Building Safety Bill

Debate between Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Blencathra

Lords Hansard - Part 1 & Report stage
Tuesday 29th March 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

I rise to comment on the disabled amendments that the Government have laid, including the one that was just moved. I will also comment briefly on Amendments 46 and 47, which have not yet been spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, and speak to Amendments 39 and 40 on behalf of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans, since he is unable to be with us at this time of the morning.

I commend the Government for listening to my noble friend Lady Grey-Thompson in Committee and on all the amendments that they have brought forward today. Having been bored on the train when I was heading up north last week, I counted on the Order Paper more than 220 government amendments and 50 proposed new clauses. That is an extraordinary achievement and shows the extent to which my noble friend the Minister has been listening, as well as what he has been able to drive forward—principally because the Secretary of State, my right honourable friend Michael Gove, gets it and understands what needs to be done. So, although my noble friends and I may move a few amendments today, and perhaps force them to a vote, I do not want the Minister to think that we are being churlish. We appreciate the huge distance that the Government have travelled; we just think that there may be one or two more gaps that we need to fill.

I would be grateful if the Minister could reassure me as to why the disabled amendments that we have just heard noble Lords speak to may not be necessary or why there may still be an essential gap there. I thought that the government amendments were adequate but I am keen to hear his explanation.

I will speak briefly to Amendments 46 and 47 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox. In Committee, I tried to make the point that the burdens on leaseholders are much heavier than those on building safety managers and others, who seem to have unlimited rights to impose fines and penalties and invade homes to check on things without good reason. I am keen to hear what the noble Baroness has to say about her amendments, which state that such persons should be able to access leasehold flats only when it is essential to do so.

My main purpose this morning is to speak to Amendments 39 and 40 in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans, which I was pleased to sign up to as second fiddle. The good news is that I shall not need to make my own speech and bore the House. The bad news is that my speaking on behalf of a right reverend Prelate may do irreparable damage to the Church of England, so I hope that does not occur. He says:

“First off, I would like to express gratitude to the Minister for tabling his Amendment 38 and the overall listening approach he has taken to the concerns of the House throughout the passage of this Bill. I hope that this is at least some indication on the Government’s part that they are still working through the imperfections of this Bill, and that they might respond with amendments at Third Reading in response to problems noble Lords and Baronesses”


have raised and will raise today. He continues:

“I will be frank and say that although I am pleased the Government did respond to the concerns I raised at Committee stage by tabling Amendment 38, the content of it is admittedly limited. The reality is that the principal accountable person could take representations from or hold consultations with the relevant tenants or leaseholders on matters”


relating to building safety

“without necessarily integrating their concerns into the Residents Engagement Strategy. It appears entirely discretionary on the accountable person as to what enters into this strategy. In fact, because Amendment 38 also requires the accountable person to act in accordance with the strategy”

that, from conversations he has had with others,

“would seem to imply that a failure to act in accordance with the strategy could be flagged up to the Building Safety Regulator. The question then is simple: why would an accountable person commit to include something in an engagement strategy that could later be used against them?”

However, the right reverend Prelate says:

“I do not want to hastily dismiss what the Government are trying to do here as the foundations contained”


within the amendment require only

“an ever so slight tweaking to better ensure that the accountable person acts in accordance with a strategy that actually reflects the views of residents, rather than the current vague requirement to just ‘take any representations … on the consultation into account when next reviewing the strategy’”.

Personally, I think that he has made a very good point there. He continues:

“Amendment 39 would mildly alter Amendment 38 to ensure that the accountable person takes any representations made on the consultation into account”


and then changes

“‘the strategy to reflect the balance of representations made’. This remains imperfect but it does at least in part remove the discretionary basis for deciding the content of the strategy by adding a protection to ensure that the strategy reflects”

that balance. He then says:

“Even with this change, the accountable person will hold immense discretionary power since it is … incumbent on them to interpret the balance of representations made”


so that the accountable person still has the whip hand.

“However, it would alter the relationship when formulating the strategy from the accountable person as its absolute sovereign to the accountable person as the interpreter of the general will. The accountable person will ultimately be the individual who determines the content that enters into the residents engagement strategy. Amendment 39 provides just an inch of breathing room to better guarantee that it does reflect the views of tenants and residents”.


Amendment 40, says the right reverend Prelate,

“admittedly is far more wide ranging and acts as a direct extension”

of his previous amendment in Committee,

“which would have mandated recognised residents associations for the purpose of consultations on building safety issues. I did recognise the Government’s discomfort at the prospect of mandating anything, particularly where there exists an amicable relationship between the freeholder and the leaseholders or tenants. For this reason, I have tried to create a conditional avenue by which a freeholder must set up a residents association. The condition being that as part of consultations on the residents engagement strategy, the accountable person must consult with residents on whether to create a recognised tenants association, and create one, for the purpose of consultations on building safety decisions, where it turns out there is a simple majority demand from residents”

to so have one. He continues:

“I believe a conditional requirement for recognised residents’ associations would help mitigate some of the abuses that do exist within the system. In Committee, I referenced the case of a freeholder who charged residents a 100% markup on window repairs and also spent £74,000 in a court battle to prevent residents from forming a recognised tenants’ association. I cannot speculate on how many other leaseholders have suffered similar abuses at the hands of their freeholder. However, I know the Minister is as appalled by these abuses as I am.”


I share that point of view. He continues:

“The Government do recognise the need to reform the leasehold system”—


something we all look forward to in, we hope, the next Queen’s Speech on 10 May.

“For this reason, I do not want to press the Government on Amendment 40 other than to ask the Minister to look seriously at how recognised tenants’ associations can be more widely promoted and more easily set up, as well as perhaps to expand their remit to encompass matters relating to building safety issues so that there is actual accountability and scrutiny when it comes to the charges they incur.


However, I would still impress to the Government the need to strengthen Amendment 38 so that there are greater safeguards to guarantee that residents’ engagement strategies better reflect the views of residents. I believe Amendment 39 presents a sensible compromise to solve this problem. The authority to decide on what is contained within the residents’ engagement strategy remains with the accountable person but in a manner that is more conducive to capturing the balance of residents’ views.


Finally, I would just like to note a few other amendments in this group. I welcome the sentiment of Amendment 36 within this group and the duty it places on the accountable person to achieve best value. I welcome the Government’s decision to remove the building safety manager”—


I think we all welcome that—

“and I would congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, on making the strong case for its removal in Committee. Of course, some of the costs previously contained within the building safety manager will naturally be rebadged and passed on, it is inevitable. Nevertheless, since it is now discretionary on the accountable person to decide how to meet their obligations under this Act, and since any costs incurred for meeting this obligation will be met by the tenants or leaseholders, there is no incentive for the accountable person not to reimpose the costly building safety manager. Therefore, I do believe that some duty to achieve best value would represent a sort of financial safeguard for leaseholders and possibly encourage freeholders to take a more considered approach to meeting their obligations rather than taking the path of least resistance in hiring a building safety manager.

I would also quickly offer my support to Amendments 13, 20, and 35, and the protections they afford to those living with disabilities, which I welcome.”


It has been a privilege to deliver this speech on behalf of the right reverend Prelate. I say to my noble friend that this was not Blencathra talking; I was speaking from a much higher authority today and expect him to pay particular attention to Amendment 39.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I will intervene very briefly to welcome the Government’s amendments, particularly Amendment 100, which removes Schedule 8 and abolishes the building safety charges as separate charges. As my noble friend the Minister mentioned in his opening remarks, I spoke to an amendment in Committee which did exactly that, pointing out the extra costs and potential confusion that two separate charges could result in. I recommended that the building safety charge be incorporated into the service charge but shown separately. I welcome this simplification, as will leaseholders. I am grateful to my noble friend for listening and responding.

I will very briefly support Amendments 39 and 40 in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans, and so ably spoken to by my noble friend Lord Blencathra, who may find himself invited to deputise at pulpits in and around St Albans as a result of his performance. If there is no provision in the Bill to ensure that residents have a collective voice, the accountable person—normally the landlord—will have a huge interest in ensuring that residents are not organised and enabled to resist any costs that the landlord wishes to impose on them. The current government proposal just says that the accountable person should design an engagement strategy, whereas the amendments rightly go further, requiring a tenants’ association to be set up where that is what the majority want.

The amendment goes entirely with the grain of successive Governments’ policy to even up the terms of trade between leaseholders and tenants on the one hand and landlords on the other. I hope that the Minister can look benevolently on these proposals and perhaps at a later stage consider strengthening them further in the direction proposed by my noble friend.

Tributes: Sir David Amess MP

Debate between Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Blencathra

Monday 18th October 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I will pay a very brief tribute to David, based on 32 years of shared friendship in the other place. As my noble friend Lord Howard said, he was basically loyal to his party. Speaking as a former Chief Whip, of the 876 votes in the 2010 Parliament, David supported the Government 97.6% of the time. No one could complain about that. However, he was a man of strong principle, impervious to the bait of ministerial office, as my noble and learned friend Lord Clarke said.

When he voted against the Government, he did so on a matter of principle. Your Lordships might be interested to hear that he voted against the Government on the House of Lords Reform Bill in 2011. He also voted against military action against Syria, when the Government were defeated, and he opposed the badger cull, animal welfare being one of his special subjects. More recently, he actually voted against the Government on leaseholder compensation post the Grenfell tragedy, on which many of us may share his views.

His sunny optimism, revealed by that broad smile, his basic decency, his generosity and his modesty made him a great colleague. We would see him walking briskly from engagement to engagement with a sheaf of papers under his arm, his timetable fractured both here and in Southend by his willingness to stop and talk to colleagues. The shadow Leader mentioned his insistence that the House of Commons should not adjourn for the Christmas Recess until it had answered 18 issues of great importance to the burghers of Southend. Just pity the Leader of the House replying to that debate.

I mention one other factor about David. He was generous with his time and happy to visit and speak in the constituencies of Conservative MPs—an obligation often overlooked by his more self-important colleagues. He was also capable of mischief. He once came to North West Hampshire, and the convention is that the visiting speaker pays a glowing tribute to the industry and energy of the incumbent, however well founded in truth that may be. But there was none of that from David. “Great to be here in George’s patch,” he began, “but I don’t want to waste time talking about him. I want to tell you about myself.”

Reading and listening to the tributes paid to David over the weekend, I asked myself whether people would join the dots and link the tributes we are paying to David today with those we paid last week to James Brokenshire and those we paid earlier to Jo Cox. I realised that those public servants, whom fate has cruelly taken from us too early, were between them more representative of this country’s often-abused public servants than the bad apples who get us unfavourable publicity. David’s family has expressed the hope that some good should come from this tragedy. David was essentially a generous man, and he would not mind sharing some of the tributes to him more broadly if it helped to change the perception of the profession to which he has selflessly given his life.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I was also elected in 1983, but I first discovered Sir David’s fundamental decency, integrity and courtesy when I was a junior Whip. Later, I was David’s Chief Whip for four years. I held him in the highest regard because he was the sort of MP we Chief Whips liked and rated—not because he sycophantically voted for us 96% or 97% of the time, but because he always told us well in advance on the 3% of occasions when he could not because his conscience and constituency priorities prevailed. Chief Whips can live with MPs who have that level of courtesy and decency.

As has been said, he was deeply religious. That clearly influenced his views on political issues, but he was always capable of seeing the other point of view. He always disagreed with the viewpoint, not the person making it; that is a sign of greatness and generosity of spirit. He followed the great commandment of Jesus to love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul and with all your mind, and love your neighbour as yourself. Well, David loved 70,000 neighbours —all his constituents in Southend West—and people further afield in the UK and even further afield around the world, as has been said. In fact, those suffering in the world were David’s neighbours—and not just people; as the great hymn by Cecil Alexander says:

“All things bright and beautiful,


All creatures great and small,

All things wise and wonderful,

The Lord God made them all.”

If the Lord God made them, David Amess defended them.

I say this carefully: I think that David died a Christian martyr. I mean “martyr” in the proper Greek derivation of the term meaning a witness and nothing else. He died a witness to his belief in the theological virtues of faith, hope and charity and to their practical realisation, including in working for others until the very end. He did his duty to his God, his family, his constituency and his country. What truer passport is there to eternal life? I am reminded of the opening to the anthem “In Paradisum”, which was sung at the funeral of Lady Thatcher. It begins:

“May the angels lead you into paradise”—


but there will be no resting in peace for David Amess in paradise, for even now he will be campaigning among the angels and archangels for heaven to be granted city status.

I pass on my sincere condolences to Lady Amess, David’s children and all those others who may have been traumatised by his awful murder. It was a privilege to know him and I really liked serving with him.

Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Blencathra

Committee stage
Wednesday 9th June 2021 Grand Committee

[Lord Blencathra (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I will, for a change, be very brief, not least because there are a number of amendments in this group in the name of my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham which give a practical way forward and are far superior to mine. I declare a personal interest as someone who pays £602 ground rent per annum on my London flat. While that is a disgraceful rip-off, for no services given, it pales into insignificance compared to the horror stories I heard at Second Reading about leaseholders hit with escalating ground rents running to tens of thousands of pounds.

At Second Reading, I attempted to use mockery to draw attention to the fact that the English leasehold and ground rent laws are an absolutely prehistoric abomination which should not exist in a top G7 country these days. I also said that I fully support this Bill and will do nothing to hold up its becoming law. The only problem is that it does not go far enough and does not deal with the injustices for all those caught up in the current ground rent racket. The peppercorn rent solution, ridiculous though that term now is, does in fact give justice to all future leaseholders, and I welcome that. Amendments 1, 2 and 11 simply apply that same just principle to the current racket. If it is right and just that all future leaseholders, who have not lost a penny, are protected from this evil racketeering, then surely it is far more important to deliver justice to all those who are being ripped off at present, some for extortionate sums, as the House heard at Second Reading. Amendments 1 and 2 simply say that all current ground rents will become peppercorn rents, just as the Bill does for future rents. Amendment 11 offers an alternative, setting a ceiling on the amount which may be demanded in ground rent per annum and giving a refund to leaseholders who are being ripped off by ground rents above £1,000 per annum.

I suspect that my noble friend the Minister will say that this is a very complicated subject, that the Government are working on solutions and that we will see the full details next year in the leaseholders Bill. I accept that my amendments take an absolutist, purist approach, but I do like the detailed, sensible amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham, which may offer a compromise—letting leaseholders buy their freedom. As my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern will confirm, since he is a far better scholar of ancient Roman law than I ever was, in ancient Roman times slaves could buy their freedom, but very few could afford to buy their manumission. Most were freed by testamentary manumission—that is, in the will of their master—and Caesar Augustus regulated the system. So I call on my noble friend the Minister to become the new Caesar Augustus and set free the millions of leaseholders still paying their salarium.

If the Minister cannot accept my amendments, I would like to hear exactly what is wrong with Amendments 7, 8, 12, 17 and 18, proposed by my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham and Amendment 5 in another group, in the name of my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern. They seem to me to be an excellent way to remove this 800-year-old injustice, bring justice to leaseholders and not deprive freeholders of some of their entitlements. I beg to move.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 12 and its consequential Amendments 7, 8, 17, 22 and 23. Their effect is broadly the same as Amendments 1 and 2, in the name of my noble friend Lord Blencathra, whose speech I commend. Whereas he was able to express himself in four lines, I am afraid that my amendments have taken up four pages. The amendments also achieve the same as Amendment 5, which we will come to later, in the name of my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay. However, his amendment reserves all the detail set out in mine to the discretion of the Secretary of State, in regulations, and is time-limited. The amendments standing in my name, if accepted, would give a right to buy out ground rents for ever, beginning on 1 January 2023.

As my noble friend Lord Blencathra has just said, the Bill as drafted applies only to future leases, coming into force on such a day as the Secretary of State may appoint by regulations. It does nothing to help existing leaseholders or anyone who buys a lease with a ground rent before the commencement date, but it is government policy that existing leaseholders should have the right to buy out their ground rents. I refer to the Written Statement by the Secretary of State on 11 January this year:

“I am confirming that the Government will give leaseholders of all types of property the same right to extend their lease as often as they wish, at zero ground rent, for a term of 990 years.”


Later comes the crucial commitment:

“We will also enable leaseholders, where they already have a long lease, to buy out the ground rent without the need to extend the term of the lease.”


The obvious question for the Minister, raised by these amendments, is why the Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Bill does not deliver government policy on ground rents. Why should we have to wait for the next piece of legislation to honour the commitment? On waiting for promised legislation, I am once bitten, twice shy. As Opposition spokesman in another place, when the hereditary Peers were removed, I was assured by the then leader of the House that stage two of House of Lords reform would be in place for the first round of elections to your Lordships’ House, by 2001. Twenty years on, I am still waiting.

There is still no firm commitment from the Government on when the Bill will come into force and, the longer the Government leave setting a date, the greater the risk that new monetary ground rents will continue to be created. The Government could stop this by indicating even a provisional date for this legislation to come into force, which would shift the bargaining power in favour of prospective purchasers of leasehold properties. That is why Amendment 22, in my name, prescribes a date of 1 January 2023 for this right to buy out ground rents to come into force.

The case for giving existing leaseholders this right was well made by the Law Commission. They took head on the counterargument that this right is unnecessary because leaseholders can extinguish the ground rent by extending their lease. I quote from Law Commission paper 387, entitled Leasehold Home Ownership: Buying your Freehold or Extending your Lease. Paragraph 3.63 of the consultation paper states:

“we explained that the 1993 Act right to a lease extension has been criticised for requiring leaseholders simultaneously to extend the term of their lease (and therefore pay the landlord for the deferral of the reversion) and to extinguish the ground rent (and therefore pay the landlord the value of the remainder of the original term). We noted suggestions that leaseholders should be able to choose between extending their lease, extinguishing their ground rent, or both, in order to reduce the premium payable on the lease extension.”

The paper continued:

“Support for the introduction of a right to extinguish the ground rent under a lease without extending the lease (whether alone, or together with the right discussed immediately above) was widespread. Consultees who supported this option included various professional bodies, the majority of commercial freeholders, a majority of firms and individual professionals, and a significant majority of leaseholders and other individuals.”


I continue to quote from the report, which states:

“Generally, consultees’ reasoning for supporting a right to extinguish the ground rent without extending the lease focussed on the predicament of leaseholders who are subject to onerous or doubling ground rents in long or very long leases. Both professionals and leaseholders explained that these leaseholders have no need to extend their lease term (which may be as long as 999 years), but wish to buy out their ground rent before it becomes onerous, and/or to make their property saleable. It was said to be ‘pointless’ to require them to claim an extended lease term purely to solve this problem.”


The report goes on to say:

“Several consultees considered that, given the forthcoming ban on ground rents in the majority of new leases, the right to extinguish ground rent in an existing lease (which is very long and does not require extending) would help to avoid the creation of a ‘two-tier’ market, consisting of leases with ground rent and those without. This argument was most persuasively made by a number of leaseholders from 1 West India Quay Residents’ Association. Pointing out that media coverage of the ground rent scandal has led prospective buyers to scrutinise ground rent obligations much more closely, Antonio De Gouveia wrote: ‘If Government is to cap or eliminate ground rents on new leases (which we think they will do), then there is even more reason for new legislation from the Law Commission to enable all leaseholders in our building to buy out their ground rent (onerous or not)’.”


I note in passing that the point about a two-tier market was made in the helpful briefing for the Bill from the Law Society. This all led the commission to its conclusion in paragraph 3.108:

“We recommend that leaseholders who already have very long leases should be entitled to extinguish the ground rent payable under their lease without also extending the term of the lease.”


My amendments deliver that. They have been drafted so that costs are kept to a minimum. No valuation is required because proposed subsection (6) of Amendment 12 sets out the terms, based on Law Commission examples. There is no prejudice to enfranchisement rights and timescales are set out to prevent any delay by the freeholder.

My amendment also addresses a different complaint raised by the Law Commission, namely that the current process for statutory leasehold extensions is too long and cumbersome. Landlords have options to game the system to make it as difficult as possible for leaseholders to exercise their rights. Look at paragraph 2.23 of Law Commission report 392.

My Amendment 12 therefore seeks to give effect to the Law Commission’s recommendations for simplification by proposing a straightforward way in which to buy out monetary ground rents without the need for notice and counter-notice, as exists under the current legislation. There will be nowhere for unscrupulous landlords to hide if the approach suggested in this group of amendments is adopted.

My Amendment 17 provides for the First-tier Tribunal to have jurisdiction in dealing with any issues arising from the exercise of the rights given by Amendment 12 and mirrors the provisions in Clauses 13 and 15. Amendment 12 goes further, in that it would also permit the tribunal at its discretion to award damages to a tenant denied rights to buy out a monetary ground rent, which is intended to serve as a deterrent to landlords denying such rights. Amendment 22 brings in the commencement date of 1 January 2023, giving those involved time to make the necessary preparations. Amendment 23 is consequential.

Why not use the Bill to give an option to millions of existing leaseholders, rather than wait for another Bill that deals with ground rents? There is no disagreement on policy, and here we have the vehicle. I await the response from my noble friend the Minister and hope that he will set the tone for this Committee by looking favourably on this first group of amendments.