Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 24th April 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

55: After Clause 45, insert the following new Clause—
“Abolition of forfeiture of a long lease(1) This section applies to any right of forfeiture or re-entry in relation to a dwelling held on a long lease which arises either—(a) under the terms of that lease, or(b) under or in consequence of section 146(1) of the Law of Property Act 1925.(2) The rights referred to in subsection (1) are abolished.(3) In this section— “dwelling” means a building or part of a building occupied or intended to be occupied as a separate dwelling, together with any yard, garden, or outhouses and appurtenances belonging to it or usually enjoyed with it;“lease” means a lease at law or in equity and includes a sub-lease, but does not include a mortgage term;“long lease” has the meaning given by sections 76 and 77 of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would abolish the right of forfeiture in relation to residential long leases in instances where the leaseholder is in breach of covenant.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, our amendments in this group go to the heart of one of the current serious injustices relating to leasehold: that of forfeiture. It is quite simply anachronistic, wholly disproportionate and complete imbalance in the relationship between leaseholders and landlords. In some circumstances, a debt of a few hundred pounds can trigger the ability to take possession of the property. What my honourable friend the shadow Minister for Housing in the other place called

“the chilling effect that results from its mere existence”.—[Official Report, Commons, 27/2/24; col. 203.]

puts landlords in a nearly unassailable position of strength in disputes with leaseholders, as I hope I illustrated in my earlier quote from an elderly leaseholder. Unfortunately, the threat of forfeiture is too often used routinely by landlords as a first resort when seeking to recover alleged arrears in payments from leaseholders, and so often invoked to deter leaseholders from disputing any unreasonable costs and defending claims.

Our first amendment is reasonably straightforward: it is basically a matter of disproportionality and consistency. A real estate solicitor summed it up very neatly in his evidence to the Commons committee. He said:

“It is extremely welcome to see the government’s proposed clause 59 and amendment NC4 relating to the abolition of remedies relating to rentcharges. It is also very welcome to see the proposed amendment NC1 which would abolish forfeiture in long residential leases, which is long-overdue. However, there is a key point that does not seem to be addressed: forfeiture in relation to rentcharges. Rentcharge deeds often reserve a right of forfeiture for non-payment which operates in the same manner as a forfeiture clause in a lease. The Committee clearly recognises that the expropriation of somebody’s property as a remedy for breaches of a lease on an extra-judicial basis is entirely inappropriate and unfair. Therefore, it should equally concern the Committee that the same remedy is available in many cases in relation to rentcharges. Therefore, I would ask that the Committee either add to proposed amendment NC1 or propose an additional clause to abolish any right of forfeiture under a rentcharge”.


This amendment would ensure that leaseholders are in no worse a position than anyone else subject to a challenge to ownership would come under. So, while we accept the principle that legal remedies should be available, we do not believe that forfeiture provides adequately for leaseholders to challenge or defend themselves from repossession.

Our other amendments are a bit more complicated on paper, as they would replace Clause 111, which currently provides remedies for arrears of rent charges where the rent charge remains unpaid for a period of 40 days, one of which is the ability for a rent charge owner to take possession of a freehold property in instances where a freehold homeowner fails to pay a rent charge. But in essence it is very simple. It would simply mean that debts have to be sued for, as you would for any other kind of debt. In short, the 1925 Act provides for the power to seize freehold houses for non-payment of a rent charge, even if the arrears are merely a few pounds, and allows the rent charge holder to retain possession or render it, in effect, worthless by means of maintaining a 99-year lease over it.

In our view, the remedies provided in the 1925 Act are a wholly disproportionate and draconian legacy of Victorian-era property law. The 1977 Act prohibited the creation of new rent charges and provided for existing rent charges to be abolished in 2037, but 13 years from now is still a long time away and any lease granted prior to the abolition will remain in force. Rent charges are therefore an area of law in respect of which legislative reform is long overdue and the need to protect rent payers from what amounts essentially to a particularly severe form of freehold forfeiture as a result of the relevant remedies provided by the 1925 Act is pressing.

We understand that the Minister in the Commons called this argument “reasonable” and implied that it could be revisited if the Government were able to consider the potential consequences of such a change, so I press the Minister that, if we are asked to withdraw our amendment today, she will at least consider whether the Government can deliver the effect we all want to see via a government amendment. We feel very strongly about this issue and I hope it will not be necessary to continue to press this point through to Report. I beg to move.

[Lord Truscott (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I wish to address the issue of forfeiture and support Amendment 55 in the name of the noble Baronesses, Lady Taylor of Stevenage and Lady Pinnock, and Amendment 95 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor. I absolutely agree that leaseholders should not be subject to forfeiture in the case of a debt of a few hundred pounds or a temporary breach of covenant. Indebtedness can be dealt with by the county court and bailiffs. For that reason, I support Amendment 95 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage. However— I know this may be controversial with some noble Lords—I am concerned that a blanket ban on forfeiture would remove an effective deterrent preventing some leaseholders persistently and wilfully breaching their leases by, for example, anti-social behaviour.

Let me give three practical examples I have come across in my years as a leaseholder. The first concerns a landlord who was letting out his flat on Airbnb, in breach of his lease. He knew he could make more money doing this than letting it on a long lease. As noble Lords know, Airbnb can cause a serious nuisance in blocks of permanent residents, due to excessive noise, wear and tear and lack of security impacting on quiet enjoyment. The landlord/leaseholder in question stopped only when threatened with forfeiture for breaching the lease.

The second involved a leaseholder putting a hot tub under a neighbour’s window, in clear breach of the lease, as only patio furniture was allowed to be displayed on the terrace, and threatening their quiet enjoyment. When challenged, their approach was dumb insolence. “What are you going to do about it?” was their approach. The threat of forfeiture ensured its removal.

The third example is more personal. My wife was attacked in our own garden by a neighbour’s tenant’s large dog, which was in a flat in breach of the lease. The gardens are open, with no boundaries, so dogs wandering around under no control are a problem. Let me be clear, I am a dog lover—I had two dogs as a child—but I am also conscious that there has been a massive increase in dog attacks in recent years. Official NHS figures reveal that, in the year to March 2023, there were 9,277 hospital admissions in which the patient had been bitten or struck by a dog. The number of people killed by dogs has also risen dramatically. In the last 20 years or so, the number of fatal dog bites has averaged about three per year; however, by 2022, it had risen to 10 fatalities and is still climbing. These cases are horrific and worrying.

Many blame the owners, not the dogs. Too many owners seem unwilling or unable to control their dogs and this behaviour is unfortunately widespread, as I have witnessed myself on a number of occasions. The dog in our block stayed, but when the leaseholder/landlord tried to introduce another tenant with another large dog, after the first attack, again in breach of the lease, it was only the threat of forfeiture that resolved the situation. Dogs may be appropriate in many surroundings, but in others they are excluded in leases for a reason.

Thus there are occasions when the mere threat of forfeiture, rarely used in practice, is useful to ensure compliance with lease obligations. Other legal routes can be extremely costly, lengthy and ineffective. So I ask the supporters of a complete ban on forfeiture how they propose to enforce compliance with leases and prevent breaches in the future if this proposal is carried.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I am not saying they are not positive. At the end of the day, to make progress we need a government amendment, or an amendment that somebody else tables that the Government will support, at the next stage. That is progress; that is what I am trying to push. I know the Minister is very generous with her time, and wants to get this right, and wants to meet colleagues. I am just trying to get it on the record, that is all. I know the Minister has been good every time that colleagues have raised this issue in the House, and I have a Question on it again on, I think, 22 May. I thank her very much.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for supporting these amendments and the noble Lords, Lord Truscott, Lord Kennedy and Lord Bailey, for their comments.

In relation to the Minister’s comments about the time it takes to do this, I repeat that the Conservative Party has had this in its manifesto since 2017, so there has been quite a lot of time to think this through and have a look at this. It is a bit disappointing that we are in Committee in the House of Lords with some of these key issues still unresolved.

I ask your Lordships to reflect on, first, the example I gave in the earlier debate, of the elderly couple who told me they have a dispute with their landlord and are being threatened with forfeiture. They potentially have a £15,000 bill for the costs. If they pay that charge it is taken as agreement, but failure to pay it means that the landlord can invoke forfeiture, so where do they go? That is an awful position to put people in.

My second example is a young lady who I was out with the other day doing our political work. She lives in a leasehold flat; she put a political poster up in her window and then, almost immediately, received a letter from the landlord threatening her with forfeiture because that breached the terms of her lease. That seems an onerous way of dealing with a relatively small issue.

I listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Truscott, and he is right that there needs to be some form of resolution to this that means it does not need to go to the High Court—but it should certainly not be forfeiture, which is totally disproportionate. There may be a need to consider remedies other than the big sledgehammer of the High Court. Threatening to repossess people’s homes is certainly not an answer to technical breaches of lease.

Regarding rent charges, they will still be in place until 2037. We have to look at this and see whether we can find some way of getting rid of them before then.

As the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, said, if we have to bring this amendment back again, we will, but I would rather the Government did so. That said, I withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 55 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

60: Clause 48, page 57, leave out from line 23 to line 23 on page 58
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would leave out the proposed new section 87B of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 and so ensure that RTM companies cannot incur costs in instances where claims cease.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, our amendment in this group refers to the fact that the Bill currently makes an exception to litigation costs being borne by landlords in the case where right-to-manage claims have been withdrawn or otherwise ceased early and the right-to-management company has acted unreasonably in bringing the right-to-management claim, allowing the landlord to apply to the tribunal for any reasonable costs.

The key arguments for the amendment are that, first, leaseholders should not be put at risk of having to pay costs simply for exercising statutory rights, in this case the right to seek to acquire and exercise rights in relation to the management of premises in which one has a leasehold interest. There is also concern that unscrupulous landlords might use the rights provided for in new Section 87B of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 as a means of recovering costs from right-to-manage companies that act reasonably and in good faith and, by implication, that it would discourage right-to-manage companies from initiating a claim because of the financial risk it still entails for individual participating leaseholders. Put simply, the fear is that new Section 87B will incentivise unscrupulous landlords to fight claims on the basis that they are defective in the hope of recovering costs by means of it. Our main concern regarding Clause 48 is that the use of the words “reasonable fee” and “reasonable costs” would not allow either of the above situations to occur. I ask the Minister: who will determine the definition of “reasonable”, and how?

I will comment on other amendments. We think that the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Bailey, are very reasonable, and we support his aims here. In fact, colleagues in the other place submitted similar amendments in Committee.

I also look forward to hearing the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, introduce his amendments, which would incorporate local authorities and their properties, both within the HRA and without, but I ask whether he had discussions about this proposal with the Local Government Association or local authority stockholders. Most good local authority landlords already have substantial arrangements in place for liaison with leaseholders and tenants around the management of property, and there is certainly no issue with improving that through more effective right-to-manage arrangements. However, as much local authority property will be occupied by a mixture of local authority tenants and leaseholders, it would be important to ensure that there were no unintended consequences. I urge that that level of consultation takes place before any proposal such as this proceeds further. The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, will forgive me if he has already done that consultation, but it was not clear from the amendments. With that, I beg to move Amendment 60.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, it is a privilege to speak after the noble Baroness. I will come to answering her question. To give a blunt answer, I have not undertaken the consultation that she refers to, but I will explain when I get to that part of my introduction why I think that this stands on its own.

As I said at Second Reading, I strongly support those parts of the Bill which facilitate the exercise of the right to manage on the part of leaseholders in residential blocks. There are several measures in the Bill which do that. The right to manage is, in some ways, the crucial key to unlocking the levels of dissatisfaction which some leaseholders have with the way in which their blocks are managed. I strongly support it.

There is a particular issue which the Bill does not address. As a consequence of my general support for this—contrary to my remarks in earlier debates— I hope that the Government will give me a softer and more welcoming answer. As a result of my proposal, perhaps my noble friend on the Front Bench will even give me one of those answers which invites me to attend a meeting. In fact, I have had a meeting with my noble friend about this, though she may not recall it. We met last summer to discuss this issue with officials, and she was very sympathetic to it. That gives me additional reasons for thinking that this might be a welcome amendment.

The amendment arises from a particular case, but it raises questions of general importance. I shall refer to the case later, but I want to address the question of general importance first. When the right to manage was introduced through the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002, certain exceptions were placed on it. The Government intend to ease some of those restrictions, and I welcome that. One restriction was that the right to manage did not apply where the landlord of the building was a local housing authority.

I have tabled two alternative amendments—this is my point about consultation. Both amendments would reverse that assumption. One would eliminate it entirely. It would bring within the ambit of right to manage all blocks where the local housing authority was the landlord, including those within the housing revenue account. The noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, said that this could raise certain difficulties in cases where a block had so many long lease holders that it could exercise the right to manage but would be left with certain local authority tenants in the block. I have experience of local government, as does the noble Baroness. I recognise that she is correct in saying that there might be certain sensitivities about this. I think it could be managed. Indeed, it would be liberating for all the tenants of the block in many ways. The local authority tenants would also have a say in the management of the block. They would not be excluded from it simply because they were local authority tenants.

Recognising that this is a slightly daring proposition, I have suggested an alternative which would simply take out of the provision local housing authority-owned blocks where they were owned simply as an investment. I have left it vague as to whether that is a commercial investment or one held in the local authority’s pension fund. These are probing amendments. I should be happy to discuss these issues with my noble friend the Minister.

I come now to a particular case. There are blocks where local authorities have acquired property as an investment. Doing so immediately extinguishes the right of the long lease holders to exercise their right to manage—there are no local authority tenants. I think that is wrong. The case I am thinking of concerns a block acquired by a London local authority from a commercial property investment trust, bought at market value as an investment. The local authority, the new owner, was dissatisfied with the accounts inherited from the previous manager—it had their own manager for the block. As a result, it has not been able to put satisfactory accounts together for the last three years. As a consequence, it has not had the legal standing to issue invoices to its tenants for its service charges. It has been running the building’s operating costs out of the capital sums that had been set aside as a sinking fund to pay for future improvements to the building. It is all very unsatisfactory.

That is a classic situation in which long leaseholders would normally exercise the right to manage but, completely arbitrarily, are precluded from doing so. That is wrong. We should facilitate this.

At the very least, my noble friend should welcome my second amendment, Amendment 62, and say that where a local authority acquires a property for commercial purposes—not for the housing of its tenants but as an investment, either in its own name or as part of its pension fund—the right to manage would be restored. The financial interests of the local authority would be preserved, as they are under the current arrangements. It is simply that the right to manage the building would be taken over by the long leaseholders, as elsewhere, and they would manage it in just the same way as in all the other right-to-manage arrangements we are so much in favour of.

I will stop at that point because I have simply made my case, but this is a strange omission from the current arrangements, and one that we now have an opportunity to correct. I would be very happy to attend the meeting.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful, as ever, to the Minister for her responses. It seems she is going to be very busy over the next few weeks, having all these meetings with all of us. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, for reminding me that, had the right reverend Prelate been here, I too would have objected strongly to the proposals he was making on Clause 47, because they would simply have opened the door to retaining the 25% limit, virtually across the property sector. I believe that would have gone against the intentions of the Bill, so she was right in what she said there and I thank her for her support for my amendment.

From this side of the House, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Bailey, that we welcome belligerent interventions from either side, but especially from the Benches opposite, so just keep going with those. We particularly agree with his Amendment 65B. If his meeting does not achieve the desired effect and he chooses to pursue this, he will certainly have our support.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, very much for his explanation. I had not realised that these were either/or amendments, but I understand his point about property owned as an investment by a local authority or pension fund. I agree with his point about the principle of right to manage being extended as far as possible. That is absolutely right, although anything affecting local authorities needs to have some consultation with the sector, because we just do not know what any unintended consequence of that might mean. I hope he will consider that if he chooses to pursue this amendment, but perhaps the meeting with the Minister might allay his concerns in that regard. That said, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 60 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am sure the Minister understands that this has dragged on and on, and we are now at a very late stage of a Bill that has already gone all the way through the Commons. Quite frankly, the degree of uncertainty and instability that is being caused to leaseholders—and to freeholders, to be fair to them—is unacceptable. Yet again in this Chamber, we hear the phrase, “in due course”. I do not know what that means; it can mean anything from tomorrow to in three years’ time when we get round to sorting it out. That is not acceptable either.

We had a very detailed report from the Competition and Markets Authority, which roundly condemned the use of ground rents as a mechanism. We have heard in this Chamber over and again that this is money for nothing and that it has resulted in the most dreadful exploitation. The example I gave in Committee on Monday of an elderly couple virtually being held to ransom by the freeholder is absolutely shocking. That will be going on in millions of homes across the country. This is just not acceptable any longer. I hope that the Secretary of State will very rapidly make up his mind as to what he is going to do about this, stop being bulldozed by freeholder interests in his own party, make a decision and get rid of ground rents, once and for all. This would let people sleep easy in their beds, which they have not been able to do while this debate has been going on.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I think there was a question there, and my response is that we went out, quite rightly, to consult, and the consultation did not finish until towards the end of January. This is a complex issue. If we do it badly or wrong then we will make mistakes and these people will potentially be in a more difficult situation. From the end of January to April is not a long time. We are doing it as fast as we can, and we will come back to the House with further details.

Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 24th April 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, I suppose I could say “#UsToo”. I support these amendments, which are simple in purpose, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, who summed them up thoroughly, clearly and personally. As things stand under PDR, a freeholder can add two storeys to their existing building as a matter of right, with no planning permission needed: as I look round Watford, I can see evidence of that with my own eyes. But I also know that that can have very serious consequences. As well as the inconvenience of the building work going on for as long as it takes, you also discover that the top-floor flat that you paid a premium for is now worth less as you are a middle-floor flat. Then there is the pressure on communal space and amenities, including the dreaded bin store and the state thereof.

Adding two more storeys to a presumably well-planned block of flats, for a set number of residents, is not consequence-free. But the consequences are absolutely trivial compared with the knock-on effects of such development on the Government’s own stated aim, which is to encourage more leaseholders to buy their freehold. This is an additional and often insurmountable obstacle. It significantly raises the cost of enfranchisement, as has been said. The value of the block will have gone up. The leaseholders are now required to pay more for their freehold. In many parts of the country, this takes it way out of reach, as in the noble Baroness’s case.

The noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, very thoroughly cited a positive trail of support: all the right noises from the Secretary of State in 2021, the Government’s complete recognition of the dilemma and a real promise of the ability to look into some restriction.

It is clear that there is a policy conflict here: the need for more homes, which we all agree on, versus the enfranchisement of leaseholders. As things stand, the homes policy is top trumps. Can the Minister advise on whether there will be a review of PDRs in general, including focusing on unintended consequences such as this and whether there is a way to sort this out in the leaseholder’s favour in the Bill? At the moment, it feels as if the freeholders are still very much holding all the aces and current residents have no voice at all in this significant change to their environment and, possibly, their life chances and finances.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend Lady Andrews for the collaborative way in which she has prepared and worked on her amendment, and drawn the attention of the House to what seems to be an omission from the Bill. We believe this needs to be rectified and my noble friend has not only set out, with her usual thorough approach and eloquence, exactly what the issue is, but has also proposed a straightforward and elegant solution, which we support.

My noble friend describes the Law Commission report as adopted by the Government in January 2021. Indeed, the government press release of January 2021 indicated that the Bill would strongly take account of this government commitment to release leaseholders from the straitjacket of hope of future development value. I quote from that press release:

“Leaseholders will also be able to voluntarily agree to a restriction on future development of their property to avoid paying ‘development value’”.


This is based on a Law Commission suggestion, which clearly indicates the direction of travel and which we believe the Government have accepted. To quote from the Law Commission recommendation:

“Premiums would be reduced at the date of the freehold acquisition claim. If leaseholders subsequently decided that they wanted to develop, they would pay a portion of any profit received on a subsequent development to the landlord, rather than (as at present) having to pay development value in respect of a speculative future possibility of development”.


The Law Commission also set out clearly the principle that leaseholders should not need to have to negotiate on a piecemeal basis for this restriction but should be granted it by right. The commission refers to leaseholders of flats acquiring the freehold to their block and states that,

“as they would not be required to pay the landlord an additional sum to reflect the potential to develop their properties, leaseholders would no longer be required to negotiate with the landlord to create such a restriction; rather, they would be entitled to demand such a restriction be included”

and

“disputes, negotiation and litigation about development value would be reduced”.

The Law Commission clearly believed that the election to take a restriction on development outweighed the disadvantages put forward by other consultees and that such an election was eminently possible to implement where there was agreement among leaseholders.

I also point out that this issue arises, in part, from yet another unintended consequence of the permitted development regime—a point mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill—on which I have made my views clear in your Lordships’ House in the past. I am not an unequivocal fan of PD. Permitted development removes the step of local accountability through the planning system, often the contribution to local community infrastructure and almost always the contribution to local affordable housing which would be required through traditional planning applications.

At its worst, permitted development drives a coach and horses through local plans, resulting in residential property in inappropriate areas and buildings, and in taking buildings out of commercial use where it may not be appropriate to do so. In the case of the subject of this amendment, its very existence can create an added financial pressure on those wishing to exercise their enfranchisement rights. That is another reason why we believe that the solution proposed by my noble friend Lady Andrews delivers an equal and justifiable right to leaseholders.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester for drawing our attention to the fact that when you make complex changes, the consequences cannot always be predicted and may not be ones we would wish to support.

The issue is one I hope the Minister will be able to help us resolve. The right reverend Prelate cited the balance between justice and simplicity. He said to always come down on the side of justice, and so would I. However, in this case, we have competing justices. The principle being advocated throughout the Bill is the justice of rebalancing the rights and responsibilities between freeholders and leaseholders to the benefit of leaseholders—a principle most of us support. The difficulty is that the justice we support has a consequence we would not support: reducing the funds available to charities whose income is based on freehold property. So, there is a conundrum for us.

The right reverend Prelate listed the charities that he thought were affected by these changes. I noted they were all London-based, no doubt because of land values in London. It is important for us to know whether this is a more extensive problem, or a London-based one. The first question we need to ask is, what other charities will be affected?

I do not have an answer to the next question: is there a workaround that mitigates the effect of the principal changes the Bill seeks to implement? I am sure the bright young things in the department could come up with a way of mitigating the outcome, so that charities do not lose their income, which is in nobody’s interest. I am confident that somebody will come up with a great way of overcoming this problem, while retaining the other justice: fairness towards leaseholders.

So, there are questions but no answers, and I look forward to hearing what the Government might be able to do.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, this debate has again outlined what a huge benefit it would be to have proper, detailed pre-legislative scrutiny of Bills such as this. I hope that will take place when we get a commonhold Bill, whoever brings it forward.

In principle, I am in much of the same mind as my noble friend Lord Truscott when it comes to special pleading on marriage value. I fear that the amendments in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester are in danger of being an almighty sledge- hammer to crack not a very big nut, and my comments are made on that basis.

First, I thank the right reverend Prelate and Lynne Guyton, from John Lyon’s Charity, for meeting me yesterday to explain the issue in more detail. The issues set out by the right reverend Prelate affect a very small number of charities, such as the ones in central London that he has outlined. They have been in place for centuries and, as was explained to me, use marriage value on lease extensions as a critical contribution to the funding of their charitable work. The leaseholders of these properties are largely offshore companies or non-residential wealthy owners, so the argument put forward by the charities is that, in this case, the benefit of marriage value has what the right reverend Prelate described as the “reverse Robin Hood effect”. The benefit currently accrues to the beneficiaries of the charity, such as youth clubs, arts projects, emotional well-being initiatives, supplementary schools, parental support schemes, sports programmes, academic bursaries and similar projects. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bailey, for his personal testimony in this respect.

The fear is that, after the Bill has passed, the benefits will then accrue to the said wealthy offshore companies and leaseholders. I believe the Government have been in conversation with the charities concerned and have promised to look at what can be done to ensure that a very limited exception is considered. However, it is our understanding that this has not been forthcoming, and I hope the Minister will tell us where the Government have got to. Have the Government carried out any impact assessment of the way the Bill will affect charities that have long-standing property endowments solely for the purpose of enabling their charitable aims?

However, as with group 2, these amendments would amend Schedule 4, which is where the market value element of the premium for any enfranchisement claim is determined. The second amendment tabled by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester has also applied it to the later section on loss suffered, in paragraph 32, which refers back to assumption 2. Straightforwardly, these amendments would disapply assumption 2 for charities, and thereby include marriage and hope values in determining market value.

As I said during the first Committee sitting on the Bill, we genuinely appreciate the intention behind supporting what is argued to be the unique circumstances of this small group of charities. However—and it is a big “however”—the amendment as drafted is almost certainly far too broad to encompass only their very unusual circumstances. Perhaps the Government will continue to work with right reverend Prelate and the charities concerned to see what can be done to support them; otherwise, we fear that a general amendment such as the one tabled could open a big Pandora’s box and encourage those wishing to avoid the new system of enfranchisement—which we support, of course—and there may be plenty who wish to do so, to misuse charitable status for that purpose.

The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, referred to exemptions created for the National Trust, which the Government felt were justified. Presumably, the Government feel that some exemptions are justified.

While we do not feel that the amendment as tabled would avoid some of the obvious pitfalls of creating a loophole in the stated aims of the Bill—with which we agree—I look forward to the response of the Minister about whether any progress can be made in this respect.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

47: Clause 37, page 33, leave out from line 12 to line 6 on page 34
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would leave out the proposed new section 19C of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967, and so ensure that leaseholders are not liable to pay their landlord’s non-litigation costs in cases where a low value enfranchisement or extension claim is successful.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, we welcome the new costs regime provided for by provisions in the Bill, because, as things stand, there is no balance of power: the playing field is tilted very much in favour of landlords rather than leaseholders, and that needs to be addressed. Under the current law, leaseholders are required to pay for certain non-litigation costs incurred by their landlord when responding to an enfranchisement or lease extension claim. That obviously does not reflect normal practice in residential conveyancing, where each party bears their own costs. I hope that noble Lords will forgive me for explaining our rationale for this amendment in a bit more detail than is customary for me, but it is a point of real principle, and some technical detail is warranted.

Noble Lords will remember that I quoted from a letter I had received from elderly leaseholders on the first day of Committee. I have received further representations in relation to excessive charges for non-litigation costs, which I will read out as they are a perfect illustration of the problem these amendments seek to address. I appreciate that this example relates to a ground rent dispute, but it would be the same issue for an enfranchisement or extension claim.

“After the Freeholder asks a ridiculous sum in increased ground rent with their ground rent review (every 4 years) this causes the leaseholder to then employ both a Solicitor and Surveyor to counter this high valuation which incidentally had no calculations to back it up. Therefore so far this year having paid £3,000 for a surveyor to dispute this figure and a lawyer costing so far £3,600, the freeholders haven’t even tried to justify their huge increase and valuation. Now after 4 months having passed and the 3-month negotiation ended and the Freeholders have made no effort to take part, negotiate or even contact our surveyor they now say this increase is NOT agreed …


If we lose with the third-party surveyor’s estimate and the increase is even only minimal we still have to pay the third-party surveyor’s fees plus the freeholder’s lawyer’s fees and our own lawyer’s fees, therefore it could end up costing as much as £15,000. Plus if they look to backdate the increase over the past 6 years’ Ground Rent charges this could amount to who knows what?


Even if we win we still lose a great amount of costs and fees plus we cannot look forward to a reduction in Ground Rent as the lease states an ‘Upward Only Revision’. Therefore freeholders know they can put in totally unrealistic figures for rent increase of whatever they want as the leaseholders are on a hiding to nothing … until they throw in the towel.


Additionally, to lodge a dispute at the 1st Tier Tribunal for any high unreasonable charges it is necessary to not pay the bill in question otherwise it is deemed you have agreed to this payment but then withholding payment runs the risk of forfeiture”,


which we will discuss later today. My correspondent goes on to plead that the issue of ground rent increases finally be resolved by the Bill, but their case illustrates the financial and legal minefield that leaseholders face.

The argument for imposing non-litigation costs has always been that, in enfranchisement or lease extension claims, a landlord is being forced to sell his or her asset, which would justify a departure from the practice in open market sales of residential property. However, when it comes to lease extensions or freehold purchases, a landlord is obviously not simply being compensated for the value of the asset they are being compelled to sell. They are instead securing, through the payable premium, a share of the profit to be made from selling to the leaseholders in question. In addition, as things stand, through capitalised ground rents, they are extracting funds from leaseholders over long periods—often decades —prior to securing that profit share, for no explicit services in return.

The valuations of lease extensions and freehold acquisitions under the existing statutory regime rely on prices agreed via an open market transaction, but those valuations do not account for the fact that leaseholders are expected to pay their landlord’s non-litigation costs. Therefore, landlords in enfranchisement or extension transactions receive the price for the asset being sold, which reflects the market rate without non-litigation costs factored in, and their reasonably incurred non-litigation costs on top.

In its 2020 final report on enfranchisement, the Law Commission is very clear that the effects of law and current market practice are that

“the landlord is over-compensated for the non-litigation costs that he or she has had to incur in order to transfer the interest to the leaseholder”.

In addition, many of those who are better resourced could use the fact that such costs are borne by leaseholders as leverage in negotiations on the price of the lease extension or freehold acquisition, confident that the expense of challenging those costs in a tribunal would dissuade many leaseholders from doing so.

The Opposition are clear that freeholders should not receive compensation in respect of non-litigation costs. A landlord selling his or her asset and receiving a share of the profit as a result is not sufficient justification for departing from an arrangement in which reasonable non-litigation costs are factored into the ultimate price. The decision to enfranchise or extend a lease is often not discretionary; it is often a requirement brought about by the fact that a lease is due to expire, because the payable premium is rising as the lease shortens, or as a result of the decision to move or remortgage.

We therefore fully support the intention in the Bill to provide for a new regime based on the principle that leaseholders are not required to pay the freeholder’s non-litigation costs in these circumstances. We note the Law Society’s concern that landlords are being asked to bear their own non-litigation costs, despite the fact that the proposed standard valuation method provided for by Schedule 2 will lead to payable premiums below full open market value because it caps the capitalisation rate. However—and this point touches on one of our previous debates—political decisions set the rules of the game for market competition. In our view, it is simply not the case that there is some kind of inherent market value for premiums entirely independent of legislation in this area. Every sale of a flat and every lease extension process relating to a flat since 1993 has been undertaken against the backdrop of the 1993 Act, which reduced ground rents to a peppercorn.

The market value for premiums is shaped by the laws that the House passes. It is right in principle that, to achieve the Bill’s objectives of making it cheaper and easier for leaseholders in houses and flats to extend their lease or buy their freehold, leaseholders do not pay non-litigation costs in addition to the payment of a premium, as determined by the new method proposed in Schedules 2 and 3. We believe that leaseholders should not be liable for these costs as a result of an enfranchisement or lease extension claim on principle, irrespective of the method by which the premium is calculated. That is why we take issue with the clause as drafted, because it does not protect all leaseholders from liability for costs incurred.

The clause as drafted entails only a selective extension of rights in this area, because it does not ensure that all leaseholders will no longer have to pay their freeholder’s costs when making a claim. Instead, it makes exceptions to the general rule, whereby the price payable for the freehold or extended lease is below an amount to be prescribed in regulations.

We understand the rationale—namely, that leaseholders should pay a freeholder’s non-litigation costs in such circumstances, so that low-value claims do not cost the freeholder money. The Minister has been very clear that the Government believe that this must happen to ensure that the process is fair for both sides. We also appreciate that there are risks in prohibiting a landlord from passing on non-litigation costs to leaseholders in cases where they would be required to spend more in carrying out the transaction than they received for the asset. The Law Commission highlighted a number of those risks, including the incentive created for landlords not to co-operate with a claim, or for them to transfer the low-value freehold into the name of a shell company and then liquidate the company.

However, we are concerned that exempting claims below a certain value will create a different set of practical problems. These include costly and time-consuming disputes in cases in which the price payable is close to the level of the non-litigation costs in question for low-value claims, and the potential for landlords to game the system by arguing for a price payable below the threshold in order to secure both it and associated non-litigation costs because of the burden of disputing the amount.

Taking a step back, we fail to see the logic in the Government’s position. On the one hand, they seem to be ignoring the Law Commission’s recommendations in relation to costs; they have chosen to provide for a general rule that leaseholders are not required to make a contribution to their landlord’s non-litigation costs, but have not chosen to adopt a valuation methodology that seeks to reflect open market value, which was the commission’s stated prerequisite for such a rule. On the other hand, they are following strictly the commission’s recommendations in respect of low-value claims.

Put simply, we believe that, by means of this Bill, we should take the political decision to remove any exception to the general rule that leaseholders are not required to pay the freeholder’s non- litigation costs in such circumstances. I hope the Minister will give this careful consideration; otherwise, this section of the Bill has the potential to undermine the stated aim to increase, simplify and reduce the cost of enfranchisement. I beg to move.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, when we started the debate today, I felt like I was wading in mud. I feel I am still in the mud—it has got thicker, and the fog has come down. This is a complex and complicated Bill. I have really enjoyed listening to the arguments and the debate; I have already learned a lot. Report will be a lot better—certainly for me.

I will try to keep my remarks short and my questions simple in order to seek clarification. The noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, has, in her own style, ably illustrated the issue and set out the case for her amendments in great detail. I will not repeat those—some paragraphs have already been knocked out of my speech.

The newly inserted Sections 19A and 89A set out the general rule that neither a current nor a former tenant is liable for any costs incurred by another person because of enfranchisement or a lease extension claim. However, new Sections 19C and 89C set out the exceptions to this rule. The debate is around whether these exceptions are justified. We are seeking the Government’s justification for this variance. Amendments 47 and 48 from the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, would delete these exceptions, so that leaseholders would not be liable to pay their landlord’s non-litigation costs under any circumstances. We agree. Each side should pay its own costs; we are unsure as to why this is not the case.

When this was debated in the Commons, the Government argued that, while the main aim of the changes to the costs regime was to address the imbalance of power that has existed between the landlord and tenant, they had a desire to ensure fairness on both sides. Sections 19C and 89C prevent the landlord incurring a net financial loss when leaseholders exercise their rights to enfranchisement and lease extension, thus acknowledging that this really is a balancing act. We look forward to the Minister’s comments as to how the Government have managed to keep the scales level.

I agree with the comments made in the debates on the last two groups. Some of the problems are because much too much is being left for later regulations, in either guidance or SIs. I believe that we should have had a clear government position on issues as important as landlord costs, deferment and capitalisation rates. This is still too vague. Such uncertainty is bad, not only for the leaseholders but for us parliamentarians who would hope to scrutinise and improve the legislation. However, I note the explanation from the Minister in the last group.

The Law Commission’s report highlights that the current law means that the landlord is overcompensated for these non-litigation costs. We support the Government in saying that costs should be balanced. It has to be said that these amendments raise important questions as to whether new Sections 19C and 89C undermine this aim. The noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, has made a good case to that effect.

--- Later in debate ---

The exception for low-value claims is a necessary provision to protect landlords from unfair costs and, as has been noted, it implements the Law Commission’s enfranchisement recommendation 84. I kindly and respectfully ask the noble Baroness not to press her amendments.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for that reply to my amendments. I am grateful for his reassurance about the costs relating to the difference between the low-value claim and where it ends up. That is a useful clarification. However, we will think through the possible implications of this before we get to Report. It seems iniquitous that the leaseholder is taking all the burden of any reduction in the value of the property and in the value of the lease, while the freeholder is exempted from that because they will then get their costs paid if that happens to be the case when the transaction takes place. We will give that some more thought before Report, but for now I am happy to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 47 withdrawn.

Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 22nd April 2024 Lords Chamber

Debate on whether Clause 7 should stand part of the Bill.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I am pleased to start Committee stage of this long-awaited Bill. I understand that it is not correct protocol to reiterate Second Reading speeches in Committee, so I shall not do that, but I believe that there are some long-standing unanswered questions relating to the Bill. Though we will probe some of them through our amendments, it is disappointing and unhelpful to reach this stage without some of those issues being clarified. If the Minister can comment, either in her early responses in Committee, or as the Bill proceeds, it would be helpful.

I hope we do not have to reach Report before we know, for example, the outcome of the consultation on ground rent; whether the Government have given up on their proposals to scrap leasehold as a tenure for flats; how the Government propose to help freehold homeowners who find themselves trapped in what have become known as fleecehold charges for estate management, an issue raised powerfully by the Law Commission again in its recent briefing; whether the Government intend to use the Bill to put right some of the building safety issues around qualifying and non-qualifying leases, including those relating to buildings under 11 metres in height, which undoubtedly would have been better addressed by the Building Safety Act but were excluded; and why proposals for a regulator of property agents—supported across this House, and discussed again just last week—continue to be resisted. We would be grateful for clarification from the Minister on the commencement date of the provisions in the Bill, as she has indicated in a written response to my noble friend Lord Kennedy that it will not be until 2026.

It is worth opening this group by talking about the news reports over the weekend. We learned from the Times that the costly regime of ground rent will continue for a further 20 years. Although those ground rents may be capped at £250, we have not had any official announcement on that yet.

The amendments in this group relate directly to the ban that was introduced on Report in the Commons; it was added in late so it was not able to be properly scrutinised there. So our main question is: when exactly will the Government do what was reported over the weekend? Will they amend the Bill at an even later stage, with even less opportunity to scrutinise?

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

12: After Clause 25, insert following new Clause—
“Report on providing leaseholders in flats with a share of the freehold(1) The Secretary of State must publish a report outlining legislative options to ensure that all qualifying tenants in newly-constructed residential properties containing two or more flats have a proportionate share of the freehold of their property.(2) The report must be laid before Parliament within three months of the commencement of this Act.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would require the Secretary of State to publish a report outlining legislative options to provide leaseholders in flats with a share of the freehold.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, just before I move my amendment, I should say that I omitted to thank the Minister for her collaborative approach to the Bill in advance of it coming before the Committee. I now do so and rectify that omission. I also thank the Law Commission, as she did, and the many groups that have a leasehold interest and met us in recent weeks. I hope the Committee will forgive me for not mentioning that earlier on.

Amendment 12 requires the Secretary of State to publish a report outlining legislative options to provide leaseholders in flats with a share of the freehold. I shall resist the temptation to go over the ground again of why the Government did not include flats in their ban on new leases, although it would be helpful to know from the Minister what level of consideration was given to enacting the recommendations of the Law Commission in full in regard to this matter, particularly as it was the stated intention of the Secretary of State—that is what he wanted to do. There has been a commitment to this ban on leasehold at least since 2017. One would think that there has been plenty of time to get the work done. Indeed, the Law Commission has done much of the heavy lifting on what would be needed.

Our later amendments seek to determine the Government’s appetite to move in due course to a more widespread system of commonhold as the default tenure. The successful adoption and implementation of this in other jurisdictions has been well debated and discussed in your Lordships’ House. It is certainly the clear intent of my party to move as quickly as possible to that tenure. However, that would be a policy decision, as distinct from the implementation of the Law Commission’s recommendations, and would necessarily have to follow the legal scheme that those recommendations would introduce. As that is not proposed in the Bill but follows the Secretary of State’s intent to do away with the archaic system of leasehold altogether, there is a strong case to make a start with a transitional regime.

The introduction of a mandatory share of freehold in all new blocks of flats, as proposed in our amendment and that of the noble Lord, Lord Bailey of Paddington, alongside the requirement to establish and operate an RMC—a right to manage company—with each leaseholder given a share, would be a sensible staging post on a path towards a commonhold future. It would make conversion to commonhold at a later date a far simpler process. We urge the Government to accept these amendments as they would ensure that we have started on the path to confining leasehold to the dustbin of history, which is where we believe it belongs, and would make it clear that the Bill is not ruling in one set of homes and home owners to the ban and ruling out another. That other is affecting by far the greatest number of leaseholders, with 70% of leaseholders occupying flats. To be clear, this is not an alternative to leasehold. If such a measure were brought into force, any leaseholder resident in a new block of flats would own both the lease and a share of the freehold. It would ensure, in effect, that all new blocks of flats were collectively enfranchised by default, without the need for leaseholders in them to go through the process of acquiring the freehold.

The advantage of having a default share in the freehold is that it would give the leaseholder a direct say on what happens in their building, as is the case with those who have already been collectively enfranchised. It would also provide additional valuable rights, such as the right to a long lease extension on the basis of a peppercorn rent; in other words, the rights that will be accorded to existing leaseholders but without the cost of paying a premium to the freeholder that is still required to exercise that modified right.

We know that flat owners having a share of the freehold can cause tensions; for example, in agreeing how to proceed on crucial decisions, such as whether to cover the cost of major works through service charges. That is why it is essential that proper management arrangements are in place as a matter of course, to reduce the likelihood of damaging disputes between neighbours. That is why we propose mandatory RMCs on new blocks of flats as a corollary to the new clause.

Labour is unequivocal about the fact that commonhold is a preferable tenure to leasehold, in that it gives the benefits of freehold ownership to the owners of flats without the burdensome shortcomings of leasehold ownership. As we have heard, the Law Commission made 121 recommendations on commonhold, designed to provide a legal scheme that would enable commonhold to work more flexibly, and in all contexts. It is vital that if commonhold is to be the default tenure, it is enacted fully and properly, with full account of the Law Commission recommendations.

We have not sought to persuade the Government to incorporate any subset of the Law Commission commonhold recommendations into the Bill, but we need to reform the legal regime for commonhold in one go. Labour is committed to doing so if the British people give us the opportunity to serve after the next general election. In the meantime, it would be good to give current leaseholders a share in the management of their properties. I beg to move.

[Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage. I do not want to rehearse the reasons why I think that a mandatory share of the freehold is necessary, in the way that the noble Baroness laid out. I want to speak more to the contact that I have had with so many different groups and individuals who feel that they are trapped in their leasehold.

The number one thing that comes up is, of course, service charge abuse. Which? did a study in 2011 which suggested that 700 million service charges had been overcharged. The market for that has grown now to 6.7 billion, so we can only assume that this overcharging has grown along with it.

The challenge becomes: how do we make this market fair? How do we make sure that these abuses are washed away? That is to give the people paying the bills control, and not to lock them into the monopoly that leaseholders are currently locked into. Ultimately, the answer would be commonhold, but while commonhold is not on the table, we need to look at a share of the freehold. It should be mandatory, and it should happen straightaway. The noble Baroness laid out very eloquently the benefits that this would give to leaseholders.

We must understand that leaseholders do not want a landlord; that is why they have left the private rented sector—to avoid landlords. These amendments should stand. They really give leaseholders what they want. I have tabled an amendment which asks the Government to retain the power to bring forward a share of the freehold on new flats. That is the most important thing going on here.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, and my noble friend Lord Bailey of Paddington for their amendments.

Amendment 12 would require the Secretary of State to publish a report, within three months of the commencement of the Act, into the legislative options for mandating that new-build flats be sold to leaseholders with a proportionate share of the freehold. We appreciate the benefits that share-of-freehold arrangements have over ordinary leasehold arrangements with third-party landlords, which is why we are making it simpler and cheaper for leaseholders of flats to enfranchise collectively and, therefore, achieve share-of-freehold arrangements. However, the commonhold framework has already been designed as the optimal legal vehicle for the collective ownership of flats. As such, the Government want to see the widespread take-up of commonhold, and for it to be the future preferred tenure for owners of flats, rather than share of freehold.

The noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, asked why the legal framework was so complex. We need to determine precisely what property the mandate is applied to, exemptions, the processes for phased developments, the enforcement of developer liabilities for remedial works and so on. We would also need to prescribe the constitution for resident management companies—since they are presently unregulated—and to consider how the management functions are to be exercised by such companies, resident participation in decision-making, and the procedures and jurisdictions for dispute resolution. It is a complex issue, but one that we are working on—the Law Commission has worked on it for us for a number of years—and we feel that it is important that we continue with moving to commonhold rather than mandate share of freehold.

We understand the desire to offer leaseholders a share of freehold in the interim between leasehold and commonhold while the Government consider the Law Commission report and work on commonhold. However, we do not believe that mandating share-of-freehold sales would be a simple and quick undertaking. We also have concerns about using share of freehold across the whole housing market. It is not an optimum product for managing all types of shared properties, such as large and complex buildings—as we have heard—or buildings with extensive shared spaces. That is why the Government are committed to commonhold instead. We would prefer to work on one widespread take-up of a new tenure, and for that new tenure to be commonhold.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I will ask for some clarification, then. The policy was originally announced in 2017. The Law Commission did a great deal of work on what needed to be done to enact commonhold, and yet it is not in this Bill. The Minister has just reaffirmed the Government’s commitment to move to commonhold, so can she say how much longer it will take to get us to a situation where we have it?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I reiterate that the Government remain absolutely committed to widespread take-up of commonhold for flats. We have reviewed the Law Commissioners’ recommendations to reinvigorate commonhold as a workable alternative to leasehold, and I can assure noble Lords that we will set out next steps in due course.

Amendment 15B from my noble friend Lord Bailey of Paddington would require mandatory share-of-freehold arrangements to be made for block of flats in instances where flats are subject to long leases or collective enfranchisement. I thank him for this amendment and for his interest in this specific instance. We are aware of the interest in this and appreciate the desire to ensure that more leaseholders can obtain control or ownership of their building. Although we understand the benefits that share-of-freehold arrangements can have over ordinary leasehold arrangements with third-party landlords, we are also conscious that mandating share-of-freehold sales on new builds would require a complex legal framework to be constructed and to accommodate the mandate. As I have said, we do not believe that mandating share of freehold would be a quick or easy fix for leaseholders. The Government consider that the best option, as I have also said before, is to continue to work towards the widespread use of commonhold in future, rather than mandating share of freehold.

My noble friend Lord Bailey of Paddington was particularly keen on service charges. The Government will bring forward, through this Bill, a number of measures to require landlords to provide further information to leaseholders on a very proactive basis and to increase the transparency of their service charges and administration charges, as well as providing more information to leaseholders on a reactive basis. Those measures include the introduction of a standardised service charge demand form to standardise the information that freeholders are required to provide to leaseholders. We will mandate the provision of an annual report that sets out key information of importance to leaseholders. We will compel landlords to provide more relevant information to leaseholders on request. We will ensure that service charge accounts are provided within six months of the end of the previous accounting period that they cover, regardless of the lease terms, and this will be subject to a number of exemptions. We will require freeholders to proactively disclose—

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

All I can say to my noble friend is that that is exactly what the Government are working on and that further details will come forward in due course.

A number of things in this Bill will affect the transparency and accountability of freeholders to leaseholders, particularly on service charges, which is the one thing that my noble friend brought up. For these reasons, I hope that the noble Baroness and my noble friend will not press their amendments.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. I found it a bit of a frustrating debate in many ways. As I said, this policy was announced in 2017; we have had a very detailed Law Commission review and endless discussions in this House about how we move to commonhold. In a sense, my amendment was set out to probe whether we could have some route map towards commonhold, and this might be a first step towards that, to provide leaseholders with at least a share of freehold with a view to moving towards commonhold in the future. It seems that the Government want neither to set out what their route map to commonhold is or what the steps on it might be, nor to give us a timescale for that route map towards commonhold. Now we are faced with an indefinite timescale to get there and a Bill which could have enacted it but has not. I wonder how much longer we will have to wait. The seven years we have already waited is quite long enough.

It has been frustrating to unlock that but worth probing the Government’s intentions. I am grateful for the reassurance that commonhold is still the aim, but I would like to know how long it will take. However, in view of the discussions here today, I will for the moment withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 12 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, to be clear, the Bill already removes the automatic 12-month bar on leaseholders that stops them making another enfranchisement claim, should an earlier claim have been withdrawn. My Amendment 16 supplements this by removing the right for a voluntary 12-month agreement to be made between parties to restrict further enfranchisement claims for a leasehold house. Removing the ability for a voluntary 12-month restriction makes sure leaseholders are not put under undue pressure to withhold their claims. This is an important protection for leaseholders and makes it clear that they can make fresh claims as needed.

I look forward to hearing from noble Lords as to how they think that our enfranchisement reforms can be further improved. I beg to move.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, our Amendment 17 would enable the Secretary of State—or, in Wales, Welsh Ministers—to change the description of premises that are excluded from collective enfranchisement rights. Such a change would be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, for all his time in discussing the Bill with me, and I acknowledge his expertise in this area.

Clause 28, which our amendment targets, makes changes to the non-residential limit for collective enfranchisement claims. At present, Section 4(1) of the 1993 Act excludes from the right to enfranchise buildings in which 25 % or more of the internal floor area, excluding the common parts, can be occupied or are intended to be occupied for non-residential use. The clause increases that non-residential use percentage to 50%. We welcome the change, which enacts recommendation 38 of the Law Commission’s final report on leasehold enfranchisement and was supported by the National Leasehold Campaign, among others.

Of course, if the purpose of the non-residential limit is to confine enfranchisement to predominantly residential blocks, the Law Commission determined that the existing 25% limit does not achieve that purpose. There is a significant amount of evidence that, instead, it regularly prevents leaseholders from undertaking collective freehold acquisitions because a sizeable proportion of buildings fall slightly above it and that 25% is a significant bar to the ability of leaseholders to undertake a collective freehold acquisition. The Law Commission further argued that

“the arbitrary nature of the limit makes the bar to enfranchisement a source of considerable frustration for many leaseholders”.

We accept that there is no easy or non-arbitrary way in which to determine where that bar should be. However, it is the stated intention of the Bill to bring as many leaseholders as possible into enfranchisement, and it is therefore questionable as to whether limits under 50% would feel inherently fair. We would hope that a 50% non-residential limit would mean that the number of genuine cases excluded would be small and would remove the opportunity for developers to play the system, because only a genuine split between commercial and residential would apply.

Our main concern on this clause is that there is no flexibility built into it, and we are keen to probe whether a review after a period of time to determine whether the non-residential policy as set out is working in practice could be undertaken, or another mechanism used, so that changes for the limit in respect of collective enfranchisement rights do not require primary legislation but can be enacted through regulations. Enacting small but necessary changes that may occur in relation to the Government’s proposed limit—for example, whether that relates to individual cases that fall just above the limit, or a change in the criteria on using internal floor area to determine the rights, or changing altogether the criteria on which the limit is based—may need alternative mechanisms to resorting to future primary legislation. That is the purpose of our amendment.

I will comment briefly on the other amendments in this group. We understand the reasons for the amendments of the noble Lords, Lord Sandhurst and Lord Thurlow, and look forward to hearing the comments of the Minister on those amendments. In relation to the Question on whether the clause should stand part of the Bill, to be put by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, we understand the Church position as a landholder, but we feel it would go against the spirit of increasing the enfranchisement through the Bill to retain the 25% limit.

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 17A. I am sorry that I was unable to speak at Second Reading. I should also say that the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, who is unavoidably detained, has added her name to that amendment. We therefore have her support as well. Amendment 17A is directed at Clause 28 on mixed-use premises with substantial proportions of business and residential tenants. Currently, collective enfranchisement and lease renewal is not permitted where more than 25% of the premises are business premises. That figure is going to be changed to 50%, thereby making it easier for residential tenants to go down the collective enfranchisement route.

That will introduce management issues—I do not say that they are necessarily problems, but they are certainly management issues. The Bill proposes that, if 50% of the occupants are residential, that will be enough. That will mean that, unless more than half of the building is occupied by business premises, all residential tenants will be entitled to be enfranchised. That will create issues for management and, in particular, problems where some of those residential tenants are overseas companies. We know that there are increasing numbers of those, particularly in London.

Mixed-use buildings pose greater management challenges than purely residential ones. Freeholders need to be responsive and active property managers. Business tenants require swift responses so that they can manage their businesses. If they want changes to the premises and so on, they need their landlord’s consent so that they can go ahead. If there are difficulties with obtaining that consent because, for example, some—or possibly a large number—of the residential tenants are overseas companies, then one can see how unattractive such premises will become as business premises for the business occupiers.

Impact of Environmental Regulations on Development (Built Environment Committee Report)

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Friday 19th April 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Banner, on his excellent maiden speech. I was very interested to hear his comments on Ukraine; from our side of the House, I reassure him again of our support for government actions on Ukraine to support the brave heroes there. I was delighted to hear that he is an active supporter of Brian May’s animal welfare campaign. We look forward to hearing more in the House about his expertise.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, and all members of the Built Environment Committee for the extremely thorough and balanced way in which they have approached what I consider to be one of the most important issues facing our country. We know that we need to balance the development that we urgently need and the environmental protections that we would all want to see. For the future of our country, we must ensure that the developments and communities that are formed do no detriment to our rich biodiversity and, at best, will contribute significantly to its protection and enhancement.

It was a pleasure to listen to all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate, and I hope that the Government will work with all the public bodies involved to use this report as a catalyst for genuine and long-term change to the planning system and to the delivery mechanisms for housing, economic growth and regeneration. It is impossible to do justice to the 74 recommendations in the report in the time constraints of the debate, but so many of them are welcome, thoughtful and so important that I hope they can be implemented with as little delay as possible.

I will restrict my comments to some of the key areas that have emerged during the debate: co-ordination in government, the planning process, some brief comments on nutrient neutrality, the availability of good environmental data and mapping, and the use of brownfield land.

First, I will comment on one of the report’s key findings: the lack of co-ordination between government departments and the public bodies associated with them. That issue was raised by my noble friend Lord Berkeley, the noble Lord, Lord Best, and the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton. If we are to plan and deliver a better future for the country, we simply cannot carry on with the current silo thinking in government departments. As the report rightly puts it:

“We see no path to delivering the Government’s ambitions by the intended deadlines unless there is a strong display of political leadership to deliver and implement a comprehensive strategy for both development and the environment”.


What work is currently going on to ensure that we have a long-term housing plan, a comprehensive and long-awaited land use strategy, and a plan that will ensure future food security? These strands clearly need drawing together, so can the Minister indicate how the Government intend to respond to the need to ensure better cross-departmental working?

At local level, it is vital that local authorities can respond to the dual challenge of delivering housing and protecting the environment—an issue raised very powerfully by the noble Lord, Lord Best—and that their local plans are effective in helping them to do so. The Government’s decision to remove the need for local housing targets last year made this worse, not better, and has further delayed the production of local plans. As we have heard, a quarter of local planning authorities do not have an adopted local plan, and almost 30% of those with an adopted local plan have one that is more than five years old. There is an urgent need to ensure that local authorities, as well as the statutory bodies that need to contribute to local plans, are properly resourced to do that—an issue raised by my noble friend Lord Berkeley and the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton.

While the limited increase in planning fees is welcome, it is a matter of regret that the opportunity to introduce full-cost recovery for major planning applications was not taken in the passage of the then Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill. The recommendation in the report—that for any new regulations or requirements on the planning system or on development there should be a mandatory consultation with Homes England and the Planning Inspectorate—is welcome, but I suggest that, as local government is responsible for the delivery of planning, the LGA be added to that list. This too would prevent the issue flagged in the report: that the introduction of regulations without detail and practical solutions would inhibit or delay development.

There is a need to urgently consider the issue of nutrient neutrality, to ensure that the development of much-needed housing is not impeded, but that, at the same time, it is not adding to the enormous and toxic pressures on our natural water resources, which have, sadly, become all too familiar to us in recent years—what the noble Earl, Lord Russell, described as a false dichotomy. There has been significant success in the mitigation networks undertaken by Natural England, such as those in the Solent. Urgent consideration of how they can be built on is needed, including lessons learned and any necessary adaptations for wider rollout to be undertaken. We understand the recommendation that this should initially be publicly funded, but there must be urgent work with the private sector to ensure that a long-term funding approach is developed.

As a council leader who has faced many planning challenges over the years, I was delighted to see the great crested newt get a special mention in the report. However, if we are to deliver the significant goal of biodiversity net gain, we will need to have much better environmental data and mapping, with a proper, data-driven land use strategy at the top of the pyramid. Access to local, environmental, species and natural resource data is vital to ensure that planning departments and developers can take relevant data into account. New technologies, particularly satellite mapping, can and should be employed to facilitate this process and to ensure that it is comprehensive.

In addition to all those significant challenges is the overriding need to find more suitable land for housing without impinging on the truly precious green spaces that are our natural heritage. Unfortunately, the government approach to date means that nobody is winning. The housing crisis is

“engulfing a generation of hard-working aspirational people”,

while the UK is one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world. New analysis from the Labour Party today reveals the scale of this housing failure, with planning applications received and granted dropping to the lowest level on record. Applications made and granted have dropped by a fifth. What we have seen is an inconsistent and haphazard approach, leading to significant amounts of speculative development, including on high-quality, nature-rich, green-belt land, often via an appeal over the heads of councils and out of the reach of local people.

A Labour Government would take a brownfield-first approach to development across England, stressing that areas with enough brownfield land should not release green-belt land. However, we will release some land currently classed as green belt to build the homes that Britain needs. We intend to create a new class of grey-belt land to prioritise ugly, disused grey-belt land, and set tough new conditions for releasing that land. We will ensure that any development benefits local communities. This follows cases such as affordable homes in Tottenham being blocked because a disused petrol station had been designated as green-belt land.

We are setting out today five golden rules for grey-belt housebuilding, to deliver affordable homes, to boost infrastructure and public services such as schools and GPs, and to improve genuine green spaces. We will also look to ensure high environmental standards that go above the legal minimum on biodiversity net gain. The chair of Natural England has rightly said that new housing and better protection for green spaces, wildlife and nature should not be opposites, and that a new approach to the green belt should be part of the answer to the UK’s housing crisis.

I look forward to hearing from the Minister on the Government’s response to the challenges set by this extremely welcome report. I again thank all noble Lords who worked on it.

Property Agents: Regulation

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Thursday 18th April 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Swinburne (Con)]

I can confirm that in the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill we are introducing measures to empower leaseholders to take action in the event of unreasonable behaviour. The Bill will make it easier for leaseholders to scrutinise costs and challenge the services provided by both landlords and property managing agents and ultimately for them to take on the management of their building themselves or directly appoint or replace agents. Alongside existing protections and work undertaken by the industry, these measures will seek to make property managing agents more accountable to leaseholders who pay for their services. It is coming.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, we have before the House a suggestion that we introduce a property regulator. It has waited five years. There is agreement across the House. Surely we should take the opportunity to amend the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill or the Renters (Reform) Bill to introduce this. Five years is long enough to wait, especially when we have complete agreement across the House that this is what we need to do.

[Baroness Swinburne (Con)]

I know that the Minister, my noble friend Lady Scott, has engaged with noble Lords on the leaseholder and freeholder Bill and will continue to do so as it progresses through this House next week. I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Best, has reached out to her to consider how to improve the Bill further. I have no doubt that further conversations will happen as we consider the Bill in detail in Committee.

Social Housing: Right-to-buy Sales

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Thursday 18th April 2024 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact on the provision of social housing of removing the right of local authorities to retain 100 per cent of receipts from right-to-buy sales.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Baroness Swinburne) (Con)]

As a temporary measure, councils were able to keep 100% of the right-to-buy receipts from sales in 2022-23 and 2023-24. As councils have five years to spend these receipts, we are continuing to track the impact of allowing authorities to retain 100% of right-to-buy receipts. As previously announced, the cap on acquisitions funded through right-to-buy receipts is at 50% until 2025-26, to enable councils to do more acquisitions. The Government are working with councils to support their supply and delivery plans, and we are keeping the right-to-buy receipt flexibilities under revie w.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, with 3.8 million people on council housing waiting lists, some having waited nearly two decades, and with the economic case for social housing comprehensively demonstrated in the recent study by the National Housing Federation and Shelter, showing that building 90,000 social homes would add £51 billion to the economy, the need for delivery of more social homes gets more urgent by the day. Since the right-to-buy programme started in 1980, there has been a reduction in the number of social homes by 1.5 million. Some 40% of those homes are now let privately, and councils have no choice but to use them as expensive temporary accommodation for homeless families. That has pushed up the housing benefit since 1991 from £9 billion to £29.6 billion. Councils should be able to use the proceeds from right to buy to deliver like-for-like replacements, but with councils able to receive £100,000 of discount, that is difficult enough. Taking away the ability to retain 100% is another blow. Does the Minister not consider that this is an economically illiterate move, depriving people of the homes they need and driving the benefit bill ever upwards?

[Baroness Swinburne (Con)]

I draw the House’s attention to the fact that the right-to-buy receipt is only one very small portion of the entire receipts that are available to deliver affordable housing. Indeed, the £11.5 billion affordable homes programme is delivering thousands of affordable homes, including, since 2010, 696,000 new affordable homes, with over 172,600 homes available for social rent.

Building Safety

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Wednesday 27th March 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, as this is the last business, I wish all noble Lords a restful and peaceful Easter.

I thank the Government for this update, given yesterday in the House of Commons. There are more than 4 million people in the UK living in buildings over 11 metres tall, including 1.3 million in buildings over 18 metres. That is why it is of the utmost importance that this building safety issue moves forward without any further delay.

As my noble friend Lord Kennedy and other noble Lords pointed out in the debate this afternoon, we are now more than seven years on from the tragedy of the fire at Grenfell Tower and the loss of 72 lives. It seems, at last, some progress is being made to address the multitude of issues that arose from that catastrophic fire and previous dreadful fires, such as that at Lakanal House in Camberwell—which I remind noble Lords was in 2009.

I pay tribute to the determination and commitment of the survivors of Grenfell and other campaigners, such as the Manchester Cladiators, the National Leasehold Campaign, End Our Cladding Scandal and the UK Cladding Action Group. Their powerful voices and front-line witness have kept the issue right at the top of the agenda and enabled the progress of which this Statement forms the latest step. However, it is just not good enough that they have had to wait so long. Will the Minister tell us whether the Government are now going to set a deadline by which remediation work must be completed?

It is important that both Houses are updated regularly on progress to tackle the scandalous building safety crisis, and this Statement indicates some progress. However, I hope there is no complacency in moving this forward at greater pace, because the figures produced by the Government last week showed that only 21% of high-rise blocks have been fully remediated and that hundreds of thousands of families are still stuck in flats with dangerous, flammable defects, whether that is cladding, missing fire breaks or wooden balconies. We cannot underestimate the seriousness of the impact on their lives. Dreams of home ownership are shattered as they battle with freeholders to get this remediation carried out, and family finances are broken by remediation costs, exorbitant insurance and the nightmare of being trapped in flats that people are too scared to live in but cannot sell.

What progress is being made in working with lenders to ensure that properties caught up in the cladding scandal can be sold or remortgaged? Even those that have had remediation done are suffering from problems with this. Progress remains slow. What progress has been made, for example, on the registration of building control inspectors? The deadline had to be extended by an additional 13 weeks from the original deadline of 6 April. What assurances can the Minister give that that extended deadline will be met?

This building safety Statement refers only to buildings over 11 metres. I know from the discussions on the Building Safety Act and subsequent statutory instruments that your Lordships’ House remains concerned about buildings up to 11 metres in height. Indeed, it was raised again today in the debate on leasehold. I would be grateful if the Minister could reiterate to the department that we still have outstanding concerns in this regard and would appreciate a full response in due course. Although in the leasehold debate the Minister said that the Government were taking the risk to life most seriously, lenders and mortgage providers are taking a much more risk-averse approach than the Government.

The Minister will know that I have mentioned before the dreadful situation that residents of Vista Tower in Stevenage face, so I was pleased to see the Minister in the other place specifically mention in this Statement that legal action against Grey GR in that respect is imminent. We note that other legal action is pending, but can the Minister please let us know how quickly leaseholders who have been forced to use their own money for remediation, and that spent by taxpayers, will be able to receive recompense following remediation contribution orders? Will there be any accountability for the manufacturers involved in building safety defects, so that all those responsible for the building safety crisis have to face the financial consequences of their actions?

Can the Minister update us any further on the long-awaited second staircase guidance? I note the Minister in the other place said it would appear this week, but as we are right on the last sitting day before recess I thought it worth flagging up again that it is still due. Absence of this guidance is holding up the construction of thousands of safe homes across the country.

At last, we are moving to a point where the respective responsibilities for resolving the crisis between the construction and development industry, freeholders, statutory agencies and the regulator are becoming clearer. Importantly, we are moving to a point where those responsible for failure can be held accountable for their actions, although we must keep our eye on enforcement processes, as it seems they are not the strongest part of the new regime. For example, although additional funding for councils to undertake enforcement is welcome, we must not forget the backdrop of the extreme funding pressures councils are under, which continues to make the increasing regulatory and enforcement burdens an added strain. I hope the whole burden of this will not be forced on councils and that the department will continue to play an active and robust role.

Lastly, I raise the issues relating to the extraordinary burden being placed on leaseholders because of shocking increases in insurance premiums—up to 1,000% increases in some cases—even after buildings have been remediated and made safe. Can the Minister update us on what discussions the department has held with the insurance industry to set out the Government’s expectations in this regard and how they plan to mitigate this awful further burden on leaseholders?

We are grateful to the Minister for her constructive approach to working with opposition parties on this issue. It is clear that the will across your Lordships’ House is to move this on at pace and to continue to press for full remediation for all building safety defects to be completed as quickly as possible. Everybody deserves to feel safe in their own home, and it is taking too long. Those who have profited from not paying enough attention to that safety need either to put matters right or to be brought to justice without any further delay.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, in reference to the Statement, I have to say how irritating it is that statistics are selected to project a positive picture of progress made on the remediation of building defects as a result of the Building Safety Act and how refreshing it would be if the Government were able to reflect on the poor rate of progress, instead of trying to spin a success story. Spinning the progress made is not doing anybody any favours. It is certainly not helping the thousands of leaseholders who are still stuck in limbo in flats where work has not been started and where even an assessment of whether work is needed has not been made. Perhaps an honest appraisal of the situation would put some government energy into trying to resolve this issue. As the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, has just asked, what is the timetable? How long have leaseholders to wait while this scheme is making snail-like progress towards some remediation?

In Inside Housing last week, a piece by the investigative journalist, Peter Apps, provided some very different numbers from those given by the Government in the Statement. I am not accusing the Government of having inaccurate figures, but they were very selective. I have no reason to challenge the report in Inside Housing, which says:

“As it stands, of 3,839 buildings above 11 metres being monitored by the government due to the need for cladding remediation, 2,286 have not even started works yet”.


The terrible Grenfell Tower fire was nearly seven years ago, and 2,000-plus buildings have not even had work started yet. But the report in Inside Housing went on to say that

“the 3,839 figure could eventually rise by as much as 5,000”.

based on the Government’s own estimates. We really do not know how many are in desperate need of remediation.

So my question to the Government is: can we have a full and final estimate—which surely should be possible nearly seven years after Grenfell—of how many blocks of flats are in need of remediation? How many of them are over 18 metres and most at risk? How many are over 11 metres? What consideration is being given to those under 11 metres, given that many thousands of leaseholders and tenants live in such flats, which the Government regard as being relatively safe but which insurance companies and service charges and all the rest do not? They are in total limbo, waiting for some action to unlock the situation that they are in. That is my first question.

Secondly, in January, there was a fire in Petworth Court in Wembley, which is a social housing building. The social landlord knew that work needed to be done and the original builder accepted that work needed to be done, but they have been in dispute ever since about how much responsibility each should take for it. That is another issue which desperately needs to be addressed because, at the end of it, it is leaseholders who are stuck in this awful situation of going to bed every night knowing that their buildings are unsafe and vulnerable to very serious fires. So another question that I want answered, please, is about how the Government are going to resolve the disputes between what are sometimes leaseholders and sometimes social landlords and the developers and builders.

My third point is this. According to the Statement, the Government are going to drip another £6 million of public money into council enforcement action. Now, I am absolutely fed up with the answer to any problem being that the Government will spend another bit of money trying to do something about it, instead of accepting what the fundamental issue is here. If you do not fund the public services on which we all rely—such as building regulations and building enforcement—properly in the first place, when there is a problem we are forever going to have the answer, “We’re going to drip another £2 million or £3 million in to try to solve it”—and it will not. It will deal with a little bit this time, but nobody can plan with little bits of money being dripped into public services in this way. So, please, at least take this back to the Government: fund the thing properly rather than dripping in money.

Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 27th March 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her thorough introduction to the Bill and, as always, for the way she has worked with opposition parties and Cross-Benchers in the weeks prior to the Bill coming to us, so that she could understand our concerns and issues. I thank the many organisations that have sent us briefings, and particularly the Law Commission for all the work it has done. I thank the individuals who have sent us their personal accounts of the impact of leaseholds. I also thank all the individuals and organisations that have campaigned so effectively and for so long on leasehold, including, of course, my noble friend Lord Kennedy.

The Bill is certainly not the leasehold Bill that the Labour Party would have wanted. Most importantly, it is not the Bill that the beleaguered legions of leaseholders wanted. To be candid, I do not think it is even the Bill that the Secretary of State wanted. He set out the original vision last year, stating:

“I don’t believe leasehold is fair in any way. It is an outdated feudal system that needs to go. And we need to move to a better system and to liberate people from it”.


The Secretary of State also made his views on ground rent quite clear in his speech on the Second Reading of this Bill, when he said:

“I was asked by the Select Committee last week what my favoured approach would be, and I believe that it should be a peppercorn”.—[Official Report, Commons, 11/12/23; col. 659.]

The Secretary of State clearly wanted to see a scrapping of the feudal leasehold system and a capping of ground rent to peppercorn rents. From this original vision for the Bill, what we have before us today is a virtually eviscerated shell of a Bill, with little to give comfort to the people and families who had hoped to realise their dream of home ownership and have found instead that being a leaseholder simply does not offer the security and control of their lives that their dream promised.

I have been receiving many letters from leaseholders since the Bill was listed in your Lordships’ House. A particularly heartbreaking one yesterday was from an older couple, who said that they have been waiting patiently for this Bill for years to relieve the misery of their experience of leasehold, but feel now that it will not do what they wanted it to. They went on to say:

“We have an apartment where the freeholders changed last year and our service charges quickly increased and now amount to £8,602 per annum. But additional to this our already high Ground Rent charge of £4,000 per annum is currently being reviewed by our Freeholders who estimate this shall increase to £28,000 plus VAT per annum. If they win this review they shall then look to backdate this increase over 6 years”.


The impact of this type of sharp practice, whether on older people on fixed incomes or younger people who are juggling enough with the cost of living crisis, can be catastrophic. This couple face losing their home. It can taint the dream of home ownership, with a raft of excessive conditions, fees and charges. For many leaseholders these charges do not bring anything in return, and the charging regimes are complex and opaque.

I have received many representations from young people whose dreams of home ownership have been shattered, when they finally save their deposit and buy a home, only to find that the terms of their lease leave them, at best, shackled to a regime of unreasonable cost increases and, at worst, unable to sell their home because the lease conditions are too onerous. To quote again the Secretary of State,

“freeholds have become utterly torn away from the warp and weft of the capitalist system as we understand it in this country, and have become tradeable commodities that foreign entities are using to exploit our people who have worked hard and saved to get their own home”.—[Official Report, Commons, 11/12/23; col. 660.]

In addition, the Competition and Markets Authority has already stated that it continues to consider that statutory intervention may be necessary to protect consumers associated with excessive ground rents. The CMA concluded that ground rent is

“neither legally nor commercially necessary”,

stating that it saw

“no persuasive evidence that consumers receive anything in return”.

With all that in mind, you might expect a Bill that gets rid of leasehold once and for all. But this Bill, although dating back to the Conservative manifesto in 2017 and the subsequent White Paper, is a very long way from what leaseholders have been waiting and hoping for: an end to the injustice in the anachronistic leasehold system. It does not ban the sale of new leasehold flats. It does not even properly ban the sale of new leasehold houses. The Government know that the leasehold model and market is broken; they have known that at least since 2017. This Bill was the opportunity to address that, so why is that not being done more comprehensively?

We could have had a Bill that fundamentally reformed the leasehold system, making leasehold obsolete by making commonhold the default tenure for all new properties and enacting the Law Commission’s recommendations in full. There seems to be a determination on the Government’s part to miss the open goal they are presented with here—one that my team, Stevenage FC, would certainly never miss.

What we have in the Bill are baby steps toward leasehold reform. We could not oppose those, because they will at least ease a little of the pain currently experienced by leaseholders. We will therefore not oppose the Bill’s progress, even if we have to finish the job later on. Your Lordships’ House can rest assured that we will attempt to use this House’s stages of its passage to make some more of the improvements that leaseholders desperately need.

I turn to the detail of what is in the Bill, before I go into more detail about what is not. Extension to lease terms is welcome, although the devil will be in the detail of how this operates. We welcome the steps towards right to manage, although they do not go the whole way towards commonhold. We believe that the changes to the calculation of lease extension premiums and the collective buying of freeholds will make it easier and cheaper for leaseholders to buy their homes and maintain long-term housing security. These are welcome, as are the 990-year leaseholds, which will offer the same security, taking away the hassle and expense of future lease extensions.

The further provisions on building safety—for example, replacing the regime for dealing with insolvent developers and orphaned buildings—are welcome. However, it could have afforded a lot less heartache to affected leaseholders if these were included in the Building Safety Act in 2022—but better now than never.

The end of marriage value will right the injustice where leaseholders had to pay the freeholder when extending their lease or purchasing the freehold, so that is also welcome. Additional rights for freeholders on private and mixed-tenure estates will be beneficial. However, I think we still have some way to go to ease the misery for freeholders of what is known as fleecehold.

The provisions relating to ground rent, while welcome as far as they go, are still subject to the outcome of a consultation that we do not yet have. Will the Minister be offering government amendments in this respect later in the progress of the Bill? We will certainly be trying to clarify the situation on ground rent for all leaseholders, including those who currently have lower ground rents, as the Bill progresses.

We welcome the change to the inclusion of leaseholders in the management of their homes, but there remain concerns about this and how it will operate. I know my noble friend Lord Kennedy will want to question the complexity of enabling the participation and enfranchisement of leaseholders as we go through today’s debate.

We will be looking at more fundamental improvements to the Bill in Committee and on Report. I will start with the disproportionate and draconian legacy of Victorian property law that is forfeiture. This mechanism allows landlords to ensure compliance with a lease agreement by using forfeiture of the lease as a threat, even for minor breaches of leasehold or relatively small amounts of arrears. Its continued use, and the chilling effect that results from its mere existence, continues to put landlords in a nearly unassailable position of strength in disputes with leaseholders. It is routinely used by landlords as a first resort when seeking to recover alleged arrears of payments from leaseholders. Worse still, the threat is often invoked to deter leaseholders from disputing any unreasonable costs and defending claims.

With the pledges to reform leasehold stretching back over so many years, the Government have had plenty of time to consider how they would deal with forfeiture in this Bill and yet in the other place Members were told as recently as February this year that the Government were:

“working through the detail of the issue”.—[Official Report, Commons, 27/2/24; col. 197.]

I ask the Minister to set out how long this is going to take and say whether we will have a solution before we reach Third Reading. Too many of the Bills that come before this House now are subject to further work as the Bill progresses.

We will be seeking to remove deferment rates from the discretion of the Secretary of State. We believe that without having something on the face of the Bill which will deal with this issue, in future vested interests may still be able to attempt to introduce rates which are punitive to leaseholders, and that is not acceptable.

Unless the Minister is able to introduce government amendments in relation to the outcome of the ground rent consultation that restore the balance more closely to the recommendations of the Law Commission and the Competition and Markets Authority, we will want to extend the right to peppercorn ground rent to the most common leases—those under 150 years.

I know that many noble Lords are disappointed that the Bill does not go further in relation to the regulation of property agents. While new statutory rights relating to estate management companies are welcome, it is—as my honourable friend in the other place, the shadow Housing Minister pointed out—incomprehensible that the Bill does not incorporate the proposals from the Regulation of Property Agents working group in July 2019. This group, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Best, made recommendations that have widespread support in both Houses. I am sure he will want to say more about this himself, but it is hard to understand why the Government have not taken this opportunity to implement such a common-sense approach. It is a clear example of what I described earlier as missing an open goal.

Lastly, but probably most significantly, we hope to persuade the Government to rethink their decision not to extend the ban on leasehold to flats; 70% of leaseholders live in flats. To leave out new flats from the ban on leasehold justifies my description of an eviscerated Bill because it means that the Bill simply will not do what it set out to do. We will be proposing amendments to the exclusions the Government have included for the ban on new leasehold houses. We believe these are too wide and will almost certainly result in a way through for landlords who want to perpetuate the leasehold tenure for houses.

There is clearly a broad consensus in both Houses for a radical overhaul of leasehold, so the question is whether this Bill achieves that. Although it set out with worthy intentions and initiates some improvement, we do not believe it goes anything like as far as it should. With the parliamentary time left to us, and with the desperation of leaseholders to see at least some improvement in the catastrophic circumstances some of them face, it is not our intention to try to persuade Ministers to radically overhaul the Bill by means of the many hundreds of amendments that would be required to implement all the Law Commission’s recommendations on enfranchisement, right to manage and commonhold. However, it remains our position that this will need to be done.

Whether this Bill receives Royal Assent or not before this Parliament is dissolved, a Labour Government will have to finish the job of finally bringing the leasehold system to an end by overhauling it, to the lasting benefit of leaseholders, and reinvigorating commonhold to such an extent that it will ultimately become the default and render leasehold obsolete. I reassure leaseholders across the country that we are absolutely determined to do so.

Local Government Finances

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Thursday 21st March 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I draw attention to my interests in the register. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for securing this vital debate and for his excellent and thorough introduction. I thank all noble Lords who have spoken so powerfully. It clearly demonstrates the very rich nature of our sector.

Your Lordships will know that I was a local government leader for nearly 17 years. Distressingly, because of local government funding cuts, I had to cut the council’s budget every single year of those 17. In the first years, this was a very specific technical adjustment which only affected a small number of councils—unfortunately, mine was one of them. After that came a torrent of funding cuts which saw millions of pounds taken from our budget in cash terms—and that is before unfunded inflation is taken into account.

Councils across the country have had the same experience. In spite of the constant refrain from Ministers on the Government Benches that more funding is going in, the fact is that it is not meeting either the rising demand for services, the increasing demand due to failures in other public services, inflationary costs, or the costs of dealing with multiple government initiatives.

I am afraid it is just not good enough to say that this is just a few councils which have been badly managed, or to say that, if councils cut back their budgets for consultants and equalities programmes, as the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, referred to, the problem would go away. In fact, the Hunger Games approach to funding taken by DLUHC, which sets councils and their communities against one another in competitive bidding rounds, has driven much of this expenditure. It would be interesting to know—across all government departments, but DLUHC would do—what departments have spent on consultants and equalities training in the last three years.

LGA analysis shows that, by 2024-25, cost and demand pressures will have added £15 billion to the cost of delivering council services since 2021-22. Despite increased funding in both of the last two years, mostly from council tax, there is—as the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Eaton, Lady Scott, and Lady Bull, have all said—an ongoing gap of £4 billion. There is a dreadful built-in impact here, too, that sees the poorest areas the worst affected. Many noble Lords have referred to that, as did the right reverend Prelate. The broken local government finance system means that those areas get the same cuts and are least able to fill the gap through council tax or retained business rates. As noble Lords have pointed out, the double whammy here is that these areas are likely to have the highest levels of increasing demand, too.

UK councils have fewer powers to raise revenue locally than any other G7 nation, with 95% of the UK’s tax revenue and 75% of public spending controlled centrally. So, when the Minister tells us about the increase in core spending power, as I am sure she is about to do, please remember that 44% of the additional core spending power available to councils will go solely to fund the cost increases in commissioned adult social care, due to the national living wage increase. This leaves a reduced amount of funding to address the impact of national living wage increases on other parts of the local government workforce and outsourced services that are highly exposed to the national living wage, such as waste collection and disposal, let alone the impacts of inflation, demand pressures and other cost drivers across all services.

As the right reverend Prelate mentioned, every aspect of our community life has been impacted. Every service has been affected. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, pointed out the impact on our local democracy; it is not what people become councillors to do. This is not what communities expect; they are paying more in council tax and getting less back in services. We know that people truly value the services that impact on their lives every day, as soon as they walk out of their front door—but look at what has happened to them. Net spending on cultural services has been cut by 43%, with sport and leisure facilities down by 44%. England has lost almost 400 swimming pools since 2010.

Sport development and community recreation has been cut by 59% per person, and spending on parks and green spaces has been cut by 30%. Community centres have been cut by 39% and libraries by 50%—800 libraries have been cut. Museums and galleries have been cut by 40% and theatres and public entertainment by 38%. The noble Baronesses, Lady Bull and Lady Miller, the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and the noble Lords, Lord Foster and Lord Freyberg, all spoke very powerfully about the impact of local government cuts on cultural services.

More than half of areas have made cuts of more than 50% to transport and highways. This is even worse when you look at some areas, such as North Yorkshire, Bath and North East Somerset, and Lambeth, where there have been cuts of over 90% to highways work—no wonder there are potholes. Think of the negative impact of that on local economies.

These are services that everyone uses, but what about the most vulnerable in our communities? Some of the high-demand, high-cost services that local government delivers are used by only a very small percentage of our community. With services such as adult care, children’s services and temporary and emergency accommodation, many people will not realise the extent of the funding gap until they try to use that service. A recent County Councils Network report tells us that children’s and adult care services are consuming two-thirds of their total budgets. Surely, we should judge the strength of our communities and society by the way we deliver to the most vulnerable.

There are rising costs in children’s social care, with budgets up by 13.6%, driven by huge increases in placement costs. LGA research has shown that, in 2022-23, councils paid for over 1,500 placements costing £10,000 or more per week—over 10 times as many as the 120 placements purchased by councils at that price in 2018-19. It is way past time that this private-sector racketeering was brought to an end.

Costs of home-to-school transport are escalating, with budgets up by 23.3% in the last year, equalling a 130% cash-terms increase since 2016-17. Increasing costs and demand in adult social care means that budgeted spend increased by £2.5 billion in the last financial year. Costs of homeless services are increasing, with multiple contributory cost and demand drivers pushing budgets up by nearly 20% last year. Government data shows that more than 104,000 households were in temporary accommodation at the end of March last year, the highest figures since records began. Some district councils are now spending 30% to 40% of their total budget on emergency accommodation.

In most local areas, funding to the voluntary community sector from local government has either been cut or dried up all together, with seven in 10 organisations having withdrawn from public service delivery altogether, according to the excellent briefing from the National Council for Voluntary Organisations. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, mentioned this. When authorities issue a Section 114 notice, both the NCVO and Women’s Aid report that all their funding is cut immediately. I do not have time to go into the pressure on housing revenue accounts, but the recent decision to remove councils’ rights to retain 100% of right-to-buy receipts, at a time when we should be encouraging a surge in provision of new social housing, is incomprehensible. We need 90,000 new social homes a year, so that cut was a crazy decision.

Levelling up means nothing if we cannot support vulnerable children and adults, the homeless, the voluntary sector, domestic abuse victims and the leisure and arts sectors. Everything I have outlined will have long-term impacts. There will be pressure on acute services from not funding early intervention properly, and pressure on the NHS when our vulnerable residents cannot be looked after in their own homes. There will be an impact on the health and mental health of people and communities when their leisure and culture opportunities get closed down, and there will be significant long-term impacts of poor-quality, unaffordable and insecure housing. Young people will lose their opportunities and aspirations because their learning needs have not been met. New homes will not be delivered or will be delayed because of cuts to planning departments. There is such a simple solution: just allow local authorities full cost recovery on major planning applications. The noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, and the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, both mentioned that.

There will be a dramatic impact on the economy when local government cannot deliver either the infrastructure or the economic development support to meet business needs. The Government are quite simply closing down the best route—the local, devolution route—towards ensuring that we get the growth that the country needs to fund our public services properly.

I have been in local government for almost 30 years. My colleagues around the country are heroes, from those in parish and town councils—mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market—to those in the larger metropolitan authorities; they deliver for their communities, even in these most devastating and toughest of times. Please give them the trust and respect they deserve, give them long-term funding settlements, and work with them to reform the broken funding system—I was pleased to hear that the new noble Lord, Lord Fuller, is working on this project. Fix the broken business rates system that fails both businesses and the communities where they operate; give authorities the strong fiscal devolution they need, not the piecemeal approach we have seen in recent years; and then leave them alone to get on with it. Local councils, in touch with their local communities, will always deliver better than any Whitehall directive, even a levelling-up mission.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Baroness Scott of Bybrook) (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for bringing forward this important debate on the current state of local government finances and the impact on local communities. I also thank all noble Lords for their considered and insightful contributions today.

The Government are clear in their support for councils—there is no decline in that support—and the vital work they do to support local residents in all corners of the country. It is important to start by recognising some of the things that are happening. In Bolton, Stoke and Wandsworth, the councils have all recently renovated or opened new library spaces to the public. In Warwick and North Yorkshire, we have seen the opening of new leisure centres in Kenilworth and Knaresborough, and in Sandwell, Knowsley and Rushmoor, levelling-up funding will deliver improved leisure centres and facilities for local residents.

The Government are committed to delivering for our towns. In October of last year, we announced the investment of £1.1 billion into 55 towns across the country, with each town receiving a £20 million endowment-style fund to invest over the next decade. This will allow our towns to develop long-term visions and to deliver change for their residents, such as the regeneration of Ashburner Street, in Bolton. Finally, in Blackpool, the central regeneration scheme is scheduled to get under way, following planning approval, with an estimated 1,000 jobs set to be created as a result.

That is only a very small sample of the achievements and developments that councils across this country have made in recent months and years, all of which have made a positive impact on their local communities. All local authorities across the country should know that we place the utmost importance on the partnership between central and local government, and recognise the crucial work they do in delivering day in and day out for our local communities.

However, as has been mentioned, the Government recognise the pressures that some places face in delivering this work. We have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, that we are letting it get worse. We are not letting it get worse, and I will mention more about what we have done this year to help local authorities. Many of the problems that these places face, and that we all face as a country, are driven by global economic factors and the resulting higher inflation. That is why the Prime Minister has prioritised and successfully delivered on his commitment to halving inflation. However, we are all aware that demand for key services that councils provide, and the costs of those services, continue to rise steeply as well, not least because of an ever-aging population that, quite rightly, requires increasing social care support.

In February, the Government announced the local government finance settlement for 2024-25. This settlement makes up to £64.7 billion available to local authorities next year, an increase in core spending power of £4.5 billion on last year, equivalent to 7.5% in cash terms. This above-inflation increase demonstrates that the Government are standing behind councils up and down the country and are listening to them.

We have additionally taken action to provide further support to local government to enable continued delivery while wider system reforms for social care are implemented. At the final local government finance settlement, the Secretary of State announced that we are providing £1.5 billion in additional grant for social care through the settlement for 2024-25 compared to 2023-24. Having listened to the views of local government, this includes an additional £500 million for the social care grant.

While being mindful of the level of adult care provision, where possible councils should use this uplift to invest in areas that help also place children’s social care services on a financially sustainable footing. This includes investment in expanding family help and targeting early intervention, expanding kinship care and boosting the number of foster places.

Further to this, in the Budget earlier this month the Chancellor announced £165 million to support councils to improve the quality of, and increase capacity in, residential children’s homes, so that children with the most complex needs can be cared for in a provision that meets those needs. This funding will boost local authority-run provision and, in doing so, respond to concerns that excessive profiteering—as we heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage—and often poor quality is threatening the sustainability and outcomes of local government children’s services.

Nevertheless, we recognise that, sometimes, private placement costs are too high, and that council tax payers are stuck footing the bill. The Government’s position is that this is an issue with profiteering rather than profit. Through reforms to children’s social care, they will continue to explore what action is needed to best support councils. The Government will be developing proposals on what more can be done to combat profiteering, bring down costs and create a more sustainable market for residential placements, which they will publish later this year.

The Government recognise the significance of special educational needs pressures on councils. This is why the Spring Statement committed £105 million towards a wave of 15 new special free schools, to create over 2,000 additional places for children with special educational needs and disabilities across England. On top of this specific funding for social care and SEND, the Government have committed to a 4% funding guarantee that will ensure that all councils receive at least a 4% increase in their core spending power before any local choices on council tax, efficiencies or reserves. We have listened to the many councils and the many things they told us. They would otherwise have experienced cash losses in funding next year, and we have stepped in to prevent that.

We are committed to supporting councils wherever they are in the country. This is in answer to the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hussain, about Luton. The most relatively deprived areas of England will be receiving 18% more per dwelling in available resource through the 2024-25 settlement than the least deprived areas; those councils, such as Luton and others, will be getting more. We understand that those councils have faced historic challenges in tackling deprivation. It is also why we have increased the value of the rural services delivery grant—as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath—by over 15% to £110 million, to support rural authorities dealing with the unique challenges of serving very dispersed populations. That is a second successive year of above-inflation increases for this grant.

The action we have taken to support local government in this financial settlement and beyond demonstrates our commitment to the sector. We recognise and thank those in the sector for the important contribution they make in delivering local services for their communities, up and down the country. We have worked in partnership with representatives, sector leaders and local councils, to ensure that this settlement helps to meet the needs of local government. This engagement has been a vital part of the decision-making for this settlement. When local councils speak to us, we listen, and this includes those councils that face the most significant challenges.

The Government also work closely with councils to understand the specific pressures that local government is facing. They are looking at a range of data on demand for services and the costs faced by councils. As a result of the local government finance settlement, the vast majority of local authorities will be able to set balanced budgets in 2024-25. We have published details of exceptional financial support agreed with a small number of councils, but the vast majority of this support relates to six councils where there has been severe local failure. The Government have had to step in there and take the most serious action through statutory intervention.

A small number of other councils requested financial support on an exceptional basis, due to specific local pressures that they were unable to manage themselves. We stand ready to speak to any council that has concerns about its ability to manage its finances or faces pressures it has not planned for. Our door is always open to them.

Before I conclude, I will answer as many of noble Lords’ questions as I can. If I do not get through all of them, obviously I will write. First, the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee and Lady Bull, brought up local government funding reform. We remain committed to updating the system in the next Parliament, and will work closely with local partners to take stock of the challenges and opportunities that they face. Of course we will consult with them before any potential funding reforms, but we talked to councils last year about any of the reforms we could make and they did not want any disruption or uncertainty at that time.

The noble Lords, Lord Shipley and Lord Hussain, brought up council tax reform. The Government continue to protect local tax payers from excessive increases. We believe that our approach strikes a fair balance and is an additional local democratic check and balance on local authorities. We are not allowing council tax to increase in place of increased funding; it is provision for a balanced package that includes a substantial increase for this coming year, as I said.

The noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, and the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, brought up audit issues and the backlog. Local audit is vital in supporting democratic accountability and providing assurance for local people and their elected representatives. At the time of its abolition, we believed that the Audit Commission was too centralised and that it encouraged local bodies to focus more on the views of the commissioner than on local people. The Government are working with the Financial Reporting Council to tackle a significant backlog of local audits and put the system on a sustainable footing for the future.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

Does the Minister think it acceptable that 99% of local authorities did not clear their audits in time last year?

Teesworks Project: Audit

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Wednesday 20th March 2024 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the audit arrangements for the Teesworks project, and of whether they are effective for the scale of the work being carried out.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Baroness Swinburne) (Con)]

The public and private sector bodies engaged in the Teesworks project are responsible for ensuring that they comply with all relevant audit requirements. Additionally, the Government commissioned an independent review of the project, which we published in February. The Tees Valley Mayor is implementing its recommendations, including recommendations 27 and 28, relating to the internal and external audit functions.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her Answer, but I honestly think that the people of Teesside deserve better than to be fobbed off like this. The independent review published in January said:

“Based on the evidence from the review the governance and financial management arrangements are not of themselves sufficiently robust or transparent to evidence value for money”.


We are told by Ministers that the NAO does not look at individual authorities, so we questioned on 30 January and 7 March just what the arrangements are for auditing this project, so local people can be reassured about the return their significant investment is giving them. We were promised an answer in writing, which has not appeared. In view of the parlous state of local government audit generally, and the nature of the 28 scathing recommendations set out in the review, an NAO financial investigation seems appropriate. Why are the Government still resisting that?

[Baroness Swinburne (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her supplementary question. I assure her that the letter is on its way; I thought that it was already sent, so I apologise if she has not received it yet. As I outlined in my response to the debate on the regeneration of industrial areas on 7 March, it is not the NAO’s role to audit or examine individual local authorities, and its power would not normally be used for that purpose. I have since looked into this, and expanding its remit previously required the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to grant statutory powers. Therefore, given that we have had a thorough independent review, it is time that we learned from it and implemented those lessons rather than repeat it.