Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill

Debate between Rachel Maclean and Nigel Evans

Report stage
Tuesday 27th February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

To protect the last six speakers and protect ministerial time as well, there is now a five-minute limit on speeches, which will give the Front Benchers sufficient time to respond.

[Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)]

It was a great pleasure to serve on the Public Bill Committee on this Bill. We had a great debate, and there was actually a lot of agreement across the Committee Room. These are deeply Conservative reforms, championed by none other than Mrs Thatcher, starting in 1965, which she continued to do throughout opposition and during her premiership.

I gently say to Opposition Members, of whatever party, that they must not fall into the trap of making this a political football. They must engage with the seriousness and complexity of these reforms, in part because, as we have heard, they did very little to advance these very significant reforms during their own time in office. I suspect that they backed away from it because of the very significant legal challenges they would have faced, as we ourselves will no doubt face. Pretending they do not exist is not a serious position. I say to the Minister and the Secretary of State, who are aware of my comments, that we must not buckle, but must continue to take this forward.

It is great to see the package of amendments laid by the Government, particularly new clause 42, which is a ban on leasehold houses. I want the Minister to think carefully about how he will address the inevitable imbalance in the creation of a two-tier system, in which some people will have the freehold of their house, but some will not. There is an additional imbalance between flats in our urban areas and new freehold houses. That point was very well made by James Vitali in a Policy Exchange report. I am slightly worried about the omission from this of retirement properties, so perhaps the Minister could return to that.

In Committee, I spoke about the need to truly move towards a commonhold system. I think the Opposition’s new clause 11 is something of that nature. I very much hope that, as the Bill goes through completing its stages, the Government—here or in the other place—can look at that suggestion. I think we do need to set out the future legislative scaffolding for our fifth term in office, and to build on the work we have done so that we can finally get rid of this leasehold system.

Other Members have mentioned a lot of the points I would have made about shared services. My hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) raised that, and it is one of my concerns. My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Neil O’Brien) has done a fantastic job in talking about the lack of adoption by local authorities. There is also new clause 7, which I know is again an Opposition amendment, and new clauses 1 and 2. This problem is not going to go away. It is a blight on many homeowners in Redditch, and it also goes to the heart of our planning system. We really do need to look at that; we cannot pretend that it is going to solve itself.

I thank the Minister for writing to me about one of my concerns, which is litigation costs. I think new clause 3 looks at that. He has reassured me that what is in this Bill will go the distance in ensuring that leaseholders are not subject to unjust litigation costs by their landlord. That is one of the cases highlighted by Liam Spender and many others. These are hugely complex issues, but we must tackle them.

I want to see ground rents reduced to a peppercorn. It is pure extortion, and a feudal relic from medieval times when people were serfs and worked the land. We should not have this in 2024, or in any year. I refuse to believe that there is not a way, through the wit of man and the considerable intelligence of Ministers on the Front Bench, to solve the issue, perhaps where some financial assets are held in pension funds. I do not buy the pretence of that incredible con artist Mr Steve Whybrow and his outfit that somehow we are robbing pensioners. I would urge anybody with an interest in this debate to look at the genuine pensioners who are fighting for the right to have pure enjoyment of their own properties, which they richly deserve after a lifetime of working.

I will make my final remarks on forfeiture: it must go. The forfeiture of a long lease cannot be right. It cannot be right that a freeholder can hold this nuclear bomb over somebody such as Dennis Jackson, a pensioner, of Plantation Wharf. He disputed a £6,000 service charge, which led to an £80,000 legal bill, and he had his £800,000 flat forfeited during a 10-minute hearing at Wandsworth court. I thank LEASE for all the work it has done to help him. That just simply cannot be right, and we must address it. I want to see us finally finishing the job that Mrs Thatcher started when she was Opposition Housing spokesman in 1965. We must finish that job, and I thank the Minister for all the work he has done so far.

Scotland Act 1998: Section 35 Power

Debate between Rachel Maclean and Nigel Evans

Tuesday 17th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)]

In response to some comments from those on the SNP Benches, let me say that I am happy to look at myself, stand up here and speak about protections for 16 and 17-year-olds, who would be able to self-ID as a legal opposite sex, travel to this country and then become part of our society. There is a clear read-across to the Equality Act in our country. Having served in the Home Office and seen the desperate need for women and girls to be protected from grooming gangs, predators and sex offenders, I know that having protections for them to access those single-sex based services, which we thankfully have—[Interruption.]

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. Let’s not have that. Mr Russell-Moyle, you may not agree with what people are saying, but please respect their ability to say what they want to say. That is what we should be doing in this House.

Driving Tests: High Wycombe

Debate between Rachel Maclean and Nigel Evans

Thursday 4th February 2021 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Maclean]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s remarks, and associate myself with his comments about Buckinghamshire Council. To be clear, that is a matter for the local planners, not for me, but we will of course work very closely with my hon. Friend on the questions he has raised with me, specifically about the length of the lease. We will also keep him informed about any progress in determining the final securing of these premises for driving tests in High Wycombe.

In closing, I am pleased to again put on record my thanks to my hon. Friend. As a result of the campaign that he and the local community have run, the DVSA is at an advanced stage of discussions with a landlord of premises on the Cressex business park in High Wycombe for a new driving centre there. I thank you very much for the opportunity to discuss this matter in the Chamber this evening, Mr Deputy Speaker.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

An Adjournment debate with a happy ending. Congratulations to all involved.

Question put and agreed to.

Road Traffic

Debate between Rachel Maclean and Nigel Evans

Monday 23rd November 2020 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Rachel Maclean)]

I beg to move,

That the draft Heavy Commercial Vehicles in Kent (No. 1) (Amendment) Order 2020, which was laid before this House on 22 October, be approved.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

With this we shall take the following motion:

That the Heavy Commercial Vehicles in Kent (No. 2) (Amendment) Order 2020 (S.I. 2020 No. 1155), dated 21 October 2020, a copy of which was laid before this House on 22 October, be approved.

[Rachel Maclean]

These amendment orders relate to the Heavy Commercial Vehicles in Kent (No. 1) Order 2019 and the Heavy Commercial Vehicles in Kent (No. 2) Order 2019. Although the Heavy Commercial Vehicles in Kent (No. 3) (Amendment) Order 2020 is subject to the negative procedure, the House should be aware of it when considering the other two amending orders. Together they support the effective management of Operation Brock and strengthen the enforcement regime that underpins it.

Operation Brock is a co-ordinated, multi-agency response to cross-channel travel disruption. It replaces Operation Stack and has been specifically designed to keep the M20 motorway in Kent open in both directions, with access to junctions, even in periods of severe and protracted disruption. The Kent Resilience Forum is responsible for the Operation Brock plans. Any decisions relating to the activation and timing of the different phases of Operation Brock will be taken by Kent police silver command.

It is crucial that these instruments are brought into force in time for the end of the transition period, to ensure that the scheme operates as efficiently as possible to reduce the impact on businesses and local communities in Kent. I am grateful, therefore, that time has been found for this debate to take place quickly and also for the speed with which the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments has scrutinised the instruments.

Amendment order No. 1 extends to 31 October 2021 the sunset clause in the Heavy Commercial Vehicles in Kent (No. 1) Order 2019. To give a little history, the 2019 order gave new powers to traffic officers in Kent, enabling them to, first, require the production of documents to establish the vehicle’s destination and readiness to cross the border; secondly, direct drivers to proceed to a motorway, removing the vehicle from the local road network; and, thirdly, direct drivers not to proceed to the channel tunnel or port of Dover except via a specified road or route.

The amendment sets the amount of the financial penalty deposit, which will be issued and taken immediately at the roadside by the police or staff from the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency. The amount of the deposit for breaching the traffic restrictions introduced by the other two instruments is set at £300.

Amendment order No. 2 extends to 31 October 2021 the sunset clause of the Heavy Commercial Vehicles in Kent (No. 2) Order 2019, which prohibits cross-channel heavy goods vehicles from using local roads in Kent other than those on the improved Operation Brock routes. The amendment goes further to define local Kent roads that will require a Kent access permit, which can be obtained from the “check an HGV is ready to cross the border” service.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Maclean]

I thank hon. Members for their consideration of this very important legislation.

My hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mrs Elphicke) speaks up for her port and the vital role that it plays in her town. Like her, I am absolutely sure that the work that we are doing today will open up more opportunities for her port and local community. I thank her and her colleagues in local government for engaging so closely with me, for putting on record their detailed concerns and for inviting me to the Whitfield roundabout to see for myself the problems that she identified in such detail today. I commit to working closely with her, her local government colleagues, her local district council and Kent County Council, and to listen closely to the concerns of the local community. We will absolutely look at air quality and sanitation, and we will look carefully at the results of the consultation. I look forward to more meetings with her, including those later this week to which she has made reference.

I thank the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) very much for her consideration, for the detailed points that she has raised, and for her support for these important statutory instruments. The reason that we are taking this legislation through the House is so that we can put in place plans to manage any disruption that we have outlined in our reasonable worst-case scenario. I assure her that I engage regularly with the sector, including all the different trade bodies, along with the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Julia Lopez), who I see in the Chamber; we work together on many of these issues with the sector, so are aware of and pay close attention to the concerns, some of which the shadow Minister has articulated today.



On the issue of driver welfare, including sanitation and toilets, it is not just toilets that are essential, but all the facilities that drivers would expect. I thank again all the drivers who work in the transport industry, because they do play a vital role, as we have seen in the pandemic with how they have kept supplies moving around the country. We expect that to continue, but it is very important that we do everything we can to support them in that. The Kent Resilience Forum is working through detailed plans on the sanitation, and I am very happy to share the detail of that with the hon. Member for Bristol East when it is available.

The hon. Lady referenced the haulier handbook. This is one part of our plan to make sure that all this information is one place. The handbook will be translated into 18 languages and it will be ready very soon. It is already available on gov.uk, and we will also be making hard copies available in 43 information and advice sites, which are opening up and down the country.[Official Report, 26 November 2020, Vol. 684, c. 10MC.]

It is very important that we pass these measures into law this evening so that we can manage all the possible outcomes that we will see at the end of the transition period. I thank the House for its consideration.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the draft Heavy Commercial Vehicles in Kent (No. 1) (Amendment) Order 2020, which was laid before this House on 22 October, be approved.

Resolved,

That the Heavy Commercial Vehicles in Kent (No. 2) (Amendment) Order 2020 (S.I. 2020 No. 1155), dated 21 October 2020, a copy of which was laid before this House on 22 October, be approved.—(Rachel Maclean.)

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

We will now suspend for a few moments in order to have the Dispatch Boxes sanitised.

Early Parliamentary General Election

Debate between Rachel Maclean and Nigel Evans

Monday 28th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not just people who voted to leave, but people like me who voted to remain, who want this done?

[Mr Evans]

Absolutely. I did a two-day tour around my constituency last Friday and Saturday, and I spoke to a number of people. There were three hardcore remainers who would do almost anything to remain in the European Union. However, the vast majority of people who come up to me in Ribble Valley say either, “I voted leave: get on with it”—they are quite angry that we have not left the European Union—or, “I voted remain, but I can’t believe that we are still in the European Union. I am a democrat. I believe in democracy, and when we have a referendum I believe in carrying out the wishes of that referendum.” We all remember what was written on the back of that pamphlet: it said that we would follow the instructions of the British people in that referendum.

Even better than that, of course, we had a general election in 2017 in which we said that we would deliver Brexit. Labour Members stood in that general election and said they would deliver Brexit, but what do we find? Ever since that general election, we have seen dither and delay, dither and delay, and anything—anything—but vote for the Brexit that they promised. It was either, “It’s not the right deal”, or “We have to get no deal taken off the table.” Well, we had an opportunity last week to take no deal off the table, and that would have made it possible for Labour Members to have fulfilled their promise in that general election two years ago by voting for the deal that the Prime Minister brought back from Brussels. But no—the vast majority of Labour MPs voted against Second Reading. That meant that they did not want it to go any further. There was no possibility of their amending the legislation to have a customs union, to get workers’ rights or to get higher environmental standards. No, they decided they wanted to stop Brexit in its tracks, and that is why they voted against Second Reading. Only 19 of them voted to give it a Second Reading.

My constituency, Ribble Valley, is in the heart of Lancashire. In fact, on an Ordnance Survey map one of my villages is actually in the very centre of the United Kingdom. My constituency voted 57% to leave the European Union. Every constituency in Lancashire, whether it has a Labour MP or a Conservative MP—thankfully, we do not have any Lib Dems—voted to leave the European Union.

What we are seeing tonight is quite remarkable. Labour Members said that they would deliver Brexit, and they are now clearly not doing that. Then they said that they wanted more time to scrutinise the withdrawal agreement Bill, even though the vast majority of them voted against its going any further. They wanted more time, and so tonight we are offering them more time. Then they said that they wanted an early general election. Well, the way they get an early general election is by voting for the motion tonight. They will get more time to scrutinise the withdrawal agreement Bill so that they will at least fulfil part of their promise two years ago, and then get their early general election on 12 December whereby they can put forward the programme that they wish, and see where the people go.

On the other hand, we have the Scots Nats, who are at least saying that they want to go for 9 December. They do not want to deliver Brexit—they never have—but none the less they are being consistent on that. We hear time and again that Scotland voted not to leave the European Union. More than 1 million Scots voted to leave the European Union. There is no reaching out to those 1 million Scots. More people voted to leave the European Union in Scotland than voted for the Scottish National party, so we see where that is going.

Then there are the Lib Dems, who just want to revoke article 50. They are called the Liberal Democrats. I do not know what aspect of them is democratic, because we had a referendum, the people said they wanted to leave, and that is not being fulfilled.