Matthew Pennycook
MP for Greenwich and Woolwich · Labour · United Kingdom
“It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dame Siobhain. I congratulate the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) on securing this debate.”
“I will address the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s specific question in due course. Before I do so, I want to put on the record the policy in relation to villages. He can rest assured that I will address the point; if he is unsatisfied, he is more than welcome to intervene again. A number of hon. Members mentioned villages.”
“I will say two things in respect to that, and I will come on to detail how the approach works in relation to decision making very shortly. In general terms, developers can make whatever claims they like about any particular site across the country; it is for the local authority to assess whether, in its view, that site constitutes grey be…”
“and learned Gentleman’s point about what is likely to constitute grey-belt land. Let me directly address his other two specific points. Is this a significant policy? Absolutely, and it has been judged as much by the Office for Budget Responsibility and other external commentators. Is it deliberate? Absolutely. We want, as the right hon.”
“Where authorities may wish to restrict development in villages for other reasons, a range of tools are available, such as conservation areas or normal development management policies. On the right hon.”
“We have to put in place policies that, through the decision-making route, allow homes still to be brought forward in that interregnum, but then we have to push heavily to drive towards universal plan coverage. At that point, the protections are in place.”
The complete record
Every one of 5,181 lines we hold for Matthew Pennycook, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 75 of 104.
“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?”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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?”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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 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.”
“The Minister made a commendable effort to explain the various Government amendments and schedules in this part of the Bill. Briefly, for purposes of clarity, let me say that we have a lot to say about valuation, but we will do so when we debate schedule 2.”
“I rise to make two points. The first is that I will speak in great detail about valuation when we come to schedule 2, as I have indicated, because the meat of the Opposition’s concern relates to the deferment rate, which we will come to. Secondly, does the hon. Gentleman broadly agree that one of the reasons why this or any Committee would struggle to properly scrutinise this large group of schedules and clauses is that none of us has relevant expertise as professional valuers? One of the reasons why the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee asked to undertake pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill was precisely that it is so complex in certain areas, this area being a case in point.”
“Gentleman may take issue with that, perhaps because he does not agree with one of the main objectives of the Bill—to make the enfranchisement process cheaper for leaseholders—or maybe he just takes issue with the fact that we do not know the prescribed figures that the Secretary of State will set, so we do not have a real sense of the values. The clause is attempting to right a systemic wrong as regards marriage value and other components of the existing valuation method. It is not just dealing with specific abuses in the system by bad faith actors.”
“In some ways, I am doing the Government’s job, but I would just probe the hon. Gentleman on the Government’s intention, specifically in relation to value. At least on the basis of my understanding, it is not to right an abuse in the system. It is to remove payments, which are very real for leaseholders, that are based on a hypothetical profit that some would argue should not exist in a fair market. It is not about righting specific wrongs but a systemic wrong in the valuation process, from the Government’s point of view. The hon.”
“The hon. Member tempts me to engage in the philosophical debate that the Minister alluded to, and I think it is debatable whether they are real. Let me put it to him like this. If I own a vase, is the value of a second vase increased by the fact that I own the first one? That is what marriage value is doing; it is the hypothetical profit from the joining of the leases. I think it is at least debatable as to whether it is real in the sense that he advances, although it is very real for leaseholders who have to pay it if they seek to enfranchise under the current system.”
“With apologies for interrupting the Minister when he is providing a commendable explanation of this group of Government amendments, does he agree that although the Bill touches on shared ownership leases in a number of areas, it does not directly address many of the unique challenges that face shared owners? Is there a case for legislating separately to address the various challenges that shared owners face in the round? On this and a number of other issues that arose in the context of the Renters (Reform) Bill, it feels as if there is a good argument for doing so, to ensure that we are directly addressing the challenges that shared owners face.”
“I beg to move amendment 2, in schedule 2, page 98, line 25, at end insert— “(7A) In setting the deferment rate the Secretary of State must have regard to the desirability of encouraging leaseholders to acquire their freehold at the lowest possible cost.” This amendment would ensure that when determining the applicable deferment rate, the Secretary of State would have to have regard to the desirability of encouraging leaseholders to acquire their freehold at the lowest possible cost.”
“If not, we think that a degree of flexibility may be required for more regular assessments of whether the rate is correct.”
“With that in mind, I would be grateful if the Minister confirmed whether, first, it is the Government’s intention, before they introduce the regulations required to bring the new process into force, to undertake a public consultation on precisely how the “applicable deferment rate” under part 5 of schedule 2 should be determined. I would also be grateful if he confirmed that it is the Government’s intention to keep the deferment rate under regular review. The relevant paragraphs on pages 98 and 99 only commit the Secretary of State to review the rate or rates every 10 years, which feels a little too infrequent. Would that 10-year stipulation function as a minimum period for review, with Ministers in future free to undertake more frequent reviews if they felt it necessary?”
“There are also clear benefits in simpler negotiations and reduced litigation to introducing greater certainty as to what the enfranchisement premium will be. Getting that rate right, however, as well as keeping it under regular review so as to respond quickly to any unintended or adverse consequences that might arise from selecting one, will be key to the effective functioning of the new process. Here we come to the point made by the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire: as things stand, we do not know what those rates are. As with much of the Bill, we await future regulations to understand the process by which the Secretary of State will determine those rates and what the initial rate that he determines will be.”
“On balance, however, we believe it is right that the Secretary of State be given the power to set both the capitalisation and the deferment rates used to calculate the price payable on enfranchisement or extension. It may indeed be the case that the Sportelli judgment has produced deferment rates that are broadly adhered to as a starting point in most claims for leases with at least 20 years to run, but there are real problems in relying on 17-year-old case law to maintain generic rates over the long term, not least in terms of vested interests attempting to overturn the relevant judgments and because there is evidence to suggest that the assumptions made about the risk-free rate in that judgment require review.”
“The problem with setting a fixed deferment rate in legislation, such individuals would argue, is that a one-size-fits-all fixed rate will stop leaseholders from agreeing higher and more favourable deferment rates in circumstances where that is a possibility—for example, in relation to buildings at risk of obsolescence at the expiry of the lease term or where an intermediate leaseholder is involved—and, as such, will leave those leaseholders worse off, because they will be denied the opportunity to acquire their freehold or extend their lease at a fair price. The concern that a fixed rate may prohibit leaseholders from benefiting from more favourable rates in certain circumstances should not be dismissed, given the objective of reducing premiums as well as simplifying the process by which they are calculated.”
“I have had it put to me by several specialist leasehold valuers with considerable experience acting for both leaseholders and freeholders—indeed, Mr Fanshawe who gave evidence to the Committee last week made this point, too—that as a result of the 2007 Cadogan v. Sportelli case, rates of 4.75% for houses and 5% for flats are now the accepted starting point in any claim for determining what deferment rate should be applied for leases with at least 20 years to run. Those people would argue that the result is not only that such rates are rarely ever a matter of dispute, but that deviation from them tends to benefit leaseholders.”
“We need not concern ourselves with the complexities of how such a rate is calculated precisely, but given its importance as an input in freehold acquisition or lease-extension claims, it is important that the Committee grapples with the implications of the Secretary of State being given the power to prescribe both that and the capitalisation rate used to calculate the value of either the freehold reversion or the new 990-year lease, because that is what schedules 2 and 3 provide for. Proposing to hand Ministers responsibility for setting both those rates is not uncontroversial. Some would argue that it will be detrimental to the interests of leaseholders and freeholders to seek to set fixed rates in legislation.”
“One of the most important inputs when it comes to the functioning of the proposed new standard valuation method will be the deferment rate, which I mentioned earlier. As the Committee will know, the deferment rate is the annual discount applied on a compound basis to an anticipated future receipt assessed at current prices, to arrive at its market value at an earlier date.”
“The result is that it regularly causes real difficulties for leaseholders and landlords engaged in the enfranchisement process. In overhauling the process, however, it is important that we ensure that the new methodology not only addresses the various problems with the existing law, but reduces premiums for leaseholders across the board. That is an explicit objective of the Bill and—from memory—it is one of the terms of reference that the Government gave to the Law Commission when they asked it to produce its reports, and one that we very much share. It will be one of the tests in any litigation—I am sure litigation is to follow—but we believe it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.”
“There are the principled arguments in which we have engaged, and there is also the practical argument that the current valuation system has a number of flaws. The Law Commission argued in extensive detail in its 2020 report entitled “Report on options to reduce the price payable” that calculating premiums under the law as it stands is complex; has unpredictable and sometimes arbitrary outcomes; is subject to various inconsistencies and irrationalities inherent in the regime as a whole; and is affected by the artificiality of some of the statutory assumptions that valuers must work with. As I said in response to the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire, this is not just a case of a couple of bad apples: these are systemic problems with the current valuation method.”
“First, as we have discussed, they ensure that marriage value—the hypothetical profit arising from the new lease that schedule 13 to the 1993 Act specifies must be shared equally between the parties—and hope value, which is the additional value that may arise from the potential for marriage value to be realised in the future, are no longer to be taken into account in calculating the premium payable. Secondly, aside from in exceptional circumstances, they impose a 0.1% cap on the treatment of ground rents in the valuation calculation, as the Minister detailed. Thirdly, they introduce a new standard valuation method with the aim of making the process simpler, more certain and more predictable. In principle, we fully support the proposed new process for determining the price payable on enfranchisement or extension.”
“That clause provides that the premium payable when exercising any such enfranchisement rights, with the exception of premiums calculated under the preserved section (9)(1) of the 1967 Act, is to be comprised of the market value and any compensation payable. As the Minister said, schedule 3 sets out the circumstances in which other compensation is payable and how the amount is determined. Schedule 2 sets out how the market value is to be determined and, in instances where loss is suffered by certain landlords other than the landlord transferring the freehold or granting the new lease, how it is divided into shares. The schedules, particularly schedule 2, make a number of significant changes to the two main bases of valuation currently used.”
“We have already discussed valuation in some detail, and it is right that we do so. The concerns raised by the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire are genuine, and it is important that the Committee engages with them and the aim he has in mind to ensure that this is the most robust piece of legislation it can be. As the Minister has demonstrated, schedule 2 is incredibly technical and complex, so I hope that members of the Committee will forgive me if in advancing my argument I set out once again what some of the provisions do. The Minister has made it clear that clauses 9 and 10 make amendments to the 1967 Act and the 1993 Act respectively to provide that the premium payable to acquire either the freehold or lease extension of either a house or flat must be calculated in accordance with clause 11.”
“It is essential that reducing premiums for leaseholders is the determining factor in the process by which such a rate or rates will be set and reviewed, and it must therefore be put on the face of the Bill. On that basis, I hope the Minister will consider accepting both amendments. I look forward to his response.”
“Amendments 2 and 3 would ensure that that is the case in relation to both freehold acquisition and lease extensions. While other considerations will clearly need to be taken into account, not least how to ensure that landlords receive adequate compensation to reflect their legitimate property interests, these amendments would oblige Ministers to set a rate or rates with the overriding objective of encouraging leaseholders to acquire their freehold at the lowest possible cost. That is important because with marriage and hope value abolished and the treatment of ground rents in the valuation calculation capped at peppercorn rates, it is the deferment rate that will be the primary driver of price to be paid by leaseholders in enfranchisement or extension claims.”
“When it comes to the regulations required to bring the new valuation process into force, we obviously recognise that they are the means by which the detailed methodology for setting the applicable deferment rate will be brought forward. However, while it would not be right to pre-empt those regulations in Committee, we believe that the objective underpinning the setting of the deferment rate should be set out in the Bill. While the rate or rates will need to be set at a level that does not unfairly denude freeholders of value, we think it is important that the Bill states clearly that in determining what should be the rate or rates, the Secretary of State must have at the forefront of their mind the need to reduce premiums for leaseholders.”
“I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. To be very clear, we agree with the Government’s proposal that the Secretary of State set the rate. The alternative would be, as Mr Fanshawe put to us in the evidence sessions, that we rely as a starting point on the Sportelli judgment, with its 4.75% and 5% rates respectively, and that leaseholders are free in the process of dispute to argue for more favourable rates on the grounds of particular circumstances being implied. On balance, we think that it is right that the Secretary of State sets the rate. What I am trying to drive at, which I will get to, is that how the Secretary of State sets the rate and what it should be are crucial to the outcomes for leaseholders in terms of the premium payable.”
“For that reason, I am minded to press amendment 2 to the vote and also amendment 3, if we were to be successful in securing amendment 2—though it does not look so, from the balance of numbers.”
“We are not attempting to prescribe the rates; I think that there should be consultation to ensure that Parliament’s view can be sustained, have legitimacy and have public backing. As the Minister will know, post-consultation is part of a regular process, as well as what this House attempts. We are very much minded to say that, when setting the rate, there should be a guiding principle that, yes, it has to balance a number of considerations, but chief among them must be reducing premiums for leaseholders to their lowest possible level. It is explicit in the explanatory notes—and other parts of the Bill make reference to it—that the provision is to drive down costs for leaseholders; it is not set out in this schedule.”
“It may be the case that, when the methodology comes forward in regulations, it is an explicit objective of the rate-setting process that premiums for leaseholders are reduced to their lowest possible level, but we have no guarantee, and all hon. Members know the constraints under which we operate when it comes to secondary legislation and our ability to influence and scrutinise instruments. We think it important that this particular objective be put on the face of the Bill, and I will be frank with the Committee about why. We are worried about a situation where either this Government or a future one are lobbied by vested interests to set a deferment rate that will be punitive for leaseholders—that is, lower than the Sportelli judgment rates. As things stand, that is a distinct possibility.”
“I welcome that response from the Minister, in particular about the review period. If I have understood him correctly, he is saying that there must be a review every 10 years at a minimum, but there may be ongoing reviews within that time period if necessary—he can correct me if I have misunderstood. That would be welcome. There is a need to keep the rate, whatever it may be ultimately, under more regular review than just once every 10 years. I welcome also the indication he gave that the rate or rates may include some regional variation. Where I take issue with the Minister’s response is the debate about how much we need to prescribe on the face of the Bill.”
“I am afraid the Minister is right in that he has failed to convince me. I fear he may misunderstand the point I am trying to make. It is not that we take issue with the Secretary of State having the flexibility to set the rate; we want instead to make very clear what must be the overriding objective in their mind when doing so, and we do think there is a strong case to put that on the face of the Bill in order to achieve the objectives that the Government have set themselves to make premiums as cheap as possible for leaseholders. For that reason, I will press amendment 2 to a vote. Question put, That the amendment be made.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”