Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill

Debate between Matt Rodda and Clive Betts

Report stage
Tuesday 27th February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Betts]

It is five years since we produced the Select Committee report on leasehold reform. It came after long years of campaigning by the all-party parliamentary group on leasehold and commonhold reform, and I particularly commend the efforts of the Father of the House, the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley), who has just spoken; my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders); and our good friend Jim Fitzpatrick, who is no longer in this House, but who certainly made a major contribution to that. To be fair to the Government, it is good that we have made progress on many of the items in the Select Committee report. The caveat, of course, is that we probably have not gone as far as we would have wanted or as quickly as we would have expected.

When the Committee met, I remember going into a room with about 100 leaseholders from all over the country—the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), who was in his place a few minutes ago, was there as well—and hearing horror stories of people being ripped off in the sale of leasehold homes by developers. They were told that there was no difference between a leasehold property and a freehold property. They were told that by the solicitors who worked for them, because the solicitors were recommended by the developers. That was together with the free carpets in the living room that came as a bribe—that is what it was. Leaseholders were not aware that they would have to pay £300 to get a doorbell fitted if they wanted one because they had to get permission, or £3,000 for a conservatory, or whatever fees the freeholder chose.

Leaseholders were told that they could, within a couple of years, buy the freehold at a fixed price from the same developer. The problem, of course, was that by the time a leaseholder came to inquire about purchasing the freehold, the freehold had been sold to another party. There are lots of examples of that, which is why I have an amendment—new clause 39—that I want to push to a vote, although I hope the Minister will accept it. It is a simple amendment to say that before the sale of a freehold, the right of first refusal has to go to the existing leaseholder. That right already exists for leaseholders in flats, but not for leaseholders in houses. Why is that? That really cannot be justified or even explained.

Will the Minister accept just that one simple amendment? It would give leaseholders that right, and stop freeholders —we know that this happens—who want to evade the legislation, including the improvements the Government are bringing in, passing a property around from one organisation to a subsidiary to a third party, with a view to evading the legislation, so that leaseholders never know where to go to get the relevant freeholder to agree to the sale.

[Matt Rodda]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Does he agree that part of the problem is that some of the freeholders are based overseas, and it is extremely difficult for leaseholders to track them down? This is an ongoing issue that I hope the Government will look into.

[Mr Betts]

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

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

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

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

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

Football Regulation

Debate between Matt Rodda and Clive Betts

Wednesday 8th November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Matt Rodda]

I thank the hon. Gentleman and I hope that the action the Government are proposing is brought forward and has the widest possible impact across the UK.

I take this opportunity to thank the thousands of local fans who have shown their support for a change of ownership of Reading FC, including the 1,400 people who joined a march from our town centre to the stadium a few days ago. It was an incredible show of support, and one that led to the unexpected closure of the A33 due to the huge numbers who took part. I thank all the drivers on the other side of the road—a two-lane trunk road—who hooted in support and cheered us on. I thank Reading FC legend Dave Kitson for leading the march and for his support for both the club and the campaign.

I thank our local council, including the council’s leader, Jason Brock, Councillor John Ennis, who has been a Reading fan since 1975, Councillor Adele Barnett-Ward and others. I thank John in particular, because he took part in a previous march in 1983 against Robert Maxwell’s ill-thought-through plan to merge Reading with Oxford United. I should add that John has been our lead councillor for transport for just four months and already he has shut a major road, which is not something that many councillors get to do.

I also thank my fellow Berkshire MPs, particularly the hon. Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland), the right hon. Member for Reading West (Sir Alok Sharma) and my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi). Sadly, the hon. Member for Bracknell cannot attend the debate due to illness, but he is a fan and hugely enjoyed the march. Despite the local political differences, he marched next to John and other seasoned campaigners and marchers from the Labour council—although, funnily enough, he seemed to feel more at home when the fans started chanting “Blue Army” as we walked down the road. I thank him, the Minister and colleagues from across the House for their support.

I turn now to the substance of the debate. It is clear to us all that there is an ownership problem in English football. I will use the debate to explain the terrible impact of that ownership problem on Reading and, by implication, on many clubs across the country, and to ask the Minister to reassure fans, players, staff and local communities. As I said earlier, I welcome the Government’s announcement that they plan to bring forward a Bill to regulate football. That is an important step.

I call on the Government to live up to that promise. Ministers must ensure that the Bill includes proper powers for the regulator and, crucially, that there is enough parliamentary time for the Bill in the last months before a general election. Above all, the Government need to show us that they have the determination to press forward with what they have promised. I know my hon. Friend the shadow Minister is willing to work with them, as are we MPs, fans and the whole football community. I hope the Minister will confirm that the Government are serious and will commit to them taking this vital work forward as a matter of urgency.

I will turn now to Reading football club. To put it clearly and simply, as loyal fans did on the march last week, we want our Reading back. The story of what is happening to our wonderful club is quite simply heartbreaking. It is terrible, and I could use much less parliamentary language—as was occasionally heard as we marched down the A33. The situation we face stands in stark contrast to the history and traditions of our great club.

Reading was founded in 1871, and it is one of the oldest clubs in English football. The fans, the players of the men’s and women’s teams, and the staff have all been badly let down. In men’s football, Reading has been a championship club, knocking on the doors of the premier league. It has enjoyed three seasons in the top flight. In fact, we were one place outside getting into Europe at the end of our first premier league season, in 2006-07. Fans have vivid memories of the nineties, the noughties and our most recent time in the premier league 10 years ago—the proudest possession of one of my children is a ball signed by the whole team from that heady time—under the wise leadership of brilliant managers such as Steve Coppell, who guided gifted players, many of whom were local and came up through the club’s academy, and the committed support of the then owner, Sir John Madejski, whom I thank for his wise stewardship of the club.

The club and the wider football community used to talk about “the Reading way”: developing and motivating players at a local family club, and achieving far more than others would have thought possible. That includes—I particularly like saying this—beating Watford 4-1 to win the Simod cup at Wembley; winning the championship a number of times, most recently in 2011; knocking on the door of the premier league in successive play-offs; and great FA cup runs, including sadly losing to Arsenal in the semi-final in 2015.

Crucially, the women’s team were also punching above their weight, and were a real success story. Until recently, they were playing in the women’s super league thanks to brilliant players and management, and were on the brink of doing something amazing. Sadly, that run of success has now ended.

The club was sold in 2013, and a succession of owners have presided over a worsening situation. Unfortunately, our men’s team is now languishing at the bottom of league one, through no fault of their own—16 points have been deducted from the club in the last few months for an array of financial mismanagement by the current owner, Chinese businessman Dai Yongge, not for anything that has happened on the pitch. That financial mismanagement includes Mr Yongge failing to pay wages and national insurance. His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs had lodged winding-up petitions before the NI was paid. Mr Yongge’s term as owner started well, with investment in players and the training ground, but sadly he seemed to lose interest. This may be a familiar story to others who follow the history of many of our clubs.

The effect of those points deductions has been absolutely appalling. Reading’s men’s team was relegated from the championship to league one at the end of last season, and further points deductions have left us at the very bottom of that league. To make matters worse, it now looks as if the club will be relegated again at the end of this season. That would leave us playing in league two. The owner has also pulled the funding for the women’s team, which made them unsustainable as a professional outfit—sadly, the players are no longer fully professional—and they too have been relegated.

Let me say a brief word about players, staff and fans. Quite simply, they are doing a determined job to remain positive in an extremely difficult and challenging situation that is not of their making. We are all extremely proud of them, and I pay tribute to them all. Young, less experienced players—the men’s team are the youngest in the league—who in some cases should still be in the academy or on the bench, are playing with grit and determination despite everything that has been thrown against them. Fans with families and busy jobs have come together to fight for our club in a community campaign that has made the national news. We are all very proud of them, and I want to say: “Come on you R’s!”

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

I apologise for being late to the debate—I was caught out by the earlier start. My hon. Friend is making a good point about the way in which football is often run by individuals who can, in the end, bring a whole club and its community down because of the way the club is managed. At Sheffield Wednesday, Dejphon Chansiri has put a lot of money into the club—great—but he has been saying recently that he may stop the funding, which is obviously a considerable threat. In the end, clubs are not just about the person who owns them, or the chairmen; they are about fans. Clubs belong to them, and they should have the right to be consulted right the way through on all those issues. We hope that the regulator, when it comes in, will have the powers to do precisely that.

[Matt Rodda]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, which I will address later in my speech. I hope the Minister will offer further detail about what he proposes, and I urge him to use his speech to give us some hope, some cheer, some optimism, and some fire in our bellies to help fight for the future of our beloved club.

The Government have announced a Bill to introduce a football regulator, which is welcome. That Bill has the potential to lead to real change in English football, but sadly it is not clear how far the Government will respond to fans’ concerns, and indeed to those of the football authorities. We are all concerned about owners, such as Dai Yongge, who seem to swoop in, hope to make money, and then lose interest if they are not successful. We are at a very early stage with the Bill, so I hope the Minister will be able to reassure us about the thrust of that Bill. I ask him to provide some detail on a number of key points.

For example, can the Minister spell out what the Government hope the Bill will achieve? Can he be clear about the powers he is considering for the regulator, and will he reassure fans that they will actually have a say? Will he also put an end to clubs being punished for the actions of irresponsible owners? In short, will he commit to doing what it takes to make sure that no more clubs and no more fans have to suffer what we have had to suffer?

Dai Yongge has announced that he plans to sell Reading. He made that announcement in October, and so far there appear to be three bidders who have shown an interest in the club. That means that the sale could go through before the Bill is passed, so is the Minister able to reassure me about the club’s immediate future? If the sale does go ahead, will he commit to Reading becoming a pilot for new regulation to protect the club, and indeed to other measures that may be necessary to offer support?

Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank you once again for allowing me to have this debate tonight, and I thank Members who have intervened on me. Most of all, I thank Reading fans and our whole community. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

Local Contact Tracing

Debate between Matt Rodda and Clive Betts

Wednesday 14th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Betts]

rose—

[Matt Rodda]

rose—

Housing, Communities and Local Government: Departmental Spending

Debate between Matt Rodda and Clive Betts

Thursday 9th July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Betts]

That leads into another area. The Select Committee has just produced a report about cladding and other such issues. We have challenged the Government to produce funding through that report, so I am sure that we will take up that issue as well.

The change came when the Secretary of State appeared before the Select Committee. Suddenly, he was saying that they had asked councils to do things, but that they would be fully compensated for the things that they had been asked to do. Then there was a very general list. The Public Accounts Committee and the Select Committee, as well as the Local Government Association, have been trying to get more information on that. There is still a lack of clarity about precisely what will be funded. That is important, and quite different from the national health service, which seems to be given, rightly, “everything that it takes”—the commitment given to local councils.

We have had tranches of money—£2.16 billion then £500 million—given to councils to cover both extra costs and lost revenue, which is just as important for many councils as the extra costs they have incurred. However, the LGA is saying that by the end of June, according to the returns that went to the Ministry, the costs were £4.8 billion against the £3.7 billion received—a gap of £1 billion. The Government said they would give some help with lost income by compensating councils for 75% of the amount after the first 5% of losses, which is welcome, and somehow apportioning the lost revenue from council tax and business rates. There are two questions to ask about this. The Government have already included loss of income in the £3.7 billion compensation, so will the commitment to cover 75% be reduced? I see the Minister shaking his head; it would help if that was explained very clearly indeed.

[Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way on that point?

[Mr Betts]

Normally I would give way, but Madam Deputy Speaker is looking askance at me, so I think I had better move on.

The second question is can the Government not bring forward a bit sooner the apportionment of losses from council tax and business rates? Waiting until the spending review introduces an extra element of uncertainty.

I have another question about compensation for losses in the leisure sector. Many authorities—about 60, I think—of all political persuasions do not provide leisure services directly; instead, they provide them through arm’s length arrangements. Sheffield does it through Sheffield International Venues and has some magnificent facilities, including Sheffield Arena and Ponds Forge, which is an international-class swimming pool, and lots of community facilities. What we need is an assurance that income losses for councils in that situation will be treated the same as income losses for councils that provide the services directly. That is an important point for many councils up and down the country.

It still feels like local government is on a life support machine, waiting for the next bit of revenue to trickle down from the next ministerial statement, rather than having the certainty that they need to plan. Many councils are now looking at making cuts and emergency budgets and talking openly about section 114 notices. Yes, okay, the Ministry has said, “Come and see us before you issue a 114 notice,” but that is too late. We do not want councils to reach the point where they are thinking about a 114 and planning for it. We want them to have the certainty of getting funding so they are not driven into that position.

This is not just about funding for this year; it is about funding for next year as well. Many councils, including Sheffield Council, have reserves to see them through this year, but using them will just postpone the problem to next year. Also, many councils had plans for efficiency savings, which have been put on hold as managerial expertise is put into dealing with the current crisis. Efficiency measures that have had to be put to one side for the time being are another loss for councils that needs to be recognised properly.

Let us have more certainty that all the costs that local authorities incur in covid-related matters will be covered by the Government. Let us have another discussion with the LGA and consider whether it is fair that councils should have to stand even 25% of income losses. Let us have an assurance that arm’s length arrangements for leisure will be covered. Let us bring forward the commitment on council tax and business rates to before the spending review. Let us not get to the point of discussions about section 114 notices by providing certainty of funding.

Finally, there is the future. What local authorities need is a proper long-term sustainable financial settlement.

The covid crisis offers a watershed, a turning point, an opportunity to change things, but I want to put down five markers for the Government, drawing on the Select Committee’s report in 2019. First, we want at least a multi-year settlement, to give that certainty. The last four-year settlement was welcome. I understand why it has not been repeated in the current crisis, but it is certainly needed.

Secondly, we need a recognition that local authorities need a significant real-terms increase in their funding. The Local Government Association’s calculation of an £8 billion gap, even before covid came along, has to be recognised. Thirdly, if we really are to end austerity, it is not just about funding local councils so they do not have to make more cuts; it is about giving them the money to restore many of the essential services they have had to cut.

Fourthly, we have to devolve to councils the power not merely to spend but to raise resources in the first place. If we do that, however, we must recognise that some councils are less able to raise resources than others, so if we devolve more spending arrangements to councils, we will need a fall-back position—a central fund for councils to deal with the equalisation problem.

Finally, let us have a proper, cross-party, long-term funding agreement for social care. The two Select Committees proposed a solution with a social care premium three years ago. Let us reactivate that. Giving councils that direct source of funding for social care will also release funding for other essential services. I say to the Minister: think of MPs here today arguing for extra funding as allies in the battle with the Treasury to get the money that councils need to fight the covid crisis, but to fight it in a way that does not produce extra cuts to essential council services already devastated by 10 years of austerity.

Flats and Shared Housing: Fire Risk

Debate between Matt Rodda and Clive Betts

Tuesday 28th January 2020 Westminster Hall

[Matt Rodda]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who makes an excellent point. I will address that very issue, which is of great concern to many of the residents I represent and to many people across the country. I heard a very moving report on BBC radio over the weekend discussing the concerns of a young couple in Leeds who were living in a block with ACM cladding and who were deeply traumatised not only by the fire safety issues, but by the lack of amelioration of these serious problems. That links to insurance, and to the situation that leaseholders in such blocks face.

I find it simply staggering that two and a half years after the Grenfell disaster, the Government are still only beginning to address this terribly important issue. Little ACM cladding has been removed in that period. In my borough of Reading, four blocks were identified by Royal Berkshire Fire and Rescue Service as having ACM cladding on the exterior. I believe that only one of them is in the process of having that cladding removed, and that represents a very serious continuing fire risk.

I have been advised that that risk may be getting worse because of the continued possibility of human error. Although additional fire safety measures have been instituted—such as waking watches, where fire wardens are on site during the night—as time goes by, there is a greater possibility that a resident or another person will accidentally do something that induces a fire risk, or that some other problem will cause an accident or a terrible tragedy. I have been advised by fire service personnel that with the passage of time, the risk of human error increases, so the fact that nothing has happened to address the issue in the past two and a half years is significant. The problem is ongoing, and it may be getting worse because of the lack of response from central Government.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) rightly pointed out, local residents who live in blocks with ACM cladding face significant stress and concern. The issue affects many of us around the country, because many towns and cities have blocks containing that dreadful material and very few buildings have had it removed. Many of the people affected are private tenants or leaseholders, who have little recourse to take any substantial action on their own. They are often locked into a situation where the freeholder has the power to remove the material but is struggling to do so. Alternatively, they may need to come together with other leaseholders, and it may be difficult in practical terms to agree a way forward. I urge the Government to address that issue in particular. I hope and believe that the Minister is very much in listening mode and will consider how best to push that forward immediately.

I will also pick up on some related concerns. ACM cladding has been mentioned in the Grenfell inquiry, the second part of which opened only yesterday. Without going into significant details, it is worth pointing out that from the opening day of the second phase of the inquiry, it appears that some businesses involved may have known about the potential fire safety risk of ACM cladding some time before the Grenfell disaster. That relates to the problem of current ACM cladding. Cross-party support for much tougher action appears to be emerging. I listened with interest to the comments of Lord Porter, the Conservative chairman of the Local Government Association and a Member of the other place, who rightly picked up on the Government’s lack of action on this important matter.

There are many other forms of cladding, and I will mention some concerns that have been raised with me about the wide range of other materials. In Reading, two buildings have other types of cladding that have caused fire safety concerns. One is the Chatham Place development—it is a series of large multi-storey blocks near the town centre—which has wooden cladding. Wooden cladding is a serious issue, which we need to address as well as ACM; indeed, it played a part in the recent fire in Barking, which was very nearly a complete tragedy. Luckily, residents managed to escape.

Serious concerns have been raised regarding other forms of composite material. Crossway Point, another large block in my constituency that contains a lot of social housing, has other forms of cladding that also need to be addressed urgently. Indeed, there was another fire in Bolton, in the north of England, from which students had a very lucky escape; the Minister is nodding wisely. I appreciate that colleagues in central Government are aware of the problems, but I ask them to act as fast as they can to deal with the wide range of cladding issues.

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

My hon. Friend raises an important point. I know that the Government are doing a review of those other materials. Are we not slightly uncomfortable about the fact that material that has now been banned from use on new buildings under Government regulations is still allowed on existing buildings? Materials that are not of limited combustibility cannot be put on new buildings, but such materials are still on existing buildings, and they pose a risk to residents.

[Matt Rodda]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. The issue is that the use of such materials has been allowed for many years, and we now face a national crisis—I do not use that word lightly—in building safety and standards, with a legacy of dangerous materials across the whole United Kingdom. We need to take urgent and determined action to address that. My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I understand that the Select Committee on Housing, Communities and Local Government, which he chairs, has carried out some excellent work on that issue, and he is working on a cross-party basis to try to move the matter forward as fast as possible.

I am aware of the need to press on. I will address some specific issues beyond the exterior of buildings, because a number of important points have been made about internal fire safety, an area in which serious dangers could also be lurking for many existing buildings. I draw colleagues’ attention to the issue of fire safety doors, and I will give two examples from Reading residents I have spoken to who have serious concerns about this matter. Obviously, because of the number of buildings that are either tall or are flatted developments, fire safety doors should play a crucial part in stopping the spread of fire—rather like compartmentalisation, which I will come to later.