Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Paul Scully and Ruth Cadbury

Monday 17th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[The Minister of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Paul Scully)]

I thank my hon. Friend, who does amazing work in tackling this issue in his area. In June, an uplift in energy efficiency standards for new homes came into force. There is a transitional period of one year to minimise disruption to projects that are already under way. To stop developers sitting on this, however, it will be about not just each project but each house, because homes must be built to the new standards.

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

T8. Local councils such as Hounslow have a statutory duty to assess and care for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children placed in local hotels by the Home Office. Many of these children are clearly 13 or 14 years old, and on one day alone 72 arrived in hotels in the borough. What discussion has the Department had with affected boroughs about the additional support they need to provide their statutory duty to these hugely vulnerable children?

Commercial Rent (Coronavirus) Bill (Fourth sitting)

Debate between Paul Scully and Ruth Cadbury

Committee stage
Tuesday 14th December 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

I will speak to clause 23 and schedule 2, as well as amendment 8, which I tabled with my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston.

The clause prevents rent debts from being collected during the moratorium period, which begins on the day the Act is passed. As we have said previously, we welcome efforts to put a moratorium on the enforcement of protected rent debts, and the clause outlines a number of protections to stop landlords collecting rent arrears debts, including by preventing the making of a debt claim using commercial rent arrears recovery powers or using a tenant’s deposit. The measures have been broadly welcomed by businesses and we support them.

The provisions on the moratorium period cover the period

“beginning with the day on which this Act is passed”.

Last week, Kate Nicholls of UK Hospitality told the Committee that as soon as the Bill is enacted, communications should go out to ensure that commercial tenants are aware of the arbitration process. That point holds for small businesses and independent businesses. I very much hope that the Government will take steps to ensure that the Bill and the protections in it come into force as soon as possible and, equally, that tenants as well as landlords are aware of the protections.

Schedule 2 sets out in more detail the process by which landlords are prevented from making a debt claim and ensures that landlords are unable to take civil proceedings during the moratorium period. We support those provisions, although we know from the feedback we heard during the witness sessions last week the importance of ensuring that tenants are aware of the moratorium period and of the ability to enter into arbitration. Businesses absolutely need to be made aware of the measures.

The schedule outlines in further detail the various definitions used in the Bill, reaffirms that landlords are not able to make a debt claim against protected debts during the protected period, and outlines how parties can apply for debt claims to be stayed while arbitration goes on.

I want to outline the important issues that we raised about the arbitration process. The process should be fair and transparent, and it needs to have the widespread confidence and support of tenants and landlords. As the witnesses in last week’s evidence sessions said, it is crucial that smaller tenants and landlords should not be made to suffer as the result of an expensive or long-running arbitration process in which they are at risk of being muscled out by the greater power of larger organisations. We welcome the arbitration process and the relief that it will bring, but the process itself needs to be fair, and it needs to ensure a balanced playing field.

Schedule 2 also outlines the fact that a landlord may not use the commercial rent arrears recovery power for protected debt, which we welcome. It also seeks to ensure that a landlord is prevented from enforcing a right to forfeit the tenancy in relation to the non-payment of rent. Subsection 9 prevents a landlord from using a tenant’s deposit. We welcome that provision as part of the wider package of protecting tenants and ensuring that landlords cannot seek to get around the spirit of the arbitration process and the protections around arrears.

Amendment 8 seeks to clarify that the definition of debt claims includes claims against guarantors. It aims to provide extra clarity about whether the protections given against county court action are also provided to the guarantors of tenancies. We have received written testimony from experts in the arbitration field and from the head lessee of the Subway chain, who express concern that guarantors and former tenants were not included in the implications of the legislation. I am sure that the Government want to see, just as we do, that the protection against rent arrears action is spread across all the businesses impacted by covid, as well as those that have given the additional support that new and small businesses so often need, such as their guarantors. Of course, many small businesses are franchisees of chains such as Subway, and its head lessee’s evidence must count for a lot of organisations where there is a head lessee and a franchise system.

We do not want to see a back door created whereby tenants are protected from enforcement but the guarantors are still liable. We also heard evidence from the guarantor of a nightclub in Surrey. We have two issues here: the guarantors and the head lessee. It is crucial that the Government ensure that the guarantors of tenants are also protected against debt claims during the prescribed six-month period. We do not want to see the common-sense measures circumvented if landlords are able to go after guarantors with no limit. As I say, the amendment is specifically about guarantors, but we also have concerns on behalf of head lessees.

[Paul Scully]

I thank the hon. Member for her comments. Indeed, I agree with her. She said that she wants the Bill to be passed as soon as possible, so I am speaking as quickly as I can to make sure that we can get that done.

On the communications, we have already given plenty of notice. The original announcement was in June. The policy statement and the code of practice were published. We have hosted webinars with key stakeholders, and we will continue to engage with them. The hon. Member is absolutely right. We want to make sure that this measure is known by all so that they can take advantage of it. If they are unable to settle their rent debts between themselves, we can bring this to a head quickly through arbitration and get back to a normal free market as soon as possible.

On the amendment, I can reassure the hon. Member that we will take full note of written evidence that comes in, but paragraph 2 of schedule 2 already prevents claims against guarantors. It prevents the landlord from making any debt claim in respect of protected rent within the moratorium period specified by the Bill. The provision in question is not limited to claims against tenants, so it does not need to state expressly that it covers claims against guarantors.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 23 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

Clause 24

Temporary restriction on initiating certain insolvency arrangements

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

[Paul Scully]

Both parties are expected to engage with the arbitration process and must comply with any award made. They may choose to settle the matter by negotiation ahead of arbitration, but other processes that enable the arbitration system to be avoided should not be available. That is why clause 24 prevents a party from proposing or applying for a company or individual voluntary arrangements or certain other restructuring arrangements with their creditors.

[Ruth Cadbury]

Just as we welcome the actions in clause 23, we welcome clause 24 placing restrictions on the ability of either a landlord or a tenant to enter into specific insolvency arrangements when the matter relates to protected rent debt. That is a welcome move, as we do not want to see viable companies going into insolvency because of rent arrears.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 24 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 25

Temporary restriction on initiating arbitration proceedings

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

[Paul Scully]

The clause prevents either party from invoking alternative measures that have not been designed specifically for debts related to the pandemic.

[Ruth Cadbury]

We heard in testimony last week that the vast majority of landlords and tenants have been able to reach agreements on rent arrears, and it has generally been a productive and straightforward process. The clause ensures that the tenant or landlord cannot unilaterally start arbitration proceedings and must go through the referral process, requiring the other party also to make submissions in writing. I am interested to hear what steps are in place for businesses, and especially small businesses, when a larger landlord or tenant refuses to enter arbitration fairly.

[Paul Scully]

If both parties wish to resolve their unpaid protected rent debt by an alternative form of arbitration, they may agree to do so. In terms of the arbitration itself, the businesses—either the landlord or tenant—can act unilaterally.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 25 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 26

Temporary restriction on winding-up petitions and petitions for bankruptcy orders

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

[Paul Scully]

Clause 26 and schedule 3 temporarily prevent landlords from petitioning, in relation to protected rent debt, to wind up businesses in scope of the Bill or petitioning for bankruptcy for businesses that are individuals, such as sole traders, that would otherwise be viable. The clause and the schedule support viable businesses by allowing debts to be resolved by mutual agreement or by the Bill’s arbitration system, which considers both parties’ circumstances in the exceptional context of the pandemic. As with the other temporary restrictions in part 3, the restrictions detailed in clause 26 and schedule 3 apply only in relation to protected rent debt.

[Ruth Cadbury]

We welcome the measure in clause 26 as it will prevent landlords from going through a back-door method of targeting businesses unfairly. We also support schedule 3 as it will ensure that viable businesses are protected and can enter into the much-needed arbitration process. Paragraph 3 of schedule 3 ensures that bankruptcy orders in relation to rent arrears made before the day on which the Bill becomes law shall have no power. This will prevent businesses that will be helped by the legislation from being declared bankrupt, which we support as it will protect otherwise viable businesses.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 26 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 3 agreed to.

Clause 27

Power to apply Act in relation to future periods of coronavirus control

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

[Paul Scully]

The measures in the Bill are a response to the unprecedented impacts of the pandemic and will support commercial tenants and landlords to resolve their rent debt. To ensure that we are prepared for a future situation of a further wave of coronavirus giving rise to further business closures, we are including a power to reapply the provisions in the Bill. This will enable the Government to reapply any and all provisions in the Bill so that we can take a targeted approach to respond to the specific circumstances of any future period of coronavirus.

[Ruth Cadbury]

Given the past few days and the news of business revenues plummeting, we of course welcome the clause. We know that many businesses are already feeling the pinch, as we have seen in the news. There is already worry and concern in the sector about staff shortages and rising supply costs, and on top of that businesses are concerned about customer numbers. The Government appear to rule out any return of covid-related support for businesses, but at least the clause offers some relief in respect of rent arrears. Although we welcome the inclusion of a power to ensure that businesses do not get punished for rent arrears in the future if they are forced to close, I take this chance to remind the Government that businesses are feeling the pinch, even if they have got over the outstanding revenue losses from the previous almost two years. We know that customers are cautious in the face of the new variant, and that businesses will be impacted, so we support the clause.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 27 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 28

Power to make corresponding provision in Northern Ireland

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

[Paul Scully]

The Bill will not apply directly to Northern Ireland. Instead, this enabling power was requested by the Northern Ireland Executive. It is intended to allow them to introduce the measures in the Bill at their discretion. The arbitration scheme remains an option for Northern Ireland while they assess their need for those measures. We will of course continue to work closely with our counterparts in the Northern Ireland Executive.

[Ruth Cadbury]

We welcome clause 28, but our comments and concerns about businesses in England and Wales apply just as much to those in Northern Ireland.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 28 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 29

Crown application

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

[Paul Scully]

The Bill will bind the Crown where the Crown is a landlord under the business tenancies in scope of the Bill. I commend clause 29 to the Committee.

[Ruth Cadbury]

Clause 29 is a straightforward clause, setting out that the Bill binds the Crown. We have nothing further to add.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 29 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 30

Extent, commencement and short title

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

[Paul Scully]

This clause sets out the territorial extent of the Bill, which has been carefully considered, and the continued engagement of the devolved Administrations. It reflects the differing needs of each part of the UK and ensures that the tenants and landlords that will most benefit from this measure can access it. It extends to England and Wales, with limited provisions extending to Northern Ireland and Scotland.

[Ruth Cadbury]

We have nothing further to add on clause 30, Mr Hosie. However, this is the last time that we will speak in this Committee, so I will take the opportunity to thank all those who have provided expert submissions to the Committee, who have spoken in the last week and who have sent written submissions. I thank Members for their attendance, and I thank the staff who have administered the Bill so smoothly and enabled us to finish so quickly.

I conclude with an overarching point. Some of the submissions that we have received, particularly this week, from expert bodies with significant legal and other professional expertise in the area of landlord and tenant law, arbitration and settlements still express significant concerns about the detail of the way the Bill is drafted. I hope that between now and Report and Third Reading, the Government will look at their comments, meet them and address some of the detailed and expert points that they raise. I fear that they probably know what they are talking about.

[Paul Scully]

I echo the hon. Lady’s thanks to you, Mr Hosie, to the Clerks and to everybody for making this happen. We want to ensure that we get the Bill into legislation as quickly as possible, but that does not mean that we will rush it and not have further consideration. Beyond the passage of the legislation through Parliament, we will continue to engage with stakeholders, including arbitration services, landlords and tenants, to ensure that we get it right. It is so important that we get this enacted now, so that landlords and tenants can get the benefits when they need them—now, not when it is too late.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 30 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill to be reported, without amendment.

Commercial Rent (Coronavirus) Bill (Third sitting)

Debate between Paul Scully and Ruth Cadbury

Committee stage
Thursday 9th December 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Paul Scully]

The arbitration scheme will be delivered by independent arbitration bodies. The clause gives the Secretary of State the power to approve arbitration bodies for that purpose. Arbitration bodies will have to demonstrate that they are suitable before being approved. Further information on what constitutes “suitable” and how to become an approved body will be published on gov.uk.

The Secretary of State can also withdraw approval status if the body is no longer suitable to deliver arbitration services. The Secretary of State must notify the body if that is the case, and the body will have an opportunity to make representations. Under the clause, a list of approved arbitration bodies must be maintained and published by the Secretary of State, enabling parties to a dispute to know to whom an application for an arbitration may be made. The clause is therefore crucial to enable a high-quality, independent and accessible service to be delivered to landlords and tenants.

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Murray. When the Government create a dispute resolution process, as the Bill does, it goes without saying that there needs to be arbitration bodies. We naturally support the clause—although we have a couple of amendments coming up—as it is inevitable and clear. However, I want to address a point in subsection (7), which states:

“The Secretary of State must maintain and publish a list of approved arbitration bodies.”

We hope that the list will be easily discoverable and regularly updated. On subsection (6), we hope that the Government will ensure that the process of removing arbitration bodies that are not up to scratch is done transparently and speedily. It is absolutely essential that both parties to arbitration—landlords and businesses—have confidence, that the process is fair, and that arbitrators are trusted and appropriately experienced. Although we seek Government reassurance on that, we will support clause 7.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ruth Cadbury]

I was speaking to the wrong amendment, Mrs Murray. I apologise to Committee members and staff.

I beg to move amendment 1, in clause 8, page 6, line 25, at end insert—

“(2A) The Secretary of State must by regulation specify the meaning of ‘qualifications’ and ‘experience’ for the purpose of this section.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to specify by regulation to meaning of qualifications and experience in section 8.

Amendment 1 would require the Secretary of State to specify by regulation the meaning of “qualifications” and “experience”. A fair arbitration process is crucial for businesses, landlords and all involved to have faith in the new system. The Bill states that there is a list of approved arbitrators who are appointed

“by virtue of their qualifications or experience”.

Our straightforward amendment would require the Secretary of State to specify just what those qualifications and experience should be.

During the Committee’s first oral evidence session, we had witnesses who focused on the importance of financial qualifications for the arbitration, because most cases will focus on the financial situation for the parties. One witness had an alternative view, however, and suggested in their written evidence that arbitrators should be legally qualified due to the complex nature of some cases and the need for a fair, transparent process.

When the Bill was introduced, we said that it was crucial that businesses have faith in the whole of the arbitration process. Equally, we said that it was important that the process is transparent and fair. That is why our amendment would require the Secretary of State to outline just what the necessary qualifications and experience should be. That would reassure all those involved in the process that it is being overseen by trusted and qualified individuals and groups.

[Paul Scully]

I think that we all agree about the importance of having the right arbitrators in place to carry out this important work. The Bill already contains steps to ensure that arbitrators will have the necessary qualifications and experience. First, the Secretary of State may approve an arbitration body only if it is considered suitable to carry out its required functions. If the Secretary of State considers an arbitration body not to be properly carrying out its functions, including those relating to the assessment of qualifications and experience, the Secretary of State can withdraw approval.

Secondly, the arbitration bodies themselves are required to maintain a list of arbitrators that are suitable to work on cases that fall under the Bill by virtue of their qualifications or experience. It is right for the arbitration bodies, as the experts on this matter, to determine which arbitrators are suitable given their qualifications and experience. Arbitration bodies that have demonstrated an interest in becoming approved bodies are widely recognised and respected in the field of arbitration, and they are experienced in assessing arbitrators through their accreditation services. That will ensure that we do not unfairly exclude arbitrators by setting in legislation definitions that are too narrow.

However, we recognise that we should not take a one-size-fits-all approach to arbitration, so the Bill provides that arbitration bodies have the flexibility to appoint arbitrators to cases that match their specific qualifications and experience. Furthermore, if an arbitrator does not possess the qualifications required for a particular case, the arbitration body is required to remove them from that case.

The Bill already ensures that arbitration is carried out by suitably qualified and experienced arbitrators. I hope that hon. Members agree that the arbitration bodies are best placed to make this judgment, notwithstanding the clear evidence that we heard of the kind of experiences that we, landlords and tenants expect of arbitrators. I therefore request that the amendment be withdrawn.

[Ruth Cadbury]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

[Paul Scully]

Clause 8 sets out the statutory functions of arbitration bodies approved by the Secretary of State to carry out arbitration services. It is key to enabling the arbitration market to deliver the system that is required to efficiently resolve outstanding rent disputes. The arbitration bodies will be given powers to appoint arbitrators to a case, as well as to remove them if they are deemed unsuitable on certain grounds. The clause also provides that arbitration bodies will oversee cases and set fees for arbitration services, subject to any cap on fees that may be imposed by the Secretary of State under clause 19, as well as dealing with financial arrangements.

If grounds for removal exist, an arbitration body must remove the arbitrator from the case—for example if an arbitrator does not possess the qualifications required for the arbitration. That is integral to the delivery of the arbitration process. It also provides for reporting, to enable the Secretary of State to have clear sight of the progress of the arbitration process.

[Ruth Cadbury]

We have no further amendments to the clause, and we have no further comments to make at this point.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 8 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 9

Period for making a reference to arbitration

--- Later in debate ---

[Ruth Cadbury]

Amendment 2 covers a much wider issue around trust and transparency: the way in which Parliament has full, open access to decision making. The amendment is similar to amendments that Labour colleagues have introduced before in other pieces of legislation that we have otherwise been supportive of on the whole, as we are of this Bill.

Amendment 2 would require regulations to be made according to the affirmative procedure. It would ensure that Parliament can fully scrutinise the extension of the existing six-month period in which businesses can go through the arbitration process. The Bill requires regulations to go through the negative procedure, which means that they would be discussed or stopped only if there was an objection. Our amendment would make the procedure affirmative, meaning that Parliament would have to approve them.

In recent days, we have seen that the Government’s approach to public health issues and, indeed, to the wider impacts of coronavirus can change rapidly, and it is crucial that MPs and parliamentarians are able to debate, scrutinise and assess such changes. Our amendment therefore calls for both Houses to approve any extension to the arbitration process, to ensure that it works for businesses and landlords across the country.

[Paul Scully]

I thank the hon. Lady for her summary of the amendments. The Bill aims to resolve protected rent debt quickly and support commercial tenants and landlords to return to normal operations as soon as possible. We encourage landlords and tenants to resolve unpaid debt between themselves. The arbitration process is designed to allow for negotiation and for the parties to make considered proposals to lead to appropriate outcomes.

The timeframe for making references to arbitration will encourage a speedy resolution of the disputes in scope, and is meant to deal with a particular set of circumstances at a critical time. We believe that six months is enough time to allow eligible tenants and landlords to apply for the arbitration process. However, if there is evidence that the six-month period is not enough, the Secretary of State can, using the power in clause 9, extend it to allow more time for the eligible parties to apply. Any evidence that the power is needed is unlikely to become available until well after the Bill comes into force; it may not become apparent that such an extension is necessary until close to the expiry of the six-month period. The length of an extension would depend on the circumstances, but would be based on feedback from stakeholders. It would be only for as long as is absolutely necessary.

I appreciate the interest in transparency shown by the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth, and I reassure her that the decision to extend would be based solely on evidence from tenants, landlords and arbitrators. Officials will continue to monitor the process if issues with the time period arise.

Regulations to extend the application period may need to be made relatively quickly in order to react, so it is important that the Bill remains flexible in case more time is needed. It remains important for the Government to work with Parliament. None the less, we want to make sure that the process can be resolved as quickly as possible, without any undue delay or concern that landlords and tenants will not have their case heard as quickly as possible. We therefore consider the negative procedure to be appropriate in the circumstances. I welcome the hon. Lady’s contribution, but I hope in this instance that she will withdraw the amendments.

[Ruth Cadbury]

If the two amendments are being considered together, I would also like to speak specifically to the other one.

[Ruth Cadbury]

Thank you, Mrs Murray, that is very helpful. Amendment 3 would require the Secretary of State to prepare, publish and lay before Parliament a report giving reasons for any extension to the period for making a reference to arbitration. Like amendment 2, amendment 3 is crucial in improving and expanding the scope of parliamentary scrutiny. It calls for the Government to publish a report setting out the reasons given for any extension of the existing six-month arbitration process.

As we said on Second Reading, it is crucial that the Bill has the support of businesses and that the arbitration process is transparent and open, which should include any extension of the period in which rent arrears can be brought into arbitration. Our amendment therefore calls for the Secretary of State to publish and lay before Parliament the reasons for extending the arbitration process.

[Paul Scully]

I hope that, in my opening remarks, I made clear our reasons for asking the hon. Lady to withdraw the amendment.

[Ruth Cadbury]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Scully]

A party that wants to take their dispute to arbitration must first go through a process of notifying the other party and allowing the other party to respond. The clause sets out the timings and the steps to take. The intent is to give both parties enough time through a period of up to at least 28 days from the date of initial notification to try and reach an agreement pre-arbitration.

Arbitration provided by the Bill cannot be used where tenants are subject to, or are debtors under, certain legal compromises or arrangements for debt recovery. That is because the Bill aims to focus specifically on unagreed rent arrears and to encourage negotiations where possible.

[Ruth Cadbury]

I thank the Minister. Again, we do not propose to amend or oppose the clause. I appreciate that the Government have put these measures in place for a reason and we welcome them. I would like to know whether the Government have made any assessment of how many businesses would be unable to go to arbitration on the basis of these limits.

[Paul Scully]

I am not aware that we have made a specific assessment. We have made assessments on the businesses that come within scope and would otherwise go to arbitration because they have not been able to have a satisfactory discussion beforehand. These positions allow parties time to reflect on whether they can reach that settlement in a fair and open process.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 10 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 11

Proposals for resolving the matter of relief from payment

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

[Paul Scully]

The clause requires the party making a reference to arbitration to include with that reference a formal proposal and supporting evidence. The other party may respond with their own proposal, accompanied by supporting evidence, within 14 days of receiving the applicant’s. The process therefore gives each party the opportunity to review the other’s proposals. The parties then have 28 days from their initial formal proposal to submit a revised proposal accompanied by further supporting evidence—or longer if both parties or the arbitrator agree to allow more time, giving each party time to reflect and respond. That is important, because it facilitates the possibility of a settlement occurring early on in the arbitration process once a reference to arbitration is made. It supports our aim of giving businesses certainty as soon as possible. I commend the clause to the Committee.

[Ruth Cadbury]

I thank the Minister. Again, we do not intend to amend or oppose the clause at this point. We support the proposals for resolving the matter of relief, because, as the Minister has said, it allows tenants and landlords to reach an agreement. We know from stakeholder feedback that this process is welcomed by businesses. It will provide relief, especially because of the block on any court action that it provides. We also welcome it because it allows both parties to make proposals to tackle debt relief. Equally, we want to make sure that there is a level playing field in the arbitration process. We do not want larger companies to be able to muscle through the arbitration process because they have greater levels of resources—both financial and in levels of expertise and so on.

Although we welcome the fact that the process can be extended with agreement, there is an equal chance that, if the process extends and extends even further, it could act as an extra burden on smaller businesses. That is why we hope the Government will look into the accessibility and ease with which small businesses, in particular, can engage in the arbitration process.

[Paul Scully]

We will continue to work with the arbitration services that have expertise in this area, especially as the measure is based on systems specifically targeted at smaller businesses and smaller disputes.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 11 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 12

Written statements

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

[Paul Scully]

Statements of truth confirm the veracity of written statements submitted to the arbitrator, and they will be required to verify any written statements provided to the arbitrator—whether by one of the parties or another person—that relate to a matter relevant to the arbitration. An unverified written statement can be disregarded by the arbitrator. It is standard practice in arbitration processes to require a written statement to be verified by a statement of truth. That ensures that parties only make written statements that they believe to be true, ensuring that arbitral awards have a sound basis. I urge the Committee to support the clause.

[Ruth Cadbury]

This is a welcome clause and one that we support. It is vital that statements given to the arbitrator are truthful. That will be crucial when viability is being assessed. Although we have expressed the importance of viable businesses being supported, we appreciate that this is a two-way street, and that businesses need to provide truthful and full information to the arbitrators, as, of course, do landlords. We support the clause.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 12 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Ordered, That the Order of the Committee of Tuesday 7 December be amended, in paragraph 1(b), by leaving out “and 2 pm”.—(Craig Whittaker.)

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Craig Whittaker.)

Commercial Rent (Coronavirus) Bill (Third sitting)

Debate between Paul Scully and Ruth Cadbury

Thursday 9th December 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Paul Scully]

The arbitration scheme will be delivered by independent arbitration bodies. The clause gives the Secretary of State the power to approve arbitration bodies for that purpose. Arbitration bodies will have to demonstrate that they are suitable before being approved. Further information on what constitutes “suitable” and how to become an approved body will be published on gov.uk.

The Secretary of State can also withdraw approval status if the body is no longer suitable to deliver arbitration services. The Secretary of State must notify the body if that is the case, and the body will have an opportunity to make representations. Under the clause, a list of approved arbitration bodies must be maintained and published by the Secretary of State, enabling parties to a dispute to know to whom an application for an arbitration may be made. The clause is therefore crucial to enable a high-quality, independent and accessible service to be delivered to landlords and tenants.

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Murray. When the Government create a dispute resolution process, as the Bill does, it goes without saying that there needs to be arbitration bodies. We naturally support the clause—although we have a couple of amendments coming up—as it is inevitable and clear. However, I want to address a point in subsection (7), which states:

“The Secretary of State must maintain and publish a list of approved arbitration bodies.”

We hope that the list will be easily discoverable and regularly updated. On subsection (6), we hope that the Government will ensure that the process of removing arbitration bodies that are not up to scratch is done transparently and speedily. It is absolutely essential that both parties to arbitration—landlords and businesses—have confidence, that the process is fair, and that arbitrators are trusted and appropriately experienced. Although we seek Government reassurance on that, we will support clause 7.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ruth Cadbury]

I was speaking to the wrong amendment, Mrs Murray. I apologise to Committee members and staff.

I beg to move amendment 1, in clause 8, page 6, line 25, at end insert—

“(2A) The Secretary of State must by regulation specify the meaning of ‘qualifications’ and ‘experience’ for the purpose of this section.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to specify by regulation to meaning of qualifications and experience in section 8.

Amendment 1 would require the Secretary of State to specify by regulation the meaning of “qualifications” and “experience”. A fair arbitration process is crucial for businesses, landlords and all involved to have faith in the new system. The Bill states that there is a list of approved arbitrators who are appointed

“by virtue of their qualifications or experience”.

Our straightforward amendment would require the Secretary of State to specify just what those qualifications and experience should be.

During the Committee’s first oral evidence session, we had witnesses who focused on the importance of financial qualifications for the arbitration, because most cases will focus on the financial situation for the parties. One witness had an alternative view, however, and suggested in their written evidence that arbitrators should be legally qualified due to the complex nature of some cases and the need for a fair, transparent process.

When the Bill was introduced, we said that it was crucial that businesses have faith in the whole of the arbitration process. Equally, we said that it was important that the process is transparent and fair. That is why our amendment would require the Secretary of State to outline just what the necessary qualifications and experience should be. That would reassure all those involved in the process that it is being overseen by trusted and qualified individuals and groups.

[Paul Scully]

I think that we all agree about the importance of having the right arbitrators in place to carry out this important work. The Bill already contains steps to ensure that arbitrators will have the necessary qualifications and experience. First, the Secretary of State may approve an arbitration body only if it is considered suitable to carry out its required functions. If the Secretary of State considers an arbitration body not to be properly carrying out its functions, including those relating to the assessment of qualifications and experience, the Secretary of State can withdraw approval.

Secondly, the arbitration bodies themselves are required to maintain a list of arbitrators that are suitable to work on cases that fall under the Bill by virtue of their qualifications or experience. It is right for the arbitration bodies, as the experts on this matter, to determine which arbitrators are suitable given their qualifications and experience. Arbitration bodies that have demonstrated an interest in becoming approved bodies are widely recognised and respected in the field of arbitration, and they are experienced in assessing arbitrators through their accreditation services. That will ensure that we do not unfairly exclude arbitrators by setting in legislation definitions that are too narrow.

However, we recognise that we should not take a one-size-fits-all approach to arbitration, so the Bill provides that arbitration bodies have the flexibility to appoint arbitrators to cases that match their specific qualifications and experience. Furthermore, if an arbitrator does not possess the qualifications required for a particular case, the arbitration body is required to remove them from that case.

The Bill already ensures that arbitration is carried out by suitably qualified and experienced arbitrators. I hope that hon. Members agree that the arbitration bodies are best placed to make this judgment, notwithstanding the clear evidence that we heard of the kind of experiences that we, landlords and tenants expect of arbitrators. I therefore request that the amendment be withdrawn.

[Ruth Cadbury]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

[Paul Scully]

Clause 8 sets out the statutory functions of arbitration bodies approved by the Secretary of State to carry out arbitration services. It is key to enabling the arbitration market to deliver the system that is required to efficiently resolve outstanding rent disputes. The arbitration bodies will be given powers to appoint arbitrators to a case, as well as to remove them if they are deemed unsuitable on certain grounds. The clause also provides that arbitration bodies will oversee cases and set fees for arbitration services, subject to any cap on fees that may be imposed by the Secretary of State under clause 19, as well as dealing with financial arrangements.

If grounds for removal exist, an arbitration body must remove the arbitrator from the case—for example if an arbitrator does not possess the qualifications required for the arbitration. That is integral to the delivery of the arbitration process. It also provides for reporting, to enable the Secretary of State to have clear sight of the progress of the arbitration process.

[Ruth Cadbury]

We have no further amendments to the clause, and we have no further comments to make at this point.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 8 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 9

Period for making a reference to arbitration

--- Later in debate ---

[Ruth Cadbury]

Amendment 2 covers a much wider issue around trust and transparency: the way in which Parliament has full, open access to decision making. The amendment is similar to amendments that Labour colleagues have introduced before in other pieces of legislation that we have otherwise been supportive of on the whole, as we are of this Bill.

Amendment 2 would require regulations to be made according to the affirmative procedure. It would ensure that Parliament can fully scrutinise the extension of the existing six-month period in which businesses can go through the arbitration process. The Bill requires regulations to go through the negative procedure, which means that they would be discussed or stopped only if there was an objection. Our amendment would make the procedure affirmative, meaning that Parliament would have to approve them.

In recent days, we have seen that the Government’s approach to public health issues and, indeed, to the wider impacts of coronavirus can change rapidly, and it is crucial that MPs and parliamentarians are able to debate, scrutinise and assess such changes. Our amendment therefore calls for both Houses to approve any extension to the arbitration process, to ensure that it works for businesses and landlords across the country.

[Paul Scully]

I thank the hon. Lady for her summary of the amendments. The Bill aims to resolve protected rent debt quickly and support commercial tenants and landlords to return to normal operations as soon as possible. We encourage landlords and tenants to resolve unpaid debt between themselves. The arbitration process is designed to allow for negotiation and for the parties to make considered proposals to lead to appropriate outcomes.

The timeframe for making references to arbitration will encourage a speedy resolution of the disputes in scope, and is meant to deal with a particular set of circumstances at a critical time. We believe that six months is enough time to allow eligible tenants and landlords to apply for the arbitration process. However, if there is evidence that the six-month period is not enough, the Secretary of State can, using the power in clause 9, extend it to allow more time for the eligible parties to apply. Any evidence that the power is needed is unlikely to become available until well after the Bill comes into force; it may not become apparent that such an extension is necessary until close to the expiry of the six-month period. The length of an extension would depend on the circumstances, but would be based on feedback from stakeholders. It would be only for as long as is absolutely necessary.

I appreciate the interest in transparency shown by the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth, and I reassure her that the decision to extend would be based solely on evidence from tenants, landlords and arbitrators. Officials will continue to monitor the process if issues with the time period arise.

Regulations to extend the application period may need to be made relatively quickly in order to react, so it is important that the Bill remains flexible in case more time is needed. It remains important for the Government to work with Parliament. None the less, we want to make sure that the process can be resolved as quickly as possible, without any undue delay or concern that landlords and tenants will not have their case heard as quickly as possible. We therefore consider the negative procedure to be appropriate in the circumstances. I welcome the hon. Lady’s contribution, but I hope in this instance that she will withdraw the amendments.

[Ruth Cadbury]

If the two amendments are being considered together, I would also like to speak specifically to the other one.

[Ruth Cadbury]

Thank you, Mrs Murray, that is very helpful. Amendment 3 would require the Secretary of State to prepare, publish and lay before Parliament a report giving reasons for any extension to the period for making a reference to arbitration. Like amendment 2, amendment 3 is crucial in improving and expanding the scope of parliamentary scrutiny. It calls for the Government to publish a report setting out the reasons given for any extension of the existing six-month arbitration process.

As we said on Second Reading, it is crucial that the Bill has the support of businesses and that the arbitration process is transparent and open, which should include any extension of the period in which rent arrears can be brought into arbitration. Our amendment therefore calls for the Secretary of State to publish and lay before Parliament the reasons for extending the arbitration process.

[Paul Scully]

I hope that, in my opening remarks, I made clear our reasons for asking the hon. Lady to withdraw the amendment.

[Ruth Cadbury]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Scully]

A party that wants to take their dispute to arbitration must first go through a process of notifying the other party and allowing the other party to respond. The clause sets out the timings and the steps to take. The intent is to give both parties enough time through a period of up to at least 28 days from the date of initial notification to try and reach an agreement pre-arbitration.

Arbitration provided by the Bill cannot be used where tenants are subject to or debt is under certain legal compromises or arrangements for debt recovery. That is because the Bill aims to focus specifically on unagreed rent arrears and to encourage negotiations where possible.

[Ruth Cadbury]

I thank the Minister. Again, we do not propose to amend or oppose the clause. I appreciate that the Government have put these measures in place for a reason and we welcome them. I would like to know whether the Government have made any assessment of how many businesses would be unable to go to arbitration on the basis of these limits.

[Paul Scully]

I am not aware that we have made a specific assessment. We have made assessments on the businesses that come within scope and would otherwise go to arbitration because they have not been able to have a satisfactory discussion beforehand. These positions allow parties time to reflect on whether they can reach that settlement in a fair and open process.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 10 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 11

Proposals for resolving the matter of relief from payment

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

[Paul Scully]

The clause requires the party making a reference to arbitration to include with that reference a formal proposal and supporting evidence. The other party may respond with their own proposal, accompanied by supporting evidence, within 14 days of receiving the applicant’s. The process therefore gives each party the opportunity to review the other’s proposals. The parties then have 28 days from their initial formal proposal to submit a revised proposal accompanied by further supporting evidence—or longer if both parties or the arbitrator agree to allow more time, giving each party time to reflect and respond. That is important, because it facilitates the possibility of a settlement occurring early on in the arbitration process once a reference to arbitration is made. It supports our aim of giving businesses certainty as soon as possible. I commend the clause to the Committee.

[Ruth Cadbury]

I thank the Minister. Again, we do not intend to amend or oppose the clause at this point. We support the proposals for resolving the matter of relief, because, as the Minister has said, it allows tenants and landlords to reach an agreement. We know from stakeholder feedback that this process is welcomed by businesses. It will provide relief, especially because of the block on any court action that it provides. We also welcome it because it allows both parties to make proposals to tackle debt relief. Equally, we want to make sure that there is a level playing field in the arbitration process. We do not want larger companies to be able to muscle through the arbitration process because they have greater levels of resources—both financial and in levels of expertise and so on.

Although we welcome the fact that the process can be extended with agreement, there is an equal chance that, if the process extends and extends even further, it could act as an extra burden on smaller businesses. That is why we hope the Government will look into the accessibility and ease with which small businesses, in particular, can engage in the arbitration process.

[Paul Scully]

We will continue to work with the arbitration services that have expertise in this area, especially as the measure is based on systems specifically targeted at smaller businesses and smaller disputes.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 11 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 12

Written statements

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

[Paul Scully]

Statements of truth confirm the veracity of written statements submitted to the arbitrator, and they will be required to verify any written statements provided to the arbitrator—whether by one of the parties or another person—that relate to a matter relevant to the arbitration. An unverified written statement can be disregarded by the arbitrator. It is standard practice in arbitration processes to require a written statement to be verified by a statement of truth. That ensures that parties only make written statements that they believe to be true, ensuring that arbitral awards have a sound basis. I urge the Committee to support the clause.

[Ruth Cadbury]

This is a welcome clause and one that we support. It is vital that statements given to the arbitrator are truthful. That will be crucial when viability is being assessed. Although we have expressed the importance of viable businesses being supported, we appreciate that this is a two-way street, and that businesses need to provide truthful and full information to the arbitrators, as, of course, do landlords. We support the clause.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 12 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Ordered, That the Order of the Committee of Tuesday 7 December be amended, in paragraph 1(b), by leaving out “and 2 pm”.—(Craig Whittaker.)

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Craig Whittaker.)

Commercial Rent (Coronavirus) Bill (First sitting)

Debate between Paul Scully and Ruth Cadbury

Committee stage
Tuesday 7th December 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Paul Scully]

Fantastic. Thank you very much.

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

Q We have had evidence of concerns about the arbitration scheme—for example, whether there should be a single approved arbitration body and about the difference compared with other arbitration schemes in how the agreement is reached as to which arbitrator should be used. There is a concern that they should be legally qualified rather than just businesspeople, because of the nature of complex arbitration processes. There is also a question about confidentiality, which is the norm in such processes but is not specified in the Bill. Mr Curran, do you have any comments on those issues?

Dominic Curran: On the arbitrators who will be used, the Bill says, if I remember it correctly, that the Secretary of State will nominate or choose which arbitrating bodies will be eligible to provide arbitrators to the process, so it remains a bit of an open question. All I would say—having spoken to officials, this point is well understood and well heard—is that given the nature of the discussions that inevitably will be had during the arbitration process, we would prefer to see arbitrators who have a strong accountancy background, perhaps more so, or at least as much as, those who have a property conflict resolution background.

The nature of the process is to look at tenants’ accounts and to make sure that their income, liabilities and forecasts for turnover are such that they can pay a relevant and viable proportion of their rent arrears. So rather than it being a dispute over the interpretation of a lease or the duties of a tenant or a landlord, it should really be about understanding the finances of that business and enabling it to pay a proportion of rent between 0% and 100%, while being able to continue to trade viably at the same time. We certainly want to see the accountancy profession well represented in that.

Whether any other trade bodies, beyond those that represent accountants, are given the right to carry out the process by the Secretary of State remains to be seen. If you wanted to get the confidence of businesses that are tenants, however, you would want to make sure that you had accountants rather than property dispute arbitrators fulfilling the duty.

NHS in London

Debate between Paul Scully and Ruth Cadbury

Thursday 24th March 2016 Westminster Hall

[Paul Scully]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point, and he is absolutely correct. It is why we need some degree of certainty. For many years now, we have had such things as “Better Healthcare Closer to Home” and “Better Services Better Value”—an alphabet soup of NHS changes, with no degree of certainty for residents or staff in that hospital. A lot of the BSBV review was clinician-led, but it was based on the premise that they wanted to concentrate consultants in certain places—in my case, at St George’s hospital in Tooting—because they did not have enough consultants in each of the different hospitals seeing enough of the more unusual cases; they wanted to concentrate expertise.

Imagine a whole load of politicians in Sutton telling residents time and again that the hospital is about to close, as my hon. Friend just said. Where would a newly qualified consultant want to go and practise? Would they want to go to a hospital that they are being told is about to close down, or would they go just up the road to one that receives all the plaudits and which has all the concentration of expertise? I know what I would do. If people talk down their local hospital and healthcare, it may become a self-fulfilling prophecy. They may be in danger of getting a result that is exactly the opposite of what they seek.

[Ruth Cadbury]

The hon. Gentleman is making a point, but some services have moved or closed without political problems because the people who used them and valued them realised that change was necessary. I suggest that the change in stroke and trauma services in recent years was right—fewer, larger, better. I also suggest that the opposition to changes the hon. Gentleman describes is caused by genuine worry that the solutions will not provide the adequate future service that we all want for London. In addition, in recent years we have seen a significant rise in population in London. We do not oppose that per se, but the health service in all its facets should be seen to be growing to accommodate that rising population.

[Paul Scully]

The hon. Lady makes some interesting points. There have been changes and closures in Sutton. The stroke service was one, and it made sense to provide immediate treatment at St George’s although it was further away, because those first few hours are crucial. Several smaller hospitals also closed over many years. However, I return to the changes and closures of A&E and maternity services to concentrate them at St George’s. Although it is only a few miles away, in rush hour traffic it takes those without the ambulance service’s blues and twos a long time to get to St George’s. If politicians were concerned, I would have thought they would do a more effective job than just trying to get tens of thousands of signatures on a petition aimed at the primary care trust. It took so long that the petition was still being presented two and a half years after PCTs were abolished in favour of CCGs. Effectively it was a data-harvesting exercise to extract a whole lot of email addresses that could be used in a political campaign and as a political football. The NHS is inherently political, but sometimes we must take the party politics out of it and focus on healthcare and what we have to do to best treat patients in a local area.

As I was saying, the St Helier building is fast becoming not fit for purpose, with 43% of the space having been deemed functionally unsuitable. That is no way to provide 21st century healthcare. The hospital predates the NHS by some time. The huge white building on a hill was used by German fighters to line up as they were coming to London on their bombing raids.

I look forward to plans being produced, using any capital funding we can attract from the Government in a cost effective way, so that it is not too onerous for the Treasury, to make use of all the component parts of the Epsom, St Helier and Sutton hospital sites. Businesses, the Royal Marsden hospital and the Institute of Cancer Research are sited there and the NHS is planning an exciting project—a London cancer hub—to attract even more world-class research. The Institute of Cancer Research and the Royal Marsden have a world-class reputation and it would be fantastic to expand it, but the Royal Marsden needs acute facilities to support treatment there. If we can use that huge space for healthcare for the borough as well specialist healthcare, that would be brilliant.

The “Save St Helier” campaign is great in theory, but there are some holes in the plans and there may be unintended consequences resulting in the opposite of what we want. With the “Better Services Better Value” campaign, the fact that St Helier sits between Kingston hospital, St George’s hospital, Croydon University hospital and Epsom hospital means it is always at threat because of the way the catchment area is designed. The trust is acutely aware of that. We want St Helier to be meshed into the London cancer hub with an integrated approach.

We have heard that the NHS can be somewhat bureaucratic. A few years back, I was at a hospital that closed—Queen Mary’s hospital for children. It was eventually sold for a secondary school and housing in Sutton, but it took two years and £1 million in legal fees for two public bodies, the local authority and the NHS to agree terms. The lawyers got the money and children were not educated there for another two years at a time when there was a shortage of school places. Cutting through that bureaucracy and making sure we get the healthcare we want without having to go through the 11 tiers to which my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) referred would be fantastic.

We have heard a little about the difficulties of getting GP appointments and how infrastructure in London does not always keep up with planning and the need for housing. Sutton is no different. Worcester Park is one of the densest wards on the border with Kingston and has two vets but no GPs. I am not sure what that tells us about Worcester Park, but there is certainly a lack of planning somewhere.

I live in Carshalton and the one Liberal Democrat MP who was here is my MP. There is a health centre and it is a good example of how we might roll things up across Sutton and other areas. Two practices have come together in a purpose-built building with a shared practice, so it is slightly easier to get an appointment, although it may be not with one’s named doctor, but with one of their colleagues. People can wait to see their named doctor, or they can get a reasonably quick appointment if it is an emergency; they can have blood tests, antenatal care and vaccinations. I recently had a rabies vaccination there—for a trip to Burma, not because of the prospect of facing hostile Opposition Members. The range of facilities helps to keep people away from A&E.

I have visited several pharmacies in my local area. They are concerned about closures, but the Minister has talked about putting in extra funding and integrating the pharmacy service as an alternative first port of call.

NHS Bursary

Debate between Paul Scully and Ruth Cadbury

Monday 11th January 2016 Westminster Hall

[Paul Scully]

It is beholden on us to explain the system to mature students, because I see no reason why they should be discouraged.

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman says that he sees no reason for mature students to be discouraged, which perhaps demonstrates that the Department has not done a full impact assessment. What impact assessment did the Department do before the Chancellor made these proposals in the autumn statement?

[Paul Scully]

The hon. Lady is asking the wrong person. Perhaps the Minister will respond to that question a little later.

The idea of placements came out of our discussion prior to the debate with the student nurses, who have taken time out to come to London today from as far as Liverpool and elsewhere. We talked about bursaries, and it would be a more honest description to call them a salary because these people are working hours in what are supposed to be supernumerary positions but are often not. There are student nurses sitting in the Public Gallery, and we have one person here from Brighton who explained how he was saving children’s lives prior to Christmas—it is not a supernumerary position when someone is working with babies. We have other people in critical roles who are working with patients on a range of issues, so we need to be straight about the pressures on nurses and how we reward them.