Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Young of Cookham and Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill

Committee stage
Wednesday 9th June 2021 Grand Committee

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill) (Lab)]

I have received a request to speak after the Minister from the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

I am very grateful to the Minister for his reply. I press him on what he said right at the end about the importance of getting the Bill through “as speedily as possible”. I accept that, but if it is important that Parliament processes this legislation speedily, is it not then incumbent on the Government to announce an early date for the implementation of the Bill?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 3 in my name is designed to shed light on what the Government mean by premises that significantly contribute to “business purposes”. We may move into less turbulent territory in this group.

I begin by asking the Minister a fairly basic question: if ground rents are, as I believe, a feudal anachronism or, in the words of my noble friend Lord Blencathra, “legal racketeering”—a payment for which one gets nothing in return—why are they being banned only for future dwellings and not for all premises? Surely a combination of a lease and a conventional rent would suffice for the commercial sector and we could simply strip Clause 2 out of the Bill entirely. This may go beyond my noble friend’s negotiating brief but, if we are to have this distinction, we need some clarity.

By way of background, when I put the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act on the statute book, one of the most contentious issues was the exemption from enfranchisement of mixed-use buildings, with shops on the ground floor and flats above. After a healthy dialogue between the two Houses, when your Lordships’ House still had a healthy representation of the country’s freeholders and the other place was concerned more with leaseholders who actually had votes, we ended up exempting properties where the commercial use was 25% or more of the total space. That Act was about the collective enfranchisement of a building, whereas this Bill is about individual leases within a building, so the same definition may not work. There is, none the less, the same need for clarity and, with the current definition, I can see scope for argument and the possibility for a freeholder to introduce a ground rent by arguing that the leases in his building qualify for Clause 2 exemption.

Suppose, for example, a new block of flats is specifically designed so occupants can work from home. The developer not only builds in all the relevant infrastructure in each flat but has a communal space on the ground floor that can be hired as a conference room to get around Clause 2(3). Could he then claim exemption and include ground rents in all the leases in the flats?

I was grateful to my noble friend for the time he spent with me on Monday, when he explained that the object of exemption was where a ground-floor shop had a flat above it and it was essential, for the efficient operation of the shop, for the shopkeeper to live above it. Perhaps the parliamentary draftsmen had in mind publicans, who often live above licensed premises. My concern remains that the wording is too loose, so it can provide loopholes and give rise to litigation. I wonder whether, between now and Report, my noble friend could consider an alternative and tighter wording. I beg to move.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill) (Lab)]

I call the next speaker, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern. Lord Mackay, could you unmute, please? Lord Mackay? Perhaps I can return to him. In the meantime, I shall call the next speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Stunell.