Leasehold Reform

Debate between John Bercow and Marcus Jones

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 John Bercow and Marcus Jones

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 John Bercow and Marcus Jones

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 John Bercow and Marcus Jones

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?

[Sarah Newton]

I was very pleased to hear about the important work being done by Oak Wood School. Last year, more than 500 young people took part in supported internships, and this year the Department for Education has made available just under £10 million of additional funding, which will provide more work placements, particularly for young people with special educational needs. I agree with my hon. Friend that it is vital for us to ensure that more of those young people are given the opportunity to work.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Marcus Jones

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 John Bercow and Marcus Jones

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

[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.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Marcus Jones

Thursday 23rd March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am extremely grateful but we have got the thrust of it. We really do need to be briefer. That was far too long.

[Mr Jones]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

We recognise the importance of refuges. That is why we are exempting refuges from the 1% social rent cap policy, and exempting them from the local housing allowance rate until 2019-20. We are working closely with organisations that provide refuges to ensure that we get the new system for supported housing right, so that we can continue to provide those refuges, which are so badly needed.

Points of Order

Debate between John Bercow and Marcus Jones

1st reading: House of Commons
Wednesday 22nd February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I thank the hon. Lady for giving notice of her intended point of order. I would certainly be concerned if it were true that Members on one side of the House have been given preferential access to Government statistics by a Government Department. I am not saying that that is so, and I do not know it to be. If it were, it would be a matter of concern.

At this stage, it is not for me to judge whether, if it had occurred, it would itself constitute a breach of the protocols or the code that the hon. Lady mentions. However, she has made her concern clear, and it has been heard by Ministers—I think I can safely say that because a Minister from the relevant Department, the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones), is on the Treasury Bench.

I feel sure that the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra) will find opportunities to pursue this matter, perhaps even later today in the local government finance debate, in dealing with which Ministers from the Department will be present on the Treasury Bench.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Marcus Jones)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

If the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State wishes to attend to the matter now, that would be most helpful.

[Mr Jones]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I can confirm that we will be providing the information that the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra) has requested.

[Mr Speaker]

To all?

[Mr Jones]

Yes, to all.

[Mr Speaker]

Thank you. I am extremely grateful to the Minister for that additional comment.

Bill presented

Vehicle Technology and Aviation

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Secretary Chris Grayling, supported by the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Secretary Amber Rudd, Secretary Elizabeth Truss, Secretary Greg Clark and Secretary David Mundell, presented a Bill to make provision about automated vehicles, electric vehicles, vehicle testing and civil aviation; to create an offence of shining or directing a laser at a vehicle; and to make provision about fees for courses offered as an alternative to prosecution for road traffic offences.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 143) with explanatory notes (Bill 143-EN).

Local Government Finance

Debate between John Bercow and Marcus Jones

Wednesday 22nd February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jones]

As ever, my hon. Friend makes an important point, which is generally due to his experience of running a business. The Government have made it clear that we want to move to a system of more regular revaluation.

As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced earlier, he is working closely with the Chancellor to determine how best to provide further support to businesses that are facing the steepest increases as a result of the revaluation. We expect to be in a position to make an announcement at the time of the Budget, just two weeks from now.

One hundred per cent. business rate retention is being piloted from next year. It will mean that participating authorities will be able to keep more of the growth in their business rates income, with no impact on the rest of local government. As we have said, in 2018-19 we plan to undertake further pilots in areas without devolution deals, including two-tier council areas. The nationwide roll-out of 100% business rate retention will take place throughout England in 2019-20. Earlier this month, my Department published a consultation to seek views on exactly how the system should look. I look forward to discussing the matter further with colleagues from both sides of the House in the coming weeks.

While we rightly look forward to the longer-term reform that will make local authorities financially self-sufficient and provide greater incentives for growth, the settlement we will vote on today reaffirms our commitment to funding certainty for local government. The 2015 spending review delivered a £200 billion flat cash settlement for local government, and last year we delivered four-year funding allocations, which provide the financial certainty required for councils to be bold and ambitious. The settlement is the second year of a four-year offer that was debated in this House a year ago and that has been accepted by 97% of local authorities.

The settlement before us delivers on our promise and provides councils with the resources required to deliver world-class public services in the year ahead while continuing to play their part in bearing down on the deficit. We have consulted carefully, and I am grateful to hon. Members for bringing their constituents’ views to us during the consultation.

As we have heard, adult social care, which is an issue close to all our hearts, transcends party politics. I take seriously the representations made today, and I take seriously the need to ensure greater respect, dignity and independence for people who receive care. In the spending review, we put in place up to £3.5 billion of additional funding for adult social care by 2019-20, but we recognise that the coming year is the most difficult in the settlement period for many councils.

There are immediate challenges in the provision of care that must be met now, before the substantial additional resources become available, which is why we have created a new £240 million adult social care support grant and are allowing councils to raise the adult social care precept by 3% next year and the year after. Together, the measures make available almost £900 million of additional funding for adult social care over the next two years, so the total dedicated funding available for adult social care over the four-year settlement period is £7.6 billion.

As we look to the future, local government spending will be based on local resources, not central grant, so we are devising a new funding formula for local government that is fit for purpose. Earlier, the Secretary of State acknowledged the many representations that have been made, including by many colleagues here today, about how demographic pressures, such as the growth in the elderly population, have directly affected different areas in different ways as the cost of providing services has grown. We are undertaking a fair funding review to consider thoroughly how to introduce a more up-to-date, more transparent and fairer needs assessment formula. We have been working closely with local government to make sure that it works for both local government and local people, and we will make changes on the fastest possible parliamentary timescale.

I wish to deal with a few of the issues that were mentioned during the debate. First, the hon. Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas) is never backwards in coming forwards. It was interesting that, although many of his arguments were reasonably inconsistent, he was consistent on not coming up with a single idea for how we might solve the complex challenges faced by this country or by local government. I was also interested to hear the comments made by the hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon). He said, “Where is the money?” Well, it might be a good idea for him to take some advice from the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne); I am sure he could tell his colleague where the money went.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) made some very pertinent points, particularly about unitary authorities. We are certainly willing to listen to proposals, but those proposals must be driven from a local level, and be bottom up. If her area is willing to do that, we would be more than happy to listen to its views. She also mentioned local authorities’ funding challenge. We are providing a four-year settlement, so that councils, which have additional reserves and resources, can use them to bridge their funding gap, because they will know what their situation will look like in the third and fourth year of the settlement.

It was good to hear the comments of the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts). He welcomed the principle of the four-year settlement, to which 97% of councils have signed up. He advocated that any additional funding from 100% business rates retention should go directly to help local government to fund services that are currently provided. Although that may sound tempting, may I remind him that we have been very clear that the situation would be fiscally neutral? New responsibilities would come with the additional £12.5 billion that we expect to go to local government.

It was good to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (James Heappey), who is a strong champion for his constituency. I was pleased to hear his support for the fair funding review, but I did hear his concerns as well. A similar sentiment was expressed by my hon. Friends the Members for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) and for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), and I take their comments on board. My hon. Friend the Member for Wells also mentioned the business rates baseline and the principle of resetting the system, which is an important part of the whole system. Finally, I know that he has spoken to the Secretary of State about the aggregate levy, and I will certainly look into the further points that he made today.

I certainly take on board the important points that my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Derek Thomas) made about the uniqueness of the Scilly Isles. My hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) has vast experience in local government and as a local government Minister. I was pleased that he welcomed the idea of not including the attendance allowance in business rates retention. He was right that more needs to be done on the integration of health and social care. He was also right to advocate that the business rates multiplier uprating should be changed from the retail prices index to the consumer prices index, which the Government fully intend to do.

In conclusion, this local government finance settlement honours our commitment to four-year funding certainty for councils that are committed to reform. It recognises the cost of delivering adult social care and makes resources available sooner, and it puts councillors in the driving seat with a commitment to support them with a fairer funding formula. It will give Government the resources they need to govern and I commend it to the House.

Question put.

The House proceeded to a Division.

[Mr Speaker]

I remind the House that the motion is subject to double-majority voting: the whole House and those representing constituencies in England.

Homelessness Reduction Bill

Debate between John Bercow and Marcus Jones

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Friday 27th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Marcus Jones]

I beg to move amendment 1, page 5, line 32, at end insert—

“( ) But the authority may not give notice to the applicant under subsection (5) on the basis that the circumstances in subsection (7)(b) apply if a valid notice has been given to the applicant under section 21 of the Housing Act 1988 (orders for possession on expiry or termination of assured shorthold tenancy) that—

(a) will expire within 56 days or has expired, and

(b) is in respect of the only accommodation that is available for the applicant’s occupation.”

This amendment prevents a local housing authority from bringing the duty in section 195(2) of the Housing Act 1996 (inserted by clause 4) to an end after 56 days if the applicant has been given a notice under section 21 of the Housing Act 1988 that has expired or will within 56 days expire and which is in respect of the only accommodation that is available for the applicant’s occupation.

[Mr Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendment 2, page 6, line 11, after “accommodation” insert—

“and, on the date of refusal, there was a reasonable prospect that suitable accommodation would be available for occupation by the applicant for at least 6 months or such longer period not exceeding 12 months as may be prescribed”.

This amendment provides that a local housing authority can only bring the duty in section 195(2) of the Housing Act 1996 (inserted by clause 4) to an end on the basis that the applicant has refused an offer of suitable accommodation, if on the date of the refusal there was a reasonable prospect that suitable accommodation would be available for 6 months or such longer period not exceeding 12 months as may be prescribed in regulations made by the Secretary of State.

Government amendment 3, page 6, line 22, at end insert—

“(9) The duty under subsection (2) can also be brought to an end under sections 193A and 193B (notices in cases of applicant’s deliberate and unreasonable refusal to co-operate).”

This amendment inserts, into section 195 of the Housing Act 1996 (inserted by clause 4), a reference to sections 193A and 193B of that Act (inserted by clause 7) under which the duty in section 195(2) can be brought to an end.

Government amendment 4, in clause 5, page 7, line 45, after “accommodation” insert—

“and, on the date of refusal, there was a reasonable prospect that suitable accommodation would be available for occupation by the applicant for at least 6 months or such longer period not exceeding 12 months as may be prescribed”.

This amendment provides that a local housing authority can only bring the duty in section 189B(2) of the Housing Act 1996 (inserted by clause 5) to an end on the basis that the applicant has refused an offer of suitable accommodation, if on the date of the refusal there was a reasonable prospect that suitable accommodation would be available for 6 months or such longer period not exceeding 12 months as may be prescribed in regulations made by the Secretary of State.

Government amendment 5, page 8, line 9, at end insert—

“(9) The duty under subsection (2) can also be brought to an end under—

(a) section 193ZA (consequences of refusal of final accommodation offer or final Part 6 offer at the initial relief stage), or

(b) sections 193A and 193B (notices in cases of applicant’s deliberate and unreasonable refusal to co-operate).”

This amendment inserts, into section 189B of the Housing Act 1996 (inserted by clause 5), references to section 193ZA (inserted by amendment 10), and sections 193A and 193B of that Act (inserted by clause 7), under which the duty in section 189B(2) can be brought to an end.

Government amendment 6, page 8, line 18, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—

“(a) for subsection (1) substitute—

(1) If the local housing authority have reason to believe that an applicant may be homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need, they must secure that accommodation is available for the applicant’s occupation.

(1ZA) In a case in which the local housing authority conclude their inquiries under section 184 and decide that the applicant does not have a priority need—

(a) where the authority decide that they do not owe the applicant a duty under section 189B(2), the duty under subsection (1) comes to an end when the authority notify the applicant of that decision, or

(b) otherwise, the duty under subsection (1) comes to an end upon the authority notifying the applicant of their decision that, upon the duty under section 189B(2) coming to an end, they do not owe the applicant any duty under section 190 or 193.

(1ZB) In any other case, the duty under subsection (1) comes to an end upon the later of—

(a) the duty owed to the applicant under section 189B(2) coming to an end or the authority notifying the applicant that they have decided that they do not owe the applicant a duty under that section, and

(b) the authority notifying the applicant of their decision as to what other duty (if any) they owe to the applicant under the following provisions of this Part upon the duty under section 189B(2) coming to an end.”

See amendment 8. This amendment also makes the circumstances in which the interim duty to provide accommodation under section 188(1) of the Housing Act 1996 comes to an end where the local housing authority decide that the applicant does not have a priority need.

Government amendment 7, page 8, line 26, leave out from “for” to end of line 27 and insert—

“pending a decision of the kind referred to in subsection (1)” substitute “until the later of paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (1ZB).”

See amendments 6 and 8.

Government amendment 8, page 8, line 27, at end insert—

“() for subsection (3) substitute—

‘(2A) For the purposes of this section, where the applicant requests a review under section 202(1)(h) of the authority’s decision as to the suitability of accommodation offered to the applicant by way of a final accommodation offer or a final Part 6 offer (within the meaning of section 193ZA), the authority’s duty to the applicant under section 189B(2) is not to be taken to have come to an end under section 193ZA(2) until the decision on the review has been notified to the applicant.

(3) Otherwise, the duty under this section comes to an end in accordance with subsections (1ZA) to (1A), regardless of any review requested by the applicant under section 202.

But the authority may secure that accommodation is available for the applicant’s occupation pending a decision on review.’”

This amendment, together with amendments 6 and 7, ensure that any interim duty of a local housing authority under section 188 of the Housing Act 1996 to accommodate an applicant continues pending the conclusion of a review of the suitability of accommodation offered in a final accommodation offer or a final Part 6 offer under section 193ZA of that Act (inserted by amendment 10).

Government amendment 9, in clause 6, page 11, leave out lines 14 to 16 and insert—

“(3) For the purposes of this section, a local housing authority’s duty under section 189B(2) or 195(2) is a function of the authority to secure that accommodation is available for the occupation of a person only if the authority decide to discharge the duty by securing that accommodation is so available.”

This amendment ensures that where a local housing authority decides to discharge their duty under section 189B(2) or 195(2) of the Housing Act 1996 (inserted by clauses 5 and 4, respectively) by actually securing that accommodation is available for occupation by the applicant, sections 206 to 209 of that Act apply. Those sections contain various provisions about how a local housing authority’s housing functions are to be discharged.

[Mr Jones]

I shall start with amendment 1. At our last Committee sitting on 18 January, I committed to tabling an amendment to clause 4 to ensure that tenants at risk of becoming homeless were sufficiently protected and had access to the required help and support. The Committee agreed amendments to clause 1, so that it now extends the period an applicant is “threatened with homelessness” from 28 to 56 days and clarifies that an applicant is “threatened with homelessness” if they have a valid section 21 eviction notice that expires in 56 days or fewer.

Amendment 1 to clause 4 extends the prevention duty to cover instances where a household that has been served with a valid section 21 notice still remains in the property after receiving 56 days of help from the local housing authority under the prevention duty, and is still at risk of becoming homeless. Specifically, it covers instances where a valid section 21 notice has already expired or will expire in relation to the only accommodation the household has available. The amendment ensures that, in such instances, the prevention duty will continue to operate until such time as the local housing authority brings it to an end for one of the other reasons set out in clause 4, even if the 56 days have passed.

I will also address a related question about other ways of ending a tenancy, which was raised by a number of Members—particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Michael Tomlinson)— during the Committee’s consideration of clause 1. That clause and this amendment address the particular need to clarify the status of an applicant who has been served with a section 21 notice, but, obviously, people can be threatened with homelessness in a number of ways, as was pointed out in Committee, and any eligible applicant who is at risk of being homeless in 56 days or fewer will be entitled to support under the new prevention duty.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Marcus Jones

Monday 28th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Ms Angela Eagle]

Thank you, Mr Speaker; you may have caused me some trouble later this evening. In the past six years, the Government have cut social care funding by nearly £5 billion. In my authority of Wirral, there is a £3.5 million hole in the budget only halfway through the year. The system is on its knees, and there has been an 18% increase in emergency admissions to hospital as a result. The Prime Minister did not have an answer to this last Wednesday. When is the Minister responsible going to have an answer?

[Mr Jones]

We have enabled councils to raise additional funding through the adult social care precept, but this is all about priorities and the way in which local government allocates its finance. The hon. Lady might want to have a word with her local council leader and group, as they have sought to spend £270,000 on a propaganda newspaper. Is that good value for money when they say that they need more for social care?

[Mr Speaker]

I call Maria Eagle.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Marcus Jones

Monday 18th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jones]

I had great enjoyment on the Housing and Planning Bill Committee, where my hon. Friend made considerable representation on behalf of people involved in self-build. It is certainly an important area, and one in which the new Minister for Housing and Planning, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell), is interested, and he would certainly be keen to meet my hon. Friend to discuss that further.

[Mr Speaker]

We are all very glad that the Minister enjoyed himself so much.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

I am absolutely delighted to hear that Chipping Sodbury has entered the competition; it sounds as though it will put in a very competitive bid. The competition has been a wonderful initiative, which has shone a light on high streets around the country, where local people are working hard to make sure their high street remains at the heart of their local community. Last year we received nearly 200,000 votes from members of the public for the finalist, showing how much high streets mean to local people. I wish Chipping Sodbury well and hope to visit it, but I would also encourage other towns in my hon. Friend’s constituency to enter, such as Thornbury, where my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State’s dad used to run a ladies’ fashion shop.

[Mr Speaker]

Well, it is always useful to have a bit of information.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Marcus Jones

Monday 21st March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I would suggest that the hon. Lady seek an Adjournment debate on the subject, but I realise now that she has just had it.

[Mr Jones]

I do not know whether the hon. Lady has anything she could add to that list, but this is an extremely important issue. The Conservative party recognises that and we changed the methodology on rough sleeping to give a more accurate picture of the challenges. The issues with rough sleeping are not just about housing; they are about things such as mental health challenges and issues relating to drink and drug dependency, for example. The Chancellor, working with DCLG, confirmed an additional £100 million in the Budget for move-on accommodation, so that we can help to move rough sleepers out of the hostels they are put into and into move-on accommodation, thereby helping even more rough sleepers to get off the streets.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Marcus Jones

Thursday 25th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jones]

Apprenticeships are an extremely important part of the Government’s agenda. We have a target of 3 million apprenticeship starts during this Parliament. Within that, the Prime Minister has clearly set out the Government’s commitment to ensure that 20% of those apprenticeship starts are for BME young people, which I think is a great step forward.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Jess Phillips. Not here.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Marcus Jones

Monday 8th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jones]

We are committed to supporting high streets. High street vacancy rates are at their lowest since 2010. Investment in high street property is up by 30%, and where areas are doing the right things, they are seeing people return to their high street. That was seen through the Great British High Street competition. There are a number of winners from Yorkshire, and I am sure that people in Dewsbury will be able to take tips from around Yorkshire so that they can improve their high street.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Mr Geoffrey Robinson. Not here.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Marcus Jones

Monday 14th September 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. This is in reference to the disabled facilities grant, but I feel sure that the dexterity of the hon. Gentleman is boundless.

[Mr Jones]

You are right, Mr Speaker—it is a rather tenuous link but I will do my best. As I have said, the Government are providing significant funding to local authorities to provide disabled facilities grants, and there is no reason why they cannot use that for current council housing stock, or support housing associations with their stock.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

I have said to the hon. Lady before that this Government have taken a different approach—a more honest and open approach—where we are actually calculating the number of rough sleepers properly. That did not happen when the Labour party were in government. On the welfare changes that the hon. Lady mentions, it is important to say that we have made it very clear that our proposals would protect vulnerable people in particular. This Government are on the side of people who want to get on and who aspire. We do not want young people to be trapped in dependency, as several generations have been hitherto. Obviously, the hon. Lady thinks that that is a good thing.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Heidi Allen.

Points of Order

Debate between John Bercow and Marcus Jones

Wednesday 28th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. On Monday the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Secretary of State for Health, the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), visited my constituency. I thank the shadow Secretary of State for Health for having the courtesy to inform my office about his visit, in line with parliamentary protocol. However, this is far from the position that the Leader of the Opposition seems to take, as it is his second visit to Nuneaton in this Parliament. On both occasions he has failed to notify the sitting Member of Parliament of his visit. Given the social media response to the Leader of the Opposition’s visit, I would welcome him to my constituency as many times as he can get there between now and 7 May, but—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. The nub of the matter is not to make some sort of political point. The nub of the matter is that he is complaining that the protocol has not been observed. If the protocol has not been observed, it should be. If it has been, well and good. That is the end of it.

NHS (Five Year Forward View)

Debate between John Bercow and Marcus Jones

Monday 1st December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Wow—what a choice! I call Mr Andrew Stephenson.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Marcus Jones

Monday 30th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Yes, the right hon. Gentleman might have been prescient. I am sure the hon. Member for Romford was told by the Department. If he was not, we are sorry. If he was, he should be here and we are sorry that he is not. No doubt further and better information will become available in due course.

[Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)]

2. What steps he is taking to encourage development on brownfield land.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Marcus Jones

Monday 28th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

We need short questions and short answers. Let us be led by Mr Marcus Jones.

[Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)]

T3. Several constituents of mine who have made complaints against the police to the IPCC feel that it did not have the necessary teeth to act on their grievance. Notwithstanding my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary’s previous answer, will the Minister say what more can be done to deal with this situation?

Business of the House

Debate between John Bercow and Marcus Jones

Thursday 11th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Why is that no surprise?

[Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)]

Youth unemployment has fallen by 8.3% in my constituency in the last year. However, I am not being complacent and my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Dan Byles) and I are running a jobs fair in my constituency on 24 July. Will my right hon. Friend welcome that jobs fair? May we also have a debate on what the Government are doing to reduce youth unemployment and what individual Members are doing to help young people to get into work?

Point of Order

Debate between John Bercow and Marcus Jones

Monday 25th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The House will be saddened to hear of a serious underground fire at Daw Mill colliery in my constituency. Thankfully, there have been no deaths or serious injuries, but the fire, which is still blazing, is causing a great deal of uncertainty and worry to more than 600 people who work at the colliery. Notwithstanding the meetings I intend to have with Ministers, some of which will, I hope, take place later today, will you allow me to offer my support to the workers at Daw Mill and their families during this extremely difficult time?

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman has just done that most eloquently. I know that as an assiduous attendee in the Chamber he will be alive to the opportunities that the Order Paper presents for him to raise the matter on other suitable occasions. I thank him and extend my sympathies for and concern about the situation he has rightly described.

Employment Law (Beecroft Report)

Debate between John Bercow and Marcus Jones

Monday 21st May 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. There is a growing phenomenon in the House whereby Members who were not standing at the start of a statement are suddenly motivated to pop up towards its conclusion—but I would not want the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones) to be disappointed, so I think we had better hear him.

[Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I recently attended a meeting with people who run small businesses in my constituency. Many of them said that they were keen to take on more employees, but were often put off by the additional red tape and regulation that had been imposed on them by the Labour party. Can my hon. Friend confirm that this Government will take account of the issues raised by my constituents, and will try to help them to create more employment in my constituency?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Marcus Jones

Monday 30th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We must have order, however angry and irate is the hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas). He is shouting out that he has not had an answer to his question, but if that were to legitimise that sort of ranting, there were would have been permanent ranting in the House of Commons under successive Governments over the last 100 years. We cannot tolerate it.

[Mr Jones]

Excessive car parking charges are a tax on our town centres and high streets. Does my right hon. Friend believe that the implementation of free control parking schemes in many of our town centres would put us on a level playing field with out-of-town stores and therefore start to rejuvenate our town centres and high streets?

Future of Town Centres and High Streets

Debate between John Bercow and Marcus Jones

Tuesday 17th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jones]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Before the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones) responds, let me say, first, that he has been speaking for 14 minutes. I am sure many Members have been greatly enjoying his speech, and I am sure the hon. Gentleman has been enjoying it, but there are nearly 50 Members who wish to speak and to whom a time limit applies, so I hope he is bringing his remarks to a conclusion. Secondly, the frequency with which he gives way is a matter for him, but he might want to bear that in mind. Thirdly, interventions are too long.

[Mr Jones]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for that guidance. I will try to keep my remarks brief and to keep interventions to a minimum.

Starting new enterprise is crucial on our high streets, particularly with many of our chain stores retrenching. We need to reinvigorate our independent shopkeepers. Street markets and indoor markets are an important route to doing that. In my constituency we have an award-winning street market on Wednesdays and Saturdays which often has more than 150 stalls. As in the case of car parking, which I shall come to shortly, local authorities must be careful to make sure that markets are not just cash cows and income generators for the local authority, but are there for the benefit of the local community and the local town centre.

That brings me to ways of allowing businesses to flourish. Lower taxation and less regulation are the keys to unlocking that potential, although we should be careful not to throw the baby out with the bath water. Through deregulation—for example, the deregulation of pedlars—we could end up with a situation where pedlars can turn up and trade alongside market traders, without paying any rent or rates. The market traders who have traditionally been on our high streets will find themselves at a disadvantage.

Car parking is a major issue. There is a case study in the Portas review that mentions Swindon, and my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) will probably elaborate on that. Although I acknowledge the restraint on both Government and local government budgets, further direct action on car parking charges must be explored. It would be fantastic if a pilot scheme could be run to see whether we could bring in free short-stay parking that would have the effect that we are looking for. The pilot should be run in a constituency, and I would make the argument for that to be my Nuneaton constituency, but other right hon. and hon. Members probably have other ideas on that.

There is also an inherent unfairness in how the business rates regime applies to town centre car parks and out-of-town-centre car parks, and we need to look at that carefully to ensure that we allow our town centres to operate on a level playing field. As Mary Portas rightly pointed out, we need to look carefully at planning in our town centres. My hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell) mentioned the national planning policy framework, and we must ensure that the “town centre first” policy and the sequential test are retained in the framework. I also think that it is important that office development is included, because although we must not deny out-of-town development, we must ensure that it is proportionate and meets the needs of a particular area.

I note your comments about time, Mr Speaker, and appreciate that many right hon. and hon. Members wish to speak. By bringing the matter before the House, I sincerely hope that we will have a positive debate, that our views will prevail and that the Minister will go away loaded with positive ideas from Back-Bench Members that can be fed into the Government’s review. I firmly believe that the British people instinctively wish to see our high streets and town centres not only survive, but flourish and prosper, as they form one of the unique components that make up the UK.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Marcus Jones

Wednesday 22nd June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The House needs to simmer down and take whatever tablets are necessary.

[Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)]

As a parent, I am appalled that the Labour party advocates burdening our children with ever more unsolicited debts, which it is putting forward with its reckless raft of unfunded tax cuts and spending commitments, of which the VAT cut is the latest—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Gentleman will now resume his seat. I call Valerie Vaz.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Marcus Jones

Thursday 17th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call Mr Douglas Carswell. He is not here.

[Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)]

I met a number of Warwickshire dairy farmers last week and they told me that they are still receiving less for their milk from the supermarkets than it costs to produce. When the high cost of feed is added to that, it will either drive farmers away from producing milk or out of business altogether. What can the Secretary of State do to support our dairy farmers and protect UK food security?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Marcus Jones

Tuesday 8th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Wise owl is the kindest description that the hon. Gentleman has ever offered of me. I shall take it that he means it. It’s the best I’ll get.

[Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)]

5. What recent progress he has made on the introduction of GP commissioning consortia.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Marcus Jones

Tuesday 16th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

David Tredinnick, not here.

[Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)]

What steps can the Chancellor take to ensure that the Financial Services Authority’s mortgage market review proposals do not have a disproportionate effect on home buyers and the housing market, particularly at a time when we are trying to encourage growth through the private sector?