Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill

Debate between George Eustice and Clive Betts

Report stage
Tuesday 27th February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Betts]

Absolutely. I hope the Minister will have a look at the whole issue of freeholders who will not respond. That certainly applies to many who are overseas, with whom it is very difficult to get in touch.

I will not press new clause 40 to the vote, but the purpose of it is to say to the Minister that the default answer cannot be that the leaseholder can always go to a tribunal. Most leaseholders are simply ordinary residents trying to get on with their lives, who think it ought to be fairly easy to put in a request, get a calculation done and buy their freehold. They are not ready for these organisations, with all their lawyers and surveyors, that want to evade this and try to hide away, in some cases overseas, so that they cannot be contacted.

Can the Minister look at that issue? I know he is aware of it, because we share the same problem with Coppen Estates. There are others that are based overseas, but this one is based in a semi-boarded-up shopfront with a letterbox that never seems to be opened. That is the sort of company we are dealing with. They are small organisations that make a living out of charging ground rents from leaseholders, who cannot exercise their enfranchisement because of the attitude and evasion of the freeholders concerned. I hope that the Minister will have another look at that issue.

The other amendments I have tabled are about having professional qualifications and some form of regulation of property managers. The Government have legislated to say that the managers of social housing will need professional qualifications in future, but what is the difference between a manager of social housing and a property manager of leasehold blocks? In some ways, there may be greater complications in trying to manage a multitude of different leaseholders than people who have secure tenancies in a council or housing association block of flats. What is the difference?

Why will the Government not recognise that there are some good property managers who are well qualified, experienced and can be held to account, but others who are not like that? Indeed, some are put in place for that purpose: they are cheap, they do not have experience or qualifications, and they provide another way of avoiding the restrictions and rules that are rightly put on the management of property. They do not bother with proper service charge information or a proper list of charges for permission fees. I accept that the Government have tried to improve that, but in the end such improvements will only work if the individual or organisation managing the property does so in a proper way. Will the Minister look at those issues? What is the rationale? Why is there resistance to ensuring that people doing a serious and important job as property managers are qualified to do it and properly held to account through regulation?

[George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con)]

Let me begin by declaring my interest as an adviser to the HSPG group, which among other things is a registered provider of social housing.

I rise to speak to new clause 68, which is based on a specific challenge that I have encountered in my constituency and that affects residents in more than 70 homes spread across three locations in the town of Hayle and the village of Mount Hawke. The experience of those cases exposes a potential gap in the Bill and in policy on the issue of shared ownership. The Bill deals at some length with standard leasehold agreements and the problems of extortionate ground rents, as well as with some of the issues around service charges and management companies with which we are familiar. However, in the early 2000s some agreements were put together that were technically leasehold agreements but that masqueraded as shared ownership agreements, even though those shared ownership agreements do not comply with the standards of modern shared ownership agreements.

The agreements I have encountered contain a number of defects, and I would like the Minister’s view on them. The first is that the freehold on those homes is not held by a registered provider. It was initially owned by the developer who built the sites, but it has changed hands twice. In a way that is familiar to many Members, the freehold has ended up in the hands of an offshore investment vehicle based in the British Virgin Islands, and with a company called Rockwell, which has not been easy for residents to deal with over the years.

The second major defect in the agreements is that there is no provision for staircasing or enfranchisement of the leaseholder’s share of the property. Residents typically own between 58% and 72% of their property, but their stake is fixed and cannot be extended. There is no right to extend under the agreement. The agreements are under a 990-year lease and there is no ability to extend that, although I appreciate it is a long-term lease.

The third defect is that even if residents could enfranchise and extend or staircase their ownership within the agreement, a section 106 covenant means that the properties must be sold to a local connection with a significant discount on market value. The way that has been worded in the agreement means that it is simply not worth the while of residents to increase their share, since there would be no value to the increased share that they would have.

Finally, there was something described as ground rent, although in practice a big chunk of that was effectively a rent on the shared ownership portion. The ground rent was initially around £20 per week, but that was linked to the retail price index on an escalating model. It has now got close to £2,000 per year for those residents, and it is still increasing rapidly.

All of those defects in that leasehold tenure arrangement or shared ownership arrangement—indeed, it appears to be neither one nor the other—mean that all of the properties have been judged unmortgageable by lenders, and that means the residents are trapped. They cannot sell their properties because no one can get a mortgage to buy them. These are people in my constituency who had a local connection. Typically, they are on modest incomes. These agreements and these homes were sold to them as a way to get a foot on the housing ladder, and for those residents it has transpired to be a complete nightmare.

I will say a word about planning and pay tribute to Penwith District Council, as it was then, and Cornwall Council. Planning was granted between 2004 and 2006, and the local planning authorities did their due diligence. They could see that this shared ownership model was defective, and they refused planning permission on all three sites on that basis. The Minister might ask how these homes were then built and sold under the arrangement, but I suspect he can predict the answer, which is that they were approved at appeal by the Planning Inspectorate, an agency within his own Department. The situation that my constituents face has been caused principally by a chronic failure of due diligence by the Planning Inspectorate, as is often the case with such issues.

In conclusion, my new clause 68 seeks to address a gap in the Bill and to give the Government the opportunity to atone for the mistakes of the Planning Inspectorate. It deals explicitly with shared ownership agreements and would create a statutory right to staircase ownership and put a cap on the rent of the freeholders’ portion of the home. I do not intend to press new clause 28 to a Division this evening, but I hope that the Government will consider the matter closely. I would like to meet the Minister or the Secretary of State and share with them and their officials a copy of the shared ownership agreement that my constituents are suffering under so much, with a view to seeing whether the Government might consider further changes at later stages of the Bill’s consideration to address a gap in it. Given that the Planning Inspectorate has been somewhat culpable in creating this problem for my constituents, I hope that the Government will seek to do that.

I support the general thrust of the Bill in all its attempts to deal with management charges, service charges and ground rents, but I hope that the Minister will agree to meet me to discuss some of these remaining issues.

Public Bodies and VAT

Debate between George Eustice and Clive Betts

Wednesday 17th May 2023 Westminster Hall

[George Eustice]

My hon. Friend raises an important issue, which is affecting colleges in Colchester, the rest of Essex, Cornwall and the whole country. The cost of having staff at an FE college to run courses in practical skills such as electrical engineering or bricklaying and construction is probably higher than at a university, which can just cram a couple of hundred students into a lecture theatre and simply deliver a lecture. The cost of providing those important skills, which are vital to our economy, is higher. My hon. Friend is right that it is incredibly difficult for FE colleges to recruit and retain staff, because of the squeeze on their budgets, so we need to do better.

During the EU era, the Government were able to blame EU law for the fact that FE colleges had to be treated differently. I have done my share of blaming EU law in the past for various things that were my responsibility, but EU law is no longer a barrier and cannot be used as an excuse or a reason for not doing the fair and just thing. We have now vanquished EU law and we have the freedom and power to set a coherent tax policy that is consistent and fair.

Doubts have sometimes been expressed about whether FE colleges are public bodies per se, but that has now been settled. I understand that, last autumn, the Office for National Statistics, which has been going through a rather tortuous classification exercise, has deemed that all sorts of bodies that might have been considered private are now public. It has cleared the issue up and said that FE colleges are public bodies, and in my view they should therefore be included in the section 33 list of public bodies that can reclaim VAT.

I have looked at parliamentary questions that have been raised in this area, and Treasury Ministers have sought to insist that the ONS designation does not change anything and, indeed, that it does not change the Treasury’s right to set out what it considers the right bodies to be included in the section 33 list. That might be the case, but the House is entitled to a rational answer as to why FE colleges are treated differently. We are entitled to insist on consistency and fairness in the tax system and, therefore, to request and require the Government to bring forward a statutory instrument to remedy this unfair situation.

This issue matters because the FE sector really matters. I declare an interest: as a teenager, I attended Cornwall College, which has a campus in my constituency and is the leading FE college there. My hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) is also passionate about the interests of the college, which has a site in his constituency. I learned to arc weld at the college; I was not particularly good at it—indeed, I returned recently and tried my hand at it, and if I was not good then, I am certainly not very good now. I also attended a course on business studies and management, and a second course on farm management, and the skills and knowledge I gained were invaluable to me, not just during my first career, when I went into the farming business, but for things I have done since.

A succession of Ministers in this Government have been passionate about the FE sector and have recognised the importance of apprenticeships. The Government can be proud of the way they have tried to raise the status of vocational courses through apprenticeships. That is one of their great achievements; it started under the coalition Government and has been maintained. That is important, because apprenticeships add real value to the real economy, but we have to put our money where our mouth is, and at the moment FE colleges just do not have a fair financial settlement.

We often point to the success in technical skills of other countries in Europe and elsewhere, and we argue that we want to match that. We have lots of good ideas about apprenticeships and raising the standard and consistency of the courses, but sadly it feels like we do not follow through by providing the funding offered by countries that have shown us how to do technical skills properly.

Last year, schools were rightly given an injection of about £2 billion to help them with the cost of energy and the pressures on labour charges and wages. We all have schools in our constituencies that are suffering those pressures, but FE colleges, although they had some uplift, received just a fraction of what schools were given. Again, it is difficult to escape the impression that they were treated unfairly.

FE colleges are really struggling to recruit staff. They have the difficulty of running courses that are much more hands-on. There are all sorts of health and safety considerations for courses such as bricklaying, carpentry or electrical engineering, and the tutor-to-learner ratios are probably much higher than in universities, where everyone is just sat in a lecture theatre with their notebooks out. The situation is very different, and it is much harder for FE colleges to cope with fewer staff. Because these are successful parts of the economy—wages have been rising for technical skills such as electrical engineering and construction—it is difficult for colleges to lure people back from the private sector. They often find that people do the work partly out of a sense of duty or public service.

It is important that we recognise that, because the FE sector really matters. It gives us the skills we need for the economy of the future. We increasingly recognise that if we want to level up economic growth around this country, we need to rekindle and start to respect again manufacturing industries and the sectors of the economy that require technical skills. We cannot just get by with people in pen-pushing roles and the service industry; we have to recognise the value of those skills and fund them.

Even in new sectors of the economy, such as computer software and coding, the best way to learn those skills is often in a business, so that an apprentice can actually learn the approach taken by an individual computer software company and really learn on the job, while getting generic training in computer coding from the local FE college as well. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford) said, we should value young people who have chosen such a career and to train in something that will be of real value to our economy.

The Budget earlier this spring had much in it to welcome. In particular, I welcomed the introduction of investment allowances, which will benefit the manufacturing sector and help it to get tax relief and capital allowances for investments in business, but I must say that it feels like there was a failure to support FE colleges in the Budget. That was disappointing for many Members on the Government Benches, and dozens of us wrote to the Chancellor asking him to take the plight of FE colleges seriously and to look at whether additional funding to help FE colleges could be found, but that appeared to fall on deaf ears. I hope the Chancellor will take the earliest opportunity to put that right and rectify that unjustified omission.

I invite the Minister simply to commit to bring forward a statutory instrument under section 33 of the 1994 Act. I appreciate that she may need to do a bit of a Government write-round before being able to commit fully, but I hope she will at least express an openness to the idea and give us a clear explanation, if she is able to, of why a school with a sixth form can reclaim VAT, but an FE college with a sixth form cannot. That is the key question, which highlights this terrible unfairness.

In conclusion, many hon. Members on both sides of the House want to see fairer funding for FE colleges. Introducing the change I have set out would help; it would not involve a huge amount of money, but it would probably give FE colleges somewhere in the region of a 2% to 4% respite on their budget. They would probably all use that money immediately to help retain and recruit staff. It is a relatively small amount of money but, like my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin), I am interested to hear what the Minister considers it would cost. Among those who support the change is my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker), who is Chair of the Education Committee. There is widespread support for this, and I very much hope that the Minister will give us positive news in her response.

[Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)]

We have only one other Member asking to speak, which makes things quite easy this morning.

Sewage Pollution

Debate between George Eustice and Clive Betts

Tuesday 6th September 2022 Commons Chamber

[George Eustice]

As I said earlier, thanks to the evidence that has been gathered as a result of the new monitoring that we required, we are now bringing investigations into around 2,200 sewage treatment works. I cannot comment on the specific manhole cover that my hon. Friend refers to, but I can reassure him that the Environment Agency is prioritising all of these sorts of challenges.

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

A couple of weeks ago, heavy rainfall in Sheffield resulted in sewage flowing into the garden of my constituent Perri Bradbury and on into her home, so it has damaged the carpets, the floorboards and furnishings. She has young children. I do not think that we can imagine the awfulness of this situation. When I asked Yorkshire Water about compensation, it did a bit of a clean-up and then said that, under the Water Industry Act 1991, because this was due to exceptional weather, it was not obliged to pay any compensation and would not do so. Is it not time that we changed this out-of-date legislation and made sure that the cost of the consequences of sewage overflows falls on the water companies and not on residents, who have completely no responsibly for this?

[George Eustice]

The episode that the hon. Gentleman describes is probably linked to a failure somewhere in the sewage infrastructure rather than storm overflows per se, and that is a slightly separate issue. If he would like to write to me, I will look at the specific case he raises.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between George Eustice and Clive Betts

Thursday 17th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)]

Today is Clean Air Day. The recent coroner’s inquest into the tragic death of Ella Kissi-Debrah highlighted the importance of making progress on delivering clean air. The Government are working on a new targets framework for air quality and a range of policies to improve air quality, and in particular to reduce particulate matter. We will also do more to raise awareness of the risks of air quality in our urban areas.

[Mr Betts [V]]

In 2007 there were major floods in Sheffield, which not only affected homes but destroyed large parts of industrial areas, including Meadowhall shopping centre, Forgemasters and other industries. A great deal of work has been done on flood defences, with the council and the private sector working together, with some Government support. However, one thing that would really help is the preservation of the peat bogs in the moorlands above Sheffield, which act as a massive sponge to stop the run-off and the cascading of water down into Sheffield. Will the Minister take action now to stop heather burning on the peat bogs and to make sure that peat does not end up in unnecessary products, such as compost for gardens?

[George Eustice]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. The Government are clear that we will consult on a ban on horticultural peat, and we will shortly bring forward the legislation that will implement a new ban on the burning of heather on blanket bog. It is our intention to treble the rate of peatland restoration, for all the reasons he said.[Official Report, 21 June 2021, Vol. 697, c. 8MC.]

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between George Eustice and Clive Betts

Thursday 22nd April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

What discussions he has had with the Home Secretary on reducing dog thefts.

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

What discussions he has had with the Home Secretary on reducing dog thefts.

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)]

I recently met the Home Secretary and the Lord Chancellor in March to discuss the important issue of pet theft. As a result of that meeting, officials from across the three Departments have been tasked with developing solutions that tackle this issue effectively. The work of the pet theft taskforce has already begun, with officials drawing together available data and evidence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Betts [V]]

I am sure the Secretary of State recognises that for those committing the theft it may be a financial issue, but for those who have their pets stolen this is really a loss of a valued member of their family. I give credit to The Star newspaper in Sheffield, which has highlighted a growing number of these incidents, and the heartbreak and anguish it causes people to lose their valued pet. Will the Secretary of State accept that this is a different sort of crime to the normal theft of a possession, and that, as such, it needs a different, specific offence with specific and tougher penalties enacted for those who commit it?

[George Eustice]

It is a different type of offence in that there is emotional stress on the owner of the pet, but there can also be stress and effects on the welfare of the animal. That is why, in the current sentencing guidelines, the courts can take account of an aggravated offence with emotional distress, and the maximum penalty could be as high as seven years. We have asked the pet theft taskforce to look at this issue more closely and assemble the evidence to consider whether anything further is required.