Leasehold Charges

Lord Campbell-Savours Excerpts

Monday 20th February 2023 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)]

My Lords, there will now be a remote contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours.

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

My Lords, as part of a question I asked last June on the levying of escalating service charges, I asked whether the Government might consider a scheme for rolling up service charges in a debenture against property title—effectively, a rising legal charge. The debenture holder would pay the resident’s service charge, interest-serviced or otherwise, clawing back payments on death or prior. The Minister promised to consider the idea. Will the Minister check on developments in the department and let the House know where we stand?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord. I do remember his question and I am sorry I have not checked up on this recently. I will do so and will respond to the noble Lord.

Housing Market

Lord Campbell-Savours Excerpts

Thursday 17th November 2022 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I particularly welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, to her place. I am aware of the substantial work that she did on regional development banking, which has been of particular interest to me since the 1970s, when I wrote a paper. I also liked her reference to Lewis Silkin, who in 1960 I met in Milan in Italy when I was a 17 year-old boy, and who advised me to join the Labour Party, having had a political discussion with me.

I want to concentrate my remarks on a controversial report on Exempt Accommodation from the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee. At its heart is a disturbing commentary on the appalling conditions in which people in exempt accommodation are having to live. I need to quote directly from the report, because there is a desperate need for all of us fully to understand what is happening. The devastating attack on housing provision for the poor should be considered in the context of the report’s opening comments:

“it was surprising to have undertaken a piece of work that has shocked and alarmed us as much as this inquiry has … the system involves the exploitation of vulnerable people who should be receiving support, while unscrupulous providers make excessive profits by capitalising on loopholes. This gold-rush is all paid for by taxpayers through housing benefit.”

What an indictment that is of government housing policy. The report goes on to challenge “the quality of provision” and

“its … significant growth in some areas … and the exploitation of the system by people seeking to make profit from it”.

The report cites the impact on people, stating that:

“It is clear from our inquiry that some residents’ experiences of exempt accommodation are beyond disgraceful, and that some people’s situations actually deteriorate as a result of the shocking conditions in which they live. Where the very worst experiences are occurring, this points to a complete breakdown of the system … Areas with high concentrations of exempt accommodation can also attract anti-social behaviour, crime—including the involvement of organised criminal gangs—rubbish, and vermin”.


The report calls for a system of national standards for referral of those people in desperate need and proposes that local authorities take on that role. It calls on the Government to publish national standards, with powers for local authorities to enforce those standards which would include a referral process that works, proper care support and supervision, standards of housing quality and, most importantly, information that a provider would be required to give to the resident as to their rights. The committee regarded the whole problem as so acute that it warranted special additional funding.

In a series of dramatic statements on domestic abuse, the report flagged up its finding that

“organisations with no expertise are able to target survivors of domestic abuse and their children and provide neither specialist support nor an appropriate or safe environment”.

This is Dickensian stuff. The report seeks to ameliorate the position of those suffering domestic abuse, and proposed that

“where a prospective resident of exempt accommodation is a survivor of domestic abuse, there must be a requirement that housing benefit is only paid to providers that have recognised expertise and meet the standards”

of care in the Domestic Abuse Act.

The report revealed that, while extraordinarily some providers do not fall under the remit of any regulator, the patchwork of existing regulation was full of holes. It reports on an acute absence of data on exempt accommodation—which I found quite incredible—and then reveals that there is an absence of data and statistics rendering the committee’s inquiry

“unable to establish how widespread the very worst experiences are”,

and even

“how many exempt accommodation claimants and providers there are.”

It is a devastating report, perhaps one of the worst I have read during my many decades in Parliament. I say to colleagues: please read it. The report goes on with a call to the Government to urgently conduct a review of exempt housing benefit claims to determine how much is being spent. The committee felt that

“the current system offers a licence to print money to those who wish to exploit the system.”

The truth is that we are being taken for fools by those who are prepared to play fast and loose with our laws and ignore human rights.

There is one final recommendation in the report on the wider issue of authorisation. The suggestion is that the Government “end the existing exemptions” that registered providers enjoy from HMO licensing arrangements, and

“that the loophole relating to non-registered providers with properties containing six or fewer residents also be addressed so that they are brought within the”

whole exempt accommodation regime within the law.

This whole debate about exempt accommodation, which I knew very little about before reading this report, and I suspect that many Members of the House have little knowledge about, raises real questions about priorities in life and our treatment of those who have little and so often live in real poverty.

Housing (Built Environment Committee Report)

Lord Campbell-Savours Excerpts

Tuesday 8th November 2022 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, an error on my part has led me to speak in the gap in a truncated contribution and I apologise. This report is a comprehensive canter round the course of housing demand. The committee is to be congratulated. I want to speak narrowly. Paragraph 180 states:

“The Local Government Association set out proposals to help councils encourage faster build out rates”,


including

“a streamlined compulsory purchase process to acquire (at pre-uplift value)”.

The words “pre-uplift value” need interpretation if the public are to understand this report.

I have previously argued that some development land valuation should not be based on planning decisions but on agricultural value, with an uplift for administrative and infrastructural redevelopment costs, which means CPO. I see no reason why huge profits to landowners at the cost of house buyers should turn on the granting of planning permissions. I further argue that while Section 106 agreements are helpful, they are a complex alternative: even where they sit alongside community infrastructural levies, they often cannot deliver.

According to the report, at paragraph 54, the Affordable Housing Commission reports a substantial increase in the private rental sector and a contraction in social housing. Due to the timing, the committee was unable to comment on the recent explosion in interest rates and the consequent increased demand for cheaper public sector rental property. The problem here is that pressure on housing availability is being used not only by heavily indebted landlords but also by others carrying little debt to take advantage of housing shortage and force up rents. We have reports of 25% to 30% increases at a time when working families are under heavy pressure due to wider cost of living increases. The truth is that the table in paragraph 53 of the report on average monthly housing costs is now totally out of date as the impact of inflation feeds through into increased rent levels.

Finally, I have just a few words on the taxation of rental income. In a debate in 2017, I drew on work by the London Borough of Newham, which has established a licensing system not only to protect tenants but to ensure that tax is paid on landlord rental incomes. The IPPR had recently estimated that the Revenue lost £183 million in a single year in London alone. In Newham, only 13,000 out of 26,000 landlords had registered with HMRC for self-assessment. I wish the Revenue well as it follows this up—I hope it does so.

This is a brilliant report providing an abundance of research material to be used in the year to come. I will certainly use it again in further debates.

[Lord Haselhurst (Con)]

My Lords, I too am on restricted time. Nevertheless, I record my thanks to my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe and the staff of the committee—

Housing: Leasehold Properties

Lord Campbell-Savours Excerpts

Monday 17th October 2022 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)]

We have a remote contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours.

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

My Lords, with dramatically escalating service charges nationally aggravating the position, is not the answer greater transparency over leasehold, freehold and sub-lease title issues more generally? Transparency alone can often solve problems where landlord anonymity hides accountability. If that is combined with the rolling-up of lease liability payments pending payment on the death of a lessee under the debenture arrangements I proposed on 20 June, it would ease the problem. Will the Government please look at what I am proposing?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

The law is very clear that service charges must be reasonable, as in Section 19 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. Leaseholders can apply for a First-tier Tribunal for a determination on this. The Government are also committed to ensuring that service charges are, as the noble Lord says, transparent and that there should be a clear route to challenge or redress if things go wrong. We will continue to work on that for the people affected.

Leasehold Reform: Forfeiture Provisions

Lord Campbell-Savours Excerpts

Monday 20th June 2022 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, with vulnerable, low-income elderly groups in this highly inflationary period facing unaffordable, escalating service charges and possible loss or even forfeiture of their homes, why not promote or sponsor a national scheme for elderly leaseholders that rolls up service charges in the form of a debenture against property title—effectively a rising legal charge? The debenture holder would pay the service charge on behalf of the resident, and then claw back payments—interest-serviced or otherwise—on death or even before.

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for some exciting policy ideas. It is important that we recognise that forfeiture is a very lengthy process, and there are ways in which we can cover debt. In fact, where there is an outstanding mortgage, you typically find that mortgage companies step in and pay off any remaining amounts, because they want to protect their financial interest in a property that is worth far more than the debt. But it is an idea that I will take back to the department.

Elections: Multiple Voting

Lord Campbell-Savours Excerpts

Tuesday 14th June 2022 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)]

My Lords, we have a virtual contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours.

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

My Lords, the Minister may in reply to my noble friend Lord Reid of Cardowan say, “No”, but how can he challenge the proposition that an ID card number, with its unique personalised identifier, is impossible to misuse in a system that is electronically secure and at the same time capable of capturing data that exposes repeat voting? Ministers can oppose the card’s introduction but cannot challenge the efficacy when the evidence is overwhelming.

Local Government (Disqualification) Bill

Lord Campbell-Savours Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 4th March 2022 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Home Office and Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Lord Greenhalgh) (Con)]

I thank noble Lords, in particular my noble friend Lord Udny-Lister, for sponsoring this Private Member’s Bill. I also congratulate the honourable Member for Mole Valley, Sir Paul Beresford, for all the work he has done to progress this Bill through the other place. The two of them share one thing in common: they were both leaders of Wandsworth, which is known, by them at least, as “the brighter borough”. I served for 20 years in Hammersmith and Fulham, and learned an awful lot from them and from what they achieved for their local residents. My noble friend has an unrivalled record, certainly when I compare it to mine. As he said in his speech, he served as a councillor for 35 years, with great distinction, and—I do not know how he survived it—19 years as leader of a London borough. That requires some survival instinct; it is quite incredible. Beyond that, he served five years in City Hall, along with the then mayor, Mayor Johnson, before completing the pyramid with two years in Downing Street. It is great that this Bill is sponsored by my noble friend, whom I very much consider a mentor.

The Government support the Bill for three main reasons. First, preventing registered sex offenders from either standing or serving as councillors, mayors or London Assembly members will strengthen communities’ faith and confidence in their elected representatives. Secondly, the Bill delivers on the Government’s stated commitment to bring local government disqualification into line with modern sentencing practice for sexual offences. Thirdly, the electorate has a right to expect that the people who stand and serve to represent them and their local communities are of good character.

The current disqualification criteria for local government candidates and councillors will automatically disqualify anyone for five years if they are convicted of a custodial sentence of three months or more, suspended or not. This rule dates back to the Local Government Act 1972. However, while the existing law is still effective in addressing serious cases of criminal behaviour, it does not take account of the non-custodial sentences the courts now issue for certain categories of sexual offences. This means that some individuals who are convicted and who ought to be disqualified do not meet the current threshold and can therefore slip through the net.

Noble Lords have indicated that they agree with me and the Government that it is quite intolerable that people deemed by the courts to pose a risk to children and vulnerable adults are not barred from serving as members of local authorities. The Bill rights that wrong by updating the law to ensure that only fit and proper persons can stand or serve as locally elected officials. We know, of course, that the vast majority of local authority members serving their communities are of good character, worthy of trust and beyond reproach. But, with some 120,000 councillors in England, there have inevitably been cases in which the behaviour of elected officials has fallen well below the standards the public expect and deserve.

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)]

The noble Lord, Lord Hayward, referred to two excluded categories. Why were they excluded, as this is probably an off-the-shelf Bill?

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

I was going to come to that; I was not going to finish my speech without addressing that point, but I will bring it forward a paragraph or two. The answer to why this does not apply to MPs, as was raised by my noble friend Lord Hayward, or to PCCs, as was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Goudie, is that standards and conduct for MPs and PCCs are governed under separate regimes, with their own mechanisms to disqualify or sanction unacceptable behaviour. There is currently the power to recall a MP, under certain circumstances, if at least 10% of the constituency electorate signs a petition. I take the general point: this Bill tidies up this issue, but there is another regime in place. I think my noble friend alluded to that point.

I had better resume from where I was. We know that the vast majority of local authority members serving their communities are of good character, worthy of trust and beyond reproach. That is one of the reasons why, in 2018, the Government responded to a consultation to update the local government criteria with a commitment to legislate on this matter. This was, in part, in response to an infamous case in which a parish councillor, shortly after being elected, was convicted of possessing indecent images of children. He was placed on the sex offender register but not given a custodial sentence. Despite repeated calls for him to resign, he refused to stand down and actually remained a parish councillor for the full term. The law as it stands allowed him to continue to do so, but this Bill would prevent such circumstances occurring again.

These new disqualification criteria will protect our communities by barring such individuals from holding office while they remain subject to the notification requirements for sexual offences or subject to a sexual risk order. Where offenders pose such a severe risk to the public that they are subject to indefinite notification requirements, communities can feel safe in the knowledge that such individuals will remain disqualified from elected office for the entire duration.

On its remit with regard to the devolved Administrations, I should state that the Bill applies to England only, as much of local government is devolved. The Scottish Parliament can make corresponding provision and the Welsh Government legislated on this matter last year. That said, since the UK Government retain the responsibility for elections in Northern Ireland, we will work with the Northern Ireland Executive to extend these measures there too, with a comprehensive package addressing the rules that govern both candidates and sitting councillors.

The Government strongly believe that there should be severe penalties for locally elected councillors who break the bonds of trust that hold local democracy together. This Bill puts that principle into practice, while ensuring that local government can continue to command people’s faith and trust, both now and in future. The Government are therefore delighted to support the Bill.

Council Tax: Second Homes

Lord Campbell-Savours Excerpts

Thursday 4th November 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, I should have registered my residential and commercial property interests, although I have not tried to use this loophole. The Government announced in March that we will legislate, and we have been working very closely with the Treasury and the Valuation Office Agency to finalise the details of how and when this will be implemented. This of course takes time and we will publish our consultation response shortly.

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

My Lords, the proliferation of holiday lets in lakeland towns such as Ambleside, Windermere and Keswick is decimating the residential market for locals, particularly the young. The switch from council tax to a reduced business rate system will only aggravate the problem by further incentivising holiday letting. Is not the answer to this wider problem of drift to holiday letting to cap the number of holiday lets through the use of a combination of licensing and planning rules? Something has to be done.

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, the Government support the sharing economy, but the noble Lord will be pleased to know that we recognise the concerns about the uneven regulatory requirements in it. In the Tourism Recovery Plan, published in June 2021, we committed to consult on the introduction of a tourist accommodation registration scheme in England.

Inequalities of Region and Place

Lord Campbell-Savours Excerpts

Thursday 14th October 2021 Lords Chamber

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

I congratulate my noble friend Lord Liddle on his brilliant contribution today. He is a rich voice in the House on behalf of our county through his membership of Cumbria County Council. He is certainly an eye and ear for many of us on wider Cumbrian issues. In his canter around the course on regional concerns, he has alluded to differential treatment by central government. I want to refer to one such area: council tax, and the findings in my most recent report on levels in Cumbria compared to the rest of the country—and also, the response of government to calls for reform.

The truth is that Cumbria is a victim of a system designed in the last century. It has become unfair, divisive, politically compromising and utterly indefensible. It is unfair in that it favours large swathes of southern England, in particular the London boroughs. For example, I compare Conservative Westminster with Conservative-controlled Carlisle. The annual charge in Westminster for council tax band A is £551, but it is £1,328 in Carlisle—nearly three times the rate. In Westminster, band B is £643 and in Carlisle it is £1,649. Band C is £735 in Westminster and £1,771 in Carlisle. Band D in Westminster is £827 and £1,992 in Carlisle. Band E is £1,011 in Westminster and £2,435 in Carlisle. Band F is £1,195 in Westminster, and in Carlisle it is £2,877. Band G is £1,379 in Westminster and £3,320 in Carlisle. Finally, band H is £1,665 in Westminster but £3,984 in Carlisle. Copeland, Allerdale, Eden, South Lakeland and Barrow-in-Furness are all even higher. Under such a system, a council house in Cumbria pays more in council tax than a £54 million house in London’s Mayfair.

The system is divisive if it is provoking resentment in areas unable to raise additional revenues to offset their costs. Unlike London, Cumbria lacks additional sources of revenue, such as city centre parking revenues and penalty charges, high commercial rate revenues, cross-borough services provisions and high-density apartment developments with lower public service costs. The wall of silence on council tax from Cumbria’s MPs, nearly all of whom are Conservative, is a problem. They know that to open up this discussion will upset their colleagues in the south, who feel that any reform will lead to increased council tax in the Conservative heartlands of southern England. We have in place a wall of silence, with ministerial denial and Cumbria’s MPs propping up the wall by a total refusal to engage in debate. All we hear is attacks from local MPs on council profligacy, and it is totally unfair.

When Michael Gove was appointed, I welcomed his face-up-to-the-issues, refreshing approach to public administration, but then he must have realised that council tax reform was a no-go area for Conservative Governments. Ever-increasing differentials between the richer boroughs in the south and an impoverished north are the Achilles heel of this Government, and Michael Gove will ultimately be measured by his failure to grasp this burning issue.

The noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, who clearly understands the scale and nature of the problem, has been courageous in his advocacy of banding reform. Contrast that with the heads-down, read-the-brief response of Ministers in both Houses. It is a clear indicator of the unease, embarrassment and impossibility of opening a real debate on the future of local government finance, and we need action now.

Finally, when Conservative councillors in the north are told by Conservative Government Ministers in the south that their councils need to be more efficient and cut waste and spending, they resent it. They are already cutting to the bone. The Government need to listen to the anguished call from their own people, and mine as well, for reform.

Council Tax

Lord Campbell-Savours Excerpts

Thursday 22nd July 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

I note my noble friend’s call for a council tax revaluation. As I said in my previous answer, a full revaluation would be costly. The council tax bands are well understood by residents and provide a stable income for councils, so at this stage we have no plans for a full revaluation.

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)]

My Lords, how is it possible for a £54 million luxury house in London’s Mayfair to have a lower council tax than a former council house on Windebrowe Avenue in Keswick in Cumbria and almost the same council tax as an £80,000 house on Moorclose Road in Workington, both in my former constituency? Is it not the simple truth that the whole council tax system is now discredited? It is unfair, it penalises much of the north, it favours London and much of the south, and it is now in urgent need of reform.

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, I am interested to hear the specific examples given, but we must recognise that, for local authority funding, council tax represents only a proportion of the income received. That is why we try to equalise through measures such as the grant system, which recognises the index of multiple deprivation as one of the reasons in how you provide grant—