Oral Answers to Questions

Mike Amesbury Excerpts

Monday 15th April 2024 Commons Chamber

[Tom Pursglove]

My right hon. Friend is a strong supporter of the work the Government are doing to get a better grip on the flow of people coming across to our country, who inevitably need accommodating while they are here. We have a mixture of accommodation to meet those needs, and getting the numbers down is critical to be able to reduce that dependence. I am able to say, however, that we are not actively pursuing procurement in the three local authorities cited in the article that my right hon. Friend references—and that includes Middlesbrough.

[Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)]

My sincere condolences, Mr Speaker.

The Government promised some considerable time ago that a hotel used in my constituency would no longer be used to house those seeking asylum. That is not the case; it has almost become de facto permanent. Could the Minister speak to me—not necessarily on the Floor of the House, but separately—and give me an assurance that there will be a managed closure of that facility?

[Tom Pursglove]

What I cannot do on the Floor of the House is make commitments about specific hotels, but I would be very happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss this. What he could do to help me with this particular challenge is to get behind the work that the Government are doing to reduce the flow of people coming to the UK, which fundamentally and crucially would help us to be able to close hotels such as the one in his constituency.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mike Amesbury Excerpts

Monday 26th February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Chris Philp]

The powers in the pieces of legislation my hon. Friend lists are not precisely the same as those in the Criminal Justice Bill. The Bill does not criminalise rough sleeping in general; it criminalises particular types of rough sleeping when it causes a nuisance. That said, as I have signalled privately to various hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken), the Government are willing to look at the way those provisions are drafted, to ensure that they are tightly and narrowly drawn, because out intention is that the first stop will always be to offer support. Criminal sanctions are appropriate only as a last resort if rough sleeping causes a serious problem, for example for businesses.

[Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)]

As drafted, the Bill is a new vagrancy Act with bells on. Rough sleeping is up 75% since 2010. Rather than criminalise people who happen to be rough sleeping, should we not provide support and build the houses they need?

[Chris Philp]

As I said, my colleagues in the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities are providing extremely comprehensive packages of support. Rough sleeping is down by 35% since 2017 and by 28% since before the pandemic in 2019. The Government are willing to look at changes to make these provisions tightly defined and narrow. The intention is to use criminal sanctions only as a last resort where rough sleeping is disrupting a business, for example, and preventing it from operating. It is a last resort—the first resort will always be offering help and support.

Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill (First sitting)

Mike Amesbury Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 16th January 2024 Public Bill Committees

[Matthew Pennycook]

Q My second question relates to managing agents. Lots of the freeholders that leaseholders have to deal with are offshore and hard to reach. Managing agents are the first point of contact, and in many cases are the only point of contact. To what extent do you think that the Bill will function effectively without some kind of regulation of managing agents? Should we be looking to introduce that into the Bill?

Mr Martin Boyd: The RoPA—regulation of property agents—report, which the Government undertook some years ago under Lord Best and which proposed statutory regulation of managing agents in this sector and within the estate agency world, has unfortunately not moved forward. There are proposals in the Bill to bring estate agents within codes of practice, but nothing in particular changes on property management. We have a slightly strange position at the moment. In the social sector, there is now an obligation for a property manager to have a proper level of competencies to look after high-rise buildings, or high-risk buildings, as they are still called. In the private sector, though, we have nothing. There are no requirements to have any qualifications to look after and manage the highest of our high-rise buildings in this country. That is simply wrong, so I would support fully a move to the statutory regulation of agents.

[Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)]

Q Hello Martin, good to see you. Are there any risks in banning new leasehold houses but not flats?

Mr Martin Boyd: Yes, there are risks. Currently, we do not have a viable commonhold system. Even if the Government were to come forward with the full Law Commission proposals, those had not reached the point where they created all the systems necessary to allow the conversion of leasehold flats to commonhold flats. I see no technical reason at the moment why we should not move quite quickly to commonhold on new build for extant stock. I think it will take longer—and, at the end of the day, conversion will be a consequence of consumer demand. People would want to do it. On my side, I would not want us to convert to commonhold, because I could not yet be sure that it would help to add to the value of the properties. It would make our management of the site a lot easier, but I could not guarantee to anyone living there that it would add to the value of their property—and that is what people want to know, before they convert.

[Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)]

Q Mr Boyd, I want to pick up something you said in answer to the shadow Minster, when you were talking about the treatment of property managers or managing agents in the private sector. You enumerated a list of three options: a code of conduct, which you said existed in the social sector; legislation or regulation; and also qualification, which I took to be professional qualification. Which of those three is the preferred path, in your view?

Mr Martin Boyd: I do not think the Leasehold Advisory Service would have a specific preferred path. At least two of those are important. I will add a fourth, actually. It is illogical that we do not have a requirement for professional qualifications for those managing particularly complex buildings.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Maclean]

Sorry, I was looking at Mr Spender and I misspoke.

Liam Spender: I quite understand anyone being distracted by Mr O’Kelly. Thank you for the question. In our case to date, the freeholder has put £54,000 of its legal costs through the service charge. It did so in breach of a section 20C order, which is the current restriction that is supposed to prevent landlords from doing so. We complained and got most of that money back, but they have served something called a section 20B notice: they intend to recover the costs in the future if they prevail on appeal, by which point we could be looking at a substantial six-figure sum. This is all to do with us fighting to get back unreasonable service charges.

We are currently owed about £450,000—to give a round number—pending appeal. There is an appeal in April and I am carrying the burden of doing all that work myself. I quite understand why leaseholders without legal training give up and things will fall by the wayside. The system is very much stacked in landlords’ favour.

The cost provisions in the Bill are welcome. As you probably know, they changed the default so that the landlord has to ask for their costs. The issue is what has been created as a just and equitable jurisdiction; the tribunal can do what it thinks is fair in the circumstances. I believe—I think many people who have much more knowledge of this than I do would agree—that what that will mean in practice is probably that the tribunal will be inclined to give landlords their costs if they have won the case, so it will not change anything.

The other problem is that the first-tier tribunal considers itself a no-cost jurisdiction, and that is a generational way of thinking, so that has to be overcome and it has to get into the mindset of awarding costs to leaseholders and against landlords. Provisions could be included in the Bill that would make that that process easier—for example, prescribing a regime of fixed costs as applied to other low-value civil litigation. It is not a magic bullet, but I think that would be better than the current provisions in the Bill.

[Mike Amesbury]

Q Is there anything else you would like in the Bill that is missing at the moment?

Sebastian O’Kelly: We would like to see a commitment to mandatory commonhold for new builds, frankly. How many more times are we going to try to reform the leasehold system? How many goes have we had at this since the 1960s? If you keep having to reform leasehold, is the answer not that it does not work? Why do you want this third-party investor—now, invariably, somebody offshore—hitching a ride on the value of somebody else’s home? It is a nonsense. One Duke of Westminster we can accept—the political continuity of our country maybe allows a freehold such as that—but we will create 1,000 of them with this. It is a nonsense. Bring it to an end and bring us in touch with the rest of the world—that is my statement.

[The Chair]

Right, that is very clear.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Maclean]

Q Do you agree with some of the arguments that are put forward by the freeholders lobby and organisations that abolishing ground rent will destabilise the pensions industry and mean that nurses and care workers and the good people who are toiling very hard in our public services will have their pensions destroyed? What do you say to that?

Jo Derbyshire: I think that is project fear. I work in pensions. I work in administration, not investments, but I sit on a lot of pension committees where we talk about the assets that pension schemes hold. They have investment strategies and they protect themselves from over-investing in one asset class. The amount of ground rents held by pension funds in this country would pale into insignificance compared with, for example, the impact of the mini-Budget and what happened with equities shortly after that. This is deliberate scaremongering.

[Mike Amesbury]

Q I have two brief questions. Are there any risks in terms of banning new leasehold houses but not flats? Why do you think this country is an outlier in the world and is so wedded still to this day to the feudal system of leasehold?

Katie Kendrick: You cannot just ban leasehold houses and not flats—70% of leaseholders live in flats, so you are not tackling the problem. You are cherry-picking the easy things, and banning leasehold houses is easy. It is more tricky with flats, but that does not mean it is not achievable. As you have said, it has been achieved everywhere else in the world. We do not need to continue to mask that leasehold system. It is deeply flawed and it ultimately needs to be abolished.

We do understand that there is no magic wand and this is not going to happen tomorrow, but there have been a lot of campaigners, well before us, who have highlighted the issues of leasehold, and yet here we are, still, again, trying to make it a little bit fairer. It does not need to be a little bit fairer—it needs to go. That needs to be the ultimate aim. Everybody needs to work on this. There is something better out there, despite what the other lobbying groups will tell you.

[Richard Fuller]

Q This is a question I will ask a number of witnesses. We do an impact assessment for legislative change to all Bills, sometimes done well and sometimes less so. This has an assessment of the total cost of the Bill, with the best estimate being £2.9 billion. That is quite large for a Bill. A large part of that—about two thirds—is a transfer of the value from freeholders to leaseholders. That is at £1.8 billion, or £1.9 billion. What are your thoughts about that transfer of wealth?

Jo Derbyshire: It is long overdue; bring it on.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy Carter]

Q A final question from me: on your social media channels, you talk about the leasehold scandal as being very similar to Mr Bates—who is in Committee just over the way—against the Post Office. I mean, is that true? Is it David versus Goliath?

Katie Kendrick: Absolutely. When I watched the programme, I was shouting out loud. The parallels—the similarities—are astounding. The system there was a computer system; the system here is leasehold. People have been ripped off for so many years and paid unnecessary fees, and lots of leaseholders are thousands of pounds out of pocket. And that is because the system—the leasehold system—has allowed that to happen, and it is a scandal of the same magnitude, as far as I am concerned. People have, unfortunately, lost their lives. I have become a bit of an agony aunt for people; my phone never stops because people contact me in tears, and I have stopped people from taking their own lives because of leasehold. It is horrendous—absolutely horrendous—when you are living it and you feel completely trapped. It is when they feel that there is no way out that people look at taking another way out, and it is horrendous.

Cath Williams: And we were both told, weren’t we, by the CEOs of the developers that we bought our houses from, that there was no leasehold scandal?

Katie Kendrick: Yes.

[Mike Amesbury]

Q Can you tell the Committee about what is commonly known as “fleecehold”? Does this Bill in any way deal with aspects such as that?

Katie Kendrick: Our campaign coined the term fleecehold, and it has been used as a bit of an umbrella to describe all of the different ways that we can be ripped off through our homes. It first began because, when we were enfranchising and buying our freeholds, the freeholder was trying to retain all the same permission fees—such as permission to put on a conservatory or to paint the front door—in the transfer document. Ultimately, you could be a freeholder but still have to pay permission fees to the original freeholder.

That is where fleecehold came from, but fleecehold is now used as a much broader phrase because we have estate management charges. The new build estates all have estate management charges attached to them. They have replaced one income stream—leasehold—by creating another asset in the open green spaces. We all have lovely big open spaces and lovely parks, but it is the residents who pay for that. Again, it is a private management company that manages them. You have no transparency over what they are spending.

I can remember somebody ringing me up and saying, “Katie, I have a breakdown of my estate management charges and they are charging me such-and-such for a park, so I rang up and said, ‘You’re charging me.’ ‘Yes, Mr Such-and-Such. You have to pay for the upkeep of your park.’” And he went, “I understand that, but I haven’t got a park.” It is outrageous. It is great that they are going to give people more right to challenge the costs, which they do not currently have with their freeholders. They have fewer rights than leaseholders to challenge at tribunal. But ultimately why have we gone to a private estate model? Why are people paying double council tax? They are paying full council tax the same as anybody else is, yet they now have to pay thousands of pounds in estate management charges. It is a ticking timebomb.

The estates look very nice now, but in the future when the pavements are falling to pieces—I spoke to a police officer and things are not enforceable because they are classed as private. Speeding restrictions? You could have a boy racer running through the estate, but the police cannot enforce anything. The same with double yellow lines and things like that. It is a ticking timebomb, because new build estates are popping up all over the place with private management companies.

Jo Derbyshire: There are some things in the Bill that try to stop things. Typically on fleecehold estates there might be freehold houses, but the estate management charge is secured legally by something called a rent charge. What most people do not understand is that if they withhold their estate management fees, the property can be converted from freehold to leasehold. Again, that cannot be right.

[Rachel Maclean]

Q I just want to clarify your understanding of something that Mr Gardiner said earlier. I might need to put this to the Minister later, but Mr Gardiner said that if the new provisions on ground rent go through and ground rent goes to peppercorn or zero—I might be misquoting him.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Fuller]

Q The other part is that bringing a lot of this together will mean that the first-tier tribunal has a lot more work. Do you think that people may want to get justice, but that it will be denied because the first-tier tribunal is going to be overwhelmed?

Amanda Gourlay: I would not anticipate that the first-tier tribunal would be overwhelmed. At the moment, I find that my hearings go through within a reasonable period of time. That is the best I can say.

[Mike Amesbury]

Q Would commonhold being the default position make your job less complex?

Amanda Gourlay: In the first few years, it would make it more complex, because I would have to learn about it. I have read the Law Commission’s report, and any new scheme is going to involve some bedding down. From what I read and hear about commonhold, it should make matters less litigious. That is what I hear. I have no experience of commonhold directly, however.

[Andy Carter]

Q Having heard from some of our other witnesses, and from the casework that I see in my office, it strikes me that there is a lot of bad practice in the sector. We heard from one of our first witnesses this morning about recurring charges not being disclosed at the point of sale. Does the Bill address that sufficiently? Would it be more sensible to have a clause stating that if recurring charges are not disclosed when the transaction is complete and you purchase the property, they are not paid?

Amanda Gourlay: The difficulty always comes back to what information people are given when they purchase a property, or when they take on the lease of a flat or a house. On the whole, those in the conveyancing industry who behave ethically do their best to inform people. I have very little conveyancing experience, so I am going to hold my fire on that a little. Clearly, if something is important, it should be drawn to a purchaser’s attention. Recurring charges are something I would have anticipated. Anecdotally, I have heard that people will say, “I don’t understand why I am paying a service charge—I own my flat.” “Education” always sounds slightly high-handed, but more information being made available or accessible would be useful.

Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill (Second sitting)

Mike Amesbury Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 16th January 2024 Public Bill Committees

[Matthew Pennycook]

Q On what is not there, the Government have chosen to include none of the recommendations on commonhold. We very much think that commonhold should be the default tenure going forward. Without enacting all of the 121 recommendations on commonhold, are there any that could be included in the Bill fairly easily, and in a way that would pave the way for commonhold in the future?

Professor Hopkins: During Second Reading, the Secretary of State said that he thinks commonhold is preferable to leasehold, and I concur with that. We concluded that commonhold is a preferable tenure to leasehold. It gives the benefits of freehold ownership to owners of flats—the benefits that owners of houses already enjoy.

Commonhold does of course have a history. It was introduced in the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 and has not taken off. Our recommendations as a whole were designed to provide a legal scheme that would enable commonhold to work more flexibly and in all contexts—to work for complex, mixed-use developments. With commonhold having failed once, there is a risk of partial implementation, meaning that commonhold has a second false start, which would probably be fatal to it. I think that the legal regime for commonhold needs to be looked at as a whole, to ensure that it works properly for the unit owners, developers and lenders who lend mortgages over commonhold. We need the legal regime that works. We need to remove any other blocks on commonhold.

[Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)]

Q Do you think that it is a missed opportunity not to take those recommendations on commonhold forward?

Professor Hopkins: It is our job at the Law Commission to make recommendations for Government reform and of course we would like to see those recommendations implemented, but ultimately what goes in the Bill is a matter for the Government to decide, not the Law Commission. There is a lot in this Bill that is very positive for leaseholders, albeit the commonhold recommendations are not there.

[Mike Amesbury]

Q Have the Government spoken to you about why they have seemingly rowed back on the direction of travel on commonhold?

Professor Hopkins: Since we published our reports in 2020, we have been supporting the Government as they work through the reports and develop their legislative plans, but I cannot speak for what decisions they have made and what has led them to make those decisions on what is and is not in the Bill.

[Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)]

Q Good afternoon, professor. You have provided several recommendations to the Government on leasehold enfranchisement. Do you believe that the provisions in the Bill will make it easier and cheaper to buy a freehold or extend a lease?

Professor Hopkins: Yes, they certainly will, and I will draw attention to a number of provisions. First, those that deal with the price that leaseholders will pay will ensure that it is cheaper. For the first time, how that price is calculated is mandated, and it is designed to identify the value of the asset that the leaseholder is receiving. At the moment, the focus is on compensating the freeholder for the asset they are losing. The price will consist of two elements. There will be a sum of money representing the terms and buying out the ground rent, but that will be capped so that onerous ground rents are not taken into account in calculating that sum, and a price representing the reversion, which would be the value today of either a freehold or a 990-year lease that will come into effect at the end of the current lease. In calculating those elements of the price, the deferment and capitalisation rates will be prescribed, so that will remove the current disputes.

The price is mandated and the price is cheaper, and there are other things in the Bill that will help, such as the ability of leaseholders to require the landlord to take leasebacks of property when they are exercising a collective enfranchisement so that, for example, they do not have to pay for the expense of commercial units that they do not want responsibility for. There is a lot in there. There is reducing price and also reducing the ability for disputes to arise.

I will also refer to the provisions on costs that will generally ensure that parties pay their own costs in relation to a claim. Leaseholders will not be paying the costs of freeholders.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Maclean]

Q That is really helpful, although it was not quite what I was trying to get at. If you are a freeholder, you may also be an insurer. A lot of big freeholders are insurers, and pension funds and so on, that are underwriting the pensions of many people in the country—in the NHS and so on. The claim that they have made is that in the past some of the leaseholders have bought out their freeholds. I might have slightly misunderstood the situation, but it has been put to me that, now that this flow of insurance is no longer coming to the insurers—or, to put it another way, now that the service charges and so on that are paid by the leaseholder to the freeholder are no longer coming to the insurance industry—that will somehow destabilise the insurers’ balance sheets and make them unable to meet their commitments. Is that something that you recognise, from your industry perspective? I am not talking about the individual leaseholder.

Matt Brewis: I do not believe that the size of the insurance part of the market is significant enough to destabilise any firms. I have not heard that claim before, but I do not think that this part of the market, in the types of firms that we are talking about, is of a size that would cause structural issues.

[Mike Amesbury]

Q In September, Sheldon Mills, an executive director at the FCA, issued a strong statement:

“Insurance firms must now act in leaseholders’ best interests and ensure that their policies provide fair value.”

Now I will give you a live case, which happens to be in a neighbouring constituency to mine. It is called The Decks. They have a remediation day and Taylor Wimpey has accepted responsibility, yet insurance premiums are going up again—poor value and high cost, as I think was cited in the review. New year was going to be a new broom to intervene and shape the market, yet you have got insurance companies like this, and many more up and down the country, laughing at people in this room—key stakeholders such as yourselves. What are you going to do? What powers have you got to intervene? Also, we have discussed insurance. Are clauses 31 to 33 in part 3 sufficient to deal with the issue?

Matt Brewis: Our new rules around ensuring that these products are fair value came into force on 31 December last year. The cost of insurance of multiple-occupancy buildings has increased, and our report of 2022 found that this was not an area where insurers were making significant profits, or super-profits, of any form because of a number of different parts—around fire safety risks, but more to do with some of the structural issues around the quality of the buildings and how they had been constructed. Escape of water was something that was causing significant losses in these buildings.

We found some of the biggest issues around the brokerage charges, which were increasing, and the payaways—payments that insurance brokers were making to property managing agents for services that they were apparently providing for them. So our new rules require them to be very clear what value they are providing and how they are doing that as brokers, as managing agents, and for that to be made clear to the leaseholders. We are undertaking reviews of those with a number of firms. This will provide leaseholders with more information so that they can challenge their freeholders, so that they can challenge the insurers and the brokers at a tribunal if necessary.

Where this Bill goes one step further is that although, as I have explained, we are not responsible for the managing agents or the freeholders, by effectively banning those payments of any commissions, as the Bill does in the clauses that you mention, it will go significantly further than I can with the powers that the FCA has to restrict the payments to other parties and therefore to reduce the cost to leaseholders. In my view, this is in line with the recommendations that we made in that report and results in a better product—a cheaper product—for leaseholders.

[Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)]

Q This morning, we heard from the founders of the National Leasehold Campaign about some of the poor practices that their members had told them about. Do you think that provisions in this Bill make it easier for consumers? Do they address the challenge of transparency and the ability to obtain information from freeholders in a way that will be noticeable to owners of leasehold properties?

Matt Brewis: In terms of the provision of information, yes. And it goes alongside the rules that we have introduced that require brokers and insurers to pass information to the freeholder to pass on to the leaseholder. This further tightens up that. It allows for leaseholders to take their freeholders to tribunal to reclaim costs, as necessary, that have been incurred. So this does go further, and I welcome that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Maclean]

Q Thank you. I will ask a second question, if I may. You mentioned the issue of the pump room. Can you explain very briefly what the issue of the pump room is? Is this for a conversion or an enfranchisement claim? Where is the pump room issue coming into play?

Harry Scoffin: It is for mixed-use buildings that would otherwise benefit from the 25% non-residential premises limit going up to 50%. Let us say that you have an underground car park, a plant room or maybe, more recently, a heat network. Basically, because you are now linked, almost like Siamese twins, with a hotel, for example, or some shops, under the current 2002 Act for right to manage and even the 1993 Act for buying your freehold, you are out. So even though the Law Commission and the Government mean well, saying, “We’re going to liberate mixed-use leaseholders,” for many of those mixed-use leaseholders, where they are completely linked with the commercial, it is game over; you will never be able to qualify. That definitely needs to be revisited because the Government will not get any political benefit from moving, rightly, from 25% up to 50% and even to mandatory leasebacks for when you buy the commercial.

The quick argument—the Law Commission understood it—is that at the moment, the plant room will normally be managed, yes, by the hotel, but the freeholder for the flats will appoint a managing agent who will also have access to the plant room. We are not changing that position. The only difference is that the managing agent that the freeholder appointed, who has access to the plant room, would now be working directly for people like my mum. So it is not disrupting—we are not going to become hoteliers. We are not going to become shop owners. If we rely on a service and are paying for it—53%, mind—we should have access to it, but the key thing is that we need the right to manage. Without right to manage, or without buying the freehold, you are, literally, perpetually in this abusive relationship with a freeholder who has your cheque book and is spending it how he likes, whether that is reasonable or not. That is a fact.

On the point about section 24, that needs to be revisited so that the manager, where a tribunal deems it appropriate, can be the accountable person. In our building, we have mobilised—ironically, it is over 50% of the leaseholders. We now face going back to them—with their cash, by the way—and saying, “We can’t now get one because of this unintended consequence of the Building Safety Act”. That is a quick bit of drafting— I have spoken to lawyers about it. It would be very easy for you guys and that would help, particularly on cladding developments, where the cladding is not getting done because the freeholders are sitting on their hands. You need an officer of the court who is going to turn around the development and be accountable.

Karolina Zoltaniecka: Can I say something about the right to manage? At the moment, the process is so complex. There are three notices that need to be served. I believe there needs to be only one, to say to the freeholder, “We are taking over the right to manage and this is the date we are going to do it on”, and that is it. There are solicitors who specialise in analysing notices to pick holes in them to prolong the process, so that leaseholders give up, and costs just go up and up. And I completely agree with the forfeiture point from Harry. It is unnecessary and a breach of lease, and especially, arrears can be taken to the county court to recover if the arrears are real.

[Mike Amesbury]

Q Is leasehold ownership home ownership?

Harry Scoffin: No, it is a tenancy scam. You do not own anything. You own the right to sell on a bit of space in a flat you occupy. You do not own, even though you may have paid a freehold price and you thought you owned it—you do not.

[Mike Amesbury]

Q Given that the Bill does not ban new leasehold flats—70% of leaseholds happen to be flats—is leasehold, the feudal system, still alive and kicking?

Harry Scoffin: Completely, because—

[Mike Amesbury]

In England and Wales?

Harry Scoffin: Yes, because people are coining it in and they want to keep it that way. I understand that a political decision was made by No. 10 not to have commonhold in the Bill and not to say even “a share of freehold”. Let us do that. Let us work with the Government to get share of freehold in. That is maybe an English fudge, but at least it gets us halfway to the ideal of commonhold, whenever it comes. I am not going to hold my breath for commonhold, sadly, because we have wasted the last seven years talking about it.

[Mike Amesbury]

Keep going.

Karolina Zoltaniecka: I would not give up on it; it is well worth waiting for.

Harry Scoffin: We need share of freehold in the meantime, at least.

[Richard Fuller]

Q Part 4 of the Bill is called “Regulation of estate management”, which I think is a particular area of interest for you. You said that it all starts at the beginning, when councils and developers decide to do that. Do you think that getting control of that is an essential part of the effective regulation of estate management?

Halima Ali: I do not agree that it is. All it is doing is creating a two-tier system where a set of homeowners, like myself, living on a private estate are dealing with this situation, whereas other homeowners are not. I do not see how regulating it is helping, because overall, the management company still get to set the fee.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mike Amesbury Excerpts

Monday 3rd July 2023 Commons Chamber

[Chris Philp]

I must say, in the gentlest terms, that my constituency neighbour has a bit of cheek to talk about reducing crime, given that according to the crime survey, crime levels under the last Labour Government were around double what they are today. [Interruption.] She shakes her head, but that is from the Office for National Statistics, and it is the only statistically recognised long-term measure of crime. If she does not like the ONS figures, she can go and argue with it. She might not like them, but those are the figures.

In relation to the hon. Lady’s serious question about RASSO—rape and serious sexual offences—particularly on women, the proportion being reported is much higher than it was a few years ago, which is welcome. There is a lot more to do, which is why there is a rape review and a rape action plan. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire Dales (Miss Dines), are working hard on that. Operation Soteria Bluestone was fully rolled out at the end of June, just a few days ago, and we have seen a significant increase in the number of relevant charges. They are still too low, and they need to be higher, which is why we have invested in more RASSO specialist officers, and that work is continuing.

[Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)]

9. What steps her Department is taking to help tackle antisocial behaviour.

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Suella Braverman)]

Earlier in the year, I launched the antisocial behaviour action plan, which includes increasing funding for police and crime commissioners by over £100 million, delivering stronger and swifter punishment, increasing police visibility in response, and banning nitrous oxide. Antisocial behaviour is not a low-level crime. It blights communities, and that is why the Government are committed to tackling it effectively.

[Mike Amesbury]

Today, to coincide with Anti-social Behaviour Awareness Week, the all-party parliamentary group on antisocial behaviour has published a report with the charity Resolve ASB, which demonstrates, among other things, that 1.7 million people a day experience antisocial behaviour. Some 58% believe that the Government are not doing enough. Will the Home Secretary meet members of the all-party parliamentary group and me to look at the recommendations in that report?

[Suella Braverman]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his work on the all-party parliamentary group, and I am sure that the Policing Minister and/or I will meet him to learn more about the vital work that he has led. May I take the opportunity to applaud the officers of Cheshire police force in the hon. Gentleman’s area? I have had the pleasure of meeting the excellent chief constable, Mark Roberts. I applaud the Conservative police and crime commissioner, John Dwyer, who has rolled out a scheme on antisocial behaviour that provides more CCTV and increases the first-responder response. There is a record number of police officers in Cheshire, and the force has received over £3 million-worth of safer streets funding. The results are a 26% fall in neighbourhood crime and a 17% fall in drugs offences in Cheshire. That is common-sense policing, thanks to the police officers and Government support.

Public Order

Mike Amesbury Excerpts

Monday 12th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Dr Mullan]

Indeed. As I said earlier I supported the proposals for protection zones for abortion clinics, but that makes the exact point. When it suits them, they are perfectly happy to sign up to these arguments, but they take a different view when it does not suit them. As the Home Secretary mentioned, they are very happy to get into bed financially with the people supporting these protests, so I think we all know where their loyalties lie.

[Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)]

If the laws are already there, what difference are these regulations going to make? How are they going to strengthen things?

[Dr Mullan]

The other point that I think the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), completely ignores is that we have a common law legal system in this country. It is perfectly normal for Parliament to pass legislation and attempt to apply that law via the police. That is another reason why I think the hysterical reaction to the police beginning a process of using new law and not getting it right every single time totally betrays the normal way in which law is developed in this country. We legislate, we use certain terminology and we try to be clear, but it is for the courts and the police to operationalise it and feed back if they think we need to go further. It is all very normal, and again, this is just histrionics from the other side, because it suits them to put their clips on social media standing up against us over these “draconian” protest laws that are not in the least bit draconian.

Manchester Arena Inquiry: Volume 3 Report

Mike Amesbury Excerpts

Monday 6th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Suella Braverman]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right: whether we are talking about Islamist extremism or far-right extremism, the Shawcross review is clear that we need a more transparent, efficient and sustainable programme. We need more independent oversight; we need to build an extensive programme of communications and community engagement; we need new risk assessment tools; and we need to ensure that a consistent approach is applied to all risks, so that we can be effective in minimising the threat.

[Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)]

Elaine McIver was a serving police officer with Cheshire police who went along to a concert and was killed, like 22 other people—the youngest victim being eight. A very close family member worked in the immediate aftermath of that terrorist atrocity. What I am seeking from the Home Secretary today, like all other Members from across the House, is reassurance that the recommendations of Sir John’s report will be implemented in full, no ifs and no buts.

[Suella Braverman]

We want to ensure that all the recommendations of Sir John’s reports are fully reflected upon and make a difference. That is what I am focused on—that we learn the lessons from this tragic incident, and improve our operational responses and our manner of dealing with the risks. We also want to make sure that victims of terrorism receive the support that they deserve, which is why the victims of terrorism unit is conducting an internal review to see how we can improve the package of support available to victims in that terrible situation.

Knowsley Incident

Mike Amesbury Excerpts

Monday 20th February 2023 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick]

It is, just as a matter of fact, a criminal offence to cross the channel in a small boat, so those who enter the UK in that manner are in breach of our laws. The broader point that the right hon. Gentleman makes is, of course, absolutely right: irrespective of that, those people who come here should be treated compassionately and we should abide by our broader legal obligations. The hotels and accommodation we provide are of a good quality. They will vary and if there are poor instances, I will take action against the providers. However, generally speaking, they are of a good quality and they are significantly better than what we find in comparable European countries. Many of the people who arrive on our shores in small boats have spent a sustained period in camps such as those in Calais; the way in which we treat people in this country is far superior.

[Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)]

Two weeks ago, at departmental questions, I requested a meeting with a Minister about the continued use of hotels in my constituency and the broader Liverpool city region. In the meantime, a group called the Patriotic Alternative has started distributing leaflets in one part of my constituency. Again, I request that meeting.

[Robert Jenrick]

I would be happy to meet the hon. Gentleman, and I apologise if there has been any delay. He raises a broader point of concern to us, which is the leafleting by far-right groups of the communities surrounding hotels. There have been examples of leaflets with faces of Members of Parliament and local councillors on them. Whenever I have seen those, I have raised them with local police and the Home Office’s dedicated counter-terrorism support. That kind of intimidatory leaflet is completely unacceptable on the streets of our country.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mike Amesbury Excerpts

Monday 6th February 2023 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Immigration (Robert Jenrick)]

We introduced the health and social care visa to make it easier for the NHS to recruit internationally. A benefit is that there is an enhanced service standard of 15 working days for extensions to those visas. That is being met at present. If my hon. Friend has concerns, I would be happy to look into them.

[Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)]

Will the Minister meet me to discuss the continued pressures arising from the use of hotel accommodation in my constituency and others across the Liverpool city region?

[Robert Jenrick]

I would be happy to. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will support our legislation in due course, which will tackle the root cause of the issue.

Crime and Neighbourhood Policing

Mike Amesbury Excerpts

Tuesday 31st January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)]

I want to put on record my thanks to my local police in Lancaster and Fleetwood, who go above and beyond, often clocking up overtime, which they are not always paid for—I hope I will have time to come on to that later—building trust with vulnerable members of the community and doing the job because they want to make a difference to the community in which we live. Before I go any further, I want to acknowledge the community anxiety about last week’s firearms incident on the Ridge estate in Lancaster and urge people to come forward with intelligence if they have anything on that.

If I had been speaking in this debate 18 months ago, I would have confidently told the House that organised crime and drug dealing was the No. 1 issue in Fleetwood and that increasingly it was causing huge anxiety for residents in the town. However, in the past six months neighbourhood policing teams have executed 20 drugs warrants in the Fleetwood area, with more to come. That is thanks to new leadership under our new Inspector Martin Wyatt and his sheer determination to sort things out. He has had to fight and push for detective resources and proactive policing teams to come into the town, but this means officers can now act on community intelligence and concerns. I wish to acknowledge that Inspector Wyatt is backed up by the support of Chief Superintendent Karen Edwards, who, as the divisional commander of west division, sees the value in this work. I put on record my thanks to Karen as well.

Although things have been turned around, it is fair to say that there is still a lot to do, because the cuts to policing in Fleetwood are still being felt. We used to have custody cells in Fleetwood, but they were cut. Officers making arrests now have to drive from Fleetwood to use the custody cells in Blackpool. That takes officers off the frontline and increases the vulnerability of the detained person, who has to be transported further away. Similarly, we have had cuts to policing resources in Fleetwood that saw us lose a fully resourced CID unit and the police staff who were providing that behind-the-scenes support, which frees up officers’ time to do the jobs that only they can do.

Fleetwood is a town at the end of a peninsula, which means that, when our resources are removed and things are centralised, we lose out. Suddenly, it is our police who are travelling to do their job. When it comes to making good use of police officers’ time, the crisis in our NHS means that officers are tied up waiting for ambulances and sitting in mental health units with patients, instead of ensuring that they can do the jobs that only they can do.

I wish to address the issue of how we remunerate our police officers. I put on record my thanks to the Lancashire Police Federation for the statistics that it provided to me. Eighty seven per cent. of Lancashire police officers feel worse off financially than they were five years ago. Eight in 10 officers are dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with their overall remuneration. Anecdotally, in private conversations, police officers have told me that if they had the power to strike, they would do so, because it appears that the Government are not listening to them. Ninety four per cent of Lancashire officers are now saying that they do not feel respected by the Government.

I said that I would address the issue of unpaid overtime. We do not pay the first four hours of overtime each week for inspectors and above, and that is creating a progression problem. Pay arrangements in policing are out of date, and an overtime buy-out for senior ranks agreed in 1993 is no longer fit for purpose due to the increased complexity and reduced frontline and support resources. If only constables and sergeants can earn overtime, why would a good police sergeant seek promotion for more stress and less pay? Good policing needs good leadership and it is important to attract the right candidates and retain them with fair renumeration.

I wish to put on record my thanks to three PCSOs from Fleetwood—

[Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend expand on the value of PCSOs in the local community?

[Cat Smith]

PCSOs are an invaluable resource in our community. I wish to talk about three PCSOs from Fleetwood: Ben Arnold, Neil Thomas and Nick Barber. The trust and engagement that PCSO Ben Arnold has gained with young people have been exemplary. In the past 12 months, youth antisocial behaviour in Fleetwood has reduced considerably, and much of that is down to Ben’s dedication to engaging with the local teenage community. Ben knows them all by name, and they know him.

PCSO Neil Thomas has done excellent work on a long-term ASB issue at a local park. He managed to regain the trust of some of the main complainants, so much so that one of them even became a PCSO herself, after being inspired by her involvement with Neil and the team.

Nick Barber is a veteran and a brilliant PCSO. He builds excellent community relations and takes ownership of problems. He has been instrumental in building community relations over the past 18 months, and tenacious in following up community intelligence and turning it into positive results.

The story from Fleetwood, from the leadership, the detectives, the police officers and the PCSOs, is a testament to the power of neighbourhood policing and the real difference that it can make.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)]

I echo the calls made in this Chamber for a Hillsborough law. I also thank all the police officers, PCSOs and support staff in Cheshire Constabulary; they are dedicated public servants and I am proud, with other politicians, to work alongside them to ensure that our communities are as safe as possible. In some cases, officers give life and limb, making the ultimate sacrifice. I recognise that ultimate sacrifice and pay tribute to them, as I know hon. Members across the House do to their police services.

People’s safety is one of the greatest priorities of any Government of any political persuasion. Our constituents should be able to enjoy life to the full in safe communities, and community policing should be at the heart of neighbourhood policing. However, the Conservatives’ record in government has simply been dire. The Tory story on crime is a record of crime going up, charge rates going down, prosecution numbers tumbling and local police stations being shut. The number of officers on our streets—frontline police—has been slashed by 20,000, as has the number of support staff. Let us not forget this hokey-cokey of getting rid of experienced officers and then playing catch-up.

Our constituents are not fools; they see the reality on our streets. The Conservative party is soft on crime and soft on the causes of crime. Indeed, two Prime Ministers have committed crimes very recently. There are more than 3,000 reports of antisocial behaviour every day, and rape and sexual offences are at record highs, but action against dangerous criminals is found seriously wanting. Knife crime is considerable—up by more than 70% since 2015. That is just the tip of the iceberg. It is what you get after 13 years of Tory Government with a policy of austerity to cut vital resources in our neighbourhoods.

Ask any constituent up and down the land if police—bobbies on the beat—are visible, and the answer from many would be a resounding no. Indeed, as the shadow Home Secretary my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) pointed out, the number of people who say they never see a police officer has more than doubled since the Conservative party have been in government.

Figures from 2022 show that in the north-west, PCSO numbers have fallen by 47%—almost half—compared with 2010. In my own patch, despite heavy protests from me, other Cheshire Labour MPs, councils and residents, we have sadly seen the closure of public service desks in Runcorn, Northwich and beyond—a plan chiselled by the Tory police and crime commissioner. The number of PCSOs—the eyes and ears in our communities—has been slashed by 40. Now, my constituents face the serious threat of the closure of Runcorn and Northwich police stations, and of many more across Cheshire.

As I understand it, the Conservative police and crime commissioner now wants to raise the precept by 6.4% during this cost of living crisis. He blames central Government for an uplift of 1.8%, which is in reality a real-terms cut given that inflation is at 10%. It is a hefty price for my residents to pay. It is a hefty price because of the failure of this Tory Government, who are dumping those increases on my local residents.

In conclusion, I thank Cheshire police, as I did at the beginning of my remarks. They could do an even more wonderful job if they had the resources, 13,000 additional police officers and PCSOs, and the right technology. What a wonderful position that would be. It is why we need a Labour Government.