Chatham Docks Basin 3 Redevelopment

Debate between Matthew Pennycook and Lee Rowley

Wednesday 1st May 2024 Westminster Hall

[Lee Rowley]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for her question. As she rightly outlines, we made a number of changes to the NPPF, including one to indicate that the character of an area is important to consider within any future local planning. As she will appreciate, local plans often take several years to come through, so we revised the framework a number of months ago. We have been clear that councils should seek to move quicker when they need to. We have asked a number of councils to provide timetables for getting to the endpoint, and we will closely monitor what is happening in the months ahead not just on the point about character, which is important, but on the other changes that we made. We made changes about the potential for local councils to look at alternative methods to assess their needs, the importance of beauty within a system, support for small sites and community-led developments, and greater protections for agricultural land. One of the reasons for the debate today is that, as we all know, the planning system is not perfect, but trying to balance all those individual areas is important.

As a constituency MP who went through an extremely difficult time with local planning a number of years ago—down to the Labour party, which failed our area for many years because it was too unwilling, unable and incompetent to ever put a local plan in place, creating over 1,000 more houses than was necessary—I have seen the pain caused by not doing local plans in a timely manner. I know how important it is to think through the implications that plans have for the local community and the consequences of not making decisions. I appreciate the points made by my right hon. Friends the Members for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) and for Rochester and Strood.

Before concluding, I will turn to a number of points made during the debate. My right hon. Friend for Rochester and Strood has made a clear case for the position that she and many of her constituents have adopted. I know that she made that case over a number of parliamentary debates before I came into post, and she will continue to make it. We have spoken about the importance of getting planning in Medway into a better place that works for people. As we have just mentioned, the Labour party is now in charge. It owns the situation and it has the choices. It made a series of cases to the electorate a number of months ago, and now it has to work through that.

[Matthew Pennycook]

For the purposes of clarity for anyone watching, will the Minister confirm that when Medway submits its draft local plan, even under the revised NPPF, the standard method is the starting point, and the authority cannot just move away from the standard method number because it feels it is too high? It has to reason why it is moving away from it, and if it does not reason that appropriately and robustly, the plan will fail upon challenge at the examination stage of the process, will it not? So if the authority is going to move away from it, it has to reason how it will meet housing need, even though it is an advisory starting point, and any move away has to be robustly justified. It cannot be because the right hon. Member for Rochester and Strood feels that the targets are too high, as she seems to suggest.

[Lee Rowley]

I am currently in discussion with Medway. We have sent correspondence to indicate that the authority needs to move, so I will not prejudice the outcome of that. The Labour party in Medway, as it does elsewhere in the country, stood on a particular perspective last year. It won legitimately and it now has to deliver. I hope that it can deliver the commitments and promises that it made to the people of Medway and of Rochester and Strood, knowing full well the frameworks within which the planning system operates, because that is what it promised and should endeavour to do.

I turn to the points made by the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich, for whom I have the greatest respect, and we talk on a regular basis about the many elements of planning—

[Matthew Pennycook]

Far too many.

[Lee Rowley]

Far too many, as the hon. Gentleman suggests. In doing so, we are definitely aware of each other’s differing positions, and he is right to highlight those. In that spirit, I want to tease out a number of those differing positions, because they demonstrate how, for a party that is so keen to indicate that it is ready for Government, when we look under the bonnet at the actual detail, it is not there, and the plans are not where they need to be for the general election later this year.

The hon. Gentleman talked about the need to make changes to the planning system. He is right; that is why we made changes to the planning system back in December. That is why we have tried to strike that balance and ensure that there is greater control for local authorities, but recognising that we still have to build houses in the right places across the country to support our increasing population. He is right that we need development, but if we look at examples of where Labour is in power, rather than Labour talking, it consistently underdelivers on housing. The Mayor of London has consistently under- delivered on his own targets for a number of years, primarily because of the 500-plus page London plan that furs up, screws up and messes around with people being about to deliver housing in London. That is a great example of where Labour talks the talk but does not walk the walk in ensuring not only that people are protected, but that we build the houses people need. I hope that when people look closely at the planning policies of the major two parties, they will recognise that Labour, when it actually has the opportunity to do things, consistently fails to do what it talks about.

The hon. Gentleman rightly talked about a difference of opinion between ourselves, and he is correct about the sometimes reductive nature of the discussion. I absolutely agree with him and share that view. Where we disagree and differ is that the nuance needs to go over into individual policies, including the NPPF. The NPPF issued in December seeks to inject that nuance, strike that balance and recognise that we have to build more houses, but we have to build them in the right places. It seeks to do the things that my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet indicated, such as to talk about the local character of an area and to ensure that alternative processes can be considered for defining housing need or explicitly talking about beauty. Next time the boss of the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich gets the copy and paste out when taking some of our policies and passing them off as their own, but providing no further detail about how they would change them, I hope he will consider that.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Will the Minister give way?

[Lee Rowley]

I will give way after one more gentle point, if I may. Finally, on the hon. Gentleman’s statement around the approach of the Government on brownfield building, we have been clear over the past few months about the importance of focusing on brownfield. He is right that it is impossible for it to be brownfield only all of the time, forever more with no changes, but what he fails in his otherwise useful remarks to accept is that brownfield often comes with costs. If he is talking about moving even more into wholesale on brownfield than we are doing, encouraging and pushing, the question is, where are his cheques coming from? I am keen to hear from him.

[Matthew Pennycook]

What I would say to the Minister is to first spend the money that is allocated to the Department by the Treasury, which it is failing to do. Leaving aside the point about brownfield, I put to him that he is trying to have it both ways. He says on the one hand that we have to build the houses; on the other, they have to be in the right places and right locations. What is actually happening on the ground in terms of the immediate outcome of the NPPF changes that this Government have driven through is that scores of local planning authorities across the country are revising local plans and revising down housing targets. Just a few weeks ago, South Staffordshire Council reduced its housing numbers by 46% off the back of the revised local plans. The outcome of what the Government have driven through—for all the rhetoric—is policies that will see the numbers of consents and houses built reduced, moving the Government even further away from that target of 300,000 a year that they have not once managed to achieve in 14 years in office.

Leasehold Reform and New Homes

Debate between Matthew Pennycook and Lee Rowley

Wednesday 28th February 2024 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for Housing, Planning and Building Safety (Lee Rowley)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I thank all the Members who have contributed to the debate and those who are listening to it. The fact that we are talking about this issue for the second time in two days shows how important it is. It is clear, as we discussed yesterday, that Members on both sides of the House recognise that this area badly needs attention and reform. Thankfully, the general consensus across the House is that we have to move in that direction, so I hope the Bill, which went to the other place yesterday, will make fast progress there.

To be clear, the Government absolutely acknowledge this issue. We did so on Report yesterday, in Committee, on Second Reading and before that. Hon. Members have made very important points today, and have raised similar issues previously, about the iniquities in the system. They have spoken about the historical problems on the leasehold side and, more recently, but just as iniquitously, on the estate management side. Even those of us who believe that the Government should be very temperate in intervening in markets know it is right that when markets are not working, we should take action to straighten them out and remove the distortions within them. That is exactly why we introduced the Bill and are trying to ensure that it makes progress in the months ahead. We welcome the Opposition’s commitment to getting it on to the statute book at the earliest opportunity.

There are problems within the leasehold part of the discussion. The estate management issues have come into much sharper relief over the past couple of decades, particularly for those of us who have had significant amounts of new building in our areas. We can see, on a day-to-day basis, that a set of issues with individual estates clearly needs to be resolved.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Neil O’Brien) and the hon. Member for Selby and Ainsty (Keir Mather) outlined, there is a particular issue with new homes, which I will talk about in a moment. Without rehearsing some of the previous arguments and discussions, I want to read into the record, for about a minute, the real progress that the Bill makes. It is important that the House and the other place do not forget that, as a baseline, we are making the biggest and most significant change to property law in this country in a generation; we absolutely need to acknowledge that.

We are making it cheaper and easier for leaseholders in houses and flats to extend their lease or buy their freehold. That is a significant intervention. We are increasing the standard lease extension term from just 90 years to 990 years, with ground rent reduced to zero. That is an extremely significant intervention. We are removing the requirement for a new leaseholder to have owned their house or flat for two years before they can benefit from these changes. We are changing the thresholds and non-residential limits within properties, and for the first time allowing leaseholders in buildings with up to 50% non-residential floor space to buy their freehold and take over its management.

Yesterday on Report, we added protections on top of the Building Safety Act 2022 to make the purchase and sale of leasehold and freehold estate properties quicker and easier by proving a maximum time and fee for the provision of information. Vitally, we are requiring transparency over leasehold service charges, which hon. Members talked about a moment ago. We are replacing building insurance commissions for managing agents, landlords and freeholders so that we get away from the frankly outrageous situation whereby there is little clarity about what is being paid for, who pays for it and whether there are kickbacks in the background.

We are scrapping the presumption that leaseholders will pay the freeholder’s legal costs when challenging poor practice. That is another absolutely outrageous historical iniquity that needs resolution. We are rightly extending redress schemes to managed estates. I know that some hon. Members would prefer them to be abolished, but it is absolutely right that there is a redress scheme in place.

As hon. Members know, yesterday we banned the creation of new leasehold houses. I do not like to ban anything at all because I think we have banned far too much in the United Kingdom over the past generation, but sadly, I am absolutely convinced of the necessity of a preclusion on leasehold houses, given the horror stories that have been outlined during the passage of the Bill and in the years leading up to it.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Will the Minister give way?

[Lee Rowley]

I will happily give way to the hon. Gentleman; I hope he is about to agree with me about the necessity of banning only very proportionately.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

I am afraid that I am going to have to disappoint the Minister, because I disagree that the Government banned new leasehold houses yesterday. He did not address this in his wind-up speech yesterday, because he did not have a huge amount of time, but I want him to respond to my concerns about new schedule 2 providing for exemptions that are potentially so wide that they could allow for the creation of significant numbers of new leasehold homes over the coming years. Will the Government review their position on new schedule 2? Are they convinced that it provides for only very limited exceptions in unusual circumstances, as the Minister said yesterday?

[Lee Rowley]

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. He and I have an active discussion about this, and possibly a slight difference of opinion about the potential impact of what we introduced. I do not wish to misrepresent him, but I think he accepts that some elements of what we brought forward yesterday, possibly those regarding the National Trust, are not controversial or contentious. There is a question about whether the measures should apply if, historically, organisations, entities or companies have agreements in certain ways. It is clear that this will be swept away; we are effectively discussing whether existing permissions on a particular type of prospectus, other than the small number of things such as the National Trust, should be swept away as well. I am sure that we will continue to talk about that, but we think that this proposition is a major intervention that honours the spirit of banning leasehold houses. Others may take a different view, but the Government’s view is that this is a significant step forward that adheres to the spirit of a ban or preclusion, and that will allow us to move forward.

I have highlighted the progress that has been and is being made, subject to what the other place does. I know, however, that hon. Members are very keen that we go further in certain areas, so I want to spend a few moments going through some of their suggestions. My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough made a powerful speech—again, he is the reason why we are speaking about this matter today, and it is important that we continue to have this conversation. We have heard some of the examples, both named and referred to, of the realities created by the system. No system is perfect—we can never design it such that there will not be some attempt to prang it in some way, shape or form—but large holes in the system have clearly built up and been exploited. Those have resulted in, for instance, the removal of trees from a tree-lined street. Unless there is some other reality behind that, there is absolutely no reason for it to happen. We have to move to a place where that does not occur, and we hope that that will be achieved in part by the changes made by the Bill. We recognise that there are further concerns, and we are considering those, but we all agree that some of the examples mentioned are not where we want to be. I hope that we may be able to say more on that going forward.

As I mentioned briefly yesterday, I also recognise this issue personally. I am not speaking today as a constituency MP, but only in the last month I have been in meetings with constituents who raised concerns about a Persimmon development and the clarity of information about service charges. So in my part of the world, I see issues similar to those raised by hon. Members, including my hon. Friend.

My hon. Friend also raised an important point about GP provision. I have been in this job for only four months, but I recognise the importance of this issue. My hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) is particularly concerned about that, and I have spoken about it with my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Julie Marson). It is another clear iniquity. As my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough says, people are doing the right thing, have worked hard all their lives and are buying properties, and although the sales particulars of those properties state that new GP provision will be on or near the site, suddenly that provision disappears into thin air between the point when the ink goes on the contract and the point when they move in, or within a few years.

We have already held a meeting on that issue with my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom), who is a Minister in the Department of Health and Social Care, and we are committed to trying to make further progress. A detailed discussion is needed, because a number of different issues on GP provision need to be unpacked.

First, there is the physical ability to provide bricks—places for people to operate out of—which is obviously the responsibility of the planning system or associated with it. The second issue is whether there could be some provision, but for whatever reason, the configurations, the preferred designs and so on make that cost higher than it otherwise should be. If that is the case, that needs to be looked into again, because there is no reason for making perfect the enemy of the good. Thirdly, we may have the bricks or provisions to provide the bricks, but if we do not have the people to provide the services, it does not help in any instance the people who have been sold the promise in the first place. A number of different issues will need to be unpicked, and I am working with my right hon. Friend from the Department of Health and Social Care on that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough talked passionately and importantly about new homes and the related issues. As he indicated, when someone has done the right thing, it is absolutely incredible and unacceptable that there are the kind of problems that he has highlighted around sewage, snagging and the amount of time people have to take to get their homes up to the standard they thought they were buying in the first place, or to solve the problems they did not think there would be. It is also fair to say that, as MPs, we only hear about the difficult issues, and there are many thousands of homeowners who move into homes on a monthly and annual basis who do not have those issues. That is absolutely great, but we can all see in our postbags that there are significant challenges with regards to new homes. As my hon. Friend indicates, I hope that the new homes ombudsman will make progress, and the New Homes Quality Board is currently seeking to do that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Adam Holloway) is no longer in his place, but he raises an important point about conveyancing. The hon. Member for Selby and Ainsty made a similar point about people being encouraged to use a particular conveyancer, or a particular set of solicitors, and it may be that the output of that process, however it happened, meant they did not get all the information or certain things were not as clear as they could be. That is unacceptable. I recognise that we have to work through that issue. There is a very complicated interaction between standards, regulation and whether people are doing the right thing, even within a regulated industry. I think I should pick that up with my Ministry of Justice colleagues to see whether there is anything that we may be able to take forward.

The hon. Member for Selby and Ainsty made an important and eloquent case relating to some challenges that he and his constituents have experienced. I was campaigning on one of his new estates just a few months ago, possibly for a different candidate. I will make two points. He raised an issue with regards to Harron Homes. I say this not to make any particular point, other than that I had a similar personal and constituency issue with Harron Homes on the Regents Green estate in Grassmoor in my constituency a number of years ago. It took quite a bit of pushing, but in the end, Harron Homes moved and we got hundreds of snags unsnagged. I hope he has similar success on that.

I know the hon. Member’s point was not about seeking advice on how to approach Harron Homes; it was more broadly about the reality that this should not happen in the first place, and he is absolutely right. I hope that some of the work in the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill, and some of the things that the New Homes Quality Board is doing on a voluntary basis and the new homes ombudsman will do in the coming years will help to address some of those problems.

My hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) is not just the Father of the House but the father of many of the innovations and suggestions in the Bill, given how long he has campaigned on this issue. He raised the specific issue of rentcharges, and I would say to him that I am always happy to hold roundtables, but we must make sure they have utility. We are clearly making progress with the Bill, and I hope hon. Members accept that that includes progress on rentcharges. Both I and the Secretary of State continue to be keen to have the discussion around rentcharges to see what might be possible in the future.

It is important to note that there is a complicated interaction, as there always is in such difficult areas of law, between the clear problems we see with rentcharges and the overall structure of how rentcharges are used on a broader basis—rentcharges are, for example, part of the estate management system. That is something we have to try and work through in the round, but I am always happy to talk more and to hold roundtables. We do understand that there continues to be a challenge there.

Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill (Tenth sitting)

Debate between Matthew Pennycook and Lee Rowley

Tuesday 30th January 2024 Public Bill Committees

[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.

--- 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 ---

[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 ---

[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 ---

[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 ---

[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.

--- 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 ---

[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.

--- 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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- 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.

Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill (Ninth sitting)

Debate between Matthew Pennycook and Lee Rowley

Committee stage
Tuesday 30th January 2024 Public Bill Committees

[Matthew Pennycook]

Amendment 150 was a probing amendment. I take on board the Minister’s statement that the Government are looking at the issue and that they do not believe that this legislation is the appropriate vehicle to deal with it.

If the Minister is willing to respond again, I would like a bit more clarity on precisely why in many cases amenities on estates are not being built to an adoptable standard. I think we all agree that we would like to see such a system. The Minister introduced a different problem, namely circumstances in which residents might not want their amenities adopted; I think that that would be a relatively small number of estates, but we would have to account for them. In general, we want to reduce the prevalence of arrangements and see adoption becoming mandatory in most circumstances.

Will the Minister expand on why the Government think the common amenable standards are not being met across the board? In a previous debate, the then Minister stated:

“The local authority has powers to ensure that developers build and maintain communal facilities to the standards and quality set out in the planning permission.”—[Official Report, 22 January 2019; Vol. 653, c. 132WH.]

Is something going wrong with the standards that most local authorities require at the planning permission stage? Is the section 106 agreement breaking down in some way? What is the reason? That might give us an insight into the solution that the Government have in mind and into why common adoptable standards are not currently the norm.

[Lee Rowley]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that there are a variety of scenarios. I am not sure that residents of Fenton Street would not take the opportunity to adopt if they were given the opportunity; it is more about the broader challenges of getting a single coherent answer to a very complicated set of questions that have come about in the past few decades or over a longer period.

The hon. Gentleman raises a valid point about the outcome of the planning system. Everybody, irrespective of party, would want the planning system to work to a point where there are common standards for roads and public spaces. There is an interesting question as to why that is not the case. It is an area that as a Minister I intend to look into in more detail.

The question is whether is it a systemic problem or a matter of individual circumstances, where it is working okay in some areas but not in others. Anecdote leads to bad policy and bad law, but in my experience as a constituency MP it has worked in a number of areas and not in others. That suggests that there is variability and that it is therefore not a systemic issue, but that might be different elsewhere in the country. It is an area that I think we should look at more; I am not sure whether it needs legislation. That is an open question, but it is definitely something that I am keen to understand more.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lee Rowley]

Clause 42 introduces new obligations on estate managers where the costs they wish to charge a homeowner exceed an appropriate amount. It mirrors sections 20 and 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. Subsection (1) places an obligation on estate managers to consult homeowners where the costs for works or services exceed a given threshold. Subsections (2) to (4) confer a power to allow the Secretary of State to determine the appropriate threshold in regulations; the Secretary of State may also determine whether the threshold is to be a total sum or if the costs for individual homeowners exceed an appropriate amount.

Subsections (6) and (7) confer a power on the Secretary of State to set out in regulations the consultation require-ments and the provisions that may be included in the consultation process. Issues that may be in regulations are not exhaustive, but may include matters of relevance, including details of the proposed works, the provision of estimates, and requirements to have regard to homeowner observations and to specify reasons for carrying out the works if they proceed. We recognise that there are occasions where it may not be appropriate or possible for estate managers to consult homeowners—for example, where urgent or emergency works need to be carried out. Subsections (5) and (8) to (10) therefore allow estate managers to seek dispensation from the relevant tribunal of the need to consult. However, should estate managers fail to obtain dispensation or follow the consultation requirements, individual homeowner contributions are capped at the appropriate amount. The Government will engage extensively with stakeholders to determine the appropriate threshold for consultation and what the detail of the consultation arrangements should be. I commend the clause to the Committee.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I wish to probe the Minister a little further on the clause. As he said, it introduces requirements for estate managers to consult managed owners if the costs of any works to be charged as an estate management charge exceed an appropriate amount, which will be set out in regulations. Overall, the Government’s aim in this part of the Bill is clearly to introduce statutory protections for residential freeholders equivalent to those enjoyed by long leaseholders with regard to service charges.

If I understood the Minister correctly, he has confirmed that the Government’s intention with the clause is to establish for residential freeholders an equivalent to section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. If that is the intention, can the Minister confirm that the new requirements provided for by the clause will include requiring estate managers to have regard to written observations from residential freeholders on charges in excess of the to-be-determined appropriate amount, and where necessary to justify in writing the reasons why they awarded a contract to a tenderer that neither submitted the lowest estimate nor was nominated by a resident?

Furthermore, if the clause is indeed intended to mirror the operation of the existing section 20 consultation process, I urge the Minister to consider what might be done to address the known deficiencies of the process, including the fact that a leaseholder’s sole means of redress if they take issue with the landlord’s decision is the tribunal, and that there is no statutory meaning of what “have regard to” means in the context of the consultation. While he does so, I encourage him to take the opportunity to overturn, or at least modify, the decision of the Supreme Court in the 2013 Daejan Investments Limited v. Benson case, which has proved so detrimental to the consultation rights of leaseholders. I make this series of points because the Homeowners Rights Network, among others, has questioned the logic of extending to privately managed estates a regime that is not always effective in protecting residential leaseholders from unreasonable charges associated with major works.

[Lee Rowley]

The hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich encourages me to seek to overturn decisions of the Supreme Court! That could start a whole heap of discussion early on a Tuesday morning, but I will withhold further comment for now.

The hon. Member is absolutely right that clause 42 is intended to mirror section 20 of the 1985 Act. He is correct that the intention is to consider written responses as well; I hope that that reassures him. We will need to go through a consultation process: although we have said that our intention is to mirror section 20 of the 1985 Act to give confidence about the direction of travel, what is appropriate for these individual circumstances will need to be discussed, and I hope that we can pick up that discussion within the consultation.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 42 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 43

Limitation of estate management charges: time limits

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

I rise to support the amendment. We discussed litigation costs in relation to clause 34; we strongly argued for a general prohibition with very limited exceptions. The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the fact, which applies to part 4 as a whole, that we should not replicate the flaws of the leasehold system in the newer system of estate management charges. Our arguments in relation to the leasehold regime therefore apply equally here, and the hon. Gentleman is right to raise the point.

[Lee Rowley]

I will try directly to address the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire, to which we are sympathetic. It is important that litigation costs are not passed on. On the leasehold side, there is clear evidence that that is happening, but the question is whether there is clear evidence of it happening in the area of estate management. From speaking to officials, we do not see that clear evidence at the moment. However, if any members of the Committee or others have such evidence, I would welcome it. If it is happening, I am sure that we would be happy to consider the issue as the Bill progresses.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

Briefly, when we discussed the regulation of service charges in clauses 26 to 30, we made a number of specific arguments about how those clauses might be tightened and strengthened. Can the Minister give us a commitment that if the Government determine to amend those clauses in any way, they will seek to read across the equivalent changes to this part of the Bill or, if they do not think that they apply, to justify where wider deviations between the two regimes are necessary? As I said, we are mirroring broadly the statutory protections in place for long leaseholders here, but where they differ, the Committee would certainly welcome clarification as to why.

[Lee Rowley]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question. He tempts me into hypotheticals, but I hope that we are demonstrating our willingness to try to work constructively to see where areas can be improved. I must caveat that with clarity that we will not be able to improve every area; of necessity, prioritisations will need to be made. Of course there will be disagreements in this place and elsewhere about what is possible, but we shall see; if there is read-over, we shall see.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 46 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 47

Right to request information

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lee Rowley]

My hon. Friend highlights an important point. I think it is better that I write, but in principle, the transparency we seek to bring and the requirement to clearly articulate the charges that have been made, either in the annual report or elsewhere, aim to provide the sunlight that means that it is clear who is paying for what, and, if it is not a reasonable charge, there is a process that can be followed. But I will write to him with more on that, if that is helpful, because we all want to get this right.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I rise briefly to support the argument made by the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire. There is a specific problem on privately managed estates, which I referred to when speaking to clause 41, relating to the fragmentation of multiple estate management companies. I share his concern, which partly speaks to whether the penalties are appropriate in terms of enforcement. On some estates, residential leaseholders will face a situation where, yes, there may be a requirement for an annual report and there may be a degree of transparency, but the onus will be on them to go through six or seven sets of accounts from the different subsidiaries. We need to look at how we can simplify some of the management structures that companies use, which could cause huge amounts of confusion for residential leaseholders, and, as I say, put the onus on them to try to work through different sets of accounts in a way that they might find difficult to do.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 51 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 52 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 53

Limitation of administration charges

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Lee Rowley]

I hope that some of the comments I am about to make will reassure my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire that we are keen to get this right.

Homeowners on managed estates can be subject to excessive administration charges, with little understanding of what fees they may be liable to pay. Subsection (1) puts a stop to that by introducing a requirement for all administration charges to be reasonable. Subsections (2) and (3) require that an administration charge is payable only if the amount or the description of how the amount is to be calculated has been published on an administration charge schedule for 28 days. Subsection (4) sets out other conditions under which an administration charge is not payable to the estate manager. They include circumstances where the estate manager is charging homeowners on the same estate different amounts for carrying out similar tasks, and therefore prevents them from being charged at different rates. I commend the clause to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 53 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 54

Determination of tribunal as to administration charges

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lee Rowley]

Part 5 of the Bill addresses issues relating to rentcharges. Since the Rentcharges Act 1977, the creation of most types of rentcharge has been prohibited. The main class of rentcharge excepted from the general prohibition is known as an estate rentcharge. Estate rentcharges are usually mechanisms for a management company to obtain contributions towards the costs of maintaining communal areas.

Part 4 of the Bill creates new protections for homeowners who pay an estate rentcharge to an estate manager for the provision of estate management services. Clause 58 makes a minor amendment to the Rentcharges Act 1977 to amend the definition of “estate rentcharge” in section 2 of the Act. The effect of the amendment is to ensure that payments may be made to cover improvements to communal areas as well as maintenance and repairs. This ensures that it aligns with the definition of the service charges that leaseholders must pay, and allows estate managers to pass on costs of any improvements to the areas they look after, and will ensure that they meet their legal obligations as well as having sufficient funds to carry out such works. The sums paid for improvement will still be subject to the protections in part 4—for example, the requirement to be reasonable. This is a clarificatory amendment, and I commend clause 58 to the Committee.

[Matthew Pennycook]

This is a clarificatory amendment, and we do not take issue with it. I will speak on our concerns about rentcharges in relation to clause 59.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 58 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 59

Regulation of remedies for arrears of rentcharges

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 4—Remedies for the recovery of annual sums charged on land—

“(1) Section 121 of the Law of Property Act 1925 is omitted.

(2) The amendment made by subsection (1) has effect in relation to arrears arising before or after the coming into force of this section.”

This new clause, which is intended to replace clause 59, would remove the provision of existing law which, among other things, allows a rentcharge owner to take possession of a freehold property in instances where a freehold homeowner failed to pay a rentcharge.

[Lee Rowley]

An income-supporting rentcharge is an annual sum paid by a freehold homeowner to a third party who normally has no other interest in the property. Under the 1977 Act, no new rentcharges of this type may be created, and all existing ones will be extinguished in 2037. Most income-supporting rentcharges can be for relatively small amounts—typically between £1 and £25 per annum—and the majority of freehold properties affected by these rentcharges are located in the north-west and the south-west of England.

However, a loophole remains. Failure to pay a rentcharge within 40 days of its due date means that, under section 121 of the Law of Property Act 1925, the recipient of the rentcharge may take possession of the subject premises until the arrears and all costs and expenses are paid. The rentcharge owner may alternatively grant a lease of the subject premises to a trustee that the rentcharge owner may set up themselves. The Government believe that that law is unfair and can have a grossly dispro-portionate consequence for a very small amount of money not being paid. This clause seeks to address that and ensure that freeholders cannot be subject to a possession order or the granting of a lease for rentcharge arrears.

Subsection (2) introduces new sections into the 1925 Act. Proposed new section 120B details that no action to recover or require payment of regulated rentcharge arrears may be taken unless notice has been served and the demand for payment complies with the new requirements. Those requirements set out what information the notice must include. The section also sets out that the homeowner does not have to pay the rentcharge owner any administrative fee.

Proposed new section 120C sets out various requirements relating to the serving of notice under proposed new section 120B, aimed at ensuring that freeholders receive the demand of payment at the address of the charged land. Proposed new section 120D confers powers on the Secretary of State to set out in regulations a limit on the amounts payable by landowners, indirectly or directly, in relation to the action of recovering or requiring payment of regulated rentcharge arrears. That provision seeks to avoid abuse of administration costs charged when simply accepting payment of arrears, and the process of removing any restriction on the freehold title at the Land Registry. The charge does not affect the cost that is paid directly to the Land Registry itself.

Clause 59 (3) and (4) to clause 59 seek to disapply rentcharge owners from using the provisions set out in sections 121 and 122 of the 1925 Act. In doing so, they provide additional protection to avoid rentcharge owners rushing to invoke those provisions. The effect of those subsections is to make any action to reclaim arrears using the 1925 Act void retrospectively once the provisions are introduced. Subsection (5) ensures that the provisions of the clause apply to rentcharge arrears that have arisen before and after the changes come into force. Subsection (6) inserts new section 122A into the 1925 Act, which details that an instrument creating a rentcharge, contract or any other arrangement is of no effect to the extent that it makes provision contrary to the provisions in this clause. Clause 59 delivers on a Government commitment to protect freehold homeowners from the disproportionate effects of falling into arrears in the payment of their rentcharge.

I turn to new clause 4, for which I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich. It seeks to abolish section 121 of the 1925 Act. The effect of the new clause would be that a failure to pay any form of rentcharge would prevent the owner of the rentcharge from granting a lease on the property, or from taking possession of it until the fee was paid. We are sympathetic to the issue raised by the shadow Minister, and we have recognised that forfeiture is an extreme measure and should only be used as a last resort. Although in practice it is already rarely used, I recognise that the potential consequences may feel disproportionate. That is why we have included clause 59, which disapplies this remedy for income-supporting rentcharges where we know that homeowners pay nominal sums for very little in return.

As with leasehold forfeiture, any changes will require a careful balancing of the rights and responsibilities of interested parties. We are concerned as to what this new clause could mean where a homeowner pays estate rentcharges that are essential for the management of their estate, or any other form of legitimate rentcharge. The Government want to ensure that where they are required to be paid, these charges are paid in a timely manner so that the smooth running of the estate can continue. If estate management companies are unable to recover these sums, there is the potential that the costs will fall to other homeowners or that the upkeep of the estate will worsen. We are keen to understand any unintended consequences before abolishing section 121 of the 1925 Act all together. We need to weigh up the needs of the estate with the stress and uncertainty that we know this law can cause for some homeowners and lenders. We are listening carefully to the arguments, and I am happy to give the hon. Gentleman that commitment. I hope that, with those reassurances, he may consider not moving his new clause.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I was slightly surprised, in a welcome way, by the Minister’s response, in that he seemed to indicate that the Government are open to considering the abolition of section 121 of the 1925 Act all together, notwithstanding the need to ensure that there are no unintended consequences, but we are debating clause 59 as it stands, which does not propose that, so I hope to convert the Minister’s sympathy into agreement with our position if I can.

Part 5 of the Bill concerns rentcharges, which in general terms can be understood as an indefinite, periodic payment made in respect of freehold land by the current freeholder to a third party or “rent owner” who has no reversionary interest in the charged land in question. In some cases, the charge relates to the provision of a service; in others it is, in effect, simply a profit stream for the interested third party. All rentcharges, as the Minister made clear, are covered by the Rentcharges Act 1977, which prohibited the creation of new so-called income-only rentcharges and provided that all such rentcharges will be extinguished in 2037.

The 1977 Act does not detail the remedies available to a rentcharge holder whose rentcharge is not paid, although any can simply sue for a money judgment. It is section 121 of the Law of Property Act 1925 that creates two additional remedies for rentcharge non-payment. First, unless excluded by the terms of the rentcharge itself, there is a right for the rentcharge holder to take possession of the charged land in question and retain any income associated with it so long as the money owed, whether demanded or not, is unpaid for 40 days. Secondly, unless prohibited by the terms of the rentcharge, and assuming that the money owed is outstanding for at least 40 days, there is a power to demise the land to a trustee by way of a lease in order to raise the funds necessary to pay the arrears and costs.

In short, the 1925 Act provides for the power to seize freehold houses for non-payment of a rentcharge, even if the arrears are merely a few pounds, and allows the rentcharge holder to retain possession or render it in effect worthless by means of maintaining a 99-year lease over it, even if, as demonstrated by the 2016 case of Roberts v. Lawton, the rentcharge is redeemed or the underlying debt cleared. In our view, the remedies provided for by the 1925 Act are a wholly disproportionate and draconian legacy of Victorian-era property law. As I have said, the 1977 Act prohibited the creation of new rentcharges and provided for existing rentcharges to be abolished in 2037, but 13 years from now is still a long time away and any lease granted prior to the abolition will remain in force. Rentcharges are therefore an area of law in respect of which legislative reform is long overdue, and the need to protect rent payers from what amounts, essentially, to a particularly severe form of freehold forfeiture as a result of the relevant remedies provided for by the 1925 Act is pressing.

With clause 58 having amended the definition of estate rentcharge, clause 59 seeks to provide for revised remedies for arrears by amending the 1925 Act. As the Minister has set out, clause 59, in place of the existing two remedies for rentcharge non-payment under the Act, proposes requiring the third party or rent owner to issue an appropriate demand before they can seek to recover or compel payment, and gives the Secretary of State the power by regulation to limit the amount payable by the freehold homeowner in respect of rentcharge arrears or to provide that no amount is repayable. Although we appreciate that the intent of the clause is to better protect freehold homeowners from the existing disproportionate remedies that are available to rentcharge holders when rentcharges go unpaid, we believe it is an overly complicated and onerous attempt to make more palatable the methods of enforcing rentcharges provided for by the 1925 Act that are simply not justifiable in any form.

No one disputes that there might be a need for legitimate and reasonable rentcharges. Indeed, if and when the Government finally deliver on the pledge to require all new houses in England and Wales to be sold as freehold properties, such charges will become even more important as a means to ensure that freehold houses contribute towards communal estate services. However, the threat of their being enforced by means of the draconian remedies in section 121 of the 1925 Act must, in our view, be removed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lee Rowley]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He makes a strong case for his arguments. As I have indicated, although I will not accept new clause 4, we do think there is an argument that is reasonable to be had here, while recognising that we need to consider the consequential potential of any change. I am happy to discuss that further with him separately to see whether we can make further progress at a later stage of the Bill.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the Minister for that answer. I am tempted to not move the new clause, but I can only deal with the piece of legislation in front of me. What is in front of me is not a placeholder clause that says, “We will review the 1925 Act”; it is a clause that puts in place an amended version of the remedies. We feel so strongly about this point that we will vote against clause stand part, but I will take the Minister up on his offer to discuss a more sensible way of dealing with the types of contraventions that we have discussed.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lee Rowley]

Clause 64 makes provision for the commencement of the Bill. The substantive provisions of the Bill will come into force on a day appointed by the Secretary of State by regulation. For a number of policy areas, regulations need to be drafted and laid before Parliament before the provisions in the Bill can commence. Hon. Members should be assured that we are not intending to have any unnecessary delay in implementation, and the Department is working hard to plan and carry out the associated programme of secondary legislation. Subsection (2) sets out that the provisions for section 59, namely the regulation of remedies for rent charge arrears, come into force two days after the Act is passed. I commend the clause to the Committee.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I have two brief points. On the general commencement provisions, the Minister just made it perfectly clear that there are no firm dates for commencement on all the issues that require regulations. I take on board what he said about not seeking any unnecessary delay, and that is welcome. However, I push him to go slightly further to give us a sense of the timetabling of some of the more important provisions in the Bill, because leaseholders watching our proceedings will want to know when the rights provided for by the Bill can be enjoyed.

I have a point specifically on subsection (2), which specifies that clause 59 comes into force at the end of a period of two months, as I understand it—the Minister said “two days”, and I think it is two months. Given that some of the provisions in clause 59—I am thinking particularly of new subsection 120D(4)—bring the relevant provision into force on First Reading on 27 November 2023, why is there a two-month delay after Royal Assent? Why not bring the measures into force on Royal Assent?

[Lee Rowley]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his questions. Obviously, as he will know, I do not need to push too heavily the point that we need to get the Bill through this place. We are trying to move it as quickly as we possibly can, but the other place may have other ideas, although I hope that it will not. I hope I can provide assurances that we will try to get these things moving as quickly as possible.

On the hon. Gentleman’s specific point about subsection (2), I thank him for correcting me; it is two months. As I understand it—I am happy to go away and review it—there is a relative convention in these instances. However, given the desire and intention of all parties, including the Secretary of State, to move as quickly as possible, we will see whether we can speed it up.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 64 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 65

Short Title

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill (Seventh sitting)

Debate between Matthew Pennycook and Lee Rowley

Committee stage
Thursday 25th January 2024 Public Bill Committees

[Matthew Pennycook]

It is a pleasure to continue our line-by-line consideration of the Bill with you in the Chair, Mr Efford. For the sake of probity, I declare once again that my wife is the joint chief executive of the Law Commission, whose reports on leasehold and commonhold reform I will continue to cite throughout my remarks.

Part 2 of the Bill makes changes to other rights of long leaseholders. Four of its five clauses are concerned with improving the right to manage, but as we touched on briefly at the end of the Committee’s previous sitting, clause 21, which brings schedule 7 to the Bill into effect, makes provision for a new enfranchisement right to buy out the ground rent and vary it permanently to replace the relevant part of the rent with a peppercorn rent, without having to extend the lease.

We welcome the intent of the schedule. The reform will ensure that leaseholders can enjoy reduced premiums and secure nominal ground rent ownership of their properties without the need to go through the challenge and expense of repeated lease extensions. In the Law Commission’s final report on enfranchisement rights, it considered in great detail whether there should be a range of lease extension rights in order to provide greater flexibility than is currently afforded to leaseholders as a result of the provisions in the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 that require them simultaneously to extend the terms of their lease and to extinguish their ground rent.

The rationale for providing greater flexibility in this area is that in allowing leaseholders to choose either only to extend their lease or only to extinguish their ground rent, leaseholders could avoid paying the landlord the value of the remainder of the original terms and the deferral of the reversion, with the result that premiums would be reduced accordingly.

While taking into account the clear benefits that greater flexibility would provide for in terms of reduced premiums, the Law Commission, in its reports, clearly wrestled with whether it was sensible to recommend a more nuanced approach to lease extension rights. It did so, because of the complexity that the availability of different lease extension options would inevitably create, and the corresponding opportunities that such complexity would present to unscrupulous landlords who might seek to take advantage of those leaseholders unable to access costly professional advice about the best choice to make from the available options.

Without doubt, allowing for choices other than a uniform right to a fixed additional term at a nominal ground rent will make the statutory right to a lease extension more complicated. I will return shortly to the implications of clause 21 and the schedule in that regard. However, on the principle of allowing for greater choice, the Law Commission ultimately decided that despite the increased complexity that it would engender, leaseholders who have a lease with a long remaining term should, on payment of a premium, be entitled to extinguish the ground rent payable under the lease without extending the terms of it.

The commission felt, rightly in our view, that that right is likely to be utilised mainly by those with relatively long leases who are subject to onerous ground rent provisions, or those with relatively long leases and ground rents that are not definitionally onerous but still entail, for a variety of reasons, a significant present or future financial burden. In such cases, even if the premium payable is not significantly reduced, the prescribed capitalisation rates provided for by schedule 2 to the Bill should make valuations simpler and enable the change to be made by means of a simple deed of variation, rather than a deed of surrender and regrant, as required to extend the terms of a lease now.

The schedule implements the Law Commission’s recommendation for that right to extinguish the ground rent only. As I have made clear, we support it. We have, however, moved the amendment, which would delete the Government’s proposed 150-year threshold, to press the Minister on the reason or reasons for which the Government have decided to confer that right only on leaseholders with leases with an unexpired term of more than 150 years.

To be clear, we understand fully the argument made by those who believe that the right to extinguish a ground rent without extending a lease should only be conferred on those with sufficiently long leases—namely, that the premium for the reversion increases significantly as the unexpired period of the lease reduces, and leaseholders with leases below a certain threshold should therefore be, in a sense, compelled to peppercorn their ground rent and to extend at the same time by means of the reduced premiums that clauses 7 and 8 of the Bill should enable.

However, what constitutes a sufficiently long lease for the purposes of conferring this new right is ultimately a matter of judgment. The Law Commission recommended that the threshold should be set at 250 years on the basis that the reversion is of negligible value at that lease length. The Government chose not to accept that recommendation and instead are proposing a threshold of 150 years. The Minister may provide us with a different answer in due course, but we assume the reason they did so is simply that this will make the new right to extinguish a ground rent available to many more leaseholders.

However, if that is the case, it obviously follows that setting a threshold of, say, 125 years or even 100 years would make it available to even more of them. The argument against doing so is that leaseholders with leases below a certain threshold should be, in effect, compelled to extend their lease at the same time as peppercorning their rent because not doing so would, in many cases, disadvantage them.

However, that obviously raises more fundamental questions, such as whether it should be up to leaseholders to navigate the wider range of options that will be made available to them if and when this Bill receives Royal Assent, and whether the fact that some leaseholders with relatively short leases may either advertently or inadvertently disadvantage themselves by extinguishing without extending their lease should mean that everyone below the 150-year threshold is prohibited from enjoying the new right introduced by the schedule.

Even assuming one believes it is the role of Government to set a long-lease threshold, it is not entirely clear to us why the Government have alighted on 150 years given that there could be all sorts of reasons why someone with a lease shorter than such a term might want to only buy out their rent, including simply that they are unable to afford the premium required to secure a 990-year lease. As such, we would like the Minister to justify in some detail, if he could, why the Government alighted on a 150-year threshold as opposed to either the Law Commission’s proposal of 250 years or a lower threshold that would give many more leaseholders the right to extinguish their ground rent. We would like to ask him to consider whether, as we believe on balance, there is a strong case for simply deleting the 150-year threshold entirely, given that the “remaining years” test that applies is inherently arbitrary. I hope the Minister will give amendment 6 serious consideration, and I look forward to his thoughts on it.

While we are considering this schedule, I also want to probe the Minister again on the Government’s intentions in respect of the recently closed consultation on restricting ground rent for all existing leases, and specifically how any proposals arising from that consultation will interact with this schedule given that it provides a right to peppercorn ground rents in existing leases. As I made clear when we briefly considered this matter in relation to clauses 7 and 8, I am obviously not asking the Minister to provide this Committee with an advanced indication of what the Government’s formal response to that consultation will be. However, we remain of the view that this Committee needs to know, if the Government ultimately do choose to enact any of the five options for intervention that were consulted upon, what the implications are for the provisions that are currently in the Bill that we are being asked to approve today.

On Second Reading, the Secretary of State was quite clear that at the conclusion of the consultation, the Government would

“legislate on the basis of that set of responses in order to ensure that ground rents are reduced, and can only be levied in a justifiable way.”—[Official Report, 11 December 2023; Vol. 742, c. 659.]

As members of the Committee will know, he was also open with the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee prior to Second Reading about the fact that his favoured approach would be a peppercorn rent—in other words, option 1 from the consultation. I am conscious that many people across the country who bear leaseholders no ill will whatever have invested, almost uniformly on advice and in good faith, in freehold funds. I have constituents who have invested, for example, in time investments and other such funds that have invested in freehold properties. However, I personally share the Secretary of State’s preference not least because, while ground rents exist even at relatively low levels, they will be a major impediment to the widespread adoption of commonhold.

There is a more fundamental issue with ground rents that we need to grapple with. As we have discussed already, over the past two decades, the consequence of the kind of investment we have seen is a system increasingly focused on generating assets by gouging leaseholders through ground rents that are, in historical terms, high to start with and that escalate over the terms of the lease. Leaseholders who worked hard to purchase their own homes and did so in good faith are being asked to pay ever more money for no clear service in return and many are experiencing considerable financial distress and difficulties selling their property, all to sustain the income streams of third-party investors.

Unregulated ground rents of this nature in existing leases cannot be justified. Although we do not discount the risks involved in any of the five options outlined in the consultation, Labour is clear that the Government must act to protect leaseholders from ground rent exploitation and that they should be courageous in determining which of the consultation proposals should be enacted.

All that said, we obviously cannot pre-empt the consultation in question. What is important for the purposes of considering schedule 7, and clause 21, is that we get a clear answer from the Minister as to what the potential implications of any response would be for leaseholders. Specifically, will the schedule have to be revisited should the Government ultimately choose to enact one of the five options in the consultation? Are we correct in assuming that clause 21 and the schedule will have to be overhauled, if not removed from the Bill entirely, in that scenario? If not, how will the Government ensure that the various measures are aligned? It is a hypothetical question, as I am sure the Minister will indicate, but it is entirely reasonable, given that we are being asked to approve the inclusion of the schedule in the Bill. On our reading of the ground rent consultation, the schedule could entirely change the implications; indeed, it may well have to be removed entirely to ensure that the Bill is consistent. On that basis, I hope the Minister will give us a bit more detail. He gave us some on Tuesday, but we need a little more detail on that point.

[The Minister for Housing, Planning and Building Safety (Lee Rowley)]

I am grateful for the comments from the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich, and for his amendment. I will say a few words in general before turning to some of his specific questions.

As he indicated, the ground rent buy-out right enables leaseholders with very long leases to buy out their ground rent on payment of a premium, without having to extend their lease. A leaseholder with a very long lease who does not need an extension may want to buy out the ground rent without extending the lease, but others may wish to do it in a different way.

I appreciate the hon. Member’s points about the amendment, and I understand why he is seeking to extend the right to vary one’s lease to as many leaseholders as possible, so I will try to answer some of his questions. Inevitably, as he indicated, there is essentially an arbitrary decision to take on any number, because moving it up or down would change the provision slightly and incrementally each time, so there is an element of having to put a finger on the scale. As he said, the right is an implementation of the Law Commission’s recommendation 3(2), which suggested that it should be available for leaseholders with 250 years remaining, but the Government have indicated that they want to set the term at 150 years. The reason given by the Law Commission for making this right available only to those with very long leases, which the Government support, is to limit it to leaseholders who are unlikely to be interested in, or do not need, a lease extension.

Making the right available to all leaseholders, irrespective of their term remaining, would mean that leaseholders who will need a lease extension at some point might opt first to buy out only the ground rent, but would need to extend their lease in due course. That would potentially disadvantage leaseholders in two ways. First, as the term on the lease runs down, the price on the lease extension accelerates. Secondly, a leaseholder who buys out their ground rent first and later extends the lease will pay two sets of transaction costs. It is entirely legitimate to say, “That is the choice of individuals,” and I have some sympathy with that argument. On balance, however, the Government recognise that there is a series of things within leasehold law that are permissible but not necessarily advantageous for some groups and sectors. By moving further in this regard, we might inadvertently create another one, which future iterations of Ministers and shadow Ministers might debate removing.

I should make it clear—the hon. Member knows this—that it is not the case that leaseholders with fewer than 150 years remaining do not have the right to buy out their ground rent: they buy out their ground rent when they extend their lease or buy the freehold, and that buy-out will also be subject to the cap. However, the right to buy out the ground rent without extending the lease is for leaseholders with 150 years or more remaining, for the reasons I have given.

Turning to some of the hon. Member’s specific points, the ultimate number is a matter of judgment, and we determined that setting the term at 150 years would offer the right to an incrementally larger group of people. We think that is a reasonable place to be. I accept that others may choose a different number, but that is the number we are proposing in the substantive part of the Bill. I also appreciate his point about the outcome of the consultation being the missing piece of the jigsaw puzzle at the moment.

I will not go through my multiple previous caveats around that, because he acknowledged at least one of them. Recognising that I will not be able to answer all of this, it may be that—subject to the outcome of the consultation—changes are needed. I cannot, however, pre-empt that, and we will have to cross that bridge when we came to it. I realise that is not the ideal place to be, but given that we all share the aim of trying to move this as quickly as possible, I hope it is an acceptable position to move forward from. We can return to it in due course should we need to.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

I rise to speak to the amendments in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale. I do so making almost entirely the same argument as that made by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North. [Interruption.] No, I am hoping for a very different response from the Minister to it.

As was made clear in a previous debate, this clause operates in precisely the way that clause 3 does in relation to collective enfranchisement claims: by making changes to the non-residential limit to the right to manage—and we welcome it. The clause will enact recommendation 7 of the Law Commission’s final report on exercising that right.

Although I take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North about the use of extreme outlier cases to undermine an argument, we accept the Law Commission’s broad argument that abolishing the non-residential limit entirely could cause problems in a number of cases for certain landlords and commercial tenants. But as the Law Commission very clearly concluded, the current limit is

“an unwarranted impediment to the RTM, given that it can prevent premises which are mostly residential from qualifying.”

We think it is right that the Bill seeks to increase that limit, and we hope that doing so will bring a greater number and variety—that is important—of premises into the right to manage and therefore help to boost the number of leaseholders who decide to take over the management function of their buildings.

As with the non-residential limit for collective enfran-chisement claims, the threshold is inherently arbitrary, but we feel—here my hon. Friend is absolutely right—that we need to address the fact that 50% will leave large numbers of leaseholders shut out from the right to manage. He made the case for a 75% threshold, and I think that has a lot of merit. We sought to be slightly less prescriptive; instead, much in the way that we argued for powers to be put in the Bill for Ministers to further amend the non-residential limit for collective enfranchisement, we propose to give a degree of flexibility to the non-residential limit on right to manage claims, so that any future changes to increase it—and only to increase it—do not require primary legislation.

We want to be slightly more flexible, or less prescriptive, than my hon. Friend for the following reasons. First, we can imagine a range of scenarios in which we would need to look at the 50% threshold in terms of internal floor space. We also think, as with collective enfran-chisement claims, that a future Government may wish to look at the entire criteria afresh—I am thinking of cases of the right to manage, for example, where we might consider whether there are better metrics for determining the residential nature of a building. It is notable that, although the Law Commission ultimately recommended retaining the use of floor space as the metric, it explored in great detail a comparison between the values of the residential and non-residential parts as a way into this. A future Government may therefore wish to look at the criteria afresh, so we sought to give the Secretary of State that power.

We think that that is entirely sensible, as we did when we argued for earlier amendments. It would be by regulation subject to the affirmative procedure, to give this House the chance to give any change due scrutiny, but we think it is a sensible principle to build some flexibility into the Bill.

I expect the Minister will resist the amendment, for the reasons that he previously resisted a similar amendment on collective enfranchisement. I will therefore probably not press the amendment to a vote. However, I think we will have to come back to the issue later, because on both collective enfranchisement and right to manage, the Government are being somewhat stubborn in saying that the 50% sticks and that future primary legislation, which could be many years away, is the only way to look at it afresh. I hope that the Minister will give the amendment serious thought.

[Lee Rowley]

I am grateful for the comments and questions from the hon. Members for Greenwich and Woolwich and for Brent North. As they anticipated —I may be becoming too conventional—I will resist the amendment. Again, this is about where primary legislation stops and secondary legislation begins, and the Opposition are right to test us on that. It is perfectly legitimate for people to take different views on where that starts and stops, and we know that our colleagues in the other place caution us, where we can be cautioned, not to take too many Henry VIII powers. We are undertaking a self-denying ordinance to not take an additional Henry VIII power today, on the basis that this is of sufficient magnitude, albeit recognising the challenges that have been outlined, that it should be in the Bill and be clear, and that any appropriate changes should come through similar processes. For that reason, although I understand the rationale for it, and I am always happy to listen to the underlying points, the Government will not support the amendment.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will not labour the point, but I put on record that I look forward to the Minister standing up at some future point in what remains of his tenure and arguing for the absolute necessity of a Henry VIII power in one or other respect. It will come, but obviously not on this occasion. As I said, we will have to come back to this matter, but we will reflect on how best to do so. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 22 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 23

Costs of right to manage claims

Amendment made: 45, in clause 23, page 39, line 30, at end insert—

“(8) See also sections 20CA and 20J of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, which prevent costs in connection with a claim under this Chapter being recovered by way of a variable service charge (within the meaning of section 18 of that Act).”.—(Lee Rowley.)

This amendment is consequential on NC7 .

--- Later in debate ---

[Lee Rowley]

Clause 25 complements clause 24 by removing the risk that the change of jurisdiction for right to manage disputes to the tribunal will be circumvented through applications being brought in the High Court instead in the first instance. The clause prevents such applications being brought in the High Court. The tribunal already has exclusive jurisdiction over proceedings, and it is well placed to take over proceedings concerning the compliance with the right to manage provisions in the 2002 Act in the same way that they do for the acquisition of the right to manage. The clause does not prevent an appeal of the decision of the tribunal to the High Court or the jurisdiction of the High Court to consider judicial review claims. The measure will make the determination of disputes clearer, help to reduce costs and ensure that disputes are handled by judges with specialist knowledge. I commend the clause to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 25 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 26

Extension of regulation to fixed service charges

[Matthew Pennycook]

I beg to move amendment 10, in clause 26, page 42, leave out lines 12 and 13.

This amendment would ensure that the statutory test of reasonableness would apply to fixed service charges.

In considering part 3 of the Bill, we move away from provisions that draw on recommendations made by the Law Commission across its leasehold enfranchisement and right to manage reports from 2020 and instead turn to other Government proposals on the regulation of leasehold. The first five clauses in this part concern service charges in residential leases. The Government’s stated objective in including the clauses in the Bill is to improve the consumer rights of leaseholders by requiring freeholders or managing agents acting on their behalf to issue service charge demands and annual reports in a standardised format and a more transparent manner so that leaseholders can more easily assess—and, in theory, challenge—any unreasonable or erroneous charges.

We very much welcome the intent of the clauses. While much of the detail will await the statutory instruments required to bring them into force, the clauses have the potential to improve tangibly what is without doubt one of the most contentious and, for leaseholders, injurious aspects of the feudal leasehold tenure. My office receives scores of complaints, literally on a weekly basis, from leaseholders in my constituency who believe that when it comes to the setting of their service charges, they have been subjected to unreasonable costs; costs artificially inflated as a result of outright error, such as the duplication of charges for the same service; large periodic increases that are rarely justified; or abusive practices, such as the deliberate misuse of funds. Even when leaseholders do not believe that there is a specific problem with their service charge amounts, my experience talking to many thousands of them over the years in Greenwich and Woolwich is that most nevertheless feel that they are not particularly aware of or informed about what their charges are spent on or what their future liabilities might be.

That may well be a trend that is particularly prevalent in constituencies such as my own that contain a significant number of new-build leasehold flats, but my team and I increasingly find—as I am sure other hon. Members find in their own caseloads—that a sizeable proportion of the work we do involves simply demanding from freeholders and managing agents, on behalf of leaseholders pushed to the financial brink, a detailed breakdown of service charge costs. We are then frequently required to assist individual leaseholders or informal groupings of them in probing the relevant freeholder or managing agent on the justification for individual charges, and more often than not we expose discrepancies or charges levied for services that are not provided as a result.

Given that a Member of Parliament is involved in those cases, most freeholders, head lessees or managing agents will, in such circumstances, ensure that the aggrieved leaseholders are reimbursed, thus avoiding the need for them—[Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Brent North laughs, but we have had success on occasion, once the relevant error is exposed. In those circumstances, it avoids the need for the leaseholders in question to take the matter to tribunal, with the detrimental implications that the current cost regime entails. However, many —perhaps most—do not, instead relying on the barriers that leaseholders face in going to tribunal to ensure that the unjustified costs are still paid and not challenged. I would wager that, in the scenario that I just set out, I am not alone among Members of the House in dealing with service charge disputes of that kind on a regular basis. To my mind, that is a clear indication that the current service charge regime is woefully failing to adequately serve leaseholders or protect their interests. The Opposition take the view that there is a cast-iron case for making changes to the regime, with a view to ensuring that service charges are levied in a more appropriate, transparent and fair way.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lee Rowley]

I, too, do not wish to challenge the patience of my colleague the Whip. There will be people who have existing fixed charges; that should not change. There will also be people who have choices about whether to enter into new fixed charges, whether absolute or indexed to some extent. For an inappropriate attempt to do something with variable service charges, there will be the ability to apply to tribunals. I hope that we are closing off all the options that would allow the kind of instances mentioned.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will be brief, so as to dispose of the amendment.

I appreciate what the Minister said. He provided some useful clarity. In particular, he highlighted the practical challenges in addressing this matter, and the potential for landlords possibly moving away from fixed charges and into variable. I think that there is a corresponding risk the other way. I appreciate and take on board what he said about the certainty of the charge.

I think the Minister alluded to the point that I am trying to make, which is that residents should have value for money, and they do not always get it on each occasion. We have deliberately not sought to apply all the protections that apply to variable service charges, but focused on the test of reasonableness. With the help of two former Housing Ministers, I think I had an indication from the Minister that he will do this, but I would appreciate it if the Government went away to satisfy themselves that the protections are in place for that category of leaseholder. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Mr Mohindra.)

Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill (Eighth sitting)

Debate between Matthew Pennycook and Lee Rowley

Committee stage
Thursday 25th January 2024 Public Bill Committees

[Lee Rowley]

The amendment is consequential on Government new clause 6, which introduces a requirement for landlords to provide a future demand notice under section 20B of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 if the landlord has incurred costs and cannot issue a demand for those costs within 18 months. The new clause makes it clear that a future demand notice applies only in respect of variable service charges; as a result, there is no longer a need to include the reference to section 20B(2) in clause 26, which otherwise seeks to provide clarity on what measures apply to all service charges and what measures apply only to variable service charges. I commend the new clause to the Committee.

I turn to clause 26. It is important that all leaseholders have access to appropriate information on what they are paying for and the condition of their building. That will help them to determine whether their landlord is providing an adequate service or whether they are being overcharged. Many landlords already provide a good service; however, some do not, and that must change. The existing regime is geared up to protect leaseholders who pay variable service charges. There are some leaseholders who pay fixed service charges, and those leaseholders do not enjoy the same protections. Leaseholders who pay fixed charges have a right to receive a good-quality service, which means having a better understanding of how their funds are being used, as well as having access to key information on matters that are important to them, as we discussed before we adjourned.

Clause 26 extends part of the regulatory framework on the provision of information to cover leaseholders who pay fixed service charges. Subsection (2) amends section 18 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to create separate definitions of “service charge” and “variable service charge”. That enables the Government to provide clarity on which provisions in the 1985 Act apply only to variable service charges. Subsections (3) and (4) amend the 1985 Act to ensure that parts of the regulatory regime continue to apply only to leaseholders who pay variable service charges—that includes, for example, the ability to challenge the reasonableness of the service charge under section 19 of the Act. The measure will ensure that leaseholders paying fixed service charges are entitled to receive information of relevance to them. I commend the clause to the Committee.

I return to Government new clause 6. When section 20 major works are undertaken, landlords may require a leaseholder to pay for costs up front or pass on costs to the leaseholder once the work has been carried out. Where leaseholders are charged after work is completed, the leaseholder must be issued with a demand for payment within 18 months of the costs having been incurred or, alternatively, be notified in writing within the 18-month period that they will be liable to pay the costs in the future. Failure to meet one of those two conditions will mean that leaseholders are not liable.

There is no prescribed form or content of a notice under section 20B(2) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, which has led to confusion regarding the meaning and effect of the section, and much case law has followed. It has also left leaseholders with uncertainty on whether they will be required to contribute, the amount of their contribution and when the demand for payment could be served; the new clause seeks to provide clarity on all of those. New clause 6 introduces new subsections (3) to (9) into section 20B of the 1985 Act, which will require landlords to specify the amount of costs incurred, the leaseholder’s expected contribution and the date by which the demand will be served. The intention is to give leaseholders certainty on costs that have been incurred by the landlord, their own individual liability and when they are likely to receive the demand.

The changes to subsections (2) and (3) require landlords to issue a future demand notice when they will be passing costs through the service charge more than 18 months after the costs have been incurred. Subsection (3) defines “future demand notice” as a notice in writing that relevant costs have been incurred, and that the leaseholder is required to contribute towards the cost by payment of a variable service charge. Subsection (4) sets out that the Secretary of State and Welsh Ministers can, by regulations, specify the form of the notice, the information to be included in it and the manner in which the future demand notice must be given to the leaseholder. Subsection (5) details that regulations by the Secretary of State and Welsh Ministers may specify that information to be included in the future demand notice should include an estimate of the costs incurred; an amount that the leaseholder is expected to contribute to those costs; and a date on or before which it is expected that the service charge will be demanded. We will work with landlords, managing agents and leaseholders to set out what a future demand notice may contain, to ensure that regulations require the right level of information.

Subsection (6) sets out that regulations may provide for a relevant rule to apply where the leaseholder has been given a future demand notice and the demand for payment is served more than 18 months after costs were incurred. Subsection (7) sets out the relevant rules and the leaseholder’s liability to pay the service charge where a future demand notice contains estimated costs, an expected contribution or an expected demand date. Subsection (8) also allows the landlord to extend the expected demand date in cases specified by regulations. That might be because of unexpected delays in completing the work, for example. The measures seek to provide leaseholders with more certainty on costs. I commend the new clause to the Committee.

Amendment 46 agreed to.

Clause 26, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 27

Service Charge Demands

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

I beg to move amendment 11, in clause 27, page 43, leave out line 12.

This amendment would remove provision for the appropriate authority to exempt certain categories of landlord from the requirements relating to service charge demands set out in subsection (1) of the clause.

Clause 27 replaces provisions in the 1985 Act with a new provision that imposes a simple requirement on landlords to demand payment of a service charge using a specified form, rather than, as is presently the case, in accordance with the terms under the lease in question—or, in the absence of any such provisions, in any manner that suits them. We very much welcome the clause, which should ensure that service charge demands and annual reports are provided to leaseholders in a standardised format. If it works well, the clause is likely to have the most widespread practical impact of any provision in the Bill, given that many hundreds of thousands of service charge demands each year will have to be in a prescribed form.

The clause will also ensure, by means of inserting proposed new section 21C into the 1985 Act, that where the demand for service charge payments is not in the specified form, containing the specified information and provided to the leaseholder in the specified manner, the lease provisions relating to late or non-payment do not apply to the charge in question, and there is no obligation to pay until they are met. There is also a new sanction for non-compliance, which we will consider in due course. The effectiveness of the provisions in the clause will ultimately rely on enforcement, but new section 21C should ensure that the majority of freeholders and managing agents comply with the requirement to issue a service charge in the standardised form.

We do, however, have two concerns about aspects of the clause. Amendment 11 addresses the first of those concerns, which relates to exemptions from the requirements being introduced. New section 21C(3) confers powers, by regulations subject to the negative procedure, on the appropriate authority to exempt certain landlords. We have reservations about the inclusion of such powers, because they could be used to exempt entire categories of landlords from the requirements set out in subsection (1), and thereby deny large numbers of leaseholders the benefits that they would otherwise secure as a result of their application. Amendment 11 simply deletes subsection (3)(a) to remove the power to provide exemptions from subsection (1) for certain types of landlords. We hope the Minister will consider accepting it. If not, we would be grateful for some clarity on what kind of landlords the Government believe might need to be legitimately exempted from the relevant requirements, and some reassurance that the power will be used sparingly and in an extremely limited manner.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lee Rowley]

I thank the shadow Minister for his amendment. We will resist it for reasons that I will give, and I hope I can reassure him to the extent that he does not seek to push it to a vote. I am happy to give at least one instance of a good reason for exempting landlords now or in future: there are cases where it may be too costly or disproportionate to expect a landlord to provide this degree of information, or where doing so is unnecessary. An example that I was not aware of before I was told is a freeholder of two flats who resides in one of them; that is known as a Tyneside or criss-cross lease, which became common in the north-east of England in the 19th century. Given the limited number of people who live in there, and the reason for that structure, we would deem it unnecessary to provide this form, hence the ability to exempt.

However, to address the hon. Gentleman’s key point, notwithstanding individual exemptions, I am happy to place on record that once we have consulted, understood people’s views, taken on the broad range of views about this, and potentially found other things like criss-cross leases, we would expect any list to be very small indeed. We share the clear hope that the power will be used only where it is absolutely necessary, and certainly not to the extent that the hon. Gentleman fears. I hope that, on that basis, he may consider withdrawing his amendment.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the Minister for that response. I was also unaware of criss-cross or Tyneside leases, although the Opposition Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for North Tyneside, indicated to me during the Minister’s remarks that she used to live in one, so she will have some familiarity with them. On the basis of the Minister’s response, and given the reassurances that he has provided, I am happy to withdraw the amendment. It is our hope that the measure will apply to very limited categories of landlord, and I think that the Minister indicated as much, so very few leaseholds will be exempt from the requirements. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Lee Rowley]

I beg to move amendment 47, in clause 27, page 43, line 24, after “1987” insert “(‘the LTA 1987’)”

This amendment and Amendment 54 align references to the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 with other references to Acts.

[Lee Rowley]

Amendments 47 and 54 are required because of new clause 9, which amends the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987. They ensure that references to the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 are aligned with other references to Acts, by adopting the abbreviated reference. Amendment 124 is consequential on amendments 47 and 54; it aligns references to the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 with other references to Acts in the Bill. I commend these amendments to the Committee.

Amendment 47 agreed to.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I beg to move amendment 12, in clause 27, page 43, line 38, at end insert—

“(c) in section 48 (notification by landlord of address for service of notices), after subsection (3) insert—

‘(3A) Subsections (2) and (3) do not apply in relation to a written demand for payment of a service charge if section 21C of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 requires the demand to include information which subsection (1) also requires to be provided to the tenant.’”

This amendment would ensure consistency between the information requirements provided for by Clause 27 and specific contractual requirements set out in leases.

Amendment 12 addresses our second concern with clause 27, which relates to consistency between it and existing contractual requirements. This issue came to our attention purely as a result of written evidence—actually, to be precise, I think it was as a result of a blog post—from Mark Loveday of Tanfield Chambers. He drew attention to the fact that the amended provisions in this clause are likely to supplement, rather than replace, contractual requirements in some existing leases about the form of demands for payment. There is therefore potentially a risk of confusion and duplication. Mr Loveday also highlighted the overlap between provisions in the 1987 Act relating to the information to be furnished to tenants, and the fact that clause 23(4) does not disapply the information requirements of section 48 of the 1987 Act.

I throw my hands up: this is far from my most elegantly drafted amendment. It is simply an attempt to probe the Government on the consistency between the information requirements provided for by this clause and provisions in 1987 Act relating to specific contractual requirements set out in leases. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s thoughts on the amendment, and on the general need to ensure complete consistency between the measures being introduced by clauses 26 to 30 and those in the 1985 and 1987 Acts that set out the main limitations on variable service charges in residential leases.

[Lee Rowley]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his amendment. The advice that I have received is that the amendment is unnecessary. Sections 47 and 48 of the 1987 Act already prescribe that landlords must give details of their name, and an address in England or Wales where they can be served with notices, when making a demand for rent or other sums, including service charges. Clause 27(4) provides clarity on the fact that if there is an overlap between information required under proposed new section 21C of the LTA 1985 and the obligations under the 1987 Act, proposed new section 21C takes precedence. For example, if the new standardised service charge demand form requires a landlord to give the same information as is provided under sections 47 and 48 of the 1987 Act, proposed new section 21C would take precedence, and failure to provide the information would be dealt with by the provisions of the proposed new section.

Critically, the new standardised demand form will not restrict the amount of information that must be provided with a demand. Landlords will be able to provide additional information on the demand form if they wish. That may include any information set out in the lease. Unless we have missed something, we believe that, for that reason, the amendment is unnecessary, and request that it be withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lee Rowley]

I recognise that in some instance it is an incredibly frustrating process to go through. As I know the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, this is a pretty technical element of policy. The assurances that I have received from officials and experts involved is that the legislation should cover those bases. There will always be challenges around finding people and going through operational processes. There will be challenges in finding people who do not want to be found easily, but ultimately the law is clear that they need to be found. From that perspective, I think that the law is sufficient. We do not think anything has been missed, but if something has, we will happily receive further correspondence and consider it.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will be brief. My hon. Friend the Member for Brent North raises an interesting point. Can the Minister—if not now, then perhaps in writing—expand on whether, where a landlord has not complied with the relevant requirements, proposed new section 21C means that the provisions relating to late or non-payment do not apply? Does it provide that level of protection? The hope is that it does.

On the general point, I welcome the clarification and assurances that the Minister has provided. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

[Lee Rowley]

Service charge demands are one of the most important ways in which leaseholders receive information from their landlord, as we have been discussing. Under current arrangements, landlords are required to issue any service charge demand in accordance with the terms of the lease, or otherwise in a manner that suits them. That has led to variable practice in the sector, which has often been to the detriment of the leaseholder, who then gets confused about what they are paying for and has to spend time chasing the landlord for more information.

Proposed new section 21C enables the Secretary of State and Welsh Ministers to prescribe a standard form and the information that it should contain. We will work closely with leaseholders, landlords and managing agents to ensure that we prescribe both the right information and the right level of detail. Proposed new section 21C(2) makes it clear that a failure to provide information in the new standard format will mean that the leaseholder does not have to pay the charge until the failure is remedied, and any provisions in the lease for non-payment will not apply. The Secretary of State will also have the power to create any exemptions if our work with stakeholders demonstrates that there is a good case for any landlord being excluded, either now or in the future.

Clause 27(2) omits existing legislation relating to obtaining information on a summary of costs, as well as other unimplemented legislation surrounding service charge demands. Those measures will be superseded by the provisions we are implementing in part 3 of the Bill, so it is not necessary to retain them. That measure, alongside others, should ensure that landlords provide relevant information to leaseholders, and I commend the clause to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 27, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 28

Accounts and annual reports

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

I rise to speak to speak to amendments 13 and 14. As I think my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North just touched upon, clause 28 inserts new sections 21D and 21E into the 1985 Act to create a new requirement for a written statement of account to be provided by landlords within six months of the end of the 12-month accounting period for which variable service charges apply. It also places an obligation on landlords to provide an annual report to leaseholders. We welcome the clause, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North, for the reasons discussed in the evidence sessions last week. The 2002 attempt to mandate a form of regular service charge accounts and statements was ultimately unsuccessful, with the replacement section 21 of the 1985 Act never brought into force. As a result, service charge processes remain unstandardised.

A staggering range of different procedures are being used across the country. Some leases specify the form that annual budgets and accounts must take, while others do not. Some require certification by the freeholder, managing agent, management company, accountant or auditor, while others do not. Some prescribe deadlines by which budgets or accounts must be produced and make adherence to those conditions a precedent to liability to pay a service charge, while others do not.

Clause 28 clearly seeks to overhaul this fragmented patchwork of arrangements by introducing the new section 21D, making annual accounts and certification by a qualified accountant a mandatory requirement and, through new section 21E, introducing a statutory duty to provide leaseholders with an annual report about their service charges. By introducing the mandatory requirements that it does, new section 21D(2) implies a term into leases of dwellings with variable service charge provisions.

In our view, the decision to imply terms raises a number of questions and concerns. First, do the implied terms of new section 21D replace any equivalent existing provisions in the lease? If not, landlords and managers will potentially be forced to prepare two sets of accounts: one under the existing terms of the lease and the other under the new implied terms in section 21D. Secondly, why are no express sanctions for non-compliance included in new section 21D? That point was raised by Amanda Gourlay in the Committee evidence sessions.

Given that the implied terms are not covered by the enforcement provisions in new section 25A—provided for by clause 30—surely it is not the Government’s intention to require leaseholders to apply for specific performance through the courts when it comes to this matter. Thirdly, despite the clause including no right to recover implied costs, there is a risk that some landlords will nevertheless seek to recover the extra costs of complying with these requirements through service charges. Can we be sure that leaseholders will not find themselves picking up the bill for complying with the new mandatory requirements? I would welcome the Minister’s response to each of those questions and concerns, in writing if he is not able to address each in detail today—they are very specific and technical.

Perhaps the more significant question that arises from the decision to imply terms by means of new section 21D is whether the landlord’s compliance with those terms will be treated by the courts and the tribunal as a condition precedent to the lessee’s obligation to pay their service charges. We believe it is important that it is made clear in the Bill that compliance with the implied terms in question is a condition precedent to the lessee’s obligation to pay their service charges and that, by implication, leaseholders are not required to pay if the landlord does not comply with the implied terms. Amendments 13 and 14 would have that effect, with the same desired outcomes as the welcome amendment 131, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North, but without the tribunal potentially having to arrive at a judgment on the state of mind of the leaseholder who is withholding their charge. I hope the Minister will accept those amendments as a means of providing the necessary clarification.

[Lee Rowley]

I thank the hon. Members for Brent North and for Greenwich and Woolwich for their amendments.

Amendment 131, in the name of the hon. Member for Brent North, seeks to enable leaseholders to withhold payment of their service charges when accounts are not provided within six months. I absolutely agree with the sentiment that information must be provided in a timely manner, and that there have to be consequences for not doing so. However, the question is whether withholding the service charge is a proportionate and effective means of doing so; the effective question is whether the risk of doing so creates unintended consequences. For example, were a leaseholder to withhold payments in circumstances where it is found that section 21D had been complied with, that may render the leaseholder liable to pay their landlord’s litigation costs, depending on the terms of the lease. Withholding payments also creates consequences for other leaseholders and may eventually mean that works are not carried out. I recognise that that is not the intention or the point that the hon. Gentleman is making, but in the portion that we are looking at, it is important that we consider all potential unintended consequences.

Services of certified accounts will, for most landlords, be a necessary step for a landlord to identify whether they have spent more than estimated during the accounting period and, where the costs incurred during that period are more than was estimated, the landlord will wish to serve a further demand to recover the shortfall. It is in the landlord’s interest to do that, but I recognise that not all landlords act in a completely rational way or a way that necessarily follows logic. Should a landlord, however, fail to issue a demand for costs within 18 months of those costs having been incurred, then through new clause 6, the leaseholder would not be liable to contribute towards those costs at all.

I realise that that answer will probably not address every part of the concern expressed by the hon. Member for Brent North; it is the same as when I applied that logic to the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich. However, I hope it demonstrates both that we are clear that it should be done—that there is a logic, an incentive and a rationale for it to be done—and that there is ultimately a cliff at the end of it, a cut-off point in the event that they do not do it. I hope that provides some assurances; I will see whether that is enough to tempt the hon. Member for Brent North to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lee Rowley]

We have already talked about this, but in summary, most landlords are required under the terms of the lease to provide leaseholders with a written statement of accounts. Where leaseholders feel they have not been provided with sufficient information, they may ask for a written summary of costs for the past accounting period or, if the accounts have not been made up, for the period of 12 months ending with the date of the request.

We know that the current arrangements, as we have just discussed, do not provide adequate statutory protection. Although many landlords provide their leaseholders with sufficient information, others fail to do so. Subsection (2) of clause 28 introduces two new measures to address that. Proposed new section 21D of the 1987 Act implies into leases a new requirement for landlords who charge variable service charges and manage blocks of four or more dwellings. The threshold reflects existing arrangements for the preparation of a summary of costs. We are placing an obligation on such landlords to provide a written statement of account to leaseholders within six months of the end of the 12-month accounting period. This statement must be certified by a qualified accountant.

[Matthew Pennycook]

The Minister provides me with the opportunity to get my justification in, but, without going through it, he can answer the question that underpinned amendments 13 and 14 by simply telling me whether the decision to imply terms, as new section 21D does, means that a landlord’s compliance with them is to be treated as a condition precedent to the lessee’s obligation to pay their service charges.

[Lee Rowley]

I am grateful to the shadow Minister for his question, and, because of its specifical legal and technical nature, I will write to him. I know that members of the Committee may wish to seek assurances about the word “arising”, which was referenced in evidence last week. I am happy to give the assurance that we will consult accountants on to how to present these service charge accounts, which I hope will mean that there is a process to ensure that any necessary clarification of particular terminology will be clear to those who operate within it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lee Rowley]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. One of the reasons why I want to write is that I want to ensure that the specific elements and substantive parts of the concept of audit are represented to the Committee in the most accurate way. We have to strike a balance by ensuring that sufficient information is made available for decisions to be made, but equally we cannot create a process that is so involved, for what I am sure are very good reasons, that it would be disproportionate, and then create a whole heap of new consequences on the other side, which is what we are trying to avoid.

To conclude, new section 21E places an obligation on landlords to provide an annual report. For service charges, that report must be provided within one month of starting a 12-month accounting period, although it can be provided earlier if it is expedient to do so. Both new sections allow the Secretary of State, as we have already discussed, and Welsh Ministers to prescribe the detailed content in secondary legislation. We will work closely with interested parties when we come to do that. Subsections (3) and (4) make consequential changes to the definition of “qualified accountant” under sections 28 and 39 of the 1985 Act to reflect these new sections. I commend the clause to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 28 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 29

Right to obtain information on request

[Matthew Pennycook]

I beg to move amendment 15, in clause 29, page 46, line 19, at end insert—

“(3) Information specified for the purposes of section (1) must include accruals and prepayments and digital copies of service charge accounts.”

This amendment would ensure that regulations made by the appropriate authority must provide tenants with the right to accruals and prepayments and digital copies of service charge accounts.

As things stand, leaseholders only enjoy the right to request a summary of relevant costs and inspect supporting documentation in relation to such a summary. Barring a disclosure order made during tribunal proceedings, there are few direct means for leaseholders to secure relevant information. Clause 29 makes a series of changes to the 1985 Act to provide for a new stand-alone right for leaseholders to request information from their landlord, and we welcome it.

Precisely what such a right will entail will largely be set out in regulations that will presumably not only specify the relevant categories of information that can be requested and obtained, but the relevant timelines for compliance. We take no issue in principle with the detail being brought forward by statutory instrument—for obvious reasons—but we have tabled amendment 15 to ensure that the information that ultimately can be lawfully requested by leaseholders under clause 29 includes accruals and prepayments, as well as digital copies of service charge accounts.

We feel that statutory access to accruals and prepayments is vital because they are prepared on a true and fair basis and are necessary to understand most service charge accounts. The case for ensuring that service charge account information can be accessed by leaseholders in a digital format is, we hope, self-evident. I hope the Minister will consider accepting the amendment or, if he feels that he cannot, will at least provide the Committee with robust assurances that the relevant regulations will in due course specifically include accruals and prepayments and digital copies of accounts in the categories of information that can be requested.

[Lee Rowley]

I do not seek to detain the Committee, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will accept my short response. I am not disregarding the substantive points of the amendment, but some of them we have discussed before. I accept that this is an important area and we have to get it right. We must make sure that the information prescribed in the process works and is comprehensive enough for people to get a true understanding of what is going on and proportionate enough to make it meaningful and not incur unnecessary costs. I agree with the hon. Member that leaseholders should have access to the relevant financial information and that that information should be clearly understood and articulated so that people can derive decisions and comfort from it.

The Government prefer that the detail is prescribed in secondary legislation and are committed to consulting. It is fair to say that the details will be key parts of a discussion about the feasibility of inclusion in the final decision when it is made.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I welcome that response from the Minister. On that basis, I am happy to beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

Arguably of more importance in ensuring that clause 29 is beneficial to leaseholders than the type of information that they will henceforth have the right to request and what form it is shared in is the need to protect them from excessive charges levied for providing that information. As it stands, subsection (4) of new section 21G of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 would allow person P to charge person R for the costs of doing anything required under new section 21F or this new section, while subsection (6) renders those costs relevant for the purposes of a variable service charge. In other words, new section 21F includes an implied right for landlords to recover the costs of supplying the relevant categories of information to leaseholders through the service charges, with penalties for non-compliance under clause 30.

We obviously do not take issue with the right to recover reasonable costs of complying with the mandatory requirements introduced by the clause, but there is an obvious risk, given everything we know about how some landlords in the market operate, that some will charge excessive fees for supplying that information. We have tabled amendment 16 to give the Secretary of State the power, just as the Bill provides for in other respects, to set prescribed amounts with a view to ensuring that leaseholders are not subject to unreasonable costs should they feel they need to request certain categories of information. I hope the Minister can understand the very simple point that the amendment is driving at and will consider accepting it.

[Lee Rowley]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for moving amendment 16. He does not deny that landlords will incur a cost for answering information requests. The level of cost will vary, depending on the volume of information, the complexity, the period, the timeline and a number of other factors. There may be difficulties in obtaining all that information. Landlords may also incur a cost in chasing other people who hold the information required to answer a leaseholder’s request, notwithstanding our earlier conversations about the reasonableness of the costs for talking to other parties.

Given the variety of different scenarios, we start from a place in which it is very difficult to set a cap that would not create another unintended consequence somewhere else. None the less, I note the hon. Gentleman’s concern and am happy to confirm that we are listening very carefully on this matter, but I hope he might consider withdrawing the amendment.

[Lee Rowley]

I will not detain the Committee, because my response will be similar to the one I gave to the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich.

We accept the broad point made by the hon. Member for Brent North but, for the reasons I outlined previously, we think it would be difficult to do this. There is at least an argument that proportionality has to be considered. However, I am happy to confirm that we are listening very carefully. On that basis, I hope the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich may be willing to withdraw amendment 16.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I appreciate what the Minister has said, both about the variety of circumstances that need to be covered and about the difficulties with imposing a flat cap. I take on board what he said about the Government listening carefully.

I am minded to press the amendment to a vote purely to indicate how strongly we feel about this issue. The thrust of the five provisions is, “Let’s increase transparency and let’s increase the enforcement measures,” all ultimately to ensure that leaseholders have a better ability to bear down on unreasonable costs, and it is of great concern to us that while we are trying to do that, we are opening up other routes whereby unscrupulous landlords can start to introduce unreasonable costs in relation to the very things that we are trying to clamp down on. We will press the amendment to a vote simply to put on the record our concern in respect of leaseholders needing some protection—even if it is not a flat cap—from unreasonable costs being passed on through this mechanism.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lee Rowley]

As I outlined in relation to clause 28, the Government accept that the current arrangements do not provide adequate statutory protection. In addition to the measures set out in clauses 26 to 28 to drive up transparency, clause 29 introduces new provisions to enable leaseholders to request information from their landlord or a third party who holds relevant information. Subsection (2) introduces proposed new section 21F of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, which sets out provisions that enable leaseholders to receive information on request. That information may relate to

“service charges, or…services, repairs, maintenance, improvements, insurance, or management of dwellings.”

One example might be a stock condition report for the building. Landlords will be obliged to provide information that they have in their possession, and where they need to ask another person for it, that person is required to do the same.

Proposed new section 21G provides further details on information requests under section 21F. It allows a leaseholder to request that they inspect a document and make and remove a copy of the information. Section 21G also provides that landlords may not charge the leaseholder for providing facilities for access, although they can charge for the making of copies. Alternatively, the landlord can pass the reasonable costs of any inspection through the service charge. This section allows the Secretary of State and Welsh Ministers to specify the time period for providing such information, circumstances in which that period may be extended and how the information is to be provided.

Proposed new section 21H provides that where the lease is assigned, the obligation to provide the information requested under section 21F must still be complied with. However, the person obliged to provide the information is not required to provide the same information in respect of the same dwelling more than once.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 29 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 30

Enforcement of duties relating to service charges

[Matthew Pennycook]

I beg to move amendment 19, in clause 30, page 49, line 15, leave out “damages” and insert “penalties”.

This amendment, together with Amendments 20 to 25, would make clear that the sum to be paid to the tenant in circumstances where a landlord failed to comply with duties relating to service charges is a punishment rather than a recompense for loss to the leaseholder thus ensuring it is not necessary to provide proof of financial loss. See also Amendments 17 and 18.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Clause 30 substitutes existing section 25 of the 1985 Act, which includes penal provisions dealing with any failure to comply with the relevant provisions, with proposed new section 25A, which decriminalises the sanctions and applies a new enforcement regime. The new enforcement regime will allow a tenant to apply to the appropriate tribunal in instances in which their landlord did not demand a service charge payment in accordance with section 21C under clause 27, failed to provide a report in accordance with section 21E under clause 28, or failed to provide information in accordance with sections 21F and 21G under clause 29. The tribunal will have the power to issue an order that the landlord comply with the relevant provision within 14 days and that they pay a fine of up to £5,000 to the applicant, or other consequential orders.

We welcome the new enforcement regime, but we have three main concerns about how it will operate in practice. With amendments 19 to 25, we seek to address the first of those concerns, which is our fear that the use throughout clause 30 of the term “damages” may imply that leaseholders are required to provide proof of financial loss for the tribunal to order that the landlord pay a fine for failing to comply with one or more of the modified requirements introduced in clauses 27 to 29. The risk that the tribunal takes that view, and thus stipulates that proof of financial prejudice is required, is real, as we have seen with the reforms made to section 20 of the 1985 Act. We tabled this group of amendments to encourage the Government to consider replacing “damages” throughout the clause with “penalties” to make it explicit that an order for failing to comply with requirements under sections 21C, 21E, 21F or 21G of the 1985 Act requires no proof of financial loss on the part of leaseholders. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s thoughts.

[Lee Rowley]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for amendments 19 to 25, with which, as he indicated, he seeks to adds clarity that any sums paid to the leaseholder where there is a failure to comply are a punishment rather than a recompense for loss. As the Committee is aware, clause 30 will replace the existing and ineffective enforcement measures for failure to provide information with new, more effective and more proportionate measures. That includes allowing the leaseholder to make an application to the appropriate tribunal in cases where landlords have failed to provide the necessary service charge information.

It is the Government’s view that the tribunal is the appropriate body to handle such disputes and to determine whether the landlord has failed in their duties, and whether subsequently they are required to pay damages to the leaseholder. In reaching its decision and ordering that damages be paid, the tribunal need only be satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the landlord breached the relevant section. If a financial penalty were applied, the appropriate tribunal would need to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the landlord had breached the relevant section.

While I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point on the use of the term “damages”, I am advised that its use does not mean that evidence of financial loss is required. Therefore, in aggregate, we consider that financially recompensing the affected leaseholder by way of the payment of damages is both a suitable incentive for the leaseholder to bring the application and a suitable deterrent for landlords, while aligning with the tribunal’s powers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lee Rowley]

I am happy to ask the Department to look into that in further detail. I have no personal understanding of whether that would be possible or reasonable and proportionate and not have a series of other consequences, but it is reasonable to look into it further.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Briefly, I welcome what the Minister said on the issue of damages versus penalties. It could be another word than “penalty”, but I hope the point that the amendment tried to make was understood. I am not certain, because I, like him, do not have expertise in the area, whether “damages” could be misinterpreted by a tribunal, notwithstanding what he said. I encourage the Minister to go away and ensure that the reassurance he has given—it is on the record and can be referred to, which is helpful—is understood and cannot be misinterpreted. I think we share the same end: this must be punishment rather than recompense, and leaseholders cannot be expected to provide proof of financial loss. If, as the Minister has indicated, that is the shared intention, I am happy to ask leave to withdraw the amendment, but I hope he will go away and reassure himself further that the tribunal can have no confusion on that point. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Fuller]

I am tempted to frame page 25 of today’s amendment paper, because it includes the shadow Minister’s amendment 17, which would increase the penalties from £5,000 to £30,000, and my amendment 142, which would increase them from £5,000 to £50,000. I thought it was usually the Conservative party that is pro-business and tries to keep costs on business low, but then I recalled that these penalties apply to people doing something wrong, and of course the Labour party is always soft on criminals.

Seriously, though, the shadow Minister and I have a clear intent, which I am sure is shared by the Minister. A lot of the measures in this part of the Bill are trying desperately to unpick complicated things and rebalance them in favour of people who own their own home but do not run a large business, or people with small financial interests, where there are 30 or 40 of them against one person with a significant financial interest that covers all those people. In trying to rebalance things here, we all want to ensure that these measures are as effective as possible and that there is enough encouragement to ensure that the good practice the Government want to see can be done effectively.

The concern that I share with the shadow Minister is that the current levels of penalties just look like a cost of doing business. [Interruption.] Indeed! The hon. Member for Brent North has just slapped himself on the wrist, which is probably how many businesses will see it.

Can I gird the Minister’s loins and encourage him to take up his shield and his sword of righteousness in defence of individual leaseholders and say, “This amount is too low. We shall change the legislation. This party and this Government stand to make the intent of what we will do to truly bite on those who are doing wrong”?

[Lee Rowley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire and the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich for tabling their amendments. I share their basic conceptual desire, and that of other Committee members, for people or organisations that have done the wrong things to be held to account. There should be penalties that recognise that they have done the wrong thing. The challenge is always going to be where we draw the line.

I recognise that there are multiple parts of the menu on offer. Notwithstanding the very valid points that have been made, it is important not to lose sight of the fact that the Government are doubling the number from £2,500 to £5,000. Individual right hon. and hon. Members will take different views throughout this process and beyond on whether that is proportionate or whether it should be higher or lower. We think we have struck a proportionate balance.

I will add to the record, for consideration, the importance of the potential for unintended consequences. The response will quite rightly be that it will ultimately be for the tribunal to determine how much to apportion and how to use any changed option. There is a scenario in which the potential penalty on the freeholder, or the party being taken to the tribunal, becomes so great and the hazard becomes so visible that the freeholder starts to oppose it with even more objections, difficulties and the like.

I am making quite a nuanced argument, and Members may feel that I am overthinking this, but we have to be cautious not inadvertently to create a process that emboldens freeholders to fight even harder because of the potential hazard and because they feel that they may be exposed to a fine larger than would be reasonable and proportionate. However, I take the point about the challenge of setting the penalty in the right place. The Government’s view is that the increase from £2,500 to £5,000 is a step forward. That is what we are proposing to this Committee. As a result, we will resist the amendments.

[Matthew Pennycook]

To clarify whether my reading of proposed new section 25A(5) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 is right, is the penalty a single amount that is shared, or an amount per challenge? This is important.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will be fairly brief, because my hon. Friend covered a lot of detail. He is right to do so, because these are important clauses. We welcome the intent behind them, and we think they have the potential to address a very serious problem that has plagued leaseholders across the country for many years. Not just those in buildings with fire safety defects who have seen their insurance premiums soar in the aftermath of the Grenfell fire, but across the board, we are seeing leaseholders face unreasonable and in many cases extortionate buildings insurance commissions that the property managing agent, landlords and freeholders have charged through the service charge. We discussed this in our evidence sessions last week. The Financial Conduct Authority’s report of September last year on the subject of insurance for multi-occupancy buildings found evidence of high commission rates and poor practice, which were “not consistent” with driving fair value to the customer.

The FCA also found—I put this question to one of the witnesses in our evidence sessions, because I find it quite staggering—that the mean absolute value of commissions more than doubled between 2016 and 2021 for managing agents and freeholders of buildings with fire safety defects. Put simply, in far too many instances, managing agents, landlords and freeholders have been gouging leaseholders in this area with impunity. In practice, the effectiveness of this clause will hinge almost entirely on whether the definition of “excluded insurance costs” is sufficiently tightly drawn, and how we define “permitted insurance payments” for the purposes of specifying what payments can be charged.

I appreciate fully that the Minister will be bringing the necessary detail forward through regulations and we will scrutinise them very carefully when that happens. My right hon. Friend—sorry, just hon. Friend, but it is only a matter of time—the Member for Brent North is right to try to strengthen the clauses, because although the permitted insurance payments must be attributable to a permitted insurance, there is nothing on the face of the Bill to ensure that they or the cost of providing information in relation to them is reasonable to the leaseholders. As far as we understand the clause, there is no guarantee that leaseholders will be able to transparently scrutinise quotes or the agreed contract. We fully support my hon. Friend’s amendments 151 to 153, 157, and particularly new clause 41, which attempt to address some of these omissions and deficiencies. I hope the Minister will give them due consideration.

Specifically on my hon. Friend’s amendment 136, clause 32 introduces a new duty to provide specified insurance information to leaseholders. Again, it will be for regulations to fill out the detail about how the new duty will operate in practice, but I would like to briefly probe the Minister on it. During our evidence session with Matt Brewis of the Financial Conduct Authority, it became clear that although the FCA’s new rules mandate that a contract of insurance must be provided by an insurer or broker to the freeholder, and although the leaseholder will be able to write to the insurer to request a copy of the contract, there is nothing that we can see in either the FCA’s rules or the Bill as drafted that will permit a leaseholder to know who that insurer is in the first place. I would like to press the Minister, as my hon. Friend has, to confirm that the Government’s intentions when regulations are made under this clause is for the specified information to include a copy of the contract with the relevant insurer.

While we are considering these two clauses, I would like to take the opportunity to raise a separate concern, which I do not believe is covered by my hon. Friend’s amendments, in relation to proposed new section 20H of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, as provided by clause 31 of this Bill. This proposed new section would introduce a new right to claim where excluded insurance costs are charged. Again, this has the potential to provide leaseholders with effective means of redress, but its efficacy depends on how it is implemented. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that there is no specific requirement for any damages awarded under this proposed new section to credit the service charge accounts of leaseholders not party to the claim, or any service charge fund generally. It stands to reason that if one has been affected—and this follows from the debate we had on a previous clause—the rest of the leaseholders in the building will be too. If so, could the Minister look at how the regime operates to ensure that all leaseholders that have paid excluded costs are reimbursed in the same manner as the claimant?

[Lee Rowley]

I turn first to amendment 151, in the name of the hon. Member for Brent North. As someone who has held the building safety portfolio in my Department for the past 16 months, one of my greatest frustrations is that we have not yet made the progress that I would like to see, and that I am sure we would all like to see, with regards to insurance for buildings that have been affected by cladding, having made good progress on lending and other areas.

I think we have made some progress, and the willingness of a number of brokers to come together and voluntarily cap what they are willing to take is a step forward; I would like to see other brokers doing the same. I would also like to see an industry-led solution to be brought forward for those with the greatest exposures at the earliest possible opportunity. That is something I outline to the Association of British Insurers, and other insurers, on a very regular basis—with varying degrees of frustration and emphasis. I hope we will see movement on that in the very near future.

That is a broad discussion about a more specific issue—I will turn shortly to the amendments we are currently debating—although I hope that highlights my interest in this area and my desire to get this right not just for people with remediation and cladding issues, but for the broader community of leaseholders in general. On that basis, I hope that both the hon. Members for Brent North and for Greenwich and Woolwich will appreciate that we have similar ambitions in making sure that transparency in this area is as effective as it can possibly be, and that we ensure the appropriate outcome so as to improve things from where they are at the moment.

I turn to the amendments, specifically amendment 151. We believe that clause 31, which inserts proposed new section 20G into the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, already achieves the intent behind the amendment by providing powers that allow the appropriate authority to specify the permitted insurance costs that can be passed through the service charge to leaseholders.

From discussions held with the insurance sector itself, and with the FCA, we know that the value chain is a complicated one. Some buildings rely heavily on the reinsurance market—we have seen that increasingly with remediation issues—using a broker for access, and some do not. Some place insurance with numerous insurers splitting the risk, whereas others only use one—the hon. Member for Brent North may know this from his previous engagement with the industry.

Clause 31 is designed to constrain unreasonable costs in all scenarios by defining a payment and allowing us to then separate these costs as either permitted or excluded. Although I understand the intent of the hon. Member for Brent North, the Government’s concern about amendment 151 is that in seeking to tighten the provisions, it may have pulled the strings a little too tightly and become too narrowly focused on certain elements. I hope the hon. Gentleman will consider withdrawing his amendment as a consequence.

Again, although I have great sympathy for the sentiment behind amendment 135, I hope the transparency provisions already in the Bill will help in this regard. Once implemented, they intend to enable leaseholders to have access to details of the policy and the total amount of remuneration being taken on their building's insurance placements. This can be used for a legal challenge if costs have not been reasonably incurred. Our concern with the amendment is the potential for delays in the placement of insurance, which could result in a lapse in cover to the material risks of the building. There also may be instances—although I hope it would be a minor number of cases—where three quotes cannot be obtained, as much as that is possibly unlikely to occur.

We seek to focus the legislation on ensuring that those buildings have insurance that works, with a balance that is appropriate and supported by regulatory changes brought in by the FCA. On the basis of that explanation, I hope the hon. Member for Brent North will withdraw his amendment.

I will address amendments 152 and 153 together. Again, we have are similar ambitions, aspirations and intent, but again, there is a question of narrowness through the amendments, and our view remains that clause 31 will allow full scrutiny of what is to be a permitted insurance payment. The intention is for that to be both through consultation and then subsequently set out in regulations through the affirmative procedure, which will allow hon. Members to debate measures and highlight if there is a better way of doing it. I hope that, with those reassurances, the hon. Member for Brent North may be willing to withdraw the amendments.

Amendment 137 seeks to introduce a reasonable test to permitted buildings insurance costs. At the heart of clause 31 is the need for any costs passed on to leaseholders relating to the placement or management of buildings insurance to be fair and transparent. That is the whole point of it. Section 19 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 already requires for those costs to have been reasonably incurred and for a reasonable service to have been provided. We have obviously seen a whole heap of bad behaviour in this sector; I accept that that is the case. Within the sector, there is ubiquitous use of commissions with poor or no underlying connection to the work undertaken, and I hope that some of the progress made through the Bill will hopefully reduce that.

I do not believe that the amendment would sufficiently protect leaseholders. We seek very clear requirements in the secondary legislation for how permitted insurance fees will be calculated, and that their reasonableness be included in that. We will consult on the measures in due course, and I hope that, with those reassurances, the hon. Member for Brent North will withdraw his amendment.

I turn to clauses 31 and 32, which address insurance, before turning to some further Opposition amendments. Several actors in the procurement of buildings insurance each seek to make a profit in return for their role in supplying insurance, whether they be brokers, managing agents or landlords, who can all take commissions, and that all adds to the overall cost.

Currently, as we have discussed, leaseholders do not have to be made aware of these commissions, and that can hinder the ability of leaseholders to challenge unfair costs. Inflated premiums can be paid through the service charge because there is a lack of transparency and knowledge about what is happening. Clause 31 seeks to ban the placer of insurance on residential leasehold properties from receiving any form of commission that is passed on to leaseholders as a cost, and instead uses a transparent handling fee that must be proportionate to the value of the work done.

Proposed new section 20G provides that excluded insurance costs cannot be charged and enables the Secretary of State and Welsh Ministers to prescribe a permitted insurance payment, which will be the only payment that can be charged. The detail of calculating the fee is to be set out in affirmative secondary legislation, and we will work with stakeholders across the industry and in this place to support that.

Proposed new section 20H sets out what happens should the ban be breached. There is an ability to apply to the tribunal in England and the leasehold valuation tribunal in Wales. It also removes the presumption that leaseholders have to pay their landlord’s legal costs when challenging poor practices, as we talked about earlier. If the tribunal determines that the legislation has not been complied with, damages can be paid. That will be a minimum of the commission taken or the unlawful insurance handling fee, but it will not exceed three times the level of the commission or fee.

Proposed new section 20I outlines the right of the landlord to obtain a permitted insurance payment. The section clarifies how all costs for placing and managing insurance incurred by the landlord must then be charged to the leaseholder. Transparency reforms in the Bill will require the placer of insurance to disclose information about the decision-making processes when purchasing buildings insurance on behalf of leaseholders.

Amendments 154 and 155, tabled by the hon. Member for Brent North, seek to stipulate how the insurance contract is to be provided to leaseholders. We have been working already with the FCA on that area, and it has already produced a number of reports and changed its regulations. The changes allow leaseholders to receive their policy documents and information about the charges within their overall premium. Those changes are important to ensure that the relevant information is available, but they do not remove the necessity for the landlord to supply that information as the placer of the insurance. The amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Brent North remove the focus on the landlord’s responsibility to undertake that activity. Clause 32 is designed to complement the work of the FCA and to provide the powers necessary to ensure that landlords supply the information that will enable leaseholders to scrutinise. With those assurances, I hope that the hon. Member will not press the amendments to a vote.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lee Rowley]

We know that there is currently a lack of transparency around administration charges and that leaseholders can face high administration charges. Administration charges must be reasonable, but this can be difficult to determine due to the lack of clarity surrounding them. As a result, leaseholders are often reluctant to challenge the reasonableness of administration charges at the appropriate tribunal.

Clause 33 inserts new paragraph 4A into schedule 11 to the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002. It will require landlords to publish an administration charge schedule. A revised schedule must also be published if a landlord revises the administration charges. The Secretary of State and Welsh Ministers will be able to prescribe the form and content of the schedule, and how it is to be provided to a leaseholder, in regulations. If a landlord has not complied with the provision of publishing an administration charge schedule, a leaseholder may make an application to the appropriate tribunal. The tribunal may order that the landlord provide an administration schedule within 14 days and pay damages of up to £1,000 to the leaseholder. This measure seeks to increase transparency, and I commend the clause to the Committee.

[Matthew Pennycook]

As the Minister has just made clear, clause 33 amends the 2002 Act to create a new duty on landlords to publish administration charge schedules. We welcome it but, as with clauses 31 and 32, the effective functioning of the new requirement will depend on details such as the form and content of the schedule and how it should be published, all of which is to be set out in future regulations.

I have two specific questions for the Minister. The first largely mirrors my concern about the provisions in clause 31 relating to damages. If a tenant claims damages as a result of a breach of the requirements in new paragraph 4A of the 2002 Act, is it not likely that other tenants will have been similarly affected by the failure to publish an administration charge schedule? If it is the case that the damage provisions relate only to the claimant, will the Minister look at how the regime operates to ensure that all leaseholders who may have paid costs, other than in accordance with new paragraph 4A of the 2002 Act, are reimbursed in the same manner? It is a recurring theme, but it is worth putting on the record that it applies to clause 33 as well.

Secondly, along with other measures in the Bill that add new provisions for when a leaseholder is liable to pay a charge—in this instance, where an administration charge has been levied that has not appeared for the required period on a published administration charge schedule—how do the Government intend to make leaseholders aware of their new rights in this respect and in various other places throughout the Bill? Will he consider mandating that freeholders must furnish all leaseholders with an updated “how to lease” guide?

[Lee Rowley]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his questions. I will write to him on the answers or the process by which he can get them.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 33 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 34

Limits on rights of landlords to claim litigation costs from tenants

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill (Fifth sitting)

Debate between Matthew Pennycook and Lee Rowley

Committee stage
Tuesday 23rd January 2024 Public Bill Committees

[The Minister for Housing, Planning and Building Safety (Lee Rowley)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. Today, we begin our line-by-line consideration. I first want to note and put on record my thanks to all the witnesses who gave evidence to the Committee last week. It was hugely useful to hear their insights, which will improve the Bill over the coming days and weeks ahead.

I am delighted to bring the Bill to Committee, and I look forward to the debate that will follow. Before we proceed, I quickly draw the Committee’s attention to a minor issue regarding the Bill’s explanatory notes. Paragraph 18 refers incorrectly to the right

“for an intermediate landlord to reduce (‘commute’) the rents that they pay”

following statutory lease extensions and ground rent buy-out claims. That is a drafting error as the clauses were not in the Bill when introduced. I have since tabled an amendment to introduce those clauses on intermediate leases, which we will debate shortly. I apologise for that minor drafting error and reassure the Committee that the explanatory notes will be updated to reflect the latest clauses before the Bill enters the other place.

I also want to make a small point in relation to legal language that I will use throughout the session. In existing legislation, leaseholders are referred to as “tenants”, which legally, they are. In everyday language, however, we often use the term “leaseholders” to differentiate long leaseholders from tenants holding shorter tenancies or those with less security of tenure. For simplicity, I will use the term “leaseholders”. Likewise, I will use the term “landlord” to mean both landlords and freeholders. In many cases, the landlord will be the freeholder, although that is not always the case. Where the provisions concern freeholders, I will use that term rather than “landlord”.

I now turn to part 1, which deals with leasehold enfranchisement and lease extension. When people buy a leasehold property, they will want to ensure that they have the long-term security and control they need to make it a home. They may have a short lease and wish to extend it, or they may have concerns about their landlord and wish to buy them out to have full ownership and control of that home.

The current requirement, where a homebuyer has to wait for two years before they can extend their lease or buy their freehold, is an obstacle for leaseholders and results in higher costs, as the price for enfranchising increases year on year. Furthermore, many investors take advantage of a loophole to avoid that requirement, while ordinary homeowners, who may be less familiar with the process, can find themselves in difficulties. There are also inconsistencies in the current law where, in certain circumstances, people can rely on a previous owner’s period of ownership to satisfy the requirement whereas others are unable to do so.

Clause 1 seeks to remove that barrier to leaseholders who wish to exercise their enfranchisement rights. It removes the requirement to have owned the lease of a house for at least two years before qualifying to buy their freehold or extend their lease. It also removes the requirement to own the lease of a flat for two years before extending the lease. This gives leaseholders the flexibility to make a claim immediately upon buying a leasehold property, and it will reduce their costs. It also resolves inconsistencies in the current law. The measures will remove an unnecessary restriction for leaseholders. I commend the clause to the Committee.

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

I thank the Minister for his explanation of clause 1. I add the Opposition’s thanks to the witnesses who gave evidence to us last week. It was extremely useful. Before I begin, I would like to declare an interest. My wife is joint chief executive of the Law Commission, whose work we will be debating extensively in the days to come.

It is a pleasure to start line-by-line consideration with you in the Chair, Mr Efford. It is a genuine privilege to serve on a Public Bill Committee comprised of hon. Members who have not only a real interest in the subject matter, but real expertise. It is my sincere wish that we draw on all of it in the days ahead to improve this legislation and, as much as the Government Whip may discourage it, that hon. Members on the Government Benches, including the hon. Members for Walsall North and for Redditch, as former Housing Ministers, take the opportunity to participate actively in our deliberations.

Having not had a suitable chance to put it on the record, I would like to take this opportunity to formally welcome the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire back to his place. He and I disagree politically, often viscerally, when it comes to many, many issues, but he is a hard-working, diligent and thoughtful Minister. I look forward to the robust and, on the whole, constructive debates we will have over the coming sessions.

Before I turn to the detail of clause 1, I want to put some brief general remarks on the record to frame what is to follow. As we made clear on Second Reading, we are fully in support of the principle of the Bill and the intent behind its provisions. The range of measures that the Committee will consider will, without question, provide a degree of relief to leasehold and freehold homeowners in England and Wales, by giving them greater rights, powers and protections over their homes. That is obviously to be welcomed. However, during Second Reading we also expressed our deep regret about the Bill’s lack of ambition and bemoaned the implications for leaseholders, who are being routinely gouged by freeholders under the present flawed system.

I want to be as clear as I possibly can with leaseholders who may be following our proceedings as to the Opposition’s approach to the Committee stage. While we welcome in principle the provisions contained in the Bill, we do have concerns about the efficacy of several of them, including clause 1. As such, we will seek to probe and rectify their various defects and deficiencies so as to ensure that they truly deliver for leaseholders. We will also engage constructively with the Government in relation to any significant new measures introduced into the Bill, not least the glaring omission of provisions designed to ban the sale of new build leasehold houses. We will introduce a number of specific targeted measures designed to give leaseholders a little more control over their future and strengthen the foundations on which future, bolder reform will be enacted.

What we do not intend to do is attempt to persuade the Government of the benefits of using this Bill to enact all, or even significantly more, of the hundreds of Law Commission recommendations on enfranchisement, right to manage and commonhold, which the Government have chosen not to include in this Bill. The Government had the opportunity to bring forward ambitious legislation and enact all the Law Commission’s recommendations from its three reports in 2020, thereby delivering on the promises that successive Ministers have made to leaseholders over the past years. They have made the political choice not to do so. Attempting to radically overhaul this piece of legislation by means of hundreds of amendments required to implement all those recommendations would not only be an onerous, perhaps impossible, undertaking, given its limited nature, but would delay the Bill’s passage and, with a general election in the months ahead still a distinct possibility, put it at risk entirely.

We want leaseholders to benefit from the measures in the Bill as soon as possible. We therefore wish to see it, albeit suitably strengthened, out of Committee as quickly as possible to maximise its chances of receiving Royal Assent. Make no mistake, Labour is committed to bringing the current iniquitous leasehold system to an end, overhauling it to the lasting benefit of leaseholders and reinvigorating commonhold to such an extent that it will ultimately become the default and render leasehold obsolete. Leaseholders across the country therefore have our firm commitment to finish the job in due course.

Turning to clause 1 and the rest of part 1, one of the reasons that the Bill can reasonably expect a speedy passage out of Committee is that parts 1 and 2, together with related schedules, implement a subset of Law Commission recommendations that are almost entirely uncontentious. Part 1 of the Bill, as the Minister has said, concerns leasehold enfranchisement and extension.

As I have said, the clauses in this part implement some but not all of the Law Commission’s recommendations designed to make it cheaper and easier for leaseholders in houses and flats to extend their lease or acquire their freehold. They include procedural changes as well as substantive ones that extend tenant rights and empower leaseholders by giving them greater control and value. There is in that respect, and as we touched on during the evidence sessions last week, an explicit and very welcome redistributive intent that underpins the legislation.

As the Law Commission exhaustively detailed in its final 2020 report on leasehold enfranchisement, the case for reforming the present enfranchisement regime is incontrovertible. It is not only incredibly complex but inconsistent. As a result, leaseholders face unnecessary litigation, uncertainty and costs when attempting to exercise their rights under it. The law in this area needs to be overhauled and we therefore welcome the objective that underpins each of the provisions in this part.

We wish to probe the Government further on various issues relating to the precise drafting of those provisions, as well as seeking to address the flaws of a limited number. As the Minister made clear, clause 1 removes the two-year qualifying period before enfranchisement and extension claims can proceed in respect of both houses and flats by amending the relevant sections of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 and the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993, which I will hereafter refer to simply as the 1967 and 1993 Acts.

Clause 1 implements recommendation 29 from the Law Commission’s final 2020 report on leasehold enfranchisement. We welcome the clause. A core objective of the Bill is to increase access to enfranchisement by rendering more leaseholders eligible for such rights. By liberalising this and other qualifying criteria, we are confident it will achieve that objective.

As the Committee is no doubt aware, the current two-year ownership requirement was designed primarily to prevent investors benefiting from enfranchisement rights intended for residential leaseholders. Yet it is patently not achieving that objective given the relatively simple workarounds that sophisticated commercial investors can and do take advantage of. Indeed, the requirement can fairly be said to have created a market designed explicitly to facilitate their doing so—a development entirely at odds with the rationale for the two-year ownership requirement. At the same time, that requirement presents a significant barrier to ordinary leaseholders exercising enfranchisement rights and, importantly, leads to rising premiums for many of them as a result of waiting for two years in which capital values may have increased or lease lengths reduced.

Abolishing the requirement for leaseholders to have owned premises for two years prior to exercising enfranchisement rights, so that they have the right to carry out an enfranchisement claim as soon as they acquire their lease, is an entirely sensible reform. It would also resolve the current inconsistency between the position of trustees in bankruptcy and of personal representatives, and avoid the technical, costly and error-prone workarounds that have been created involving the assignment of a benefit of notice.

Although the clause is entirely uncontentious from our perspective, I do have one question for the Minister: why have the Government chosen to include subsection (2)(c) and, consequential on that reform, subsection (3) in this clause? Subsection (3A) of section 39 of the 1993 Act concerning what happens in the event of the death of a qualifying tenant clearly needs to be overhauled to account for the removal of the two-year qualifying period, but surely the Government wish to ensure that the right of a tenant’s personal representative to exercise enfranchisement rights on their behalf in the event of their death is sustained? Will the Minister confirm whether I am right in believing that that is the Government’s wish?

If so, given that the right would not appear to be sustained as a result of the drafting of clause 1, is it maintained by means of other provisions in the Bill? If not, surely the Government must accept that the decision to simply omit the relevant subsection (3A) needs to be reconsidered to ensure that the right is maintained in future? The omission may affect only a small number of leaseholders going forward, but it is important that we ensure their personal representatives are conferred the rights that they would have enjoyed had they lived. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Lee Rowley]

First, let me echo the remarks of the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich. He said some kind words about me and I would like to say the same about him. He has always been extremely constructive and helpful. We share the aim of trying to improve the legislation and I am grateful to be working with him. I hope we can work in many areas and agree more than we disagree. He was right when he said that this is incredibly complicated. Having tried for the past two months to get into all the details, there may still be areas where I am unable to answer all the questions from hon. and right hon. Members today. I will do my best, but I will write to them if I am unable to answer anything.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for confirming that Labour will support this clause. On his specific point around where leaseholders have sadly passed away and there is a requirement for a personal representative or equivalent, it is not our intention to make that process any more difficult or to change the fundamental ability of people to make decisions about how to dispose or deal with properties that are left in the event of a death. Having spoken to officials and those involved in the drafting of this, my understanding is that the exemptions referred to in subsections (2)(c) and (3) become effectively moot. The removal of the two-year rule preventing a representative from taking action means that at the point they inherit the property—or whatever legal approach is taken to transfer it the estate to a new owner or representative—the problem goes away.

If, for some reason, we have missed something, I would be very happy to take anything from the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich or others, either now or in writing, which I can go away and look at. Our understanding is that this does not need to continue, hence why we have chosen to remove it within the clause.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I welcome that clarification from the Minister and his indication that it is the Government’s firm intent to ensure that personal representatives can exercise enfranchisement rights on behalf of a leaseholder who has died, because of the removal of the two-year rule. I urge the Minister or his officials to look at the precise wording of this clause, because we are worried that—his comments notwithstanding—it may not do this in practice, and there may be some ambiguity. I do, however, welcome the assurance he has given. On that basis, we will not oppose this clause standing part of the Bill.

[Lee Rowley]

To confirm, I am happy to double-check this, but I hope what I have just indicated stands.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2

Removal of restrictions on repeated enfranchisement and extension claims

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Lee Rowley]

Currently, the restrictions placed on leaseholders to make a claim to buy their freehold or extend their lease can be seen as excessively punitive. Leaseholders are prevented from making a claim to buy their freehold or extend their lease for 12 months, when a previous claim has failed even on a minor point. In addition, a claim for a lease extension on a house can be obtained only once, and we seek to remove those unnecessary barriers for leaseholders, which frustrate their ability to buy their freehold or extend their lease.

Clause 2 seeks to address this problem by removing the requirement to wait 12 months to submit a new claim if the previous one has failed. It will also remove the restriction on bringing a further claim where a lease extension has already been obtained for a house. This means that leaseholders will be able to put in a further claim to enfranchise or extend their lease as soon as they have resolved the issues with their failed claim. Leaseholders of houses will not be prevented from making a claim for a lease extension if one has already been obtained, preventing the landlord from being able to regain possession of the property from a leaseholder when the lease eventually comes to an end.

Clause 2 will also remove provisions that give courts powers to prevent new enfranchisement or lease extension claims for five years where a claim has failed, and the leaseholder did not act in good faith or attempted to misrepresent or conceal material facts. These powers are old and surplus to requirements, coming from the 1967 Act, which has been overtaken by developments in the law around civil restraint orders since then. These restraint orders are more flexible, better developed, subject to more rigorous checks, and may be fairer than the existing power. Therefore, the existing law and the Bill can still deal with meritless of abusive enfranchisement claims. The tribunal already has powers to award costs for such unreasonable behaviour. The removal of these should not change that; it is simply a tidying-up exercise, and a recognition that other parts of the law do this better. These measures will remove barriers to leaseholders being able to take up their right to enfranchise or extend their lease without unnecessary delays.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I welcome that explanation of the clause, which, as the Minister says, removes various restrictions on repeated enfranchisement and extension claims. It is our understanding that they include the provisions in the 1967 Act and the 1993 Act that prevent tenants from starting new enfranchisement or lease-extension claims within 12 months of an earlier claim failing to complete; the provisions of the 1967 Act that give courts the power to order compensation and prevent new enfranchisement or lease extension claims for five years after a claim has failed; and the provisions of the 1967 Act that prevent tenants from bringing a further lease extension claim where a lease extension has already been obtained under the Act.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lee Rowley]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments and, again, for indicating his support for the intent of clause 2. On his question with regard to subsections (1)(c) and (d), I will write to him, given that it is a technical question about the specific description in the legislation. Hopefully, I will be able to provide the comfort he seeks.

As he indicated later in his remarks, we believe there is the ability for vexatious claimants, in whatever sense, to be accommodated by the existing legislation elsewhere, so there is no need to replicate that or to retain something that is very rarely used. That is the reason for removing it.

Finally, on his point about orders from a tribunal and the Law Commission’s recommendation, it goes back to the fact that we believe the process that is in place is already mature and very capable of responding to the legitimate points he highlights. Therefore, there is no need to create an additional process in the Bill, but I will write to him to absolutely clarify that point and make sure that we have everything we need.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I welcome that clarification from the Minister and look forward to any further detail that he might provide to the Committee via written correspondence.

[Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)]

May I ask the Minister to confirm that clause 2(2) refers to schedule 7 to the Bill? In our evidence sessions last week, we heard from certain leaseholders who were concerned that they would not benefit from the provisions if their lease was less than a certain number of years. Paragraph 2(2)(a) of schedule 7 states that a lease will not qualify if

“the unexpired term of the lease is less than 150 years”.

There was some debate about that length. Will the Minister address those leaseholders’ concern that the period is too long and that there should not be that restriction? Or will he write to me later to address what considerations went into that provision? If we are excluding people from these welcome provisions, perhaps we should seek to otherwise widen the group of people who can benefit from having their leases converted to a peppercorn lease.

[Lee Rowley]

We will probably talk in detail about the 150-year decision—the Law Commission proposed 250 years—in relation to quite a number of areas later this morning, so I do not want to pre-empt that now. As I will explain later, the Government’s intention was that, if a lease is coming up in a reasonably short period of time, it is advantageous to align everything together, as opposed to doing just one thing, because there will be the potential for double costs and the like. I am happy to talk about that more when we get further into line-by-line consideration.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 2 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3

Change of non-residential limit on collective enfranchisement claims

[Matthew Pennycook]

I beg to move amendment 1, in clause 3, page 2, line 19, at end insert—

“(2) After section 4(5) of the LRHUDA 1993, insert—

‘(6) The Secretary of State or the Welsh Ministers may by regulations amend this section to provide for a different description of premises falling within section 3(1) to which this Chapter does not apply.

(7) Regulations may not be made under subsection (6) unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before, and approved by resolution of—

(a) in the case of regulations made by the Secretary of State, both Houses of Parliament;

(b) in the case of regulations made by the Welsh Ministers, Senedd Cymru.’

(3) In section 100 of the LRHUDA 1993—

(a) in subsection (2), after ‘making’, insert ‘provision under section 4(6) or’;

(b) in subsection (3), after ‘making’, insert ‘provision under section 4(6) or’.”

This amendment would enable the Secretary of State or (in the case of Wales) the Welsh Ministers to change the description of premises which are excluded from collective enfranchisement rights. Such a change would be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lee Rowley]

Clause 4 introduces schedule 1, which repeals rights that enable landlords to block a lease extension or freehold acquisition claim for a house or flat where the landlord intends to redevelop or reoccupy the property. Where the blockers are used, compensation is only paid to leaseholders in houses, not those in flats. The blockers apply to a minority of leases that have not been extended and are very near to ending.

Although that means that, in practice, rights are rarely used, enfranchising leaseholders should have the opportunity to make their decisions about the need and scope of redevelopment once they own the freehold. Leaseholders with few years remaining on their lease should have the option of extending and securing their tenure. Where a lease is extended, landlords will continue to have statutory break rights that can terminate leases for redevelopment. We will consider break rights in schedule 6 and cover further details about the blockers when we come to consider schedule 1. I commend the clause to the Committee.

[Matthew Pennycook]

As the Minister has made clear, clause 4 concerns eligibility for enfranchisement and extension in specific cases. It gives effect to schedule 1, which repeals specific limitations on those rights under the 1967 and 1993 Acts. As the Minister has detailed, they include: the right of a landlord to defend a lease extension or collective enfranchisement claim on grounds of redevelopment; the right to defeat a freehold acquisition or lease extension claim for the purposes of retaking possession of the property for personal use; and the limitations that prevent a sublessee from claiming a lease extension if their sub-lease was granted by an intermediate leaseholder out of a lease that had been extended under the relevant Act.

We welcome the clause, which implements, although is not confined to, recommendation 98 of the Law Commission’s final report on leasehold enfranchisement. When considering the case for reform in this area, the Law Commission made clear that its proposal could reduce the value of the leaseholder’s lease as a result of the transfer of some enfranchisement rights from a leaseholder who has previously extended his or her lease pursuant to the legislation to the leaseholder to whom they had subsequently granted a sub-lease. However, the Law Commission ultimately determined that any such loss of value was overstated. Its reasoning was—assuming that I have understood the relevant technical arguments correctly—that there would be no difference in value between the sum that the intermediate leaseholders could expect to obtain if their lease was acquired in a collective freehold acquisition under the present law and the value of the intermediate leaseholder’s interest in the light of its proposal.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lee Rowley]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his contribution. As he indicates, this is—I think by common consent—a rare issue in the first place, not that that diminishes the importance of ensuring that we get it right. It is very complicated, as he has indicated; different leases will have different elements within them and it is impossible to comment on every single case or every single instance, as has been indicated, because of the complexity. I am not aware that there is an indication that there is a general reduction in the value of leases for the very small number that this will cover. I will write to the Committee if what I have just said is incorrect or needs clarification in any way. I hope that, on that basis, we can make progress.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I welcome that clarification from the Minister and the offer to provide us with further details should they be needed.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 4 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 1

ELIGIBILITY FOR ENFRANCHISEMENT AND EXTENSION: SPECIFIC CASES

[Lee Rowley]

I beg to move amendment 57, in schedule 1, page 82, line 16, at end insert—

“Exception to enfranchisement for certified community housing providers

3A (1) The LRA 1967 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 1 (tenants eligible for enfranchisement and extension), after subsection (1B) insert—

‘(1C) This Part of this Act does not confer on a tenant a right to acquire the freehold of a house and premises if the landlord under the existing tenancy is a certified community housing provider (see section 4B).’

(3) After section 4A insert—

‘4B Meaning of “certified community housing provider’

(1) For the purposes of this Part of this Act, a person is a “certified community housing provider” if the appropriate tribunal has issued a community housing certificate in respect of the person.

(2) A community housing certificate is a certificate that the tribunal has determined that the person—

(a) is a community land trust within the meaning of section 2(7A) of the Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Act 2022, or

(b) is of a description, or satisfies conditions, specified for this purpose in regulations made by the Secretary of State.

(3) The tribunal may issue a community housing certificate only in respect of a person that has made an application to the tribunal for the certificate.

(4) The tribunal may cancel a community housing certificate—

(a) on the application of the person in respect of which the certificate is issued, or

(b) on the application of a tenant affected by the certificate, if the tribunal considers that—

(i) the person in respect of which the certificate is issued does not fall within subsection (2)(a) or (b), or

(ii) the certificate was obtained by deception or fraud.

For this purpose a tenant is “affected by” a certificate if, by virtue of section 1(1C), the tenant does not have the right to acquire the freehold because the certificate is issued in respect of their landlord.

(5) The effect of the tribunal cancelling the certificate is that the person is not a certified community housing provider unless the tribunal issues a new community housing certificate.

(6) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide for—

(a) the procedure to be followed in connection with an application for a community housing certificate;

(b) the procedure to be followed for the cancellation of a community housing certificate (including in connection with an application for the cancellation);

(c) any matters to which the tribunal must have regard in deciding whether to issue or cancel a community housing certificate.

(7) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about the application of this Part in circumstances where—

(a) a landlord’s application for a community housing certificate has not been concluded when a tenant gives notice of their desire to have the freehold of a house and premises under this Part, or

(b) a tenant’s claim to have the freehold of a house and premises under this Part has not been concluded when a landlord’s application for a community housing certificate is made.

(8) Regulations under subsection (7) may in particular provide for—

(a) the claim for the freehold to be paused or to have no effect;

(b) a time period for the purposes of this Part to be extended in connection with the application;

(c) the landlord to compensate a tenant or reversioner in respect of reasonable costs incurred in connection with a claim to acquire the freehold—

(i) if the tenant ceases to have the right to acquire the freehold because of the issue of a certificate under this section, or

(ii) if the costs are incurred as a result of the claim being suspended because of an application for a certificate under this section;

(d) enforcement by the appropriate tribunal of any of the requirements of the regulations;

(e) the appropriate tribunal to make orders that are supplementary to the issue of a community housing certificate.

(9) Regulations under this section—

(a) may make different provision for different purposes;

(b) are to be made by statutory instrument.

(10) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section (whether alone or with other provision) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.’

3B (1) The LRHUDA 1993 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 5 (qualifying tenants for enfranchisement), after subsection (2)(a) insert—

‘(aa) the immediate landlord under the lease is a certified community housing provider (see section 8B); or’

(3) Before section 9 insert—

‘8B Meaning of “certified community housing provider’

(1) For the purposes of this Chapter, a person is a “certified community housing provider” if the appropriate tribunal has issued a community housing certificate in respect of the person.

(2) A community housing certificate is a certificate that the tribunal has determined that the person—

(a) is a community land trust within the meaning of section 2(7A) of the Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Act 2022, or

(b) is of a description, or satisfies conditions, specified for this purpose in regulations made by the Secretary of State.

(3) The tribunal may issue a community housing certificate only in respect of a person that has made an application to the tribunal for the certificate.

(4) The tribunal may cancel a community housing certificate—

(a) on the application of the person in respect of which the certificate is issued, or

(b) on the application of a leaseholder affected by the certificate, if the tribunal considers that—

(i) the person in respect of which the certificate is issued does not fall within subsection (2)(a) or (b), or

(ii) the certificate was obtained by deception or fraud.

For this purpose a leaseholder is “affected by” a certificate if, by virtue of section 5(2)(aa), the leaseholder is not a qualifying tenant because the certificate is issued in respect of their immediate landlord.

(5) The effect of the tribunal cancelling the certificate is that the person is not a certified community housing provider unless the tribunal issues a new community housing certificate.

(6) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide for—

(a) the procedure to be followed in connection with an application for a community housing certificate;

(b) the procedure to be followed for the cancellation of a community housing certificate (including in connection with an application for the cancellation);

(c) any matters to which the tribunal must have regard in deciding whether to issue or cancel a community housing certificate.

(7) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about the application of this Chapter in circumstances where—

(a) a landlord’s application for a community housing certificate has not been concluded when a nominee purchaser gives notice under section 13 of a claim to exercise the right to collective enfranchisement, or

(b) a claim to exercise the right to collective enfranchisement has not been concluded when a landlord’s application for a community housing certificate is made.

(8) Regulations under subsection (7) may in particular provide for—

(a) the claim for the freehold to be paused or to have no effect;

(b) a time period for the purposes of this Chapter to be extended in connection with the application;

(c) the landlord to compensate the nominee purchaser, a tenant or a reversioner in respect of reasonable costs incurred in connection with a claim to exercise the right to collective enfranchisement—

(i) if a person ceases to be a participating tenant because of the issue of a certificate under this section (and in this case the compensation may relate to reasonable costs for which the person is liable that are incurred after the person ceases to be a participating tenant),

(ii) if the participating tenants cease to have the right to collective enfranchisement because of the issue of a certificate under this section, or

(iii) if the costs are incurred as a result of the claim being suspended because of an application for a certificate under this section;

(d) enforcement by the appropriate tribunal of any of the requirements of the regulations;

(e) the appropriate tribunal to make orders that are supplementary to the issue of a community housing certificate.’

(4) In section 39(3)(a) (qualifying tenants for extension), before ‘(5)’ insert ‘(2)(aa), ’.

(5) In section 100 (orders and regulations), after subsection (2) insert—

‘(2A) But a statutory instrument containing regulations under section 8B (whether alone or with other provision) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.’”

This amendment would provide for an exception to enfranchisement (but not extension) for tenants of certified community housing providers (persons certified as managing land for the benefit of local communities).

--- Later in debate ---

[Lee Rowley]

My apologies, Mr Efford. I thought that we were debating these as a group. I will come to amendment 58 when we get to that group.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I rise briefly to speak to these four Government amendments and to make a wider comment on them and the other 116 amendments that have been tabled in the Minister’s name over recent days.

Having scrutinised these amendments as carefully as we could in the time available, we are as confident as we can be that none is problematic. Indeed, we very much welcomed the exemption provided for community-led housing.

As confirmed to the Committee by Professor Nick Hopkins, 18 of the 120 Government amendments tabled in Committee implement Law Commission policy that was not in the Bill as introduced and on which Law Commission staff have been involved in instructing parliamentary counsel. The vast majority of the other 102 amendments are merely technical in nature. Providing that the Minister sets out clearly their effect and rationale, as he just has in relation to this group of amendments, we do not intend to detain the Committee over the coming sessions by exploring the finer points of each.

However, I feel I must put on record our intense frustration at the fact that so many detailed Government amendments were tabled just days before commencement of line-by-line scrutiny began. The practice of significantly amending Bills as they progress through the House has become common practice for this Government and in our view it is not acceptable. Other Governments have done it, but it has become the norm under this Government. It impedes hon. Members in effectively scrutinising legislation and increases the likelihood that Acts of Parliament contain errors that subsequently need to be remedied, as happened with the Building Safety Act 2022; as the Minister will know, we have had to pass a number of regulations making technical corrections to that Act.

When it comes to this Bill, the Government have had the Law Commission’s recommendations for almost four years and access to Law Commission staff to aid parliamentary counsel with drafting. There really is no excuse for eleventh-hour amendments introducing Law Commission policy or technical amendments designed to clarify, correct mistakes, or ensure consistency across provisions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

Clause 5 is extremely technical. It concerns the treatment of intermediate leases during a collective enfranchisement. I beg the Committee’s forgiveness for the level of complexity I am about to throw at the Minister; nevertheless, it is important to the leaseholders who stand to be affected. As the Minister said, the clause replaces section 2 of the 1993 Act on to the acquisition of leasehold interest, with a new schedule, A1, that will henceforth govern the acquisition of intermediate interests during a collective enfranchisement process.

New schedule A1 enacts part or all of five recommendations made by the Law Commission in chapter 13 of its 2020 report, and is uncontentious. However, when considering the treatment of intermediate leases and other leasehold interests in that chapter, the Law Commission recommended that a duty be imposed on the landlord dealing with the enfranchisement claim

“to act in good faith and with reasonable skill and care”

toward other landlords involved. Any such landlord should be able to apply for directions from the tribunal about the conduct of the response to the claim. It also recommended corresponding requirements for landlords who are not dealing with the claim to provide all necessary information and assistance to the landlord who is, and to contribute to the non-litigation costs of that landlord.

My reading of schedule A1 is that its effect will be that any settlement reached between a leaseholder and the landlord who is dealing with a claim, and any determination of that claim by the tribunal, will be binding on all other landlords. Assuming that I have interpreted the schedule correctly, can the Minister make clear why it does not appear to implement the duties and requirements that the Law Commission recommended should apply to landlords who are dealing with the claim and landlords who are not, respectively?

Finally, while I appreciate that we will consider the issue of valuation in more detail when we come to consider clauses 9, 10 and 11, I would be grateful if the Minister could also provide some clarification on how the Bill proposes to calculate enfranchisement premiums in instances where there are intermediate leases. Am I right in believing that schedule 2 treats intermediate leases as merged for the purposes of valuation?

On a related matter, the Minister will also be aware that the Law Commission set out the option of generally disregarding the existence of an intermediate lease when determining the premium payable on enfranchisement on the grounds that it would simplify the calculation and create greater fairness between leaseholders and between landlords, as premiums would not differ solely because of the existence or otherwise of one or more intermediate leases. It also recommended that on any individual lease extension claim, the rent payable by an intermediate landlord should be commuted on a pro rata basis.

If I have understood the relevant provisions correctly, neither proposal was incorporated into the Bill as first published. The second of those recommendations appears to be addressed by Government amendments 73 and 95. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm whether my reading of those amendments is correct in that regard—via correspondence, if he needs to, as I appreciate that these are extremely technical questions. Broadly, we would like the Minister to expand on his remarks and provide some clarity about the treatment of intermediate leases during collective enfranchisement and the extent to which this part of the Bill as a whole reflects the Law Commission’s proposals. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

[Lee Rowley]

My response is short. I will happily write to the hon. Gentleman and to the Committee in due course on the technicalities to ensure that is correct.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 5 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6

Right to require leaseback by freeholder after collective enfranchisement

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

My hon. Friend raises an interesting point, which has value. However, if he will forgive me, I would like some more time to consider any unintended consequences before I determine whether we could support it. Perhaps we could come back to it at a later stage, but if he is determined to push it I will come up with a position from the Front-Bench team.

Clause 6 inserts into the 1993 Act a new leaseback right for tenants participating in a collective enfranchisement claim, enabling them to require their landlord to take a leaseback of particular flats or units in the building, other than flats let to a participating tenant. We welcome the clause, as my hon. Friend made clear, which implements recommendation 21 of the Law Commission’s final report on leasehold enfranchisement.

At present, leasebacks are mandatory in certain circumstances. A landlord can also require leaseholders to grant them a leaseback of any unit not let to a qualifying tenant, or any flat or unit occupied by them and of which they are the qualifying tenant. However, leaseholders do not enjoy the right to require their landlord to take a leaseback with the effect that, in instances where the landlord refuses a request for a leaseback, perhaps because they are deliberately seeking to frustrate the process entirely, the premium payable in an enfranchisement claim includes the value of that interest.

The new leaseback right introduced by the clause will ensure that premiums that leaseholders would otherwise have to pay will be reduced. Collective freehold acquisition will become a possibility for larger numbers of them because a key funding constraint—namely having to pay for the reversionary value of those flats and units as part of their claim—will have been removed, and in many cases, collective freehold acquisition claims will be made considerably more affordable as a result. It will also increase certainty by ensuring that leaseholders have a far more accurate estimate of the costs of a claim at the outset. Finally, it is essential to ensuring that the increase in the non-residential limit from 25% to 50%, which we debated earlier, is of practical benefit to leaseholders. Without a new leaseback right, many leaseholders who would otherwise be interested in collectively enfranchising would be deterred because the cost of purchasing the whole of a building containing up to 50% commercial space would be prohibitive.

I have two questions for the Minister. The first concerns intermediate leases, which we have just considered under the previous clause. As I believe may have been highlighted by some respondents to the Law Commission consultation, there will be circumstances in which a leaseback of some units to the landlord would not reduce the premium by any significant amount, because the majority of the value in the units in question will be held not by the landlord but by an intermediate interest. This obviously raises again the issue of how the Bill treats the calculation of enfranchisement premiums in instances in which there is an intermediate lease. I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify whether the Bill seeks in any way to address the impact that intermediate leases might have on the benefits that leaseholders could otherwise expect to secure as a result of the new leaseback right.

My second question concerns the terms of the leaseback required under the new right. My understanding is that these will be for a term of 999 years at a peppercorn ground rent, as under the current law, but I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that that is the case and perhaps provide the Committee with any other important detail about leaseback terms that will apply to them.

[Lee Rowley]

I will turn first to the amendment from the hon. Member for Brent North. I appreciate the point that he has made, and he articulated it very well. He is rightly concerned that all those who have an interest in a building should need to pay for it. The amendment’s intent is to require any leases granted to include a requirement to make contributions to service charges, as he articulated. Our understanding—I have checked, following the introduction of his amendment—is that the existing law should sufficiently cover this and it should be unlikely that intermediate landlords will not ensure that their sub-lessees contribute to the service charges of a property. But I recognise that the hon. Gentleman has a lot of experience, knowledge and background in this area over many years, so if he wants to write to me separately, with examples of where we potentially have not understood the detail of the point that he is making, I will be happy to look at that in more detail.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I intervene just briefly so that I can put this on the record. One of my slight concerns about the amendment from my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North is that it could complicate pro rata charges for leaseholders. I just wonder whether the Government have given that any thought. In many ways, the amendment is entirely unproblematic, and we support the intention, but there are a couple of concerns, that being one. Is that part of the Government’s thinking on my hon. Friend’s amendment?

[Lee Rowley]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for pointing that out. As indicated, this all needs to be considered in the round. Very few things come without trade-offs and without consideration of other implications. One reason why we are not able to support this amendment today is that we do not think that it is necessary. As a result, I hope that the hon. Member for Brent North will not push it to a vote but will withdraw it. If we have missed something, I will be happy to look at that separately. As the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich suggested, this is something that we do not think is necessary in the wider scheme of things, but if there is a thing that we have missed, I will happily take further information on it.

I will now turn to clause 6, which has been discussed already to some extent. The Government want to broaden access to collective enfranchisement, so that more leaseholders can buy their freehold. However, we recognise that increased access will remain theoretical if many leaseholders are unable to afford to buy their freehold. Therefore, this enfranchisement must be cheaper if leaseholders are to gain the benefits of the ownership that is being sought.

Clause 6 introduces a leaseback right for leaseholders that, if they elect to use it as part of a claim, will in some cases significantly reduce the up-front price that they must pay. “Leaseback”, as has been indicated, is the term commonly used to refer to an intermediate lease over part of a building that is granted to the outgoing freeholder as part of an enfranchisement claim. This leaseback covers the value of the unit, which is therefore retained by the outgoing freeholder and reduces the cost for leaseholders of buying the freehold. Currently, the outgoing freeholder can require the leaseholders taking forward a collective enfranchisement to grant the freeholder a leaseback of any non-qualifying units in a building. Clause 6 gives leaseholders an equivalent right to require the outgoing freeholder to take a 999-year leaseback, at a peppercorn rate, of any non-participating units in the building as part of the claim.

In mixed-use buildings, the question of affordability is even more acute, as leaseholders must pay for the freehold interest in non-residential parts of the building, which they have no existing financial interest in, as well as their flats, which they already partly own.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lee Rowley]

Currently, leaseholders of houses can claim a lease extension of 50 years, and leaseholders of flats can claim an extension of 90 years. Leaseholders of houses can only ever make one lease extension claim; leaseholders of flats will need to claim repeated extensions both within and between generations, with associated costs. Leaseholders often have to worry about the value of their lease falling as the term runs down.

Clause 7 will amend the lease extension term for houses in the 1967 Act, from 50 to 990 years, and for flats in the 1993 Act, from 90 to 990 years. There is no restriction on the number of claims that can be made, although with a 990-year extended term it is envisaged that only one extension will be necessary; 990 years is as long an extension as can be reasonably given while facilitating multiple periods of 90 years to allow for consistency with existing leases and redevelopment breaks.

Increasing to 990 years the term of the statutory lease extension right maximises the benefit to leaseholders and gives leaseholders much greater security in their homes. This is particularly important where leaseholders do not qualify or are not in a position to buy their freehold.

The increase in the extension term will mean that leaseholders do not have to claim repeated extensions, pay associated repeated transaction costs or worry about the value of their property falling as the lease runs down. Leaseholders of flats and houses will be able to obtain a lease extension of 990 years at a peppercorn ground rent, in exchange for a premium determined by the amended valuation scheme set out in clauses 9 to 11.

I turn to clause 8. Currently, a lease extension for a house under the 1967 Act is made without payment of a premium, but in return for a modern ground rent during the period of the extension, where that rent is similar to a market rent. Because we are increasing the extension term to 990 years at a peppercorn rent, landlords will need to be compensated by payment of a premium, as is the case for flats. The clause makes amendments to the 1967 Act to ensure that landlords will be sufficiently compensated when a 990-year lease extension at a peppercorn is granted for a house. A qualifying leaseholder can obtain an extension of 990 years at a peppercorn ground rent in exchange for a premium determined by the amended valuation scheme set out in clauses 9 to 11.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will spend some time on the clauses, because they are important.

As the Minister set out, clause 7 changes the lease extension rights given to tenants of houses and tenants of flats by the 1967 and 1993 Acts, respectively, to provide for a 990-year lease extension rather than, as is currently the case, a 50-year extension under the 1967 Act and a 90-year extension under the 1993 Act. Clause 8 works in conjunction with clause 7 to that end, by making consequential amendments to the 1967 Act that are required to set ground rents under such extensions at a peppercorn and ensure that the premium payable is based on the amended valuation scheme set out in clauses 9 to 11, as the Minister made clear.

Taken together, the clauses not only provide for the standard lease extension term to increase to 990 years at a peppercorn rent, but ensure that the rights available to tenants under each of the Acts are made equivalent. This reform, which draws on recommendations 1 and 2 of the Law Commission’s final report on leasehold enfranchisement, is long overdue. The right to extend one’s lease is important for leaseholders who do not qualify for a right of freehold acquisition or who do enjoy such a right but, for whatever reason, either cannot or do not wish to purchase the freehold. It is particularly important for leaseholders who live in blocks of flats, as the vast majority do in constituencies such as mine, because it is the only enfranchisement right they can exercise when acting alone. However, both the 50-year lease extension available to leaseholders of houses under the 1967 Act and the 90-year extension available to leaseholders of flats under the 1993 Act are too short to provide adequate security of tenure.

The principle of a right to an extension of a considerably longer time is therefore the right one. As the Minister argued, it will particularly help to protect those leaseholders with short remaining lease terms at the point at which the extension is secured, and will avoid the need for a second extension to be sought and secured in short order. We also feel that the choice of a standard 990-year lease is the right one. Once the principle of a very long lease extension has been accepted, the case for taking the additional period as close to 999 years is watertight. A more modest extension, which the Law Commission did consider, would provide only temporary relief and would require many leaseholders to make a second claim in relatively quick succession. The proposed 990-year lease extension right will avoid the need for further lease extension claims in the future, will provide leaseholders with a substantially enhanced interest in their homes and will bring leaseholders extremely close to outright freehold ownership.

It is also right that we legislate to introduce a uniform right applicable and available to both leaseholders of houses and leaseholders of flats, so we support the alignment of the lease extension rights for which the clause provides. There is no justification for maintaining the discrepancy in the law as it stands, where the right to a lease extension for a house is considerably less favourable than the equivalent right to a lease extension for a flat. In sum, we fully support leaseholders who qualify for a lease extension under the 1967 or 1993 Act being given the right, on payment of an appropriate premium, to extend their lease and in so doing to secure a peppercorn rent.

I have five questions for the Minister about these important clauses. The first relates to redevelopment. In recommending that an additional period of 990 years should be added to the remaining term of the existing lease in the cases of both houses and flats, the Law Commission also proposed that redevelopment break rights should be maintained. These are rights accorded to a landlord to terminate a lease that has been extended and to regain possession of the property in order to carry out redevelopment work. The Law Commission recommended that they should be maintained during the last 12 months of the term of the original lease or the last five years of each period of 90 years after the commencement of the extended term.

We fully appreciate that many leaseholders will find the very notion of such break rights problematic, and the Law Commission recognises that maintaining rolling break rights, as under the 1967 Act, would create unnecessary uncertainty. However, difficulties relating to the lifespan of buildings are an issue we have to grapple with, not least because they will become more pressing over time when lease extensions become significantly longer by default. As the Law Commission’s recommendation on development break rights has not made it into the Bill, I would be grateful if the Minister explained the Government’s determination to omit it. Some would argue that there is a strong case, in a world in which 990-year lease extensions are the default, for the sensible provision of development break rights.

My second question concerns when the rights provided by clauses 7 and 8 will come into effect. The clauses present leaseholders who have recently obtained a lease extension, or who will be compelled to obtain one—for the purposes of moving home or mortgaging, say—before the commencement date, with a real dilemma, because the only way they will benefit from a 990-year extension and a peppercorn ground rent in instances where that is not already the case is by making a further extension claim in short order. The fact that any such leaseholders will have recently extended their lease with, in all likelihood, a peppercorn ground rent will mean that the premium payable will be low, but there will still be a cost.

I would be grateful if the Minister made it clear whether the Government have given any consideration to how to ensure that the premium in such cases is as low as possible, to avoid some leaseholders facing costs that others will not face, simply as a result of the sharp transition from one set of arrangements to another. Better still, could he outline precisely how commencement will operate in respect of the clauses? Will he tell us whether the Government might consider amending the Bill to ensure that the new rights come into force on, or very soon after, Royal Assent, so that they can be enjoyed by leaseholders confronting the need for an extension as quickly as possible?

My third question relates to ground rents. We will explore the issue in considerable detail when we consider clause 21, but I would be grateful if the Minister told us, in relation specifically to lease extensions, how clauses 7 and 8 will operate if the Government’s response to the consultation “Modern leasehold: restricting ground rent for existing leases”, which closed last week, is, as per the Secretary of State’s declared preference, to table amendments to enact option 1, namely capping ground rent at a peppercorn for all existing leases from a given date.

All we want to know is whether the ground rent provisions in clause 8 would be rendered irrelevant. In other words, are they unnecessary? If so, will the Government have to make further amendments to the clause to ensure that, in conjunction with clause 7, it provides only for a 990-year lease extension and does not make changes to ground rent provisions in any way? Presumably they will need to be abolished by further Government amendments that will potentially abolish ground rents for all existing leases.

 My fourth question concerns the technical matter of who the competent landlord is for the purpose of lease extensions under the 1993 Act. The provisions within clauses 7 and 8 will mean that even in circumstances where there is a head lease of 999 years at a peppercorn rent, which is a fairly common occurrence, the owner will be entitled to all of the premium. Nevertheless, it is the freeholder, not the head lessee, who will have to handle the claim. That raises the obvious question of why a freeholder should engage with the process at all, given that it will leave them out of pocket.

Schedule 1 to the 1967 Act includes provisions designed to overcome the problem by providing that a long head lessee is the reversioner. Will the Minister tell us why a similar set of provisions is not being introduced to the 1993 Act to provide that a very long head lessee in a block of flats is to be regarded as the competent landlord, not the freeholder? If there is no justification for that omission, might the Government go away and consider whether it is necessary to overcome that problem?

My fifth and final question concerns the Government’s commitment to use the Bill to legislate for a ban on new leasehold houses. The Government amendments providing for such a ban have still not been tabled, so we cannot engage with the detail. However, given that it is the Government’s stated intention effectively to do away with leasehold houses, I would like to probe the Minister on the reasoning behind providing, by means of clauses 7 and 8, leaseholders in houses with a right to a 990-year lease extension at a peppercorn rent, for which the premium will be the same as if it were a freehold enfranchisement. Is this—I am being generous to the Minister—an example of muddled thinking on the Government’s part that might require review? I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lee Rowley]

The hon. Gentleman is articulating his argument with passion, as he did last week on a similar point in some of the witness sessions. I reconfirm to the Committee that we seek to process the outcome of that consultation as quickly as we are able, and to provide hon. Members and the public with clarity at the earliest opportunity. None the less, while recognising the important interaction of clauses 7 and 8 with the consultation, I hope that underneath there is general consent for clauses 7 and 8. I hope I have covered most of the questions asked. I will write to the Committee in response to the question from the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich about redevelopment, because I need to obtain clarity on that.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I welcome the Minister’s response. He did not address—perhaps he will find time on another occasion—the Government’s potential inconsistency in, on the one hand, extending lease extension terms at peppercorn for houses, under the 1967 Act, and, on the other, seeking to ban leasehold houses in their entirety. The Government might want to explore that, to ensure the package as whole is consistent and working as intended. He is welcome to write to me on that point, as well as on redevelopment rights.

I take the Minister’s point on the competent landlord. My point was not whether the Bill is fine as drafted; it is the fact that we need to change the 1993Act to account for the set of circumstances I outlined. There is provision in the 1967 Act to cover that problem. As far as we can tell, this Bill does not amend the 1993 Act to account for it. I encourage him to look at that.

On the two substantive issues, there is inherent uncertainty about commencement. Of course, we want the Bill to progress and apply to as many leaseholders as possible. I was trying to stress to the Minister the need to look at the point at which the Bill kicks in. In some Bills, certain provisions come into force at First Reading. We are worried, as the Bill goes through Parliament, about a set of leaseholders being left out of these rights unfairly, given the time we have spent progressing the Law Commission’s recommendations. I encourage him to give some thought to that.

On ground rents, I understand entirely that the matter is commercially sensitive. I am not asking for an opinion from the Minister on the consultation, although we do need an indication of the Government’s thinking as soon as possible. We also need to understand, as I will come to when we debate clause 21, whether the Government intend to enact any recommendations from that consultation, via this Bill.

What I am looking for is clarity, which he should be able to give us at this stage, on this hypothetical point. If any proposals from that consultation are enacted, clauses 7, 8 and 21 are potentially redundant. We simply need to know whether the Government will further overhaul those clauses, if they take forward any of those recommendations. That is hypothetical, but the Minister should be able to answer. The Government have presumably thought, “Yes: if that scenario occurs and we take forward one of the five options, we will or will not have to revise the Bill.” That is the answer that I am simply looking for from the Minister. If he wants to take this opportunity to clarify that, I would welcome it.

[Lee Rowley]

The hon. Gentleman tempts me to go into hypotheticals. Let me at least dip my toe into that for a moment. Let us take some of the potential outcomes of the consultation discussed today, for example, and the question of whether they potentially will make redundant some of the clauses. In one of the instances, where there is a fear, concern or question, it would still be the case that potentially amendments to clause 8 would need to be introduced, for example, on ground rents, so depending on the scenario it would not make that entirely redundant. I will not go into hypotheticals to their logical and total extent, but I hope that that gives some assurance that consultation has been held and we will bring forward what is appropriate in due course.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 7 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Mr Mohindra.)

Long-term Plan for Housing

Debate between Matthew Pennycook and Lee Rowley

Tuesday 19th December 2023 Commons Chamber

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

I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. Nothing screams long-term housing plan quite like a statement from the 16th Housing Minister since 2010 outlining the fourth set of changes to the national planning policy framework in as many years. As ever with this Government, the reality in no way matches the rhetoric, as we see with the headline announcements made to the press—not this House—over the past 24 hours. Not only are they seemingly at odds with the Government’s stated wish to give local communities more of a say about the placement of new developments; the truth is that the ink will barely be dry on outline plans for the proposed expansion of Cambridge by the time the general election is called. The punitive and nakedly political interventions that Ministers are working up for London ahead of the mayoral election will, likewise, do nothing in practice to resolve the constraints that they themselves have imposed on house building in the capital, not least by leaving industry completely in the dark when it comes to second staircase regulations for tall buildings, at a cost of thousands of new homes.

When it comes to meaningful support for small and medium-sized house builders, the Government have been talking, literally for years, about the various ways in which they need greater support while presiding over their continued decline. Far from unlocking a new generation of home building, as the Secretary of State has claimed, the detailed changes being made to the NPPF today will almost certainly further suppress collapsing house building rates. Let us be clear: although there have been minor tweaks, the changes being made are those that the Government, in their weakness, promised the so-called “Planning Concern Group” of Tory Back Benchers they would enact back in December last year in order to stave off a rebellion on the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill. That is precisely why the members of that group are so pleased with the ”compromise” they have secured today.

I have a number of detailed questions for the Minister, starting with the impact of these changes on overall housing supply. Whether it is the softening of land supply requirements or the listing of various local characteristics that would justify a deviation from the now only advisory standard method, can he confirm that the changes made to the NPPF, taken together, will give those local authorities that wish to take advantage of it the freedom to plan for less housing than their nominal local targets imply? If he disputes that that will be their effect, what technical evidence can he provide to demonstrate that these changes can be reconciled with a boost to housing delivery?

I turn to the Government’s 300,000 annual housing target, which the Secretary of State recommitted himself to today. How on earth does the Minister imagine that the changes that have been made to the rules around plan making will help the Government finally meet that target, particularly given that the arbitrary 35% urban uplift has been retained but the requirement for local planning authorities to try to meet it out of area in co-operation with their neighbours if they cannot do so alone has been removed? Can the Minister finally provide a convincing explanation of how and when the Government’s 300,000 homes a year target will be met? Or is it the case that it remains alive in name only, abandoned in practice even if not formally abolished?

Let me turn to local plan coverage. In many ways, the revised NPPF speaks to a planning framework that does not actually exist, because under this Government we have a local plan-led system in which only a minority of local authorities have up-to-date plans. According to the most recent figures, just 33% have local plans that have been adopted or reviewed within the past five years and only 10 new plans have been submitted for examination this year—in part, this is because of the chilling effect of the Government’s December 2022 concession. Yet only now, in the dying days of this Government, are Ministers seemingly getting a bit more serious about intervening to drive up coverage.

In The Times today, the Secretary of State announced a new three-month deadline for up-to-date local plans to be submitted. Will the Minister outline the thinking behind that timeframe and tell us what happens if multiple local authorities fail to meet the new March deadline? In his Times interview, the Secretary of State suggested that local authorities that miss that deadline will have development forced on them and their powers to delay applications removed. Can the Minister tell us precisely how that would be achieved? The Secretary of State also suggested that recalcitrant councils will be stripped of their planning responsibilities. Can the Minister tell us who will take them on, given that the Planning Inspectorate clearly does not have the capacity to do so?

Finally, although it is the Government’s contention that the changes made today will boost local plan coverage, surely the Minister recognises that even if that is ultimately their effect, it will be at the cost of overall housing supply because it will entail the enactment of numerous plans that will not meet the needs of local communities in full. In short, isn’t the truth of the matter that today’s changes entail a deliberate shift from a plan-led system focused on making at least some attempt to meet housing need, to one geared toward providing only what the politics of any given area allow, with all the implications that entails for the housing crisis and economic growth?

[Lee Rowley]

I thank the Opposition spokesperson for his comments, which I will address in turn. He started by saying that this is the fourth time we have updated the guidance in the last few years. If his criticism is that we are willing to listen, be flexible and adaptable, and recognise the differences between his constituency of Greenwich and Woolwich and the constituencies of Government Back Benchers, then he is correct. We are willing to be flexible and adaptable, but we also recognise that we need to build more homes; we just want to ensure that they are built in the right places, which is exactly what today’s update seeks to do.

The difference between my party and that of the Opposition spokesperson is that we recognise the nuance in the discussion. Within the NPPF, we are trying to accommodate the fact that different areas and parts of the country have to be approached in different ways. While the policies of the hon. Gentleman’s party move backwards and forwards on different days of the week, we will continue to ensure that we build more homes—in the right place, with the right infrastructure and with the support of the community. In the long run, that will ensure that we make progress on housing in general.

The hon. Gentleman asked a question about freedom to plan. The housing needs assessment will be made by all councils, but councils can make a case if there is an exceptional circumstance that applies in their local area. If that were not possible, there would be no exceptions for any council, local authority or community anywhere, which would be completely unnuanced. However, on a macro level it remains the case that we will seek to build more houses. When councils have plans in place, they tend to deliver more houses than when such plans are not in place, so if we can get more plans in place, we will have the opportunity to build more homes that have the consent and support of the community in which they will be built.

The hon. Gentleman asked about urban uplift and the removal of co-operation with neighbours. We uplifted the targets and expectations on the basis that those houses would go into cities and would not be exported into the countryside near cities, because the whole point was to acknowledge the infrastructure in those cities. There are schools in London that are closing because insufficient numbers of children are using them. We do not want to export housing elsewhere; we want to use that infrastructure—including transport links and educational establishments—as was intended when it was built.

This is not about whether we believe in a plan-led system or not—we clearly do. It is about the fact that this Government are getting on with the hard job of striking a balance, recognising the nuance and ensuring that more progress is being made, versus the Opposition stating that they want to build houses, but then voting against that happening in relation to nutrient neutrality. If they put their money where their mouth was and did what they say they will do, they would have the ability to stand up and make such arguments consistently. They do not and, as a result, I will not listen to them.

Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill

Debate between Matthew Pennycook and Lee Rowley

2nd reading
Monday 11th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Pennycook]

The Minister touched on building safety. In the briefing notes on the Bill that accompanied the King’s Speech, under the heading “Improving leaseholders’ consumer rights”, reference was made to:

“Building on the legislation brought forward by the Building Safety Act 2022”.

Is it the Government’s intention to incorporate building safety measures in the Bill?

[Lee Rowley]

We are looking at what may be possible. We recognise that, while the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities has brought forward a very solid prospectus, tweaks can always be made. We see real momentum in this area. I know that that is not good enough for buildings that have not yet had their remediation or for leaseholders who are hugely frustrated by the inability or unwillingness of freeholders to make progress, but we have made significant changes and steps forward in the last year or so, and we are committed to doing more in the coming months.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for North Shropshire for meeting me earlier to talk about specific points about assets. We will look at those points and come back to her.

I can confirm to my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills that we intend to tackle ground rents. I am grateful to her for highlighting exceptions in leasehold houses. We intend that to be a very narrow element. She sought an example. One example I can give is that of National Trust land where freeholds cannot be sold and a small number of leasehold homes may therefore be required.

The hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby talked about his disappointment with, I believe, the consultation on ground rents. We must consult on that because we must ensure that we are listening and that we take a decision based on the broad range of evidence in front of us, to ensure that it is legally sound when the decision is made. He encourages me to speak to the Law Commission. I can tell him that I have spoken to the Law Commission probably more regularly than any other external organisation outside the Department in the past three or four weeks.

The hon. Members for Walthamstow, for Battersea and for Brentford and Isleworth are seeking to push a narrative—if I may say that very gently to them, with the best of intentions—that this is not a significant intervention with regard to flats. I gently encourage them to continue to engage with the Bill. They will see long and cheap extensions, easier enfranchisement, service charge transparency, easier redress, lease extensions, standard forms, annual reports and many, many other significant measures that will have salience for those living in flats.

Before I conclude, I would like to thank the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook) for his constructive comments. I look forward to meeting him in Committee to talk about them more. While I may disappoint the right hon. Member for East Ham, I would like to turn to some of the comments made from the Opposition Front Bench.

The right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), despite acknowledging that the Government have brought forward important legislation, despite confirming that Labour would not be opposing it and despite advancing the most enthusiastic compliment I have ever heard her give a Conservative—that the Secretary of State has reached the lofty heights of being a “functional cog”; heavy praise indeed!—showed that, as ever, she deals in rhetoric rather than reality, and in politics rather than policy. She called the Bill “empty”. This is a Bill with 65 clauses, eight schedules and 133 pages, and there are 67 pages of explanatory notes. Given its comprehensive reform of enfranchisement and extensions, its comprehensive reform of redress, and its comprehensive reform of service charges, estate management and valuation, that is a funny definition of “empty”.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Matthew Pennycook and Lee Rowley

Monday 4th December 2023 Commons Chamber

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

As you will no doubt be aware, Madam Deputy Speaker, the Government’s Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill, designed to ban the sale of new leasehold houses, does not actually contain any provisions to ban the sale of new leasehold houses, because the Department apparently did not have time to draft them before publication. If and when the Government rectify their mistake and add the necessary provisions, will they incorporate measures to reinvigorate commonhold by making it accessible and available to both prospective homebuyers and existing leaseholders? If not, why not?

[Lee Rowley]

As has been outlined, we intend to bring forward further changes to the Bill during the process, as Opposition Members know is normal, because they have sat in the same Committees that we have. We are not proposing to change leasehold to commonhold under the Bill, but that remains part of our long-term approach and we would like to see further reforms as soon as we are able to.

Affordable Homes Programme

Debate between Matthew Pennycook and Lee Rowley

Tuesday 25th April 2023 Westminster Hall

[Lee Rowley]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising that point. She is an assiduous follower of this issue. I know of all the fantastic work that she and her colleagues on the Public Accounts Committee do on this area and elsewhere. I fear I might not be able to give her an absolute answer, but I will try to provide as much information as I can. There is obviously a challenge, broader than the specifics of this debate, about the amount of money that the Government have; that is not particularly newsworthy. If I may make a tiny partisan point: the Labour party, if it ever gets into Government, will have to make more choices than Opposition spokesmen indicate when they respond to such debates. There will always be a challenge around how we prioritise funding, and what the trade-offs are to do that. The commitment from the Government is here, with the £12 billion contribution that has already been indicated for allocation.

When we come forward with further information about the affordable homes programme 2021-26, I hope we will be able to give greater clarity for those authorities that seek a particular mix of housing and to expand the number of affordable homes of whichever tenure. I also hope that some of the changes coming through in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill will take effect, although that needs to complete its progress in the other place. We will have to see what the other place does to that Bill, which I hope will give local councils some ability to flex their approach in the area of housing.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Will the Minister give way?

[Lee Rowley]

I want to make progress.

[Matthew Pennycook]

On that specific point?

[Lee Rowley]

Go on then—the hon. Gentleman has convinced me.

[Matthew Pennycook]

The Minister is right that, when it comes to designing an affordable homes programme, choices have to be made and trade-offs confronted, but does it not trouble him that, despite the fact that 50% of AHP funding under the current programme is allocated to low-cost home ownership, his own Department’s figures make it clear that grant funding under the last year of the previous Labour Government still delivered twice the number of low-cost home ownership units than the Government managed last year?

[Lee Rowley]

Before I answer that question, I hope the Chair will allow me a minute or two more than 10 minutes, given that we have a little bit of time, in order to answer these interventions.

Draft Building (Public Bodies and Higher-Risk Building Work) (England) Regulations 2023

Debate between Matthew Pennycook and Lee Rowley

Monday 27th March 2023 General Committees

[Lee Rowley]

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s questions. I wrote down his first question, but I have lost it among my documents. Will he remind me of it?

[Matthew Pennycook]

It was about the impact assessment.

[Lee Rowley]

The position is that, because the public body notices are not being utilised and the use of them is therefore minimal, the impact of their usage or the future need for them will also be minimal. On the second point, I am happy to write to the hon. Gentleman, in order not to detain the Committee any longer.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Matthew Pennycook and Lee Rowley

Monday 27th March 2023 Commons Chamber

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

They will only ever deal with a fraction of the problem at best, but the developer remediation contract and the forthcoming responsible actors scheme are welcome. Yet, as things stand, all we know is that the scheme will initially focus on sufficiently profitable major housebuilders and large developers, and it may then expand over time to cover others. Blameless leaseholders trapped in unsafe buildings deserve far greater clarity now as to whether or not the contract and the scheme may eventually cover their building. Will the Government give them that certainty by committing today to publishing a full list of all developers that the Department believes are eligible and should therefore ultimately participate or face the consequences—yes or no?

[Lee Rowley]

I have the greatest respect for the hon. Gentleman, but the reality is that he cannot suggest that only a fraction of buildings are covered by the developer contract. Just in the past two weeks, it has been confirmed that more than 1,100 buildings will be fixed, with £2 billion of work covering 44 different developers. There will be more announcements in due course, but where individual leaseholders have concerns about moving those buildings forward, we are happy to hear about them, but extensive Government support schemes are already in place to allow remediation to occur without waiting for the conclusion of these developer discussions.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill (Twenty Sixth sitting)

Debate between Matthew Pennycook and Lee Rowley

Committee stage
Thursday 20th October 2022 Public Bill Committees

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

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

As we are approaching the end of this Committee’s life, I will take the opportunity to thank the Clerks, Doorkeepers, Hansard reporters and House staff for facilitating our work over what I must say has felt—I do not disparage the Committee in saying this—like a lot longer than four months. We are, thankfully, near the end. This is a simple, straightforward and, I hope, unproblematic new clause for the Government, so I do not need to detain the Committee long in speaking to it.

Despite the strong arguments made by the Opposition at the time—I recall them personally because I served on the Bill Committee—the Government were determined to include within the Housing and Planning Act 2016 provisions requiring local authorities to sell higher-value council homes as they fell vacant, and to remit the income generated from such sales to the Treasury to fund the extension of the right to buy to housing association tenants. The sections of that Act that required local authorities to make a payment in respect of their vacant higher-value council homes came into force on 12 May 2016, but the consequential determinations were never made.

Having, one assumes, finally appreciated the severe impracticalities of the measure, as well as, one hopes, the social consequences of further reducing England’s already depleted social housing stock, the Government announced in their 2018 social housing Green Paper that they would no longer require local authorities to make higher-value-asset payments. In the words of that Green Paper, the sale of high-value homes

“should be a decision to be made locally, not mandated through legislation”

as they had previously felt was necessary.

However, in addition to making it clear that the Government would not bring those provisions of the 2016 Act into effect, the 2018 Green Paper said that the Government would look to repeal the relevant legislation, “when parliamentary time allows”. Yet, with four years having passed, and all manner of legislation having been taken through the House during that time, the Government have still not repealed those provisions.

New clause 67 simply seeks to have the Government finally implement the decision that they made and outlined in the 2018 Green Paper, and thereby undo the mistake that they made six years ago.

Mr Hollobone, we both know that Ministers have been clearly told to resist all amendments to this Bill, however sensible they might be, but I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire, might see, on this occasion, the soundness of the new clause. I do not think that there is any credible or justifiable reason why this Bill cannot be the legislative vehicle to undo the provision, which the Government have decided should not have been in the 2016 Act. However, if he will not do that, will he please tell us when and how the Government intend to do what they committed, in 2018, to do?

[Lee Rowley]

As the hon. Gentleman anticipates, I will not be encouraging the Committee to accept this amendment, although I understand the points behind it, which the hon. Gentleman has already articulated. In the spirit of his brevity, I will seek to be so, too.

The Government have made a number of commitments previously and stand by those commitments. As the hon. Gentleman has indicated, the provisions laid out in chapter 2 of part 4 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016 have not been brought into effect, and there is no intention of doing so. The provisions lack a regulatory framework to underpin the policy, so there is no risk of local authorities being subject to them before we are able to legislate in the future.

The Government remain of the view that legislation will be brought forward, but do not believe that the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill is the best vehicle for that, as it does not largely address social housing. We therefore wish to focus on the measures within this Bill, while recognising that there will be no change to the status quo—the reality for local authorities around the country—on this matter. We will bring forward further consideration of this point in due course.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lee Rowley]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for this new clause, yet unsurprisingly we will be asking him to withdraw it, too. I understand the sentiments behind it. I think we would all agree that we want a planning system that works and is effective, efficient and expedited where possible, and that appropriate consideration should be given at local level to ensure that placemaking is at the heart of what it does, but this particular new clause is, in my view, too prescriptive. This almost takes me back to my pre-parliamentary days when we were doing organisational design within individual companies. The one thing that we had as a principle was that organisational design needed to be flexible between different organisations, depending on their needs and requirements at the time and the areas that they needed to focus on.

Of course planning should always be a focus, but it is another question whether we need to put formal lines between particular officers and the chief executive, if there even are chief executives in certain local authorities—there are not all the time—so there is a secondary level of conversation about whether it would be section 151 officers or would be dealt with elsewhere. But I do not want to get too lost in the weeds. Although I accept the sentiment of the hon. Gentleman, I do not think it is proportionate to mandate these kinds of elements. I absolutely agree with him that local councils should discharge their responsibilities adequately, carefully and expeditiously. I hope that they will do that. We will continue to consider, in the Department, what we can do to ensure that that happens. But on this occasion, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will consider withdrawing the new clause, given that I do not think it is necessary.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the Minister for that response. I take on board and appreciate the point that he makes about proportionality and whether this new clause is too prescriptive in that regard. I hope that he at least sees the concern that we have tried to highlight with the new clause, which is not only, as I said, the general issue with skills capacity but the status of planning officers within local authorities as a whole and whether that has an impact on planning outcomes. I hope that, given what I have said, the Minister will go away and give the issue some further consideration, not least in terms of what we will come to shortly, which is the skills strategy that the Government are outlining, but I do not intend to press the new clause to a Division. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 71

Comprehensive resources and skills strategy for the planning sector

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of this Bill securing Royal Assent, publish a comprehensive resources and skills strategy for the planning sector.

(2) The strategy published under subsection (1) must—

(a) include an assessment of the effectiveness of local planning authorities and statutory consultees in delivering upon their existing duties and functions,

(b) include an assessment of the additional resource required for local planning authorities and statutory consultees to carry out new responsibilities and duties established by this Act,

(c) set out a funding strategy for a minimum five-year period that meets the assessed resource need under paragraph (2)(b),

(d) include an assessment of the skills and capability of the planning sector and statutory consultees to carry out new responsibilities and duties established by the Act, and

(e) explain how the Secretary of State intends to address the skills and capability needs of the planning sector as set out under paragraph (2)(d).”—(Matthew Pennycook.)

This new clause would commit the Secretary of State to publishing a comprehensive resources and skills strategy for the planning sector within 12 months of the Bill securing Royal Assent and would specify what such a strategy should include.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Matthew Pennycook]

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

Me again, Mr Hollobone. New clause 71 is in my name and those of my hon. Friends the Members for Nottingham North and for Coventry North East. As I made clear just now, the Government have promised to bring forward a planning skills strategy for local planning authorities, and the commitment to do so is set out in the policy paper that accompanies the Bill. We believe that a strategy to address the skills gap is essential to improving the planning system and we support the Government’s efforts in this area. Not only is there an existing problem—as we have just discussed—when it comes to skills shortages within local authority planning departments, but, as we have discussed in many previous sittings, the Bill will require the implementation of entirely new processes; an increase in planning staff with specific specialist skills such as design; and improved capabilities, not least in terms of a mastery of digital and geospatial data and technologies. Therefore, additional pressures are coming down the line as a result of this legislation.

However, the commitment included in the policy paper accompanying the Bill refers only to a planning skills strategy rather than the

“comprehensive resources and skills strategy”

proposed in the 2020 “Planning for the future” White Paper. We believe that that is problematic. As we have debated on numerous occasions during this Committee’s proceedings, there is a clear need for additional resources for local planning authorities—a need that the many new burdens and duties provided for by the Bill will only serve to render more acute. We therefore believe that the Government were right in the 2020 White Paper to commit to a more comprehensive strategy that encompassed both skills and resources. New clause 71 would place a duty on the Government to publish that more comprehensive strategy within 12 months of the Bill securing Royal Assent and would specify what such a strategy should contain. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

[Lee Rowley]

This is an interesting new clause but one that I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw. I think we share the underlying objective, which is to ensure that our planning system is well resourced, well managed and well executed, but there is the general question of whether we need to legislate for these things, and my view is that we do not need to legislate in the depth that he suggests. I hope he will take some assurance from the fact that this has been discussed several times in my short period in post, including as recently as yesterday, when I spoke to the chief planner on this matter. We continue to consider it in what I hope the hon. Gentleman would think is the detail it deserves. However, I hope he will withdraw the new clause, because I am of the view that the issue does not require legislation in order for the discussion to continue.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I appreciate the Minister’s response. The new clause was probing, as he will have seen, and I therefore do not intend to press it to a vote. I am reassured that he has already discussed the issue—several times, I think he said—in his short time in post. I hope he will take away the points that I made. We think we need a skills strategy, and I urge him to think about how planning departments in local authorities might be better resourced to do what they need to do. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 72

Local consent for onshore wind projects in England

“(1) The Secretary of State shall within six months of this Bill securing Royal Assent remove from the National Planning Policy Framework the current restrictions on the circumstances in which proposed wind energy developments involving one or more turbines should be considered acceptable.”—(Matthew Pennycook.)

This new clause would commit the Secretary of State to revising the National Planning Policy Framework within 12 months of the Bill securing Royal Assent to remove the onerous restrictions it currently places on the development of onshore wind projects by deleting footnote 54.

Brought up, and read the First time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

I tabled new clause 72 some time ago, with a view to pressing the Government to remove the de facto moratorium imposed for many years on the development of onshore wind. The growth plan, published late last month, committed the Government to doing just that, by bringing onshore wind planning policy into line with planning for other forms of infrastructure. As hon. Members know, most of the measures set out in that growth plan have been junked as part of the humiliating mini-Budget U-turn, but having seen no evidence to the contrary—the Minister might disappoint me again in this regard—we assume that the decision to remove onshore wind planning restrictions is one of the few to have survived the cull. Even if that is the case, it remains unclear how the Government intend to deliver on that commitment, so that this cheap form of renewable energy generation can be deployed more easily across England. New clause 82 probes the Government on that point.

Three categories of onshore wind project are needed in large numbers: first, projects that are larger than the 50 MW threshold for nationally significant infrastructure projects; secondly, projects that are below that 50 MW threshold; and, thirdly, smaller community energy projects. Each is addressed specifically by new clause 82. Proposed new subsections (1) and (2) would unpick the 2016 regulations that removed onshore wind in England from the nationally significant infrastructure projects process set out in the Planning Act 2008, meaning that proposed onshore over 50 MW could secure consent through the development consent order system. Subsections (3) and (4) would require the Government to set out in a written ministerial statement how national planning guidance will be amended quickly to enable local authorities to determine applications for onshore wind projects below 50 MW. Finally, subsections (5) and (6) would require the Government to bring forward a plan clarifying how smaller community energy projects will be supported.

To meet our emissions reduction targets and the predicted increase in demand for electricity in coming decades, as the decarbonisation of our economy advances, there is a pressing need to increase our onshore wind capacity rapidly. The Climate Change Committee recommended the installation of between 22 GW and 29 GW by the end of this decade. As Labour Members will continue to argue, doing that at pace would have the added benefit of reducing bills, creating good jobs and bolstering our energy security.

I hope that the Minister will engage thoughtfully with the new clauses, and perhaps provide the Committee with some answers as to how the Government intend to implement the decision set out in the growth plan in respect of onshore wind.

[Lee Rowley]

The hon. Gentleman has received some assurances since he tabled new clause 72. The Government have looked at the issue again, and I am grateful for his acknowledgment of that. I am afraid that I will disappointment him. I completely understand and accept the importance of the issue, while acknowledging that it is a sensitive one in certain parts of the country. I accept that the Committee has been in existence for many months, debating many important things, but given the salience and importance of this policy issue to our broader national discourse, I suggest that it be considered more broadly than simply in this Committee. We will bring forward further information about our continuing commitments and intentions in this area in due course. However, that is not something I can do in Committee.

[Matthew Pennycook]

The Minister is determined to disappoint me in our exchanges, but I accept that he feels unable to opine on the Government’s intentions regarding the onshore wind that they have committed to allowing via the planning system and the various routes that I have mentioned. I hope that the situation will be clarified at a later stage. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 73

Duty with regard to climate change

“(1) The Secretary of State must have special regard to achieving the mitigation of and adaptation to climate change when preparing—

(a) national policy or advice relating to the development or use of land,

(b) a development management policy pursuant to section 38ZA of the PCPA 2004.

(2) The Secretary of State must aim to ensure consistency with achieving the mitigation of and adaptation to climate change when exercising a relevant function under a planning enactment.

(3) A relevant planning authority when—

(a) exercising a planning function must have special regard to, and aim to ensure consistency with, achieving the mitigation of and adaptation to climate change, and

(b) making a planning decision must aim to ensure the decision is consistent with achieving the mitigation of and adaptation to climate change.

(4) For the purposes of subsection (3), a relevant planning authority is as set out in section 81 (a) and (b) and (d) to (j).

(5) For the purposes of subsection (2) a relevant function is a function that relates to the development or use of land.

(6) For the purposes of subsection (3) a planning function is the preparation of—

(a) a spatial development strategy;

(b) a local plan;

(c) a minerals and waste plan;

(d) a supplementary plan; or

(e) any other policy or plan that will be used to inform a planning decision.

(7) For the purposes of subsections (3) and (6) a planning decision is a decision relating to—

(a) the development or use of land arising from an application for planning permission;

(b) the making of a development order; or

(c) an authorisation pursuant to a development order.

(8) In relation to neighbourhood planning, a qualifying body preparing a draft neighbourhood plan or development order must have special regard to achieving the mitigation of and adaptation to climate change.

(9) For the purposes of this section, achieving the mitigation of climate change shall include the achievement of—

(a) the target for 2050 set out in section 1 of the Climate Change Act 2008, and

(b) applicable carbon budgets made pursuant to section 4 of the Climate Change Act 2008.

(10) For the purposes of this section, achieving adaptation to climate change shall include the achievement of long-term resilience to climate-related risks, including—

(a) the mitigation of the risks identified in the latest climate change risk assessment conducted under section 56 of the Climate Change Act 2008, and

(b) the achievement of the objectives of the latest flood and coastal erosion risk management strategy made pursuant to section 7 of the Flood and Coastal Water Management Act 2010.”—(Matthew Pennycook.)

This new clause would place an overarching duty on the Secretary of State, local planning authorities and those involved in neighbourhood plan-making to achieve the mitigation and adaptation of climate change when preparing plans and policies or exercising their functions in planning decision-making.

Brought up, and read the First time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lee Rowley]

In the spirit of the brevity that you have requested, Mr Hollobone, let me say that I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the new clause, and I share his optimism about our ability to deal with climate change, but I also recognise that that it will take time, as we outlined in debate on previous clauses. Consequently, I will resist the new clause.

As the hon. Gentleman outlined in a number of ways that I will not repeat, there are already significant legal requirements on local authorities to consider climate change, as well as a national policy requiring local planning authorities to take a proactive approach to climate change. I cannot give any guarantees, but I will certainly consider his points, because that is an important part of the housing brief. On this occasion, however, the new clause is unnecessary, and I ask him to withdraw it.

[Matthew Pennycook]

The Minister will appreciate that I find that response disappointing; there is a clear difference of opinion. We think that the existing duties, requirements and guidance are not having the intended effect that he outlined, and we feel strongly that there is a case for amending primary legislation to ensure that the planning system aligns fully with the Climate Change Act and other statutory frameworks.

I know that we are on the clock, Mr Hollobone, so I will not labour those points, which have been made before, but to drive home how important we feel the issue is, I will press the new clause to a Division.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill (Twenty Fifth sitting)

Debate between Matthew Pennycook and Lee Rowley

Committee stage
Tuesday 18th October 2022 Public Bill Committees

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

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Mark. New clause 37 in my name and that of my hon. Friends, is, like new clause 16, a simple amendment. I will not devote too much time to making the case for it.

We all agree that it is essential that the integrity of the planning system is upheld, not only to ensure that unauthorised development cannot blight local communities, but to maintain public trust and confidence in the planning decision-making process. When considering chapter 5 of the Bill, we had a number of debates about how planning enforcement might be improved as well as better resourced. A number of members of the Committee, including my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields, have spoken at length about the impact that rogue developers can have on communities across the country.

New clause 37 seeks to probe the Government on a specific issue of concern. As the hon. Member for Buckingham has just made clear, at present it appears that it is entirely permissible for an individual developer to consistently breach planning control, with the only risk being that they face enforcement action in respect of that specific breach. We believe that it is right that enforcement of planning law and regulation is based on the principle of proportionality and that when it comes to cases of alleged unauthorised development, local authorities have discretion to determine how the breach can be remedied. However, we also believe there is a strong case for changing the law so that certain categories of proscribed persons, in particular those who breach planning control and make no efforts to rectify those breaches, can be prohibited from carrying out development of any kind.

New clause 37 would allow that sanction to be applied to those who persistently offend when it comes to contraventions of planning law and regulation. Its objective is the same as new clause 16, on a character test and the prior record of an applicant. Adopting new clause 37, or a version of it, would reduce the burden on local authorities that are attempting to deal with the minority of rogue developers of this kind, and would also strengthen the integrity of the system overall. I hope the Government will give it serious consideration.

[Lee Rowley]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham and the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich for their new clauses. I am extremely sympathetic to some of the concerns. I agree with the hon. Member that ensuring the integrity of the planning system is paramount. We will all have examples from across the country of where development does not occur in the way that is sanctioned, or before it is sanctioned, and then an attempt is made to gain planning permission retrospectively by those who are not necessarily following either the letter or the spirit of the rules as set down. It is extremely frustrating.

By the same token, we have to tread extraordinarily carefully here. There are a set of principles, which my hon. Friend and the hon. Member acknowledged in their speeches—that the planning system is based on a specific application, which should be judged accordingly on its merits. It is challenging to bring forward a form of character test within those principles, although I recognise that there is an issue here that many communities up and down the land are seeing.

As those who have debated it for longer than I have will know, the Bill already includes a significant package of measures that will help tackle persistent abuses of the system. Those will speed up the enforcement process, restrict the circumstances in which an appeal can be lodged, increase fines for non-compliance and discourage intentional unauthorised developments that rely on a slow enforcement timescale. The Government acknowledge some of the concerns and are trying to find appropriate levers with which to approach them.

While offering a commitment to continue to talk about this issue, although wanting to be being clear that it is extremely difficult in terms of legislation, as my hon. Friend and the hon. Member acknowledged, the Government are not minded to accept the new clauses. I therefore ask both Members not to press them.

[Greg Smith]

I welcome the commitment my hon. Friend has just made to carrying on the conversation. I accept the complexity, in a system that looks at individual cases, of bringing in a more universal test. However, there are other areas of life where people—for example, those with particular criminal records—are barred from doing certain activities—particularly where children are involved. If we could extend the principle and precedent whereby somebody who has form with rogue development—that is, turn up, build now and apologise later—which blights communities up and down the land, is barred through legislation that is practical and that does not undermine the planning system, I am up for carrying on that conversation. If not through the exact wording of this new clause, then perhaps by another means, we could find a happy solution that protects our communities from those who, I am sorry to say, continue to blight them by building out schemes that they do not have planning permission for.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill (Twenty Fourth sitting)

Debate between Matthew Pennycook and Lee Rowley

Committee stage
Tuesday 18th October 2022 Public Bill Committees

[Lee Rowley]

The clause enables the Secretary of State to commission, from time to time, reviews of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. RICS, as many hon. Members will know, is the leading professional body for surveyors. Its members work across the UK, and RICS plays a vital role in these sectors. The guidance RICS publishes is valued by surveyors, industry and members of the public. The clause will enable reviews into RICS’s governance and its effectiveness in meeting its objectives. The clause does not prescribe the frequency of reviews, but gives the Secretary of State the necessary power and flexibility to further specify the scope and timing of any review that is required.

The Government do not envisage enacting a review of RICS on a regular or specified basis, so long as RICS demonstrates its effectiveness and is reviewing its own performance to the satisfaction of Government and Parliament, but should a review be required the clause sets out that the person the Secretary of State appoints to carry out the review must be independent of both the Secretary of State and RICS. The reviewer must submit a written report setting out the results and any recommendations of the review to the Secretary of State, who will publish a copy of the report. The clause does not include powers for the Secretary of State to act on any such findings or recommendations; they would need the explicit approval of Parliament. That will ensure that the Government have the ability in law to review whether RICS is performing in the public interest, and I commend the clause to the Committee.

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

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Hollobone. I thank the Minister for that explanation of the purpose of the clause, but he will be aware that the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors has expressed deep concerns about its precise wording, not least in terms of the precedent that it would set in relation to Government interference in other royal chartered bodies.

The issue is not the need for RICS to undergo periodic reviews of its governance and performance. Following the September 2021 publication of the Levitt report into the events that took place within the institution in 2018 and 2019, and the subsequent independent review undertaken by Lord Bichard, which examined its purpose, governance and strategy, RICS’s governing council accepted that regular independent reviews should take place, with their findings laid before Parliament and the devolved nations. The case for periodic independent reviews is therefore uncontested.

From what the Minister said, I think what remains the point of contention is whether the Secretary of State should be given the power to commission reviews of RICS, the scope and frequency of which are not clearly defined in the Bill, or whether the clause should be revised to reflect the commitments made by the institution in the light of Lord Bichard’s independent review. Given the serious concerns expressed by RICS, I will probe the Minister further on the Government’s rationale for the clause’s wording. Can he set out more clearly why, given that RICS’s governing council has made it clear that it accepts recommendation 14 of Lord Bichard’s review in full and will implement it subject to Privy Council approval, the Government believe that they still need to legislate to ensure that the Secretary of State can initiate reviews of RICS whenever they choose, as well as determine their scope?

Can the Minister also outline how such periodic reviews initiated by the Secretary of State using the powers in the clause would differ, if at all, from the parameters of independent reviews as outlined in paragraph 3.22 of Lord Bichard’s review, and accepted in principle by RICS? Can he reassure the Committee that the Government have given serious consideration to the potential impact of approving this clause unamended on not only RICS’s independence and ability to act in the public interest but the status of royal chartered bodies more widely?

As I say, we have no issue with the clause in principle, and we do not suggest that it should be removed from the Bill entirely; there is clearly a need to act to ensure that RICS is subject to regular independent review. However, we want the Government to properly justify the inclusion of the clause as worded in the Bill, rather than amending it to reflect developments following the publication of Lord Bichard’s review. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

[Lee Rowley]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for his questions, which are entirely reasonable and on which I hope to provide some assurance. First, he asked why the Government are asking for this power, given that the Bichard review has outlined a process to resolve the current situation. The view of the Government and of previous Ministers who instigated this was that a process was likely to be under way, but equally there is value in the Secretary of State having this power, should it ever be necessary in the future, which obviously we hope it would not, and we have indicated that it would be used extremely sparingly. The principle of having the ability to instigate a review is one that the Government believe is reasonable and proportionate.

Secondly, the hon. Gentleman asked how the terms of reference would differ from an independent review. That question would have to be asked in individual circumstances, so I hope he will accept that it is a difficult one to answer. However, I understand the sentiments behind the point he makes.

Finally, the hon. Gentleman asked whether the Government have given serious consideration to the impact of this approach on the ability of RICS and other bodies to operate. I am happy to confirm that the Government and I will engage in discussion with RICS about this in the coming weeks before further stages of the Bill, and I will be keen to discuss with RICS all elements of the Bill, to understand its concerns and to see what reassurances I can provide.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 186 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 187

Vagrancy and begging

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lee Rowley]

The Government and the country need to ensure that world-class sustainable infrastructure can be consented to, vitally, in a manner that can support our ambitions for economic growth. To achieve that, we must have a robust planning system that is able to accelerate infrastructure delivery and to meet the forecast demands and complexity of projects coming forward in order to attract strong investment in infrastructure. Through these changes, the planning system can continue to lead in its approach to supporting the delivery of nationally significant infrastructure, which incentivises investment and makes it quicker to deliver that infrastructure.

The Government have an ambition in the national infrastructure strategy for some development consent applications entering the system from September next year to go through the process up to 50% faster from the start of pre-application to decision, but to achieve that a national infrastructure planning reform programme was established to refresh how the nationally significant infrastructure project works and to make it more effective and deliver better and faster outcomes. New clause 60, as a consequence, will amend the part of the existing NSIP process that concerns the examination of a development consent order application. Under existing legislation, the relevant Secretary of State can set an extended deadline for the examination of an application for development consent, but there is no corresponding legislative power to enable the same Secretary of State to set a shorter deadline for such an examination.

Our measure will rectify that, providing the means for the Secretary of State to set a shorter examination period for projects that meet quality standards as part of wider NSIP reform and the fast-track consenting route that we plan to put in place, as set out in the energy security strategy. The mechanisms and criteria that could trigger the exercise of that power by the Secretary of State will be set out in supporting guidance and we will commit to consulting on that in due course. I commend these measures to the Committee.

[Matthew Pennycook]

We have serious concerns about the potential implications of Government new clause 60, which, as the Minister has made clear, will provide the Secretary of State with the power to impose a shorter statutory timeframe for the examination stage of some NSIP applications.

In the policy note entitled “Improving performance of the NSIP planning process and supporting local authorities”, which was published in August to accompany the tabling of the Government new clause, the rationale cited for its introduction is specifically the need significantly to reduce the time it takes to gain consent for offshore wind projects in order to realise the commitment set out in the British energy security strategy. That objective is entirely laudable, but while we support efforts to improve the overall performance of the DCO system—a reform, after all, introduced by the last Labour Government to expedite decisions on large-scale infrastructure projects—the Government have not provided any convincing evidence that the length of the DCO examination stage is the reason why project consents can take too long to secure.

As the Minister will know, the DCO system already specifies a fixed timeframe of nine months for the planning inspectorate to make a final decision, with only six of those months being allocated to the examination stage. The Minister might have some convincing evidence that he can share with the Committee to explain why the six-month examination process is the reason why the Government believe that offshore wind projects are taking up to four years to gain consent, but we are not aware of any such evidence that has been published.

Allowing an appropriate time for a DCO examination is important not only because that enables inspectors to gather and analyse all the available evidence and the social and environmental impacts of projects properly to be interrogated, but because it is the part of the statutory process in which communities have a say over developments that are often likely to have a significant impact on their lives. If the Government want to hand themselves the power to curtail the timeframe in which that important part of the DCO process takes place, we feel strongly that they need to bring forward the evidence to justify such a measure, and they have not done so yet.

However, beyond that in-principle concern over reducing the time available for the public to engage with a detailed process, there is a further reason why we are concerned about the possible implications of the Government new clause, which is that its scope is not limited simply to offshore wind projects. Instead, the powers provided to the Secretary of State by the measure will seemingly apply to all DCO applications and any large-scale infrastructure project that meets as-yet-to-be-specified qualifying criteria.

To take a topical example, the powers could be applied to schemes for hydraulically fractured shale gas production, which I know is of deep concern to the new housing Minister and other Government Members. With the Government having abandoned their manifesto commitment by signalling the end of the fracking moratorium and with UK onshore oil and gas already gearing up to convince Ministers to designate fracking projects as nationally significant, the obvious concern about Government new clause 60 is that the Government will use it to facilitate fracking applications with only the most limited opportunity for local communities to have their say on them. That concern is made more acute by the fact that Ministers have so far failed to provide any detail on precisely how it will be determined that local consent for fracking schemes exists.

Given the serious nature of those concerns, I would be grateful if the Minister answered the following questions. First, what evidence do the Government have that the examination phase of the DCO process is unduly holding up consent for offshore wind and other large-scale renewable energy projects? Secondly, given that the new clause allows the Secretary of State to set an unspecified date for a deadline below the current six-month timeframe for DCO examinations, can the Minister give us a sense of how much shorter the Government believe the examination stage should be under the proposed fast-tracked DCO application process? Thirdly, when will the Government tell us what the qualifying criteria will be for large-scale infrastructure projects subject to shorter examination stage timeframes via this route? Lastly, do the Government intend to designate schemes for hydraulically fractured shale gas production as “nationally significant” and bring them within the purview of this new fast-tracked DCO process—yes or no? I look forward to hearing from the Minister and to returning no doubt to this matter as we consider the Bill further.

[Lee Rowley]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his questions. Again, they are entirely reasonable and I will answer as many of them as I can. We recognise that this is a change to the approach, but it is a change that comes directly from a recognition, which I hope we all share, that where there is a desire to move quicker on important infrastructure for this country that we are able to do that. We have an in-principle ability to extend this process, which has been in place for a number of years, and—although I do not know the history—presumably ever since the Labour party started this process a number of years ago, as the hon. Gentleman indicated. Given that, it is not necessarily conceptually problematic that we have the ability to vary that in the other direction, while accepting the understandable challenge of ensuring that there are appropriate reassurances within the process that mean that it will be used in a reasonable and proportionate manner.

While I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point about the evidence base and working through all the detail and ensuring that it is reasonable and proportionate, we are trying to establish the principle that while there is already an ability to vary this timeline in one direction, we can also vary it in another direction. In that narrow sense of what we are trying to achieve, that is a reasonable thing to do. I will try to answer the hon. Gentleman’s questions as directly as I can. On evidence, I am happy to have a further discussion with him—either verbally or in writing, whatever his preference—going through why the Government think this is reasonable and proportionate. This is all part of a broader attempt to improve this in aggregate, and I hope that the Opposition will accept that pulling multiple levers to try to secure incremental improvements in all parts of the process is a laudable aim to pursue.

On the hon. Gentleman’s specific questions on the length of time the stage should take and the qualifying criteria, that can be dealt with in guidance. I will ensure that the officials have heard his concerns and I hope we can deal with them at the guidance stage. In addition, because we have given a commitment to consult, there will be an opportunity for that. We have an interest in providing that information in the detail that is sought, so that the Government can consider it in appropriate detail as well.

Finally, on fracking, I have strong views on hydraulic shale gas and hydraulic fracturing, which I have put on the record many times in this place, and I will continue to share those views. At the same time, and I hope the hon. Gentleman accepts that there are times and places to debate policies like this one, I am no longer a Minister in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. I am sure that there will be regular opportunities to develop this matter, but my own position is known and understood. On his specific question, hydraulic fracturing is not within the NSIP process. There was a consultation in 2018-19 in which the Government decided not to put it in the NSIP process at the time. Should that change, I would be happy to debate with him at the appropriate moment.

Amendment 197 agreed to.

New Developments on Green-belt Land

Debate between Matthew Pennycook and Lee Rowley

Wednesday 12th October 2022 Westminster Hall

[Matthew Pennycook]

Will the Minister give way?

[Lee Rowley]

I really must make progress.

The hon. Member for Coventry North West talked about a failure to address issues in planning. I accept that there are always challenges in planning, but I wish to put on the record the importance of the 2 million new houses that have been built over the last 12 years—2 million families have had the opportunity to realise their dream of home ownership. Some 600,000 of those are affordable homes, and 242,000 were built in 2019 alone. Billions of pounds, whatever our views on whether that is sufficient, will have come forward in infrastructure to support communities.

The hon. Member for Coventry North West also highlighted the challenges in how the system works. I absolutely accept that there are challenges in how the system works, but ultimately this is a process where local authorities—I will not mention specific councils—have the power to bring forward a plan at the time that they wish. They should understand the context in which local plans are brought forward. They have the ability to both include and exclude locations, and they can set the overall framework in which development happens in a local area.

There is then clarity that allows developers, communities, individuals and those who are affected to understand what will and will not happen. Some authorities do that well. Some of those that perhaps do it less well could learn. I am unable to comment on Coventry specifically, but I hope the hon. Lady and her colleagues from the city will reflect on that.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Will the Minister give way?

[Lee Rowley]

I need to make progress—I have only a few minutes. My right hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Gavin Williamson) talked about the duty to co-operate, and I hope we will be able to make further announcements on that in due course. I am happy to discuss it with him separately if that helps, given his interest in it.

Colleagues from various constituencies, including the hon. Member for Reading East (Matt Rodda) and my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Caroline Ansell), talked about brownfield land. I absolutely accept the huge importance of developing on brownfield land. As I highlighted, the national planning policy framework indicates the importance of that. A substantial amount of taxpayer subsidy has already been brought forward for brownfield land. There was only one announcement, back in July. I hope that, if hon. Members’ local authorities had the opportunity to bid into that brownfield land fund between July and August this year, they did so. Should it be appropriate, it is important that local authorities take opportunities to bid to build on brownfield land, and that they think through what they can do locally to bring forward additional brownfield land.

The hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) talked about investment zones. I place on the record that the expression of interest guidance for investment zones is clear on the environment: mitigation would be required of any environmental impacts of proposed investment zones. If local authorities that apply do not concur with that, their application would be failed. That is publicly available in the guidance on expressions of interest.

My right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) made strong points about the importance of a diversity of approaches to ensure that we support housing need in local areas. I am happy to talk to him more about the land constraint point that he highlighted.

The hon. Member for City of Chester talked about the importance of green belt, which I have already talked about. I wholeheartedly concur with him on that point. He also highlighted water and storage facilities. Paragraph 160 of the NPPF covers that, but if there is a specific point he thinks I should be made aware of, I would be happy to talk to him separately.

My hon. Friends the Members for Eastbourne and for Lewes (Maria Caulfield) talked about specific applications. I am afraid that I am unable to talk about those, but my hon. Friends have noted them. I completely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes about the importance of neighbourhood plans and the involvement of local areas in them. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mark Pawsey) for raising the issue about his locality. Within the bounds of appropriateness, I am happy to receive further representations on that and to talk about it. I am also grateful to the hon. Member for Reading East for highlighting the brownfield element.

In the 30 seconds that remain, I again thank all colleagues for their comments. It has been a useful and helpful debate, and I look forward to further discussions. If there were simple answers on this issue, I am not sure that we would be here today. If there were easy ways to resolve the very difficult trade-offs, I am sure that my many predecessors would have done so years ago, as I have been told on a number of occasions. However, it is good to talk and to understand the concerns in local areas. I am grateful both to the hon. Member for Coventry North West for securing the debate and to everybody for their contributions to it.