Housing and Planning Bill (Seventeenth sitting)

Debate between Gareth Thomas and Peter Dowd

Thursday 10th December 2015 Public Bill Committees

[Mr Thomas]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

I am delighted to move the new clause and highlight the need for more construction apprenticeships. The new clause, which for want of a better phrase is a probing new clause, suggests that in proposals for sites where 50 or more dwellings are to be constructed, there should be a guarantee that local people can be offered apprenticeships. The Minister should take that seriously.

The Federation of Master Builders highlighted the shortage of skilled workers in the construction industry, which could scupper the vision for the new affordable homes that we all want. Brian Berry, the chief executive of the FMB, said last month:

“Unless we see a massive uplift in apprenticeship training in our industry, there won’t be enough pairs of hands to deliver more housing on this scale.”

I looked in detail to see where the shortages lay. According to the FMB’s state of trades survey:

“In Q2 of 2015 49% of FMB members were having difficulties recruiting bricklayers and 47% carpenters and joiners.”

The FMB also said:

“Another recent FMB poll of members found that two thirds had had to turn down work because of their inability to recruit the skilled labour they need.”

A significant number of its members saw that as a “major barrier” to their ability to build more homes in the next 12 months, and a third were worried looking three years ahead.

One worries that small and medium-sized house builders will suffer most from the shortage of skilled labour. I remind the Committee of my previous comments about the decline in the number of small and medium-sized house builders over the past 25 years or more. A shortage of labour is no doubt an issue for small and medium-sized house builders. We have the problem of access to finance on the one hand, and if we add to that the shortage of skilled labour, we risk seeing even greater concentration in the house building sector.

Just before he stepped down from Parliament earlier this year, the excellent Nick Raynsford, then the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich, chaired a cross-party parliamentary inquiry into apprenticeships with the noble Lord Best. The inquiry drew attention to the 1 million 16 to 24-year-olds who are not in education, employment or training, as well as the fact that we will need an extra 182,000 construction workers by 2018. It also highlighted that just 7,280 people had completed a construction apprenticeship in 2013, and that even though there had been a rise in the number of apprenticeships in other areas, there continued to be a significant shortage in the construction industry.

Between 2008 and 2011, the Homes and Communities Agency had guidelines that required housing associations to initiate apprenticeships as they got money to build new homes, which helped to generate more than 4,000 apprenticeships in that three-year period. The guidelines were lifted in 2011, when, as the agency said in evidence to the cross-party inquiry, they were clearly beginning to make a significant difference. That is a disappointment.

[Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)]

The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors construction market survey says the skills shortage has reached its highest levels since the survey was launched 18 years ago. Do you see anything in the Bill or any policy that will help to address that?

[The Chair]

I do not, but Mr Gareth Thomas might.

Housing and Planning Bill (Fourteenth sitting)

Debate between Gareth Thomas and Peter Dowd

Tuesday 8th December 2015 Public Bill Committees

[Peter Dowd]

Does my hon. Friend agree that this is one of the most centralising pieces of planning legislation that this country has ever seen, dressed up as localism?

[Mr Thomas]

Stalinist!

[Peter Dowd]

Indeed, it is almost Maoist. Does my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham agree that the reality is that local people would rather trust local decision makers than centralised diktats from Secretaries of State?

Housing and Planning Bill (Fifteenth sitting)

Debate between Gareth Thomas and Peter Dowd

Tuesday 8th December 2015 Public Bill Committees

[Peter Dowd]

I think that what I am about to say is a little counter-intuitive, but I suspect that it is based on the principle of more haste, less speed, in relation to this matter. May I say for the record that I am a Shostakovich man and not a Duran Duran man?

This clause raises more questions than it answers, and that is more about what is in it than what is not in it. Many organisations are perplexed at the lost opportunity in relation to CPOs. I think that many rural communities will be concerned, and I will come on to that point later.

One organisation that has concerns is the Country Land and Business Association. It wrote a document in 2012—it may have been updated, but I do not think it has been—called “Fair Play”. The association, which comprises 34,000 members, owns and manages half the rural land in England and Wales; there are 250 different types of businesses involved with it and they have concerns about CPOs and the process in general. They are right, because they tend to be on the receiving end of CPOs, whether from the utilities, local authorities or public bodies in the form of schools or hospitals and so on. Of course, they also have concerns about private development on their land, and compulsory purchase arising from that.

Developments in and legislation on compulsory purchase have been incredibly piecemeal over the past century and that is the context in which this debate is set. That has happened not just under Conservative Governments or Labour Governments, but under every Government. Whether the major change in development is progressive or not—I will not get into that argument—and whether it is centralising or localising, it is important for the Minister to consider some of those issues.

The CLA talked about a

“significant impact on people, their lives and their aspirations”

and I want to touch on rural areas. HS2 is a particular concern for them. It is an example where CPOs are seen as a blunt, aggressive and overbearing instrument of “state oppression”.

In light of what is a significant—groundbreaking, if the Committee will excuse the pun on house building—change to the law, there are issues of duty of care, which are addressed to some extent in the amendments. If the provisions are the way forward for planning and a longer- term economic plan, whether that plan is A, B or C, and are setting the scene for planning for growth, they must also take into account the economic impact on those who are directly and indirectly affected by CPOs.

The issues that arise include asking, what about a statutory code of practice on CPOs? What about an independent person to oversee the process? That is the counter-intuitive bit. It seems that that would take longer than the current arrangement, but many organisations take the view that such a process, with the elements of independence and a code of practice, would speed the process up. That is something that should be considered carefully because we all accept that we must get on with house building.

Blight is another issue. A classic example that has affected many Members is HS2. Statutory blight kicks in only once a scheme has been confirmed and safeguarded in the planning process. Something needs to be done about that. If the Government are taking a central role in major infrastructure projects, they should ensure that central protection is in place for small businesses, farmers, rural enterprises and the like. It is crucial that if the dead hand of Whitehall is to be involved in the process—vicariously, I accept, via the Minister to someone else—there should be protections.

I wanted to touch on a historical issue, the so-called Crichel Down affair, which I suspect many Conservative Members are well aware of. I do not raise it to cause any concern to the Minister: Sir Thomas Dugdale had to resign over the matter, which involved the sale of agricultural land to the military, and then back for agricultural use, and caused trauma to the people involved. I raise it because the Crichel Down guidelines arising from it must be considered carefully. They are, effectively, voluntary, and we need to tighten them up and possibly put them on a statutory basis, instead of extending a century’s piecemeal creep of CPOs. The Minister might want to consider that, otherwise it is a lost opportunity to protect, psychologically and financially, people who are affected by significantly different proposals in the planning process. It is important that that point is picked up.

Another issue we must pick up on is the reconsideration of lost payments. Forcing a sale—some call it legal sequestration; call it what you will—demands a transparent process that exudes fairness. A possible payment over and over the value of land may be important where uncompensated losses are concerned. The key is that that arguably saves time, with all the haggling that goes on in relation to land values, so it is something that could be considered. Other issues to consider include a tight advance payment process, timing notices, the amount of land required, interest on payments, and the water industry serving notice to enter land without prior negotiation, which rubs people up the wrong way.

The Government have an opportunity to give careful consideration to the issues related to CPO, and to be slightly bolder in taking the matter forward. That would be to the benefit of everyone, and it would be in the long-tried British tradition of being fair and reasonable in the process. In that regard, we need protections that assure landowners—small or large—that the Government only use land that they need, rather than land that they want.

The amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham helpfully clarify the important need for action in relation to CPOs, where the empty home blights not just the homeowner but the whole area. When we compensate, we should expect those who own the property to co-operate with the compulsory purchase as soon as is practically possible.

Finally, the Country Land and Business Association gives some heart-rending examples of people affected by CPOs that are not carried out right, fairly and reasonably:

“A Welsh sheep farmer, who had a substantial proportion of his holding acquired, had to rent additional land on which to graze his stock. His agent submitted and agreed the farmer’s claim with the district valuer and vigorously chased the acquirer for payment. Four years of non-payment followed with spurious excuses such as ‘the girl who writes the cheques is on holiday’. The acquirer also claimed to have lost the paperwork submitted by the claimant. The saga ended tragically when the bank foreclosed on him and he took his own life.”

The responsibility of the Committee is to ensure that fairness and reasonabless—the British way—prevails, especially when people’s property is being taken away. We also need to do that as expeditiously as possible, and we have the opportunity to do so. I ask the Minister to give careful consideration to my points.

[Mr Thomas]

rose—

Housing and Planning Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

Debate between Gareth Thomas and Peter Dowd

Thursday 3rd December 2015 Public Bill Committees

[Peter Dowd]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr Gray. As I looked across the room and saw the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton, I was reminded of Dick Turpin—I am not sure whether he actually trod the roads in your area, Mr Gray—and of the fact that the proposals we are debating are of Dick Turpin proportions. They will steal money from local authorities. The difference between the Government and Dick Turpin is that at least he had the decency to wear a mask.

I would not trust the Government to come up with any estimates. The Office for Budget Responsibility, which is supposed to be independent, gets it wrong all the time. The Chancellor manages, using smoke and mirrors, to change the figures as he goes along. We cannot trust the Government’s formula for such estimates in the first place.

If the Government decide to pinch this money from local authorities, which are already significantly under the cosh, where will they get it from? Will they get it from the reserves that they think local government is awash with? They have no inclination to understand that problem. They have already made massive cuts of 50% or 60% to local government, which have affected its spending power, but they still intend to take even more cash off local authorities. That will have the effect of cutting services.

We also have to think about the practicalities. What about the period of reconciliation? What happens if local government has coughed up too much money? Does it get that money back? When will it get that money back, and over what period? Interestingly, I notice that subsection (4) states:

“The regulations may provide for interest to be charged in the event of late payment.”

The question arises of whether that will be reciprocal. If local authorities cough up too much money, will they be paid interest on that?

Local government is struggling financially, and the clause will only add to its burdens. Importantly, it will add uncertainty to local government finance, and that is not fair or reasonable. The Government are fond of saying that they do not want to outsource their responsibilities, but by taking this money from local authorities, they are outsourcing to local government their responsibility for making cuts. It is getting to the point where the Government talk about allowing local authorities to pay the money back in instalments, but on what basis? What is the formula? How will the estimate be arrived at? There is absolutely nothing about that.

[Mr Thomas]

Might this not be a helpful moment for the hon. Member for South Norfolk to intervene to tell us what the leader of South Norfolk Council thinks of the provision?

[Peter Dowd]

I wish he would. Of course, we need to take advice from the Prime Minister, in his campaign against austerity, about what he thinks about local government having more money pinched off them by his Government.

The proposal is not fair or reasonable. It will put additional stresses on local government; more important, it will put stress on the services that local government provides by asking it to pay up money without knowing how much it will have to pay, the basis on which the estimate will be made, whether it will get the money back off the Government if it pays too much, whether it will get any interest payments or when the reconciliation of the figures will take place. The proposal is an absolute mess, and the Government should think again.

Housing and Planning Bill (Eighth sitting)

Debate between Gareth Thomas and Peter Dowd

Thursday 26th November 2015 Public Bill Committees

[Mr Thomas]

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate, Sir Alan. I hope the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton is tempted to catch your eye to say a little more in this debate. He makes a broadly reasonable point in saying that there needs to be a balance in law between the rights of the tenant and the rights of the landlord. However, I struggle to understand why he thinks there is not a sufficient balance in law at the moment. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle alluded to, there are already legal provisions to deal with tenants who get into substantial rent arrears and for cases of abandonment, and there is the legal rule of implied surrender. It is difficult, reflecting on the evidence sittings and all the submissions to the Bill Committee, to see what evidence there is to justify all the additional powers for landlords, which, as many hon. Members have suggested, could cause problems for vulnerable citizens.

I accept that the Government have gone some way to address those concerns with amendments 116 to 126. Nevertheless, I share the concern of my hon. Friends the Members for Erith and Thamesmead, for Easington and for Bootle that those amendments do not go quite far enough to deal with concerns about vulnerability.

A case in my constituency involved a woman who was a teaching assistant. She got into rent arrears because of problems with housing benefit and, worried about her housing situation, she chose, wrongly, not to answer her mail. As a result, her problems got worse. She was intimidated by the financial position that she was in. I worry that the provisions could make it easier to evict a person in that case than to help her sort out her finances.

[Peter Dowd]

The Minister proposes to amend clause 51 so that a third notice must be given. Does my hon. Friend agree that a third notice is fine, but that it would take the process virtually to the three-month period that would make it possible to get a section 21 eviction? Effectively, it would take the same time, but without recourse to law. That seems a bit inappropriate.

[Mr Thomas]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. If the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton will forgive me, that is another reason why it would be good to hear his experience about why the additional provisions, albeit with the Government amendments, are necessary. We will no doubt hear from the Minister in due course.

Part of my concern is that tenants evicted under the new provisions will struggle to challenge their evictions. I asked on Tuesday about legal aid for someone wanting to make sure a rent repayment order would be available, and the Minister was going to reflect on that. Will he also reflect on whether legal aid will be available to a tenant who wants to challenge an eviction under the new provisions?

I am concerned that the clauses and Government amendments could lead to further illegal evictions, and part of the reason for that is that there are very few successful prosecutions at the moment for unlawful eviction by landlords. In 2011 there were only 13. The brutal truth is that illegal evictions are rarely investigated, and few landlords are prosecuted.

There are a number of reasons for that. There have been substantial cuts to many of the tenancy relations teams in housing associations, which have traditionally carried out that function—if, indeed, they still exist. Police forces often think that illegal eviction is a civil matter, so it is quite rare that they investigate. For someone who has been evicted illegally and is now homeless, finding accommodation is a much more urgent priority than launching a prosecution.

My hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead is right to ask for an additional check and balance before a landlord can take action under the provisions. The opportunity to go and ask a local housing authority whether it shares the view that a property has been abandoned is a check strongly worthy of consideration.

[Mr Thomas]

I am tempted to think that it ought to be relatively simple for Ministers to write to police forces urging them to check things carefully. If the Minister were to agree to that, I would certainly welcome it. I encourage the hon. Member for South Norfolk to consider the whole piece and all the reasons why it is unlikely that landlords who pursue unlawful evictions will be taken to task. The police issue is one thing, but I alluded to a series of other issues that prompt concern about the Bill’s clauses, albeit there are potential amendments from the Minister.

[Peter Dowd]

Does my hon. Friend agree that we are in the territory of a person possibly being declared de facto homeless vicariously through three letters coming through their door? The person could in effect become homeless not because they want to or have caused it, but because someone has sent three letters. They would then face the challenge of finding alternative accommodation.

[Mr Thomas]

My hon. Friend makes a good point, and it will be useful to hear from the Minister on that.

Returning to a point I made in an intervention, the vast majority of landlords are not large buy-to-let companies. They are often individuals or families with just one or two properties who want to do the right thing by their tenants. The opportunity to talk to a body before taking a view that abandonment has happened gives them an additional safeguard and provides an additional opportunity for them to satisfy themselves that they are not making somebody homeless inadvertently. The amendment is pro-good-landlord just as much as it is anti-rogue-landlord, as my hon. Friend suggested.

I am sorry that the hon. Member for Peterborough is not in his place, because he very much—