Robert Neill
Main Page: Robert Neill (Conservative - Bromley and Chislehurst)Housing and Planning Bill
Robert Neill Excerpts(8 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Jim Fitzpatrick
I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for St Albans (Mrs Main), who, apart from her other duties in this place, very ably leads the all-party parliamentary group on Bangladesh, on which I am pleased to be one of her vice-chairs.
I want to speak on new clauses 3 and 4, which stand in my name. I express my appreciation to Mr Glenn McKee in the Public Bill Office for his expert assistance in drafting them. I thank the Leasehold Knowledge Partnership for its encouragement in making sure that we have new clause 3 on leasehold reform. Poplar and Limehouse has the second highest number of leasehold properties in the country, so this is a matter of great constituency significance. In relation to new clause 4 on tenants’ rights, 50% of the properties are social-rented, so that is also a big issue locally.
I am pleased that the Government have recognised the scale of the leasehold reform issue. The hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) has led on the issue, having campaigned on leasehold reform for many years. I am pleased to support him, backed up by the Leasehold Knowledge Partnership, which is organised by Martin Boyd and Sebastian O’Kelly. The hon. Gentleman and I have arranged a number of open forums here at Westminster for parties interested in leasehold reform. They have been attended by professional bodies, individual leaseholders and others who have raised these matters with the civil service and with Government. I am grateful to the Minister for affording us a number of opportunities to meet him and civil servants at DCLG to explore these issues and try to identify a way forward.
One of the major successes that we have had in the past 12 months is that although the Government initially estimated that there were between 2 million and 2.25 million leaseholders, it has now been recognised that there are now at least 4.5 million. That demonstrates that this is a bigger problem than perhaps the Government thought it was before. Of course, that does not take into account the nearly 2 million leaseholders of former council properties who exercised right to buy or who subsequently bought those properties, so we are talking about nearly 6 million households, which means that a significant number of our citizens are affected by leasehold regulation.
The issue affects my constituents, among whom are not only very wealthy professionals who live in smart and very expensive properties in Canary Wharf, but a number of pensioners in the east end who exercised right to buy and who own former council properties. They clearly do not have access to the resources, assets or finances available to some of my constituents. The issue also affects retirement homes. Leaseholders are represented in every strata of society, from the poorest right the way to the richest, so nobody is excluded from being exposed to the vulnerability of living in a leasehold property.
I use the word “vulnerable” because the lack of protection and the informal dispute resolution procedure, which is abused by unscrupulous freeholders who employ high-powered barristers, affects ordinary leaseholders, whether they be professionals, rich or poor. I see that Conservative Members are smiling because they are either vulnerable leaseholders or freeholders. I will not say that they are unscrupulous, because that certainly does not apply to the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), who I know, as a fellow West Ham United supporter, would never be unscrupulous when it comes to his properties. There are major anomalies and weaknesses in leasehold regulation, including the amount paid in service charges, as well as insurance, ground rent and forfeiture charges, all of which mean that leaseholders are vulnerable to unscrupulous freeholders. Sadly, there are too many such freeholders, even though they are in the minority.
It is appropriate to recognise that the sector has been attempting to improve its performance and raise its game with a new voluntary code. Significant progress has been made, but leasehold reform should be on the Government’s radar, especially given that leasehold has been increasingly used over many years. Six major statutes, a number of statutory instruments and dozens of sections of other Acts of Parliament have dealt with the issue. Previous Conservative Administrations—notably in 1985, 1987 and 1993—and Labour’s Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 all tried to address that which is recognised collectively as an area that needs attention, but we have signally failed to protect leaseholders. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s response.
New clause 3 proposes to abolish leasehold by 2020. I hope—I am sure that other colleagues do, too—that it will galvanise the Government into asking why nothing has happened in respect of commonhold. I understand that the Government have been having key discussions on moving responsibility for commonhold legislation, which still falls under the Ministry of Justice, to the Department for Communities and Local Government and the housing department. It would make sense to place such responsibility for housing in that Department. At the end of the previous Administration, with the general election approaching, all three main political parties supported moving that responsibility to DCLG, but there has been no movement. I would be grateful to hear the Minister’s response.
New clause 4 is far less complex, but I am disappointed that there has been no movement on the issue, because it is very much one of localism and community empowerment. One of the few existing protections for leaseholders—it is, however, very difficult to implement—is the right to sack property management companies responsible for the upkeep of residents’ homes. There is provision within legislation for ballots to take place, and a simple majority allows residents to look for a new property management company to manage their properties. However, as I have said, it can very seldom be used.
In recent decades, many thousands of tenants in my constituency have voted in stock transfer ballots to move responsibility for their homes from the council to housing associations. That was one of the mechanisms that the Labour Government between 1997 and 2010 used to deal with the 2 million homes we inherited that were perceived as being below the decency threshold. That led to upgrades of nearly 1.5 million of those properties by 2010, including new kitchens and bathrooms, double glazing, new security and all the rest of it.
Most such schemes were successful. However, in a small minority of transfers, the offer provided by the housing associations when seeking the support of local tenants was not delivered. There is no provision for those tenants to express their disappointment and to sack their registered social landlord. This is a basic element of consumer protection. For any product that one buys on the open market, there are protections in consumer law—the ability to return the product, and to seek a refund, redress or compensation—but for a home, and a council tenant who has voted to move to a new registered social landlord, there is nowhere else to go once they have been transferred. A leaseholder at least has such a provision, even though it is rarely used.
With my new clause 4, I am trying to introduce an provision—with, I suggest, a five-yearly review—to give council tenants an opportunity to say to the housing association or their registered social landlord that is supposed to deliver the services for which tenants are paying, “You are not doing a good enough job. If you don’t up your game, we will have a ballot in five years’ time. We can then sack you and move to a new housing association, go back to the council or set up a tenant management organisation.” That would basically give tenants the right to hold their housing association to account.
The current protections are to complain to the Housing Ombudsman Service, the Homes and Communities Agency or the regulator. It is very difficult to go to such lengths, however, and the regulator is very reluctant to transfer ownership and responsibility from one housing association to another. New clause 4 suggests that tenants should have the right, when the registered social landlord or housing association is not delivering, to say, “You’re not doing a good enough job. We want somebody else to manage our property.”
On new clauses 3 and 4, one of which is very complex and the other relatively straightforward, I am very disappointed that the Government have not seen it to be in their interest to introduce such provisions. I am sure that there will be some interest in them when the Bill makes progress in the other place. I will be very interested to hear the Minister’s response to the points I have made in supporting my new clauses.
Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
It is always a particular pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick). As a fellow officer of the all-party group for the advancement of West Ham United—happily, they are doing rather well at the moment—it is always a pleasure to speak after him and to recognise his very real commitment and expertise in housing, particularly in the area of leasehold.
I ought to refer to my entries in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. One of them includes being a leaseholder in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. My experience of stock transfer has been rather more positive, but his serious and important points need to be addressed. For any London MP, dealing with leaseholders is particularly important, because leasehold is such a critical part of the capital’s housing stock.
I was reminded of some of the remarks made to me in the past by my good friend, who has now left the House, Jacqui Lait, the former Member for Parliament for Beckenham. Many hon. Members will recall that she was a very doughty and active advocate of leasehold reform and of improvement in that area of the law. It is time that we paid tribute to her for her work.
I will turn to new clause 47 and amendments 79, 76 and 77 on compulsory purchase, which stand in my name. My smile at the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse related not so much to being a leaseholder, but to his reference to high-powered barristers. It never quite seemed like that in the Bow county court—that is all I can say.
Jake Berry
Before coming to Parliament I was involved in a case in which the bank required an immediate repayment of a loan facility because of the reduction in its security, and the business had to close because it did not have immediate access to funds. My hon. Friend’s reasonable amendment suggests that payment should be made promptly to ensure that in such a situation there is a possibility of the business continuing. I would have thought that would be welcome.
Robert Neill
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who I know has professional experience and expertise in this matter. Of all the amendments and new clauses in my name, I urge the Minister most strongly to pay urgent attention to this provision. As my hon. Friend said, this issue is the one thing that puts people out of business, and that cannot be in anybody’s interest, and I urge the Minister to look swiftly and urgently at the matter. Perhaps it does not require primary legislation, but it needs to be addressed. My hon. Friend is right—established firms have folded from time to time when the bank required a redemption, and people may need to increase their exposure and put up the family home, for example, to provide that security, which cannot be just under such circumstances. My hon. Friend effectively encapsulates the point of the amendment.
Finally, failing to pay advance compensation runs contrary to virtually all other commercial transactions, and it is an outlier that often puts people who have been compulsorily required to sell in a disadvantageous position compared with public bodies. It makes it really difficult for any landowner or businessperson to run their business efficiently against that backdrop, as they do not have the financial security they would otherwise have. That is the purpose of the amendment and I hope it will be looked on favourably by the Government. I am not fussed about the route. Achieving outcome and fairness is the most important thing. Amendment 77 is consequential to that amendment; they hang together.
On amendment 76, it is important not only to have prompt payment but a realistic level of compensation. That can be assessed through the current system, but there is the question of interest on late payment. The coalition Government and the current Government have rightly emphasised the importance of prompt payment to businesses, and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills set up codes to encourage prompt payment. The importance of prompt payment weighs particularly heavily on small and medium-sized enterprises, because they are more exposed than most to the need for external bank financing. They are not likely to be able to draw down on capital.
I recognise and welcome the Government’s increase—to 4% as I recall—in the rate paid. That is an important and valuable step forward, but, for exactly the same reasons that have already been referred to, I urge them to go further. When a compulsory purchase goes through, very often landholders find it difficult to secure the funding to move forward. In particular, it is important to have a realistic rate of interest. Even with the current proposed changes, the rate will lag behind what is effectively the market rate.
The nature of compulsory purchase means that the majority of compensation due is meant to be paid before entry. When it is, all well and good. When it is not, there ought to be some compensation for those held up by late payment. By and large, the Government have now proposed introducing an interest rate of 2% above the base rate on late payments. That is a step forward, but still well below the commercial rate.
On compensation due before entry but not paid on time, the amendments seek an interest rate of 8% above the base rate. That is in line with the rate of interest charged on the late payment of commercial transactions. The truth is that that would be no burden on acquiring authorities. All they have to do is pay on time. If they pay on time, they will not attract the punitive rate of interest. It is a spur to good behaviour by acquiring authorities. An 8% rate would be closer to the market rate than the 4% rate currently available.
We suggest that any compensation on a quantifiable amount should be at 8%, which would put it in line with interest on a judgment debt after a finding by a court or tribunal. Other payments, which are not always quantifiable immediately but become apparent, should attract an interest rate of 4% above the base rate. That would be in line with commercial lending rates. We are therefore simply saying to acquiring authorities, “Behave like any other commercial body would.” I say to those on the Opposition Front Bench that that would not undermine the compulsory purchase regime, but ensure fairness and efficiency from an acquiring authority. Those that are efficient would have nothing to fear: if they just pay up promptly they will not have to pay the rate. If they do not, why should a landowner who has been compulsorily acquired against be in a worse position than if the land had been acquired as a result of a commercial negotiation or a judgment of a court not under the compulsory purchase regime?
That is the point of the amendments. They may sound technical, but they are actually quite important to a lot of rural businesses. I can say that there is little constituency interest for me—I think we have one farm in Bromley and Chislehurst—but this is an important issue for many businesses in rural areas.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
It is a delight to follow my colleague from the all-party group on London, the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), given his expertise on housing and planning. I want to talk about conditions in the private rented sector and to express my agreement with my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) on leasehold reform.
Robert Neill
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his response, and will of course not press my amendment. I hope that we can now go forward with some constructive discussions.
Mr Jones
In the same spirit let me say that I am extremely glad to hear that. I am sure that the Minister for Housing and Planning will continue to work with my hon. Friend, as he has undertaken to do.
In bringing this stage of the Bill to a close, I wish to say that it has been a pleasure to support my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning in helping the House to scrutinise the Bill and the amendments that we have tabled to improve it. I trust that the House will look favourably on the remaining Government amendments, and that Members who have spoken to other amendments will not push them to a Division.
Question put and agreed to.
New clause 62 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 52
Implied term of fitness for human habitation in residential lettings
‘(1) Section 8 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (c.70) is amended as follows.
(2) Leave out subsection (3) and insert—
“(3) Subject to subsection (7), this section applies to any tenancy or licence under which a dwelling house is let wholly or mainly for human habitation.”
(3) Leave out subsections (4) to (6).
(4) After subsection (3), insert—
“(3ZA) Subsection 1 does not apply where the condition of the dwelling-house or common parts is due to—
(a) a breach by the tenant of the duty to use the dwelling-house in a tenant-like manner, or often express term of the tenancy to the same effect; or
(b) damage by fire, flood, tempest or other natural cause or inevitable accident.
(3ZB) Subsection 1 shall not require the landlord or licensor of the dwelling house to carry out works—
(a) which would contravene any statutory obligation or restriction; or
(b) which require the consent of a superior landlord, provided that such consent has been refused and the landlord or licensor has no right of action on the basis that such refusal of consent is unreasonable.
(3ZC) Any provision of or relating to a tenancy or licence is void insofar as it purports—
(a) to exclude or limit the obligations of the landlord or licensor under this section; or
(b) to permit any forfeiture or impose on the tenant or licensee any penalty or disadvantage in the event of his seeking to enforce the obligation under subsection (1).
(3ZD) Regulations may make provision for the exclusion of certain classes of letting from subsection (1).
(3ZE) In this section “house” has the same meaning as “dwelling house” and includes—
(a) a part of a house, and
(b) any yard, garden, outhouses and appurtenances belonging to the house or usually enjoyed with it.”
(5) In section 10 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, after “waste water”, insert—
(6) Regulations may make provision for guidance as to the operation of the matters set out in section 10 which are relevant to the assessment of fitness for human habitation.
(7) This section shall come into force—
(a) in England at the end of the period of three months from the date on which this Act receives Royal Assent and shall apply to all tenancies licences and agreements for letting made on or after that date; and
(b) in Wales on a date to be appointed by the Welsh Ministers.”’—(Teresa Pearce.)
This new Clause would place a duty on landlords to ensure that their properties are fit for habitation when let and remain fit during the course of the tenancy.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Greg Clark
I hope that, on behalf of her constituents, the hon. Lady will welcome the announcements that were made to extend the Help to Buy scheme in London to provide greater help there. In fact, housing associations, including those in her constituency, have welcomed enthusiastically one of the key features of this Bill, which is the provision that enables them to provide her residents with the right to buy their home and, at the same time, to build more homes in London.
Robert Neill
On that point, does my right hon. Friend recognise that it is thanks to this Bill, the work of the current Mayor of London and the initiative of my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) that we are seeing consistently more affordable housing being delivered in London? That is in contrast with what happened under a socialist Mayor and a socialist Government that persistently under-delivered for London.
Greg Clark
Indeed, and one of the proud pieces of the legacy of the current Mayor of London, our hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson), is the opportunities he has given across the capital for people to own and rent their own home.
Of course, there are few pieces of legislation that cannot be improved by the deliberations of this House. This is a long Bill and I thank Members on both sides of the House for their informed contributions, their attention to detail and, on occasion, their perseverance. That applies especially to the members of the Public Bill Committee, adroitly chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr Gray) and the hon. Member for Mansfield (Sir Alan Meale). I am also grateful for the expert guidance of my departmental officials and to the Clerks of the House.
Finally, allow me to thank my own formidable Front-Bench team, who conducted this Bill through all its proceedings with precision and tenacity and who have strengthened an already important Bill. In the same spirit, allow me to acknowledge the contributions of Opposition Members who served long into the night not just on Report but in the Bill Committee. In contrast to the Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill, which I am informed has completed its passage unamended in the House of Lords this very afternoon, we might not have greatly expanded the common ground between us during our deliberations on this Bill, but I thank the Opposition for their contributions to a debate that has at times generated light as well as heat.
I join my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) in recognising the notable contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith). London is a city like no other and it has a property market to match. In view of the special challenges and opportunities, it is right that proceeds from the sale of vacant high-value assets should be used to provide new affordable homes in London on a two-for-one basis. I am delighted that the Bill has been amended fully to support that objective, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park for his advice and advocacy in this matter. London is fortunate to have such a tireless and effective champion.
Of course, it is not only Members of this House who have contributed to the development of the Bill. I would like to put on record my gratitude to all those beyond this Chamber who have made their mark. That includes local government leaders of all parties, experts in planning policy, tenants’ representatives and the housing sector in all its diversity. Indeed, nothing has made a greater contribution to the development of the Bill than the historic deal agreed last year between the Government and the housing association movement. The voluntary agreement on right to buy not only speeds up the delivery of a commitment made to the British people at the election, but provides the basis on which housing associations can play a major role in the delivery of new affordable homes for both rent and purchase. I would therefore like to express my particular thanks to the National Housing Federation and its chief executive, David Orr.
The Bill has been the subject of intensive scrutiny and debate, with more than 40 hours in Committee and a further 15 on the Floor of the House. Furthermore, it has been a debate in which words have had consequences. The Government have listened and, as we should, we have acted on what we have heard. Significant and strengthening changes have been made as a direct result and thus, subject to today’s vote, the Bill goes to the other place in good shape, buttressed by a clear electoral mandate. I commend it to the House.
Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
I am saddened to have heard the speech by the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey), because he and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State are two of the people I have always had the most respect for in this Chamber, but his diagnosis is fundamentally flawed. I am sorry that he has fallen into that error.
The reality is that the Secretary of State has brought forward a Bill that is necessary, proportionate and sensible. Anyone who tries to characterise anything that comes from my right hon. Friend as extreme is, I am sorry to say, not in touch with political reality. In the past—I understand why the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne was in difficulty—we saw a litany of failure by Labour Governments. As a result, when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I, with my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr Prisk) and others, walked into the Department for Communities and Local Government, we inherited the worst rates of house building since the 1920s, the worst rates of social housing being built, and a market that was depressed and crushed.
That was particularly so in London, thanks to the very dirigiste and impositional views adopted by the previous Mayor, Ken Livingstone, who choked off the supply of housing, through unrealistic demands for a social element under section 52 agreements on developers and an almost ideological hatred of the private rented sector—a sentiment which, I am sorry to say, slipped through in an intervention earlier. If run properly, the private rented sector has a crucial role to play in the housing mix of London and of any other city or nation. It is sad that we see a retreat not just back to the ’70s and ’80s but to policy of an incompetence that Herbert Morrison would be ashamed of.
Mrs Miller
Does my hon. Friend recognise the problems that I experienced under the Labour Government of centrally set house building targets that led to high levels of flatted accommodation rather than the family homes that are being delivered under this Government, with hundreds of families getting starter homes of the sort that they could only dream of under the previous Labour Government?
Robert Neill
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. The London suburbs, in particular, suffered from the ludicrous policy of counting things in terms of units rather than the number of affordable homes. That meant that places such as Bromley, Beckenham and others were swamped with flats being built—one or two-bedroom units—when the real demand was for affordable family homes. That, at last, we are tackling. Good housing associations such as Affinity Sutton in my constituency were happy to sign up to the agreement with the Secretary of State, because it gives them flexibility to be innovative.
I remember when I was a councillor tons and tons of people in my ward wanting to buy their home and the Labour Government stopping them. I find it pretty appalling that someone I would usually respect seeks to obstruct and stop people having aspiration. Aspiration goes beyond being forever a tenant—it goes to having a chance to buy and a chance to get on. It is that lack of aspiration that so characterises Opposition Front Benchers. That is why their opposition to this Bill is so sad and, I would say, such a betrayal of hard-working people—people exactly like my shop steward grandfather, who worked hard to buy his own home and was helped to do so. They are exactly the people this Government are trying to help. We will not take any lessons from Labour Members about social inclusion or equality. They are reversing social inclusion and equality. They set it back, and we should congratulate—
Mr Bacon
While my hon. Friend is on the subject of Labour’s lack of radicalism, does he share my confusion that the Labour party, which has control of many councils and billions of pounds of reserves, is not establishing and promoting mutual housing co-operatives? There is nothing in law to prevent Labour from doing that. If it really wanted to promote in perpetuity social rents, there are avenues available to it. Where is the radicalism one would have expected to hear from Labour Members?
Robert Neill
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Many local authorities would take that up. Housing co-operatives are a great idea. Labour’s attitude towards the private rented sector has been a barrier to the institutional investment in the private sector that would so improve the quality of the stock. It is the consistent failure of Labour authorities to take their opportunities that is the real story, not the freedoms that this Government and the previous coalition Government had been giving them.
It is a sad day, but I have to say this frankly to the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne and his hon. Friends: I like them as people but they are profoundly wrong in their opposition to this Bill.