Leaseholders: Safety Remediation Costs

Lord Stunell Excerpts

Thursday 4th November 2021 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Stunell]

That this House takes note of the situation of leaseholders who are facing substantial bills for fire and building safety remediation work; and of the need for safe, green and affordable housing.

[Lord Stunell (LD)]

My Lords, I start by reminding the House that I am a member of your Lordships’ Built Environment Select Committee and an honorary fellow of the Institution of Civil Engineers, and served for two years as Minister with responsibility for building regulations, between 2010 and 2012.

I make no apology for bringing back to your Lordships’ House the unfinished business arising from the dreadful tragedy of the Grenfell Tower fire, which killed 72 men, women and children and ruined the lives of many others. Consequent upon that, fire inspections have been held at thousands of buildings in the UK to check whether they are compliant with all relevant fire safety rules. In the event, many have been found not to be compliant. One estimate is that up to 1.5 million households may be living in a home that has fire safety deficiencies. It is not just combustible cladding that must be taken down and replaced; other literally vital, life-saving features such as cavity barriers, fire stops and fire doors have been wrongly installed. All must be replaced or repaired.

We know that the cost will be huge, and that the burden falls unfairly. I, my noble friends and other noble Lords will today challenge the Minister and the Government on how that burden falls. However, this debate, held while COP 26 is meeting in Glasgow, is also about another, even wider issue: ensuring that all our homes, both existing ones and those still to be built, are safe, sustainable and affordable. That also requires massive investment and a new approach to design and construction, including cutting heating bills with better insulation and decarbonising heating systems, while ensuring that neither affordability nor safety is compromised. Towards the end of my remarks I will say something about the challenges faced in achieving that, and give some words of advice to the Minister on how to make a good start.

These two seemingly separate imperatives—fire safety and climate resilience—are closely linked. Both require strong government leadership to set the long-term regulatory and investment climate. Both require new skills and expertise to deliver. Both will require strong oversight and evaluation to guarantee successful outcomes. I want the Minister to join the dots and undertake to learn the lessons that we painfully learned from the Grenfell Tower crisis to deliver on the climate change crisis successfully. I also want him to acknowledge that his Government have much more to do on both fire safety and climate resilience before they can begin to claim to be delivering safe, green, affordable homes for all.

The inquiry into the Grenfell Tower disaster exposed many shocking failures of design, manufacture, testing, installation, supervision, inspection and regulation. There have been failures by clients, developers, suppliers, contractors, subcontractors and inspectors. There is a very long list of people who made mistakes or, worse, deliberately cut corners to save time, money or face. The residents and leaseholders of Grenfell Tower paid a high price indeed for those multiple failures, for which they bore no blame; indeed, they did their best to prevent them.

In the aftermath, many hoped that it was simply some horrible combination of rogue circumstances that could be never repeated. Sadly, that is not true. We now know that thousands of homes in hundreds of high and medium-rise blocks have many of the same deficiencies in their construction. Again, it is about not just combustible cladding but missing cavity barriers, fire stops and fire doors. One estimate, by the British Woodworking Federation, is that 600,000 fire doors need remediation.

There will be long lists of people and organisations to blame in each and every failure, but on none of them will the names of the leasehold residents who live there appear. Yet, in every one of those defective blocks, it is the leaseholders who are expected to foot the bill. The remediation costs being passed on to leaseholders are typically multiple thousands of pounds each. The magazine Inside Housing ran a survey of leaseholders. They reported huge bills. Some 60% of those who replied to that survey faced a bill more than £30,000, with the top 15% facing bills of more than £100,000. On top of that come the huge service charges for waking watch provision and massive rises in insurance premiums. With sometimes a nil valuation on their property, leaseholders cannot raise mortgage funds to cover the cost; nor can they sell up and leave.

The Government’s response, after a wobbly start, has been to move forward with the Fire Safety Act and now the Building Safety Bill. They have tabled plans for some financial assistance, but those plans are not only manifestly well short of what is needed, they are themselves moving at a snail’s pace on delivery. For instance, four years after the fire, only £79 million of the £200 million set aside to help private leaseholders has been spent. There are still no details published on how to apply for the loan scheme for leaseholders trapped in low and mid-rise blocks, announced by the Minister with great fanfare nine months ago.

The Government have repeatedly sent out confused messages that have made the situation facing leaseholders worse. The initial EWS1 scheme was intended for use only on high-rise blocks, those over 18 metres. It provided a way for mortgage providers to underwrite transactions on those properties. It was a struggle to do so because there were far too few fire risk assessors to cover the 1,700 buildings in scope, so there were long delays. But the Government’s January 2020 consolidated advice note, stating that combustible cladding on any height of building posed a fire risk, immediately led to EWS1 certificates being demanded of every building, increasing the demand for fire risk assessments from 1,700 to several tens of thousands. That created an enormous backlog of EWS1 assessments.

As a palliative, a year ago the Government set up a training scheme with RICS to train an additional 250 fire assessors. A year later, today, I want to hear from the Minister how many trained fire assessors there are and what the department’s estimate is of the backlog of assessments still to be done. The Minister may reply that, back in July this year, he announced that the EWS1 was to be withdrawn and replaced by PAS 9980 and that a new code of practice would be established with a sound, risk-based assessment procedure. However, neither the code nor the publicly accessible standard has arrived yet. Will the Minister give an assurance today from the Dispatch Box that both of those will be published before the Christmas Recess?

The procedural dithering by the department is making the position of leaseholders, already under intense financial pressure, worse with each passing day. A study by Sheffield University, funded by the ESRC, reported that for most leaseholders the financial pressures were at least as much responsible for their stressed mental state as fears for their safety in case of fire. Leaseholders have understood the brutal reality that they are more likely to face foreclosure than fire death. The Government have a clear duty to respond urgently to reassure them.

Of course, above and beyond all the administrative fumbling by the department is the overriding question of funding. Other noble Lords will have plenty to say on this, and I will listen particularly carefully to what the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, has to say about drawing on the polluter pays principle to recompense leaseholders. All I will say is that, should the Government not come forward with an equitable scheme beforehand, the Minister can expect a difficult time when the Building Safety Bill reaches your Lordships’ House. It remains a central responsibility of this Government to ensure that the blameless victims of this terrible episode are not left swinging in the wind, exposed both to fire risk and financial calamity.

A central theme of that Building Safety Bill is to establish a golden thread of responsibility for due process and good construction, overseen by a tough regulator. That is a principle I strongly endorse: indeed, I can claim to have prefigured it in the Sustainable and Secure Buildings Act that I successfully brought forward in the other place as a Private Member’s Bill 15 years ago. Of course, the Building Safety Bill rightly focuses on fire safety and the immediately presenting and very pressing issue of fire prevention in high-rise blocks, but that golden thread principle should be a fundamental part of the regulatory system for the whole construction industry. It can help to ensure that new and retrofitted homes are actually built to the standards specified, that people doing the work have the skills and capability for the task, and that when something goes wrong there is a clear audit trail.

By way of illustration, six years ago a fire broke out in the wall of a modern block of three-storey town houses in my former constituency and spread vertically to the roof. The fire spread through the roof space, and three homes were gutted. Missing fire stops and cavity barriers were the facilitators of the fire spread. It happened 10 years and one month after construction—important from the warrantee angle at the time. Of course, there was no paper trail, or digital trail, on who did what or why during construction. According to the Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue Service, which attended that fire, this absence of cavity barriers is a very common fault to find in the timber-framed house fires it attends. At the time, it told me it supposed that it would be a national problem. When I inquired, the then Minister said that a study was being commissioned by the department. Can the Minister here today tell us whether that happened and what it reported? He might find it interesting—or maybe not—but it could well provide long-term evidence of a long-term problem.

Less dramatically, there have been multiple reports of people moving into new homes and finding the roof insulation still rolled up in the loft, and the level of basic faults in newly completed homes remains unacceptably high. We are going to see the wholesale introduction of modern methods of construction—prefabricated and timber-frame construction—aimed at high levels of home insulation. We are targeting a complete revolution in the technology used to heat our homes. All these and much more are on the menu as zero-carbon homes are seen as the gold standard to achieve in the coming decades. All will need higher skills and closer supervision than they are currently getting if there is not to be disappointment at best, or catastrophic failure at worst, in achieving the ambitious numerical and sustainable housing targets that the Government espouse.

Grenfell Tower had many contributing causes but the absence of clear regulatory oversight of the sort now proposed in the Building Safety Bill was, sadly, an enabler of the failures that happened. So too was the absence of trained and qualified staff and workers. So, my final ask of the Minister is that he should keep clearly in focus the case for learning from this horrible episode the need to ensure that the golden thread principle is not just seen as a one-off response to a wholly exceptional problem, but as a vital necessity for delivering safe, green and affordable homes in the future. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Stunell (LD)]

My Lords, I thank all those who have participated in the debate, particularly for the new ideas that have been brought—and pushed—forward. I say simply that I am looking forward to the debate with the Minister in the coming months to make sure that we get the answers, and I would not mind a letter explaining the difference between “relatively shortly” for the loan rules being produced and “shortly” for PAS 9980 being produced. On that note. I thank all noble Lords.

Motion agreed.

Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Bill [HL]

Lord Stunell Excerpts

3rd reading
Tuesday 14th September 2021 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I join the Minister in thanking Members on all sides of the House for their contributions and expertise in working to get the Bill to where it is today. I also thank the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, for his courtesy in his dealings with my noble friend Lord Lennie and myself. We appreciate that very much. I also thank all the officials and his Bill team for their work with us. I place on record my thanks to Ben Wood and the office of the Leader of the Opposition for the work that they did.

My involvement was in the Second Reading of the Bill. I then became the Chief Whip, so I departed the scene, leaving it all to my noble friend Lord Lennie. I have come back to make these final remarks as my noble friend cannot be here today. I thank him in particular for all the work he did in taking up the Bill very much at short notice. I think we have made the Bill better than it was when it first came to this House. This is the first stage in leasehold reform; there is very much more to be done. We look forward to the work of the Law Commission and to a Bill that will address other leaseholder problems—but this is a good first stage and I am very happy with where we have got to so far.

[Lord Stunell (LD)]

My Lords, I too offer my thanks to those who have contributed to the improvement of the Bill and, in particular, to say that the Minister has been exceptionally helpful and generous with his time in proceeding with it through Committee and at the intermediate stages. My noble friend Lady Grender would have liked to be here, but I am speaking in her place on this occasion.

I have given notice to the Minister that I believe there is one aspect of this that still requires a word of clarification, which I hope he will be able to give as we move on. It is clearly very important that this Bill makes rapid progress, and even more important that the second Bill, long promised, follows close on its heels. The issue relates to retirement homes and those blocks that are partially occupied at the time that the changes instigated by this Bill come into force. There is a serious risk of a two-tier market in those blocks if this is introduced wholesale across every part of the same block. I hope that the Minister will be able to clarify the Government’s intent and the effect of this legislation, so that those who have made representations to me can have some understanding of the direction in which this legislation will now proceed. With those few words, I am very happy to see the Bill pass into law.

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, for giving me advance notice of his question. I have pushed to give him a clear answer on that. It is clear that there is a transition period until 1 April 2023. The Government propose not to exclude part-occupied developments from that cut-off period once the legislation takes effect, which will obviously be later than for all other areas. That is the balance that we are trying to strike, in the interests of consumers but also of the sector.

Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Bill [HL]

Lord Stunell Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 20th July 2021 Lords Chamber

Amendment 39 is fairly self-explanatory. It seeks simply to clarify what government Amendment 38 extends to and to ensure that, where a long leasehold is entered into with rent and the tenant undertakes to do certain upgrading and improvement works, the rent will not end up being peppercorned by default. The Minister helpfully said that this matter requires further consideration. I agree, and I am perfectly happy to leave it in the capable hands of the Minister and his department.

[Lord Stunell (LD)]

My Lords, my noble friend Lady Grender is very sorry that she is not able to be present, having led for this side of the House in the previous stages of the Bill. She has put into my somewhat inadequate hands the job of taking us to the next stage. I thank the Minister for his very helpful approach to all sides of the debate so far—in the preceding stages and, indeed, right up to this morning, as the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, has commented.

These government amendments are examples of clarifications that have emerged as a result of our discussions; I am sure we would all agree that they are leading to an improvement on the Bill in its original form. Not all of us brought to bear the knowledge and background of a former Chancellor of the Exchequer, which was credited by the Minister a few minutes ago, but, even so, we have been treated with courtesy and respect, and we very much appreciate that.

I turn briefly to the proposals tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton. The noble and learned Lord made the point that an untidy situation will be left should his amendment not be adopted by the Government. The noble Earl, in his extremely technical presentation of the difficulties and intricacies of leases on big developments, has also shown very clearly the further unfinished business that the Bill by no means addresses. Because of my own interest in the Building Safety Bill, I picked out his suggestion that that Bill—in its current form, at least—could put on to property owners obligations that they will no longer be funded to support should various scenarios sketched out by the noble Earl come to pass.

The Minister’s initial response was that he could not accept Amendment 5; I take that to mean that neither does he accept the arguments that the noble Earl has just presented to your Lordships’ House. It seems to me that, if not here then at some later stage, he will have to answer and have properly investigated the question of whether the Building Safety Bill, if enacted in its present form, would lead to an unacceptable outcome because it would mean that the obligation to inspect, certify and rectify would be placed on the shoulders of a person or body without the means to do it.

The Minister has very helpfully said that he will consider the practical consequences outlined by the noble Earl in relation to Amendment 35. I will be very interested to see how that proceeds. He gave us a little hint that something might come up at a later stage of the Bill. I hope that that will be the case.

In conclusion, I say only that the Minister has been presented with strong evidence from every side that this is an incomplete Bill. It does not tackle the whole problem even in terms of its own limited reference point. I am grateful, as I think the whole House will be, that improvements are being made, but further improvements are needed and the urgency of proceeding to the second stage of leasehold reform is underlined every time one of your Lordships contributes to this debate.

[Lord Lennie (Lab)]

My Lords, the amendments in this first group, like most that have been tabled on Report, are technical amendments that do not alter the central provisions of the Bill but none the less aim to improve its application. Amendments 1, 2 and 38, each tabled by the Minister, deal with the definition of “regulated leases”. Specifically, they exclude leases of multiple dwellings, with Amendment 2 adding that a regulated lease is considered such only

“if it is granted for a premium”.

Can the Minister confirm whether there have been any impact assessments or informal consultations on the application of these changes?

Amendment 5, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, probes the relationship between the Bill and “large and complex buildings”. He gave a large and complex explanation of his amendment. In there somewhere, I think he said that the commonhold might present a solution to the complex problem raised, but it is probably a little more difficult than that. These Benches fully support the removal of ground rent for all leaseholders, but I hope the Minister can confirm what support and engagement are ongoing with this impacted group.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, has probed the provision on “deemed surrender and regrant”. I look forward to further clarification from the Minister on this as well—to tidy up the somewhat contradictory nature of the legislation in Clause 1(4) and Clause 6, as the noble and learned Lord explained.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Lytton (CB) [V]]

My Lords, I am largely supportive of this group of amendments, particularly the one moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern. It always seemed to me that some of these clauses, particularly relating to escalating ground rents, were unfair, with hidden implications that were not apparent to purchasers at the time when they were entered into. The CMA intervention is welcome but the ongoing blight continues. This is certainly an evil that causes me to support this amendment very much.

I also support Amendment 9. This seems to be a logical provision against pre-emption and creates, as I see it, greater transparency, which really should be the hallmark of landlord/tenant relationships in this area.

It is unfortunate perhaps that I am speaking before Amendment 26 has been spoken to. I see it as potentially retroactive, and think it might remove the value of an asset without fair compensation. In its specific scope, it would not distinguish between a fair and reasonable ground rent and one that was flagrantly unfair. I do not in any way defend leasehold interests as such, but if we go down this road it has much wider public interest and property law implications.

Again with Amendment 30, I would have liked to have spoken after the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, whom I believe will speak to it, but, from a technical standpoint, the question of rent is a payment that in this instance the tenant makes to the landlord for the bits of the property which exist but which are not within the tenant’s specific demise under their leasehold. It is not a service charge. Are we at risk of getting rent and services provided for rent confused—in other words, the use of property as opposed to a tangible benefit in terms of the service charge? In general, however, subject to those points, I support this group of amendments.

[Lord Stunell (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 7, 8, 9 and 30. I will focus most of my remarks on Amendment 9, but I cannot speak without first saying that the amendment tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, which I see as essentially introducing an early buy-out option for existing leaseholders, is the next necessary step and should have been endorsed by the Minister and incorporated in this legislation. It is yet another of the unfinished bits of business dogging our debates on the Bill. Like others, I am looking forward to Amendment 26 being presented by the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, which, as far as I understand its meaning and intention, has essentially the same purpose of moving forward the implementation of leasehold reform for that cohort of existing leaseholders who will be left out of this legislation. As such, in principle, we support that strongly.

Amendments 7, 8, 9 and 30, tabled by my noble friend Lady Grender and myself, are various alternative approaches to ensure that if the limited circumstances of this Bill are as far as the Minister is prepared to go, it is at least not a cause of exploitation of existing leaseholders who may be very close to agreeing an informal lease extension. The process of informal lease extensions is a well-accepted norm in the leasehold industry and, as was discussed extensively at previous stages of this legislation, one which comes into play when the existing lease is within sight of its end. That may be some distance away but nevertheless the value of the lease is declining rapidly, and perhaps its mortgageability on resale is compromised because there is not a sufficient existing term of the lease. If a completely new lease is not to be entered into, an informal lease extension may be negotiated between the leaseholder and the proprietor.

The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, described Amendment 9 as an anti pre-emption provision. Perhaps his three-word soundbite says it all. The risk at the moment is that an owner—or, should we say, one of the less-scrupulous landlords—may see this as an opportunity to preserve the value of his asset by offering an informal leasehold extension on terms which would be applicable under the current legislation now to pre-empt the possibility of that extension value declining to nil once the new legislation comes into force.

The Government have set their face against either of the approaches set out by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, at least at this stage, and I suspect that they will strongly resist the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Lennie. That is a pity and comes despite the evidence that has been put on the table by the Leasehold Knowledge Partnership and the examples given by my noble friend Lady Grender in Committee, which were referred to extensively at Second Reading. That leaves precisely the problem that I have outlined. An informal leasehold extension may very well be useful to both parties when the leaseholder is shortly to sell or is making arrangements prior to disposal, but clearly it is dangerous if the leaseholder simply wants to continue their lease.

It is also dangerous if the condition for entering negotiations is that the lawyers will be appointed by the owner, and it is dangerous if the new terms which are inserted into that leasehold extension are not drawn properly to the attention of the leaseholder. The evidence shows that it is not unusual for escalator clauses to be built into those leasehold extensions, which are not transparent and not brought clearly to the notice of the leaseholder who is going to sign. The risk is that unscrupulous landlords can see very clearly that, after Royal Assent, their golden goose will be stuffed. If I can mix my metaphors, they have an incentive to offer new lamps for old when it comes to extensions. To offer informal leasehold extensions to unsuspecting leaseholders locks them into a new, unfavourable set of terms when, if they had waited, under the full enactment of the Bill they would have been eligible for its new provisions limiting the ground rent to a peppercorn.

We have tried to fix this statutorily. Amendments 7 and 8 set this out in different ways, but Ministers resisted our efforts strenuously. We have had discussions with the Minister, which I have very much welcomed. He has been very generous with his time and with his officials’ time in working on this problem. Amendment 9 is therefore really quite modest in its intent and its impact. It simply proposes that landlords should have an obligation to alert their leaseholders in advance of these changes coming into force of informal leasehold extension terms being altered by this new legislation. It is a proportionate safeguard which is not onerous on landlords but gives leaseholders a clear sight of the forthcoming changes before they commit to less favourable terms under the existing law. It does not prevent those to whom the balance of advantage still lies with a speedy signature on the existing terms for an informal leasehold extension from choosing to do so, but it seeks to protect the unwary from making a costly mistake which ultimately, as in one or two of the examples which my noble friend Lady Grender brought to the House in Committee, may lead to them losing that property entirely.

I intend to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 9 when the appropriate moment arises.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Stunell]

9: After Clause 7, insert the following new Clause—
“Duty to inform the tenant
(1) Before entering a formal or informal renegotiation or extension of an existing lease, the landlord must inform the tenant of the changes introduced by this Act, if the sections of the Act in relation to prohibited rent are not yet in force.(2) An enforcement authority may impose a financial penalty on a person if the authority is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the person has breached the duty in this section.(3) The amount of the financial penalty under subsection (2) is to be such amount as the authority determines but—(a) is not to be less than £500, and(b) is not to be more than £30,000.(4) This section comes into force on the day on which this Act is passed.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require landlords to let tenants know of the upcoming changes to ground rents to try and prevent lease extensions before the changes in this Bill are implemented.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, in constructing a penalty regime for any landlords who breach the provisions of this legislation, we wanted to set the penalty at a level that was proportionate but acted as a deterrent. As the average ground rent is around £250 per year, we felt that £500 would be a reasonable and proportionate minimum penalty. Once again, I remind noble Lords that this would be paid in addition to repaying the prohibited rent with any interest due, and that £500 is a minimum penalty amount. Breaches across multiple leases could also be penalised, resulting in heavy fines.

However, both at Second Reading and in Committee, noble Lords felt that the balance between proportionality and deterrence was not quite right. The noble Baronesses, Lady Grender and Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, were among those who made very strong arguments that the proposed regime was set at too low a level to act as a serious enough deterrent to freeholders, particularly larger freeholders with high annual turnover. In addition, while local authorities should not design their enforcement strategy to function as a revenue stream, we have been clear that we believe that any penalty recovered through the enforcement process should cover the cost of that enforcement.

I have listened carefully to the arguments made in Committee in favour of higher financial penalties and considered the impact that changing these amounts would have. We have concluded that the maximum should be raised to £30,000 which, as some noble Lords may know, is in line with this Government’s Tenant Fees Act 2019. However, we intend to keep the minimum penalty at £500, in recognition that this is proportionate where, for example, a small freeholder charges a non-peppercorn rent.

For those noble Lords who think we are a soft touch, I note that this is the first example of a minimum penalty in leasehold law. This amendment will significantly strengthen the enforcement regime and further deter freeholders from attempting to breach this legislation. I beg to move.

[Lord Stunell (LD)]

My Lords, I enthusiastically welcome this amendment from the Government. I am very pleased that the Minister has seen the strength of the arguments put forward by noble Lords from all around the House on this issue. It is not just that the original figure would not have been a significant deterrent for those determined to carry on with bad practice. Worse than that, it was not going to be sufficient to fund or permit trading standards to carry out their enforcement duties. The enforcing body around the country is short of funds and staff, and a new burden placed on it to enforce this provision without the means to do so was a recipe for failure. I am delighted that the Minister has seen the compelling strength of the view that my noble friend Lady Grender and others advanced passionately and congratulate him on persuading his colleagues around government of the need to move forward on this as he has.

[Lord Lennie (Lab)]

My Lords, the sole amendment in this group increases the maximum penalty to £30,000 per lease, in line with other housing legislation—namely, the Tenant Fees Act. I am pleased that the Minister has brought forward this change following concerns raised in Committee, but I trust that the sum of £30,000 has not been decided purely based on precedent —not just because there is not a direct precedent to compare it to. The use of £30,000 penalties in this legislation will apply to freeholders, many of which are incredibly wealthy businesses. Does the Minister believe that £30,000 will be sufficient deterrent in such cases? As I said, I am concerned that this figure has been chosen because of the so-called precedent. Can the Minister dissuade us of that notion by confirming that an impact assessment has been carried out and, if so, tell us when it will be published?

We welcome an increase in the maximum penalty, but I am not entirely confident that it will be sufficient deterrent. I look forward to the Minister’s assurances.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Lytton (CB) [V]]

My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to speak to the amendment just moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock.

I am a fan of what I see as post-occupation evaluation. I welcome the amendment for that alone. I would more comfortable if it did not just refer to leaseholders, because the whole dynamic—as regards the ongoing interaction between leaseholders, freeholders, management and so on—is ever moving. That needs to be seen in the round. It should include not just the financial matters referred to in the amendment but a more holistic measure in terms of the sense of place, security, ability to control or influence outcomes and user contentment. I suspect that the Government have a system anyway for reviewing the effects of legislation, but I ask whether that is frequent enough to meet the noble Baroness’s objectives. In general, I support the other amendments in this group.

The noble Baroness referred to the driver behind this being the tragedy of Grenfell. Although the process of evaluation and what has come out of it may be seen, in government terms, to be moving at lightning speed, it has not been nearly fast enough for leaseholders and those who pay service charges. The consequences of that have been amply exposed by the noble Baroness and are ongoing. This is truly a tragedy for many households, which have walked unknowingly into a situation created by the neglect of others. The auguries are not particularly good. The proposal, as I interpret it, to leave the power in the hands of leaseholders to claim—admittedly on a longer timeframe—against those who did not observe basic construction standards creates an almost insuperable hurdle.

It is appropriate that I pay tribute to those outside the House who have promoted the polluter pays principle. I know that this matter has been brought to the attention of the Government, and it would place the basic strict liability on those who failed to make the grade in construction standards. My question is: when are the Government going to act on it? I consider the matter of such importance that if the noble Baroness decides to test the opinion of the House, I shall be voting with her.

[Lord Stunell (LD)]

My Lords, this is a devastating case, again, of unfinished business. We have talked several times about unfinished business in respect of reforming the whole leasehold system. The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, has spoken with great passion about the need to deal with the unfinished business of getting the damaged blocks discovered since the Grenfell fire put back in a safe and workmanlike position. That is a terrible story, which is still unravelling and still producing—I think we can say—shock and amazement as the evidence comes out of the inquiry at Grenfell. As the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, said, it is not an isolated failure. I ought to have started by reminding the House that I was the Minister with responsibility for building regulations between 2010 and 2012, which was well before this but is nevertheless relevant.

There was a failure of regulation, a failure at every level of the supply chain, a failure of the designers and a failure of those responsible for monitoring progress. Of course, the fallout is not simply that one building was found to be dangerous and defective and burned at the cost of 72 lives, but that more than 400 other buildings have been found to be equally defective or worse. As is so often the case, once you begin to look, you see plenty else. The British Woodworking Federation estimates that 600,000 defective fire doors are installed in buildings in this country. In that context, it is good to know that the Government have come forward with a compensation scheme, allocating £5 billion. Perhaps the Minister can tell us whether the guidelines for applying for that compensation have yet been published. My last understanding is that they have not, but maybe he can bring some information to your Lordships’ House today.

It has to be right that this House considers the situation facing those leaseholders and, in so far as we can, safeguards their position. This is actually a very modest amendment; it calls only for a review within six months, not for the spending of government money, so there is nothing for Ministers to shy away from. It would simply make sure that this legislation, relevant to the ongoing tragedy of Grenfell and the ongoing battle that hundreds of thousands of leaseholders are facing with enormous bills—which the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, eloquently spelled out—cannot be passed by your Lordships’ House without serious consideration.

I know that the Minister has repeatedly found himself at the Dispatch Box having to say essentially the same thing: “This is not the time; this is not the place; this is not the right legislation.” We have to reply to him: “Well, when is the time? Where is the place? Where is the legislation?” We need to see some answers. Certainly, this is a matter we wish to press in the oncoming vote.

[Lord Lennie (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 28 and 29, in my name, and welcome Amendment 27, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and also in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stunell.

Amendment 28 is intended to raise four issues, which I have focused on at previous stages of the Bill: lease forfeiture, transfer fees, redress schemes and enfranchisement. This amendment is intended to probe, and, while I will not introduce each issue again, I hope that the Minister can provide clarification in the following areas. On lease forfeiture, can the Minister confirm that legislation will be forthcoming to prevent possession being taken over small debts? On transfer fees, has the Minister made an estimate of how many freeholders are placing charges on the sale of properties? On redress schemes, will the Minister consider a trial for the most serious of leasehold abuses? Finally, on enfranchisement, what assessment have the Government made of the obstacles currently in place?

The intention of Amendment 29 is to raise the need for the Government to champion commonhold arrangements. The House will be aware that the Mayor of London is committed to furthering commonhold, and his manifesto pledged to trial the arrangements in London. Can the Minister confirm what support will be offered to the mayor as part of these pilots? Will he make a statement on the Government’s policy on commonhold?

Finally, I turn to Amendment 27, which calls for a review of the relationship between the Bill and those facing bills for “fire remediation work”. Unfortunately, the Government have again ignored those people during the drafting of this legislation. This Government’s continued mismanagement of the remediation work is one of their most shameful aspects. I hope that the Minister will use this opportunity to finally change track and at last deal with the issues of remediation costs being charged to leaseholders for building safety faults. Rather than another betrayal of their promises to leaseholders, we need legal protections to ensure that millions of pounds of building safety remediation costs are not passed on to innocent home owners and tenants.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, before coming to the detail of this amendment, I want to stress the importance of the broad definition of “rent” as it appears in the Bill. Your Lordships are aware of the Government’s position. We believe it is vital for the effectiveness of the Bill that the definition of ground rent is drawn up in such a way as to head off the potential for avoidance measures by the small proportion of landlords who are intent on abusing the leasehold sector for their own financial gain. Any attempts to change this approach would do little more than provide a fixed obstacle around which a nimble landlord may divert with relative ease, certainty and confidence.

Alternative versions for the definition of a rent that stray away from this approach have been considered but they all reached the same conclusion and were found to be lacking. It is precisely because of the broad definition of rent in the Bill that any landlords and their investors seeking to charge what is in essence a ground rent by any other name will need to think very carefully if they believe the definition provided in the Bill offers an easy workaround—it does not. That is to say, if a landlord were to attempt to charge a ground rent by any other name and that charge provided no meaningful benefit or service to the leaseholder, that charge may be considered within the nature of a rent for the purposes of the Bill, and a tribunal or enforcement authority could consider the case for enforcement against that landlord.

I believe that Amendment 41 will provide further clarity regarding the meaning of a “rent” for the purposes of the Bill. Noble Lords will recall that there was a good deal of debate over that definition in the Bill in Committee. My noble friend Lord Young made reference to the Law Society and raised his concerns that the wide definition of rent contained in the Bill could give rise to unnecessary litigation as the lawfulness of certain charges being able to continue as being “reserved as rent” was not wholly clear.

I have listened carefully to the arguments made by my noble friend and others and am not unsympathetic to the views expressed that tighter wording of what is considered a rent would provide even greater clarity for both leaseholders and landlords. The amendment therefore provides that valid charges, even if they are “reserved as rent” in a lease, are not intended to be captured by the provisions in the Bill just because they are “reserved as rent” within a lease.

It is not our intention for valid charges, such as the charging of insurance or service charges, to be adversely affected by the Bill. Neither is it the purpose of the Bill to address the practice of reserving as a rent charges that are not in fact rent. The amendment simply clarifies that, just because a charge is reserved as a rent, it does not automatically follow that it is a prohibited rent for the purposes of the Bill.

I reassure noble Lords that the amendment does not give a green light for landlords seeking to avoid the measures of the Bill to merely reserve any charge as a “rent”. As I have described, the definition of a rent is drawn deliberately as widely as possible and will capture any charge that is in fact in the nature of a rent, whatever it is called. I beg to move.

[Lord Stunell (LD)]

My Lords, I always welcome efforts by Ministers to clarify the law, although I sometimes struggle to understand exactly how the law has been clarified. It has been suggested that this is, if you like, a step of relaxation or at least inclusion that will permit landlords to get away with—I think that is the technical term—bad practice. I am sure the Minister will reassure me that that is absolutely not the case and, far from opening a door, it is trying to make sure that the door is firmly shut.

I fear that the technicalities of this will be worked out in the law courts over time, whatever provision the Minister puts in the Bill or takes out of it. I wish him luck and I hope he has succeeded in what he hopes to succeed in. I guess we shall find out, when we do the evaluation in a year or two, how accurate that is.

[Lord Lennie (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister will be glad to hear that this amendment is another technical change that we on these Benches fully support. However, has the department identified whether the same drafting issue is present in any earlier legislation?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lennie (Lab)]

My Lords, this amendment may be the final one to be considered by the House today, but I hope the Minister agrees that the issue at hand is very important none the less. It relates to retirement properties, which are excluded from the main provisions of the Bill. I was grateful for the Minister’s confirmation in Committee that they will soon be included, following the transition period. While this is welcome, I hope the Minister confirms that there are no reasonable circumstances in which this period would be extended.

Over 50,000 people in the UK live in retirement community units and they each deserve the same housing rights as everyone else. That is why I remain concerned that they will not benefit from the provisions until much later. I have no intention to divide the House on this issue, but I hope the Minister recognises that I am not alone in raising it, given the interest in Committee.

Finally, I ask the Minister to confirm how the department is informing these 50,000 residents of their leasehold rights and that they will be delayed by at least two years. I beg to move.

[Lord Stunell (LD)]

My Lords, I speak only briefly to say that the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, has raised an important issue that was debated in Committee, to some extent, when I heard voices calling in both directions. The overwhelming requirement of this legislation is that it leaves certainty in the market about the position of leaseholders. However partial or slow it may be, or however much you might criticise it overall, the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, has advanced a very strong case that this should apply to all leasehold contracts from a set date and not with a phased introduction.

I would be interested to know if there is a reason for this staggered introduction and, if so, what it is. A number of major landlords run very large businesses on the leaseholding of retirement homes, not all of which have always proceeded entirely ethically. There have been some well-evidenced scandals, one of which I played a part in unravelling when I was at the other end of this building. I hope the Minister has not been too influenced on this provision by any pressure he may have received from landlords about some complexity, difficulty or whatever with an earlier introduction. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s justification for the subsection that the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, is proposing to delete.

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, in considering Amendment 44 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, it is important to once again lay out the rationale for the transition period for the retirement sector. In October 2018, the Government launched a consultation on reforms to the leasehold system, which attracted over 1,200 responses. In our response to the consultation, published in June 2019, we announced that we would

“proceed with the proposal to exempt retirement properties”

from the peppercorn ground rents policy. This decision was made on the basis that developers of retirement properties incur additional costs, as a result of the communal spaces that are characteristics of these kinds of developments.

However, having reviewed this in further detail, we concluded that arguments in favour of an exception did not outweigh the desirability of ensuring that those who purchase retirement homes are able to benefit from the same reform as other future leaseholders. Therefore, we decided to capture retirement properties in the Bill, so that those who live in retirement housing are protected from exploitation in the same way as other leaseholders. We announced this in January this year, and it is effectively a change in the Government’s position. I am sure all noble Lords agree that, as a basic matter of fairness, those buying retirement properties should also benefit from these reforms.

As a result of this change, we have consulted closely with the retirement sector and continue to do so. As such, we have decided to grant a transition period in recognition. As a result of their initial exemption, this new transition period will allow developers of retirement properties time to adapt to the forthcoming changes. We believe this transition period has been fairly granted, in balancing the needs of developers and fairness to leaseholders. It will be sufficient to allow the retirement sector to adapt to the changes. The Government do not wish to extend the period at the expense of leaseholders. I give that undertaking; we believe we have got it right.

As it stands, the commencement date for retirement properties is no earlier than 1 April 2023. We have no reason to believe that the commencement date will be any later than this. Given the sector was first informed in January this year, this commencement date has given them over two years’ notice.

This issue has been carefully considered and we believe we have struck the right balance for both lease- holders and developers. Indeed, in Committee, we had a competing amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Best, which would have extended this transition period. I am sure noble Lords agree that our proposals are a pragmatic and fair compromise between these two positions. I beg to move that the noble Lord withdraws Amendment 44.

Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Bill [HL]

Lord Stunell Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 14th June 2021 Grand Committee

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

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

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

[Lord Stunell (LD) [V]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Lennie (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, Amendments 14 and 15 refer to the penalties contained in the Bill, whereas Amendment 16, as we have heard, refers to the banning orders regime. I am pleased that the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, has introduced these, so that the Committee can consider whether these current penalties are appropriate and whether the banning orders should be extended.

First, on the issue of financial penalties, as we have heard, the amendments would increase the minimum financial penalty from £500 to £5,000, and increase the maximum penalty from £5,000 to £30,000. Given the sums of money which are involved in leasehold arrangements and the costs associated with ground rent, the current penalties seem lower than would be expected. If the Minister is not able to accept the noble Baroness’s amendment, I hope he will explain and justify how the Government arrived at those figures.

On the banning order regime, the noble Baroness brings forward the question of whether the provisions of the Housing and Planning Act should be strengthened. The amendment proposes the banning of landlords from collecting ground rents if they receive multiple penalties. On the same issue, I would be grateful if the Minister could explain whether consideration has been given to banning landlords from renting properties at all when they receive financial multiple penalties. Tenants must be protected from rogue landlords who break legislation over and over again. I hope that the Government will detail what steps they are taking to hold these repeat offenders to account.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Naseby (Con)]

Yes, thank you so much.

I declare an interest in that I happen to own 40 acres around my home. Somebody suggested the other week that maybe a small bit of this—say five acres—might be a help to the housing market. I certainly would not think of having it on a leasehold basis. If I am going to build houses in the interests of the community in Bedfordshire, they will be sold, because if something is sold the family involved have real ownership. When they own their home it is not a disincentive but an incentive to do something good for their home; it is in their interests. I suspect that it is a disincentive to do so for most leaseholders.

I think the noble Lord is right to ask the question. I think he said that he sent three letters to the Duchy. The least that the Duchy should do is come back to the questions he asked. I hope that will go on the record. I say to my noble friend on the Front Bench that none of these are black and white, other than the fact that there should be a review within the six-month period.

[Lord Stunell (LD) [V]]

My Lords, this has been a very interesting debate. Everybody has spoken with a sense of understanding and concern, remembering that today is four years since the Grenfell tragedy. It should be a matter of particular regret in the kind of debate that we are having that, four years on, so few of the deep issues that have been revealed subsequent to that fire have yet been fully dealt with or accounted for. It is a matter of regret to me that the building safety Bill is still somewhat on the distant horizon, and that we have not yet solved at all the question of who will pay for the costs of this tragedy, since it affects households right across the country.

Noble Lords would expect me to focus particularly on Amendment 20 in the rest of my remarks. Before I do, I will comment briefly on Amendment 19 from the noble Lords, Lord Kennedy and Lord Lennie, which calls for a review. I will skip the number of days and focus on the four issues that they have said need urgent reform and which every speaker in this debate and anybody who has considered the issue would agree on: lease forfeiture, transfer fees, redress schemes and enfranchisement. The Bill does not deal with those four issues. It is time that the Government face up to that and present to Parliament—preferably in the form of legislation, but if not a published report—precisely what their view is on those issues.

The move of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, to clarify where Crown exemptions come into play for leaseholders raises an issue that he has brought to your Lordships on a number of occasions. I would be very interested indeed to hear whether the Minister is brave enough to accept his challenge to write to the Duchy of Cornwall and get it to answer the noble Lord’s letter. Your Lordships certainly deserve to hear from the Duchy precisely how it intends to proceed. If the legislation needs change and reform to take account of that, we need to hear the Minister say that he is ready to do that and to make sure that Crown exemptions are used with appropriate discretion and not in any way at all to put residential leaseholders of Crown land in a more disadvantageous place than those holding leases where the freeholder is a private body.

On Amendment 20, my noble friend Lady Pinnock set out, as she has done many times before to your Lordships, the grievous burdens placed on leaseholders across the country as a consequence of the remediation made necessary following property inspections post Grenfell. Before I go on, I remind noble Lords that I served as a Minister in the Department for Communities and Local Government, as it then was, with responsibilities for building regulations between 2010 and 2012.

The Grenfell inquiry has been hearing evidence of failures at many levels: building owners, building managers, designers, materials suppliers, on-site contractors, inspection teams and enforcement bodies. No one has escaped damning evidence of their failures. What there has not been is any evidence at all of failure by residents or leaseholders. On the contrary, it was the residents of Grenfell Tower who repeatedly warned of the dangers that other people chose to ignore. That led to the terrible tragedy, the deaths and the unmeasurable impact on so many lives of families in and around Grenfell Tower who survived that night.

It also led to the discovery that this was not an isolated case of many unfortunate things coming together in a sequence of horrible coincidences to make a one-off dangerous, combustible building. We now know that more than 400 other residential blocks have been found to have similar dangerous cladding, and the enforced inspection of those blocks has brought to light many other fire safety defects, costing billions of pounds in total. Many of those blocks are occupied by blameless leaseholders who find that they now live in a dangerous and unsaleable home and are being presented with enormous bills for remediation under the terms of their leases.

The Minister will say that this is not the place to insert a proper compensation scheme—nor does Amendment 20 do that—but he needs literally to take stock. That is what Amendment 20 tabled by my noble friend Lady Pinnock does. It asks for a taking stock of the impact of this Bill on leaseholders who live in those defective properties.

Time after time your Lordships have pressed the Government to come forward with a proper scheme of compensation for leaseholders all over the country who have been unwittingly caught up in the Grenfell scandal. Every time your Lordships have pressed Ministers—this Minister in particular—we are told, “Not here and not now”. Meanwhile, as my noble friend Lady Pinnock spelt out, leaseholders are being sent five-figure bills with 28 days to settle or face the forfeiture of their lease. They cannot raise finance on their now-worthless properties, and the Government still have not issued the vital information on how they can even access the loan scheme the Government announced months ago.

Will the Minister tell your Lordships today when those missing loan scheme criteria will be published and what the distribution system of those loans will be? Please can he assure us that it will not be administered via an outsourcing company such as that in Virginia, USA, which earlier this year was the nemesis of the green homes grant fiasco? Let this piece of work be started soon, carried out efficiently and delivered to the benefit of leaseholders as quickly as possible.

Secondly, will he urgently bring forward a proper compensation scheme and lift the threat of forfeiture and bankruptcy from innocent leaseholders trapped in these blocks? Will he, as an earnest of good intent, accept my noble friend Lady Pinnock’s amendment today so as, at the very least, to commit to take stock of the impact that a ground rent ban could have on those affected leaseholders and tenants?

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, I turn to Amendments 19 and 20 from the noble Lords, Lord Kennedy and Lord Lennie, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Pinnock and Lady Grender.

Under Amendment 19 the Government would be required to carry out a financial assessment of the Bill within 30 days of Clause 3 coming into force. The Government would also be required to consider whether further legislation would be necessary to address any financial consequences related to the Bill

“for tenants in long leases of dwellings, including but not limited to in relation to … lease forfeiture … transfer fees … redress schemes”

and

“enfranchisement.”

The effect of Amendment 20 would be to require the Secretary of State to complete a financial assessment of the impact of the Bill on leaseholders, specifically with regards to building remediation costs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Blencathra (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I declare a personal interest as someone who pays ground rent on my London flat. I am coming at this from a slightly different angle from the noble Lord, Lord Lennie.

My noble friend the Minister is an honourable man, and I therefore believe him when he says that the Government want this Bill to come into force as soon as possible; he has urged us not to push any amendments which might delay its passage. I am therefore mystified at Clause 25 and the very bitty commencement dates. As the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, said, Bills often have different commencement dates, but the only things coming into effect on Royal Assent are the regulation-making powers and the usual consequentials at the end of the Bill, which we have just voted through on the nod. If the Bill is as urgent as the Government and we on this Committee say it is, why have we no date for the commencement of the only thing which really matters—the abolition of new ground rents and their replacement by the new peppercorn regime? Every week which goes by allows more iniquitous leases to be created.

I understand that the residential homes sector has been granted more time to adjust. I am sure that Messrs McCarthy and Stone and others will put that time to good use, adjusting their service charges to take account of any future ground rent losses. But as we consider what to do about the commencement dates at Report, we really need to know, very firmly on the record, when we will see the second and third legs of this three-legged stool. When will the Government introduce a fully-fledged leasehold reform and abolition Bill, and when will they introduce provisions like those advocated by my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham and my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern to have a proper ground rent buyout system?

I know that my noble friend the Minister will say that it is up to the usual channels and that he cannot make promises on when other Bills will be introduced, but we need to stress to him, and to the rest of the Government, that we will be very impatient unless we hear a firm commitment that this will be as soon as possible—ideally, in the next Session of Parliament and not sometime in this whole parliamentary period.

We have all said that this Bill is a good first start—a very good one leg of the stool—but we must see firm promises on the introduction of the next two legs or I, at any rate, will not be content to agree the commencement mishmash in Clause 25 when we come to Report.

[Lord Stunell (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I address my remarks to Amendment 26, just spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra. I strongly support what he said and the arguments that he put forward in support of his amendment.

One key risk of separating out the legislation for all new domestic leases from those of the 4.5 million existing domestic leases is that a gap will open up in the market between homes traded under existing leases and those traded under the new regime. As the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, has just said, the existing leases are very disadvantageous compared to those that will be formed under the new Bill. In many respects, existing leaseholders will be under a double disadvantage. They will have a home that may be identical in every respect to one that is subject to the new Bill, with a lease signed a week after Royal Assent—or maybe in two years, when it is finally implemented. The existing leaseholder will be at a permanent long-term disadvantage up to the point when stage 2 of this reform comes into force.

This amendment would bring the Bill into force immediately. It would mean that the long tail behind the existing leaseholder system would be cut off. There would be no new leaseholders stuck with the old system, with a Bill that has had Royal Assent but not been brought into effect. It would, as quickly as possible, create a bigger market of those with new leases rather than old leases.

In its turn, that will throw up disparities between the two categories of leaseholder resident. Those who have an existing lease—particularly those with an informal lease extension, which might have huge escalating charges written into it—will find that the gap between them and their near neighbours under the new system widens and widens. Inevitably, that will lead to a two-tier market; perhaps at first only at the margins but, over time, as the number and proportion of new leases on the market increase in relation to the number of existing leases, that gap will widen. The disadvantage suffered by those holding existing leaseholders will also widen and will be twofold: first, they will find it harder to sell their leases on, because they will be less attractive to purchasers than those leases available under this Bill; and, secondly, in the meantime, they will be stuck with paying through the nose the exorbitant terms of their existing lease.

Amendment 26 from the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, is a good step forward in the absence of any real commitment by the Government to bring much closer together this Bill, stage 1 of reform, and the next Bill, stage 2 of reform. The noble Lord is absolutely right to press the Government and to express his concern that that announcement has not yet been forthcoming. Indeed, Ministers have been very reluctant to make it. We need to know when stage 2 will be before your Lordships’ House. We need to know how soon it will be that the follies, injustices and oppressions of the current system will be stopped. We need to make sure that as few people as possible find themselves in the unenviable position of hearing, “Take it on these terms or take it on no terms.”

In an earlier debate we debated the four things that the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, thought should be reviewed. The Government did not accept that. In our first day’s work we tried to make sure that there was some definite timetable for future reform. The Government were not willing to accept that. Today’s amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, would, unfortunately, still not achieve it, but it might be a powerful lever to force the Government toward bringing these two stages of reform closer together, cutting off the tail of existing leases being signed as quickly as possible, and, as soon as possible, reforming the whole system.

[Lord Naseby (Con)]

My Lords, I do not want to be repetitive because much has been said by those who have taken a particular interest in the Bill—and indeed the market, which is why we are taking an interest in the Bill. I have little to add, but if I was sitting in my noble friend’s position, as the Minister responsible, I would see merit in the timeframe of six months from the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy. That would be the maximum break.

I declare an interest in that I share an office with my noble friend Lord Blencathra. He is very clear on his views in life and he is more often right than wrong. My noble friend on the Front Bench needs to reflect on this.

We know that this has been a very difficult area and I have sympathy with my noble friend on the Front Bench. But we cannot have a situation where phase 1 happens—I think we all have confidence that it will, whether immediately, as my noble friend Lord Blencathra says, or along the lines of the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy—but the second half is to happen only sometime in the distant future. I again reflect on the period when I was chairman of the housing committee in Islington. You could not have had a situation where people in one section of society had their problems sorted out but those in another section—almost identical, except that they are a bit earlier in life—did not, and their problems were kicked into the long grass. My dear friend on the Front Bench has to come back, maybe not today but on subsequent sittings on this Bill, with a firm commitment that the second stage will happen and with a timeframe for it to happen.

Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Bill [HL]

Lord Stunell Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 9th June 2021 Grand Committee

[Lord Stunell (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I shall speak in particular about Amendment 1, and the consequential amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra. It was great fun to listen to him on Second Reading, with his eloquent flow sweeping away the whole caboodle of leasehold legislation and starting again from square one. That was spoken like a true reformer and radical, which, in his heart, I know he is.

Today the noble Lord was a bit more circumspect, but no less radical, with amendments that would not just reform the system but abolish it completely, starting on day one. That is an attractive proposal, especially to leaseholders—but even more so to lawyers. If implemented as drafted, it would leave a trail of wreckage that should keep lawyers employed for many a long year.

However, I suspect that, as befits a former Chief Whip in the other place, the noble Lord has carefully done his homework behind the scenes. No doubt he has had a word with the Minister and secured a commitment to bring back a government-led amendment on Report to comprehensively reform the entire leasehold regime and implement the recommendations of the Law Commission, and in the meantime to freeze the granting of lease extensions on grossly inequitable terms. If that is so, my noble friends and I will be ready add our names to that amendment, when it comes along.

However, perhaps the noble Lord’s quiet chat with the Minister did not go quite as well as he had hoped, and no such agreement was forthcoming—which may be why today he deferred to the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Young. Among those, Amendment 12, in particular, sets out in impressive detail a somewhat equivalent plan, as the noble Lord, Lord Young, has just spelt out. At first reading, that amendment would seem to provide less of a free lunch for lawyers than Amendment 1 would, and it is sensible, measured and proportionate, as one would expect from the noble Lord.

In his explanatory statement, the noble Lord describes Amendment 12 as a probing amendment. We certainly welcome that probing of the Government’s position and intentions. We too are concerned by the slow pace of reform, and the fact that the current Bill does nothing for existing leaseholders. Instead, the Government are offering jam tomorrow—or possibly the day after tomorrow—for current leaseholders. At least the noble Lord’s amendments offer us a sniff of jam today. I would encourage the Minister, in his reply, to explain fully to us exactly when he will come back with clear plans to achieve the reforms that the noble Lord has already drafted for him. I thoroughly endorse the noble Lord’s concerns about the gaps that could open up.

We should remember that leaseholders’ organisations desperately want this Bill in place, and the Liberal Democrats support their intentions. There should be no delay in its passage. But the Minister owes it to those leaseholders to commit to delivering a comprehensive reform in the shortest possible time. That is not only the right and equitable course of action, but the best way of avoiding disruption to the market.

The noble Lord, Lord Young, referred to the Law Society’s briefing on the Bill. I draw noble Lords’ attention to the Law Society’s belief that leasehold purchasers and their mortgage providers will, understandably, steer clear of taking out leases under the existing legal framework if they can find a much more favourable lease elsewhere in the market, under the new terms in the Bill. That means that existing leaseholders who are trying to sell will be put at a double disadvantage—not only having to pay outlandish charges but having more difficulty in selling their homes than if they had benefited from the new terms.

That risk to a stable market gets worse the longer the second stage of the reform is delayed. Perhaps the fact that that the noble Lord, Lord Young, referred to hereditary Peers’ legislation speaks to that foreseeable risk of endless delay. Two experienced senior members of previous Conservative Governments have tabled amendments in very similar terms to try to pre-empt that delay—which may be some kind of hint that they lack trust in the Government’s commitment to deliver on the second stage. In the Minister’s reply we need to hear exactly when he, as the responsible Minister, and the Government he represents, will bring forward that follow-up legislation, which we believe is now a pressing priority.

[Lord Naseby (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I apologise that I was not able to take part at Second Reading. Some of your Lordships know that my wife was taken very ill with Covid—in fact, we nearly lost her—and I decided to take her away for a rest. I am pleased to say that she is now pretty well.

There are a couple of interests that I ought to declare. I am a vice-chairman of the Shared Ownership Housing APPG. I have taken a particular interest in care homes, so I will be addressing the Committee on Amendment 4. My friends know that I was chairman of the housing committee in the London Borough of Islington from 1968 to 1971, when there was a fair number of lease challenges. Finally, I say to my noble friend on the Front Bench that I welcome the principle behind the Bill and thank Her Majesty’s Government for actually moving things forward.

I do not want to speak for very long on any of the amendments. I understand my roommate’s enthusiasm, which he has for everything in life, and he does cut through the rubbish, usually. It is nice to see someone cut through, bearing in mind that this is a pretty revolutionary Bill to start with. That is one end of the spectrum, and that covers Amendments 1 and 2. The noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, went into it in great detail. I read with great care what he said at Second Reading and the Government would do well to do the same—I am sure they must have done. He covered what might well be in the next Bill. It should be looked at extremely seriously.

I am concerned—I wrote it down before the noble Lord spoke this afternoon—about the position of existing leaseholders when they come to sell. I think that is a fair question, which the Labour Front Bench raised. That problem will be there unless some action is taken. It certainly cannot wait until the second half of this problem is dealt with in another Bill.

One other area concerns me: the situation, which is not uncommon, particularly in the provinces—I am speaking today from Sandy in Bedfordshire—where a landlord offers a 25-year lease on a residential property at a market or rack rent. That is pretty common in mixed-use scenarios; for example, a shop with a flat above, where the owner wants the commercial and residential parts to be leased out concurrently. In those sorts of circumstances, it seems—some would say absurd but that might be going too far—unusual and strange to expect just a peppercorn rent when a lessee is getting the benefit of living in or renting out the property.

The amendments in this group are absolutely crucial and I too look forward to the Minister’s response.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Stunell (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I will simply support the carefully presented argument from the noble Lord, Lord Young, with a case study which also shows a way in which the system might be exploited. On a new housing development outside Leicester, homes have been sold on leases with index-linked ground rents. So too have the parking spaces that go with them; the leases of the parking spaces are separate and also index-linked. There have been endless and, so far, fruitless battles to sort out the situation. Indeed, some leaseholders, facing rising charges and challenging their validity, have been presented with agreements signed with what they claim are forged signatures. Needless to say, they employed, of necessity, the developer’s nominated solicitor to advise them when they first purchased. The allegation is that he was a party to the alleged forgery.

Should the Bill—or, rather the next one because, as we have all fully understood, this Bill will not help anybody with an existing lease in Leicester—provide these residents with some relief? The Committee has heard from the Minister that it will, in due course, but how will they stand in relation to separate leases that they hold for their parking spaces? Is it open to a legally hawk-eyed owner of the lease to designate them as commercial? If they come as part of a car park that is also occupied by visitors to local shops, is the car park a commercial one, or does there exist some way of exempting the parking places of residents—not necessarily those living over shops, but those adjacent to commercial premises? Will they be entitled to redeem those leases on the car parking places under the terms of this Bill or its successor, or, in that case, will the evidently unscrupulous developers be able to claim that it is a commercial, not a residential, lease and therefore exempt, and that the accelerating payments can continue?

If the Minister says, “It is a matter of common sense”, then I would say that in Leicester it is not. If it will not be the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, it certainly needs to be something more than is in the Bill as it is now, setting out clearly that leases ancillary to the proper use of the home will be included in the legislation and there will be no loopholes left for exclusion. It would be good to hear the Minister say that he agrees and will bring a suitable amendment back on Report.

[Lord Lennie (Lab) [V]]

The purpose of the amendment is to probe the application of the Bill where premises are part business and part residential. High streets across the four nations of the UK include properties that fit this description, and I hope that the Government have drafted the Bill with these in mind. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s confirmation of how the Government intend the Bill to apply to premises that are part business and part residential.

I have two questions. I would appreciate it if the Minister could confirm whether the Government have an estimate of how many part-business, part-residential properties could be impacted by the Bill. Will he also confirm what engagement the Government have had with the owners of such buildings as part of the drafting of the Bill?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I support this. It is highly important that a person buying a property which is subject to this kind of rental arrangement should know precisely what its details are, as a necessary condition of the purchase. It seems essential to me to point out the whole nature of the responsibility for ground rent and what can happen, not only next year but in years to come. A person buying a property is entitled to know all the burdens on it at the time of purchase.

[Lord Stunell (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I am happy to speak in support of this amendment and am delighted to have the support of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, for the words of my noble friend Lady Grender in advocating for this change. It can hardly be a radical call to ask for accurate data to be available before a transaction is completed; yet, as the example I drew from Leicester in an earlier debate shows, that accuracy is often not present and the transparency is sometimes deliberately disguised. There is absolutely no particular obligation on those taking part in that transaction to make sure that the consumer is aware. It is very much caveat emptor, and one is in the hands of the legal representation one has—if any—in conducting it.

The Bill should state that there must be a clear explanation of the length and terms of the ground rent—the minefield that lies ahead of escalation charges and the development of the terms, some of which are not perhaps deliberately concealed but are well hidden in the small print. Reference has been made even to requiring release letters to cover pets, never mind alterations to the premises. Many issues have been used deliberately or have perhaps inadvertently fallen in such a way as to put leaseholders at a serious disadvantage. Of course, the hand they hold at that point is extremely weak, because if they decide to contest the payment, they have to consider not only the legal costs and the associated trouble and stress but the risk of forfeiture if they fail to pay. Paying and arguing afterwards is not a very successful basis for performance, either.

There are grounds for accuracy, transparency and accountability. We know that the CMA is actively looking at this area. If the Minister can give us some assurances about how he intends to proceed if the CMA does not do the business, I would find it a very helpful way forward.

I press the Minister to say that this is a sensible amendment that protects leaseholders and that any good landlord should be happy to comply with it. Therefore, I hope he will feel able to accept it.

[Lord Lennie (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, this amendment would ensure that landlords with existing leases explain why they are charging ground rent and that agents publicise the details of any such ground rent. Both of these points are pertinent and I am pleased that the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, tabled the amendment.

The first issue of ensuring that landlords explain why they are charging ground rent is so important precisely because there is often no reason to charge ground rent. Residents get no material benefit from paying these sizeable fees, yet the landlords often increase the charges exponentially. If the Minister is reluctant to accept the amendment, could he estimate how many landlords currently offer explanations for the ground rent they charge?

On the second issue of ensuring that estate agents publicise the details of any ground rent, I understand that Rightmove has recently changed its policy to encourage agents to do exactly this. Can the Minister confirm whether the Government have any plan of their own to follow this and encourage it further?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con) [V]]

My Lords, Clause 6 is inconsistent with the spirit of the amendments in the first group, which were heartily supported. In a sense Clause 6 stands against them, and for that reason I suppose it is logical to say that it should not stand part.

I am also very impressed by Amendment 13. There is a need to deal with this situation, in which people find themselves unconsciously in a very difficult position. I hope my noble friend will find it possible to deal with this in a satisfactory way.

[Lord Stunell (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I thank all those who have spoken. I particularly thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, whose legal background and desire to make sure that the consumer gets the right result are very much assisting our argument on this occasion.

My noble friend Lady Grender set out our case very clearly. I want to make it clear that informal leasehold extensions can be as bad an evil, if not a worse, as some of the other abuses that have been talked about. They are the worst for being concealed. If you are offered what appears to be a new lamp for old, and the only difficulty you might face is that somebody may modernise the terms of your lease, it is very likely that what modernising the terms of your lease consists of will escape your eagle eye.

It is like all those “Change my settings?” messages that one gets on websites. One wants to get on with the business. You click and carry on; you certainly do not read paragraph 123 on page 17, where you find that bedded in it there is a hidden charge, which you never find out until the moment it matters most. At the low-entry bar, I hope the Minister will say that he will come back and show us how we can incorporate into the Bill the claim for transparency we make in Amendment 13.

By saying that the clause should not stand part, we are following the logic of what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, pointed out: it is absolutely contrary to the spirit and direction in which the Minister claims this legislation is intended to go. It is a major loophole, because it means that existing leaseholders who might find a way of using this new legislation to have a new lease find themselves drawn on an escalator—an escalator of continuing and repeated higher charges over the lifetime of that lease. That may well be the nuclear weapon amendment, but I hope it emphasises to the Minister the significance of Clause 6 and the damage it can do, and no doubt will do, in many cases that have already been spelt out.

I very much hope that I shall hear from the Minister a positive reaction to this and that we can move forward on Report with a proposal, coming from his side of the Chamber, that will help to remedy this major deficiency in the legislation we have in front of us today.

Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Bill [HL]

Lord Stunell Excerpts

Monday 24th May 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stunell (LD) [V]]

My Lords, like other noble Lords, I welcome the Bill before us today. Although the scandalous problems currently facing leaseholders in homes covered in dangerous cladding materials will not be alleviated by it, as my noble friend Lady Pinnock so eloquently spelled out, and it will not in any way improve the lot of existing leaseholders faced with escalating ground rents and spurious charges for routine paperwork—as the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, so comprehensively set out—it will nevertheless be a small step forward, and I welcome it. It will, at least to an extent, provide protection in future for new leaseholders from predatory third-party owners and landlords, who are often in it solely for the steady cash flow and income—in fact, not a steady but an escalating cash flow and income. They have very little or no interest in providing even a notional service to those who pay the fees.

So far as it goes, so good. We shall look to move the Bill forward expeditiously—not least because, like other noble Lords, we want to see the Minister honour what he said in opening this debate: publishing the Government’s response to the Law Commission’s report, tabling the second further leasehold reform Bill as soon as possible, and then beginning to tackle some of those existing abuses and malpractices blighting the leasehold sector. But we will also look for some meaningful assurances from the Minister about the timetable for that further reform; I suspect that the answer the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, will get is, “shortly”. But we need some assurance that real progress will be made—not just shortly, but pretty much immediately. We will also want to examine carefully the safeguards—or, rather, the lack of safeguards—in the Bill for leaseholders against unscrupulous landlords. They will be working hard to find loopholes to exploit in yet more imaginative and lucrative ways to restore their missing cash flow.

I think there is a bigger question for the Minister. If, as the Law Commission has shown and multiple sources of evidence attest, the current leasehold model is fundamentally unfair and inequitable, why is he merely tweaking it in this legislation and introducing a peppercorn rent to neutralise it, rather than going where the evidence leads and abolishing leasehold for new contracts altogether in favour of commonhold? I hope the Minister will explain why the Government are being so timid and cautious in the Bill.

What are the good parts of the Bill, and where could it achieve more even within its limited ambition? First, the proposal to end escalating leasehold charges is long overdue and very welcome, and with it an accompanying regime for monitoring and punishing recalcitrant landlords. For once, the Government propose to give the new power of enforcement to local councils, which is a welcome recognition of their role in the communities that they serve. But the Minister will be well aware—the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, made this point as well—that local authority trading standards departments have been comprehensively de-fanged, not just by painful cash cuts but by a powerful deregulatory policy drive, coming out of central government departments, for light-touch enforcement of those regulations. That provides no incentive for the diligent use of their existing powers, let alone a commitment of limited resources to a new task. What assurance can the Minister give us today that new funding will come alongside the new powers? I suggest to him that the transfer of any fines which are levied to the budget of trading standards will fall very far short of the costs of investigation preceding that.

Of course, the Minister has a stock answer on funding: funding for any new burdens will be taken into account in the next local government settlement. But if a local council faces a deficit of millions in providing social care, £1,000 or £2,000 for trading standards provides no guarantee of improved capacity. What priority does the Minister attach to ensuring that rogue landlords are prevented from exploiting loopholes in the new arrangements once they see the ready sources of income that they are exploiting dry up?

That brings me to what the Bill does not do for new leaseholders. Here I draw on the briefing from the Building Societies Association and the Leasehold Knowledge Partnership in particular, and I thank them for their assistance. The Bill as drafted does not protect leaseholders from any of the many other imaginative charges that landlords sneak into leases. Unfair transfer fees on sales, grossly excessive charges for permission to improve the home, or imposed contractual duties to take out insurance with the landlord’s preferred provider—none of these will be captured in the Bill. In case a prospective purchaser was inclined to nitpick when presented with a leasehold contract to sign, a requirement to use the landlord’s nominated solicitor helps keep things firmly under his control. I suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Hammond of Runnymede, that that may be one reason why so many people sign those contracts. They are not necessarily getting the top level of advice that they should be, and which I am sure the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, would be providing them.

There is nothing to prevent an unscrupulous landlord continuing with all these highly profitable strategies with new leasehold tenancies in future, not to mention treating residential car parking places as “commercial” and so beyond the reach of the new restrictions altogether. Woe betide any leaseholder who falls into arrears with any of these imposed charges; their lease may be forfeited and their home lost. The Law Commission was clear that this practice is unfair and disproportionate, and yet such a term can and certainly will continue to appear in new leasehold contracts after this Bill becomes law if we do not amend it.

This is far from a complete list of serious omissions from the Bill as it stands, but it all points to a failure to comprehensively reform the sector and tackle well-known and easily preventable abuses. In Committee, my colleagues and I hope to obtain from the Minister some clear assurances and, if necessary, some amendments to the Bill, to ensure that, at least in respect of these matters, leaseholders are given the protection they deserve.

Fire Safety: Leaseholder Bankruptcies

Lord Stunell Excerpts

Monday 24th May 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, I was asked to carry out a waking watch review on behalf of the Secretary of State some months ago. The noble Baroness is right that it is a significant cost for leaseholders. This is why we created the £30 million waking watch relief fund, which will help between 300 and 400 buildings put a fire alarm in place and benefit between 17,400 and 26,520 leaseholders, who will no longer have to pay those high interim costs for waking watches.

[Lord Stunell (LD) [V]]

During the passage of the Fire Safety Bill, the Minister repeatedly assured your Lordships that measures to protect leaseholders from cladding remediation costs would be coming forward in the building safety Bill and so would be out of place in that Bill, and at his fourth attempt, a majority of the House gave him the benefit of the doubt. Can he now confirm that the draft building safety Bill will be amended by the Government to achieve that comprehensive protection for leaseholders, or will he again leave it to your Lordships’ House to do it for him?

Queen’s Speech

Lord Stunell Excerpts

Monday 17th May 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stunell (LD) [V]]

My Lords, there have been many excellent contributions to the debate today, including those of the noble Lords, Lord Coaker and Lord Morse. I am sorry to add yet more to the Minister’s workload at the wind-up, but I can at least start by welcoming the announcement that the building safety Bill will come before your Lordships’ House this Session. I urge the Government to give this Bill every priority to achieve that. Can the Minister confirm that it will be published before the fourth anniversary on 14 June of the Grenfell Tower fire? The residents and survivors have waited long enough.

As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans reminded us, Ministers gave repeated pledges during the passage of the then Fire Safety Bill that a comprehensive scheme to deliver necessary initial finance for remediation work on defective high-rise residential blocks would be in the new Bill. We on these Benches will be holding the Government to account for those pledges. Will the Minister undertake to publish an early draft of the scheme of remediation and compensation that they propose, and to engage with your Lordships’ House and leaseholder organisations at the earliest practicable moment?

The gracious Speech also highlighted the urgency of climate change and the November COP 26 session, which will be hosted by the United Kingdom. The Government have set what I am sure the Minister would describe as “world-beating” targets for carbon reduction for the UK right the way through to 2050, but the gracious Speech was notably silent about how they plan to hit those targets. One thing is certain: a wholehearted partnership will be needed between central and local government and between Governments of all sorts and industry, as well as civic society, to get anywhere near successful outcomes.

Industry is rightly wary of targets that are boldly announced by this Government. Industry always needs to see hard evidence of long-term planning and investment by the Government before it can take the risk itself of investing time and money in the learning of new skills, and the investment in training and in plant, that is needed to deliver those targets on time. The experience of the green homes grant last year—announced completely without consultation with just three months’ notice and cancelled after six months, leaving 40,000 applicants in the lurch—has undermined whatever appetite industry might have had for running the risk of being left stranded again by yet another government initiative.

To achieve zero-carbon success, the Government will have to take the lead in joining up the dots of both policy and investment. For a start, the long-delayed heat and building strategy and the net-zero strategy must be published. We have to know what the rules will be. The Government must endorse the Construction Leadership Council’s retrofit strategy to upgrade our 20 million existing homes and, alongside that, there must be sustained and substantial government investment in long-term financial support and incentives. Until that happens, business plans, investments and skills training will remain in limbo, and the idea of hitting any targets a mirage. The gracious Speech is silent on all this. Surely if the Government want to exert maximum leverage on their international partners at COP 26, they would surely be wise to get the infamous Whitehall grid of announcements into alignment with that outcome in November.

Finally, will the Minister agree to take back to his department and the Cabinet Office the message from your Lordships’ House, coming from every side in this debate, of our genuine concern that the unique opportunity to build a strong international consensus in Glasgow is being weakened by every day of delay in making public their plans for the future?

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

Lord Stunell Excerpts

Report stage & Lords Hansard
Monday 1st March 2021 Lords Chamber

If the Government do not take the opportunity that the amendment gives them today, I hope they will go back and reflect on these issues. If not, there is no doubt that we will be here year after year, trying to address the serious problem facing our high streets, which the pandemic has accelerated. I hope the Government will take this matter seriously. I beg to move.

[Lord Stunell (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I speak in support of Amendment 1, just moved by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy. It is a real pleasure to follow him and his very measured and careful support for the need to tackle the issues on which I too will comment.

I am disappointed that the Government and the Minister have not thought fit to take on board the range of sensible improvements put to your Lordships’ House in Committee. A wide range of noble Lords spelled out the difficulties that an unamended Bill will impose, particularly on the hard-hit retail sector, where the devastation of Covid-19 lockdowns on top of a decade-long decline in high street sales has wiped out a long string of household names, as the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, rightly rehearsed

The Chancellor’s emergency business rates relief has certainly been a life saver. The Association of Convenience Stores says that four out of 10 of its members would have gone out of business without that support in the past year. It is no wonder that many Conservative MPs are calling on the Chancellor to extend that scheme, and to provide some continuing support to the high street, at least until Covid restrictions are fully lifted. I hope he will do that but, as we discussed in Committee, that could all be in vain if those retailers are then left waiting for years for the revaluation, which this Bill will trigger, to come into effect. The big risk is that the cavalry will arrive too late—in time to count the dead, but too late to bring success to the high street.

Today’s amendment is in default of any response so far by the Government to these issues. It requires an annual audit of the heavy burdens borne by some, especially high street retailers, alongside the unearned tax holidays given to others, particularly distribution centres and the gigantic out-of-town warehouses of the online retailers. Those businesses are booming and occupy property that is virtually untaxed under the present regime, compared to the high street trader.

The amendment refers to the impact of the timing of rates revaluation, and that is what I want to focus on. I want the Minister to respond to this specific point when he winds up: does he acknowledge that unless the Chancellor’s rate relief scheme is extended, or the effective date of implementation of the revaluation in this Bill is brought forward, there will be a hiatus, when many small shops will face ruin? They will be forced to pay wholly disproportionate property taxes, which are now completely out of kilter with current rental and property values. If he does acknowledge the reality of the hiatus, will he undertake to work with the Treasury to bridge it? That could be by extending the existing scheme set out by the Chancellor, or by bringing forward the effective implementation date of this Bill, or both.

Further to that, it is noteworthy that the Non-Domestic Rating (Public Lavatories) Bill has a retrospective implementation date of 2020. I presume that that means that the Government accept the principle that the benefit of a reduction in rateable value can be backdated. If it can be done for public lavatories, surely it should be done for high street shops as well. If the antecedent valuation date is taken as 1 April this year, as set out in this Bill, surely it makes sense in the current circumstances to make that the date from which the payment amount is calculated. That would not be immediate cash in hand, of course, but it could be a vital, bankable credit for a struggling business and give retailers the incentive and the means to keep going through this crisis until the valuation is actually published. Will the Minister undertake to explore this with the Chancellor as one of the ways of closing the chasm between the end of the Treasury scheme and the coming into force of this Bill?

If the Government are serious in saying that we have to build back better, surely this is exactly the time for some joined-up thinking across government departments. Is this not exactly the simple bridging measure that would help stop the disruption of our high streets? We all know that thriving local communities everywhere need ready access to diverse public and commercial services that serve everyone, and that a healthy and diverse local retail sector is an essential part of that. This is not at all about keeping alive an outdated business model that is able to limp along only with tax cuts and subsidies; it is about putting right a taxation injustice that is now beyond dispute, so that high streets can do what they do best: provide local communities with a focal point for the things they need. I support Amendment 1 and I look forward very much to hearing that the Minister does too.

[Lord Thurlow (CB) [V]]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, for tabling Amendment 1, which I wish to speak to, and it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Stunell. I declare my interests as set out in the register. I am a non-domestic ratepayer in Scotland, although I know this Bill does not include affairs in Scotland.

The Bill is all about timing; it is not about fairness, fitness for purpose, the impact on business, sorting out the appeals system or any other aspect of what has become, I fear, a broken system. The Bill ignores the most critical timing issue, which is simply that of dealing with the appeals backlog—ratepayers paying the requested sum until an appeal is settled. In the current circumstances, that is critical. We cannot expect the Covid-related rates holiday to last for ever. We have seen a collapse in retail rental values over the past 12 months, and as both the noble Lords, Lord Kennedy and Lord Stunell, have pointed out, it was a crisis long before this. Some tenants are to pay double the appropriate rates bills. This amendment brings the plight of the high street retailer into high relief. The annual report it proposes would focus specifically on small businesses, as set out in subsection (2)(b). I am pleased that it also addresses the elephant on the table of all non-domestic rates discussions in the retail sector: the killer impact of the online assault on the high street, as we have heard from both the previous speakers.

Online retail is not a bad thing and it is clearly the future for a huge percentage of domestic spending. The bad thing is the Government’s inability—after years of notice, for online is not a new phenomenon—to recognise the twin neglects of taxing the profits of online and of fairness in the spread of rates between the high street and that sector. Subsection (2)(d) of the amendment requires that the report address the impact of the revaluation timing on local authority finances. Rates are a critical ingredient in local authority finance, but unfortunately the funding gap that the next revaluation will create will lead to a difficult political challenge: how to replace the fall in rates funding—another reason to delay the reform so desperately needed.

Subsection (2)(e) addresses the subject of waiting lists for appeals, which I mentioned earlier. This has become critical. Waiting list delays are themselves enough to put many out of business—a good example of shooting ourselves in the foot of local authority funding. The end result will be worse.

I must refer also to the fundamental review—a story of delay. It is most disappointing, in that the most vulnerable ratepayers can hardly speak for themselves. This delay will be the death of many small, innovative and hardworking businesses, the very ones the Government claim to champion. Should the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, press for a Division on this amendment, I will certainly support it. But my greatest concern is that the valuation date for the revised NDR lists has been chosen at a point in the market cycle that provides no evidence. In my 40-odd years in this profession, I have seen highs and lows in the rental value market cycle, but I have never seen paralysis. Paralysis is what we now have in the rental market from which the rate levels are derived. It will probably lead, as I explained in Committee, to a huge mass of rating appeals. I ask the Minister to take these comments back to the Government, but I fear that it is too late.

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

Lord Stunell Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 4th February 2021 Grand Committee

[Lord Stunell (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendment 5, in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Pinnock, but I also make clear that I support the intentions of both the other amendments in this group. My noble friend Lord Addington will speak to his Amendment 7 shortly. Amendment 2, just moved by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, sits four-square alongside our Amendment 5 and I am happy to add my support to the case that he has put forward.

I remind the Minister that the Government’s previous intention was to have the revaluation come into force this year. They had moved that forward from the original 2022 date because of the deteriorating situation of the high street retail sector and the very clear disconnect between outdated valuations and current purchase prices and letting rates. The most obviously outrageous example of that is, of course, the underpricing of out-of-town distribution centres and warehouses.

Covid-19 has changed the situation in two significant ways, the first of which the Government have responded to, but the other is the one I want to draw particular attention to and which Amendment 5 seeks to address. As it was unrealistic to carry out the necessary work on the ground to carry out valuations because of lockdown and infection control restrictions, the date of 1 April this year was set in place of 1 April last year.

That is one of the responses, but it does not take account of the other impact of Covid. There has been a huge acceleration in the existing trend of retail transferring from the high street to online. It is interesting, indeed compelling, that the Association of Convenience Stores, which has 35,000 local shops and forecourt sites in its membership, has reported that 42% of independent shops polled would have gone out of business already if it had not been for the Government’s business rate moratorium—that is the drastic impact on income for the physical retail sector. We can see from the business pages of any national newspaper that many high street names have closed down or downsized, or are being asset-stripped by hungry online operators buying up their brand. This is an acute crisis, but also a chronic one. Everyone understands that the online shoppers newly recruited by the pandemic have found that it is an easy way to buy and is perhaps better than trudging round in the rain. Nobody expects the retail business of the high street to return to its former levels.

On these Benches, we very much welcome the 100% business rate discount that the Chancellor has introduced. We believe that, in any case, it will need to be extended until there can be a return to what I might call peacetime trading. But those peacetime retailers cannot expect to return to the same volume of sales. Every one of them knows that their turnover will be down and their already dwindling profits will be even less in the post-Covid, peacetime marketplace. When the Chancellor’s scheme ends they will face what were already unreasonably high rating valuations still in full force. Many will be forced into closure. The shutters will come down across the country, leading to a spiralling reduction in footfall and undermining the viability of what remains.

I said at Second Reading that it would be good to see some joined-up thinking by the Government, with a seamless move from the Chancellor’s support scheme for retail running through to the new reduced level of business rates that will come with this measure, as far as the high street retail industry is concerned. I must say to the Minister that it is no good the cavalry coming over the hill two years later simply to count the dead. Either the cavalry must come sooner or the Chancellor must extend his scheme to fill the gap—or a properly planned bit of both. Otherwise there will be precious few retail business left to take advantage of the lower rates bills that we all expect this measure to offer. Hence our amendment: an impact assessment, as the Minister well knows, does not just look at the impact of doing what is proposed, but poses the important question, “What other ways have you looked at to achieve the same outcome?”

Such an impact assessment as we propose would show pretty clearly that delaying implementation of the new valuations to 2023, whatever the actual valuation date, will lead to far more businesses failing and far more damage to the high street than having a 2022 start date for the new system. It would show that extending the Chancellor’s scheme to bridge whatever gap remains would be excellent value for money, bringing a huge financial and community well-being dividend to put the high street back on its feet. It would also certainly show that any gradual phasing-in of the improvement beyond 2023—so that it was in some way cushioned and delayed the benefit to the retail sector—would be terminal. I suggest also, perhaps slightly with my tongue in my cheek, that it would set an interesting precedent, where two government departments look at a policy in the round and agree a sensible way of taking in each other’s washing rather than taking separate decisions—one on the 100% business rate discount and the other on the start date of the new valuations—in two different soundproof silos.

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 7, in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Addington. Before I move to the detail of our amendment, this Committee provides us with the opportunity to set out the critical importance of making the case for further government measures to support sport, recreation and an active lifestyle as we emerge from the Covid epidemic.

The Government are to be congratulated on the steps that they have taken: the £300 million sport winter survival package, which specifically should help the top-end spectator sports in England and provide important support to rugby union, horseracing, women’s football and the lower tiers of the national football league; and £100 million through the national recovery fund to support publicly owned leisure facilities impacted by Covid-19. However, this is nowhere near the £1.75 billion investment package to protect the world-class arts, culture and heritage sector, which was designed to help the showcase institutions as well as the small local arts and culture initiatives across the country.

Consider the scale of this investment to help sport alongside the £2 billion announced to investment in cycling and walking, not by DCMS but the Department for Transport last May, since when—as recently as last weekend—the Sunday Times led on the front page with the impending loss of £110 million to professional sport if gambling logos are banned from sports shirts. Sport on television has provided a beacon of hope and escape for millions of people during the current Covid lockdown—a massive ray of respite amid the boredom and gloom of lockdown. In that context, there has been more coverage of the return to terrestrial television of the England-India test series starting in Chennai tomorrow than there has been of actual coverage of matches in many an overseas test series in the past.

The Government have responded well to the need of our elite sports men and women with safe and necessary exemptions from many of the Covid regulations. These exemptions will need to continue when the new travel quarantine regulations are announced shortly. The Six Nations depends on the exceptionally safe arrangements made for professional sport and the vital good sense of those involved to observe strictly the bubbles in place to protect them. Neither the French team—nor, for that matter, Andy Murray, when he resumes the ATP tour—should be required to spend two weeks in the Gatwick Holiday Inn when they arrive here.

Of course, even those who represent our country would not expect to be, nor should be, vaccinated before the vulnerable groups of all ages in society. I hope, however, that when that cohort is complete, consideration will be given to many of our Olympic and Paralympic athletes ahead of their vital international training, selection and competition schedules later this year.

That is the backdrop to today’s call to extend the business rate holiday granted to the retail, hospitality and leisure sector indefinitely, and the opportunity within six months of the passing of the Bill to publish an assessment of the impact of the timing of business rate revaluations on the viability and health of amateur sports and sporting activity. I hope to abolish them for that sector altogether.

The holiday has been invaluable to sports organisations that own their property, including national governing bodies, professional clubs and community clubs and organisations. However, the rates bill in the past has often been the anchor that dragged many sports clubs towards the rocks of administration and financial difficulties, and at this time we must focus on how we increase opportunities for everyone to follow an active lifestyle. Declining participation rates, a major drop-off in sport after school years, the loss of playing fields and the reduction in local authority spend in England—sport and recreation is a discretionary-line item spend in their accounts, rather than the compulsory priority that it should be—have collectively led to the absence of the much-hoped-for sports legacy from the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games. Obesity levels, boredom among the young and lack of opportunities for all pepper the landscape over the UK.

In contrast, I can only praise my noble friend the Minister’s commitment and support for sport in successive policy areas in his department. At Second Reading, he listened carefully to the representations made, as he did previously to my noble friend Lord Botham on this subject. He knows that the business rate holiday can directly benefit community sports clubs, with their sole objective of providing healthy and enjoyable recreational and sporting opportunities, ensuring that all ages re-emerge into the light stronger, fitter and more active in future years than suggested by the pattern of growing obesity and falling participation as a proportion of our growing population, which we saw in the years approaching the pandemic. That alone is one of the major reasons for the increasing call on the NHS in the 2010s. It was in danger of being overburdened before, let alone during, the pandemic.

Like me, the Minister knows that the country faces stubborn inequalities, that the activity gap is widening and that places and spaces, community sports clubs and leisure facilities are critical to providing opportunities for a more active nation to emerge from the epidemic—yet the hardest hit are in deprived communities. Such clubs proliferate in our poorer communities, not least in the East End of London, where life expectancy falls one year for every Underground station passed on the Jubilee line between Westminster and Stratford. Life expectancy is 10 years less there. That is why the Government need to support the Sport and Recreation Alliance, with its campaign to boost activity, from traditional or formal sport to the informal fun and enjoyment that many people can derive from outdoor recreation, movement, dance, and physical activity. Let us make sure that local clubs registered as community amateur sports clubs are exempt from business rates for ever.

My hope is that the case is considered to extend similar support to all sports clubs which provide community sport and recreational opportunities. In comparison to other sectors, business rate liability for the community sport sector remains unfairly high in relation to income. Community sport clubs often have limited financial resources, as they seek to increase membership subscriptions in ways that are affordable, thus enabling community participation without those subscriptions being extortionate.

The cohort of sport and recreational facilities in this country is ageing; too many are falling into disrepair. The costs to operate, repair and maintain are onerous. The result is that sport pays a disproportionate level of business rates, which in themselves are a brake on the key policy objective of making this nation healthier and more active. Sheffield Hallam University recently published a report on the social and economic value of community sport and physical activity in England, valuing it at £85.5 billion. The analysis valued physical and mental well-being at £9.5 billion, mental well-being itself as well as mental health at £42 billion, individual development at £282 million, and social and community development at £20 billion. That evidence makes a compelling case for investment in community sport and physical activity. One keyway in which that can be achieved is a major change in how my noble friend’s department and the Treasury approach a new system of support for exempting those clubs involved in community sport schemes from the business rate system.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Thurlow (CB) [V]]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, for tabling this amendment. I declare my interest as set out in the register. I also take the opportunity to thank the surveyors Gerald Eve for their time and assistance in preparing for this debate.

My concern is the rapid rate of the collapse of high-street businesses—not just the well-known brands that have been referred to but small family businesses, private enterprises and start-ups serving local markets while hoping to succeed, expand and grow. As the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, commented, the system needs root and branch reform. These retailers’ rating assessments are currently based on pre-crisis levels of rental value, but those values have really collapsed. They were set at a time when there was a healthy economy, with low interest rates and constructive market tension in the leasing marketplace, arriving at competitive rents that were exactly what supply and demand required. That has been lost—which is to say, the values have collapsed as turnover has collapsed—and the rates applied and being paid today are much too high.

We have seen this collapse in values for several reasons; the rates payable by these businesses are the final straw. They can appeal, but there will be long waiting lists. We heard the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, say that there were 40,000 still hanging over, some from 10 years ago. I am afraid, too, that hundreds, if not thousands, of small businesses will be forced to pay the published rates until appeals are heard, whenever that may be. They will of course have long gone and disappeared as businesses by then.

This is why I am absolutely certain that an impact assessment on appeal waiting lists arising from this Act is so important. I consider six months the absolute minimum period to attempt the impact assessment. It is unfortunate—the sooner the better—but I do not see how they can do it in less. The surveyors may be stretched to their limits to process the appeals.

The process involves a check, challenge, appeal programme, which puts the onus of setting rental value for rateable value purposes on the appellant. The only way to arrive at rental venue is to look at comparable properties and find the latest rental evidence from the marketplace, which is then applied. But there is virtually no evidence. The markets have been sliding, both for offices and retail, and we know that the rating assessments are now significantly in excess of what they should be.

I mentioned retail, but imagine the difficulty of estimating rental value for offices in two months’ time, when the date occurs. Many office buildings are empty or on a skeleton staff rotation. If they are more than a couple of floors tall, social distancing means that you cannot get into a lift. Businesses are, as we speak, considering their future office needs. Working from home, like so many of us are in this debate, means that less square footage is likely to be required. As I said, in the bottom of the trough of this rental crisis, experts will have great difficulty estimating rental values.

Will the Minister please impress on the Government the importance of urgency in addressing this rateable imbalance? Businesses are collapsing in all communities. I support the impact assessment on appeal waiting lists, but it is difficult not to imagine that the appeal process will struggle under the weight of appeals, and I urge the Government to prepare for that probability.

[Lord Stunell (LD) [V]]

My Lords, it is a privilege to speak after the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, because he has more or less stolen my thunder, which means I can be really quite brief. He outlined very clearly a common thread in all the debates so far today: the absolute urgency of getting this problem fixed. We all know that it needs a longer-term fix, with a complete overhaul of the system, but, if we are to stay where we are with the current system unamended while we wait for that golden day of amazing reform, I fear that many businesses in the country will collapse and fail, not just in the high streets, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, so elegantly and persuasively said, in the office sector and elsewhere. Something has to be done in the meantime—which, of course, was the burden of some of the earlier debates.

The point of the amendment and the impact review is to challenge the Government by saying that what they propose to do—or, perhaps more accurately, what they propose not to do—will leave many businesses in profound despair about how they will manage in the next 18 months or two years. It is obvious that many people will appeal. The number of appeals will be large, not small, and if we start with a backlog from the previous system, that will get worse still.

My noble friend Lady Bakewell asked the Minister some piercing questions that I hope he will respond to about the efforts being made to train panels and find the expert support needed to get the appeals in the system moving through at a proper level. What about the waiting times? Is the Minister, or indeed the VOA, setting a target to deal with this backlog to make sure that it does not pile up behind the new unfolding situation? The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, has already pointed out the 40,000 appeals. I know that some of those are very specific to one or two topics, but that is not quite the point: one or two specific topics might crop up in this round of appeals and this revaluation that will cause similar problems.

So I strongly support the thrust of the amendment and I believe that we do need an impact assessment. We need some positive action from the Government and I look forward to hearing how the Minister proposes that that should happen.

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, this proposed new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish an assessment of the impact of the Act on the appeals waiting lists. The Government recognise the importance for businesses and local government of having an effective appeals system. The process we have put in place allows ratepayers to understand how their rateable values have been assessed and how to challenge those valuations where they feel that is necessary. Of course, changes to the revaluation cycle can impact on the appeals process, so I welcome the opportunity to consider this through the amendment.

I will first explain the system for appealing rateable values. The Government introduced the check, challenge, appeal system in 2017, known as CCA, because the previous system was failing. Over 1 million cases were received from ratepayers on the 2010 rating list. Many were submitted with little or no evidence and around 70% of Valuation Office Agency appeals resulted in no change. This delayed the VOA’s ability to deal effectively with well-founded cases.

The CCA system introduced a new “check” stage, at which ratepayers must first check and confirm the details of their property. This ensures that factual matters are resolved without any further action. At the next stage, “challenge”, the ratepayer must set out the basis of their case. This provides that only substantive cases progress into the system to be considered by the VOA. The final stage, “appeal”, allows the ratepayer access to the independent Valuation Tribunal, but only where they have exhausted discussions with the VOA. The amendment as drafted is concerned only with the last stage, “appeal”, but I trust that the Committee will want me to discuss more generally the CCA system.

By March 2020, the VOA’s CCA system had been showing modest volumes: around 158,000 checks and only 31,000 challenges. Of course, the pandemic has increased these numbers, and as of 31 December 2020 the VOA had registered over 440,000 checks and over 90,000 challenges. Of these, the VOA has resolved over 400,000 checks and 24,000 challenges.

Nevertheless, I know that some ratepayers and agents have concerns about how CCA operates. The Government acknowledge the issues ratepayers faced when CCA launched, particularly with the software and the use of the system. However, the VOA has improved, and continues to improve, its service for ratepayers. This includes changes to enable CCA users to submit multiple property claims, as well as improvements to the registration process to make it simpler and quicker to register.

In February last year my department published an interim review of the CCA system. Although we recognised that it was still too early to fully judge the system, the review concluded that the reforms were helping to reduce the number of speculative appeals and to improve engagement between ratepayers and the VOA.

I know that noble Lords are also concerned with a number of cases—around 50,000—that have been outstanding for longer from the 2010 rating list. In fact, the majority of the 2010 appeal backlog cases concern ATMs and were stayed pending the outcome of a Supreme Court case. So these cases did not impact on most businesses and the delay was largely outside the VOA’s control. The Supreme Court issued a decision on this matter on 20 May 2020 and I can assure noble Lords that these outstanding 2010 cases are now being settled quickly.

As the amendment we are considering highlights, the CCA process is, of course, affected by the frequency of revaluations. Looking specifically at the Bill’s provisions, to ensure that rateable values better reflect the impact of the pandemic, the Bill will move back the next revaluation to 2023. This of course will give the VOA and the Valuation Tribunal at least an extra year to clear cases on the 2017 rating list ahead of the next revaluation.

More generally, as I set out at Second Reading, the Government are undertaking a fundamental review of business rates. This includes a commitment to look at more frequent revaluations, and we would need an appeals system which supported that. The fundamental review will therefore also examine what reforms might be necessary to the CCA system to support more frequent revaluations.

The call for evidence on the review was published in July and asked respondents to provide proposals for changes to each stage of CCA to improve the system, while recognising ratepayers’ desire for a quicker resolution of cases and greater transparency. The Government are currently considering the responses to the call for evidence, and the review will conclude in spring 2021.

I hope that I have been able to reassure your Lordships about the importance that we place on delivering an effective, functioning appeals system that resolves cases in a timely manner. The proposed new clause raises important questions about appeals and the frequency of revaluations, which the Government are already fully considering as part of the fundamental review. I hope that, with those assurances, the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, can agree to withdraw the amendment.