Internal Drainage Boards: Levies

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Tuesday 21st May 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of increases in internal drainage board levies on local authorities.

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

The Government are aware of the pressures that certain councils have experienced due to the increasing internal drainage board levies. In 2023-24, we assessed the impact of the levies on local authorities and provided £3 million in additional grant funding to the 15 that are most severely affected. Having listened to local authorities, the Government have announced a further £3 million of support in 2024-25. We are currently assessing the impact of this year’s increase in levies on local authorities and will announce the distribution of funding in due course.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, the £3 million does not touch the sides. Councils are charged this levy to manage water levels in their area. Since 2016 they have been expected to fund it through council tax. The financial impact shows that it has increased by almost £11 million in two years, beyond the council tax capping limit of 30 authorities involved, such as Boston, where the levy consumes 58% of the council tax, and Great Yarmouth, which saw 91% of its council tax increase consumed. Councils have been told repeatedly that the Government are looking for a long-term solution, so where is that solution, when is it coming, and will the Government meet the representatives to determine a solution before the end of the financial year?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

Yes, I am very happy to meet those people with the noble Baroness. If she gets in touch with my office, we will arrange that.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as vice-president of the Association of Drainage Authorities. Does my noble friend agree that the drainage boards play a crucial role in low-lying areas to alleviate the flood risk? Given the unprecedented weather events of the past 18 months—the wettest on record since 1836—will she commit the Government to undertaking a comprehensive review of water management and flood risk resilience to ensure that low-lying areas are not placed at greater risk in the future?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

DLUHC has already committed to work with the sector and with Defra to implement, as my noble friend quite rightly says, what needs to be a long-term solution. Both departments recognise the importance of the issue and will continue to explore options. I welcome the sector’s views on this and will undertake data gathering as part of the work.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

Internal drainage boards perform an essential function in geographically managing flood water—and this comes at a cost. If this is borne locally, other essential services will be depleted. Can the Minister comment on whether the Government would be prepared to spread this cost across all councils, not just those that habitually suffer flooding?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I understand where the noble Baroness is coming from, but that is not what the Government had envisaged. We are looking at the data and those councils that are under the greatest pressure because of the issues of water in their areas. That is how we will continue to do it this year—led by data.

[Lord Porter of Spalding (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interests on the register. Up until May last year—as some noble Lords and certainly the Minister will be aware—when the electorate unceremoniously but quite wisely decided I should have more time in my diary, I used to lead a council that suffered the unfairness of the way the drainage board levies are currently raised. Over 50% of our council tax increases used to go to pay the drainage board and over 50% of council tax in total used to go to pay the drainage board. In the last two years, over 100% of what we collected in council tax increases went to pay the drainage board. Obviously, I do not blame my noble friend’s department for that, but does she agree that this is cost shunting from Defra to DLUHC and that, perhaps, a joint meeting between Defra and DLUHC to get a resolution would probably be best for the sector?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

That is exactly where we are going. As my noble friend said, it is up to DLUHC and Defra—and local authorities—to get together and work out the future of this funding.

Leaseholders: Management Companies

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Monday 20th May 2024 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, in begging leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, I refer the House to my relevant register of interests and the fact I am a leaseholder.

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

My Lords, the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill makes it cheaper and easier for leaseholders to buy their freehold or exercise the right to manage, allowing them to take over management of their buildings themselves and directly appoint or replace agents. Of course, Section 24 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 allows leaseholders to apply to a tribunal to appoint an alternative property manager if there has been significant management failure.

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

My Lords, the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill before your Lordships’ House must rank as one of the most disappointing pieces of government legislation in recent years—and it is a competitive list. There have been nearly five years—not five weeks or five months—of hype and promise, and extraordinarily little action from the Government. When can we expect action to regulate management companies, along the lines of the report of the noble Lord, Lord Best, and when will the Government deliver the promises they have repeatedly made but are just not delivering?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, we have been very clear, and the Secretary of State was very clear, that we cannot support establishing a new regulatory body at this time and through this Bill. Measures in the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill are there to protect and empower leaseholders, along with existing protections, and work undertaken by the industry will seek to make property management agents more accountable to leaseholders who pay for their services.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as the chair of the Property Institute. The Government keep saying that they do not have time to implement RoPA; I do not believe it, and they could if they wanted to. In the meantime, at the request of people in the industry, I chaired the committee that set up a code of conduct; is there nothing the Government could do to at least endorse or make that code of conduct mandatory? That would help in making sure that all managing agents work to a high level.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, the Government welcome the ongoing work being undertaken by the industry, and thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, for the work she has done with her group on codes of practice. We have said that we will consider any code produced by her steering group, and come back to the House.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, the Competition and Markets Authority, in a recent report, was very concerned about the increasing practice of major housebuilders charging all the residents on new estates for common amenities such as roads, lighting and playgrounds, services traditionally provided by local authorities and paid for by council tax. Is the Minister confident that the measures in the Bill will ensure that prospective residents will be aware of the way that their new estate will be managed and the actual costs and services they will have to pay for before they buy? Does she agree with me that there is little justification for these residents to have to pay twice?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

Through the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill the Government are legislating to make sure that freehold home owners who pay estate rent charges have the right to challenge the reasonableness, and to go to a tribunal to appoint a manager to manage the provision of those services, along with the transparency that they will also have in those charges. We are also carefully considering the response to and the recommendations of the CMA report published in February.

[The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, is participating remotely.

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, in conditions where leaseholder landlords living overseas remain uninterested in block management—their only interest being the rent—where in the Bill is the legal obligation on managing agents to supply management committees with the valid names and contact details of these overseas landlord owners, enabling the seeking of their support for an RTM? Where, with notice, absentee landlords fail to indicate whether or not they support an RTM, surely their interests should simply be ignored. Indifference should not block progress.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, we are looking more closely at this issue, because the noble Lord is right—sometimes it can be more difficult. We have also recognised the participation rates, which can be affected by foreign owners. We have listened to the arguments raised in Committee and by MPs in the other place, and we will continue to consider the issues raised.

[Viscount Hanworth (Lab)]

My Lords, is the Minister aware of the extent of a stratagem whereby companies have acquired freeholds with the intention of removing the leaseholder occupants by undertaking works on the properties that the leaseholders cannot possibly afford to pay for? By these means the freeholder expects to compel the occupants to sell up. What redress is there against this stratagem?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I am not aware of this strategy on the part of freeholders, but I will look into it and come back to the noble Viscount.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, every day we see horror stories in the press of crippling increases in ground rents. After the Recess we go on to Report of the Leasehold and Reform Bill, but so far with no update from the Government on the ground rent consultation undertaken by them some time ago. Can the Minister tell us just what the proposals will be on ground rent?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I do not expect the noble Baroness to expect me to tell her that at an Oral Question, but the Government have been consistent that they have concerns about existing ground rents, and the adverse impact that ground rents have on leaseholders. We have consulted on a range of options to cap ground rents in existing leases. That consultation closed on 17 January and the Government will respond to it shortly.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, I am looking at the text of the Question tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, and I am trying to be helpful to my noble friend the Minister. In Scotland the management company is call the “factor”—a name that can conjure up nightmares or pleasant dreams depending on the experience. In 2011 we passed the Property Factors (Scotland) Act, one section of which allows home owners to make an application to the Homeowner Housing Panel for a determination of whether their property factor has failed to carry out their factoring duties, or failed to comply with the code. I wonder whether there is any useful guidance in that for my noble friend the Minister.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I think what my noble friend is suggesting is what we have in Section 24 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987, which allows leaseholders to apply to a tribunal to appoint an alternative property manager—or “factor”—if there has been significant management failure.

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

My Lords, over the last few years the Member for Surrey Heath in the other place has made some absolutely wonderful statements, promises and claims and given interviews on all sorts of things we all support. Why did none of them make it into the Bill?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

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

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

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

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

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

[Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con)]

My Lords, is the Minister aware just how difficult it is to get rid of an incompetent management company? Such companies hide behind the excuse that they cannot get permission from all the people in the building. It is high time we dealt with this problem and stopped this terrible situation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I agree that if you have a bad managing agent, it is not acceptable for any leaseholder. But, as I said, you can use Section 24. We are making it better with the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill, and I am very happy to talk to the noble Lord about issues he may have encountered.

Representation of the People (England and Wales and Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Regulations 2024

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Wednesday 15th May 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook]

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 15 April be approved. Considered in Grand Committee on 13 May.

Motion agreed.

Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Wednesday 15th May 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook]

That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order:

Clauses 1 to 7, Schedule 1, Clauses 8 to 18, Schedule 2, Clauses 19 to 29, Schedule 3, Clauses 30 to 36, Schedules 4 to 7, Clauses 37 to 44, Schedule 8, Clauses 45 and 46, Schedule 9, Clause 47, Schedule 10, Clauses 48 to 69, Schedule 11, Clauses 70 to 104, Schedule 12, Clauses 105 to 109, Schedule 13, Clauses 110 to 124, Title.

Motion agreed.

Traveller Site Fund

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Wednesday 15th May 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville]

To ask His Majesty’s Government how many bids were received for the £10 million Traveller Site Fund 2022/23, and of those how many were (1) successful, and (2) unsuccessful.

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

The £10 million Traveller site fund closed on 13 June 2023. Overall, 97 bids for funding were received from 66 local authorities across England, nine local authorities were successful and 16 sites received a share of the £10 million fund.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

I thank the Minister for her Answer. Those low numbers are extremely worrying. If every local authority provided sites for Travellers as a matter of course, their needs would be catered for and the police would not need to waste time moving them on. How many of the successful bids were for new pitches? Have those pitches been delivered, and are they in use?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

What is being delivered are 10 pitches on one new transit site, 225 pitch refurbishments over 14 sites, and 14 pitch refurbishments and an extension to one permanent site. Those projects are already in development according to their plans.

[Baroness Whitaker (Lab)]

My Lords, given the continued shortage of enough local authority sites, will the Government consider allocating further rounds and higher amounts of the Traveller site fund? Otherwise very many children are going to be moved away from their schools, people are going to be evicted—and they are usually considered homeless when they are—and friction arises when they find somewhere to live, because there are not enough sites.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

We do not intend at this time to put any more money in as we did with the £10 million. However, local authorities can go to the affordable homes programme, which has £11.5 billion. That fund is being used by local authorities to provide pitches where they need them.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I am all in favour of providing suitable sites for Gypsies, Travellers and those with a nomadic lifestyle. However, when the first official count was carried out in July 1979 there were a total of 8,065 Traveller caravans, and local authorities were urged to make suitable provision. There are now authorised sites for 21,000 Traveller caravans, but the number has gone up fourfold to over 25,000. What are the reasons behind this sudden demand for a nomadic lifestyle in England?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My noble friend asks an interesting question to which I do not have the answer, but it is probably very complex and there will be numerous reasons for it. Interestingly, last year the number of caravans on unauthorised encampments decreased by 21%, which gives me the feeling that those people who take this nomadic lifestyle are using authorised camps to live in.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act was the ideal opportunity to help to address the inequalities faced by the Traveller community. Since the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, the then Minister for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, announced a cross-departmental strategy for tackling these inequalities in 2019, no plan has been announced. When can the Traveller community expect to hear what the Government’s strategy is for improving outcomes for Travellers?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I thank my noble friend Lord Bourne for all his work when he was a Minister in my position. I do not have an update on the Bourne review, but I will certainly write to the noble Baroness and the House with an update on it.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, next month is Gypsy, Roma and Traveller History Month, and I hope that all Members of your Lordships’ House will take the opportunity to learn a little more about the many centuries of history of Gypsy, Roma and Traveller people in the UK. In that light, I am sure that the Minister is aware of the High Court judgment this week against the Police Act 2022 that said that 12-month bans from an area for Gypsy and Traveller people were incompatible with Article 14 rights within Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Noble Lords may remember that a significant number of your Lordships’ House voted against that provision in the Police Act. There now has to be a legal review. Can the Minister tell me what the Government’s plans are for it?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

No. That is a very recent decision. I do not know that there are any plans but, certainly as soon as we have them, I will let the noble Baroness know.

[Lord Geddes (Con)]

My Lords, I will hark back to a Question we had yesterday: is there any correlation between Traveller sites and fly-tipping?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I do not know of any research on that. I am sure my noble friend will have his views on it and others will as well. I do not think we have any definite evidence on that so I would rather not make any further comment.

Representation of the People (England and Wales and Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Regulations 2024

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Monday 13th May 2024 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Representation of the People (England and Wales and Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Regulations 2024.

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

My Lords, in 2022, Parliament passed the Elections Act, which, among many other measures, introduced measures to amend the franchise to reflect the UK’s new relationship with the EU and protect the rights of UK citizens living in EU countries. Last year, two statutory instruments were passed, one for England and Wales and one for Northern Ireland, which flowed from that aspect of the Elections Act. These included new registration requirements for applications from EU citizens in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. The majority of these changes came into effect on 7 May.

I bring forward this instrument today to amend a drafting oversight in both regulations. This instrument will correct that oversight by replacing a flawed definition, thereby implementing the original policy intention. The erroneous definition has resulted in certain EU citizens with particular combinations of nationalities being legally required to provide immaterial eligibility information when they register to vote. For example, it will require an individual with French and Commonwealth dual nationality to provide this information despite them having the same voting eligibility as someone with a single Commonwealth nationality. That should not be necessary for a qualifying Commonwealth citizen, as they have voting rights in the United Kingdom. This is because the eligibility of an individual with more than one nationality to participate in elections is established based on whichever of their nationalities grants them the greatest voting rights.

One of the primary intentions of the two current instruments was to allow EU citizens who chose to make the UK their home prior to the end of the implementation period—that is, before the UK left the EU—to continue to have the same right to vote and stand. This group of electors is referred to as “EU citizens with retained rights”. People applying to register to vote under the retained rights criteria, referred to as “relevant EU applicants”, must make a legal declaration that they meet the criteria of an EU citizen with retained rights and that they have been legally resident in the UK since the end of the implementation period.

“Relevant EU applicants” were intended to be defined as individuals who are citizens of the 19 EU member states with which the UK does not have a reciprocal voting and candidacy rights treaty, and who are not citizens of Ireland, Cyprus or Malta. These exemptions exist because Irish citizens’ UK voting rights long pre-date the EU, while the voting rights of Cypriot and Maltese citizens derive from their Commonwealth citizenship.

The five countries with which the UK has voting and candidacy rights treaties are Spain, Portugal, Luxembourg, Poland and Denmark. Citizens of those countries will not lose their voting rights in the United Kingdom. However, due to an oversight, for which I apologise, the requirement to indicate that they fulfil the retained rights criteria unintentionally applies to particular applicants with dual nationalities. The current legal definition of a “relevant EU applicant” means that citizens of the 19 relevant EU countries who also have another nationality which is British or Commonwealth, excluding Cyprus and Malta, or citizenship of a treaty partner state are legally obliged to indicate that they fulfil retained rights criteria as part of their application to register to vote, even though that answer is irrelevant to determining their eligibility.

While this issue exists in law, if an application to register to vote from a relevant dual national is received by an electoral registration officer and the applicant has not indicated that they fulfil the retained rights criteria, that application would technically be incomplete. As such, the electoral administrator would have to get in touch with the applicant to require this information, even though the answer to the question will make no difference to the outcome of their application.

In practice, this issue creates the potential for confusion among applicants, who could object on the grounds that being asked to indicate that they fulfil retained rights criteria is unreasonable. Worse, this confusion could even result in people abandoning an application to register and disenfranchising themselves. It also creates the potential for an increased administrative burden on electoral registration officers.

This new statutory instrument amends the definition of a “relevant EU applicant” in the England and Wales regulations, as well as the equivalent term used in the Northern Ireland regulations. The new instrument defines a “relevant EU applicant” as someone who is: a citizen of an EU member state; is not a citizen of an EU member state which has a treaty with the UK and/or; is not a British citizen, a qualifying Commonwealth citizen or a citizen of the Republic of Ireland. This will provide an enduring resolution to the issue, by which the affected dual nationals I referred to earlier will no longer legally be required to provide immaterial information as part of their application to register to vote. Until this instrument comes into force, measures have been put in place to minimise the extent of the issue.

Having set out the background to this statutory instrument, I hope that the Committee will appreciate the need to swiftly make the straightforward legislative amendment. It will remove the legal requirement for certain dual national applicants to provide immaterial information and revert to the original intention of the regulations. I beg to move.

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

My Lords, I take this opportunity to welcome my noble friend Lady Scott, back to her position. We have missed her through many SIs that we have discussed in this Room at different stages, and we are pleased to see her back. That is particularly so, because a number of people in this Committee, not least my noble friend Lady Scott, as well as the noble Lords, Lord Rennard and Lord Khan, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, helped me to pass the Ballot Secrecy Act through the Lords and the Commons. That Act was implemented for the first time at the elections on 2 May. Now that it has completed its course and been fully implemented, I express my appreciation to them for their involvement at one stage or another in achieving that legislation. I merely observe that, unfortunately, in my polling station there was no notice relating to the Ballot Secrecy Act, but I will live with that.

While that legislation was going through, I wrote to my noble friend the Minister, raising the question of comments made in a ministerial write-round. She said that she could not comment; I well understand that, and I do not expect her to do so now. However, in her absence—I am sure it is not because of it—I have since received clarification that the Electoral Commission’s counsel’s opinion was received by officials on 26 August, which was a month and three days before a ministerial write-round said that we had been given some “headline information”. However, I appreciate the clarification at last.

To come back to this SI, the noble Lords, Lord Rennard, Lord Wallace and Lord Khan, and I, met the new chief executive of the Electoral Commission a few weeks ago, and we discussed the sheer quantity of pages of statutory instruments that are being passed in relation to all elections law. This error—the Minister has acknowledged that it was an error, and that this is intended to put it put it right—indicates the sheer quantity of pages that one is dealing with. I make a request of whoever are the next Government: there is a desperate need for the consolidation of all electoral legislation. To be honest, it is a mess at the moment, which I think we all agree on. There may be slightly different interpretations on one or two matters, but there is no question but that elections law needs consolidation. In that meeting, the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, identified that we had considered in Grand Committee some 1,100 pages of SIs arising out of the Elections Act. It is impossible to give adequate scrutiny to that sheer quantity of legislation, and much of it arises from the lack of consolidation.

I seek specific clarification in relation to the one point that I wanted to raise. I referred just now to the elections of 2 May but I think I heard the Minister identify that this did not apply on 2 May. I think I heard her refer to the date of 7 May in terms of implementation, in which case my supplementary question becomes otiose—that is, did it have any implications for 2 May? Can my noble friend confirm that she used that date? I conclude with that question.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, the fact that we are here yet again emphasises the enormity and complexity of the Elections Act and electoral statute. I echo the comments by the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, supported by my noble friend Lord Stansgate, about consolidation of all electoral legislation. As the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, indicated in a meeting with the chief executive of the Electoral Commission, there are 1,100 pages of SIs as a result of the Elections Act. We should never have to come to that situation again.

It is critical that our electoral law is as legible and transparent as possible, not only for the health of democracy but, as I have repeated to the Minister previously, for the workload of our understaffed electoral teams, which are tasked with keeping the integrity of our elections intact. Mistakes in legislation in this area make that challenge even harder. They could create confusion and concern among dual nationals who are entitled to vote, by not only collecting unnecessary information from those looking to register but increasing the workload of electoral officers, who already have to tidy up databases and deal with queries from so many different members of the public who are confused as to why this question is being asked in the first instance. Unfortunately, rather than helping our electoral administrators, the Government have introduced an Elections Act that significantly increases the load on them.

This is the second correction the department has had to make following the Elections Act. Given that the consequences of these mistakes could potentially change the franchise, what steps is the department taking to proactively review that the legislation is working as intended so that no other potential consequences are being missed? I would be grateful if the Minister could outline what support is being provided to electoral officers to carry out the amendment to the franchise for EU nationals. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that there are no mistakes in the system? What is the Minister’s response to the report on voter registration from the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee, which highlighted a creaking system without any efficiency and with the huge challenges presented by the Elections Act? I would welcome her thoughts on that.

I recognise the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, that this is a complicated area of law; we appreciate that. In summary, we support this draft statutory instrument, but I would welcome reassurance from the Minister on the points I raised and those eloquently raised by noble Lords across the Committee. I look forward to her response.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I thank noble Lords for their contributions today. I will go through a few of the issues that were brought up.

First, the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, is absolutely right: the instruments in this amending SI had no effect on the elections held on 2 May. The changes to the franchise for EU citizens came into force on 7 May; that date was chosen specifically so that there would be no impact on the May local elections.

We have heard quite a lot about consolidation, as we did when the Elections Bill, which is now an Act, was going through. I think that will be for subsequent Governments to look at. This is complex; there are huge numbers of pieces of legislation impacting on top of each other within the elections arena. As the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, and the noble Lords, Lord Rennard and Lord Khan of Burnley, brought up, that is something which will have to be done by subsequent Governments.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, brought up the numbers affected. I do not know those numbers, but I will have a look and write to her. On the oversight occurring in the first place, as I said, I apologise—but it is recognised that, even with stringent checks in quite complex pieces of legislation such as this, there is always a chance of unintentional errors. Regrettably, sometimes they are overlooked and, unfortunately, this is one such case, but the main thing is that we are dealing with it now.

On the issues around differences in voting rights for residency, this instrument is focused on amending a definition in existing regulations. Those regulations have already been passed in Parliament—as I say, they came into force on 7 May—and there are no further plans to revise any of them. I remember well the debates held on the changes being introduced by those regulations, and this is not the time to go over them again. It is certainly not the time at this early stage, when the regulations have only just gone into law, to put forward further revisions.

The Electoral Commission will keep an eye on all these issues as they are put into place, as will the department. Of course, if there are any issues or problems, we will keep an eye on that. That was a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Khan of Burnley. It is important that we keep a close eye on any changes, particularly to electoral legislation, as it is complex. If anybody who wants to register to vote goes on to the Electoral Commission’s website, all the details are on there—and people do that. Also, our wonderful election officers in our local authorities are usually the first contact that people have. Even if they are complex voters, all the information will be given to them by our local authorities as well, which is important.

I think that is everything I had to answer. I know that the House believes that ensuring the smooth running of our democratic processes is of paramount importance. This amendment is therefore important, and I thank noble Lords for supporting the instrument to get this right. I commend it the Committee.

[Lord Rennard (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister has referred to the Electoral Commission’s website and to the excellent work done by local authorities in registering people to vote. How does she explain the fact that, according to the Electoral Commission, we have 8 million people who are either not registered, but should be, or are incorrectly registered?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I do not know about “incorrectly registered”. I will take that back and look at the numbers but we have to accept that, in any democracy, some people just do not want to vote. I do not know whether noble Lords have been knocking on doors but I have; there are certainly people in this country who do not want to vote, for whatever reason. That impacts on us all as politicians and party members. We should encourage people to want to vote but, unfortunately, some people do not want to do so. We are not a country that forces people to vote.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

I want to respond to that response. The Minister talks about knocking on doors. I am sure that we have all encountered people who think, “But I’ve got my driver’s licence and I pay my council tax. I must be registered to vote because I’m on the system”. Does the Minister acknowledge that significant numbers of people who would like to vote do not find a way to navigate the system—or, indeed, do not know that they have to navigate it until it is too late?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

No, I do not accept that. The Electoral Commission and the Government have always been out there advertising and promoting the need to vote in this country, as have the political parties. Since we have had to have voter ID, that has not seemed to be an issue; most people have it and know that they have only to go to their local authority to get a voter identity document if they do not. I do not think that that is the case; I think that some people do not want to vote.

Motion agreed.

Councillors: Publication of Addresses

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Wednesday 8th May 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

In the absence of my noble friend Lady Eaton and with her permission, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in her name on the Order Paper.

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

My Lords, Local Government Minister Simon Hoare MP wrote to all local authorities last month to remind them that the Localism Act’s “sensitive interests” provision enables councillors to request that their home addresses be withheld from publication and to urge that such requests be accommodated. Primary legislation would be needed to make provision that home addresses should not be included in published copies of the register of interests, and the Government will consider this if and when a legislative opportunity occurs.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

I am grateful to my noble friend. Does she agree that those who stand for elected office should be protected from those who wish them or their families harm? That is why MPs and local councillors can withhold their addresses from ballot papers. However, councillors have no such right to withhold their addresses from the register of interests, despite the Committee on Standards in Public Life recommending that

“a councillor does not need to register their home address on an authority’s register”.

Councillors remain open to the discretion of the monitoring officer. Should we not bring the law for the councillors’ register into line with that for the ballot paper and, indeed, with that for Members of Parliament?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My noble friend is right that the safety of our elective representatives is essential to the security of this country. Protecting our democratic values and our processes for democracy is one of the most important duties that government has. Any councillors with concerns about the publication of their home addresses on published versions of the register of interests can and should use the “sensitive interests” provision at Section 32 of the Localism Act 2011. Minister Hoare has recently reiterated this to those responsible in local authorities in his recent letter.

[Lord Rennard (LD)]

My Lords, according to the Local Government Association’s recent survey, 70% of local councillors reported experiencing abuse or intimidation. Aggressive behaviour which goes well beyond courteous debate deters people from public service, weakens democracy and is damaging to the families of those who seek to serve others. Will the Minister write to all local authorities urging them to take up the Local Government Association’s Debate Not Hate campaign? Will she seek to widen the scope of the defending democracy programme run by the National Protective Security Authority explicitly to include the safety, security and well-being of locally elected politicians, rather than focusing solely on national politicians and foreign interference?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I will certainly take that back to the department. Anything more that we can do to protect democracy, particularly in local elections, we will do—I will make sure that I do that myself. On 28 February, the Prime Minister announced that he was putting an additional £31 million over the next year into strengthening security not just for MPs but for all locally elected representatives. He has been working with the police on this issue as well. It is important to know that we are doing something to protect all our elected representatives, but we can always do more.

[Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I was a member of the Committee on Standards in Public Life when the report on local government ethical standards was published in January 2019. We took evidence from many councillors of all parties about the intimidation they received, including at home because their home addresses were in the public domain. They felt particularly unsafe when online threats were being made. The Government did not respond to the committee’s recommendations until 2022, when they agreed with the principle behind them and the statutory amendments which the committee proposed. They said that this was the right route to take and promised that they would engage with interested parties on the best means of ensuring that councillors and candidates were not required to publish their addresses. It is a shame that it has taken so long. Do the Government intend to publish their response?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, we have already enacted one of the recommendations from the Committee on Standards in Public Life, about candidates, but, as I said before, the issue of local councillors is more difficult, as we need primary legislation to change that. We are keeping our eye on when we can do it.

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

My Lords, I am pleased that my noble friend referred to democracy in general. Although we are here specifically discussing local councillors, is it not worth bearing in mind that, for example, Members of the House of Lords and other people in the public eye have faced threats? When discussing this with other government departments, we need to bear in mind the loneliness of families who are living in identifiable locations—their home addresses and the like—when their relatives or spouses are away in this or other places.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

As far as families are concerned, my noble friend is absolutely right. That is why they are mentioned under the “sensitive interests” provision and protected in the same way as councillors. As far as the House of Lords and Peers are concerned, I will take that back to the relevant House officials.

[Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister was kind enough to say that this was such an important issue that “Anything … we can do … we will do”. May I make a simple suggestion? At present, the protection afforded under law requires councillors to opt in. They have actively to seek out the right not to have their addresses shown. Could the Government make it an opt-out system by creating an obligation under statute that councillors’ home addresses will not be published unless they specifically request that this be done?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

This is exactly what the Government have said they will look to do as soon as they get legislative time. At the moment, it is better that we have an opt-in, or is it an opt-out? I cannot remember which way it is; noble Lords will know what I mean. It is important to have this while we are waiting for that further legislation.

[Lord Naseby (Con)]

My Lords, if we go back to the 1960s, when I stood for election in the London Borough of Islington and was the first ever Conservative leader in that borough, there were—from memory—two people standing as councillors on phantom home addresses. As far as I am concerned, there must be some managed means of ensuring that anybody standing for a local authority is actually living within that local authority area.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I do not think it is a requirement to live in that local authority area necessarily, but it is important that anything on the register is correct. Obviously, there are ways of looking into that. The other interesting thing is that you can opt in or opt out. Some people like to opt in—they really want their names to be there—and therefore any legislation needs to give the opportunity for councillors or any other elected members to do that.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, in recent months, many local and national politicians, including me, have been subject to behaviour from a minority of the public which goes beyond what is reasonable and acceptable, including putting people’s homes on social media, throwing fireworks through letterboxes, and horrendous abuse being given out on the doorstep. Keeping our politicians safe and feeling safe is vital not only for its own purpose but to stop others being put off from dedicating their lives to public service. What broader steps are the Government taking to ensure that this building pattern of intimidation is halted and reversed before it becomes an accepted norm against councillors, MPs and Members of this House?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

The noble Lord is absolutely right. We cannot have intimidation stopping people wanting to be elected to represent their communities at whatever level—it is important even at parish council level. What more can we do? We can look for legislative time to change it, but, in the meantime, we are doing everything we can. We have put in £31 million more this year to bolster security for elected members and, as I say, if you are a local councillor, there is always an opportunity to go to your monitoring officer and ask for your home address to be taken off if you are worried about it or worried about your family.

Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 1st May 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I add my tribute on the sad and sudden passing of Lord Stunell. We worked very closely with him on the levelling-up Bill, and he was such a great asset during the passage of that Bill. Looking at his record over the years, his was a life dedicated to public service, to both national and local government. I hope the noble Baroness will take our condolences back to the Liberal Democrat group, and we will pass them on to his family as well.

The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, is right to call this issue a sorry tale of shame. It is clear from the number of building safety amendments in this group and this Bill, and previously in the levelling-up Bill, that there appears from our debates to be a cross-party consensus from most of us, except the Government Front Bench, of such deep dissatisfaction with building safety in general and the glacial progress on remediation in particular. It was carefully calculated in the recent Times article by Martina Lees, referred to earlier, to show that only 8% of buildings in need have been remedied, not the 21% that the Government claim, and which was mentioned by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lincoln.

As important is the huge number of non-qualifying leaseholders whose dreams of property ownership have turned to nightmares, as the horror of their uncertain financial position, the escalating costs of remediation and the impossibility of selling homes—I have seen evidence of this, as valuers are currently placing values at zero or negative—snatch away their aspirations and leave behind only extreme anxiety. Numbers vary, but the Times estimates the number of affected homes to be up to 1.5 million and, as other noble Lords have said, upwards of 4 million people are affected.

An excellent briefing from the National Residential Landlords Association points out that data remains lacking and estimates that there are approximately 1.3 million leaseholders in buildings less than 11 metres in height and 400,000 leaseholders, referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, in high-rise buildings who are non-qualifying because of other eligibility criteria. Many leaseholders are unaware of their non-qualifying status or are alerted to it only when they receive an invoice for remediation works or attempt to sell their property. It is important to remember that many leaseholders are understandably reluctant to speak out on this issue for fear of further devaluing what they thought was going to be a very valuable property asset.

The scale of this problem is eye-watering. I agree with comments made previously by Members of your Lordships’ House that, unless this is addressed urgently, as more and more leaseholders discover their liability, another enormous injustice scandal will unravel, which will scar whole generations of home owners. The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, referred to the fact that this will escalate over time to the detriment of freeholders and leaseholders, but with the balance of personal financial risk sitting with leaseholders.

The system the Government put in place, which was subject to an update in your Lordships’ House at the end of March, may have made some progress, but as a spokesperson for Grenfell United said:

“Government’s shockingly slow progress towards remediation shows a complete lack of political will to keep people safe in their own homes”.


Giles Grover, of the excellent group End Our Cladding Scandal said:

“The majority of unsafe buildings across the country still don’t have plans in place to fix all issues”.


The 7,283 mid-rise buildings that the Government have estimated to be unsafe are missing from any plan for remediation as they are deemed non-qualifying, and the unbearable pressure of remediation is falling on the ordinary people who make these flats their homes. While the Government have brought forward legislation and statutory instruments to deal with this situation, progress has been slow because issues are being dealt with piecemeal as they arise. Even when legislation has been considered, such as the Building Safety Act 2022, which should have been a comprehensive solution, too often amendments were rejected with serious impacts and consequences for leaseholders only now becoming more apparent.

The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, proposes a comprehensive and detailed framework to encompass the whole situation around building safety remediation that would give more structure to the current piecemeal approach. While I understand that the level of detail that he proposes in this scheme will almost certainly not be greeted by the Minister with the wholehearted approval that it probably deserves, I hope the principle of having such a framework in place and the thorough approach set out by the noble Earl will at least be a matter for reflection and future consideration as the Bill progresses.

Amendments 96 and 97, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, his Amendments 99 and 100, to which I have added my name, and Amendments 105E and 105F, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, are aimed at ending the iniquitous distinction between qualifying and non-qualifying leaseholders. We cannot simply allow the nightmare that many non-qualifying leaseholders are enduring to continue.

We totally support the aim of Amendment 102, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, in terms of holding the Government to account for the building safety remediation programme. The reporting mechanisms so far do not appear to have accelerated progress on remediation, although it has to be said that the bringing to justice of some of the worst developer offenders, such as those involved with Vista Tower in Stevenage, is welcome. I hope the Government will accept this amendment and bring regular updates before your Lordships’ House, but it would be even better if there could be target dates for outstanding work to be completed. The fact that remediation has dragged on for so many years is a cause of great frustration, anxiety and financial hardship to those affected. Do the Government have a view about a projected end date for these works to be completed? A deadline, even if it is not met by everyone involved, is great for concentrating the minds of those involved in remediation.

In response to the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, and the noble Lord, Lord Empey, I agree with the noble Baroness that it is not just developers who are responsible for this issue. But a big problem here has been the deregulation of the building control function, taking it away from local authorities and allowing developers to pick and choose who their building control inspectors will be. That has been greatly responsible for some of these issues.

Our Amendment 105 is simple and straightforward in its aim. It would bring the beleaguered non-qualified leaseholders, who are in desperate need of remedies for their building defects, within the remit of the Building Safety Act 2022. Surely, if we are concerned about ensuring that people feel safe and are safe in their homes, we can all support that. It remains our position that it should not be the responsibility of leaseholders to suffer the financial consequences of defective building. Amendment 105C in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, has a similar aim.

I support my noble friend Lord Rooker in his campaign to highlight the danger of—I was going to call them electricity surges, but I had better not now because I will get into trouble with him—neutral current diversion. I want to come back to the case that Martina Lees quoted of Viv Sharma and his Ukrainian wife Julia, who had to leave their nine-storey block when the fire service deemed it unsafe. It had more than 17 defects, caused by the original developers, which should never have been approved by building control. They have been offered less for their property than they bought it for 15 years ago, and they have had to pay for temporary accommodation. Julia has said:

“I’m now 50. How am I supposed to rebuild my life?”


That situation—which is morally wrong, as the noble Lord, Lord Young, said—remains in place. Such situations should have been remedied by the Building Safety Act but were not. We now have another opportunity to put things right, so I hope the Government will do so by accepting the amendments before us today.

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

My Lords, I first add my tribute to Andrew, Lord Stunell. I have sat opposite him for many hours in this Chamber and in Committee, being challenged by him in a detailed but always good-humoured way. I am going to miss him. I did not know where he was this week to begin with, and I asked questions. He will be sorely missed, particularly on the issues that we talk about as a group of Peers. I send his family, friends and colleagues our best wishes. May he rest in peace.

I thank noble Lords for the amendments on building safety and for this thoughtful debate. It is an important issue. I will take all the amendments in turn and put the Government’s view. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, for Amendments 93B and 107. Their aims were debated extensively during the passage of the Building Safety Act 2022 and the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act 2023. I thank the noble Earl for his years of important campaigning on building safety, and for tabling these amendments again and speaking to them in such a detailed way. We continue to consider his arguments and are always willing to listen carefully to the ways in which we could improve the current regime. That is why the Government tabled several clauses in the other place to clarify and extend the protections in some particular areas of this Act.

However, I reiterate that implementing a new building safety remediation scheme would reverse what has been achieved by the regulatory regime set out in the Building Safety Act. Creating a system which mirrored the existing regime would delay essential remediation already being carried out. It would also create uncertainty for leaseholders across the country. The responsible actors scheme, the developer remediation contract, remediation orders and remediation contribution orders are already delivering many of the noble Earl’s objectives, requiring developers to fix problems that they have caused.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Empey (UUP)]

On that matter, if a company was responsible for defective property and the company became insolvent, am I to understand that the directors of that company would be capable of recommencing building another property? Or is the Minister saying that the individuals could be followed through the courts for remediation, rather than being able to sidestep their responsibilities?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, that is an interesting and very legal point. Rather than speaking off the top of my head, I would like to get it right and write to the noble Lord.

I move to Amendments 96, 97, 99 and 100. I thank my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham for these amendments. Amendments 96 and 99 would extend the leaseholder protections to buildings under 11 metres and to collectively owned leaseholder buildings. It is generally accepted that the risk to life from historic fire safety defects is proportionate to the height of buildings. As this risk is lower in buildings under 11 metres, such buildings will require remediation only in very exceptional circumstances. Given the small number of buildings that have required this—it is three across the country; the developers have remediated two of them and we are in negotiations on the third to get that remediation done—our assessment remains that extending the leaseholder protections to these buildings is neither necessary nor proportionate.

Where leaseholders in buildings under 11 metres face remediation costs, it is important, as I have said so many times at the Dispatch Box, that they contact the department immediately and we will look into that individual building on a case-by-case basis. If necessary, we will write to the building owner to seek assurances that any proposed works are necessary and proportionate, and that the rights to redress are being fully utilised.

The Government understand that some leaseholders in these buildings are still facing higher insurance premiums, with insurers citing building safety as the reason for the increase. The Association of British Insurers and its members have stated that premiums should reduce where buildings comply with building regulations. We expect insurers to honour their commitments and make sure that premiums are priced fairly and appropriate to the level of risk.

Regarding collectively owned leaseholder buildings, the Government made the decision that the leaseholder protections in the Building Safety Act would not apply to these buildings. As a result, people would still have to pay to remedy the safety defects in their building as owners. Residents who own the freehold would have to pay not only their portion of remediation costs but for any residents who did not participate in the purchase of the freehold.

Since the Building Safety Act, the Government have continued to examine the situation faced by collectively owned leasehold buildings. For instance, the Building Safety (Leaseholder Protections) (England) Regulations 2022 provide owners in these leaseholder-owned buildings with access to remediation contribution costs. We have listened and we have acted.

I turn to Amendment 97. The existing leaseholder protection package is designed to maintain a fine balance between leaseholders’ and freeholders’ rights. The amendment distorts the balance disproportionately in favour of leaseholders and risks unfairly benefiting one group of investors, leaseholders, to the detriment of another—the freeholders.

Regarding Amendment 100, our intention has always been to protect individuals living in their own homes, rather than those who have purchased property for financial or commercial reasons. Changing the leaseholder protection regime so that it is linked to a share of ownership, rather than individual properties, would also introduce an unnecessary level of uncertainty and complexity into the protections.

Regarding cessation certificates, it is not clear what effect such a certificate would have or how a landlord would know when to serve one. The responsibility for the costs of fixing historical building safety defects should rest with those responsible for creating them. The Building Safety Act was clear that, when this is not possible, responsibility for remediation should be shared between stakeholders in the property. Concentrating responsibility on a single group would risk a number of unintended consequences, including freeholders becoming insolvent. Taken together, the changes made by this amendment would therefore complicate the regime unnecessarily and slow the progress made towards the remediation of buildings.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, who spoke on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, to Amendment 102 about the reporting requirement for building safety remediation. The Government are committed to accelerating remediation and protecting affected residents. The total number of buildings reported to have started or completed remediation works in England has more than doubled since the end of March 2023. Along with monthly updates, Ministers have also committed to providing the other place and those interested with regular updates on progress, the latest of which was provided on 26 March.

My noble friend Lord Young of Cookham asked about ACM cladding. Another noble Lord mentioned pathways. I realise that pathways do not mean delivery, but, importantly, all residential buildings in England taller than 11 metres have a pathway to fixing unsafe cladding, either through taxpayer-funded schemes, developer-funded schemes or social housing provider-led remediation. This protects leaseholders from these costs. In addition, 99% of high-rise buildings with unsafe Grenfell-style ACM cladding identified before 2023 have been made safe or have work under way to make them safe. The proportion of buildings remediated continues to shift as more buildings are being identified and 90% of all high-rise buildings with ACM cladding have been made safe or have work under way on them.

My noble friend Lord Young also brought up the issue of decanting. The Government amended the Bill in the other place to make it explicit that the costs of alternative accommodation for residents, when they are decanted from their homes to avoid imminent threat to life or of personal injury, or because remediation works cannot take place while residents are in occupation, can be recovered. They can recover those costs through a remediation contribution order, which is an important change to the Bill.

The department continues to take steps to support applicants to start on site more quickly. Local authorities, fire and rescue authorities and the Health and Safety Executive can take enforcement action against those not progressing remedial works. Where building owners are failing to make acceptable progress, those responsible should expect further action to be taken.

Some 55 of the largest developers signed legally binding contracts committing to remediate, or to pay to remediate, life-critical fire safety defects in 1,500 buildings over 11 metres that they had a role in developing in England over the 30 years to April 2022. Together with the building safety levy, this will see industry contribute an estimated £6 billion. The department publishes information on developer progress based on quarterly returns submitted by developers, and this is available. I make it clear that the introduction of new reporting requirements involves time and cost, which need to be balanced against the need to continue our progress in building remediation. So I ask the noble Baroness not to press the amendment.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, for her Amendment 105. Similarly to Amendment 97, it would open the door to changes which distort that balance disproportionately in favour of one group, to the detriment of another. It is important that legislation provides clarity for leaseholders, freeholders and the courts. The Government believe that having definitions of qualifying and non-qualifying leases in primary legislation provides greater certainty to all interested parties—an important consideration given that this is a pivotal part of the legislation for so many people across the country.

I thank the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, for Amendments 105C to 105G, which seek to make several changes to the building safety regime and, in the case of Amendment 105G, the insolvency regime. Amendment 105C would rewrite the developer remediation contract by statute. This would unfortunately serve to create operational legal confusion about what developers’ obligations are, which buildings need to be identified and remediated, and what standards this should be done to, resulting in delay and litigation. I hope the Committee agrees that the Government should instead focus on holding developers to account for remediating unsafe buildings as quickly as possible.

On Amendment 105D, it is right that the Government have worked with major developers that have built defective buildings to secure binding commitments to remediate, worth an estimated £3 billion. However, I do not believe it would be fair also to target these specific developers to pay a disproportionate share of other remediation costs for buildings that they have no connection with. That is why we are focused on setting up the building safety levy to contribute funds to our programmes to remediate buildings over 11 metres. The levy is estimated to raise a further £3 billion over 10 years, or more.

We have had much debate on the merits of Amendment 105E, and I gave my views on Amendments 96, 97 and 99. As I mentioned, relatively small numbers of residential buildings under 11 metres or five storeys require remediation. These buildings are considered to be at low risk of historical fire defects, and I maintain that this change would disproportionately and unfairly place the obligation for remediation of non-life-threatening defects on freeholders. Meanwhile, extending protection to leaseholders who have not purchased the freehold would place the financial burden of remediation entirely on leaseholders who own a share of the freehold, making it less likely that these buildings will be remediated.

As for providing leaseholder protections to leaseholders who own more than three dwellings, I reiterate the points raised earlier. Landlords owning a number of properties are likely to have these as investments, and a fair balance needs to be met. The Building Safety Act was not designed to benefit investors; it is to help individuals living in their own homes.

On Amendment 105F, removing qualifications for passing on costs for defects in service charges would widen the scope of the leaseholder protections considerably. This would risk the burden of remediation costs falling disproportionately on landlords, whether or not those landlords are also some or all of the leaseholders in the building. The amendment also provides for members of a building industry scheme to cover remediation costs. I have already mentioned my concerns with the similar approach in Amendment 105D.

--- Later in debate ---

We have the opportunity here to implement the very sound recommendations of the working group of the noble Lord, Lord Best, by incorporating them into the Bill as set out in Amendment 94. I hope the Government will accept this and end the decades of delay we have seen on this issue, but if they do not and the noble Lord decides to return to it on Report, he will certainly still have our support.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Best, for his Amendment 94, and for his and other noble Lords’ persistence in pushing for the creation of a new regulatory body to oversee property agents. I put on record my sincere thanks to him for his valuable work on regulation over very many years. I note that he is also a member of the Industry and Regulators Committee, which recently concluded that the case for regulation of the property agent sector still remains. Ministers will respond to the committee in due course.

However, as the noble Lord is acutely aware, the Secretary of State indicated in the other place that he did not consider that this was the right time or the right Bill to set up a new regulator for property agents. I know that he and other noble Lords will be disappointed, but perhaps not surprised, by this. However, the Government remain committed to driving up professionalism and standards among property agents. Leaseholders deserve a good service for the money they pay, whether from their landlord or their managing agent, where one is in place.

The noble Lord once again brought up, as he has many times with me, mandating professional qualifications. This was one of the areas that the Government asked the noble Lord’s working group to look into as part of its review. I assure him that that remains on the table.

At this point, I will respond to the interesting idea from my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham about the How to Lease guide. Interestingly, I spoke to officials about this idea not too many hours ago, building on the guide to renting. That is something that could be put in place. I will work further on it and talk to my noble friend more.

Industry plays an important role in driving up standards, and we welcome the ongoing work being undertaken by the industry and others to support this. This includes the efforts of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town, and her independent steering group in preparing an overarching code of conduct. I thank her for that. I know that the Government are very interested and looking at it in much more detail. This is an important development to ensure that all consumers are treated fairly and agents work to the same high standards. I echo what many noble Lords have said. We have some excellent agents in this country who do a fantastic job. The agents we are talking about are the rogue agents, who I know noble Lords are trying to ensure come up to the same high standards. I thank the noble Baroness for her work on this.

I should also stress that measures in this Bill, alongside existing protections and work being undertaken by the industry, seek to make managing agents more accountable to those who pay for their services. That includes making it easier for leaseholders to take on the management of their buildings themselves, where they can directly appoint or replace agents.

However, I recognise the strength of feeling expressed on this issue at Second Reading and today by a number of noble Lords, and the ambition of all noble Lords who spoke to drive up the standards of property agents. The noble Lord, Lord Truscott, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and others spoke about individual cases where managing agents have been either good, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Truscott, or extremely unacceptable.

I will continue to engage with the noble Lord, Lord Best, my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham and any others who would like me to on this issue during the remainder of the Bill’s passage. I know I already have a meeting in my diary with the noble Lord, Lord Best, in a week or so. With the assurance that we will keep working on this, and following what I have said, I hope the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Best (CB)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken—all of them in favour of the concept of a regulator of property agents. I think the case is now unavoidable. My especial thanks to the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayter and Lady Taylor, and the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, for supporting this amendment, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, who, if we were allowed one more name on the list, would have been there as well. It was great to hear illustrations from real life from the noble Lord, Lord Truscott, bringing a consumer perspective to the story. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, shared stories of cowboy agents. I am afraid they do exist, and we should be doing something about it.

The Minister offered me some consolation. We are going to meet again soon, and she recognises the strength of feeling that everybody has been expressing. I thank her for continuing to engage on the subject and I hope there is something we can salvage, before the Bill finally passes, that will at least make a start on this really important mission of creating a regulator to the benefit of the 5 million leaseholders out there. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 29th 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 noble Lords for their various amendments on the freehold estates and for the thoughtful debate.

Amendments 86 and 87 tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornhill and Lady Taylor of Stevenage, seek to prevent costs being passed over to home owners. Amendment 87 from the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, seeks to prevent home owners having to pay any contribution towards the costs where work is required to rectify defects during the estate’s original construction. I fully agree that it is important that communal areas, whether a new road, a playground or open space, are built out to a proper and reasonable standard.

In some cases, elements of construction and maintenance that are subject to an estate management charge may have been delivered via a Section 106 planning obligation or through a planning condition. The local planning authority has enforcement powers to ensure that the relevant infrastructure is built out to the required standard, and it will discharge the obligation when it is satisfied that it has been properly delivered. Some Section 106 agreements may have in them a remediation clause, which will confer responsibility to rectify any problems back to the developer. When there is no remediation clause and management of the estate has been transferred to an estate manager, it will be for that manager to resolve the issue and take legal advice as to the best way forward, when appropriate. This may involve recourse to legal challenge in the courts.

In some cases, it may be relevant if the estate manager has an extant insurance policy that covers the particular issue—for example, subsidence—in which case the insurer might pay for the remediation works then pursue the developer itself. There may be some facts and circumstances where the home owner is not directly liable even though the costs of insurance, for example, may ultimately be passed on to the home owner. However, in cases where remediation or construction issues are not dealt with in a Section 106 obligation and this is not covered by building insurance, it will be for the home owners to pursue any claim for negligent construction through the courts. Furthermore, the potential financial and reputational damage of being challenged through the courts should provide a deterrent so that the developer delivers construction of the site to the required standard.

There are also some unintended consequences that mean I will not be able to accept this amendment. The first concern is the burden of proof. It may be very difficult to prove that the construction defect is the responsibility of the construction company, especially if it has been signed off by the local authority. Secondly, during the period of a dispute, what is expected to happen to the alleged defect? Without any means to raise funds to remedy it, there is a risk of those defects remaining unattended to until the estate manager has concluded the dispute with the construction company. While this litigation is under way, it could mean that the defects on the estate are not being rectified, potentially pushing the estate into further disrepair. This in turn could intensify the problem, creating more disputes between the home owner and the estate manager over whether costs are payable, because they are not relevant costs.

We also need to consider the safety of all those who use the estate. There may be a higher risk of injury to members of the public during a period in which defects are not resolved and, in the event of an incident, the estate manager may be liable. This liability could also sit with the residents themselves where they are members or directors of an estate management company. I recognise that there are, sadly, cases in which initial work is not of the expected quality. However, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, is aware that there are significant challenges to consider with regard to preventing estate managers reclaiming costs from home owners.

Amendment 86 from the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, would clarify that an estate management charge is a relevant cost only if it covers services or works that ordinarily would not be provided by the local authority. The impact of this amendment is that home owners on a new or existing managed estate would not be liable for any costs that a local authority would normally carry out. This might include maintenance and the improvement of roads and public open spaces. However, this term is difficult to define. For example, would it include insurance costs of the local authority?

I recognise the many concerns expressed here and in the other place about the fact that local authorities are not required to adopt new developments. I know that mandating adoption of new estates is a key recommendation of the Competition and Markets Authority as part of its recent market study into housebuilding. The question of adoption is very important, but unfortunately it is not something that this Bill can fully address. This is because legislation governing public amenities, such as roads, drainage and open space, is covered by other legislation outside the scope of the Bill.

Furthermore, on its own this amendment has considerable implications. For example, while it may stop payments by existing home owners, it does not take away responsibility for the upkeep of the area under the terms of the property deeds. These home owners would not have any means of raising funds to pay for such upkeep, because they would cease to be treated as relevant costs. This would prevent home owners complying with their legal obligations.

It would also be detrimental to existing home owners, as the condition and upkeep of communal areas may rapidly diminish, impacting on the condition of the area and the well-being of all the residents. This could make it very hard to buy or sell these properties. I should also stress that there would be no contractual obligation for local authorities to take on the management of an existing estate. They are extremely unlikely to do so unless they can ensure that they have sufficient finances to manage and maintain it.

Amendments 64 and 91 from the noble Baronesses, Lady Taylor and Lady Thornhill, seek to achieve the laudable aim of empowering home owners to take over management of the estates on which they live. While I support every effort to drive up the accountability of estate managers and empower home owners on existing estates, I hope I can persuade the noble Baronesses not to press these amendments.

We recognise the benefits of Amendment 64 from the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor. It would mean that a new right for home owners on freehold estates could be introduced in legislation to take on the obligations and liabilities associated with running an estate. There would, though, be many detailed practical issues to work through to deliver a right-to-manage type regime, particularly as estates contain different tenure types, such as leasehold and freehold houses, leasehold flats and commercial units. These issues would all require careful handling as they affect not only property rights but existing contract law.

I would like to reassure Members that we are listening carefully to the arguments being made for the Bill to go further to empower residents on existing freehold estates and, before Report, I would welcome further contributions on this, if noble Lords have them.

Amendment 91, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, would enable residents to take ownership and possession of the estate management company where an inadequate service is being provided. The grounds presented to invoke this, although well-intentioned, seem unreasonably narrow. Many of these failures are company law issues or are already being dealt with through the Bill. Furthermore, there would need to be solutions for important issues, such as how to address the legal costs of transfer, as well as consequences for the company’s solvency if its equity is removed and it is assessed at a nominal value.

I do not consider that the reasons set out in the proposal from the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, provide sufficient basis for a nil-cost transfer. We are concerned that this very simple and broad power is not an appropriate way to address the significant substantive policy issues involved in transferring responsibility. As Members of the Committee will know, we are introducing measures in the Bill to empower home owners and make estate management companies more accountable to them for how their money is spent, including the ability to apply to the appropriate tribunal to replace a failing managing agent.

Amendment 93 from the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, would require the Government to carry out a review of the extent and impact of non-standard terms and charges imposed by estate managers in property deeds and leases. We are aware that there are many different types of language in deeds and leases, but I do not think this review is necessary. First, home owners will face different obligations depending on what amenities the local authority is or is not responsible for. Secondly, where home owners are responsible, we are driving up the accountability of estate management companies with regard to how they spend the money they charge home owners. These reforms bring in significant protections to prevent exploitation of home owners, and we will of course keep these arrangements under review. I fully recognise the noble Baroness’s desire to provide further support to help home owners living on these estates, particularly in light of the Competition and Markets Authority’s recent report. However, I do not believe that these amendments are the right way of delivering the desired outcome, for the reasons I have explained, and I ask the noble Baronesses not to press them.

My noble friend Lady Finn’s Amendment 87A seeks to deliver the recommendation in the Competition and Markets Authority report that the Government prepare common adoption standards and mandate local authorities to take over responsibility for these public amenities once these standards are met. These are very important issues that must be carefully considered, but, as I mentioned previously, they are not things the Bill can fully address. Legislation on planning considerations and liability for governing public amenities are covered elsewhere and are outside the scope of the Bill. The Government’s thinking on this issue will be set out in our response to the CMA report.

On Amendment 87B, also tabled by my noble friend Lady Finn, it is right that estate managers should be held accountable for the poor delivery of services they provide. However, I do not think this amendment is necessary, as the Bill already contains adequate protections for home owners. Clause 72 makes it clear that any estate management costs must be reasonable and that services or works should be of a reasonable standard. Clause 75 grants home owners the right to apply to the appropriate tribunal for a determination on whether those charges are reasonable. Taken together, these clauses will incentivise estate management companies to charge the correct fees from the outset, thereby reducing the number of home owners being overcharged for works and services on their estate. However, I understand my noble friend’s concerns and those of other noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, and I can reassure them, as I said before, that we are carefully listening to these arguments. Given these considerations, I ask my noble friend not to press her amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook]

66: Clause 51, page 59, line 15, leave out “as follows” and insert “in accordance with subsections (2) to (6)”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the other Government amendment to this clause.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I will now speak to Amendments 66, 68 and 70 in my name. I start by noting that I fully recognise the challenges facing leaseholders, with rising service charges caused by the increased costs in managing and maintaining buildings. The Government are clear, however, that any increase in charges must always be reasonable. We also recognise that the existing statutory protections leaseholders have do not go far enough, which is why we are introducing measures in the Bill to empower leaseholders and help them better scrutinise and challenge the costs they are asked to pay.

Amendment 68 is a technical amendment to Clause 51. It provides further clarification on which parts of the regulatory regime should continue to apply only to landlords who charge and leaseholders who pay variable service charges. These are charges which will vary year on year, depending on the actual cost of providing services.

As currently drafted, the Bill provides such clarity only in respect of measures in the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. This amendment makes it clear that certain measures and protections in the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 and the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 should also apply only to leaseholders who pay variable service charges. These include, for example, the ability to appoint a manager and the requirement to hold service charge contributions in trust. Amendments 66 and 70 are minor consequential amendments because of these further changes to Clause 51.

I turn to Amendments 71 to 75 in my name. Amendment 71 clarifies what steps are required to ensure that the written statement of accounts is prepared properly. It follows feedback from and discussions with expert stakeholders after publication of the Bill. We are grateful for their observations. The amendment places an obligation on landlords to provide leaseholders with a report prepared in line with specified standards for the review of financial information. This report must also include a statement by the accountant that the report is a faithful representation of what the report purports to represent.

The amendment also makes it clear, for the avoidance of doubt, that leaseholders must make a fair and reasonable contribution towards the costs of the report. This permits landlords who are unable under the terms of the lease to recover such costs through the service charge to do so, to avoid financial difficulties. This may include right to manage or resident management companies.

Amendment 72 implies a term into the lease where the cost of the preparation of the report is to be payable through the variable service charge. Amendment 73 is a consequential amendment required because of the change to new Section 21D(2)(b).

Amendment 74 allows for the appropriate authority to expand the definition of

“the necessary qualification”

in Section 28(2) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. This will allow the Secretary of State and Welsh Ministers to widen the description of people who are deemed capable of preparing the written report. Amendment 75 makes it clear that any regulations made will be subject to the affirmative procedure.

We will work closely with leaseholders, landlords and professional bodies to ensure we prescribe the right standards to be applied and the right level of detail. I beg to move Amendment 66 and hope noble Lords will support the other technical and essential amendments in my name. I look forward to hearing from noble Lords on their amendments relating to service charges.

[The Earl of Lytton (CB)]

My Lords, I do not think I am actually the next in line to speak on this, but I have Amendments 78C to 78G and 80A and 80B standing in my name. The intentions behind the Bill in relation to greater transparency and fairness are welcome, but, in my view, they do not go far or fast enough to deal with the current crop of egregious monetising schemes, where there seems to be no end to the inventiveness of the worst offenders.

My amendments go further than the Government’s proposals, for this reason. Some of what is in the Bill will take time to work through and, during that time, the same old abuses—or variants of them—will continue. I want the worst ones to stop immediately the Bill receives Royal Assent. It is part of an essential consumer protection package.

Amendments 78C to 78G, which I will deal with first, seek to close loopholes in the current law, require landlords to achieve value for money in the management of their buildings, promote competition in the property management sector and clamp down on the charging of unnecessary ancillary fees. Amendment 78C clarifies that the costs are to be treated as incurred as soon as there is an unconditional obligation to pay them, even if the whole or part of the cost is not required to be paid until a later date.

The moment when costs are incurred is particularly important in relation to Section 20B of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. That section prevented tenants being charged costs incurred more than 18 months before a demand for payment was made, unless they were informed that costs had been incurred and therefore would be payable.

Surprising as it may seem to your Lordships, there are conflicting decisions as to when costs are incurred for the purposes of Section 20B. In Jean-Paul v Southwark London Borough Council in 2011 in the UK Upper Tribunal, Lands Chamber, reference 178, it was held that costs are incurred only when payment is made; but, in OM Property Management Ltd v Burr in 2012, in the UK Upper Tribunal, Lands Chamber, reference 2, it was held that costs are incurred on the presentation of an invoice or on payment. Both leave it open to landlords to ask a supplier to delay the presentation of an invoice, or themselves to delay payment, to postpone the commencement of the 18-month time limit. I do not see this amendment as controversial, as it prevents abuse of the system and brings landlord and tenant law into line with accepted accounting practice.

Amendment 78D covers a situation under Section 19(1)(a) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, where service charge costs are payable

“only to the extent that they are reasonably incurred”.

This amendment replaces the “reasonably incurred” test in relation to service charges with a stricter one of providing “value for money”.

It is established case law that, if a landlord has chosen a course of action that has led to a reasonable outcome, the costs of pursuing that course of action are reasonably incurred even if there was another cheaper outcome that was also reasonable. This wide margin of appreciation leaves leaseholders at risk of overcharging. A value for money test would require landlords to interrogate all options before spending leaseholders’ money. It is not an unreasonable test; it is one that most people use in daily life when considering any significant purchase.

Amendment 78E requires landlords to provide tenants with a range of information, and to update it regularly. It goes further than the Government’s Clause 55, under which landlords are required to provide information only on request. If leaseholders are to be encouraged to take greater interest in the management of their buildings, I do not think we should place obstacles in their way. It should not be difficult for a landlord of a well-manged building automatically to provide and keep up to date a data room of information.

Amendments 78F and 78G continue the consumer protection theme of these amendments by promoting competition in the property-management sector. Amendment 78F prevents landlords contracting with related parties or connected purposes, thus removing an obvious conflict of interest. The danger for leaseholders if a landlord company places contracts with its subsidiary is well illustrated by the Charter Quay case, in which the managing agent, which happened to be owned by the landlord company, was roundly criticised by the tribunal for placing onerous service contracts with other subsidiaries.

In the same vein, to promote competition through regular retendering, Amendment 78G places a maximum contract duration of five years. Although under current law landlords must consult leaseholders before entering into a qualifying long-term agreement—that is, a contract of more than 12 months—there is no limit on its duration. In practice, even limited consultation requirements are relatively easily avoided. Contracts between a holding company and one or more of its subsidiaries, or two or more subsidiaries of the same company, are not qualifying long-term agreements; neither are contracts for a year or less, even if they have been regularly renewed.

Amendment 78H seeks to reduce costs on leaseholders by setting out in statute details of cosmetic works that can be undertaken without approval from a landlord. Most leases contain very tightly drawn provisions in this respect, which are against undertaking virtually any type of work, no matter how insignificant, without the landlord’s consent. Provisions such as a prohibition of the

“cutting, maiming or injuring, or suffering to be cut, maimed or injured, any roof, wall or ceiling”,

are very common. The fees for consenting to some minor works often run into hundreds of pounds, so this amendment attempts to find a way to streamline that.

One may debate at length the areas where a more relaxed regime might impair the amenity of other residents, but I seek to establish the principle of getting away from the monetisation of consent for every mortal thing—from pets to paint colour, and light fittings to lino floors—and putting it in the past. There ought to be greater freedoms for leaseholders but, in noting that the Law Commission report implied that consent for floor coverings should be relaxed, I would only observe from experience that engineered timber floor finishes in particular are often a potent source of noise transmission affecting other residents—so the matter is nuanced. At this stage, I simply wish to sound out the Government’s willingness to draw up, say, a code of practice, or otherwise take steps to free up this area.

I now turn to Amendments 80A and 80B, which are really rather different. I would have had them disaggregated had I been a bit more alert on Friday afternoon, because they relate to insurance moneys. Amendment 80A requires landlords to pay the proceeds of a building insurance policy into a separate fund that is held on trust for leaseholders. It also requires landlords, on receipt of insurance proceeds, to begin immediately to repair or rebuild a building, as far as reasonably practicable.

Service charge funds already have to be held on trust for leaseholders and I contend that building insurance payouts should be treated in the same way. As noble Lords are aware, I have raised my concerns about the risk of landlord insolvency. It has been suggested to me that, if a landlord became insolvent, any insurance proceeds held by the landlord on entering insolvency would form part of the company’s insolvent estate, leaving leaseholders in a damaged or destroyed building as unsecured creditors. Holding insurance proceeds on trust would go some way to protect them from risks relating to landlord borrowings—of which more in relation to Amendment 80B.

Most leases require landlords to reinstate damaged buildings—as, I think, does statute in the case of damage caused by fire. Subsection (3) of the proposed new clause in Amendment 80B places that duty beyond doubt. It requires landlords to move quickly to repair or rebuild the damaged or destroyed building. It goes some way to closing a loophole commonly found in leases that gives landlords the right to terminate where it is not possible to reinstate a building within a certain period. That is often three years, which is likely to be insufficient time to effect reinstatement of a larger or complex building.

Amendment 80B closes what I consider to be another loophole for insurance. Most leases require that the landlord insures the building, with the cost charged to leaseholders. However, what concerns me is the ability of landlords to assign the proceeds of insurance policies as security for their borrowings.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, before the noble Baroness takes the Dispatch Box, I apologise to the Committee and to the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, in particular. Due to lots of pieces of paper, I commented on two amendments that are actually in group 4, so I reassure the Committee that I will not be repeating those comments.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I apologise in advance for the length of my response. This is a large group so I might go on for quite a long time. I apologise for that, but I think it is important that I respond to all the amendments.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Khan of Burnley, who spoke to the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor. Amendment 67 seeks to give the right to challenge the reasonableness of a service charge to leaseholders who pay a fixed service charge. I recognise that leaseholders who pay fixed service charges do not have the same right to challenge the reasonableness of their service charges as leaseholders who pay a variable service charge. However, there are good reasons for that. The main sectors where fixed service charges exist are the retirement and social housing sectors, where households are often on limited or fixed incomes; certainty over bills is paramount for these homeowners. Leaseholders, especially on low incomes, who pay a fixed service charge have more certainty over the amount of their service charge compared with those who pay a variable service charge. They will know about and understand the level of the charge before they enter into an agreement.

Landlords benefit from not having to consider tribunal applications, but in return they have a clear imperative to provide value for money: if they underestimate the costs, they will have to fund the difference themselves. They will still need to provide the quality of service as set out in the lease since, if they do not, they may be taken to court for breach of that lease.

By giving the right to challenge fixed service charges in a similar way to how variable service charges can be challenged, there would likely be operational and practical challenges. For example, if landlords underestimate costs in one year but overestimate them in another, it is feasible and reasonable to be able to challenge the unreasonableness only in the year when costs are overestimated. It is not proposed to give the landlord an equivalent right to apply to seek to recover the balance of an underestimated cost on the basis that it would be reasonable to do so. There is a possibility that landlords may move to variable service charges, and that could have unintended and undesirable consequences for leaseholders with a fixed income who benefit from the certainty of fixed service charges.

Through the Bill, leaseholders who pay a fixed service charge will be given additional rights. Landlords will be required to provide the minimum prescribed information to all leaseholders. I consider that the additional rights given to leaseholders who pay fixed service charges will allow them to better understand what their service charges pay for, and to hold their landlord to account. I hope that, with that reassurance, the noble Lord will not move the noble Baroness’s amendments.

I thank the noble Lord for Amendment 69 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, which seeks to remove the provision that enables the appropriate authority to exempt certain categories of landlords from the requirement to provide a standardised service charge demand form to the leaseholder. I recognise the importance of all leaseholders receiving sufficient information from their landlord to enable them to understand what they are paying for through their service charge. Requiring landlords to provide leaseholders with a standardised service charge demand form contributes to increased understanding. However, I am aware that there could be instances now or in the future where it is necessary to exempt landlords from that requirement. It could be too costly or disproportionate to expect certain categories of landlords to provide that level of information. As the Minister for Housing mentioned in the other place, one example might be the Tyneside leases.

Prior to any exemptions being agreed, we will consult with stakeholders to determine whether an exemption is justified. I emphasise that the list of exemptions is expected to be small—if it is needed at all, in fact—and full justification will be required for any agreed exemptions. I note the noble Baroness’s concerns but I hope that, with this reassurance, the noble Lord will not move the amendment.

I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Khan of Burnley, for Amendment 76, which would create a power for the appropriate authority to prescribe the maximum costs that landlords may pass on to leaseholders for providing information. I recognise that leaseholders can face increasing service charge costs and that not capping costs for providing information could drive landlords to charge unreasonable amounts.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, I know that the Minister has been speaking for a while, but I want to press her on this important point as we are talking about charges. There is a huge, fundamental area of concern in that the ground rent consultation has yet to be published. I know that it is unreasonable for me to ask the Minister to talk about any leaks or media announcements. However, how will this House be able to scrutinise it at this late stage of the Bill’s passage?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

We debated ground rents last week, and I do not have anything to add. If there are any changes to the Bill, we will give sufficient time for all noble Lords to consider them.

Amendment 66 agreed.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook]

68: Clause 51, page 60, line 19, at end insert—
“(7) The Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 (“the LTA 1987”) is amended in accordance with subsections (8) to (10).(8) In the provisions referred to in subsection (9), in each place they occur—(a) for “service charge” substitute “variable service charge”; (b) for “service charges” substitute “variable service charges”.(9) The provisions are—(a) in section 24 (appointment of manager by tribunal), subsections (2) and (2A);(b) in section 35 (application by party to lease for variation of lease), subsections (2) and (4);(c) in section 42 (service charge contributions to be held in trust), the heading and subsections (1), (2), (3), (4), (6), and (8).(10) In section 35(8), for ““service charge” has the meaning” substitute ““service charge” and “variable service charge” have the meaning”.(11) In section 167 of the CLRA 2002 (failure to pay small amount for short period)—(a) in subsection (1), for “service charges” substitute “variable service charges”;(b) in subsection (5), for “service charge” substitute “variable service charge”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would, in light of the amended definition of “service charges” in section 18 of the LTA 1985, make amendments to provisions in the LTA 1987 and CLRA 2002 that use that definition so that they refer to “variable service charges” (and accordingly preserve the current effect of those provisions).

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook]

70: Clause 53, page 62, line 28, leave out “the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 (“the LTA 1987”)” and insert “the LTA 1987”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the Government amendments to clause 51.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook]

71: Clause 54, page 63, line 21, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
“(b) that, on or before the account date for an accounting period in respect of which a statement of account is provided, the landlord must provide the tenant with a written report about the statement prepared by a qualified accountant, which—(i) is prepared in accordance with specified standards for the review of financial information, and(ii) includes a statement by the accountant, in a specified form and manner, that the report is a faithful representation of what it purports to represent;(c) that the landlord must provide adequate accounts, receipts or other documents or explanations to the accountant to enable them to provide the report; (d) that, if the landlord incurs costs in obtaining the report, the tenant must pay the landlord a fair and reasonable contribution to those costs.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would clarify that the obligations of the landlord are to obtain a report from a qualified accountant as to the accuracy of the statement of account and to provide adequate documents to the accountant, and would require the tenant to contribute towards the costs of the report.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I shall speak to our Amendment 103, and comment on others in this group. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, for his careful and thoughtful consideration of how we might use the Bill to rectify some of the glaring building safety omissions that are an unfortunate legacy of the Building Safety Act. His proposals on building trustees warrant close consideration, especially as he has carefully set out how they might be funded. Taken together with proposals in later amendments for a property regulator, this could deal with a number of the loopholes that have caused an overall descent into property chaos, which has been the subject of much debate in this House, by matching independent local oversight with a national property regulator.

The noble Earl set out in his customary forensic way his justification for the amendments. I respect his professional expertise in this area, and I do not think I need to say any more than to welcome the issues he has covered. As the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, said, those could have been subject to pre-legislative scrutiny—but sadly, they were not. As was said earlier today, it is a mark of how your Lordships’ House can contribute to legislation that we have them before us today. It is a shame they could not have been incorporated at an earlier stage, because it is late now to debate such detailed proposals. I look forward to the Minister’s response, and I hope she will, as she always does, take the amendments seriously and tell us what the Government are going to do when they consider them.

Noble Lords would have received the excellent briefing, as I did this morning, from the National Residential Landlords Association. It says that “it is more critical than ever, in the context of the Government’s Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill” that the building safety remediation scheme “is implemented without further delay to resolve the failings of the Building Safety Act’s leaseholder protections”. The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, said that he is not particular precious about this structure but, if we do not have it, what will the Government put in its place to do that?

We are now seven years on from the dreadful tragedy at Grenfell. It is shameful that so many leaseholders are still living with the fear of fire risks and the unbelievable pressure from the uncertainty around the financial commitments that they will face for their building remediation. It is the most terrible indictment of this Government’s failure to recognise the unconscionable impact on the lives of those affected, let alone the issues raised so many times in this Chamber of those who live in non-qualifying buildings but, nevertheless, have the leasehold sword of Damocles hanging over them.

The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, already mentioned the excoriating article in the Times this weekend. Martina Lees gives an incredibly thorough and well-researched account of the impact of the cladding scandal. Her investigation points out that

“15,000 residents have been forced to leave homes due to fire or fire safety defects”,

and that escalated last year with the evacuation of at least 21 buildings. She also says:

“Despite £9.1 billion of government grants being set aside to help fix homes, only £2.1 billion has been spent. The building safety crisis has trapped 700,000 people in dangerous homes and left almost three million owners with flats they cannot sell. Almost all are properties built or refurbished since 2000, with defects such as flammable cladding systems, combustible balconies and faulty fire barriers”.


I am familiar with faulty fire barriers from Vista Tower in Stevenage. She also points to government manipulation of figures, in that they

“cite a total of 4,329 buildings or 248,000 flats over 11 metres high with unsafe cladding. Of these, 23 per cent have been fixed”.

However, as Ms Lees points out,

“previous government data added up to 375,000 flats over 11m, making the number fixed just 8 per cent. The new total excludes more than 1,000 buildings where the developer must pay for repairs but does not know whether work is needed. It also precludes hundreds of blocks that did not get taxpayer help because they had the wrong type of fire risks … or were deemed below 18m … It leaves out up to 7,283 mid-rise buildings that the government had previously estimated to be unsafe”.

I am sure that the Minister will tell us that she does not respond to press stories in the Chamber, but the headline issues raised here are that affected leaseholders continue to endure this misery, with some having to pay rent for properties that they have been evacuated to, on top of the thousands of pounds of service charges that they face. Amendments in this group would at least provide some longer-term solutions to these issues.

My Amendment 103 seeks to recognise that financial pressure and ensure that there is at least a cap on the charges that leaseholders are expected to bear. Our preference going forward would be that developers are held ultimately accountable for any fire or other safety defect remediation in the buildings. In future, we hope that even greater consideration is given to how that might be achieved.

We also support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Foster; it is surprising only in that it is not already the case that buildings with electrical defects cannot be sold. If that is the case, surely this should be urgently rectified through the building regulations regime. I hope that we do not have to wait another two years to implement that.

Amendment 101 is in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Young, although he did not speak to it. It seeks to impose a deadline of June 2027 for remediation of fire safety defects. That is not an unreasonable target, as it would mean that an entire decade had passed since the Grenfell tragedy.

The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, made a very powerful case for the unintended consequence of the removal of the Section 24 manager. Her amendment and that of the noble Lord, Lord Bailey, seek to improve accountability. As this is one of the stated aims of the Bill, we look forward to the Minister’s response to their proposals.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I thank noble Lords for their various amendments on building safety and for the debate. I will respond to the amendments in turn.

I thank the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, for his amendments relating to a building trustee. Amendment 82C requires some buildings to have a building trustee, while Amendments 82D to 82M cover the process of appointment, duties, rights to information and how these trustees will be funded. The building safety trustee will either replace or complement the functions carried out by the landlord or a managing agent. I fully agree with the view that landlords and managing agents must manage and maintain buildings for which they are responsible and provide a good-quality service to tenants. However, I believe that this proposal would create additional complexity with little relative gain. The proposed mechanisms for funding these trustees increase the risk of pushing more landlords into escheat and it is hard to see how the levy proposals can be delivered. Secondly, we consider that there are better ways to deliver the desired outcome. As I have previously mentioned, we are bringing measures forward in the Bill that will drive up the accountability of landlords and their agents, so we do not agree with the noble Earl’s amendments.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, for his amendment, which seeks to improve electrical safety standards in buildings by identifying whether there is an electrical defect prior to sale, and for his continued interest in this very important issue for housing safety. This amendment would require a specified person to acquire an electrical installation condition report or electrical installation certificate prior to marketing the property, unless it is being sold for demolition or a full electrical rewire has been completed in the last five years. This is an important issue; we know that improving electrical safety is paramount to helping prevent fires and making sure that occupants feel safe in their homes.

As the noble Lord said, the Government have already taken firm action in the private rented sector by requiring PRS landlords to acquire an EICR at least every five years and to organise remediation works where necessary. We have also consulted on equivalent electrical safety standards in the social housing sector through our 2022 consultation and call for evidence. Here, we examined proposals to require social landlords to obtain an EICR for their rental tenants at least every five years and then to carry out remedial works within a set timescale. Our call for evidence also explored extending the proposed requirements to owner-occupier leaseholders within social housing blocks, so that the whole block is subject to these increased standards. We are aware of the noble Lord’s concerns about the sector that we have not yet hit—the owner-occupied sector. The Government are still considering responses to the consultation and the call for evidence, and we will update this House in due course.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, and the noble Lord, Lord Bailey of Paddington, for their Amendments 104 and 105B—I will also speak to Amendment 98, although my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham is not here—relating to changes of the definition of accountable persons under Section 72 of the Building Safety Act 2022 and other changes protecting the position of managers appointed under Section 24 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987.

I trust that noble Lords will understand that the Government cannot accept the proposed amendments. First, defining a Section 24 manager as an accountable person would move financial and criminal liabilities away from the existing accountable person to the Section 24 manager. It was the intent of the Building Safety Act that financial and criminal responsibilities for certain aspects of maintaining the building should always remain with the accountable person, and the accountable persons cannot delegate this responsibility to a third party. As drafted, the amendments could also mean that Section 24 managers would not be able to recover funds from the accountable person for the incidents of remediation works. I assure noble Lords that the Government are looking closely at this issue and at options to ensure that Section 24 managers can take forward building safety duties and get funding, where needed, from the accountable persons.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook]

83: Schedule 10, page 227, line 11, leave out “subsection (4)” and insert “subsections (4) and (7)”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on clause 67 repealing section 172(1)(a) of the CLRA 2002, which is amended by section 112(7) of the BSA 2022.

--- Later in debate ---

Surely these practices, difficult enough to deal with at any age, when imposed on the elderly, who should be treated with the greatest dignity and respect, are really shocking. The fact that this financial stranglehold is placed on older people by the very specialist providers which market themselves as contributing to the security and safety of older residents is totally unacceptable. I hope the extent of this can be explored in detail, either through a commission such as the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, is proposing, or by an alternative route. It is way past time that this legalised preying on older and vulnerable residents was brought to an end once and for all, and I hope that the Older People’s Housing Taskforce report will be taken with the utmost seriousness. Retirement housing needs to benefit from our attention and from the sharing of international best practice referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Best.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

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

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

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

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

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook]

88: Clause 77, page 97, line 6, leave out “provides” and insert “carries out”
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would align the terminology used with terminology used elsewhere in Part 5.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook]

90: Clause 81, page 100, line 25, at end insert—
“(1A) But “administration charge” does not include an amount payable by a tenant of a dwelling in a case where all of the following conditions are met—(a) the tenant’s lease specifies that only a person who has attained a minimum age may occupy the dwelling;(b) the amount is payable under a term of the tenant’s lease or is otherwise payable in connection with the tenant’s lease;(c) the amount is payable if—(i) the tenant’s lease is granted, assigned or terminated,(ii) a lease of the dwelling which is inferior to the tenant’s lease is granted, assigned or terminated, or(iii) there is a change in the person or persons occupying the dwelling; (d) the amount is fixed or is calculated by a method determinable in advance;(e) any other conditions specified in regulations made by the appropriate authority.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would provide for “administration charge” in clause 81 to exclude “event fees” (which will generally be “fixed” service charges subject to the provisions regulating those charges inserted by Part 4).

Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill

Baroness Scott of Bybrook 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 Taylor, for her amendments in this group, which seek to remove forfeiture from the leasehold and freehold estate.

Amendment 55 seeks to address one of the ways in which leasehold law is tilted in favour of landlords. I know that noble Lords from all sides of the House are sympathetic to this intention, as are Members from the other place, where this same clause has already been debated.

Forfeiture is widely recognised as a draconian and unfair measure which is open to abuse. The main objection to the current law is that, should the landlord forfeit the lease and go on to sell the property, this allows them to make a large windfall gain at the expense of the leaseholder, who loses everything. Abolishing forfeiture would reduce the risk to the leaseholder of losing their home and would prevent abuses.

Abolishing forfeiture without replacing it with an alternative enforcement mechanism would mean that landlords would have recourse only to ordinary civil debt recovery and injunction proceedings, which, as we have heard, can be lengthy and are not always effective. In the absence of forfeiture or an alternative, there is a danger that a greater number of leaseholders may refuse to pay their fair share of the cost of maintaining their block or estate, and we have to take this all into account.

Noble Lords asked how many cases there are. We do not have the exact number, but stakeholders give us estimates of between 90 and 120 cases per year. It is not a big issue, but it is a very important one for those people.

[Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)]

The number of cases will not indicate the use of forfeiture, because forfeiture is wielded as a fiery dragon. Leaseholders speak about it as the dog that bites. The number of cases may be small, but I would argue that the use of forfeiture is probably far greater.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I have said that it is not the right way of doing it, and we want a different way. That is exactly what the Government are looking at.

We have to be clear that the upkeep and safety of buildings is also paramount. Landlords, be they third parties or resident management companies, need effective mechanisms for securing prompt payment to ensure that those properties are insured and maintained in the interests of everybody else in the block.

We recognise that there is the potential for significant inequity at hand where a landlord stands to gain a windfall when a lease is forfeited. However, I reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, and the Committee that the Government have been listening to calls for us to act. The Government continue to work through the detail and we will report to the House shortly with more information. In the meantime, I welcome members of the Committee sharing their views on this matter, which the Government will reflect on when formulating their position.

In addition, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, for Amendment 95, which seeks to abolish Section 121 of the Law of Property Act 1925 in respect of all rent charges. Let me be clear: the Government are sympathetic to the issue raised by the noble Baroness. We recognise that forfeiture is an extreme measure and should be used only as a last resort. Any changes will require careful consideration of the rights and responsibilities of all interested parties.

Clause 111 already seeks to abolish forfeiture for income-supporting rent charges, which are still in existence, even though the creation of new charges of this nature has been banned since 1977. However, some types of rent charges may still be created, including estate rent charges, which are used for the provision of services on managed estates.

Where they are created, estate management companies need a means to recover sums owed to them. Failure to do so means that costs may fall on other home owners, or the upkeep of an estate will worsen, to the detriment of everyone living on that estate. The problem may be particularly acute for resident-led management companies which do not have alternative sources of funding.

It is important that we fully understand any unintended consequences. This is an issue that we are carefully considering. I hope that, with those assurances, the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.

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

My Lords, before the Minister sits down, most of what she said was very welcome. The acceptance that forfeiture is draconian, unfair and open to abuse—we agree with that. It is not the right way to do things, as the Minister said.

Specifically on inequality, we all agree with that, and it was good to hear the Government say that. A bit more disappointing was that I did not hear the Minister say, “I want to meet colleagues”; nor, “We hope to bring an amendment back on Report to address this”. All we got was, “We will formulate our position”.

There is agreement around the Chamber that what we need to see is an amendment that addresses all these issues. We would like a commitment to get us all together, and to hear from the Minister that she hopes there will be an amendment on Report. If we do not do that, there have been lots of warm words here but not much else has been achieved.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I thought the Committee was probably fed up with me saying that I am always very happy to meet any group of noble Lords, on any subject, at any time. I apologise for not saying it in this group, and I will never ever forget to say it in any group in the future. Also, I said that we will report back to the House shortly with more details. I think the noble Lord needs to look at those words—they are quite positive.

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

I am not saying they are not positive. At the end of the day, to make progress we need a government amendment, or an amendment that somebody else tables that the Government will support, at the next stage. That is progress; that is what I am trying to push. I know the Minister is very generous with her time, and wants to get this right, and wants to meet colleagues. I am just trying to get it on the record, that is all. I know the Minister has been good every time that colleagues have raised this issue in the House, and I have a Question on it again on, I think, 22 May. I thank her very much.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook]

56: Before Schedule 9, insert the following new Schedule—
“Schedule Part 2: consequential amendments to other legislationParliamentary Commissioner Act 1967
1 In Schedule 4 to the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 (relevant tribunals), in the entry relating to rent assessment committees, omit “and also known as leasehold valuation tribunals for the purpose of determinations pursuant to section 21(1), (2) and (3) of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967”.Leasehold Reform Act 1979
2 In section 1 of the Leasehold Reform Act 1979 (price of enfranchisement under the LRA 1967 not to be made less favourable by reference to superior interest), in subsection (1), after “the price payable on a conveyance for giving effect to that section” insert “, in a case where the price payable is determined under section 9(1) of that Act by virtue of section 7A of that Act,”.Local Government Act 1985
3 In Schedule 13 to the Local Government Act 1985 (residuary bodies)—(a) in paragraph 14(aa), at the end insert “, where it applies by virtue of section 7A or 32(5) of that Act”;(b) omit paragraph 17.Housing Act 1985
4 In the Housing Act 1985—(a) in section 115 (meaning of “long tenancy”)—(i) for subsection (2)(c) substitute—“(c) at the time it is granted, it complies with the specified requirements.”;(ii) after subsection (2) insert—“(3) The “specified requirements” are—(a) in the case of a tenancy granted before 11 December 1987, the requirements of the Housing (Exclusion of Shared Ownership Tenancies from the Leasehold Reform Act 1967) Regulations 1982 (S.I. 1982/62) (including where the tenancy was granted before those regulations came into force);(b) in the case of a tenancy granted on or after 11 December 1987 and before the 2024 Act commencement day, the requirements in paragraph 2 of Schedule 2 to the Housing Association Shared Ownership Leases (Exclusion from Leasehold Reform Act 1967 and Rent Act 1977) Regulations 1987 (S.I. 1987/1940);(c) in the case of a tenancy granted on or after the 2024 Act commencement day, requirements specified in regulations made by the appropriate authority.(4) The “2024 Act commencement day” is the day on which paragraph 11 of Schedule 8 to the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 comes into force.(5) “The appropriate authority” means—(a) in relation to England, the Secretary of State;(b) in relation to Wales, the Welsh Ministers.(6) Regulations under subsection (3)(c)—(a) are to be made by statutory instrument;(b) may make provision generally or only in relation to specific cases;(c) may make different provision for different purposes or different areas;(d) may include supplementary, incidental, transitional or saving provision.(7) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section is subject to annulment in pursuance of—(a) where it contains regulations made by the Secretary of State, a resolution of either House of Parliament; (b) where it contains regulations made by the Welsh Ministers, a resolution of Senedd Cymru.”;(b) omit section 175 (determination of price payable on enfranchisement under LRA 1967 where tenancy created under right to buy).Landlord and Tenant Act 1985
5 In section 26 of the LTA 1985 (exception to service charge restrictions for public authority tenants)—(a) for subsection (3)(c) substitute—“(c) at the time it is granted it complies with the specified requirements.”;(b) after subsection (3) insert—“(4) The “specified requirements” are—(a) in the case of a tenancy granted before 11 December 1987, the requirements of the Housing (Exclusion of Shared Ownership Tenancies from the Leasehold Reform Act 1967) Regulations 1982 (S.I. 1982/62) (including where the tenancy was granted before those regulations came into force);(b) in the case of a tenancy granted on or after 11 December 1987 and before the 2024 Act commencement day, the requirements in paragraph 2 of Schedule 2 to the Housing Association Shared Ownership Leases (Exclusion from Leasehold Reform Act 1967 and Rent Act 1977) Regulations 1987 (S.I. 1987/1940);(c) in the case of a tenancy granted on or after the 2024 Act commencement day, requirements specified in regulations made by the appropriate authority.(5) The “2024 Act commencement day” is the day on which paragraph 11 of Schedule 8 to the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 comes into force.(6) Regulations under subsection (4)(c)—(a) are to be made by statutory instrument;(b) may make provision generally or only in relation to specific cases;(c) may make different provision for different purposes or different areas;(d) may include supplementary, incidental, transitional or saving provision.(7) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section is subject to the negative procedure.”Housing and Planning Act 1986
6 In Schedule 4 to the Housing and Planning Act 1986 (shared ownership leases), in paragraph 11 (transitional provisions and savings)—(a) in sub-paragraph (1), at the end insert “, subject to sub-paragraphs (1A) and (2)”;(b) for sub-paragraph (2) substitute—“(1A) The amendment made by paragraph 7 (repeal of section 140 of the Housing Act 1980) also applies in relation to leases granted before the commencement of this Schedule, except in cases where, under section 7A or 32(5) of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967, the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 has effect without the amendments made by the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024.(2) In those cases, this Schedule does not affect the operation of section 140 of the Housing Act 1980, the enactments applying that section or regulations made under it.”Housing Act 1988
7 In Schedule 17 to the Housing Act 1988 (minor and consequential amendments)—(a) omit paragraph 40;(b) omit paragraph 68. Local Government and Housing Act 1989
8 In paragraph 5 of Schedule 10 to the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 (security of tenure for long residential leases)—(a) in sub-paragraph (4), for the words from “unless” to the end substitute “unless—(a) the landlord is a relevant authority, and(b) the premises are required for relevant development.”;(b) after sub-paragraph (4) insert—“(4A) For those purposes—(a) “relevant authority” means a person referred to in any paragraph of section 38(2) of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967;(b) “relevant development”—(i) in relation to a relevant authority other than a health authority, means development for the purposes (other than investment purposes) of that body;(ii) in relation to a relevant authority that is a health authority, means development for the purposes of the National Health Service Act 2006 or the National Health Service (Wales) Act 2006;(iii) in relation to a relevant authority that is a university body, also includes development for the purposes of any related university body;(iv) in relation to a relevant authority that is a local authority, also includes area development;(c) “health authority” means—(i) NHS England;(ii) any integrated care board;(iii) any Local Health Board;(iv) any Special Health Authority;(v) any National Health Service trust;(vi) any NHS foundation trust;(vii) any clinical commissioning group;(viii) any Strategic Health Authority;(ix) any Primary Care Trust;(d) “university body” and “related university body” have the same meaning as in section 29(6ZA) of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967;(e) “local authority” has the same meaning as in section 29(5) of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967;(f) “area development” means any development to be undertaken, whether or not by a local authority, in order to secure—(i) the development or redevelopment of an area defined by a development plan under the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 as an area of comprehensive development;(ii) the treatment as a whole, by development, redevelopment or improvement, or partly by one and partly by another method, of any area in which the premises are situated.”Local Government (Wales) Act 1994
9 In Schedule 13 to the Local Government (Wales) Act 1994, in paragraph 24—(a) omit paragraph (b);(b) in paragraph (c), at the end insert “, where it applies by virtue of section 7A or 32(5) of that Act”.Housing Act 1996
10 In the Housing Act 1996—(a) omit section 109 (collective enfranchisement: valuation);(b) omit section 110 (lease extension for flats: valuation);(c) in Schedule 10 (consequential amendments)— (i) in paragraph 6, omit sub-paragraph (4); (ii) omit paragraph 18;(d) in Schedule 11 (compensation for postponement of termination in connection with ineffective claims)—(i) in paragraph 2, omit sub-paragraph (2);(ii) in paragraph 3, omit sub-paragraph (2).Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002
11 In the CLRA 2002—(a) omit section 126 (collective enfranchisement: valuation date);(b) omit section 127 (collective enfranchisement: freeholder’s share of marriage value);(c) omit section 128 (collective enfranchisement: disregard of marriage value for very long leases);(d) in section 130 (lease extension for flats: residence test), omit subsection (2);(e) omit section 132 (lease extension for flats: personal representatives);(f) omit section 134 (lease extension for flats: valuation date);(g) omit section 135 (lease extension for flats: freeholder’s share of marriage value);(h) omit section 136 (lease extension for flats: disregard of marriage value for very long leases);(i) in Schedule 13 (leasehold valuation tribunals), omit paragraph 15.Finance Act 2003
12 In the Finance Act 2003—(a) in Schedule 4 (stamp duty land tax: chargeable consideration), for paragraph 16C substitute—“16C The following do not count as chargeable consideration—(a) costs borne by the purchaser under section 9(4) of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967, where it applies by virtue of section 7A of that Act;(b) any amount payable by the purchaser under section 19C of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967;(c) any amount payable by the purchaser under section 89C or 89D of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993.”(b) in Schedule 17A (leases: further provision), in paragraph 10 (tenants’ obligations etc that do not count as chargeable consideration), for sub-paragraph (1)(f) substitute—“(f) any liability of the tenant for costs under section 14(2) of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967, where it applies by virtue of section 32(5) of that Act;(fa) any amount payable by the tenant under section 19C of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 or section 89F of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993;”Companies Act 2006
13 In section 1181 of the Companies Act 2006 (access to constitutional documents of RTE and RTM companies)—(a) in the heading, omit “RTE and”;(b) in subsection (1), omit paragraph (a);(c) in subsection (4), omit the definition of “RTE companies”.Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013
14 In section 84 of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 (redress schemes: property management work), in subsection (10), omit the words from “or which” to the end. Immigration Act 2014
15 In Schedule 3 to the Immigration Act 2014 (excluded residential tenancy agreements), in paragraph 13(2)(a), omit the words from “or which” to the end.Consumer Rights Act 2015
16 In section 88 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (duty of letting agents to publicise fees: supplementary provisions), in subsection (1), in the definition of “long lease”, omit paragraph (a)(ii) and the “or” preceding it.Housing and Planning Act 2016
17 In Schedule 10 to the Housing and Planning Act 2016 (leasehold enfranchisement and extension: calculations)—(a) omit paragraph 4;(b) omit paragraph 5.Tenant Fees Act 2019
18 In section 28 of the Tenant Fees Act 2019 (interpretation), in subsection (1), in the definition of “long lease”, omit paragraph (b) and the “or” preceding it.Building Safety Act 2022
19 In Schedule 8 to the BSA 2022 (remediation costs), in paragraph 6 (permitted maximum)—(a) in sub-paragraph (5), omit “total” in each place it occurs;(b) in sub-paragraph (8)—(i) for “total” substitute “tenant’s”;(ii) for “section 7” substitute “section 101(1)”.”Member's explanatory statement
This new Schedule would make amendments to other legislation in consequence of Part 2.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 57 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage. As has been said, Schedule 9 confers on a qualifying tenant the right to buy out the ground rent and replace it with a peppercorn rent. Instead of the extended leases that are paid for each time, it is a decision to make a one-off payment—job done once and for all.

This is a welcome measure. However, as has been said, under paragraph 2 of Schedule 9, the tenant must have at least 150 years left on their lease to qualify. Amendment 57 from the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, would ensure that all leaseholders, not just those with residential leases of 150 years or over, have the right to vary their lease in this way and replace it with a peppercorn rent.

The provisions on the variation of leases and removal of ground rent are complex, but they are based on the principle of granting leaseholders flexibility and a recognition that different solutions might be preferable for the different situations that they are in. The argument has been put forward that these provisions should apply to leases that are sufficiently long, with the Law Commission recommending a very long length of 250 years and the Government settling on 150. Therefore, Amendment 57 rightly probes that length. If not 250 years, why not 125 years, 90 years or indeed no threshold for length at all?

Data on this was hard to find, but DLUHC’s English Housing Survey of owner-occupier leaseholders for the year 2020-21 found that 45% of leaseholders had a leasehold term between 71 and 120 years, and that the median length of leases was 112 years. This suggests that there could be lots of leaseholders with reasonably long leases who would not be given these rights in relation to ground rent.

I would also like colleagues to note that mortgage lenders are now getting very active on ground rent terms and taking an ever more conservative view on ground rent clauses. They are refusing to lend on leasehold homes where the ground rent is seen as onerous—the definition of that might be that it continues to double or that there are other strictures in place. This means that some leaseholders will be left with flats that are difficult to sell, as well as an escalating ground rent.

We would therefore welcome further information from the Minister about whether these provisions could be extended to cover more leaseholders, especially given their own figures.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to government Amendments 58 and 59 in my name. Government Amendment 59 changes “premium” to “price”, referring to the sum paid for a ground rent buyout, to make the language consistent with the rest of the Bill. Government Amendment 58 makes a minor wording change to clarify that it is “the appropriate tribunal” that may make an order to appoint a person to vary a lease on behalf of the landlord or tenant in the case of a commutation following a ground rent buyout. I hope noble Lords will therefore support these amendments.

I turn to Amendment 57 from the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, and moved by the noble Lord, Lord Khan of Burnley. This seeks to remove the threshold for the ground rent buyout right. I appreciate the concerns that lie behind this amendment and understand that the noble Baroness is seeking to ensure that as many leaseholders as possible can benefit from the new right. First, it is very important to note that all leaseholders, regardless of their term remaining, have the means to buy out their ground rent. They do so whenever they extend their lease or buy their freehold. It is only the right to buy out the ground rent without extending the lease or buying the freehold that is limited to leaseholders with 150 years or more remaining. The 150-year threshold exists to protect those leaseholders with shorter leases who will, at some point, require an extension from being financially disadvantaged by first buying out their rent, only having to extend later and paying more in total for doing so. However, we understand the argument that all leaseholders should be able to buy out their rent without extending their lease or buying their freehold if they want to, and we are listening carefully to that argument.

The Law Commission recommended 250 years, but it noted that the department might want to set the threshold lower. The department’s analysis showed that 150 years would enable more leaseholders to take advantage of the ground rent buyout right, while still being a long enough term remaining that the leaseholder does not need to extend if they do not want to. A lower minimum term would create a risk that poorly advised leaseholders might buy out the ground rent when an extension is in their best interest, then find out that they need to extend later and have to pay a higher premium, except for the extension, and two sets of transaction costs. We believe this is helping the leaseholder.

I hope that the noble Baroness will appreciate the reasons we have given for the existence of the threshold, and those assurances, and withdraw her amendment.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, I rise very briefly to thank the Minister for her response. I appreciate the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill. In the future, we will look to work with colleagues across the House to see where we are on this. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook]

58: Schedule 9, page 212, line 22, at beginning insert “the appropriate tribunal may”
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would correct an error.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My comments were not about right to manage. That was a good segue into another short speech by the noble Lord.

However, we are conscious that expanding right to manage to leaseholders under local authority landlords was never considered by the Law Commission, nor put out to public consultation. We are unsure whether the Government have done policy work in this area. It is a whole other ball game and will be challenging. But, in principle, given that many local authorities have been guilty of significant and tragic failures of service, to put it mildly, this should be a right of local authority tenants too. But it will be complex, for many of the reasons that were well outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor.

It is also worth reminding ourselves that local authority leaseholders have, since 1994, been able to take over management through tenant management organisations. I do not believe any work has been done regarding their success or otherwise. But such a review could ignite and inform this topic on another occasion. We welcome the probe by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, and also the subtleties of his alternative proposals, and will certainly attend the said—and very popular —meeting.

Finally, I come to Amendments 65A and 65B, in the name of Lord Bailey of Paddington. The aim of Amendment 65A is a good one: to ensure that leaseholders in mixed-use buildings can avail themselves of the right to manage. At the House of Commons Public Bill Committee in January, MPs heard that many leaseholders in mixed-use buildings would still be unable to benefit from the reforms in the Bill to take over management—because, as the noble Lord said, of the existence of, say, a shared plant room or car park, under rules regarding structural dependency and self-containment. The existence of a plant room or other infrastructure is something decided by the original developer and leaseholders have no control over these factors, so it feels unfair to exclude them from right to manage based on the way a block has been designed, especially if they qualify under the new 50% non-residential premises limit.

Amendment 65B would put rocket boosters under the right to manage, opening it up to far more leaseholders. We on these Benches support the amendment and the intent behind it. Members in the other place have raised concerns that the 50% trigger is too high. The 50% participation limit on right to manage was also flagged as an issue by leaseholder campaigners at the Commons Public Bill Committee in January.

There may be concerns about 50% being less than a majority, but, as the noble Lord said, many leaseholders will never be able to obtain 50% support because of the high levels of buy to let in their block. But ultimately the Committee was persuaded of the case to bring down the 50% threshold. It is not right that just one person—the freeholder or landlord—has such control over leaseholders and can impact almost at will on their finances. As the noble Lord’s amendment suggests, 35% of leaseholders triggering a right to manage, with a right to participate for remaining leaseholders who did not originally get involved, is a far better situation than rule by one freeholder, whose interests, as the Law Commission concluded, are diametrically opposed to that of the leaseholder. Leaseholder self-rule with right to manage and a 35% participation threshold is a much more democratic state of affairs. Let us be honest: many councillors and MPs are elected to govern on much less than 50% of the vote—in fact, usually around 35%.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, for Amendment 60, which would leave new Section 87B out of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002. This is a new power, inserted into the 2002 Act by the Bill, for the tribunal to order the repayment of a landlord’s process costs for right to manage claims which are withdrawn or cease to have effect in circumstances where a right to manage company has acted unreasonably.

The noble Baroness asked who would decide what was reasonable or unreasonable and the level of reasonableness. The costs will be determined by the tribunal, as is the case with other kinds of litigation or court proceedings.

While we strive to reduce costs for leaseholders, we do not believe it is right to do so where the right to manage company acts unreasonably in bringing a claim and the claim also fails. For example, landlords should not have to meet their own wasted process costs where leaseholders clearly make an unfeasible claim or fail to bring the claim to an end at an earlier stage.

The noble Baroness should be assured that the new power for the tribunal does not automatically entitle landlords to repayment. If the tribunal does not consider that costs should be payable, it can decline to make an order. Removing new Section 87B would expose landlords to unfair costs. For these reasons, I ask the noble Baroness kindly to withdraw her amendment.

I thank my noble friend Lord Moylan for his Amendments 61 and 62. The amendments seek to remove or amend the existing exception to the right to manage for local authority premises so that the right can be used by their long lease holders. I should explain that there is a separate right to manage scheme for local authority secure tenants and leaseholders under the Housing Act 1985 and its relevant regulations. The Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 therefore excepted local authority leaseholders from the long-leasehold right to manage to avoid creating conflicting schemes.

The Bill delivers the most impactful of the Law Commission’s recommendations on the right to manage, including increasing the non-residential limit to 50% to give more leaseholders the right to take over management, and changing the rules to make each party pay their own process and litigation costs, saving leaseholders many thousands of pounds.

An alternative route to management is available in some local authority blocks that contain a mixture of tenants and leaseholders, where a prescribed number and proportion of secure tenants are in support of exercising the right. This involves setting up a tenant management organisation. It would complicate a system that we are trying to simplify if two separate routes were to apply to a single block, and the Law Commission made no recommendations on local authority leaseholders.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I have some familiarity with the Housing Act 1985 from my time in local government. I am reasonably well aware of the obligation to create tenant management organisations, which are often not block-specific but estate-wide or, in many cases, spread across the entire local authority council housing stock. It seems a strange way to go about trying to exercise the right to manage if we are discussing a block held as an investment that has no local authority tenants. Can my noble friend assure me that the Housing Act 1985 is an effective means for leaseholders in the circumstances I describe to exercise their right to manage, when in fact it is an obligation on a local authority rather than a right granted to long lease holders?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

We believe this is the correct way of doing it. I would be very happy to meet my noble friend to discuss this further but, with the evidence we have, we agree this is the correct way forward. But I really am very happy to meet with the noble Lord.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)]

I have heard what my noble friend the Minister has had to say and I am minded to do as she asks—if I could get one of those meetings that she has to offer. I am sure then that we could come to an accommodation.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I will be very happy to spend a week in here so that noble Lords can come in and out and speak to me as they like—and I would love to meet my noble friend to talk about this further. He talked also about transparency and it not being terribly necessary. The problem is that, if you do not have transparency, sometimes you do not know you are being ripped off, because you do not have the required information—so I think transparency is actually really important.

[Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)]

My Lords, it was not that I do not like transparency. I agree with my noble friend that transparency is very useful so you know whether you are being ripped off. I was making an appeal for the ability to intervene in the process of being ripped off. I have been on the other end of this situation, where people have quite happily told us what they are overcharging us for, but we had no mechanism to interfere in that. That is what I was more concerned with.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I thank my noble friend for that but, for the reasons I have put forward, I kindly ask him not to press his amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Truscott (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I support Amendments 63 and 65 in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Taylor of Stevenage and Lady Pinnock, who outlined again the position on pension funds. I wanted to support what has been said by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and the noble Lord, Lord Khan of Burnley. There has been a lot of scaremongering recently about the impact on pension funds, and I wanted to reinforce that with the Minister. Quite frankly, all this talk of pension funds and pensioners being hammered by low or peppercorn ground rents is rubbish, and it should be called out for what it is.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I shall take Amendments 63 and 65 together, if noble Lords do not mind, as they both concern ground rents. Amendment 63 would require a report to be laid before Parliament, and Amendment 65 would require the publication of the Government’s response to the recent ground rent consultation and the laying of a Statement before Parliament. Before I move into what I am going to say, I want to say that I am not making any comment on any media speculation, as I said on Monday.

These amendments relate to the issues considered in the Government’s recent consultation entitled Modern Leasehold: Restricting Ground Rent for Existing Leases, which was published on 9 November 2023 and closed on 17 January this year. It sought views on limiting the level of ground rent that residential leaseholders can be required to pay in England and Wales. Noble Lords will be aware that the Government do not believe that it is appropriate that many leaseholders face unregulated ground rents for no clear service in return. There is no requirement for ground rents to be reasonable, and they can cause problems when people want to sell, buy or mortgage their properties.

The Government have already legislated to put an end to ground rents for most new residential properties in England and Wales through the Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Act 2022. We have also encouraged work, led by the Competition and Markets Authority, to investigate abuses of the system such as mis-sold “doubling” ground rent leases, securing commitments from freeholders to remove these costly terms, benefitting more than 20,000 leaseholders.

It is not right that many existing leaseholders are still facing these charges for no discernible service in return, which is why we have just consulted on a range of options to cap ground rents for existing residential leases. The Government are currently considering the responses to the consultation and we will set out our policy in due course. I hope noble Lords will understand that it would be inappropriate for me at this point to comment on or pre-empt any decision of the Government before a formal response to the consultation has been published, and that, given where we are, it would be premature to impose the requirements proposed in these two amendments.

The noble Lord, Lord Truscott, is right: we do not think it is appropriate that many leaseholders face these unregulated ground rents for no clear service in return. We recognise that our proposals would have some impact on the freehold market and explored this impact through our consultation. This impact is obviously being factored into the considerations of the options and is being taken into account in reaching our final policy position. The noble Lord has some very clear views on this, which I think we agree with.

At this late hour, I therefore ask the noble Baronesses, Lady Pinnock and Lady Taylor, for their continued patience as we consider what is a very complex issue. I trust that, in the light of the assurances I have given, they will be content not to press their amendments.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am sure the Minister understands that this has dragged on and on, and we are now at a very late stage of a Bill that has already gone all the way through the Commons. Quite frankly, the degree of uncertainty and instability that is being caused to leaseholders—and to freeholders, to be fair to them—is unacceptable. Yet again in this Chamber, we hear the phrase, “in due course”. I do not know what that means; it can mean anything from tomorrow to in three years’ time when we get round to sorting it out. That is not acceptable either.

We had a very detailed report from the Competition and Markets Authority, which roundly condemned the use of ground rents as a mechanism. We have heard in this Chamber over and again that this is money for nothing and that it has resulted in the most dreadful exploitation. The example I gave in Committee on Monday of an elderly couple virtually being held to ransom by the freeholder is absolutely shocking. That will be going on in millions of homes across the country. This is just not acceptable any longer. I hope that the Secretary of State will very rapidly make up his mind as to what he is going to do about this, stop being bulldozed by freeholder interests in his own party, make a decision and get rid of ground rents, once and for all. This would let people sleep easy in their beds, which they have not been able to do while this debate has been going on.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I think there was a question there, and my response is that we went out, quite rightly, to consult, and the consultation did not finish until towards the end of January. This is a complex issue. If we do it badly or wrong then we will make mistakes and these people will potentially be in a more difficult situation. From the end of January to April is not a long time. We are doing it as fast as we can, and we will come back to the House with further details.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

I understand the response the Minister has given, but she has to understand that this consultation has its own process and in due course we will look at the analysis. I do not know whether I am accidentally calling for another meeting here, but how did we end up with reports in the newspapers? That causes more uncertainty and instability for people in their homes who are getting their information from the media. Surely there needs to be a statement or some clarification through the next stages of the Bill, so that, very early on, we can look at getting a clear, certain message out to the millions of leaseholders who have been adversely affected by the ground rent situation.

[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”.