Lord Howard of Rising:

Moved by Lord Howard of Rising

16: Schedule 4, page 162, line 41, at end insert—“Hope value and/or marriage value payable13A The standard valuation method is not compulsory for the property comprised in a current lease in circumstances where Assumption 2 in paragraph 17 does not apply.”Member’s explanatory statementThis Amendment would not require the standard valuation method to be used in circumstances where hope value and/or marriage value is payable.

My Lords, Amendments 16 to 18 in my name seek to ensure that the approach taken towards marriage value by this legislation does not undermine long-standing and entirely legitimate property rights, specifically ensuring that a standard valuation is not compulsory where hope value and/or marriage value is payable.

First, I contend that the Government’s suggestion that they are abolishing marriage value is a misnomer. The so-called abolition is rather a transfer of wealth, and the Government’s proposals are simply a retrospective expropriation of assets: an interference with long-established property rights. Handing over the full benefit of marriage value to leaseholders without compensation will have wide-ranging effects, but the most damaging and significant is the threat to property rights if the ownership of property is no longer secure, because it can be taken away without compensation. Where does that leave us? On all occasions, when the Government have been asked about the principle of marriage value in the past, they have consistently acknowledged and accepted that it forms part of a landlord’s legitimate property interest—that is, until now.

Research commissioned by leading consultants shows that this interference with long-established property rights will benefit only a tiny proportion of properties in England, and will disproportionately benefit property investors in London rather than leaseholders who live in their homes—genuine home owners, as I have referred to before. The Government’s impact assessment states that there 4.8 million leasehold properties in England, of which only 385,400 have leases under 80 years. Of these 385,400, the large Majority, and therefore the bulk of the value that might be transferred, are located in London and the south-east. Despite the Government’s noble ambition to support aspirational home owners, I understand that in London, 60% of leaseholders benefiting from this policy change would be private investors, of which as many as a quarter are based overseas.

Finally, as we have already covered briefly, there is the problem with human rights legislation. As I said earlier, the Government have consistently acknowledged and accepted that marriage value forms part of a landlord’s legitimate property interest. One of the founding principles of the European Convention on Human Rights is the protection of property. I know I have mentioned this before but it needs mentioning again, because we will end up with years of legislation to nobody’s benefit and at huge cost.

The lack of compensation for freeholders under the process as set out in the Bill challenges the expectation that parties should be fully compensated for losses resulting in expropriation or state control of use. Regardless of the results in the courts, it is clear that it will cost the Government a small fortune and freeze the leasehold property market, and that present leaseholders will be reluctant to sell when there is the chance of a greater value in the future—given the state of the current property market, that is really not an additional unintended consequence.

My amendments here, and those that I will speak to later in this debate, seek to address these problems and introduce sensible solutions. I beg to move.

My Lords, briefly, I support my noble friend Lord Howard of Rising’s Amendment. It is important to put on record some of the concerns about the marriage value and grandfathering issues that the Bill has thrown up, and the problem of significant ramifications and externalities, and unintended consequences, that may fall as a result of this Bill becoming an Act later today. It is important to also put on record, as the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, said, that it is an unsatisfactory position that such a complex and potentially difficult and litigious Bill should be debated in the final stages of the last day before Prorogation.

I should say at the outset that I am very grateful to David Elvin KC of Landmark Chambers for the legal work that he has done on this Bill. Freeholders, many of them individuals who rely on income from ground rents and marriage values, should not be penalised. Government figures show that, of the 5.2 million leaseholders in the UK, only 400,000 will benefit. This issue is one of fairness and equity. Four-fifths of those leaseholders are in London and the south-east, and two-thirds are not owner-occupiers. Just 240,000 owner-occupier leaseholders stand to gain.

The Residential Freehold Association describes the reforms as

“a totally unjustified interference in the legitimate property rights of freeholders”.

It claims that the Government may need to pay out £31 billion in compensation for erasing the value of these investments. Mick Platt, director of the RFA, said, very pertinently:

“Given the UK’s proud history of protecting legitimate property rights and respecting contract law, it would ordinarily be unthinkable for investors to have to rely on the courts to protect their interests, but this is inevitable if Mr Gove pushes these proposals through”.

Marriage value currently forms part of the property value and is shared equally between freeholders and leaseholders where leases are under 80 years. The original social justification for enfranchisement allowed the recovery of market value and an equitable share of marriage value. This reform takes that away and, subject to any transitional provisions, removes a whole element of the value from the freeholder without compensation, so that any assessments of, or reliance on, existing market values will be frustrated. As has been said by my noble friend, it will be, in many cases, a retrospective deprivation of value in that it applies to existing interest.

I want to specifically address the point made by my friend the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley—with whom I very rarely disagree because she is eminently sensible on pretty much everything she opines on in this House—about lawyers casting their eyes on this legislation. In Lindheim v Norway, before the European Court of Human Rights, the state sought to manipulate market value in mandatory lease extensions by fixing the rent at historic, rather than current, value, and the Strasbourg court held that this violated Article 1 of the first protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights. You do not often get me citing the European Convention on Human Rights, but I will make an exception today because this is an important issue.

Although the social measures pursued a legitimate aim in the public interest, none the less the measure did not strike a fair balance, given the burden placed on property owners. The proposed abolition of marriage value in this Bill represents a significant departure from established property practices. The unilateral transfer of value from freeholders to leaseholders without compensation raises legal, ethical and practical concerns.

As I finish, I make the point that the Government should look benevolently on Amendments 20 and 21 on grandfathering, because they provide an interesting way forward. It would adjust the balance in applying assumptions which remove marriage value only to those leases with more than 80 years remaining at the time of commencement of the relevant provisions.

The Minister has done an excellent job defending a very sticky wicket against some quite awkward googlies. I know that we all have had very little time to prepare for this, but this needs to be put on the record because this legislation has the potential to give rise to very serious Division, litigation and difficulties, and unintended impacts in the property market, which will mean fewer people have the benefit of owning their own homes or having leases. With that, I conclude my remarks.

I thank my noble friends Lord Howard of Rising and Lord Moylan for these amendments. They lay some of the groundwork for the grandfathering amendments to marriage value, which will be discussed later—in group 7, I think—and we will debate the substantial matters then.

One thing I would like to say now, so that I am not accused of ignoring it, is that the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill is considered by the Government to be A1P1 ECHR-compliant as introduced to both Houses. Indeed, the valuation scheme itself and constituent parts are A1P1-compliant. We will come back to that in a couple of groups.

It is worth pointing out that Amendment 16 would not only grandfather marriage value but remove such leaseholders left owing marriage value from the standard valuation method altogether. The consequences of this would be that they would not only be left owing marriage value but would not benefit from any valuation reforms, including to the treatment of ground rent rates and so on. Moreover, since there would be no specific provisions for valuing their properties outside of the standard valuation period, leaseholders and freeholders would be left to negotiate all aspects of the valuation. This would result in much greater costs, delays and litigation. I therefore kindly ask my noble friends not to press their amendments.

I thank the Minister. We touched on this before. The Minister said that this is compliant with the European Convention on Human Rights, but the advice given to the Government was that it was a very marginal case.

I also point out to the Minister that, if you had some ground rents coming in and you had them removed by force, you would simply fight as long as you wanted, because you would continue to get them while you were fighting in the court. I envisage that the legal complications would last for several years. There are huge sums of money involved, with £7.1 billion of assets being transferred, and people will try to protect that.

If I was the Minister, I would go back and ask my legal advisers to check what was happening. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment 16 withdrawn.

Amendment 17 not moved.