Miatta Fahnbulleh
MP for Peckham · Labour (Co-op) · United Kingdom
“I am pleased to speak once again on the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill. I thank Members from across the House for their constructive engagement in getting the Bill to this point.”
“I hope this Bill represents the start of a journey that will fundamentally change the way that Government works and how we, in this place, serve the communities that we are here to represent; where the principle of devolution by default, underpinned by a clear framework, is locked in; where local leaders are empowered to drive economic ch…”
“However, we have heard concerns expressed in the other place and in this House that requiring a council to move to the leader and cabinet model within a year could create challenges for some councils, their members and officers—for example, where an authority has submitted a proposal for a boundary change or merger in response to the Secr…”
“We have listened carefully to the concerns raised in both Houses on the remaining issues: the ministerial power of direction in schedule 1, the prioritisation of development on brownfield land, and the models of governance in local authorities. That is why the Government have today tabled three amendments, which I will now outline.”
“To that end, and in the interests of not delaying the progress of the Bill and of showing that communities can benefit from the powers that we all wish to see enacted at the earliest opportunity, the Government are content to remove all powers in schedule 1 that would allow the Secretary of State to direct the establishment of a strategic…”
“As I have said consistently throughout the passage of the Bill, our policy and our practice are very clear. We are working with local leaders and we will continue to work with them to develop devolution proposals that command broad support across their area. That collaborative approach will always be our clear preference.”
The complete record
Every one of 602 lines we hold for Miatta Fahnbulleh, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 11 of 13.
“Pension fund audits will no longer be held up by audit delays on administering authority accounts, allowing timely assurance to be provided to scheme members and admitted bodies. Many other organisations rely on pension fund audits to confirm pension figures in their own accounts, and their audits have been disrupted and delayed by problems around administering authorities that rarely relate to the pension fund. As well causing problems for local bodies, the issue has caused problems in completing the audits of the whole of Government accounts and at least two Government Departments. Decoupling will shorten and simplify administering authorities’ accounts.”
“The hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner was dissatisfied by my pensions example. In part, I hope the clause speaks to some of the challenges that we are trying to get at. Clause 69 is the first step in separating pension fund accounts from the accounts of the administering authorities. It removes the implied requirement in the current legislation for the accounts to be published together. We can then make regulations to introduce the change in practice. Decoupling the accounts is widely supported by auditors and local authorities and was recommended by the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee in the last Parliament. The clause implements that recommendation. It is a relatively straightforward change that will deliver real practical benefits.”
“We are having the same debate over and over again. Ultimately—I have said this before and I will say it again—it will be for the accounting officer and the finance director to make the judgment about their accounts in year and over a multi-year period. We are not changing that. Given that pensions are administered by a single body, it is bizarre that the system at the moment involves individual local authorities having to audit their pension funds.”
“No, they are not, but the auditing requirement at the moment is burdensome, as local authorities and, under the previous Government, the Select Committee have said. I think the hon. Gentleman is just asking a probing question, which is fine, but no one is telling us that this measure is a bad idea. No one is telling us that decoupling is not helpful. It will mean that local government auditing does not hold back pension fund auditing and vice versa. Everyone agrees that this is a simple provision.”
“I will not give way; I am going to have to close down this debate. Critically, none of this detracts from the core function of the finance director, nor does it detract from the core function of local authority governance or local authority financial accountability. Everyone agrees that it will make the system stronger, so I struggle to understand the hon. Gentleman’s issue with it. No one says that the status quo is fit for purpose, and he himself has conceded that it is not. We are taking the existing system and providing stronger assurance and stronger audit to fix a system that is fundamentally broken, and I come back to the fact that it was broken under the Conservatives’ watch.”
“(5) In subsection (4), “the maximum term for summary offences” means— (a) if the offence is committed before the time when section 281(5) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 comes into force, six months; (b) if the offence is committed after that time, 51 weeks.”— (Miatta Fahnbulleh.) This amendment creates offences, similar to those currently provided in the Companies Act, about misleading conduct in the context of the new local audit regime. Schedule 30, as amended, agreed to. Clause 71 Rent reviews and “put options”: prohibited terms”
“(2) It is an offence for a person who is not an external registration body to— (a) describe themselves as an external registration body, or (b) hold themselves out so as to indicate, or be reasonably understood to indicate, that they are an external registration body. (3) It is an offence for a person who is not a recognised qualifying body to— (a) describe themselves as a recognised qualifying body, or (b) hold themselves out so as to indicate, or be reasonably understood to indicate, that they are a recognised qualifying body. (4) A person who commits an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the maximum term for summary offences or a fine (or both).”
“(3) A person who commits an offence under this section is liable— (a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the general limit in a magistrates’ court or a fine (or both); (b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years or a fine (or both). 32J Wrongful holding out (1) It is an offence for a person who is not a registered local audit provider to— (a) describe themselves as a registered local audit provider, or (b) hold themselves out so as to indicate, or be reasonably understood to indicate, that they are a registered local audit provider.”
“Amendment 242, in schedule 30, page 316, line 28, at end insert— “Offences of deception etc 32I False or misleading information (1) It is an offence for a person knowingly or recklessly to provide information that is false, misleading or deceptive in a material way— (a) for the purposes of, or in connection with, an application under the local audit provisions, or (b) in purported compliance with any requirement having effect under those provisions. (2) In subsection (1), “the local audit provisions” means— (a) Parts 2A to 5A of this Act (including any regulations under any of those Parts), (b) an agreement under section 6B(5), and (c) registration rules within the meaning of paragraph 3 of Schedule 1C.”
“I ask that these minor and consequential amendments stand part of the Bill. Question put and agreed to . Clause 70 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill . Schedule 30 Local audit: minor and consequential amendments Amendments made: 241, in schedule 30, page 311, line 10, at end insert— “(b) for “body by a relevant authority” substitute “Office or body by a health service body”.” This amendment makes a consequential amendment that was missing from the Bill as introduced.”
“Clause 70 introduces schedule 30, which makes minor and consequential amendments to Acts of Parliament—primarily, the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014. Despite the amendments being minor and consequential, this schedule is an integral part of the wider reforms that we are driving through, by ensuring consistency across legislation. As we have said, the Bill establishes the LAO as the body responsible for appointing auditors for all local authorities, as well as certain other local public bodies. However, health service bodies will continue with their existing arrangements to appoint their own auditors. Government amendment 241 corrects a minor drafting error and omission from the Bill as introduced, by ensuring that all previous references to relevant authorities in the provision now apply only to health service bodies.”
“I beg to move amendment 375, in clause 71, page 72, leave out lines 22 to 25 and insert— “54A Rent reviews and arrangements for new tenancies (1) Schedule 7A makes provision about rent reviews. (2) Schedule 7B makes provision about terms relating to rent in arrangements which require a new tenancy to be granted or taken.” This is consequential on the amendments of Schedule 31 in my name.”
“It also applies if the lease was granted in a compliant manner but was later varied to include non-compliant terms. Finally, paragraph 5A of part 3 provides for the ban to apply in circumstances where a lease is granted in a compliant manner but later varied to include non-compliant terms. Finally, I turn to Government amendment 391 and to amendment 303. To further ensure that tenants are provided with protection when it is right they receive it, amendment 391 replicates new paragraph 1 of new schedule 7A, contained in amendment 376, in schedule 7B. Cumulatively, the amendments will ensure that the enacted ban is robust, clear and applies in the right circumstances. Amendment 303 would require the Government to undertake a consultation on the impact of the ban on upward-only rent reviews before the provision comes into force.”
“Government amendment 376 brings forward a large proportion of these changes. In particular, the new part 1 sets out a new definition of “business tenancy”. It expands the scope of the ban so that a tenant who is still bound by the lease does not lose the protection of the ban simply because they have vacated the premises, have not yet taken occupation, do not intend to take occupation, or have sub-let the whole premises. It is right that tenants receive the protection of the ban in these circumstances. Without the amendment, it is likely that they would be deterred from sub-letting, which might in turn damage their ability to trade successfully. Part 2 expands the tenant’s ability to trigger the rent review, so that it applies regardless of whether the lease contains prohibited terms.”
“The Government have set out ambitious steps to support high streets through our Pride in Place strategy. This measure is part of that. If we want new businesses to take a chance on a tenancy and if we want resilient high streets, it is essential that the leasehold market works efficiently. I urge that this clause stand part of the Bill. Government amendment 375 is a technical amendment updating clause 71 in line with the amendments in schedule 31 tabled in my name. The amendment ensures that readers can continue to navigate the scope and effect of those provisions as intended when drafted. I now turn to Government amendments 376 to 381, 384 to 386 and 391. These amendments work together to clarify the scope of the ban on upward-only rent reviews, ensuring that tenants are provided with protection when it is right that they receive it.”
“Upward-only rent reviews create an imbalance of supply and demand, contributing to the blight of empty properties that we have seen, ranging from high street shops to empty office floors. The UK is an outlier in continuing to permit those clauses. This ban follows the lead of countries such as Ireland and Australia. We absolutely recognise that the ban creates some initial uncertainty for investors. However, landlords will still have access to a range of lease models, such as stepped rents and inflation-linked leases, that offer predictability and flexibility; and we have committed to consulting on whether to permit the use of rent “collars” via secondary legislation. It is important to remember that our high streets are more than retail spaces; they are the social and economic heart of our communities.”
“Clause 71 and schedule 31 will ban the use of upward-only rent review clauses in commercial leases in England and Wales. Those clauses put commercial tenants at a disadvantage by keeping rents artificially high even when the market declines. In no other credible market would one party be contractually bound to accept only upward price changes, with no recourse to changing conditions. We saw in covid how damaging that can be. We have also heard at first hand from stakeholders and business representatives—including UKHospitality, the Federation of Small Businesses and the British Independent Retailers Association—about the adverse effects that upward-only rent reviews have. An efficient and dynamic market for leasing commercial property is vital for growth and for the vitality of our high streets.”
“This is consequential on Amendment 376. Amendment 385, in schedule 31, page 325, line 33, leave out “4(2)(b)” and insert “5B”. This is consequential on Amendment 376. Amendment 386, in schedule 31, page 325, line 37, leave out from beginning to end of line 2 on page 326 and insert— ““rent review terms” has the meaning given in paragraph 2(2); “rent under review” has the meaning given in paragraph 2(2). (3) A reference in this Schedule to rent review terms that do not specify new passing rent has the meaning given in paragraph 5B.”— (Miatta Fahnbulleh.) This is consequential on Amendment 376.”
“Part 5 General provision” This would apply to pre-commencement tenancies that require any sub-tenancy to include terms that would be of no effect by virtue of paragraph 6(3) (as they could result in the new passing rent being larger than the reference amount). It would enable a sub-tenancy to be granted without including such terms. Amendment 383, in schedule 31, page 325, line 24, leave out “new passing”. This is consequential on Amendment 382. Amendment 384, in schedule 31, page 325, line 27, leave out “, in relation to a tenancy” and insert— ““business tenancy” has the meaning given in paragraph 1; “business tenancy with a rent review” has the meaning given in paragraph 2. (2) In this Schedule, in relation to a business tenancy with a rent review— “elements 1 and 2” means element 1 and element 2 set out in paragraph 5C;”.”
“(3) References to the superior tenancy, and references to the terms of the superior tenancy, include references to— (a) the terms of any agreement relating to the superior tenancy, and (b) any document or communication from a party to the superior tenancy which gives or refuses consent for the grant of a category or description of sub-tenancy. (4) “Superior tenancy” has the meaning given in paragraph 7A(1). (5) “Sub-tenancy” means a tenancy that is inferior to the superior tenancy (whether or not it is immediately inferior to that tenancy). (6) The “result that is prohibited by paragraph 6(3)” means the result that the new passing rent is larger than the reference amount.”
“(3) Accordingly, the landlord under the superior tenancy may not require the inclusion of particular rent review terms in the authorised sub-tenancy (unless that is what is agreed by the persons who are to be the landlord and tenant under the sub-tenancy). (4) This paragraph does not prevent a superior tenancy from being varied or modified by the parties to it (and accordingly sub-paragraphs (1) to (3) are subject to any such variation or modification). Interpretation 7C (1) The following provision applies for the purposes of this Part of this Schedule. (2) The superior tenancy permits the grant of a sub-tenancy, or the inclusion of particular rent review terms in a sub-tenancy, if granting the sub-tenancy, or including those terms, would not breach the terms of the superior tenancy.”
“Modification of terms of superior tenancy 7B (1) The superior tenancy has effect after this Schedule comes into force as if it requires, or as the case may be permits, the authorised sub-tenancy to include rent review terms of any kind which (on each particular rent review) would not produce, and would not be capable of producing, the result that is prohibited by paragraph 6(3). (2) The actual rent review terms that are to be included in a particular authorised sub-tenancy are to be— (a) agreed by the persons who are to be the landlord and tenant under that sub-tenancy, or (b) determined in such other manner as they may agree.”
“(2) But this Part applies to the superior tenancy only— (a) if the superior tenancy was— (i) granted, or (ii) varied so that it includes rent review terms that do not specify new passing rent and include elements 1 and 2, before this Schedule comes into force, or (b) if the superior tenancy is— (i) granted, or (ii) varied so that it includes rent review terms that do not specify new passing rent and include elements 1 and 2, after this Schedule comes into force and the grant or variation is made under a contract entered into before then.”
“Amendment 382, in schedule 31, page 325, line 19, at end insert— “Part 4 Sub-tenancy required to include rent review terms that would be of no effect Application of this Part 7A (1) This Part of this Schedule applies to a tenancy (the “superior tenancy”) at a particular time if, at that time— (a) the superior tenancy is a business tenancy, (b) the superior tenancy requires or permits the grant of a sub-tenancy (the “authorised sub-tenancy”), (c) the authorised sub-tenancy would, at the time of its grant, be a business tenancy with a rent review, and (d) either— (i) the superior tenancy requires the authorised sub-tenancy to include rent review terms, and that requirement can only be complied with by the inclusion of rent review terms which (on one or more particular rent reviews) would produce, or would be capable of producing, the result that is prohibited by paragraph 6(3), or (ii) the superior tenancy permits the authorised sub-tenancy to include rent review terms, but rent review terms can only be within that permission if (on one or more particular rent reviews) they would produce, or would be capable of producing, the result that is prohibited by paragraph 6(3).”
“Amendment 378, in schedule 31, page 324, line 3, leave out “relevant”. Amendment 379, in schedule 31, page 324, line 13, leave out “relevant”. This is consequential on Amendment 376. Amendment 380, in schedule 31, page 324, line 19, leave out “relevant”. This is consequential on Amendment 376. Amendment 381, in schedule 31, page 324, line 35, leave out from beginning to end of line 19 on page 325. This is consequential on Amendment 376, by which the new paragraphs 4 and 5 would replace the existing paragraphs 8 and 9.”
“Rent review terms that “do not specify new passing rent” 5B Rent review terms “do not specify new passing rent” if they are such that an amount of rent under review that will be payable at a time during the term of the tenancy (the “new passing rent”)— (a) is not known, and (b) cannot be determined, at the time when the tenancy is granted or varied so that it includes the terms. Elements 1 and 2 5C (1) This paragraph sets out elements 1 and 2.” This would provide for various definitions; for application of provisions to tenancies that are varied; and for the provision about the triggering and operation of rent reviews to apply to any business tenancy with a rent review (regardless of the particular terms of the rent review). Amendment 377, in schedule 31, page 323, line 38, leave out “relevant”. This is consequential on Amendment 376.”
“Part 3 Rent review terms that are of no effect Application of this Part 5A (1) This Part of this Schedule applies to a tenancy at a particular time if, at that time— (a) it is a business tenancy with a rent review, and (b) the rent review terms— (i) do not specify new passing rent, and (ii) include elements 1 and 2. (2) But this Part applies to such a tenancy only if— (a) the tenancy is— (i) granted, or (ii) varied so that it includes rent review terms that do not specify new passing rent and include elements 1 and 2, after this Schedule comes into force, and (b) the grant or variation is not made under a contract entered into before this Schedule comes into force.”
“Tenant to have power to take action to enable rent review to operate effectively 5 (1) This paragraph applies if— (a) an action is necessary for a particular rent review to operate effectively (an “operational action”), and (b) the rent review terms, or any other terms (whether contained in the instrument creating the tenancy or not), do not allow the tenant to take the operational action. (2) The tenant may take the operational action. (3) If the tenant takes the operational action, the tenant must give the landlord notice in writing of the action within the period of seven days beginning with the day on which the action was taken.”
“Tenant to have power to trigger a rent review 4 (1) This paragraph applies if— (a) an action is necessary for a particular rent review to be initiated (a “trigger action”), and (b) the rent review terms, or any other terms (whether contained in the instrument creating the tenancy or not), do not allow the tenant to take the trigger action. (2) The tenant may initiate the particular rent review by giving the landlord notice in writing. (3) Notice under sub-paragraph (2) may not be given after the time when trigger action may be taken.”
“(2) In this Schedule “rent review terms” means terms under which an amount of rent payable under the tenancy will or may change during the terms of the tenancy (“rent under review”). Part 2 Triggering and operation of rent reviews Application of this Part 3 (1) This Part of this Schedule applies to a tenancy at a particular time if, at that time, it is a business tenancy with a rent review. (2) But this Part applies to such a tenancy only if— (a) the tenancy is— (i) granted, or (ii) varied so that it includes rent review terms, after this Schedule comes into force, and (b) the grant or variation is not made under a contract entered into before this Schedule comes into force.”
“(3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2)(b), terms of the tenancy which— (a) would prohibit the tenant from occupying the premises for some purposes, but (b) would not prohibit the tenant from occupying the premises for other purposes, are to be regarded as terms which would permit the tenant to occupy the premises for the purposes which are not prohibited. (4) Sub-paragraph (2) must be construed as one with section 23(1). “Business tenancy with a rent review” 2 (1) A tenancy is a “business tenancy with a rent review” at a particular time if, at that time— (a) it is a business tenancy, and (b) it is subject to rent review terms (whether contained in the instrument creating the tenancy or not).”
“(2) For that purpose, Part 2 has the potential to apply to the tenancy at a particular time if, at that time— (a) Part 2 cannot apply to the tenancy because— (i) none of the property comprised in the tenancy is or includes premises which are occupied by the tenant, or (ii) property comprised in the tenancy is or includes premises which are occupied by the tenant, but none of those premises are so occupied for the purposes of a business carried on by the tenant or for those and other purposes, (b) the terms of the tenancy include terms (the “permitted business use terms”) which would permit the tenant to occupy the premises for the purposes of a business carried on by the tenant (whether the terms permit occupation for the purposes of business generally, a specific business or a specific kind of business) or for those and other purposes, and (c) if the tenant were to occupy the premises in accordance with the permitted business use terms (and taking into account all other circumstances), Part 2 of this Act would apply to the tenancy.”
“Clause 71, as amended , ordered to stand part of the Bill. Schedule 31 BUSINESS TENANCIES: PROHIBITED TERMS RELATING TO RENT Amendments made: 376, in schedule 31, page 322, line 24, leave out from beginning to end of line 24 on page 323 and insert— “Part 1 Key terms “Business tenancy” 1 (1) A tenancy is a “business tenancy” at a particular time if, at that time, Part 2 of this Act— (a) applies to the tenancy, or (b) has the potential to apply to the tenancy.”
“However, the key point I want to emphasise at the start of this debate is that this is not a new debate and this issue is not a new one. We have known that we need to do something about this issue for well over a decade now. Huge amounts of work have gone into considering how we reform the system and there have been huge amounts of consultation over the years. So, we are very clear that something must be done, because the status quo is not fair and is not working for tenants, particularly the small and medium-sized enterprises on our high streets. We need to respond and to reform, but we will make sure that we do so in a way that strikes the right balance between the protections that we must provide for tenants and the investment that we obviously want to see in our commercial premises. Amendment 375 agreed to.”
“I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South for his thoughtful contribution. He is well versed, and has both reached out to business in his constituency and advocated his case persuasively. We are very mindful of unintended consequences. We are also very mindful of designing this system in a way that strikes the balance between the investment that we absolutely want to unlock on our high streets and in our local communities, and the protections that we want to provide for tenants and to ensure that our high streets continue to thrive. I will take away my hon. Friend’s thoughts and challenges, and reflect on them as we go into the details of how we design this system in the best possible way. I know that we will go into Opposition amendments in greater detail.”
“I beg to move amendment 387, in schedule 31, page 326, line 4, leave out “Put options:” and insert— “Arrangements for renewal of tenancies:”. This is consequential on Amendment 393.”
“By doing so, this amendment ensures that different types of arrangements, such as options and rights of first refusal, are caught by the ban if they meet the stated criteria at the relevant point. I commend the amendments to the Committee.”
“This group of amendments expands the scope of schedule 7B so that arrangements such as options and rights of first refusal are also within the scope of the ban. Arrangements of this type may allow the tenant to enter into a new lease on pre-specified terms, which could include upwards-only rent review provisions. Permitting such arrangements could therefore be used to avoid the ban’s effect. As a result, we cannot permit new leases such as those to be excluded from scope, as this would likely encourage gaming of the system and prevent businesses from being protected in the way that the Bill intends. Government amendment 389 makes a minor change to clarify that the application of schedule 7B to an arrangement can vary over time depending on the circumstances, therefore allowing for arrangements to move in and out of scope.”
“Amendment 401, in schedule 31, page 328, line 22, leave out “put option” and insert “tenancy renewal arrangement”. This is consequential on Amendment 393. Amendment 402, in schedule 31, page 328, line 35, leave out “(2)” and insert “(2)”. This is consequential on Amendment 393. Amendment 403, in schedule 31, page 328, leave out line 36. This is consequential on Amendment 393. Amendment 404, in schedule 31, page 329, line 2, at end insert— “‘tenancy renewal arrangement’ has the meaning given in paragraph 3(2);”.—(Miatta Fahnbulleh.) This is consequential on Amendment 393. Schedule 31, as amended, agreed to .”
“This is consequential on Amendment 393. Amendment 396, in schedule 31, page 326, line 31, leave out “lease” and insert “tenancy”. This would ensure the defined term “new tenancy” is used. Amendment 397, in schedule 31, page 327, line 1, leave out “put option” and insert “tenancy renewal arrangement”. This is consequential on Amendment 393. Amendment 398, in schedule 31, page 327, line 3, leave out “put option” and insert “tenancy renewal arrangement”. This is consequential on Amendment 393. Amendment 399, in schedule 31, page 327, line 6, leave out “put option” and insert “tenancy renewal arrangement”. This is consequential on Amendment 393. Amendment 400, in schedule 31, page 327, line 14, leave out “lease” and insert “tenancy”. This would ensure the defined term “existing tenancy” is used.”
“(2) In this Schedule— ‘new tenancy’ means a new tenancy of the whole or a part of the relevant premises; ‘tenancy renewal arrangement’ means an arrangement under which the tenant under the existing tenancy— (a) can require the landlord or another person to grant a new tenancy, or (b) can be required by the landlord or another person to take a new tenancy.” This expands the scope of new Schedule 7B to cover any arrangement under which the grant of a new tenancy can be required, whether it is the landlord or tenant that can impose the requirement. Amendment 394, in schedule 31, page 326, line 26, leave out “put option” and insert “tenancy renewal arrangement”. This is consequential on Amendment 393. Amendment 395, in schedule 31, page 326, line 27, leave out “put option” and insert “tenancy renewal arrangement”.”
“(4) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (3)(b), terms of the existing tenancy which— (a) would prohibit the tenant from occupying relevant premises for some purposes, but (b) would not prohibit the tenant from occupying relevant premises for other purposes, are to be regarded as terms which would permit the tenant to occupy relevant premises for the purposes which are not prohibited. (5) Sub-paragraph (3) must be construed as one with section 23(1).” This would replicate the new paragraph 1 of new Schedule 7A that is contained in Amendment 376. Amendment 392, in schedule 31, page 326, line 17, leave out “put option” and insert “tenancy renewal arrangement”. This is consequential on Amendment 393. Amendment 393, in schedule 31, page 326, line 19, leave out from “to” to end of line 25 and insert— “a tenancy renewal arrangement.”
“(3) For the purposes of this paragraph, Part 2 has the potential to apply to the existing tenancy if— (a) Part 2 cannot apply to the existing tenancy because— (i) none of the relevant premises are occupied by the tenant, or (ii) the relevant premises are or include premises which are occupied by the tenant, but none of those premises are so occupied for the purposes of a business carried on by the tenant or for those and other purposes, (b) the terms of the tenancy include terms (the ‘permitted use terms’) which would permit the tenant to occupy relevant premises for the purposes of a business carried on by the tenant (whether the terms permit occupation for the purposes of business generally, a specific business or a specific kind of business) or for those and other purposes, and (c) if the tenant were to occupy relevant premises in accordance with the permitted use terms (and taking into account all other circumstances), Part 2 of this Act would apply to the tenancy.”
“This would make clear that the application of Schedule 7B to an arrangement can vary over time depending on the circumstances. Amendment 391, in schedule 31, page 326, line 9, leave out paragraph 2 and insert— “2 (1) Condition A is met if Part 2 of this Act— (a) applies to the tenancy, or (b) has the potential to apply to the tenancy. (2) In the following paragraphs of this Schedule— (a) the tenancy to which Part 2 applies, or has the potential to apply, is referred to as the ‘existing tenancy’; (b) the premises let under the existing tenancy are referred to as the ‘relevant premises’.”
“Critically, there are specifics around individual places and the reforms that they have been through, but the lesson across the piece—whether in Ireland or Australia—is that reforms are possible, and in the end we can still have both a vibrant sector and a property market that is far more rational from the perspective of tenants. I commend these amendments to the Committee. Amendment 387 agreed to. Amendments made: 388, in schedule 31, page 326, leave out line 5 and insert “Application of this Schedule”. This is consequential on Amendment 393. Amendment 390, in schedule 31, page 326, line 6, leave out “to an arrangement”. This is consequential on Amendment 393. Amendment 389, in schedule 31, page 326, line 6, leave out “if” and insert— “at a particular time if, at that time,”.”
“My summing up will be very short. There is clearly a problem. That problem has been around for decades. Upwards-only rent reviews are an outlier internationally, and it is putting huge pressure on our high street. I absolutely recognise that we have to strike a balance between the investment that we want to see in our local economies and commercial property sector, but we also need to protect tenants. It cannot make sense to have a system whereby rents can only go up, irrespective of what is happening in the market, and cannot go down if the market goes down. That is an illogical system and one that is putting huge pressures on businesses, particularly small and medium-sized ones. There is a reason why all other advanced countries do not apply this system. Those countries all function well and have vibrant property markets.”
“I assure the Cttee we will consider how to strengthen the scrutiny of strategic authorities, because I completely agree that as they acquire more powers, it is right we have accountability and scrutiny frameworks that are robust and fit for purpose, to ensure they are held to account for how they use the powers we confer on them. The challenge I have with the new clause from the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion is that the independent panel she is recommending would mean we have to wait over a year after Royal Assent to respond to this critical issue, because we would not want to pre-empt the recommendations of the panel. In some respects, the very thing that the hon. Lady is trying to force us to do may well end up slowing our ability to do.”
“I do not think we need further legislation. We need to improve our practice and innovate and modernise so the public can better hold all of us to account. That is an endeavour across all levels of government and all public institutions, so the new clauses duplicate existing arrangements and do not really get to the heart of the issue that we all recognise we need to resolve. I absolutely agree with the intent behind new clause 15. We have stated on the record that we understand the need to strengthen the accountability and the scrutiny mechanism for strategic authorities. We said this in the English devolution White Paper, my colleague said it in the House, and we are committed to that.”
“That sets out how mayors will be held to account by central Government, at local level, and by the public. As part of the local assurance framework, mayoral strategic authorities must describe their arrangements for enabling effective and meaningful engagement with local partners and the public. My argument is that we have the legislative framework, and that this is now a question of practice. Everyone wants information about public spending and Government accounts to be as accessible as possible. It is as much a problem for central Government as it is for local government and lots of bodies and institutions. I would argue it is a question of practice and of improving the way we do things. Through digital technology and the ability to use different methods, we can make this information far more accessible.”
“I acknowledge the intent behind new clauses 3 and 15. We all agree that transparency, accountability and greater scrutiny are needed, and that there is room for improvement in our system. On the specifics of new clause 3, all local authorities must publish annual accounts along with an annual governance statement. The local government transparency code 2015 requires local authorities and combined authorities to publish regularly on their websites information about spending and assets, including, as a minimum, all spending over £500, which must be published quarterly, and all land and building assets held. All mayoral strategic authorities are expected to follow the principles and processes described in the English devolution accountability framework.”