Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

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.

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.

We welcome the clause, which enacts part of the Law Commission’s first recommendation from its final report on leasehold enfranchisement. In our view, the existing restrictions on leaseholders making fresh enfranchisement or extension claims where an earlier claim in respect of the same premises has been withdrawn or struck out, or has otherwise failed, are not justified. On payment of an appropriate premium, leaseholders should, in principle, be entitled to obtain a new, extended lease as often as they wish and should be allowed to make repeat good-faith enfranchisement claims.

I have two questions for the Minister, both of which relate to bad-faith claims. First, page 13 of the explanatory notes accompanying the Bill makes it clear that subsections (1)(c) and (d) remove restrictions on new claims within five years where a tenant has not acted in good faith or has attempted to misrepresent or conceal material facts. For the record, I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify precisely how those subsections remove restrictions on tenants within the said circumstances, because it is not entirely clear to us from reading the clause. I would also be grateful if the Minister could clarify why the Government believe it is appropriate to remove restrictions on repeat claims where a leaseholder has acted in bad faith. Is it the case, as I suspect, that the provisions in the 1967 Act that restrict repeat claims on those grounds have rarely, if ever, been used? In effect, are the Government just tidying up the statute book in respect of the relevant historical provisions?

Secondly, the Minister will know that the Law Commission proposed that freeholders should have the right to apply to the tribunal for an enfranchisement restraint order, with the purpose of preventing leaseholders from making repeat claims that are entirely without merit or that are, either of themselves or when considered together, frivolous, vexatious or otherwise an abuse of process. The Minister gave an indication in his opening remarks that the Government’s view is that the necessary order powers are already there, but I would like him to explain why they did not believe it was appropriate to incorporate into the clause the Law Commission’s recommendation to give freeholders the right to seek such an order from the tribunal. Do the Government believe that the likelihood of leaseholders making bad-faith claims of the kind that an ERO would allow the tribunal to prohibit is negligible? If so, what evidence is that belief based on? If the Government accept that some leaseholders may make repeat bad-faith claims, why do they believe there is no need to provide a mechanism by which such behaviour could be prevented? I look forward to the Minister’s response.

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.

I welcome that clarification from the Minister and look forward to any further detail that he might provide to the Committee via written correspondence.

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.

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.