Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill (Tenth sitting)

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Tuesday 30th January 2024 Public Bill Committees

[Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)]

I rise to say simply that the Opposition welcome this group of Government new clauses.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

I, too, welcome the new clauses, but I do so in the knowledge that they do not provide a perfect solution. My concern, and the question I put to the Minister, relates to situations such as the one that I outlined the other day. Where information is held by a series of Russian dolls, as it were, the ultimate one of which is located in the Cayman Islands—as is the case with Wembley Central Apartments in my constituency—what ultimate redress do the leaseholders have? Damages does not get to the nub of the problem.

[Lee Rowley]

As the hon. Member has outlined, we spoke about this issue on Thursday. I have a lot of sympathy for the point that he makes, and I think we agreed that we would explore it further; I was going to write to the hon. Gentleman and the Committee, if I recall correctly. He is right to raise and highlight that point. Where we can make further progress, we should try to do so. As I know he will appreciate, there is ultimately a challenge when entities move out of jurisdictions, but that should not mean that we should not have a look at whether we can make things better, if not perfect.

Question put and agreed to.

New clause 42 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 43

Estate management: sales information requests

“(1) An owner of a managed dwelling may give a sales information request to the estate manager.

(2) A ‘sales information request’ is a document in a specified form, and given in a specified manner, setting out—

(a) that the owner is contemplating selling the dwelling,

(b) information that the owner requests from the estate manager for the purpose of the contemplated sale, and

(c) any other specified information.

(3) An owner of a managed dwelling may request information in a sales information request only if the information is specified in regulations made by the appropriate authority.

(4) The appropriate authority may specify information for the purposes of subsection (3) only if the information—

(a) relates to estate management, estate managers, estate management charges or relevant obligations, and

(b) could reasonably be expected to assist a prospective purchaser in deciding whether to purchase a dwelling.

(5) The appropriate authority may by regulations provide that a sales information request may not be given until the end of a particular period, or until another condition is met.

(6) In this section and sections (Effect of sales information request) to (Enforcement of sections (Effect of sales information request) and (Charges for provision of information))—

(a) a reference to purchasing a dwelling is a reference to becoming an owner of the dwelling, and references to selling a dwelling are to be read accordingly;

(b) ‘sales information request’ has the meaning given in subsection (2);

(c) ‘specified’ means specified in, or determined in accordance with, regulations made by the appropriate authority.

(7) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section is subject to the negative procedure.”—(Lee Rowley.)

This new clause, to be inserted after NC14, would provide for the owner of a managed dwelling to give a sales information request to the estate manager in anticipation of selling the dwelling.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 44

Effect of sales information request

“(1) An estate manager who has been given a sales information request by the owner of a managed dwelling must provide the owner with any of the information requested that is within the estate manager’s possession.

(2) The estate manager must request information from another person if—

(a) the information has been requested from the estate manager in a sales information request,

(b) the estate manager does not possess the information when the request is made, and

(c) the estate manager believes that the other person possesses the information.

(3) That person must provide the estate manager with any of the information requested that is within that person’s possession.

(4) A person (‘A’) must request information from another person (‘B’) if—

(a) the information has been requested from A in a request under subsection (2) or this subsection (an ‘onward request’),

(b) A does not possess the information when the request is made, and

(c) A believes that B possesses the information.

(5) B must provide A with any of the information requested that is within B’s possession.

(6) A person who is required to provide information under this section must do so before the end of a specified period beginning with the day on which the request for the information is made.

(7) A person who—

(a) has been given a sales information request or an onward request, and

(b) as a result of not possessing the information requested, does not provide the information before the end of a specified period beginning with the day on which the request is made,

must give the person making the request a negative response confirmation.

(8) A ‘negative response confirmation’ is a document in a specified form, and given in a specified manner, setting out—

(a) that the person is unable to provide the information requested because it is not in the person’s possession;

(b) a description of what action the person has taken to determine whether the information is in the person’s possession;

(c) any onward requests the person has made and the persons to whom they were made;

(d) an explanation of why the person was unable to obtain the information, including details of any negative response confirmation received by the person;

(e) any other specified information.

(9) A person who is required to give a negative response confirmation must do so before the end of a specified period beginning with the day after the day on which the period referred to in subsection (7)(b) ends.

(10) The appropriate authority may by regulations—

(a) provide that an onward request may not be made until the end of a particular period, or until another condition is met;

(b) provide for how an onward request is to be made;

(c) make provision as to the period within which an onward request must be made;

(d) provide for circumstances in which a duty to comply with a sales information request or an onward request does not apply;

(e) make provision as to how information requested in a sales information request or an onward request is to be provided;

(f) make provision for circumstances in which a period specified for the purposes of subsection (6), (7) or (9) is to be extended.

(11) In this section and sections (Charges for provision of information) and (Enforcement of sections (Effect of sales information request) and (Charges for provision of information)), ‘onward request’ has the meaning given in subsection (4)(a).

(12) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section is subject to the negative procedure.”—(Lee Rowley.)

This new clause, to be inserted after NC43, would require an estate manager who has been given a sales information request to provide the information requested, and request that information from other parties.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 45

Charges for provision of information

“(1) Subject to any regulations under subsection (2), a person (‘P’) may charge another person for—

(a) determining whether information requested in a sales information request or an onward request is in P’s possession;

(b) providing or obtaining information under section (Effect of sales information request).

(2) The appropriate authority may by regulations—

(a) limit the amount that may be charged under subsection (1);

(b) prohibit a charge under subsection (1) in specified circumstances or unless specified requirements are met.

(3) If an estate manager charges the owner of a managed dwelling under subsection (1), the charge—

(a) is an administration charge for the purposes of this Part, and

(b) is not to be treated as an estate management charge for the purposes of this Part.

(4) For the purposes of this Part, the costs of—

(a) determining whether information requested in a sales information request or an onward request is in a person’s possession, or

(b) providing or obtaining information under section (Estate management: sales information requests),

are not to be regarded as relevant costs to be taken into account in determining the amount of any estate management charge.

(5) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section is subject to the negative procedure.”—(Lee Rowley.)

This new clause, to be inserted after NC44, would regulate charges for the provision of information under NC44.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 46

Enforcement of sections (Effect of sales information request) and (Charges for provision of information)

“(1) A person who makes a sales information request or an onward request (‘C’) may make an application to the appropriate tribunal on the ground that another person (‘D’) failed to comply with a requirement under section (Effect of sales information request) or (Charges for provision of information) in relation to the request.

(2) The tribunal may make one or more of the following orders—

(a) an order that D comply with the requirement before the end of a period specified by the tribunal;

(b) an order that D pay damages to C for the failure;

(c) if D charged C in excess of a limit specified in regulations under section (Charges for provision of information)(2)(a), an order that D repay the amount charged in excess of the limit to C;

(d) if D charged C in breach of regulations under section (Charges for provision of information)(2)(b), an order that D repay the amount charged to C.

(3) Damages under subsection (2)(b) may not exceed £5,000.

(4) The appropriate authority may by regulations amend the amount in subsection (3) if the appropriate authority considers it expedient to do so to reflect changes in the value of money.

(5) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section is subject to the negative procedure.”—(Lee Rowley.)

This new clause, to be inserted after NC45, would provide for the enforcement of obligations under NC44 and NC45.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 1

Abolition of forfeiture of a long lease

“(1) This section applies to any right of forfeiture or re-entry in relation to a dwelling held on a long lease which arises either—

(a) under the terms of that lease; or

(b) under or in consequence of section 146(1) of the Law of Property Act 1925.

(2) The rights referred to in subsection (1) are abolished.

(3) In this section—

“dwelling” means a building or part of a building occupied or intended to be occupied as a separate dwelling, together with any yard, garden, or outhouses and appurtenances belonging to it or usually enjoyed with it;

“lease” means a lease at law or in equity and includes a sub-lease, but does not include a mortgage term;

“long lease” has the meaning given by sections 76 and 77 of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002.” —(Matthew Pennycook.)

This new clause would abolish the right of forfeiture in relation to residential long leases in instances where the leaseholder is in breach of covenant.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

It is a pleasure to continue our line-by-line proceedings with you in the Chair, Sir Edward. For the sake of probity, simply because I will make reference to the organisation’s work, I once again declare that my wife is the joint chief executive of the Law Commission.

The reason for tabling the new clause is simple: forfeiture is a wholly disproportionate and horrifically draconian mechanism for ensuring compliance with a lease agreement, and it needs to be abolished through the Bill. To remind the Committee, the law of forfeiture gives the landlord the right, following a breach of a clause in the lease or an unpaid debt of £350, or a lesser sum if it has been outstanding for more than three years, to terminate the lease, regain possession of the property and pocket the unmerited windfall gain that would accrue from its sale.

Not all forfeiture actions relate to trivial breaches—some are made in response to serious transgressions of a covenant in a lease, such as instances of persistent and egregious antisocial behaviour—but many are initiated for entirely trivial breaches, such as nominal ground rent or service charge arrears. The current laws of forfeiture render it entirely possible, for example, for a tenant to lose possession of a £500,000 flat or house for a debt of as little as £351, or even £15 if unpaid for more than three years, with the landlord keeping the entire difference between the value of the property and the debt owed.

[Eddie Hughes (Walsall North) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman is making a compelling speech. It seems crazy that in the 21st century somebody can lose possession of their property for such a small amount of money. I sincerely hope that he continues his compelling speech in such a way that he has a very positive effect on the Minister.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that helpful intervention. I hope that I do have that effect, and that he can use his good offices to persuade the Minister of the merits of adopting new clause 1.

[Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)]

The shadow Minister is making a good point, but to play the cynic on this issue, there is a difference between things that could take place and things that are taking place. What is the evidence? We should probably get rid of this latent power in any case, but how often is the power being used in practice? Is this a real thing that is happening?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the hon. Gentleman. If he allows me to develop my case, I will address that very point, which was well made.

Not only is the potential penalty for a breach incredibly draconian in the circumstances in which it is used, but even in instances in which a lease is not terminated, with the landlord gaining the financial benefit of any capital loans attached to it, the laws of forfeiture can lead to a significant financial loss for leaseholders. Take the following scenario. For whatever reason, a leaseholder accumulates a small arrears—perhaps a demand has not been received—and the freeholder or managing agent issues reminders, which add to the initial debt. That debt is then handed over to a debt collector, whose means of remuneration incentivise them to pursue it aggressively. The leaseholder might then attempt to pay, but they also have to find the money to cover large legal costs. If there is a mortgage, the bank is often drawn in to secure its interest, so a compulsory loan is added to the leaseholder’s account. In our view, it is the lack of any proportionate relationship between a breach of a lease and its consequences that makes forfeiture so unjust.

Since 1925, this House has regularly taken steps to make it more difficult for a freeholder to successfully forfeit a lease. For example, the Housing Act 1996 and the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 introduced prohibitions on the serving of a section 146 notice under the Law of Property Act 1925 in relation to service charges and breach of a covenant, respectively, in instances in which the amount payable has not been determined. Those were not the first attempts to constrain the laws of forfeiture. History shows that Parliament has returned to the matter every few decades in an attempt to mitigate forfeiture’s manifest injustices. Despite the laws of forfeiture being made stricter, a great many freeholders and managing agents still routinely use forfeiture powers as a first resort when seeking to recover alleged arrears of payments from leaseholders, and they rely—this is in some ways the more important point—on the mere threat of forfeiture, and the financial risks it presents, to deter leaseholders from disputing any unreasonable costs and defending claims.

Those who advocate retaining forfeiture often argue that it is a minor issue that does not affect many leaseholders. However, although termination of a lease under forfeiture may be relatively rare—I deliberately use the word “may”, because His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service does not track the number of cases—evidence from across the country shows hundreds of cases and scores of outright forfeitures on average each year. As I said, the threat is as damaging as the use of the power, because it puts landlords in a nearly unassailable position of strength in disputes vis-à-vis leaseholders, which is why forfeiture is routinely threatened in money disputes.

Because the law of forfeiture remains so manifestly unjust, despite successive attempts to render it more palatable, there have been many calls over recent decades for more wholesale reform. For example, hon. Members may know that in 2006 the Law Commission proposed abolishing the current law of forfeiture and replacing it with a statutory scheme for the termination of tenancies. It even drafted legislation, the Termination of Tenancies Bill, to implement that proposal. Yet nothing has been done. Indeed, the relevant section of the Law Commission’s website states—this amused me—that, 18 years on,

“We are awaiting the Government’s response to our recommendations”—

eighteen years and counting.

There is, of course, a need to carefully balance the rights and responsibilities of landlords and leaseholders, and there must be effective means of ensuring compliance with a lease agreement, but those means must be appropriate and proportionate to the breach in question. We can debate precisely what alternative arrangements are needed to deal with breaches of the covenant or unpaid arrears, whether orders of some kind are necessary to sell a property when a debt is not paid, and what kind of measured method is appropriate to removing problem tenants from a building—we heard about that in our oral evidence sessions. The starting point, however, must be that we finally grasp the nettle and abolish forfeiture, and the windfall it provides, once and for all. It operates to the prejudice of leaseholders and it cannot be justified.

The Secretary of State made clear on Second Reading that he was open to this Committee looking at how we end the abuse of forfeiture. I believe there is a broad consensus across the House—indeed across this Committee —that we should consign it to history, even if there is a debate about precisely what replace it with. Following the point made by the hon. Member for Walsall North, I sincerely hope that the Minister will not disappoint us and the many thousands of leaseholders who support the abolition of forfeiture by resisting this new clause out of hand. I very much look forward to his response.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lee Rowley]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich for this new clause and for the opportunity to debate it. The hon. Gentleman set me a challenge at the end of his speech. He said he hoped I would not resist the new clause out of hand—I will not resist it out of hand, but I may resist it. In all seriousness, this is an important part of the discussion and I do not disagree with what the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich and my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch said—I absolutely accept it. I am happy to confirm that the Government are aware of the strength of feeling on this issue and sympathetic to some of the objectives of the amendment. It is absolutely the case that forfeiture is an extreme measure. That is why we committed on Second Reading to look at this.

On the question from my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire, it is difficult to get numbers. As has been outlined by others, the principle is clearly a real problem. The disproportionate nature of the outcome completely outweighs the likely loss being pursued. The Leasehold Knowledge Partnership, or one of the other witnesses, suggested in oral evidence that there were 80 to 90 forfeitures a year, but the Government do not have specific data to validate that at this stage. We understand that most of the threats are defused during the process—particularly if a mortgage company is involved, it tends to, in extremis, step in and offer to put the amount of money on to the mortgage or equivalent. The evidence base is and will always be challenging, but we absolutely accept that the principle is disproportionate and unreasonable.

However, as with so many of these clauses and elements of law, there is the question of how to make something in the system better while still ensuring the ability to balance all the things underneath. That is probably one of the reasons why this place has returned to this issue so often over the decades—it is not just because the Government may not respond in time, as the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich indicated. This new clause is definitely well intentioned. We are sympathetic, but we do not necessarily believe in the full abolition of forfeiture without some form of replacement for some elements of it that may still have validity—not the forfeiture itself, but a recognition that people cannot just not pay things without some form of process to address that. That is one of the reasons we cannot accept this amendment at the moment.

However, I do not condone the abuse of forfeiture. I want to be absolutely clear that we are listening very carefully to the arguments being made. We have already committed to look at this again, and we are currently looking at it. I hope we will be able to say more at future stages of the Bill. With those reassurances, I hope the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich will consider withdrawing his clause.

[Matthew Pennycook]

That was a slightly frustrating response from the Minister. I had hoped for a little more. I am glad that he thinks the new clause is well intentioned and sympathises with some of its objectives. From the Opposition’s point of view, as with rent charges, another example of draconian and wholly disproportionate Victorian-era property law, we need to cut the knot and get rid of these provisions entirely. As I said, we can have a debate on what we replace them with. We are very clear that there must be a replacement. There must be an effective means of ensuring compliance with a lease agreement, but it must be appropriate and proportionate to the breach in question. We all agree that forfeiture is not proportionate or appropriate to the breach, so why retain it? What I did not get from the Minister, but had hoped for, was a clear indication that that is the Government’s intent, at whatever stage of the Bill.

I suspect this is one of those new clauses that the Minister has resisted—perhaps not out of hand, but resisted none the less—but that we may see back in a different form at a later stage with the Government’s seal of approval. However, I would like to make very clear our strength of feeling on the matter, and I will therefore press the clause to a vote.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

As I made clear at the outset of our line-by-line consideration of the Bill, while we have no intention of trying to convince this Government to radically overhaul this limited piece of legislation to enact the Law Commission’s recommendations on enfranchisement, right to manage and commonhold in full, we do want to make the case for a limited number of new measures that would give future leaseholders greater control and strengthen the foundations on which bolder reform will be enacted. New clause 2 seeks to incorporate one of those measures into the Bill—namely, that all leases on new flats should include a requirement to establish and operate a residents’ management company responsible for all service charge matters, with each leaseholder given a share.

The new clause seeks to remedy two significant flaws in the current leasehold system. The first is that unless leaseholders in blocks of flats either take it upon themselves to acquire the right to manage, collectively enfranchise and then establish an RMC or buy a property on a development where an RMC has been set up, they find that despite being the people who pay all the costs associated with maintaining and managing their building, they have no control whatever over how their money is spent. The second is that the rights that this House has chosen to give leaseholders to empower them to exercise a degree of control over the management of their buildings—for example, the right to make an application to the first-tier tribunal, to appoint a manager under section 24 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 or to acquire the right to manage under the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002—can be exercised only following what is often an arduous and costly legal process.

New clause 2 would go some way to remedying both of those problems. It would mean that, where a new residential block of flats was constructed and its units sold, the development would have to be a tripartite lease between the freeholder, leaseholder and a new residents’ management company. Each leaseholder in the block would own a share of the RMC and it would be under their exclusive control, giving them full responsibility for services, repairs, maintenance, improvements, insurance and the cost of managing their building, and thereby enabling them to control how their money was spent. Their share of the company and ability to influence the management of their building would be theirs by right and at no additional cost.

The importance of this proposed measure lies not only in the greater control it would give to leaseholders over the maintenance and management of their buildings, but in it being one of several ways by which we can lay the groundwork for a future in which leasehold has been rendered obsolete and commonhold is the norm. New clause 2, even if it is in operation for only a few years prior to commonhold being made the default tenure for new blocks of flats, as is our intention, would facilitate the reinvigoration of that tenure by creating a cohort of leaseholders who, of necessity, have experience in running their building as they would under a commonhold arrangement, even if that experience extends only to appointing and overseeing a managing agent—hopefully one properly regulated as a result of the Government’s accepting our new clause 25.

In facilitating leaseholder control of the operation of a site and giving them responsibility for everything covered by a service charge, new clause 2 would also further undermine freehold by depriving unscrupulous landlords of the ability to extract income from leaseholders using opaque and potentially unlawful practices such as appointing managing agents that are just related companies and using captive insurance brokers.

Lastly, if enacted in conjunction with leaseholders being given a mandatory share of freehold, as provided for by new clause 29, mandatory RMCs in new blocks of flats would ensure that we have a standardised management model and an agreed set of rules for those new blocks of flats where the freehold is collectively owned, making the process of converting buildings to commonhold at scale far easier.

Let me be clear with the Committee: we do not pretend that this is a perfect solution. It would obviously not help those leaseholders who have already purchased their flats and who do not currently have an RMC. We will need other solutions, building on the measures already in the Bill, to address the challenges that they will continue to face. However, if the Committee believes —as I think it does—that commonhold is the ideal form of tenure, and that reinvigorating it is the solution for blocks of flats, we should take practical steps to pave the way for that to happen. New clause 2 is one of the ways we can do so, and I urge the Minister to consider it.

[Lee Rowley]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his new clause which, as he has indicated, seeks to require the establishment of leaseholder-owned management companies for all new leasehold flats. I understand that his intention is to ensure that, by default, all leaseholders of new flats would be responsible for the management of their buildings. I support the well-intentioned desire to give more homeowners control over the management of their buildings. The Bill as a whole is intended to do that, and I hope everybody accepts that it is moving in the right direction.

As the hon. Gentleman knows, existing leaseholders can already use the right to manage to take over management responsibility for their building. It is an established no-fault right that allows leaseholders to take over management responsibility when a majority of them wish to do so. The Bill accepts and implements key elements of the Law Commission recommendations that broaden access to the right to manage and reduce leaseholders’ costs when they make a claim. The Bill gives leaseholders the right to take control over their building, but it does not compel those who do not wish to. There is an important point there: I understand the intentions behind the new clause, but there is a question about compulsion and there may be a question about operation if some leaseholders do not wish to step up. For that reason, the requirement would not easily apply in some scenarios and a blanket requirement to establish such companies is probably not appropriate.

Although I accept, understand and sympathise with the intention of the new clause, I am afraid that we will resist it because there are times when it would not be appropriate for it to apply, and we should not change the law on that basis.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I am disappointed by that response from the Minister, as he would expect. We very much agree that the Bill is moving in the right direction, but we do not think it goes far enough for two reasons, which I will reiterate to help the Committee to understand why we feel strongly about this issue. Yes, the right to manage is an established right. The Bill makes provisions to enhance and expand access to RTM, but the RTM application process comes after an arduous and costly legal process. We are saying that, as a matter of right, residents in new build blocks of flats would have an RMC put in place and a share of it, without that cost. That is one point.

There is a more fundamental difference of principle, which is that if we are serious about reinvigorating commonhold, we need a number of steps. We need the legal changes that are recommended by the Law Commission, and we need to do those as one process, not in a partial way. However, there are other non-legislative policy changes that we need to make if we are to pave the way for commonhold. This new clause is one of them, and we feel quite strongly that it should be included in the Bill.

The Minister argued that there may be limited cases in which a mandatory RMC is not appropriate. If the Government want to bring forward their own amendment to provide for general RMCs across the board with limited exceptions, they are more than welcome to do so. However, we feel strongly, on a point of principle, that we should take this step alongside providing a share of the freehold, which I will argue for when I speak to new clause 29. Given our strength of feeling on this issue, as with the previous new clause, I will press this one to a vote.

Question put, That the clause be read a second time.

--- Later in debate ---

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

I will be relatively brief in speaking to the new clause, because I trust that it is self-explanatory, and we believe that the case for it is robust and well understood. Part 4 of the Bill, which we have already considered, will give residential freeholders on private and mixed-tenure estates rights to challenge the reasonableness of estate management charges and to hold estate management companies to account that are equivalent to those of leaseholders, but it does not give those same residential freeholders the right to take over the management functions on their estate.

We appreciate the concern among some that the right to manage would be too complex and onerous in a freehold estate setting, but it is only a right; it is not a requirement that it be exercised. We believe that there is evidence of an appetite among residential freeholders not only to be able to change a poorly performing or exploitative estate manager, for which part 4 provides, but to have more direct control of the management of their estates. We also believe that it is right in principle that there is parity between residential leaseholders and freeholders when it comes to the right to manage. New clause 5 simply seeks to provide them with that right.

In their June 2019 response to the 2018 consultation on reforms to the leasehold system in England, the Government committed to considering the implications of introducing a right to manage for residential freeholders, as part of their wider commitment to ensuring that leaseholders and residential freeholders enjoy equivalent rights. The Secretary of State made it clear on Second Reading that this Committee should look at the issue, as well as the issue of the abuse of forfeiture. On that occasion, the hon. Member for Redditch went even further. She stated:

“I know that the Government intend to introduce a right to manage for freeholders”.—[Official Report, 11 December 2023; Vol. 742, c. 677.]

We hope that she is right and that that remains the Government’s intent, but there are no Government amendments that would incorporate the power to establish a right to manage regime for freeholders on privately managed estates. New clause 5 would do so, and I hope the Minister will accept it.

[Lee Rowley]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for tabling the new clause.

Let me separate my remarks into two parts. First, am I relatively sympathetic to the hon. Gentleman’s point? The answer is yes: there is a strong case for the measure. It has not been brought forward to date, and we will have to see whether it is possible to do so in the future. I cannot guarantee that, but we are looking at it and listening carefully. I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point, and he made a strong case for it. We will not be able to do everything that we have said throughout this process, in the end, but I assure him that we are interested in this potential area.

However, we will resist the new clause, not because it is the convention to do so but because we genuinely think that it is not the right measure, even if we did agree with the principle. To go back to the Henry VIII powers discussion, this is probably an area in respect of which, if we were to do something—again, there are no guarantees—we would do it on the face of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

I think I quote the Minister accurately when I say that he said, “Let me see how to get out of this one.” He is developing a reputation not just for reasonableness but for undue honesty. This is one of those features of the parliamentary process that I think anyone watching our proceedings will struggle to understand: there is clearly agreement here, and there is clearly a high chance that the Government are going to introduce a right to manage on privately managed estates, yet the Minister cannot accept the new clause.

I take the point about the particular drafting of the new clause. It was done to put the onus on the Government, who have the resources to bring forward the necessary amendments, given that it is a complex area. I did not hear a clear commitment from the Minister to bring forward those provisions. If he had given one, I would have withdrawn the new clause, but he has not. All he has said is, “We’re looking and listening but won’t be able to do everything”—despite the fact that the Government are dumping hundreds of amendments into the Bill at the last minute and no doubt will dump hundreds more. If we want to put these important measures in the Bill, we can, and we think we should. We feel strongly about this issue and I am going to press the new clause to the vote.

[The Chair]

We look forward to a Labour Government always accepting Opposition amendments. [Laughter.]

Question put, That the clause be read a second time.

--- Later in debate ---

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

I hope that on this occasion the Minister will give me enough reason to withdraw the new clause. I always prefer to withdraw a new clause with a commitment that the Government will introduce what we seek to incorporate into the Bill. New clause 25 raises the important issue of the regulation of property agents, particularly managing agents.

For all that the various measures in the Bill seek to give leaseholders greater control over the buildings in which they live, and to give residential freeholders greater control over their estates, managing agents will remain responsible for day-to-day management in almost all circumstances. In the case of newly empowered leaseholders involved in either an RMC or an RTM company, there will be managing agents they have to take advice from and instruct. The ultimate success of many of the provisions in the Bill, and the extent to which leaseholders experience a tangible improvement in the quality of the services they receive, is dependent on the performance of those managing agents.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lee Rowley]

I will not detain the Committee particularly long on this provision. I regret that we will not be able to accept new clause 25, for two reasons. First, I accept that people come down in different places on the use of broad Henry VIII-type powers, but we are not sure that those would be proportionate here. This measure concerns a considerable framework that would require a significant level of scrutiny to make it work. We are not convinced that it would be agreeable or acceptable to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, either.

Secondly, the new clause relates to an area that has been under debate for a number of years, as the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich has outlined, and we think that it is without the scope of the Bill. It is a significant area on which further consideration is needed, and we do not think that there is space for that among all the other discussions. That will ultimately be a matter for the House to determine, but the Government do not think that this is the place to do it, given its significance and given the significance of the other things that we are trying to bring forward in the Bill.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I expected a little more from the Minister, because the Government have accepted in principle that property agents need to be regulated. We think it important that this matter be discussed in connection with this Bill, and that some form of regulation be introduced. As I say, the effective functioning of many of the provisions in this Bill will rely on the standard of managing agents being driven up, and on substandard agents being driven out of the market.

At the moment, all the Minister is saying is that the lack of an overarching regulatory framework in this area is fine. The Government have had four and a half years and are comfortable with taking many more years to come to consider this matter. From our point of view, that is not good enough. The Government have had the working group’s report for some time. They should have made better progress in implementing at least some of its recommendations, if not the vast majority of them. I will press new clause 25 to a vote.

[Lee Rowley]

I should put it on record—just in case, although it was many years ago—that I used to be an estate agent. I should probably make that clear.

--- Later in debate ---

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

I do not intend to press new clause 26 to a vote, because it is very much a probing amendment. My remarks on it will be brief because it is extremely simple and straightforward.

Leasehold enfranchisement and the right to manage are extremely complex areas of law. There are at least eight Acts relevant to the rights of residential leaseholders, namely the Leasehold Reform Act 1967, the Landlord and Tenant Acts 1985 and 1987, the Housing Act 1988, the Local Government and Housing Act 1989, the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993, the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 and the Building Safety Act 2022. There are also two Acts relevant to residential freeholders on private and mixed-tenure estates, namely the Rentcharges Act 1977 and the Law of Property Act 1925, both of which we have debated extensively.

This limited Bill has made significant changes to almost all of those Acts. If and when it receives Royal Assent, it will add a further layer of complexity and interpretation to a legislative landscape that is perplexing even to those with legal training. The law as it relates to residential and freehold leaseholders is crying out for consolidation. The statute law must be made clearer, shorter and more accessible so that those who work with the law, are concerned with making it or need to access or use it can do so more easily.

This is not a consolidation Bill, but the Opposition believe that it would be useful to give the Secretary of State the power to amend a number of the Acts to which I referred, so as to facilitate their consolidation. I trust that the Minister will see the benefit of incorporating such a power into the Bill, and I hope that he will accept it.

[Lee Rowley]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich for moving new clause 26. He is right that this is an extremely complicated area of law and that there is a significant amount of interaction and overlap between the relevant legislation, which has built up over many decades. He is also right that there is a legitimate question to be asked about whether consolidation or spring cleaning of the relevant Acts is reasonable and proportionate. I am grateful to him and his party for seeking to provide the Government with additional powers to do so. The challenge is in whether that would be proportionate and whether the broad powers are necessary, even given the points that he made.

While I understand the points that the hon. Gentleman highlighted, the Government are taking a self-denying ordinance. We believe that such broad powers should be used only when absolutely necessary and that the test is not met in the case, so we will resist the new clause if the hon. Gentleman chooses to press it, although I hope that, as he indicated, he will not do so.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I commend the Minister for continuing to deny himself additional powers to do very sensible things. Notwithstanding that self-denying ordinance, I hope that he will at least take on board the point and give some further consideration to how we might tidy up the statute law in this area. It has been complex for all members of the Committee to understand. As I said, it is complex even for those with legal training, let alone those who need to access or use the law, whether or not it is through one of the means of redress we have been debating.

I hope that the Government will give some further thought to what might be done on the issue, but I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 27

Qualifying leases for the purposes of the remediation of building defects

“Section 119 of the Building Safety Act 2022 is amended by the insertion after subsection (4) of the following —

‘(5) The Secretary of State may, by regulations, amend subsection (2) so as to bring additional descriptions of lease within the definition of “qualifying lease”.’” —(Matthew Pennycook.)

This new clause would give the Secretary of State the power to bring “non qualifying” leaseholders within the scope of the protections of the Building Safety Act 2022.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 28—Meaning of “relevant building” for the purposes of the remediation of building defects—

“Section 117 of the Building Safety Act 2022 is amended by the insertion after subsection (6) of the following—

‘(7) The Secretary of State may, by regulations, amend subsection (2) so as to bring additional descriptions of building within the definition of “relevant building”.’”

This new clause would give the Secretary of State the power to bring buildings which are under 11m in height or have fewer than four storeys within the scope of the protections of the Building Safety Act 2022.

[Matthew Pennycook]

New clauses 27 and 28 concern building safety. The building safety crisis exists within the context of leasehold property and has been rendered more acute by the iniquities on which the leasehold system rests, yet the solutions to the specific problems faced by leaseholders in unsafe buildings are different from the general failings of the leasehold tenure that the Bill has sought to address in a limited number of areas. However, while the provisions in parts 1, 2 and 3 of the Bill are not answers to the problems of dangerous cladding and non-cladding defects, the relationship between the building safety crisis and residential leasehold properties makes the Bill the ideal vehicle for implementing a number of those solutions.

As the Committee will know, the building safety crisis is far from over. It has been almost seven years since the horrific fire at Grenfell Tower that claimed the lives of 72 innocent men, women and children, yet the Minister will know that there remain many thousands of unsafe buildings across the country that still require remediation.

[Barry Gardiner]

The Minister may also know that last night in my constituency the London fire brigade had to attend with 125 firefighters and 25 fire engines—three with the tall turntables—to put out a fire at King Edward Court. More than 100 people were evacuated from the building—safely, I am pleased to add—but the cladding on that building was similar to that at Grenfell. Here we are, seven years on from Grenfell, and three and a half years since the survey of that building took place in which it was reported that the cladding was of that combustible type, and still the Building Safety Act 2022 has not been able to ensure that, between the manager and the developer, those residents remain safe.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I am very glad that the residents were evacuated safely, but my hon. Friend highlights a problem that will apply to many other buildings across the country. The pace of remediation is far too slow. We often talk about remediation works as if they were just a practical issue—“When will it start and when will I be updated?”—but for so many residents there remains a very real risk to their health, their safety and in many cases their life. That is why we need to grip the crisis and ensure that it is addressed. No one disputes the fact that some progress has been made over recent years in addressing the building safety crisis, or the fact that the Minister has personally devoted considerable time and attention to the issue, but it really is a damning indictment of the Government’s record that nearly seven years on, the crisis remains unresolved for the vast majority of blameless leaseholders whose lives remain blighted by it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lee Rowley]

I am grateful to the hon. Members for Greenwich and Woolwich and for Brent North for the new clause and the contributions to the debate. I put on record how sorry I was to hear about Petworth Court, on which I was briefed overnight. It must have been a real challenge, and very scary for the residents of the property. I hope that we can move that on as quickly as we can. I am grateful for the efforts of London Fire Brigade and others, which ensured that no one came to any harm. It is a salutary reminder of the importance of the work that has been outlined by the hon. Members, which we all support.

The hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich asked me a number of detailed questions. We have had many exchanges on these issues in the past, so he will appreciate that this is a sensitive and detailed area, and one that we need to get right. The Building Safety Act 2022 made huge steps forward, and there have been many steps forward in the practical reality of building remediation. I want to ensure that we deal with those questions in turn and in the depth that they deserve. We will have different views on some of those questions. Take, for example, the perpetuity issue. Without going into detail, my answer is that all the buildings have pathways to remediation, so long as they choose one or, in extremis, an actor in the system forces them to take one, and that once the remediation has happened the perpetuity point should become moot and fall away. However, it is better that I write to the hon. Gentleman and the Committee on all those points in due course.

Putting those important matters aside, we come to the question of whether the Secretary of State should have specific powers to amend the definition of “qualifying”. This gets to the point of where the Secretary of State’s powers should lie, which is obviously a contested matter. It is one on which the Government have a clear view, which we have articulated, notwithstanding the challenges that that brings to some people who are impacted by it. That is better dealt with in primary legislation, rather than through the Secretary of State making changes or having the ability to make regular changes. On that basis, we will resist the new clause.

Let me turn to new clause 28 on buildings under 11 metres, in the name of the hon. Members for Greenwich and Woolwich and for Weaver Vale. I have taken a particular interest in buildings that are under 11 metres, and I and the hon. Gentlemen have had interactions on the issue in the past. There are specific issues about a small set of buildings that are under 11 metres. The previous Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew), and I have made repeated commitments from the Dispatch Box, from as far back as 2022, to look into each and every one of those buildings, and we have done so. A number of them have been raised with us, and we are working through them and getting to the end of the processes.

I encourage any hon. Members with examples—and I see occasional repetitions in parliamentary questions—to raise them with the Department, as I know members of the Committee have, and we will see what we can do to move those cases on or get clarity that no works are required. With almost all under-11 metre buildings, when we get to the end of the discussion there are no works required under the PAS 9980 assessment. That is positive. There is a clear reality that buildings under 11 metres are less likely to be impacted by this issue, and we will resist the new clause on that basis.

As a result of the fire, as I said to the hon. Member for Brent North, it is important that we make progress. Significant progress has been made, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich for his recognition of that. Every month, we see more buildings complete and more buildings starting the process. Where freeholders are willing to make their buildings safe, we have mechanisms and processes in place, both centrally and locally, to make sure that is happening; and I continue to see lots of progress. It will take time, but we are cognisant of the importance of moving fast, and we have certainly sped up over recent months.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the Minister for his response. I will pass over his criticisms of the technical flaws of the new clauses. Their intent is very clear; we can debate whether primary or secondary legislation is the best means of achieving it. I think there is a point of disagreement on qualifying and non-qualifying leaseholders. On a point of principle, we think that the distinction is arbitrary and we should get rid of it. From the evidence I have seen across the country, we should also undoubtedly get rid of it on a practical basis. I do not have responsibility for building safety directly any more—my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale does—but I continue to hear of cases where buildings with a significant proportion of non-qualifying leaseholders see remediation works stalled or held up entirely.

I have always conceded that buildings under 11 metres are small in number and that there is not a systemic issue, but because of the drafting of the Building Safety Act, there remains a problem about liability. In those cases where the Government certify that the buildings are unsafe and require remediation—as the Minister knows, I have a case in my constituency—the stage that we have got to, after many years, is that the Government ask the original developer to put them right. We do not know what lies behind that request or whether there is any enforcement of it, so we are at the same point that we were at many years ago.

We come back to the question, “What is the need for the distinction?” I would argue that if under-11 metre buildings are that small in number, that is all the more reason for opening them up to access for Government grants should they require that—where the developer will not remediate them voluntarily. But that is beside the point.

I thank the Minister for his willingness to provide me detailed answers to all five of the non-specific questions—that is very welcome—but on the point of principle raised by new clauses 27 and 28, there is a clear difference of opinion. I think it is worth us putting on record, again, our strong feelings about that, so I will push both new clauses to a vote.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

When making the case for new clause 2, which sought to ensure that all leases on new flats should include a requirement to establish and operate an RMC with each leaseholder given a share, I stressed that it was one of several ways by which we could lay the groundwork for a future where commonhold is the norm. New clause 29 seeks to press the Government to bring forward legislative options to enact another—namely, mandating that leaseholders in all new blocks of flats should automatically be granted a share of the freehold.

I want to be clear about what such a proposition entails. It is not an alternative to leasehold. If such a measure were brought into force, any leaseholder resident in a new block of flats would own both a lease and a share of the freehold. It would, in effect, ensure that all new blocks of flats were collectively enfranchised by default, without the need for leaseholders in them to go through the process of acquiring their freehold. The advantages of having a default share in the freehold is that it would give the leaseholder a direct say in what happens in their building, as is the case with those that have been collectively enfranchised. It would also provide for additional valuable rights, such as the right to a long lease extension on the basis of a peppercorn rent—or, in other words, the rights that will be accorded to existing leaseholders under clauses 7 and 8 but without the cost of paying a premium to the freeholder that is still required to exercise that modified right.

As we know, having flat owners with a share of freehold can cause tensions—for example, in agreeing how to proceed on crucial decisions such as whether to cover the costs of major works through service charges. That is why it is essential that proper management arrangements are in place as a matter of course, to reduce the likelihood of damaging disputes between neighbours, and why we proposed mandatory RMCs on new blocks of flats as a corollary to the new clause. Much like new clause 2, new clause 29 would also help give leaseholders greater control over their buildings and pave the way for commonhold as the default tenure.

Labour is unequivocal about the fact that commonhold is a preferable tenure to leasehold, in that it gives the benefits of freehold ownership to owners of flats without the burdensome shortcomings of leasehold ownership. As we have heard, the Law Commission made 121 recommendations on commonhold, designed to provide a legal scheme that would enable commonhold to work more flexibly and in all contexts. We share the concern expressed by Professor Nick Hopkins in our evidence sessions:

“With commonhold having failed once, there is a risk of partial implementation”—[Official Report, Leasehold and Freehold Reform Public Bill Committee, 16 January 2024, c. 39, Q84.]

of those recommendations and “a second false start” that could be “fatal” to the tenure. That is why we have not sought to persuade the Government to incorporate any subset of Law Commission commonhold recommendations into the Bill. We need to reform the legal regime for commonhold in one go, and Labour is committed to doing so if the British people give us the opportunity to serve after the next general election. Given your indication earlier, you are confident of that outcome too, Sir Edward.

We have also expressed a clear preference for commonhold to be the default tenure. That would be a policy decision distinct from the implementation of the Law Commission’s recommendations and would necessarily have to follow the legal scheme those recommendations would introduce. However, there will inevitably be a transitional period after the reformed legal regime for commonhold has been introduced, during which Government would need to consult thoroughly on the practicalities of making commonhold the default tenure for flats. The introduction of a mandatory share of freehold in all new blocks of flats, as proposed by the new clause, alongside the requirement to establish and operate an RMC with each leaseholder given a share, would be a sensible staging post on the path towards a commonhold future by making conversion to commonhold at a later date a far simpler process. We urge the Government to accept the new clause.

[Lee Rowley]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his new clause. As he has outlined, in share-of-freehold arrangements leaseholders will own the freehold in larger blocks; they are usually the shareholders of a resident management company from which directors are elected to manage the property. As such, there is no third-party landlord, but instead the leaseholders are themselves joint landlords. We appreciate that there are benefits to share-of-freehold arrangements, and obviously there is the opportunity for people, should they wish, to look at that when making decisions about the properties they live in.

Without seeking to detain the Committee, the reality is that although the new clause is well intentioned and understandable, it would be a significant building out of the Bill; it would be a significant additional framework. Again, it goes back to the point about the size of the Bill and exactly what it is able to do. I realise that we return to that often, and some colleagues in this room will wish us to go as far as we possibly can. That is understandable, but given the scale of the new clause—I realise that the hon. Gentleman probably will push it to a vote as a result of my comments—a pretty large and complicated legal framework would need to be put in place. I am afraid that at the current time it is challenging to have the space to do that, as much as I share the hon. Gentleman’s overall objective of trying to give people greater choice, and as a consequence we will resist the new clause.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I welcome the Minister’s response to the extent that he recognised the benefits of share of freehold. I am not surprised that he resists the new clause; there is no doubt that it would be a significant build-out of the Bill, as he put it. We hope that we will see other significant build-outs of the Bill and finally see a ban on new leasehold houses, as the Government have committed to, at some point. Maybe we will even get a couple of hours to debate that—who knows?

We think that this is an important provision that should be incorporated in the Bill for the reasons I have give, but mainly because—perhaps this is a point of disagreement between us and the Government—we think that we must be serious about paving the way for commonhold with the Bill and cannot leave everything to a future Government to enact. As I said, we should take some practical and specific steps to lay the groundwork for that future, which I think we all want to see. As we felt with mandatory RMCs, we feel that these two specific measures would enable us to go some way on that journey. For that reason, I will push the new clause to a vote—it will probably be the final one.

[Rachel Maclean]

I want to make a brief remark in sympathy with the shadow Minister’s policy objectives. I will not be supporting his new clause, but I have had extensive discussions with the Minister, who knows that I feel strongly that we should have a pathway to commonhold in the future.

Commonhold is a system that works well. Commonhold, or a version of it, works extremely well in almost every other major developed country in the world. We are quite unique in the UK—for some bizarre reason—in having this leasehold system, which is to the great regret of me and the leaseholders who live in such houses and flats. Unfortunately, something like 1.5 million people live in leasehold houses and something like 5 million people overall live in leasehold dwellings. It does not need to be that way.

In 2002, the former Labour Government did try to legislate in this regard, but a number of those measures were not enacted—we are going back into ancient history. Nobody really seems to know why it did not happen, but we now need to seize the opportunity. This Bill has been a long time in gestation; it has benefited from the contributions of many Ministers to get it to this point. I know that the Minister is listening to me, and I think it is important that we do not miss the opportunity, even at this late stage, to introduce some of the commonhold framework measures that the Department has been looking at in great detail. I hope that the Minister has listened, and he and his officials will take that point away.

--- Later in debate ---

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 31—Review of the percentage of qualifying tenants required to participate in a claim to acquire the Right to Manage—

“The Secretary of State must before the end of the period of two years beginning with the day on which this Act is passed—

(a) review the effect of the participation limit contained in section 79(5) of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002, with particular consideration given to whether it represents an unjustified barrier to leaseholders exercising their rights under Chapter 1 of Part 2 of that Act, and

(b) report to Parliament, in whatever manner the Secretary of State thinks fit, with proposals for reform.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to consider, within two years of the Act coming into force, whether the current requirement that 50% of leaseholders must support an application for the Right to Manage should be lowered.

New clause 33—Proportion of qualifying tenants required for a notice of claim to acquire right to manage—

“Section 79 of the CLRA 2002 is amended, in subsection (5), by leaving out ‘one-half’ and inserting ‘one-third’.”

This new clause would reduce the proportion of qualifying tenants who must be members of a proposed right to manage company for an RTM claim to be made.

[Matthew Pennycook]

These are the last new clauses that I will speak to on behalf of the Opposition. In our fifth sitting, we considered eligibility for leasehold enfranchisement and extension, including the welcome changes that the Bill makes to the non-residential limit on collective enfranchisement claims. However, increasing access to collective enfranchisement by rendering more leaseholders eligible does not necessarily mean that take-up will significantly increase. That is because there are other barriers to exercising the statutory right to freehold acquisition. Some relate to the complexity of the process, but perhaps the most notable is the requirement under section 13 of the 1993 Act that at least half of qualifying tenants in a building must participate in the claim.

While there is no escaping the need to organise collectively to initiate a claim, in some buildings, particularly large blocks of flats, securing the participation of the minimum numbers of tenants required to take part in the service of the initial notice can be next to impossible, given the number of units that are occupied by tenants renting privately from the leaseholder. We therefore believe that there is a strong case for considering whether the minimum participation rate for collective enfranchisement should be reduced.

Precisely what the revised minimum participation rate might be is a matter for debate. We have not sought to be prescriptive in order to allow the Government the freedom to consider what threshold best strikes the right balance between encouraging enfranchisement and ensuring that there is sufficient participation to sustain the proper ongoing management of the building.

New clause 30 would simply require the Secretary of State to consider, within two years of the Act coming into force, whether the current 50% participation threshold should be lowered. New clause 31 would have the same effect in relation to the right to manage, where, in many ways, the argument for lowering the participation threshold is even stronger, owing to the fact that there is really no need for half of all qualifying tenants to remain involved in an RTM company once it has been established.

Again, determining the revised minimum participation rate is a matter for debate, and we have left that question for another day. If I am right in remembering, my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North is proposing, by way of his new clause 33, that that threshold should be a third of qualifying tenants, which strikes us as a reasonable proportion. However, what new clause 31 seeks to secure is the Government’s agreement in principle that the 50% threshold for an RTM acquisition should be reconsidered. These, quite consciously, are probing amendments, but I very much look forward to the Government’s thoughts on the principle of whether that 50% threshold is right, and whether there should be scope in the future to look at it again.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lee Rowley]

After a number of days of often great agreement across the Committee, it is my job, unfortunately, to point out where we cannot agree, so I apologise for doing that again. The hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich has indicated that he is probing the Government with new clauses 30 and 31—at least, I hope he is. We understand the point that he is making, but we are seeking to apply the Law Commission’s recommendation that the participation level should remain at 50%. On that basis, we are not proposing to change that at this time. I do not think it is necessary to create the report, because we have taken a view within this legislation that—

[Matthew Pennycook]

Will the Minister give way?

[Lee Rowley]

I will, happily.

[Matthew Pennycook]

This may not be the case in the Minister’s constituency, but I have very large blocks of flats in my constituency that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North has just made clear, consist of hundreds of buy-to-let flats and flats owned by overseas investors. Are the Government really content to say that in those cases—in large urban centres, these blocks are springing up all over the place—the barrier to collective enfranchisement and RTM acquisition is higher? Effectively, many of these leaseholders will be locked out of the rights in this Bill purely by the design and ownership arrangements in their building. Surely the Minister must recognise that there is a subset of buildings that will not enjoy the rights that the Bill provides for, and that the Government should look again at what can be done in those circumstances.

[Lee Rowley]

There is no doubt that there are challenges. There are always challenges with individual buildings, but there is a specific challenge here, which the hon. Gentleman has outlined. My hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken), who is not serving on this Committee, has outlined that to me, and I have had the privilege of talking to a number of her constituents who are impacted by the understandable challenges that the hon. Gentleman raised.

The question is not about the Government being unwilling to look at this in the future or unwilling to discuss this further in relation to the Bill. I know this is a probing amendment, but the narrow sense of the question is: should we be legislating to create reports? I am always reluctant to legislate in that way. I understand why the Opposition would do it and why the other place do it, all too often, in my view, but I am not sure I am keen on this happening, so the Government are keen to resist it on that basis. But on the broad point about whether we would return to this if it was not working, either in this discussion or more broadly, the answer is: of course—that would be a reasonable thing for the Government to do in the future.

I appreciate the points made by the hon. Member for Brent North about new clause 33, and I know that the measure is potentially in operation elsewhere. I hope that he will agree that, when a minority can make decisions, a whole heap of additional considerations and questions are opened up. At this stage, we remain of the view that the proportion should be 50%, and for those reasons we will oppose the new clause, should it be pressed to a vote.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will end on an optimistic note, because I got enough from the Minister to suggest that he is conscious of the issue and is open to looking at it again, either in the context of the Bill or at a later date. Setting aside the precise drafting of the new clauses, which have allowed us to debate the issues, the Minister recognised that we may need to look at the substantive point again. We may well come back to this at a later stage of the Bill.

[The Chair]

Barry Gardiner, do you wish to comment?

[Barry Gardiner]

Thank you, Sir Edward. It has long been recognised that my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich is a much more reasonable gentleman than I am. I would be inclined to press the new clause to a vote, but I do not want to try the patience of the Committee. My hon. Friend and I will discuss these matters further and, if the Government do not act, we will see what we might do on Report. I will therefore not press the new clause.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 32

Premises to which leasehold right to manage applies

“Section 72 of the CLRA 2002 is amended in subsection (1)(a), by the addition at the end of the words ‘or of any other building or part of a building which is reasonably capable of being managed independently.’”—(Barry Gardiner.)

This new clause which is an amendment to the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 adopts the Law Commission’s Recommendation 5 in its Right to Manage report which would allow leaseholders in mixed-use buildings with shared services or underground car park to exercise the Right to Manage.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Barry Gardiner]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

I am very happy to move the new clause, which would amend the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 to adopt recommendation 5 of the Law Commission’s right to manage report. That would allow leaseholders in mixed-use buildings with shared services or an underground car park to exercise the right to manage.

We had some debate on this issue last week. I recall, from the time of the 2002 Act, that flatted developments—especially mixed-use blocks—had not taken off yet in England in the same way as they have over the past 22 years. Given the proliferation of mixed-use buildings, the paradigms of the 2002 Act are therefore now outdated and unfair. Developers have sought to use the Act to secure the exclusion of leaseholders on the basis of shared services. If the Government do not move on the issue of shared services, many of the leaseholders in mixed-used buildings who would otherwise have benefited from the uplift in the non-residential limit from 25% to 50%—which, as I said last week, I welcome—will still not qualify for the right to manage or for enfranchisement.

We heard from the founders of the National Leasehold Campaign and from Free Leaseholders on this point. It was clear from the evidence that the presence of a plant room or underground car park alone can disqualify leaseholders from appointing their own managing agent and controlling the service charges, which they already have to pay but do not have any influence over.

The Law Commission did a great deal of work on the right to manage. It stated:

“We recommend that premises should be eligible for the RTM if they are a building or part which is reasonably capable of being managed independently. This means that if leaseholders cannot demonstrate that their premises are either a self-contained building or self-contained part of a building, the RTM will still be available if the premises are nevertheless a building or part which is reasonably capable of being managed independently. This might be straightforwardly demonstrated where parts of a building are already subject to separate management arrangements.”

That is the Law Commission’s case, and it looked into this with great care. It said:

“We think this will lead to fewer Tribunal cases and where there are still disputes the focus will instead switch to whether the premises can properly be managed autonomously, rather than their physical attributes.”

So I plead the backing of the Law Commission; I plead the common sense of some of the foremost jurors of our age. I am sure that the Minister will take on board their wisdom, if not mine.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lee Rowley]

I beg to move amendment 28, in title, line 5, leave out “charges and costs payable by residential”

and insert

“the relationship between residential landlords and”.

This amendment is consequential on amendments to Part 3.

This is a consequential amendment to remove the reference to part 3 in the long title of the Bill. It ensures that it provides an accurate description of the Bill’s contents to reflect the impact of the measures the Committee has brought forward. That includes the amendments to enable the first-tier tribunal to vary or discharge an order to appoint a manager of a premises without an application.

Amendment 28 agreed to.

[Matthew Pennycook]

On a point of order, Sir Edward, may I take the opportunity to put on record our sincere thanks to you and your colleagues in the Chair for overseeing our proceedings over recent weeks; our hard-working Clerks for their assistance; the Doorkeepers and Hansard reporters for facilitating the Committee’s work; and officials in the Department and our own staff for their support? I also briefly thank all hon. Members who have contributed to the Committee’s deliberations and debates. It is not entirely unexpected, given the uncontentious nature of the Bill; nevertheless, we very much appreciate the generally constructive and good-humoured nature of our proceedings.

Finally, I thank the Minister for his thoughtful engagement with the arguments the Opposition have made in an attempt to improve this limited Bill. He has dutifully held the line in attempting to justify the decision to resist a large number of sensible and reasonable amendments. Nevertheless, I suspect we can look forward to seeing a number of them return with the Government’s seal of approval in the Bill’s remaining stages.

[Lee Rowley]

Further to that point of order, Sir Edward, I wish to put on record my thanks. I echo the thanks of the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich to everybody who has been involved in the Bill, and I thank him and all colleagues here who have helped us get through this. I am grateful for colleagues’ time and also—even though I may not be in order in making this acknowledgment—I thank those in the Gallery who have taken the time to come here and listen. I am grateful to everyone for getting the Bill through this stage and I look forward to seeing everyone on Report.