Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Bill [Lords]

Debate between Justin Madders and Desmond Swayne

Report stage & 3rd reading
Monday 24th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Sir Desmond Swayne]

I draw your attention, Madam Deputy Speaker, and the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

I am deeply embarrassed about the way that the retirement living industry has been treated over the past few years in the progress to this Bill. In recognition of the significantly greater capital costs of building developments that have communal areas, which have traditionally been funded through an income stream of ground rent, the industry was granted an exemption, or an assurance that it would be exempt from the provisions of the Bill, back in June 2019. That exemption was then withdrawn in January 2021. I understand that the decision to withdraw the exemption was made almost a year earlier, in February 2020, and that discussions about revoking the assurance of exemption had actually begun in August 2019. Throughout all that period, the industry continued to be reassured that the exemption was good and would hold, and it was not.

Throughout that period, the industry continued to raise capital on the basis of the model with which they had been told they could continue. The amendment goes one tiny little bit towards trying to remedy the damage that has been done. It accepts that the practice will have to end, but it asks for one tiny concession, namely that, when the provisions of the Bill bite in March 2023, properties that are part-sold can continue to sell the residual remaining flats or properties on the basis of a continued ground rent. Without that, what we will have is some properties within a development being worth significantly more in terms of the purchase price than others, and some properties paying a ground rent and others not. It will be hugely complicated and divisive. Therefore, the amendment merely asks for that to be addressed. At the most, if the provision were to pass, we anticipate that this would account for about 2,000 properties. I ask the Minister to reflect on this, and, even at this late hour, accept the amendment.

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

I rise to speak in support of new clause 1, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury).

To respond to the previous speaker, the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne), on the issue of ground rents, it is clear that service charges are for communal areas. Indeed, McCarthy Stone’s website says very clearly—

[Sir Desmond Swayne]

rose—

[Justin Madders]

Go on then.

[Sir Desmond Swayne]

It is unlawful to charge ground rent for the maintenance of a communal area. They are clean different things.

Public Health

Debate between Justin Madders and Desmond Swayne

Tuesday 6th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for her introduction.

With 1 million people worldwide and over 42,000 people in the UK having now lost their lives to covid-19, the virus is still very much with us and the threat is clear. On Friday, the Government’s scientific and medical advisers reported that the R number in the UK could be as high as 1.6, and that it was highly likely that the virus was still growing exponentially. The spread of the disease is thought to be growing between 5% and 9% each day. There were another 12,500 new cases yesterday, and that is before we see the consequences of those missing cases, where contacts have not been identified and asked to isolate.

Just about every piece of data indicates that we are heading in the wrong direction, which is why new restrictions are required, but, three weeks into them, should we not be beginning to see a sign of progress?

More than 16 million people across the country are living under additional local restrictions, and we have further national measures, such as the 10 pm curfew, which we are not debating today, yet the progress of the virus continues unabated. Indeed, Members whose constituencies are directly affected will know that some of the heaviest increases in infection appear to be taking place in areas where additional restrictions are already in place. Today’s debate is important as it gives Members the opportunity to question how effective these interventions are, whether we need to go further and what these regulations might mean for their constituents.

Before I turn to the regulations, I remind the House that Labour has been clear from the outset that we will do whatever we can to support the national effort by supporting whatever reasonable steps are necessary to protect the NHS and save lives. That does not mean, though, that we are giving the Government a free pass. We have been concerned by the months of mixed messages and confused communication from the Government. We welcome the intention behind the rule of six. It is a simple, easily understood message, although anyone who has read the 10 pages of regulations, the plethora of exceptions and the many laws that they amend will realise that the simple message has not survived the process of drafting the regulations.

[Sir Desmond Swayne]

Given that the Minister has pleaded simplicity for the rule of six, is it any less simple that the six should exclude children than that it should include them, or do we imagine that our constituents are stupid?

[Justin Madders]

I certainly do not think my constituents are stupid, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman does not either. A very important point has already been made about children, and I will return to that later. We have not yet had a convincing explanation why they are included in the six.

Even with the best of intentions, concerns and questions remain, not least about the way in which these regulations were introduced, how effective they are, how the Government communicated them and how they will be enforced. The timeline of these regulations is the perfect demonstration of the lack of transparency, strategy and accountably, which has been the hallmark of this Government. Following media briefings the night before, the Prime Minister made an announcement about the rule of six on 9 September, not to this place, as it should have been, even though he was in the House that day to answer Prime Minister’s questions. I call that a discourtesy to this place, and I hope we see and end of that. It shows not only a lack of respect to all Members and our constituents but a lack of confidence in what is being proposed and a lack of commitment to scrutiny. Most of all, the way that these regulations were introduced shows a lack of thought about the practicalities of enforcing them.

How can we expect anyone to adhere to the minutiae of these regulations if they appear for the first time only a quarter of an hour before they become law—at quarter to midnight on a Sunday evening? How were the police meant to enforce that? Are they supposed to google the regulations as they walk around on their beat? Brian Booth, the chair of the West Yorkshire Police Federation, said:

“Everybody is in the dark, it shouldn’t be like that…If the government says they’re going to infringe on people’s lives, they have to tell them how.”

Once again, there is no impact assessment for these regulations. Surely some thought was given to the practicalities, so what discussions did the Minister have with her counterparts in the Home Office and with police forces around the country prior to the introduction of these regulations?

The way that regulations are introduced matters. They are too important not to be debated and given full and timely parliamentary scrutiny before they become law. Since March, more than 70 health protection statutory instruments have been introduced in this way, with no debate and no vote before they come into force. We recognise that, in the early stages, there was a need to act quickly under the emergency procedures, and we acknowledge that that may still be the case at times, but more and more of the regulations that are being introduced do not meet the test of urgency. The Government have slipped into bad habits. They treat this place as an afterthought—an inconvenience, an optional extra—and not as the cornerstone of the democratic process that it should be. Surely they can do better than that. Do they not realise that scrutiny, debate and challenge in the making of our laws means that, in the long run, laws are more robust, more effective and have greater public acceptance?

I repeat once again and for the record our offer to meet at short notice to debate and vote on regulations before they become law. I appreciate that that might be inconvenient for some, but, to be frank, we are in a pandemic so a bit of inconvenience should be the least that we have to put up with to ensure that democracy still functions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Madders]

What I am saying is that I would like to see the evidence. I would like to know what the difference is between this country and Wales and Scotland. The Children’s Commissioner, for one, would also like an answer. If we get the answer, we can take a position on it.

[Sir Desmond Swayne]

The question was asked and the answer was that it was for simplicity. It was not a question of evidence: the answer was that it was simpler to include children. Given that there is no evidence, will the hon. Gentleman reassess his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker)?

[Justin Madders]

That is probably overstating things. Certainly, it is not what has been said in the other place about the reasons why children were included. We do need some more clarity from the Government on that.

In terms of clarity, we also need more data and evidence from the Minister about what is happening to reduce the transmission of the virus. We need her to commit to publishing evidence behind all these decisions. If there is no evidence, then so be it, but we need to see the basis on which decisions are being made. I was a little unsure whether she was saying that it was too early, or not, to establish the effectiveness of these regulations. She said at one point that it would take a couple of weeks to see whether the regulations are being effective, but of course we are already past that point. I hope that we can see some clarity on that.

I would be grateful if we heard a bit more about why it is a rule of six, not seven, eight or five, for example. That is very important, because we are putting significant restrictions on people and those cannot be based on an arbitrary number. I raise this not because we want to pick holes in what the Government are saying but because the Transport Secretary, when asked why it was six, said there was no particular reason for that figure. Can anyone imagine a police officer going to hand out a fine to a group of seven people and, when asked why seven was an offence and six was not, saying, “Well, there’s no particular reason for that.”?

[Sir Desmond Swayne]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Justin Madders]

Every suggestion the right hon. Gentleman makes is helpful, so I will.

[Sir Desmond Swayne]

Could I suggest 10, and then we can count them on our fingers? That would be simple enough, wouldn’t it?

[Justin Madders]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I hope that the Government’s thought processes are rather more complex than that, but, again, we need to see what has actually been said in that respect.

When we debated the first lockdown regulations, I stated that as regulations changed, it was vital that the rules remain clear and consistent. That consistency not only carries across advice but carries across laws and all forms of official communication. It is very clear that that has not happened in this case. As we know, the Prime Minister and Ministers have made contradictory statements and have been unable to answer simple questions regarding the new regulations in the media. As the Leader of the Opposition said, if the people responsible for making the rules do not understand them, how can we expect the rest of the country to understand and follow the rules?