Commonhold and Leasehold Reform

Debate between Stella Creasy and Matthew Pennycook

Tuesday 27th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Pennycook]

I have made it clear to the House that we have already set out proposals to strengthen the regulation of managing agents. Those proposals are not the summit of our ambitions; there is more to come. I say to the hon. Gentleman and generally to the House that managing agents will play an even more important role as we progress towards a commonhold future. We must therefore end the abuse and poor service from unscrupulous managing agents that so many leaseholders face.

[Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the Minister for his diligent work on this issue. I know that we all appreciate his expertise, as will my constituents in Walthamstow who are leaseholders with Clarion and who, in the last year, have seen their ground rents go up from £200 to £650 and now this year to £857, including an admin fee. What can the Minister say to reassure my constituents that there will not be loopholes in the cap and that we will ensure that all charges are included in the £250 limit?

[Matthew Pennycook]

It is certainly not our intention to allow any loopholes into the legislation. That is precisely why we have brought forward a draft Bill rather than a final product. Such is the complexity and technical nature of the reform we are enacting that the additional and enhanced scrutiny to be provided by the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee will be invaluable.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Debate between Stella Creasy and Matthew Pennycook

Report stage
Tuesday 13th December 2022 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Pennycook]

I agree and disagree with the hon. Lady. I agree that it is a good first step, and I disagree in the sense that the Government cannot consult for a number of years on what additional measures might be required. We are ultimately talking about local discretion to apply, whether it is use classes or a licensing scheme, but we think that, such is the acute nature of the problem in particular parts of the country, a registration scheme is not enough. We cannot wait until 2024 for additional measures.

[Stella Creasy]

Does my hon. Friend, like me, share the sense of mysticism that I suspect parents around the country will feel about the fact that the Government consider childcare to be a “non-infrastructure item”? The Minister just said that—I hope she misspoke. Parents recognise that, just as we fund roads so they can drive to work, funding childcare helps them get to work. That is why many local authorities do not do deals to invest in childcare and make sure it and childminders are part of our local economies. That is why we need things such as amendment 2.

[Matthew Pennycook]

We believe it is essential that the infrastructure levy is designed and implemented in a way that, first and foremost, ensures local authorities deliver the necessary amount of affordable housing and core infrastructure to support the development of their area. For that reason, we raised concerns in Committee about the possibility that the levy could be spent on non-infrastructure items such as services that are wholly unconnected to the impact of development on communities, without those needs having been met. However, as my hon. Friend knows—as any parent knows—childcare is infrastructure. Given the acute pressure on childcare places in many parts of the country, we agree that there is a case for explicitly making reference to childcare facilities in the list of infrastructure in proposed new section 204N so that local authorities are aware that they can use levy proceeds to fund it as part of developing their areas.

There are a number of useful provisions in the Bill that we support, but we fear that any benefits that might flow from them will ultimately be undermined by others that risk causing serious harm, whether it be to already low levels of affordable housing supply, the status and remit of local planning or important environmental protections. If the legislation before us were only an idiosyncratic mix of the good, the half-baked and the bad—a typically Govian curate’s egg, one might say—that would be disappointing enough. What adds to the frustration we feel is the fact that, in a larger sense, it represents a real missed opportunity to enact the kind of planning reform that is required to meet the multiple challenges that we face as a country: to tackle the housing crisis, to respond to the climate emergency, to address our rapidly degrading natural environment, and to better promote health and wellbeing.

We have a chance today to overhaul the Bill in a number of important respects. We have a chance to rectify the aspects of it that are problematic and enable it to address the vital issues on which it is currently silent, and I urge the House to come together to do so.