Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Marcus Jones and Jake Berry

Monday 30th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Jake Berry)]

The north Wales growth deal is primarily the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Wales. I am happy to update the right hon. Gentleman by saying that we are making good progress in looking at the proposals from local authorities. Once we have completed that work, we will make an announcement shortly about the next steps for all local authorities involved.

[Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)]

There are five district councils in Warwickshire. Four are Conservative-led and one—Nuneaton and Bedworth—is run by Labour. Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council has the highest district council tax precept of the five, and one of the lowest satisfaction ratings. Does my right hon. Friend therefore agree that Conservative councils deliver better-quality services at a lower cost?

Housing and Planning Bill

Debate between Marcus Jones and Jake Berry

Tuesday 12th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Jake Berry]

I would like to disagree with the hon. Gentleman at length, but time will not allow me to do so. Leasehold tenure solves problems that cannot be solved by commonhold, including problems relating to the flying freehold, which can be dealt with only by a lease. I do not believe that commonhold is the answer to that problem. Whatever the answer is, however, if we were to create a new form of tenure, of which we expected commonhold to become a part, we would have to ensure that mortgage companies were happy with it. In my career, I have seen lots of properties with a market value of zero because they were unmortgageable owing to problems with flying freeholds.

Finally, I want to comment on the proposals on the electrical safety certificate set out in new clause 53, tabled by Labour Members. It is a good idea for the Government to find ways of ensuring that landlords prioritise electrical safety, but I do not agree with the proposals in the new clause. Subsection 2(b) seems to propose that a landlord would have to provide a certificate every 12 months. That is too onerous and a longer period should be proposed.

It is important that landlords take electrical safety very seriously, but we should also be looking at ways in which we can get owner-occupiers to take it more seriously. We lived in the house I was brought up in for 35 years and when we put the light on to go into the cellar it would flicker on and off. We had had no electrical work done for 35 years, yet my parents were amazed when the people who bought the house from them, when they eventually moved, said that it needed rewiring. Anything that can encourage people to look at what is in place in their own home, not just rented properties, would be advisable. I do not think it is necessary to have primary legislation to deal with this, because I know from properties I let that estate agents often insist that landlords provide an electrical safety certificate. If they do not insist on it, often the insurance company will insist on an up-to-date electrical safety certificate for a proper buy-to-let commercial insurance policy. I am not sure that we need primary legislation, but I would encourage people to look at this.

Finally, I reiterate my call on the Government to push forward with the excellent family-friendly tenancy, which is sat there waiting for Ministers to embrace it to ensure that families are protected. All the other provisions in this Bill relating to the private rented sector would be so much more welcome if people could have more security of tenure in private rented leases.

[Mr Marcus Jones]

Given the time available, I will move straight on to dealing with the proposals. On the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick), I recognise the comments that he and my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) made about the benefits of commonhold tenure, but there are important differences between it and leasehold. For example, a different statutory framework of rights and protections is in place, and my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry) eloquently explained his experience of some of the challenges in that area. That is partly why commonhold is, and was intended to be, a voluntary alternative to long leasehold ownership, and we believe it should remain so, without forcing commonhold on those who may not wish it. Notwithstanding that, I hear what the hon. Gentleman has said, and I know that he and my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West have discussed this matter with the Minister for Housing and Planning. He will keep it under review and will continue the dialogue with them.

I understand the arguments put forward in new clause 4, but I do not believe it to be necessary. It would conflict with last week’s deregulatory clauses. Housing association tenants already have a number of ways to scrutinise their landlords and hold them to account, in addition to the Homes and Communities Agency’s regulatory standards. They may, for example, refer complaints to the housing ombudsman, who may also, along with tenants, raise specific concerns with the regulator, who has the power to initiate a statutory inquiry. That can lead to interventions in housing association management structures or to forced mergers or takeovers where the boards are not fit for purpose.

Business Rates (Rural Areas)

Debate between Marcus Jones and Jake Berry

Tuesday 8th September 2015 Westminster Hall

[Mr Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. It is extremely important that organisations such as the one she mentioned bring forward their views and concerns during the review process. I will certainly take them into account, as I am sure my colleagues in the Treasury will, and I will also take into account the views put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen, who secured today’s debate.

I turn now to the matter of festivals. The VOA has a duty to maintain fair and accurate rating lists, and it is of course right that music festivals and other such events pay business rates, just like any other occupier of non-domestic property. However, I assure my hon. Friend that if there are no permanent physical adaptations to the land to facilitate festival use, and the duration of the festival is only a matter of a few days, it is unlikely to attract a rating assessment in its own right. Any assessment would be proportionate to the scale of the festival. Of course, if a ratepayer is unhappy with their assessment, they have a right of appeal to an independent tribunal.

The VOA is working with the Events Industry Forum to draw up guidance to help organisers better understand when rateability will arise. We will certainly take into account comments made by my hon. Friend and other hon. Members during the review process.

[Jake Berry]

Does my hon. Friend acknowledge that backdating the rate bill for five years for such events, and sometimes for stabling, is putting their viability at risk? Those involved in setting up events in 2010 or 2011, for example, had no possible way of knowing that they would be hit with a large historic bill that could make the future of those events unviable. Will my hon. Friend undertake to ensure that there is a conversation with organisers, in respect of historic bills charged to music festivals, to find out whether there is a fair or reasonable way of charging them that would enable them to stay in business? If they do not stay in business, we will be shooting the goose that lays the golden egg.

[Mr Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that important point. He made certain points about the collection of taxation, but that is difficult to change retrospectively. Having said that, I am more than willing to make further inquiries and to respond to him in writing soon.

Picking up the other point made by my hon. Friend in relation to the VOA making unexpected changes, I reiterate that the VOA is there to interpret the law made in this House, and it does so; and it also works on the basis of case law. We can certainly consider that matter during the current review, which I have mentioned once or twice during this debate. However, it is important to say that we must have a mechanism for interpretation of laws made in this House, rather than have this House interpreting laws that we Members make. We need to bear that in mind.

In conclusion, we have taken significant action to support the rural economy, including through the business rates system. We will certainly take into account matters mentioned by my hon. Friend and other hon. Friends and colleagues during this debate. Once again, I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate and giving me the opportunity to set out the Government’s position on these important issues.

Question put and agreed to.

Banking (Responsibility and Reform)

Debate between Marcus Jones and Jake Berry

Tuesday 7th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jones]

I will not give way. We need to be careful that we do not vilify people whom we entrust with such positions—we should not vilify wealth creators, because they are the very people we need to get UK plc back on to its feet.

That brings me on to regulation. The tripartite system given to us by Labour clearly failed; we had banks that were thought too big to fail, with no proper checks or balances on their activity. I am pleased to say that the Financial Services Bill, which had its Second Reading yesterday unopposed, will change that situation of ring-fencing banking, so that we no longer have banks that are considered too big to fail.

That leads me on to other issues, particularly the bailing out of the banks, state ownership of banks and state guarantees for banks. They are all probably undesirable for the taxpayer and it is important that we work to try to reverse the unsustainable position that the taxpayer has been put in. We need to consider carefully how we facilitate our banking and finance industry to ensure that we can try to right the wrongs. One way of doing that is through the regulatory framework, which we are dealing with, but we can also do it through competition. We must be well aware of global competition.

I did not take part in last night’s debate on the Financial Services Bill, but spent some time listening to speech after speech from Opposition Members saying that regulation of our banking system needed to take into account the global situation that our banking industry found itself in. I totally agree, but they must therefore acknowledge in tonight’s debate that our banks must be competitive within that global market. Vilifying our banking and business sectors with an unbalanced argument and approach and putting excessive taxes on those sectors will move us away from having banks that are competitive in that global environment.

That brings me, quite neatly, to the bankers’ bonus tax, which is mentioned by the Opposition time after time. They seem very keen on that tax, which they mentioned before the Government put in place the bank levy, which raises £2.5 billion a year, rather than the £2 billion that the bankers’ bonus tax would have raised. The goalposts seem to have moved again and the Opposition seem now to be advocating that it should be an additional tax for the banks to pay.

[Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Jones]

I shall give way to my hon. Friend in a moment.

[Mr Jones]

The Opposition’s position is interesting, as we are now trying to encourage our banking sector to lend, particularly to small businesses, to put their balance sheets in good order and to keep bank branches open—we expect them to do an awful lot of things as well as pay additional taxes. We need to be careful about how we approach this matter.

[Jake Berry]

My hon. Friend makes an important and powerful argument. On the specific point of the Opposition’s proposals for the banker bonus tax, is he aware that it is a tax that keeps on giving, because—