Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Bill [Lords]

Matt Rodda Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 29th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right; I do not disagree in any way. The north-west was particularly targeted, for reasons that I do not understand, with tens of thousands of homes built in this manner. It really was disgraceful. It gave leasehold a very bad name and necessitated these changes and others that will be introduced in future. The Bill ends these practices for new properties; that is key. It will ensure that the business model behind ground rents—the creation of such properties as leasehold to benefit commercially—will come to an end. We are already seeing its gradual reduction, and the Bill will lead to its elimination.

I want to address the point that was raised about why the proposals should be extended to retirement properties. As Secretary of State, I came under fierce resistance and lobbying from the retirement property sector. Its lobbyists approached Members of Parliament and my Department and threatened judicial review of our proceedings. I considered it to be an unfair practice, targeted at the most elderly and vulnerable in our society, that in addition to paying their service charge they should pay a ground rent that might escalate at a significant pace. Why not have a fairer and more transparent system where an elderly person knows exactly what they are getting when they pay the purchase price on their property and then when they pay the service charge on an annual basis, instead of receiving two bills every year? I think that is a simple matter of fairness and transparency, and it was the right decision to bring that to an end. We did, however, give a longer period for businesses to transition and to change their business model, which is why that part of the industry will not feel the force of the Bill until 2023.

[Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)]

I appreciate the work that the right hon. Gentleman has done to try to get the right balance and stand up for the interests of homeowners rather than large corporations. Does he have any reflection, further to the point made by the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), on the knock-on effects of allowing additional storeys to be built on existing blocks of flats? In my experience, there is an exploitation issue both for people who live in flats with top-hatted development—I think that is the word—and for the neighbours. In the area that I represent, there have certainly been a number of problems for neighbours to those blocks. Does the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) have any further reflections on that point? If he were still Secretary of State, would he have allowed that development to go ahead?

[Robert Jenrick]

I think it should be kept under review, like any permitted development. As we have seen with past examples, there are always cases at the edges that concern us, and there are usually ways to refine the permitted development over time to ensure that those cases do not happen again. With the permitted development that the hon. Gentleman mentions, I think—from memory —that we ensured that the developer has to work with the local council to ensure that there are not issues with building safety or loss of amenity to the leaseholders in the building, and that the design of the extra storeys is broadly in keeping with the neighbourhood. I certainly think that the issue should be kept under review.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

Let me first put it on record that, alongside the hon. Members for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) and for St Albans (Daisy Cooper), l am a co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on leasehold and commonhold reform. The group is assisted by the Leasehold Knowledge Partnership, which has been campaigning for many years for the kind of reform that we are debating today.

We might have expected the Bill to be a cause for celebration, and indeed any legislation that puts another nail in the coffin of leasehold is to be welcomed, but we are left with a feeling that it is a rather modest measure. Given that it took four years for us to reach this point, it seems that we are making glacial progress. Perhaps four years is not much in comparison with 1,000 years of leasehold, but for those who are still trapped in unsellable or seriously devalued homes because of the leases they signed, progress is not being made quickly enough.

I am not generally a fan of market-based solutions—the market is responsible for most of the egregious injustices that we have seen in leasehold—but, to a significant extent, the market has already moved away from imposing ground rents for most houses, not because those who concocted the leasehold scandal have had a prick of conscience but because a spotlight has been shone on the devastating consequences of their sharp practice. In that respect, I pay tribute to the fantastic work of the National Leasehold Campaign, which has done more than just about anyone to bring the unfairness of leasehold to the public’s attention. It is an irony that those campaigners do not stand to benefit from the Bill because, as has been pointed out already, it does nothing to tackle the existing problems. That said, however, their influence has already benefited my constituents and many others.

A new Redrow estate not far from where I live originally had properties being sold on a leasehold basis. After some pretty determined campaigning from the National Leasehold Campaign, Redrow decided to stop the sale of homes in the second phase as leasehold, but unfortunately not before several hundred people had already bought their homes as leasehold. To be fair to Redrow, I should add that it did then offer them the opportunity to purchase the freehold after two years, although it was a little unfortunate, to say the least, when it subsequently lowered the purchase price for the freehold again, creating another unfairness. While I give Redrow credit for stepping back and weaning itself off the leasehold drug, that should not obscure the fact that all this could have been avoided had it not sold the properties as leasehold in the first place. That takes me back to the basic concern that remains with the Bill, which is that it enshrines in law a two-tier system of home ownership when really we should be ending it altogether.

Very few new houses are now being sold as leasehold, but around 1.5 million houses will remain leasehold after this Bill becomes law. Is there a risk that choking off income streams from those who see other people’s homes as an investment will cause them to turn their attention to redoubling their efforts to squeeze as much as they can out of the existing properties? A number of Members have already mentioned that, and I will return to it later.

Turning to the details of the Bill, I know that a lot of consideration has been given to how we define a ground rent. That debate is instructive, because how can a payment for which nothing is received in return be considered a proper legal payment? The short answer is that it cannot, and I believe that that is another reason to abolish leasehold altogether. The reality is that ground rent is a legal fiction and a method of maintaining control and securing an income for which the recipient is required to do precisely nothing.

It is therefore disappointing that lease extensions for houses are exempt from the Bill, because there is significant concern that freeholders will put in massive multipliers when offering informal lease extensions, just to make the premium look lower and more attractive. They would then make their money back through allowing the ground rents to continue. Let us not forget that both parties do not have equal bargaining power. This all just adds weight to the argument that what we have here is a minor change that will help people in the future, when what we really need to do is to deal with the injustices of the present, and the best way to do that is of course to abolish leasehold altogether.

As I said earlier, we also need to keep an eye on whether those who have been involved in the systematic deception and mis-selling change their sights to deal with the new environment that the Bill represents. They have not gone away, those offshore accounts, those trust funds and those private equity investors who see people’s homes as an opportunity to cream off the cash long after the people living in them think that they have bought them. In particular, we have to keep a close eye on estate management companies, because that is one area in which charges could easily be inflated to more than cover the loss of a ground rent.

[Matt Rodda]

My hon. Friend is making an important speech and he has hit on a number of central issues, particularly when dealing with his own legal experience of these dysfunctional markets where on the one hand we have developers with enormous financial power and legal resources and on the other we have humble first-time buyers. Does he agree that there needs to be a rebalancing, with far greater protection for first-time buyers and ordinary householders, and with a much greater attempt by the Government to hold these large developers to account?

[Justin Madders]

My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. There is clearly an imbalance. We have already talked about how some enthusiastic first-time buyers who just want to get into their new homes put their trust in the people who have been assigned to deliver the legal niceties such as putting a value on the property and doing the conveyancing. They put their trust in those people, and sometimes that trust is betrayed through the egregious injustices that we have talked about.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to speak in tonight’s debate. I wish not only to address a number of issues that colleagues have raised, but to add in further details that I hope are particular to my constituency but fear may be common around the country.

First, I wish to support the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell). Obviously, I welcome this Bill, which will help, but the broader point about the deep inequities of leasehold still stands true and we should be moving much faster on this important matter, trying to remove leasehold from the system of ownership in this country. Is it not incredible that the UK still has this medieval system of ownership, which, as has been mentioned, so discriminates against first-time buyers, people on lower incomes, older people and many other groups, which in many ways deserve more support and encouragement to get on to the property ladder? They deserve not to have their lives blighted by what is, sadly, sometimes the behaviour of irresponsible developers. I am not saying that all developers are irresponsible, but Members have clearly highlighted some awful and appalling examples of behaviour.

First, Loddon Park is a pleasant development on the edge of Woodley, a suburb of Reading. It is a relatively new and really quite beautiful development, with many attractive homes. The homes are freehold properties but some of the shared areas in the large development are subject to charges. In many ways, the sort of problems described so eloquently by my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) are also occurring for those at Loddon Park—several hundred people living in an attractive new development on the edge of an urban area in the south-east of England. The residents potentially face unlimited extra costs for the maintenance of some attractive grounds—including meadow areas, large ponds and other areas where children can play—because no cap was written into the charging policy and they did not realise that when they bought their properties.

As explained earlier by my hon. Friends the Members for Ellesmere Port and Neston and for City of Chester (Christian Matheson), as well as other colleagues, some of the first-time buyers we are talking about are unfortunately not always aware of some of the difficulties into which they might get themselves. There is an unequal situation in which on the one hand there are powerful and articulate developers with an excellent team of lawyers and on the other hand there are first-time buyers. That is deeply unfair. In this case, young families face potentially unlimited additional costs to pay for the upkeep of the rather attractive communal areas around their houses. That is very sad and deeply unfair. I respect the fact that the local authority had difficulties in trying to provide the properties, but I wish it had been more careful. There is also an element of involvement from Wokingham Borough Council, which is the local authority involved. Will the Minister look into that issue? I will write to him to explain the situation and ask for his help and support.

Before I mention another egregious example from the Reading East constituency, I offer my support to colleagues who have mentioned the issue of snagging and the problems with developers that prevent the adoption of roads. I know of cases in both Reading borough and Wokingham borough in which different developers have started to build a new estate and completed all the properties, which have been sold, but the roads, street lighting and other services have not been properly completed. Although the issue has gone on for years, there has been an ongoing tussle—similar to what the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) mentioned—between council officers and developers. It has been deeply problematic for local authorities, which often have low levels of resource in their planning departments so are not well equipped to argue the case.

[Mark Tami]

I totally agree with my hon. Friend. Quite often, the moment the developers sell the last property, that is it: they are not interested any more. They are not interested in snagging or doing the roads; they are off to build somewhere else. The problem is that, as my hon. Friend was saying, local authorities do not have the money to chase these people. In my opinion, if they do not finish an estate—what they were allowed to do under the planning permission—they should not be granted permission again to build anything else.

[Matt Rodda]

My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point. There should be much stricter rules on this issue, because such sharp practice by developers helps no one. It does not help the building industry as whole, homeowners, local authorities or, indeed, other businesses that have to operate. In one estate near me, drivers can feel the difference as they drive on to the unadopted piece of road because their vehicle goes over a huge bump. That is not good for anyone, including many of the small businesses that have to deliver to that estate. It is surely in everybody’s interests, including those of the wider building industry, to get on with it and come up with a clear, simple and fair solution to the problem so that we can all move on and not spend vast amounts of unnecessary energy chasing after developers to sort out problems such as lamp posts that do not work or roads that have not been finished off.

I wish to address a specific issue that relates to a social housing enterprise in my constituency that operates across large parts of Berkshire. I have been deeply disappointed by Housing Solutions and ask for the Minister’s help. This organisation appears to have badly let down a number of residents in Woodley, the Reading suburb I mentioned earlier. It applied for planning permission to build properties next to a transport depot, where there are a lot of heavy goods vehicle movements, and on an industrial estate. The properties have been sold in a part-ownership scheme to local residents who were desperate to get on the housing ladder and were finding it quite difficult because they are on modest incomes. The local authority gave planning permission and carried out all the relevant checks—again, this is Wokingham Borough Council not Reading Borough Council. There was nothing in planning law to stop these flats from being built next to a haulage yard. The local authority looked into it and it was not able to reject the plans on that basis—on the basis that the flats were close to a noisy and polluting business. However, it did try to insist on conditions on the development. Sadly, though, it appears from lengthy inquiries from my office and also from one of the local councillors—Councillor Shirley Boyt—that these conditions have not been met. Residents, including a constituent of mine, Elise Maslen, who lives in the development, were not told of the additional changes that would need to be made to these properties—in particular, the need to adapt to air quality problems, such as mechanical ventilation and other forms of enhancements to the properties. They were also not told about the noise and pollution from the depot when they purchased the properties. That has resulted in around 20 families being trapped in flats that they do not want to be in, suffering from noise and air pollution.

The local authority has tried to find a way of bringing these properties up to spec. It has insisted on Housing Solutions doing that, but there has been a great deal of delay. This has gone on for five or six years. Sadly, some of the residents have moved away and are now having to pay for the cost of living in these properties while also living at a new address. They are deeply concerned about the health of their children and of themselves. This seems to be an egregious abuse of the situation. While it is not directly related to leaseholders, it has many of the same features, with powerful organisations, sadly, abusing their position of power and ordinary householders struggling and being provided with incorrect information. I wish to write to the Minister to ask for his help on this matter because it is of huge concern to me, to the local community and to the residents concerned. They have been treated appallingly by the housing association.

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making some incredibly important points. I have parallels in my constituency, as I am sure do other Members across the House. In one example, we have a managing company, a massive social housing provider and a partnership scheme, as he describes it, and the builder. It is a big organisation, but there is no overall ownership of the issues. Residents get utterly frustrated—I am thinking about Ellie, Matt, Sarah and others. There are 200 of them in this one development and they cannot get answers from anybody because no one is really taking ownership of the problem.

[Matt Rodda]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, because he shows that there is a wider issue with this type of behaviour. It is deeply worrying. These are ordinary families trying to get on with their daily lives. They want to be able to find a home of their own in a high-cost area and they are being treated in the most appalling way by an organisation that should be much more responsible. As I have said, I, my office and local councillors have been struggling to find a way of solving this problem, but we have not had much success so far and would appreciate the Minister’s help. We hope that, at some point, Housing Solutions will compensate these poor residents for the way that they have been treated and, indeed, buy them out of their properties if possible. It is absolutely appalling to live next to a haulage yard. People are constantly interrupted by noise from HGVs, driving past at all hours of the day and night. The air pollution from diesel particulates and nitrous oxide is deeply worrying. There is no way of protecting children and other vulnerable people in that situation. I am sure the whole House would agree that no one wants that for their constituents. There is also an issue with planning law that needs to be addressed, by which I mean looking at the risks from air pollution and from putting housing in close proximity to an industrial development. I would appreciate the Minister’s help with that.

Finally, let me reiterate the points made by other colleagues about the wider issue of leasehold, which is a completely out-of-date system and totally unfair to first-time buyers and other householders—whether they be young residents, people in leasehold properties for long periods of time, or, as the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) said, older residents. This system should come to an end. It is a feudal system. Our country is unique in having such a system. Surely we need to end it once and for all and move on from it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Theresa Villiers]

We would certainly need a cap, and the sort of levels that my hon. Friend mentions sound reasonable to me.

Let me turn to how this legislation will interact with new building safety laws. New building safety legislation will impose stringent responsibilities on freeholders, whether they are professionals or just flat owners who are banded together to manage their building. Frankly, not all leaseholders will want to take on such liabilities, yet this Bill will mean that for new flats, residents—whether they want this or not—will be jointly responsible for the safety, maintenance and upkeep of the apartment buildings in which they live, regardless of the size or complexity of those buildings. As my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) highlighted in his earlier intervention, worrying research in a 2019 report commissioned by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors and Built Environment Forum Scotland indicates that the removal of professional freeholders in Scotland has contributed to buildings falling into disrepair. A key problem that has been identified is that difficulties in securing a majority agreement among leaseholders and getting all flat owners to fund the repair works needed can significantly slow down remedial work, and that pushes up costs.

[Matt Rodda]

I appreciate that the right hon. Lady wishes to make a point about the importance of shared ownership and the difficulties of managing the shared parts of a large block of flats. Has she looked into the way that this issue is managed in other countries, given that all western countries other than the UK do not have the leasehold system? Surely there are ways to manage communal areas other than by maintaining leasehold, which involves all the difficulties that we have heard about.

[Theresa Villiers]

The fact that English property law is unique does not necessarily mean that it is wrong, but I acknowledge that it is important to look at how other countries manage these issues. That is partly why it is instructive to look at what has happened north of the border. Of course, Scotland has a different legal system. Leasehold and commonhold have been a fundamental part of its system for a long time, and it seems that, in some instances, that is making it more difficult to keep buildings in a decent state of repair.

This is a very important Bill, but it needs careful scrutiny if we are to ensure that it protects leaseholders effectively from abusive and unscrupulous practices, operates fairly and avoids unintended negative consequences for the very people whom it was designed to protect.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak after my former colleague in the Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Jane Hunt). She made some good points, not least on part-built developments. I support the Bill’s intent.

There is an expression that you should never take down a fence until you know why it was put there. As I set out in my intervention, I have one or two particular concerns. I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I have been involved in the property sector for a long time. I am not directly involved in it today and I have no vested interest—that is for the people who make comments on Twitter in particular, because I will not agree entirely with many of the points made about completely scrapping leasehold, in effect. I am actually a leaseholder, rather than a freeholder, in this context.

On the leasehold system, for most of my life, when it comes to selling and renting property, leasehold has been a perfectly workable form of tenure for most people—for most leaseholders and indeed freeholders. In recent years, there is no doubt that the system has been tremendously badly abused. It is right of the Government to act on that in no uncertain terms. However, the fence to which I referred is between freeholders and leaseholders, and it was put there to try to ensure a proper mechanism for resolving disputes. That is why we ended up with a professional landlord who had an overall interest in an entire block, rather than in a specific unit in that block. The Bill will in effect remove any interest that a professional landlord would have in a future block. My hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) is therefore right that the default will become commonhold.

On freehold, in my formative years of selling property in York, most flats were leasehold, and those flats were perfectly saleable and rentable. However, if ever we came across a development of freehold flats—a block where all the owners were freeholders, or commonholders, in modern-day parlance—we found that those properties were almost impossible to sell. In fact, mortgage lenders would not lend on them because of concerns about maintenance. If there was not a method to ensure that the building was maintained or that its insurance continued, the building might fall into disrepair and the lender’s security over the property would not be sufficient to cover the mortgage. That is the concern we potentially have here, as we move to this system of commonhold. I think commonhold can work for quite a number of flats—most blocks of flats, indeed—if it is simple and easy to operate.

However, commonhold is far and away not, in any shape or form, a panacea. We can see that from the current experience. There are some effective leasehold or commonhold ways of managing blocks, with residential management companies or right to manage agreements, where in effect the leaseholders manage the block and take on the responsibility of a freeholder. However, there are disputes within such blocks or organisations. The trouble with the commonhold rules—as I understand it, and the Minister may tell me differently—is that each commonholder has the right to raise their own dispute regarding the particular property, and I do not think there is any clear means of resolving such a dispute.

Previously, in a leasehold agreement, the freeholder would have been able to say, “This is what is actually going to happen. These are the terms of the lease, and these are the terms of the lease that you must adhere to.” A simple example of that is the payment of insurance. As I am sure most Members in this debate will know, in a leasehold agreement the freeholder will normally arrange the buildings insurance for the entire block, which obviously covers communal areas, as well as things such as the roof. That would be the responsibility of the freeholder, who would pass on the costs to each individual leaseholder in proportion. If one leaseholder decides not to pay the insurance, the freeholder can say, “Well, you must pay the insurance”, and they can actually carry out debt collection on that leaseholder. If it is an absentee leaseholder, they can go even further: ultimately, they could disenfranchise that leaseholder completely, and take the apartment back from the leaseholder.

I know that that has been used in some draconian ways in leasehold, but generally there is a mechanism that makes sure everybody in the block pays a fair amount for maintenance and things such as the insurance, but I am not sure how that happens in commonhold. If somebody stops paying for their particular element of responsibility for the charges, I do not think there is any such mechanism. The others could take that person to court, but again, the problem is that the fellow residents—fellow commonholders—in that block would have to take one of their own residents to court, instead of a freeholder doing so who does not have a cheek-by-jowl relationship with the resident.

This is why I think we have some of the maintenance issues in Scotland, and in Scotland there are some big maintenance issues, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) mentioned. The hon. Member for Reading West asked about other jurisdictions. Australia has a very similar system, which I think is called the strata system. There are issues there about the recruitment of people to sit on the management boards, with 37% of companies expressing difficulties in recruiting residents to sit on these management boards.

[Matt Rodda]

I absolutely appreciate the difficulties that the hon. Gentleman is outlining, including indeed in relation to my constituency. I should say that my constituency is Reading East; Reading West is the COP26 President’s. In Reading and Woodley, which I represent, there are a number of private roads and other shared facilities where residents come together and share the ownership of assets. Certainly in my experience as the local MP and previously as a councillor, that can be done quite effectively. I do appreciate that there may be issues with very large blocks, and the point I was making to the right hon. Lady from Chipping Campden—[Interruption.] Sorry, I mean the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers); there are various interesting places around the country that we come from today. The point I was making is that we really should look at the wide range of jurisdictions overseas and try to work through some models of what is most appropriate in each given set of circumstances.

However, it is possible to bring residents together. Certainly, that is my experience locally, and in the example of shared private roads, that has been extremely successful. We have a number of areas where they are maintained to a very high standard, the residents all work together effectively and that is absolutely fine. So I do not think we should try unduly to put obstacles in the way of progress on this matter. At the end of the day, the real issue is moving on from this totally unequal system to one where individual householders are treated more equally, and work together in a collaborative and sensible way.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The hon. Gentleman makes some good points and I am not saying that in certain circumstances commonhold cannot work. He pointed to the simple situation of a non-adopted road to which local residents have to contribute for the upkeep and it can certainly work in those situations, but I am just trying to point out that there are situations where it would prove difficult to make the system work.

Every jurisdiction—those in Australia or the US or Scotland—is different, and the UK is unique in various ways, one of which is in having a high proportion of absentee owners, such as in central London, where we all see blocks of flats that seem to be rarely occupied. Problems might arise in managing such blocks with for instance 100, 200 or 300 commonholders; there might be disputes and difficulties, such as in debt collection.

On the point about simple things to manage, the biggest issue is complex developments, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet mentioned. Let us consider a block of 300 or 400 flats built above a tube station or adjoining a shopping mall; effectively there will be a common freehold in that development but would anybody here be keen to sit on a committee managing that entire block with, for example, joint M and E—mechanical and electrical—so joint electrical, heating, ventilation and broadband installations, managed not just between the 300 units but the other infrastructure in that development? There are concerns that that would be beyond the appetite of many commonholders who manage that kind of development.

Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Bill [Lords]

Matt Rodda Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading
Monday 24th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Sir Mike Penning]

I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. On new clause 1, I do not think there is any argument that we need to look at historical leaseholds. However, my constituency has lots of new build and regeneration going on, and a lot of leasehold properties being built, and I am not convinced that that investment would come forward if the developers did not see where that income stream would come from, including pensions and so on. A lot of evidence is going back and forth, but I disagree just on that point.

I completely agree on the historical leasehold issue. The real problem is in the myriad different leases that are out there and have been for many years. I read the Select Committee report referred to by its Chair, the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), a moment ago, and I found some of the things that lawyers were doing astonishing. It fascinates me how they ever got insured and how they have not been struck off—I know that other investigations are going on. This is about not just ground rent but service charges and buildings insurance, which is an issue we must address, whether in this Bill or another measure.

I own a freehold property with a mortgage, and I have contents and buildings insurance. In my buildings insurance, I have legal protection of the sort that we would expect our constituents to benefit from when they pay for buildings insurance. However, those in leasehold properties must pay buildings insurance to the freeholder or their management company and have no choice whatsoever about the company, what the premium is or what the coverage is. I use an example from my own constituency of what happens when a claim is made. We had a large sinkhole in a housing development where there were leaseholders: I sat in a meeting with the insurance representative, the freeholder and my leaseholder constituents, and the insurance company said straight to me, absolutely deadpan, “Your constituents may well have paid the premium, but the policy is not theirs. They have no cover whatsoever—the cover is for the freeholder.”

There has to be something morally wrong about that. Insurance has developed over the years; it used to cover very few things, but these days nearly all buildings insurance worth its salt has legal protection. That is what it says on the tin. The Bill does not cover that in the way I think it should. Sometimes it is wrapped into the service charges and everything else, and the ground rent is part of that package, but at the same time we have houses with historical freeholds, some of them from the old military estates where people have bought properties on what used to be Ministry of Defence property, and they are paying leasehold rents on what everybody assumed was a freehold property. Something is structurally wrong.

There was an allusion earlier to looking forward rather than back. I say to the Minister that looking forward is fantastic—we need some dates and some targets that our constituents can look forward to—but we should not rule out looking back just because it is difficult. As I said on the Building Safety Bill in this House only last week, looking back because it is difficult is what this House is supposed to do. It will be more difficult to look back and bring in those leaseholders, our constituents, who feel left out of this legislation and still very vulnerable, as my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (Andy Carter) said, but it can be done.

This is not a case of, “It’s impossible”, because we are doing it retrospectively in the Building Safety Bill. We are going back 30-odd years retrospectively on that Bill. Can the Minister explain, when he sums up on new clause 1, why the Government feel that that is so difficult, when we are doing it on a separate piece of legislation that is going through the House today?

[Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this important debate. I express my support for new clause 1; I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning), and to others across the House, for their words tonight and for pointing out the enormous imbalance between powerful developers on the one hand and people buying a property for themselves, who possibly do not have all the information before them that ideally they should, on the other.

I refer to an issue in my own constituency, an attractive modern development on the edge of the town of Woodley, which is part of my Reading East constituency. The Loddon Park development is relatively recent, but there is a clear need for action to be taken. This development is in the south-east of England, a different part of the country from many of the developments mentioned tonight, and while there are some similarities there are also some differences.

Loddon Park is an attractive new estate, built in the past few years in parkland on the edge of Woodley. There are several hundred properties, a mixture of owner-occupied and some social housing. There are many attractive ponds and features, including meadowland, in the development. Unfortunately, when the whole development was given planning permission, the local authority—mistakenly, I believe—allowed the site developer to charge upkeep for those common areas in perpetuity. There is no limit, as I understand it, to the charge that can be made. It is deeply unfair for normal householders—many of them have young families, are commuters who work locally and are facing, like many people across the country, significant rises in the cost of living—to face in addition ongoing costs for maintaining the landscape around their homes. Frankly, that is wrong.

I hope the Minister will consider new clause 1. We have heard arguments from many MPs across the House and from different places around the country, whether in the south or the north of England; we have heard from the Chair of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), who set out some powerful legal arguments for why this action should be considered. I hope the Minister will look at it again, even at this stage, and will consider further action by the Government and our new clause.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is always a pleasure to make a contribution in such debates, and it is nice to be here. When we look at amendment 1 and the reasons why the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) tabled it, as he expressed in his contribution, it is hard to say that we should not support it.

We must make sure that there is financial fairness for leaseholders, especially long leaseholders who plan to hold a lease for more than 21 years. The issue of ground rent payment has been brought to my attention by my constituents, and the hon. Member for Warrington South (Andy Carter) rightly gave an example of his constituents. An elderly couple in my constituency, who paid their mortgage off more than 15 years ago, are still paying ground rent of more than £50 a year. Although that is not much, I am pleased that the need to abolish this has been recognised. We already changed the legislation in Northern Ireland, so I understand why this Minister and Government are looking forward to making these changes tonight. Many Members have stated that many people have long leases with higher ground rents at the start of their lease, with shorter ground rent review periods. As a result, leaseholders face unsustainable ground rents, so there is a real need to change this, as hon. Members have said.

Leaseholders with high or escalating ground rents will often struggle to remortgage or sell their houses, leaving them in greater financial distress. The Bill aims to restrict ground rents on newly created long residential leases, with some exceptions, to a token of one peppercorn a year. That effectively restricts ground rents to zero financial value. The intention is to make leasehold ownership fair and more affordable for leaseholders. We should support that purpose.

In Northern Ireland, individuals can apply to the Land Registry to buy out their ground rent. In some cases, the individuals cannot afford to pay the substantial sum outright, so I am pleased that the Bill has assurances for long leaseholders and that Government have protected householders. If ground rent is demanded in contravention of the Bill and any payment received is not returned in 28 days, the landlord will face a fine ranging from £500 to £30,000 per qualifying lease. The fines are clear and hopefully prohibitive.

However, there is one substantial problem with the Bill, as others have said: it will apply only to new leases and will not assist existing leaseholders faced with high and escalating ground rents. I feel that they should not be left behind and I would be grateful if the Minister clarified this matter, looked at it again and considered the impact that the situation has not only on finance, but the possibility of remortgaging or selling property.

The Bill’s commencement date has also raised concerns across the House, so I would be grateful if more clarity was given about that. A Bill on broader leasehold reform is expected in the third Session of this Parliament and I would encourage discussion and a closer look at how the situation can be improved to make circumstances easier for leaseholders. Others have said that we just need a wee bit more movement, and perhaps that can be done in the next Session.