I thank the Minister for his explanation of the Government amendments and for his initial response to my amendments and the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North.

We welcome the new costs regime provided for by these provisions. The Minister is absolutely right that, as things stand, there is no balance of power: the playing field is tilted very much in favour of landlords rather than leaseholders. That needs to be addressed. Under the current law, leaseholders are required to pay for certain non-litigation costs incurred by their landlord when responding to an enfranchisement or lease extension claim. That obviously does not reflect normal practice in residential conveyancing, where each party bears their own costs.

The argument for imposing non-litigation costs has always been that in enfranchisement or lease extension claims, a landlord is being forced to sell his or her asset, and that that justifies a departure from the costs arrangements that operate in open market sales of residential property, where any valuations and final price will reflect the fact that each party must pay their own costs. However, when it comes to lease extensions or freehold purchases, a landlord is obviously not simply being compensated for the value of the asset they are being compelled to sell. They are instead securing, through the payable premium, a share of the profit to be made from selling to the leaseholders in question. In addition, as things stand, through capitalised ground rents they are extracting funds from leaseholders over long periods—often decades—prior to securing that profit share for no explicit services in return, a point that the hon. Member for Redditch made.

The valuations of lease extensions and freehold acquisitions under the existing statutory regime rely on prices agreed via an open market transaction, but those valuations do not account for the fact that leaseholders are expected to pay their landlord’s non-litigation costs. A landlord in an enfranchisement or extension transaction therefore receives both a price for the asset being sold, which reflects the market rate without non-litigation costs factored in, and their reasonably incurred non-litigation costs on top.

As the Law Commission’s 2020 final report on enfranchisement puts it, the effect of the law and current market practice is that

“the landlord is over-compensated for the non-litigation costs that he or she has to incur in order to transfer the interest to the leaseholder.”

In addition to the fact that landlords are over-compensated for non-litigation costs, many of those who are better resourced use the fact that such costs are borne by leaseholders as leverage in negotiations on the price of the lease extension or freehold acquisition, confident that the expense of challenging those costs in tribunal will dissuade many leaseholders from doing so.

The Opposition’s view is that freeholders should not receive compensation in respect of non-litigation costs. The fact that a landlord sells his or her asset and receives a share of the profit as a result is not sufficient justification for departing from an arrangement in which reasonable non-litigation costs are factored into the ultimate price. That is not least because the decision to enfranchise or extend a lease is often not discretionary; it is often a requirement brought about by the fact that a lease is due to expire, because the payable premium is rising as the lease shortens or as a result of the decision to move or re-mortgage.

We therefore fully support the intention behind clauses 12 and 13 to provide for a new regime based on the principle that leaseholders are not required to pay the freeholder’s non-litigation costs in those circumstances. We note the Law Society’s concern that landlords are being asked to bear their own non-litigation costs despite the fact that the proposed standard valuation method provided for by schedule 2, which the Committee has just considered, will lead to payable premiums below full open market value because it caps the capitalisation rate. However—this point touches on one of our previous debates—political decisions set the rules of the game for market competition. In our view, it is simply not the case that there is some kind of inherent market value for premiums that is entirely independent and autonomous of legislation in this area. Every sale of a flat and every lease extension process relating to a flat since 1993 has been undertaken against the backdrop of the 1993 Act, which reduced ground rents to a peppercorn.

The market value for premiums is shaped by the laws this House passes, and it is right in principle that, to achieve the Bill’s objectives of making it cheaper and easier for leaseholders in houses and flats to extend their lease or buy their freehold, leaseholders do not pay non-litigation costs in addition to the payment of a premium, as determined by the new method proposed in schedules 2 and 3. It is because we believe that leaseholders should not be liable for these costs as a result of an enfranchisement or lease extension claim on principle, irrespective of the method by which the premium is calculated, that we take issue with the fact that the clause as drafted does not protect all leaseholders from liability for costs incurred.

As the Minister has made clear, the clause entails only a selective extension of rights in this area, because it does not ensure—as the press release that accompanied the publication of the Bill claims it does—that all leaseholders will no longer have to pay their freeholder’s costs when making a claim. Instead, by means of proposed new section 19C, it makes exceptions to the general rule whereby the price payable for the freehold or extended lease is below an amount to be prescribed in regulations.

We understand the rationale for the proposed new section, namely that leaseholders should pay a freeholder’s non-litigation costs in such circumstances, so that low-value claims do not cost the freeholder money; the Minister has been very clear that the Government believe that that must happen to ensure that the process is fair for both sides. We also appreciate that there are risks in prohibiting a landlord from passing on non-litigation costs to leaseholders in instances in which they would be required to spend more in carrying out the transaction than they received for the asset. The Law Commission highlighted a number of those risks in its final report on enfranchisement, including the incentive created for landlords not to co-operate with a claim, or for them to transfer the low-value freehold into the name of a shell company, then liquidate the company and ensure that the lease becomes bona vacantia.

We are concerned, however, that exempting claims below a certain value will create a different set of practical problems. I hope I can get the Minister to engage with those problems, with a view to convincing him to reconsider. They include costly and time-consuming disputes in cases in which the price payable is close to the level of the non-litigation costs in question for low-value claims, and the potential for landlords to game the new system by arguing for a price payable below the threshold, in order to secure both it and associated non-litigation costs because of the burden of disputing the amount.

We appreciate that the Government have incorporated into the clause the Law Commission’s recommended remedy, namely that in low value claims for which the non-litigation costs are higher than the premium payable, the leaseholder would be required to pay the lower of the two values, one of which is to be prescribed by the Secretary of State. However, we believe that it does not entirely remove the potential for significant disputes to arise between leaseholders and freeholders, with leaseholders in a weak position to challenge them because of the cost and time required. We therefore worry that the prescribed sum, at whatever level it is ultimately set, will become the minimum sum payable to enfranchise. We are concerned that the difficulties of challenging a claim to the prescribed sum will deter some leaseholders from initiating the process of extending their lease or from acquiring their freehold altogether.

Taking a step back, we fail to see the logic in the Government’s position. On the one hand, they seem to be ignoring the Law Commission’s recommendations in relation to costs; they have chosen to provide for a general rule that leaseholders are not required to make a contribution to their landlord’s non-litigation costs, but have not chosen to adopt a valuation methodology that seeks to reflect open market value, which was the commission’s stated prerequisite for such a rule. On the other hand, they are following strictly the commission’s recommendations in respect of low-value claims.

Put simply, we believe that, by means of this Bill, we should take the political decision—it is an explicit political decision—to exempt all leaseholders from paying the costs incurred by landlords in processing enfranchisement or lease extension claims. Amendments 4 and 5 would omit proposed new section 19C of the 1967 Act and proposed new section 89C of the 1993 Act, thereby removing any exception to the general rule that leaseholders are not required to pay the freeholder’s non-litigation costs in such circumstances. Having argued my case on the basis of the practicalities, I live in hope that the Minister might reconsider.