said, which can help people to buy a home or release equity from it. Here a lease is required because a third-party provider acquires a freehold on the consumer’s behalf as part of the financing of the purchase. Ownership is required by two parties and is best facilitated via a lease.

The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and the noble Lord, Lord Khan, asked about agricultural tenancies. Farm businesses and agricultural landlords negotiate the length of a tenure to suit their business needs, and it is intended that this should continue, as longer-term leases can help to ensure that farmers have security to invest in their businesses over time. The Bill makes it clear that agricultural tenancies will be the permitted lease for the purposes of the ban on new leases of houses, and explicit exemption is provided in the Bill for tenancies that fall under the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 or the Agricultural Tenancies Act 1995.

We are exempting lease extensions when a home owner extends their lease; often the original lease is surrendered and a new one granted in its place. While this is technically a new lease, the homeowner remains the leaseholder of the same property. Therefore, we believe that this should be treated as an existing rather than new lease, and warrants an exemption. In practice, we envisage that most leaseholders will purchase their freehold, where they are able to do so.

We are exempting agreements for lease. These AFLs are a contract between the prospective leaseholder and landlord to enter into a lease in the future. Where an AFL was agreed prior to commencement of the Bill, it is right that this contract should be honoured, and the lease granted. For this reason, an AFL entered into prior to the commencement of the ban will be treated as a permitted lease, as both parties have agreed on the terms of the lease and are aware that they will be entering into a lease. A tribunal certificate and a warning notice are not therefore required, we believe.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage. I do not want to rehearse the reasons why I think that a mandatory share of the freehold is necessary, in the way that the noble Baroness laid out. I want to speak more to the contact that I have had with so many different groups and individuals who feel that they are trapped in their leasehold.

The number one thing that comes up is, of course, service charge abuse. Which? did a study in 2011 which suggested that 700 million service charges had been overcharged. The market for that has grown now to 6.7 billion, so we can only assume that this overcharging has grown along with it.

The challenge becomes: how do we make this market fair? How do we make sure that these abuses are washed away? That is to give the people paying the bills control, and not to lock them into the monopoly that leaseholders are currently locked into. Ultimately, the answer would be commonhold, but while commonhold is not on the table, we need to look at a share of the freehold. It should be mandatory, and it should happen straightaway. The noble Baroness laid out very eloquently the benefits that this would give to leaseholders.

We must understand that leaseholders do not want a landlord; that is why they have left the private rented sector—to avoid landlords. These amendments should stand. They really give leaseholders what they want. I have tabled an amendment which asks the Government to retain the power to bring forward a share of the freehold on new flats. That is the most important thing going on here.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, we on these Benches far prefer a move to commonhold. The journey towards commonhold is a solution to the leasehold/freehold issue.

I understand why the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, and the noble Lord, Lord Bailey, have proposed a share of freehold as a route towards commonhold as being the ideal solution, as recommended by the detailed report from the Law Commission in 2020. However, it is only a small step, and it is an option that is already being exercised by some flat owners.

It seems to me that the disadvantage of share of freehold is that, in practice, it will be possible only for blocks of flats with a small number of units. Where there is a large number of units in a single block, it would be very difficult to have a share of freehold for some but not others. It will be interesting to hear what the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, think.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Pinnock]

13: After Clause 25, insert the following new Clause—
“Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002: commonhold threshold(1) Within six months of the day on which this Act is passed the Secretary of State must make regulations to amend the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 to lower the threshold of supportive eligible leaseholders needed to enter into a commonhold to 50%.(2) 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 require the Government to legislate for conversions from leasehold to commonhold where 50% of eligible leaseholders in a building support the conversion, rather than 100% as it currently stands, in line with the recommendation from the Law Commission.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, this amendment is on commonhold. I was pleased to hear the Minister emphasise that the Government intend to ensure that commonhold becomes the norm, although it was unfortunate that the phrase that followed was “in due course”.

This conversation about leasehold reform has been going on for a very long time. I accept that it is complex and that that there are competing financial interests. I accept that it will be difficult to find a route to ensuring that leaseholders become commonholders. However, the legal work has been done by the extensive and authoritative report from the Law Commission, The Future of Home Ownership, which was published in July 2020. The commission published three massive reports—one of them is over 800 pages. Therefore, the Government have at their disposal the combined thoughts of the Law Commission on how home ownership should be extended to leaseholders, and it has explained how that is done in a straightforward way.

The amendment in my name presses the Government to legislate for conversions to commonhold where only 50% of eligible leaseholders in a building support the conversion—rather than having it at 100%, which is obviously a barrier to commonhold ownership—and is in line with the recommendation from the Law Commission.

Everyone in the Committee will be well aware that the leasehold/freehold arrangement is very unusual in western European countries. The historic norm in the rest of western Europe is the equivalent of commonhold; that is how people who live in flats organise their affairs. It was introduced in England and Wales in 2002 but, for various reasons explained by the Law Commission, it has not taken off as an alternative to leasehold.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

It is good to hear that they have a strategy; maybe the Minister can explain to the Committee what the strategy is. All I see at the moment is that there is a lot of support for commonhold—everyone is committed to it and wants to bring it in in due course—but I would like to see some sort of timeline. When are we going to get it? They will have had this report from the Law Commission for four years in July. Where is the plan? If they had a plan they could set out for the Committee, I am sure they would get a lot of support from us here, but the worry is that we will be sitting here in another four years. What is the plan from the Government?

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords—

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

I am sorry, but I asked a couple of questions there and I am hoping for a response.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I do not think I have anything further to add.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, the purpose of Amendment 13 in my name was to encourage a debate on commonhold and the route to achieving it, and in that it has been successful. I am pleased about that and thank all noble Lords for their involvement. It has been a long time since the first legislative proposal was made to abolish leasehold. I think it was in the Liberal Government of 1906, so we are going back a long way.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

It was 1880, with Henry Broadhurst.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

I do not think that that was a legislative proposal—I was very careful in the words I used. What this debate has achieved is that it is very clear across the Committee that there is overwhelming support for the move to commonhold. That is very positive. The next achievement is that it has brought forward three different ways, or perhaps four, in which the Government can move. One is a draft Bill, which seems to me to be a very interesting proposal and one that again I think would get support across the House, because the move to commonhold is complex. I and everybody else who has spoken accept that, so let us find a way of working together to achieve that common end.

The second proposal was a “Let’s get something done” type of proposal for a sunset clause. If nothing else happens, let us adopt that. The third proposal, from the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, was similar to a draft Bill: to get the Government to agree a draft strategy. Unfortunately, the Minister used the phrase “in due course” a number of times. The trouble with “in due course” is that the due course can go on for a very long time, as it has already. Some of us are concerned to enable all existing leaseholders to achieve commonhold and be part of home ownership. The party opposite always talks about that, so you would think it is in its interest to push it. That is why it is very disappointing to hear the Minister say “in due course” and, “We are considering the recommendations of the Law Commission”, which was four years ago now.

Finally, we have heard from various Members on the Labour Benches that, if they ever have the privilege to serve—that is the phrase they are using—this will happen quickly. I look forward to maybe 2025 when we might see whether the Minister will bring forward a proposal for a draft Bill on commonhold or whether somebody from the Labour Benches will do so, in which case we will make progress. We on these Benches will hold both parties to account if they fail to do that at the earliest possible moment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 13 withdrawn.