Social Housing (Regulation) Bill [Lords]

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Monday 17th July 2023 Commons Chamber

[Dehenna Davison]

The hon. Gentleman is, as ever, a fantastic champion for Northern Ireland and its people. We will, of course, continue to have conversations with the relevant bodies in Northern Ireland, because it is important that social housing, wherever it is provided within the United Kingdom, is up to the appropriate standard. I know he will continue to champion that cause.

In closing, I would just like to put on record one final time my and my Department’s heartfelt thanks to Grenfell United and all other stakeholders for their strong constructive engagement on this critical legislation. I hope that, following today, we will see it on the statute book incredibly soon.

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

I intend to be brief, because the sole amendment we are considering is entirely uncontentious.

As you will no doubt recall, Madam Deputy Speaker, the Opposition welcomed the concession the Government made in the other place last year with regard to professional training and qualifications, and the resulting addition of clause 21 to the Bill. Having pressed in Committee for that clause to be strengthened, we also welcomed the Government’s amendment to it, which was tabled on Report earlier this year on the basis that it largely assuaged our concerns. We support Lords amendment 13B in lieu of Commons amendment 13, as do the relevant trade bodies and tenant groups including Grenfell United and Shelter, whom we once again commend for the role they played in convincing the Government to incorporate qualification requirements in the Bill.

Lords amendment 13B is a technical amendment that has three main effects. First, it will ensure that the qualification requirements in clause 21 capture relevant managers working for organisations which deliver housing management services on behalf of a registered provider. Secondly, it will ensure that contractual agreements between registered providers and delegated services providers and relevant sub-agreements contain terms stipulating that their relevant managers should have, or be working towards, a specified qualification in housing management, thus enabling registered providers to take action against delegated services providers that are not compliant. Thirdly, the amendment expands on definitions of services providers and specific roles, and provides for consultation before setting a standard and before giving a direction to set a standard.

We agree with their lordships that the changes are necessary if we are to ensure that the sector as a whole delivers high-quality professional services of the kind social tenants deserve and rightly expect. I want to put on record our thanks to my noble Friend, Lady Hayman of Ullock for bringing the need for this amendment to the Government’s attention and for her efforts more generally to improve the Bill in the other place.

It is our sincere hope that once the House has agreed this minor but necessary change today, this important and urgently needed piece of legislation can quickly receive Royal Assent so that we can overhaul the regulation of social housing and better protect the health, safety and wellbeing of social tenants across the country.

Question put and agreed to.

Freehold Estate Management Fees

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Thursday 13th July 2023 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dr Huq. I congratulate the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) on securing this important debate, and on the well argued remarks with which she opened it. I thank the hon. Members for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller), and for Buckingham (Greg Smith), for participating. In their compelling and thoughtful contributions, they highlighted, among other points, how widespread across the country problems associated with estate charges and fees are.

As in the debate last week on freehold and leasehold reform, hon. Members usefully brought the issue to life by detailing the impact of estate charges on homeowners living in developments in their constituencies. The accounts we have heard today, and many others I have heard from colleagues over recent years, illustrate vividly the abundance of problems associated with new build estate charges and fees; they are well known and well understood. They include excessive or inappropriate charges levied for minimal or even non-existent services; charges imposed for services that should, by right, be covered by council tax; charges that include costly arbitrary administration fees; charges hiked without adequate justification; and charges levied when residential freeholders are in the process of selling their property.

There is often a startling lack of transparency about what services are covered by service charges, estate charges and fees charged to long leaseholders in blocks of flats, but residential freeholders on privately owned and managed estates clearly suffer from inadequate transparency in other unique respects. As was said at the start of the debate, it appears to be fairly common for residential freeholders not to be notified of their future liability for charges early in the house buying process, and many learn of their exposure only at the point of completion. I listened with great interest to the suggestions about solicitors and conveyancers. As the Minister noted in the debate last week, even where notification of future liability is given in good time, many contracts do not specify limits or caps on charges and fees.

As the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire said, there also appears to be a particular issue with fragmentation on privately owned and managed estates, which further exacerbates the general lack of transparency and potential for abuse in respect of charges and fees. It is not uncommon in blocks of flats, particularly older ones, for ownership and management to become fragmented over time, but on privately owned and managed estates, even relatively new ones, residential freeholders frequently have to navigate scores of management companies, each levying fees for services.

Underpinning all those issues of concern is a fundamental absence of adequate regulation or oversight of the practices of estate management companies. They are deficient in many important respects, which is one reason why fundamental and comprehensive leasehold reform is urgently required. Leaseholders have at least some protections and rights that enable them to challenge the charges and the standard of service they receive, but residential freeholders have no equivalent statutory rights.

No hon. Member in this debate has claimed that the present arrangement is not inequitable, or suggested that there is anything other than a pressing need to give residential freeholders on new build estates greater rights and protections. Indeed, I would go so far as to submit that the House appears to be of one mind on the matter.

[Richard Fuller]

The shadow Minister is making some very good points, but in the spirit of evolving the debate, I want to ask him a question. My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Greg Smith) talked about council tax, and mentioned, as I did, that people are being doubled charge. If there are reforms to be made, would the hon. Gentleman favour giving residents of estates that levy estate management charges the opportunity to hand back responsibility to the local authority in any circumstances?

[Matthew Pennycook]

The hon. Gentleman pre-empts a point that I will come to later. There is an issue with local authority adoption, but if he is not satisfied with my comments, he is more than welcome to intervene on me again.

The question is not, “Should we do anything?” but “Why have no concrete steps been taken over recent years to give residential freeholders the rights and protections they clearly need?” The Government have recognised publicly for at least six years that there is a problem, and that they need to act to address it. As has been said, and as the Minister clearly understands, in their December 2017 response to the “Tackling unfair practices in the leasehold market” consultation, the Government made it clear that they intended to

“legislate to ensure that freeholders who pay charges for the maintenance of communal areas and facilities on a private or mixed use estate can access equivalent rights as leaseholders to challenge the reasonableness of service charges.”

That commitment was repeated in the Government’s June 2019 response to the “Implementing reforms to the leasehold system in England” consultation, and successive Ministers have echoed it numerous times since then in the House.

Indeed, the Minister, who has responsibility for housing and planning, has been clear in several debates this year that the Government intend to create an entirely new statutory regime for residential freeholders based on the rights that leaseholders have. That would ensure that estate management charges must be reasonably incurred, that services provided must be of an acceptable standard, and that there is a right to challenge the reasonableness of charges at the property tribunal.

Given that there are almost certainly over a million residential freeholders across the country whose lives are being blighted because the practices of estate management companies are not adequately regulated, the Opposition urge the Government to find the time, in what remains of this Parliament, to legislate for freeholders’ protection. At a minimum, that legislation should ensure equivalence between the regulation of estate charges and the regulation of leasehold service charges.

This criticism is not directed particularly at the Minister, but it is incredibly frustrating for hon. Members from across the House, and for members of the public who have a stake in a given outcome, to hear Ministers assure us time and again that long overdue legislation will be taken forward “when parliamentary time allows”, especially as the House has frequently risen early in recent months because the Government’s legislative agenda is so light. There is a strong cross-party consensus on the need for urgent legislation to tackle the problem, so let us get on and progress that legislation.

Before I conclude, I will draw three important issues to the Minister’s attention, and I ask her to address them when she responds to the debate. First, on the Opposition Benches we take the view that we need to ensure that residential freeholders can more easily take control of their estate management company or companies. To be clear, that is conceptually distinct from the reform proposals made by the Law Commission in its 2020 report on exercising the right to manage.

There are a number of ways in which residential freeholders could be empowered to take over estate management functions on any given estate, but what is important at this stage is the principle. Could the Minister assure the House that when the Government legislate, it is their intention to provide residential freeholders on privately owned estates with a statutory right to manage?

Secondly, we believe that specific measures are required to protect residential freeholders from being evicted from their home due to a failure to pay estate charges and fees—or rent charges, as they were historically known. The Government committed in 2020 to repealing section 121 of the Law of Property Act 1925, which enables this practice to continue. Can the Minister confirm that the Government remain committed to doing so when they legislate?

Thirdly—this point has been raised by several hon. Members in the debate, and the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire challenged me on it—we feel strongly that residential freeholders deserve far more certainty about the circumstances in which communal areas and amenities on privately owned estates should be adopted by local authorities, and by water companies in the case of sewage infrastructure, and the timescales within which such adoption should take place.

Let me be clear that we sympathise with local authorities that are reluctant to adopt roads and common services of poor quality. However, some authorities refuse to adopt areas and amenities, most commonly roads, that are built to an acceptable standard unless an excessive fee is paid by the developer. There is a general need to drive up built environment standards across new build estates, so that councils do not have to pick up the long-term cost of repairing and maintaining them. However, we also need further clarity from the Government on if and when local authorities are required to take forward adoption, thereby saving residential freeholders from the type of fees that the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire referred to in his intervention. Does the Minister agree with us on that point, and if so, can she at least give us a sense of the Government’s thinking about what steps might be taken in that regard? I very much look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to those questions, and to the debate as a whole.

New Housing: Swift Bricks

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Monday 10th July 2023 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, as ever, Sir Edward, and to respond to this important debate on behalf of the Opposition. I thank Hannah Bourne-Taylor for creating the petition and the members of the public who signed it in such large numbers. It is unsurprising but nevertheless still heartening to see so many people mobilise against the decline of nature across these isles and in particular in defence of the swift.

I recognise, as several hon. Members have, the contribution made over many years by local swift conservation groups across the country. The various initiatives they have collectively developed and implemented have made a difference, and they deserve to be commended for their work. I thank the hon. Member for Stockton South (Matt Vickers) for opening the debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee and thank all hon. Members who have participated. It has been a debate defined by a series of passionate, thoughtful and informative contributions.

The debate has fallen to me to respond to as a member of the shadow Levelling Up, Housing and Communities team because it ostensibly relates to a technical planning matter. However, as the debate has made abundantly clear, the specific issue we are considering touches on a far broader range of concerns. As hon. Members have alluded to, when we weigh in our minds the case for specific measures such as swift bricks, context is everything. It is for that reason that Labour starts by recognising that the UK is one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world, with analysis from the Natural History Museum suggesting that with an average of only 53% of our biodiversity left, the UK is in the bottom 10% of the world and the last in the G7 when it comes to the state of ecosystem biodiversity. It is unarguable that more must be done to protect and enhance our natural environment.

Labour fully appreciates how sharply breeding swift numbers across the country have declined over recent decades—as hon. Members have mentioned, they are now on the red list of birds of conservation concern in the UK. The precise reasons for the rapid decline of the species are complex. Several hon. Members, including the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan), have alluded to some of them, but the loss of available nesting sites, largely through home renovation, insulation and demolition without sufficient alternatives being created, is undoubtedly a significant contributory factor. In our view, it is essential that as part of efforts to increase biodiversity net gain, we drive up rates of swift brick installation in new build properties—not only in houses but, quite rightly, in other public buildings across the whole of England.

The question is therefore not whether the Government need to do more to halt and reverse the decline of the swift population in the UK, or whether swift bricks would make a significant difference to swift numbers and other red-listed species. This tension has featured throughout the debate. The question is rather whether it is necessary, in order to boost swift numbers in the UK, to mandate the incorporation of swift bricks into all new build properties, as opposed to taking steps to better encourage and incentivise their roll-out.

Our instinct when it comes to achieving biodiversity net gain, including the specific 10% BNG target in all new developments that will apply from November this year, is to allow for maximum local discretion. It is local communities and their representatives that are best placed to determine what specific measures are appropriate on any given development site. As such, we certainly have a degree of sympathy with the Government’s position that local authorities and developers should not be compelled to include swift bricks in every single housing unit that they respectively authorise or construct.

However—there definitely is a “however”—we are deeply concerned about current swift brick installation rates. To the best of my knowledge, no agreed estimate of the total number of swift bricks needed to restore the swift numbers lost over recent decades exists, although I know that some people have made estimates. But there is little doubt that the numbers currently being incorporated into new buildings each year are lower than they need to be if we are to address the decline of swift numbers in the UK. That is not to overlook the tangible progress that has been, and is being, made in various parts of the country. We appreciate that many local planning authorities and communities have already included specific provisions relating to swift bricks in their local development and neighbourhood plans and associated supplementary guidance. We recognise that many new residential developments across England are incorporating large numbers of swift bricks.

However, it is undeniably the case that those incentives remain the exception rather than the norm—not least because, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Witney (Robert Courts) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), swift bricks and other species-based features are not explicitly included within the metric for calculating biodiversity net gain. The result is that swift brick coverage across the country, estimated at fewer than 20,000, remains far too limited at present.

Labour therefore takes the view that current national planning policy and guidance on the matter, which essentially amounts to listing swift bricks as one of the many small features that can measurably increase biodiversity and recommending them as part of best practice local design guides and codes, is insufficiently prescriptive. Although we do not believe that local discretion should be overridden lightly, we intend to reflect carefully on the arguments made in favour of making swift bricks mandatory in every new home built in England, and we certainly do not rule out such a measure in the future.

However, as things stand, we are absolutely convinced that there is a robust case for the Government to consider revising existing national planning policy and guidance in this area, at least to create a presumption in favour of incorporating swift brick provisions within local development and neighbourhood plans and associated guidance. Under such an arrangement, and with swift bricks properly scored on the BNG metric system, the onus would at least be on local authorities and developers to justify not installing swift bricks in each instance across specific sites.

[Caroline Lucas]

The hon. Gentleman seems to be making life so much more difficult for himself and for all of us. I honestly could not believe my ears when I heard him basically saying that he would not—yet, at least—support the position that swift bricks should be mandatory. It would save so much time rather than putting in place all these extra hoops. We know that this is urgent. We know that having a swift brick can do no harm even if a swift does not use it. We know that starlings might, or sparrows. I really do not understand where his reluctance is coming from.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I understand the hon. Lady’s point, but let me be clear—I hope I was clear enough: we certainly do not rule out mandation as a step in the future. As I said, my reluctance stems from the fact that our instinct when it comes to achieving biodiversity net gain is to allow for local discretion, and we do not think that should be overridden lightly.

Secondly—and I have heard some compelling arguments in the debate on this point—I want to be absolutely convinced on a practical level that there are no sites in buildings that will not be suitable for swift bricks, in the way that a mandatory system would not account for. That is why we think it is better to at least start in the way I have described. I take issue with the hon. Lady on the timeline. We could make both changes relatively easily; the NPPF is currently being consulted on, and the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill is stuck in the other place. We think it might be better to start, as a first step, by incorporating into national policy and guidance that presumption in favour of swift bricks, with a mandatory approach in reserve.

[Robert Courts]

I want to comment on the hon. Gentleman’s reservation about a mandatory target. I understand where he is coming from. In my own speech, I accepted that there will be some places where, because of the nature of nests that swifts like to use, mandation might not be appropriate. Could we not deal with that by way of guidance that would ensure that the impetus was there for this cheap, quick, easy step, while also ensuring that it was not wasted in certain circumstances?

[Matthew Pennycook]

That is a reasonable point, which I will certainly take away and look at. Given the understandable questions put to me about mandation, I honestly do not think that we are too far apart when it comes to what I am talking about. We are talking about essentially amending national planning policy and guidance to make it a presumption that swift bricks are installed in every development and building unless a local authority or developer can justify an exemption being made. As I said previously to hon. Members, we will go away and consider; this is the first time that the House has debated this issue. We will go away and carefully consider whether we will require a move to a mandatory system in the near future if no rapid progress is made. As a first step, we are certainly convinced that the Government should do that.

In the time left to me, I will put a couple of questions to the Minister, which I hope she can address. First, as a number of hon. Members have said, it would be useful to know whether her Department has engaged, in the light of this debate—or at least intends to engage following it—with colleagues in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on the specific issue of whether swift brick installation should be scored in the BNG metric. We really cannot understand why it is not, and there is a strong case for doing it.

Secondly, has the Minister’s Department or the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs produced an estimate of the number of swift bricks required to restore breeding swift numbers across the country? I do not know whether other hon. Members found that to be an issue in preparing for the debate—I certainly did—but there are no reliable estimates. Local conservation groups have made them, and people out there in the country have had a go at what they might be. Such estimates would be useful when contemplating whether we need a mandatory system or a presumption in favour—to know precisely the metric we aim to get to across England. Can the Minister respond to that question?

Thirdly, do the Government agree with the Opposition that swift brick installation rates are lower than they need to be to address the decline of swift numbers in the UK? Lastly, if the Government agree that current installation rates are too low but they believe that a mandatory approach remains inappropriate, do they at least accept that existing national planning policy and guidance is, as I have argued, insufficiently prescriptive to increase coverage at the speed required? Will they consider revising it accordingly?

Oral Answers to Questions

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Monday 10th July 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

It is now over four years since the Conservatives promised to ban section 21 no-fault evictions. It needs strengthening, but the Government finally published a Renters (Reform) Bill in May this year. Given the desperate situation that many renters are currently facing, and the urgent need to provide them with greater security and better rights, why have the Government not lifted a finger to progress that legislation in the weeks since it was published?

[Michael Gove]

I share the hon. Gentleman’s desire to do more to help people in the private rented sector but, as he will have heard, we wanted to make sure that we had a fit-for-purpose impact assessment so that the House could reflect on the changes that we are making and the benefits they will bring.

Building Safety and Social Housing

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Thursday 6th July 2023 Commons Chamber

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

The fire that engulfed Grenfell Tower on 14 June 2017 killed 72 people—18 were children and many, as the Secretary of State said, were disabled. The inferno wiped out entire families, ripped others apart and traumatised a community. The fear that Grenfell residents must have felt on that night is truly unimaginable, and those who survived will be forever scarred by what they experienced.

In the days after the fire, as pictures of the smouldering and charred building were broadcast across the country and the world, there was a collective feeling across Britain that not only did we now have no choice but to confront issues that had been disregarded for far too long, but that the sheer horror of what happened would not allow us to forget. But the truth is that even events as traumatic as Grenfell will fade from our collective consciousness unless we work to ensure they are remembered. For that reason alone, this debate is essential. While we lament the fact that the Government did not ensure that it took place on or around the anniversary date, we nevertheless welcome the fact that we have the opportunity today to commemorate the fire and its victims, to consider again the circumstances leading up to and surrounding it, and to debate its wider ramifications.

On 14 June this year, I took part in the Grenfell silent walk, as did several other hon. Members present. As it always is, it was a profoundly moving experience. At the end of the walk, the magnitude of the human loss is brought painfully home as the names of each and every one of the 72 men, women and children who perished in the fire are slowly and methodically called out to those assembled in stillness. But this year’s walk felt different, because alongside the usual grief and loss, one could sense a palpable anger among the crowd of an intensity that I have not witnessed before. Listening to those who spoke at the rally near the base of the tower at the end of the walk, it was clear that that anger is borne not only from the ever-present knowledge that what happened could have been avoided if shortcuts were not taken, reckless and unforgivable decisions were not made, and repeated warnings were not ignored, but from the fact that, six years on, the prospect of justice appears so distant.

On these Benches, we recognise, as we always have, the need to await the final report of the Grenfell Tower inquiry, but we understand the frustration and outrage that the community evidently feels as the years pass by without justice having been secured for their loved ones. The pursuit of justice will go on, as it must, yet the survivors, the bereaved and the wider Grenfell community, to whom the Opposition again pay tribute today, have always been clear that securing wider change and a lasting legacy is equally important to them. Amid all the setbacks and frustrations that they have experienced, it is important that we recognise that they have already helped to change things for the better. But when it comes to decisively and markedly improving standards in social housing and making sure that all buildings across the country are safe, there is still so much more to be done.

When it comes to improving the quality of social housing, tangible progress has been made over the course of the past 12 months. We pressed for it to be strengthened further, but we have worked with the Government to ensure the rapid passage of the Social Housing (Regulation) Bill through this place. Improved as it was by a number of Government concessions, we very much look forward to it receiving Royal Assent in the near future.

As the Secretary of State will know, operationalising that Bill will require a number of further measures, including determining the specific requirements that will flow from Awaab’s law; reviewing existing guidance on the health impacts of damp and mould in homes; and putting in place the new consumer regulation regime and updated regulatory standards. We would be grateful if the Government updated the House during the debate on progress on all those fronts.

While overhauling the regulation of social housing is a necessary step to improving its quality across England, legislation alone is unlikely to be enough. We recognise that many social landlords provide good-quality, safe and secure homes in which individuals and families can and do thrive. We also appreciate fully the challenging context in which social landlords have had to operate over recent years, including the significant costs of building safety remediation works, but we are convinced that many social landlords need to ask themselves difficult, but essential questions about the quality of some of the homes they provide and the service their tenants receive, as well as examining afresh their culture and processes. The recently published “Better Social Housing Review”, overseen by the National Housing Federation and the Chartered Institute of Housing, is a welcome development in that regard, and we look forward to seeing how individual providers implement its recommendations over the coming months and years.

We also recognise that progress has been made over the past year when it comes to addressing the building safety crisis. I particularly welcome the Secretary of State’s comments on product manufacturers. We encourage him to explore and exhaust all possible options that the Government have to hold them to account. In the course of the past year, some leaseholders have been given legal protection; some developers have entered into a legal agreement to remediate unsafe buildings that they have either constructed or refurbished; and some lenders have agreed to offer mortgages on blocks of flats with safety issues, but if we ask the hundreds of thousands of people still living in unsafe buildings across the country whether they expect the building safety crisis as it affects them to be resolved fully by this time next year or even this time two years hence, the answer we will receive from the vast majority is a resounding no.

The Secretary of State is right that all ACM issues on social housing blocks have been resolved, but we still do not know the full extent of the crisis as it affects social homes, because providers are ineligible to apply for support unless their financial viability is threatened. The overall pace of remediation across the country remains glacial. Shamefully, Grenfell-style ACM cladding, which should not be on any building in this country or any other country, is still present on 40 high-rise buildings in England six years on, and just 37 non-ACM buildings have been fully remediated out of the 1,225 that made applications to the building safety fund.

All the evidence suggests that only a small proportion of leaseholders in unsafe buildings have seen remediation works begin and a far larger proportion has no identified date for the commencement of works and no estimated timescale for completion, including many in buildings covered by the developer remediation contract. As a result, despite some lenders being willing in principle to offer mortgages, six years on from Grenfell the majority of leaseholders in privately-owned buildings are still trapped. Within their captivity, many are being bled dry by service charges that more often than not have escalated sharply as a result of soaring buildings insurance premiums. That is a scandal that the Government have singularly failed to step in and decisively resolve over multiple years, despite continuous pleading from Members from across the House.

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

I apologise for not being here for the first words of the debate. Can I confirm that the hon. Gentleman is saying that what leaseholders need is what social tenants have got: the problem needs to be identified and it needs to be fixed, and then the funding should happen? To wait for the funding is the wrong way round.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I hope the Father of the House will accept that we have argued consistently since the start of this crisis that the Government should step in and fund and then use their power to recover as we go forward, because too many leaseholders are trapped. That is not just in the context of this problem, but due to the wider inequities of the leasehold system, and we need to tackle that problem in due course.

[Richard Burgon]

I thank the shadow Minister for his thoughtful and detailed remarks. Taking him back to a point he made about ACM cladding, survivors of the Grenfell fire and the bereaved are keen to see ACM cladding banned globally. As he mentioned, it is on 40 blocks in the UK as it stands. Would he like to see it effectively banned globally and removed from those 40 blocks in this country?

[Matthew Pennycook]

ACM should not be on any building in England six years after the fire, and it is shameful that it is, but my hon. Friend is right. The Government should use their authority and the experience they have gleaned over the past six years to make the case worldwide, because this material should not be on any building. It is dangerous, and it should never have been put up in the first place.

While all trapped leaseholders are feeling the strain, in relative terms some are better off than others, because the Government made the political choice to provide some with legal protection from the costs of historic non-cladding defects, while leaving others exposed to bills that will not only lead to financial ruin in many instances, but will have a material impact on the progress of remediation in buildings where such non-qualifying leaseholders are large in number. Even at this late stage, I urge the Secretary of State to reconsider the arbitrary division of blameless leaseholders into those who qualify for protection under the law and those who do not, as well as beseeching him to ensure that the Government finally grip and drive from the centre an accelerated programme of remediation across the country.

To conclude, six years on from the horror of Grenfell, things have changed, but they have not changed anywhere near enough. If we are to ensure that everyone has a secure, decent, affordable and safe home in which to live, far more still needs to be done, and done quickly. If it is not, we will be back here again next year, marking the seventh anniversary of the fire, still bemoaning the fact that too many social tenants are being let down and too many buildings are not being made safe, with the lives of too many blameless leaseholders destroyed. We owe it to the survivors, the bereaved, the wider Grenfell community and the legacy they want to see established to ensure that that is not the case.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

Freehold and Leasehold Reform

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Wednesday 5th July 2023 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Sharma. I declare an interest: my wife is the joint chief executive of the Law Commission, the work of which I will cite later in my remarks.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson) on securing this important debate, and I commend him for the remarks he made in opening it. I thought that he did an admirable job of bringing home to the House the poor service and, indeed, the abuses that many leasehold and resident freeholders on private or mixed-tenure estates routinely face at the hands of their managing agents. He also made a strong case for action to ensure that leaseholders and those residential freeholders are better protected.

I thank all Members who have participated in the debate. We have heard a series of excellent contributions that have highlighted—often in painstaking detail, because Members are engaging with this on a weekly and monthly basis at their surgeries—how, all too often, leaseholders in all parts of the country are treated by developers, freeholders and managing agents not as homeowners or even as valued customers but as a source of profit to be gouged almost as those parties see fit in many cases.

The hon. Member for Dartford focused his remarks on the problems associated with managing agents and estate management companies, and he was right to draw particular attention to them. The Opposition, of course, recognise that there are good managing agents who work hard to ensure that the residents they are responsible for are safe and secure and that the homes they manage are properly looked after. However, as we have repeatedly argued over recent years, the case for doing more to protect leaseholders from poor service and exploitation at the hands of unscrupulous managing agents is as watertight as they come. Relying on incremental improvement and the sharing of best practice within the industry to raise standards is bound to fail.

To bear down on bad practice and improve the lives of leaseholders, the Government need to act. They have a ready-made blueprint for doing so, because in 2018, Ministers tasked a working group chaired by the noble Lord Best with bringing forward detailed recommendations on how a new regulatory framework for property agents should operate. That working group’s final report, which made a series of proportionate and sensible recommendations, was published in July 2019, yet in the intervening 48 months, the Government have done nothing to progress the implementation of those recommendations.

It is not at all clear why that is the case, especially given the fact that there are clearly opportunities to bring forward and progress such legislation, with the paucity of business that the House is dealing with at present. Can the Minister give us a clear answer today to this question: do the Government intend to implement the recommendations set out in the regulation of property agents working group’s final report in what remains of this Parliament? We are looking for a simple yes or no.

Regulating the dysfunctional property agent market alone is not enough. It is the inherent flaws of the leasehold system that ultimately enable substandard managing agents to abuse and exploit leaseholders and residential freeholders. Even if the Government did introduce regulation to raise standards and drive change within the property agent industry, leaseholders would still struggle with punitive and escalating ground rents, unjustified permission and administration fees, unreasonable or extortionate charges and onerous conditions that are often imposed with little or no consultation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) argued in a powerful speech—I commend him for the dedication he has shown to securing change in this area—what is needed is fundamental and comprehensive reform of the leasehold system to address the historical iniquity on which it rests and to ensure it works in the interests of leaseholders.

However, having ostensibly agreed with us on that point, over recent months it has become clear that the Government are likely to row back on the commitments they previously made in respect of leasehold reform. Let me remind the House what those commitments were. In 2017, the Government asked the Law Commission to suggest improvements to both the leasehold and commonhold systems, and once the recommendations were published in July 2020, they made it clear that they were considering how to implement all of them. In 2022, the Government passed, with our support, the Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Act 2022, which set ground rents on newly created leases at zero. Ministers assured us that that legislation was merely the first part of a two-part seminal programme to implement wide-ranging reforms in this Parliament.

In January this year, in an interview with The Sunday Times, the Secretary of State went further and unambiguously announced his intention to abolish the leasehold system in its entirety, raising expectations correspondingly among leaseholders across the country. Not only are leaseholders still waiting for the publication of the leasehold reform part 2 Bill—the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) was right about the need for urgency; leaseholders have been waiting for far too long for change in this area—but credible recent reports have suggested that while we will see a further piece of leasehold legislation in the King’s Speech later this year, it is likely to be a more limited one.

In the Opposition day debate we secured on this subject on 23 May, the Minister claimed that there had been no Government U-turn on leasehold reform, yet she also repeatedly refused to commit to the fundamental and comprehensive reform package that leaseholders had been led to expect was forthcoming, and the statement that the approved motion called on the Government to bring forward by 23 June has not materialised. I will give the Minister another chance today to unambiguously clarify the Government’s position. If she was correct in asserting that there has been no U-turn on leasehold reform, will she give leaseholders across the country a cast-iron guarantee that the Government will legislate to implement all the Law Commission’s recommendations on enfranchisement, commonhold and the right to manage before the end of this Parliament—yes or no? If she will not do so, will she at least assure leaseholders who are watching that a slimmed-down leasehold reform part 2 Bill will still contain the most significant of the Law Commission’s recommendations in relation to the right to manage and commonhold?

I put that question specifically to the Minister because, in the Opposition day debate on 23 May, Ministers reaffirmed their commitment to taking forward a number of measures relating to leasehold enfranchisement, from the abolition of marriage value to a cap on ground rents in enfranchisement calculations, but we heard next to nothing in that debate in the way of a solid commitment regarding the right to manage or commonhold. That is a matter of real concern because reform of both is essential if we are to fundamentally and comprehensively overhaul the current system.

Right-to-manage reforms are necessary to provide a remedy to leaseholders who cannot afford to enfranchise, and commonhold reforms are imperative if we are to have a viable system for regulating blocks of flats apart from leasehold.

I hope the Minister will not refuse to engage with the questions, because leaseholders across the country deserve answers now on precisely what the Government mean when Ministers state that the Government remain committed to bringing forward further leasehold reforms, not least because, as the hon. Member for St Ives (Derek Thomas) pointed out, so many leaseholders have put transactions and their lives on hold while they have waited, and continue to wait, to find out what the Government ultimately intend to legislate for.

Unless and until leaseholders receive answers and a renewed commitment from the Government to enact all the recommendations of the Law Commission on enfranchisement, commonhold and the right to manage, leaseholders will reasonably conclude that the Government have scaled down their ambition, and that the only way to ensure that the leasehold system is completely overhauled to the lasting benefit of leaseholders, and commonhold reinvigorated to such an extent that it becomes the default and ultimately renders leasehold obsolete, is to vote Labour at the next general election.

Holocaust Memorial Bill

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 28th June 2023 Commons Chamber

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

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) and a privilege to wind-up this Second Reading debate for the Opposition.

I start by thanking all the hon. and right hon. Members who have taken part in this debate: the Father of the House; the right hon. Members for Witham (Priti Patel), for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) and for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb); the hon. Members for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald), for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken), for West Bromwich East (Nicola Richards) and for Harrow East; and my hon. Friends the Members for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) and for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield). Each made their respective case with both force and clarity.

The Bill concerns a matter that arouses strong emotions, and the debate has understandably reflected that fact, but everyone who has contributed this afternoon has done so in a considered and respectful way that has done justice to the significance of the issue at hand. Whatever differences might exist about precisely how we do so, we are united as a House in our commitment to remembering and learning from the holocaust.

The Opposition’s position on the Bill is clear and unambiguous. As my hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State made clear at the outset of the debate, we support the construction of a national holocaust memorial and learning centre in Victoria Tower gardens, and we therefore welcome the Bill as a means to facilitate its establishment. Many who have spoken in the debate have touched upon the rationale for creating a national holocaust memorial and learning centre. As we have heard, the idea was first proposed in 2015, and it has enjoyed cross-party support from its inception. In the eight years that have passed since the idea was first mooted, the case for such a monument and institution has only grown. That is not only because of the alarming rise of anti-Jewish hate in recent years, but because as the number of those who survived the shoah dwindles and those who still remain with us grow ever frailer, it is essential that we as a country do more to preserve the memory of this unique act of evil and those who perished in it.

It is also imperative that we continue to educate future generations about what happened, both as a mark of respect to those who were lost and those who survived, and as a warning about what happens when antisemitism, prejudice and hatred are allowed to flourish unchecked. Once constructed, the memorial will stand as a permanent reminder of the horrors of the past, and the need for a democratic citizenry to remain ever vigilant and willing to act when the values that underpin a free and tolerant society are undermined or threatened.

We on the Opposition Benches believe it is particularly important that the thematic exhibition that the proposed learning centre will house is not only engaging and reflective, but honest about Britain’s complicated relationship with the holocaust. The proximity of the proposed memorial and learning centre to this House cannot and should not be taken to imply that the United Kingdom and its Parliament have an unimpeachable record when it comes to the knowledge of, and response to, the systematic mass killing of Jews by the Nazi regime.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

Let us put it on the record that, as Winston Churchill said, only one nation in the entire world fought Nazism and fascism from day one of the war to the last day of the war—it was this country and this Parliament.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I agree with him, although he will know of the many voices of dissent both at the time of and in the years leading up to the moment in which we took that stand. As I was going to say, the proximity of the proposed site renders it all the more important to confront openly the ambiguous and varied responses—and there were some—of our country’s Parliament, Government and society to the still unsurpassed crimes that were carried out by Nazi Germany and its collaborators. We have heard about those examples today.

As the debate winds up, I want to take the opportunity, once again, to put on record our thanks to all those who have been involved in advancing this project, and holocaust education more generally, in recent years. The full list is far too extensive to read into the record, but they include the past and present members of the UK Holocaust Memorial Foundation, including the right honourable Ed Balls, the right honourable Lord Eric Pickles and Chief Rabbi Ephraim Mirvis; all those involved in developing the exhibition’s narrative, particularly Yehudit Shendar, who is providing the curatorial lead; all the organisations that have striven to embed holocaust and genocide education and commemoration in our national life, particularly the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust and the Holocaust Educational Trust; and finally, all the holocaust survivors who have campaigned for holocaust education and personally championed the project, including a number who will sadly not now see it come to fruition. In that regard, those of us on the Opposition side of the House think in particular of Sir Ben Helfgott, and convey our thoughts and sincere condolences to his family and friends.

I have felt it necessary to dwell again at some length on the rationale for establishing a national holocaust memorial and learning centre, given the Bill’s ultimate purpose, but as has been mentioned, the principle of doing so is almost entirely uncontested and not an issue that arises directly from the Bill. Instead, the Bill is concerned with making provision for, and in connection with, significant expenditure related to the establishment of the proposed memorial and centre, and removing pre-existing legislative impediments that exist to the siting of it in Victoria Tower gardens, namely sections of the London County Council (Improvements) Act 1900, so that progress towards construction can be made.

I want to make it clear once again that the Opposition appreciate fully that the selection of Victoria Tower gardens as the chosen location for the memorial and centre has attracted robust and principled criticism and, in some cases, outright opposition, including from prominent members of the Jewish community and holocaust survivors. Several of those who contributed to the debate today have articulated some of the criticisms and objections that have been made in that regard. The reasoned amendment in the name of the Father of the House sets out a number of them.

As we have heard, concerns about the proposed location include the impact on the construction process; rising build costs; the potential generation of additional traffic in the area; security risks; environmental protections; the loss of public green space and amenity; and the impact on existing monuments and memorials.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

When the National Audit Office carried out its report last year, it thought the cost had gone up to £102 million. Since then, we will probably need to add an extra 15%, because of inflation in construction. The expansion at Yad Vashem, which was referred to by hon. Members, was completed for $100 million, so we will be spending much more for much less. I am not saying this to change the hon. Gentleman’s argument—I am grateful for the way he is summarising the debate, and he is doing it very fairly.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the Father of the House. Build cost inflation is a serious issue, not just in relation to this project but across the country. That would be the case wherever the chosen location was if we are to move ahead with the memorial, as we must, but I take his point, which is a good one.

We know the concerns that have been raised about the adequacy of historical consultation. While the planning inquiry that took place in October 2022 enabled all interested parties to express their views and to raise these and other concerns and suggestions, the Opposition believe it is important that those with outstanding criticisms and objections have a chance to express them fully and be heard. The hybrid nature of the Bill and the resulting petitioning window that will be provided as a result of its designation will ensure that they are.

We hope that the Government will reflect carefully on the specific points that have been raised in the debate today. However, it is the considered view of Labour Members that this Bill needs to progress and that, amended or otherwise, it must receive Royal Assent as soon as is practically possible. There really can be no further delay if we are to have any chance whatsoever of having this vitally important project finally completed while at least some of those who survived the holocaust and made Britain their home are still with us. I think that would be the sincere wish of the whole House.

Draft Building Safety Act 2022 (Consequential Amendments etc.) Regulations 2023

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Tuesday 13th June 2023 General Committees

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

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Robert. I shall be extremely brief because this statutory instrument is entirely uncontroversial. The Minister has provided us with a fairly detailed explanation of the purpose of the instrument, and we are satisfied that it is simply a series of consequential amendments and changes to terminology to ensure consistency across the statute book in respect of part 3 of the Building Safety Act, and specifically, as he mentioned, the provisions relating to the making of applications for building control approval.

That is not to say that the Opposition do not have a number of outstanding questions and concerns about the resourcing and functioning of the new regime for high-rise buildings that is due to come into force on 1 October, but this Committee is probably not the appropriate forum to air those. We will seek further opportunities to do so, including in relation to the further regulations that the Minister mentioned. On that basis, we take no issue with these regulations and will not oppose them.

New Housing Supply

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Monday 5th June 2023 Commons Chamber

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

It is a pleasure to respond to this important and timely debate for the Opposition. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) on securing it, and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting it. I also thank all the hon. Members who have participated this evening. In addition to the right hon. Gentleman’s thoughtful and compelling opening remarks, there has been a large number of extremely well-argued, informed and insightful contributions.

While there is good reason to treat sceptically the argument that boosting housing supply, in and of itself, will quickly and significantly improve house price affordability or address what are now essentially static levels of home ownership, there is no question but that a significant uplift in house building rates is an integral part of the solution to England’s chronic housing crisis. It is undeniable that, as a nation, we have clearly not built enough houses in recent decades to meet housing need, particularly in London and what might be termed the greater south-east, so it is imperative that we address this historical undersupply of homes.

To the best of my knowledge, no Conservative Minister has ever explained precisely why the number was chosen, but the Government made a manifesto commitment to build 300,000 homes a year by the middle of this decade. Even accounting for the additional supply facilitated by the progressive expansion of permitted development rights since 2013, many of them incredibly poor-quality office-to-residential conversions, the Government have never come close to approaching, let alone hitting, that annual target. In 2021-22, net additional dwellings stood at just 232,820. That level of output, respectable but ultimately insufficient, was, of course, achieved prior to the range of concessions the Government made, in their weakness, to the so-called “Planning Concern Group” of Conservative Back Benchers late last year.

In the aftermath of that abdication of responsibility, we have, predictably, seen scores of local plans across the country stalled, delayed or withdrawn. In the face of this alarming trend, Ministers contend that we need not worry because the proposed changes to the national planning policy framework will ultimately boost local plan coverage and, in turn, housing supply. Even if that is what ultimately transpires—there is good reason to doubt it—it would be a form of increased local plan coverage that is entirely disconnected from the Government’s purported aim of building 300,000 new homes per annum, because the intended effect of the proposed changes is to allow local planning authorities to develop and adopt local plans that fail to meet the needs of wider housing market areas in full. As such, the Government’s manifesto commitment to 300,000 homes a year remains alive but in name only; abandoned in practice but not formally abolished, in order that the Secretary of State and his Ministers can still insincerely cite it in a risible effort to convince this House and the British public that they did not agree, consciously and deliberately, to plan for less housing in England over the coming years in order to placate a disgruntled group of Back Benchers.

[Bob Seely]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way to a disgruntled Back Bencher. If he reads the NPPF letter, the “Dear colleague” letter, he will find that although there is leeway on housing targets, there is set to be higher density and more liberalisation in many areas. A lot of what we tried to achieve was to free up the market to make it work better.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I fundamentally disagree with the hon. Gentleman on that. Whether it is by means of the emphasis in the proposed NPPF on locally prepared plans providing for “sufficient” housing only, the softening of land supply and delivery test provisions, the ability to include historical over-delivery in five year housing land supply calculations or the listing of various local characteristics that would justify a deviation from the standard method, the intended outcome of those changes is to allow local authorities to plan to meet less than the targets that nominally remain in place.

As I said, the choice the Government made entails a deliberate shift from a plan-led system focused on making at least some attempt to meet England’s housing need to one geared toward providing only what the politics of any given area will allow, with all the implications that the resulting suppressed rates of house building will have on those affected by the housing crisis and economic growth more widely. The next Labour Government will fix this mess. When it comes to housing and planning, our overriding objective will be to get house building rates up significantly from the nadir we will surely inherit, including, as part of that effort, markedly increasing the supply of affordable homes and, in particular, genuinely affordable social homes to rent. We do not intend to pluck an annual national target out of the air and ineptly contort the system to try to make the numbers across the country add up, as the Government have done by imposing an entirely arbitrary 35% uplift that most of the 20 cities and urban centres in England to which it applies are clear cannot possibly be accommodated.

[Bob Seely]

rose—

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will not give way.

But we will insist that the planning system is once again geared toward meeting housing need in full. To that end, if they are enacted as expected, a Labour Government will reverse the damaging changes the Government propose to make to the NPPF in relation to planning for housing. However, although reversing those damaging changes to national planning policy will be an essential first step, more far-reaching reform will be required if we are to overcome the limitations of a speculative house building model, a broken land market, and a planning system that is at once both too permissive and too restrictive. That will mean, among many other things, overhauling England’s dysfunctional planning structures so that the system more effectively facilitates strategic housing growth across those sub-regional areas with significant unmet need. That might be by way of extensions to existing urban settlements or entirely new settlements—I would argue that we need both in good measure. It will mean more proactive public sector involvement in housing delivery on large sites across the country, so that quality place making and long-term value creation become more than just the rare exception.

Let me make it clear, Madam Deputy Speaker, that Labour’s approach will not be premised on a drive for units at any cost. We appreciate that many local communities resist development because it entails poor-quality housing in inappropriate and often entirely car-dependent locations, without the necessary physical and social infrastructure for communities to thrive, or sufficient levels of affordable housing to meet local need. We would argue that that outcome is a direct consequence of the Government’s over-reliance on private house builders building homes for market sale to meet overall housing need. Yet when it comes to house building, there need not be an inherent trade-off between quantity and quality. A Labour Government will be determined to see increased rates of house building, but equally determined that much more supply comes via a long-term stewardship approach so that, if not removed entirely, public opposition to significant development in contested areas should at least be much reduced.

Similarly, we reject the notion that building more homes must come at the expense of wider national policy objectives. In addition to increasing housing supply in a way that prioritises quality of build and quality of place, we will act to ensure that the housing and planning systems play their full part in addressing other pressing national challenges such as the drive towards net zero, the need for urgent nature restoration and the need to improve public health.

To conclude, it is not the only way of solving England’s housing problems and it certainly will not be a panacea for them, but building more homes remains the most effective way that we have of tackling almost all of the housing-related problems with which our country is contending. The Government needed to build more homes before the so-called planning concern group extracted its damaging concessions late last year. As a result of the Government’s appeasement of that group, we now face the very real prospect that house building rates will plummet over the next 12 to 18 months.

We desperately need a change of approach, but it is a change that the present Government and the Ministers on the Front Bench are incapable of delivering. It is high time that we had a general election, so that they can make way for a Government who are serious about ensuring that we build to meet housing need in full and boost economic growth.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Before I call the Minister to speak, I have to say that I am extremely disappointed that some colleagues were not present to hear the winding-up speech from the Opposition. It is as important to be here for the Opposition’s wind-up as it is to be here for the Minister’s wind-up. It is extremely discourteous not to be here.

Oral Answers to Questions

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Monday 5th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

In an Opposition Day Debate that took place before the recess, the Minister claimed that there has been no Government U-turn on leasehold reform. She also refused to commit to the fundamental and comprehensive reform package that leaseholders had been led to expect was forthcoming. Can she give the House and the country a straight answer today: will the Government legislate to implement all of the Law Commission’s recommendations on enfranchisement, commonhold and the right to manage before the end of this Parliament—yes or no?

[Rachel Maclean]

The hon. Gentleman will remember I am sure the detailed debate that we had on this very issue where we dug into many questions that he and many others asked. I have given my answers from this Dispatch Box. I have been very clear that we will bring forward comprehensive reforms to leasehold, which is something the Opposition failed to do for the whole time they were in Government. We have made a start, and we will make good on that promise.