Oral Answers to Questions

Nickie Aiken Excerpts

Monday 27th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

No, but there is more to do.

[Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

I was very proud when this Government repealed the Vagrancy Act 1824 under the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, and the last thing we should do is demonise and criminalise people who rough-sleep and beg. I absolutely appreciate that there can be antisocial behaviour with aggressive begging, but we have legislation —more robust and more modern legislation—that deals with that. Therefore, I was concerned to see that clause 187 of the new Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill disregards the repeal of the Vagrancy Act. When is a repeal not a repeal?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The question was too long.

Sharing Economy: Short-term Letting

Nickie Aiken Excerpts

Thursday 16th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered short-term letting and the sharing economy.

I have called this debate to once again draw attention to the negative impact on our neighbourhoods up and down the country caused by the abuse of short-term lettings. Short-term lettings are when property is let on a nightly or weekly basis usually for leisure and tourism purposes. We are seeing them pop up on a variety of platforms, including Airbnb, Booking.com, Tripadvisor and Expedia. Since the Deregulation Act 2015, we have seen an increasing number of properties, which would otherwise have been rented out on a long-term basis, being turned into basically holiday accommodation. Between 2015 and 2020, the number of Airbnb listings in London alone grew by 378%. Research by London Councils found that by 2019, there were more than 73,000 listings for short-term lets in London across six of the largest online letting platforms. That is equivalent to one in every 50 homes in the capital.

[Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that one issue with short-term lets is that they take housing stock out of the market? I have the neighbouring constituency of Kensington, and in the tourist areas, particularly around the South Kensington museums, there are streets that are almost exclusively Airbnbs. Many of those are one or two-bedroom properties, and that is aggravating the housing crisis because young people who would typically buy those properties simply cannot get access to them.

[Nickie Aiken]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. With the explosion in the number of short-term lettings, a whole host of problems associated with such lettings have become more widespread across our neighbourhoods. I shall highlight a number of the issues we are seeing, which include increased pressure on housing stock, leading to higher property and rent prices—that is what my hon. Friend referred to. They also include a rise in associated antisocial behaviour, noise complaints and dumped rubbish, and an increasingly unfair playing field in the accommodation sector, which is placing more and more pressure on hotels and private bed-and-breakfast businesses.

Since coming into force, the Deregulation Act 2015 introduced several changes that were designed to free businesses from the burdens caused by regulation and existing laws, including relaxing planning permission in London for short-term lets. When the Bill was going through Parliament, Westminster City Council predicted that homes would be, en masse, turned into lettings for tourists. We knew that those lettings would soon basically be turned into mini hotels, without any of the oversight or regulation that genuine hotels have to adhere to. That is why it was a relief in some contexts to see short-term lettings in London limited to just 90 nights per year under the Deregulation Act, following a sustained lobbying campaign by Westminster City Council. That was not enough, however, and sadly our worst fears have come to fruition.

Without the right tools to enforce the Act our biggest concerns have become a reality for many local people, and many landlords involved in short-term lettings are ignoring the law. Research from 2019 estimated that 23% of 11,200 Airbnb listings in London alone were occupied for more than 90 nights in that year. With the number of short-term lettings skyrocketing, it is clear that we need urgently to get a grip of the situation, because it is becoming unsustainable.

This is obviously not just a London issue. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) recently highlighted, 4,000 homes have come out of private rent in Devon since 2016, and 11,000 have joined the short-term holiday listings. I know from speaking to colleagues across the country that we are seeing that trend up and down the United Kingdom, particularly in places such as Cumbria and the south-west. This issue affects our whole country, and although problems such as strain on housing availability and the cost to local authorities may be the same nationwide, the diverse nature of the issue means that there will be no one-size-fits-all approach to resolving the problem. What we need, in my humble opinion, is for local authorities to be given the powers to do what they feel is right for their unique areas. For example, here in Westminster we need a licensing scheme much like those seen in other countries. Such schemes are generally set at a local level and ensure that standards are adhered to and that the market is not overwhelmed.

We see key examples around the world. In Lisbon, the city council has implemented containment zones that limit the amount of short-term let accommodation within them. In Barcelona, landlords are required to have their properties inspected and approved before they can be let out. Closer to home, the Scottish Government have legislated for local authorities to introduce a short-term lets licensing scheme by October. It will be interesting to see how that works when it is implemented, and how successful it is.

While such schemes differ from one another, they all suit their local needs, seeking to balance the sharing economy with the rights and amenity of local residents. That is what we should strive for across the UK, balancing tourism with the desire and need of locals to have a comfortable and quiet neighbourhood.

We also see examples around the world where that has been taken further. In Atlanta in the United States, a tight licensing regime has been introduced with strict conditions. For example, hosts in that city have to hold a permit and pay an annual $150 fee. They face a $500 fine if a tenant violates city rules. They may have a maximum of two properties, one of which must be the host’s permanent residence. That is probably what we need for London.

Across the world, we see that there is a full spectrum of examples and solutions, and it is about finding what works best in a local authority area. As it stands, the spirit of the Deregulation Act is not being met. We are seeing not the rise of individuals opening their spare rooms or their homes while they are on holiday, as the Government had hoped would happen under the Act, but a gradual increase in commercial businesses snatching up properties for the short-term letting market. Here in Westminster, 64% of hosts on Airbnb have at least two listings.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

The hon. Lady is right to emphasise both the scale and the commercial nature of the problem; a lot of people think it is marginal when, in fact, in some areas it is endemic. Last week, I talked to a local headteacher who said that her school’s intake had been affected by a local mansion flat area changing from being long-term accommodation for homeless families into luxury accommodation with a substantial proportion of short-term lets, changing the character and demographics of the entire area. That is why the Government need to act.

[Nickie Aiken]

I do not often agree with the hon. Gentleman, but I certainly do on this.

We are aware that, in Westminster and across central London, landlords can often skirt around the 90-night rule by posting their property on multiple sites or re-registering it in a location a few metres away. In turn, I am deeply worried that we are witnessing a hollowing out of central London, as the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) referred to regarding his local area, as properties convert all too easily from homes to holiday lets.

At the start of 2022, the number of properties listed to rent across London was 35% lower than in pre-pandemic times. As I am sure hon. Members will appreciate, the housing market in my constituency and across the capital is already squeezed on both affordability and availability. We currently have over 4,000 households on the Westminster social housing waiting list in the same area that has 7,230 available properties on Airbnb. The average house price in the two cities has risen by £32,000 a year over the past 25 years. The most troubling issue is that, according to SpareRoom, average rents have now risen in the capital by 13% in the last year alone. That is why I find it increasingly frustrating that, while I can easily find plenty of examples of hosts with 50 or even 100 properties available, I cannot find a home to rent on a long-term basis in my constituency in the same areas.

The dramatic increase in the number of properties converting to the holiday accommodation market and away from the private rented sector is ensuring that people are forced out of central London. It is getting so bad that I fear the only realistic possibility of the young finding a property in central London is by playing Monopoly. I do not mean to be flippant, but it is getting that bad. For those lucky enough to be able to find a property, there is an increasing likelihood that they will still find themselves living close to short-term letting properties, no matter where they are. As I am sure it is for many of my colleagues, that is reflected in my mailbag by constituents who find themselves having to live next door to short-term letting properties.

[Felicity Buchan]

Does my hon. Friend agree that there are other attendant problems with short-term lets, such as antisocial behaviour, properties being taken over essentially for large parties, rubbish being put out on the wrong day and littering the street, and, sometimes, a lack of respect for the neighbourhood?

[Nickie Aiken]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. One of my constituents from Pimlico who wrote to me recently shares that view:

“There has repeatedly been antisocial behaviour in the Airbnb-type flats in Tachbrook Street. The residents have no interest in the wellbeing of their neighbours. The flats are without doubt let throughout the year and the 90-day rule is completely ignored.”

Post-pandemic complaints have increased in my constituency, with noise, rowdy parties, serious overcrowding, dumped rubbish and even sex work occurring within nightly let properties. From Mayfair to Marylebone and from Hyde Park to Covent Garden, no neighbourhood in Westminster is now free from the short-term let blight.

On the ground, we have seen some pretty clear signals that short-term lets are increasingly causing social damage to our neighbourhoods. A YouGov study from 2019 found that 40% of Londoners felt that such accommodation was having a negative impact on the local sense of community. Worryingly, it also showed that one in five Londoners, when asked, felt that short-term lets had had a negative impact on safety in their local area. If these properties were rented out for just a few days a year, this issue might be manageable. However, as mentioned earlier, we know that is not the case. Local authorities lack the tools necessary to enforce the 90-night rule. As such, complaints are rising and communities are suffering.

On antisocial behaviour, yes, the police and local authorities have powers to tackle it with antisocial behaviour and noise orders, but we do not always have the information needed to identify those involved. Of course, it is very hard for us to make general statements about what we would or would not think was a good idea, because this is a complex issue, but as I said earlier it is about flexibility. It is about giving local authorities the tools they need to protect their local areas. We have to be practical when it comes to enforcement measures. Right now, what continues to frustrate me, and I know thousands of my constituents, including councillors and officials in my local council, is that enforcement is virtually impossible, particularly when we do not know who is undertaking the antisocial behaviour. The lack of data makes it extremely hard for local authorities to identify them and then begin enforcement action.

We need a change in the law to allow local authorities to fine landlords of properties that violate the rules, such as those on dumping rubbish. At the moment, responsibility lies with the tenant, not the landlord, even though the tenant will be long gone after having rented the property for a couple of nights—they have dumped the rubbish and they have gone. What we need is exactly what the former leader of Westminster City Council, Councillor Rachael Robathan, called for in response to more than 2,000 breaches of short-term letting rules—namely, to allow councils to go after the landlord rather than the short-term letter. That would help resolve the issue.

The issue of tax compliance is also of concern. As the home sharing phenomenon becomes more mainstream, an important taxation revenue stream needs to be captured. As it stands, it is possible for landlords to hide their activities from Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and to perhaps not tell the truth on their self-assessment forms. If local authorities were able to collect data on what properties are being let out on a short-term basis, HMRC could access that data and ensure that no one was able to avoid paying tax on any money raised.

In 2018, the Government issued a call for evidence on the role of online platforms in ensuring tax compliance by their users, but there do not appear to have been any major developments since then. Ensuring proper compliance would go some way to levelling up the playing field with other parts of the tourism economy. As highlighted by UK Hospitality:

“Between the short-term lets, hotel and B&B sectors, a regulatory mismatch has also occurred in terms of health and safety and taxation.”

I appreciate that there is a degree of self-regulation in the industry, but that is not enough. While hotels and B&B businesses must go through all sorts of checks and regulations to ensure the safety and wellbeing of their guests, the same oversight does not exist for short-term letting. For example, while Airbnb insists on things such as insurance indemnity, proper fire precautions and safety certificates for gas and electricity, I have met Airbnb hosts who have not once been asked by a platform to prove that they meet those requirements. If we were able to collect tax receipts from short-term lets, that could and should help in the enforcement of laws. It is not just about tax collection; we also need to make sure that landlords are on the same playing field as bona fide hotels and B&B businesses.

I want to make it very clear that I am not against short-term letting. I absolutely recognise the many positives. As an Airbnb user in the past, I have benefited from being able to rent a home while on holiday. Short-term letting has provided and does provide an innovative and imaginative competition to the accommodation industry. However, the bottom line is that those positive impacts are paired with negative impacts, including lower health and safety standards; unfair competition for other hospitality providers; general economic issues such as mixed tax revenues and less availability of long-term rentals; increased rents and house prices; and pricing ordinary local people out of their area’s housing and rental markets. That is happening not just in central London but across the UK. In many cases, neighbourhoods have changed, with issues including antisocial behaviour, overcrowding of properties and transient communities.

A sustainable approach, hopefully in the form of evidence-based, data-driven regulation and policy making, should address some of those issues. As I said earlier, there is no easy fix, no one-size-fits-all approach, but there are certainly stepping stones that we need to introduce. I hope that the Minister will pay serious attention not just to what I have said but, more importantly, to what we will hear later in this debate from Members of all political parties.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nickie Aiken]

I thank all hon. Members who have spoken today. There may have been few of us, but quality rather than quantity was clear in the speeches we heard. The hon. Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) and I have worked on this issue for several years, particularly since the Deregulation Act 2015, and we know the effect that short-term letting is having, particularly on our borough of Westminster. She highlighted an Airbnb-type short-term letting in Harrow Road, one of the poorest areas in Westminster, and social housing is being abused like that. The hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) highlighted another tourist area where short-term letting is having an effect on the local community and affecting local people. That is why we need some sort of registration or licensing scheme that local authorities can use to tackle the abuse of short-term lets.

I was interested to hear from the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) about what is happening in Edinburgh, a city close to my heart, where I was brought up. Particularly in the summer, in August, Edinburgh becomes a tourist hotspot, and we must ensure that we protect local people who live in those areas for 12 months a year. I will be keeping an eye on what is happening in Edinburgh, and I will be fascinated, because the licensing scheme being introduced there is probably one of the answers for places such as central London.

As I said, this is not anti-Airbnb or short-term lets; this is about being pro-local areas and ensuring that key workers can remain in areas that are tourist hotspots, and that people who live in such areas for 12 months a year have the quality of life and amenities they deserve. I am sure that with a registration or licensing scheme for local authorities that want it, we can protect our neighbourhoods and ensure that they remain pleasant places to live.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered short-term letting and the sharing economy.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Nickie Aiken Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 8th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

In my 16 years as a councillor and as a Member of Parliament, I have never met a nimby in my constituency. I have, however, met people who are passionate about their neighbourhoods, who want to retain a sense of community cohesion, and who want to ensure that their communities can thrive and continue to evolve. In fact, I have learnt that people tend to know what works in their neighbourhoods much better than any Parliament or, particularly, any developer, and in any planning reform it is vital to respect that.

For me, this debate is about the detail of the Bill and how it will work in practice. After all, it is a key piece of legislation, affecting real people, real homes and real lives. In this context, completion notes are, I believe, essential to any planning reform, and I welcome their inclusion in the Bill. In my personal experience, there is no point in reforming planning if it is just going to add to the backlog. We cannot, and should not, have more than 1 million homes that have been granted planning permission but still have not been built. I appreciate that there is no “silver bullet” to deal with a lack of housing stock, but I think that clause 100 will go a long way to help.

By the same token, I welcome the renewed emphasis on local plans and appropriate design codes. I am a great believer in local plans, to the extent that I am surprised that many local authorities still do not have them. However, I believe that one of the key aspects of a local plan is that it appreciates the nuances of individual communities, and with that in mind I have some concerns about the reference in clause 184 to

“provision to make the regime for pavement licences…permanent”.

This goes back to what I said earlier about different areas having different requirements. It should not be a case of “one pavement licence scheme fits all”. For instance, neighbourhoods such as Pimlico, in my constituency, welcome al fresco dining and it works there, whereas in Soho we are at saturation point. The streets are far too narrow for it to be practical, and an extended pavement licensing scheme would cause serious problems for residents. I therefore urge the Minister to ensure that we make a concerted effort to give local authorities the freedoms and flexibilities that they need, and to ensure in the guidance accompanying the Bill that we respond to local variations without unnecessary centralisation.

Let me make one more point about centralisation. Like others, I have some reservations about the proposed measures that may be contained in secondary legislation, particularly the regulations mentioned in clause 96, on street votes. I realise that the proposal is subject to the affirmative procedure, but I ask the Minister to give planning authorities a meaningful period in which to respond to consultations on changes to planning rules.

I was surprised by the inclusion of clause 187, entitled “Vagrancy and begging”. As Members know, I have been working hard to secure the repeal of the Vagrancy Act 1824, and I hope that the Minister will explain what the clause actually entails. I think we all need that explanation. We would not want it to override our provision to repeal the Act in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022. Section 4 refers to “rogues and vagabonds”. We live in the 21st century, and I have not seen a rogue or a vagabond on the streets of Westminster for some time.

Apart from that, however, I think that the Bill delivers for levelling up across the country, and I welcome it—with those caveats about the Vagrancy Act.

Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting)

Nickie Aiken Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 9th December 2021 Public Bill Committees

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Eddie Hughes)]

It is a pleasure to see you back in the Chair, Ms Elliott.

As hon. Members will know, it is our intention to protect leaseholders from unfair practices through the Bill by ensuring that future regulated leases are restricted to a peppercorn rent, unless excepted. The Government believe that those who purchase retirement homes should benefit from the same reform as other future leaseholders. Although we would like the provisions of the Bill to come into effect as soon as possible, we have decided to give the retirement sector additional time to prepare for these changes. The hon. Member for Weaver Vale has tabled amendment 10 to remove this provision and do away with the transition period entirely. I am grateful for his consideration of this point and would like to explain the reasoning for including a transition period for retirement properties, and why I believe that that is the right thing to do.

The plan for peppercorn ground rent was announced in 2019, following the Government consultation entitled “Implementing reforms to the leasehold system”. At the time, we also announced that we would proceed with the proposal to exempt retirement properties from the peppercorn ground rents policy. That decision was made on the basis that developers of retirement properties incur additional costs as a result of the communal spaces that are characteristic of these kinds of development. However, having reviewed this in further detail, we concluded that the argument in favour of an exemption did not outweigh the benefits of ensuring that those purchasing retirement homes can take advantage of reform in the same way as any other leaseholder could.

The Government believe that it is a matter of fairness that those buying retirement properties should be able to realise the benefits of this legislation. It was therefore announced in January 2021 that the exemption for retirement property would no longer apply, and we have offered the transition in recognition of that change of policy. As such, the Bill will come into force no earlier than 1 April 2023 for retirement homes. This transition period will allow developers of retirement properties time to adapt to the forthcoming changes. We believe the transition period in the Bill has been fairly granted in balancing the needs of developers and fairness to leaseholders.

[Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

I have some sympathy with the amendment, but I absolutely hear what the Minister says about what he is trying to achieve. Many house builders we have heard from over the last few weeks have decided not to continue charging ground rent, because it is not a good idea. If I may be so bold, perhaps the retirement development industry might like to stop charging such exorbitant fees for ground rent, without the need for legislation.

[Eddie Hughes]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. I will no doubt refer later to meetings I have had, including as recently as yesterday, with representatives from the sector. It is not necessarily for us to prescribe how they might change their business models, but different developers in the sector certainly take different approaches. Given that we signalled one intention and subsequently changed to another, I think we are striking the right balance in allowing a transition period.

In the other place, arguments were raised on both sides; there were those who wished to extend the transition period and those who wished to remove it. As I said, conversations are ongoing, including as recently as yesterday, and hon. Members including my right hon. Friends the Members for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) and for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) have been in favour of amending the transition period for the sector.

We acknowledge that the retirement sector has had less time to prepare than the rest of the development industry. However, we have given the matter careful consideration, and we believe the transition period in the Bill strikes the right balance between protecting retirement property consumers and providing a fair period of adjustment for developers. In my conversation with representatives yesterday, it was clear that prospective purchasers are already aware of the planned legislation—they seem to be a well-informed group—and I guess they will be mindful of that when deciding when to complete their purchase.

With regard to hon. Members’ concerns about the impact, I think it will be minimal for two reasons. First, the people who buy this type of property seem to take longer to make the purchase than would perhaps otherwise be the case; in fact, the sell-out rate for such properties is considerably slower than for normal residential properties. Buyers have a greater period over which to consider the purchase, and they frequently visit several times—first by themselves, and subsequently with members of their family—so this is a very considered purchase. Secondly, they seem to be well-informed about the changes to legislation. For those reasons, I feel they will be protected.

Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)

Nickie Aiken Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 7th December 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to have you as Chair of the Committee, Mr Hollobone. I welcome the Bill and the Government’s obvious determination to ensure that buyers of new developments will be protected from what I can only describe as dodgy practices.

Having looked into the issue before coming to Committee, and knowing bits and pieces from the media coverage of this story in recent years, I find it shocking that property developers and renowned house builders have thought it acceptable to expect families or individuals buying a property—we all know how expensive that can be; people save for years to have enough for a deposit—to be hit with a ground rent that they do not know is going to double and double over the years. I absolutely welcome the Minister’s determination to stop that practice.

I call on house builders across the nation to think about the consequences of such practices on their customers, and their future customers. I know that a number of house builders have taken steps to stop this practice. I believe that the Competition and Markets Authority is carrying out an investigation and that some, but not enough, house builders have stopped the practice voluntarily. That is why I am glad that the Bill will protect us in the future.

I was taken aback by the fact that the chief executive of Redrow, a renowned house builder, said in a letter to the then Select Committee on Housing, Communities and Local Government that ground rent of £400 per year would not always necessarily double over 10 years, but in fact could reach £12,800 a year. For the average family, the idea of trying to find that amount of money is eye-watering. Even people on good salaries would find that amount punitive. I absolutely welcome the Bill. We must regulate to safeguard hard-working families who want to invest in homes.

[Mike Amesbury]

I have no doubt that members across the Committee agree with much of what the hon. Lady says, but these measures are for the future, not for the here and now. The CMA investigation is very welcome, as is the work by the Select Committee and all the campaigners who have helped to force the issue, but many people are still applying these practices. Welcome though they are, these are baby steps.

[Nickie Aiken]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention; I was coming to that point. In my constituency—the Cities of London and Westminster—many leaseholders live in properties with much older tenancies that involve ground rent. I believe the vast majority are on peppercorn. I have lived in the two Cities for 25 years, as a leaseholder and now, I am glad to say, as a freeholder. There is a massive benefit to being a freeholder, even though I own a flat.

The hon. Gentleman is right, and I am sure that this Government and this Minister will be looking at legislation that can protect all leaseholders, no matter what kind of tenancy they have. I understand that the renters reform Bill will be coming through, which will be a massive step towards creating a balance between tenants and landlords. This Bill and any further legislation that the Government consider on leasehold are about balance and fairness. I welcome the Minister’s taking forward this Bill and future legislation to protect leaseholders.

--- Later in debate ---

[Eddie Hughes]

As I said in answer to the previous question, we can already see—not just now, but over the previous few years—that there has been a rapid decrease in the number of properties being constructed and subsequently sold in this way, so the hon. Gentleman should feel reassured that the Government’s intended legislation is already having an incredibly positive effect.

[Nickie Aiken]

Following the previous point, does the Minister agree that the conduct of house builders such as Countryside Properties, which has voluntarily agreed to remove the doubling of ground rents from its leasehold contracts, is a step forward? The Home Builders Federation or another trade body should be working with its members to take that forward, as Countryside Properties and others have done, but too many house builders are still not doing so. Perhaps the CMA review will help, but perhaps the Bill will send a clear message to house builders that, actually, they should be looking at their own practices before they are made to do so by the legislation.

[Eddie Hughes]

I can say nothing other than that I completely agree with my hon. Friend’s comments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Eddie Hughes]

About the amendments, Mr Hollobone. Amendments 11 and 13, tabled by the hon. Member for Weaver Vale, seek to reduce the payment of rent on a shared ownership property. Shared owners are leaseholders of a share of their property. Most shared ownership properties fall within the terms of the Government’s shared ownership scheme, and the providers will be registered with the Regulator of Social Housing. In the Government’s existing shared ownership scheme, owners have a full repairing lease and are financially responsible for all maintenance charges and outgoings in the same way that any other homeowner is.

On 1 April, the Government confirmed the new model for shared ownership, which introduces a 10-year period during which the landlord will support the cost of repairs and maintenance on new build homes. Under the shared ownership model, landlords can collect rent on their share of the property, and I reiterate that the Bill will allow them to continue to do so. The payment of rent reflects the fact that the shared owner has purchased a share of their home, and pays rent on the remaining share, which is owned by their landlord. The rent paid is not the same as the service charge paid for repairs and maintenance previously described.

The effect of amendments 11 and 13 would be to remove the ability of a landlord to receive the rent that they are rightly due on the share of the property that the leaseholder rents in cases in which the service charge is more than £100 per month. The law is clear that service charges must be reasonable and that, where costs relate to work or services, the work or services must be of a reasonable standard.

[Nickie Aiken]

I just wish to mention service charges in central London, as the hon. Member for Weaver Vale did. I am very aware of extortionate service charges in central London, particularly for private blocks. Service charges of £100,000 are not unknown, but the properties in those cases are worth around £35 million; I suggest that, if someone can afford to buy a £35 million flat, they may be able to afford a £100,000 service charge. However, the hon. Member for Weaver Vale makes an important point, and I would like the Minister to consider it. We must not put all service charges into the same pot. We have to ensure that homes within the community—rent to buy, social housing and community housing—are different from very expensive properties. We cannot put them all into the same position. We must give landlords the ability to charge a fair service charge that is in keeping with the value of the home. There has to be a balance. There is a big difference between a £35 million flat and a rent-to-buy property.

--- Later in debate ---

[Maria Eagle]

I will be interested to see whether there is any kind of entrepreneurialism undertaken by trading standards around the country, but I would like to hear what the Minister has to say.

[Nickie Aiken]

I thank the Government for including effective enforcement in the Bill. There is no way that the Bill will work, and landlords will not be held to account, unless there is proper enforcement. Having been the cabinet member for public protection at Westminster City Council, which trading standards came under, I know at first hand the brilliant work that trading standards officers do day in, day out in Westminster and across the country. I would really appreciate it if the Minister could give assurances that trading standards teams across the country will have the funding to carry out the extra workload. I certainly think it is important that we ensure they can do so, because we do not want to be giving leaseholders any false hope, and I certainly welcome the ability for local authorities to keep the proceeds of any fines that they may be able to extract from a landlord.

[The Chair]

Order. I must ask the hon. Lady to resume her seat. It is nothing against the hon. Lady at all—I am enjoying her speech immensely—but it is now time to adjourn.

Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Bill [Lords] (Second sitting)

Nickie Aiken Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 7th December 2021 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

I call Nickie Aiken to conclude her speech.

[Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Elliott. As I was saying earlier, having been the cabinet member for public protection at Westminster City Council, I know that enforcement is the cornerstone by which we put words into action and ensure that what we pass in legislation has the intended effect in real life.

It is a welcome provision that the income from financial penalties will be kept by local authorities, but we need sustainable funding sources for enforcement ahead of the game. Local authorities may eventually keep the income from penalties, but work will need to be undertaken before that by the trading standards teams to bring enforcement cases to fruition. That funding is particularly important given the increase in the range of new enforcement duties being placed on trading standards departments across the country.

It is also important to recognise that no two councils are the same. They come in all shapes and sizes—rural, urban, global cities such as my own—which all have different numbers of leaseholders who will be affected by the Bill. I would welcome the Minister giving consideration to the kinds of measures that councils will need in order to be appropriately supported, in proportion to the number of leaseholders they may have within their local authority area and the duties being placed upon them.

Of course, as I have said, I welcome the Bill—it does so much to ensure fair enforcement—but we need assurances that there will be guidance for trading standards teams, particularly on the new provisions we will be introducing on leasehold and freehold law, to ensure that trading standards officers are adequately trained to deal with what may become difficult enforcement situations. Trading standards officers may not be trained in landlord and tenancy law; they may require some more training. Ultimately, we need the provisions in the Bill that place additional duties on trading standards teams to be under- pinned by proportionate support and adequate guidance.

Oral Answers to Questions

Nickie Aiken Excerpts

Monday 29th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Eddie Hughes)]

I am disappointed by the hon. Lady’s suggestion that it has been abandoned. It certainly has not. The Government are committed to giving all people somewhere safe to sleep. We have the £10 million winter pressure fund and we have the winter transformation fund to help charities and faith groups to deliver single-unit accommodation, so this Government are very much committed to the cause and I would welcome working with the hon. Lady on this in the future.

[Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

T7.   As the Secretary of State will be aware, I am working with peers, other Members of this place and charities to secure the repeal of the Vagrancy Act 1824, which criminalises rough sleepers rather than helping them. My constituency is home to the largest number of rough sleepers in the country. The former Secretary of State said in the House in February in answer to a question of mine that he thought that the Act should be “consigned to history”. What does the current Secretary of State think of the Vagrancy Act?

[Michael Gove]

I think that the Vagrancy Act has to go. We do need appropriate legislation to deal with examples of aggressive begging, but the most important thing to recognise is that the work that Westminster Council and Greater Manchester have done to reduce rough sleeping has been exemplary. In partnership with my Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North (Eddie Hughes), the Minister for rough sleeping, we must redouble our efforts, but I want to congratulate Rachael Robathan, the hon. Lady’s successor, and Andy Burnham on their success in dealing with rough sleeping in the hotspots that have suffered most from that phenomenon.

Planning (Enforcement) Bill

Nickie Aiken Excerpts

Friday 19th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mohindra]

I thank my hon. Friend for his invaluable contribution, as always. I support the Bill so that we can advance the discussion around our responsibility to protect our green-belt land—and our green spaces; sorry, I should broaden that out—from development, and preserve it for our constituents and for the environment to enjoy for generations to come.

We need to review what we as legislators can do to help to protect the green belt. As well as reviewing the penalties for violating the law, it is vital that we encourage sustainable development and make use of the brownfield sites that we have. I believe that providing incentives to developers who repurpose brownfield land, instead of seeking to build on our green belt, would potentially be beneficial in helping us achieve that.

As many Members will know, I also chair the all-party group on regeneration and development. Having been both a property developer previously and now a politician, I am fully aware of the need for a collaborative approach between developers and politicians to find solutions to this issue. I know that property development is a very emotive issue and that developers are seen as working against those aiming to protect the green belt. That is not always the case, so we should not taint all the developers with the broad brush used for those, unfortunately, who know and play the system.

We know that in this country there is a housing shortage and that we must build new, affordable homes. However, as I and many colleagues have mentioned, that must not come at the cost of our green belt. I have not yet had a chance in the Chamber to welcome the new Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, or, indeed, the Minister on the Front Bench today, to their roles, but I know that they are already working hard on ways that we can provide the housing we need while protecting our vital green belt.

[Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right about protecting the green belt and I welcome the Bill that my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer) is promoting. However, is my hon. Friend the Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra) shocked, as I am, that although the Liberal Democrats have constantly berated the Government for trying to destroy the green belt and for not building enough housing, today, when we are debating this very important issue that concerns so many of our constituents, there is not a single Liberal Democrat MP in this Chamber? It is, in fact, the Conservative Government and Conservative Members who are so determined to build more homes and protect the green belt.

[Mr Mohindra]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I would have made a comment in my speech if Liberal Democrat Members had been in their place, but as we Conservative Members all know, we are a bit fairer. However, I will report back to my neighbouring Liberal Democrat Members that we would have appreciated hearing their views in this place, not just on social media and in local press releases.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer) on his success in the private Member’s Bill ballot and on choosing planning enforcement as his topic. I thank him for taking the time to meet me earlier this week to discuss the detail of his Bill. I also congratulate the hon. Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra) and my friend the hon. Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby), with whom I co-chair the all-party parliamentary group for cycling and walking, on their contributions.

As has been expressed in the Chamber through speeches and interventions, there cannot be many MPs or councillors of all parties and none who have not had constituents complain about the delays and apparent weaknesses in the planning enforcement system. The Bill seeks to address the most egregious breaches of planning law—those of multiple abuses. Often, but not exclusively, they are on the green belt or on metropolitan open land and on other green open spaces, involving uses such as junk yards, coach and lorry parks and mobile home parks. I cannot imagine the pain and stress experienced by immediate neighbours and those in the communities affected by the damage caused by these sites while they are operating.

I would like to add another example of egregious abuse: too many houses in multiple occupation. I have seen some truly terrible housing conditions in Hounslow, with back-garden shacks—not even sheds—and front rooms of small terraces split into two, with eight bedsits squeezed into a home. I think that Hounslow was the first local authority to use the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 against such abuses. The victims of this abuse of the planning system are the residents who are charged rip-off rents, and their children. Furthermore, it appears that in these egregious examples, the perpetrators’ names come up repeatedly in different places.

[Nickie Aiken]

I absolutely accept the hon. Lady bringing up HMOs as an issue. Does she agree that planning enforcement should be strengthened to prevent the ongoing blight that concerns people particularly in London—especially in my constituency—of short-term, one-night lettings under Airbnb or Booking.com? The 90-night rule should be enforced under planning law.

[Ruth Cadbury]

I appreciate the pressure that the hon. Member faces in her constituency. My friend the hon. Member for North Devon expressed concerns about seaside resort cities and my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) is also experiencing this blight. The Airbnb situation is a further example of weaknesses in the planning system. Perhaps the planning system in a wider sense needs strengthening rather than planning enforcement—that might be the subject for another debate and another Bill—but I understand the pain of the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) and that of her constituents.

I agree with the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge that it is not fair that while everyone else play by the rules, a tiny number are apparently able to cock a snook at the council and their neighbours. His Bill is not aimed at the far more common lower-level breaches such as residential extensions built higher or closer than allowed in planning permission or under permitted development rights, but neighbours say that the system takes far too long to sort out even those cases. People do not appreciate that planning enforcement is not like licensing, where a miscreant’s premises can be closed down immediately.

I turn to the Bill’s clauses. First, it would create a single England-wide database of all major or repeated planning enforcement breaches that would be publicly available. The cost of maintaining the database is to be covered by charging planning fees. Does that mean increasing current fees? Local planning authorities are currently each required to maintain their own register of enforcement and stop notices, which contains details of enforcement notices, stop notices, breach of condition notices and planning enforcement orders. The data is there, but it is not all in one place.

If enacted, the clause would make it really easy for planning enforcement officers to see whether they were dealing with regular offenders who work across a number of council areas. This could certainly be useful. For example, in prosecuting cases for failure to comply with enforcement notices, local planning enforcement officers could join up and bring a bigger case against that particular individual. A database would also provide a source of reference, so that planning officers could look at the types of breaches that have been enforced against and how officers in different boroughs dealt with them, such as the wording used for complex breaches.

Let me return to how the database would be resourced. The Bill refers to making a call on planning fees. However, there are any number of pressures on planning department budgets, thanks to 10 years of Government cuts to local councils, so if there were any opportunity to raise funds from planning fees to support the planning system, I am sure that borough planning officers would have a long list of greater priorities to spend that money on, such as employing more staff. This week, the Royal Town Planning Institute told me that it had a report of one authority that has just five planning officers to deal with everything: planning policy, planning applications and enforcement. Besides, why should well-behaved applicants be subsidising the prosecution of unauthorised activity? Although I appreciate the intent, and the proposal has some merit, I fear that the database could be seen as a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

Clause 2 would require all applicants for planning consent to declare if they or their company has ever had any planning enforcement action taken against them. One difficulty is that planning applications and planning permissions run with the land, and not the person who makes the application as such. It would therefore be quite easy for anyone to circumvent the need to declare whether they have had enforcement action taken against them or their company by simply getting someone else to put their name on the application.

Appearing on the list could also be held against someone in determining any application they make subsequently. Each application has to be judged on its merits and not the prior actions of a person making a new application on a different site. The provision could catch many perfectly innocent people who just do not understand the planning system. It ignores the fact that the majority of people subject to enforcement action breach the system unwittingly; in the vast majority of cases the process of being served with an enforcement notice leads them to rectify the mistake and, in the process, learn about the planning system. Why should they be forced to declare and have their past mistake hanging over them?

Clause 3 would enable the local planning authority to seek an injunction in the High Court, with the effect of a stop notice, so that no further planning applications could be considered on that particular site. Now, I am no planning lawyer but my understanding is that provisions for injunctions are already available to local planning authorities under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.

I share the frustration of the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge with the situation in his constituency, and the cases raised by other Members. I do not know what other remedies were sought by the planning authorities in these egregious cases, nor why they did not work. As he will be aware, there are a number of tools in the enforcement officers’ armour that can be used to tackle ongoing and serious breaches of planning consent, and the ignoring of planning enforcement notices. Those tools include stop notices and temporary stop notices, POCA, planning enforcement orders if there may have been concealment—I remember the case of a farmer who built a house hidden behind walls of hay bales; I think he was prosecuted in the end—and injunctions, as I have already said.

Many of the appalling cases described by the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge are subject to other criminal and civil proceedings relating to pollution, noise and smell, housing conditions and tenure, health and safety breaches, modern slavery and more.

Rough Sleeping

Nickie Aiken Excerpts

Wednesday 8th September 2021 Westminster Hall

[Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

Diolch yn fawr, Ms Rees. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, and I am delighted that the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) has secured this debate. This is actually the third time I have taken part in such a debate: I called the first two, so I am hoping it is third time lucky when it comes to what I hear from the Minister.

Before I talk about the wider issue of ending rough sleeping, it is really important that we consider what the Government have done so far. This year alone, £750 million has already been put in to tackle rough sleeping and homelessness, in particular the £203 million investment through the rough sleeping initiative—double what it was last year. None of us can be in any doubt that the Government are determined to end rough sleeping.

We saw that with the “Everyone In” initiative during the pandemic, when national Government, local government and charities came together to collaborate, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart) pointed out. But even when probably 90% of rough sleepers were housed during “Everyone In”, the remaining 10%—the most entrenched rough sleepers—were still on the streets in the city.

As the MP for the Cities of London and Westminster, I know full well the impact of rough sleeping on our streets. My constituency has the largest number of rough sleepers in the country—more than the next three boroughs in London combined. That shows how acute the issue is in Westminster. However, it is equally important to point out that only 3% of those on our streets have a connection to Westminster, which shows that this is a national and international problem on the streets of Westminster.

Having been responsible for rough sleeping strategy and services in Westminster for 10 years or so until I came to this place, I know about the brilliant work that the rough sleeping team at Westminster City Council do day in, day out and night in, night out. They work with partners such as St Mungo’s, which provides the outreach service. Again, the outreach workers are out every single night of the year—on the coldest and hottest nights, including Christmas. I pay tribute to those brilliant outreach workers, with whom I have been out so many times over the last decade.

Why were 10% of rough sleepers left on the street? It was not a case of not having somewhere to go, because there was a room for every rough sleeper on the streets of Westminster, as there is tonight. Tonight there will be 500 beds available in this one borough alone, which is incredible. However, why are we still seeing people on the streets? It is because the vast number of people on our streets have mental health and addiction problems.

From my experience, and as I am told by St Mungo’s and Westminster City Council’s outreach teams, these people are some of the most damaged and vulnerable people in our society, and they need and deserve our help. When they have such entrenched problems, however, it can take years to build up trust with them. They will often refuse help, as I have seen. I have lived in the Cities of London and Westminster for 25 years, and in Westminster for more than 20. During the “Everyone In” programme, we saw the 10% on our streets. I live in Pimlico, and they were there when we would come out to go shopping every day. They were so ill, and it is because of drugs and drink and the mental health issues that they are suffering.

How do we go about helping people who refuse time and again to be housed, even on the coldest days of the year? When I was responsible for rough sleeping at Westminster, I took out the Minister responsible for rough sleeping on the coldest day of the year. He was shocked to find people still sleeping on the street. When we have our cold weather plan, we open up churches, synagogues and other community halls, with no questions asked. We do not even have to ask for people’s names. We just want people to come in and be safe—we want to save their lives.

Even on the most dreadful nights of the year, people still refuse to come in. Why? That is what we have to tackle, which is why I have been working together with the brilliant people at Crisis, as well as the equally brilliant people at St Mungo’s and The Passage, on repealing the Vagrancy Act 1824. When I asked the Secretary of State in February in the House of Commons, he said that the Act

“should be consigned to history.”—[Official Report, 25 February 2021; Vol. 689, c. 1138.]

I am forever hopeful that that will happen one day, and perhaps the Minister can enlighten us, but we are working to replace the Act. From what the Government are saying, we think we have won the argument but what do we replace the Act with? We need to have a new approach—an assertive outreach approach—whereby we have the mental health and addiction services available on the street. We used to have mental health services on the street, but they have now gone. We need them back, and we need a health-led approach. We have heard about Housing First; we have the housing, the hostels, the temporary accommodation and the move-on accommodation. It is about persuading the people who refuse to come off the street with that offer and about tackling the reasons why they are on the street. Any expert in outreach would tell us that it is about tackling those causes.

I am proud to be involved in and a member of the Kerslake Commission, for which St Mungo’s is the secretariat. I have seen the first draft of the report, which is coming out in a couple of weeks’ time. It is one of the most collaborative pieces of research on homelessness and rough sleeping that I have ever seen, and I hope the Minister will welcome the abundance of recommendations coming his way in the next couple of weeks. What I have so far learned from taking part in the Kerslake Commission, which was UK-wide and involved charities and local authorities across the country, is that we all believe in one thing: we can, by working together, tackle rough sleeping and resolve it for good.

Many hon. Members have mentioned the issue of funding. As I said, this Government have probably put more into rough sleeping than any other Government for decades—that is the right thing to do—but it is about longer-term funding. I know from being responsible for commissioning services in Westminster that we need to know as much as possible years in advance. It is does not necessarily work to have a funding stream for a year; we need at least three years. We need to be able to commission services, and if we are to tackle the long-term reasons why people find themselves on the street, we need those services to be there for at least three years. Again, my plea to the Minister is for longer-term funding.

If we do not come together on this matter, we will continue to see people on the streets night in, night out. At the latest count, there were 171 rough sleepers in Westminster, which is much lower than in previous years, showing that we are working together and that the “Everyone In” strategy has had a longer-term effect. The vast majority of those still sleeping on the street do not tend to be British; they tend to be from eastern Europe. We also need to look at how local authorities—not just in London, but across the country—can work with people who do not have any recourse to public funds, which is an ongoing issue. Any local authority or charity that works in rough sleeping would tell us that.

I pay tribute to the brilliant organisations that I have mentioned, including Hotel School, a scheme set up by the Passage and Jeremy Goring of the Goring Hotel. They understand that if we are to help people off the street and turn their lives around, tackle their mental ill-health and addiction issues—the reasons why they are on the street—and give them a place to live, they also need skills and the ability to find a job. Hotel School, which is based in my constituency, is about doing that. It brings together hotels such as the Goring, the Ritz and others to provide real training, and jobs afterwards. I would love for the Minister to join me on a visit to Hotel School in the near future, so that he can see what the private sector and charities such as the Passage are doing together.

I have probably gone on for quite a long time now, Ms Rees, but as you can probably tell I am passionate about this subject. If I do nothing else in my time in Parliament, I hope that I can secure the repeal of the Vagrancy Act and, equally importantly, its replacement with the legislation, services and approach that will tackle rough sleeping once and for all. I really think we can do that, and from what I can see—and I have seen a lot of Governments in Westminster in my time in this role—if any Government can do it, it is this Government.

Planning

Nickie Aiken Excerpts

Thursday 15th July 2021 Westminster Hall

[Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Cummins. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) on securing this important debate. Generally speaking, I find the proposals outlined in the White Paper to be positive, but there is much to be done to refine our approach to make it a solid foundation for a 21st-century planning system.

First, as a local councillor for 15 years, I want to emphasise the importance of engaging local communities to get it right from the very start of any planning system. Of course there is a practical side, in terms of context, utilities and amenities, as well as the need to protect well-loved conservation areas, particularly in a constituency like mine.

In my personal experience as a councillor, local people are not nimbys, but want and deserve quality homes that are appropriate to where they live. I know from speaking to constituents in the Cities of London and Westminster that the vast majority of people who live there are keen for their children and grandchildren to be able to remain in the area, but sadly, at the moment that is not always the case. I recognise that the Government are paving the way on bricks and mortar, but there is still a long way to go to reach the Government target of 300,000 homes a year.

It is not just about the numbers. My constituents want homes that they can grow up in and remain in when they have families. We want our children to know a range of people from all walks of life. In the Cities of London and Westminster there is a perception that the housing market is polarised between the multimillion-pound properties for oligarchs and very wealthy people, and council-run estates and housing association homes. What we need, and what local people want, is affordable and appropriate homes in the middle ground that keep neighbourhoods as thriving, friendly communities.

I urge the Minister to ensure not only that local residents are sufficiently consulted, but that there is a concerted effort to increase local democracy when it comes to the final planning reforms, which we will see when the legislation comes forward. On a practical level, one way of doing so is to address the issues of change in use class between residential and different types of commercial activity. There have been recent changes in planning legislation that are already having a major effect on constituencies like mine and not giving local authorities the flexibility that they need. For example, the introduction of the commercial, business and service use of class E, as well as permitted development rights, makes it now significantly more difficult for local authorities to influence the way in which areas develop.

These changes have also removed the funding that used to be provided through section 106 and the strategic industrial locations process. If every commercial use is considered to be the same use class, then any change of use requires little or no approval and provides no funding, even for the infrastructure that is so badly needed to make all of this work.

The same goes for the permitted development rights process. We have an increasing number of class E premises that are changing from shops to restaurants, without any requirement for planning permission to manage issues such as servicing and hours of use. That means that licensing has to take up the slack. Planning is pushing the problem over to local authority licensing committees, and that is not on. It is important that the planning process should listen to residents. It should take into account their views and the appropriateness of changes in residential and commercial uses for communities and local authorities.

A second way to bolster local democracy, which the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government should consider, is improvements to the appeals process for planning applications. That is much in the spirit of the Prime Minister’s stated ambition to give constituents

“a greater say over what gets built”

in their community, but allow me to quote the Covent Garden Community Association, which wrote that we need

“to rebalance the appeals process in the current planning system. The fact that applicants can appeal to the Planning Inspector but local communities can only appeal to the High Court sets up an imbalance of risk”.

There is much to welcome in the planning reforms, but local democracy still needs to be at their very heart.