Written Corrections
(1 week, 1 day ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Ministerial Corrections
(1 week, 1 day ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Housing, Communities and Local Government
(1 week, 1 day ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
Non-qualifying leaseholder status gets slapped on a property in perpetuity long after the required safety works are completed. That status means that it is almost impossible to acquire a mortgage—solicitors advise very strongly that purchasers steer clear of such properties, which are very often flats—and the status is inherited by successive owners in perpetuity. Has the Minister considered what this status does for the housing crisis?
Alex Norris
I completely understand the challenge. Drawing a line between qualifying and non-qualifying leaseholders—between people who own a property and therefore suffer from things that have been beyond their control, and landlords that are businesses and therefore have multiple assets—will always be a difficult job. At the edge, where the boundary between qualifying and non-qualifying becomes blurred, there are some difficult cases. As a new Government, we are committed to working with people to understand better how we can go forward on that. As for the substantive point on where the liability should lie, it is about finding the right balance between those who built the building and those who live in it.
[Official Report, 2 December 2024; Vol. 758, c. 24.]
Written correction submitted by the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Nottingham North and Kimberley (Alex Norris):
Alex Norris
I completely understand the challenge. Drawing a line between qualifying and non-qualifying leaseholders—between people who own a property and therefore suffer from things that have been beyond their control, and landlords that are businesses and therefore have multiple assets—will always be a difficult job. At the edge, where the boundary between qualifying and non-qualifying becomes blurred, there are some difficult cases. As a new Government, we are committed to working with people to understand better how we can go forward on that. As for the substantive point on where the liability should lie, it is about finding the right balance between those who have financial interests in a building and those who live in it.
Leader of the House
(1 week, 1 day ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Greg Smith
… Will the Leader of the House get the Chancellor to come to the Dispatch Box, so that we can have an informed debate about the actual impact the family farm tax will have on the constituents of all Members of the House, including her own Back Benchers who represent rural seats? Her colleagues can then decide whether they stand with their party or with the farmers.
Lucy Powell
We are absolutely clear and the figures are absolutely clear, because they are based on actual claims for agricultural property relief that have been made in recent years. Those figures show that around three quarters of claims would be unaffected by the changes we have made. Does the Conservative party accept the principle that 40% of the total value of agricultural property relief comes from ownership of the top 7% of claims by land value? Do Conservative Members think that is a fair system? Is that fair to young farmers trying to get into the industry? Do they support the additional £6 billion we have put into farming as a result of the Budget? They cannot support the funding going in if they do not support the measures needed to raise that investment in the first place.
[Official Report, 21 November 2024; Vol. 757, c. 400.]
Written correction submitted by the Leader of the House of Commons, the right hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell):
Lucy Powell
We are absolutely clear and the figures are absolutely clear, because they are based on actual claims for agricultural property relief that have been made in recent years. Those figures show that around three quarters of claims would be unaffected by the changes we have made. Does the Conservative party accept the principle that 40% of the total value of agricultural property relief comes from ownership of the top 7% of claims by land value? Do Conservative Members think that is a fair system? Is that fair to young farmers trying to get into the industry? Do they support the additional £5 billion we have put into farming as a result of the Budget? They cannot support the funding going in if they do not support the measures needed to raise that investment in the first place.