Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill (Fourth sitting)

Debate between Eddie Hughes and Mike Amesbury

Committee stage
Thursday 18th January 2024 Public Bill Committees

[Eddie Hughes]

You do not have a view. We will not take your professional—

Philip Freedman: I can completely understand that pension funds have invested in part in long-term income that they believed to be secure when they did it—that is, income for 90 years, 990 years or whatever it was going to be. I am told that a number of pension funds and other types of investment entity have invested cautiously, not necessarily buying portfolios where there are hugely escalating ground rents, but either fixed ground rents or modestly increasing ground rents that people would not say were egregious. However, they are still concerned because, in many parts of the country, particularly in the north-east, for example, property prices are so low that even 0.1%—even 1,000th of the price of a flat—would reduce the ground rent. The ground rent might be £100 a year or something, but the cap would result in it being £50 a year or something like that. Obviously, the impact would be great for those portfolios that have hundreds or thousands of these.

[Mike Amesbury]

Q Your organisation has said it is disappointed that the Bill does not deal with the regulation of managing and property agents. Can you elaborate on that? What needs to be included in the Bill?

Philip Freedman: The Law Society has been participating in various working groups following Lord Best’s report, trying to help with the preparation of codes of practice that were intended to sit underneath the regulatory framework for property agents of different types, whether selling agents, managing agents or whatever. We feel that, because tenants often do not know what their rights are, and if they did know what their rights were, they may not want to spend the time or money getting someone to help them enforce their rights, you come back to the people actually doing the management. They need to be proactively willing to be transparent, and to realise that they have duties to the tenants as well as to the landlord. It needs a mindset change in the people who are doing the management. You do not want to rely on tenants having to try and find out what their rights are and then enforcing them. We feel, therefore, that a lot of the changes in the Bill, and other changes that have been talked about, will be better achieved if property managers are regulated, and that the right people with the right tuition being told what their duties are would be improved by regulation.

Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill (Third sitting)

Debate between Eddie Hughes and Mike Amesbury

Committee stage
Thursday 18th January 2024 Public Bill Committees

[Mike Amesbury]

Q Would you welcome amendments to the Bill to try to capture that by regulation, by legislation?

Paul Broadhead: Yes. Anything that makes it clearer and gives lenders confidence and consumers confidence that their building is safe and they are not going to face an unexpected bill has to be welcome.

[Eddie Hughes (Walsall North) (Con)]

Q I am slightly confused. I thought it was now the case that properties did have to be advertised as leasehold or freehold. Has that changed?

Paul Broadhead: Well, often the advert will say that a property is leasehold but that that will be confirmed by the conveyancer, so you do not know 100% whether it is leasehold or what the terms of the lease are.

Renters (Reform) Bill (Third sitting)

Debate between Eddie Hughes and Mike Amesbury

Committee stage
Thursday 16th November 2023 Public Bill Committees

[Eddie Hughes]

Q Jen, can I just say that I am a big fan of your work? I am delighted that this was included in the Bill. I appreciate that the Bill does not apply UK-wide, but we have about 35 million pets in the UK. We are a nation of animal lovers. Do landlords have a particular grievance with dogs as opposed to other pets? I occasionally babysit my daughter’s house rabbits, and they eat everything: the carpet, electric cables, anything they can get their hands on. Generally speaking, do landlords have an aversion to dogs?

Jen Berezai: The first time I heard my father swear was when my rabbit ate through the telephone cable for the third time.

It tends to be split about 50:50 down the middle. Some landlords will say, “Dogs are fine, but I’m not having cats,” whereas other landlords adopt the opposite position. Each can bring their own range of risk behaviour, but there is also a problem with perception versus reality. For example, Cats Protection did some research when it ran its Purrfect Landlords scheme. One thing struck me as particularly interesting: for 63% of landlords who did not allow pets, their major concern was a flea infestation, whereas only 2% who did allow cats had ever experienced any problem like that. A horror story will get more traction than a good luck story, so there is a lot of education to be done. Vet referencing should definitely be used to demonstrate responsible pet ownership. Microchipping is becoming compulsory for cats next June. If an animal is microchipped, vaccinated, neutered, and flea and worm-treated, that rules out the majority of antisocial behaviours.

[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.

Winnington Bridge Corridor

Debate between Eddie Hughes and Mike Amesbury

Tuesday 5th July 2022 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Murray.

As a civil engineer, nothing gives me greater pleasure than the opportunity to hear a speech about a bridge. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Esther McVey) for raising this important issue. I would like to put on the record, because the hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury) is present, my appreciation for the great work that he did as a shadow Minister. I was disappointed to see him step down from that role, but am delighted to see him here for this debate and look forward to working with him in future.

I want to celebrate my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton and her tireless work and campaigning for Tatton, on not only Winnington bridge but wider investment across her constituency. It is clear from her speech that she deeply understands the rich history and present needs of the community in Tatton. Her continued interest and engagement in representing the needs of her constituents, which is exemplified through her numerous written questions and debates in Parliament, is nothing short of remarkable. The Government’s central mission is to level up the United Kingdom by spreading opportunity more equally throughout the country and bringing left-behind communities up to the level of the more prosperous ones. I am delighted to have the opportunity to set out our ambitious plans to address that, ensure the success of the whole country and realise the potential of every place and person across the UK.

We have already made good progress towards levelling up through initiatives such as rolling out gigabit broadband, introducing a fairer school funding formula, opening freeports, increasing the national living wage, recruiting more police officers and creating local mayors with powers devolved from Westminster. However, as Members will agree, we must go further. That is where the levelling-up White Paper comes in to build on the billions of pounds already invested in local areas over the past few years—funding that has benefited places across the United Kingdom, including my right hon. Friend’s constituency of Tatton. It is our plan to reverse this country’s striking geographical inequalities and radically improve the United Kingdom.

Through a mission-based approach, the White Paper will boost productivity, pay, jobs and living standards by growing the private sector, especially in those places where it is lagging. The White Paper will also promote a more equal spread of opportunities and public services, especially in those places where they are weakest. Perhaps most importantly, the paper will help to ensure a sense of community, pride and belonging in local places by empowering local leaders to drive that work forward.

Although the strategy is set, I know that Members are interested in what it really means for their local places and communities. I am proud that my Department will deliver the £2.6 billion UK shared prosperity fund, which will trailblaze a new approach to investment and the empowerment of local communities to level up and build pride in their place. The fund is a central pillar of our ambitious levelling-up agenda and a significant component of its support for places across the UK. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will be pleased that Cheshire West and Chester was allocated almost £13 million of funding through the UK shared prosperity fund, with more than £13 million also allocated to Cheshire East.

Importantly, new initiatives announced in the White Paper will build on the success of a wide array of funding schemes that are already in progress. Through programmes such as the levelling-up fund, which has been raised today, the Government are already providing crucial capital investment in local infrastructure throughout the United Kingdom. To help the Government to maximise the benefits of this vast funding landscape, we will also set out a plan to reduce the unnecessary proliferation of individual funding pots and streamline our bidding processes. Through that work on funding simplification, we will also promote robust monitoring and evaluation while ensuring investment tailored to local institutional landscapes.

Let me talk in more detail about the levelling-up fund and touch on what the Government have already been doing to level up local places and invest in communities. My right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton called this debate to discuss that funding, through which we are investing in infrastructure that improves everyday life for residents across the UK. The second round of funding will look to build on the success of round 1, which saw £1.7 billion awarded to 105 successful projects throughout the UK. That included £232 million awarded to 12 successful projects in the north-west of England—the highest funding award for any English region in the first round of the fund.

We recognise that community pride, such as that in Winnington bridge, is incredibly important. That is why the levelling-up fund is focused on regenerating town centres and high streets, upgrading local transport and investing in cultural and heritage assets. I know that Members and their constituents are interested in those themes, which are a key part of the levelling-up agenda.

My right hon. Friend will be aware that Department for Transport investment in the constituencies of Tatton and Weaver Vale—and wider Cheshire and Warrington—has been considerable, with more than £470 million allocated in recent years. The DFT has provided considerable support, and that includes £192 million invested in widening the A556 between the M56 and M6, including a bypass around Mere. The Department is also delivering a smart motorway between junction 16 for Stoke and junction 19 for Knutsford in Cheshire.

Cheshire has also benefitted from significant funding to improve local rail infrastructure, including up to £50,000 for the restoring your railway ideas fund round 3 —a catchy title—to develop an early-stage proposal to reinstate passenger rail links between Middlewich and Gadbrook Park. A successful bid was also submitted in round 2 of the restoring your railway fund for a new station at Beeston castle and Tarporley.

Those are just a few examples of how the Government are investing in the wider area. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will agree that in Cheshire we are well on the way to levelling up transport infrastructure and improving the experience of residents and visitors alike.

[Mike Amesbury]

I continuously say this in the House, but it was only a year or so ago that part of Northwich station collapsed. We are still waiting for things to move forward, so there is not too much of a rosy picture on transport.

As the right hon. Member for Tatton said, the development would be on the brown belt. Without the bridge, there cannot be any development, so no bridge means no development—that would be our approach as local Members of Parliament and councillors. The bridge would really open up opportunities for the Government, the people and the local MPs.

[Eddie Hughes]

I completely respect the hon. Member for the passion with which he conveys his case. I hope he will understand that, as a Minister in the Department, it would be completely inappropriate for me to suggest or indicate support for the bid, which, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton mentioned, has not been submitted because we are waiting for the portal to be opened.

In recent years our towns and high streets have faced a number of significant challenges to growth, which covid-19 has exacerbated further. These are places at the heart of our communities and local economies, creating jobs, nurturing small businesses and injecting billions of pounds into our economy. Our £3.6 billion towns fund has harnessed the economic success of towns and high streets throughout the country, levelling up opportunity to ensure that everyone can contribute to, and benefit from, economic growth. As my right hon. Friend will be aware, more than £69 million of the towns fund has been committed across Cheshire via the Crewe and Warrington town deals and several successful bids into the future high street fund competition.

As Members may know, the levelling-up fund is competitive, with funding distributed to places across the UK on the basis of successful project selection. I know that many places, including Winnington Bridge, are preparing applications to the fund ahead of the launch of round 2. As my right hon. Friend outlined, local investment has the power to change local lives by creating jobs and further investment for places. The aim of the competitive funding is to empower local areas to identify and bring forward genuine local priorities. It will fund projects prepared in collaboration with local stakeholders that have clear benefits to the local community and are aligned with a broader local economic strategy.

I hope my right hon. Friend will understand that I will not be able to discuss the bid during the period of competition. As Members may be aware, the launch of the application portal for round 2 has been delayed, and work is ongoing to launch it as soon as possible. We will ensure that applicants have sufficient time to upload their bids. In the interim, a full suite of support materials has been published to help places to develop high-quality bids.

I again extend my thanks to my right hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Weaver Vale for contributing to the debate. I and the Minister for Levelling Up, The Union and Constitution, my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Neil O’Brien), look forward to working closely with them and their communities as we deliver the ambitions of the levelling-up White Paper and deliver capital investment in the places that need it most.

Question put and agreed to.

Homes for Ukraine Scheme

Debate between Eddie Hughes and Mike Amesbury

Thursday 31st March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities if he will make a statement on the Homes for Ukraine scheme.

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

President Putin’s bloody invasion is a barbaric and unprovoked attack on the people of Ukraine, who are fighting a daily battle for freedom. The UK has stood shoulder to shoulder with Ukraine at every stage of the conflict, including sending extensive military supplies months before the Russian tanks rolled into Ukraine. We are steeled to stand with Ukraine for the long haul.

In this country there has been an outpouring of public support for the Ukrainian people, and we have matched the generosity of the British public with an ambitious humanitarian offer to Ukrainians who wish to come to the UK to escape the conflict. As hon. Members will know, since the Home Office opened and expanded the Ukrainian family scheme and my Department launched the Homes for Ukraine scheme with our Home Office colleagues, both schemes have received thousands upon thousands of applications from people willing to open their heart and their home to a new guest.

We have balanced the need to move rapidly with the equal need to get the Homes for Ukraine scheme right. The visa application process opened on Friday 18 March, since when we have seen the first arrivals come to the UK. Members on both sides of the House are as invested as we are in making the scheme as efficient and effective as possible. We are minimising bureaucratic foot-dragging and cutting unnecessary red tape, while making sure people are set up in the best possible situation to start a life in the UK and to access the right local services and support.

The scheme will be a success only if local and national Government work as one, so we are providing councils with £10,500 per guest to help with all the support they will need. We have been working with the Local Government Association and individual councils across the country to fine-tune the scheme’s practicalities and logistics. As the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities said, we will keep things under review to ensure that local government has and gets what it needs. We are also working closely with the devolved Administrations to ensure that we have a consistent offer across the country. Some 4 million Ukrainians have been displaced by this bloody and unjust war so far. The UK will continue to respond to the gravity of the conflict and we will continue to work with Members of the House to open up our communities to Ukrainians in the weeks and months ahead.

[Mike Amesbury]

Nearly 150,000 people have signed up to sponsor Ukrainian refugees in a testament to the generous spirit of our nation and regions, yet that generosity risks being wasted because the figures released confirm that just 2,700 visas have been granted by the Government under the scheme so far. Of course, visas being granted are not the same as refugees arriving here after fleeing for their lives from the bullets, missiles and bombs. Can the Minister tell the House how many refugees have arrived in the UK through the scheme and what has gone wrong so far in getting them here?

After the issue with visas, things are even less clear. There remain real concerns among councils that have not been addressed. How will they know when refugees have arrived in their authority and require services? Proactive data sharing is simply not good enough and safeguarding is falling down. Do the checks on sponsor families need to have been fully completed before a family can begin travelling to the UK? Does the £10,500 for councils, which the Minister mentioned, cover refugees only in this scheme or in the family visa scheme too?

There are real fears of a homelessness crisis if sponsorships break down. As reported yesterday by the Local Government Association, nearly 150 Ukrainians have already presented themselves to councils as homeless having fled the conflict to stay with family members in the UK who have no room. Can the Minister tell me and the House what urgent guidance and support his Department is giving to councils on those cases?

The Government must now take an active role in matching sponsors to refugees, otherwise the generosity of people who want to help will be wasted. The British people have stepped up in Ukraine’s hour of need; it is clear that the Government urgently need to do the same.

[Eddie Hughes]

I think that the Government are acting urgently. It is testament to the efforts of people in an incredible civil service who are prepared to work very long hours, seven days a week and to pivot from their previous day jobs to move in an agile fashion to deal with the trauma that that country is facing and ensure that the maximum number of people have visas granted and can have a secure and safe home in this country. It is disappointing, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman, whom I respect tremendously, thinks that the Government and the civil service are not responding urgently.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned a figure of 150,000; I believe that the number of people who have expressed an interest and are prepared to open up their homes is closer to 200,000. [Interruption.] It is slightly frustrating to answer one question and have Opposition Members race ahead to the three or four others that have been asked. Patience would be a virtue for everybody involved in this process—at least for the sake of this urgent question. Mr Speaker, do you not think it would be nice for them to wait for the answer before they get too carried away?

How will councils know? We have a matching process and once the sponsor has been matched with the guest online with the form, councils will be alerted so that they know that a match has been made for a sponsor in their area. They can then begin the process of preparation immediately.

Will checks need to be completed fully before people travel? Inasmuch as once the visa is granted, checks will already have started, we will already have started to investigate whether there has been criminality on the part of either party. We need to make absolutely sure that we are reassured of the safety on both sides of the equation—of the person travelling here and of the people opening up their homes. Those checks will be carried out initially and then further checks will be carried out by the receiving authority once it has been notified of the match.

Once the authority has been notified, it will be expected to go out and inspect the property to make sure it is appropriate for such people’s needs, and begin the process of further checks, as required. For example, if there are children or vulnerable adults in the households that are coming, a further enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service check will be required.

With regards to the money, the £10,500 is for the Homes for Ukraine scheme. Obviously, for the rest of the elements of this scheme, we are making a very generous offer in that people who arrive in the UK will be allowed to work and claim benefits immediately, so that they can begin to integrate fully here.

Finally, on the 150 homeless people the hon. Gentleman mentioned, he will know that I, as the Minister for homelessness, have a very keen interest in this. We will be investigating to ensure that we completely understand what has led to such a situation. As a Government, with the charities and all involved—and MPs have a role in this—we need to make sure people understand that the most appropriate, safe and reliable route is that prescribed by the Government.

Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting)

Debate between Eddie Hughes and Mike Amesbury

Committee stage
Thursday 9th December 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)]

I beg to move amendment 10, in clause 26, page 15, leave out subsection (4).

This amendment aims to ensure that the provisions apply to retirement properties from the time at which they come into force for other types of property, whereas at present the Bill will prevent those provisions coming into force for retirement properties before April 2023.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once again, Ms Elliott. With my final amendment—not including new clauses—I want to raise something that was raised repeatedly in the other place: the question of retirement properties. I understand that, after a review, the Government have dropped their plans to exclude retirement homes and they will be included after a period of transition. I am glad to see that the Government and Ministers have moved forward on this. However, like Members of the Lords, I see no reason why those living in retirement properties should not be given the same rights as those in other types of leasehold property, at the same time. In the spirit in which we have tabled other amendments, this amendment’s aim is to ensure that all leaseholders are treated equally and that the 50,000 or so leasehold owners of retirement properties are not subject to unjust costs while other leaseholders are free from them. That is something that Members from across the Committee have raised.

Should the Minister not want to accept the amendment, I would be grateful if he outlined why exactly retirement property has been given this longer transition period. Given that this is a growing market and we should certainly be encouraging our senior citizens who want to rightsize—freeing up family homes for those who need the space, while living somewhere that suits their needs—what assessment has the Minister made of the number of leaseholders who will fail to benefit from the new system should they purchase somewhere before 1 April 2023? What will he say to them? The stories about retirement housing and fees are some of the worst in the housing market. They have been very well documented, and I know that the Minister is familiar with them. Can the Minister outline what he intends to do about that in the transition period right up until April 2023?

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

It is a pleasure to see you back in the Chair, Ms Elliott.

As hon. Members will know, it is our intention to protect leaseholders from unfair practices through the Bill by ensuring that future regulated leases are restricted to a peppercorn rent, unless excepted. The Government believe that those who purchase retirement homes should benefit from the same reform as other future leaseholders. Although we would like the provisions of the Bill to come into effect as soon as possible, we have decided to give the retirement sector additional time to prepare for these changes. The hon. Member for Weaver Vale has tabled amendment 10 to remove this provision and do away with the transition period entirely. I am grateful for his consideration of this point and would like to explain the reasoning for including a transition period for retirement properties, and why I believe that that is the right thing to do.

The plan for peppercorn ground rent was announced in 2019, following the Government consultation entitled “Implementing reforms to the leasehold system”. At the time, we also announced that we would proceed with the proposal to exempt retirement properties from the peppercorn ground rents policy. That decision was made on the basis that developers of retirement properties incur additional costs as a result of the communal spaces that are characteristic of these kinds of development. However, having reviewed this in further detail, we concluded that the argument in favour of an exemption did not outweigh the benefits of ensuring that those purchasing retirement homes can take advantage of reform in the same way as any other leaseholder could.

The Government believe that it is a matter of fairness that those buying retirement properties should be able to realise the benefits of this legislation. It was therefore announced in January 2021 that the exemption for retirement property would no longer apply, and we have offered the transition in recognition of that change of policy. As such, the Bill will come into force no earlier than 1 April 2023 for retirement homes. This transition period will allow developers of retirement properties time to adapt to the forthcoming changes. We believe the transition period in the Bill has been fairly granted in balancing the needs of developers and fairness to leaseholders.

--- Later in debate ---

[Eddie Hughes]

It is based on when we expect the Bill to come into force in its standard form, and then allowing a subsequent transition period. Assuming that the Bill comes into force quickly after Royal Assent—we have committed to that happening within six months—with the transition period following on from that, we anticipate the provisions coming into force in April 2023. On that point, I ask the hon. Member for Weaver Vale to withdraw the amendment.

[Mike Amesbury]

I thank the Minister for his response, and I thank other Members for their contributions. This measure would be a step forward. Martin Boyd of Leasehold Knowledge Partnership has consistently expressed concerns about the matter in the past. I know that Members and stakeholders have lobbied for these properties to be exempted completely, which would have been the wrong course of action. I concur with the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster in hoping that the market responds positively to the changes. In the interests of minimalist legislation and in the spirit of co-operation as we march towards Christmas, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Eddie Hughes]

The clause makes provision for the commencement of the Bill. The substantive provisions of the Bill will come into force on a day appointed by the Secretary of State in regulations, but Members can rest assured that we intend there to be no unnecessary delay in implementation. I thank the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood, who is not in her place, for her question on Tuesday regarding the commencement of the Bill following Royal Assent. We understand her concerns about the commencement date, but setting a hard date right now would mean no flexibility should other issues arise making it difficult to achieve.

I assure the Committee that we will press ahead at full steam to bring the legislation into force, but we must also be practical and allow for contingencies, should they arise. That is why we think it is right to have a contingency period for us to implement the provisions within six months of Royal Assent. For completeness, I reiterate what I said in relation to amendment 10: the clause also provides that the Bill cannot be brought into force any earlier than 1 April 2023 with regard to retirement property. We are keen that leaseholders of retirement properties get the same benefits from the legislation as other leaseholders, but we also want to ensure that the sector has time to prepare for the change.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 26 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 27

Short title

Amendment made: 8, in clause 27, page 15, line 25, leave out subsection (2).—(Eddie Hughes.)

This amendment removes the privilege amendment inserted in the Lords.

Clause 27, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 1

Ground rent for existing long leases

“Within 30 days of the day on which this Act comes into force, the Secretary of State must publish draft legislation to restrict ground rents on all existing long residential leases to a peppercorn.”—(Mike Amesbury.)

This new clause aims to ensure that the Government introduces further legislation to remove ground rent for all leaseholders, whereas the Act currently only applies to newly established leases.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Mike Amesbury]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Today is the last day of the Committee—I know people will be disappointed about that—and my last day sitting opposite the Minister. Indeed, it is my last day shadowing the housing brief, a role I have thoroughly enjoyed. I hope that I have made some difference with challenge and scrutiny in the building safety crisis and on leasehold reform. I wish the Minister and his departmental team well, and I urge them to be bolder in their response to the crisis. Ultimately, of course, Opposition Members and I want to secure a Labour Government in the not-too-distant future, although I know that not everyone in Committee shares that objective.

--- Later in debate ---

[Eddie Hughes]

I thank my hon. Friend for his endorsement and will turn to him for advice and support as we formulate that policy. However, we do need to take time to get the reforms right. Hon. Members can rest assured, though, that reforming the leasehold system is a high priority for the Government. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Weaver Vale to withdraw the motion.

[Mike Amesbury]

In this case, I am going to agree to disagree. The measures in the new clause are a fundamental aspect of legislation. We have spoken about how all leaseholders should be equal, and indeed collectively we want to ensure that the feudal leasehold system is left in the history books once and for all.

On Second Reading, the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), said that the Bill was

“the appetiser for the main course”

while I referred to the desire of Opposition Members and, importantly, the desire of the constituents we represent, for an

“all-you-can-eat buffet of reform.”—[Official Report, 29 November 2021; Vol. 704, c. 714-33.]

We have waited long enough. Indeed, we have had this nonsensical, unjust system for hundreds of years in England and Wales, and I know that none of us is proud of it, so I will not withdraw the motion. The Minister has examples on his patch where existing leaseholders will be trapped in the current system, but over the road or in another phase of a development, properties will be ground rent free. That is wholly unjust and has real consequences. I encourage all members of the Committee to support the new clause.

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Amesbury]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Our system of leasehold is unfair, unfit for purpose and a hangover from a time that should be consigned to history, as I have stated throughout the Committee and throughout the journey of the Bill. The best answer to fixing the issues with leasehold is to move to a system that most of the world moved to a long time ago. That system is commonhold.

Current levels of commonhold are very low, so the new clauses asks the Government to understand the impact the Bill will have on levels of commonhold. In the other place, the Minister claimed the Bill would level the playing field, and it would be useful to have that information once the Bill comes into force. This Minister will be aware, I hope, that the Mayor of London has committed to furthering commonhold and pledged in his manifesto to start further trials in our capital. Will the Minister tell us how much longer the rest of the country has to wait to learn what is the Government’s policy on increasing commonhold uptake beyond the claim made in the narrative about the Bill?

Will the Minister update the Committee on how the Commonhold Council is coming along, what progress is being made and when we can begin to expect concrete change to take place? Commonhold should be the default tenure; that is something hon. Members across the House have spoken about for a number of years, and this is a real opportunity to turbo-charge that change. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.

[Eddie Hughes]

The hon. Gentleman’s new clause 2 would require the Government to produce an assessment of the legislation’s impact on the level of commonhold ownership. The impact assessment would have to be published within 60 days of the Act’s passage. However, as he said himself, the problem with commonhold in this country is that, despite its name, it is not a common tenure at all. Fewer than 20 developments have been created since the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 Act came into force.

We want that to change. We want to see the benefits of freehold ownership extended to more homeowners. The change brought about through this legislation will help to create the conditions for more commonholds. It will level the playing field, as it will remove an incentive for developers to build leasehold rather than commonhold homes. However, we also need further to lay the groundwork for greater use of commonhold, which is why we have established the Commonhold Council—a partnership of industry, leaseholders and Government—to prepare consumers and the market for the widespread take-up of commonhold. It is also why we asked the Law Commission to recommend reforms to reinvigorate commonhold as a workable alternative to leasehold, for existing and for new homes. We are reviewing those proposals and will respond in due course.

The new clause looks at the interaction between the Bill and commonhold. We have of course considered that interplay, and believe that the Bill and our work to increase uptake of commonhold are consistent with our aim of more fairness and transparency for homeowners. The Bill and our commonhold reform programme are complementary and we do not believe it necessary to conduct a specific impact assessment as the new clause demands. As hon. Members will know, such exercises also take up considerable resources. I think we are all agreed that we should avoid delaying further leasehold reform, and I am afraid that would be the effect of the new clause.

The hon. Member for Weaver Vale asks about progress on the Commonhold Council. All I can say is that work is ongoing. I am sure the chair of the council, Lord Greenhalgh, will continue to push forward, and we will be publishing more information on its work early in the new year.

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman felt it necessary to table the new clause, but I hope he will consider withdrawing it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Amesbury]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

This final new clause addresses a point made to me by a number of stakeholders and members of the Committee over the past few weeks. It would ensure that the Secretary of State published an assessment of the impact of the Act on the level of service charges and other costs charged to leaseholders.

Ground rents have been a convenient way of pushing up the costs of leasehold, and an easy way of making more money off leaseholders, but they are not the only way. As we have said, new ground rents are tapering off in number, but other charges have begun to crop up and are starting to take their place—ground rents for parking spaces, rather than residential units, is one example. We are already beginning to see a number of these charges emerge. The Leasehold Knowledge Partnership gives several examples on its website. I encourage Members to look at them.

In an earlier debate, I raised the point that service charges are increasing as freeholders exploit other income streams. Those freeholders do not seem to care about the financial pressure they are putting on leaseholders, or that these are people’s homes, where they deserve to live without being exploited by whatever organisation has bought the freehold or chosen to manage their property.

The clause would require details of charges to be published within two years of Royal Assent. That, frankly, is because we face greater reform, and so I expect that we might see these trends emerging before the Government introduce more legislation. Developers looking to explore other avenues of income will bide their time until they feel the coast is clear.

I tabled the new clause in the hope of raising with the Minister again that we risk playing Whac-a-Mole with leaseholder costs; we could ban one stream of income only to find that freeholders have discovered another. I ask the Minister to outline exactly how he expects to prevent that.

[Eddie Hughes]

As we draw towards the end of the Bill Committee, I thank Members on both sides of the room for their considered input. We work best when we work collaboratively. As I have said a few times, this is an issue I started to champion as a Back Bencher, so it is an incredible privilege to be the Minister leading the discussions. I thank everyone for their time.

New clause 3 brings us back to the issue of service charges, and to concerns about freeholders using such charges to charge ground rent by another name. The Government believe that all fees and charges should be justifiable, transparent and communicated effectively. Service charges that have been artificially inflated to make up for lost ground rent income would not meet those requirements. If any landlord seeks to recoup what they consider to be lost ground rent or other funds through service charges or any other charge, the wide definition of the term “rent” in the Bill will allow a tribunal to take the charge into account when deciding if it is actually prohibited rent. That is why the Bill has been drafted as it has, and why we have adopted a flexible definition of rent. As I explained in a previous sitting on Tuesday, the definition relies on its naturally understood meaning and includes anything in the nature of rent, whatever it is called. Where a freeholder has attempted to get around these provisions, the definition allows the tribunal to consider, in each case, whether such a charge actually represents a prohibited rent, even if it is not explicitly called a ground rent.

As was discussed earlier in the week, the penalties for landlords who charge a prohibited rent are significant —a maximum of £30,000 per lease. If a landlord had a block of 10 flats, then the penalty they would be risking would reach a significant amount.

We have provided a robust system with not only a serious deterrent, but a route for challenging freeholders who act this way. That is all relevant to the new clause, which asks for an impact assessment. I understand the concerns that motivated the new clause, but hopefully the hon. Member for Weaver Vale can appreciate that the drafting of the Bill is intended to specifically guard against service charges being used in the way that he mentions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Eddie Hughes]

I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. There are two sides to that story. The fact that this legislation is being enacted, and the attention that will be drawn to that, will hopefully inform a good number of leaseholders. Also, the possible financial penalty—up to £30,000—should act as a significant deterrent for the freeholders, who are much more likely to be well informed and will hopefully be severely deterred by that. As the description of rent is so wide-ranging—it includes anything in the nature of rent—they will well understand that, should they be challenged at tribunal, they would likely be found out.

Given the two sides of that equation, there is good reason for us to be confident that nobody will try to introduce rents through the back door. On that note, I once again ask the hon. Member for Weaver Vale to withdraw the new clause.

[Mike Amesbury]

I thank the Minister for his detailed response, and all those Members who made powerful and informative interventions. Undoubtedly this is a live issue. I said, in relation to an earlier clause of the Bill, that any one of us could set up as a management agent and apply some interesting service charges. We have seen evidence of that weekly—daily. I urge the Minister, and certainly the Department—he spoke about keeping a serious watching brief—to respond to the problem. This Bill is the appetiser, we are told, but they should certainly respond to it in the main course. Opposition Members and, indeed, Government Back Benchers will rightly hold their feet to the fire.

In the spirit of co-operation, and given that this will be my last input today, we will withdraw the new clause. I genuinely thank everybody for giving their valuable time to consideration of the Bill so far. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Bill, as amended, to be reported.

Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Bill [Lords] (Second sitting)

Debate between Eddie Hughes and Mike Amesbury

Committee stage
Tuesday 7th December 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Eddie Hughes]

The Bill will allow enforcement authorities to act on unfair practices against leaseholders. Clause 10 enables an enforcement authority to impose a financial penalty on a landlord who has required a leaseholder to pay a prohibited rent. There is a separate power under clause 11 to make a recovery order to repay the prohibited rent.

It is important to note at this point that a conscious decision has been made for former landlords to be subject to penalties for breaches of the ground rent restrictions and to remain accountable for their actions at the commencement of the legislation. I am sure that the Committee will agree that we would not wish to see the development of the poor practice of landlords selling their leases in order to avoid financial penalties.

Clause 10 sets clear parameters for enforcement authorities to work within, but we must of course ensure adequate checks and balances so that those in breach are not unfairly treated. Before imposing a financial penalty, enforcement authorities must be “satisfied beyond reasonable doubt” that a breach has occurred. Where an enforcement authority is satisfied, subsection (2) clearly defines the parameters of the financial penalty that may be imposed. The Government’s decision to increase the maximum penalty from £5,000 to £30,000 shows that we have listened to parliamentary stakeholders, who felt that a stronger deterrent was needed.

Subsection (3) permits only one financial penalty to be issued where multiple breaches have occurred on a single lease. However, where enforcement action has been taken against a landlord, and that landlord is found to have breached clause 3(1) again, they may be subject to a further financial penalty after their initial fine. I am sure that the Committee will agree that that is the right thing to do.

In a case in which a landlord has committed breaches in relation to multiple leases, an enforcement authority may impose a single financial penalty to cover all breaches. In that scenario, the minimum or maximum amount of the financial penalty is the sum of the minimum and maximum penalties that could have been imposed if each breach had been dealt with separately. If a landlord has breached clause 3 on two of their leases, for example, the enforcement authority could not decide to issue a single penalty of £600 as that total would mean that the landlord had paid a penalty below the minimum amount of £500 per breach. The enforcement authority will be required to consider issuing a penalty of at least £1,000.

Importantly, clause 10 ensures that landlords are protected from being charged twice for the same breach by two separate enforcement authorities. Should the minimum and maximum penalty thresholds need updating, the Secretary of State has the power to change them through regulations for England, and Welsh Ministers can do so for premises in Wales. Subsection (10) makes it clear that this may be done only to reflect changes in the value of money. Financial penalties are an important deterrent, but they must be managed appropriately. The clause sets out a clear framework for enforcement authorities to work within and provides a balanced and fair approach towards those in breach.

Clause 11 forms an important part of the Bill’s deterrent measures to discourage landlords from including an inappropriate monetary ground rent in a regulated lease. Subsection (1) enables an enforcement authority to order the repayment of a prohibited rent where they are satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the leaseholder has made such a payment and the landlord has not already refunded it.

Subsection (2) sets out who the enforcement authority may order to repay the prohibited rent, including the landlord at the time when the payment was made, and the current landlord. That means, for example, that if it is not possible to trace a previous landlord, a leaseholder will still be able to recover the ground rent that they were wrongly charged. That is fair; a new landlord must take responsibility for the leases that he has taken over. Subsection (2)(c) makes it clear that an agent acting on behalf of the landlord may also be ordered to repay any prohibited rent that the leaseholder paid to them. That is important, as we know that there may be cases where the landlord is absent or unresponsive. A responsible managing agent would wish to ensure that leases, and their own practices, comply with the law.

There are protections in the clause to prevent duplication of recovery orders. Where the tenant has applied to the appropriate tribunal for a recovery order, the enforcement authority may not make such an order. If an enforcement authority has already made an order in respect of that payment, no further order may be made in respect of it.

Subsection (4) enables some administrative ease to assist enforcement authorities. It enables an enforcement authority to make a single order in respect of a number of prohibited rent payments, provided that they all relate to the same lease. The clause is vital to ensuring that an enforcement authority can act where a prohibited rent has been charged and order the landlord to repay it so that the leaseholder is not out of pocket.

On clause 12, it is only fair that where a prohibited rent has been wrongly paid, it should be possible for the leaseholder to recover interest on the amount that they are out of pocket. The clause makes provision for that. Interest is payable from the date of a payment of a prohibited rent until the date that it is repaid. The interest rate, as is standard practice for such matters, is the rate specified in section 17 of the Judgments Act 1838.

To ensure that the amount of interest to be paid is not disproportionate, subsection (5) places a cap on that amount. It must not exceed the original amount of prohibited rent that the landlord is required to repay. It is only fair that a leaseholder should not only be recompensed for the amount that they are out of pocket, but recover the interest on that amount.

[Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to welcome you to your place, Ms Elliott. I welcome the Minister’s and the Government’s response to some of the debates on the Bill in the other place about the maximum level of fine. Given that a number of landlords and freeholders have deep pockets, it will act as a more effective deterrent.

On multiple breaches, I am making an assumption that an element of sense will be applied, so that someone with multiple breaches would be looking at the maximum fine. I know that that will be a judgment call for the enforcement authorities and trading standards, which will be well resourced—we have had the assurance from the Minister today.

The clause picks up on several earlier points made on both sides of the Committee. It is essential that people are informed from the outset of the duties that will be not only implied but overt as a result of the Bill. Residents and leaseholders will be particularly keen to ensure that where they have been wrongly charged and levied—essentially, ground rent should never have happened in the first place—they will be able to retrieve that quickly. I welcome the clauses but there are still a number of questions for the Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Eddie Hughes]

Clause 13 makes various supplementary provisions in relation to enforcement authorities. Importantly, it requires them to have regard to any guidance that may be issued by the Secretary of State and Welsh Ministers, depending on the location of the property. We have made it clear that the Government intend to issue guidance on various matters to ensure that enforcement authorities act with consistency. Subsection (3) amends schedule 5 to the Consumer Rights Act 2015 to ensure that enforcement authorities have the investigatory powers that they need to enforce the ground rent restrictions in the Bill.

The final subsection of clause 13 introduces the schedule, which sets out how an enforcement authority may impose a financial penalty or make a recovery order. This includes the relevant time limits, rights of appeal, the recovery of a financial penalty or an amount ordered to be paid if the landlord does not comply and retention of sums received. We will consider these details when we come to consideration of the schedule. The clause contains important supplementary provision to ensure that enforcement authorities receive the guidance necessary to perform their role properly and consistently. It gives them the powers they need to be effective and sets out procedures that are appropriate and fair.

I turn to Government amendment 9. Members will know that the Bill applies to both England and Wales. They will also know that in the other place the Government made a series of changes to give certain powers to Welsh Ministers. I would like to take this opportunity to once again thank colleagues in the Welsh Government for working constructively with us on these issues. Amendment 9 in my name is one more change in a similar spirit.

Clause 13 and paragraph 11 in the schedule allow enforcement authorities to keep the proceeds of any action to cover the cost of that action. With penalties of up to £30,000 per lease, that is vital so that local authorities or local trading standards are not left out of pocket for implementing the provisions in the legislation. To act as an effective deterrent, freeholders, landlords and managing agents need to understand that action will be taken if they charge a prohibited rent.

However, enforcement penalties have not been designed as a new income stream for the authorities. As such, any excess proceeds from a penalty beyond what is needed to cover the enforcement action in relation to the Bill and other residential leasehold enforcement cannot be kept, ensuring penalties remain proportionate to the breach and enforcement costs are still covered. In these circumstances, the Bill would see all such excess proceeds being paid to the Secretary of State. Amendment 9 would make sure that, if the penalty is imposed in relation to leases of premises in Wales, the excess proceeds would go instead to Welsh Ministers. This is a small but sensible change, and I hope it will be supported by the Committee.

The schedule sets out the procedure that an enforcement authority must follow when they wish to impose a financial penalty or make an order requiring the repayment of a prohibited rent under the legislation. This will help to ensure consistency and fairness in enforcement. Enforcement authorities must give the relevant person notice of their intention to impose a financial penalty within six years of the breach occurring and within six months of the authority having evidence that they consider justifies serving the notice. The relevant person will usually be the landlord, but where the notice relates to a recovery order it may be a former landlord or agent. The notice must contain relevant information about the reasons for imposing the penalty or making the recovery order, the amount of the penalty or the terms of the order, and the right to make representations. The landlord then has 28 days to respond.

If, after considering any representations, the enforcement authority decides to impose a penalty or make a recovery order, it must give a final notice. This must set out the amount of penalty and/or terms of the recovery order and the reasons for the penalty or order. It must address how these will be paid, the landlord’s rights of appeal and the consequences of failing to comply. An enforcement authority may at any time withdraw or amend a notice of intent or final notice by providing written notice to the relevant person. The landlord, or person acting on their behalf, has a right of appeal to the appropriate tribunal against the decision to impose the penalty or make the order, the amount of the penalty, or the terms of the order.

Any appeal must be brought within 28 days of the final notice and is to be a re-hearing of the enforcement authority’s decision. However, the appropriate tribunal may admit new evidence that was not previously before the enforcement authority. In those cases, the existing final notice is suspended until the appeal is determined or withdrawn. The appropriate tribunal may confirm, vary or quash the final notice. It may increase or decrease the penalty imposed, but it is bound by the same minimum and maximum limits as the enforcement authority.

If the landlord fails to pay all or part of the financial penalty, or to repay a prohibitive rent, the enforcement authority can seek repayment on the order of the county court as if the penalty or payment were payable under an order of the county court.

I am aware that concerns have been raised about the resources of local authorities to enforce the legislation. I trust the fact that the schedule enables an enforcement authority to retain the proceeds of any financial penalty for future residential and leasehold enforcement is very welcome. My officials have discussed with national trading standards and the Local Government Association what further options can be considered to support the Bill’s implementation. Furthermore, we are producing guidance to which enforcement authorities must have regard and which will support those authorities in fulfilling their enforcement responsibilities under the legislation, as called for by my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster.

[Mike Amesbury]

With regard to the excess that could be generated, and terms of the clause and the amendments, there could be a transfer to the Welsh Secretary. Does the Minister envisage that happening in reality, given the situation that many local authority trading standards have faced over the past 11 years? That point has been echoed across the Committee today. Could the Minister elaborate on the discussions that he has had with the Welsh Government, because there are elements of a tidying up exercise here? The Minister said that he had further discussions of other mechanisms that would help trading standards effectively conduct and resource their enforcement role. What are those mechanisms and sources of other potential income?

--- Later in debate ---

[Eddie Hughes]

Clause 14 provides leaseholders with an alternative route for redress should they wish to take action directly, instead of by approaching an enforcement authority. It enables the leaseholder to apply directly to the appropriate tribunal for a recovery order that requires the landlord to repay the prohibited rent.

The clause mirrors the provisions in clause 11 in relation to enforcement authorities, enabling a leaseholder—or someone acting on their behalf—to apply to the tribunal for a recovery order if they have paid a prohibited rent and it has not been refunded. As in clause 11, the recovery order may apply to the landlord at the time the prohibited rent was paid, or to the current landlord. It may also apply to a person acting on the landlord’s behalf, where that person received the money. As I said, the provisions are fair, and are included in the Bill to ensure that the prohibited rent can be recovered effectively and repaid to the leaseholder. The person ordered to repay the rent has up to 28 days following the date of the recovery order to make the repayment. That ensures that the repayment is made promptly. Later in our discussion we will come to provisions in the Bill for the landlord to appeal if they consider it appropriate.

The clause also includes, as clause 11 did, provision that a single order may be made in respect of multiple wrongful payments. It prevents duplication by clarifying that the tribunal may not make an order if one has already been made successfully by an enforcement authority in respect of the same payment. The clause gives choice to leaseholders, which I am sure we are all in favour of, to seek their own resolution to any prohibited rents that have been paid. They can choose to apply to the appropriate tribunal without involving their local enforcement authority. I hope that we can all agree that that is a helpful provision to ensure that leaseholders can take their own action if desired.

Clause 15 makes equivalent provision to that in clause 12 in relation to interest that may be ordered on top of an order to repay prohibited rent. Clause 15 applies where the recovery order is made by the appropriate tribunal rather than an enforcement authority. As in clause 12, the clause provides that interest is payable from the date of a payment until the date it is repaid. The interest rate is the normal rate that applies to court judgments: a simple interest rate of 8% per annum. To ensure that the amount of interest to be paid is not disproportionate, there is a cap on the amount of interest that a person may be required to pay. It must not exceed the amount of the wrongly paid rent that the tribunal orders to be repaid. As I said in relation to clause 11, which clause 15 mirrors, it is only fair that a leaseholder should not only be recompensed for the amount that they are out of pocket but recover interest on it.

[Mike Amesbury]

With regard to the tribunal, I referenced the evidence from the National Leasehold Campaign and the Leasehold Knowledge Partnership, and that David versus Goliath arena. I do not think it is a matter of choice; I wonder why anyone would opt for this route versus the other provisions in the Bill. Clause 15 is very straightforward, applying the same principle.

[Eddie Hughes]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution. Just because we cannot imagine the circumstances in which it would be necessary does not mean that they do not exist. Whether a person should choose to pursue it themselves depends on how well informed and able they are. Perhaps they might find it easier or quicker. I am not sure, but the option should at least be available to them.

[Mike Amesbury]

That demonstrates why clause 8 and the duty to inform were so important. That would, again, help with this potential.

[Eddie Hughes]

I can say only what I said earlier: I do not think that clause 8 and the duty to inform are required. I am not sure that it would necessarily make it easier. The hon. Gentleman questioned why somebody would want to pursue it themselves. As I said, they would no doubt be a well informed and able person. I am not sure that the duty to inform would have applied.

--- Later in debate ---

[Eddie Hughes]

Clause 17 enables enforcement authorities to assist leaseholders, where they request it, with various applications to the appropriate tribunal for redress. We have discussed that a leaseholder may apply to the tribunal for a recovery order to recover any permitted rent, along with any interest that would have been payable. We have also discussed the provision to apply to the tribunal for a declaration that will establish for the record whether a term in a lease is a prohibited rent, and if so, what the permitted rent is.

We want to ensure that the system of redress for leaseholders is easy to navigate. That is why we have taken a belt-and-braces approach whereby enforcement may take place via the enforcement authorities or a leaseholder may seek redress directly by application to the appropriate tribunal. Should a leaseholder wish to do this, the clause makes it clear that an enforcement authority may offer assistance to the leaseholder with that process. I hope hon. Members agree that it is important to give enforcement authorities the power to offer appropriate assistance to leaseholders who wish to seek redress directly from the tribunal. The clause achieves that.

[Mike Amesbury]

The clause seems fairly proactive, essentially hand-holding through the process, which in one dimension is most welcome. However, I still question the incentives for people to go down the enforcement authority route—trading standards—rather than the tribunal route for cost recovery. I am curious.

--- Later in debate ---

[Eddie Hughes]

Clause 19 is included to prevent a potential loophole whereby a landlord might charge an administration fee in relation to a peppercorn rent. This measure is achieved by amending the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002, thereby requiring that no administration charge is payable in relation to the collection of any ground rent that is restricted to a peppercorn by this Bill. Subsection (5) provides a leaseholder with recourse to redress, if needed. It enables a leaseholder to apply to the first-tier tribunal in England or to a leasehold valuation tribunal in Wales for an order varying the lease on the ground that such an administration charge is not payable.

A further measure, should it be needed, is included in subsection (6), which amends the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987. This enables a leaseholder to apply to the relevant tribunal to request that it makes an order appointing a manager where prohibited administration charges have been made. A tribunal-appointed manager does not act on behalf of the landlord; they are appointed by the tribunal to take over the landlord’s right to manage the building. This is a strong measure, intended to provide a deterrent to help ensure that a landlord does not continue to seek administration charges in relation to a peppercorn rent under the Bill. Clause 19 is necessary to ensure we guard against any potential loopholes in this legislation.

[Mike Amesbury]

I welcome clause 19. The interest in charges that are applied under various titles is well documented. I think the clause does close a loophole. Of course, the Opposition have stated our desire and concern to see these provisions extended to some 4.5 million leaseholds. There are 1.5 million households that are in leaseholds, with some 270,000 in the north-west and a similar figure in Wales. This measure obviously applies to those going forward. I welcome the clause within the narrow scope of the Bill.

[Eddie Hughes]

I commend the clause to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 19 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 20

Amendments to the Housing Act 1985

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Eddie Hughes]

My understanding is that consideration has been given and we do not think there is anything, but we need to be prepared should the circumstance arise. That is my understanding of the requirement.

[Mike Amesbury]

What would those circumstances be? Can the Minister give us examples?

[Eddie Hughes]

As I said in my speech, the law is complex and there are interdependencies between various Acts. The provision makes sure that there is nothing that we have missed in terms of another piece of legislation that would be relevant and would have an impact; it gives us the opportunity to make an amendment appropriately. That is my understanding.

--- Later in debate ---

[Eddie Hughes]

Clause 23 defines key terms for the purposes of the Bill. For example, it defines “long lease” and “rent”. Only long leases are regulated by the Bill. A long lease is generally a lease granted for more than 21 years, although some other types of lease are also captured. These are leases for a term fixed by law under a grant with a covenant or obligation for perpetual renewal—that excludes a situation where the lease is a sublease from a lease that is not a long lease—and leases terminable after a death, marriage or civil partnership. In the Bill, “rent” includes

“anything in the nature of rent, whatever it is called.”

Clause 23 also signposts where other terms, such as “peppercorn rent” and “regulated lease”, are defined elsewhere in the legislation.

We have arrived at these definitions after careful consideration. They have been drafted with the intention of avoiding the creation of loopholes that could be exploited to get around the intention of the legislation. The fact that ground rent has not been specifically defined is a very conscious decision, and has been arrived at following a great deal of deliberation. Rent has been defined broadly, and in the way it has been, to ensure that it captures the nature of ground rent without being too specific and risking landlords reintroducing it by another name.

Changing these definitions risks undermining the intention of the legislation. We have, however, provided some further clarification to the definition of rent in response to issues raised in the other place. Specifically, clause 23(3) makes it clear that other legitimate charges—such as service charges, insurance and so on—that might be reserved as rent in a lease will not be reduced to a peppercorn under the legislation merely because they are reserved as rent in the lease.

[Mike Amesbury]

Again, I welcome the intention of the clause and its various provisions and the amendment, but in relation to service charges, which relate to an earlier narrative under other clauses, there is still the potential that, as we deal with the issue of ground rents, the issue will become service charges. They are not at all transparent. We can look at managing agents, for example. They seem to be accountable to nobody other than themselves. You, Ms Elliott, or I, or anybody in this room, could set up as a management agent and tuck away some interesting so-called service charges. As I said, they are not transparent. We are absolutely clueless as to what some of them are for. An example is car-parking payments. Additional charges for that are sometimes astronomical. I think we could see those consequences that I referred to before. I gave the example of charges going up by 500% or 400% across the country as a result of this measure. We need assurances about that. I know that the Government and the Minister have tried to tighten things up, to prevent those loopholes, but assurance is needed, particularly for leaseholders out there who may be listening to our proceedings.

[Eddie Hughes]

I completely understand the hon. Gentleman’s point. It is incumbent on the Government to ensure that when the legislation is in force, we are in contact with professional organisations, tenants groups and so on to ensure that, if we see a pattern of egregious behaviour of the type that he has described—people effectively trying to reclaim costs through some other route—we find a means to address it. I understand his concern, and I look forward to working with him, once the legislation has taken effect, to ensure that we track any unfortunate consequences.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 23, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 24

Crown application

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)

Debate between Eddie Hughes and Mike Amesbury

Committee stage
Tuesday 7th December 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Eddie Hughes]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone, and to see the hon. Member for Weaver Vale still in his place following recent moves.

Government amendments 1 and 2, and Government amendments 3 to 5, which we will come to later, relate to the process known as a deemed surrender and regrant. For the benefit of those who are not experts in property law, me included, when the extent of the demise is changed—for example, where an extension is made to a property or to correct an error, or where there is an extension to the term of a lease—the lease is deemed to be surrendered and regranted to the leaseholder.

Government amendments 1 and 2 provide further protection for leaseholders in situations where that happens. Taken together, the two amendments disapply the requirement for a premium to be paid when a regulated lease or a lease granted before the Bill’s commencement day has been surrendered and regranted. In other words, a lease can have a peppercorn rent under this legislation after it has been regranted even if no new premium is paid.

Without these amendments, there is a significant risk that a previously regulated lease could cease to be regulated, leaving leaseholders to pay a potentially significant premium for a simple change, such as correcting an error within the lease, or leaving them to pay a ground rent. It might be helpful if I provided an example of such a situation. If a future leaseholder were to seek the correction of an error in their regulated lease and there was no premium charge for that correction, the Bill, as currently drafted, means that the lease would no longer be considered a regulated lease and therefore the peppercorn requirement would not be applicable to that newly corrected lease.

Amendments 1 and 2 will remove the requirement for a premium to have been paid for regulated and pre-commencement leases subject to a surrender and regrant, in order for the peppercorn rent to be applied. These amendments and the clarifications in amendments 3, 4 and 5 ensure that the Bill does not have unintended consequences when there is a deemed surrender and regrant and that there is fairness in the system for leaseholders and freeholders.

[Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once again, Mr Hollobone, and to respond to the Minister. We have spent considerable time over the last few weeks, in Committee and at Second Reading, discussing vital issues of building safety and leasehold reform. These technical and tidying amendments make perfect sense. They address the potential of leasees paying a premium if this was not put in place, so the Opposition certainly welcome this.

I have one question on the potential for informal lease arrangements to sit outside the scope of the Bill. What reassurance can we give those still caught in the leasehold feudal system that there is provision to tackle this element of the industry?

[Eddie Hughes]

I thank the hon. Member for his support and for that question. My understanding is that the process through which leases will be regulated as part of the Bill would afford the opportunity for clarification of the informal leases to which he refers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Amesbury]

I thank the Minister for his explanation. I understand the exemptions and I am pleased that they are limited in scope. What reassurance can he give that there will be no unintended consequences in community housing, for example? He referred to ground rent as a means of recovering service charges. That has been a problem for the industry over a considerable number of years.

[Eddie Hughes]

It is important to point out that the Bill does not cover service charges. In the other areas that we are talking about, ground rent is paid for no discernible benefit in return, but in a community land trust there is the benefit of a shared endeavour to create high-quality community housing, so I do not think the hon. Gentleman’s concern applies.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 2 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3

Prohibited rent

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Eddie Hughes]

Perhaps one day they will make me Secretary of State and I will be able to make those decisions myself, Mr Hollobone—don’t laugh. As I said, it is our intention to come forward with proposals, so we will be talking again in the new year and discussing this in detail.

[Mike Amesbury]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Amesbury]

On a point of clarity, will the legislation apply to properties that are currently being built, whether they are in Birmingham, Westminster or Manchester? Will the narrow scope of the one peppercorn policy apply to properties that are being built, but are not yet completed?

[Eddie Hughes]

As I referred to in the discussions about previous clauses, I believe that the legislation will apply once it has been enacted following Royal Assent, so it will apply to new contracts that come into force once the Act is in force. It would not necessarily apply to a property that is being bought today. It will apply only once the law has been enacted. We will have Royal Assent, legislation will be provided and then it will be enacted.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Amesbury]

Some developers have responded to the change in landscape and enforcement action with strong encouragement, but others out there have not done so. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South is correct to say that this is another opportunity to get developments erected as soon as possible. We need only look at the skylines across our cities to see that happening, and some developers will want to continue with that cash cow at the expense of leaseholders. It is a real fear, and I would certainly welcome a Government assessment of the impact in that transitional period.

[Eddie Hughes]

As I said in answer to the previous question, we can already see—not just now, but over the previous few years—that there has been a rapid decrease in the number of properties being constructed and subsequently sold in this way, so the hon. Gentleman should feel reassured that the Government’s intended legislation is already having an incredibly positive effect.

--- Later in debate ---

[Eddie Hughes]

The figures are already publicly available.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 4 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5

Permitted rent: shared ownership leases

[Mike Amesbury]

I beg to move amendment 11, in clause 5, page 4, line 7, at end insert “, unless subsection (2A) applies”.

This is a paving amendment for Amendment 13

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Amesbury]

The amendments were tabled to raise the issue of the often sky-high service charges in shared ownership property—often with little given back in return. I could list any number of examples and am confident that other Members in the room could as well. The Minister will have heard, as I did, the many stories about the extortionate costs faced by shared owners, other leaseholders and social housing residents. The errors are often only exposed when residents, facing costs they cannot afford, lobby hard for information and transparency.

We have heard it all: service charges for shared owners in Kent tripling in one year; leaseholders in Essex being charged £4,275, plus VAT, per year for ground maintenance, when a local landscaping company quoted £660 per year for the same work—something that I discussed with my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood only this morning; and leaseholders in south London being charged over 400% more for their cleaning costs than they were in 2013. I know that inflation is increasing at the moment but—my God—not by that level. To get in the Christmas spirit, a rather festive example stood out to me in the Financial Times, which published an article over the summer about residents in central London being charged £200,000 for Christmas lights, without being consulted in advance.

Those costs impact on leaseholders, and some social housing tenants as well. For shared owners, a particular concern is being charged 100% of the service costs while only owning a small portion of the property. We have seen that up and down the country through the building safety scandal and historical remediation costs. The Opposition welcome the narrow scope of the Bill on peppercorn ground rents, but the fear is that there will be other means or opportunities to rake in the money, and to continue treating leaseholders as a cash cow.

[Eddie Hughes]

Clause 5 is essential if the Bill is to avoid creating unintended consequences for future shared ownership leases. It will protect leaseholders by ensuring that they pay only a peppercorn rent on their share of the property, but it will also allow landlords to collect a monetary rent on their own share. Without the clause, landlords could not collect a monetary rent on the share of the property that is rented.

Clause 5 applies to qualifying shared ownership leases. Subsection (4) defines a qualifying shared ownership lease as one in which the tenant’s share of the premises is less than 100%. Subsection (7) clarifies that, in a situation in which a shared ownership lease does not distinguish between rent on the tenant’s share and rent on the landlord’s share, any rent payable under the lease is to be treated as payable in respect of the landlord’s share. Subsection (8) means that the clause no longer applies if clause 6 applies. For example, if the leaseholder undertakes a so-called voluntary lease extension in regard to a shared ownership lease, where the leaseholder chooses to enter into a new lease that replaces an existing lease outside the statutory lease extension process, the treatment of that is dealt with under clause 6. We will consider clause 6 shortly.

Clause 5 ensures that the shared ownership model can continue to operate for new leases.

--- Later in debate ---

[Eddie Hughes]

I completely understand my hon. Friend’s point, and I appreciate the extenuating circumstances that might apply to some of the properties in her constituency. We certainly do not experience that in Walsall North.

The amendments proposed by the hon. Member for Weaver Vale would be unfair to shared ownership landlords and would therefore undermine confidence in the sector. I urge the hon. Member to withdraw his amendment.

[Mike Amesbury]

The evidence out there grows by the week. There is a genuine fear that landlords, freeholders and developers will look for other opportunities in response to the legislation. We already see those service charges up and down the country. I know it is a particular issue in London and the south-east, but every city across the country has seen some interesting non-transparent service charges—that includes estates and houses.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Amesbury]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. This is about historical remediation costs, but it is a good point to raise. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Eddie Hughes]

Amendments 12 and 14, proposed by the hon. Member for Weaver Vale, seek to reduce the payment of rent on a shared ownership property in different circumstances. As I have said, in the Government’s existing shared ownership scheme, owners have a full repairing lease and pay rent on the landlord’s share of the property. The role of ensuring that the fabric of the building is maintained and safe for residents is an essential part of the relationship between landlord, leaseholder and, in some cases, a managing agent. Reasonable service charges remain the proper and accountable way through which landlords should recover costs for maintaining a building and provision of services.

I reiterate that the Bill is focused entirely on the issue of ground rents, so remediation costs are outside its scope. The Building Safety Bill is the appropriate legislative mechanism for addressing remediation, as it contains the appropriately detailed legislation for a complex issue of this nature. I ask the hon. Member to withdraw the amendment.

[Mike Amesbury]

We will put this to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Amesbury]

To pick up on the point of my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood on “voluntary”, a freeholder might offer a seemingly reasonable deal to voluntarily and formally extend a lease, but there is a real risk that elements of that could have a premium applied and ground rent could continue. What reassurance is there that that cannot happen? We have seen lots of examples of that. The mis-selling of leasehold properties was mentioned, which the Competition and Markets Authority has investigated and seen evidence of, and which we are all familiar with from constituents. If there is any possibility of a loophole here to do that, unfortunately there are people in this field who will do it, so again it is about that reassurance that the measure closes down those potential loopholes.

[Eddie Hughes]

I think the hon. Member should be reassured. However, to ensure that that is the case, the Government will communicate regularly and frequently with professional legal bodies to ensure that they understand the case completely. No matter what legislation we introduce, it will not be possible to get away from the fact that, in seeking to enter into a legal contract, members of the public should engage good, independent legal advice. Unfortunately, some people will not and will be disadvantaged as a result.

[Mike Amesbury]

That goes back to the point that, at the end, people seemed to seek legal advice, which they thought was independent and objective, but clearly it was not. This is about that reassurance. On behalf of our constituents, many of whom are trapped in that situation and still somewhat nervous, I seek that reassurance.

[Eddie Hughes]

I feel that the clause strikes the right balance between, first, ensuring that the loophole is closed and, secondly, landlords feeling reassured that they will not be disadvantaged in any way by granting a lease extension. I think that both the points that the hon. Gentleman made are covered.

Amendment 3 agreed to.

Amendments made: 4, in clause 6, page 4, line 39, after “period” insert “(if any)”.

This amendment clarifies that clause 6 can apply to a replacement lease for a term that does not extend beyond the end of the term of the pre-commencement lease.

Amendment 5, in clause 6, page 5, line 7, after first “of” insert—

“premises which consist of, or include,”.—(Eddie Hughes.)

This amendment clarifies that clause 6(5) can apply to a new lease which includes some premises not demised by the lease to which subsection (2) applied.

Clause 6, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7

Term reserving prohibited rent treated as reserving permitted rent

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Eddie Hughes]

Clause 7 will apply if a regulated lease includes a prohibited rent. Should a lease include such a rent, the effect of the clause is that the term in the lease is in effect replaced by the correct rent term under clauses 4, 5 or 6 of the Bill.

The clause means that, should a lease include a prohibited rent, there is no requirement on the leaseholder to pay that rent. Any requirement in the lease to pay a prohibited rent has effect as if it were a requirement to pay the relevant permitted rent as established under the Bill.

Later in the Bill, with clause 16—in a moment—we will come to the provision in the Bill that enables a leaseholder to seek a declaration from the first-tier tribunal as to the effect of clause 7 on their lease. Clause 7 is important because it has the effect of immediately rectifying, in law, any lease that includes a prohibited rent.

Clause 16 is an important measure to ensure that parties to a lease can seek clarity as to whether a term in the lease is a prohibited rent and, if so, what the permitted rent is. Clause 7, as the Committee will recall, sets out the rent that should apply in cases where a lease reserves a prohibited rent. We expect that in most cases the effect of the clause will be clear, and that the landlord will accept that a prohibited rent is not enforceable. However, where that is not the case, clause 16 means that a leaseholder, or landlord, can apply to the appropriate tribunal for a declaration. If the tribunal is satisfied that the lease includes a prohibited rent, it must make a declaration as to the effect of clause 7 on the lease. In other words, the tribunal must also clarify what rent is payable.

Under clause 16(3), where there are two or more leases with the same landlord, it will be possible for a single application to be made. That may be made either by the landlord or by one of the leaseholders with the consent of the others. That will mean that if there are several properties in the same block, or perhaps in different blocks but with the same landlord, it will not be necessary for a separate application to be made in respect of each lease.

Clause 16 also states that where the lease is registered in the leaseholder’s name with the Land Registry, the tribunal may direct the landlord to apply to the Chief Land Registrar—the Land Registry—for the declaration to be entered on the registered title. The landlord must also pay the appropriate fee of about £40 for that. This will ensure that there is a record of the declaration for any successor in title to the lease. It will also mean that if the leaseholder wishes to sell, the true position will be clear to their purchaser’s conveyancer.

In the case that the tribunal does not direct the landlord to apply to the Land Registry, the leaseholder may do so themselves. That will involve the payment of a modest fee of around £40. I hope that we can agree that it is important that a leaseholder does not encounter difficulties when selling and that future leaseholders clearly benefit from the actions taken to address the prohibited rent included in their lease. The clause achieves that by ensuring that the correct position in relation to ground rent under their lease can be made clear on the register of title.

[Mike Amesbury]

I thank the Minister for his explanation. If we look at the evidence provided by the National Leasehold Campaign and the Leasehold Knowledge Partnership, and take our mind back to the Select Committee call for evidence, I think in 2018, which I know he had a keen interest in at the time, there was a real concern about access to tribunals. Decisions seemed to be weighted against leaseholders. On the worry about access to, and supported provided to, tribunals, what reassurance can he give that the situation can improve as a result of the changing legal landscape?

[Maria Eagle]

I wish to ask the Minister a question. I apologise to him; obviously we have not yet reached the debate on the commencement provisions, but he might be able to enlighten us on the Government’s intention. Clearly, it is entirely welcome that clause 7 would simply replace the unfair term in the lease that asks for real money for ground rent rather than the peppercorn, which the legislation is intended to outlaw, but the commencement provisions are not totally clear about when that provision will be commenced.

My understanding is that there will be a regulation-making power for the Government to bring into force the Act on the day that they wish to do so. My concern about not being clearer about when clause 7 comes into force is that there may be a gap between when the Bill is passed and when the clause is commenced by the Government, because they will have to make a regulation to do so. Does that leave a space for unscrupulous landlords to continue to have unfair contract terms in their leases after Royal Assent but before the commencement of the legislation?

I wonder whether the Minister could assuage concerns by making it clear that it is the Government’s intention not to have a big gap between Royal Assent and commencement such that a loophole could be created in which clause 7 has not yet been commenced, preventing unscrupulous characters who may want to induce potential tenants into leases with contract terms that would be outlawed by the Bill from doing so. A simple commitment from him that there will be no such gap would satisfy me entirely.

--- Later in debate ---

[Eddie Hughes]

That is very kind, Mr Hollobone; thank you.

I support the principles behind the clause—it is vital that there is transparency in the leasehold system—but there are doubts as to whether the clause is effective in achieving that objective. It places a duty on all landlords but does not specify how each landlord must satisfy that duty. Furthermore, it relates only to the short period between Royal Assent and the peppercorn limit coming into effect. It would therefore place a significant burden on enforcement authorities for a limited period. Additionally, the changes that the clause requires for the penalty enforcement process to align with the rest of the Bill would delay the implementation of new peppercorn rents.

We are looking closely at how to best achieve the objectives that informed the clause. On Second Reading, the hon. Member for Weaver Vale and my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) raised very good points about the importance of transparent, objective legal advice during the purchase process.

I firmly believe that the Government’s provisions will lead to fairer, more transparent homeownership. I hope the Committee will agree that the clause should not stand part.

[Mike Amesbury]

I thank the Minister for his explanation. He referred to the fact that I and a considerable number of other Members spoke about this matter on Second Reading and have done so throughout the campaign to reform the feudal leasehold system. I cannot quite understand the objection to the clause, given that the lack of transparency has been a major factor in the leasehold landscape—we have referred to the CMA investigation and mis-selling by solicitors. The clause would help to improve the landscape and improve the situation for leaseholders. It makes perfect sense to include provisions on transparency of information in the Bill that the Government are arguing for and which we are scrutinising and challenging. We support clause stand part.

[Maria Eagle]

I have some concerns about the Minister’s suggestion that we should not keep clause 8 in the legislation, partly because of the exchange that we just had on clause 7. I expressed a little sedentary shock that six months may pass between Royal Assent and the commencement of clause 7. A lot of leases can be signed in six months, which I consider an extended period, and clauses that will become prohibited may not be at the time.

Leases are difficult enough to read as a layperson without having to be aware that the law has been changed to prohibit a particular clause and that a rent set out in a lease should be replaced with a peppercorn rent. One would have to follow Hansard reports of Bill Committees carefully, as well as the commencement of legislation, to have an understanding that there was a prohibited clause in a lease that one had just signed. Even then, one must understand the legal language in leases, which is not the easiest thing for lay people, perhaps first-time buyers. It is extremely useful to have a provision such as clause 8 in the legislation to make it clear that there is an obligation on landlords to inform tenants of this interim period of time.

If the Minister had said in our debate on clause 7 that the delay was going to be a week or two weeks, then perhaps I would not have risen to support this clause, but we are talking about six months. Many leases have clauses that are to become prohibited later on, but the tenant who signed them may not understand that. We wish that were not the case but there are some landlords out there who wish to induce people to sign leases with charges attached that are shortly to become unlawful. Perhaps then there will be some money paid over, and it is more difficult to get that back than not to pay it in the first place.

Given that there is likely to be a period of up to six months between Royal Assent and commencement of the legislation, clause 8 is a valuable provision to keep in the Bill. I cannot understand why the Minister wants it removed. I would be happy if he were to tell me that commencement of the legislation would take place within a week or two of Royal Assent. I would not then be so concerned about this gap. I am concerned that we are creating or allowing too many loopholes that enable our constituents who are signing new leases to fall into traps that those who wish them to sign leases want to induce them into. The fewer loopholes, the better. Clause 8 is an important provision to leave in the Bill and I would vote for it to stand part of the Bill.

[Eddie Hughes]

Clearly, six months is the limit that we have set. I am sure that people will be working assiduously to try to ensure that that period is minimised. The suggestion that the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood made—that she would be reassured to hear that it would be a week—is nigh on impossible. We will continue to work hard to limit that period. During that time, we will communicate regularly with professional bodies to ensure that all solicitors are informed of and understand the changes that are coming.

[Mike Amesbury]

What is the Minister’s concern with a duty to inform?

[Eddie Hughes]

We are placing a duty on the landlord, and the unintended consequences might be that there are a number of cases that are highlighted and then brought to a tribunal in a very condensed period of time, placing an unnecessary burden. I think it would make for a slightly chaotic approach to the system. We are aiming for a smooth transition. Given the effort that we have put into communicating with legal bodies and the work that hon. Members are doing to highlight the changes the Government have made, it feels like an unnecessary process. However, we will continue to work with the hon. Member during the passage of the Bill to see if there is anything else we can do to meet the objective of the clause.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Eddie Hughes]

We must ensure that the breaches of prohibited rent that I set out in clause 3 are acted on. Clause 9 will place a duty on local weights and measures authorities in England and Wales, that is to say trading standards authorities, to act where a breach of clause 3 occurs in their area. It also gives them the power to act where a breach occurs elsewhere in England and Wales.

In addition, through subsection (2), English district councils that are not trading standards authorities will be given the power to enforce clause 3 but, unlike trading standard authorities, will not be required to do so. That will maximise our ability to act against perpetrators. Both local weights and measures authorities and district councils will be able to retain the financial proceeds from the penalties they impose to cover the costs incurred in carrying out their enforcement functions in relation to residential leasehold property.

Subsection (3) clarifies the area in which a breach occurs and, to be thorough, captures areas where a premises is located on a local authority boundary, although we think that those will be few and far between. I am sure we all agree that although it is important for enforcement authorities to have the necessary duties and powers to act on breaches, it is also important that we provide protection against the duplication of penalties, which is what subsection (4) does.

Equally, I am sure we all agree that it is right to expect landlords to understand the requirement of the new legislation and abide by it. It is our hope, therefore, that enforcement action will not be needed in most cases, but by conferring duties and powers on enforcement authorities, the clause will be instrumental in ensuring that any breach of the restrictions on ground rents can be robustly enforced. That is vital as a deterrent and to protect leaseholders from unfair practices.

[Mike Amesbury]

My only concern is the obvious one about resources. I refer to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, as I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association. Over the last 11 years, resources have been somewhat depleted as a result of austerity and Government cuts. Although there is the control and skill capacity locally to be the foot soldier for enforcement, it is a matter of having the people and resources to carry that out and implement it.

I notice that on the Bill’s journey in the other place, a reference was made to future local government settlements. The last 11 years have not been good if we use them as an example of potential resources. I would be interested in the Minister’s reply on that important and vital matter.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Eddie Hughes and Mike Amesbury

Monday 25th October 2021 Commons Chamber

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

Local authorities are vital delivery partners for the Government’s grant-funding initiatives to decarbonise homes. I am sure that my hon. Friend will have been delighted to hear that the heat and buildings strategy, which was published last week, committed further funding to those initiatives, with £950 million for the home upgrade grant and £800 million for the social housing decarbonisation fund between 2022 and 2025. The strategy also committed to investing £1.4 billion in our public sector decarbonisation scheme to reduce emissions from public buildings.

[Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)]

I welcome the new Ministers to their place. In 2019-20, the Government oversaw a net loss of 17,476 social homes. House building fell short of its national target by 90,000 homes. That caps more than a decade of house building failure. Every year, the Government do not meet their housing targets and do not build enough genuinely affordable homes. Will the Secretary of State grab the bull by the horns and build a new generation of green homes for social rent at scale?

Building Safety Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

Debate between Eddie Hughes and Mike Amesbury

Thursday 21st October 2021 Public Bill Committees

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

It is a pleasure to have you back in the Chair and to serve under you, Mr Dowd.

The Government are committed to ensuring that leases reflect the duties and obligations placed on landlords and tenants to keep buildings safe, and that the costs associated with the regime are fair and transparent. Clause 120 implies terms relating to building safety into leases, so that both landlord and tenant have obligations associated with the new regime clearly set out in their leases. This cements the duties set out in other parts of the Bill.

Clause 120 also ensures that the landlord passes costs associated with the new regulatory regime, via the building safety charge, to leaseholders with long leases of seven years or more. The overriding principle behind the building safety charge is to give leaseholders further information about what they are paying for to keep the building safe and assurance that the manager of the building is charging reasonably. Without the building safety charge, many of these costs would be charged via a service charge. We are introducing this separate mechanism to deliver greater protection to leaseholders, ensuring that costs are transparent and reasonable. By introducing the building safety charge, the Government are ensuring that costs are clearly set out to leaseholders and that certain costs, such as the cost of enforcement against an accountable person, can never be recovered from leaseholders. In well-run buildings, leaseholders will likely see costs partially offset by a corresponding reduction in service charge costs.

Schedule 7 will enable the Government to set out certain obligations for the landlord to fulfil, including providing details of the building safety charge together with a summary of their rights and obligations to leaseholders. Schedule 7 will also give leaseholders the right to request further information about the charge, and they will be able make a written request for a summary of the relevant building safety costs. Once a summary has been obtained, the leaseholder can request more detailed accounts.

We expect that the protections included around the building safety charge will provide the necessary transparency to drive competition to reduce costs for leaseholders. Leaseholders will be able to challenge the costs associated with keeping a building safe in the same way as they can challenge the costs of unreasonable service charges—that is, through the first-tier tribunal.

Clause 120 is key to ensuring the smooth implementation of the new regulatory regime. Setting out further requirements in respect of the building safety charge in secondary legislation—for example, on the obligations of landlords, consultation requirements and excluded costs—ensures that the provisions remain relevant and responsive to changes in the duties of the accountable person or broader leasehold reform. Leasehold law is a highly technical policy area, and it would be inappropriate and counterproductive to include it in the Bill.

We wish to make it clear that remedial costs are not included in the building safety charge. This clause does not make leaseholders liable for the costs of remedial works. Whether or not leaseholders are liable for works is governed by the terms of their existing leases. Clause 120 is vital to ensure transparency on the costs of the new regime, empowering leaseholders to interrogate bills and hold their building owner to account.

[Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve once again under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd.

I have a number of questions. The building safety charge has proved to be somewhat controversial among leaseholders, residents, tenants and cladding campaigners—the UK Cladding Action Group, the Leasehold Knowledge Partnership, the National Leasehold Campaign and so on. The Minister has mentioned that charges will be fair and transparent. What is the definition of fair and transparent? What is the Department’s assessment of what will be fair and transparent? Given that on 17, if not 18, occasions a promise was made not to put charges for historical remediation costs, which we will get on to in a moment, on to the shoulders of leaseholders, there is a real fear that there could be considerable interplay between the building safety charge, historical remediation costs, service charges and so forth. I would like the Minister to expand on that. Of course, many leaseholders over the past two weeks have had massive invoices arrive through the door for remedial costs relating to historical building safety defects. Some are going bankrupt, as I know he and Department officials will know.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Amesbury]

I want to address a couple of points, for clarity. I thank the Minister for the explanation. Her Majesty’s official Opposition support commonholds and have argued for them for a long time. I am pleased to see the emerging consensus as we listen to stakeholders, whether the Leasehold Knowledge Partnership, the national leaseholder campaign or others in the housing sector. I have one question in relation to the Minister’s opening narrative. In commonhold, are building safety expenses on top of the building safety service charge?

[Eddie Hughes]

I completely understand. No, that is not separate; it is one of the items that would typically be covered by the building safety charge in other buildings. Exactly the same principle applies.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 122 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 123

Interpretation of part 4

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Eddie Hughes]

The purpose of the ombudsman is not only to resolve complaints but to drive up standards of quality. Therefore, the scheme must include provision for the making of recommendations by the ombudsman to improve widespread or regular unacceptable standards of conduct or quality of work by the scheme’s members. Additionally, the scheme must include provision about the provision of information to the Secretary of State and reports on the operation of the scheme. The clause sets out a comprehensive framework for an effective ombudsman scheme that will afford homebuyers substantially more protection and redress than they currently receive.

The new homes ombudsman scheme will allow new build homebuyers to complain to the new homes ombudsman about a developer for up to two years following the purchase of a home from a developer. Clause 129 provides definitions which determine who may complain to the new homes ombudsman, and a definition of a developer, who the Government can require to belong to the ombudsman scheme. The definition of developer includes those constructing new homes and converting existing buildings into new homes, so that complaints about developers of converted homes under permitted development rights, or those creating additional homes from larger buildings with the intention to dispose, sell or grant them to someone else, can be required to become scheme members and subject to the scheme’s rules under clause 130. I hope that offers the hon. Lady some reassurance. Clause 129 also includes a power to include an additional description of a developer, which could include organisations connected to developers.

[Mike Amesbury]

I thank the Minister for the explanation, and his enthusiasm for the creation of the new homes ombudsman scheme, which by his admittance he has rightly argued for in principle since before coming to this place as a Member of Parliament. In principle, the new homes ombudsman is a good thing, though some Committee members have raised concerns and advocated for ensuring that it will be truly independent. I think new build homes have an average of 157 snags at the moment. We will all be familiar from our casework, regardless of where we represent in Britain, that this is a big and very live issue. I would hope that the ombudsman will change the landscape.

On the New Homes Quality Board, which is operating as a shadow board at the moment, sits Jennie Daly, a group director of Taylor Wimpey. The board has representatives of housebuilders and the finance sector, and the hon. Member for Dover (Mrs Elphicke) is the independent chair. I can think of examples in my constituency of Taylor Wimpey homes that have considerable snags and are what we call leaky homes. The 19 million leaky homes that are not properly insulated have been constructed with gas boilers, fossil fuels and the rest of it. All of them will need to be retrofitted and a number have snags. In fact, there is one such development that will probably go forward in the Sandymoor and Daresbury part of my constituency, on former farmers’ fields, despite all the rhetoric that we hear in this place. I would hope that they will not be leaky homes, full of snags. It is very important that those on the shadow board take things forward in future.

On the reassurance about independence, if someone is part of the club, whether they be Taylor Wimpey or another housebuilder, they are paying for that service. Then the complaint goes from our constituents—our residents—to the ombudsman. I have real concerns about the checks and balances, and the independence. The Minister mentioned that there are various models to take it forward. It could be done in-house or at arm’s length as a Government agency. That would certainly by the Opposition’s preference, via a principle, to ensure that checks and balances are hardwired into the process. In principle, we welcome the new homes ombudsman, which is very much needed, but we already have concerns about the evolution of the process, if we look at the shadow board.

[Eddie Hughes]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing some of his casework for us to consider. The hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth mentioned the demise of the role of the clerk of works. I started life as a civil engineer but then moved into building site management for housing projects. At that time, we would have had a clerk of works whose job it was solely to monitor the progress of the work and ensure that it complied with the relevant standards. With cost-cutting and other things, we no longer have that, but thanks to the clause and the prospect of the new homes ombudsman, the industry has bought into the concept that quality has to rise and that people will be held more accountable in future.

On the point that the hon. Member for Weaver Vale made regarding the number of snags in a property, we will all have seen that. A comparison that has been made previously is that someone has more rights if they buy a faulty kettle than if they buy a faulty home that has minor problems that do not qualify under the National House Building Council regulation. They do not have something such as subsidence; they just have niggly problems. The developer has taken the money and perhaps trades are no longer on site, and the buyer wants to see those things addressed.

I genuinely think that we will see the industry taking quality much more seriously than they might have previously, particularly with that line of accountability coming back to Parliament. I understand that the hon. Gentleman may have reservations about members of the shadow board. We need to draw the sector into the programme and get them bought into the idea that we will raise quality. I do not think that this Secretary of State or any future one would want to be associated with a product that was not delivering for the public, so they will ensure that that confidence remains.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Amesbury]

One of the roles that the ombudsman will be charged with will be dealing with rogue builders. What would happen if one of the members of the board seemed to be classed as a rogue builder? How would the checks and balances be assured going forward?

[Eddie Hughes]

Such a complex question may be outwith the coverage of the Bill; however, it would be beholden on the Secretary of State to ensure that the process was managed appropriately. Given that the scheme allows for builders who are not complying with the code to be ejected from the ability to develop, I am sure that the opportunity would be there for us to deal with members of the board appropriately. If we can chuck a builder out of the scheme, I am sure that we can deal with a member of the board.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 127 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Scott Mann.)

Building Safety Bill (Fourteenth sitting)

Debate between Eddie Hughes and Mike Amesbury

Thursday 21st October 2021 Public Bill Committees

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. To ensure that the developers of new build homes are accountable for their actions, they will be required to become and remain members of the new homes ombudsman. The principle of requiring organisations to belong to an ombudsman or redress scheme by law is not new. Clause 130 provides the legal basis for the Secretary of State, by regulations, to require developers to become members of the scheme, and to remain members for a specified period. That may extend to when they are no longer developers, which will ensure that they meet their responsibilities to the people to whom they sell homes.

The clause also allows the Secretary of State to require members to inform purchasers of the scheme, which may include requiring members to obtain, display or produce on request a copy of a certificate confirming their membership of the scheme. It also provides for an enforcement framework to be put in place to protect against rogue developers who breach the requirements in the regulations, and that includes the imposition of civil sanctions for breach of the requirements.

The proposal will create a flexible enforcement framework, allowing the Government to task an existing or new regulator or enforcement body with investigating and sanctioning breaches of membership and publicity requirements, and to resource that body accordingly. Proportionate safeguards are attached to the new power. Where provision is made for sanctions to be imposed, there must also be provision for the right to appeal the imposition of a sanction. The clause is vital as the basis for a future-proofed and comprehensive redress, accountability and enforcement framework.

Clause 131 places a requirement on the person who maintains the new homes ombudsman scheme to keep a register of the scheme’s members and make it publicly available. That will help instil more confidence in the transactional process, given that a prospective purchaser will, for example, have greater assurance that issues with their new build home, if they happen to arise, can be resolved via the new homes ombudsman.

[Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once again, Mr Davies. I have a brief question for the Minister about examples of civil breaches and sanctions. He referred previously to the fact that, under current protections, new homeowners have fewer rights than those purchasing a new toaster, so enforcement measures and sanctions will be vital. Will the Minister briefly expand on that?

[Eddie Hughes]

I think, in terms of the spectrum of powers, that we are better focusing on the ultimate power: that developers could be expelled from the scheme if they do not comply with the ombudsman’s code. That would prevent them from developing in the future, which feels like a heavy stick with which to beat them should they decide not to comply. It is therefore important for that ultimate action to be available, so that people know that a developer not prepared to comply with the code will ultimately be prevented from building homes in the future.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 130 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 131 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 132

Developers’ code of practice

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Amesbury]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for tabling this important amendment. It is something that we are familiar with. My good friend and colleague, the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth has alluded to the fact that the amendment could be somewhat broader. I am sure that the Minister and the Department will address that in the code of practice. The Opposition are happy to support the amendment.

[Eddie Hughes]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton North East for raising this important matter. It is clearly an area of great concern in his constituency. Too many people have been let down, and I am sorry to hear about the terrible experience his constituents have faced. Unfortunately, this is something that happens far too often. When a new home is built or an existing building is converted poorly water ingress is a serious issue and may cause serious distress and detrimental effects to homebuyers and their properties.

My hon. Friend is right to raise the issue in the wider context of improving the quality and safety of our built environment. Developers and warranty providers must meet their responsibilities and resolve issues quickly and fairly. It is unacceptable that people are stuck in homes through no fault of their own. However, in this case, the Government consider that the amendment is not necessary and that we have already met its intentions elsewhere in our statutory framework.

Developers are already under a legal duty to prevent water ingress. Requirements are set out in building regulations, in particular part C of the Building Regulations 2010, which already include requirements for resistance to contaminants and moisture. That includes ensuring that buildings are protected from ground moisture; precipitation, including wind-driven spray; condensation; and spillage of water. Guidance is available in approved document C on how to comply with this requirement.

In addition, the Building Safety Regulator has a duty in clause 5 to keep under review the safety and standards of all buildings, which would include ensuring that building regulations are fit for purpose and making recommendations if changes are needed. The developers’ code of practice provided for in this clause is about the standards of conduct and standards of quality of work expected of members of the new homes ombudsman’s scheme more generally, and may include developers complying with existing standards and requirements.

--- Later in debate ---

[Eddie Hughes]

The Government are committed to ensuring that construction products placed on the United Kingdom’s market are safe. The clause and schedule create a power to make regulations for the marketing and supply of construction products in the UK.

Not all construction products are covered by the existing regulatory framework, which derives from EU law. Schedule 9 contains powers to extend the regulatory framework to cover all construction products available on the UK market. The Government intend to use this power to ensure that construction products are safe before they are placed on the UK market. In addition to this general safety requirement, schedule 9 will give the Secretary of State the power to create a statutory list of safety-critical construction products where their failure as part of a construction would risk causing serious injury or death.

The power will enable the Government to require manufacturers to declare the performance of these products to a specific standard and put in place measures to ensure that this performance is consistently met. This will bring the regulation of safety-critical products in line with those covered by the existing regulatory framework, so that any purchaser or user of a safety-critical product will have reliable information about how it will perform. Schedule 9 will enable the Secretary of State to amend the existing regulatory framework or replace it in Great Britain so that it continues to meet the needs of Great Britain’s market.

We know the importance of claims made in the marketing of products. Schedule 9 will give the Secretary of State power to address false and misleading claims made about the performance of construction products. Dame Judith Hackitt recommended that the Government should ensure a more effective enforcement regime with national oversight to cover construction product safety. That is why schedule 9 paves the way for a national regulator for construction products and enables us to strengthen market surveillance and enforcement powers. It enables the Secretary of State to make provision for the national regulator and local trading standards to issue civil penalties and recover costs from economic operators where appropriate. Setting out regulatory requirements for construction products in secondary legislation will enable us to amend regulations quickly when needed so that they remain appropriate within a continuously changing industry landscape.

[Mike Amesbury]

I thank the Minister for outlining the provisions in this clause, which we support. There is a need to strengthen the regulatory regime, so this regulator is welcome. We have seen the evidence of the building safety scandal. The Grenfell inquiry has shown that companies literally re-engineered—gamed—the system to ensure that their products seemingly met the appropriate standards at the time. This will strengthen that process and ultimately ensure that the building safety landscape is improved in future, and hopefully in the here and now, when the Bill passes through Parliament. [Interruption.] If I start smoking and steam starts coming from me, do excuse me—I seem to be surrounded by radiators. We are happy to support the clause.

[Eddie Hughes]

I welcome those comments. We have definitely seen during the course of the Grenfell inquiry that products have been either tested or marketed in an inappropriate way, and it is good to see agreement across the House. The clause will strengthen our hand in that regard.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 133 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 9 agreed to.

Clause 134

Amendment of Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Eddie Hughes]

I thank the hon. Lady. My understanding is that clause 138 will deal with the point she makes.

To continue with clause 135, this proposal brings the architects’ profession in line with best practice in other professions and gives greater assurance to those procuring and inhabiting buildings. The objective of the clause is to ensure that all registered architects are suitably competent to undertake their work and that their knowledge is up to date.

Clause 136 relates to the list of services for which the Architects Registration Board may charge. Currently, the 1997 Act provides for a small number of services for which the ARB may charge. The costs of all the ARB’s functions are currently met by the annual retention fee, which is charged by the ARB to all registered architects.

However, the ARB offers a number of other services. This clause will allow the Secretary of State to make regulations to expand the list of services for which the ARB may charge a fee on a cost recovery basis, meaning that only those using the services will cover the costs. The aim of this clause is to keep the retention fee low for all of the architects on the register. An example of a potential additional charge would be to charge a fee to international institutions that wish their architectural qualifications to be recognised by the Architects Registration Board in the UK.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 135 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 136 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 137

Housing complaints made to a housing ombudsman

[Mike Amesbury]

I beg to move amendment 16, in clause 137, page 142, line 36, at end insert—

“(c) after sub-paragraph (1), insert—

‘(1A) He must as part of his investigation consult tenants or bodies representing the interest of tenants.’”

This amendment would ensure the Housing Ombudsman consults tenants as part of complaints made against social housing providers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Amesbury]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention, and for reiterating the point about residents’ voices. Clarion was cleared, despite the fact that hundreds of repairs took place once the television segment was aired, which demonstrates the depth of the issues that developed in homes. People from across the Committee and beyond have seen that programme. On Clarion’s board is a former Housing Minister, so it does have insight at a senior level.

Clearly, the amendment is only part of the reform needed to ensure that our social housing sector provides safe housing and listens to the needs of tenants. To reaffirm what the hon. Member for West Bromwich West said, tenants must be heard at all times, not just when issues develop to such an extent that tenants complain. There should be engagement over a period of time—and not just with, let us say, the usual suspects.

We have an opportunity to make a difference today. I urge the Government to strengthen the laws and support the amendment.

[Eddie Hughes]

It is unfortunate that my prescribed speech starts with the statement, “The Government are not able to accept the amendment.” However, context is important. The hon. Gentleman suggested that the Government had defunded and diminished social housing, and said that gave rise to the problems. However, in the same speech he also pointed out that one of the housing providers that was shown to be at fault during the programme that he referred to manages approximately 140,000 houses. This is an organisation with substantial resources—millions and millions of pounds in the bank—so clearly defunding was not the problem at play. There was a structural problem with regard to the organisation and its ability to communicate appropriately with residents.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Amesbury]

Surely, going forward, if complaints from tenants are going to the new regulator of social housing, and a systemic problem is picked up—as with, for example, Clarion housing and that particular estate—it is just common sense that engagement with tenants will be part of the remit.

[Eddie Hughes]

I have heard it often said that one of the problems with common sense is that it is neither common nor sensible sometimes, and so it proves to be in this case, because a different organisation is meant to take that duty: the housing ombudsman. Through this process, the removal of the democratic filter will mean that people who want to complain do not have to go to a councillor or their local MP; they will be able to escalate the complaint themselves directly.

We are trying to ensure that residents know how to complain and that the system is fair, easily navigated and, hopefully, brings clarity to the situation. Although I have seen the programme that the hon. Gentleman refers to, and I completely sympathise with his intentions, I do not believe that the amendment is appropriate. I must point out our concern about the unintended effect that it would have. I assume that the amendment seeks to ensure that wider issues arising from or relating to an individual complaint, and which may affect multiple tenants, are picked up and addressed. However, the approach to which the amendment would give effect raises issues of privacy and data protection. Under the amendment, a resident making a complaint about their landlord would face the prospect of having information that they submitted to an ombudsman—personal and perhaps highly sensitive information—disclosed to third parties.

It would not be appropriate to require the housing ombudsman to consult unrelated third parties as part of its investigation into an individual’s personal issue. Cases that enter the housing ombudsman’s formal remit may be resolved through early resolution. The housing ombudsman works with complainants and landlords to try to agree a negotiated solution, within a time limit. The housing ombudsman’s approach to investigations into individual complaints is inquisitorial; evidence is sought from both the resident and landlord. There is engagement with the resident at different stages of the process to determine the scope of the complaint, the outcome being sought and the evidence. This engagement is with the individual resident and their landlord and should not be fettered through consultation with unrelated third parties.

Regarding engagement with residents, landlords and other organisations, the housing ombudsman service regularly engages with and consults residents and landlords on a range of activities relating to the service in a range of ways. Activities include consulting on their three-year strategic plan, their annual business plan, and revisions to the housing ombudsman scheme. The scheme enables residents, and others, to have complaints about members investigated by the housing ombudsman. It sets out, for example, how the service investigates complaints, membership terms and conditions, who may use the scheme, which complaints the housing ombudsman service may or may not investigate, how it will investigate and its powers and functions.

Consultations are open to individual residents and representative bodies and groups, and the housing ombudsman engages proactively with both. The housing ombudsman service has a resident panel that is open to all social housing tenants, and has a membership of over 600 residents. It provides an opportunity for residents to be involved in the development of the housing ombudsman’s service as well as giving direct feedback on their experience of the service, and to engage with many different aspects of the housing ombudsman’s work—for example, providing views on its investigations into sector-wide issues such as damp and mould.

Further engagement work takes place through regular meetings with resident bodies, and quarterly “Meet the ombudsman” events across the country. Issues discussed at these events have included the housing ombudsman’s role in providing advice and assistance while complaints are within the landlord’s process, as well as how it formally investigates once the landlord’s process is complete; the housing ombudsman’s expectation that all landlords should adopt a positive complaint-handling culture and what this means in practice; and how the housing ombudsman works with the regulator of social housing. Another issue discussed has been the learning reports that the housing ombudsman produces for landlords, which are focused on different categories of complaint. These reports identify failings and make recommendations for improvement.

The housing ombudsman service publishes a range of other information to inform and support residents, including all of its determinations on individual cases, anonymised so that residents’ names are not used; annual landlord performance reports; guidance on making and progressing complaints; and insight reports that look at complaints data, individual cases and wider learning points, and that share knowledge and learning from its casework. The housing ombudsman service has agreed a memorandum of understanding with the local government and social care ombudsman and the regulator of social housing, which commits it to sharing information on issues which affect multiple residents.

Earlier this year, the housing ombudsman published a new systemic framework, which set out how it will look beyond individual disputes to identify key issues that affect multiple residents and signal wider issues with landlord services. Again, learning is shared across the sector to promote good practice and support a positive complaint-handling culture. I hope that the hon. Member for Weaver Vale will withdraw the amendment.

Turning to clause 137, removing the democratic filter is one of a range of measures the Government are committed to in “The Charter for Social Housing Residents”—the social housing White Paper referred to earlier. It will ensure that landlords provide good services and engage positively with residents, treating them with courtesy and respect, and being accountable and transparent in how they operate. The charter sets out that this includes:

“To have your complaints dealt with promptly and fairly, with access to a strong Ombudsman who will give you swift and fair redress when needed.”

The housing ombudsman service, created in 1996, delivers an independent and impartial service to ensure that disputes are resolved and residents receive redress where appropriate. We are clear that residents should be able to raise concerns without fear, and get swift and effective resolution when they do. Currently, however, social housing residents who wish to seek redress because they believe they have received unsatisfactory service from their landlord have to refer their complaint to a designated person. This can be an MP, councillor or recognised tenant panel. Alternatively, residents have to wait eight weeks from the time that their complaint has exhausted the landlord’s complaints process before they can formally refer their complaint to the housing ombudsman. That is known as the democratic filter.

Clause 137 relates to the removal of the democratic filter stage—a requirement that was introduced by the Localism Act 2011. This gave a role to a designated person in dealing with disputes between social landlords and their tenants or leaseholders. The democratic filter was intended to strengthen the accountability of social landlords, enable housing complaints to be resolved using local knowledge, and help reduce the number of formal investigations by the housing ombudsman. In practice, it has resulted in social housing residents having less direct access to redress rather than consumers accessing other redress schemes.

The Green Paper consultation in 2018 identified this as an issue, which we then tested at consultation. We asked whether we should reduce the eight-week waiting period to four weeks or remove the requirement for the democratic filter stage altogether. Some 5% supported no change, 38% supported the option to reduce the waiting time, but 47% supported the option to remove the democratic filter stage.

Separate consultation undertaken by the housing ombudsman also established that although some designated persons’ arrangements work well, in many cases they do not operate effectively. It also emerged that in some areas tenant panels either do not exist or are not used. During 2019-20, only 6.9% of the cases entering the housing ombudsman’s formal remit were referred by a designated person. Removal of the democratic filter received support from the majority of respondents when the housing ombudsman service consulted on its 2019-22 corporate plan and 2019-20 business pan, with low support for the designated person role.

We all know how important our homes are to us. When things go wrong with our homes, we should expect to be listened to, have repairs carried out quickly, faults rectified, and maintenance work carried out to prevent faults from recurring. We want to know that our homes are safe for us to live in, safe for our families, and fit for purpose. When repairs are required, they should be carried out speedily and efficiently. When we are not listened to, landlords need to rectify issues. It is stressful, worrying and frustrating. I commend the clause to the Committee.

[Mike Amesbury]

Neither clause 137 nor the explanatory notes mention the voice of residents, tenants or leaseholders. The Minister correctly referred to the current structure of the housing ombudsman and the recommended changes, including the democratic filter. Labour Members agree with that. It is very sensible to speed up the process. I speak regularly to representatives of Grenfell United —I know that Ministers and departmental officials do, too—and their view is crystal clear. They are dissatisfied with the measure because it does not capture or build on the principle of active engagement with residents, tenants and leaseholders. We will not, therefore, withdraw the amendment; we wish to press it to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Building Safety Bill (Eleventh sitting)

Debate between Eddie Hughes and Mike Amesbury

Tuesday 19th October 2021 Public Bill Committees

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

Before I address this group, I would like to say that since this Committee last met we have suffered the very sad loss of two much loved and much respected colleagues, so I want to put on the record my condolences to their families and close friends, who are trying to come to terms with their tragic loss.

Following the pause in proceedings yesterday, the business of the House continues and we must now turn our minds to saving the lives of other people.

Clause 58 serves as an overview of part 4 of the Bill, which contains provisions for the management of building safety risks in higher-risk buildings. Part 4 is concerned with occupied buildings. It defines a building safety risk and it defines and places duties on the accountable person in relation to risks in their building, including duties regarding resident engagement.

Clause 59 defines “building safety risk” for the purposes of the Bill as a risk to the safety of people in or about a building due to the spread of fire or structural failure. The accountable person for an occupied higher-risk building must consider the spread of fire, structural failure and anything which may trigger them, through the safety case approach.

The Government’s approach embraces the independent review’s recommendations that the new, more stringent regulatory regime should focus on fire and structural safety. Our consultation referenced fire and structural safety, and we have engaged stakeholders on what the appropriate building safety risks should be. That engagement has supported that our approach covers the appropriate risks.

The clause also creates a power for the Secretary of State to add other building safety risks in the future, should evidence come to light that that is necessary. The Building Safety Regulator will oversee building safety and through that gain knowledge about the built environment. Therefore, it is only right that it must provide a recommendation or advice, or be consulted, before the power to specify new building safety risks is used. However, the spread of fire and structural failure cannot be removed in the future. They will and must remain at the heart of the new regulatory regime.

Clause 60 will enable the Building Safety Regulator to recommend that the Secretary of State makes regulations under the power in clause 59(1)(c). It also specifies the conditions that must be met for the regulator to do so. Through its duty to keep the safety of people in and about buildings under review, the regulator will be aware of the risks to and in buildings. It is only right that the regulator should be able to make recommendations based on that knowledge. In making a recommendation to change the definition of building safety risk, the Building Safety Regulator must have regard to the regulatory principles in clause 3, including proportionality.

We are focusing on preventing those rare incidents that have the highest consequences. The conditions that must be met for the regulator to make a recommendation reflect that, including the three-part test for simultaneously adding a new category of higher-risk building and a new building safety risk.

Finally, clause 61 provides that the Building Safety Regulator must provide advice about proposals to make regulations under clause 59(1)(c) to the Secretary of State, if requested. The regulator will be able to provide expert advice and will be a wealth of knowledge on risks such as the aforementioned spread of fire and structural failure. Moreover, it is important for the regime to be flexible and to be able to respond to new risks, if and when they arise. Thus the ability for the Secretary of State to request formal advice when considering altering the definition of building safety risk is an important step in ensuring that the Secretary of State is expertly informed and to keep the regime flexible.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 59 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 60 and 61 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 62

Meaning of “higher-risk building” etc

[Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)]

I beg to move amendment 12, in clause 62, page 81, line 37, at end insert—

“(aa) has characteristics relating to function, material used for construction or inaccessibility of emergency routes out of the building as must be defined by the Secretary of State in regulations which make it a high risk to its residents, or”

This amendment would require the Government to define high-risk buildings which are not at least 18 metres or 7 storeys high in regulations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Eddie Hughes]

I thank hon. Members for raising the important question of the definitions for high-risk building safety and safety in buildings of under 18 metres and a height of seven storeys. I am afraid the Government will not be able to accept the amendment.

We recognise that the height and the use of a building are not the only factors that affect the level of risk found in each building. However, they are commonly used factors in determining the level of risk. We consider that other factors, including the materials used for construction, the presence of fire protection measures and the distance to emergency exits, could be used to define a high-risk building, but we concluded that it would be inappropriate to base the regime on factors like that because we were concerned that there would be unintended consequences. For example, when considering the materials used in construction, a large number of materials can be found in various quantities in various combinations. A material or product may be safe on one building owing to its placement, use and combination with other materials yet unsafe on another. Apart from particular circumstances such as the ban on combustible materials in and on external walls of certain buildings, a blanket approach to specific materials would therefore be inappropriate.

As for the accessibility of emergency routes, our assessment is that this would be a subjective factor. Different people may have different opinions about whether a building has sufficiently accessible emergency routes and therefore whether the building is or is not a high-risk building. This would not provide the clarity residents, industry and the regulator need.

We recognise that it is important that the risk of a fire occurring is low in any building. We must be proportionate in the application of the new regulatory regime.

[Mike Amesbury]

The FBU and Leeds University have carried out recent research that for residents in buildings of 11 metres-plus the risk of fire is somewhat higher. The current scope of the Bill suggests that it captures about 13,000 buildings, but if the definition were broadened to buildings of 11 metres-plus, it would be about 100,000. There has been no effective risk assessment of the risk in individual buildings, and people who reside in them may have disabilities, for example. They would be at significantly higher risk. There are also care homes, hospitals, prisons and educational institutions, so more effective and concerted effort needs to be made by Government and Departments to assess risk properly.

[Eddie Hughes]

The stakeholders we have consulted—Dame Judith Hackitt, the National Fire Chiefs Council and the Building Research Establishment—all think we have taken a proportionate approach in setting the level at 18 metres. The hon. Gentleman has mentioned prisons, but we should not be distracted by other things. My understanding is that the fires that there have been in prisons in recent times have not involved a spread from the source location. Clearly, risk safety means that there is a limited amount of combustible materials in cells. I understand the point that he is making and we are sensitive to it. We do not in any way avoid the fact that the Bill might need to evolve at some point in the future. More risks may become apparent and we will talk again when we come to later clauses about how the Bill may develop to accommodate that.

The definition of high-risk building for the occupation regime that is outlined in part 7 was determined on the basis that the risk to multiple households is greater when fire spreads in buildings of at least 18 metres. That followed extensive consultation, including a stakeholder listening exercise following the publication of the independent review by Dame Judith Hackitt, stakeholder engagement and our public consultation on building a safer future. Therefore, we think the current definition is correct, proportionate and deliverable for the new regulator. The amendment intends to create a power that duplicates clause 62(5), which already contains a power to alter the definition of higher risk building.

--- Later in debate ---

[Eddie Hughes]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. We need to acknowledge how much the building safety sector has changed as a result of Grenfell Tower and of this Bill. People are more attuned to fire safety and the risks and are more engaged in the process of addressing it. I speak following my engagement with social housing providers. I know from the work that we are doing on the social housing White Paper that they are much more engaged. They are listening to their residents and working with them. We are providing an opportunity to ensure that residents’ voices are heard more in the future. With the resident engagement set out in the Bill we will be in a much better informed position to determine safety risks.

I assure Members that the safety of people in buildings under 18 metres high and under seven storeys is of no less importance to the Government. We have a wide programme to strengthen the fire safety regime that includes improving fire safety in all premises regulated by the fire safety order and introducing specific requirements to protect residents’ safety in multi-occupied residential buildings of any height.

I shall not go into the details of clause 134, which takes forward our proposals on fire safety reform, as it is due to be debated at a later sitting of the Committee. However, it is another step in the delivery of our reforms and the Committee will be aware that the Government intend to lay fire safety regulations specific to multi-occupied residential buildings this autumn.

In the light of the work that the Government are doing to protect residents’ safety in multi-occupied residential buildings under 18 metres in height and under seven storeys, and given how the power to amend the definition of higher-risk buildings in clause 62(5) works with clause 143(3), I urge Members to consider withdrawing the amendment.

[Mike Amesbury]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment, Mr Dowd.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 62 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 63

Regulations under section 62: procedure

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clauses 64 to 67 stand part.

[Eddie Hughes]

Clause 63 sets out that the Secretary of State must consult the Building Safety Regulator, unless advice or a recommendation has already been provided, before making regulations under clause 62. The regulations may supplement clause 62, exempt categories of building from the definition of higher-risk building, and provide definitions or alter the clause, apart from subsections (2) and (5). The regulator will oversee building safety and through that gain knowledge about the built environment. It is therefore only right that it is consulted before the powers in clause 62 are used.

Clause 63 also states that the Secretary of State must consult any other persons they consider appropriate before making regulations under clause 62. As the powers cover a few areas, we do not think it right to specify particular other people to consult. However, we recognise that there may be other appropriate people to consult before regulations are made, so we have included that general duty. The powers in clause 62 should not be used lightly and must be used in a proportionate way. This clause provides one of the checks on that.

Clause 64 provides extra checks. If the Secretary of State proposes to use the powers in clause 62 to add a category of building to the definition of higher-risk buildings, it stipulates that the Secretary of State must have received advice or a recommendation from the Building Safety Regulator, and a cost-benefit analysis must be undertaken and published. The Building Safety Regulator oversees building safety and is therefore in the best position to assess if a category of building should be higher risk. It is vital that the regulator’s advice be obtained if it has not already provided a recommendation if the definition of higher-risk building were to expand. To ensure that we are being proportionate in the measures we place on buildings, a cost-benefit analysis must be carried out. If the definition of higher-risk building were to expand, it is only fair and transparent that the analysis must be published.

Clause 65 provides for the Secretary of State to use regulations to disapply or modify clauses from part 4 of the Bill for a category of higher-risk building. We cannot predict incidents that may occur in the future, nor how the evidence base on risk will evolve. There may be circumstances in future where it would be prudent to include a different category of building within the definition of higher-risk building for the occupation elements for the new regulatory regime. In this case, it may not be appropriate to apply all the clauses within part 4 of the Bill to that category of building—for example, resident engagement duties in a non-residential building. The clause provides for that scenario. Any substantial change to the regime that we have so carefully thought through should be open to comment and scrutiny. That is why the Building Safety Regulator and any other appropriate person must be consulted, and it is why regulations to do that must be approved through the affirmative procedure by both Houses.

Clause 66 specifies when the Building Safety Regulator must make recommendations to the Secretary of State that a category of building should be added to the definition of higher-risk building for the purposes of part 4 of the Bill. Through its function to oversee building safety, the regulator will be aware of the risks to and in buildings, and the regulator should therefore be able to make recommendations based on that knowledge.

Any change to the definition of a higher-risk building must be proportionate. That is why the regulator can recommend adding a category of building to the definition of a higher-risk building only if it believes that a three-part test is met. First, it must believe that the level of building safety risk is greater in the proposed category of building than in buildings in general. Secondly, it must believe that if the building safety risk occurred there is the potential for it to cause a major incident in the proposed category of building. Lastly, it must believe that the occupation parts of the new regulatory regime should apply to the proposed category of building.

To ensure that the process is transparent, if the Secretary of State does not make regulations to put the regulator’s recommendation to add a category of building into effect they must publish an explanation. If the regulator considers that a category of building should no longer be a higher-risk building it must provide a recommendation to the Secretary of State. It would not be appropriate to continue to apply the occupation parts of the new regulatory regime to a category of building that should no longer be a higher-risk building.

Clause 67 provides for the Secretary of State to request advice from the Building Safety Regulator about the definition of a higher-risk building. The regulator will be able to provide expert advice. Therefore, the ability of the Secretary of State to request formal advice when considering altering the definition of a higher-risk building is vital. Any change to the definition of a higher-risk building must be proportionate, which is why the regulator can recommend adding a category of building to the definition of a higher-risk building only if it believes that the three parts of the test that I referenced when discussing clause 66 are met.

Similarly, if the Secretary of State requests advice about whether a category of building should no longer be a higher-risk building the regulator must provide it. To ensure that the process is transparent, if the Secretary of State does not make regulations to put a recommendation made under subclause (3)(a) into effect they must publish an explanation of why not.

[Mike Amesbury]

I thank the Minister for his comments. We have some questions and points of clarity. On clause 63, who would the appropriate stakeholders and consultees be? On clause 64, the notion of a cost-benefit analysis raises important issues. Who bears the cost, and how will that benefit be measured? Could clause 67 include flood risk, for example? An early amendment that we tabled referred to climate change, as we march towards COP26.

[Eddie Hughes]

With regard to who to consult, the question would be: what is the circumstance in which we are seeking information? For the sake of argument, one example given in the explanatory notes is increased wind speeds. If buildings suffered as a result of that, we would need to consult structural engineers. Were it a different issue, we would need to consult a different group of people, so it is helpful for it to be an open category, and for the Building Safety Regulator, and probably the Secretary of State, to understand and determine from whom they would need to seek advice.

On the cost-benefit analysis, I suspect that we will come later in our discussions to who bears the costs in various circumstances. Clearly that will depend on the leasehold arrangements that are in place in that particular building. Given that we have seen changing climate conditions, flood risk is certainly one of the things that could be considered in the future, depending on how weather conditions change in the coming years.

I conclude by saying once again that the powers in clause 62 should not be used lightly. They must be used proportionately, and clause 63 provides one of the key checks on that. Combined with clauses 63 and 65 to 67, and with parliamentary scrutiny, clause 64 ensures that using the powers in clause 62 to expand the definition of a higher-risk building is done appropriately and in a transparent way.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 63 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 64 to 67 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 68

Meaning of “occupied” higher-risk building etc

--- Later in debate ---

[Eddie Hughes]

Clause 68 defines the meaning of “occupied” and a resident of a higher-risk building. They are key definitions that determine the application of the obligations under the new, more stringent regime provided for in part 4. As the Committee will recall, the definition in clause 62 defines the meaning of a higher-risk building as one that is at least 18 metres in height, has at least seven storeys and contains at least two residential units.

Clause 68 gives details of the meaning of an occupied higher-risk building. It states that if a higher-risk building is to be classified as occupied, residents must actually be living in the building. Specifically there must be residents in more than one residential unit in the building. If there is a building that meets the definition of higher risk but that is not occupied for the time being, it will not be subject to most of the obligations under part 4 such as the registration requirement or production of the safety case. I will discuss that later. However, some of the provisions kick in regardless of occupation. A reference to a resident of a higher-risk building is to a resident of a residential unit. The definition of a residential unit will be discussed at clause 123.

Clause 68 creates a power for the Secretary of State to amend the definition of “occupied” and the resident of a higher-risk building. By way of regulations, the Secretary of State has a power to define the meaning of being the resident of a residential unit. This is to ensure that the scope and definitions can be amended to meet future policy relating to building safety regulation.

[Mike Amesbury]

I have a quick point for the Minister. If one person were resident in a high-risk building of above 18 metres, they would not be covered by the Bill.

[Eddie Hughes]

That is correct. In those circumstances, that could be an individual’s home and we are not in the business of legislating to that extent. The idea of the Bill and proportionality is that it covers properties in multiple occupation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Eddie Hughes]

This group of amendments makes provisions on who the accountable person is for higher-risk building when the title to the building is held in commonhold. The commonhold association owns and manages the common parts of the building in accordance with the commonhold community statement framework. Amendment 48 ensures that the Bill is explicit in providing that where the title to the building is held in commonhold, the commonhold association will always be the accountable person for the building. That works to ensure that the building safety risk will be properly managed by providing that an accountable person is both identifiable and, more importantly, responsible when considering that building ownership type.

Amendment 49 aligns the definitions of commonhold land and commonhold associations with the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002, thereby maintaining consistency across the interacting pieces of legislation. Amendment 41 makes consequential changes necessitated by amendment 48. Amendments 42 to 46 and amendments 50 and 51 are technical and deal with the definition of an accountable person in relation to higher-risk buildings, where the right to manage has been exercised. Currently, the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 provides that where the right to manage has been exercised by leaseholders, the right to manage company takes on all the management functions for a building under the lease. That includes the repairing obligations for common parts. By virtue of clause 69(1)(b), the Bill provides that a right to manage company will therefore become an accountable person for the higher-risk building. Amendments 42 and 46 ensure that when that is the case, a person who is an accountable person by virtue of clause 69(1) is now expressly excluded if all the remaining obligations in relation to the common parts are subsequently the obligations of the right to manage company.

The amendments clarify where the responsibility for building safety duties sit when the right to manage has been exercised, thereby avoiding any confusion where it may appear that there is more than one accountable person captured by the definition for the same common parts of the building. I point out to the Committee that where repairing obligations are not provided for under a lease, and do not therefore become functions of the right to manage company, persons will still rightly also be captured as an accountable person under clause 69(1)(a) or (b) for their respective parts of the building. That maintains a whole-building approach to building safety management.

Amendment 50 aligns the definition of a right to manage company with the existing definition in the 2002 Act to maintain consistency across the interacting pieces of legislation. Amendments 43, 44 and 45 make consequential changes necessitated by the changes made by amendment 42. Amendment 51 is consequential on the motion to divide clause 69 into two separate clauses. Subsection (3) will now form its own clause entitled “Part of building for which an accountable person is responsible”.

On amendment 47, the Committee will be aware that clause 69(1) defines an accountable person for a higher-risk building as

“a person who holds a legal estate in possession in any…of the common parts”.

However, in some complex leasehold arrangements it may be that the person who has the active repairing obligations for some of the common parts holds a legal estate in the building but does not have the legal estate in possession. Under the current Bill provisions, that would mean that those persons are not currently being captured as accountable persons but they should be, as they have the active repairing obligations for some of the common parts. The amendment addresses that issue by ensuring that where such leasehold arrangements are in effect, the landlord or superior landlord who has the relevant repairing obligations pursuant to a lease for any of the common parts will be accountable persons for those respective parts of the building. In that scenario, the person with the active repairing obligation will therefore be the accountable person instead of the person who holds the legal estate in possession in those common parts under clause 69(1)(a). The amendment gives due consideration to the whole building approach to building safety by ensuring that where a superior landlord or landlord is under a relevant repairing obligation for only some parts of the common parts, both they and the person with the legal estate in possession will be captured as accountable persons for their respective parts of the building.

Turning to the clause itself, the independent review concluded that having a clear and identifiable person with responsibility for managing building safety during occupation and maintenance was clearly necessary. Clause 69 enacts that recommendation, and creates the statutory definition that identifies who the accountable persons for occupied higher-risk buildings under the new building safety regime are. These accountable persons will have legal requirements under the Bill to ensure that fire and structural safety for their parts of the building are being properly managed in accordance with the new building safety regime.

Having clearly identifiable accountable persons is critical to managing buildings safely, enabling residents to feel safe in their homes and enabling the Building Safety Regulator to regulate effectively. The effect of this clause is that accountable persons could therefore be landlords, freeholders, right to manage companies, management companies or commonhold associations that are in charge of repairing the common parts of a building. The clause defines common parts to include the structure, exterior and any other part of the building provided for the common use of the residents.

Clause 69 allows the Secretary of State to make regulations to amend the definitions of accountable persons, to ensure that the new regime is adaptable and fit for purpose for many years to come. To provide further clarity to accountable persons about the areas that fall under their remit for the purposes of fulfilling their duties, the clause allows the use of regulations to define the parts of a building accountable persons are responsible for. The Government recognise that the success of the enhanced building safety regime rests with ensuring that it is clear where responsibility lies, so that building safety obligations can be adequately complied with.

[Mike Amesbury]

Many of these amendments are technical tidying-up exercises, looking at the legislation coming through the other place at the moment on leasehold, ground rents and commonhold. In principle, these measures support that direction of travel on commonhold, but to get the new regime right, to stop the ping-pong of people passing the buck that we are all familiar with, there is still more work to be done on the accountable person—the principal accountable person. I noted that on, I think, Thursday 14 October, 200 factsheets were published by the Department. I know every Member on this Committee will have read them in great detail over the past few weeks.

The amendment tries to add some clarity, but again it relies on secondary legislation. The Minister mentioned the right to manage and commonhold, the relationship with the building owners and the demarcation of who will be the principal accountable person versus the accountable person. How will the disputes that will undoubtedly arise be resolved?

[Eddie Hughes]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his questions. My understanding is that, if there is contention over who is responsible, the principal accountable person will first and foremost be the person responsible for the exterior of the building. That gives us an easily defined headline position, but, as he rightly points out, there is incredible complexity in English law when it comes to property ownership. It is good that the opportunity arises within the Bill to allow flexibility for the Secretary of State to redefine the accountable person, should it transpire that for some reason there is an entity that has escaped the clutches of this clause. Hopefully we have covered everybody now, given the complex amendments we have tabled; but, should the need arise in future, the Secretary of State has that flexibility.

Amendment 41 agreed to.

Amendments made: 42, in clause 69, page 85, line 35, after “person” insert

“(‘the estate owner’) who holds a legal estate in possession in the common parts of a higher-risk building or any part of them (‘the relevant common parts’)”.

This amendment and Amendment 46 provide that a person within subsection (1)(a) is not an accountable person if their repairing obligations in relation to the relevant common parts are obligations of a right to manage company.

Amendment 43, in clause 69, page 85, line 35, leave out “a higher-risk” and insert “the”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 42.

Amendment 44, in clause 69, page 85, line 37, leave out paragraph (a).

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 42.

Amendment 45, in clause 69, page 86, line 1, leave out “person” and insert “estate owner”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 42.

Amendment 46, in clause 69, page 86, line 4, at end insert “, or

(c) all repairing obligations relating to the relevant common parts which would otherwise be obligations of the estate owner are functions of an RTM company.”

This amendment and Amendment 42 provide that a person within subsection (1)(a) is not an accountable person if their repairing obligations in relation to the relevant common parts are obligations of a right to manage company.

Amendment 47, in clause 69, page 86, line 4, at end insert—

“(2A) Subsection (2B) applies where—

(a) under a lease, a person (‘the estate owner’) holds a legal estate in possession in the common parts of a higher-risk building or any part of them (‘the relevant common parts’), and

(b) a landlord under the lease is under a relevant repairing obligation in relation to any of the relevant common parts.

(2B) For the purposes of this section and section 70—

(a) the legal estate in possession in so much of the relevant common parts as are within subsection (2A)(b) is treated as held by the landlord (instead of the estate owner), and

(b) if (and so far as) the landlord’s actual legal estate in those common parts is held under a lease, the legal estate in possession mentioned in paragraph (a) is treated as held under that lease (and, accordingly, subsection (2A) and this subsection may apply in relation to it).”

This amendment provides that where, for example, a landlord of a person within subsection (1)(a) has covenanted to keep the common parts held by the person in repair, the landlord is the accountable person (instead of the person).

Amendment 48, in clause 69, page 86, line 4, at end insert—

“(2C) Where a higher-risk building is on commonhold land, the commonhold association is the accountable person for the building for the purposes of this Part.”

This amendment provides that where title to a higher-risk building is held in commonhold, the commonhold association is the accountable person for the building.

Amendment 49, in clause 69, page 86, line 15, at end insert—

“‘commonhold association’ and ‘commonhold land’ have the same meaning as in Part 1 of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 (see sections 34 and 1 respectively);”.

This amendment, which is consequential on Amendment 48, defines “commonhold association” and “commonhold land” for the purposes of this clause.

Amendment 50, in clause 69, page 86, line 21, at end insert—

“‘RTM company’ has the same meaning as in Chapter 1 of Part 2 of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 (right to manage).”

This amendment, which is consequential on Amendment 46, defines “RTM company” for the purposes of this clause.

Amendment 51, in clause 69, page 86, line 23, leave out “subsection (3) or”. —(Eddie Hughes.)

This amendment is consequential on the motion to divide this clause into two clauses.

--- Later in debate ---

[Eddie Hughes]

Amendments 52 and 53 amend clause 70. The Committee will know that clause 70(1)(b) sets out that the principal accountable person for a higher-risk building where there are multiple accountable persons is the one

“who holds a legal estate in possession in the relevant parts of the structure and exterior of the building”.

That is a more eloquent answer to the question put earlier by the hon. Member for Weaver Vale. However, there is a scenario where an entity holds a legal estate in possession in the relevant parts of the structure and exterior of the building but is not subsequently captured as an accountable person under clause 69. In those circumstances, the provisions as drafted would not capture a principal accountable person for the building. Specifically, this occurs when accountable persons within clause 69(1)(b) have the relevant repairing obligations in relation to the structure and exterior of the building, but do not hold the legal estate in possession to these common parts of the building.

Amendment 52 is technical and caters for this issue by ensuring that the accountable person who has the repairing obligations for the structure and exterior by virtue of clause 69(1)(b) can become the principal accountable person. It also aligns with amendments made to clause 69, which are aimed at ensuring that the accountable person is the person who has an active repairing obligation through their legal estate in possession or, where they do not have a legal estate in possession, has an active repairing obligation pursuant to a lease. Amendment 53 makes a consequential change necessitated by the changes made through amendment 52.

Amendments 54 and 55 amend clause 71, which sets out that an interested party may apply to the tribunal for a determination on who the accountable persons for the building are, who the principal accountable person is, or the parts of the building for which an accountable person is responsible. Under the current provisions, an interested party is either the regulator or a person who holds a legal estate in any part of the building. This does not therefore allow an accountable person who has an active repairing obligation, but does not hold a legal estate, to apply to the first-tier tribunal for a determination.

Amendment 55 addresses the issue by capturing a person who is under a repairing obligation to the common parts of a building to now be classified as an interested party for the purposes of clause 71, enabling them also to make an application for a determination to the first-tier tribunal. This works to effectively align clause 69 with clause 71.

Amendment 55 also limits applications that can be made to the first-tier tribunal from a person with just a legal estate in the building to a person holding a legal estate in the common parts of the building. This ensures that the court’s resources can be dedicated to resolving complex issues from those that are, or may be, directly responsible for managing building safety for the building. Amendment 54 makes a consequential change as a result of an amendment made to clause 70.

I will now move on to the clauses themselves, beginning with clause 70. We concur with the independent review’s recommendations that a “clear and identifiable dutyholder”, with overall responsibility for building safety during occupation and maintenance, is needed for higher-risk buildings. Clause 70 makes certain that all occupied higher-risk buildings will have at least one clearly identifiable accountable person, known as the principal accountable person, who will be responsible for ensuring that fire and structural safety is being properly managed for the whole building.

This clause sets out that, where there is a single accountable person for a building, they will automatically become the principal accountable person. Where there are two or more accountable persons, the one responsible for the repair of the structure and exterior of the building will be the principal accountable person. The principal accountable person will have overall responsibility for meeting specific statutory obligations for the whole building, such as complying with registration and certification requirements for the building. Where there are multiple accountable persons for a building, the principal accountable person will have the same statutory obligations for assessing and managing building safety risks in their own part of the building as each individual accountable person. This will be as well as additional obligations arising from their role as principal accountable person.

As part of the registration process, the principal accountable person will identify themselves to the Building Safety Regulator as being the person with overall responsibility for managing fire and structural safety. If a principal accountable person does not come forward to register the building, the Building Safety Regulator can identify who the principal accountable person is by using the statutory definition, or by applying to the first-tier tribunal for a determination. Having a principal accountable person for each higher-risk building is critical to effectively managing buildings safely, as a whole, and ensuring that residents feel safe in their homes.

Clause 71 allows an interested party to make an application to the tribunal for a determination on who the accountable persons are, who the principal accountable person is, or which parts of the higher-risk building an accountable person is responsible for. We recognise the importance of ensuring that the correct persons with responsibility under the Bill are identified, and that the extent of where their responsibility lies is clear. The clause is to be used in complex cases requiring judicial oversight, as the tribunal will decide and provide clarity to those who may be affected by the Bill.

Once an interested party makes an application to the tribunal, the tribunal would make a decision that may bind persons as the ones with obligations pursuant to the extent applicable by the Bill. The clause specifies that an interested party who may apply to the tribunal is either the regulator or a person who holds a legal estate in any part of the building. Buildings must have only one principal accountable person, and in cases where more than one person fits the definition of a principal accountable person clause 71 allows the tribunal to decide, as it considers appropriate, who the principal accountable person for the building is.

[Mike Amesbury]

I thank the Minister for his thorough explanation, which was a great credit to him. I have a couple of questions. The clauses make sense—again, they are technical, tidying-up exercises. Earlier, I referred to 13,000 buildings. We have principal accountable persons and accountable persons. That is a lot of people who require the skills, qualifications and competence to ensure that this new landscape emerges. Are the Minister and his team convinced that it will be properly resourced, and that we genuinely will change the landscape for existing residents, leaseholders and other people? Also, on clause 71, at what stage should the determination be made at the tribunal? Must all buildings in scope have a clearly identified principal accountable person?

[Eddie Hughes]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his questions. The question of capacity is an interesting one, although it may be that various people will hold principal accountable positions, as with building safety managers. Some people might hold the position for multiple buildings. There are big companies that own lots of buildings and will therefore already have managing obligations for multiple buildings. With regard to capacity, we are talking big numbers. According to my notes, the number of buildings in scope is 12,500, but some of them could be covered by multiple people. There are already large practices operating in this area.

As I said, given the existence of the Bill, and subsequent to Grenfell Tower, there has been a huge increase in the number of people who are concerned and active in the building safety sector, so I do not feel that there is any need to be concerned about capacity at this stage. However, the point and purpose of the Building Safety Regulator is to be live to changing circumstances so, should there prove to be challenges once the Bill is implemented, it will be for the regulator to monitor any challenges and report back to the Secretary of State. I am sure that we will talk about that in the House in future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Eddie Hughes]

The Bill makes the principal accountable person responsible for registering a building and applying for a building assessment certificate. Building on those responsibilities, clause 72 requires that all occupied higher-risk buildings are registered with the Building Safety Regulator. The principal accountable person will commit an offence if they fail to register.

For new buildings, the principal accountable person will be required to register their building before it becomes occupied. For existing occupied buildings, there will be a transition period in which the principal accountable person must register their building. During the registration, the principal accountable person will provide important information about the building and its duty holders to the Building Safety Regulator. It will include core details of the building, including address, height, date of completion and the name and contact details of all accountable persons and any building safety manager.

The Building Safety Regulator will use the information obtained through the registration of the effective regulation of higher-risk buildings. For example, registration information will support the regulator in prioritising building assessment certificate applications. The regulator will also use registration information to publish the national register of higher-risk buildings.

Clause 72 sets out the maximum penalty for the criminal offence of breaching the registration requirement. If tried by magistrates, the offence will carry a maximum penalty of an unlimited fine and/or 12 months’ imprisonment. If it is tried in the Crown court, the maximum penalty will be an unlimited fine and/or two years in prison. These measures are tough but fair and are an important addition to engender compliance with the regime.

Clause 73 makes provision for the registration of higher-risk buildings and allows the Secretary of State to make regulations setting out procedural and administrative details for registration. The information obtained through the registration will ensure that the Building Safety Regulator has a record of all occupied higher-risk buildings in England and those responsible for managing them. Information collected through registration will be used to produce the national register of higher-risk buildings, which will be published. That means that higher-risk buildings can be easily identified and give the regulator excellent oversight and data on buildings in scope.

Clause 73 allows the Secretary of State to make regulations about registration applications. Information required in the registration process will be set out in regulations and will comprise core details of the building, including address, height and date of completion, and the name and contact details of the accountable persons, principal accountable persons, and any building safety manager. Regulations will also set out the procedures for submitting and withdrawing a registration application.

[Mike Amesbury]

The Minister referred to national registration. For residents and leaseholders who want to access the information, what form will it take? Will it be digital? The Joule Group International Ltd made a lengthy written submission on that topic. I would be interested in hearing the Minister comments.

[Eddie Hughes]

One of the things that needs to underpin the way the Bill operates is the access to digital information. We need to ensure that residents and leaseholders have no difficulty in accessing information about their building, and that the Building Safety Regulator has access to that information.

With regard to the capacity that we have discussed, once the register is published, the sector will understand the extent of the buildings in scope, where they are geographically and so on, and it will be able to respond in kind by developing appropriate resource in those areas. The information will be available digitally, which is one of the things that underpins the functioning of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Amesbury]

The Minister refers to a resident engagement strategy. What would a good resident engagement strategy look like and where would people find information on that? What information will be contained in the building safety certificate? Where are the reference points for that?

[Eddie Hughes]

I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman will have to wait for another day to hear about the resident engagement strategy. That is an exciting episode that we will discuss in detail later in the Bill. I look forward to engagements on that.

I explained some of the information that will be displayed on the certificate but I think the pre-eminent role of that is to ensure that residents know who is responsible for building safety within their building. The certificate will identify the principal accountable persons so that residents know where the line of responsibility lies. That is why it is important that such information is displayed prominently in the building.

--- Later in debate ---

[Eddie Hughes]

Clause 83 relates to the undertaking of comprehensive and regular assessments of building safety risks in occupied higher-risk building.

The independent review identified that, too often, building safety has not been proactively maintained over a building’s life cycle, and that fire risk assessments were frequently inadequate and in some cases not carried out at all. We are taking steps to ensure that this lax culture changes and are making it a clear duty on accountable persons to ensure that assessments of building safety risks are carried out. Risk assessments must consider hazards that may originate from outside of the part of the building under the direct control of accountable persons, including in mixed-use buildings where commercial activities may be carried out.

Where there is more than one accountable person for a building, each is duty bound to co-ordinate and co-operate with others. At a minimum, risk assessments should be shared to ensure a whole-building approach is delivered. We are also clear that risk assessments must enable accountable persons to comply with the ongoing duty to take all reasonable steps to manage building safety risks and risk assessments must remain up to date.

The clause requires further risk assessments to be carried out not at specified intervals but based on the accountable person’s knowledge and experience of the building. We recognise that there is not a one-size-fits-all solution and the challenge for the industry is to take greater ownership and responsibility for ensuring safety, rather than relying on being told what to do and when. The regulator will, however, have the power to require that a risk assessment be undertaken where it considers it necessary.

Established best practice risk assessment principles, including the use of management systems that deliver evaluation and monitoring, will continue to play an important role. Those building owners who have been acting responsibly will not find they are presented with a significant additional burden, but we must ensure that the right legal framework is in place to make sure that residents of higher-risk buildings are and can feel safe in their homes.

The Government are committing to providing the right framework to deliver on the challenges and recommendations set out by the independent review. The clause places a clear duty on accountable persons to take all reasonable steps to deliver ongoing management of fire and structural safety while a building is occupied, ensuring that residents are safe and feel safe in their homes.

There are two clear purposes for the management of building safety risks: to prevent an incident from happening and to limit the consequences should one arise. The new safety case approach is based on delivering those tangible outcomes, not on blindly following guidance, which was a criticism of the previous system levelled by the independent review. The steps required by the clause must be taken as a direct response to the results of risk assessments carried out under the previous clause. Accountable persons must make an informed judgment on the steps they take and safety arrangements that they need to have in place to deliver safety for residents.

The new regime promotes a proportionate approach and requires people to think for themselves. It is not about requiring all buildings to be brought up to existing standards, which would be disproportionate and, in many cases, impractical. Accountable persons must deliver and maintain a combination of preventive, control and mitigation measures to guarantee that effective and efficient layers of protection are in place. Regulations will be made to set the principles accountable persons must follow when managing building safety risks. These will establish a best practice approach, helping accountable persons make informed decisions.

The expectation on duty holders in an outcome-focused regime is that they adopt a systemic and proactive approach to risk management. The clause requires that approach to be delivered. The review’s recommendation set a clear expectation that duty holders adopt and can describe the building safety management systems they have in place to deliver that approach. Accountable persons must have systems and policies in place that ensure that their safety arrangements are maintained and remain effective. Such arrangements help ensure that potential safety risks are proactively identified and managed on a continuous basis, improving performance and delivering better safety outcomes. The Health and Safety Executive has vast experience of delivering effective regulatory oversight of industry that requires similar approaches to the management of risks and delivery of safety.

We, and the shadow regulator, recognise the need to work with industry as we move towards the new framework, and have been working closely with industry, including the early adopters group and the joint regulators group, to support that. The shadow regulator recently published a paper setting out the key principles and requirements of a safety case regime. That will help preparations for the new regime and support the development of future guidance. Many responsible building owners already operate in that manner, and the new framework will further support them to deliver safety for residents.

[Mike Amesbury]

Of course, the new regime is resource intensive. We have principal accountable persons, accountable persons, building safety managers and 12,500 to 13,000 buildings. There will be new builds each year; I am not sure what the projections are. It is about having that reassurance that the new regime can be effectively implemented, and that people will have the competency and qualifications. Who will pay for this landscape? It seems potentially very costly. What salary level would a building safety manager, a principal accountable person or an accountable person have?

[Eddie Hughes]

We return to the question of capacity. I touched on the idea that organisations such as housing associations or councils already have their buildings under a management structure and a safety structure, and already have appropriate people appointed to those roles. They will have a benchmark with regard to the legislation that sets out the requirements of a building safety manager against which to measure that they have the appropriate skills and competences in place. The fact that within those organisations they will need to identify a named person who has those competences will focus minds, albeit that the person with those responsibilities might not need to discharge all the duties; they can delegate them to others.

The hon. Gentleman is right that this is a big endeavour, but it already exists in many organisations. On the appropriate salary levels, I think it is beyond the scope of the Bill to identify the remuneration for people employed in this, but as I say there are already people doing this role and I am sure that those who are already managing their buildings effectively and safely will not find this a much more onerous obligation.

[Eddie Hughes]

It is an important point. We need to strike a balance between being prescriptive, and setting very specific regulatory periods within which tasks have to be performed, and allowing some latitude for people to continue to manage their buildings in an appropriate way. If we give prescription for one thing it certainly will not apply across all 12,500 buildings, or however many more might be created in future. I return to the point about the Building Safety Regulator being live to developments within the sector and ensuring that it can respond accordingly.

[Mike Amesbury]

We have both been involved in the social housing sector. The Minister rightly referred to the exemptions. The current landscape and resourcing are there for some in the sector—for some who will be within the scope of the Bill—but it will be different for others in the private sector and, indeed, for some in the third sector. He referred to the regulator and associated committees and to the industry looking at competences and qualifications. Surely, they will look at salary levels. That will not be a role for Ministers or members of the Opposition, but it is important that it is resourced and attracts the right calibre of people.

--- Later in debate ---

[Eddie Hughes]

I think there is a terrible possibility that I may not have completely understood the case the hon. Lady was making. The point about the assessment is that it will be a live assessment of the risks in a particular building and then the mitigating factors that will be introduced in order to minimise those risks. With regard to the prescription of building height set out in previous clauses, that simply determines which buildings are in scope. If we assume that a building is in scope, that the legislation applies and that the principal accountable person needs to submit their building case to the regulator in order for it to be assessed, that will be bespoke and determined by individual building requirements.

[Mike Amesbury]

On the safety case reports, a lot of the detail will, again, be elaborated on in secondary legislation. Sometimes this is rather difficult—we are operating blind—in terms of scrutiny and challenge. Something that we are all familiar with, in regard to the history and journey of the Bill, is the practice in the construction sector of setting up special delivery vehicles and then folding them. How will the information be retrieved, in terms of the safety case report, if those organisations no longer exist?

[Eddie Hughes]

I have two points. With regard to the idea that some of this information will be developed as secondary legislation and the idea of scrutiny and challenge, we will use the affirmative procedure, so I strongly suspect that the hon. Gentleman and I might be standing across from each other in a room like this, deliberating on the content of those statutory instruments, in the future.

With regard to the structure of companies that are set up, if the hon. Gentleman is referring particularly to new buildings, the idea of the golden thread that runs through this process means that we will be capturing more information, more or less from conception of the building through to its construction and occupation. It means that we will have better access to information, and safety will have been built in early on and a more rigorous process adopted in order to ensure that safety, given the fact that named people will apply throughout the whole process, so I think assurance will be built in once the Bill is introduced.

Building Safety Bill (Twelfth sitting)

Debate between Eddie Hughes and Mike Amesbury

Tuesday 19th October 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Eddie Hughes]

The Government are committed to bringing about the biggest improvement in building and fire safety for a generation. The clause creates a power to make regulations to require a golden thread of information for all occupied buildings in scope of the more stringent regime.

The golden thread is the information that allows someone to understand a building and keep it safe, and the information management needed to ensure that the information is accurate, easily understandable and up to date. The clause enables the Secretary of State to make regulations to require the people responsible for those buildings—the accountable person—to put in place and maintain the golden thread. The clause also creates the power to make regulations to set out the information and documents that must be stored in the golden thread, and to set out standards that the golden thread must be held to. The independent review recommended that a golden thread be put in place for all buildings in scope of the regime.

We agree with that recommendation, recognising that it is critical to ensure that buildings are safe. Currently, there is a lack of information about buildings in the new more stringent regime. That lack of information makes it difficult to manage and maintain those buildings safely and to ensure that they are safe for those who live and work in them. We are also aware that, even if there is information, it is often not kept up to date, is not accurate or is not accessible.

The clause will ensure that the information is recorded and that it is accurate, kept up to date and accessible to those who need it. Having accurate, up-to-date information is critical to ensuring that buildings are managed safely. Clause 88 is vital to ensuring that all buildings in scope of the new, more stringent regime are safe and remain safe.

[Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)]

I welcome you to the Chair, Mrs Miller. I have one question for the Minister about the golden thread. How will it apply to buildings that are converted by permitted development and are in scope—that is, buildings of 18 metres and above or of seven storeys or more?

[Eddie Hughes]

Regardless of how buildings have ended up in scope—whether through permitted development rights or otherwise—they will be part of the regime. Therefore, the golden thread will apply. My understanding of permitted development rights, however, is that currently a permitted development right cannot convert to a building over 18 metres. Someone would have to apply for planning permission.

In the absence of further questions, this feels cheeky but speaking as someone who has managed buildings from construction to operation and seen documents handed over that are out of date, inconsistent or incomplete, I know that it is incredibly important to have that golden thread running through not only newly constructed buildings, but existing buildings. It will be invaluable to their safe management.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 88 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 89

Provision of information etc to the regulator, residents and other persons

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Eddie Hughes]

Clause 89 creates a power to make regulations to ensure that the information in the golden thread is shared with those who need it. This will help ensure that all buildings in scope of the more stringent regime are safe. It enables the Secretary of State to make regulations to require the people responsible for these buildings—the accountable persons—to share information with prescribed persons. Prescribed persons include the Building Safety Regulator, residents, other accountable persons in the building and owners of residential units within the building, among others.

Clause 89 enables the Secretary of State to make regulations to set out what information must be shared, when and how it must be shared and in what format. We know that it is currently difficult to access information about buildings in scope of the new, more stringent safety regime. Clause 89 will ensure that the appropriate information from the golden thread is shared with the people who need it. Having easily accessible information is critical to manage buildings safely, for residents to feel safe in their homes, for people to understand their responsibilities in keeping their home safe and for the Building Safety Regulator to be able to regulate effectively.

The independent review recommended that information on buildings should be available and that this would drive greater accountability throughout the system, which would support safer buildings. We agree with this recommendation, recognising that it is critical that information is available on buildings in scope of the more stringent regulatory regime. Clause 89 is vital to ensuring that information is available on these buildings.

Clause 90 requires the golden thread to be handed over whenever the person responsible for the building—the accountable person—changes. This applies to all occupied buildings in scope of the more stringent regime. The golden thread is the information that allows someone to understand a building and keep it safe, and the information management needed to ensure the information is accurate, easily understandable and up to date.

Clause 90 enables the Secretary of State to make regulations to set out what information is handed over, when and how the information is handed over, and in what format it needs to be. We know that currently there is a lack of information. This lack of information makes it difficult to manage and maintain buildings. The clause will ensure that the information is handed over and is not lost when the accountable person leaves their role. Regulations under this clause will ensure that the information is handed over in a timely and appropriate manner. The independent review recommended that a golden thread is put in place for all buildings in scope of the regime and that there are requirements to ensure the golden thread is handed over throughout the life cycle of the building. We agree with that recommendation, recognising that this is critical to ensuring that buildings are safe.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 89 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 90 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 91

Residents’ engagement strategy

[Mike Amesbury]

I beg to move amendment 13, in clause 91, page 99, line 20, after “management” insert “and ownership structure”.

This amendment would ensure that residents of buildings receive information about the ownership of a building.

--- Later in debate ---

[Eddie Hughes]

I thank hon. Members for raising this important matter, but I am afraid that the Government are not able to accept the amendment. However, having listened to the hon. Member for Luton South speak, I now understand more fully the intended purpose of the amendment. Personally, I feel that the role of the accountable person fulfils the intention that she seeks.

As we have touched on, ownership of buildings can be complex. We need to be able to point to the person or entity that residents can go to if they have the kinds of concerns mentioned by the hon. Lady. The accountable person fulfils that purpose and will be a useful addition to the needs of her constituents. Our assessment is that this amendment would not deliver improved building safety protections for residents in high-rise buildings.

Clause 91 requires that the accountable person must prepare strategy “for promoting the participation” of residents in decision making about building safety and decisions relating to the management of the building or performance of the accountable person’s duties. Inserting “ownership structure” in the clause would not require residents to be provided with information on the ownership of the building, but it would require an accountable person to include in their strategy ways to promote the participation of residents in decisions related to the building’s ownership structure.

I assure hon. Members that their intention of ensuring that residents have information on and are able to hold to account those responsible for their safety has been met by the Bill. Information about accountable persons will, by virtue of clause 73, be publicly available on the register of higher-risk buildings, which will be published by the Building Safety Regulator.

In addition, clause 77 requires important details about the identity of those responsible for managing building safety to be displayed in a conspicuous position in the building by the principal accountable person. This will further ensure that residents have information about key people responsible for their buildings. Clause 90 provides that where there is a change in accountable persons, the regulator must be notified and residents given updated information about their accountable person through the notice displayed conspicuously in the building. This ensures that when there are changes to who is responsible for a building’s safety, this is captured and residents will be informed. Therefore, I respectfully ask the hon. Member for Weaver Vale to withdraw the amendment.

[Mike Amesbury]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clauses 91 and 92 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 93

Complaints procedure operated by principal accountable person

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause 94 stand part.

[Eddie Hughes]

The Government are committed to making sure that residents’ safety concerns and views are never ignored by those responsible for managing the safety of their building. Residents need to be able to hold the accountable person to account when things go wrong, and be confident that prompt, effective action is taken. Clause 93 places an obligation on those responsible for managing a high-rise building to establish and operate an internal complaints process to handle and resolve residents’ complaints about their building’s safety. This process should be clear, quick and effective.

In buildings that are managed by multiple accountable persons, a single complaints system will be established. Each accountable person will be responsible for safety concerns raised by residents in the area of the building for which they are responsible. The complaints system will provide residents of all tenures and owners of residential units in high-rise buildings with a clear process to raise safety concerns, and with a right not to have those concerns ignored. Residents will be able to further escalate their concerns to the new Building Safety Regulator.

The independent review found that residents did not have a strong enough voice in matters about the safety of their homes, and that residents struggled to get their complaints addressed. The Bill addresses this by placing an obligation on those responsible for managing high-rise buildings to establish and operate an internal complaints system for residents to raise their safety concerns.

In addition to an internal complaints system, residents will be able to further escalate complaints relating to building safety to the new Building Safety Regulator. This will be available where the accountable person has not resolved the safety concerns. We intend that secondary legislation will set out how the complaints process will operate, and what subsequent action the regulator must consider in response. The new Building Safety Regulator will consult the residents panel before establishing its complaints system and, subsequently, before any significant change is made. The accountable persons’ and Building Safety Regulator’s complaints processes are vital in increasing transparency. Strengthening building safety complaints handling in high-rise buildings is critical to providing residents with a strong voice.

[Mike Amesbury]

I seek clarity on clause 93(2), which says:

“The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about the establishment and operation of complaints systems under this section.”

Should that be “will” rather than “may”?

[The Chair]

Can I check that no one else wants to speak? In that case, can I bring the Minister in to respond?

--- Later in debate ---

[Eddie Hughes]

The entire purpose of the clause, as I say, is to avoid our ever ending up in a position where we have another Grenfell. Therefore, the idea that the accountable person now completely understands their responsibility, and that that is set out in legislation, is increasing in and of itself the focus on safety within the sector. We are seeking to prevent any occurrences by focusing minds and ensuring that even in this new, stricter regime, if people are still prepared to be reckless and ignore the legislation, a custodial sentence can, and hopefully in certain circumstances will, follow. I completely understand the point that the hon. Gentleman makes.

That is in line with the enforcement principles that we set out in our 2019 consultation document, and in the Health and Safety Executive’s published enforcement principles. Those documents set out that minor infringements will normally attract informal action, which will be escalated as necessary. More serious breaches will probably attract more formal action, such as compliance notices. The most serious breaches envisaged by the clause will normally attract immediate prosecution. An offence can carry a maximum penalty of an unlimited fine and/or 12 months’ imprisonment if tried in a magistrates court, and an unlimited fine and/or two years’ imprisonment if tried in a Crown court. Either court may also issue a level 1 fine of £200 for each day the default continues after conviction.

The measures will help to ensure compliance with our new regime, and they reflect our strong stance on breaches and enforcement.

[Mike Amesbury]

What assessment have the Minister and his Department made of the effectiveness of section 21 notices under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974?

[Eddie Hughes]

In all honesty, I am not sure of the answer to that question. However, I would be reassured by the fact that the Building Safety Regulator, in its shadow form—[Interruption.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Eddie Hughes]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend’s point. What we have seen through the development of this Bill is that specific people will now be accountable for very specific functions: the accountable person, the building safety manager and, in the case of the building safety manager, a specific person identified with that responsibility. Now that there is a clear line of sight to who is ultimately to be held accountable, I think we will see increased professionalisation and the sector responding to that, in terms of developing the professional capacity of the people involved.

[Mike Amesbury]

I thank the Minister for his description of the new regime under the clauses. I do not know whether he remembers Mr Benn—he probably does—who could be something different every day, or several different things in one day. This reminds me of that, with the principal accountable person, the accountable person, the responsible person, the building safety manager and the special measures manager. Certainly, in a lot of cases, they will be one and the same thing if they have the competency, knowledge, experience and so on to do that. What would be incredibly helpful going forward—for us all, collectively—would be some kind of diagram. I know the Minister referred to things becoming clearer now in regard to accountability. I am not convinced that they are. That is not meant as a criticism, but I would find a diagram incredibly helpful.

I worry also that we are having almost a first and second-class approach to building safety. Again, I go back to the point about 18 metres or seven storeys. This whole regime, this whole professionalisation, that hon. Members have referred to is for the higher-risk buildings. There are still risky buildings from 11 metres up to 18 metres —below the seven storeys—that do not have this regime.

--- Later in debate ---

[Eddie Hughes]

Clause 117 sets out in one place the key powers of the Building Safety Regulator to issue guidance with statutory force on its functions under part 4, and the constraints on it doing so. If Members wish me to go into detail on any of the specific powers to issue guidance, I am happy to do so, but given that we have already discussed each of the clauses about which guidance may be issued, I do not propose to detain the Committee further.

I should point out that subsections (1), (2) and (5) enable the regulator to issue, withdraw or amend guidance, but only with the consent of the Secretary of State. Subsection (3) makes similar provision to that in the Building Act on the approved documents. That means that compliance with the guidance can be relied upon in court or tribunal proceedings as tending to establish compliance with the provision to which the guidance relates, while not following the guidance will tend to establish non-compliance with the relevant provision.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 117 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 118

Cooperation and coordination

[Mike Amesbury]

I beg to move amendment 40, in clause 118, page 118, line 39, at end insert—

“(5) In the event that one or more accountable person or responsible person considers that another accountable person or responsible person is in breach of any requirement or duty imposed by this section then that dispute shall be determined in accordance with such arrangements as the Secretary of State may direct by order.

(6) For the purposes of subsection (5), a ‘breach’ includes—

(a) any failure to act on the duties imposed by this section; and

(b) any dispute about the extent of steps taken, or said to be required, pursuant to the duties imposed by this section.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to arrange a resolution in a dispute between accountable or responsible persons.

--- Later in debate ---

[Eddie Hughes]

I thank the hon. Member for raising this important matter. The amendment would give the Secretary of State the power to make arrangements by order to resolve disputes between accountable persons, or between accountable and responsible persons, in relation to the co-operation duties provided for in clause 118. Our assessment is that the amendment would not achieve the intended effect of formally resolving such disputes more than would be achieved through the provisions already in the Bill. The amendment would therefore not deliver improved building safety.

I must point out that the policy of the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel sets out that an order made by the Secretary of State would no longer be the suitable way to deliver the outcome sought by the hon. Member’s amendment; rather, it should be done by regulations. I must also point out that the primary objective of the Bill is to ensure that building safety duties, including duties to co-operate, are delivered through the robust regulatory powers that we are creating. Where a lack of co-operation will have, or is likely to have, a negative impact on building safety, we are confident that there are already sufficient provisions in the Bill to deal with that.

The hon. Member’s amendment would require the Secretary of State to create a further mechanism to deal with disputes regarding failures to co-ordinate and co-operate. This would not only undermine the power of the regulatory functions upon which we will rely, but might have the unintended effect of adversely impacting on building safety, through delays caused by adding another layer to the regulatory and enforcement functions that we are already providing for. I must therefore tell the hon. Member that the Government cannot accept the amendment. While we consider the policy intent of his amendment to be sound, I would like to assure him that we believe it is addressed elsewhere.

[Mike Amesbury]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 118 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 119

Managers appointed under Part 2 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Eddie Hughes]

We recognise the need to ensure that the building safety regime is compatible with existing legislation and provides clarity as to the avenues of redress for any breaches of building safety obligations. Clause 119 makes amendments to section 24 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 to ensure that the new building safety obligations, as set out by the Bill, are kept separate from other general management functions for buildings.

The clause makes amendments that provide that a tribunal cannot appoint a manager under section 24 where the breach of obligations complained of by a resident is a breach of the accountable persons building safety obligations. This means that where a manager is appointed under section 24, the tribunal cannot confer upon that manager building safety functions, which are to be carried out by an accountable person.

Building Safety Bill (Tenth sitting)

Debate between Eddie Hughes and Mike Amesbury

Thursday 23rd September 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Mike Amesbury]

I thank the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South, and I welcome the direction of travel, which demonstrates how this place can work most effectively for the good of the affordable housing sector as a whole.

On clause 57, the principle of the levy is most welcome. Campaigners up and down the country have been pushing for a levy—sometimes under the polluter pays principle. There is a history of failure and deregulation in the construction industry, and resident leaseholders are certainly not responsible for the mess. Then we get to some of the details. The principle of polluter pays is a good thing. Looking at the evidence from the Select Committee—we have colleagues present who are key members of that—the cost of remediation is estimated to be some £15 billion. The Minister referred to conversations with his good friends in the Treasury, who are referring to a levy of £2 billion—a fraction of that.

On the scope of the levy, I understand some of the practicalities of gateway 2, but to whom will that money be directed to provide support? Will it be by way of grants? I notice another reference in clause 57 to the provision of loans, but loans to who? The principle is good and we welcome a levy, but it is nowhere near sufficient to deal with the building safety scandal, which is exactly what it is. We urge the Minister to look again at the size and scope of that with his good friends in the Treasury. Of course, voices outside this place will continue over and over and get louder and louder until justice is done.

On other potential exclusions, looking at the Department—I am not on top of its new name, by the way, so excuse me—

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

The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities.

[Mike Amesbury]

It just rolls off the tongue, doesn’t it? According to the Government’s own figures, 274 hospitals of 18 metres and above are in scope at the moment, as well as 10 care homes. For the hospitals, that will affect capital spending in other Departments. I am sure that we all have ambitions to get renewed hospital facilities in our constituencies via capital spending. Drawing on the previous amendment, I am sure that that is something that Ministers are strongly considering. Of course, the Opposition—or Members across the piece, actually—would urge them to look at those exclusions.

Building Safety Bill (First sitting)

Debate between Eddie Hughes and Mike Amesbury

Thursday 9th September 2021 Public Bill Committees

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Eddie Hughes)]

I am a member of the Chartered Institute of Building.

[Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)]

I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Eddie Hughes and Mike Amesbury

Monday 19th July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Eddie Hughes]

It is a pleasure to shoot the breeze with my hon. Friend. It is fundamental that industry contributes for having compromised public safety, which is why the Building Safety Bill introduces a new levy on high-rise residential buildings. Clause 124 of the Bill also provides legal requirements for building owners to explore alternative ways to meet remediation costs and provide evidence. If that does not happen, leaseholders will be able to challenge costs in court. In addition, we have announced more than £5 billion towards remediation work on buildings of 18 metres and above and a generous finance scheme for remediation work on buildings of 11 to 18 metres.

[Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)]

There is, finally, much in the Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Bill for many people to welcome going forward, but people like Tracy in my constituency, and many millions of existing leaseholders, remain trapped, with unjust and feudal charges. Will the Minister commit to supporting Labour’s amendment, which is to be considered in the other place tomorrow, to extend the ban to the many leaseholders and not just the new?

[Eddie Hughes]

It is important that we take the opportunity to be proportionate about the situation we are in: 96% of the high-rise buildings with unsafe aluminium composite material cladding identified at the start of last year are now remediated or have work under way. The Government are already taking action to help people who are in a difficult position. As I said, the new Building Safety Bill will provide legal requirements for building owners to explore alternative ways to meet future remediation costs.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Eddie Hughes and Mike Amesbury

Monday 14th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Eddie Hughes]

We remain committed to delivering a better deal for renters, including repealing section 21 of the Housing Act 1988. We will legislate, but it is only right that that legislation considers the impact of the pandemic and is a balanced set of reforms that improves the private rented market. A White Paper detailing our package of reforms to the private rented sector will be brought forward in the autumn.

[Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)]

Today marks four years since the tragedy of Grenfell, where 72 people lost their lives. Recent research published by Shelter shows that 3.2 million private renters are fearful of complaining about unsafe and unhealthy properties for fear of being evicted, and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation reports that nearly a million tenants now fear eviction due to the ending of the evictions ban. The Secretary of State promised that no one would lose their home as a result of the covid crisis. How will he honour that promise, and when will no-fault section 21 evictions come to an end?

[Eddie Hughes]

It is important to acknowledge the amount of funds that this Government have committed to ensuring that renters are supported—over £200 billion through the furlough scheme, for example. If hon. Members want evidence of whether that has been successful, let me point out that over nine out of 10 people are not in rent arrears at all, so that has been of significant help to people. With regard to the Bill that I referred to in my previous answer, I look forward to working with the hon. Gentleman, with whom I get on very well, in the coming months to ensure that we deliver renters reform that is appropriate and helpful to all parts of the sector.

Grenfell Tower Fire Inquiry

Debate between Eddie Hughes and Mike Amesbury

Wednesday 12th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Eddie Hughes]

My hon. Friend is right. Any opportunity for interpretation means that people have the chance to err either on the side of caution or, as some might suggest, on the side of cutting costs. The inclusion of that explicit detail would prevent such an opportunity for interpretation.

We will never be able to mitigate all risk, so it is incredibly important that we work with the fire service to minimise risk. I am grateful to Lee Sketchley from West Midlands fire service who came to see us at the YMCA. He inspected the hostel and we are acting on some of the recommendations for improvement that he made. That is relevant because of the stay-put policy, which has been mentioned. Its concept is built on the idea of compartmentalisation: if the whole fabric of the flat allows two hours’ exposure to fire before it penetrates, people can reasonably stay in that flat for a period, safe in the knowledge that somebody should be able to come and rescue them during that time. However, we will have all seen—we will have seen it in this building during the warm weather—fire doors propped open, sometimes with fire extinguishers, ironically, but that renders the door useless in the event of a fire. Similarly, we will have seen fire doors that have been painted: the intumescent smoke-seal strip on the edge of the door will be affected by the paint, which will prevent it from serving its purpose if there is a fire.

I say to Members on both sides of the Chamber that we all have a responsibility. It is up to us to go back to the big housing providers in our constituencies and seek reassurances from them, individually, that they are sticking to the legislation that is already in place. Before we go looking for too much new legislation, let us at least make absolutely sure about that.

[Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we also have a responsibility to provide adequate resources to our fire services? Let us also deal with staff morale, as the pay cap that has been imposed on our emergency services, including the fire service, is not helping matters at all.

[Eddie Hughes]

I am not sure that I can totally agree with the latter half of the hon. Gentleman’s point. I think the fire service’s response to the Grenfell tragedy was absolutely fantastic, as was that to the bombing of the Ariana Grande concert. The service that I personally have had from Lee Sketchley at West Midlands fire service has been absolutely fantastic. The fire service is clearly managing to deliver a first-class service with its current resources.

I end by simply saying: let us make absolutely sure that we understand that fire safety is everybody’s responsibility.