Leasehold Reform

Debate between Marcus Jones and John Bercow

Thursday 11th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)]

Buying a home is the biggest single commitment that anybody will take on. In this country, 85% of people want to own their own home. We encourage people to own their own home and to make it an investment. We encourage them so that, in later life, people have security and are not reliant on the state. If we are to encourage that, we need to make sure that we are giving those people every confidence in their investment and every protection we can.

I welcome the Select Committee report. I will not go into the detail of the whole report, which would be very difficult to do in the time we have this afternoon, but I want to touch on a couple of things. Commonhold features heavily in the report. This has been available since 2002 and the take-up of it has been very small. There are lots of legal practicalities and challenges for mortgage lenders and so on. But the basic fact is that developers, particularly those developing blocks of flats, want to retain some sort of value after they have completed the development and they want to be able to profit from the value they have retained. I can understand that in certain situations, such as retirement accommodation and so on, but if we are to encourage people to go to commonhold, we will have to legislate to take away from the developer the option to retain that financial interest in the property.

I would rather go for a simpler mechanism that would basically prevent developers from continuing to hold that interest in the property so that, as soon as all the flats are developed, the freehold interest reverts to the leaseholders who buy the long lease at the outset, and that can then be managed by the leaseholders. Those would be far better arrangements and, for me, that is where most people who own leasehold property fare best.

I also want to mention the conveyancing process. I say this as somebody who acted for thousands of people buying and selling residential property over a long period. Clearly, it is the job of the conveyancer—a licensed conveyancer, a registered conveyancer or a solicitor—to protect their client and they have a duty of care to their client. In the arrangements for new developments, new developers generally have two or three solicitors on a panel of solicitors that they will recommend and, by hook or by crook, they put virtually every single person who is buying to those people. The reality is that there is a lot of pressure on those firms of solicitors to exchange contracts, to complete and to expedite matters and, within that, they are therefore not necessarily providing the best impartial service for their clients. The link between these referrals and the solicitors in the advice given to clients needs to be broken. We cannot continue with the status quo in that regard.

We need to do far more about assignment fees, notice of mortgage fees and dealing with covenants. Things must be based far more on what it costs for a freeholder or managing agent to undertake a particular process, rather than adding exorbitant fees. It is absolutely disgraceful when exorbitant fees are charged, and they always come into play right at the end of a conveyancing transaction when the managing agent has the person who is selling absolutely over a barrel.

I will quickly mention dispute resolution. I welcome the announcements that have been made about the fees on leasehold tribunals, but there needs to be a far simpler process before people get to the tribunal for leaseholders. Onerous terms of leases are also a massive problem. I am aware of several constituency cases where that has caused families a major problem.

We also need to make sure that we do not have leasehold houses; there is no necessity for leasehold houses. I know there is a cost involved, but we should move to a system where very little is provided by a managing agent and a tenant. People should get value for the council tax and we should go back to more of an estate being adopted and paid for by the local authority. People can then hold their local council to account if they are not getting what they are looking for.

[Mr Speaker]

Order.

Finance (No. 3) Bill

Debate between Marcus Jones and John Bercow

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 8th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he has said, which is on the record and will be widely observed.

[Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Several media outlets are quoting that I have signed a letter to the Prime Minister saying that I will vote against a no-deal Brexit. I would like to put it on the record that this is not correct. Can you advise me whether it is in order for a Member of this House to put another Member’s name to a letter when they have not given their consent to doing so? Given the febrile environment at the moment, can you make the point to the media that they should check their facts before they publish such information?

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman arrogates to me almost superhuman powers if he thinks that I can advise the media upon the imperative of first checking facts before printing a story. I appreciate his confidence in me, but I fear that he has an assessment of my capabilities that is sadly unmatched by the reality. Nevertheless, he has put his point on the record, and doubtless he will circulate it more widely amongst the people of Nuneaton.

New Clause 2

Review of the effectiveness of entrepreneurs’ relief

“(1) Within twelve months of the passing of this Act, the Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the effectiveness of the changes made to entrepreneurs’ relief by Schedule 15, against the stated policy aims of that relief.

(2) A review under this section must consider—

(a) the overall number of entrepreneurs in the UK,

(b) the annual cost of entrepreneurs’ relief,

(c) the annual number of claimants per year,

(d) the average cost of relief paid per claim, and

(e) the impact on productivity in the UK economy.”—(Anneliese Dodds.)

This new clause would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to review the effectiveness of the changes made to entrepreneurs’ relief by Schedule 15.

Brought up, and read the First time.

Combat Air Strategy

Debate between Marcus Jones and John Bercow

Tuesday 17th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones) was looking uncontrollably excited, to the extent that I was mildly worried about his circumstances, but we must hear from the fellow.

[Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)]

It is very good of you to think of my welfare, Mr Speaker.

I welcome my right hon. Friend’s announcement. Many of my constituents work in the defence aerospace sector. Will he say how this fits in with the Government’s industrial strategy, and what does it mean for skills and for securing the jobs that currently exist and for creating new jobs in our great defence sector?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Marcus Jones and John Bercow

Monday 5th February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Finally—and, I am sure, with admirable succinctness—Mr Marcus Jones.

[Mr Marcus Jones]

I recently visited the excellent Oak Wood School in my constituency, whose leaders are working hard to get talented young people with special needs into work and work placements when they finish school. Will my hon. Friend, like me, encourage employers in my area to join the disability confident scheme, so that we can give opportunities to those young people, and not just give them hope for the future, but provide the labour market with a number of people who will be able to bring a vast amount of experience and difference to our workplaces?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Marcus Jones and John Bercow

Monday 30th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. To be fair, new Members are often not aware of the fact that topical questions are supposed to be shorter than substantives. It is as simple as that, and Ministers are supposed to respond in kind. However, I thank the hon. Gentleman.

[Mr Marcus Jones]

I hear what the hon. Gentleman is saying, although I think he should look back over the records of Warwickshire County Council, which clearly show a motion being put which was seconded by the then Labour group leader, who advocated the reduction in funding that the county council is now making in that area.

Telecommunications Infrastructure (Relief from Non-Domestic Rates) Bill

Debate between Marcus Jones and John Bercow

2nd reading: House of Commons
Monday 10th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Gwynne]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have stood at this Dispatch Box on a number of occasions in the past week or so to discuss this important issue; I have asked you how we can get a statement from the Secretary of State or his Ministers. The last time, the Secretary of State did say that we could raise this in a debate. I have asked the question and we have still not got answers. How do we get that certainty for local government?

[Mr Speaker]

The answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question is that if he does not at first succeed, he must try, try again. I am sure that is something his mother taught him when he was at school—when he was a young boy growing up. What I would say to him is, “Persist. Go to the Table Office. Think of the opportunities for different types of questions and, as we approach the summer recess, the relative urgency or emergency of what he seeks.”

[Mr Jones]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Let me move on to contributions made by other right hon. and hon. Members. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey) showed his significant knowledge in this area. He welcomed the Bill and, given that significant knowledge, it was good to see him confirm that he thought the Bill would help to incentivise the smaller providers and increase competition in the sector, a point reiterated by my hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse).

My right hon. Friend the Member for Wantage also mentioned the impact the Bill would have on our mobile infrastructure and 5G, as well as the need to look at the planning system to ensure that we have the mobile infrastructure we need. I am sure he will be aware that provisions were introduced last November as part of the Digital Economy Act 2017 to speed up the planning process for telecom infrastructure.

The hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) welcomed the framework for England and Wales. As he acknowledged, the Bill’s framework will allow the devolved Government to take up—or not, as the case may be—the measures. He was right to point out that funding will be provided for Wales through Barnett consequentials.

My hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) made an important point about the potential loss of income for local authorities during the Bill’s implementation. I can reassure him that if a network is on the local rating list, compensation for local government will be provided via a grant to cover the particular local authority’s share of the cost of providing the business rate relief.

My hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire welcomed the Bill, which I understand fulfils a wish he had during the passage of the 2017 Act. He seemed extremely pleased that the Government have taken up the suggestion to provide this business rate relief.

My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately) discussed the Bill’s importance in the context of social inclusion and the tackling of loneliness. She referred to rural small businesses that would benefit from the delivery of fibre broadband to their communities.

My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) recognised that the five-year rate relief period would provide a significant incentive to fibre broadband. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman), she made the perceptive comment that this type of fibre broadband is becoming as important a part of the nation’s infrastructure as our road and rail network.

My hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Matt Warman) made an important contribution. He has campaigned tirelessly on this issue and talked about the benefit for the Government, with our investment being returned many times over because of the increased economic activity that will be created.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Amanda Milling) talked about the importance of having fibre connectivity on new housing estates, citing Chasewater Grange. She also mentioned the opportunity that the fibre roll-out could provide to new industrial developments, and did not forgo the opportunity to mention the Rugeley B power station site, which is extremely important to her and her constituents.

My hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire welcomed the Bill and mentioned how, in rural areas such as his, its provisions could well assist with tech jobs that hitherto may not have been deliverable in rural areas.

[Mr Marcus Jones]

I concur with my hon. Friend. My hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson) made the same comments in regard to how these types of measures will help those in her constituency engaged in the agricultural industry and farming.

In conclusion, this Bill will help businesses and households with their broadband and support the economy. It is only one of several measures—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am sure that the Minister is very flattered. The House cannot wait to hear more of the oratory.

[Mr Marcus Jones]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

This is one of several measures that we are taking on both broadband and business rates and I commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Telecommunications Infrastructure (Relief from Non-domestic Rates) Bill (Programme)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),

That the following provisions shall apply to the Telecommunications Infrastructure (Relief from Non-Domestic Rates) Bill:

Committal

(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Committee of the whole House.

(2) Proceedings in Committee of the whole House shall be taken in the following order: Clauses 1 to 4; the Schedule; Clauses 5 and 6; new Clauses; new Schedules; remaining proceedings on the Bill.

Proceedings in Committee of the whole House, on Consideration and up to and including Third Reading

(3) Proceedings in Committee of the whole House, any proceedings on Consideration and any proceedings in legislative grand committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.

(4) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.

(5) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings in Committee of the whole House, to any proceedings on Consideration or to other proceedings up to and including Third Reading.

Other proceedings

(6) Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed.—(Rebecca Harris.)

Question agreed to.

Telecommunications Infrastructure (Relief from Non-domestic Rates) Bill (Money)

Queen’s recommendation signified.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Telecommunications Infrastructure (Relief from Non-Domestic Rates) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money so provided.—(Rebecca Harris.)

Question agreed to.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. If, inexplicably, some Members do not wish to hear the debate on the future of the King George Hospital in Ilford, I hope that they will leave the Chamber quickly and quietly, so that we can hear the oration from the constituency Member of Parliament, and his neighbour, to whom the matter is of great importance.