Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Baroness Maclean of Redditch Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 29th October 2025 Lords Chamber

I have one final stat, which is terribly important. What we are allowing is a tax on people’s desperation. The Gambling Commission survey that came out this month showed that the top reason for gambling, given by 85% of people, is because they hope to have a big win. People are desperate. The survey showed that 27% of those living in the most deprived areas gambled at least weekly; in the least deprived areas, the figure is 14%.

[Baroness Maclean of Redditch (Con)]

My Lords, I want to make a few remarks on Amendment 121G in the name of my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe. I also support Amendment 117 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, on gambling premises. I am a former MP who represented a town centre, Redditch, where we often saw these challenges in maintaining a healthy mix of shops and businesses. Thinking about planning decisions on a holistic basis would have been very beneficial. These challenges cannot be fixed by planning alone, but planning can play a part.

Turning to Amendment 121G, I declare my interest as someone who was a small business owner and an entrepreneur for more than 30 years. I thank my lucky stars that that was not in the construction sector because, honestly, that is one of the hardest sectors to operate in—particularly for a small business. When I was the Housing and Planning Minister, I spent a lot of time with small and medium businesses. It was really difficult to hear their stories, which were often frustrating, heartbreaking and tragic. Ultimately, we as a country are losing out if we fail to support and nourish these incredibly hardy and resilient people. Many of them are at risk of losing their livelihoods; in fact, some recent statistics suggest that around half of SME construction businesses are at risk of insolvency by the end of this Parliament. That is why I support this amendment.

What my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe has put forward is very sensible. She makes the point that, too often, the system defaults to one-size-fits-all requirements, which land heaviest on smaller firms. We talk about the NPPF. It has 76 pages and is relatively concise, I agree, but it sits on top of a very large and complex ecosystem of guidance. This is one of the concerns that businesses repeatedly raise: the real burden lies in all of that additional guidance, not just in the 76 pages of the NPPF. Volume housebuilders can navigate such things easily, but it is not so for SMEs. For instance, negotiating Section 106 agreements hits them disproportionately harder, on top of all of the cost burdens that they face.

Anyone who has been a local representative—whether a councillor or a Member of Parliament—knows well that opposition exists to virtually all housing of any kind, no matter where it is. However, in my experience, SME local builders with roots in the community are in a much better position to overcome these hurdles and contribute to desperately needed housing.

In conclusion, these are practical amendments that support local authorities to plan for places in which families want to live, shop and invest.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

My Lords, I support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Foster. I am appalled by the statement read to the House by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. Noble Lords have to understand that it is very embarrassing for me to be on the side of the noble Lord, Lord Foster, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, but I have to say that what she just read out shows what a disgraceful industry this is and how much money is being made out of the poorest and most deprived places.

I have lived with this problem for many years. My father was a clergyman in one of the worst slum areas of Britain. He always said that gambling was much more damaging than drink or any of the other things to which referred. It was particularly damaging in his parish, which contained a large number of military personnel, both retired and present.

I hope that the Minister will not make the speech that I suspect I might have had written for me as a Minister. It goes like this: “This is a planning Bill, and this amendment refers to the licensing duties of a local authority. I know that we already said that it was more appropriate for licensing authorities than the Planning Bill but, because this is a planning Bill, we really believe that it should be left for a different piece of legislation”. Yet the Government have said that they will make these changes immediately when there is some opportunity in Parliament to do it.

This amendment is an opportunity. What is more, it has been shown to be within the long title of the Bill, so, if the Minister says that it cannot be done because it is not appropriate, I will have to say to her that I do not believe the House should accept that. The House should simply say that it is clearly appropriate and that this is a clear opportunity. If the Government do not support that, I say something very tough to them: this is about the very people whom this Government are always banging on about and are supposed to be supporting. These are the people who are most at risk from the bloodsuckers who run the gambling industry and know what they are doing. They are applying to the very people who are most vulnerable and from whom they get most of their money.

I say this to the Minister: there is a growing anger around the country at what is happening and at the vast sums of money that some of the people who own these companies make. The biggest payer of income tax in Britain runs a betting company. That says something deeply offensive about our society; I do not believe that any of us should stop the battle to change this.

I wish also to say one thing about my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe’s amendment. I hope that the Government will not say that it is not necessary to make the point about small businesses. My noble friend has concentrated on the construction industry but, very recently—in the past three years—I applied to the local authority to change a residential building back to what it had originally been since 1463: a public house.

That piece of planning change for a very small business —I do not know what I was doing starting a small business at my age, but there we were—for the benefit of the community, took a year. It was the year in which construction prices rose faster than they had for generations. At the end of that year, the cost of what one was trying to do for the community was significantly greater than at the beginning. The reasons for holding it up included the conservation officer complaining that we were going to use second-hand pamments and bricks; we were obviously going to do so because that is my attitude to these things. My architect said, “My client is strongly concerned about climate change and wishes, therefore, to use second-hand materials”. He got back from the conservation officer a note that said, “I don’t care about climate change; I’m interested only in conservation”.

Even if you know something about these things, it is very difficult to put up with a year of that kind of conversation. I merely say to the Minister that it is essential that we have in this Bill a clear statement that small businesses must be treated with the consideration that they do not have the means to do things that big businesses have. I really hope that we can resurrect small construction businesses, but we will not do that unless they have special understanding as far as planning is concerned.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Baroness Maclean of Redditch Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 27th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly to my Amendments 95 and 98. I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for her support for the protection of good agricultural land. Amendment 95 is a broader application of the principle that was debated and rejected by Government and Liberal Democrat Benches in this House last week. We on these Benches believe that food security is national security and, unlike for this Government, these are not empty words: we intend to put that into practice.

We remain concerned that the principle of protecting the best and most versatile land—grades 1, 2 and 3A—appears to be trampled at will, for not just solar farms under NSIP but other developments. We must do better. This land is responsible for supplying the lowest-cost, highest-quality food produced in our country and is far more productive than weaker grades of land. Building without due consideration on the land that we need to feed us is, frankly, short-sighted.

Amendment 98 asks the Government to report annually on how much of our land is being converted from agriculture to tarmac, steel, photovoltaic panels and concrete, and provides the basis for a more informed national debate on how we treat our productive land. I will not test the will of the House on these amendments. However, I would be most grateful to receive an assurance from the Minister that the Government take this issue as seriously as they should. This was not entirely clear from the response to the debate on solar farms and BMV last week.

I also support of the concept of Amendment 88, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Willis. Well-planned development needs to take into consideration access to green and blue open space, but also how this space can contribute to nature connectivity.

[Baroness Maclean of Redditch (Con)]

My Lords, my Amendment 121 is a vital step towards bringing clarity and scrutiny to the Government’s grey-belt policy. This amendment asks the Secretary of State to publish a clear framework for grey-belt designation within six months of Royal Assent and to lay it before both Houses. Its purpose is straightforward: to ensure that this policy is defined, transparent and subject to oversight. This concept has received remarkably little scrutiny or discussion during the passage of the Bill.

The concept of the grey belt has shifted since it was introduced in the Labour Party’s manifesto. It was first presented as previously developed land and disused car parks—which is largely brownfield land already. Since then, it has expanded in ways that raise serious concerns. Our party is not opposed to using grey-belt land sensibly, but we share the concerns of the Lords Built Environment Committee, which described the rollout as “rushed and incoherent” and unlikely to have

“any significant or lasting impact”

on planning or housing delivery, suggesting that the concept might be “largely redundant”. The current definition includes land in the green belt comprising previously developed land and/or any other land that does not strongly contribute to green-belt purposes.

The Local Government Association and many councillors, including in my home town of Solihull and my former constituency, Redditch, warn that this vague language contributes little and could invite subjective judgments and threaten green-belt protection in places such as Solihull and Redditch, with no other surrounding towns. The entire green belt could be vulnerable. Small housebuilders have warned that it will not help them, especially given under-resourced planning departments.

The risks are clear. Inconsistent criteria and monitoring could lead to uneven treatment and uncertainty. There is no plan to measure progress or success. In short, this policy has shifted without sufficient clarity or scrutiny. My amendment offers Parliament the chance to correct that, and I commend it to the House.

[Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 88, to which I have added my name. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, for all her work on this, and the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, for meeting us to talk about this amendment.

Without this amendment putting green and blue spaces on a statutory basis, this will be a planning Bill for the privileged. We have heard evidence from the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, this afternoon as to why this might be. There is also further evidence discovered by Wildlife and Countryside Link, which conducted regression model analysis, using official ONS datasets, for first-time buyers by local authority area in 2023. It compared this with the ONS data on the number of adults in each authority who were first-time buyers. First-time buyers are the people who will need green and blue space the most; they will have young families. Wildlife and Countryside Link analysed and mapped the percentage rate for those first-time buyers with in-depth green-space data. It found a direct, statistically significant correlation between lack of green space and higher numbers of first-time buyers. In other words, the first-time buyers are going somewhere because it is cheap: it lacks green space, it lacks amenities, so of course, things are cheaper. That is exactly what this Bill should be resisting.

When we met, the Minister said that she did not like this amendment because it was too prescriptive. She is right that local development plans should decide what green and blue spaces there should be; I do not have a problem with that. However, if there is no statutory requirement for a network of easily accessible green spaces, there will be far fewer of those spaces. This amendment is absolutely in line with Defra’s stated aims, and it would contribute substantially to sustainable urban drainage delivery. It would not tie the hands of local or regional planning authorities; it just points them in the right direction and makes sure they head in that direction. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, and his colleagues will bear in mind that swift bricks and other nature-friendly construction methods will not result in more swifts unless the network of green and blue spaces exists to provide food sources.

Planning Delivery: Acceleration

Baroness Maclean of Redditch Excerpts

Monday 8th September 2025 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Maclean of Redditch]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to accelerate planning delivery as set out in their Plan for Change, published on 5 December 2024.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)]

The Government are delivering a set of pro-supply, pro-growth planning reforms. We have updated the National Planning Policy Framework, introducing bold new growth focus measures to underpin the delivery of 1.5 million safe and decent homes. We are also reforming the nationally significant infrastructure projects regime to maximise certainty and speed, and our Planning and Infrastructure Bill will speed up and streamline the delivery of new homes and critical infrastructure, including the delivery of 150 nationally significant infrastructure projects. I know that the noble Baroness takes a particular interest in AI; as the AI champion in the department, I am very pleased to tell her that MHCLG and DSIT, together with the sector, are championing the use of AI in planning with our digital planning programme.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Maclean of Redditch (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister very much for that Answer, and I am grateful for her comments on all those initiatives and also on AI. She will be aware that the previous Housing Secretary delivered only 186,000 net additional dwellings, which is the lowest for over a decade; worse still, permissions are down by 23%. I did see that the new Housing Secretary said he wants to “build baby build”, and he can, by backing Amendments 346DD and 346DE in the name of my noble friend Lord Roborough, to which I have added my name, which would release 160,000 homes stalled by nutrient neutrality. Will she have a go at persuading him?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

On the delivery of previous Housing Secretaries, it did not help having 17 different Housing Ministers over the last 14 years. We want to get moving on this. I was very pleased to welcome our new Secretary of State this morning, and I know that Secretary of State Reed is just as keen as the rest of us to get delivering on this. I am very pleased that there were over 90,000 planning applications in the first quarter of 2025; that is up 6%. We are, as the noble Baroness will know, debating all the amendments in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill in some depth, as we did last week, and I am sure we will continue to do so.

Holocaust Memorial Bill

Baroness Maclean of Redditch Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Wednesday 22nd May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Nickie Aiken]

I completely agree. Many of my constituents feel that this is being steamrollered and imposed on them without any consultation. They have campaigned so hard over the last eight years, and I pay tribute to them.

I note with interest that the construction of the Buxton Memorial Fountain cost a little over £70,000 in today’s money, and I have no idea why the cost of the current proposal runs into hundreds of millions of pounds. Given the increasing pressures on public finances, I urge the Government to take a proper deep dive into the costs of this project, and to consider whether it is still an appropriate use of public money.

New clause 1 was also tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle. I note the Select Committee’s recommendation in its special report for the review proposed in the new clause to be undertaken “expeditiously” before any planning application is progressed. I believe it is imperative that a review of the security arrangements of this proposal be undertaken immediately. That is not only financially prudent, but necessary from a national security perspective. Sadly we live in uncertain times, and the dreadful events currently taking place in the middle east are being felt on our own streets, perhaps nowhere more than on the streets of Westminster surrounding Parliament. Let us remember that even if this memorial goes ahead, the playground and part of the park will continue to exist. I note that Lord Carlile, the former independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, has expressed his own concern that the site proposed for the memorial and learning centre presents a very real terrorism risk.

It would be unfortunate if, due to increased security concerns, the authorities insisted that the area around the memorial and learning centre should be surrounded by railings and gates, cutting off a wide part of the park from the public, which would be contrary to the idea of Victoria Tower Gardens as a public green space that is accessible for all. I therefore support amendment 1’s call for a full-scale security review to be undertaken before the proposals are permitted to proceed to the next stage. Let us recall that the Holocaust memorial located in Hyde park, which I mentioned earlier, was covered up for its own safety during a pro-Palestinian march only a few weeks ago. If the authorities were so concerned about the safety of that Holocaust memorial, surely they would be equally, if not more, concerned about having a major memorial adjacent to the Houses of Parliament.

I absolutely agree that we need a memorial to the Holocaust, but as the Holocaust Memorial Bill Select Committee clearly concluded in its report, and as reflected in the amendments tabled by its Chair and by me, having read the report, it is clear that there is more work to be undertaken by the Government on consultation, the consideration of alternative locations, costs and security before the House can have confidence that this Bill can be supported.

[Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow right hon. and hon. Members, who have made very important and serious speeches that the House would do well to consider. I support this Bill and the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (John Stevenson), who made some excellent points about the cost of the memorial. Any project that the Government support must make sensible use of taxpayers’ money, so he is totally right to focus on the cost cap. He is also right to call for a review of security arrangements, for all the reasons that he said.

As a former Planning Minister, I am extremely familiar with the labyrinthine processes of consultation, appeals and delays at various stages, the difficulties of addressing the natural demands to protect an area that my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) spoke about so eloquently, and the importance of siting a national memorial of this significance in the heart of London, next to our Parliament. Now that I have been freed from the duties of making such planning decisions and someone else wears that mantle—at least for now—I can simply say that the impetus for a memorial at this time, and in this place, has never been greater following the 7 October attack, which was the largest pogrom against Jews since the Holocaust.

I am sure that no one is watching this debate, because they will all be glued to Twitter and looking at what is happening at No. 10, but these issues will outlive us and our time in this place. People may wonder why I speak about the Holocaust, and they may say, “You are not Jewish, and you do not have a large Jewish community in Redditch,” but even if there is only one Jewish person in my constituency, I should speak up in support of the things that matter most to them at this time.

Yesterday, the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities gave an excellent, first-rate speech at a Jewish community centre in north London. He spoke about some things that should shame us all. He spoke about the fact that it is now, in 2024, an arrestable offence for people to be “openly Jewish” near pro-Palestinian marches on the streets of London. He reminded us that there is only one group of people—the Jews—who are told that they are not tolerated in this country, and he said that growing antisemitism

“is a mark of a society turning to darkness and in on itself… It is a parallel law that those countries in which the Jewish community has felt most safe”

are countries where freedom and freedom of speech prosper, and the memorial is a vital part of bolstering Jewish people’s freedom of speech and their freedom to live in our country. Let us not forget that British Jews who have lived all their lives in our country are the only group who are routinely held up to blame for the actions of foreign Governments.

We are all desperately concerned, of course, about the position of innocent Palestinians caught up in the conflict, and we all wish to see the humanitarian relief and a lasting and safe peace in the middle east. I support and applaud the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary, who are working tirelessly to achieve those goals, but it should not be necessary to make those points and those caveats over and over again when speaking about the position of British Jews.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I appreciate that the hon. Lady is dealing with a highly emotive subject, and I think that we would all agree with most or all of what she has just said, but this is the Committee stage of a Bill about a particular structure in a particular place. It is not a time for general speeches about the geopolitical position of the world in general, and I would be grateful if she would confine her remarks to talking about this Bill, which is short and to the point.

[Rachel Maclean]

Thank you, Madam Chairman. I appreciate and value your guidance and I will absolutely abide by it. I hope that the House will see that the reason I make these remarks about the general geopolitical situation is that I wish to show my support for the importance of the memorial in this place at this time, but I will bring my remarks to a conclusion in line with your guidance.

I wish to make it clear that I believe that this Holocaust memorial should be placed in Westminster, next to our Parliament; that is, of course, the matter under consideration, as outlined by the Select Committee. That is because this is where we debate foreign and domestic policy. And of course it is right that we look at all the considerations that have been highlighted by other Members. I would like to ask the Chair’s permission to make one final comment, which is that the safety of the Jewish community is the canary in the mine, so let us build this lasting memorial with the education centre next to our Parliament, to focus on the existential threat to our Jewish brothers and sisters.

Building Safety

Baroness Maclean of Redditch Excerpts

Tuesday 26th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Lee Rowley]

With the greatest respect, I do not think it does beggar belief that a line has been drawn at 11 metres. [Interruption.] The hon. Lady is chuntering from a sedentary position; I had hoped that she would listen to my answer in the first instance before making comments on it.

This is a relatively recognised and relatively long-standing position. Following the commitment given by my predecessors back in 2022, when we have received concerns about buildings under 11 metres we have taken action. We have looked at those buildings and have commissioned reports when that has been necessary, and in the overwhelming majority of cases it has subsequently been confirmed that they do not require remediation. If any Members have outstanding concerns about buildings less than 11 metres high, I encourage them to get in touch and we will happily look at them in more detail, because if the trajectory that we have seen in the cases that have been raised with us so far already is followed, it is highly likely that life-critical safety concerns will not be visible once we have done so.

[Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)]

There is a complex interplay between what the Minister has said today about building safety, cladding and remediation and the agenda relating to the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill, which, of course, many of us in the Chamber are still right behind. Will the Minister please reassure us that the Government as a whole remain committed to this vital transformative and conservative agenda?

As the Minister himself has said from that Dispatch Box, there is no prouder word in the English language than “freeholder”. We want to see more freeholders liberated from the tyranny of the ground rent grazers and some of the deep-pocketed people in this so-called sector who are now trying to make out, if the reporting is accurate, that if we press ahead with our reforms to reduce ground rent to a peppercorn, the whole sector will be destabilised and the Minister’s vital work of remediation will somehow be affected. I, like many others, do not accept that assertion in any shape or form—it is, of course, complete nonsense—but will the Minister please reassure me, and many others, that we will continue to reform this sector and liberate the leaseholders so that they can own their properties, while also continuing to make them safe?

[Lee Rowley]

My hon. Friend is right to say that the work that has been put into the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill, and the measures that we have introduced in it, will be transformative for leaseholders. I know that, and I know she knows that, because she was the person who put in the work in the first place, and I pay tribute to what she did in this role previously.

My hon. Friend is also right to draw attention to the link between those who have been impacted by cladding and leaseholders in general. It is through reforms such as those in the Bill that we will be able to bring even more transparency, including on insurance, which the hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury) rightly raised. That applies not just to leaseholders who are impacted by cladding remediation, but to leaseholders in general. We will ensure that they know what they are paying for and can fully recognise whether the arrangement is fair or not.

Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill

Baroness Maclean of Redditch Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 27th February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

To protect the last six speakers and protect ministerial time as well, there is now a five-minute limit on speeches, which will give the Front Benchers sufficient time to respond.

[Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)]

It was a great pleasure to serve on the Public Bill Committee on this Bill. We had a great debate, and there was actually a lot of agreement across the Committee Room. These are deeply Conservative reforms, championed by none other than Mrs Thatcher, starting in 1965, which she continued to do throughout opposition and during her premiership.

I gently say to Opposition Members, of whatever party, that they must not fall into the trap of making this a political football. They must engage with the seriousness and complexity of these reforms, in part because, as we have heard, they did very little to advance these very significant reforms during their own time in office. I suspect that they backed away from it because of the very significant legal challenges they would have faced, as we ourselves will no doubt face. Pretending they do not exist is not a serious position. I say to the Minister and the Secretary of State, who are aware of my comments, that we must not buckle, but must continue to take this forward.

It is great to see the package of amendments laid by the Government, particularly new clause 42, which is a ban on leasehold houses. I want the Minister to think carefully about how he will address the inevitable imbalance in the creation of a two-tier system, in which some people will have the freehold of their house, but some will not. There is an additional imbalance between flats in our urban areas and new freehold houses. That point was very well made by James Vitali in a Policy Exchange report. I am slightly worried about the omission from this of retirement properties, so perhaps the Minister could return to that.

In Committee, I spoke about the need to truly move towards a commonhold system. I think the Opposition’s new clause 11 is something of that nature. I very much hope that, as the Bill goes through completing its stages, the Government—here or in the other place—can look at that suggestion. I think we do need to set out the future legislative scaffolding for our fifth term in office, and to build on the work we have done so that we can finally get rid of this leasehold system.

Other Members have mentioned a lot of the points I would have made about shared services. My hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) raised that, and it is one of my concerns. My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Neil O’Brien) has done a fantastic job in talking about the lack of adoption by local authorities. There is also new clause 7, which I know is again an Opposition amendment, and new clauses 1 and 2. This problem is not going to go away. It is a blight on many homeowners in Redditch, and it also goes to the heart of our planning system. We really do need to look at that; we cannot pretend that it is going to solve itself.

I thank the Minister for writing to me about one of my concerns, which is litigation costs. I think new clause 3 looks at that. He has reassured me that what is in this Bill will go the distance in ensuring that leaseholders are not subject to unjust litigation costs by their landlord. That is one of the cases highlighted by Liam Spender and many others. These are hugely complex issues, but we must tackle them.

I want to see ground rents reduced to a peppercorn. It is pure extortion, and a feudal relic from medieval times when people were serfs and worked the land. We should not have this in 2024, or in any year. I refuse to believe that there is not a way, through the wit of man and the considerable intelligence of Ministers on the Front Bench, to solve the issue, perhaps where some financial assets are held in pension funds. I do not buy the pretence of that incredible con artist Mr Steve Whybrow and his outfit that somehow we are robbing pensioners. I would urge anybody with an interest in this debate to look at the genuine pensioners who are fighting for the right to have pure enjoyment of their own properties, which they richly deserve after a lifetime of working.

I will make my final remarks on forfeiture: it must go. The forfeiture of a long lease cannot be right. It cannot be right that a freeholder can hold this nuclear bomb over somebody such as Dennis Jackson, a pensioner, of Plantation Wharf. He disputed a £6,000 service charge, which led to an £80,000 legal bill, and he had his £800,000 flat forfeited during a 10-minute hearing at Wandsworth court. I thank LEASE for all the work it has done to help him. That just simply cannot be right, and we must address it. I want to see us finally finishing the job that Mrs Thatcher started when she was Opposition Housing spokesman in 1965. We must finish that job, and I thank the Minister for all the work he has done so far.

[Stella Creasy]

I feel for the Minister today, because he must be kicking himself. This is probably one of the few debates I have heard in this place recently where I have not heard a bad idea. As constituency MPs, we see time and again the problems caused by retaining this feudal system of leasehold, and I suspect that the Minister, who has been looking at this issue for some time, is kicking himself because what he would really like to do is abolish the whole thing. Indeed, today we have heard support from across the House to do just that. In the short time available, let me say again to him that he would have our support to move to commonhold. He talked about how commonhold was probably the better model, and for those of us living in the vortex of gentrification, where thousands of flats have been built in our community, this is an incredibly pressing issue. We know that the casework we have seen over the past few years will expand as a result of leasehold continuing. That is why I wish to see the Government change their mind, perhaps in the other place, about getting rid of leasehold altogether, and why I have been pressing my local authority to listen to concerns of local residents who are stuck with leasehold, and change our local plan to make commonhold the default. I hope that they have heard this debate and will rethink their opposition to that.

I support the amendments in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook), and wish to draw the Minister’s attention to two new clauses that I have tabled on issues with the existing system and the problems that leaseholders face. With 12,000 leaseholders in Walthamstow, I know that these issues will come up time and again.

New clause 2 is about the fact that although we have leasehold legislation, it does not tally with our consumer legislation. Leaseholders pay a service charge. They have a contract with freehold management companies to oversee problems in their properties, but few residents feel empowered to access rights that exist under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 to have a reasonable service within a reasonable timeframe for repairs. Today, colleagues across the House have given countless examples of that, so let me add my own, which is where my proposed new clause has come from. I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Janet Daby) is not here. She talks about Leigh Court and new clause 67, but residents in Essex Brewery in Walthamstow have been without hot water and heating since before Christmas. Indeed, they are still without hot water and heating, with little sight of any change.

Essex Brewery was built just five years ago. It has become apparent that the build by Crest Nicholson was poor at best, and a downright con at worst. Until January this year, Crest Nicholson was on the management committee and made more than £100 million in profit in the year that Essex Brewery was built. It has made half that this year—possibly less—because of widespread concerns about the condition of the builds it has made. What does someone do when they have bought possibly their first home, whether through shared ownership or leasehold, as hundreds did in that development, and they find that the pipes that bring in the hot water are faulty? I am sorry to say that those resident have little redress, because the management company, Kinleigh Folkard and Hayward—another multimillion pound organisation—left them without any explanation of why it would not repair the hot water until after Christmas. What a Christmas present that was. The Grinch had strong competition.

That was another layer of bureaucracy. KFH was appointed by the Essex Brewery management company, which was established by the freeholder, Helpfavour, to meet those obligations. KFH told the residents that because their insurance policy said that as long as they had water at all, the property was habitable and it was not going to do anything about it. That has left hundreds of residents, many of them vulnerable, for months on end without any hot water or heating in the current weather. Residents have had to boil kettles to get hot water to cleanse their babies, or pay bills that they cannot afford for extra heating through portable heaters. For those who have shared ownership it is even more complicated. Metropolitan Thames Valley states that it owns 24 of those properties and that it is prohibited by law from fixing the problem. New clause 2 is about matching consumer legislation with leasehold legislation, and giving residents the right of redress, not saying, “You’ve either got to buy out the leaseholders if you want some property control, or you are stuck with them and waiting to see.” I hope KFH hears this debate and is ashamed of its behaviour.

Amendment 1 is about leasehold tribunals. I know the Minister spoke of precedent setting, but residents across the country would tell him otherwise. I beg him to look at the Warner properties in Walthamstow, and at Y&Y management, which repeatedly rips off constituents across the country. The hon. Member for Harborough (Neil O'Brien) is not here, but he asked why people have to pay terrorism insurance. In Walthamstow that was the Warner estate company, which said that because the plane bomber lived in our constituency, 3,000 households had to buy terrorism insurance. Such cases come up time and again with leasehold and they do not get fixed in the tribunal. Amendment 1 would give precedent.

Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill (Tenth sitting)

Baroness Maclean of Redditch Excerpts

Tuesday 30th January 2024 Public Bill Committees

[Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I wish to place on the record my support for the eventual removal of this most feudal and abusive practice—one of the worst examples in this whole system—and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s plans to eventually do that.

In response to my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire, I just want to let him know that there is ample evidence that this abusive practice has had a deleterious impact on decent people who have bought their properties in good faith. Take, for example, the evidence from Free Leaseholders, which represents many people in this position. The organisation says,

“Forfeiture has no place in a modern housing market”

and that it gives

“the freeholder landlord complete whip hand over his ‘tenant’.”

It is a “draconian remedy” that really has very few comparators anywhere else. Unlike mortgage foreclosure, where there is a balancing payment at the end of it, someone loses all the equity in their own home. That means they could actually lose, for example, a flat worth half a million pounds because of non-payment of a £5,000 bill. The freeholder would seize that flat, take back the lease, and make a windfall irrespective of the size of the contested charge. It kicks in at just £350.

There are alternative ways of resolving these debts available in our system. For example, the freeholder could sue for an injunction. He does not need forfeiture and the windfall to enable him to carry out good management of the block. The Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee looked at this issue and also recommended its abolition, on the grounds that it puts the freeholders in an unassailable position of strength in disputes. Once again, it is about that power imbalance, which we have highlighted all the way through this Committee. We should absolutely take up the Law Commission’s proposals to remove forfeiture. It is true that it is relatively rare, with perhaps an estimated 80 to 90 cases every year, but it is the threat that hangs over people—people who are not legal experts, fighting a very uneven battle against these big boys with deep pockets and plenty of lawyers on speed dial.

As well as the evidence I have just referred to, I want to represent again the fantastic testimony from the National Leasehold Campaign, which I think has 29,000 members. It has described again and again the impact of this sword of Damocles hanging over its members who have bought these properties in good faith, doing their best to navigate this thicket of rules, with the debt completely stacked against them. I look forward to hearing about the pathway that I am sure the Minister will set out for us, where we can remove this element from our laws once and for all.

[Lee Rowley]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich for this new clause and for the opportunity to debate it. The hon. Gentleman set me a challenge at the end of his speech. He said he hoped I would not resist the new clause out of hand—I will not resist it out of hand, but I may resist it. In all seriousness, this is an important part of the discussion and I do not disagree with what the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich and my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch said—I absolutely accept it. I am happy to confirm that the Government are aware of the strength of feeling on this issue and sympathetic to some of the objectives of the amendment. It is absolutely the case that forfeiture is an extreme measure. That is why we committed on Second Reading to look at this.

On the question from my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire, it is difficult to get numbers. As has been outlined by others, the principle is clearly a real problem. The disproportionate nature of the outcome completely outweighs the likely loss being pursued. The Leasehold Knowledge Partnership, or one of the other witnesses, suggested in oral evidence that there were 80 to 90 forfeitures a year, but the Government do not have specific data to validate that at this stage. We understand that most of the threats are defused during the process—particularly if a mortgage company is involved, it tends to, in extremis, step in and offer to put the amount of money on to the mortgage or equivalent. The evidence base is and will always be challenging, but we absolutely accept that the principle is disproportionate and unreasonable.

However, as with so many of these clauses and elements of law, there is the question of how to make something in the system better while still ensuring the ability to balance all the things underneath. That is probably one of the reasons why this place has returned to this issue so often over the decades—it is not just because the Government may not respond in time, as the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich indicated. This new clause is definitely well intentioned. We are sympathetic, but we do not necessarily believe in the full abolition of forfeiture without some form of replacement for some elements of it that may still have validity—not the forfeiture itself, but a recognition that people cannot just not pay things without some form of process to address that. That is one of the reasons we cannot accept this amendment at the moment.

However, I do not condone the abuse of forfeiture. I want to be absolutely clear that we are listening very carefully to the arguments being made. We have already committed to look at this again, and we are currently looking at it. I hope we will be able to say more at future stages of the Bill. With those reassurances, I hope the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich will consider withdrawing his clause.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

I welcome the Minister’s response to the extent that he recognised the benefits of share of freehold. I am not surprised that he resists the new clause; there is no doubt that it would be a significant build-out of the Bill, as he put it. We hope that we will see other significant build-outs of the Bill and finally see a ban on new leasehold houses, as the Government have committed to, at some point. Maybe we will even get a couple of hours to debate that—who knows?

We think that this is an important provision that should be incorporated in the Bill for the reasons I have give, but mainly because—perhaps this is a point of disagreement between us and the Government—we think that we must be serious about paving the way for commonhold with the Bill and cannot leave everything to a future Government to enact. As I said, we should take some practical and specific steps to lay the groundwork for that future, which I think we all want to see. As we felt with mandatory RMCs, we feel that these two specific measures would enable us to go some way on that journey. For that reason, I will push the new clause to a vote—it will probably be the final one.

[Rachel Maclean]

I want to make a brief remark in sympathy with the shadow Minister’s policy objectives. I will not be supporting his new clause, but I have had extensive discussions with the Minister, who knows that I feel strongly that we should have a pathway to commonhold in the future.

Commonhold is a system that works well. Commonhold, or a version of it, works extremely well in almost every other major developed country in the world. We are quite unique in the UK—for some bizarre reason—in having this leasehold system, which is to the great regret of me and the leaseholders who live in such houses and flats. Unfortunately, something like 1.5 million people live in leasehold houses and something like 5 million people overall live in leasehold dwellings. It does not need to be that way.

In 2002, the former Labour Government did try to legislate in this regard, but a number of those measures were not enacted—we are going back into ancient history. Nobody really seems to know why it did not happen, but we now need to seize the opportunity. This Bill has been a long time in gestation; it has benefited from the contributions of many Ministers to get it to this point. I know that the Minister is listening to me, and I think it is important that we do not miss the opportunity, even at this late stage, to introduce some of the commonhold framework measures that the Department has been looking at in great detail. I hope that the Minister has listened, and he and his officials will take that point away.

[Barry Gardiner]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right to go back to the 2002 Act. In fact, I think in a speech on its Second Reading, I said that we would have to return to that Act in six or seven years’ time to amend the deficiencies in it. I am sad to say that here we are, 22 years later, still not having amended those deficiencies, and the Minister’s response, I am afraid, has indicated that we will not amend them again under this Bill. This is urgent, and leaseholders have been waiting for far too long for the remedy that my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich has proposed. That is why I feel that it is vital that I support his new clause.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill (Ninth sitting)

Baroness Maclean of Redditch Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 30th January 2024 Public Bill Committees

[The Minister for Housing, Planning and Building Safety (Lee Rowley)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Mark, and it is good to continue debating these issues this morning. I am grateful to all hon. Members who have raised such important points. I do not think that the disagreement between Members on any of the Benches is about whether there are issues; the question is rather about the technicalities of how to approach them, what to do and what is proportionate.

I will talk briefly about the amendments. Although the Government cannot accept them now, I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire and the shadow Minister will listen to the points that I make; the broader point is that I am listening carefully and have a lot of sympathy for the underlying point, which we are all trying to solve. The question is about how we do it and whether we need to go further.

There was an extended debate between my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire and the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich. I will not try to repeat that, but not because I do not want to give due regard to everything that my hon. Friend put on record or to his underlying point. He is absolutely right that there is a problem; we all see it in our constituencies. The challenge, as I see in my constituency of North East Derbyshire, is that there is now a move towards greater estate management outside the demise of the local representation of the state. It works in some areas and for some elements, but there are specific areas and specific estates in which it clearly does not work. We have all heard the stories about the issues that are visible.

In the past, it would have been typical for local authorities to have adopted estates, but that is moving further and further away from reality. There is a question about whether there are some elements of estate management where it is reasonable to have some kind of arrangement outside the aegis of the state, but equally I accept the argument that that has gone too far in certain areas.

[Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)]

I have listened carefully to the debate. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire for his reference to the work that we did together.

I want to ask the Minister to expand a bit more on his comments, as I am sure he will. The argument has often been made that if we make clear to the people who are buying those homes what they are actually getting into, and if we give them a schedule of charges, the regime will be more acceptable. That is the heart of the issue: if customers know what they are buying, presumably they can freely choose whether to buy that property or a different type of property.

I think we all agree that there should be freedom of choice and that the buyer should take responsibility for their choices. However, does the Minister think that the current regime and framework are adequate to provide choice? My personal view is that we do not have that, and that that is at the heart of the problem. But even if we provide that choice, a fundamental philosophical problem remains. I am interested in his view on the balance of those two issues.

Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill (Eighth sitting)

Baroness Maclean of Redditch Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 25th January 2024 Public Bill Committees

[Barry Gardiner]

I am grateful to the Minister for what he has said, but the strongest protection would be to have it on the face of the Bill. Even when it was on the face of the 2002 Act, the Government never brought it into force. So this is not something we have not had previously. It is right there in legislation for a leaseholder to have access to this information, but we have never brought it in. What the Minister is suggesting is actually a regressive step, taking leaseholders further away by saying, “We’ll do it through secondary legislation now.”

I really do think it is important to have this on the face of the Bill. We know how Committees work. I know the Minister cannot accept the amendment now, but I would ask him to go away and come back on Report. If he comes back with his own amendment to achieve the objective, I will be delighted.

[Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[The Chair]

Order. I am not surprised the hon. Lady has mistaken that intervention for a speech. It was a very long intervention—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lee Rowley]

Thank you, Mr Efford. Would my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch like to intervene on me?

[Rachel Maclean]

I thank my hon. Friend the Minister. Perhaps he would like to ask whether, given his extensive history and detailed knowledge on the subject, the hon. Member for Brent North knows why those provisions were not brought in following the 2002 Act. Or perhaps the Minister would like to update us if he has that knowledge for the Committee.

[Lee Rowley]

Sadly, I confess to not having that knowledge from back when I was at university; I probably was not studying the right things. I appreciate the point from my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch that there has been an opportunity for this to be implemented under Governments of both parties and it has not been done. I am always happy to listen to the hon. Member for Brent North, and I do appreciate the point he is making. It is this Government’s intention to move forward with this, albeit through secondary legislation, which I know he has concerns about. I am happy to put that on the record on the assumption and hope, at least on the Conservative side, that we are in government when this happens. I hope he will not press his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Maclean]

In the same evidence session, we also heard Amanda Gourlay’s concern about the nature of the accounts being mandated, and she said that it is not something that she would recognise as a set of accounts because it does not have a balance sheet or expenditure. I think the Minister said that a chartered accountant will have to sign off on them. Can he reassure members of the Committee that that will address the concern raised with us by Amanda?

[Lee Rowley]

I thank my hon. Friend for her question. Yes, that is my understanding, and, as part of the response in writing, we will clarify that.

To conclude, new section 21E places an obligation on landlords to provide an annual report in respect of service charges and other matters likely to be of interest to the leaseholder arising in that period.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

I must disappoint the Minister, because what he says does not reassure me. I rise to oppose clause 34 standing part of the Bill, and to argue in favour of new clause 3. As he has made clear, clause 34 amends the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002, with a view to limiting but not abolishing the right of landlords to claim litigation costs from tenants. Although the property chamber tribunal does not generally tend to shift the legal costs of the winning party on to the losing claimant, on various occasions landlords have been able to rely on contractual rights to recover costs against leasees. When that occurs, it is in essence a form of one-way cost shifting, and it is inherently unfair to the affected leasees. Previous attempts have been made expressly to limit these cost recovery provisions, notably by means of schedule 11 to the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002, but despite those provisions, and the issue coming before the higher courts on several occasions, the ability of a landlord to recover costs incurred in litigating disputes persists.

We support the aim of scrapping the presumption that leaseholders will pay their freeholders’ legal costs when they have challenged poor practice, as outlined in the explanatory notes to the Bill, and we believe that, apart from in a limited number of circumstances, landlords should be prohibited from claiming litigation costs from leaseholders. As I have said, clause 34 does not prohibit landlords from claiming litigation costs from tenants; instead, it merely limits their ability to do so.

The clause allows landlords in certain, at present undefined, circumstances to apply to the relevant court or tribunal for an order to pass their legal costs on to leaseholders as an administration charge, or on to all leaseholders, irrespective of whether they participated in any given legal action, through the service charge. It may be that the matters that the relevant court or tribunal can take into account when determining whether to make an order on an application for costs will be defined in such a way as to protect the vast majority of leaseholders from unjust, one-way cost shifting, but to allow for cost recovery in circumstances where it is essential—for example, when the landlord is a company controlled by the leaseholders that needs to recover its reasonable legal costs via the service charge or risk going bust. However, as we consider the clause today, we have no certainty whatsoever about that, because the matters that the relevant court or tribunal can account for, as well as the application process, will be set out in regulations to come.

Even if we had certainty about what the Government will tell courts and tribunals that they can consider in determining whether to make an order, we fear that clause 34 is an invitation to litigate. Yes, regulations will prescribe the relevant matters that can be taken into account, but given the multiple Court of Appeal cases and numerous upper tribunal cases on what “in connection with” means, we will almost certainly see disputes arising about what costs are incurred “in connection with” legal proceedings, and whether they are compatible. The risk is that the outcomes of any such cases could erode the general presumption against leaseholders paying their freeholders’ legal costs that the clause attempts to enact.

We believe that it would be more prudent to implement, by means of the new clause, a general prohibition on landlords claiming litigation costs from leaseholders, and then clearly to identify a limited number of exceptions to that general rule through regulations. As I have said, such exceptions might include cases in which the landlord is a leasehold-owned company, or in which the costs are, in the opinion of the tribunal, reasonably incurred for the benefit of the leaseholders or the proper management of the building. That would cover the example that the Minister used. Amendment 8, which would simply delete clause 34, and new clause 3 would provide for that approach by leaving out clause 34 and replacing it with a new clause that provides for a general prohibition on claiming legal costs from tenants, and for a power to specify classes of landlord who will be exempted from it.

I appreciate that this is a complex argument about the best means to achieve an agreed end, but we think that clause 34 requires further thought, and urge the Government to give serious consideration to the issues raised by amendment 8 and new clause 3. As I said, the Government’s approach is a recipe for freeholder litigation, and it might mean far more leaseholders than we are comfortable with bearing the legal costs of their landlords.

[Rachel Maclean]

I place on record my concerns about the Government’s approach to this issue, based on my experience in the Minister’s role, and having listened carefully to representations made, particularly by members of the all-party parliamentary group on leasehold and commonhold reform and a gentleman called Liam Spender, who detailed his experiences at the hands of FirstPort. That was an absolutely horrific, heartbreaking and shocking abuse of a decent, honourable and hard-working person buying a flat. He described it as being treated like a “lab rat” in a laboratory maze. I will not forget the testimony that he and many others gave.

Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill (Seventh sitting)

Baroness Maclean of Redditch Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 25th January 2024 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

I call Matthew Pennycook—

[Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)]

rose—

[The Chair]

Oh, I beg your pardon. I did not catch you out of the corner of my eye. I call Rachel Maclean.

[Rachel Maclean]

I apologise, Mr Efford. I was not quick enough on my feet. Thank you for calling me, and it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship.

I thank the Minister for his comprehensive answer to the shadow Minister’s questions. My point is somewhat in the same vein, and I am very much thinking of the witnesses we had from the National Leasehold Campaign, who talked about this point in quite a bit of detail. Their concern was about having to pay to buy out the ground rent. Of course, there are a number of elements, factors and variables dependent and contingent on the outcome of the consultation. There are people who might be watching this thinking, “Well, when will I actually know how much it is going to cost me?” A year can go by and they may tip over that threshold. Can the Minister give a bit of clarification to those leaseholders who have been trapped for so long and want to see some light at the end of the tunnel? What signpost can he give on when this right will apply to them and how much they will have to pay if they want to exercise their individual right to have their ground rent reduced to a peppercorn?

[Lee Rowley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point. She is absolutely right that this matter is important to a number of people, and that it is important that we provide the greatest transparency at the earliest opportunity. I hope she will forgive me for not being able to answer her very valid question directly. We are dependent on an appropriate and detailed review of the consultation, which is necessary—for some of the reasons we talked about on Tuesday—given its importance to a number of parts of the sector and others. We need to allow that to conclude, hopefully as swiftly as possible, and then we need to get it through this place and our colleagues in the other place, who can often slow us down. Hopefully, that will happen as soon as possible.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lee Rowley]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point. He articulates another example of good law being used in a way that is, in my view—without talking about individual incidents—both unintended and inappropriate. I am not a lawyer, and do not seek or have any desire to be one, but as I understand it, there is a concept of reasonableness within the legal domain based on an Act from a number of years ago. Hopefully that helps to answer part of his question, at least from a structural perspective. On the variable service charge side, without talking about individual instances, that kind of instance is a clear example of where those impacted would be able to go through the process of challenging it, which I think would be very sensible. If I were a leaseholder, I might be very tempted to do that, unless the charge could be justified in a different way. On the fixed service charge side, although I accept that there is the potential for these kinds of challenges, conceptually that needs to be balanced with the fact that when the contract was entered, an agreement was made to consent to that amount, for whatever reason—good or otherwise. That is why we are pursuing this. However, I take the hon. Gentleman’s broader point.

[Rachel Maclean]

This discussion goes to the heart of some practices and problems that leaseholders have experienced across the sector. On behalf of the many retirement leaseholders, mentioned by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich, I will make a point and ask for reassurance from the Minister.

What we are talking about with this amendment is different from the ground rent issue. Ground rent is a payment for nothing—nothing is being provided—whereas something is being provided for service charges. There is a service, so there is a need for a charge; that is perfectly legitimate. As Conservatives, we do not dispute the fact that there should be financial recompense for services. However, we find ourselves with a problem, the law of unintended consequences and the drivers of business models.

I would welcome if the Minister could touch on this in his response, but my fear is that if ground rents are removed and business models need to adjust to make recompense for that, the natural behaviour of unethical operators in the retirement sector and possibly elsewhere—some are unethical and do not think about the people who bought properties in good faith—will surely be to seek to load their charges, their profit and loss, back on to the service charge in some way. I am not close enough to existing contracts to know whether they will be able to do that with a fixed charge, so the discussion might be better suited to when we talk about the variable charge. The Minister can help me on that.

The broad point stands, however, in the case of someone dealing with the estate of a loved one, perhaps someone who has passed on, is in care, is suffering from dementia or otherwise does not have the capacity to deal with all this—the Minister will be familiar with such cases. They might be stuck with a property that they cannot sell, and that often applies in such cases when service charges are racking up in a way that is difficult for people to get a handle on—

[Barry Gardiner]

I agree with all the points that the hon. Lady is making. I wonder whether she is aware of the report by Hamptons last year, which said that service charges had increased by 50% over the past five years. That is an indication of just how much of the gouging she is talking about is going on. Furthermore, leaseholders paid a staggering £7.6 billion in service charges last year. Of course, much of that is for the proper renovation of the property, but it seems an extraordinary amount. In fact, 10 years ago, Which? estimated that leaseholders were being overcharged by £700 million.

[Rachel Maclean]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing those figures to the attention of the Committee. I am familiar with them, as are others. [Interruption.] I do not wish to detain the Committee any longer—I can see the Whip making that plain to me. I will leave my remarks there, perhaps to continue at a later point, but the Minister may wish to respond in detail.

[Lee Rowley]

I, too, do not wish to challenge the patience of my colleague the Whip. There will be people who have existing fixed charges; that should not change. There will also be people who have choices about whether to enter into new fixed charges, whether absolute or indexed to some extent. For an inappropriate attempt to do something with variable service charges, there will be the ability to apply to tribunals. I hope that we are closing off all the options that would allow the kind of instances mentioned.