Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill (Fifth sitting)
Lee Rowley ExcerptsTuesday 23rd January 2024
(3 months, 3 weeks ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill 2023-24 View all Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill 2023-24 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 23 January 2024 - (23 Jan 2024)
The Chair
Before we begin, I have a few preliminary reminders for the Committee. Please switch electronic devices to silent. No food or drink is permitted during sittings of the Committee, except for the water provided. Hansard colleagues would be grateful if Members could email their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk or, alternatively, pass their written speaking notes to the Hansard colleague in the room.
We will now begin line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The selection list for today’s sitting is available in the room and shows how the selected amendments have been grouped for debate. Amendments grouped together are generally on the same or similar issue. Please note that decisions on amendments take place not in the order in which they are debated, but in the order in which they appear on the amendment paper. The selection and grouping list shows the order of debates. Decisions on each amendment are taken when we come to the clause to which the amendment relates. Decisions on new clauses will be taken once we have completed consideration of the Bill’s existing clauses. Members wishing to press a grouped amendment or new clause to a Division should indicate when speaking to it that they wish to do so.
Clause 1
Removal of qualifying period before enfranchisement and extension claims
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Minister for Housing, Planning and Building Safety (Lee Rowley)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. Today, we begin our line-by-line consideration. I first want to note and put on record my thanks to all the witnesses who gave evidence to the Committee last week. It was hugely useful to hear their insights, which will improve the Bill over the coming days and weeks ahead.
I am delighted to bring the Bill to Committee, and I look forward to the debate that will follow. Before we proceed, I quickly draw the Committee’s attention to a minor issue regarding the Bill’s explanatory notes. Paragraph 18 refers incorrectly to the right
“for an intermediate landlord to reduce (‘commute’) the rents that they pay”
following statutory lease extensions and ground rent buy-out claims. That is a drafting error as the clauses were not in the Bill when introduced. I have since tabled an amendment to introduce those clauses on intermediate leases, which we will debate shortly. I apologise for that minor drafting error and reassure the Committee that the explanatory notes will be updated to reflect the latest clauses before the Bill enters the other place.
I also want to make a small point in relation to legal language that I will use throughout the session. In existing legislation, leaseholders are referred to as “tenants”, which legally, they are. In everyday language, however, we often use the term “leaseholders” to differentiate long leaseholders from tenants holding shorter tenancies or those with less security of tenure. For simplicity, I will use the term “leaseholders”. Likewise, I will use the term “landlord” to mean both landlords and freeholders. In many cases, the landlord will be the freeholder, although that is not always the case. Where the provisions concern freeholders, I will use that term rather than “landlord”.
I now turn to part 1, which deals with leasehold enfranchisement and lease extension. When people buy a leasehold property, they will want to ensure that they have the long-term security and control they need to make it a home. They may have a short lease and wish to extend it, or they may have concerns about their landlord and wish to buy them out to have full ownership and control of that home.
The current requirement, where a homebuyer has to wait for two years before they can extend their lease or buy their freehold, is an obstacle for leaseholders and results in higher costs, as the price for enfranchising increases year on year. Furthermore, many investors take advantage of a loophole to avoid that requirement, while ordinary homeowners, who may be less familiar with the process, can find themselves in difficulties. There are also inconsistencies in the current law where, in certain circumstances, people can rely on a previous owner’s period of ownership to satisfy the requirement whereas others are unable to do so.
Clause 1 seeks to remove that barrier to leaseholders who wish to exercise their enfranchisement rights. It removes the requirement to have owned the lease of a house for at least two years before qualifying to buy their freehold or extend their lease. It also removes the requirement to own the lease of a flat for two years before extending the lease. This gives leaseholders the flexibility to make a claim immediately upon buying a leasehold property, and it will reduce their costs. It also resolves inconsistencies in the current law. The measures will remove an unnecessary restriction for leaseholders. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his explanation of clause 1. I add the Opposition’s thanks to the witnesses who gave evidence to us last week. It was extremely useful. Before I begin, I would like to declare an interest. My wife is joint chief executive of the Law Commission, whose work we will be debating extensively in the days to come.
It is a pleasure to start line-by-line consideration with you in the Chair, Mr Efford. It is a genuine privilege to serve on a Public Bill Committee comprised of hon. Members who have not only a real interest in the subject matter, but real expertise. It is my sincere wish that we draw on all of it in the days ahead to improve this legislation and, as much as the Government Whip may discourage it, that hon. Members on the Government Benches, including the hon. Members for Walsall North and for Redditch, as former Housing Ministers, take the opportunity to participate actively in our deliberations.
Having not had a suitable chance to put it on the record, I would like to take this opportunity to formally welcome the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire back to his place. He and I disagree politically, often viscerally, when it comes to many, many issues, but he is a hard-working, diligent and thoughtful Minister. I look forward to the robust and, on the whole, constructive debates we will have over the coming sessions.
Before I turn to the detail of clause 1, I want to put some brief general remarks on the record to frame what is to follow. As we made clear on Second Reading, we are fully in support of the principle of the Bill and the intent behind its provisions. The range of measures that the Committee will consider will, without question, provide a degree of relief to leasehold and freehold homeowners in England and Wales, by giving them greater rights, powers and protections over their homes. That is obviously to be welcomed. However, during Second Reading we also expressed our deep regret about the Bill’s lack of ambition and bemoaned the implications for leaseholders, who are being routinely gouged by freeholders under the present flawed system.
I want to be as clear as I possibly can with leaseholders who may be following our proceedings as to the Opposition’s approach to the Committee stage. While we welcome in principle the provisions contained in the Bill, we do have concerns about the efficacy of several of them, including clause 1. As such, we will seek to probe and rectify their various defects and deficiencies so as to ensure that they truly deliver for leaseholders. We will also engage constructively with the Government in relation to any significant new measures introduced into the Bill, not least the glaring omission of provisions designed to ban the sale of new build leasehold houses. We will introduce a number of specific targeted measures designed to give leaseholders a little more control over their future and strengthen the foundations on which future, bolder reform will be enacted.
What we do not intend to do is attempt to persuade the Government of the benefits of using this Bill to enact all, or even significantly more, of the hundreds of Law Commission recommendations on enfranchisement, right to manage and commonhold, which the Government have chosen not to include in this Bill. The Government had the opportunity to bring forward ambitious legislation and enact all the Law Commission’s recommendations from its three reports in 2020, thereby delivering on the promises that successive Ministers have made to leaseholders over the past years. They have made the political choice not to do so. Attempting to radically overhaul this piece of legislation by means of hundreds of amendments required to implement all those recommendations would not only be an onerous, perhaps impossible, undertaking, given its limited nature, but would delay the Bill’s passage and, with a general election in the months ahead still a distinct possibility, put it at risk entirely.
We want leaseholders to benefit from the measures in the Bill as soon as possible. We therefore wish to see it, albeit suitably strengthened, out of Committee as quickly as possible to maximise its chances of receiving Royal Assent. Make no mistake, Labour is committed to bringing the current iniquitous leasehold system to an end, overhauling it to the lasting benefit of leaseholders and reinvigorating commonhold to such an extent that it will ultimately become the default and render leasehold obsolete. Leaseholders across the country therefore have our firm commitment to finish the job in due course.
Turning to clause 1 and the rest of part 1, one of the reasons that the Bill can reasonably expect a speedy passage out of Committee is that parts 1 and 2, together with related schedules, implement a subset of Law Commission recommendations that are almost entirely uncontentious. Part 1 of the Bill, as the Minister has said, concerns leasehold enfranchisement and extension.
As I have said, the clauses in this part implement some but not all of the Law Commission’s recommendations designed to make it cheaper and easier for leaseholders in houses and flats to extend their lease or acquire their freehold. They include procedural changes as well as substantive ones that extend tenant rights and empower leaseholders by giving them greater control and value. There is in that respect, and as we touched on during the evidence sessions last week, an explicit and very welcome redistributive intent that underpins the legislation.
As the Law Commission exhaustively detailed in its final 2020 report on leasehold enfranchisement, the case for reforming the present enfranchisement regime is incontrovertible. It is not only incredibly complex but inconsistent. As a result, leaseholders face unnecessary litigation, uncertainty and costs when attempting to exercise their rights under it. The law in this area needs to be overhauled and we therefore welcome the objective that underpins each of the provisions in this part.
We wish to probe the Government further on various issues relating to the precise drafting of those provisions, as well as seeking to address the flaws of a limited number. As the Minister made clear, clause 1 removes the two-year qualifying period before enfranchisement and extension claims can proceed in respect of both houses and flats by amending the relevant sections of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 and the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993, which I will hereafter refer to simply as the 1967 and 1993 Acts.
Clause 1 implements recommendation 29 from the Law Commission’s final 2020 report on leasehold enfranchisement. We welcome the clause. A core objective of the Bill is to increase access to enfranchisement by rendering more leaseholders eligible for such rights. By liberalising this and other qualifying criteria, we are confident it will achieve that objective.
As the Committee is no doubt aware, the current two-year ownership requirement was designed primarily to prevent investors benefiting from enfranchisement rights intended for residential leaseholders. Yet it is patently not achieving that objective given the relatively simple workarounds that sophisticated commercial investors can and do take advantage of. Indeed, the requirement can fairly be said to have created a market designed explicitly to facilitate their doing so—a development entirely at odds with the rationale for the two-year ownership requirement. At the same time, that requirement presents a significant barrier to ordinary leaseholders exercising enfranchisement rights and, importantly, leads to rising premiums for many of them as a result of waiting for two years in which capital values may have increased or lease lengths reduced.
Abolishing the requirement for leaseholders to have owned premises for two years prior to exercising enfranchisement rights, so that they have the right to carry out an enfranchisement claim as soon as they acquire their lease, is an entirely sensible reform. It would also resolve the current inconsistency between the position of trustees in bankruptcy and of personal representatives, and avoid the technical, costly and error-prone workarounds that have been created involving the assignment of a benefit of notice.
Although the clause is entirely uncontentious from our perspective, I do have one question for the Minister: why have the Government chosen to include subsection (2)(c) and, consequential on that reform, subsection (3) in this clause? Subsection (3A) of section 39 of the 1993 Act concerning what happens in the event of the death of a qualifying tenant clearly needs to be overhauled to account for the removal of the two-year qualifying period, but surely the Government wish to ensure that the right of a tenant’s personal representative to exercise enfranchisement rights on their behalf in the event of their death is sustained? Will the Minister confirm whether I am right in believing that that is the Government’s wish?
If so, given that the right would not appear to be sustained as a result of the drafting of clause 1, is it maintained by means of other provisions in the Bill? If not, surely the Government must accept that the decision to simply omit the relevant subsection (3A) needs to be reconsidered to ensure that the right is maintained in future? The omission may affect only a small number of leaseholders going forward, but it is important that we ensure their personal representatives are conferred the rights that they would have enjoyed had they lived. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lee Rowley
First, let me echo the remarks of the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich. He said some kind words about me and I would like to say the same about him. He has always been extremely constructive and helpful. We share the aim of trying to improve the legislation and I am grateful to be working with him. I hope we can work in many areas and agree more than we disagree. He was right when he said that this is incredibly complicated. Having tried for the past two months to get into all the details, there may still be areas where I am unable to answer all the questions from hon. and right hon. Members today. I will do my best, but I will write to them if I am unable to answer anything.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for confirming that Labour will support this clause. On his specific point around where leaseholders have sadly passed away and there is a requirement for a personal representative or equivalent, it is not our intention to make that process any more difficult or to change the fundamental ability of people to make decisions about how to dispose or deal with properties that are left in the event of a death. Having spoken to officials and those involved in the drafting of this, my understanding is that the exemptions referred to in subsections (2)(c) and (3) become effectively moot. The removal of the two-year rule preventing a representative from taking action means that at the point they inherit the property—or whatever legal approach is taken to transfer it the estate to a new owner or representative—the problem goes away.
If, for some reason, we have missed something, I would be very happy to take anything from the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich or others, either now or in writing, which I can go away and look at. Our understanding is that this does not need to continue, hence why we have chosen to remove it within the clause.
Matthew Pennycook
I welcome that clarification from the Minister and his indication that it is the Government’s firm intent to ensure that personal representatives can exercise enfranchisement rights on behalf of a leaseholder who has died, because of the removal of the two-year rule. I urge the Minister or his officials to look at the precise wording of this clause, because we are worried that—his comments notwithstanding—it may not do this in practice, and there may be some ambiguity. I do, however, welcome the assurance he has given. On that basis, we will not oppose this clause standing part of the Bill.
Lee Rowley
To confirm, I am happy to double-check this, but I hope what I have just indicated stands.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2
Removal of restrictions on repeated enfranchisement and extension claims
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Lee Rowley
Currently, the restrictions placed on leaseholders to make a claim to buy their freehold or extend their lease can be seen as excessively punitive. Leaseholders are prevented from making a claim to buy their freehold or extend their lease for 12 months, when a previous claim has failed even on a minor point. In addition, a claim for a lease extension on a house can be obtained only once, and we seek to remove those unnecessary barriers for leaseholders, which frustrate their ability to buy their freehold or extend their lease.
Clause 2 seeks to address this problem by removing the requirement to wait 12 months to submit a new claim if the previous one has failed. It will also remove the restriction on bringing a further claim where a lease extension has already been obtained for a house. This means that leaseholders will be able to put in a further claim to enfranchise or extend their lease as soon as they have resolved the issues with their failed claim. Leaseholders of houses will not be prevented from making a claim for a lease extension if one has already been obtained, preventing the landlord from being able to regain possession of the property from a leaseholder when the lease eventually comes to an end.
Clause 2 will also remove provisions that give courts powers to prevent new enfranchisement or lease extension claims for five years where a claim has failed, and the leaseholder did not act in good faith or attempted to misrepresent or conceal material facts. These powers are old and surplus to requirements, coming from the 1967 Act, which has been overtaken by developments in the law around civil restraint orders since then. These restraint orders are more flexible, better developed, subject to more rigorous checks, and may be fairer than the existing power. Therefore, the existing law and the Bill can still deal with meritless of abusive enfranchisement claims. The tribunal already has powers to award costs for such unreasonable behaviour. The removal of these should not change that; it is simply a tidying-up exercise, and a recognition that other parts of the law do this better. These measures will remove barriers to leaseholders being able to take up their right to enfranchise or extend their lease without unnecessary delays.
Matthew Pennycook
I welcome that explanation of the clause, which, as the Minister says, removes various restrictions on repeated enfranchisement and extension claims. It is our understanding that they include the provisions in the 1967 Act and the 1993 Act that prevent tenants from starting new enfranchisement or lease-extension claims within 12 months of an earlier claim failing to complete; the provisions of the 1967 Act that give courts the power to order compensation and prevent new enfranchisement or lease extension claims for five years after a claim has failed; and the provisions of the 1967 Act that prevent tenants from bringing a further lease extension claim where a lease extension has already been obtained under the Act.
Lee Rowley
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments and, again, for indicating his support for the intent of clause 2. On his question with regard to subsections (1)(c) and (d), I will write to him, given that it is a technical question about the specific description in the legislation. Hopefully, I will be able to provide the comfort he seeks.
As he indicated later in his remarks, we believe there is the ability for vexatious claimants, in whatever sense, to be accommodated by the existing legislation elsewhere, so there is no need to replicate that or to retain something that is very rarely used. That is the reason for removing it.
Finally, on his point about orders from a tribunal and the Law Commission’s recommendation, it goes back to the fact that we believe the process that is in place is already mature and very capable of responding to the legitimate points he highlights. Therefore, there is no need to create an additional process in the Bill, but I will write to him to absolutely clarify that point and make sure that we have everything we need.
Matthew Pennycook
I welcome that clarification from the Minister and look forward to any further detail that he might provide to the Committee via written correspondence.
Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)
May I ask the Minister to confirm that clause 2(2) refers to schedule 7 to the Bill? In our evidence sessions last week, we heard from certain leaseholders who were concerned that they would not benefit from the provisions if their lease was less than a certain number of years. Paragraph 2(2)(a) of schedule 7 states that a lease will not qualify if
“the unexpired term of the lease is less than 150 years”.
There was some debate about that length. Will the Minister address those leaseholders’ concern that the period is too long and that there should not be that restriction? Or will he write to me later to address what considerations went into that provision? If we are excluding people from these welcome provisions, perhaps we should seek to otherwise widen the group of people who can benefit from having their leases converted to a peppercorn lease.
Lee Rowley
We will probably talk in detail about the 150-year decision—the Law Commission proposed 250 years—in relation to quite a number of areas later this morning, so I do not want to pre-empt that now. As I will explain later, the Government’s intention was that, if a lease is coming up in a reasonably short period of time, it is advantageous to align everything together, as opposed to doing just one thing, because there will be the potential for double costs and the like. I am happy to talk about that more when we get further into line-by-line consideration.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 2 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 3
Change of non-residential limit on collective enfranchisement claims
Matthew Pennycook
I beg to move amendment 1, in clause 3, page 2, line 19, at end insert—
“(2) After section 4(5) of the LRHUDA 1993, insert—
‘(6) The Secretary of State or the Welsh Ministers may by regulations amend this section to provide for a different description of premises falling within section 3(1) to which this Chapter does not apply.
(7) Regulations may not be made under subsection (6) unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before, and approved by resolution of—
(a) in the case of regulations made by the Secretary of State, both Houses of Parliament;
(b) in the case of regulations made by the Welsh Ministers, Senedd Cymru.’
(3) In section 100 of the LRHUDA 1993—
(a) in subsection (2), after ‘making’, insert ‘provision under section 4(6) or’;
(b) in subsection (3), after ‘making’, insert ‘provision under section 4(6) or’.”
This amendment would enable the Secretary of State or (in the case of Wales) the Welsh Ministers to change the description of premises which are excluded from collective enfranchisement rights. Such a change would be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.
Rachel Maclean
The hon. Gentleman is a very persuasive orator in this Committee, as he is in many other fora, and I will definitely listen to those arguments when they are made. We all work in the spirit of improving this Bill. I very much hope that the Government will provide the explanations I have asked for, and specifically on this issue at this point.
Lee Rowley
I thank hon. Members and Friends for their contributions. I will take them in turn. On the amendment, I find myself in the slightly unusual place of arguing against a Henry VIII power, as they are occasionally called and as he referred to them. As indicated, there are a number of Henry VIII powers in the Bill, and I am sure that people will have views on them when we get to them. Our colleagues in the other place often have very strong views on such powers. It is an unusual place to be, but I happily take it up.
I absolutely understand the point that hon. Members have made and the reality of what they are trying to articulate. The fact that we are making a change indicates that there are times when it is proportionate and reasonable to make changes. The reason for the Government’s not taking powers in secondary legislation—which I know, joking aside, that hon. Members would accept—is that there is a continuum for drawing or not drawing lines, and we think that this does not necessarily need to be on the line of taking powers in order to do things in secondary legislation, simply because this is a substantial change. It is being actively debated; Members are debating whether it is sufficient and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch asked, precisely how it will work to improve the situation in practice. I think the Government’s preference is to keep that discussion in primary legislation. We recognise that primary legislation is always more challenging in terms of timelines and space in this place, but it is a sufficiently important change that it should be able to be debated in the way we are doing today.
Eddie Hughes (Walsall North) (Con)
I understand that it is appropriate to future-proof legislation and allow for flexibility, but I agree with the Minister that a substantial change has already been made. Proportionately, we are talking about the number of buildings that have already been constructed, and therefore the people that we are helping. I fully appreciate that the shadow Minister is concerned about future developers gaming the system, but in terms of proportion, it is important that we focus our efforts on the buildings that have been built.
Lee Rowley
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for highlighting that. The shadow Minister expressed hope that the Government would agree with some of his amendments at some point. I am afraid that I will have to dash his hope on this one. We understand its purpose, but on the basis that I have articulated, we would prefer to keep this in primary legislation. I hope that the shadow Minister might consider withdrawing the amendment.
On clause 3, as it stands, we have been clear that we want to improve access to collective enfranchisement so that more leaseholders of flats can enjoy the benefit of freehold ownership. Many leaseholders in mixed-use but predominantly residential buildings are currently prevented from buying their freehold, as hon. Members have indicated. Clause 3 amends the 1993 Act to increase that limit from 25% to 50%. This has been consulted on widely and was recommended by the Law Commission. Where residential leaseholders take up the majority of the floor space in a building, it is our view that they should be able to access the long-term security and control that comes with freehold ownership, if they choose to do so.
We recognise that this change impacts freeholders. If the leaseholders choose to buy their freehold, the freeholder stands to lose ownership of individual buildings, and that may fragment ownership of some areas over a longer timeframe. We believe that impact to be justified not only because of the significant benefit to leaseholders but because freeholders will be compensated for that loss. We do not believe, as a principle, that the single contiguous ownership of space is absolutely necessary for buildings to be managed well.
We have also heard arguments from leaseholders that they will be unable to professionally manage mixed-use buildings. Although I understand their point, through, for example, the delegation of a building’s management to an agent, that should be overcome. I accept the points made and understand the shadow Minister’s point on the difficulty of ensuring that leaseholders can be engaged to the point where they pass the threshold, whatever the number—and all numbers are ultimately arbitrary. As he has indicated, I think the Committee will return to this, but we think the clause, as it stands, is the right approach. Therefore, we resist the amendment and hope that the shadow Minister will withdraw it.
Lee Rowley
Clause 4 introduces schedule 1, which repeals rights that enable landlords to block a lease extension or freehold acquisition claim for a house or flat where the landlord intends to redevelop or reoccupy the property. Where the blockers are used, compensation is only paid to leaseholders in houses, not those in flats. The blockers apply to a minority of leases that have not been extended and are very near to ending.
Although that means that, in practice, rights are rarely used, enfranchising leaseholders should have the opportunity to make their decisions about the need and scope of redevelopment once they own the freehold. Leaseholders with few years remaining on their lease should have the option of extending and securing their tenure. Where a lease is extended, landlords will continue to have statutory break rights that can terminate leases for redevelopment. We will consider break rights in schedule 6 and cover further details about the blockers when we come to consider schedule 1. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Matthew Pennycook
As the Minister has made clear, clause 4 concerns eligibility for enfranchisement and extension in specific cases. It gives effect to schedule 1, which repeals specific limitations on those rights under the 1967 and 1993 Acts. As the Minister has detailed, they include: the right of a landlord to defend a lease extension or collective enfranchisement claim on grounds of redevelopment; the right to defeat a freehold acquisition or lease extension claim for the purposes of retaking possession of the property for personal use; and the limitations that prevent a sublessee from claiming a lease extension if their sub-lease was granted by an intermediate leaseholder out of a lease that had been extended under the relevant Act.
We welcome the clause, which implements, although is not confined to, recommendation 98 of the Law Commission’s final report on leasehold enfranchisement. When considering the case for reform in this area, the Law Commission made clear that its proposal could reduce the value of the leaseholder’s lease as a result of the transfer of some enfranchisement rights from a leaseholder who has previously extended his or her lease pursuant to the legislation to the leaseholder to whom they had subsequently granted a sub-lease. However, the Law Commission ultimately determined that any such loss of value was overstated. Its reasoning was—assuming that I have understood the relevant technical arguments correctly—that there would be no difference in value between the sum that the intermediate leaseholders could expect to obtain if their lease was acquired in a collective freehold acquisition under the present law and the value of the intermediate leaseholder’s interest in the light of its proposal.
Lee Rowley
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his contribution. As he indicates, this is—I think by common consent—a rare issue in the first place, not that that diminishes the importance of ensuring that we get it right. It is very complicated, as he has indicated; different leases will have different elements within them and it is impossible to comment on every single case or every single instance, as has been indicated, because of the complexity. I am not aware that there is an indication that there is a general reduction in the value of leases for the very small number that this will cover. I will write to the Committee if what I have just said is incorrect or needs clarification in any way. I hope that, on that basis, we can make progress.
Matthew Pennycook
I welcome that clarification from the Minister and the offer to provide us with further details should they be needed.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 4 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 1
ELIGIBILITY FOR ENFRANCHISEMENT AND EXTENSION: SPECIFIC CASES
Lee Rowley
I beg to move amendment 57, in schedule 1, page 82, line 16, at end insert—
“Exception to enfranchisement for certified community housing providers
3A (1) The LRA 1967 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 1 (tenants eligible for enfranchisement and extension), after subsection (1B) insert—
‘(1C) This Part of this Act does not confer on a tenant a right to acquire the freehold of a house and premises if the landlord under the existing tenancy is a certified community housing provider (see section 4B).’
(3) After section 4A insert—
‘4B Meaning of “certified community housing provider’
(1) For the purposes of this Part of this Act, a person is a “certified community housing provider” if the appropriate tribunal has issued a community housing certificate in respect of the person.
(2) A community housing certificate is a certificate that the tribunal has determined that the person—
(a) is a community land trust within the meaning of section 2(7A) of the Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Act 2022, or
(b) is of a description, or satisfies conditions, specified for this purpose in regulations made by the Secretary of State.
(3) The tribunal may issue a community housing certificate only in respect of a person that has made an application to the tribunal for the certificate.
(4) The tribunal may cancel a community housing certificate—
(a) on the application of the person in respect of which the certificate is issued, or
(b) on the application of a tenant affected by the certificate, if the tribunal considers that—
(i) the person in respect of which the certificate is issued does not fall within subsection (2)(a) or (b), or
(ii) the certificate was obtained by deception or fraud.
For this purpose a tenant is “affected by” a certificate if, by virtue of section 1(1C), the tenant does not have the right to acquire the freehold because the certificate is issued in respect of their landlord.
(5) The effect of the tribunal cancelling the certificate is that the person is not a certified community housing provider unless the tribunal issues a new community housing certificate.
(6) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide for—
(a) the procedure to be followed in connection with an application for a community housing certificate;
(b) the procedure to be followed for the cancellation of a community housing certificate (including in connection with an application for the cancellation);
(c) any matters to which the tribunal must have regard in deciding whether to issue or cancel a community housing certificate.
(7) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about the application of this Part in circumstances where—
(a) a landlord’s application for a community housing certificate has not been concluded when a tenant gives notice of their desire to have the freehold of a house and premises under this Part, or
(b) a tenant’s claim to have the freehold of a house and premises under this Part has not been concluded when a landlord’s application for a community housing certificate is made.
(8) Regulations under subsection (7) may in particular provide for—
(a) the claim for the freehold to be paused or to have no effect;
(b) a time period for the purposes of this Part to be extended in connection with the application;
(c) the landlord to compensate a tenant or reversioner in respect of reasonable costs incurred in connection with a claim to acquire the freehold—
(i) if the tenant ceases to have the right to acquire the freehold because of the issue of a certificate under this section, or
(ii) if the costs are incurred as a result of the claim being suspended because of an application for a certificate under this section;
(d) enforcement by the appropriate tribunal of any of the requirements of the regulations;
(e) the appropriate tribunal to make orders that are supplementary to the issue of a community housing certificate.
(9) Regulations under this section—
(a) may make different provision for different purposes;
(b) are to be made by statutory instrument.
(10) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section (whether alone or with other provision) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.’
3B (1) The LRHUDA 1993 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 5 (qualifying tenants for enfranchisement), after subsection (2)(a) insert—
‘(aa) the immediate landlord under the lease is a certified community housing provider (see section 8B); or’
(3) Before section 9 insert—
‘8B Meaning of “certified community housing provider’
(1) For the purposes of this Chapter, a person is a “certified community housing provider” if the appropriate tribunal has issued a community housing certificate in respect of the person.
(2) A community housing certificate is a certificate that the tribunal has determined that the person—
(a) is a community land trust within the meaning of section 2(7A) of the Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Act 2022, or
(b) is of a description, or satisfies conditions, specified for this purpose in regulations made by the Secretary of State.
(3) The tribunal may issue a community housing certificate only in respect of a person that has made an application to the tribunal for the certificate.
(4) The tribunal may cancel a community housing certificate—
(a) on the application of the person in respect of which the certificate is issued, or
(b) on the application of a leaseholder affected by the certificate, if the tribunal considers that—
(i) the person in respect of which the certificate is issued does not fall within subsection (2)(a) or (b), or
(ii) the certificate was obtained by deception or fraud.
For this purpose a leaseholder is “affected by” a certificate if, by virtue of section 5(2)(aa), the leaseholder is not a qualifying tenant because the certificate is issued in respect of their immediate landlord.
(5) The effect of the tribunal cancelling the certificate is that the person is not a certified community housing provider unless the tribunal issues a new community housing certificate.
(6) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide for—
(a) the procedure to be followed in connection with an application for a community housing certificate;
(b) the procedure to be followed for the cancellation of a community housing certificate (including in connection with an application for the cancellation);
(c) any matters to which the tribunal must have regard in deciding whether to issue or cancel a community housing certificate.
(7) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about the application of this Chapter in circumstances where—
(a) a landlord’s application for a community housing certificate has not been concluded when a nominee purchaser gives notice under section 13 of a claim to exercise the right to collective enfranchisement, or
(b) a claim to exercise the right to collective enfranchisement has not been concluded when a landlord’s application for a community housing certificate is made.
(8) Regulations under subsection (7) may in particular provide for—
(a) the claim for the freehold to be paused or to have no effect;
(b) a time period for the purposes of this Chapter to be extended in connection with the application;
(c) the landlord to compensate the nominee purchaser, a tenant or a reversioner in respect of reasonable costs incurred in connection with a claim to exercise the right to collective enfranchisement—
(i) if a person ceases to be a participating tenant because of the issue of a certificate under this section (and in this case the compensation may relate to reasonable costs for which the person is liable that are incurred after the person ceases to be a participating tenant),
(ii) if the participating tenants cease to have the right to collective enfranchisement because of the issue of a certificate under this section, or
(iii) if the costs are incurred as a result of the claim being suspended because of an application for a certificate under this section;
(d) enforcement by the appropriate tribunal of any of the requirements of the regulations;
(e) the appropriate tribunal to make orders that are supplementary to the issue of a community housing certificate.’
(4) In section 39(3)(a) (qualifying tenants for extension), before ‘(5)’ insert ‘(2)(aa), ’.
(5) In section 100 (orders and regulations), after subsection (2) insert—
‘(2A) But a statutory instrument containing regulations under section 8B (whether alone or with other provision) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.’”
This amendment would provide for an exception to enfranchisement (but not extension) for tenants of certified community housing providers (persons certified as managing land for the benefit of local communities).
Lee Rowley
As we considered regarding clause 4, schedule 1 repeals blockers to enfranchisement claims. The schedule repeals blockers that enable landlords to block claims for lease extensions and freehold acquisitions where the landlord intends to redevelop a property. The rights apply to cases where leases are very near to ending and, again, are rarely used. Compensation is paid to leaseholders only where the blockers are used in houses, not flats.
The schedule also repeals blockers that apply to niche cases, including: a blocker allowing a landlord or their family to reoccupy a house, which now applies to very few leases, due to its criteria; a public authority development blocker that has fallen from use; and a blocker to sub-lease extensions, where they are granted out of a superior extended lease.
The schedule makes consequential amendments that are necessary because of the repeals that I have just described. Where a lease is extended, landlords continue to have statutory break rights, which we will consider in later deliberations, and they may continue to seek voluntary agreements to end a lease. Public landlords may also have access to compulsory purchase orders. I commend that measure to the Committee.
I will now speak to amendment 57 and the consequential amendments 30 and 32. While we want to encourage many more leaseholders to buy their freeholds, there are good reasons for certain properties to be exempt from freehold ownership. For instance, certain community-led developments, providing affordable housing for local people, wish to be exempt from freehold acquisition—that is not their original purpose and it should not become so—so that the homes can remain affordable for the benefit of the community in perpetuity.
These amendments exempt community land trusts, a form of community-led housing, from freehold acquisition, as that model of housing relies on land being held in single ownership to remain as community-led housing. The amendments also provide a power for the Secretary of State to define in regulations further types of community-led housing, should that be necessary in future.
The exemption will only apply to an organisation once it has obtained a certificate from the tribunal that it satisfies the definition of community-led housing. That ensures that the exemption is properly targeted and not misused. An organisation will cease to benefit from the exemption if the certificate is cancelled by the tribunal. That includes where the organisation no longer satisfies the definition of a community-led housing organisation, or where the organisation asks the tribunal to cancel the certificate.
These amendments will protect the benefits of genuine community-led housing schemes from being lost to future generations. I therefore commend them to the Committee.
Finally, I beg to move amendment 58 in my name.
The Chair
Order. Amendment 58 is in the next group. We are debating Government amendments 57, 30 and 32 to schedule 1.
Lee Rowley
My apologies, Mr Efford. I thought that we were debating these as a group. I will come to amendment 58 when we get to that group.
Matthew Pennycook
I rise briefly to speak to these four Government amendments and to make a wider comment on them and the other 116 amendments that have been tabled in the Minister’s name over recent days.
Having scrutinised these amendments as carefully as we could in the time available, we are as confident as we can be that none is problematic. Indeed, we very much welcomed the exemption provided for community-led housing.
As confirmed to the Committee by Professor Nick Hopkins, 18 of the 120 Government amendments tabled in Committee implement Law Commission policy that was not in the Bill as introduced and on which Law Commission staff have been involved in instructing parliamentary counsel. The vast majority of the other 102 amendments are merely technical in nature. Providing that the Minister sets out clearly their effect and rationale, as he just has in relation to this group of amendments, we do not intend to detain the Committee over the coming sessions by exploring the finer points of each.
However, I feel I must put on record our intense frustration at the fact that so many detailed Government amendments were tabled just days before commencement of line-by-line scrutiny began. The practice of significantly amending Bills as they progress through the House has become common practice for this Government and in our view it is not acceptable. Other Governments have done it, but it has become the norm under this Government. It impedes hon. Members in effectively scrutinising legislation and increases the likelihood that Acts of Parliament contain errors that subsequently need to be remedied, as happened with the Building Safety Act 2022; as the Minister will know, we have had to pass a number of regulations making technical corrections to that Act.
When it comes to this Bill, the Government have had the Law Commission’s recommendations for almost four years and access to Law Commission staff to aid parliamentary counsel with drafting. There really is no excuse for eleventh-hour amendments introducing Law Commission policy or technical amendments designed to clarify, correct mistakes, or ensure consistency across provisions.
Rachel Maclean
I will not detain the Committee for long. In response to those comments from the Opposition, I observe only that when they were last in government— in 2002, if I am correct—they had the opportunity to address the system and rectify the failures that we are now dealing with. It is now left to this Government to do it. On that note, I want to say to my hon. Friend the Minister how important it is that the community-led housing sector is excluded. I would not normally say that about any form of housing, but we have recently strengthened the national planning policy framework to encourage more of that type of housing. We know it is popular and often commands local support, while other types of housing sadly do not, and we need to see more of it built. The sector has had extensive discussions. This is a sensible amendment, which I support.
Lee Rowley
I thank my hon. Friend for confirmation of the importance of community-led housing, which we have spoken about previously. I absolutely agree about its importance.
I will not get into a broader conversation about the processes of government, other than to say that I note the concerns of the hon. Members for Brent North and for Greenwich and Woolwich. The intention is to give the Committee and the House as a whole as much scrutiny as possible. I am sure that the hon. Members will understand that, outside the bounds of the points that they are making, getting proposed legislation ready is often a complicated process—in particular ensuring that it is as correct as it can be. None the less, I have noted their points, but I hope to be grateful for their support for the underlying provision we are debating.
Amendment 57 agreed to.
Lee Rowley
I beg to move amendment 58, in schedule 1, page 82, line 28, at end insert—
“Eligibility of leases of National Trust property for extension
4A For section 32 of the LRA 1967 (saving for National Trust) substitute—
‘32 National Trust property
(1) Property is “inalienable National Trust property” for the purposes of this section if an interest in the property is vested inalienably in the National Trust for Places of Historic Interest or Natural Beauty under section 21 of the National Trust Act 1907.
(2) This Part does not prejudice the operation of section 21 of the National Trust Act 1907, and accordingly a tenant does not have the right under this Part to acquire the freehold of inalienable National Trust property.
(3) The right to an extended lease has effect subject to the following provisions of this section only if and to the extent that the existing tenancy demises inalienable National Trust property.
(4) In a case where the existing tenancy is a post-commencement protected National Trust tenancy, the tenant does not have the right to an extended lease.
(5) In a case where the existing tenancy is a pre-commencement protected National Trust tenancy, this Act is to have effect in relation to the right to an extended lease without the amendments made by the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 (but without altering the effect of this subsection).
(6) In any other case, the right to an extended lease has effect subject to subsections (7) and (8).
(7) In determining whether the tenant has the right to an extended lease, the following requirements in section 1 do not apply—
(a) any requirement for the tenancy to be at a low rent;
(b) any requirement in section 1(1)(a)(i) or (ii) for the house and premises or the tenancy to be above a certain value.
(8) If the tenant exercises the right to an extended lease, the new tenancy must contain the buy-back term which is prescribed for this purpose in regulations made by the Secretary of State (the “prescribed buy-back term”).
(9) A “buy-back term” is a term which gives the National Trust the right to buy the whole or part of the extended lease if—
(a) it is proposed to make a disposal of the extended lease that is of a description specified in that term (which may be a disposal of the whole or a part of the property demised), or
(b) the National Trust exercises a prescribed buy-back term that is contained in a lease which is inferior to the extended lease.
(10) The prescribed buy-back term may, in particular, make provision about—
(a) the procedure where it is proposed to make a disposal that is of a description specified in the term;
(b) the procedure for exercising the right to buy;
(c) the price payable;
(d) the payment of costs incurred in connection with the operation of the term (including requirements for one person to pay costs incurred by another person);
(e) the operation of the term if the National Trust is not a party to the extended lease.
(11) If the National Trust is not the landlord under the extended lease, the National Trust may at any time apply to the appropriate tribunal for an order to secure that the extended lease is varied to contain (if or to the extent that it does not already do so) the prescribed buy-back term; and an order made on such an application may appoint a person who is not party to the extended lease to execute a variation of the lease.
32ZA Section 32: supplementary provision
(1) For the purposes of section 32, the existing tenancy is a “protected National Trust tenancy” if the tenancy is prescribed, or is of a description of tenancies prescribed, in regulations made by the Secretary of State.
(2) Regulations may not provide for a tenancy to be a protected National Trust tenancy unless the tenancy is within case A or case B.
(3) Case A: some or all of the property let under the tenancy is—
(a) property to which the general public has access, or
(b) part of property to which the general public has access (whether or not the general public has access to any property let under the tenancy),
whether the arrangements for public access are managed by the National Trust, the tenant or another person.
(4) Case B: the existing tenancy was granted to—
(a) a former owner,
(b) a relative of a former owner, or
(c) the trustees of a trust whose beneficiaries are or include—
(i) a former owner, or
(ii) a relative of a former owner.
(5) Regulations under section 32 or this section—
(a) may make different provision for different purposes;
(b) are to be made by statutory instrument.
(6) A statutory instrument containing regulations under section 32 or this section is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
(7) In section 32 and this section—
“commencement” means the day on which paragraph 4A of Schedule 1 to the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 comes into force;
“disposal” , in relation to an extended lease, includes—
(a) the grant of a sub-lease of property demised by the extended lease;
(b) a change in control of a body (whether or not incorporated) which owns the extended lease;
(c) the surrender of the extended lease;
(d) a disposal (of any kind) for no consideration;
“former owner” , in relation to inalienable National Trust property let under a tenancy, means—
(a) a person who transferred the freehold of the property to the National Trust,
(b) a person who owned the freehold of the property immediately before its transfer to the National Trust by, or at the direction of—
(i) the Commissioners for His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs,
(ii) the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, or
(iii) the Treasury,
(c) a person whose executors transferred, or directed the transfer of, the freehold of the property to the National Trust, or
(d) a person who was a beneficiary under a trust whose trustees transferred, or directed the transfer of, the freehold of the property to the National Trust;
“post-commencement protected National Trust tenancy” means a tenancy which—
(a) was granted on or after commencement, unless it was granted under an agreement made before commencement, and
(b) is a protected National Trust tenancy;
“pre-commencement protected National Trust tenancy” means a tenancy which—
(a) was granted—
(i) before commencement, or
(ii) on or after commencement under an agreement made before commencement, and
(b) is a protected National Trust tenancy;
“relative” includes a person who is related by marriage or civil partnership;
“right to an extended lease” means the right under this Part to acquire an extended lease.’
4B For section 95 of the LRHUDA 1993 (saving for National Trust) substitute—
‘95 National Trust property
(1) Property is “inalienable National Trust property” for the purposes of this section if an interest in the property is vested inalienably in the National Trust for Places of Historic Interest or Natural Beauty under section 21 of the National Trust Act 1907.
(2) Chapter 1 does not prejudice the operation of section 21 of the National Trust Act 1907, and accordingly there is no right under Chapter 1 to acquire an interest in inalienable National Trust property.
(3) The right to a new lease has effect subject to the following provisions of this section only if and to the extent that the existing lease demises inalienable National Trust property.
(4) In a case where the existing lease is a protected National Trust tenancy, the tenant does not have the right to a new lease.
(5) If—
(a) the existing lease is not a protected National Trust Tenancy, and
(b) the tenant exercises the right to a new lease,
the new lease must contain the buy-back term which is prescribed in regulations made by the Secretary of State (the “prescribed buy-back term”).
(6) A “buy-back term” is a term which gives the National Trust the right to buy the whole or part of the new lease if—
(a) it is proposed to make a disposal of the new lease that is of a description specified in that term (which may be a disposal of the whole or a part of the property demised), or
(b) the National Trust exercises a prescribed buy-back term that is contained in a lease which is inferior to the extended lease.
(7) The prescribed buy-back term may, in particular, make provision about—
(a) the procedure where it is proposed to make a disposal that is of a description specified in the term;
(b) the procedure for exercising the right to buy;
(c) the price payable;
(d) the payment of costs incurred in connection with the operation of the term (including requirements for one person to pay costs incurred by another person);
(e) the operation of the term if the National Trust is not a party to the new lease.
(8) If the National Trust is not the landlord under the new lease, the National Trust may at any time apply to the appropriate tribunal for an order to secure that the new lease is varied to contain (if or to the extent that it does not already do so) the prescribed buy-back term; and an order made on such an application may appoint a person who is not party to the new lease to execute a variation of the lease.
95A Section 95: supplementary provision
(1) For the purposes of section 95, the existing lease is a “protected National Trust tenancy” if the lease is prescribed, or is of a description of leases prescribed, in regulations made by the Secretary of State.
(2) Regulations may not provide for a lease to be a protected National Trust tenancy unless the lease is within case A or case B.
(3) Case A: some or all of the property let under the lease is—
(a) property to which the general public has access, or
(b) part of property to which the general public has access (whether or not the general public has access to any property let under the lease),
whether the arrangements for public access are managed by the National Trust, the tenant or another person.
(4) Case B: the existing lease was granted to—
(a) a former owner,
(b) a relative of a former owner, or
(c) the trustees of a trust whose beneficiaries are or include—
(i) a former owner, or
(ii) a relative of a former owner.
(5) Regulations under section 95 or this section—
(a) may make different provision for different purposes;
(b) are to be made by statutory instrument.
(6) A statutory instrument containing regulations under section 95 or this section is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
(7) In section 95 and this section—
“disposal” , in relation to a new lease, includes—
(a) the grant of a sub-lease of property demised by the new lease;
(b) a change in control of a body (whether or not incorporated) which owns the new lease;
(c) the surrender of the new lease;
(d) a disposal (of any kind) for no consideration;
“former owner” , in relation to inalienable National Trust property let under a tenancy, means—
(a) a person who transferred the freehold of the property to the National Trust,
(b) a person who owned the freehold of the property immediately before its transfer to the National Trust by, or at the direction of—
(i) the Commissioners for His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs,
(ii) the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, or
(iii) the Treasury,
(c) a person whose executors transferred, or directed the transfer of, the freehold of the property to the National Trust, or
(d) a person who was a beneficiary under a trust whose trustees transferred, or directed the transfer of, the freehold of the property to the National Trust;
“relative” includes a person who is related by marriage or civil partnership;
“right to a new lease” means the right under Chapter 2 to a new lease.’”
This amendment would provide for tenants of National Trust properties to have the right to extension, subject to exceptions, and subject to a requirement to grant the National Trust the right to buy back the property in certain circumstances.
Lee Rowley
My enthusiasm for the amendment was such that I started to speak to it earlier, but I am now moving it in the correct place.
The National Trust play a big role in looking after the heritage of the nation. Inalienable National Trust land is held for the benefit of the nation, forever. In order to ensure that that land remains in national ownership for future generations, freehold acquisition is restricted on National Trust land. None the less, the Government want to see National Trust leaseholders’ rights improved.
The amendment means that National Trust leaseholders will benefit from the new lease extension rights in line with other leaseholders, so that the 990 years will apply in this instance. The new rights will be subject to a narrow exception for a small number of leases of specified visitor attraction properties and donor leases. That will allow the trust to make bespoke lease agreements when a noteworthy property comes into its ownership—for example, where a property could be opened to the public in whole or in part, or where arrangements have been made with family members when a property has been gifted to the state and the trust itself. Those limited exceptions will be set out in regulations made by the Secretary of State in due course. Those leaseholders will retain their existing lease extension rights where they already have them.
The amendment also makes provision for the National Trust to buy back an extended lease at market value, if the existing leaseholder chooses to dispose of their lease. That will allow the National Trust to manage the long-term use of its inalienable land on behalf of the nation. I commend the amendment to the Committee.
Amendment 58 agreed to.
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed.
Clause 5
Acquisition of intermediate interests in collective enfranchisement
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Lee Rowley
The clause sets out how intermediate leases and leases of common parts are treated in collective enfranchisement claims for flats. In home ownership, intermediate leases are the middle rungs on a ladder between the freeholder at the top, and the leaseholder with rights at the end. Leases of common parts might cover parts of premises such as stairways.
The clause will introduce proposed new schedule A1 to the 1993 Act. The schedule sets out a series of gateways that require leaseholders to acquire certain interests, but also grants them further choices to reduce premiums. Qualifying leaseholders who participate in a claim must acquire all intermediate leases superior to their leases. They can, however, choose to leave in place the part of an intermediate lease superior to those qualifying leaseholders who are not participating. The intention is that this will help to reduce the premium where not all leaseholders wish to participate.
For example, leaseholders could leave the head lease in place above two out of eight flats, where the two are not participating. Where leaseholders acquire only part of a lease, they still need to acquire the relevant parts of leases above it in the chain to prevent a disrupted management structure.
The schedule sets out that leaseholders do not need to acquire a whole lease of common parts where certain legal tests are met, which will help to reduce premiums. The schedule prevents the acquisition of special cases of intermediate leases in collective enfranchisement. That includes qualifying leaseholders who own the immediately superior intermediate lease and landlords with enfranchisement rights over a flat. Those parts of leases can be retained by the owners to preserve their homes or tenure at the property. The schedule sets out various mechanisms for allowing leases to be left in place. That is done via an existing process called severing, and clause 16(6) gives the tribunal new powers to determine the terms of that.
The schedule preserves the necessary elements of the existing law that prevent ill effects arising from collective enfranchisement. Landlords can continue to require leaseholders to acquire interest, for instance where it would be impossible to maintain the premises. An exception that prevents the acquisition of interest held by public sector landlords continues. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Matthew Pennycook
Clause 5 is extremely technical. It concerns the treatment of intermediate leases during a collective enfranchisement. I beg the Committee’s forgiveness for the level of complexity I am about to throw at the Minister; nevertheless, it is important to the leaseholders who stand to be affected. As the Minister said, the clause replaces section 2 of the 1993 Act on to the acquisition of leasehold interest, with a new schedule, A1, that will henceforth govern the acquisition of intermediate interests during a collective enfranchisement process.
New schedule A1 enacts part or all of five recommendations made by the Law Commission in chapter 13 of its 2020 report, and is uncontentious. However, when considering the treatment of intermediate leases and other leasehold interests in that chapter, the Law Commission recommended that a duty be imposed on the landlord dealing with the enfranchisement claim
“to act in good faith and with reasonable skill and care”
toward other landlords involved. Any such landlord should be able to apply for directions from the tribunal about the conduct of the response to the claim. It also recommended corresponding requirements for landlords who are not dealing with the claim to provide all necessary information and assistance to the landlord who is, and to contribute to the non-litigation costs of that landlord.
My reading of schedule A1 is that its effect will be that any settlement reached between a leaseholder and the landlord who is dealing with a claim, and any determination of that claim by the tribunal, will be binding on all other landlords. Assuming that I have interpreted the schedule correctly, can the Minister make clear why it does not appear to implement the duties and requirements that the Law Commission recommended should apply to landlords who are dealing with the claim and landlords who are not, respectively?
Finally, while I appreciate that we will consider the issue of valuation in more detail when we come to consider clauses 9, 10 and 11, I would be grateful if the Minister could also provide some clarification on how the Bill proposes to calculate enfranchisement premiums in instances where there are intermediate leases. Am I right in believing that schedule 2 treats intermediate leases as merged for the purposes of valuation?
On a related matter, the Minister will also be aware that the Law Commission set out the option of generally disregarding the existence of an intermediate lease when determining the premium payable on enfranchisement on the grounds that it would simplify the calculation and create greater fairness between leaseholders and between landlords, as premiums would not differ solely because of the existence or otherwise of one or more intermediate leases. It also recommended that on any individual lease extension claim, the rent payable by an intermediate landlord should be commuted on a pro rata basis.
If I have understood the relevant provisions correctly, neither proposal was incorporated into the Bill as first published. The second of those recommendations appears to be addressed by Government amendments 73 and 95. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm whether my reading of those amendments is correct in that regard—via correspondence, if he needs to, as I appreciate that these are extremely technical questions. Broadly, we would like the Minister to expand on his remarks and provide some clarity about the treatment of intermediate leases during collective enfranchisement and the extent to which this part of the Bill as a whole reflects the Law Commission’s proposals. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Lee Rowley
My response is short. I will happily write to the hon. Gentleman and to the Committee in due course on the technicalities to ensure that is correct.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 5 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 6
Right to require leaseback by freeholder after collective enfranchisement
Barry Gardiner
I beg to move amendment 127, in clause 6, page 9, line 42, at end insert—
“(3A) Any lease granted to the freeholder under paragraph 7A must contain a provision that any sub-lease created by the freeholder under their leaseback must contain a provision requiring the sub-lessee to contribute to the service charges reasonably incurred by the managing agent directly or indirectly appointed by the nominee purchaser.
(3B) The provision mentioned in subsection (3A) is implied into all pre-existing subordinate leases to a leaseback granted to a freeholder under paragraph 7A.”
Matthew Pennycook
My hon. Friend raises an interesting point, which has value. However, if he will forgive me, I would like some more time to consider any unintended consequences before I determine whether we could support it. Perhaps we could come back to it at a later stage, but if he is determined to push it I will come up with a position from the Front-Bench team.
Clause 6 inserts into the 1993 Act a new leaseback right for tenants participating in a collective enfranchisement claim, enabling them to require their landlord to take a leaseback of particular flats or units in the building, other than flats let to a participating tenant. We welcome the clause, as my hon. Friend made clear, which implements recommendation 21 of the Law Commission’s final report on leasehold enfranchisement.
At present, leasebacks are mandatory in certain circumstances. A landlord can also require leaseholders to grant them a leaseback of any unit not let to a qualifying tenant, or any flat or unit occupied by them and of which they are the qualifying tenant. However, leaseholders do not enjoy the right to require their landlord to take a leaseback with the effect that, in instances where the landlord refuses a request for a leaseback, perhaps because they are deliberately seeking to frustrate the process entirely, the premium payable in an enfranchisement claim includes the value of that interest.
The new leaseback right introduced by the clause will ensure that premiums that leaseholders would otherwise have to pay will be reduced. Collective freehold acquisition will become a possibility for larger numbers of them because a key funding constraint—namely having to pay for the reversionary value of those flats and units as part of their claim—will have been removed, and in many cases, collective freehold acquisition claims will be made considerably more affordable as a result. It will also increase certainty by ensuring that leaseholders have a far more accurate estimate of the costs of a claim at the outset. Finally, it is essential to ensuring that the increase in the non-residential limit from 25% to 50%, which we debated earlier, is of practical benefit to leaseholders. Without a new leaseback right, many leaseholders who would otherwise be interested in collectively enfranchising would be deterred because the cost of purchasing the whole of a building containing up to 50% commercial space would be prohibitive.
I have two questions for the Minister. The first concerns intermediate leases, which we have just considered under the previous clause. As I believe may have been highlighted by some respondents to the Law Commission consultation, there will be circumstances in which a leaseback of some units to the landlord would not reduce the premium by any significant amount, because the majority of the value in the units in question will be held not by the landlord but by an intermediate interest. This obviously raises again the issue of how the Bill treats the calculation of enfranchisement premiums in instances in which there is an intermediate lease. I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify whether the Bill seeks in any way to address the impact that intermediate leases might have on the benefits that leaseholders could otherwise expect to secure as a result of the new leaseback right.
My second question concerns the terms of the leaseback required under the new right. My understanding is that these will be for a term of 999 years at a peppercorn ground rent, as under the current law, but I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that that is the case and perhaps provide the Committee with any other important detail about leaseback terms that will apply to them.
Lee Rowley
I will turn first to the amendment from the hon. Member for Brent North. I appreciate the point that he has made, and he articulated it very well. He is rightly concerned that all those who have an interest in a building should need to pay for it. The amendment’s intent is to require any leases granted to include a requirement to make contributions to service charges, as he articulated. Our understanding—I have checked, following the introduction of his amendment—is that the existing law should sufficiently cover this and it should be unlikely that intermediate landlords will not ensure that their sub-lessees contribute to the service charges of a property. But I recognise that the hon. Gentleman has a lot of experience, knowledge and background in this area over many years, so if he wants to write to me separately, with examples of where we potentially have not understood the detail of the point that he is making, I will be happy to look at that in more detail.
Matthew Pennycook
I intervene just briefly so that I can put this on the record. One of my slight concerns about the amendment from my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North is that it could complicate pro rata charges for leaseholders. I just wonder whether the Government have given that any thought. In many ways, the amendment is entirely unproblematic, and we support the intention, but there are a couple of concerns, that being one. Is that part of the Government’s thinking on my hon. Friend’s amendment?
Lee Rowley
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for pointing that out. As indicated, this all needs to be considered in the round. Very few things come without trade-offs and without consideration of other implications. One reason why we are not able to support this amendment today is that we do not think that it is necessary. As a result, I hope that the hon. Member for Brent North will not push it to a vote but will withdraw it. If we have missed something, I will be happy to look at that separately. As the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich suggested, this is something that we do not think is necessary in the wider scheme of things, but if there is a thing that we have missed, I will happily take further information on it.
I will now turn to clause 6, which has been discussed already to some extent. The Government want to broaden access to collective enfranchisement, so that more leaseholders can buy their freehold. However, we recognise that increased access will remain theoretical if many leaseholders are unable to afford to buy their freehold. Therefore, this enfranchisement must be cheaper if leaseholders are to gain the benefits of the ownership that is being sought.
Clause 6 introduces a leaseback right for leaseholders that, if they elect to use it as part of a claim, will in some cases significantly reduce the up-front price that they must pay. “Leaseback”, as has been indicated, is the term commonly used to refer to an intermediate lease over part of a building that is granted to the outgoing freeholder as part of an enfranchisement claim. This leaseback covers the value of the unit, which is therefore retained by the outgoing freeholder and reduces the cost for leaseholders of buying the freehold. Currently, the outgoing freeholder can require the leaseholders taking forward a collective enfranchisement to grant the freeholder a leaseback of any non-qualifying units in a building. Clause 6 gives leaseholders an equivalent right to require the outgoing freeholder to take a 999-year leaseback, at a peppercorn rate, of any non-participating units in the building as part of the claim.
In mixed-use buildings, the question of affordability is even more acute, as leaseholders must pay for the freehold interest in non-residential parts of the building, which they have no existing financial interest in, as well as their flats, which they already partly own.
Barry Gardiner
I am grateful to the Minister for his remarks. It is clear that the Government do not feel that the amendment is necessary and that there will not be a problem with the newly enfranchised freeholder being able to obtain the service charge from all the leaseholders. If that is the case, I will be happy to withdraw the amendment.
I would, however, like the Minister to set out in writing to me and the Committee precisely why he believes that there is not a problem. If we still disagree, we can then bring the amendment back on Report and discuss it further. It would be really helpful to be clear about why the Government are confident that problems will not arise. We have made legislation on the basis of optimism before, and unfortunately our experience is that freeholders can often be quite vindictive.
Lee Rowley
I am happy to give the hon. Gentleman that assurance, and I will be happy to write to him.
Barry Gardiner
On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 7
Longer lease extensions
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Lee Rowley
Currently, leaseholders of houses can claim a lease extension of 50 years, and leaseholders of flats can claim an extension of 90 years. Leaseholders of houses can only ever make one lease extension claim; leaseholders of flats will need to claim repeated extensions both within and between generations, with associated costs. Leaseholders often have to worry about the value of their lease falling as the term runs down.
Clause 7 will amend the lease extension term for houses in the 1967 Act, from 50 to 990 years, and for flats in the 1993 Act, from 90 to 990 years. There is no restriction on the number of claims that can be made, although with a 990-year extended term it is envisaged that only one extension will be necessary; 990 years is as long an extension as can be reasonably given while facilitating multiple periods of 90 years to allow for consistency with existing leases and redevelopment breaks.
Increasing to 990 years the term of the statutory lease extension right maximises the benefit to leaseholders and gives leaseholders much greater security in their homes. This is particularly important where leaseholders do not qualify or are not in a position to buy their freehold.
The increase in the extension term will mean that leaseholders do not have to claim repeated extensions, pay associated repeated transaction costs or worry about the value of their property falling as the lease runs down. Leaseholders of flats and houses will be able to obtain a lease extension of 990 years at a peppercorn ground rent, in exchange for a premium determined by the amended valuation scheme set out in clauses 9 to 11.
I turn to clause 8. Currently, a lease extension for a house under the 1967 Act is made without payment of a premium, but in return for a modern ground rent during the period of the extension, where that rent is similar to a market rent. Because we are increasing the extension term to 990 years at a peppercorn rent, landlords will need to be compensated by payment of a premium, as is the case for flats. The clause makes amendments to the 1967 Act to ensure that landlords will be sufficiently compensated when a 990-year lease extension at a peppercorn is granted for a house. A qualifying leaseholder can obtain an extension of 990 years at a peppercorn ground rent in exchange for a premium determined by the amended valuation scheme set out in clauses 9 to 11.
Matthew Pennycook
I will spend some time on the clauses, because they are important.
As the Minister set out, clause 7 changes the lease extension rights given to tenants of houses and tenants of flats by the 1967 and 1993 Acts, respectively, to provide for a 990-year lease extension rather than, as is currently the case, a 50-year extension under the 1967 Act and a 90-year extension under the 1993 Act. Clause 8 works in conjunction with clause 7 to that end, by making consequential amendments to the 1967 Act that are required to set ground rents under such extensions at a peppercorn and ensure that the premium payable is based on the amended valuation scheme set out in clauses 9 to 11, as the Minister made clear.
Taken together, the clauses not only provide for the standard lease extension term to increase to 990 years at a peppercorn rent, but ensure that the rights available to tenants under each of the Acts are made equivalent. This reform, which draws on recommendations 1 and 2 of the Law Commission’s final report on leasehold enfranchisement, is long overdue. The right to extend one’s lease is important for leaseholders who do not qualify for a right of freehold acquisition or who do enjoy such a right but, for whatever reason, either cannot or do not wish to purchase the freehold. It is particularly important for leaseholders who live in blocks of flats, as the vast majority do in constituencies such as mine, because it is the only enfranchisement right they can exercise when acting alone. However, both the 50-year lease extension available to leaseholders of houses under the 1967 Act and the 90-year extension available to leaseholders of flats under the 1993 Act are too short to provide adequate security of tenure.
The principle of a right to an extension of a considerably longer time is therefore the right one. As the Minister argued, it will particularly help to protect those leaseholders with short remaining lease terms at the point at which the extension is secured, and will avoid the need for a second extension to be sought and secured in short order. We also feel that the choice of a standard 990-year lease is the right one. Once the principle of a very long lease extension has been accepted, the case for taking the additional period as close to 999 years is watertight. A more modest extension, which the Law Commission did consider, would provide only temporary relief and would require many leaseholders to make a second claim in relatively quick succession. The proposed 990-year lease extension right will avoid the need for further lease extension claims in the future, will provide leaseholders with a substantially enhanced interest in their homes and will bring leaseholders extremely close to outright freehold ownership.
It is also right that we legislate to introduce a uniform right applicable and available to both leaseholders of houses and leaseholders of flats, so we support the alignment of the lease extension rights for which the clause provides. There is no justification for maintaining the discrepancy in the law as it stands, where the right to a lease extension for a house is considerably less favourable than the equivalent right to a lease extension for a flat. In sum, we fully support leaseholders who qualify for a lease extension under the 1967 or 1993 Act being given the right, on payment of an appropriate premium, to extend their lease and in so doing to secure a peppercorn rent.
I have five questions for the Minister about these important clauses. The first relates to redevelopment. In recommending that an additional period of 990 years should be added to the remaining term of the existing lease in the cases of both houses and flats, the Law Commission also proposed that redevelopment break rights should be maintained. These are rights accorded to a landlord to terminate a lease that has been extended and to regain possession of the property in order to carry out redevelopment work. The Law Commission recommended that they should be maintained during the last 12 months of the term of the original lease or the last five years of each period of 90 years after the commencement of the extended term.
We fully appreciate that many leaseholders will find the very notion of such break rights problematic, and the Law Commission recognises that maintaining rolling break rights, as under the 1967 Act, would create unnecessary uncertainty. However, difficulties relating to the lifespan of buildings are an issue we have to grapple with, not least because they will become more pressing over time when lease extensions become significantly longer by default. As the Law Commission’s recommendation on development break rights has not made it into the Bill, I would be grateful if the Minister explained the Government’s determination to omit it. Some would argue that there is a strong case, in a world in which 990-year lease extensions are the default, for the sensible provision of development break rights.
My second question concerns when the rights provided by clauses 7 and 8 will come into effect. The clauses present leaseholders who have recently obtained a lease extension, or who will be compelled to obtain one—for the purposes of moving home or mortgaging, say—before the commencement date, with a real dilemma, because the only way they will benefit from a 990-year extension and a peppercorn ground rent in instances where that is not already the case is by making a further extension claim in short order. The fact that any such leaseholders will have recently extended their lease with, in all likelihood, a peppercorn ground rent will mean that the premium payable will be low, but there will still be a cost.
I would be grateful if the Minister made it clear whether the Government have given any consideration to how to ensure that the premium in such cases is as low as possible, to avoid some leaseholders facing costs that others will not face, simply as a result of the sharp transition from one set of arrangements to another. Better still, could he outline precisely how commencement will operate in respect of the clauses? Will he tell us whether the Government might consider amending the Bill to ensure that the new rights come into force on, or very soon after, Royal Assent, so that they can be enjoyed by leaseholders confronting the need for an extension as quickly as possible?
My third question relates to ground rents. We will explore the issue in considerable detail when we consider clause 21, but I would be grateful if the Minister told us, in relation specifically to lease extensions, how clauses 7 and 8 will operate if the Government’s response to the consultation “Modern leasehold: restricting ground rent for existing leases”, which closed last week, is, as per the Secretary of State’s declared preference, to table amendments to enact option 1, namely capping ground rent at a peppercorn for all existing leases from a given date.
All we want to know is whether the ground rent provisions in clause 8 would be rendered irrelevant. In other words, are they unnecessary? If so, will the Government have to make further amendments to the clause to ensure that, in conjunction with clause 7, it provides only for a 990-year lease extension and does not make changes to ground rent provisions in any way? Presumably they will need to be abolished by further Government amendments that will potentially abolish ground rents for all existing leases.
My fourth question concerns the technical matter of who the competent landlord is for the purpose of lease extensions under the 1993 Act. The provisions within clauses 7 and 8 will mean that even in circumstances where there is a head lease of 999 years at a peppercorn rent, which is a fairly common occurrence, the owner will be entitled to all of the premium. Nevertheless, it is the freeholder, not the head lessee, who will have to handle the claim. That raises the obvious question of why a freeholder should engage with the process at all, given that it will leave them out of pocket.
Schedule 1 to the 1967 Act includes provisions designed to overcome the problem by providing that a long head lessee is the reversioner. Will the Minister tell us why a similar set of provisions is not being introduced to the 1993 Act to provide that a very long head lessee in a block of flats is to be regarded as the competent landlord, not the freeholder? If there is no justification for that omission, might the Government go away and consider whether it is necessary to overcome that problem?
My fifth and final question concerns the Government’s commitment to use the Bill to legislate for a ban on new leasehold houses. The Government amendments providing for such a ban have still not been tabled, so we cannot engage with the detail. However, given that it is the Government’s stated intention effectively to do away with leasehold houses, I would like to probe the Minister on the reasoning behind providing, by means of clauses 7 and 8, leaseholders in houses with a right to a 990-year lease extension at a peppercorn rent, for which the premium will be the same as if it were a freehold enfranchisement. Is this—I am being generous to the Minister—an example of muddled thinking on the Government’s part that might require review? I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Barry Gardiner
I am glad that co-operation is breaking out across the aisle. It seems that this change is one of the really big issues of the Bill. Looking through the Bill, yes, there was disappointment that it does not go far enough and there is no commonhold, but this is a real change. It is something that Members on both sides of the Committee have welcomed, and we heard evidence from our witnesses about just how important it is. It is strange, therefore, that we do not now see the meat of it in the Bill. I will not go so far as to say that it is more than strange, as my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich suggested, but we do need it.
This provision will liberate a whole group of people who fear what we call the ground rent grazers. They are the ones—the freeholders—who have created a rentier structure over the past 15 years. It did not even exist 25 years ago. What people used to do 25 years ago, when the ground rent was payable, was write a cheque to the freeholder, and the freeholder would bin it. Then, three weeks later, the freeholder would send a lawyer’s letter to the tenant, saying that because they had not paid their ground rent on time, they were now being charged £625 for their legal fees in having to chase it, including the £25 ground rent. That is a bad practice that has evolved and the Government need to clamp down on it and get it sorted.
Lee Rowley
I thank hon. Members for their questions and comments, which I will try to address. There is obviously a desire to understand the interaction of the two clauses with the outcome of the consultation that closed last week. We saw to some extent in our deliberations last week, on the first two days in Committee, when we took evidence, that this is a contested area. As a result and notwithstanding the fact that by convention in this place we have the ability to speak freely, I hope the Committee will understand that I will limit my remarks.
I understand the eagerness, enthusiasm and legitimate desire of the Committee to understand the position that we will seek to provide. We will provide that to the Committee, and publicly, as soon as possible. It will not be possible for me to answer all the questions that were asked today. I accept the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire that there is a difference between process and decision, but some elements of the process could be impacted by the decision and it will therefore be difficult to engage in hypotheticals at this stage. However, we will respond to the legitimate points that the Committee has made as soon as we are able to do so.
I agree with the points made by the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich and by my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch about the importance of clarifying how quickly the provisions will come into force. Again, that is a difficult one to answer because we need to get through this process. We have no idea what the other place might or might not do or how quickly the process will go. Although we are all grateful for the confirmation from my Labour colleagues that we are seeking to move this as quickly as possible, it is difficult to be able to answer the question at this stage, but I hope to say more in due course.
On the fourth question posed by the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich, about the competent landlord, my understanding is that we are not changing the law in that regard.
Richard Fuller
I am listening carefully to the Minister and sort of accept what he says, but may I make a couple of points? First, he has talked about how the Bill has to go through the House of Lords, but we are the democratically elected Chamber. The interaction of the two provisions represents substantial transfers in value between different parts of our community—rightly or wrongly. Decisions should correctly be made with the full information by this House. We should not go through a procedure when information is presented in the unelected House, which then comes back to the Commons. With our remit as Back-Bench Members of Parliament, we are very restricted in what we can do to amend that.
Secondly, the Minister talked about how the points about value are hypothetical. That is the case only because the Government have not made a decision. Once they make a decision, those points of value can be forecast. They are no longer hypothetical but judgmental, so it really is within the Minister’s remit to be able to move from hypothetical to his own forecast. Having said that, I fully accept what the Minister has said so far.
Lee Rowley
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his legitimate points. He is absolutely right that it is important that right hon. and hon. Members have an opportunity to debate at the earliest possible opportunity the complex interaction of what we may or may not choose to do with the consultation. I take his point about hypotheticals. My point was simply that there are a number of different options in the Bill. Some of them are substantially different, as my hon. Friend indicated in some of his questions last week. To go through all the elements of the potential outcomes in all of those different options would be a substantial amount of work and potentially not necessary on the basis that we are likely to choose some rather than all of them. None the less, where I have missed anything out, I will—
Eddie Hughes
The point being made is one of proportion. We are talking about a couple of a billion pounds versus up to £25 billion, £27 billion, which is a significant amount of money for the Government to be considering transferring, as my hon. Friend says, from one party to another. The size of the costs that might be incurred from one party to another makes it important for us to know as soon as possible.
Lee Rowley
I absolutely accept the potential significance of the quantum involved, which is why we all seek to be as clear as we can at the earliest opportunity.
Barry Gardiner
I am conscious that we are talking about the transfer of value as if it were neutral, but leaseholders have been telling us for a long time that this value has been unjustly acquired from them in the first place. The Government seek simply to remediate the position that the law has got itself into. When we consider this, we must understand the injustice that has been perpetrated on people who live in leasehold houses, and have been paying ground rents that have been racked up in an unconscionable way for far too long.
Lee Rowley
The hon. Gentleman is articulating his argument with passion, as he did last week on a similar point in some of the witness sessions. I reconfirm to the Committee that we seek to process the outcome of that consultation as quickly as we are able, and to provide hon. Members and the public with clarity at the earliest opportunity. None the less, while recognising the important interaction of clauses 7 and 8 with the consultation, I hope that underneath there is general consent for clauses 7 and 8. I hope I have covered most of the questions asked. I will write to the Committee in response to the question from the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich about redevelopment, because I need to obtain clarity on that.
Matthew Pennycook
I welcome the Minister’s response. He did not address—perhaps he will find time on another occasion—the Government’s potential inconsistency in, on the one hand, extending lease extension terms at peppercorn for houses, under the 1967 Act, and, on the other, seeking to ban leasehold houses in their entirety. The Government might want to explore that, to ensure the package as whole is consistent and working as intended. He is welcome to write to me on that point, as well as on redevelopment rights.
I take the Minister’s point on the competent landlord. My point was not whether the Bill is fine as drafted; it is the fact that we need to change the 1993Act to account for the set of circumstances I outlined. There is provision in the 1967 Act to cover that problem. As far as we can tell, this Bill does not amend the 1993 Act to account for it. I encourage him to look at that.
On the two substantive issues, there is inherent uncertainty about commencement. Of course, we want the Bill to progress and apply to as many leaseholders as possible. I was trying to stress to the Minister the need to look at the point at which the Bill kicks in. In some Bills, certain provisions come into force at First Reading. We are worried, as the Bill goes through Parliament, about a set of leaseholders being left out of these rights unfairly, given the time we have spent progressing the Law Commission’s recommendations. I encourage him to give some thought to that.
On ground rents, I understand entirely that the matter is commercially sensitive. I am not asking for an opinion from the Minister on the consultation, although we do need an indication of the Government’s thinking as soon as possible. We also need to understand, as I will come to when we debate clause 21, whether the Government intend to enact any recommendations from that consultation, via this Bill.
What I am looking for is clarity, which he should be able to give us at this stage, on this hypothetical point. If any proposals from that consultation are enacted, clauses 7, 8 and 21 are potentially redundant. We simply need to know whether the Government will further overhaul those clauses, if they take forward any of those recommendations. That is hypothetical, but the Minister should be able to answer. The Government have presumably thought, “Yes: if that scenario occurs and we take forward one of the five options, we will or will not have to revise the Bill.” That is the answer that I am simply looking for from the Minister. If he wants to take this opportunity to clarify that, I would welcome it.
Lee Rowley
The hon. Gentleman tempts me to go into hypotheticals. Let me at least dip my toe into that for a moment. Let us take some of the potential outcomes of the consultation discussed today, for example, and the question of whether they potentially will make redundant some of the clauses. In one of the instances, where there is a fear, concern or question, it would still be the case that potentially amendments to clause 8 would need to be introduced, for example, on ground rents, so depending on the scenario it would not make that entirely redundant. I will not go into hypotheticals to their logical and total extent, but I hope that that gives some assurance that consultation has been held and we will bring forward what is appropriate in due course.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 7 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Mr Mohindra.)
Revised National Planning Framework
Lee Rowley Excerpts(3 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Housing, Planning and Building Safety (Lee Rowley)
I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Dame Maria Miller) for securing the debate and for the excellent speech she just delivered on behalf of her constituents. She clearly stands up for her constituents, and I know they will have been listening tonight.
I know housing and planning is an important issue for the people of Basingstoke and, indeed, many people across the country. That is exactly why we took to update the national planning policy framework just before Christmas. This Government want to build more homes, but we want to build them in the right places. We want to build them more quickly, beautifully and sustainably. The right way to deliver that is through a reformed planning system that works. We are clear that it is only through up-to-date local plans that local authorities can deliver for communities, protect the land and assets that matter, and create the conditions for more homes to be delivered all across the country.
As the House knows, we consulted last year on a series of proposals and received more than 26,000 responses, demonstrating the interest in planning to so many communities up and down the land. The resulting update of the framework builds on the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 and delivers on the intent set out by the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities last year. It does so in a way that seeks to promote building the right homes in the right places with the right infrastructure, which will ensure that the environment is protected and will give local people a greater say on where, and where not, to place development.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
I thank the Minister for giving way and congratulate the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Dame Maria Miller) on securing the debate.
On the issue of a local say, will the Minister expand slightly on the placement of things like solar farms? It is the wild west. In places such as Oxfordshire, we have a number of solar farms coming forward, including possibly the largest one in Europe at Botley West. For those that are over 50 MW, it does not feel like local say has anything to do with it. Did he consider that when the Government were creating this policy?
Lee Rowley
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her comments. Many colleagues in the House will have experienced solar farms, both on a constituency basis and from a national policy consideration. There is obviously a trade-off to be made here. The Liberal Democrats are extremely keen on renewable energy, as we all are, and there are implications to that. She is right to highlight that this has to be considered within the appropriate boundaries of the individual areas. That is exactly why the Government amended the national planning policy framework and exactly why the Conservatives are seeking to establish that balance. We will continue to try to ensure that that balance works for communities, while also getting us the energy we need, so that when we switch on the lights in the morning, they work.
As I said, we consulted on a series of proposals last year and received more than 26,000 responses. That demonstrates the importance of planning for local communities. I understand the concerns of my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke that Basingstoke and Deane district council has seen a high level of housing delivery, including in recent years, in excess of that set out in the adopted local plan in 2016. Indeed, the housing delivery test results for 2022, published in December, show that the district has delivered more homes than is required through the test. As my right hon. Friend outlined in her excellent speech, a number of measures were announced in the national planning policy framework update, and I hope to highlight a number of those that may assist the district council and other local councils bringing forward their local plans.
First, as my right hon. Friend indicated, we have been consistently clear that the standard method is a starting point for local authorities in assessing what to plan for and that it does not set a mandatory target. The framework now sets that out in national policy. Local authorities should be in no doubt that the outcome of the standard method is an advisory starting point for establishing housing requirements through plan-making. Again, for the avoidance of doubt, that means that local authorities can put forward their own approach to assessing needs where certain exceptional circumstances exist.
Dame Maria Miller
Can my hon. Friend confirm that there will be more types of exceptional circumstances put forward in the future than there have been in the past?
Lee Rowley
I am absolutely certain that there will be more cases for exceptional circumstances put forward in the future, and I encourage councils to consider them if they believe that they apply. Logically, I would then expect more cases for exceptional circumstances to be accepted by the Planning Inspectorate, although that will also be for the inspectorate to determine on a case-by-case basis. It is the Government’s intention to indicate that cases for exceptional circumstances can be made, that local authorities should weigh up making them and that, if they feel that they have a strong case through the Planning Inspectorate process, they do so for the good of the communities they seek to serve.
Secondly, the revised NPPF now sets out that there may be situations where higher urban densities would be wholly out of character with the existing area, and that that could be a strong reason why significantly uplifting densities would be inappropriate. Thirdly, our changes to the five-year housing land supply policy mean that up-to-date local plans should no longer have to demonstrate a five-year housing land supply. My right hon. Friend has articulated some of that already, and the considerations going on within her Hampshire constituency, but there is additional flexibility where local authorities are doing the right thing in getting their plans in place and making sure they are retained.
As someone representing a constituency that has suffered from planning issues over many decades, I recognise there is always difficulty around planning in individual local areas. I understand that, and it is one of the reasons why I am so keen to send a message that, while we are clear that we need more houses in this country—we absolutely do—they have to go in the right places. It would be incorrect, wrong and irresponsible of us to say “no more housing” when we need people to get on the housing ladder. We value the benefits to our society that a property-owning democracy brings and we celebrate every first-time buyer who gets on the ladder, because that opens up to them the opportunities that gaining and accreting capital provide.
At the same time, however, we have to accept that not every area, every place or every landscape is appropriate for building on. It is the responsibility of local councils to make sure that they are weighing that up properly, getting ahead of what will always be challenging decisions and having the conversations they need to have with local communities at the earliest possible stage.
Once again, I thank my right hon. Friend for securing this debate. She ended with three questions, and I want to touch on those before I conclude.
John Spellar
This is not just a question of housing; it is also about public and private facilities and a community. As I indicated in my intervention on the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Dame Maria Miller), part of that is about entertainment and social areas, particularly music venues, which are still under pressure. I do not expect an answer tonight, but will the Minister take away the issue of enshrining in legislation some strength for local authorities to protect not only local amenities, but the pipeline of talent for our enormously important cultural industries?
Lee Rowley
I will certainly take that point away, but I hope the right hon. Gentleman will accept that there always a balance about what to put in primary legislation. The law cannot mandate virtue, and we have to find ways to ensure that our statute book does not get too big and unwieldy—there is an argument that we are already heading in that direction after 30, 40 or 50 years of incessant legislating. However, I recognise the important point he makes and I will certainly give it further consideration, although I hope he hears my reticence to state automatically that legislation is always required in all cases.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke asked three questions at the end of her speech. I hope that I have covered the question of exceptional circumstances to some extent. It is absolutely the case that local authorities should put such cases forward where reasonable and proportionate, and where they have a clear case. I would expect more exceptional circumstance cases to be made, and it is for the Planning Inspectorate to determine their outcome based on the merits or otherwise of their individual circumstances.
Dame Maria Miller
On that point about exceptional circumstances, many local authorities appear to be concerned that pleading exceptional circumstances will land them with a big legal bill and that they will be challenged in the courts. Can the Minister give some comfort to those authorities that such cases will be looked upon by planning inspectors as something that they expect?
Lee Rowley
My right hon. Friend highlights a continuing challenge with the local plan-making process where other actors have issues and considerations. The planning system will never be perfect and give everybody the outcome that they want, but it is important that local planning authorities representing their local areas have the ability to fully consider the importance of planning for their local area and to put forward their arguments in good faith, whether about exceptional circumstances or just through the conventional process, and have them discussed in interactions with the Planning Inspectorate on behalf of the Secretary of State. I encourage them to do so. Although the issue my right hon. Friend raises is not a new one, that should not retard the ability of people, organisations, councils and planning authorities to have the debates and discussions that they need to with local communities and the planning inspector.
On the second question, we absolutely expect local authorities to take into account the NPPF. It has been clear that the NPPF is extant from the moment that it was put in place. There are transitional arrangements for some elements of it at the end, but it is for local authorities to take that into account. I would be surprised if local authorities were not doing that, because the whole purpose of how they approach plans is to recognise transitional arrangements and the fact that different local authorities will be in different places and will have to work out precisely how to consider them. It is vital that local authorities take note of the national planning policy framework and the update that has been made.
I know that planning is hugely important for local communities. My right hon. Friend has articulated in great detail the particular issues in Basingstoke. Indeed, as constituency MPs, we all have such individual circumstances. She is absolutely right to raise those points and highlight the changes that have come and the opportunities that they provide. She is right to stand up for her constituents. It is important that we get planning right. Things will never be perfect, but by having these conversations and making changes, I hope that we can make progress as a Government and a country to build more homes, but in the right places.
Question put and agreed to.
Oral Answers to Questions
Lee Rowley Excerpts(3 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Maggie Throup (Erewash) (Con)
The Minister for Housing, Planning and Building Safety (Lee Rowley)
Through the levelling up parks fund, taxpayers are providing more than £9 million to create new green spaces or significantly refurbish existing ones. The Department-owned green flag award scheme, which is currently operated under licence by Keep Britain Tidy, sets the national standard for public green spaces and encourages local authorities to ensure that parks and green spaces are welcoming, safe and well maintained.
Maggie Throup
Behind the closed doors of the town hall, Labour-controlled Erewash Borough Council is plotting to sell off large swathes of green open space, including the former Pewit golf course in Ilkeston, which had previously been designated as a nature reserve. Will my hon. Friend take steps to prevent local authorities from selling public land without first carrying out full public consultations, and will he join me on a visit to the Pewit site to discuss how we might save it from the hands of developers?
Lee Rowley
By law, local authorities are required to publish a notice and advertise it before disposing of any open space. This is exactly why it is so important that my hon. Friend is and continues to be the MP for Erewash. She can call out all the disasters of the Labour Erewash Borough Council which, as a fellow Derbyshire MP, I see Derbyshire Labour doing regularly all across my county. It has the wrong priorities and outcomes, and it makes the wrong decisions.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister might know that we have wonderful public green spaces in our country—many of them are around London and in West Yorkshire—but is he aware that the decline of education departments in many local authorities owing to the policies of successive Conservative Governments means that today the ability to organise school trips to green spaces is minimal? Could we have a policy that allows all our children, of whatever background, to go to and enjoy those beautiful green spaces?
Mr Speaker
Order. Mr Sheerman, please do not take advantage of the Chair. I am trying to bring the Minister in, and I have to get many others in. You are important, but so are other people.
Lee Rowley
The hon. Gentleman should look at the Conservative party’s record on education in over 40 years in government. There have been substantial improvements in education and teaching, and our children are better readied for the challenges ahead as a result.
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)
Sir David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con)
The Minister for Housing, Planning and Building Safety (Lee Rowley)
Getting on the property ladder is everything that is important about being a Conservative. The Government have a range of schemes available to first-time buyers, including the first homes scheme, shared ownership and right to buy. So far, nearly 900,000 people have been helped on to the property ladder by this Government.
Sir David Evennett
Does the Minister agree that while Labour Members actively block the building of new homes for first-time buyers, the Conservative Government have increased the numbers to a 20-year high and helped almost 1 million households through Government-backed schemes?
Lee Rowley
I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend. I hope he heard some of the chunters of “Come on!” from the Opposition Benches when he raised the absolutely correct point that, when the opportunity was there for Labour Members, they flubbed it. They have blocked 100,000 houses that could be used for first-time buyers, people who need help, and the most vulnerable. It is all down to the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner).
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for that answer. What discussions has he had with large UK banks, such as Danske Bank in Northern Ireland, to ensure mortgages are made as accessible as possible for first-time buyers, encouraging them to buy, not rent, when they have a steady income? Further, are there any plans to reintroduce the help to buy ISA?
Lee Rowley
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his important question. Getting people on the housing ladder is absolutely vital: that is why we introduced the mortgage guarantee scheme, which extends the number of mortgages that are on the market for those people who need it, including first-time buyers. I am happy to talk separately to the hon. Gentleman about other ideas that he may have.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
The Minister for Housing, Planning and Building Safety (Lee Rowley)
Right now, the Government are taking action with the progression of the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill through this place, which delivers on the Government’s manifesto commitments on leasehold reform.
Chi Onwurah
Leaseholders in Leazes Park in Newcastle are having their lives ruined because their supposedly charitable freeholder, the St Mary Magdalene and Holy Jesus Trust, refuses to allow them to extend or buy their leaseholds. Across the constituency, in a cost of living crisis, my constituents face exorbitant management fees, high costs for fire safety and ever-increasing ground rents. Can the Minister tell my constituents why, when the Labour party is committed to comprehensive and fundamental reform of the leasehold system as set out by the Law Commission, he has brought forward a leasehold reform Bill that does not actually reform their leaseholds?
Lee Rowley
The Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill, which is going through Parliament at the moment—going through in a very constructive way so far, with contributions from Members of all parties, presumably because they recognise the value of the clauses it contains—will make substantive changes for those who have leaseholds at the current time. We look forward to its continued progress through the House.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
There will be agreement on both sides of the House that reform is needed. For my part, I welcome the introduction of the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill to get people on to modern leasehold and commonhold, and through the Minister, I invite those who are suffering—the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) explained that her constituents are suffering—to put their points through MPs to the Department, so that when amendments to the Bill are tabled, as many as possible can be discussed and accepted.
Lee Rowley
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. As I and the Secretary of State have said, we are keen to improve the Bill where we can, but it is a substantial Bill that will make substantial changes for people who have needed reform of leasehold for a long time.
Simon Jupp (East Devon) (Con)
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
The Minister for Housing, Planning and Building Safety (Lee Rowley)
It is absolutely vital that buyers have correct, up-to-date and accurate material information on their purchase before they make a decision to buy a home.
Andrew Selous
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister. He will know that promotional documents put out by major house builders such as Barratt Homes, Taylor Wimpey, David Wilson Homes and so on to prospective purchasers on large-scale housing estates commit absolutely to the building of health infrastructure, which very often does not turn up. Just allocating a piece of land simply is not good enough. Can he please make sure that we do not mislead purchasers and that, frankly, the doctors’ surgery is the first building to be built on many of these new estates?
Lee Rowley
My hon. Friend makes a hugely important point, and I am grateful for the time he has spent with me in my first couple of months in the job to highlight this issue, to articulate the problems and to show the real-life examples of where there is an issue. He is such a good champion of this issue for his constituency. A substantial amount of infrastructure has been built all across the country, but where there are gaps it is hugely frustrating, and we will continue to work with assiduous Members such as my hon. Friend to try to close them.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
A recent freedom of information request revealed that only a third of the housing infrastructure fund has actually been spent, which leaves £2.9 billion unspent. The National Audit Office says that successful delivery of the housing infrastructure fund “appears to be unachievable”, so what is going to happen to that £2.9 billion?
Lee Rowley
The housing infrastructure fund continues to transform very difficult, challenging and unviable areas of the country. It is being spent at pace, and it will continue to be so. We expect it to be able to transform more parts of the country over the years ahead.
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)
The Minister for Housing, Planning and Building Safety (Lee Rowley)
The Government recognise the time and commitment that communities put into neighbourhood plans. Our recent updates to the national planning policy framework mean that neighbourhood plans meeting their identified housing requirement are now better protected from speculative development, including through the additional reforms coming in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023.
Dr Evans
My Lib Dem-run borough council still does not have an up-to-date local plan. Every day that passes means that we are open to speculative housing developments without the right infrastructure such as GP practices and roads and those kind of things. My communities are fantastic at producing neighbourhood plans, but they are ridden over roughshod in places such as Desford, where housing has been put in where the community does not want it. Will the Minister look at increasing the priority given to neighbourhood plans when communities and local planning authorities do not have an up-to-date local plan?
Lee Rowley
It is hugely frustrating when local plans are not in place. As my hon. Friend indicated, in his area the Lib Dem council has failed to do that, which is letting residents down. There have been changes as a result of the national planning policy framework giving additional protection through neighbourhood plans, but district councils and those with planning responsibilities need to get their plans in place.
John Penrose (Weston-super-Mare) (Con)
The Minister for Housing, Planning and Building Safety (Lee Rowley)
We have introduced national permitted development rights to allow a wide range of existing residential and commercial buildings to extend upwards by up to two additional storeys. We have also recently consulted on proposals to apply local design codes to those rights and further announcements will be made in due course.
John Penrose
May I urge the Minister to go further and faster on this? The permitted development rights would create beautiful urban townscapes and unleash the biggest wave of housebuilding in half a century, which would in turn cut housing costs to rent or buy, be greener by allowing people to live within bicycling or walking distance from work and protecting rural landscapes from urban sprawl and, by increasing the development potential of almost any urban building, be the biggest single act of wealth creation in decades. What’s to dislike?
Lee Rowley
There is absolutely nothing to dislike, as my hon. Friend indicates, about speeding up the planning system to ensure we get the houses we so badly need. As I know my hon. Friend will appreciate, however, there is always a balance to be struck: we must ensure that we take local people with us, but we are committed to building more houses, and doing so in the right places.
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
The Minister for Housing, Planning and Building Safety (Lee Rowley)
I am sorry to hear about the challenges that my hon. Friend has seen in Rother Valley. It is one reason that more Conservative councillors need to be elected on to Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council for the future. We are absolutely aware that there are challenges. We need to build more houses and in the right place, and the best way to do that is by getting a local plan in place, and by the councils that are responsible for that engaging properly with their communities about it.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
Lee Rowley
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we need decisions at the earliest possible opportunity. Sometimes that is not possible, but it is important that things are done as quickly as possible. That is one reason that we announced a few weeks ago that we were monitoring local authorities’ planning application performance, so that can see where they are, and are not, doing the right thing.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
Lee Rowley
It suggests to me that the freeholder is doing the wrong thing, and where the freeholder is doing the wrong thing, they need to be held to account through the court system, as they are, and they will eventually be forced to do the right thing. On the specifics, I am happy to talk to the hon. Lady, if that would be helpful.
Dehenna Davison (Bishop Auckland) (Con)
We have £72 million for Bishop Auckland through the levelling-up fund, the future high streets fund and the towns fund, £20 million for Spennymoor through the long-term plan for towns and a £1.4 billion investment fund through the north-east devolution deal. It really is the Conservatives who deliver for the north-east, is it not?
Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill (Fourth sitting)
Lee Rowley ExcerptsThursday 18th January 2024
(3 months, 4 weeks ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill 2023-24 View all Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill 2023-24 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 18 January 2024 - (18 Jan 2024)
Mike Amesbury
Q
Philip Freedman: The Law Society has been participating in various working groups following Lord Best’s report, trying to help with the preparation of codes of practice that were intended to sit underneath the regulatory framework for property agents of different types, whether selling agents, managing agents or whatever. We feel that, because tenants often do not know what their rights are, and if they did know what their rights were, they may not want to spend the time or money getting someone to help them enforce their rights, you come back to the people actually doing the management. They need to be proactively willing to be transparent, and to realise that they have duties to the tenants as well as to the landlord. It needs a mindset change in the people who are doing the management. You do not want to rely on tenants having to try and find out what their rights are and then enforcing them. We feel, therefore, that a lot of the changes in the Bill, and other changes that have been talked about, will be better achieved if property managers are regulated, and that the right people with the right tuition being told what their duties are would be improved by regulation.
The Minister for Housing, Planning and Building Safety (Lee Rowley)
Q
Philip Freedman: It was one of the two partners in the firm I had been speaking to. Also, I have heard that various other bodies, like the British Property Federation, have been looking into these issues, and there has been a certain amount of it in the property press. It is only general awareness; I do not know any specifics.
The Chair
Thank you very much. That brings us to the end of this panel. May I thank the witnesses very much for their evidence? We will now move on to the next panel.
Examination of Witness
Jack Spearman gave evidence.
Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill (Third sitting)
Lee Rowley ExcerptsThursday 18th January 2024
(3 months, 4 weeks ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill 2023-24 View all Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill 2023-24 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 18 January 2024 - (18 Jan 2024)
The Chair
We have five minutes left. I will turn to Lee Rowley but please bear in mind that I want to bring in Barry as well.
The Minister for Housing, Planning and Building Safety (Lee Rowley)
Q
Paul Broadhead: That is absolutely an accepted position. The point I think you are getting to is that sometimes there is still an EWS1 form requested on sub-11 metre buildings. As I mentioned earlier, the lender is the expert in mortgage lending, not in building safety, and the surveyor on the ground will have their own gangs from the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors that they follow. If they come back and report that it needs further investigation, the lender has to take that at face value, because that is their expert.
Lee Rowley
I am not sure that I would accept that, but I will take that up with you and your members separately.
Barry Gardiner
Q
Paul Broadhead: Parliamentary privilege notwithstanding, no, we do not have individual organisations I could point to. I certainly do not get reports from my members.
Proposed British Jewish History Month
Lee Rowley Excerpts(4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Lee Rowley)
It is a privilege to respond on behalf of the Government and on behalf of my colleague in the other place, Baroness Penn, who formally holds this portfolio, on this incredibly important issue. Many of us who are here today were also in Westminster Hall on Tuesday to debate a more difficult part of this discussion. It is such a pleasure to be able to celebrate the contribution of the British Jewish community to our country, and I intend to keep my remarks wholly to the positives, having talked about the more challenging issues in Tuesday’s debate.
I know from the contributions of all Members that we agree across the House that Britain would not be the country it is today without the enormous contribution made by the Jewish community, and indeed by people of all faiths and ethnicities. It is crucial that we celebrate that contribution. That is why the Government are very supportive of having a Jewish history month—a brilliant idea put forward in this debate by my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken). I congratulate her on securing this important debate, because British Jews have played a vital role in shaping the life of our country, stretching back more than 2,000 years and producing, as so many colleagues have outlined, leading talents in the arts, law, philosophy, medicine, the media, finance, the charity sector, retail and wrestling.
From Peter George Davis, the founder of the Special Boat Service, to Jack Cohen, the founder of Tesco, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster already outlined; and from Ludwig Guttmann, the founder of the Paralympics, to some of our greatest artists, such as Lucian Freud, and poets, such as Siegfried Sassoon, British Jews have made an outstanding contribution to British public life. They have also done so from all sides of this House, as was outlined by the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel), who is no longer in his place, from our first Prime Minister of Jewish heritage, Benjamin Disraeli, in the 19th century, to the iron Chancellor Nigel Lawson, to the Liberal leader Herbert Samuel, and to celebrated Labour figures, such as Gerald Kaufman and Manny Shinwell, as was mentioned.
The creation of a designated Jewish history month would give us an opportunity as a nation to celebrate this history and the vibrancy of Jewish culture, traditions, values and the importance of the Jewish community to the fabric of our society today. That could not be more important given the events of the past few weeks. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster said herself, we must remind ourselves of the huge contribution that British citizens within the Jewish faith have made for the benefit of us all, and a designated history month would be a huge step towards that.
This is about celebrating Jewish history and culture, as well as—the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who is no longer in his place, said this—an opportunity to foster greater community unity and cohesion through inter-faith dialogue and understanding at a time of growing division. I know that is something we would very much all welcome. It would of course need to be meaningful and informed by the wishes of the British Jewish community themselves. If this is something that the British Jewish community would encourage the Government to support, we would welcome their thoughts on this motion, as we welcome the thoughts of all right hon. and hon. Members across the House and anyone else inspired to take up this important cause.
I want to spend a few minutes before I close to talk about some of the contributions of colleagues today. The hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) and my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) spoke about the history and importance of the Jewish community and told incredible and—in at least one instance—shocking stories, which remind us of the very near-term challenges that this community has faced and the importance of supporting them.
The hon. Members for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) and for Strangford reminded us of the contribution of the British Jewish community in all parts of our Union, including something I never thought I would hear: the Sinn Féin rabbi. That demonstrates the absolute contribution in so many different ways and with so many different opinions over many decades and centuries. My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) made a hugely important point about the importance of the British Jewish community to our public life and our military life.
Andrew Percy
As the Minister has a little bit of time, because of the time limit, I did not get a chance to mention some of the East Yorkshire Jewish sons who fell in world war one. I would like to memorialise their names, if he will give me a moment: James Aaron, Isaac Reuben, Barnett Rubinstein, Bernard Shalgosky, Soloman Sole, John Stone, David Gordon and Harry Furman. All fell defending liberty.
Lee Rowley
My hon. Friend outlines another example of the hugely important contribution the British Jewish community have made to our freedom over so many decades.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) made a hugely important point about how the vast contribution made is often not obvious. Like the challenges she may have had in her home city, I had challenges linking it to my home constituency where I grew up—it has a very small Jewish community. Having looked at some of the history from Derbyshire, it was heartening to hear that, just 20 years ago, when a small group of people from Derby at the other side of the county found in the archives that the citizens of Derby had paid an amount of money in the 12th century to stop British Jews from living there, they compensated the British Jewish community by the equivalent amount in 2002 so that the edict could be removed. Such acts of kindness and recognition show that what has been called a challenging history can be acknowledged and worked through, even in places where there are not large Jewish populations, such as Derbyshire.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton North (Sir Michael Ellis) made the important point that those who forget history are condemned to repeat it. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich East (Nicola Richards), who does so much on this hugely important subject and who was the genesis of the important debate we had on Tuesday. I know that she and Lord Austin from the other place were keen to acknowledge a gentleman who is in the Public Gallery today—Peter Madeley—a former reporter in the west midlands who has done so much over so many years to report on important issues for the Jewish community.
The hon. Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols), as I have already mentioned, gave us some very interesting references to the wrestling community, and pointed out the hugely important history, culture and contribution to Britain from the Jewish community and how deep and broad that contribution is. My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Greg Smith) made a hugely important point about the challenges that the community currently face. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy (Robin Millar) spoke about the importance of shared heritage and the ability to reconcile that in a way that works for everybody, irrespective of faith, culture, ethnicity or background.
Finally, I come to my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster. We began our electoral journey together in the same place in Westminster in 2006. I had the privilege of representing a historically very Jewish area of Maida Vale, known in the 1880s as “New Jerusalem”, which contains the Spanish & Portuguese Synagogue, and we both had the privilege of serving alongside such luminaries as Sir Simon Milton, Melvyn Caplan, Daniel Astaire and the former Lord Mayor of Westminster, Councillor Louise Hyams, who is also in the Public Gallery.
I am incredibly grateful to my hon. Friend for securing this debate. It has been a privilege to be here and to hear about the contributions the Jewish community have made to our country over so many years, decades and centuries. This Government are wholly committed to honouring, celebrating and safeguarding the security of our Jewish communities. That is a commitment that I know everybody shares, wherever they sit in this place, a commitment that we must work together to uphold and a commitment that is demonstrated by our support for the debate today.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
It has been a privilege and honour for me to chair this debate today.
Antisemitic Offences
Lee Rowley Excerpts(4 months, 1 week ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Minister for Housing, Planning and Building Safety (Lee Rowley)
I am genuinely grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich East (Nicola Richards) for giving us the opportunity to speak about this hugely important subject, and to almost all hon. Members for their contributions. To the hon. Members who have sought to politicise this, I would just say that there are times and there are places, and this was neither the time nor the place.
It is customary to start debates like this by saying that it is a pleasure to serve—and, of course, it is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz—but in truth, it is not a pleasure to be here today. It is not a pleasure to have listened to some of the absolutely outrageous stories that we have heard over the past half hour. It is not a pleasure to be sat in a debate that should not be needed at all. There is no pleasure to be had in this discussion, and I know that all colleagues here and outside this place share in that.
This debate is not a pleasure, but it is most definitely a necessity. It is a necessity, because in this seat of democracy there is an opportunity to call out the appalling acts of a tiny minority in recent months. It is a necessity for us to shine light on unacceptable behaviour, and to speak and articulate what we have sadly seen in recent months from a tiny group of people—that is, pure antisemitism. It might be dressed up as something else: it might be shrouded in a plaintive sense of emotion; it might be a preamble of obfuscation or confusion; it might be an inaccurate reference to fighting for something else; it might be the imposition of a horrifying hierarchy where Jewish deaths, Jewish injuries and Jewish blood appear to be less important than any other; or it might be the extraordinary insertion of context into the deaths of 1,200 people on 7 October. In truth, some are not even that subtle, and are now explicit about it, but whatever it is—whether implicit or explicit—we see it: it is present. If it walks, talks and acts like what it might be, then it probably is. It is antisemitism.
I want to be clear that no one in this room, nor the Government, seek to close down debate. No one here seeks to conflate legitimate criticism of one actor, one country, or one situation with explicit discrimination and prejudice. No one does not acknowledge the horror of war and the inhumanity of conflict—any conflict, anywhere, anytime, in any part of the world. No one is saying that we should not hear hard things; that is the mark of a civilised, educated, compassionate and curious society. But the other mark of a civilised society is calling out when things have gone too far, both implicitly and explicitly.
Part of the answer is law—you cannot incite violence—but another part is personal responsibility. There is a term that I hate; it is massively overused and I never thought I would be saying it. That term is “gaslighting”. But with the “From the river to the sea” chant, there is the most incredible abdication of responsibility for those who have used it casually, willingly, publicly—even, for some, joyfully. It may not be the case that everyone who has said it is antisemitic, but it absolutely is the case that all antisemites would be happy to use it.
There may also be a staggering misapplication of emotion via the trusted, weird logic of post-modernism that has taken root in so many of our universities, which abolishes the agency of the individual, dismantles the principle of the nation state and sees society only through the prism of a power dynamic where everyone either holds no power whatsoever, or holds all the power; and it follows that, as a result, anything that those without power do is virtuous and everyone who may have some semblance of power must be disregarded, ignored and dehumanised.
Lee Rowley
I will not give way. Postmodernism is an insidious, regressive and depressing call to all our worst selves, relying on false binaries and erroneous arguments. Most of the time, it sits in front of us without incident, in weird ideologies and daft PhDs. Yet occasionally it pops to the surface and the utter baselessness of it is revealed. At its heart, it needs to be ripped out of our society. This is not Britain. It is not supposed to be like this. This debate should not have happened; we are supposed to have moved on from this. It is clear that we have not.
Lee Rowley
I will not, if I may.
Like so many others in this debate, I have seen examples as a constituency MP. Individual one: an employee at a Russell Group university who raises money for charity in her spare time. She started to email me on Saturday 28 October to ask whether it is donations to my party or the selling of weapons to Israel that influences my stand. She tells me that she does not agree with me about “from the river to the sea” being a call for a race to be wiped out. She tells me that groups such as Hamas will continue while Israel does what it does.
Next, individual two: a nurse practitioner just over the border in Sheffield, who lives in my constituency. She asks me how I sleep at night, tells me there is collective punishment, that there is a war crime and that there is genocide. Then individual three: an ex-civil servant, an economist and a volunteer at a children’s society, who decided to debate with me on Facebook how much terrorism would be acceptable. Or individual four: a retired nurse who posts sunsets on Facebook and talks about a plan to free up land, with some rubbing their hands together for oil deals and expansion. It is just incredible.
If someone had told me on Friday 6 October that within three months we would have seen Jewish schools vandalised, missing persons posters torn down, a massive rise in crime, Jewish friends telling me they sometimes no longer feel safe in this country and words that have real meaning being casually tossed around, I would not have believed them. If they had told me on Friday 6 October that the apparent genesis of that hatred was the execution of 1,200 innocent Jewish people simply for the crime of being Jewish, that would have been doubly shocking.
Recently, I spent a few days on holiday in America. When I was there, for the first time, I visited the site at Dallas. One of my favourite, although lesser known, quotes of John F. Kennedy said that history
“is the memory of a nation.”
Just as a memory enables the individual to learn, choose goals and stick to them, it prevents them making the same mistakes twice. That is exactly what we need to do here and that is what the Government and all decent people in society need to do.
The Prime Minister and a senior set of Ministers have already met Jewish community members and key organisations to listen to their concerns. As has been outlined by colleagues here already, we have adopted the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s working definition of antisemitism and we encourage other bodies to adopt it and consider its practical implementation. The Community Security Trust, which Members on all sides have referenced, has reported that incidents often occur near Jewish community buildings, such as synagogues and schools. The Government are providing protective security, such as guarding, CCTV and alarms at schools, colleges, nurseries, synagogues and community sites through the Jewish community protective security grant, which has provided more than £110 million since 2015.
In response to my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich East, I should say that we continue with efforts to reduce radicalisation through the network of Prevent practitioners, who provide training to school staff on radicalisation and empower teachers to challenge extremism in the classroom. The reporting extremism online form allows concerns to be raised directly with the Department for Education. Since 7 October, the Government have engaged with schools, colleges and universities to offer support and guidance. The Education Secretary wrote to the sector urging them to respond swiftly to hate-related incidents and to actively reassure Jewish students so they can study without fear, harassment or intimidation, as hon. Members rightly said they must.
At the opening of the autumn statement, the Chancellor made clear his deep concerns about the rise of antisemitism, underscoring the Government’s commitment to tackling it. His commitments were backed by a further £7 million in funding over the next three years to help tackle antisemitism in education. I will take away the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) about research. I would be happy to do that, and, if we can, I am sure we will try. The autumn statement will ensure that support is in place for schools, colleges and universities to understand, recognise and deal with antisemitism effectively.
It was absolutely right and reasonable for the hon. Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) to ask about the online space. Ministers from the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology recently convened social media companies and community voices to discuss online antisemitism and to understand the impact of this abhorrent content on communities. As part of the implementation of the Online Safety Act, we will remain in contact with social media platforms, and we have been clear that they need not wait for regulation before taking action.
I want to end with something that a Jewish friend once told me many years ago, long before the recent challenges. We were in conversation about our backgrounds, childhoods and families. In truth, I thought I would educate her, as the working class kid from Derbyshire talking to the posh girl from London. I told her about my background, and I waited for her to contrast it with her Twickenham upbringing, her gilded life at private school and her middle-class comforts, which she did. At the end, she turned to her Jewish heritage. It is something that she has always been hugely proud of, and she spoke about it with verve, passion and a reverence for history.
Casually, right at the end, my friend said one of the most arresting things that I have ever heard. “Of course, Lee,” she said, looking at me right in the eye, “I always keep a bag packed under my bed.” Confused, I did not immediately catch on. I had no knowledge, no background, no experience—I do not think I had met a Jewish person until I was 18. I am not saying that this is indicative of everybody in the community, but she said, “For me and my family, it is something we have done for decades. History taught us that we needed to be ready in case something ever went wrong, as it did for my forefathers and their forefathers before them. I don’t think it will ever be necessary, but it’s there in case it is—in case this country ever stops being my home.”
That must never ever happen. We are proud of our Jewish communities, just as we are proud of every single other community that makes up this rich patchwork of the United Kingdom, and we stand with them today. The United Kingdom is so much more than the isolated ugliness that we have seen. This Government and this Parliament—all parties here—and this country will continue to do whatever we can to build a stronger foundation to support our Jewish community in the months, years and decades ahead.
Long-term Plan for Housing
Lee Rowley Excerpts(4 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Housing, Planning and Building Safety (Lee Rowley)
I apologise on behalf of the Department for the points you have just highlighted, Madam Deputy Speaker.
With permission, I would like to make a statement on the Government’s commitment to house building and the planning policy reforms we are making today.
This Government want to build more homes in the right places, more quickly, more beautifully and more sustainably. We know that the right way to deliver this is through a reformed planning system. Today, the Secretary of State and I are laying out our plan for that reform, and we are clear that it is only through up-to-date local plans that local authorities can deliver for communities, protect the land and the assets that matter most, and create the conditions for more homes to be delivered.
Having plans in place unlocks land for homes, for hospitals and general practitioner centres, for schools, for power grid connections and more. It lays the foundations for our economic growth and the levelling up of our communities. The first change we are making today is to update the national planning policy framework. We consulted on a series of proposals last December and received more than 26,000 responses, which we have worked through in detail.
The resulting update builds on the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 and delivers on the intent set out by the Secretary of State last year, and it does so in a way that will promote building the right homes in the right places with the right infrastructure, which will ensure that the environment is protected and give local people a greater say on where and where not to place new, beautiful development.
I will now summarise the key changes being made to the framework today, and hon. Members should refer to the consultation response and the framework itself for the published policies. First, the standard method for assessing local housing need figures has sometimes been difficult to apply in some areas, and has been blind to the exceptional characteristics of local communities. The new NPPF makes it clear that the outcome of the standard method is an advisory starting point in plan making for establishing an area’s housing requirement.
The revised NPPF also now provides more clarity on what may constitute exceptional circumstances for using an alternative method to assess housing need. The framework is also clear that the urban uplift should be accommodated in the urban areas in which it is applied, and should not be exported unless there is a voluntary cross-boundary agreement in place. New homes are most desperately needed in urban areas, so it is essential that city councils plan properly for local people.
Secondly, given the importance of the green belt to so many, the new NPPF is clear that there is generally no requirement on local authorities to review or alter green belt boundaries. Unlike Labour’s plan to concrete over the countryside, we will not impose top-down release of green-belt land against the wishes of local communities. Where a relevant local planning authority chooses to conduct a review, existing national policy will continue to expect that green-belt boundaries are altered only where exceptional circumstances are fully evidenced and justified, and this should only be through the preparation or updating of plans. The Government are making no changes to the rules that govern what can and cannot be built on green-belt land, but we are clarifying in guidance where brownfield development can occur on the green belt, provided that the openness of the green belt is not harmed.
Thirdly, the Government are clear that the character of an existing area should be respected, particularly in the historic suburbs of our great towns and cities. The new NPPF therefore recognises that there may be situations in plan making where significant uplifts in urban residential densities would be inappropriate, as they would be wholly out of character with that existing area. In these cases, authorities need not plan for such development. That will apply where there is a design code that is adopted, or will be adopted, as part of the local plan. I know the shadow Minister will sympathise with this change, given that he recently opposed 1,500 new homes in his constituency due to the impact on Greenwich’s local character.
Fourthly, where an up-to-date plan is in place—a plan less than five years old—and contained a deliverable five-year supply of land when examined by the inspector, authorities will no longer be required to update that supply annually. This change provides those authorities with additional protection from the presumption in favour of sustainable development. We are also fully removing what are known as the 5% and 10% buffers, which could be applied to an authority’s housing land supply. A transitional arrangement will ensure that decision making on live applications is not affected, thus avoiding disruption to applications in the system. For authorities that have not yet passed examination but are either at examination, regulation 18 or regulation 19 stage, and have both a policy map and proposed allocations, there will be a two-year grace period in which they need to demonstrate only a four-year housing land supply for decision making. That is a strong incentive for councils to now do the right thing and agree a local plan.
Fifthly, local communities that have worked hard to put neighbourhood plans in place should not be penalised for the failure of their council to ensure an up-to-date local plan. The new NPPF therefore extends protection for neighbourhood plans from speculative development from two to five years, where those plans allocate at least one housing site. The updated framework also gives greater support to self-build, custom-build and community-led housing, and to encouraging the delivery of older people’s housing, including retirement housing, housing with care and care homes.
Next, the NPPF cements the role of beauty and placemaking in the planning system; it now expressly uses the word “beautiful” in relation to “well-designed places”. It also now requires greater “visual clarity” on design requirements set out in planning conditions and supports gentle density through the promotion of mansard roof development. Finally, the new NPPF also strengthens protections for agricultural land, by being clear that consideration should be given to the availability of agricultural land for food production in development decisions. The NPPF also supports the Government’s energy security strategy, by giving significant weight to the importance of energy efficiency in the adaptation of existing buildings, while protecting heritage.
With the updated NPPF now in place, the other reforms we are making today are focused on setting higher expectations for performance. Those who operationalise the system—local authorities, the Planning Inspectorate and statutory consultees—must live up to their responsibilities. To support that, we are taking action on four fronts. First, we will ensure greater transparency, because exposing what is really going on in a system sparks action. So we will publish a new local authority performance dashboard in 2024, and pull back the veil on the use of extension of time agreements, which in too many instances are concealing poor performance.
Secondly, we have been providing, and will continue to provide, additional financial support. That includes the increased planning fees that went live a fortnight ago, as well as a range of funds to tackle backlogs and improve capability. Thirdly, we will tackle slow processes, with Sam Richards leading a review into the statutory consultee system and a greater focus from the Planning Inspectorate where planning committees are seeing their decisions overturned on appeal.
Finally, we will intervene where we need to. The Secretary of State has issued a direction to seven of the worst authorities in terms of plan making, requiring them to publish a plan timetable within 12 weeks of the publication of the new NPPF. Should they fail, we will consider further intervention. We are also designating two additional authorities for their decision-making performance and we will review the thresholds for designation to make sure to make sure we are not letting off the hook authorities that should be doing better.
We are also taking action in London, because the homes needed by the capital are simply not being built and opportunities for urban brownfield regeneration go begging as a result of the Mayor’s anti-housing policy and approach. A review launched today will identify where changes to policy could speed up the delivery of much-needed homes. If directing change in London becomes necessary, this Government will do that.
In designing these reforms we have aimed to facilitate desirable development, constrained only by appropriate protections. That is a balance I am confident we have struck.
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. Nothing screams long-term housing plan quite like a statement from the 16th Housing Minister since 2010 outlining the fourth set of changes to the national planning policy framework in as many years. As ever with this Government, the reality in no way matches the rhetoric, as we see with the headline announcements made to the press—not this House—over the past 24 hours. Not only are they seemingly at odds with the Government’s stated wish to give local communities more of a say about the placement of new developments; the truth is that the ink will barely be dry on outline plans for the proposed expansion of Cambridge by the time the general election is called. The punitive and nakedly political interventions that Ministers are working up for London ahead of the mayoral election will, likewise, do nothing in practice to resolve the constraints that they themselves have imposed on house building in the capital, not least by leaving industry completely in the dark when it comes to second staircase regulations for tall buildings, at a cost of thousands of new homes.
When it comes to meaningful support for small and medium-sized house builders, the Government have been talking, literally for years, about the various ways in which they need greater support while presiding over their continued decline. Far from unlocking a new generation of home building, as the Secretary of State has claimed, the detailed changes being made to the NPPF today will almost certainly further suppress collapsing house building rates. Let us be clear: although there have been minor tweaks, the changes being made are those that the Government, in their weakness, promised the so-called “Planning Concern Group” of Tory Back Benchers they would enact back in December last year in order to stave off a rebellion on the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill. That is precisely why the members of that group are so pleased with the ”compromise” they have secured today.
I have a number of detailed questions for the Minister, starting with the impact of these changes on overall housing supply. Whether it is the softening of land supply requirements or the listing of various local characteristics that would justify a deviation from the now only advisory standard method, can he confirm that the changes made to the NPPF, taken together, will give those local authorities that wish to take advantage of it the freedom to plan for less housing than their nominal local targets imply? If he disputes that that will be their effect, what technical evidence can he provide to demonstrate that these changes can be reconciled with a boost to housing delivery?
I turn to the Government’s 300,000 annual housing target, which the Secretary of State recommitted himself to today. How on earth does the Minister imagine that the changes that have been made to the rules around plan making will help the Government finally meet that target, particularly given that the arbitrary 35% urban uplift has been retained but the requirement for local planning authorities to try to meet it out of area in co-operation with their neighbours if they cannot do so alone has been removed? Can the Minister finally provide a convincing explanation of how and when the Government’s 300,000 homes a year target will be met? Or is it the case that it remains alive in name only, abandoned in practice even if not formally abolished?
Let me turn to local plan coverage. In many ways, the revised NPPF speaks to a planning framework that does not actually exist, because under this Government we have a local plan-led system in which only a minority of local authorities have up-to-date plans. According to the most recent figures, just 33% have local plans that have been adopted or reviewed within the past five years and only 10 new plans have been submitted for examination this year—in part, this is because of the chilling effect of the Government’s December 2022 concession. Yet only now, in the dying days of this Government, are Ministers seemingly getting a bit more serious about intervening to drive up coverage.
In The Times today, the Secretary of State announced a new three-month deadline for up-to-date local plans to be submitted. Will the Minister outline the thinking behind that timeframe and tell us what happens if multiple local authorities fail to meet the new March deadline? In his Times interview, the Secretary of State suggested that local authorities that miss that deadline will have development forced on them and their powers to delay applications removed. Can the Minister tell us precisely how that would be achieved? The Secretary of State also suggested that recalcitrant councils will be stripped of their planning responsibilities. Can the Minister tell us who will take them on, given that the Planning Inspectorate clearly does not have the capacity to do so?
Finally, although it is the Government’s contention that the changes made today will boost local plan coverage, surely the Minister recognises that even if that is ultimately their effect, it will be at the cost of overall housing supply because it will entail the enactment of numerous plans that will not meet the needs of local communities in full. In short, isn’t the truth of the matter that today’s changes entail a deliberate shift from a plan-led system focused on making at least some attempt to meet housing need, to one geared toward providing only what the politics of any given area allow, with all the implications that entails for the housing crisis and economic growth?
Lee Rowley
I thank the Opposition spokesperson for his comments, which I will address in turn. He started by saying that this is the fourth time we have updated the guidance in the last few years. If his criticism is that we are willing to listen, be flexible and adaptable, and recognise the differences between his constituency of Greenwich and Woolwich and the constituencies of Government Back Benchers, then he is correct. We are willing to be flexible and adaptable, but we also recognise that we need to build more homes; we just want to ensure that they are built in the right places, which is exactly what today’s update seeks to do.
The difference between my party and that of the Opposition spokesperson is that we recognise the nuance in the discussion. Within the NPPF, we are trying to accommodate the fact that different areas and parts of the country have to be approached in different ways. While the policies of the hon. Gentleman’s party move backwards and forwards on different days of the week, we will continue to ensure that we build more homes—in the right place, with the right infrastructure and with the support of the community. In the long run, that will ensure that we make progress on housing in general.
The hon. Gentleman asked a question about freedom to plan. The housing needs assessment will be made by all councils, but councils can make a case if there is an exceptional circumstance that applies in their local area. If that were not possible, there would be no exceptions for any council, local authority or community anywhere, which would be completely unnuanced. However, on a macro level it remains the case that we will seek to build more houses. When councils have plans in place, they tend to deliver more houses than when such plans are not in place, so if we can get more plans in place, we will have the opportunity to build more homes that have the consent and support of the community in which they will be built.
The hon. Gentleman asked about urban uplift and the removal of co-operation with neighbours. We uplifted the targets and expectations on the basis that those houses would go into cities and would not be exported into the countryside near cities, because the whole point was to acknowledge the infrastructure in those cities. There are schools in London that are closing because insufficient numbers of children are using them. We do not want to export housing elsewhere; we want to use that infrastructure—including transport links and educational establishments—as was intended when it was built.
This is not about whether we believe in a plan-led system or not—we clearly do. It is about the fact that this Government are getting on with the hard job of striking a balance, recognising the nuance and ensuring that more progress is being made, versus the Opposition stating that they want to build houses, but then voting against that happening in relation to nutrient neutrality. If they put their money where their mouth was and did what they say they will do, they would have the ability to stand up and make such arguments consistently. They do not and, as a result, I will not listen to them.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
Before talking about the general policy, may I mention one small point? In paragraph 22 of his statement, the Minister talks about energy efficiency in heritage buildings. In Ambrose Place in Worthing—including at the house of one of my neighbours, where Harold Pinter lived—people are being told that they can have only secondary glazing, not double glazing, because it is in a conservation area. I hope that the Minister will talk with experts and say that double glazing is acceptable in reasonable circumstances, when people want to improve the energy efficiency of their homes.
On the general point, the Minister mentions the green belt. According to one calculation, there are 16 green belts in England, none of which is in East Sussex or West Sussex. I interpret his words as meaning “green gaps”: an expression used by the Secretary of State when he commented on the problems of Worthing, where every single bit of grass—the vineyards, the golf courses and the green fields—between Worthing and its neighbours to the west is subject to a planning application. It is important that the inspectors in his Department do not come along, as they did over the land north of Goring station, to Chatsmore Farm and the Goring Gap and say that even if Worthing built on every bit of lawn in town, it would not meet the full target, and yet give permission to build on that farm, which distinguishes Worthing from its neighbours.
It is also important to follow up the Minister’s words about intense development in the centre of villages, towns and cities, so that there are homes in high-density accommodation that elderly people can choose to live in, so that their family homes can be freed for families. The idea that most of the development on our green fields is for families is for the birds—it is for people on their second or third homes. I think people who are my sort of age ought to have the choice to live securely in high-thermal efficiency apartments, with services that do not require cars, and where they can live more easily and happily.
Lee Rowley
My hon. Friend makes an important point about energy efficiency, which I am happy to talk to him about in more detail. He is a champion for Worthing West. I have family who live close to Worthing, and know the Goring Gap well. He makes a strong point about the importance of preserving character and ensuring communities build the right homes in the right places, while recognising that there are places where that should not be the case. I am always happy to talk to him about that.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
This morning, the Secretary of State complained about house prices. If the Government are now rightly acknowledging the impact of spiralling mortgage payments on our constituencies, when will they apologise for the cause of that—their disastrous mini-Budget?
Lee Rowley
I am glad to see that the talking points have already started from the Opposition Back Benches. Despite choosing not to acknowledge it, the hon. Lady will know that interest rates have risen across the world, followed by a normalisation of interest rates for a number of months as a recognition of changed economic circumstances. If the hon. Lady and her party want to continue to make mischief and nuisance about that, it is their right to do so, but that does not accurately reflect what has happened. This Government will always try to work through those difficult situations and improve things for the people of this country.
Dame Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
Will my hon. Friend confirm that over the past 12 months, in writing and at the Dispatch Box, Ministers have consistently said that when making a local plan, planning authorities will be able to take into account historically high house building levels by lowering the amount of housing they need to plan for? Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council has delivered exceptional levels of house building, with new homes for 150,000 people over the last five decades. How will the Government now make good on their year-long commitment to recognise Basingstoke’s almost unique position by doing whatever is needed to support the planning authority to successfully agree a revised local plan, with significantly lower overall house building figures because of the very high amount of house building over the last five decades?
Lee Rowley
My right hon. Friend is right that we consulted on that subject. In recognition of that consultation, we have chosen not to take forward the over-supply point at this time, but we are open to looking at it and reviewing it in the future. I accept Basingstoke’s particular circumstances, and have spoken to her separately about the recognition that there has been substantial building in Basingstoke over many decades. I am happy to talk to her about the exceptional circumstances provision and look at exactly how that may apply to Basingstoke.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
York is now the 15th least affordable place to live in the country. My constituents will have no confidence in what the Minister and the Secretary of State have set out today, because they have been waiting for a local plan for 76 years and counting. The sticking point has been with the Government Department, not the will of the Labour council. When will York receive its local plan, be able to protect the precious space we have and build the tenure of housing we need, as opposed to developers moving in and building luxury flats that no one can afford?
Lee Rowley
We are keen to ensure that local plans progress as quickly as possible, not just for York but for every other council that chooses to pursue the process, and we will continue to add support and capacity into the system to ensure that that happens.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
In the written ministerial statement—as opposed to the oral statement we have just heard—there is a strong suggestion that there will be a review of London and the centre of London. One challenge we face in suburban London is that planning applications for high-density, very tall buildings—normally comprising units of two bedrooms, two bathrooms and one shared living space—are very suitable for young professionals, but totally useless for families. There is a shortage of family accommodation in outer London, and people would welcome more houses but not high-density flats.
Lee Rowley
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: a balance must be struck. We will review the situation in London. We do not think that it is acceptable; we do not think that the Mayor has done his job in this regard and we will be reviewing that. We also recognise—I hope my comments earlier indicated this—that there are places in urban areas where character is very important, and we need to make sure that there is an appropriate balance in that regard.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
Liberal Democrat-led St Albans City and District Council is rightly pressing ahead with the development of its local plan, after the previous Conservative administration had its plan thrown out by the inspector. Two years ago, I wrote to the Government requesting additional funding so that we could accelerate our plan-making process, but the Government said no. I then requested that they allow us to charge developers the full cost of processing applications, but, even with all the tinkering, we are still not able to do that, and taxpayers in St Albans are still subsidising developers to the tune of £3 million a year to process their applications. Today the Government have asked our local council to publish a timetable in the next 12 weeks, but if Ministers and their officials used Google, they would find it on the website.
Apparently, Ministers have announced that the new protections apply to areas with local plans, but not to areas with draft local plans. That means that in St Albans, villages such as Colney Heath, which are besieged by inappropriate development, will not benefit from the protections. Will the Minister confirm whether our local district council and planning inspectors can firmly say no to inappropriate, speculative development, or is this just another empty promise from this Government?
Lee Rowley
I believe that the Liberal Democrats have been in charge of St Albans City and District Council since 2019. That is four and a half years of opportunity to put a local plan in place. It is on the Liberal Democrats for failing to do so. Perhaps the Liberal Democrats could explain whether, as part of that local plan, they will take their share of the 380,000 homes that their conference said they needed to build in the future.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
May I ask the Minister for a very clear answer on the controversial matter of housing targets? Basically, there are two ways of doing it: we can have mandatory targets, where the man in Whitehall knows best and hands down to local authorities a target with which they have to comply whether or not it is sensible, or we can have advisory targets, where the Department can recommend a target, but if the locally elected councillors and the people whom they represent know that it is too high and can give strong reasons why—for instance, if their district or borough has a large amount of green belt—they can legitimately push back in their plan and offer a lower number. So there is the mandatory option, which is the Labour option, and the advisory option, which is the Conservative option. Is my understanding correct?
Lee Rowley
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his question. For the first time ever, the NPPF says, at paragraph 61:
“The outcome of the standard method is an advisory starting-point”.
Then there are potentially exceptional circumstances that can be discussed with a representative of the Government—in this case the Planning Inspectorate—and the case can be made and then discussed. If that is accepted, an alternative approach can be taken.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
Our country is facing a housing crisis and, after more than 13 long years, the Government have utterly failed the nation. Data from Glenigan published this week show that planning consents are at a record low, 20% down on last year, and they are due to become the lowest in a decade next year. Fifty-eight local housing authorities have scrapped or delayed their local plan as a direct result of the Secretary of State’s flip-flopping on housing targets last year. Does the Minister agree that the Government’s flip-flopping and dither and delay are having a significant downward effect on planning and housing delivery?
Lee Rowley
I have the greatest of respect for the hon. Gentleman, but we need to have a serious conversation about this. Planning consents are down because planning applications are down, and that is due to the global economic challenges. [Interruption.] Labour’s Front-Bench team do not want to accept that there are global economic challenges. That just demonstrates why they are so unready for the government of this country. We are trying to make sure, first, that we work through the global financial challenges and, secondly, that we still build the homes. One way that we undermine the building of more homes—the kind of homes that I know the hon. Gentleman and I would both like to see—is by not taking communities with us. What we seek to do today is inject more balance into the system so that we can take more communities with us. If we can get more plans in place, it usually means that more homes are delivered in the first place.
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
I thank the Minister for recognising the hard work that local communities such as Hallow, Clifton upon Teme, Kempsey and Welland have done in my largely rural constituency to develop neighbourhood plans, the strengthening of which has been announced today. None the less, those communities are being let down by the fact that our council is run by the independents and Greens, who do not have a local plan in place. Can he tell us whether the additional protections from speculative development will be immediate or retrospective? When will they take effect?
Lee Rowley
I am a huge fan of neighbourhood plans, as are many of my colleagues across the House. They give communities the opportunity to get involved in the planning process and to get into the detail. They also often demonstrate that having honest conversations with people about planning can take some of the challenge out of the system. We are updating the NPPF with regard to neighbourhood plans, and we are strengthening them, as my hon. Friend outlined. The NPPF is extant from the moment that it is uploaded. There are some indications at the back of the plan where policies take priority at a later date, but we are committed to putting neighbourhood planning at the centre of our planning policy, because we think that it is very successful and helpful for our communities.
Andrew Western (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
I am somewhat perplexed by the renewed focus on strengthening local plans given the abolition of the mandatory housing targets that underpin delivery against them. Indeed, the Minister appears to be outlining a situation in which local authorities can game the system and deliberately plan to under-deliver if they have an up-to-date local plan, but a local authority that is delivering can be stripped of its planning powers because its plan is not up to date. If the Minister is so committed to accelerating housing delivery, why is he creating a situation in which we are both preventing greenfield building and stopping significant increases to urban density?
Lee Rowley
We are not preventing increases of urban density. Indeed, we want that to happen. We recognise that there are considerations around things such as second staircases, which we are working at pace to resolve as quickly as possible. We want more homes. We recognise that the infrastructure is often in place in urban areas, and we are keen to take up that infrastructure to be able to unlock those homes for people who need them.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
If I may take the Minister back to paragraph 61, will he confirm that the inclusion for the very first time in the NPPF of the words “advisory starting point” will have an impact on both the level of targets set and the weight to be given to a target? How, in practice, will that change the approach taken by planning inspectors when they approve plans and decide on individual planning appeals?
Lee Rowley
It is absolutely the case that the purpose of amending the national planning policy framework today is so that this information and wording, and the insertion of the advisory starting point and everything that follows, are taken into account in the process, and it is important that the planning inspector does that. Obviously, every single council is different, and we have set out the reality that each individual council will need to go through this process, but that should absolutely be taken into account.
Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con)
I must say to the Minister that we have been here before with housing targets; I seem to remember Mr John Prescott—Lord Prescott—putting this forward. One of the problems we have is that, in a vast area that includes places such as the Somerset levels, Exmoor and many others, sometimes it is very difficult to build housing. However, where we have an irresponsible council—Liberal Democrat, obviously, in Mid Devon—we have another problem, because they do not care. They do not listen. They are there just to cause trouble at every level. The Minister must make sure that the safeguards are there for people who live in these areas—not hope; we need actual safeguards.
Lee Rowley
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is one reason why we have been clear with a number of councils today that they need to get on with things. The whole point is that we put in place a process and a system that work and, for those actors that do not go through it, there are consequences.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
In constituencies such as mine, the green belt is vital to protecting us from the urban sprawl of Birmingham, so I welcome the statement, so far as it goes with its protections for the green belt. However, can the Minister provide greater clarity on the matter of targets? It would be very helpful to have a clear understanding of what is meant by the advisory starting point and its impact on any ongoing mechanisms to impose the quotas of other authorities on a neighbour.
Lee Rowley
On my right hon. Friend’s second point—I am grateful to her for raising it—the duty to co-operate has been superseded. The point of the advisory starting point is to be very clear that individual circumstances might apply within the context of the need to build more homes in the right place. I cannot pre-empt or suggest exactly what that will mean in all instances. There is an example in the NPPF of where we think that is likely to be relevant, but obviously that will be discussed on a case-by-case, council-by-council basis.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for his statement. I am encouraged by his words on provision of care and retirement housing and his focus on design quality. I have no doubt that we need more homes, but green spaces and the green belt are of critical concern in Harrogate and Knaresborough. Can he tell me a little more about the safeguards for the green belt under the Conservative party, particularly compared with the Labour party?
Lee Rowley
My hon. Friend is absolutely correct about the importance of older people’s housing. We are currently in the process of supporting an older people’s housing taskforce, and I look forward to its recommendations about how to improve it for the long run. The green belt protections remain today as they were yesterday. What we are putting around them is a clearer process about where the case for exceptional circumstances can be made. It will be down to individual councils, with their individual circumstances, individual beauty and individual environment, to make that case where they feel it is appropriate to do so.
Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con)
Communities in South Ribble, including Eccleston, Mawdesley and Croston, are subject to Chorley Council. I understand that Chorley is one of only two councils designated for poor planning performance. Does the Minister believe that that poor performance is due to Chorley’s failure to produce a local plan to protect South Ribble residents from inappropriate planning applications?
Lee Rowley
My hon. Friend is a huge champion for her constituents in South Ribble. We need local plans in place. I saw when I first became an MP in North East Derbyshire, where the Labour council failed to put a local plan in place, the huge issues that causes for communities. I know there are other councils all around the country that fail to do that, and it causes so many issues. We have spoken about some of the challenges in South Ribble, and I am keen to work with my hon. Friend and to talk more about them over the weeks ahead. It is important that plans are put in place. Where councils are not performing—where they have not passed the threshold for the number of applications they need to pass or have lost too many on appeal—we will designate and we will be clear that changes are needed.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
I place on record my gratitude to the Secretary of State for agreeing, this time last year, to put stronger protections for land use in food production into the NPPF, and to my hon. Friend the Minister for confirming today that they have survived the consultation period. Will he clarify, first, that the new language in the NPPF is a binary test where land is either used in food production or is not, ending the dancing-on-the-head-of-a-pin lawyer’s paradise of arguing about what is best and most versatile, and, secondly, that the character test he spoke of applies to rural character as well as in urban environments?
Lee Rowley
On my hon. Friend’s second point, absolutely. On his first point, I will read the footnote to paragraph 1.81 of the NPPF:
“The availability of agricultural land used for food production should be considered”.
I hope that is helpful.
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for much of today’s announcement. In seats such as mine, it does not really matter what the target is when such a high proportion of the homes that are built are just used as short-term holiday lets. This time a year ago, we agreed to another consultation, which finished this June. I ask again: when might we have the results of that consultation and steps to ensure that, when we build homes in communities such as mine, those homes are affordable for the people who live and work there?
Lee Rowley
I am grateful to my hon. Friend not just for her question, which gives us only a few seconds to talk about the matter, but for her Adjournment debate a few days ago, when we had a much longer period to talk about it. She makes a very important point; I know how important it is to colleagues in the south-east and elsewhere and, although I am not able to give her a date today, I hope to have more on that very soon.
Jeremy Quin (Horsham) (Con)
I welcome what the Minister says on the importance of neighbourhood plans, on agricultural land and on brownfield development. Can he clarify what the consequences are if a district council has already embarked on a consultation on a local plan but, having studied the NPPF in detail, sees stuff there that it wants to embrace and chooses to adopt elements of the NPPF, which then leads to a consequential delay?
Lee Rowley
There is a long section at the end of the revised NPPF that explains the arrangements for councils that are in the process. We are trying to strike a delicate balance, ensuring that councils go through that process to the extent that they are able to, while recognising that those in an earlier part of the process may want to consider some of the changes. It generally is the case, if I recall correctly, that when councils have passed the regulation 19 stage—the second consultation—there is a greater expectation that they will stay in the process. It is ultimately for them to make their own judgments, but the Government will be watching the result.
Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)
I think overall that this is a very good plan and very well delivered by the Minister. I welcome in particular the remarks on character, on beauty, on the importance of agricultural land, on the importance of community support and on the fact that targets are a start point and not an end point. Those are significant changes that mean that communities can be listened to. Will the Minister just confirm that the exceptional circumstance will be available—perhaps even welcome—for examples including islands separated by sea, such as my Isle of Wight constituency?
Lee Rowley
The footnotes to paragraph 61 use as an example
“areas that are islands with no land bridge that have a significant proportion of elderly residents.”
I hope my hon. Friend will welcome the fact that that sounds very much like the Isle of Wight.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
The prize for patience and perseverance, with the last question of the year, goes to Nigel Mills.
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
It is a privilege, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Five years ago, the export of houses from Derby made a local plan in Amber Valley impossible, but there is no reason for delay now. Does the Minister agree that there is no reason for the Labour-run council not to have made more rapid progress with the pretty reasonable plan it inherited in May? Will he also confirm what the consequence will be if the 12-week direction he has issued today does not result in rapid progress, to ensure that residents in Amber Valley get a local plan sometime soon?
Lee Rowley
I am grateful to my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour, who I know speaks up for his constituents. Labour won Amber Valley Borough Council and it now needs to own ensuring that the council delivers on its responsibilities. If Labour has made promises to Amber Valley residents that it cannot fulfil, that is on Labour. Ultimately, it is the responsibility of councils to make sure that they have a plan in place, and to do that at the earliest possible opportunity. Where Labour councils such as Amber Valley are failing to do that and are speaking out of both sides of their mouths, it is right that he calls that out. Amber Valley needs to get on with its plan.
Draft Higher-Risk Buildings (Keeping and Provision of Information etc.) (England) Regulations 2023
Lee Rowley Excerpts(5 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Before we begin, I remind Members that mobile phones should be switched off. If you want to catch my eye, you need to bob.
The Minister for Housing, Planning and Building Safety (Lee Rowley)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Higher-Risk Buildings (Keeping and Provision of Information etc.) (England) Regulations 2023.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. As the Committee is aware, there has been a long-standing and very important process in Government to make sure that the regulation on buildings post Grenfell is improved, and that safety is at the heart of all regulation. We have introduced legislation—the Building Safety Act 2022 and regulations in affirmative and negative statutory instruments—to do that.
These draft regulations are part of a package that forms a milestone for building safety in the UK. Through the overall package of regulations, the Government seek to meet their commitment to make sure that buildings are safe now and that people feel safe in future and for generations to come.
The regulations set out the golden thread information that the people responsible for an occupied higher-risk building—known as the accountable persons—need to keep. They set out the information that accountable persons need to share with each other, other people responsible for the safety of the building, residents and owners of flats in the building itself. That includes sharing information with fire and rescue services to help better deliver responses in the event of an emergency.
The documentation for this statutory instrument is significant and is intended to indicate all the different elements of the data that needs to be provided, so that there is clear information—a clear golden thread—that explains what the building is and helps in the event of an emergency.
Understandably, the regulations set out certain limited exceptions when the information does not need to be provided—for instance, if there are issues around security, commercial confidentiality or data protection. They also seek to make small amendments to other regulations: the Higher-Risk Buildings (Key Building Information etc.) (England) Regulations 2023, which clarify what part of a building an accountable person is responsible for when there are multiple accountable persons for the same higher-risk buildings; and the Higher-Risk Buildings (Descriptions and Supplementary Provisions) Regulations 2023, in relation to the specific exclusion of certain types of military premises.
I hope that this is a relatively straightforward SI, although I will be guided by Opposition Members. It seeks to do what I think we all want in this House: to make sure that regulations are fit for purpose as a result of all the changes and challenges that we have seen in recent years. I hope this is another step forward in that. I commend it to the Committee.
Lee Rowley
I thank Members for all the very constructive comments and questions. Let me try to answer them in turn. The hon. Members for Weaver Vale, for Hackney South and Shoreditch, and for Liverpool, Wavertree, raised important points about cost. It is absolutely right that we need the greatest transparency, and the minimum impact on residents. The approach will be imperfect whenever any system has so many actors within it. If the Government and the Building Safety Regulator make the approach very clear, and have processes that check these things, that is probably as much as we can do right now, but there is obviously more that should be done.
We have a combination of clarity around the issue, the Building Safety Regulator’s focus on it, and the Government’s clear statements about it, as well as a review and loop mechanism—plus there is all the work on the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill. Many Members here contributed to Second Reading on Monday. The Bill seeks to create transparency about service charges in general, irrespective of whether the building is a high-rise. We hope that all those things will form a package. The best way to keep costs down is to ensure that the system has transparency at its core, and that people have the ability to check and challenge in a practical way.
Secondly, on the distribution of costs, I acknowledge the point the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree made about the importance of minimising the impact on leaseholders. That is vital. Leaseholders have faced substantial challenges over the past six years, particularly those in buildings affected by cladding, those who are going through remediation and those who are still waiting for remediation. We have to try to minimise the costs. At the same time, I cannot exempt from costs unless we can find a specific fund at a time when the Government are still overspending by £130 billion—that is for a separate discussion at another time, however.
There will be an add-on in terms of cost; the job is to reduce it to the minimum and provide transparency, and then to do the work the hon. Member for Weaver Vale kindly referred to on the other costs residents are facing—increased insurance premiums, probable costs of commissions on top of insurance, and so on—and try to drive those costs down. A huge amount of work is being done to drive down the costs of insurance, which I have to say is very frustrating on a personal level. We have made some progress on commissions; on insurance, we have not made the progress I wanted, but we are working very closely with the insurance industry to do that and I hope to have more information soon. While the distribution of costs is probably not where Opposition Members want it to be, I hope I can reassure them that we are working across the piece to drive down costs in aggregate.
Thirdly, how will the appeals work? There will be an appeals process that allows reference to an independent panel through the Building Safety Regulator; if that is not satisfactory, cases can go to the first-tier tribunal for a decision. Having met with many leaseholders while dealing with the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill over the last couple of weeks, I recognise that tribunals are not an end in themselves. The processes are long, involved and complicated, and people have lives to lead, but ultimately we have to find the form of redress that works, and I hope to achieve that by providing greater transparency and easier processes through that Bill, and more information where it is necessary.
If the package does not work, I want to hear from colleagues about such examples. I meet the Building Safety Regulator—the chair, the chief executive and everyone involved—monthly to discuss issues of mutual interest. I have already said to them that getting these costs down and getting the guidance around this to a place where it is reasonable and proportionate are hugely important. I know we will have examples where management companies try it on or there is no transparency; there will be cases where things are not as we want them to be. We need to identify the problems, work through them and see whether we can make changes to make the process better.
Mike Amesbury
The Minister talks about the Building Safety Regulator, but we are talking about some 12,000 that are in scope. Is he confident that the regulator and associated teams have enough resources to meet these quite ambitious timescales? We are all keen to move things on collectively, but can he give us some assurance?
Lee Rowley
I work closely with the Building Safety Regulator. Its first job is to make sure that the rough number of buildings we are expecting to register have done so. For the past couple of months I have received data weekly, and slightly less frequently before that. The numbers are in the ballpark of how many we expected to register, so the first test has been passed. Now, it is a case of, over six years, working through the buildings, making sure that data is collected and used in a satisfactory way, and helping owners to make sure they are managing in a way that works. A substantial sum is going into the Building Safety Regulator, and from having worked closely with it, I think the indications so far—things may change—are that it is moving in the right direction.
To pick up a couple of other points, the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch highlighted the very important point about disabilities and making sure that appropriate consideration is given to that issue. That is vital and it is a core part of our approach, but it is separate from the regulations before us, which are about a record of buildings, not of people who live in them. We have already consulted and we will bring forward separate measures on PEEPs—personal emergency evacuation plans.
Dame Meg Hillier
I thank the Minister for clarifying that. Does he have a rough timescale? I am asking not for a precise date, but for a range of dates when we might see that, because it is critical. I have a constituent who is particularly concerned about that issue.
Lee Rowley
The hon. Lady is absolutely right to highlight that. When I speak to a number of the cladding groups, it is one of the areas that is, quite rightly, at the centre of the points that they raise. I am afraid that I will do that rather annoying thing and say that I do not have a date, but we hope it to be very soon.
Lee Rowley
I hope that would be the case. The Secretary of State sees this as a priority; we are in deep conversations with the Home Office on it, and I hope that we will bring it forward as soon as we can.
I will conclude with a couple of additional points. On the point about review, I reiterate that I am keen to receive any information or data from colleagues where they see problems or, indeed, good behaviour, so that we can feed that into the BSR. I will be happy to do that as soon as these things go in, because at that point we will be able to start to gather the body of data that indicates whether it is working in the way that we hoped or needs to be looked at.
As for the final few questions, data sharing is a difficult area to get right. All data that is collected will be shareable with the Building Safety Regulator—otherwise, there is no point in having the regulator in the first place. Almost all data will be shared with the fire and rescue services—otherwise, again, there is no point in having it. There is a much more delicate interaction between the entity and the leaseholders. Obviously, the entity will need to collect the data, but a series of provisions in the guidance will try to manage that. Again, we will need to review that as we go through to ensure that it works.
On the point about older buildings, it is absolutely right to point out that whether we like it or not, ideally or not, there will be a paucity of data in certain places. Some data will need to be replaced—otherwise, there is no point having the regulations and collecting it in the first place if the questions of the fire and rescue service cannot be answered. People must be able to answer them—otherwise, it is not advancing the cause of safety.
The usual reasonable principle test is in all the regulations; therefore, the objective is to ensure that the data is available for when it is necessary. However, if people have gone through a reasonable process of trying to get it and they cannot get it until x day or they need to wait until a point in a cycle, or whatever, that will be for the usual processes of tribunals to judge. However, a reasonable test is brought into it, which is a proportionate way of saying, “You need to do this, but it may take a little bit of time”, or, “We need to work that through”.
My right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings had a question about schedule 2. For obvious reasons, it will not be the case that residents moving in who have not made some kind of contractual arrangement to purchase the property will have access to all the data—otherwise, basically anybody would have access to it. However, they would be given that information at the point of a contract being signed, naturally. We would then hope and expect—I know that my right hon. Friend will appreciate this, as someone from a similar ideological view to my own—that it will be difficult to put rules around the level of data available in advance of that, but I expect that, through the sales process, responsible entities will want to provide a sufficient level of data to assure those seeking to purchase or take an interest in a property to be able to do so. If the data is not available or obstructions are found, it may signal an indication of the responsibility of those managing the building.
Dame Meg Hillier
The Minister is making some helpful points. It is clear that he is very much on top of this matter, so I echo the comments made earlier. It has been helpful to meet him to discuss issues at times.
On the issue of information, a lot of the properties in my constituency are tenanted—as I said earlier, the leaseholder is often living overseas or elsewhere—so we are reliant on the whole tenancy arrangement for information to be shared with the tenant. As far as I am aware—the Minister may want to have an exchange of letters about this—there is no absolute requirement on landlords to provide that document. Landlords must now provide 13 different documents to a tenant. The Minister has made general comments about fire safety and so on, but I do not recall anything specific about that document. Is there any further change in the rules or guidance for private landlords—they are the ones who would be in scope—that needs to happen as a result? It seems that there may be a small gap that is important and significant. What the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings said was helpful.
Lee Rowley
I am happy to write to the hon. Lady to be absolutely certain that I have understood the point. We will get officials to write to her with that information. My understanding is that the combination of clear requirements; a clear, responsible entity that needs to respond to those requirements, whoever it is in the hierarchy and however complex the hierarchy is; and forms of redress that ultimately fall back to the Building Safety Regulator to say, “No, that is not acceptable” should cover everything. However, if it does not, we can work that through in an exchange of letters.
I think that covers what colleagues have said, and I thank them for their constructive comments. I look forward to making progress on this issue. Adding additional regulation is always challenging, and there are different views on that on different sides of the House, but even for someone like me, who tends to favour relatively low regulation, it is a reasonable and proportionate thing to do. We now need to ensure that it is right, and I am keen to get feedback from colleagues to ensure that that is the case in the months ahead.
Question put and agreed to.
Planning: Local Energy Efficiency Standards
Lee Rowley Excerpts(5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Housing, Planning and Building Safety (Lee Rowley)
My noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State (Baroness Penn) has made the following written ministerial statement:
As a Government, we continue to make progress towards the net zero goal set out in legislation in 2019, including by improving the energy efficiency of homes and moving to cleaner technologies and sources of power within the homes and building sector.
There has been a long-standing debate within planning about both the best method and body to set energy efficiency and environmental standards. For a number of years, the plans of some local authorities have sought to go further than national standards in terms of such efficiency for new-build properties. Equally, there is a legitimate consideration for the Government to want to strike the best balance between making progress on improving the efficiency and performance of homes while still wanting to ensure housing is built in sufficient numbers to support those who wish to own or rent their own home.
In 2015, in reference to an un-commenced provision in the Deregulation Act 2015 which amended the Planning and Energy Act 2008, a written ministerial statement—HC Deb, 25 March 2015, vol 584, cols 131-138WS—stated that until that amendment was commenced, local plan policies exceeding minimum energy efficiency standards should not go beyond level 4 of the Code for Sustainable Homes. Since then, the introduction of the 2021 Part L uplift to the Building Regulations set national minimum energy efficiency standards that are higher than those referenced in the 2015 WMS rendering it effectively moot. A further change to energy efficiency building regulations is planned for 2025 meaning that homes built to that standard will be net zero ready and should need no significant work to ensure that they have zero carbon emissions as the grid continues to decarbonise. Compared to varied local standards, these nationally applied standards provide much-needed clarity and consistency for businesses, large and small, to invest and prepare to build net-zero ready homes.
The improvement in standards already in force, alongside the ones which are due in 2025, demonstrates the Government’s commitment to ensuring new properties have a much lower impact on the environment in the future. In this context, the Government do not expect plan-makers to set local energy efficiency standards for buildings that go beyond current or planned buildings regulations. The proliferation of multiple, local standards by local authority area can add further costs to building new homes by adding complexity and undermining economies of scale. Any planning policies that propose local energy efficiency standards for buildings that go beyond current or planned buildings regulation should be rejected at examination if they do not have a well-reasoned and robustly costed rationale that ensures:
That development remains viable, and the impact on housing supply and affordability is considered in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework;
The additional requirement is expressed as a percentage uplift of a dwelling’s target emissions rate, calculated using a specified version of the standard assessment procedure;
Where plan policies go beyond current or planned building regulations, those polices should be applied flexibly to decisions on planning applications and appeals where the applicant can demonstrate that meeting the higher standards is not technically feasible, in relation to the availability of appropriate local energy infrastructure—for example adequate existing and planned grid connections—and access to adequate supply chains;
To be sound, local plans must be consistent with national policy—enabling the delivery of sustainable development in accordance with the policies in the National Planning Policy Framework and other statements of national planning policy, including this one;
The Secretary of State will closely monitor the implementation of the policy set out in this WMS and has intervention powers provided by Parliament that may be used in respect to policies in plans or development management decisions, in line with the relevant criteria for such intervention powers;
The above supersedes the section of the 25 March 2015 WMS entitled “Housing standards: streamlining the system”, sub-paragraph “Plan making” in respect of energy efficiency requirements and standards only. Planning practice guidance will also be updated to reflect this statement.
[HCWS123]