Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Lord Thurlow Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 22nd May 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Etherton (CB)]

My Lords, I draw attention to my amendment, co-signed by the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow—and I am very grateful to him for doing so. The amendment is to Clause 178(4).

Clause 178 is dealing with the vacancy condition, which is one of the conditions for permitting letting or rental auctions by local authorities. My question is probing, to do with certainty. Clause 178 (4) mentions

“Occupation by … a trespasser, or … a person living in premises that are not designed or adapted for residential use”,


but goes on to say that

“this is not to count for the purposes of this section”.

Since the section deals with both what is occupied and what is not to count as occupation, it is unclear what that means. I ask the Minister to make it clear.

I think the intention must be that where a trespasser is in occupation or there is

“a person living in premises that are not designed or adapted for residential use”,

the premises are not to be treated as unoccupied for the purposes of Clause 178(1). That is my understanding. If that is incorrect and it is intended that they should be treated as unoccupied, the amendment provides that if a landlord has taken possession proceedings, they are not to be treated as unoccupied. It is really a question of clarity as to what Clause 178(4) is meant to do here. If the Minister can give a clear explanation from the Dispatch Box, that would help me and may be the end of the matter.

[Lord Thurlow (CB)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, for identifying what I believe to be an unintended consequence in connection with the proposed forced auctions of high street property. I am pleased to add my name in support of Amendment 418.

Following many years of practice as a chartered surveyor, specifically in the commercial property market, I am well aware that one of the most difficult challenges that landlords of vacant property can face is that of the unauthorised or illegal occupation of their premises. Securing legal and legitimate possession from an occupier who refuses to leave is expensive and time-consuming and can easily—and unfairly—add to the long list of bad landlord stories.

If that unauthorised occupation involves residential property, the problems of cost and delay can increase significantly. I appreciate that the clause we are referring to does not refer to residential occupation, but commercial shops are frequently let to sole traders who use an upper floor storage space informally as residential accommodation. It is outside the terms of the lease, but it may remain a fact, so it is worth pointing out that residential occupation comes into this amendment.

Amendment 418 is designed to protect a landlord from enforcement by the local authority of the auction process when they are already doing their very best to secure vacant possession. They are trying to get rid of an unauthorised occupier. Without this possession, it becomes impossible to let the property. Who would conceive of signing a lease for a shop as a tenant with an illegal trader already in place? Surely it is wrong to penalise the landlord who is keen to let their property but is unable to do so. While legal action is under way, that landlord receives no rent and is probably paying interest on a commercial mortgage. They are likely in breach of their rental income covenants with the bank, so may be verging on defaulting on that loan, and are likely employing costly solicitors to pursue legal action for recovery of their property. Yet, by this Bill, they could be accused of keeping a property vacant.

The clock should not start on the period defined as “lying vacant” until the property is vacant and is in the landlord’s gift to be let to a tenant. I do not believe that it is the Government’s intention to auction off commercial premises that are the subject of legal action to recover possession, so I ask the Minister to ensure that, while legal proceedings are under way to secure possession, the landlord does not inadvertently fall into the trap of effective confiscation by the authorities.

This amendment is not a matter of policy or principle. It does not dispute the intention of Clause 178. It is simply a practical matter that, unamended, will lead to confusion and conflict between vested interests, which, I am sure, is unintended.

[The Earl of Lytton (CB)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 426 in my name. I start by declaring an erstwhile interest as a former property manager of retail premises. It had a high street address, but the main shopping area had ceased to be in the high street some 30 years prior so, when we talk about high streets, it requires a little care in what one is actually referring to.

I pay tribute to the British Property Federation, which the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, mentioned in her excellent and substantial introduction to this group of amendments, but I must stress that these views are mine and not those of the BPF.

I observe that 27 clauses and a schedule is a lot of stuff to have in a Bill of this sort for something that I am advised is a really quite narrow application. However, I am looking in the direction of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, because I suspect that she may have other views on this matter that she will doubtless enlighten us on.

The Government seek to attract overseas inward investment at scale, and UK real estate is one of those attractive asset classes across the world which has a great deal of further potential. I am told by the chief executive of Savills that commercial property investment in the UK runs at about £60 billion annually, about £30 billion of which comes from overseas, so this is a matter of considerable moment. However, we risk serial policy interventions, with a potential adding of burdens, increasing uncertainty and raised investor risk, which threaten to undermine this success story. Commercial rent collection moratoriums were one such thing. While I recognise that they were essential in the circumstances, they did not help.

High streets and retail properties are particularly challenged by the burdens from business rates referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, and from floor space oversupply, loss of important anchor tenants, major shifts in shopping habits and general changes in work/life balance. Many properties in regions with the highest vacancies suffer from historic business rates levels, with instances of rates liability being in excess of 100% of the rent. That makes tenancies as unattractive as private sector investment and must be addressed.

Any measure that threatens investment should be looked at critically. As far as the retail investment sector is aware, according to the information that I have from the BPF, there is little pressure across the country to introduce these auctions, and the Government admit that they will be relevant in only a minority of cases to deal with empty properties. I appreciate that if a property is creating a particular problem, it must be dealt with, but given what we are being asked to put into this Bill, I wonder whether we are not using a very large sledgehammer to crack a small nut. The BPF tells me that the likely costs of each high street rental auction to a local authority alone would exceed £6,000. At a time when strained local authority finance is prevalent, this is unlikely to make them a priority. That figure, if correct, is just the local authority’s cost—never mind the other costs for the other parties.

The Bill proposes a scheme which I find complex, with exacting compliance criteria and where decisions of local authorities in their own cause appear to be incontestable, such as a refusal of consent under Clause 184(1). Appeals under Clause 187 would be to the county court, which has its own problems of delay and cost, and may not stop there. Therefore, a potential liability to pay compensation assessed by the First-tier Tribunal on top of that makes this look like quite a chancy operation. None the less, if Ministers wish to press ahead with this measure, the Bill should better distinguish between those property owners seeking a tenant but who have been unable to find one, having used all reasonable endeavours, and those who are just being plain unco-operative, where I can see that there is a perfectly good explanation. I pay tribute to the points made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, and the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, in that respect.

Schedule 16, which sets out the grounds on which landlords might have to appeal against a local authority’s final letting notice, should therefore be amended to include a new Clause 8, as set out in my amendment. It provides a facility for the landlord to demonstrate reasonable attempts to market the property at or below what might be described as a reasonable market rent for at least a nine-month period. That is to provide a safeguard against any capricious approach to the matter. We know that there are difficulties on the high street, and in dealing with certain types of shop premises—their shape, their configuration, their position in the high street, and other things that are going on at any given time, possibly to do with planning policy.

--- Later in debate ---

I conclude, as have the previous two speakers, that Clause 213 is unnecessary, undesirable, inappropriate and capable of generating more damage than it procures benefit. It is discriminatory in that it singles out the RICS for special treatment in circumstances where nearly every one of its areas of activity has at least one other participant body or organisation over which the RICS has no member regulatory function. Whether this makes it a hybrid Bill is something I have pondered; but I am not expert on this, and it is difficult for me to pronounce on such a matter. Like this Parliament, much is held together by conventions, mutual trust, and the wish to share information and to transact other than through letters of the law. The RICS certainly needs to consolidate its reputation. It has been through a period of turmoil—let us make no mistake about that; that is a matter of common knowledge—but it is on the road to putting things in order, and, with the aid of my noble friend Lord Bichard, I have every confidence that it will achieve that. However, Clause 213 is capable of much wider mischief, which will not, ultimately, be in the power of the Secretary of State to put right, if, as I suspect, it goes wrong. So I support the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, that the clause has no beneficial purpose in the Bill and should be removed.

[Lord Thurlow (CB)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a former chartered surveyor—I was one for some 35 years; I resigned when I left private practice—and my comments now, which will be brief, are entirely my own.

Why do the Government want to interfere with an independent professional body? I do not believe that architects, civil engineers, solicitors, doctors, nurses or any of the other many noble professions have this sword of Damocles hanging above their professional organisations as is proposed here. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and my noble friend Lord Lytton have mentioned the worldwide influence of the RICS. I was slightly involved with it many years ago; it is extensive and has done ground-breaking work across the world in bringing together the numerous different property-related organisations in the advisory field to try to create common standards internationally. This is the stuff of soft power; it has a royal warrant.

I accept that the RICS has had its own internal issues—pretty serious ones—but it instigated robust, independent reviews and accepted all recommendations. Why does His Majesty’s Government want this power? It is inappropriate. As we have heard, the Bill has all the characteristics of a hybrid Bill anyway, so what on earth is this clause doing in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I start by thanking my noble friend Lady Hayter for her very detailed and clear explanation of the concerns felt by a number of noble Lords about why this clause is in the Bill at all. I thank the noble Earls, Lord Caithness and Lord Lytton, for their very detailed knowledge and perspective from their professional point of view; that was extremely helpful and I think this is a very important debate.

I added my name to the clause stand part notice because we are also extremely concerned by the wording of Clause 213 as currently drafted. As we have heard, it provides a power for the Secretary of State to instigate a review of RICS at any time and with very few limits in terms of scope, rationale or process. At the same time, it fails to set out any related statutory protections for RICS or for the chartered surveying profession more broadly. Our concerns stem from the fact that this seems a very significant step for a Government to take—to actually create powers to instigate reviews of an independent, member-funded institution, which does not itself, as we heard, exercise any statutory powers. Noble Lords have said they are concerned that this could risk creating a perception of RICS’s inability to act independently and in the public interest. As the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, said, it has nothing to do with either levelling up or regeneration and could set a highly unusual precedent for any other royal chartered body in the future.

We have heard about the independent review by the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, and the previous review mentioned by my noble friend. She went into the detail of what the independent reviews have said. Also, recommendation 14 of the report by the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, required an independent review of RICS to take place every five years. My noble friend said that it has agreed to do that even more frequently, every three years, so I do not really understand what the Government’s concerns are. It strikes me that, despite the concerns the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, laid out about recent issues within RICS, it has taken concerns raised extremely seriously, has accepted the recommendations in this report and is amending the RICS charter and by-laws to reflect the recommendations in full, subject to the approval of the Privy Council.

So my first question to the Minister is: why do the Government feel the need to interfere in this process? RICS itself, having accepted the recommendations in the review, is looking to ensure that it is held accountable in a transparent, orderly and appropriate manner, so I genuinely do not understand why the Government feel they need to legislate, as other noble Lords have said. It would be extremely helpful if the Minister could properly explain.

I also found it very concerning to hear from my noble friend Lady Hayter that there do not seem to have been any recent meetings between RICS and the Government. Can the Minister confirm that and explain what meetings have been held to discuss this and when? It does seem quite an extraordinary step. We support either the removal or the amendment of this clause so that it aligns with the wording of recommendation 14 of the review of the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, if it is going to stay in here. Surely the regulation of professions should be overseen by independent governance and decision-making that uphold the public interest and also guard against any risk of improper interference. Can the Minister explain why this clause is in the Bill? Will he also comment on the suggestion of hybridity, because this is extremely concerning?