Richard Fuller
MP for North Bedfordshire · Conservative · United Kingdom
“I do not want to go too far off the topic, because I am a bit of a nerd on regulating regulators. We can find time later to talk about that. It was an important point, as was the point made by the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George).”
House of Commons22 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss. We know that issues of injustice can take an awfully long time to reach a resolution in Parliament.”
House of Commons22 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“As a Member of Parliament myself for periods of that time, I have had a sense that this matter is unfinished business. I was interested to listen to some of the comments. One issue that was raised, most notably by the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) and my hon.”
House of Commons22 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I would be interested in the Minister’s thoughts on that, but the point that I am trying to make is that this is a matter of choice for the Government.”
House of Commons22 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“When we hear the Minister’s response or read the statement made by the Minister’s colleague saying that there are no plans to reopen any decisions, it is important that it is clear that they are still open to consideration if the public finances change. I want finally to return to what the hon.”
House of Commons22 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“In the big scheme of things, it would be very helpful if the Minister could confirm that it is the intention that those moneys in that envelope will be reallocated to policyholders, rather than being swept back into general taxpayer money.”
House of Commons22 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
The complete record
3,180 held · 3,179 searchable for Richard Fuller. The searchable lines are below in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 9 of 10.
This is not an official version of UK Parliament proceedings. It reproduces the published record and links to it; the official version is the one UK Parliament publishes.
“(3) But if the person is continuing to engage in the conduct on that day, and the conduct continues beyond the end of that day, the notice of intent may be given— (a) at any time when the conduct is continuing, or (b) within the period of 6 months beginning with the last day on which the conduct occurs. (4) The notice of intent must set out— (a) the date on which the notice of intent is given, (b) the amount of the proposed financial penalty, (c) the reasons for proposing to impose the penalty, and (d) information about the right to make representations under paragraph 2. Right to make representations 2 (1) A person who is given a notice of intent may make written representations to the enforcement authority about the proposal to impose a financial penalty.”
House of Commons30 January 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That is very kind of the Minister. With that assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Schedule 1 Redress schemes: financial penalties “ Notice of intent (1) Before imposing a financial penalty on a person under section (Financial penalties), an enforcement authority must give the person notice of its proposal to do so (a ‘notice of intent’). (2) The notice of intent must be given before the end of the period of 6 months beginning with the first day on which the enforcement authority has sufficient evidence of the conduct to which the financial penalty relates.”
House of Commons30 January 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The allegations against employees of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency were appalling, but UNRWA remains a vital source of food and support for the Palestinian people. I can already hear voices from the Conservative Back Benches that seem to be calling for us to throttle funding for UNRWA for the long term. Can my right hon. Friend advise us on what will happen between now and April, as regards his representations to the Chancellor on the Budget and contingency funding for this organisation after April?”
House of Commons29 January 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I want to take up the point the hon. Gentleman made about the timing of the ground rent review and the implications for subsequent change in the Bill. Has the Opposition looked at what the potential legal liability might be if we move forward with this Bill without clarity on what happens on ground rent, particularly as this is retrospective legislation, and whether there is a potential liability for the taxpayer if that co-ordination does not work effectively?”
House of Commons25 January 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“As the Minister is contemplating what he will put in his letter, including a response to the hon. Member for Brent North, could I gently remind him that auditing is an expensive procedure? There will be a number of instances where these accounts might fall short of what would be required under existing Companies House legislation. There are some metrics and things out there that the Government could use, but he should bear in the mind the cost of auditing.”
House of Commons25 January 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Minister speaks quickly and is knowledgeable about this matter; I just want to put it into everyday speak that the rest of us can understand. I think that the intention behind the Opposition’s amendment is to be clear that there is a difference between penalties and damages. They do not want the burden of proof to be on leaseholders, in this case, and there is tremendous merit to that. Whatever we put into law has to be accessible to people. I think the Minister said that if we change the word from “damages” to “penalties”, that would raise the hurdle. Can he assure us of his objection to the proposed amendment in everyday speak,? As the Bill is drafted, the hurdle will be lower, and there will be no burden of proof on the leaseholder for the penalties/damages to take effect.”
House of Commons25 January 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Member for Brent North has just slapped himself on the wrist, which is probably how many businesses will see it. Can I gird the Minister’s loins and encourage him to take up his shield and his sword of righteousness in defence of individual leaseholders and say, “This amount is too low. We shall change the legislation. This party and this Government stand to make the intent of what we will do to truly bite on those who are doing wrong”?”
House of Commons25 January 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“A lot of the measures in this part of the Bill are trying desperately to unpick complicated things and rebalance them in favour of people who own their own home but do not run a large business, or people with small financial interests, where there are 30 or 40 of them against one person with a significant financial interest that covers all those people. In trying to rebalance things here, we all want to ensure that these measures are as effective as possible and that there is enough encouragement to ensure that the good practice the Government want to see can be done effectively. The concern that I share with the shadow Minister is that the current levels of penalties just look like a cost of doing business. [ Interruption. ] Indeed! The hon.”
House of Commons25 January 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am tempted to frame page 25 of today’s amendment paper, because it includes the shadow Minister’s amendment 17, which would increase the penalties from £5,000 to £30,000, and my amendment 142, which would increase them from £5,000 to £50,000. I thought it was usually the Conservative party that is pro-business and tries to keep costs on business low, but then I recalled that these penalties apply to people doing something wrong, and of course the Labour party is always soft on criminals. Seriously, though, the shadow Minister and I have a clear intent, which I am sure is shared by the Minister.”
House of Commons25 January 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Sorry, I am such a pedant, but “per challenge” could relate to person A making the challenge that report x was not done on time, and then person B making the challenge that report x was not done on time. Do those two challenges count as two separate challenges because they are brought by two different people, although they are for the same objection, or as one challenge because they are for the same objection, although they are presented by two different people?”
House of Commons25 January 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I think the shadow Minister is mixing two things up when he says that people get a share. The issue here is about changing the behaviour of the person who is doing wrong, not “I’m going to get this much money out of it.” The incentive is for the person who is doing wrong. Does the shadow Minister agree with the point made by the hon. Member for Brent North about clogging up the system: why would 150 people put one challenge in when they could put 150 challenges in?”
House of Commons25 January 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Therefore, in certain circumstances it may be the case that people are paying twice for the same services covered by what are defined as estate management running costs.”
House of Commons25 January 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I want to probe a bit more, because of the speed with which we shot through clause 39—with your leave, Chair, I am sure you will find this in order, because clause 40 also relates to relevant costs. Clause 39(10) says that relevant costs, “in relation to a dwelling, means costs which are incurred by an estate manager in carrying out estate management for the benefit of the dwelling or for the benefit of the dwelling and other dwellings.” As the Government were considering clauses 39 and 40, the general limitations on what might be a relevant cost, what consideration did the Minister or the Government give to the fact that there are some costs that might be covered within that general limitation that, for some people, are covered by payments they make through their council tax?”
House of Commons25 January 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“As we heard in the evidence sessions, the current impact assessment may potentially omit a significant amount of value that will be taken into account as part of the ground rent reform. If it is the Government’s intention to introduce amendments on that, as the shadow spokesman was asking, it would be useful to have clarity from the Minister on that, but we should also ask the Minister whether an updated impact assessment can be presented to incorporate what the value of those recommendations would be.”
House of Commons23 January 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I want to speak briefly in support of the third point made by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich, in which he addressed the interaction of the Bill with the Government’s ground rent consultation. If I heard him correctly, he was asking the Government at least to be clear as to how those recommendations will affect the Bill. He was asking the Government to be clear on their position; I will not go as far as that, because I think the Government have the discretion to decide when they want to announce that or not. However, there is another issue that the Minister could perhaps consider: the impact assessment on the valuation, which we, as Members of Parliament, are being asked to address in this Bill.”
House of Commons23 January 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Once they make a decision, those points of value can be forecast. They are no longer hypothetical but judgmental, so it really is within the Minister’s remit to be able to move from hypothetical to his own forecast. Having said that, I fully accept what the Minister has said so far.”
House of Commons23 January 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am listening carefully to the Minister and sort of accept what he says, but may I make a couple of points? First, he has talked about how the Bill has to go through the House of Lords, but we are the democratically elected Chamber. The interaction of the two provisions represents substantial transfers in value between different parts of our community—rightly or wrongly. Decisions should correctly be made with the full information by this House. We should not go through a procedure when information is presented in the unelected House, which then comes back to the Commons. With our remit as Back-Bench Members of Parliament, we are very restricted in what we can do to amend that. Secondly, the Minister talked about how the points about value are hypothetical. That is the case only because the Government have not made a decision.”
House of Commons23 January 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Minister just mentioned that schedule 2 eliminates marriage value. He will be aware, from the impact assessment, that there is a financial value associated with marriage value. Can the Minister tell me whether the Government think that marriage value is a real value—that it has intrinsic value—or is it just a number that has no material value at all? Is there something behind what marriage value is, and what is the rationale for eliminating it?”
House of Commons23 January 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am grateful to the Minister for his summary, which I think is very accurate. Given that the Government have assessed that there is something real there, and decided that they want to eliminate the marriage value—obviously, a lot of work has gone into the preparation for that—what representations has he received about the legal underpinnings of this particular aspect of the legislation for those from whom that value is being taken?”
House of Commons23 January 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Does the Minister accept that the absence of knowing what will be in the Secretary of State’s mind about what rate he or she may set affects the analysis of what is being done economically with the Bill quite significantly? What thought has he given to the legal challenge risks of holding back what is in the Secretary of State’s mind about what the rates would be?”
House of Commons23 January 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is perfectly within the ambit of the Opposition to say, in the Programming Sub-Committee, “We will do clause 9 stand part, then clauses 10 and clause 11, and then schedule 2 separately,” but in the planning done by the Government and Opposition Whips, we decided to put all the provisions together, so that we brush past them very quickly, hoping that no one will notice. I notice a twinkle in the eye of the hon. Member for Brent North.”
House of Commons23 January 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“My first observation, which is not specific to the Bill, is that whenever there is a clear consensus between Government and Opposition, problems usually arise subsequently. We have just spoken about 29 pages of schedules and two pages of clauses —31 pages of a 130-page Bill—and I heard one or two sentences from the shadow Minister. [ Interruption. ] Oh, the shadow Minister is coming back in later; good. I am encouraged. I was called to speak straight after my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch, rather than us bouncing between Government and Opposition Members, so I was worried. My first concern was that we were going through a very large proportion of the Bill very quickly. Grouping so much of the Bill together is a choice.”
House of Commons23 January 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is a good to see you in the Chair, Dame Caroline. We are blessed on this Committee to have three people who have been Housing Ministers, the great experience and expertise of the hon. Member for Brent North, and the good graces of the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich. I was recently speaking about the Bill to my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Damian Green), who pointed out that there were discussions about some of the measures in the Bill when he was the adviser to Sir John Major in No. 10 in the 1990s. I have none of the expertise or experience of any of the people I have just mentioned, so it is with humility that I rise to make some observations.”
House of Commons23 January 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Well, maybe. I am not a mind reader, either of the mind of the shadow spokesperson or the mind of the great British public. They will make their decision at the next election and, I hope, return a Conservative Government for a fifth consecutive term, but that is not the import of my points today. My first point was that the public should beware when they see such circumstances, not because anything is necessarily wrong, but because it is a leading indication that consensus is overwhelming scrutiny.”
House of Commons23 January 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is a fair point, but I think we can get our heads around most of it. The general principles in this Bill are no different from those of others. There are some formula there; and when we see a formula such as one over one minus c to the power of n with a deferment rate of theta, we get worried that we do not understand. It takes us back to doing calculus at school. However, we can understand it—though within it there are some important things. The shadow Minister makes a good point, but there are amendments to schedule 2: the Government’s, his, and mine. I will make the point—and if I am wrong the Clerks will correct me, through the Chair—that we are debating the overall principle of schedule 2, not just the detail, though it is fair to raise some points about that.”
House of Commons23 January 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why we are passing this legislation. I want to be clear about that, because there will be circumstances in freeholder-leaseholder relationships where the performance has been inadequate or poor. There may be circumstances where the performance has been perfectly reasonable.”
House of Commons23 January 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I agree with the shadow Minister. I am not trying to undermine the intentions of the Bill—I agree with them—but I want them to be legally secure, and I want to probe and understand them. He said that these are hypothetical profits, but they are not quite hypothetical. They would only be hypothetical if they were not real, but as we have already heard, they are. They are calculated profits, and it is a matter of how that calculation is determined that is at issue, not whether they are hypothetical or real.”
House of Commons23 January 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The idea that we are expunging values that relate to something real, which is under contract, is a material point in trying to make this legislation bulletproof or, as the Minister rightly says, to ensure that, in a hotly contested area, the Government get it right. In circumstances where there are real values —although perhaps massively overemphasised—where performance has been exemplary or to contract, where there has been no question of the performance required under contract, and, finally, where there has not been price gouging, or this automatic doubling every two years, and the rents have remained the same, what is the reason to apply legislation retrospectively?”
House of Commons23 January 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am just so glad it was not me. The Minister and shadow Minister are far more experienced than I am on this matter, so I am drawing on a much more limited data set than they are. But, to date, I have not heard loud and clear that there is no such thing as marriage value. I have heard that there are questions about how it is calculated and that we do not think it should apply, which is a political point of view. If the shadow Minister is trying to say that there is something else he wants, between the issues of calculation and of making a political decision to transfer it, that is interesting to me. I do not think that he has been trying to make that point, and I certainly do not think we have heard that evidenced. It is a crucial point.”
House of Commons23 January 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am just saying that the principle is that, whether ground rent is real or not, it is still subject to the fact that it was part of a contract that was signed, and that will have weight in any legal challenge to the Bill.”
House of Commons23 January 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The former Minister makes an excellent point. She knows much more about this than I do and therefore I am very wary about falling into the trap of answering her question directly. What I will say is that, for the purposes of my speech today, what I think is not important. What is important is this: what will the courts find, and how have we ensured that the Bill is robust in those circumstances? I will say, without answering my hon. Friend’s question, that people sometimes sign contracts for things that they do not use or that have no value, but there is an argument that they signed a contract and it had these line items in it. People may sign a contract that gives them access to a swimming pool or gym and they may not use it. I do not mean to be pejorative, because these are very important issues.”
House of Commons23 January 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We are putting a lot of faith in the Government to get that right. We are dealing with different situations: where, in a relationship between a freeholder and a leaseholder, freeholders are providing poor service or have been price gouging; or where other freeholders have entered into contracts, done all the right things under that contract and behaved in a very excellent way, but we are now retrospectively going to change all their contracts. I want to put on the record some of my concerns about doing so. I understand that the intention of the House as a whole is to move forward, but I am interested in whether the Minister has any comment on that—he does not need to—or has something interesting to add.”
House of Commons23 January 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Dame Caroline, you were not in Committee when I made a point of order on the hon. Member for Brent North, perhaps inadvisably, but this time I thought his intervention was very helpful, so I would like to commend him. That point is very helpful to my understanding, and I appreciate his building my understanding further. We will have to see. My purpose in making these points is to look at the possibilities of legal challenge. I am not a lawyer so I am probably one of the first to do that anyway, but the principles behind schedule 2 relate to existing contracts and make a political decision to redistribute value to full or some extent. In Committee, however, we are doing this where we do not have complete financial information about the extent to which we open ourselves to the charge that our decision will have unintended consequences.”
House of Commons23 January 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“In order to be fair to participants, it is important that the Secretary of State has regard to regional variations. I hope the Minister can provide some encouraging words on market conditions and tying the discount rate to some form of understanding of market interest rates.”
House of Commons23 January 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“When someone buys an investment and ties up their money for a longer period of time, they pay a different rate of interest than when they do so for a shorter period of time. It is appropriate for the Government to have regard to that when setting the discount rates. That is why I have tabled this amendment. I am interested to know what the Minister has to say about it. Amendment 149 is about regional variations in market conditions. The Minister will know that a large part of the Bill relates to London, but not all of it. The way property prices move in Bedfordshire—I see that another Bedfordshire MP, the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire, is here—and in other parts of the country is different from London. Market conditions vary.”
House of Commons23 January 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Obviously, it is in the interests of party A for the rate to be set high and in the interests of party B for the rate to be set low, but there is a concern about the rate being fixed without certain guidance. The shadow Minister has argued that the rate should have regard to the desirability of encouraging leaseholders to acquire their freehold at the lowest possible cost; that fits the imperative that informed the Bill. My view is that we ought to first encourage the Secretary of State to anchor his or her judgment on the market rate of interest—not a specific market rate of interest, but a set of market rates of interest. The reason is that there will be leases of certain terms: five, 10, 15, 30, 50 or 100 years.”
House of Commons23 January 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The shadow Minister made some very good points that I am sure the Minister will respond to. It is important to understand that it is always possible for Government to fix market rates and interest, either directly or by the courts, but interest rates do change; the world does change. We can find ourselves adrift on interest rates relatively quickly. The Sportelli judgment, I think, was made at a time when the Bank rate was 4.5%. In that context, the setting of the discount rate did not seem particularly inappropriate. Three years later, the Bank rate went to 0.5% as a consequence of quantitative easing, and stayed like that for seven years.”
House of Commons23 January 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I rise in support of my amendments 146 to 149, which, similarly to the shadow Minister’s amendment 2, seek to provide some framework and guidance around, and a better understanding of, how the Secretary of State will determine these very important discount rates. I go back to the point about the importance of trying to give as much clarity as possible about what we are passing into legislation and to avoid unintended consequences. The Minister will be aware that some of the businesses affected may be subject to statutory disclosures. It is very hard to make a formal statutory disclosure if one is not clear what the impact will be. My amendment seeks to provide that. I want to explain some of the reasons why I have chosen to focus on the issues of market rates and interest, and regional trends.”
House of Commons23 January 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We have heard about the managing agents, but it is the estate agents, the developers and the housing associations who are selling these dreams. You have seen lots of people on Tuesday who feel they have been mis-sold, and others will continue to be mis-sold. These estate agents are the first port of call for the people going into the process, and we have to remember that people are buying a home, and they have not done it before. They might have bought a couch or something like that, but this is the first time they are doing this, and they can get it so wrong. People need to be protected. The estate agent is the only part of the professional world of property that is not regulated. The estate agent is that person there who is alongside the person trying to get their dream, which could go massively wrong.”
House of Commons18 January 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Ms Paula Higgins : You make a really interesting point, but there are things that I would not want to see happening. We also work in the new homes area. We have legislated for a New Homes Ombudsman—fantastic—but we have not enacted it yet, and we now have a more confusing landscape for people who are buying new homes, who are probably also leaseholders and probably also shared owners; they have another competing code. It is incredibly confusing. That is not what I want to see happening. Regulation means enforcement. There are a lot of things that estate agents have to do now, and we know from our research that they are not doing what they should be doing. The problem is that people do not have the right of redress if something happens.”
House of Commons18 January 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That means that 50% of people are not members of ARMA and are not part of their regime, along with the Institute of Residential Property Management—obviously, ARMA and the IRPM have now merged to form The Property Institute. They have done amazing work to fill the void, where there has been a lack of an independent regulator, and I think working with Andrew and with them would be a really good starting point for the Government to create a regulatory regime. Certainly we would stand ready as an organisation to help with that. I just think that giving leaseholders the confidence that there is an independent body that they can go to when they have disputes with their property manager or their landlord is really important—as people do with Ofwat or Ofgem or other regulators. Having that independent regulator is really, really important.”
House of Commons18 January 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“But we run the risk of just vomiting out a whole new set of what we think is going to be the solution. As you said, Ms Higgins, we have a once-in-20-years chance. I said this to Mr Gardiner on the way in—he goes back to 1993 thinking about this, and he is an MP now. What are your thoughts? Give us some guidance on simplification and standardisation versus regulation, and then regulation of people, regulation of process and the provision of redress. Bob Smytherman : I would not reinvent the wheel. I don’t know whether you have had The Property Institute in yet, and Andrew Bulmer from the Association of Residential Managing Agents. They fill the gap as the main membership organisation for managing agents. Andrew will give you the figures, but I believe they represent about 50% of all property managers of leasehold property.”
House of Commons18 January 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Q We have been talking a bit about regulation, which is often seen as some sort of answer to problems and frequently is not—or, at least, is different from simplification or standardisation, which each of you have mentioned at different points. I am interested in your thoughts when it comes to property managers and managing agents, about where you think the interaction is between simplification and regulation, and whether regulation is a matter of regulating the process—“You must provide this set of information by this date”—or of regulating the people—“Thou must have this qualification in order to do x ”—or whether it is about the process of redress: being able to get some compensation at the end; because we are going to be wrestling with all those things here. They all have a role to play, to a greater or lesser extent.”
House of Commons18 January 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Q My concern is that you are going to finish your report, quite rightly, in the fullness of time—that will be February—and this Committee will not be sitting in February; heaven help us, I hope not. Please could you go away with a piece of homework for tonight to write to the Committee about what ideas from your report so far could be put in the Bill on the adoption matter? I think all of us would find that very helpful. George Lusty indicated assent .”
House of Commons18 January 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“James Vitali: I think that is where the dividing line lies between you and Mr Gardiner, and perhaps you and I and Mr Gardiner.”
House of Commons18 January 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Q I have one final question, if I may. I know it is not quite at a stroke, because I think it is when they come up, but is there any way of mitigating? It seems to me that when you take something away from one person incompletely and you cannot actually say, “Well, the value wasn’t there”—I understand fee-for-service but marriage value is different from that—there is no other mitigation for the loss of that party, and there is not in the Bill. We can agree that marriage value needs to go; we are finally going from class A of people to class B of people. We could, however, then put in some mitigation for those who are having a loss, which would be usual if they had not done something materially wrong. What do you think about that?”
House of Commons18 January 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“On a point of order, Dame Caroline. I am wondering whether my colleague, Mr Gardiner, is getting to a question rather than just expressing a view.”
House of Commons18 January 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Q So just to be clear, as the Committee considers this Bill, including what may come from subsequent secondary legislation, it is not £1.9 billion of transfer, but £1.9 billion plus £28 billion. Is that fair? So we need to bring it all in, not just— Jack Spearman: I think it is a bit more, actually. Is it not £3.17 billion in this one?”
House of Commons18 January 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I want to follow up on the comment from my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire on the role of the FCA. The Minister will be aware of the concerns of Members on the Government Back Benches about the speed with which regulators perform their duties, how much we pass on to them, and how much we trust them to fulfil the will not just of Parliament but of our representatives. That applies to the FCA. I do not expect the Minister to comment on that directly, but can he assure the Committee that he will use his position to ensure that the FCA is kept on track in implementing the reforms at pace?”
House of Commons17 January 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Q From that, are you implying that your view is that it has been a rip-off to date, and therefore there are monies that you should have been having for all the years you have been paying and there was no value to it? Jo Derbyshire : If I think of my estate, there was no reason whatsoever to create leasehold houses other than to make money from the people who had bought them. That is partly why, going back to an earlier question, it is taking so long to dismantle the system in this country: it is because there is so much money for nothing in it. That is why it is so hard to dismantle it.”
House of Commons16 January 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗