My Lords, I am pleased to lend my support to the noble Lord, Lord Howard, and have put my name to these amendments. I have three short points to make. One is that phasing out in this area must be right. The second is that we should treat retrospective legislation very suspiciously. Thirdly, it cannot be right to deprive people of their property without compensation.
4.30 pm
Noble Lords might ask what I know about this. I taught property law for many years and, although I have forgotten much of the detail, I can assure your Lordships that this area of law goes back to the Middle Ages—in fact, it probably goes back 1,000 years. It is by no means simple to reform it, although I understand that the Government’s intentions towards leaseholders are good ones and that one day leasehold will be phased out. But the law is so complex that this cannot be done quickly or unfairly. The Law Commission has written thousands of pages on this area; it is far from a simple matter. Indeed, to replace the leasehold system might take decades, if not longer.
The main argument against the Government’s proposals is wrapped up in the European Convention on Human Rights’ Article 1 of Protocol 1, which says that all persons have the right to own property and to make use of their possessions, and that no one shall be deprived of his property until public necessity so demands; if so, the state must guarantee fair compensation. This does not seem to be the case in the Bill.
Our own UK Human Rights Act says:
“Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law”.
If we do not accept the amendments in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Howard, this law stands a very strong chance of being attacked under human rights law, because it is not offering fair compensation to the freeholders, and it is retrospective. I therefore very much hope that the Minister will see the dangers and unfairness in this, and accept the proposals in these amendments.