Renters (Reform) Bill (Fifth sitting)

Ben Spencer Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 21st November 2023 Public Bill Committees

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

I support amendments 138, 139, 143 and 144, which would require evidence to be given when using grounds 1 and 1A. While that is important, I again think—I always live in hope—that some clarity from the Minister about the courts being required to obtain at least the first part of that evidence could achieve this without that necessarily being written in the Bill. I believe that the second part would need some legislative clarity, which is why the amendment is useful.

However, let us be clear: it is a crime to knowingly make a false statement to the court. We need to make it clear to landlords that that crime will be followed up. It can only be followed up if we then determine that the property was not then taken into possession and that there was no malicious element to it—there can be other reasons, of course. Without that element of enforcement, and therefore knowing what has happened in a number of months’ time, that will never happen. This could quite easily be implemented through the property portal sending automatic messages to the court, which would not overburden our court process. I again ask for some clarity from the Minister that this is how the property portal and court reform is intended to work. That would probably alleviate some of these issues.

I have tabled a number of other amendments in this group, which I would also like to speak to. The first one would provide for the six-month protection to be renewed on the basis of rent renewals. At the moment, a lot of assured shorthold tenancies—not all of them, Mr Gray, I grant you, but probably the majority of them—have rent renewal clauses, such that that when the rent is increased, there is a new tenancy. The landlord will say, “I’m increasing your rent. Please sign the new tenancy for the year ahead.” Every year, the landlord says, “Well, you’re moving on to the periodic. I would quite like you to sign the new tenancy with the new rent.” That is what happens for most of my constituents who are in the most precarious part of the market, which we are trying to address. That gives them six months’ protection every year, on an ongoing basis, every time their rent is increased.

I know that the National Residential Landlords Association has described this idea as bonkers, but I think that is because it does not quite understand what I am trying to get at here, which is to retain what we already have currently. Although it seems that the Bill is increasing the protection of tenants—and the security of landlords, by knowing that the tenant will be there for a period—the danger is that it will reduce it because, de facto, most tenants currently have six months protection in every 12. The proposed change would provide six months’ protection over an indefinite period, which is clearly far less. Six divided by infinity is an impossible mathematical equation, but it is clearly less than six months divided by 12.

[Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)]

It is zero.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Quite right: zero protection—well, it is mathematically zero, but I think we all know that six months’ protection is a bit more than that—so there needs to be something.

When a landlord comes along on that annual date, the landlord might say, “I don’t want to make any changes. I don’t want to increase the rent.” Then, to some extent, the question is: why should any further protection be afforded? But if the landlord comes along and says, “I want to increase your rent,” and the tenant agrees that they are going to increase the rent—it does not go to a tribunal; it is all agreed—it seems quite reasonable to ensure protection on both sides, for example to provide for a new six-month protection period, just as happens at the moment.

That is why I have tabled these amendments, because I do not think it is in anyone’s interest for tenants suddenly to be leaving. Although the six-month protection does not prevent tenants from leaving, it does produce a mindset that the tenancy is now at least fixed for six months, based on what the landlord is offering and the higher amount that the tenant is now offering to pay. I do not think that is unreasonable, and I would love to see the Government accept the principle of it. If not—of course, I am not foolish, but there is always wishful thinking—it would be useful to hear an indication from the Government of which measures they think might be put in place to ensure that rolling protection.

The other amendment that I wish to speak to concerns the ability for a tenant to be offered the property before it is for sale. If it is a genuine sale, on the open market—the amendments would require a solicitor’s letter or an estate agent’s letter; I think that is reasonable and fair enough—no landlord would have any problem with making this offer for a short period. In my experience of selling houses, it takes more than four weeks between interest and getting it on the market anyway. I am talking about the landlord offering it to the tenant at the rate at which they are going to initially list it on the market. The landlord might reduce what it is on the market for later, because of market factors. I am not saying that that needs to be taken into account. All I am saying is that the initial listing should be offered to the tenant—a right of first refusal—in those four weeks. Again, I do not think this is unreasonable. Of course, in the majority of cases, the tenant will not be in a position to buy; but if, in a small number of cases, we can prevent turmoil and give the landlord a quick sale, it is in everyone’s interest to do so.

Again, I am not delusional and do not think that the Minister will accept this proposal, but I hope that the Minister might indicate how he will be encouraging, through court papers, potentially, and court reform, all those questions to be asked, just as we saw during covid, when court papers required the landlord to ask whether the tenant had been affected by covid. That was not a Bill change—a law change—but it was in the court papers. I am talking about how the question could be asked in court papers. There does not necessarily need to be a change in the discretionary grounds, but the very fact of asking the question could change the mindsets of landlords and, I think, is important.

Finally, under amendments 204 and 203, which I have also tabled, no rent would be required for two months—

Renters (Reform) Bill (Third sitting)

Ben Spencer Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 16th November 2023 Public Bill Committees

[Eddie Hughes (Walsall North) (Con)]

I am the joint owner of a property that is let out.

[Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)]

May I take your advice, Ms Fovargue? My understanding was that we only have to make our main declarations at our first meeting. Do we have to reiterate them each time?

[The Chair]

You will have to reiterate them each time.

[Dr Spencer]

In that case, I declare an interest: I receive support, in particular as set out in my entry under category 2(a) on the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, from individuals with an interest in this area.

[Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)]

I am a vice-president of the LGA and I let out a property.

Examination of Witness

Judicaelle Hammond gave evidence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Amesbury]

Q I have a quick question about insurance, which you touched on briefly. Who should pick up the tab: the landlords or the tenants? Should there be something on that in the Bill?

Jen Berezai: I think it is good that there is the option for either. We ran a survey with the NRLA and Propertymark called “What’s the Damage?” because we wanted to drill down a bit deeper into the landlord’s experience. Those who saw insurance as the way forward were pretty evenly split between the landlord paying for the insurance, or the tenant paying the landlord, or the tenant actually buying the insurance policy. That seems to be determined by portfolio size and, to a degree, average rent. I think it is good that there is the balance, because some landlords want one thing and some want the other.

At the moment, if you find a pet-friendly landlord, the likelihood is that they are going to charge you pet rent, which they can do under the terms of the Tenant Fees Act; it is only the deposit that is capped. The average is about £25 per pet per month, which means that you are paying £300 extra rent per pet per year. That is just per pet, whereas an insurance policy covers an address, so you can have a cat and a dog or a couple of cats—whatever it might be—and your premium is less than pet rent and the cover is greater.

[Dr Spencer]

Q I am also a massive cat lover—thank you for the work that you and Cats Protection have been doing in this area. It strikes me that some of this is about landlord attitudes. Are there any other ways in which the Government could reassure landlords with regard to taking on tenants who have pets? Could there be guidance on the interpretation of the reasonableness clause? What are the other ways and mechanisms we can use to help landlords not to be so afraid to take on tenants with pets?

Jen Berezai: One thing that needs looking at is the current “yes pets” or “no pets” option. If you go on any of the search portals, those are the only options you get. There is no option for “pets considered”, but there needs to be because each case needs to be considered on its own merits.

As far as encouraging landlords goes, it is a bit utopian, but there could be some sort of incentive for a landlord not to discriminate against a pet-owning tenant. At the moment, if a landlord has 11, 15 or 20 applications for a property, they can choose the course of least resistance, take the easy option and ignore the pets. There could be some way of incentivising that, but I do not know what that might be or what might be realistic. I think it is more of an education exercise.

[The Chair]

As there are no further questions from Members, I thank our witness for coming to give evidence.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned.—(Mr Mohindra.)

Renters (Reform) Bill (First sitting)

Ben Spencer Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 14th November 2023 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Before I forget, let me ask members of the Committee whether they have any interests to declare. I am not sure whether the Chairman has to do so, but I own two buy-to-lets, not that that particularly matters.

[Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)]

I declare an interest in that I receive support, in particular as set out in my entry under category 2(a) on the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, from individuals with an interest in this area.

[Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)]

I am a joint owner of a property that is let out for residential rent.

Renters (Reform) Bill (Second sitting)

Ben Spencer Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 14th November 2023 Public Bill Committees

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Q So the property portal should be accessible for you to see that detail of it—potentially in public generally, or for the potential tenant?

Fiona Rutherford: Importantly for the tenant. It is there that transparency matters the most. I think that there are possibly bigger issues with making it fully public.

Professor Hodges: One of the points about the portal is that it is a very effective self-regulatory—or indeed managerial—system, because it says, “Have you got an insurance certificate? Have you got a fire certificate? Well, upload it.” It is done, and then you get a reminder saying, “You’ve got to do the next one.” Everyone should be able to see that. There is nothing secret about that information, but it delivers a baseline of regulatory compliance—“Are you compliant with the decent homes standard? Where’s your certificate?” or whatever. It is self-policing, and provides a very simple mechanism for doing that.

Just to give one dramatic example of sanctions, the Civil Aviation Authority never fines airlines in relation to safety issues—although it fines them now and again. It has an incredibly good culture among all the players—air traffic control, the airlines, engineers, and so on—and has constructed that deliberately, and it is the only reason why planes stay in the sky and we have confidence in them. It never fines anyone, but it uses the ultimate sanction—rarely—that I was talking about of saying, “I’m going to stop you operating your aircraft or your airport.” That concentrates the mind and gets the result of them saying, “Okay, we’ve fixed it,” very quickly.

[Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)]

Q Elaborating on that point, would you do that based on a landlord or based on the property itself? Would there not be a danger of evasion through the property group being put in someone else’s name, or using a different landlord, to escape that enforcement?

Professor Hodges: Personally, I am in favour of the broadest possible enforcement powers, but not necessarily their regular use. Therefore, whoever is involved in management and responsibility should be within scope of the discussion, and then of the potential response or intervention.

[Dr Spencer]

Q I am just thinking that in terms of the aviation sector, which you gave the example of, it is very difficult to evade that—but I wonder whether in practice, with what you are describing, that would be easy to get around.

Professor Hodges: Well, whoever owns, or shadow-owns, a building, if you stop people letting the building, that will have an effect on anyone, will it not?

[Dr Spencer]

Q Then you have a different problem: if you sanction by property, the property essentially gets blacklisted. How do you switch that if it genuinely does change ownership?

Professor Hodges: You would have other powers against beneficial owners by saying, “You’ve done this several times; you’re out,” or, “Do it right otherwise you’re out.” That is a regulatory power.

[Dr Spencer]

Q Then you would need a separate database of people who are registered landlords.

Professor Hodges: Not necessarily. I think one database is enough, frankly. You should be able to capture all the data about, “Who owns this?” We have been talking about foreign-owned companies and things in other contexts, and there are techniques for identifying them.

Fiona Rutherford: I am going to make a point in relation to enforcement that I referenced earlier. Local authorities have been brought into this as we are talking about the widest panoply of options that might be available. I am going back to the penalties that I referenced earlier, so forgive me—I am moving out of the ombudsman perspective and the regulatory questions—but this is possibly related to enforcement. While there is a plan with the penalties as and when section 21 can be moved forward, and while the local authorities get a benefit from those penalties, a rate of £5,000 probably does not go far enough to act as any kind of incentive, in so far as you want enforcement to work in that way. Of course, there are other examples: £30,000 is the maximum financial penalty for a breach of the Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Act 2022.

The other thing to say about local authorities is that while they benefit from the financial gain of any fixed penalties as a result of section 21 breaches, there is a real problem with local authorities’ resourcing. I am probably not saying anything that is particularly new to the Committee, but we are asking local authorities to do something more: it is not only enforcing section 21, but the other obligations to investigate antisocial behaviour appropriately. I again reference a report on behavioural control orders that we have looked into and the poor quality of data and understanding around antisocial behaviour. This means that the resources required are quite simply not going to be delivered through the proposed fixed penalties. We very much urge serious consideration around proper resourcing in a wider sense, but specifically in relation to antisocial behaviour and the section 21 enforcement regime.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Q Briefly on the breaches and penalties, how extensively do you think rent repayment orders should run through the Bill as a back-up? I am talking about the clause 9 and 10 breaches and the ombudsman portal registration breaches. Do you think we should have a much wider inclusion of rent repayment orders—probably as a final resort; we do not want to throw all the onus on tenants—as another deterrent?

Professor Hodges: Following the principle that the pathway and the process should be as simple as possible, we should not have a system in which people have to go to different institutions—a judge, an ombudsman, a regulator or a local authority—to get everything fixed if that can be done in one place at one time. The logic of that takes you towards giving power to the ombudsman, the judge and the regulator to issue rent orders at the end of a case. Why should anyone have to start again and go somewhere else to get that result? They should say, “Okay, on the proposition, the landlord was wrong—badly wrong, probably—in this particular circumstance. Fix it and we will come and make sure you’ve done all this stuff. The right result is to repay the rent.” Give them the power to do that and to be holistic.

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Ben Spencer Excerpts

Tuesday 21st March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)]

This is an excellent and very important Budget for people in Runnymede and Weybridge and across the country. There is lots to talk about in it, but I want to focus on a couple of key points that are maximally important in tackling the challenges we have today—the need to halve inflation, grow the economy and reduce debt—and some of the interventions that this Budget makes to drive that forward.

The first thing I want to talk about—No. 1—are our reforms and improvements to childcare. I have an interest of sorts to declare, as I am a recipient of 30 hours of subsidised childcare and a user of the tax-free childcare scheme. Childcare is one of the biggest issues that comes up on the doorstep in my constituency. It is clearly a barrier to parents—mums and dads—returning to work, and the interventions we are making to increase the number of hours and improve the rate and the supply-side reforms will make a big difference. I have had meetings with many of my early years providers and nurseries, and they have raised just how challenging it is and how challenging the rates are in particular. These reforms and changes will make a huge difference. There is also a recognition in the measures being brought forward that supply-side provision will be difficult. In bringing the policy forward, there will be challenges in growing the workforce, and that is why it is being introduced in a sensible, staged way.

My second point is the investment in science. In Runnymede and Weybridge, we are proud to have the SuperFab quantum lab at Royal Holloway. I have visited it, and it is absolutely brilliant. It is an awesome high-tech research lab. The quantum strategy we have announced, with £2.5 billion going into it and a 10-year plan going forward, is critical for UK science. It will help the quantum ecosystem and it will continue to consolidate our position as world leaders in science, which is so important for the medium to long-term ambitions of our economy as we move more towards a high-skill, high-tech economy. We very much see that in Runnymede and Weybridge and the businesses we have locally.

I speak to businesses all the time, and I say, “Why did you set up originally in Runnymede and Weybridge?” They talk about proximity to an international airport—Heathrow—and to motorways, the commute time into London and of course being in Surrey, a wonderful place to live and work. Through that, we have a whole host of big life science and high-tech companies located in my constituency. I am working to drive forward further investment to consolidate us as a world-class location in which to invest. So I say to those watching at home, “If you’ve got a company that is in the tech and life science sector and you want to invest in Runnymede, come on over.” We are a fantastic place to set up, and the Government’s reforms will help consolidate that even further.

While I am on a roll, in my last 30 seconds I am going to talk about the Animal and Plant Health Agency, which is in my constituency. In the first Budget I was at as a new MP, the Government committed £1.4 billion towards it, and I am looking forward to seeing that being delivered as we go forward. It is critical for our security in defence against zoonotic diseases and for our trade. It underpins the Northern Ireland framework, or what I would like to be called the Runnymede agreement, as it was actually signed in my constituency, and on that, I will finish.

Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Bill

Ben Spencer Excerpts

Friday 18th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)]

It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones). I will also talk about support for vulnerable individuals. It was harrowing to hear the examples from her constituency, where care—if we can call it that—in supported exempt accommodation has gone horrendously wrong and needs to be fixed urgently. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) for bringing forward this important Bill.

Supported accommodation covers a range of people with a range of needs: those with learning disabilities, care leavers, prison leavers, those with mental health needs—both complex and quite simple mental health needs—refugees and victims of domestic abuse, to name a few. In my previous career as a mental health doctor, I looked after people from all those backgrounds and in all those situations. I looked after many patients who have required supported accommodation of one form or another, and I visited lots of different types of supported accommodation that was providing care, both in a broad sense and in a more specific, medical sense.

Finding good accommodation is a huge issue when it comes to providing care and treatment for people, particularly those with mental health needs, and it can be—I am sure this remains the case—a huge barrier to discharging people from hospital. When I was the consultant on Gresham ward 1 in Croydon hospital—I suspect, although I am not sure, that some of the people I looked after will have been discharged to the constituency of the hon. Member for Croydon Central—we would prioritise in the first few days of any admission consideration of the discharge location and any barriers to such accommodation. That is absolutely critical in the context of providing care to people, particularly those with very complex and severe mental illness.

In preparing my speech for this debate, I was thinking back to all the different types of accommodation I have visited that patients I have looked after have lived in or been discharged to, and I was trying to think whether they would come under the category of supported exempt accommodation. I struggled to try to make sense of commissioning arrangements and which precise regulatory framework would be in operation, to be honest. I would like to be able to say to the House, “I have been to one of these places. I have seen patients there”, and so on, but I cannot, because I cannot be sure. I strongly suspect that people I have seen and looked after, particularly people in wet hostels, for example, or people with low-level mental health needs but in complex circumstances, have been in supported exempt accommodation, but I cannot be sure. That in itself is concerning.

I am also concerned how all that fits with a new regulatory framework, because any care and treatment provided by NHS services will be regulated by the Care Quality Commission. Personal care is CQC-regulated. The question is where that fits into the whole regulatory morass of supported exempt accommodation that provides general supportive care. The CQC badge may come from personal care that is outsourced to an external provider. Going through this exercise of trying to think where it all fits is concerning and challenging.

Some of the remarks I have found interesting in this debate were about unpacking the whole area of general support. General support is really important, too, and it can have powerful impacts on people’s transitions and people’s lives going forward. General support in accommodation is not to be belittled as the second-class cousin to the more intense interventions we get from regulated providers with the CQC. For example, there was a discussion earlier about providers not giving employment support, because if people get into work, it creates more problems for them in how much profit they can make. That is probably the most perverse situation I can imagine. When I was previously working as a mental health doctor, one of the critical things I would try to do for my patients was support them to get back into work, for their health and wellbeing going forward. Employment support is not a little thing; it is a huge thing that has a huge impact on people’s overall health and wellbeing.

[Dr Luke Evans]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent point. Drawing on his expertise, and looking on a system-wide basis, does he think that the invention of the integrated care boards, pulling together social services, councils and the NHS all in one place, provides the chance to try to join up exactly the care he is talking about?

[Dr Spencer]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. It is a really good question. As the Bill goes through, and hopefully in the Minister’s response, I would like to hear how the regulatory framework it puts forward sits alongside the role of the new integrated care systems, particularly in regard to the duties of organisations that provide healthcare-type treatments to people in exempt settings.

To give a different example of how important general support is, in my career I have looked after many people with complex and severe psychotic illnesses. I recall quite a few cases where people sadly were, despite best treatment and intervention, quite disabled and continued to be quite disabled as a result of their illness, and they were being discharged back into community settings and supported accommodation. Although over the past 30 or 40 years we rightly dismantled the asylum system and brought in care in the community, we then expected the community almost organically to provide general support to people who had severe chronic mental health needs.

However, what I quite often saw was that we had created what I call an asylum of one, where somebody was in a type of supported accommodation on their own with very little social interaction and not much of the sort of stuff coming under general supportive care going in. With many of the people I saw, my conclusion was that they did not have reason to be well, because in the community there was not the outreach, support or ongoing engagement, and that led to destabilisation, worsening mental health problems and admission to hospital.

I want to stress the importance of the general supportive care that is being provided to people in supported exempt accommodation, and how necessary and important it is that there is proper oversight and scrutiny, as well as thought about how and what is delivered and making sure it is badged so that it meets the appropriate criteria. Not giving this the same importance as other regulated activities, such as those regulated by the CQC, is unwise and, as we have discussed and seen today, has the potential to do a disservice to some of the most vulnerable people in society.

I congratulate again my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East on bringing forward the Bill. I am really pleased that this is being supported to make these very important changes, particularly the national supported housing standards, the advisory panel, which makes a lot of sense, and the licensing framework. To finish, there is a need to collect data, because without data we do not know what the situation is or how many of these organisations operate. With data, we can understand where the problems are and we can scrutinise what is being done to ensure that the most vulnerable in society—this is a group of highly vulnerable people—are getting the support, care and treatment they need. I very much welcome the Bill, and I am very pleased to have had the opportunity to take part in this debate.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ben Spencer Excerpts

Monday 17th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)]

23. What steps his Department is taking to support Ukrainian refugees.

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

The Government stand with Ukraine, and under the two visa schemes, Ukrainian refugees have full access to public services and welfare for up to three years. Over 120,000 Ukrainians have now arrived using those two schemes.

[Dr Spencer]

I thank the Government for the incredible support we are giving to Ukrainian refugees and my constituents, who have welcomed so many into their homes. Sadly, we are already hearing reports of breakdown between sponsor and refugee. Last week, I met the leader of Runnymede Borough Council and discussed the plans that he is putting in place to support refugees who cannot be rematched. What support is available to local authorities in that regard?

[Andrew Stephenson]

I am grateful to the hosts in my hon. Friend’s constituency for the generosity and good will they have shown during the past six months, and I recognise the challenges that can bring. We remain steadfast in our support for Ukraine. For arrivals under the Homes for Ukraine scheme, the £10,500 per person we provide to councils helps to provide support to individuals and families, including in the minority of cases where someone is left without accommodation.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Ben Spencer Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 8th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

The way the levy is going to operate will mean that, if the development value—the value uplift—for the developer is greater over time, local communities can get more of it. It is a way of making sure that there is appropriate rebalancing. Again, one of the things I want to stress, because it is important to do so, is that there are strengthened powers in the Bill to deal with some of the sharp practices we sometimes see in the world of development and construction. There are stronger enforcement powers, stronger powers to ensure that we have build out and stronger powers to deal with the abuse of retrospective planning permission within the system. I look forward to working with the hon. Lady and others to ensure that all those enforcement powers are fit for purpose.

[Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)]

rose—

[Michael Gove]

Ah, yes—brilliant! I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer).

[Dr Spencer]

I thought there was going to be a bit of a fight there over who would intervene. I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way, and I welcome the provisions on planning enforcement. A key intervention, however, is to break the business model of rogue developers. Would he look again at the debate we had last year on my Planning (Enforcement) Bill, so that we can enhance these important powers to break this model and ensure that people cannot profit from gaming the planning enforcement system?

[Michael Gove]

Yes. The reason I was so pleased to be able to give way to my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour is that I think his legislation and the arguments he made were incredibly powerful. I am a bit wary about criminalisation, but I am keen to explore with him and others how we can have effective tools—real teeth. We have some proposals in the Bill, but they may not go far enough, which is why I hope we can discuss in Committee exactly what we need to do to ensure that enforcement is stronger.

I should say—I touched on the environment briefly earlier—that as well as making sure we have new development that is beautiful, that is accompanied by infrastructure and that is democratically sanctioned, we need to make sure we have new development that is appropriately environmentally sensitive. Let me repeat—

Building Safety Bill

Ben Spencer Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Wednesday 20th April 2022 Commons Chamber

[Stuart Andrew]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. Freeholders must ensure that their buildings are safe. We will have responsible people associated with each of those buildings to ensure that all the regulations are adhered to. The Building Safety Regulator will also ensure that buildings are safe. As ever, we want to learn as this process goes on, and I would be keen to continue to have dialogue with her as we progress with this.

[Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is being very kind with his time. On the point about the building cost thresholds, he will know that the London median house price is £515,000, but in Runnymede and Weybridge it is £475,000. In fact, house prices in my constituency are higher than or equal to those in 25 London constituencies. Many of my constituents will be adversely affected but will not get the same benefit as those in London, despite having equivalent or higher house prices. As he reviews the policy going forward, will he consider looking at house prices on a regional basis, as opposed to inside London versus outside London, which negatively affects constituents such as mine?

[Stuart Andrew]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that important point. He will be aware that we are trying to avoid any leaseholders having any contributions to make at all. The first port of call will always be the people who developed the building in the first place. I hope to come on a bit later to the valuation of properties, which might address some of his points.

Importantly, we proposed that those leaseholder contributions be subject to a firm cap and that costs paid out in the past five years count against the caps. The Government originally proposed that leaseholders’ contributions be capped at £10,000, or £15,000 in Greater London, and we believe that creates a fair balance. It is the Government’s assessment that the vast majority of leaseholders would pay less than the caps, and many would pay nothing at all. None the less, the other place voted to reduce leaseholders’ capped contributions to zero. I am afraid the Government cannot accept the amendments.

We believe that in those circumstances, setting the cap on leaseholder contributions to zero is not a proportionate approach. Placing the entire burden on freeholders and landlords in circumstances where they are not at fault and are not wealthy will only increase the risk that remediation that is needed to ensure that residents are safe will not happen at all. We are therefore restoring the caps at £10,000 outside London and £15,000 in London, as originally proposed, and have made a small number of other technical improvements to those measures.

Ukraine Sponsorship Scheme

Ben Spencer Excerpts

Monday 14th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

We will do everything possible to make sure the Scottish Government are satisfied.

[Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)]

I welcome my right hon. Friend’s announcement. On the safeguarding of vulnerable refugees, I listened very carefully to what he said about historical and ongoing safety checks. Who will do the ongoing checks on refugee safety?

[Michael Gove]

Local government, who are experts in safeguarding.