Building Out Extant Planning Permissions

Debate between Alex Cunningham and Caroline Nokes

Wednesday 30th October 2019 Westminster Hall

[Alex Cunningham]

There we have it—the absolute difference between different marketplaces. If someone wanted to buy a small, two-bedroom apartment in my constituency, they could buy one brand-new for under £90,000.

[Geraint Davies in the Chair]

My point is that if we had investment in the north of England similar to what there has been in the south—investment in infrastructure and in business development —perhaps people would find tremendous advantages in heading north and living there, where the standard of living can be much higher and people have so much more disposable income even after they have paid their mortgage.

The problem is that this country is facing a housing crisis. There are 126,000 children without a home to call their own. Rough sleeping has more than doubled since 2010. Home ownership among the under-45s has fallen by 900,000 since 2010. More than 1 million people are on council waiting lists.

Labour has made many commitments on how we will address the housing crisis. We will launch the biggest council building programme for a generation. We will build for those who need it, including the very poorest and the most vulnerable, with a big boost to new social rented homes. We will stop the sell-off of social rented homes by suspending the right to buy. We will look closely at how local authorities deal with land—how they sell land if they need to sell land. The right hon. Lady talked about that, and we will look closely at how we contain the value and the price of land. We will transform the planning system with a new duty to deliver affordable homes.

We also want to encourage greater use of brownfield sites. I mentioned the site in Stockton where someone can buy a four-bedroom house for £200,000. I visited that just last week. It was a brownfield site—a big joinery company used to be on the site. People are starting to build there, so I hope that the centre of Guildford might see a similar development in the near future.

[Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Ind)]

I think that you might be a little indulgent, Mr Davies, if this is quite a long intervention. The hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) has spoken about brownfield sites, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Anne Milton) mentioned, on my behalf, Romsey brewery. Our big challenge there is that that is the only remaining brownfield site in the centre of Romsey, yet because the developers have started the build, there are no additional powers to force them to build it out. Would the hon. Gentleman like to expand a little on how he sees a future in which levers can be applied to developers where they have the permission and have started the build and where compulsory purchase is not possible, for a wide variety of reasons, including the fact that every time the council comes close to compulsory purchase, the developer simply starts building one more unit? Does the Labour party have any great suggestions on how we might resolve such situations?

[Alex Cunningham]

I will develop that point later in my speech, but we believe that we could impose penalties in that situation. If developers were failing to develop the land, we could tax the land in a particular way so that they could decide either to pay the tax or to get on with the development.

A Government can take many actions to alleviate the housing crisis, but of course the real answer is to build more genuinely affordable homes. To truly address homelessness of all kinds, we need those affordable homes for people to live in. To enable more young people to buy a house, there needs to be the stock available at a price that they can afford. My researcher, Kerri Prince, lives in Greater London and is saving desperately to buy a house, but she needs £40,000 or £50,000 to put a deposit on a house, so it is almost an impossible task for her.

[Alex Cunningham]

The answer to high prices is to provide more homes and drive the prices down, and our ambition is to do that, and not just for younger people. We need to ensure that older people have adequate housing; it should be designed specifically for them so that it is suitable. We need to build more for the elderly as well.

Unfortunately, it is not as simple as giving developers planning permission, as the right hon. Member for Guildford outlined. We have situations where planning permission has been given and building has begun, but residents in the locality are left with an eyesore of a building site for many months, or even years, due to the project being suspended or halted. There is no requirement for developers to finish the building and bring the project to completion, and there are no deadlines for the building to be completed. She gave lots of examples of developers failing the people they are meant to be providing for.

[Caroline Nokes]

Does the hon. Gentleman concur that the imperative, therefore, is to have deadlines by which development must not only begin, but be completed? It affects not only residents in the locality but, in many instances, residents who are already living on the site.

[Alex Cunningham]

I concur with that. We see this tremendous race by developers to acquire potentially lucrative land, yet they might not be equipped or ready to develop it. They might not have the resources or labour to get on with the job. They have complied with the planning permission by starting to build. As the right hon. Member for Guildford said, that could just be an access road. They know that they can simply pause the project indefinitely. This is not how our processes should work. We desperately need that housing for people to live in.

Some developers get their hands on the land and then fail to build even one house within a reasonable timescale. The developers always get what they want but, for many reasons—probably related to their projected sales, income and profit generation—they chose to go at a pace that suits them, not the need for new homes. We believe that councils should be given “use it or lose it” planning powers. They should be able to levy the tax that I mentioned on sites where planning permission has been granted but it has not been built out in a reasonable timeframe, or where the building has begun but been halted for the long term, so the homes do not get built because it is not convenient for the developer to do so.

At the planning permission stage, we could place more stringent timetables on when parts of the development should be delivered. That would result in a minimum number of homes being developed within fixed timescales and would not leave the early inhabitants living on a building site for years on end. I know that major developments can face uncertainty and setbacks, but I am under no illusion: some developers enter the process in the full knowledge that they will abandon the land for a time, depending on their own needs and processes. For me, that is not on.

Local authorities grant planning permission in good faith, to provide homes for their residents. Some developers may hold up the delivery of the houses for the sake of profit, as prices may have dropped, or they have been unable to increase them as much as they claim they need to. For too long we have tolerated profits for developers being put ahead of housing for the many. We should be much stronger on regulations and the planning system for delivering new affordable homes.

Last week, during a visit to Sheffield, the Minister spoke about a corridor of prefab house building factories across the north of England—a bold and welcome vision—yet it was a shame to hear that most of the £38 million to boost construction went to councils in the south. That seems to be the story with this Government: investment for the south while the north continues to be disregarded and discounted. I hope that the Minister will have tough new measures to announce.

Asylum Accommodation Contracts

Debate between Alex Cunningham and Caroline Nokes

Wednesday 10th October 2018 Westminster Hall

[Caroline Nokes]

I will give way to the hon. Member for Stockton North, who secured the debate.

[Alex Cunningham]

In the light of what the Minister has just said, seven years is still a hell of a long time. Will she take that point back and think again about it, and see whether we could perhaps have breaks at three years or five years?

Draft Bereavement Support Payment Regulations 2017

Debate between Alex Cunningham and Caroline Nokes

Monday 27th February 2017 General Committees

[Caroline Nokes]

I thank hon. Members for their contributions. As I have already stated, the Government are absolutely committed to supporting those who have lost a spouse or civil partner; financially in the shorter term by way of these payments, and then practically, if and when it is appropriate, to return to employment.

I express my appreciation for the consideration that hon. Members have given to these regulations, in what I see as the first step to ensuring that we align bereavement support with other welfare policies. I want to respond to comments made by hon. Members and the shadow spokesman. We do not believe—nor could we—that the period of payment should be equivalent to the period of grief following spousal bereavement. We heard from several hon. Members that grief is not linear; it impacts different people in different ways and at different times.

We learned through the consultation process carried out with SSAC and the Work and Pensions Committee, as well as the wider public consultation, that grief will impact at different times in different ways. It will particularly impact on anniversaries. That is one reason we listened to the comments of the Work and Pensions Committee and chose to extend this provision from 12 months to 18 months, so that there would be no coinciding with the anniversary of the death.

It is right to put on the record that we considered providing a simple, lump sum payment at the moment of bereavement, which could be described as a death grant. However, the consultations said that was not wanted and that there should be some level of ongoing support during those critical first few months.

Bereavement support is designed to support people with the additional costs associated with bereavement, rather than to provide an income replacement. That is a really important distinction to make. Income-based benefits are more suited to provide the longer-term assistance with everyday living costs. By investing an additional £45 million, the Government are seeking to provide financial support for the acute period to facilitate the process of readjustment.

[Alex Cunningham]

The Minister heard the quotes I used from young Sam, who tells us that he is still hurting after four years. People can hurt with bereavement after almost a generation has passed. Surely there is some concession to be made by the Government for the likes of Sam, whose mother took two and a half years to get back to work and still needs some support to drop him off and pick him up from school.

[Caroline Nokes]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that. I was going to move on to refer to Sam’s comments. Like the hon. Gentleman, I have seen a copy of the letter that he sent to his MP, and there are some important reflections on that. On universal credit, it is important to note that the conditionality can be lifted or someone can be completely exempted. It is important to recognise in the arena of universal credit that we want a much more tailored relationship between individuals and their work coaches.

[Alex Cunningham]

Will the Minister explain how somebody can be exempted unconditionally into the future?

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Nokes]

By discussion with their work coach. That is simply the way we expect that to happen. People will be able to develop that relationship and ask for that exemption. That is really important, reflecting what the hon. Gentleman, the hon. Member for Islwyn and Sam have told us: grief can strike at any time. It is not linear or necessarily over in the first 18 months, and we are not suggesting that it is.

[Alex Cunningham]

I have not seen anything offering guidance to work coaches. Will the Minister publish guidance to work coaches in the Library so that we can understand the advice that people are getting and how they can ensure that they get the support they require?

[Caroline Nokes]

We will be happy to publish that guidance when the legislation has been debated and completed.

Extending the provision of bereavement support payment to cohabitees was discussed during the passage of the Pensions Act 2014. Indeed, the eligibility criteria of a legal marriage or civil partnership with the deceased form part of that Act. The eligibility of cohabitees was therefore fixed in the primary legislation and is not a matter for these regulations, but I am happy to explain the decisions that Parliament took on eligibility in the Act. Marriage and civil partnership are legal contracts that are associated with certain rights, including inheritance and recognition in the tax system. Extending eligibility to cohabitees would not only increase spend but be complex to administer. Having to prove cohabitation at a time of bereavement could be a lengthy and complex process and might cause additional distress, which we seek to avoid.

Critics have suggested that those who choose not to formalise their relationship might be treated unfairly, since they can be treated as a couple for income-related benefits but not for contributory benefits. However, income-related benefits serve a very different purpose: the ongoing day-to-day needs of a household, irrespective of whether the relationship is formal. When assessing entitlement to income-related benefit payments, the state rightly assumes that couples have joint outgoings and share resources such as earnings or other income, whatever the legal status of their relationship. The position is different for bereavement benefits because they are contributory benefits; the founding principle of the contributory benefit system is that all rights to inheritable benefits derived from another person’s contribution are based on the concept of legal marriage or civil partnership.

[Alex Cunningham]

Surely if a man and a woman live together, have children together and are on the electoral register together, they are a couple for all intents and purposes. Why on earth are we penalising the child? I cannot understand why we can make the exception in some areas of benefits but not in this one.

[Caroline Nokes]

As I have explained to the hon. Gentleman, that question was discussed and debated during the passage of the Pensions Act 2014, in which the eligibility criteria for contributory benefits are clearly set out.

[Alex Cunningham]

I am sorry to be such a pain to the Minister, but if the person who has died has been a contributor throughout their working time, surely his or her children are entitled to something from that contribution.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Nokes]

I thank the right hon. Lady for that suggestion. I also thank my hon. Friends the Members for Lewes, and for Thornbury and Yate, who wrote to me on behalf of their constituents Heather Smith and Sarah Metcalfe to make exactly that point. I am conscious that the suggestion comes from the Childhood Bereavement Network, which has been in touch with me personally over the last few weeks.

When we considered the proposals, as I said originally, we considered making a one-off grant at the outset, but that was rejected by both the Social Security Advisory Committee and the Work and Pensions Committee. They suggested a period of 18 months, on which we consulted the Childhood Bereavement Network. I can see the merit in considering changing it to three years, but that would halve the monthly payments in the first 18 months. We did not think that gave families the best chance of lessening the fiscal impact of losing a spouse’s income. We considered it, but we came to the view that we should adopt the Work and Pensions Committee’s suggestion of 18 months.

[Alex Cunningham]

I do not know whether the Minister has acknowledged the £100 million saving, but surely it would go some way toward providing the extension to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley referred.

[Caroline Nokes]

The hon. Gentleman will of course be aware that over the first two years of the proposed reform we will spend an additional £45 million. Any savings will be for future Governments to reinvest as they choose.

It is important to emphasise that nobody in receipt of the current bereavement benefit stands to lose out as a result of the reforms. Recipients of the current benefit will continue to receive it for the natural lifetime of their award. Furthermore, households with dependent children will receive higher payments in recognition of that fact. Analysis shows that more people stand to gain than lose from the changes, particularly the least well off, because bereavement support will be paid on top of any income-related benefits that the household receives.

As I said, we are disregarding bereavement support payment in the calculation of other benefits, which will ensure that the immediate additional costs of bereavement are met while those requiring further support will be able to obtain it from other parts of the welfare system that are better placed to provide longer-term, means-tested financial assistance. As various Members have mentioned and I have confirmed, conditionality can be tailored through the ongoing relationship with Jobcentre Plus according to a claimant’s personal circumstances.

I meant to mention Sam—apologies for not having done so. I was particularly moved by his letter and thought that he conveyed his situation both movingly and incredibly intelligently. One can only feel for a child who has lost their parent. I must emphasise that families such as his, which are currently in receipt of the benefits as they stand, will not lose. Nothing will change for them. That is an important distinction to make. As I said, it was a benefit system meant to recognise widows—women, not men—way back in the 1920s. It is important that we heed the words of the Select Committee, which said that this reform and modernisation was well overdue.

In conclusion, I reassure hon. Members that this Government have the welfare of the bereaved and their families at heart. There can be absolutely no question but that the loss of a spouse is tragic, and it is doubly so for families with children. There can be no time limit on grief for such a loss, and nor is there a pre-defined way in which grief will manifest itself, but where we can help, we will do so. We remain committed to supporting widows and widowers to adjust to their new circumstances and to providing financial help in the difficult months following their loss. On that basis, I commend the regulations to the Committee.

Question put.