Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill

Baroness Twycross Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 27th March 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as deputy mayor for fire and resilience in London, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Young, for his kind words about the London Fire Brigade.

My deputy mayoral role does not cover residential housing directly, but I am acutely aware of the emotional and financial costs faced by leaseholders. In particular, the issues in relation to remediation following the tragic Grenfell Tower fire have opened my eyes about leasehold and about what a number of noble Lords have observed, and what I understand the Secretary of State himself has said, to be a feudal and outdated system. If it is not quite from the dark ages, as the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, argued, it definitely deserves to be consigned to history.

I shall speak later about some the issues faced by Londoners. First, however, I ask the Minister about the issue of forfeiture covered by my Private Member’s Bill, which would seek to amend the Housing Act 1988. I thank the Minister for her time discussing it, and for her assurances that the Renters (Reform) Bill would cover this. I know from her opening remarks that the Minister is aware of the issues around forfeiture.

As the Minister is aware, the main issue that my Bill would address is the current uncertainty as to whether residential leasehold properties with ground rents of more than £250 a year outside Greater London, or more than £1,000 inside Greater London, are to be deemed to be assured tenancies under the Housing Act 1988. Currently, if the leases are assured tenancies and the ground rents are not paid, the landlord is able to repossess the property. There is no jurisdiction under the Housing Act 1988 for a court to refuse to grant possession to the landlord under an assured tenancy. However, a court has the discretion to grant relief from forfeiture, provided that the leaseholder pays any outstanding amounts owed. This is an anachronism that should be addressed at the earliest stage. Would the Minister accept an amendment that would do this in this Bill, given that the renters Bill appears to be taking some time to progress? As the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, said, it appears to have had a quiet death.

In my view, it does not really matter that there are not numerous examples of such forfeiture happening; it is the principle, possibility and threat that matter. This is an opportunity to address this through legislation. Forfeiture of this nature could undoubtedly happen. We know this, because it already happens in relation to service charges. Recently, the Evening Standard raised the case of a Londoner who had not paid her service charge due to the fact she had lodged a tribunal case against the freeholders for bogus service charges. Because the woman concerned had refused to pay a £5,500 bill —a figure 10 times higher than the estimate provided when she bought the flat—she is in breach of the lease and could lose her home. The paper rightly pointed to forfeiture as being the most mafia-like element of leasehold law in what it described as a crowded field. The woman concerned was in fact owed money by the freeholder; she had been awarded money by a tribunal challenging bogus charges but was still liable to lose her home.

The tribunal system is slow and unfair. Many freeholders do not play ball. There are examples of unscrupulous freeholders and agents slowing down an already glacial process and often not paying what they owe. Will the Minister say how the Government feel this legislation will address issues in the tribunal system and why they have not included removing forfeiture at this point through the Bill?

The Bill is a missed opportunity to transform an outdated system which affects millions of people. In the case of this city, over one-quarter of London’s households live in leasehold properties. It is not good enough that more fundamental change, a move to commonhold, is being delayed. While the Government’s recent proposals for reform are welcome as far as they go, they are too little and far too late. England and Wales are, as far as I know, the only countries in the world still operating this feudal freeholder/leaseholder system. The Bill is a missed opportunity to provide the fundamental reform required.

The Mayor of London has championed London’s leaseholders and, like other Labour politicians, has called for wholesale reform of leasehold. London’s housing strategy calls on the Government to introduce alternative tenures, such as commonhold, which has already been introduced in Scotland, and increase the support and advice to existing leaseholders. Mayors have limited levers to improve the situation—this definitely needs government action—but in London, the mayor has developed a range of ways to support fairer outcomes for leaseholders. This includes a requirement for 990-year leases as standard for shared ownership homes funded by City Hall. The mayor has introduced a leasehold guide for Londoners, which provides guidance to help leaseholders make sense of the current unfair and complicated system.

London has also introduced a service charges charter. This ensures that City Hall’s investment partners consider affordability and transparency when providing information to leaseholders. But best-practice guidance is only ever picked up by responsible freeholders; what we really need is an end to leasehold once and for all. What more will the noble Baroness do to ensure that leaseholders get a fair deal? In the absence of government action, will the Government give further powers to regional mayors? Or will they commit to go further than the current Bill by including stronger measures in government amendments?

The Mayor of London is also campaigning for a cap on ground rents of existing leases at a peppercorn rate, which would bring the greatest benefit to leaseholders who are currently required to pay ground rent to their freeholder, often with no clear service in return. I was disappointed to read that the Secretary of State has apparently bowed to pressure from those purporting, without basis, I understand, to represent the interests of pension funds and may back away from measures introducing peppercorn ground rents. Can the Minister reassure us that the Government will reconsider this?

My final point is about the remediation of historic building safety failures. The Government have rightly acted, through legislation and through funding, to protect some leaseholders. But remediation has been far too slow and some people are left either unable to move or with unreasonable and rising insurance bills, even after remediation work has been completed. I know that the Minister is aware of the issue with timber-framed leasehold properties in Barnet, and the recent fire which has led to high remediation costs that are not obviously currently covered by building safety legislation and which will potentially, therefore, unfairly fall on the leaseholders. Will she meet with Barnet Council to discuss this issue? Will she commit to looking at the gap it represents in current building safety legislation? The issues in Barnet are by no means unique. The building safety issues are part of a shocking legacy of many years of poor practice in development. Almost seven years after the tragedy of the Grenfell Tower fire, we are still seeing issues in building safety for leaseholders revealed only when fires occur.

This Bill goes only part way to address the issues faced by leaseholders. Like other noble Lords, I ask the Government to strengthen the Bill further as it passes through this House to avoid continuing an outdated and unfair system.

Building Safety

Baroness Twycross Excerpts

Wednesday 27th March 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Swinburne (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her question; however, I do not have any data with me on that. I will make sure that the department looks into it and I will write to her with an answer.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as deputy mayor for fire in London. With respect to the Minister, using such terms as “at pace” and “as soon as possible” when things are taking so long after the Grenfell Tower fire seems a little tardy to some of us in this House. Building safety in London and across the country is still a fundamental issue. There is still shoddy practice and that is not just historic. As the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, pointed out, the time of day matters in this. I raised the fires in Barnet in the debate earlier today and previously with the noble Baroness, Lady Scott. I would be really grateful if the department could respond to Barnet Council on the issue of the properties referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, but the time of day should not matter in terms of building safety or risk to life. Do the Government include the time of day that an issue might happen in their fundamental assessment of risk to life in relation to building safety? It really does matter in practice.

[Baroness Swinburne (Con)]

Again, I will ensure that the department briefs us and we will be able to come back in writing on the situation in Barnet. I will check what the independent individual has told us with regard to that risk to life and whether that involves an assessment of the time of day. I am afraid I do not have that information, but I am sure somebody in the department does.

International Women’s Day

Baroness Twycross Excerpts

Friday 10th March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to speak as part of this International Women’s Day debate. I start by thanking women on all sides of the House for their welcome, advice and support since I joined your Lordships’ House in November. I join other noble Lords in congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Lampard, on her excellent maiden speech. There have been many outstanding contributions to today’s debate, including the moving reminder by my noble friend Lady Anderson of the price some women pay. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, in particular for speaking about Dame Cicely Saunders. She was an amazing woman who served as a mentor and inspiration to my father and so many others in the hospice movement. Through her work she changed the lives and deaths of so many people. Famously outspoken, she once told my mother that my mother had too many children.

I shall focus in my remarks today on childcare and early years provision, which are vital to ensure that all children get the best start in life and a good foundation to ensure that their attainment in school is maximised. It is also important because the failure of the Government to ensure that all families can access affordable childcare is having a negative impact on women’s ability to return to work after they have children. Two-thirds of UK women with childcare responsibilities say that it has harmed their career progression, as research by the British Chambers of Commerce shows.

It remains the case that women take on more caring responsibilities than men in relation to both children and elderly relatives. The Centre for Progressive Policy has found that nearly half of working-age women provide an average of 45 hours of unpaid care every week, while 25% of men provide 17 hours. This is the gulf in unpaid care work and the “it isn’t rocket science” answer to the question I put to the Minister on International Women’s Day about why we still have a significant gender pay gap.

This leads to far too many working-age women being, effectively, economically inactive or underactive, and significantly adversely affects the UK’s productivity. The TUC has calculated that almost 1.5 million women are kept out of the labour market because of their caring responsibilities compared to 230,000 men. Further research by the Centre for Progressive Policy estimates that the high cost of early years fees is costing the UK economy a staggering £27 billion, the equivalent of 1% of GDP, in lost earnings. The Government would do well to focus on what they can do to support women with young children or caring responsibilities into work rather than homing in on unretiring the over 50s.

This year, International Women’s Day comes a week ahead of the Budget, giving the Government an ideal opportunity to address that problem. We do not mind—in the context of the very positive cross-party consensus today—if they borrow some of Labour’s ideas. Everyone should be able to sign up to the aim of ensuring that all families are supported from the end of parental leave to the end of primary school, and Labour has committed to ending non-dom status to fund a breakfast club in every primary school.

Three aspects relating to childcare need to be addressed. First, there is an acute lack of childcare available. Fewer than half of local authorities say that they have sufficient childcare for parents working full-time, with just 15% saying they have sufficient childcare for parents working atypical hours. Secondly, what childcare there is tends to be too expensive, with the campaign organisation that has already been mentioned, Pregnant Then Screwed, revealing that three out of four mothers who pay for childcare say that it no longer makes financial sense for them to work. The cost of childcare has increased at a faster rate than pay.

Thirdly, just as parents are struggling with the cost of living crisis, the cost of doing business crisis is affecting the viability of childcare providers, and government funding is not keeping up with their rising costs. Local authorities that responded to the childcare survey I mentioned earlier say that the recruitment and retention of staff, the cost of staff, the cost of energy, the funding rate and the cost of food were key factors in decreasing the sustainability of childcare providers in their area. Indeed, one in five local authorities that provided data said that one-quarter or more childminders in their area are at risk of leaving the profession, while 18% said that one-quarter of private providers are at financial risk.

This is a crisis that tinkering around the edges of the current failed free-hours model, which relies on cross-subsidy and additional charges by providers will not solve. It is a crisis impacting our country’s productivity which the Government should tackle now, and a crisis that primarily affects women as the country’s main unpaid carers.

Women and Men: Pay Gap

Baroness Twycross Excerpts

Wednesday 8th March 2023 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Twycross]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the reasons why women are paid less than men; and what steps they are taking to address this issue.

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

Robust equal pay protections in the Equality Act made it unlawful to pay men and women differently for the same work or work of similar value. However, on average women earn less than men over the course of their careers. This is caused by many factors, including women being more likely to take time off work because of caring responsibilities and to work in lower-paid occupations and sectors. The Government are committed to helping women reach their full potential and are changing the culture of the workplace by enabling more people to request flexible working, extending redundancy protection for those on maternity leave, introducing carer’s leave, and strengthening protections against harassment in the workplace.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I thank the Minister, and wish her a happy International Women’s Day. Recent analysis by the TUC shows that women effectively work for free for two months of the year. It will take 20 years to bridge the gender pay gap, which is even greater for older women. On International Women’s Day, will the Minister agree that this is simply not acceptable and let the House know exactly how the Government plan to right this wrong?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I wish a happy International Women’s Day to everybody in the House as well. I said some of the things that the Government are doing in my Answer, but the gender pay gap has fallen from 19.6% to 14.9% over the last decade. More importantly, the percentage of women in employment has gone up from 66.5% to 72.3%. The Government are doing something for women and will continue to do so because they think that it is an extremely important issue.