Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 27th March 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Best. I agree with everything he said about the regulation of property agents and, were he minded to table an amendment to the Bill, I would like to add my name. I thank my noble friend for her readiness to consult colleagues throughout the passage of the Bill: I am sure this will facilitate its speedy work.

My speech is in two halves, the first focusing on the Bill and the second dealing with unfinished business with the Building Safety Act. The Government are well ahead in the first half but heading for a score draw by the end. I warmly welcome the Bill, building as it does on previous pieces of legislation, all progressively empowering leaseholders and moving away from a feudal system of tenure that exists nowhere else in the world. I will just touch on the more controversial measures on ground rents and marriage value. Having attended a meeting, with other noble Lords, with freeholders, it is absolutely certain that this is going to be challenged in the courts. I take comfort from what is on the face of the Bill, namely that my noble friend asserts that the Bill is compatible with the ECHR.

The consultation on ground rents closed on 17 January and the Cabinet Office guidance says Governments should

“publish responses within 12 weeks or provide an explanation as to why this is not possible”.

That runs out on 10 April, so will we have a response before Committee, hopefully rebutting rumours in last week’s Sunday Times? If the Bill becomes an Act, and a leaseholder declines to pay the historic rent demanded by a freeholder, citing this Bill, and is taken to court, as seems likely, will the Government stand behind that leaseholder and bear the costs?

On marriage value, many properties in London, from where most of the freehold objections have come, have been on 99-year leases for centuries. Each time the lease expired, the freeholder had all the marriage value—financial polygamy if ever I saw it.

There is one area where we are going make progress: I was relieved to hear what my noble friend said about forfeiture. A tenant can lose possession of a £500,000 flat for a debt of £351, with the landlord keeping the entire difference between the value of the property and the debt. Will my noble friend go a little further than she did in her opening speech and commit to a government amendment to abolish forfeiture and replace it with a more balanced response?

I share the disappointment of other noble Lords at the absence of progress on commonhold. In 2019, the House of Commons Select Committee, with a Conservative majority, urged the Government to ensure that

“commonhold becomes the primary model of ownership of flats in England and Wales”.

The noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, quoted Michael Gove’s statement, which is worth repeating:

“I don’t believe leasehold is fair in any way. It is an outdated feudal system that needs to go. And we need to move to a better system and to liberate people from it”.


But in the Bill, there is no progress whatever on these flats.

Turning to the Building Safety Act, I welcome the measures the Government have introduced to alleviate the problems of those living in flats requiring remediation following the tragedy of the Grenfell fire, but there is a significant gap, best illustrated by quoting the commitments the Government made at the outset. In his Statement in the other place on 10 January 2022, the Secretary of State said:

“We will take action to end the scandal and protect leaseholders”.


Later, he clarified what he meant:

“First, we will make sure that we provide leaseholders with statutory protection—that is what we aim to do and we will work with colleagues across the House to ensure that that statutory protection extends to all the work required to make buildings safe”.—[Official Report, Commons, 10/1/22; cols. 285-91.]


Note that that commitment extends to all building work, not just cladding, and there was no qualification of the word “leaseholders”.

This broad commitment was confirmed by a letter written to all noble Lords by my noble friend’s predecessor, my noble friend Lord Greenhalgh, on 20 January 2022. He wrote:

“The Secretary of State recently announced that leaseholders living in their homes should be protected from the costs of remediating historic building safety defects”—


not just cladding. However, the position now is that not all buildings are covered; not all building safety defects are covered; and, crucially, not all leaseholders are protected. In particular, it remains perverse that, while we debate a Bill to facilitate enfranchisement, the Government have deliberately chosen not to give protection to those that have enfranchised, while leaseholders who have not enfranchised continue to enjoy a better deal.

The two principal exclusions from the commitment given by the Secretary of State are leaseholders who live in buildings less than 11 metres tall; and other non-qualifying leaseholders, a category that does not exist in Wales, where remediation funding is available for all buildings and all leaseholders are protected. On buildings under 11 metres, the Government’s position seems to be that residents should be able to leave the building in the case of fire without expensive remediation. This position is at odds with that of the London Fire Brigade. This is its statement:

“With regards to the remediation of buildings, we strongly assert that all buildings with serious fire safety defects should be remediated regardless of height”.


Many of these flats are unsaleable and unmortgageable, the owners cannot afford to pay for remediation and, in the view of the fire brigade, they are unsafe. The department’s case-by-case approach is moving at a glacial pace, with no clear outcome even for cases that are audited by the department and deemed to require remediation.

Also excluded are leaseholders who own three or more residential properties. The perverse consequence of this is that you can own a manor in the Cotswolds, plus a villa in Italy on Lake Garda and a luxury penthouse in central London worth £1.5 million and qualify for protection. Yet if you and your partner own a small, terraced house and three small £100,000 buy-to-let apartments as part of your pension planning, only one of which has non-cladding fire safety defects, you will face bankruptcy. If we are to have exclusions, they should be value-based, not quantity-based.

Then there is the position of joint ownership. In many cases, landlords exceed the threshold of more than three UK properties only because they jointly own properties with their partner. I welcome the Government’s rather belated decision to consult on this. They issued a document last week, with consultation due to end next week. That is a very short time for consultation, but if it means that a fit-for-purpose amendment can be introduced in this Bill, then that could excuse it.

The LUHC Committee in the other place, with a government majority, rightly noted last year:

“Leaseholders are no more to blame for non-cladding defects than they are for faulty cladding on homes they bought in good faith. Buy-to-let landlords are no more to blame than other leaseholders for historic building safety defects, and landing them with potentially unaffordable bills will only slow down or prevent works to make buildings safe”.


That, of course, affects everybody in the block. At the moment, there are 4,092 buildings over 11 metres with unsafe cladding, but over half of those—2,077—have no remediation plans in place.

In short, the Building Safety Act created a two-tier system where leaseholders deemed qualifying will benefit from the protections, whereas those arbitrarily deemed non-qualifying have been left to fend for themselves, exposed to uncapped costs for non-cladding remediation. Those people took all available precautions when they bought and are in no way responsible for the defects that now need remediation. Without a truly comprehensive solution for all buildings of all heights and tenures, unfairness and uncertainty are set to perpetuate, not least because there is no deadline for remediation. My amendments to this Bill will seek to rectify those injustices and I hope the Government will listen.

Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 22nd April 2024 Lords Chamber

Surely the Government realise that the exemptions provided for by Schedule 1 could render the ban meaningless and will mean that new leasehold houses are still built in significant numbers. Can the Minister offer us any reassurance on whether an impact assessment has been carried out on the effect of these exemptions on the overall ban? Will she consider amendments that will tighten the proposed exemptions to ensure that the majority of homes that come forward will be freehold? Can she enlighten us any further on what will happen about leasehold flats, which affect 70% of leaseholders?

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

I want to raise a slightly different point from the one raised by the noble Baroness, who is worried that there are loopholes in the schedule. My concern is slightly different, in that the schedule currently bans a form of lease that is actually beneficial. I refer to an arrangement called Home for Life, which has been operating for some time and is based on somebody who is over 60 selling their home. Homewise, which operates Home for Life, then buys the property to which the person moves and grants them a lifetime lease. That enables them to vacate a large family home, gives them the security of the home they move to and, in many cases, releases a sum of money that enables them to expand their income.

There are a number of exemptions under the schedule; this scheme is not one of them. This is, in fact, contrary to what the Government said when they consulted on this a few years ago, when they made it absolutely clear that they would exempt these leases. I quote from paragraph 252 of the Government’s response to a consultation document, Implementing Reforms to the Leasehold System in England:

“It is not the intention of the policy to affect lease-based financial products (home reversion plans—equity release, home purchase plans—lifetime leases and Islamic/Sharia compliant finance), so long as they do not provide a loophole from which to evade the ban. For both home reversion and home purchase plans the provider acquires the freehold and the consumer has a non-assignable lifetime lease. Because these leases are not assignable to another party there is no risk of such leasehold houses coming onto the open market”.


They concluded:

“We will provide an exemption from the ban for these financial products”.


The product I have just mentioned falls squarely within the terms of the exemption that I just read out, but I am afraid it is caught by the Bill as it now stands. I hope my noble friend the Minister will be able to say that this is an unintentional capture of a worthwhile type of lease and that the Government will provide the necessary amendment downstream so that Home for Life can continue to provide a worthwhile service, which I do not think is a loophole of the kind described by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, this Bill is really very important. It has been a long time since Second Reading, so I think it is worth reiterating some of the fundamentals that we hope it will achieve.

The first is that this is obviously a huge opportunity to reform the leasehold/freehold property rights and relationships. That is certainly one of the key aspects that we on these Benches will pursue with vigour. It is also an opportunity to tackle the huge omissions in the Building Safety Act to provide remedies for those leaseholders and tenants living in blocks of flats that are under 11 metres or five storeys. As we have all through the debates and discussions on the Fire Safety Act, the Building Safety Act and the levelling-up Act, we on these Benches will continue to pursue the safety of leaseholders and tenants in those blocks of flats, because that is the right thing to do.

On these amendments, we on these Benches acknowledge that there will, of course, be areas in the leasehold/freehold arrangement where the abolition of leasehold impinges on other important rights, so we accept that there will be examples where an exception is justifiably made. However, the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, is absolutely right to probe the reasons for these exceptions, in this group and in the following group, and has drawn attention to them individually. For example, the noble Baroness drew attention to a situation where the developer has a head lease and has yet to build out to the development. She asked the pertinent question of what happens if leasehold is going to be abolished for houses. Where does that fit in with a development that is ongoing that will be developed under the terms of a leasehold? That is not explained either in the Bill or in the Explanatory Notes.

We on these Benches understand the importance of this for historic estates that are now owned by the National Trust in England, Wales and Scotland. The purpose of the leases in those instances ought to be protected, because the overwhelming responsibility is the protection of our national heritage. That makes good sense. However, although the schedule provides details of which properties are eligible for what was described as “permitted leases” under the tribunal certification, what is not clear in either the clauses or the schedule, or in the Explanatory Notes, is what criteria the Government are using to enable some leaseholds to be described as permitted. Can the Minister provide the reasons for the choices made by the Government in determining permitted leases in Schedule 1? This is important because the legislation will be challenged in the future. It is therefore vital that, before we get to Report, we understand the reasons, as well as the purpose, behind the tribunal certification. Perhaps the Minister can provide the details of the regulations that are to be provided to the tribunal for making those decisions.

The two examples used by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, and the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, relating to retirement housing and homes for life, strike me as being very important in our discussions. Those of us who have been involved in leasehold, and in the debate about leasehold and some of the criticisms of the way in which leasehold is implemented in practice, have been astonished by the way in which some retirement housing service charges have risen exponentially, without, it seems, any recourse to an explanation or a reduction. It is important to understand, for both homes for life and retirement housing—one of which is referred to in the schedule and the other which is not, as the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham has said—how protections will be provided for these very important areas of housing in order to provide protection for the leaseholders in these arrangements.

We support the probing amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, and look forward to the detailed response, I hope, from the Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, for bringing up Homes for Life. I do apologise, but I will look into this; I will come back to him and make sure that the House is aware of our response to that.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

I am most grateful to my noble friend for that undertaking, but I remind her that the Government said:

“We will provide an exemption”,


for these types of scheme.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I have noted that.

The noble Baronesses, Lady Pinnock and Lady Taylor, and the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, also brought up the issue of the exempting of retirement houses. Retirement houses do not stand alone; they are usually part of a wider scheme with extensive communal facilities and packages of support care and hospitality services. A lease can help to organise the relationship between the two parties, with the home owner and provider managing the development in properties such as these. We think this justifies an exemption from the ban.

The noble Baroness, Lady Taylor Stevenage, also brought up the commencement day for this Bill. The letter that we wrote to the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, explained that it is a complex Bill, and there will be complexities as we roll out the Bill after Royal Assent. However, I think we did put in that that commencement is likely to be 2025-26, not 2026.

I want to reassure noble Lords that there is a power in the Bill, should evidence of any abuse emerge, to tighten definitions further or remove exemptions entirely if there is evidence that a stricter approach is necessary. With these assurances in mind, I hope that the noble Baroness will agree not to press her amendment at this stage. In this group—

--- Later in debate ---

Given that agricultural leases rely on external definitions, can the Minister provide more detail on what exactly falls within these two definitions? Can she reassure the Committee of the suitability of all the new leases in that category being rightfully exempt? I look forward to her response, and I beg to move.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 7 in my name, which deals with shared ownership—one of the issues touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Khan. Shared ownership was developed in the 1980s and I claim some paternal responsibility for it. It was a route into affordable homes, and there are now some 200,000 shared owners.

There is a risk that shared owners will fall between the cracks between conventional leaseholders and those who rent. The Government are doing a lot for the conventional leaseholder. Under the Renters (Reform) Bill, they plan to do a lot for the conventional renter, and as I said, there is a risk of shared owners falling between the cracks. If one looks, for example, at the New Homes Ombudsman Service, which I greatly welcome, and the new homes quality code under it, the protection does not extend to affordable homes—namely, those sold under a shared-ownership scheme.

The reason for this amendment is a report, which I am sure my noble friend has seen, from the Select Committee in another place published on 26 March entitled Shared Ownership. The crucial thing to remember about this is that it was published after the Bill left the other place. Therefore, these are comments on the Bill as we see it today. I will briefly quote from three relevant paragraphs from that report.

Paragraph 80 states:

“When we asked Baroness Penn about this issue”—


shared ownership—

“she told us that the provisions of the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill are intended to make it easier for those on the old form of the lease to extend when needed. However, Shared Ownership Resources have said that shared owners will not benefit from the leasehold enfranchisement reforms included in the Bill, as, as assured tenants, they do not have statutory rights to leasehold enfranchisement”.

I hope my noble friend can assure me that shared owners do have the right referred to in that statement—the right to enfranchise—and that the fact they are technically assured tenants does not mean they are precluded from the rights in the Bill. Paragraph 92 reaffirms that point:

“We also believe that it is unacceptable that shared owners do not have the same statutory right to leasehold extension as other leaseholders”.


My final quote is from paragraph 94:

“Finally, the Government should ensure that any legislation passing through Parliament which has provisions to reduce the cost of, and simplify, the process of leasehold extension (for example, as in the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill) also applies to leaseholders in shared ownership properties, so that shared owners have the same statutory right to leasehold extensions as all other leaseholders”.


It is clear from those quotes from the recent report that the Select Committee holds serious doubts about the entitlement of shared owners to some of the rights in the Bill.

Shared-ownership leases are often complex. Leases on flats, for example, with multiple sub-lessees with different rights and responsibilities, can add further complexity. It is worth mentioning that shared owners are liable for all legal and other administrative costs of superior leaseholders and freeholders, although they only own, for example, 50% of the property. As a result, they can be paying more in service charges than other people in the block, simply because they have that extra relationship with the registered provider as well as the freeholder.

When a shared-ownership owner, for example, extends the lease and the property is valued, they pay 100% of the legal costs, although they only own 50% of the property. The explanatory notes to the Bill state, on page 8, paragraph 20:

“The Bill also gives shared ownership leaseholders the right to a lease extension for 990 years”.


However, the registered provider—the shared ownership’s immediate landlord—may have only a short-term interest in the lease as a head lessee or a sublessee. So, what happens when the shared-ownership leaseholder exercises the right, but the registered holder says, “I’m very sorry but I don’t have 990 years available; I only have a short lease”? Is there an obligation in the Bill for that registered provider to get a long lease, which, in turn, is passed on to the shared owner?

Turning to Condition C in the Bill, which my probing amendment addresses, I wonder whether this precludes certain shared owners from the right to a lease extension. Paragraph 6(6), on page 136, states:

“Condition C: the lease allows for the tenant’s share in the house to reach 100%”.


However, some shared-ownership leases have caps. They have caps at 80% in a designated protected area, and a cap of 75% in older persons shared ownership. So, are these groups excluded, or does paragraph 6(2) come into play, which says that the Secretary of State can exclude Condition C if the lease is of a description he has specified? Again, I would be grateful for an assurance on this.

My final point, which was also raised by the Select Committee, is that there is a broader risk of a two-tier market in shared-ownership leases following the changes in lease terms as part of the affordable homes programme.

My noble friend the Minister may want to reply to this in a letter, but shared owners want an assurance that their entitlements have been properly take on board during the Bill’s drafting, particularly against the background of the Select Committee report that I have just referred to, which makes it clear that there are anxieties that the interests of shared owners are not adequately reflected in the Bill.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, there are two elements of this category of permitted leases that are worthy of further exploration. One—on which the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, has gone into great detail, questioning how it will work—relates to shared ownership. The second is to do with agricultural leases.

I would like the Minister to explain, first, why agricultural leases cannot be subject to tribunal certification, rather than the current self-certification process. There does not seem to be a reason why that does not occur under the first element of permitted leases.

There are other issues, such as shared ownership and self-certification, that are not necessarily covered in the details the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, went into, but which are very important. I would like to understand how self-certification will be subject to challenge, what the process is and how such situations can be resolved. Will it be a costly process? If so, granting permitted leases for shared ownership, and agricultural leases, becomes an expensive legal minefield for those caught up in it.

So, I would like to understand why agricultural leases are not in the first set of certifications for permitted leases, and how challenges can be resolved. I look forward to what the Minister has to say.

--- Later in debate ---

My noble friend also asked why shared ownership was not in the Bill, and what is going to be done for shared ownership. There was an amendment on this in the other place, I understand, which says that the equivalent lease extension rights have been given to shared ownership leaseholders: that is, extension by 990 years at peppercorn ground rent, on the leaseholder’s share, on payment of a premium. Presently, shared owners of houses were excluded from extension rights under the 1967 Act and their position for flat under the 1993 Act was uncertain due to contradictory court and tribunal decisions. Where the shared ownership provider is the freeholder, they will be able to grant an extension. I hope that helps my noble friend. With these assurances, I hope that noble Lords will agree not to press their amendments.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

I am enormously grateful for the assurances that my noble friend has given. Will the Government respond to the Select Committee report on shared ownership before Report? It raises some important issues which I touched on and it would be nice to have the Government’s response before Report.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I am not aware of the timescale for that, but I will make some inquiries and come back to my noble friend.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I do not have an amendment in this group, but it is almost therapeutic when your Lordships’ House is asked to consider a rare Bill such as this, where, instead of the Government seeking to do something really quite nasty, they are merely failing to do the best possible thing that they could.

The amendments in this group reveal that the Government have failed to bring in any proposals to replace leasehold ownership of residential property with commonhold ownership. It is obvious that there is a political consensus—at least on this side of the Chamber and partly on the other side—that commonhold should be the main model of ownership for multi-unit residential properties. However, 20 years since commonhold was first introduced, and four years since the Law Commission published legislative proposals to enable more widespread adoption of commonhold, it looks as though this Government have chosen to leave this issue to the next Government to sort out. That might be the best thing—I do not know—but, quite honestly, this Government have had the option, even in this Bill, to do the right thing.

Housing is part of survival: it is a human right and you have to get it right. It is time to end the commodification of housing by international finance and to end the feudal model of land ownership, which facilitates developers extracting as much money as possible from home owners while providing little or no value in return. Forgive me, I should have declared an interest as a leaseholder.

I would like to ask the Minister some questions; others have probably asked these questions before, but I just want to be specific and get clear answers. When do the Government expect the Commonhold Council to complete its work on the implementation of commonhold for new housing supply? When do they expect the completion of the work on conversion to commonhold? Why is it taking so long?

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I will make a brief intervention to support the thinking behind Amendment 14, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox. We all understand the disappointment that it has not been possible to make progress with commonhold in this Parliament. We all understand that it would be impossible to try to retrofit commonhold into the existing legislation. One thing we have learned over the last two parliamentary Sessions is that the capacity of the department to produce legislation that does not need wholesale amendment as it goes through is limited. We all bear the scars of the levelling-up Bill.

We have also seen the number of government amendments that have already been tabled to this Bill. What ought to happen, and I wonder whether my noble friend would smile on this, is that at the beginning of the next Session, a draft Bill should be published on commonhold. That would enable us to iron out all the wrinkles and expedite the passage of an eventual commonhold Bill when it came forward. There is all-party agreement that we need to make progress with commonhold, so urgent work now on producing a draft Bill is time that would not be wasted. It would mean that early in the next Session of Parliament we could produce a draft Bill—we have the Law Commission’s work, which we could build on—and iron out all the wrinkles. Then, when the actual Bill came forward, we would be spared, I hope, the raft of government amendments. I exempt my noble friend on the Front Bench from responsibility for this; it would be a faster destination.

By way of comment, what has happened to draft Bills? When did we last see a draft Bill? If you look at the Cabinet Office’s recommendation, I think in 2022 it said that they should be part of a normal legislative programme; there should be a number of Bills produced in draft, which we can get our teeth into. All my experience as chairman of the Parliamentary Business and Legislation Committee is that when you have a draft Bill, the actual Bill goes through much more quickly. Again, my noble friend has no responsibility for the legislative programme, but I think we need to spend more time as a Parliament looking at draft Bills rather than at Bills that have been drafted in haste, and then having to cope with a whole range of government amendments.

[The Earl of Devon (CB)]

My Lords, I too was unable to speak at Second Reading, and I apologise for that. However, I was able to attend much of the debate and to listen to a number of your Lordships’ speeches. I noted the numerous times in which leasehold tenure was described as “feudal”; we have heard this many times today. It is used as a pejorative term, which I do not strictly agree with, being a feudal Member of your Lordships’ feudal House, serving our feudal sovereign. It seems a somewhat discriminatory term to use. I also note that not all feudal rights are bad; we laud the Magna Carta, the right to trial by jury, and the rights of habeas corpus, all of which are essential feudal rights. I would hazard that leasehold tenure is similarly a feudal right that we should be particularly proud of, like your Lordships’ feudal House.

That said, I realise that the days of leasehold are numbered, but we should not remove such an important element of our residential housing market without ensuring that there are at least adequate alternatives that are fit for purpose. There currently are not. I believe it a mistake to dismantle leasehold tenure without ensuring that the commonhold alternative is fit for purpose.

Here I note my interests: in 2003, as a junior property barrister, I was a contributing author to a handbook on the exciting new tenure of commonhold. Since then, and despite our best hopes, the book has sold barely a copy, and I understand that commonhold has been adopted by hardly anyone. In 2015, and again more recently, the Law Commission has explored the shortcomings of commonhold, and has, as we have heard, identified numerous ways in which the law could be amended to make it better. I believe the Government are therefore wrong not to have grasped the nettle and made commonhold fit for purpose at the same time as, if not before, introducing this piece of legislation.

For this reason, I support the probing amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, with respect to the publication of a commonhold strategy. Without that viable alternative, I am particularly concerned that the leasehold reforms will have the unfortunate effect of decreasing the available housing stock, and will drive up the price of housing, which will decrease the number of homes that are affordable. I note my interests as a member of the Devon Housing Commission, ably chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Best, which is exploring why there is so little housing available in the county for people who actually live there.

I have a question for the Minister: have the Government sought to measure the likely impact of the Bill on the availability of new housing, and the willingness of freeholders to make land available for development?

Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 24th April 2024 Lords Chamber

It is an entirely political choice if the Secretary of State sets the deferment rate without any constraints—it hands money to one class or the other as seems politically suitable to you. We are asked to agree this measure with no indication, as my noble friend has said, as to what deferment rate the Secretary of State will choose. All this—whatever your views on the rights and wrongs, whether leaseholders are good people or bad people, what you should do about charities, and everything else—is profoundly unsatisfactory. We are moving from an evidence-based system to one that is essentially arbitrary. We are giving a power that is inherently political, not financial. We are doing this with no sight whatever of what the decision of the Secretary of State might be. Why on earth would we agree to this? Whether my noble friend’s solution is the correct one or we are better sticking with the current system is an important question, but why are we making changes in the first place and giving these powers away with no understanding?

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Borwick for allowing what I hope will be a short debate on the deferment rate. I am conscious that I am a very inadequate substitute for the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth.

The deferment rate is very important, as my noble friend Lord Moylan explained. It is the current value of the vacant possession of a flat when the lease expires. According to what deferment rate you choose, it affects the premium that is paid by the leaseholder. My understanding is that the current deferment rate was set in a Court of Appeal case in 2007—the so-called Sportelli case—which ended up with the two rates that I think my noble friend Lord Moylan referred to: 4.75% for houses and 5% for flats. That was fixed nearly 20 years ago. There was a recent appeal decision in a Welsh court—I have the name in front of me but, like many Welsh names, it has a large number of consonants and very few vowels, so I am afraid that I cannot pronounce it. The appeal failed because the land valuer was not an economist, but it opened the way to an appeal to alter the rate. My noble friend Lord Moylan touched on my first question: when will the Secretary of State come to a decision? It affects what leaseholders do at the moment: whether they should wait for a preferential rate, which might be fixed by the Secretary of State, or whether they should try now, in case it moves the wrong way.

I want to raise a totally different point. At the moment, there already is a deferment rate set by the Government under the personal damages Act 1996. Using exactly the same basis as a deferment rate for leasehold, the Lord Chancellor sets the deferment rate for personal injury damages. Unlike what is proposed in this Bill, that rate changes quite often. In 2017, the rate was changed, and it was a negative rate for some time. It was changed again in 2019, and then again in 2023. It is now 0.5% for short-term cases and 3% for long-term cases. My question for the Government is: will we have two separate Secretaries of State fixing deferment rates at different times and coming up with different rates, or is there a case for rationalising the Government’s view as to what is an appropriate deferment rate?

One opportunity would be for the Secretary of State simply to replicate what the Lord Chancellor does. The Lord Chancellor has recently had a consultation on how to fix deferment rates and has come up with a short-term rate and a long-term rate. It seems odd to me to have two totally separate systems in the Government for basically coming to the same decision—that is, deciding what the long-term rate is on a risk-free investment. I wonder whether my noble friend the Minister has had discussions with the Lord Chancellor’s department to see whether we can have a common approach to this important issue.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, for me, this is a very technical set of amendments, but they are very important. As we have heard, this issue can have significant implications.

I always go back to first principles. One of the aims of the Bill is to make enfranchisement cheaper than it is currently, and so more readily available. However, as we have heard, that will entirely depend on the deferment rate and how it is set. My understanding was that the current deferment rate was set by the Court of Appeal in 2007, as the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, said. The debate is around whether it is right for that to continue; whether another process should be used, such as that proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Borwick, in his amendment about using the bank rate as a base for setting a deferment rate; or whether, as in the Bill, the responsibility is passed to the Secretary of State to determine the deferment rate. I have to agree with the noble Lords, Lord Moylan and Lord Young of Cookham, that the latter does not seem right.

When I was investigating the deferment rate issue, I noticed that Homehold Services Ltd gave evidence to the Commons Public Bill Committee that was very telling. It criticised the fact that the “applicable deferment rate” was referenced throughout the Bill

“without specifying what this will be”.

It provided an example of what effect a change in the deferment rate could have on the cost of enfranchisement. It said:

“A lease extension … on a £200k flat with 80 years unexpired and no ground rent would be c. £4,000”.


That is the example given by Homehold Services Ltd; as it is one of the experts, I thought it might be right. It continues:

“If the deferment rate was reduced from 5% to 4%, the premium would increase to c. £8,500. At 3.5% it would be … £12,000”.


Those small changes in percentages have very high consequences for the leaseholders. This is important—that is what the evidence told me when I read it.

The argument from Homehold Services Ltd was that the deferment rate must be set no lower than that set by the appeal judgment in 2007. Otherwise, the consequence is that the rate can escalate considerably, as the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, pointed out. The cost of enfranchisement would increase, removing the ability of many leaseholders to continue with the process—contrary to one of the objectives of the Bill. Can the Minister say what consideration the Government have given to the deferment rate?

The noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, said that the Chancellor’s department has had a consultation on this and come up with some figures. Why are those not being adopted in this instance to set the rate in the Bill? As we have heard, it is very important to know exactly what the deferment rate will be. I do not believe that it is satisfactory to leave the applicable deferment rate to be set by a statutory instrument some time in the future. Surely, if the Government’s intentions are as they are set out in the Bill—to make it cheaper for leaseholders to enfranchise—one of the key rates must be this one. Therefore, I would have thought that we would want to see it set during the course of this Bill, rather than wait for a statutory instrument.

I have a lot of sympathy with the arguments that have been made by the mover of the amendment and others about the need for certainty here, rather than a principle and uncertainty as to the exact figure at which the deferment rate will be set.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Young of Cookham]

54: After Clause 45, insert the following new Clause—
“Crown Application(1) For section 33 of the LRA 1967, substitute—“33A Crown land(1) References in this Act to “Landlord”, include the Crown Estate and the Crown where the Crown Estate or the Crown hold freehold land subject to long leases, howsoever such freehold land is held or acquired, including land falling to the Crown as demesne, or by Escheat.(2) The prevailing standard method of dealing with lease enfranchisement in the market, is the method of valuation and calculation of fees for enfranchisement, the extension of leases, or grant of a new freehold title for Escheat land held by the Crown Estate, the Crown, in accordance with this Act, and applies to all leaseholders seeking to enfranchise their leases.”(2) LRHUDA 1993 is amended as follows.(3) Omit section 88.(4) For section 94, substitute—“94A Crown Application(1) References in this Act to “Reversioner” and “Landlord”, include the Crown Estate and the Crown where the Crown Estate or the Crown hold freehold land subject to long leases, howsoever such freehold land is held or acquired, including land falling to the Crown as demesne, or by Escheat. (2) The prevailing standard method of dealing with lease enfranchisement in the market, is the method of valuation and calculation of fees for enfranchisement, the extension of leases, or grant of a new freehold title for Escheat land held by the Crown Estate, the Crown, in accordance with this Act, and applies to all leaseholders seeking to enfranchise their leases.””

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, this amendment deals with the obscure but important issue of escheat, which I suspect will empty the Chamber. When I was a Minister and put the 1993 leasehold Bill on the statute book, I made a statement to Parliament that, although the Crown was not bound by the various leasehold reform Acts, it would in practice follow the provision of such Acts relating to enfranchisement, lease extensions and collective freehold purchases.

However, there is a difference between where the Crown holds a freehold and accepts the responsibility of a landlord and where the Crown holds the land in escheat. William the Conqueror decreed that, henceforth, all land in the realm belonged to the Crown. The Crown would grant fee simple—freehold interests held from the Crown—on the one hand and leasehold interests on the other. Thus, where a freeholder dies without a beneficiary who can inherit the land, or where a freeholder company is liquidated, the asset falls back to the Crown. If the Treasury Solicitor disclaims the land, it falls into escheat and the original title is extinguished.

This creates a problem, and I apologise for talking legalese. If a non-escheat freehold is vested in the bona vacantia division of the Treasury Solicitor, existing tenants can, as per my statement to Parliament, serve notice on the Treasury Solicitor of their intent to enfranchise their leases, collectively or otherwise. The current government guidelines, set out on GOV.UK, then apply. That is form BVC4. The premium payable is calculated by a straightforward multiplier of the ground rent, plus a contribution to the Treasury Solicitor’s legal costs.

However, where land falling into escheat previously comprised a freehold subject to long leases, the Crown accepts no responsibility as the landlord. It neither collects the rent nor complies with the landlord covenants under the long leases. More importantly, with reference to escheat land, the Crown does not currently accept any responsibility under the leasehold reform Acts. This gives no opportunity for the long lease holders affected to extend their leases or purchase the freehold, pursuant to the provision of the leasehold reform Acts. They are left in limbo. It is worth remembering that, where properties are owned freehold by private individuals or companies, qualifying leasehold owners in those properties have a legal right under the Acts to enfranchise, unlike where the freehold is held in escheat.

The Crown can offer the sale of a new title, subject to the existing leases, or respond to an application by tenants to enfranchise but, crucially, it is not bound by any guidelines or formula, as would be the case under the said Acts. It arbitrarily sets its own legal and valuation fees without any mechanism for control. Equally, there is no formula for calculating the price, so in practice the Crown can ask what it wants, plus the costly fees of the private consultant lawyers and valuers, on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. This is at odds with its stated policy to return assets it controls to private ownership quickly and efficiently.

The impact of what I have just described clearly conflicts with the stated intent of the Bill—namely,

“to amend the rights of tenants under long residential leases to acquire the freeholds of their houses, to extend the leases of their houses or flats, and to collectively enfranchise or manage the buildings containing their flats”.

By way of illustration, I have been made aware of a case where the Crown Estate is demanding an inflated premium, plus expensive private consultant lawyers’ and valuers’ fees, which total four times the total cost of what the premium and fees for an enfranchisement would be under the BVC4 formula that I mentioned a few moments ago. This is not justifiable or equitable, and it is wrong that, where the asset is effectively controlled by the state, namely through part of the same government department, the Treasury, this behaviour should take place.

As the unexpired term of the leases becomes shorter, it becomes increasingly difficult and costly for these leaseholders to raise capital on the asset. The inevitable result is that many leasehold owners are unable to afford the inflated premium and the fees demanded by the Crown to ensure that the housing stock is compliant and fit for purpose. So long lease holders where escheat applies are left powerless and exposed to the whim of the Crown’s legal consultants and surveyor representatives. These anomalies need to be brought into the 21st century to keep in step with the intent of the Bill.

My amendment is designed to provide a level and equitable playing field for all long leasehold owners. The Crown must accept that all Crown land, whether held in escheat or otherwise, must be subject to the provisions of the various leasehold reform Acts, subject to specific exceptions only where land is of a nationally sensitive nature.

To conclude, I hope that my noble friend will undertake to get those assurances that I have just referred to from the Crown Estate and the Treasury. I beg to move.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, I follow that interesting speech by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, which explained his amendment clearly. It may be that the amendments in my name in this group, Amendments 93A and 106, are not necessary—but I am not certain yet, because it is a complicated subject, shrouded in mystery and secrecy sometimes. So I should like to speak to those two amendments as well and hope that we can have some good discussions, meetings and so on, between now and Report with the noble Baroness the Minister to see whether there is a solution.

My amendments refer only to the Duchy of Cornwall: let us be quite clear about that. That is partly because I do not think that the other two members of the Crown need it in the way that I am speaking, because they do not have lots of residential properties. Secondly, if one reads the Law Commission report, which went into some detail, one sees that the Crown Estates and the Duchy of Lancaster both agreed to comply with what the Law Commission recommended, whereas the Duchy of Cornwall did not. So we need to we need to consider some special legislation to cover just the Duchy of Cornwall’s ownership of land.

The other reason for saying this is that the Duchy of Cornwall, unlike the other two Crown groups, is in the private sector. It states quite clearly on its website that it is in the private sector. The argument is that it should be treated differently from other big estates, such as Cadogan, Richmond, Devonshire, and so on. They are all in the private sector and my understanding is that, whether they like it or not, they are going to go along with whatever happens with this legislation when it is accepted. But the Duchy of Cornwall will not do so.

I live in the Isles of Scilly, as noble Lords probably know, and I have a number of friends who have been trying to enfranchise and have been turned down. It is not a question of them looking for a 99-year or 999-year lease. Some of them want 50-year leases and they cannot have them, either, because the Duchy does not like it. So nobody who leases from the Duchy of Cornwall at the moment can enfranchise. That is unfair on the people who live there. The population is about 2,500 and they should be treated like everyone else in this country. Whatever the legislation says, they should do it.

The duchy’s argument, which goes to some length and is repeated in the Law Commission’s report, states all the wonderful things that the duchy does as a kind of landlord in Scilly. Well, it is not really true. The Scillies have a council, a local authority, like any other area. They have a Member of Parliament, water services and national landscape designation. I could go on with a long list of all the organisations, but the environmental concerns are properly looked after and there are even marine protected areas around there. I think the people of the Isles of Scilly would say that they are well set up to manage themselves, just like any other part of the UK. I am grateful to the Minister for meeting me and for the correspondence we have had, but trying to find some solutions is important.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My answer is that I am not sure, but I will make sure that I let the noble Lord know. If we can do that, obviously we will.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mann, for reminding us that it is often a rather one-sided battle, with leaseholders confronted by freeholders with massive resources. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for her support for my amendment.

As far as the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, is concerned, I have happy memories of replying when I was on the Front Bench to his Duchy of Cornwall Bill. He spoke at somewhat greater length on that occasion about the need for major reform of the Duchy.

On the specific issue that I raised, I am not expecting any legislative change because my noble friend said, quite rightly, that the Crown is not bound by legislation, but she said on several occasions that the Crown would act by analogy with the terms of the leasehold Acts. I think that gives me what I want, so long as it covers the Crown acting as freeholder as well as the Crown acting as owner of land in escheat. At the moment, that is not the case. At the end of my remarks, I asked whether my noble friend would be good enough to get the necessary assurance from the Crown Estate and the Treasury that they would deal with escheat applications in the same way as applications for where they are the freeholder.

I am grateful to my noble friend for her sympathetic reply. I think I can build on the undertaking that she has given to make some progress. I do not want to wait until the Law Commission has gone round the course all over again, whenever that may be. The leases that I referred to are coming towards the end of their time, and each delay adds to the potential cost for the leaseholders.

I hope we can make progress without waiting for a Law Commission report. It is simply a case of the Crown acting equitably and doing exactly what my noble friend has said: acting by analogy and delivering the laws that have been passed by Parliament. On that basis, I am happy to withdraw the amendment at this stage.

Amendment 54 withdrawn.

Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 1st May 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, who has been at the forefront of the campaign to extend protection to leaseholders since the Building Safety Act was passed. I say at the beginning that I will miss the contributions to our debates from the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, who was a regular contributor to housing debates and spoke with great authority.

This group of amendments is for many leaseholders the most important, and it differs from the rest of the Bill. The rest of the Bill gives rights to leaseholders that they did not have when they bought their lease. This group restores rights that leaseholders thought they had when they bought the lease but have now discovered that they did not. That right was to live in a building that complied with the safety regulations at the time. These leaseholders took all the necessary precautions, employing professional people before buying, but now find that they are faced with unaffordable bills, unsaleable properties and, quite often, repossession. As the noble Earl referred to, the Sunday Times revealed that more than 15,000 residents have been forced to leave homes due to fire or fire safety defects. These decants are on the rise, with residents decanted from 21 buildings last year. Until these injustices are addressed, the Bill, with its new rights, is meaningless to those leaseholders.

I welcome the steps the Government have taken through the Building Safety Act, and I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for patiently listening to me during our many meetings. But despite the steps forward in recent years, there is still a gap between what the Government promised at the outset and where we are now. I will not repeat the quotes I gave at Second Reading but here is one I did not use, from Michael Gove:

“Most importantly, leaseholders are shouldering a desperately unfair burden. They are blameless, and it is morally wrong that they should be the ones asked to pay the price”.—[Official Report, Commons, 10/1/22; col. 283.]


I will come back in a moment to those who fall outside the protection.

Amendment 102 asks for a progress report. It covers the same ground as my Amendment 101, which was down for Monday but which I was unable to speak to owing to an aggressive Covid jab over the weekend. I am grateful to Giles Grover and the team at End Our Cladding Scandal for their briefing.

According to the department’s own figures on overall remediation, of the 4,329 buildings identified with unsafe cladding, over half had not started remediation at the end of March this year—seven years after Grenfell. Only 23%, 976 buildings, have completed remediation works. Within that overall figure there are 1,501 buildings 11 metres and over in height that have life-critical fire safety defects and where developers have committed to remediate or pay to remediate, but over half have not started remediation. Some 1,001 of the developers’ buildings have not even been assessed.

Looking at the cladding safety scheme, there are now 1,105 buildings within the scheme after the pilot was launched in November 2022. Work has been completed on not one. Work has started on two and the rest are in various stages, the largest number being in “pre-application”. Nor am I reassured by the statement by the department:

“All residential buildings above 11 metres in England have a pathway to fix unsafe cladding, either through a taxpayer-funded scheme or through a developer-funded scheme, protecting leaseholders from these costs”.


Having a pathway is like a traveller having a map. It does not follow that he has begun his journey. Where there is grant funding, the money is not being disbursed at pace. Because of these delays, the department had to surrender nearly a quarter of a billion pounds to the Treasury last year. We need a firm grip and oversight of remediation through the available schemes—which have no visible oversight or co-ordination—and that is what Amendment 102 provides.

The rest of my amendments have broadly the same objective as those tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, while getting there by a slightly different route. They would ensure that the Building Safety Act operates as intended, as was the Government’s stated objective in the King’s Speech last year. On Amendment 96, on buildings under 11 metres, the department’s view was set out by the Minister, Lee Rowley, on 22 April:

“Of those, we can count on one hand where there has been a problem. We are working with each of those three buildings to make the progress we need to make”.—[Official Report, Commons, 22/4/24; col. 636.]


Those three require full remediation but leaseholders are now reliant on the good will of their developer, without any mechanism in place to compel work to take place to the necessary standard. In Inside Housing on 26 April, it was reported that there are 586 homes under 11 metres in Barnet with defective cladding. One 25% shared owner has a bill of £23,000, and this falls outside the Building Safety Act. The other 75% is owned by a housing association, Notting Hill Genesis, which has said that under the terms of the lease the shared owner is responsible for all remediation costs. Mortgage lending on buildings under 11 metres is still inconsistent. Based on data from four or five mortgage lenders, an EWS1 certificate was deemed to be required for mortgage valuations on approximately 2,000 low-rise flats last year, although the Government have said that it is not necessary.

Insurance in low-rise buildings is another quagmire, with several insurers mandating work as a requirement of providing cover. There are many cases of difficulties with insurance; I cite only one. Aviva was the only insurer that would give cover on one low-rise block, but on the condition that HPL cladding would be removed within an urgent timeframe of four months. The judge at the First-tier Tribunal hearings was satisfied that this was the case, having seen the correspondence. There was no means of funding other than leaseholders. Cladding was removed in 2022 as instructed. It has taken two years to raise funds to replace the cladding, with the replacement due to begin in February 2024. The total cost will be £45,000 per leaseholder.

I remain concerned over resident-owned—or enfranchised —buildings, which were referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and are covered by Amendment 99. Last November the department issued a press release confirming that this Bill would

“include measures to amend the Building Safety Act 2022 to make it easier to ensure that those who caused building-safety defects in enfranchised buildings are made to pay”.

Five months later, it remains unclear what measures these will be. Those who were encouraged by the Government to take ownership and control of their buildings remain beset with uncertainty on how and when their homes will be made safe. They do not have the protection afforded to those who did not enfranchise. The same press release also said that the Government would ensure that

“the leaseholder protections are not unfairly weighted against those who own properties jointly”.

This is addressed in Amendment 100. This is known as the marriage penalty, whereby a couple owning four properties together do not have this part-ownership accounted for in the leaseholder protection, despite tax law recognising this pro rata weighting. A call for evidence on this was opened in early April. However, time seems to be running out for the Government’s commitments to be kept in respect of joint-owner leaseholders—unless my noble friend can tell me otherwise.

The Secretary of State has repeatedly expressed his desire to ensure that

“those with the broadest shoulders must pay”,

so Amendment 100 would also help those who invested in buy to let but whose shoulders are not broad. It would ensure that all received protection for the first three flats that they owned, rather than the current cliff edge, and introduce a leaseholder wealth criterion, which is the same basis on which freeholders and developers are tested to assess whether they have the means to pay. The department is well aware of the case of Malcolm in Salford, a leaseholder of a number of properties with a total value below £1 million, who asked the department for help two years ago but has now been forced to enter into bankruptcy. Who will now pay his share of the remediation costs?

Finally, that amendment would end

“the distinction between qualifying and non-qualifying leases once prescribed conditions are met”—

once remediation is complete. This would ensure that the value of flats owned by leaseholders who are still deemed to be non-qualifying would be returned to somewhere near their market value without the severe impairment that non-qualifying leases currently suffer, even where no work is required.

Without this set of amendments, ordinary people across the country will still shoulder a desperately unfair burden, still face financial ruin and still be no closer to moving on with their lives, all at odds with the assurances that Ministers have given. I know my noble friend is sympathetic and I look forward to her reply.

[The Lord Bishop of Lincoln]

My Lords, I stand to support the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham. My right reverend friend the Bishop of Manchester has put his name to the amendments and regrets that he cannot be in his place today. As we have heard, the Building Safety Act 2022 contained welcome measures to address historic building safety defects, but the fact remains, as other noble Lords have noted, that it does not go nearly far enough. Seven years on from the Grenfell fire, only 21% of high-rise blocks have been fully remediated—and they are the ones that are eligible; there remain gaps in provision where leaseholders are disqualified for such arbitrary reasons as their block being 10.9 metres tall rather than, say, 11.1. The Act disqualifies huge numbers of people who are now trapped in potentially unsafe flats which they will struggle to sell. They might face very high bills through service charges and insurance premiums.

My right reverend friend’s diocese of Manchester has been identified, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Young, as one of the areas most at risk from inadequate cladding. More than 20 buildings have been identified with ACM cladding in both Manchester and Salford, and in Salford between six and 10 of those are yet to be remediated. The measures are not being implemented fast enough, which is why I also support the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, which would require a statement to Parliament on progress, because, clearly, more scrutiny is needed. But for those buildings which are ineligible for support entirely, a statement to Parliament does not go far enough. Does the Minister believe that living on the top floor of a block of 11.5 metres is significantly safer than living on the top floor of a block of 11 metres, where both have flammable cladding? Beyond this obvious safety issue, my right reverend friend has received correspondence evidencing the difficulties that some leaseholders face in selling ineligible properties due to the difficulties in obtaining a mortgage on those flats. Will the Minister commit to ending this injustice once and for all?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, I declare a non-financial interest in having worked with the Property Institute and other groups that have supported this area for many years. Also, as the noble Lord, Lord Best, alluded to, I chaired a committee working on one aspect of this matter, which I will come to shortly.

As the noble Lord said, it is quite unusual for this call for regulation to come not only from the consumers who would benefit but from the professionals already working in the field. It is virtually unanimous; in fact, among the organised groups, it is unanimous that this is the regulation under which they would like to work. The agencies and their representative bodies are waiting for this to happen.

As has just been described, in a way the reasons are obvious, not only outside but within this House. We know that, as was mentioned, the Best report was welcomed, I think universally; the Select Committee on Industry and Regulators has called for it to happen; and in the world outside there is still an expectation—a hope—that this might happen. A number of us want an election soon but we could even put it off—if that would be the only thing needed to get this through, we will put up with more of this Government.

It is fairly obvious that housing is not just bricks and mortar. Homes are fundamental to people’s financial and emotional well-being. Get this right, and their own quality of life improves dramatically. Get it wrong, and it is debilitating, stressful and expensive. It starts, of course, with the purchase, or indeed the sale, of a leasehold property, which is a more complicated transaction than simply buying a freehold house. So even at that stage, transparency, clarity, openness and proper explanation by estate agents are essential, and so, therefore, is the need for their expertise in these specialist areas of purchase and sale.

However, even once it has happened and you are living in the leasehold property, that can be a particularly fraught arrangement. With leasehold management there is a three-way relationship between the landlord, the resident—that is, the leaseholder or the owner—and the managing agent. Marriages with three in are always a bit complicated, but in this case, of course, you have the managing agent, who is appointed by the landlord but who has duties and, even more importantly, a close working relationship with the leaseholder. That adds an element of necessary expertise in how to handle it.

As important is the complexity of the law involved in this. It covers particular rights that are different from those associated with a freehold house. There are the safety issues, which have been well rehearsed in Committee. There are consumer issues and fiduciary duties, as well as myriad external bodies and requirements that have to be met. Frankly, managing agency is no task for an amateur. Agents need to be trained in ethics as well as the law and building regulations, and they need to be checked to ensure that they are fit and proper to handle both people’s money and their safety, and to prepare all the legal and other paperwork essential for running a complex operation. That is why we require regulation and oversight of this important profession.

As was mentioned, a code of conduct is needed across the industry, not simply to provide the requirements on agents but, importantly, to enable consumers to understand and thus to be able to enforce their rights. As the noble Lord, Lord Best, said, a cross-industry group that I had the privilege to chair and whose outcome was welcomed by the department has prepared the code and it is ready and waiting, so the work in setting up this regulatory body would be less than otherwise. It is there, ready and waiting for the legislation to make adherence to that code a legal requirement. That is the key to professionalising the industry and enhancing the experience of all who deal with managing agents—landlords and leaseholders alike.

It is not sufficient, welcome though it might be, to have an ombudsman to adjudicate and put things right when things have gone wrong. We need to prevent problems arising, which means raising standards, ensuring compliance, requiring training and qualification, and continuing professional development in a world of statutory requirements that seem to be changing, not just year by year but month by month, as is the technology involved in building, which we know about.

The Best way is the only way. Let us give the noble Lord what he has been asking for for so long and just get this report into law—let us get on with it. I am delighted to support Amendment 94.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I will add a very brief footnote to the excellent speeches made by the noble Lord, Lord Best, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter.

The point I want to make is that the market is changing. We are moving away from a position where the freehold of blocks of flats was owned by the Grosvenor estates, Cadogan Estates, the Portman Estate —professional freeholders—and they were well able to choose responsible managing agents and keep an eye on them. We are moving away from that to a position where more and more of the blocks of flats are owned by the leaseholders. It is a trend that I that I welcome—indeed, the Bill accentuates that trend—and eventually we will end up with commonhold. Against that background, it becomes even more important that the managing agents should be professional. The background is changing and the need for this is now much more urgent than it was a few years ago.

I very much hope that the Government will be able to respond to the eloquence of the noble Lord, Lord Best, and introduce regulation of managing agents. However, if they cannot, he hinted at two intermediate steps, which I think the Government might be able to take. One is requiring mandatory qualifications. As the noble Lord said, these have already been introduced for the social housing sector and could be expanded to protect leaseholders and private tenants. The second thing the Government could do, which the noble Lord also mentioned, is to introduce the mandatory code of practice, drawing on his working group on the regulation of property agents—this case was well made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter.

The Government could do one final thing which has not been mentioned so far. There is a government document called the How to Lease guide, and they could make that a mandatory document to be shared with consumers who purchase a leasehold property, in exactly the same way in which landlords and agents must provide the How to Rent guide to tenants. Therefore, if my noble friend cannot go the whole hog, I very much hope that she can smile warmly on intermediate steps, which might then pave the way to the final introduction of regulation of managing agents in the very near future.

[Lord Truscott (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I am pleased to follow the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, and I agree with the comments that he just made. I remind the Committee that I have been a leaseholder for around 30 years, and over that time I have dealt with several property management companies.

I wholeheartedly support Amendment 94 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Best and Lord Young of Cookham, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town and Lady Taylor of Stevenage. I pay tribute to the dogged determination of the noble Lord, Lord Best, in pursuing the reform and regulation of property agents over a number of years, and, of course, to the sterling work of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town.

I fail to see why His Majesty’s Government should not support this amendment in full. I also fail to see why the Government have failed to bring forward their own measures to regulate property agents, which, as we have heard, are long overdue. I know that the Minister will say that this is all very complicated and requires detailed and thoughtful legislation, that she will describe how property managing agents are making voluntary strides to improve their standards and operation, and how there are redress schemes in place. However, I do not really buy that argument. This amendment gives His Majesty’s Government two years to lay down regulations to regulate property agents. That is enough time even for this Government, and if not them, then certainly for the next one.

No other sector I know of handles potentially millions of pounds of other people’s money but is unregulated by statute. The City of London looks at property management companies aghast given the lack of oversight. I will give some practical examples of why property management companies should be effectively regulated, following the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Best.

Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading
Friday 24th May 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Gascoigne (Con)]

My Lords, before I start, I declare that my wife is an employee of the Crown Estate, as set out in my ministerial register of interests.

Government Amendments 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 59, 64 and 65 are clarificatory amendments of a minor and technical nature to ensure that the Bill operates as intended. Amendments 3 and 7 give effect to the Government’s announced exemption for accepted sites on Crown land. Amendments 54, 55, 56, 57 and 58 relate to legal costs; they introduce a power to set exemptions to Clause 61 and a power to suspend the application requirement until an event set out in regulation occurs. The amendments provide for flexibility to make sensible exemptions and to recognise the position of certain landlords—those in resident-led buildings, for example.

Amendments 10, 12, 14 and 27 are minor and technical amendments relating to the application of the Bill to leaseholders holding over. Amendments 38, 39 and 41 are also minor and technical to ensure that the new valuation scheme will operate in the way it was intended. Amendments 18, 28, 42 and 43 clarify the methodology for intermediate release. Amendment 26 would clarify that there is an order of priority to Part 4 of Schedule 4. Amendment 11 relates to lease extensions and clarifies that the notional lease is granted by the person granting the extended lease. Amendment 60 and 61 correct drafting errors in Clauses 80 and 91.

These amendments are essential for the effective functioning of the Bill. I hope that noble Lords will support them. I beg to move.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I rise briefly to press my noble friend on Amendment 1. The Bill bans new houses being sold on leasehold, which is something I entirely support. Schedule 1 provides a rather narrow range of exemptions and Amendment 1 refers to retirement housing.

I raised in Committee a product called Homes for Life, which looks as if it may be caught by this Bill. Basically, Homes for Life enables someone who is over 60 to sell their home on the open market, then Homes for Life buys the home they want to move to and gives them a lease on that home. That enables the person to downsize and releases a useful sum of money for them. However, that product is not at the moment exempted under Schedule 1. When the Government consulted on implementing reforms to the leasehold system they concluded:

“We will provide an exemption from the ban for these financial products”.—[Official Report, Commons, 22/4/24; col. 1271.]


That included this one. I was in correspondence with the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, about this. Can my noble friend give an assurance that that product, which is useful and non-controversial, will not be banned by the Bill when it becomes an Act?

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, before I go further, I declare that I am a long leaseholder in a property which is my home and that I have no other property interests, apart from as a will trustee of one flat in London in which I have no beneficial interest, simply a nominal interest on behalf of the beneficiary of the will during his lifetime.

I shall respond in particular to Amendments 55 and 58 among the government amendments, because they address a point that I have raised. I am slightly surprised that my noble friend on the Front Bench did not seek to draw my attention to this fact. It is a point that I raised in Committee and on which I have a related amendment later in the list, which we will no doubt come to—but if I address it now, I can be briefer when we come to that group later on.

The matter relates in particular to the question that I raised in Committee about the ability of landlords to recover legal costs from the service charge and, in particular, how this would work for right-to-manage companies. I should have declared that in the block where I live we have a right-to-manage company, and I am a member and a director of that company. How would this ban relate to right-to-manage companies that have no other source of income apart from the service charge? Before these amendments were brought forward, the Bill would have made it virtually impossible for a right-to-manage company to bring legal action against, for example, a defaulter or someone who failed to pay, because they would have no assurance in advance that they would be able to recover their legal costs. The directors would be exposed to having to pay the legal costs out of their own pockets—quite apart from the fact that most lawyers like a little bit of money upfront anyway in order to commence proceedings, so that would need to be funded from the private pockets of the directors of the company. My amendment later also raises this question in relation to other types of non-profit landlord or building managers who have no financial interest in the building other than in their role as manager.

The Government’s response—and here I am making the speech I was expecting my noble friend to make in relation to these two amendments—appears to be that the Secretary of State will make regulations subject to the affirmative procedure to provide for circumstances where the new proposed regime on litigation costs and administration charges will not apply or is suspended.

This appears to be something of a concession in the direction of the point I raised in Committee and have on the amendment paper later. But the drafting and Explanatory Notes provide no guidance on when such regulations will be made or what the intention is behind such exemptions. It is worth saying here that the amendments provide that the circumstances on which the exceptions may be based include not only the litigation costs but the relevant proceedings and the landlord of a specified description. As I say, this could be beneficial for freeholders in the circumstances I described, but it depends very much on the content of the regulations.

I would like to ask my noble friend some questions. We are in the very strange position that I am asking him to give a commitment when, subject to the will of the electorate, he may not be a member of the Government and the Government on behalf of whom he speaks may not be in power. I say nothing to anticipate what the result may be, but of course the electorate may choose a Government of a different party. I will none the less ask him these questions and, in some ways, I would be very grateful if the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, might find it possible to give his own answer to these questions.

The first question is: what types of litigation costs, proceedings or landlords do the Government intend to be excepted from the general rule? I am sorry, normally I am better prepared, but of course very few of us are well prepared for dealing with this Bill because it has been added so late to the agenda. I suspect my noble friend on the Front Bench is in that category as well, from the turn of the head I noticed on his part just now.

Could these exceptions also extend to certain categories of leaseholders, for example investor leaseholders who might benefit from the general rule? Crucially, within what timeframe will such regulations be made? There is of course no commitment to timeframes in the amendments that have been made. The difficulty is that directors of right-to-manage companies and others are being left in a sort of limbo between the passing of this Bill and the coming into effect of the regulations.

One must also bear in mind that directors of right-to-manage companies and similar landlords may be the subject of legal action. Their ability to recover their own legal costs in defending such actions is also a question that needs to be resolved—and clearly resolved. If people such as me are going to continue as directors of right-to-manage companies, they will potentially find themselves exposed to that sort of risk.

So, as far as these two amendments go, I welcome their general direction. I find it deeply unsatisfactory that we are having to rely on the promise of a Secretary of State who may not be in office in six weeks. I would prefer my own approach, later on the Marshalled List, of putting these provisions on the face of the Bill. I seek a very clear response from my noble friend so that the many people in this country who have pursued right-to-manage, which is a policy the Government support and wish to extend—and I wholly support them in that—are not left adrift by ill thought out drafting in this Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Young of Cookham]

44: After Clause 46, insert the following new Clause—
“Abolition of forfeiture of a long lease(1) This section applies to any right of forfeiture or re-entry in relation to a dwelling held on a long lease which arises either—(a) under the terms of that lease, or(b) under or in consequence of section 146(1) of the Law of Property Act 1925.(2) The rights referred to in subsection (1) are abolished.(3) In this section— “dwelling” means a building or part of a building occupied or intended to be occupied as a separate dwelling, together with any yard, garden, or outhouses and appurtenances belonging to it or usually enjoyed with it;“lease” means a lease at law or in equity and includes a sub-lease, but does not include a mortgage term;“long lease” has the meaning given by sections 76 and 77 of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would abolish the right of forfeiture in relation to residential long leases in instances where the leaseholder is in breach of covenant.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, this will give my noble friends Lord Moylan and Lord Howard an opportunity to catch their breath. At the beginning of our proceedings, the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, picked up the Marshalled List, waved it in a state of mild indignation and demanded to know where was the amendment on forfeiture. My noble friend the Minister said it was not there, but here it is, in my name rather than the Government’s.

The position on forfeiture is very simple. At the moment, a tenant can lose possession of a flat worth £500,000 for a debt of £351, with the landlord keeping the entire difference between the value of the property and the debt. At Second Reading, this was condemned by nearly every speaker who spoke on it. When the Minister wound up, she said:

“We recognise that this is a real and significant problem and that there is huge inequity at stake here”.—[Official Report, 27/3/24; col. 704.]


The issue was raised again in Committee, and again my noble friend the Minister replied:

“We recognise that there is the potential for significant inequity”—


it had been a “huge” inequity; now it is a “significant” one—

“where a landlord stands to gain a windfall when a lease is forfeited. However, I reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, and the Committee that the Government have been listening to calls for us to act. The Government continue to work through the detail and we will report to the House shortly with more information”.—[Official Report, 24/4/24; col. 1552.]

Now is the opportunity to report to the House with more information.

Of course, I hope we might have an element of surprise in our proceedings and the Minister will get up and say that this amendment can be accepted, but I fear that the script in his folder begins “resist”. I put a direct question to my noble friend: exactly what progress has his department been able to make on this subject? It was raised at Second Reading in the other place many months ago, where the Minister recognised that this was an inequity, so they have had four or five months in which to address the problem. I want to know whether sufficient progress has been made for the Government, of whatever complexion, to provide me at the beginning of the next Parliament with a Private Member’s Bill that will simply put right this inequity of forfeiture. Actually, I had a Private Member’s Bill on this subject some time ago, so there is a template on which to build. If my noble friend cannot accept the amendment, can he give an undertaking that the necessary measures have been drafted and that they will be available to any Member who is successful in the ballot at the beginning of the next Parliament so that we can introduce this measure by a Private Member’s Bill if we cannot do it today? I beg to move.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, also drew attention to the lack of a clause in the Bill to reduce ground rents to a peppercorn, as promised several times by the Secretary of State in the other place. There is one, as there is one on forfeiture, that I have tabled, because I feel it is an important issue to include in the Bill. I tabled Amendment 45, which would enable a transition, over five years, of ground rent to a peppercorn. There is no justification for ground rents. It is a cost to leaseholders for no service provided as a consequence. I hope, because it is clearly government policy and it is clearly supported by those on the Opposition Benches and certainly by ours, that the Minister can stand up and have at least one amendment today that he does not have the word “resist” against.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Gascoigne (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions in this group. I thank my noble friends Lord Young and Lord Bailey of Paddington, and the noble Lord, Lord Truscott, for their amendments regarding forfeiture and service charge enforcement.

The upkeep and safety of buildings is paramount. Landlords, be they private companies or resident management companies, need an effective mechanism to recover unpaid debts, lest their costs fall to other leaseholders or to the detriment of the building’s upkeep. It is important to consider resident management companies in particular, which often have very limited access to other funds to cover any shortfall in the service charge fund. Having a robust and efficient way to enforce unpaid charges is therefore critical to ensure the efficiency and solvency of these resident-led companies. Equally, there are other breaches—unauthorised alterations, anti-social behaviour and use of a property for immoral purposes—that can be difficult and even impossible to remediate. In such cases, forfeiture may be the only effective way of putting a stop to the breaching behaviour. While well-intended, we do not believe that the abolition of forfeiture without a suitable replacement would ultimately serve the best interests of leaseholders, and in particular resident management companies.

My noble friend asked about progress in drafting. I hope he appreciates—it is with respect that I say this—that I do not think I am able to comment on what may happen or where that is, simply because I do not know who will be lucky enough to serve in the Government and answer that question after the election.

I turn to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Truscott. Unfortunately, we believe that this amendment does not achieve its stated aim of protecting leaseholders, crucially against forfeiture over non-payment of service charges. The Government recognise that those home owners who pay rentcharges face the threat of forfeiture. Part 7 of the Bill already removes the risk of forfeiture for unpaid arrears of income-supporting rentcharges, since the remedy is so disproportionate to the sums owed. The Bill also contains a robust package of protections for home owners who pay estate rentcharges.

I now move to the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. Noble Lords will be aware that the Government do not believe that it is appropriate that many leaseholders face unregulated ground rents for no clear service in return. The Government have already legislated to put an end to ground rents for most new residential properties in England and Wales through the Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Act 2022. We have also encouraged work led by the Competition and Markets Authority to investigate abuses of the system, such as the mis-sold doubling ground rent leases, securing commitments from freeholders to remove these costly terms, benefitting more than 20,000 leaseholders. Given where we are in the parliamentary timetable, I hope noble Lords will understand that we cannot accept an amendment on complex new policy at this stage.

I turn to Amendments 51 and 52 in the name of my noble friend Lord Bailey. I fully agree that it is important to have effective enforcement measures in place. Amendment 51 seeks to retain criminal sanctions for failure to provide information to leaseholders in a timely manner. The existing measures, including the statutory offence under the existing Section 25 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, have historically proven to be ineffective. Local housing authorities, as the enforcement body, were reluctant to bring prosecutions against landlords, and the cost and complexity of doing so were a significant barrier to leaseholders bringing a private prosecution. That is why we are replacing it with a more effective and proportionate proposal, set out in Clause 57.

Amendment 52 would require landlords to account to all leaseholders where costs were found to be unreasonable and would impose a two-month limit on repayments to leaseholders. It would introduce a power to enable the appropriate tribunal to award interest on any determination in favour of the leaseholder, where a leaseholder has made an application. While I agree that there must be a robust regime in place to challenge service charges, we do not think that this is the right approach.

Landlords may wish to compensate leaseholders by offering a credit against future service charges rather than returning money, and a leaseholder may prefer this. In addition, the Court of Appeal held in 2022 that a tribunal decision of the type to which my noble friend refers is a determination of whether the service charge is payable and not of whether it is due. Therefore, although the amendment is well-intentioned, it would not be possible to implement in the form drafted.

As I have said, I would have liked to go further, and indeed that was the intention, but we are in wash-up. With that, I hope my noble friend will withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

I am grateful to my noble friend for responding to the debate and to all those who took part, particularly my noble friends Lord Bailey and Lord Moylan for supporting my amendment on forfeiture, as well as the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy. Interestingly, we have had a debate on protecting the interests of leaseholders wedged between a series of debates on protecting the interests of freeholders.

I was a little disappointed by my noble friend’s reply, because Ministers have conceded that we have an inequity here. It is my view that, had we had a normal Report stage at the beginning of next month, the Government would have come forward with their own amendment to deal with what they conceded was an inequity. I was gently trying to find out what progress had been made with drafting a clause to deal with this, and whether sufficient progress had been made for a Private Member’s Bill to be brought forward in the next Parliament. I understand that my noble friend can make no commitments about who will be at the Dispatch Box, but it would be in the general interest, given that there is unanimity that this is a bad law and should be repealed, if we could be told that good progress had been made in government and that legislation was available. Having grumbled about that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 44 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Young of Cookham]

62: After Clause 109, insert the following new Clause—
“Training and qualifications of property agents(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations require that individuals undertaking the activities of a property agent in respect of—(a) estate management of leasehold properties, (b) sale of leasehold properties, and(c) sale of freehold properties subject to estate management or service chargesmust have, or be working toward, specific mandatory qualifications, as defined by regulations made under subsection (2), to demonstrate competency to undertake their property agency roles.(2) Regulations under this section—(a) are to be made by statutory instrument,(b) may make provision generally or only in relation to specific cases,(c) may make different provision for different purposes,(d) may include supplementary, incidental, or transitional provision,(e) may specify classes or types of employees who must be qualified and the appropriate qualification level for each such group,(f) may specify syllabuses and testing methods for qualifications,(g) may specify means of training provision and minimum training hours, and(h) may approve providers for the provision of training and qualifications.(3) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section is subject to the negative procedure.”

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I hear the bell ringing as we enter the last lap. This amendment is also in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Best, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, neither of whom can be in their places at the moment. It deals with the regulation of property managing agents.

In 2017, the Government committed themselves to regulating property managing agents to,

“protect leaseholders and freeholders alike”.

They then set up a working group, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Best, which reported in 2019. In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Best, introduced Amendment 94, which would have empowered the Secretary of State to establish an independent, statutory regulator of property agents who sell and manage leasehold property. It received widespread support from all sides of the House, but was a step too far for the Government.

The amendment before us this afternoon is in fact slightly weaker. It does not require the Government to set up that organisation; it simply requires mandatory qualifications of property managing agents. This is something that the Government have already done for the social housing sector, and it could quite easily be expanded to protect leaseholders and private tenants. I beg to move.

[Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)]

My Lords, I speak to my Amendment 67. When Parliament passed the Building Safety Act 2022, there was a major error within it. Anyone could be an accountable person except a manager appointed under Section 24 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987. Section 24 is a lifeline right for flat leaseholders with bad landlords, sky-high service charges and rundown buildings. Again, I return to my theme of control and the ability to remove a bad freeholder and a bad landlord—not a good one. Sadly, by barring Section 24 managers from being an accountable person, or at least from assuming that function, Section 24 is blown up.

Again, I just say that these are practical things that leaseholders will need. I believe that Labour colleagues also support this amendment. I would really like to hear from my noble friend the Minister why this cannot be done. It is a practical step, it does not seem to have any cost, and it would make a great deal of difference to the leaseholders involved.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Gascoigne (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Best, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and my noble friends Lord Bailey of Paddington and Lord Young for their amendments, and all who have spoken in the final group of this Bill.

I will start with the amendments regarding the regulation of property agents. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Best—I appreciate he is not here—for raising the issue with the Minister recently; I know that it is something which he is passionate about, and I hope that he continues to engage extensively with the noble Baroness, Lady Scott. The Government are committed to driving up professionalism and standards among property agents. Leaseholders deserve a good service for the money they pay, whether that is from from their landlord or their managing agent, where one is in place. Industry plays an important role in driving up standards, and we welcome the ongoing work it is undertaking to support this. This includes industry-backed qualifications, as well as the preparations of codes of practice. Furthermore, the measures in the Bill, alongside existing protections in place and work being undertaken by industry, seek to make managing agents more accountable to those who pay for their services. That includes making it easier for leaseholders to take on management of their buildings themselves, where they can directly appoint or replace agents. The measures above will, I believe, contribute substantially to that objective.

In addition, we need to consider the question of standards for all property agents in the round rather than in a piecemeal fashion. That was the original purpose behind the idea of a regulator for property agents. While I recognise the intentions and desired outcomes of these amendments, I do not consider that now is the right time to introduce them.

I turn to Amendment 87. I trust that your Lordships will understand that the Government cannot accept these proposed amendments. Defining a Section 24 manager as “an accountable person” would move financial and criminal liabilities away from the existing accountable person to the Section 24 manager. It was the intent of the Building Safety Act that financial and criminal responsibility for certain aspects of maintaining the building should always remain with the accountable person and accountable persons cannot delegate this responsibility to a third party. Given these assurances, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment and that other noble Lords will not press their amendments.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all those who took part in this decade. I want to pick up a point raised by my noble friend Lord Bailey when he moved his amendment to the Building Safety Act, a point also picked up by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. Had this Bill proceeded in the normal way, there would have been a whole series of amendments to the Building Safety Act to deal with some of the problems mentioned by the noble Baroness but also to address the distinction between qualifying and non-qualifying leaseholders. I think there would have been a very good chance that we would have asked the other place to think again on a number of those issues—but that is for another day.

Yesterday, I think I had the last Oral Question and, unless something goes seriously wrong in another place, I may be the last speaker in this Parliament in this House. I take this opportunity to congratulate my noble friend Lord Gascoigne on the Front Bench. We have had a number of cricketing analogies about how he has coped with the googlies, but I prefer a footballing one. He is like the reserve goalkeeper who is summoned on to the pitch after full time and asked to save a large number of penalty kicks from some professional strikers. It is to his credit that he managed to tip most of the shots over the bar, although I think one or two may have got past him into the back of the net.

If the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, was watching his performance she will be well proud of what he did and, in thanking him, I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, whose patience I nearly exhausted with a number of meetings. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 62 withdrawn.