Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill

Peter Bottomley Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 11th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

The House will be grateful to know that the official Opposition support what the Government are trying to do. I pay tribute, as the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State did, to the people in the all-party parliamentary group on leasehold and commonhold reform—Liberals, Labour, Conservatives and others—who, over the last 11 years, have worked together to try to get to a situation where it is not possible for freeholders, on purpose or by mistake, to exploit residential leaseholders.

When I first spoke on this issue about 11 years ago, I declared my interest as a leaseholder in my constituency with no problems whatsoever. Six of us bought the freehold willingly from a willing seller—the person who developed the block of flats—when he retired. I have since acquired an interest in another leasehold property. I do not take part in these debates to try to feather my own nest; I am trying to ensure that the 5 million people who are in a worse position have as good an experience as I have had.

It is 10 years since I first started quoting Leasehold Knowledge Partnership. In addition to Sebastian O’Kelly and Martin Boyd, whom the Secretary of State referred to as well as the campaigners in the National Leasehold Campaign, I would like to name one or two journalists who have helped—in particular, the people at “Newsnight”—and the people who have batted away at the issue. Major media organisations ought to have a housing correspondent or editor rather than putting it with home affairs. We cannot expect Mark Easton at the BBC, when he covers the Home Office, to be able to become expert in residential leasehold in the way that is needed.

I hope that in Committee, and especially in the House of Lords, the parts of the Law Commission’s recommendations that have not been incorporated in the Bill will be put forward for decision by the House and the other place. The three reports that it produced in 2020 should be implemented in full, or else, when those reports came out the Government should have said what was wrong with the proposals.

May I emphasise what the Secretary of State said about the ongoing consultation and continuing conversation on modern leasehold—the ground rent issue—where the period of consultation has been extended from, I think, late-December to the middle of January? People will be grateful for that. There are five options. As Dean Buckner, a trustee of LKP, the campaigning charity, has said, those who own freehold interests have known since Scotland abolished leasehold that the gravy train was going to end. When the Government came forward with the proposal that ground rent should not be more than 0.1% of the capital value, they knew that their value was not as high as some were estimating, and when people start looking at the discount rate—I think in the impact assessment it is about 3.5%; in fact, long-term debt for the Government is now at 4.5%—they see that that again will reduce it. I make the suggestion, which is also on the LKP website, that the Government can deal with any possible compensation by saying that they will tax it at 45% or higher, which will make attempts by people to take it to judicial review or challenges to the Government on human rights terms null and void, or at least not worth trying.

May I say to the Government that after the Grenfell fire tragedy, while it became clear that up to £15 billion of remediation was needed not just for cladding but for other fire defects and that the only people who could eventually pay those costs by law would be the leaseholders who own not a brick in the building, the people who ought to be paying are the insurers for those who were responsible—the designers, the architects, the builders, the developers, the subcontractors, the component manufacturers and the like; they were all insured? I commend to the House that, in Committee, it should somehow be written into the Bill that potential claims by leaseholders be gathered together in an agency, which could sue the insurance companies and those they insured to get a contribution from them. That would reduce the costs both to leaseholders and to the Government, who have been providing a lot of money to try to ensure that remediation has happened.

I pay tribute to successive Secretaries of State, who have had to give written instructions to their permanent secretaries for some of the compensation for fire defect costs, and I say to the Government that the artificial distinction of 11 metres is unjustified. Actually, fire death certificates show that more people die in fires in lower buildings, and higher buildings are not riskier. We ought to try to recognise the realities. It is also worth saying in passing that when Dame Judith Hackitt produced her report and recommendations, I do not think she was well briefed on the law on leasehold, which is why some of her recommendations were not properly appropriate. I am glad that since Gavin Barwell we have had a succession of Ministers who have put the Government on the side of leaseholders; we now know that there are 5 million to 6 million of them.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend for what he is saying. Does he agree that, at some stage or other, these unsafe buildings were signed off as fit and proper buildings under building regulations and that leaseholders also have a valid claim against the individuals who signed them off, who are also insured?

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

I agree with my hon. Friend and pay tribute to him for his work in this field. It is worth noting that building standards were set not by those who sign buildings off—the building control people—but by the Government or quasi-Government agencies, so the Government bear some responsibility as well, as I think they recognise.

In my thanks. I want to include Katherine O’Riordan, who has helped the secretariat of the all-party group and worked remarkably well. Given that my involvement as an active campaigner on this matter came through a constituency case, I pay tribute to my senior caseworker, Colette Hanson, who for many years—over a decade—has helped to support constituents facing awful problems, whether on this matter or others.

The Secretary of State referred to James Brokenshire, who carried forward many leasehold reforms. I also thank Sir Nigel Shadbolt and Sir Tim Berners-Lee and their Open Data Institute for providing help to LKP, the campaigning charity, in getting information that is publicly available and putting it together so that we could know the scale of the problem that we are facing. I pay tribute to the law commissioner Professor Nick Hopkins and his team for their 13th programme of law reform. I also pay tribute to Wendy Wilson at the House of Commons Library, who has since left, and Hannah Cromarty, who have produced briefings for Members of Parliament, which I commend to those outside this building. If they look at the House of Commons research and the LKP site, they will be as knowledgeable as me and will put across these points as effectively or more so.

Over and again I want to emphasise that people must respond to the Government’s very good consultation on ground rent. It is well-written and brings out the issues properly. I would be surprised if the dominant view were anything other than that ground rents should be reduced to peppercorns. At one stage, the Government suggested bringing it down to £10, but that still leaves most of the superstructure and the problems with leaseholders. It should be brought down to a peppercorn to eliminate those. When the consultation is analysed, I ask the Secretary of State to look with favour on reducing ground rents to zero. If I get any benefit, I will give it to a good cause, but I am not saying this for me.

I could go on at length, and at some stage I probably will. Having made my preliminary remarks, I want to say to the House that this is the opportunity, before a general election—whoever wins—to get legislation through that may be complicated in law but not in politics. Are we on the side of the people who have been at risk or exploited by interests who have owned freeholds? I have given my list of past shame, and I will not trouble the House with it now. If people have problems with their landlords or freeholders, they should tell their Member of Parliament so that they can bring it up in Committee or on Report.

I suggest that those who have used expensive lawyers to screw residential leaseholders use their money on something else. When a notable charity uses expensive lawyers to raise the cost of enfranchisement or lease extension by a third—an issue that should have come to Parliament rather than be done in the privacy of an upper property tribunal—we know that those running charities can get it wrong, too. We have left this too long. Let us now get on with it.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Betts]

I do remember that far back. Many will not remember the Labour Government’s ’67 reforms, but they were quite important on those grounds—absolutely.

Other good aspects of the Bill include its reducing the price of enfranchisement and trying to make it simpler. Now, I am not sure that it makes it simpler; it is still a bit complicated. In the end, it partly depends on the capitalisation rates that the Government introduce, which will determine the price. But a lot of my constituents who are leaseholders live in houses, and they often face enormous barriers to carry through the enfranchisement process. I have referred to Coppen Estates in my constituency, which is notorious for simply not replying to letters. I once got it to reply to a recorded letter at the third time of asking. Normally, it ignores everything. That is just its way of trying to hang on to its ground rents and its income from leases. How will we deal with those sorts of individuals and companies, and the fact that they transfer ownership around from one company to another?

Why is there no right of first refusal for leaseholders in the Bill? I was pleased that, some years ago, Sheffield Council agreed that when it sold freeholds, the right of first refusal would go to the leaseholder. That would be a simple reform, and I hope the Secretary of State will consider it. The improvement of the enfranchisement process to make it simpler and reduce the cost is right, but I would like further improvements to ensure that it will work.

I welcome the standardisation of service charges. One big complaint to the Committee was that leaseholders often simply do not know what they are paying and why. They cannot work out which services are supposed to be provided and which are not. That is an important step forward.

On commission fees, we heard about the £150 to change a doorbell and the £3,000 to put up a conservatory—complete rip-offs. There is no justification for them in houses in particular, and very little justification in flats. I am pleased that freeholders will now have to provide a schedule of rates that will be charged. We called for a cap on rates, which might have taken reform a little further, but at least there now has to be clarity and transparency. I also welcome the clause that means leaseholders will not end up paying for the legal and other costs of freeholders where there is any conflict or dispute.

A number of other measures have been omitted from the Bill, but they could be included very easily. The Secretary of State mentioned forfeiture. If leasehold is a feudal tenure, then forfeiture is prehistoric—it really is. If a leaseholder in a very small way fails to comply with an element of their lease, they could have the property taken off them. That is just unacceptable and unjustifiable. The Secretary of State was right in what he said. Forfeiture is not necessarily something that gets used, but the threat of its being used puts the onus on leaseholders to “behave” or do what the freeholder wants them to do. The removal of that with a simple clause would be really welcome.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

I should have included the hon. Gentleman and the Select Committee in my thanks, and I do so belatedly. On forfeiture, we could ban it completely, although there may be times when it is necessary to have an order to sell a property to pay debts. The limit should be raised from £350 to a significant figure such as £5,000, and any remaining equity should go back to the person who owned the lease and not be pocketed by the freeholder.

[Mr Betts]

The Father of the House makes a very reasonable point. My point is simply that forfeiture is currently a blanket possibility that can apply to any breach of a lease, however minor, and non-payment of a very small amount could cost the leaseholder the total of the value of their property. That is what we have to stop.

Why do freeholders not have to join a redress scheme? The Committee called for them to be included in the redress schemes. The Secretary of State is bringing in a number of redress schemes and ombudsmen extensions, so why can freeholders not be included?

One of the big issues raised with us, where again there is a lack of transparency, is that many leaseholders have to pay into a reserve fund—a sinking fund—for their property. Can we not have some protection for those funds formally written into law? Currently, many leaseholders have no idea what the money is being spent on. There is no obligation on the freeholder to explain it and certainly no protection that funds have to be used for the purpose for which they are paid.

On mis-selling, one of the big complaints we heard when we met leaseholders—this related to houses in particular; Persimmon Homes has been mentioned, but there were other developers too—was the fact that they were being sold a leasehold as though it was the same as a freehold. The solicitors were compliant in that, because they had been recommended by the developer. Often, a bonus was thrown in: “We’ll give you new carpets in the living room if you use that solicitor.” The Competition and Markets Authority investigated at our request and said there was mis-selling, but so far nothing has been done about it. The Government have done absolutely nothing to rectify that injustice. Can we not see something on that again? I do not think that there is any great conflict across the House, or between anyone who has been involved in this matter. It is wrong—absolutely wrong. Solicitors should not be induced in this way to provide conveyancing to a purchaser, when the developer is recommending that solicitor. It simply is not right and it needs addressing.

My final point is one that we raised on the private rented reforms that the Government will hopefully pursue —and hopefully this year coming, rather than waiting any longer with regard to section 21. We have called repeatedly for a housing court. I know the Secretary of State will explain again why he does not want to do that, but I think we ought to keep asking. There are so many issues in the housing field that need a specialism, and need quick decisions and quick resolution. A housing court would be one way of doing that and of trying to improve the process.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)]

I am delighted to speak on this flagship piece of legislation, which will restore true home ownership to millions, end rip-off charges and introduce fairness to the leasehold market. I am confident that it is a good piece of legislation not because I did all the preparatory work on it, but because I worked with brilliant officials, whom I thank.

We heard the testimony of so many thousands of leaseholders who struggled with blighted properties that led to blighted lives. There are too many of them to mention individually, but the strength and tenacity of the campaigners—and the organisations, such as the Leasehold Knowledge Partnership and the Leasehold Advisory Service, under the leadership of the superb Martin Boyd, which helped them—is enormously impressive. Take, for example, Liam Spender, who was able to show that leaseholders in his block had paid £1.6 million in excess service charges to their freeholder, FirstPort. Incidentally, FirstPort is one of the worst offenders I heard about in my time as Minister. Yet freeholders still had the audacity to sit in front of me while I was a Minister and claim that

“some people like the security of paying service charges”

and that there is no evidence that they oppose ground rents. Yes, truly, that is what they said. Shockingly, I understand that Mr Spender and his tenants have received nothing yet, and now the freeholders are appealing the decision with the leaseholders’ own money. I would like the Minister to set out clearly how the Bill will tackle their situation and end that scandal once and for all.

We got here because of the greed and unethical behaviour of predatory freeholders who have treated leasehold properties as a cash cow and the leaseholders as a milking machine to produce an endless stream of income for no work at all. It is the ultimate definition of rent-seeking behaviour. In its worst excesses, it is frankly disgusting. I and many others find it appalling.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

On the case that Liam Spender has so rightly been pursuing for his fellow leaseholders, does my hon. Friend think it would be a good idea if the Select Committee considered inviting in the people he has been engaging with to ask why they did not put their hands up straightaway, settle and give back all the money they wrongly took from leaseholders, without having to have extended legal proceedings?

[Rachel Maclean]

That is an excellent suggestion from my hon. Friend the Father of the House, with which I strongly agree—as I do with everything he says about this issue.

Despite the theatrics we heard from the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), who spoke for the Opposition, it is the Conservatives who are finally bringing in sweeping reforms. It is right that we note that Labour ducked the issue while they were in office. They could have fixed it then. They could have saved millions from misery—nearly 5 million homes, accounting for 20% of the entire housing market, are owned on a leasehold basis across the UK—but it appears they bowed to pressure from freeholders. We will never know why, but thankfully things will now change.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)]

My speech will be brief, as I want to concentrate on one aspect of the Bill. Estate management companies are a massive and growing issue in my Dartford constituency. Some 7,000 new homes have been built in my constituency over the last 10 years, and they are predominantly “looked after” by management companies.

I welcome the measures in the Bill that will rightly allow residents to challenge the invoices and bills they are sent by management companies. This will help to transfer some of the power back to residents, by giving them a tool to say, “This invoice is unfair,” “This bill is not right,” or, “These accounts are not right.”

It is absolutely right that power is transferred away from management companies and into the hands of local residents, because at the moment management companies seem to do pretty much whatever they like. They can put up the charges they levy on residents way above inflation while providing a very poor service, and local residents can do very little about it. Local residents find themselves completely restricted in challenging what is, on occasion, a hideously poor service with extortionate fees. They are trodden on by the management companies.

Of course, residents question why they have to pay council tax at the same time as paying management fees, as they often find that their management fees are used to pay for, say, play parks that the whole community can use for free. They have to pay for it, they have to pay for the maintenance and they have to pay council tax, too, which seems very unfair.

In my experience, local residents want to be able to change their management company. They want to be able to switch over and to say to their management company, “No, you have not provided a good enough service. You are charging us too much money, and therefore we are going to use a different management company.” If that happens, it will help to tackle most of the problems we are experiencing with management companies. It will end the monopoly by returning competition to the system, enabling the good management companies to prevail and the poor ones to fall by the wayside.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

The whole House will accept that my hon. Friend is rightly arguing for total transparency. There ought to be open-book accounting by these managing agents, so that those who are paying can see what is happening.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the amalgamation of managing agents is a dangerous trend? It means that the choice is reducing, not increasing. Given that some managing agents are very large and people’s experience of them is not very good, we ought to try to make sure that there is not this continual amalgamation and that there is a good choice of good managing agents that want to earn a better reputation.

[Gareth Johnson]

The Father of the House makes a very good point. I would like to see co-operation between companies, rather than amalgamation. In my constituency, we often see two management companies sending two people to mow the grass on the same estate. Residents look out of their window and see the grass on one side of the estate being mowed by one company and the grass on the other side of the estate being mowed by a different company. Of course, they have to pay twice for that pleasure. If the companies co-operated, that situation would not arise.

Some 20% of the people attending my surgeries are there to complain about management companies. Even a constituent of the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook) came to my surgery—with two of my constituents, I hasten to add—to raise issues about management companies. She was very complimentary of the hon. Gentleman, by the way, but I put her straight. However, she was not very complimentary about the management company that she was suffering from. This problem happens in Greenwich, in Dartford and across the country, and we need this Bill to get to grips with it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Peter Bottomley Excerpts

Monday 4th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Lee Rowley]

As has been outlined, we intend to bring forward further changes to the Bill during the process, as Opposition Members know is normal, because they have sat in the same Committees that we have. We are not proposing to change leasehold to commonhold under the Bill, but that remains part of our long-term approach and we would like to see further reforms as soon as we are able to.

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

One outsider and apparently one or two Opposition Members misinterpreted what I understood the Secretary of State to be saying in January. Can the Minister confirm that the opportunities for enfranchisement will take away many of the problems that residential leaseholders now suffer and, in effect, that will get them to commonhold? I will just add that if we had waited to transfer all leaseholds to commonhold, we would not have the Bill now and 6 million leaseholders would have been betrayed.

[Lee Rowley]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. We all want to see those in leasehold in a much improved situation. We are making huge steps forward with this Bill and we look forward to continuing and augmenting that reform in due course.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Peter Bottomley Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 17th October 2023 Commons Chamber

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

I congratulate the Minister on the way she presented the Government’s approach to these over 100 amendments— on heaven knows how many pages, if one tries to read through them. I also congratulate the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook), on martialling the points and presenting them in a way that the House can understand. In particular, I join him in saying to the Government that Lord Crisp’s proposals have much that should be incorporated.

Amendment 327, which would be inserted before schedule 7, talks about houses designed

“to provide year-round thermal comfort for inhabitants”;

to have reduced opportunities for the “risk of crime”; to be free, as far as possible,

“from adverse and intrusive noise and light pollution”;

and to ensure that

“living areas and bedrooms…have access to natural light”.

The amendment addresses a whole series of issues that did not get as much attention as they should have done. When developers are able to convert office blocks into homes, some of those homes are, frankly, substandard.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

I very much agree with the point that the Father of the House has just made. Does he agree that healthy homes should incorporate the idea of green space and more equitable access to good-quality green space within reach of those homes, as set out in the Lords amendment? We know about the improvements to physical and mental health that can come as a result of access to green space.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

The hon. Lady reminds me that I meant to say that when Dr Christopher Addison became the first Minister for Health in 1919, the first action he took was to help build social housing on a scale that would allow people’s health to be improved by living in far better environments, inside and outside their homes.

Yesterday, in levelling-up questions, the Secretary of State very kindly spoke clearly about the approach to the development at Lansdowne Nursery, on the A259 in my constituency, and the threat to Chatsmore Farm, in what is known locally as the Goring gap.

It is important that the words that the Secretary of State spoke yesterday should be passed on to planning inspectors, including the one in Arundel today, who is considering the appeal against the properly justified refusal of planning permission to put homes on the Lansdowne Nursery site.

I invite Ministers from the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities to come to my constituency—and to the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Nick Gibb)—to see how every bit of grass is under threat from opportunist developers.

Those developers have rightly been turned down by local authorities—boroughs and districts. They should be supported by planning inspectors, not at risk of what I would call “a rogue decision” by someone from Bristol.

Turning to amendment 22, after clause 70, the Government are wrong to ban parish councils from meeting remotely if they want to. Some parish councils cover a large area and many elderly people kindly serve on them. If they want to have a valid meeting, why can they not tune in, if they are ill, remote or for some other reason? It seems to me to be totally unnecessary for central Government to say to local councils, especially parish councils, “You cannot do that.” I hope that the Government will think again, if not in this Bill then in another one. Let people have autonomy and a degree of sovereignty. If their powers are limited, then how they use them should be up to them, in my view.

In amendments 242 and 243, Lord Young of Cookham has helped qualifying and non-qualifying residential leaseholders. I accept that the Government proposals are limited to residential leaseholders and do not cover commercial leaseholders.

What the House should not accept, and where the Government should think again, is why there has to be a distinction between qualifying and non-qualifying leaseholders. Many non-qualifying leaseholders have homes on which they cannot get a mortgage or sell, and on which they cannot avoid paying high annual costs, as well as remediation costs.

I repeat the question put by the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich, about what happens to people who have paid but who will now not qualify. Will the Minister give clear advice when she winds up, or in a later statement, on what happens to leaseholders facing claims for payment that they think they should not have to pay? Can people get out of this dilemma, which is caused by too many people in Government not understanding the legal status of residential leaseholders?

I do not believe that Dame Judith Hackitt understood it when she put forward her fire safety proposals, and I do not think the Government understood in the early days. Now that they do understand, will they please remove the distinction? The idea that if people live in homes below 11 metres they are not facing an un-mortgageable and unsellable home is wrong. Many people who have leasehold homes under that level are frankly in a dilemma that Government ought to be able to resolve.

I could go on for longer, but many other Members wish to speak. I congratulate those who have helped to improve the Bill. There are many elements that I support—the Government can take that for granted—but on issues where they are allowing injustice or ineffective approaches to continue, let us change that.

Let us be on the side of the 5 million to 6 million residential leaseholders whom we have ignored for too long, whose situation has been understood poorly. Now that it is understood better, we ought to allow them to have better, healthier, happier and more financially secure lives.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Maclean]

It is a pleasure to be able to respond to the points made by colleagues across the House. This is a complex and important Bill, and it has been a thoughtful and well set out debate; everyone has contributed.

I thank colleagues across the House for their remarks. I can assure everyone that the Government have listened extremely carefully to those. Because I have limited time, I may not be able to give as full an exposition on every single point, but I hope colleagues will not be disappointed and my door is always open to colleagues —as are the doors of all my ministerial colleagues in the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities—to listen to any specific problems that people will have. Therefore, I want to thank the Father of the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) and my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox) for their comments.

I thank the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Sarah Dyke) for her maiden speech and congratulate her on how she delivered it and its content. I listened to it with great interest and particularly noted her advocacy for and championing of the cider industry in her constituency, as well as her standing up for farmers. I am sure that is something that every single Member of the House can strongly agree with. I wish her all the best for her parliamentary career.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Derek Thomas), my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan), my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood), my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Greg Smith), my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) and my hon. Friends the Members for Mansfield (Ben Bradley) and for Waveney (Peter Aldous) for their comments. I also thank colleagues from the Opposition Front Benches for their constructive comments. We have definitely reached agreement on some points, although not all, which is not surprising given the range of issues we have been looking at.

I want to touch on a few themes that colleagues have raised. I hope that we can go some way to addressing the specific questions put to me by them. Colleagues have raised concerns about how national development management policies will operate in practice; people have said they are thinking ahead to how those could operate in practice. I want to be clear that, where a decision is made in accordance with the development plan, national development management policies and a specific local policy, and NDMPs are relevant considerations but not in conflict, as part of a planning judgment, it will still be for the decision maker to decide how much weight is afforded to those different policies based on their relevance to the proposed development. The precedence clause sets out only what should be done in the event of a conflict between policies and where they contradict one another. We do expect such conflicts to be limited in future because of the more distinct roles that national and local policy will have. In response to questions asked by many hon. and right hon. Members, I can assure the House that we will be consulting further on how that will operate. My right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills asked: what does the provision mean when it says the Secretary of State can act urgently? I reassure her that that refers to very limited circumstances such as the unprecedented situations that we saw during the pandemic. It is envisaged that that provision would be used only in those sorts of urgent and emergency situations.

There has been much debate about the role of district councils in the future combined county authorities. I have definitely heard the points that colleagues have made. We do value the amazing work that is done by district councils. I wish to thank my own district council—Redditch Borough Council—for the incredible work that it does. I know that Members have thanked their own local authorities. I listened very carefully to the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield. It is right that we want devolution to work and the voices of those district councils are really important. The Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Jacob Young), has been very clear in his discussions that we are encouraging potential areas to consider how best to involve district councils—they make a unique contribution—in recognition of the role that they play, without holding up those important devolution arrangements.

I have been struck by the number of colleagues who have talked about remote meetings and challenged the Government’s position on that. It is the Government’s view that face-to-face democracy should remain in place and that physical attendance at meetings is important, not just to build strong working relationships, but to deliver good governance and democratic accountability. It is clearly right that councillors are regularly and routinely meeting other councillors in person and that members of the public can ask questions in person. Some of these measures were brought in during the pandemic. Now that the pandemic has passed, it is right to consider reversing those and getting back to that face-to-face democracy. However, we are looking at a call for evidence on this matter and we will publish the results of that as soon as possible.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

It seems to me that it would be a good idea to consult parish councils in particular and to have a debate in the House of Commons when the Government have had their responses. For the Government to say what their view is, is one thing. For Parliament, which gives powers to authorities, to decide we do not want to tell them how to discuss using those powers is another. Those authorities are limited by the powers. In my view, they should not be limited in how they discuss them.

[Rachel Maclean]

I thank the Father of the House for those comments. I can assure him that the Government are carefully considering his points, and those made by other colleagues.

I turn to rural-proofing and the vital role of rural areas—a point made by a number of colleagues, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham. He asked how we will make sure that we abide by our commitments to rural-proofing in the Bill. I wish to be clear that we are fully behind the objectives to make sure that rural areas benefit from our levelling-up agendas. We want to make sure that the needs of people and businesses in rural areas are at the heart of policymaking, including through rural-proofing. The report that we published early last year demonstrates that we are making real progress on all sorts of issues, including digital connectivity and action to tackle rural crime.

My hon. Friend also asked about the use of agricultural land for food production—again, an issue close to the hearts of many of us who represent rural areas. The Government agree that we must seek to protect our food production and rural environments, and we will publish the consultation response on that issue very shortly.

Oral Answers to Questions

Peter Bottomley Excerpts

Monday 16th October 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend may know that, in Durrington in north-west Worthing, more than 1,000 new homes have been built. Will he ask his inspectors—and the Leader of the Opposition—to recognise that Chatsmore Farm and Lansdowne Nurseries should not be built on? We must have some green fields between one habitation and another.

[Michael Gove]

The Father of the House makes a very important point. Of course, his beautiful constituency—situated as it is between the sea and areas of outstanding natural beauty—has already seen significant development and we do need to ensure that settlements have the green belts around them protected.

Voter Identification Scheme

Peter Bottomley Excerpts

Thursday 14th September 2023 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Maclean]

I thank the hon. Lady for her comments, but I remind all Members in this Chamber that we have already passed the Elections Act 2022; it passed the scrutiny of both Houses and is now law. If she refers to the debates in Hansard, she has treated us to a compilation of the Liberal Democrats’ greatest hits—and that is no surprise because, as always, they do one thing and say another. If she is so opposed to the principle of electoral identification and photographic identification, why did her party support its introduction in Northern Ireland? At that time, the Liberal Democrat Front-Bench spokesperson told Parliament that

“we accept the need for a Bill… The Liberal Democrats…welcome the Government’s intention to introduce an electoral identity card”—[Official Report, 10 July 2001; Vol. 371, c. 705-707.]

That legislation passed Second Reading without a vote. If we separate the points of substance and process from re-running the battles of the past, of course we take the recommendations of the independent Electoral Commission extremely seriously, as we set out in detail in the report and as I set out in my remarks earlier.

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

The Minister has rightly distinguished the political from the practical. The Electoral Commission itself recommended photographic ID, and it has now come forward with other comments.

We must recognise that the biggest deficit is the inadequacies in the completeness of the electoral roll, and the fact that one third of people do not vote in general elections and up to two thirds do not vote in local elections. We ought to spend as much time on that issue as we do on this.

We ought to consider the suggestion of attestation, where someone in a household who does not have voter ID can have their identity attested by a person in the same household who does. Perhaps neighbours ought to be able to do that, and other people with some kind of standing in society might be able to do the same thing for people who find they cannot vote on the day. It seems to me that we can improve what we have without throwing out the whole system of photographic ID, which, as the Minister has said, was supported by all parties when it was first brought in for Northern Ireland.

[Rachel Maclean]

I thank my hon. Friend the Father of the House for those very sensible and proportionate comments. He is right that, as political parties, we all have a responsibility to ensure that our constituents and those voters take part in our democratic process. That is what this process is about. I am afraid that the kind of scaremongering comments that we have just heard from the Liberal Democrats, and that no doubt we will hear from all the other Opposition parties, are damaging the important cause that we all stand behind: ensuring the safety of our precious democracy, which now more than at any other time could potentially be at risk. I am proud to be part of a Government who are taking sensible steps to protect our democracy from the kind of interference that we all fear could happen in this day and age.

Building Safety and Social Housing

Peter Bottomley Excerpts

Thursday 6th July 2023 Commons Chamber

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

I apologise for not being here for the first words of the debate. Can I confirm that the hon. Gentleman is saying that what leaseholders need is what social tenants have got: the problem needs to be identified and it needs to be fixed, and then the funding should happen? To wait for the funding is the wrong way round.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I hope the Father of the House will accept that we have argued consistently since the start of this crisis that the Government should step in and fund and then use their power to recover as we go forward, because too many leaseholders are trapped. That is not just in the context of this problem, but due to the wider inequities of the leasehold system, and we need to tackle that problem in due course.

Holocaust Memorial Bill: Committal

Peter Bottomley Excerpts

Committal (to a Select Committee)
Wednesday 28th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for the way in which she has introduced these four topics. We are talking mainly about the instruction motion; I do not think that the others are very exceptionable.

I think I may have served on more hybrid Bill Committees—and certainly for longer—than most people, including that of High Speed 2. I doubt that the situation is quite as my hon. Friend described it. Hybrid Bill procedure exists for a reason: to protect the rights of those who are specifically affected by a Bill and allow them to put their case to a Committee. By making clause 2 the principle of the Bill, as well as clause 1—as I said before, there is no controversy about clause 1—the Government have already spent £17 million or more achieving nothing. They are now proposing to spend an extra £80 million to £100 million achieving not very much. I suggested in a previous debate that the Government should consider how to get a national holocaust memorial up—close to Westminster, if they want—within two years. Of course, the Government would not, as I have explained before, achieve it in four to five years extra, over and above the eight years that have been used up so far.

To go back to the hybridity, it is a matter of record that the Government declared in front of the examiners that this was not a hybrid Bill. They were wrong; it is a hybrid Bill. The reason for a hybrid Bill is so that people have the right to petition. The Government tried to stop that. I think that it is fairly clear to anyone who looks at this that the Government are now seeking to achieve the same result by using this instruction. It is up to the Government to decide whether the instruction, as introduced, is an abuse.

It would be quite easy for the Government to stand up and say what things the petitioners might rightfully put in a petition and be heard on, rather than telling the Committee that they cannot be heard. In addition, because this is a local park for local people, I believe not just that advertisements should be put in newspapers or in the gazette, but that a leaflet should be given to every resident, no matter how small or large their home, from, say, Vauxhall Bridge, Victoria station, along Victoria Street and south of Victoria Street up to the embankment. Those people should be told how the procedure works, how they can petition, what they can petition on and how they can be represented together by a common agent, if they want to be. That is what happened in my experience on HS2.

The instruction, as described by the Minister, would make the whole Bill part of the principle of the Bill. That is not common. In fact, I do not know of it happening before. The whole of the Bill cannot be made the principle, because that then makes it impossible for the petitioners to have their cases heard effectively. So I think we need to accept that the petitioners will be heard on nearly everything that is not an abuse. If someone says, “I do not want any money spent on it,” I can understand not allowing that. That is the principle, but the rest of it, I argue, is not.

Paragraph (3)(a) of motion 6 refers to a petition that relates to

“the question of whether or not there should be a memorial commemorating the victims of the Holocaust or a centre for learning relating to the memorial, whether at Victoria Tower Gardens or elsewhere”.

I ask this explicitly: can either the Secretary of State or the Minister stand up and tell me now that, if someone wants to argue in front of the Committee that it would be better to have the basement box somewhere else and just have the memorial, would that petition potentially be heard by the Committee?

[The Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Michael Gove)]

I think it would be a matter for the Committee.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

I agree with the Secretary of State that it would be a matter for the Committee, but it is a matter for the Committee under the instructions.

By the way, if it helps those who are concerned about votes and trains, I intend to vote for both amendments, but force a Division only on one of them. I am trying to make sure that these issues will be considered in the House during the Bill’s remaining stages and in the House of Lords as well, where I suspect there will be a degree of scrutiny.

This hybrid procedure gives ordinary people a chance to have their voices heard, and it allows the Committee to insert conditions when the Bill comes back to the House. Those conditions, I believe, could include—I am not going to tell the Committee what it has to do, although I volunteer to be a member if anyone wants to put me on it—saying that the Government should, before this Bill comes back for its further stages on the Floor of the House, show the alternatives to the present plans.

I do not think we should rely on the planning inspector, whose conditions were rather odd before, or on the Secretary of State’s colleague making an independent decision on the Secretary of State’s application. I think that may formally be an acceptable procedure, but it is not one that anyone would justify if we were giving a lecture on democracy in another country.

I believe that the Committee should have the capacity or ability to hear petitions that say, “If the Government say that the memorial only takes up 7.5% of the land in Victoria Tower Gardens, that should be written in as a condition in the Bill.” I believe, notwithstanding the acceptability of paragraph (2)(a) about the money, that the Committee should be able to say that the House can consider the Bill on the condition that the total cost is not more than another £80 million, if we go ahead with the box, or preferably £20 million without the box, whether at the north end of Victoria Tower Gardens, or Parliament Square, or Whitehall, or College Green.

There are a whole series of other things I could say—I have a long, detailed speech and I apologise to those who helped me create the arguments—but I think the House will find it convenient if I leave it with this point. This hybrid Bill must be considered properly by the hybrid Committee, which should allow petitions to be heard. Local people will put their points of view forward. If some duplicate each other, hear them together, but do not exclude any point of practice or of principle if we want to get a holocaust memorial in the next two years. We will not with this process. It needs conditions to change it.

We will not even, in my view, get it within the next four or five years at £120 million, unless the Government wake up to the fact that this is sticking in a big box that does not do what the original plans wanted in a place where it is not appropriate. We can do better than that, and I ask the Secretary of State to recognise that that is the point of moving these amendments. I ask the House not to restrict the petitioners. The Government have now accepted that this is a hybrid Bill, so use the procedures properly and be democratic.

[Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

I rise in support of the Father of the House’s amendments for several reasons. No one is doubting, as I think we have all made clear in this debate, the need for a holocaust memorial. It is absolutely essential, so that we never forget the horror of the genocide and the holocaust, and a memorial would serve that purpose.

My central concern is a twofold absence, the first of which is the absence of a proper consultation as to the memorial’s location. There was a consultation, which went through the normal planning procedure of Westminster City Council, but we will remember perhaps that the Secretary of State called it in. Since then, there seems to have been a process—almost a locomotive in action—that is determined that the following of a proper process is secondary to the decision that has already been made to site the memorial in Victoria Tower Gardens. Proper process has been sadly lacking. After all, we are only having this debate because those pushing for the siting of the memorial in Victoria Tower Gardens were informed by a High Court judge that they could not ride roughshod over an Act of Parliament that said that Victoria Tower Gardens should be preserved for permanent use as a public park. We should not forget that.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

rose—

[Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Baron]

The Father of the House caught my eye first.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

My hon. Friend has reminded me that the Government now say that admission to the memorial will be free in perpetuity. The same words—“in perpetuity”—are used in the London Act that protects the park from this kind of building. Who do we trust?

[Mr Baron]

I agree with the Father of the House: we are dealing with serious issues of trust here, and the public trusting what we say in this place.

Holocaust Memorial Bill

Peter Bottomley Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 28th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. There has been controversy and there has been opposition to the site of the memorial, but it is only fair to say that the decision to site it in Victoria Tower gardens has followed consultation. There was extensive consultation on this project, starting with Prime Minister David Cameron’s holocaust commission in 2014, which received almost 2,500 responses. Following the announcement in January 2016 that Victoria Tower gardens had been identified as the most fitting site, an international design competition was then held to select a suitable design team.

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

I do not put this as a point of argument, but as something that I hope my right hon. Friend is aware of: when the UK Holocaust Memorial Foundation put out its specification in September 2015—a copy of which, I think, is available to my right hon. Friend—it said that it wanted various criteria to be taken into account, including a possible location in central London, which on page 10 of the specification is illustrated as west of Regent’s Park, east of Spitalfields and down from the Imperial War Museum. In the four or five months between September 2015 and January 2016, there was no public consultation about the site at all. I do not want my right hon. Friend to feel that he needs to answer that point now, but if he could say before the end of the debate what consultation there was between September 2015 and January 2016, that might be helpful to the House.

[Michael Gove]

The consultation was undertaken after the announcement of the winning design, and from January to September 2017 the public were invited to comment on the shortlisted designs, which were exhibited in Parliament and across the United Kingdom. Of course, as the Father of the House will know, there was a planning inquiry, and during that inquiry extensive material about the memorial and the learning centre was published and shared. Interested parties were given an opportunity to raise concerns and objections, and objectors had the opportunity to make their case to the independent planning inspector at that point.

However, I stress that the decision on the site was not taken by Government Ministers, and—in respect of the understandable concerns raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron)—it was not imposed by the Government themselves. The decision was arrived at by the independent Holocaust Memorial Foundation, with representations from different political traditions, including the right hon. Ed Balls and the right hon. Lord Pickles; the Chief Rabbi; the very distinguished president of the Community Security Trust, Gerald Ronson; and a host of others from civil society. While my hon. Friend is right to say that some people within the Jewish community have expressed concerns, the overwhelming view of the Jewish community and its representative organisations is that this is the right memorial in the right location, and that we must press on.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “That” to the end of the Question and add:

“this House, while accepting the value of a national Holocaust memorial, declines to give a Second Reading to the Holocaust Memorial Bill because no adequate reason has been given for seeking to build the memorial and learning centre in a long-established small public park, thereby contradicting the Government’s own policies on environmental and green space protection; because the Government has not implemented its 2015 promise to establish an endowment fund for Holocaust education, which would have spread the benefits of the learning centre around the country; because the proposed site is opposed by many in the Jewish community, including many Holocaust survivors; because there was no public consultation on the choice of site; and because there has been no consideration of alternatives to Victoria Tower Gardens since the criteria declared in September 2015 were set aside.”

I am grateful to the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy), and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for how they have introduced the debate on the Bill. Just to clear up one thing that may have been inadvertent, my right hon. Friend responded to my intervention by talking about 2016 to 2017. My precise question was on how it went from the UK Holocaust Memorial Foundation’s specification in September 2015 to 13 January 2016, when some say the first suggestion of using Victoria Tower Gardens was considered by the foundation. The Government publicly announced later that month that that was what they had decided. I repeat my assertion that there has been no public consultation on that site.

I meant to start my remarks by saying that, within months of my birth in July 1944, and besides my father getting rather badly injured in Normandy, later that year, Margot and Anne Frank caught typhus in Bergen-Belsen. They died early in 1945. In April 1945, my father’s cousin—my first cousin once removed—Dr George Woodwark was one of the Westminster medical students who went to Bergen-Belsen to try to save as many lives as they could. They did valiant work in appalling conditions.

When I heard directly from George what it was like, I was as moved as I was when I first read reports of the concentration camps, the death camps and the treatment of Jews. That feeling is only reinforced when I go to the Imperial War Museum’s holocaust galleries. If anyone has not done so, I commend them doing so. One only need go there, or look at the online material on the education side, to be reminded that the purpose is, as set out by the UK Holocaust Memorial Foundation, that we should know what was happening when those who survived are no longer with us. There was no intention in the Holocaust Commission report to the Government and there was no intention with the UK Holocaust Memorial Foundation in September 2015 that the memorial had to be up before holocaust survivors had died. That is a later creation and justification, and some regard it as pretty weak.

I think it was 4 November 1952—it was; I looked it up, as I could not remember—when aged eight I first stood outside the Victoria Tower and went into Victoria Tower Gardens after the Queen went to her first state opening of Parliament the year before her coronation. I have lived in this area for 35 years, I have worked here for 47 or 48 years and I was educated here for seven years. Together—some of those years overlap—I think I am probably one of the longest lasting people to have been aware of Victoria Tower Gardens as a quiet place where the local population, those who work here and visitors can enjoy the surroundings.

I have a home here, so people can say I have a vested interest. I have also got a vested interest in having proper education about the holocaust. Since this process started, one of my cousins has established what we knew vaguely, which is that more than 100 of my grandfather’s cousins died during the holocaust. I do not regard myself as Jewish—I regard myself as Christian—but I am proud to be associated with what they went through, which I know is possibly still happening now around the world, whether that is in Sudan, Rwanda, Burundi, Cambodia or Srebrenica. We are not going to stop holocausts by where our memorial is. It is right that we should have one, but the education side matters.

The Holocaust Commission recommended, and the then Prime Minister accepted, that there should be an endowment fund for education. In the years since, that has not happened. We then go to the Government’s commitment that, if the voluntary side can raise £25 million, they will put in £50 million. The Government have now raised that to £75 million. The majority of the money should be spent on education, as set down by the UK Holocaust Memorial Foundation. That has not happened.

The principle of this Bill—here I disagree with the Government—is not clause 2 as well as clause 1, but clause 1; it is regularising future payments. The earlier payments, which amount to well over £17 million so far, have been paid under common law. It is right and necessary that there should now be legislative authority for the Government to spend more and that is why I do not oppose clause 1.

If we go to clause 2, we come to the reasons that I tabled my reasoned amendment. I should say to the Front Benchers that I do not propose to push my reasoned amendment to a vote. A reasoned amendment, to be acceptable for the Order Paper, needs in effect to kill the Bill, and I am not trying to kill clause 1. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) for supporting the reasoned amendment, as I know do many others.

Page 10 of the UK Holocaust Memorial Foundation’s proposal for a memorial and learning centre illustrates the acceptable area of central London. It goes from the west of Regent’s Park to Spitalfields in the east and down to Victoria Tower gardens.

I interrupt my flow to say that the inspector, who took over consideration of the planning application by the Secretary of State—this is a planning application by a Secretary of State, albeit one of the previous Secretaries of State—said that he would not be able to consider the Imperial War Museum’s proposals because they were not detailed. I do not think I am giving away any secrets in saying that the Imperial War Museum was told not to provide detailed proposals to the Government’s call for where the site should be and what should be there. The Government are responsible for allowing the inspector to come to that perverse decision that alternatives should not be considered.

The Government, through their foundation—for the foundation is an arm of Government—said, “Where should it be?” Fifty places were put forward and one person—albeit the then chairman of the Conservative party—wrote to a Conservative Minister to say, “Have you thought about Victoria Tower gardens? Perhaps the learning centre could be at Millbank.” The Government later decided that they would put the learning centre and memorial together in this very small royal park, thereby wrecking it.

I say this, through you Madam Deputy Speaker, to the Secretary of State and to the country. If the Government continue with their proposals, they know that there will be a four-year construction programme after permission eventually gets through the Houses of Parliament and the Secretary of State’s junior Minister—I will say his colleague Minister, to put it politely—makes a decision, independently of the Secretary of State as the applicant. That will take, say, another nine months in Parliament. We are talking five years from now, so that takes us to at least 2028—people talk about 2027, but that is unrealistic—for a proposal made in September 2015. If it is important that holocaust survivors can be there for the memorial’s opening, we should not be continuing with this process. Indeed, it is not the one that we should have started with.

I make this proposal to the Secretary of State and the Government: why not have a competition for an alternative memorial by itself? The learning centre can come later; survivors do not need to be waiting for the learning centre. It should be a proper memorial—preferably not the one rejected in Ottawa, which is essentially what we have adopted; although the fins may have changed slightly, it has the same number of fins and the same interpretation—that could be put up in Whitehall, in Parliament Square or on College Green across the road from Parliament. Then, once the education centre at the north end of Victoria Tower gardens is gone, it can be placed there.

We know that space in Victoria Tower gardens will be needed for the restoration and renewal of the Palace of Westminster—I doubt that Parliament Square will be used for that—and we know that memorials can be moved, because the Buxton memorial was moved from Parliament Square to Victoria Tower gardens. We could have a competition for a memorial to be created for less than £20 million and to be erected within two years. We could have the opening ceremony with holocaust survivors there, and then later the memorial could be moved to wherever people chose. That would not be a rush, but it would be three years faster than the current proposal.

The Government are stuck on a course that any sensible person could have diverted them from at any stage. I invite the Secretary of State to ask the UK Holocaust Memorial Foundation to have a roundtable with him, me, Baroness Deech, holocaust survivors and others who are interested from the local community—including the Thorney Island Society, of which I am a member, and London Parks & Gardens—so that rather than shout at each other in public, we discuss the issues together. Suppose that we set the object of establishing, at reasonable cost, a memorial that would open within two years as an alternative to this process? I am not saying that we should stop the process straightaway; they could run in parallel and then we could have the option between my proposal and what the Government appear to be committed to.

I commend the House of Commons Library’s good briefing on this saga. It is pretty comprehensive, although in my view it does not give quite enough attention to the September 2015 specifications. Let us remember what they were. One was that the local authority would approve the plan. Westminster City Council was not going to do so, and that is why a former Secretary of State took the decision away from the council. There was consultation with local people, who overwhelmingly and rationally argued against putting the memorial in Victoria Tower gardens, and especially having this tank of a learning centre associated with it.

After that, either the UK Holocaust Memorial Foundation or the Government—I cannot remember which—got a firm to go and stand outside asking, “Would you like to have a holocaust memorial?” A load people put a tick, as many people in the establishment have to this proposal. It was not argued. My hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) could probably give more evidence if she chose to. That was bogus and irrational. Then, we come to the planning process, which I do not want to go into.

To those who think the way I do, in whole or in part, I commend not voting against Second Reading, but not voting for it. That will show that the Government have not been able to establish large numbers of people in support of it. We will have a separate debate on the instruction, and I will invite colleagues to vote with me on that. When we come to it, I will argue more about the hybridity.

I am probably the only person in the Chamber who was present when Michael Heseltine conducted the Labour Back Benchers as they sang “The Red Flag”. Something peculiar had happened in the votes on the hybridity of the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill, which had been classified by the Speaker as hybrid. The then Labour Government put down a motion disregarding that. There was a draw on the first vote, so the Speaker left things the way they were. On the second vote, when the Speaker would have pushed things backwards had there been a draw, the then Government managed to create one more vote in their favour, which led to a degree of uproar. Speaker George Thomas—Viscount Tonypandy—dealt with that quite effectively when it came back to the Chair, then suspended the House and let the apologies come the following day.

That hybridity issue caused embarrassment to the Government. This one does too. When the hybridity was announced, the Government claimed that they were pleased, but they had spent all their time in the weeks before arguing against it being hybrid. It is hybrid because it affects other people’s interests. When it comes to the instruction, I will go into more detail, but now I want to say, in friendship to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, that he should try the alternative process in parallel. In private or in public, he should say that if we now want the memorial very close to Westminster, which “we”—I say that in quotation marks—did not in September 2015, and if we want it open before the last holocaust survivors die, that will not happen in the next five years under the present plans. He should think of an alternative, and compare the merits of both.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I will now announce the result of today’s deferred Division on the Relationships and Sexuality Education (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Regulations 2023. The Ayes were 373 and the Noes were 28, so the Ayes have it.

[The Division list is published at the end of today’s debates.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Nickie Aiken]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I was the leader of the council when the planning application was going through, and I remind the House that we were very surprised at the lack of consultation in many parts of the application. As I have said, there were 1,000 objections to the planning application within that process. The Father of the House was right when he outlined the issues between 2015 and 2016.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

It is also worth remembering that when the Government decided to call in the application and take this away from Westminster City Council, they indicated that they had been asked to do that by the council—that was never true.

Let me just make a comment on the intervention by my right hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb). While the memorial and learning centre’s basement box and bronze fins are being constructed, up to two thirds of the park would be unusable for people. As for the estimate that the Government have put forward, whether directly or through their advisory body, the foundation—that only about 7% or 8% of the park would be taken—no one else believes that.

[Nickie Aiken]

I thank the Father of the House for his intervention. I reassure him that I am not aware of any local authority that wants to have decisions on planning applications taken away from it at any time, but particularly not where such a major application is going to really affect local people, because of the loss of amenity they are going to feel from the loss of this park. I agree that more consultation should have taken place, as this will change the make-up of this neighbourhood park. I am a Westminster resident, but many Members come here for the working week and go home. They may use Victoria Tower gardens for doing a media interview, going for a walk at lunchtime or meeting friends. However, I can tell them that the park is a vital amenity for many local people, particularly those living in social housing, who do not have the benefit of gardens in their homes. Taking away any amount of space from that public park will be a real shame.

I appreciate that this is a hugely complex and emotional issue. However, concerns about the Bill are not a nimby cause whereby the wish is to block all development. Rather, they are rooted in the reality that there is very little support among local people for this memorial being placed in Victoria Tower gardens. That is on the grounds of loss of green space, increased visitor numbers, environmental concerns, traffic and the effect on surrounding monuments. Rightly, there are strong policies in place about building on parks and public green spaces. It is obviously important to remember the horrors of the holocaust—of course it is—and to ensure that the next generation, the one after, the one after that and those that come after should never forget what happened in Europe in the 1930s and 1940s, and subsequent genocides since then. But for many, especially those who live in crowded urban areas such as Westminster, our neighbourhood parks and gardens are vital to the quality of residents’ lives. That is why, for me, this is the right memorial but in the wrong location.

[Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab)]

After 27 years in this place, I suppose I should never be surprised about the direction in which debates go, but it is slightly unseemly that we are spending so much time talking about such an emotive matter, down to the location of a particular monument. I understand entirely the views of local people, but this is a national—indeed, international—centre of democracy, which has world importance. Of course local residents matter, but so does the site itself, which has been here for centuries.

I will make a case for the location that the Government propose, but first let me reflect that today’s debate takes place in the shadow of the most vile and appalling event: the unspeakable capacity of human beings to inflict the kinds of activities carried out by the Nazis against the Jews. Part of our debate needs to reflect upon that, as well as looking at local issues.

There is no doubt that a memorial is well overdue, but the Minister may well feel that some of the discussion about location and the nature of the monument is unseemly. I urge the Government to reflect carefully on the debate, and to try to get the discussion about where it is and how it is constructed out of here and into a place where a consensus can be arrived at.

In the explanatory notes to the Bill, the Government say the memorial

“will help people understand the way the lessons of the Holocaust apply more widely, including to other genocides.”

That makes me think of racism, which takes many different forms. For example, the slave trade is a great stain on our nation, and on other nations too. There are families and institutions that benefit from the wealth that originated from that horrible trade to this very day. Why do I mention that? I mention it because Members of the House, who may have stood in the very place where I am standing now, fought against slavery, and it was in this House that the anti-slavery legislation was passed. We built an anti-slavery monument. Where did we build it? We built it next to our Parliament, in the very location now proposed.

As other Members have said, the sculpture of the Burghers of Calais, an amazing monument to the human spirit, is in the same park, as well as a statue that is a tribute to the suffragettes. Where else would we put a memorial to what happened in the holocaust but alongside our Parliament, in the same place as those other sculptures?

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

I am enjoying the hon. Gentleman’s speech. The answer to his question is that the holocaust memorial, preferably without the basement box, could be put where the Buxton family memorial was put, which was in Parliament Square. It does not have to be in Victoria Tower gardens.

[Jon Trickett]

I thank the Father of the House, who I always listen to with respect. He is widely respected, but on this matter he may be wrong. I occasionally go to the anti-slavery monument and to look at the Burghers of Calais, which is an amazing sculpture. I then sometimes quietly go and sit on one of the benches, watch the river go by and think about the struggles for emancipation over the centuries, so many of which happened in this very building. I am not sure that putting a monument of the kind we are talking about in Parliament Square, surrounded as it is by traffic, is necessarily conducive to the quiet reflection that I and many others experience in the park.

I want to reflect on antisemitism, which was the root of the holocaust, and on my family’s history. I have never spoken about this before, either in public or in private, but it has been on my mind throughout my life and I want to go through some issues, because antisemitism is on the rise. It has long disfigured so many parts of our western European culture, as well as parts of our nation. It is a vile, centuries old, unforgiveable hatred that gave rise to the most appalling crime here in Europe in the last century. As I have said, we all still live in its shadows.

Fascism and the holocaust occurred in Germany, but we must never pretend that antisemitism is solely restricted to that nation. I wish to reflect on the lives of previous generations of my family and on what I have seen. My ancestors escaped antisemitic pogroms not in Germany, but in Tsarist Russia. They came to Britain on their way to the United States. They stopped off in London—the great port of London—first. In Victorian times, Britain welcomed asylum seekers—Jews escaping the tyranny of the time. It is hard to imagine whether that could happen today. Although that is not the point that I wish to make, it is important to reflect on that.

As I said, my family were on their way to America from what is now Poland. They were heading for Liverpool to get the boat across to New York and to freedom, as they saw it. They passed through Leeds. The older generation had by then become aged and infirm, so it was left to my grandmother, the youngest daughter, to stay and care for them—that was the tradition. The rest went on to Liverpool and then to Chicago. I have cousins who finally arrived in the west, in California. It is odd in a way to reflect that those cousins have almost circumnavigated the globe across four generations of my family.

Let me focus on the Leeds part of the family. They were hard-working cobblers—boot and shoe makers. They worked in a small place next to the synagogue on North Street, Leeds. There was a great Jewish community there. Although it was a tight-knit working class community, I heard many stories of harassment and racism, including violent attacks. The housing conditions were appalling—three generations living in slum housing, sharing one or, if they were lucky, two bedrooms. My grandparents had three children, one of whom was my mother. They lived in similar conditions. The house that I was brought up in was declared a slum and cleared. They were the generations of people who were building a life here.

My grandmother regularly told me that she lived in fear of the pogroms, from which she, her parents and grandparents had suffered in Russia. She said to me, “Here Jon, I need to tell you something. Whenever anyone unknown knocks on your door, you kid to be daft.” That might not mean much to Members in this place, but what she meant was to pretend to be stupid if somebody in a shirt and tie—a bit like I am dressed today—knocks on the door. In other words, do not comply with the wishes of strangers, especially those who look like they are in authority, because they may well be representatives of a hostile force. That was her experience. She had a lifelong fear of strangers and of authority. Perhaps it was just one of her foibles, I do not know. Equally, though, it might have reflected a part of the wider Jewish experience.

Before the second world war, a stereotypical English gentleman who had attended Winchester College, a public school, launched the British fascist party. He was supported by a section of the establishment as well as by people from all sectors of society. This was Oswald Mosley. He decided to lead his blackshirts through the Jewish quarters in Leeds, where my family lived. It was a naked attempt to mobilise antisemitic sentiments to distract residents from the post-1929 depression and the conditions that prevailed in Leeds at the time.

As a Leeds-born citizen who eventually become leader of that great city’s council, I am proud to tell the House that Mosley was refused permission to march through the Jewish areas. He did, however, rally his supporters on Holbeck Moor, in south Leeds, not far from where I came to live. Thirty thousand Jewish people turned out to resist the fascists. Jewish and gentile, socialists and communists, Liberals and Tories, trade unionists and fair-minded citizens, community groups and others rallied against Mosley. There was a battle and Mosley retired injured.

Members of my family were there. My mother and our family talked about that victory, but we did not fool ourselves that antisemitism had been quelled. Then came the second world war and the ghastly news of the concentration camps, which I imagine even today chills the bones of all of us in this House.

I do not want to exaggerate. Leeds is a tolerant place. Most people would say, “Live and let live”. That is the kind of people they are in West Yorkshire where I come from. When I was at school in the ‘50s and ‘60s, we lived on the edge of a large Jewish community. We got on pretty well, and I do not mean to say that the school was a bad place at all, but there were antisemitic actions, language and bullying in that school. I am not a violent man—my mother taught me to believe in non-violence—but I will not hide the fact that at times there were fights and there was resistance to the antisemites at the margins of the school, all motivated by anti-Jewish racism.

As I entered my teens, my mother began to say to me, “Let’s get out of here.” She wanted me to go to Israel to be on a kibbutz. The kibbutz seemed to offer a different way of living communally, inspired perhaps by some notions of common ownership, mutual endeavour, equality and peace. We decided that I would go to live on a kibbutz, but then the six-day war happened, and in any case we needed me to go out to work and earn a living at 16. Thinking about the six-day war, it is probably worth recording that our family knew that people could disagree with an elected Government and its actions, but that that is not the same as hating a whole nation or even a race. We can clearly see today that there are many Israelis who oppose their Government, and no one would suggest that they are being antisemitic in doing so.

I come now to a distasteful few sentences. When I joined the Labour party in 1969, there were many working-class Jewish socialists in our part of Leeds, and I never witnessed any antisemitism in any of those meetings. However, and I regret to have to record this, when I entered my constituency as the MP, only 12 miles away from Leeds, I was subjected to the most shocking antisemitic comment by a party member. It was vile. Equally, though, I am pleased to record that the individual concerned was confronted by fellow members for his outburst and was told he must never come back to another meeting.

Let me turn to one further final anecdote. I was out canvassing not so long ago in my constituency, which is in the wonderful area of Wakefield, when a man who I knew had a reputation for being a Nazi approached me. He was a man who could not control his emotions, a man with extreme anger, and he told me he was going to fill the streets with “patriots”, as he called them, and that they would eliminate people such as me from the area and from the country. It was a terrifying moment, but the police decided to record it as a hate crime and I am glad to say that he was charged and pled guilty to an antisemitic hate crime in Leeds Crown Court.

I hope that the House will understand that I have spoken in this way in order to condemn with every single fibre in my body all forms of racism and antisemitism. The holocaust is an appalling crime against our common humanity. It is right that we pledge today never to forgive or forget what happened, and never to let down our guard for a moment—because, while antiracism is a powerful force, antisemitism is still there and needs to be resisted.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I agree with him, although he will know of the many voices of dissent both at the time of and in the years leading up to the moment in which we took that stand. As I was going to say, the proximity of the proposed site renders it all the more important to confront openly the ambiguous and varied responses—and there were some—of our country’s Parliament, Government and society to the still unsurpassed crimes that were carried out by Nazi Germany and its collaborators. We have heard about those examples today.

As the debate winds up, I want to take the opportunity, once again, to put on record our thanks to all those who have been involved in advancing this project, and holocaust education more generally, in recent years. The full list is far too extensive to read into the record, but they include the past and present members of the UK Holocaust Memorial Foundation, including the right honourable Ed Balls, the right honourable Lord Eric Pickles and Chief Rabbi Ephraim Mirvis; all those involved in developing the exhibition’s narrative, particularly Yehudit Shendar, who is providing the curatorial lead; all the organisations that have striven to embed holocaust and genocide education and commemoration in our national life, particularly the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust and the Holocaust Educational Trust; and finally, all the holocaust survivors who have campaigned for holocaust education and personally championed the project, including a number who will sadly not now see it come to fruition. In that regard, those of us on the Opposition side of the House think in particular of Sir Ben Helfgott, and convey our thoughts and sincere condolences to his family and friends.

I have felt it necessary to dwell again at some length on the rationale for establishing a national holocaust memorial and learning centre, given the Bill’s ultimate purpose, but as has been mentioned, the principle of doing so is almost entirely uncontested and not an issue that arises directly from the Bill. Instead, the Bill is concerned with making provision for, and in connection with, significant expenditure related to the establishment of the proposed memorial and centre, and removing pre-existing legislative impediments that exist to the siting of it in Victoria Tower gardens, namely sections of the London County Council (Improvements) Act 1900, so that progress towards construction can be made.

I want to make it clear once again that the Opposition appreciate fully that the selection of Victoria Tower gardens as the chosen location for the memorial and centre has attracted robust and principled criticism and, in some cases, outright opposition, including from prominent members of the Jewish community and holocaust survivors. Several of those who contributed to the debate today have articulated some of the criticisms and objections that have been made in that regard. The reasoned amendment in the name of the Father of the House sets out a number of them.

As we have heard, concerns about the proposed location include the impact on the construction process; rising build costs; the potential generation of additional traffic in the area; security risks; environmental protections; the loss of public green space and amenity; and the impact on existing monuments and memorials.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

When the National Audit Office carried out its report last year, it thought the cost had gone up to £102 million. Since then, we will probably need to add an extra 15%, because of inflation in construction. The expansion at Yad Vashem, which was referred to by hon. Members, was completed for $100 million, so we will be spending much more for much less. I am not saying this to change the hon. Gentleman’s argument—I am grateful for the way he is summarising the debate, and he is doing it very fairly.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the Father of the House. Build cost inflation is a serious issue, not just in relation to this project but across the country. That would be the case wherever the chosen location was if we are to move ahead with the memorial, as we must, but I take his point, which is a good one.

We know the concerns that have been raised about the adequacy of historical consultation. While the planning inquiry that took place in October 2022 enabled all interested parties to express their views and to raise these and other concerns and suggestions, the Opposition believe it is important that those with outstanding criticisms and objections have a chance to express them fully and be heard. The hybrid nature of the Bill and the resulting petitioning window that will be provided as a result of its designation will ensure that they are.

We hope that the Government will reflect carefully on the specific points that have been raised in the debate today. However, it is the considered view of Labour Members that this Bill needs to progress and that, amended or otherwise, it must receive Royal Assent as soon as is practically possible. There really can be no further delay if we are to have any chance whatsoever of having this vitally important project finally completed while at least some of those who survived the holocaust and made Britain their home are still with us. I think that would be the sincere wish of the whole House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

I am not going to continue with the reasoned amendment on obvious grounds, which I spoke about earlier. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Main Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

New Housing Supply

Peter Bottomley Excerpts

Monday 5th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Western (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) on securing this important debate and on setting out many of the arguments that I hope to advance in my contribution.

The statistics speak for themselves: more people living with parents for longer; more people private renting, unable to get on the housing ladder; lower rates of home ownership; and adults aged between 35 and 45 now three times more likely to be renting than 20 years ago. The system is broken, the symptoms are many, but the root cause is always a lack of housing supply. This is basic supply and demand, and we must take the action needed to address what is a spiralling crisis.

I speak out on this issue because I have been there. I understand it and I know that millions of young people are suffering because we are not building enough homes. In short, my lived experience makes me a “yimby”, as the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose) called it—yes-in-my-backyard, pro-housing, pro-development and cognisant of the economic potential that house building brings. I want to see us build it now and build it all: social, affordable and unaffordable, even. All can play their part in tackling the housing crisis.

So what must we do to get things moving? Quick wins to deliver more housing supply would include the restoration of mandatory housing targets to at least the 300,000 previously committed to by the Government and ideally more; but beyond overarching targets, we must stand by the requirement for councils to show a five-year supply of land, and ensure that local plans are still required to be evidence-based and open to challenge from a planning inspector. Failure to do so allows local authorities throughout the country to under-provide consistently if they wish to do so. That is a scandal, and enabling it to happen would be an abdication of the Government’s basic duty to provide a safe and secure home for all.

What of new ideas to improve housing delivery? We should give urgent consideration to the introduction of a “builder’s remedy” in areas where no credible local plan exists. If a local authority is unwilling to play its part in tackling the national housing crisis, central Government must step in and compel it to do so. The builder’s remedy is not new; it has been around in the United States since the early 1980s, when the California State Legislature passed the Housing Accountability Act 1982. Such a measure in the UK would ensure that local authorities agreed to a compliant housing element in their local plan documents. If they did not do so, their development controls would be restricted, and development would be not just centrally determined, but determined under far less stringent requirements.

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

There may be something in what the hon. Gentleman is saying. However, following a planning appeal in Goring, in my constituency, the inspector said that even if every bit of grass in the whole town were built on, the council would still not be able to meet the Government’s theoretical target—and that would mean no green gaps at all between habitations. Would the hon. Gentleman allow exceptions to his general proposal?

Leasehold Reform

Peter Bottomley Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd May 2023 Commons Chamber

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) for his contribution. I also thank the Minister.

I am glad that the official Opposition have raised this issue, but if they force this to a non-binding vote, it will show the party politics. That is no criticism of a political party.

The key issue is how soon life can be made better for those who deserve a better life in their own home, and how soon those who are screwing them can be unscrewed.

S. J. McCarthy and others secured an extension for ground rents on retirement homes. I have written to him at Ringwood in Hampshire, asking how many properties the company has sold since 1 April 2022, and how many properties it will sell with leases backdated to before the ban on ground rents. That is the kind of—expletive deleted—behaviour that leaseholders had to put up with for 20 or 30 years.

The days when leasehold charges were low and landlords were decent people went years ago. Governments of all parties should have noticed and acted earlier when house builders in the north-west were building a third of their properties as leasehold.

Those who know the chronology will know that, 12 years ago, a Housing Minister asked people to provide evidence of malpractice and unfairness in the leasehold sector, which apparently was not known to people in Government. It is now 21 years since Parliament and Government thought they had made commonhold viable. The Government did not notice it was not viable because commonhold came under what became the Ministry of Justice, which had no resources. When we told the Government, “Put commonhold and leasehold together under the Department with responsibility for housing”—now the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities—the Department said, “Only if you transfer the resources so we can look after it.” There were no resources, so for three or four years the Government did not do it. That is the sort of thing we would expect “Yes Minister” to come back and have a look at.

So where are we now? If we look at the sales of properties in many London constituencies, we find that 80% to 90% are of leasehold properties. Some constituencies have their figure down at less than 10%, whereas mine is at about 30%.

It is well known, although I will say it again, that I own a leasehold flat in my constituency, where I have never had a problem. We had a decent managing agent and a decent landlord. When the landlord wanted to retire, he offered the freehold to the leaseholders and we bought it. I have also since bought a leasehold property in London, where probably half the flats are owned by people overseas. How on earth, under existing regulations, will there ever be a majority for, let alone unanimity on, making a change to the management or ownership arrangements in that situation? I put it to the Minister that the Government ought to say that anybody not resident in this country does not have a vote on enfranchisement, on taking over control or on an extension. They should be assumed to agree with those who are resident and have an interest while living there or being a small landlord.

The Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy), referred to Commonhold Now as the first group in her list, perhaps because it is the most recent. One of the people mentioned as being in Commonhold Now claims the credit for the “People’s Pledge” campaign, set up in 2011, for a vote on whether we remained in European Union. The organisation folded in 2016 when we had the referendum—well, they did well, didn’t they?

We ought to say to Commonhold Now, “Try to work with the people who have been campaigning for a long time on this, and do not start looking as though the new people on the block are going to be the experts.” Oddly, it has not approached me during its months of existence, and when it put out a press notice the BBC took it as though it was gospel and the Secretary of State had promised to abolish all existing leaseholds in double-quick time. He had not, and no one believed that he had.

If the BBC had had a housing editor for the past 15 or 20 years, we would be further forward and it would not have misled its viewers and listeners with the idea that anyone had suggested it would be possible to transform all leasehold agreements into commonhold ones quickly. However, it needs doing.

One issue that has not been raised yet arises in my constituency. I am grateful to my constituent Francine Stephenson for contacting me to ask whether

“there are any Government Grants or similar for having Solar Panels fitted on our property. We live in a block of flats and are planning to have a new roof fitted next year (money permitting) and wonder if it would be profitable to have Solar Panels fitted at the same time. Due to the expense….we wonder if the Government has or may have any suitable schemes to assist us?”

We know that most leasehold properties are in blocks of flats and that roofs need changing every 25 to 50 years. Why are we not getting on now with a way of making it possible for those involved, with or without unanimity, to have solar panels put on new roofs when they are brought up to a given thermal efficiency?

What are we going to do about decarbonising the heating smaller blocks? The larger ones do not have gas, but the smaller ones may, so what are we going to do about getting that changed so we have a thermally efficient building with a carbon-free system of heating? Had I been writing today’s motion, those are the sorts of issues I would have been adding in, rather than making it appear a bit more about party politics than about real concern for leaseholders.

I do know that people in the Opposition are deeply concerned about this issue, and I pay tribute to Jim Fitzpatrick, the former Member for Poplar and Limehouse, for his remarkable work. I also pay tribute to the leader of the Liberal Democrats, the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), for previously co-chairing the all-party group on leasehold and commonhold reform, and the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) for all that he is doing.

The key point is that if we had been listening to those who first started campaigning for justice, we would be further ahead—I think there is all-party agreement on that. When Sebastian O’Kelly, the former property editor of the Daily Mail, and Martin Boyd, who had experience at Charter Quay in Richmond, Surrey, took up these issues, they thought it might be possible to achieve results fast—that did not happen. When Gavin Barwell, now Lord Barwell, became the Housing Minister, he said that the Government’s Leasehold Advisory Service would be unequivocally on the side of leaseholders. As far as I know, that organisation never once advised Ministers or their officials of the scandals that people rang it up about every day. That was the failure of the succession of chairs of that organisation—the chief executive could have done better as well.

I have found that there are a number of crooks in this business, one of whom is Martin Paine—he adds an “e” to the hurt he does. He would take leases that were about to run out and give informal extensions, not resetting the ground rent to zero, but saying that he was doubling ground rent from the time the lease was first given out. Nothing much has happened about this.

Without going through a list of all the other scandals, I ask the Minister: why not have a way of funding some test cases so that the courts can rule that this kind of crookery and thievery ends? We have done it with human rights and with the Equal Opportunities Commission in the past. A few test cases, with substantial resources behind them, would overturn many of these practices. Some of them are criminal and some are just civil, but all need challenging on behalf of the small person.

Let us look at the post-Grenfell consequences on fire safety. Our Fire Safety Act 2021 and Building Safety Act 2022 are imperfect. They have excluded too many small landlords unnecessarily and too many low buildings unnecessarily. That should be reviewed and changed.

So should the scandalous statutory instrument 2020 No. 632, the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development and Miscellaneous Amendments) (England) (Coronavirus) Regulations 2020. It relates to permitted development rights and building up. Under emergency covid regulations, freeholders have the right in certain properties to stick one or two more floors on top of the building so that those who thought that they had the top-floor flat will find it is a building site for five years. The person who owns the building and tries to use those rights does not even have to inform the leaseholders that they are going to do so. Apparently, local councils have little power to block them.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

I declare an interest, as both a leaseholder and the owner of one buy-to-let flat. I have the direct experience of having had a top-floor flat and having had another floor and a roof garden built above it. After all the faults came about, many of which still persist, guess who had to pay, in one case more than £200,000, for remedying them? It was the leaseholders, not the freeholder.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

The point is well made. I am sorry to go on for slightly longer than I ought, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I have been fighting on this subject for a long time and there are rare opportunities to get some of these things on the record.

The Minister has rightly talked about the commissions and loadings on insurance and the Competition and Markets Authority has looked at some of the insurance rates. The fact is that post Grenfell, the number of fires has gone down dramatically and it will go on reducing. It is not the high-rise properties that had most fires in any case, but the lower-level ones. We need to make sure that we watch all these issues and that the Government have people whose voices they listen to giving them advice on where action is needed.

We have to look at the Law Commission proposals. I hope that the Government will say in the King’s Speech say that they will get those through. When we were waiting for the King to come to Westminster Hall on the Tuesday before the coronation, I happened to be standing with the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister. I said to the Prime Minister, “We need this legislation. It is going to be complicated in drafting but simple in politics.” I said in front of the Leader of the Opposition, “If you bring forward a Bill, it will not take a long time in this House. There will be detailed discussion but it won’t take a long time. No one will try to filibuster. It will have all-party support and we can get it through and change the lives of millions and millions of people.”

Only eight years ago, the Government thought the number of leasehold properties was about 2.5 million, but we now know it is about 6 million. We know that this is the fastest-growing element of the housing market.

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman is an authority on this subject. Is he saying that the reason there is no urgency on this is that the developers are making colossal profits out of it, and that there is a true correlation between their excessive profits and the expansion in leasehold?

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

To a certain extent, I agree with that, but perhaps we can take it up another time or the hon. Gentleman could make his own speech later on if he so chooses.

I was going to make a point about retirement homes and end-of-life homes. We ought to have three times as many as we do. We need to attract people into decent homes, which are probably smaller and more thermally efficient, rather than them living in a cold, draughty place with many rooms that are not needed. I have an uncle who told me that his home in Taunton is so thermally efficient that he has not had to turn the heating on once in the four years that he has lived there.

If we can attract people into those homes with confidence, that will free up many more homes that will go to younger families, who will do up those homes with carbon-free heating, better insulation and all the kinds of things that we went through when we were young in the life cycle of housing, so we will all gain. That will not happen until we have housing providers who can be trusted. Again, I say to Mr McCarthy at Churchill, “I wish I could trust you. Why don’t you engage with us and show us that our doubts can be answered and that if your practices are unworthy you will have better ones?”

We had the same thing in the past with McCarthy and Stone—the McCarthys were obviously involved in that as well. Some of the managing agents there—this was when the Tchenguiz interests were involved—were involved in the scandal over call systems. They ran a cartel that saw leaseholders either unnecessarily paying out millions and millions of pounds to replace a system, or being overcharged. When the police came to investigate them, they declared themselves as having a cartel, which meant that they got let off completely free. That should not have happened. The first time that we lay complaints against these people, there should be action. The police need to be involved in these things as well.

I hope to have another opportunity in this Parliament to raise more of these issues. The key point is, why cannot we have action now on the scandals? Why cannot we frighten people?

On the overall costs of the defects in fire safety—not just cladding, but many others—why do the Government not get in the insurance companies, which covered the liabilities of the developers, the architects, the builders, the sub-contractors and everybody else, and say, “We want to have a few billion pounds from you as well, so that nobody is left in a home that is either unsafe or unsellable”?

We want people to have the confidence to live in their homes. I look forward to seeing what the Government do, and I am grateful to the Opposition for raising the motion, although I shall look down on them with less respect if they force it to a vote.

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)]

I agree with what the Minister said about the Government’s plans. It is good that we have cross-party consensus on the need to radically reform leasehold. I recognise and agree with the points that have been made by Members on both sides of the House. It is a feudal system that ultimately needs to be abolished, in ways that I will come on to describe.

There is a danger, perhaps, that we leap straight from one extreme to another: we Conservatives have a bit of a fetish for property ownership, and there is a small danger of our making a cult of freehold and the principle of owning one’s house outright. I understand why we do this—we all want to own our homes, and we believe that a free market will help to grow the supply of new homes that we urgently need—but there is a limit on the supply of new house building, and that limit is land. It is possible to release more land into the market, and we need to do that, but there do need to be limits; I hope that even the most extreme libertarians on the Conservative Benches will recognise that there must be limits to the release of land for house building.

The free market must have some limitations, because without limits, or with limits that companies with deep pockets can game at the expense of local communities, it is not a free market at all; it is a speculator’s charter. We need a system that is both better than the feudalism of leasehold and better than the perversion of capitalism that we sometimes see in our communities.

We need to grow supply, and I recognise that we need more freehold and more traditional ownership, but as I say, land is finite, and the price of a house, which we all worry about, is really the price of the land underneath the house. There are two effects of this. The first is that the building—the bricks and mortar—hardly matters to the house builders. We see the way they knock up buildings without beauty, without quality and without much innovation. I pay tribute to the work that my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr Bacon) has done on self-build and the opportunities for far better innovation, beauty and quality in house building if we recognise that the quality of the structure matters more than the land it is built on.

The second effect of the system we have at the moment, whereby the price of the land is the real factor, is that the overall price of housing rises. We now have the highest house prices in history. That has a reinforcing effect, because it privileges the volume house builders—the speculators in land—who can afford to bid at these auctions and who bet on rising prices, hoard sites and hold back land from development; they game the development system. I mention in passing the egregious five-year land supply rule, which is such a gift to developers, who ride roughshod over local plans and the wishes of local communities. There are a number of cases in my Wiltshire constituency where that is a problem.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

May I add one point, which I hope my hon. Friend will not regard as discordant? People ought to know the sums that public affairs companies and lobbyists get paid by the developers, those involved in exploiting leaseholders and those who buy freeholds, for lobbying the Prime Minister’s office, the Treasury, the Department and the media. If equal resources could be given to the National Leasehold Campaign, the cladding groups and the Leasehold Knowledge Partnership, we would have equality of arms.

[Danny Kruger]

My hon. Friend is right: the way these companies operate is shameful.

The price of land is the issue. There is a way to get through this, and it is along the lines of what we are debating today: not leasehold and not pure freehold, but a form of commonhold. I want to end by mentioning a particular form of commonhold that I would like to see much more of and that we see a little of around the country. My hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) mentioned the need for housing providers that can be trusted. They do exist, and they exist using leasehold: it is the community land trust model. Community land trusts act as long-term stewards of community housing, and they often use ground rents as a way to finance their work, with the consent of leaseholders.

We need to worry about scrapping leasehold without replacing it; that would be bad. We need to replace it with something along the lines of commonhold. Around the country, we see brilliant innovations of community land trusts in pockets of rural and urban areas. The Government have indicated in previous debates that any ban on leasehold would include an exemption for community-led housing, and I hope that consideration will be given to ensuring that community-led housing is also protected under any changes to leasehold and any replacement with commonhold.

I pay tribute to the Community Land Trust Network. The Secretary of State came to an event that I hosted in Parliament a few months ago. A number of really inspiring CLT groups came to talk about their experience. I encourage the Government to listen to the Community Land Trust Network and to use the ongoing consultation on the national planning policy framework to make real changes, such as reopening and extending the community housing fund and, crucially, helping local CLT groups and community groups to buy land. At the moment, they find it so difficult to outbid the speculative developers, because they intend to make a large proportion of the housing affordable, and they simply cannot make the numbers add up in the way the speculators can.

We need to find ways to give more land to CLTs, and my suggestion is quite simple: we need to transfer public land quite deliberately to community land trusts. At the moment, legislation states that public landowners who want to divest themselves of those assets need to seek “best consideration”, which local authorities or other public landowners often interpret as simply seeking the highest price. We need to specify that “best consideration” means the objects set out by the Secretary of State, which I suggest should include affordability and community ownership. We also need to enable CLTs to buy private land at agricultural prices, not speculative prices.

I welcome the cross-party consensus on reforming leasehold—I think that is absolutely right. I hope consideration will be given to ensuring that these community-led housing models will also be protected in the new plans and will be able to thrive. I welcome the debate, and I give thanks to the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy), and to Members on the Opposition Benches who are campaigning alongside Government Members for these sorts of reforms. I also share my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West’s wish that we do not push this rather partisan motion to a vote.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

I recall, back in the 1980s, the scandal of endowment mortgages. Over the years, I have also owned leasehold properties and had my fingers badly burned, so I understand many of the issues that so many people across the country must be facing.

The public rightly want reform. When people, particularly first-time buyers, look to buy a property, they are not made aware of what they are entering into, particularly with leasehold agreements. They think they are buying a home, so they think they will own the home. Of course, they then discover that they have actually bought high ground rents and extortionate service charges, often for services that are promised but not delivered, such as the maintenance of green space. Homeowners are paying full council tax, yet they are having to pay perhaps another £300 to maintain the verges and parks around these new estates. Some developers promise a council tax discount, despite paying additional amounts to companies such as Greenbelt, which I believe is associated with Persimmon Homes.

The scale of this is extraordinary. I understand there are about 5 million leasehold homes in England, including 8% of houses, and I know just how prohibitively expensive this can be. The absence of sinking funds, the lack of management reporting, the extortionate insurance payments, the charges for permission to make changes, the fact people cannot have bicycles on their property, the fact they cannot fit an electric vehicle charging point, and other ridiculous things—the list goes on.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

In addition, the people who manage even large blocks need no qualifications, and there is no full protection for leaseholders’ money.

[Matt Western]

The Father of the House is absolutely right. In one of the properties in which I was a leaseholder, we set up as directors and took control of the property. We appointed our own management company, at significantly lower cost, to address some of the massive overcharges we faced.

In 2014, the Competition and Markets Authority estimated that the average service charge amounted to just over £1,100 a year, suggesting that service charges could total between £2.4 billion and £3.5 billion a year. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) highlighted the 2019 Select Committee report—I was privileged to sit on that Select Committee—which identified that, too often, leaseholders, particularly in new-build properties, have been treated by developers, freeholders and management agents not as homeowners or customers but as a source of steady profit. We concluded by urging the Government to ensure that commonhold became the primary ownership model for flats in England and Wales, as it is in many other countries. Of course, that has not been adopted.