Cornwall (Government Funding)

Debate between Andrew George and Dan Rogerson

Tuesday 18th December 2012 Westminster Hall

[Dan Rogerson]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way again. He is being extremely generous, as was the Treasury with the project that he describes, although I have to acknowledge that half the costs will be funded locally, through local authorities. That is an excellent example of what he was talking about earlier: £30 million is coming from central Government and £30 million from local government. He also raised the issue of fuel duty. Again, I welcome the Government’s decision on that. I understand that they are also having discussions with the European Union in relation to what it has done for islands, such as the Isles of Scilly in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George), and whether rural parts of mainland Britain could also benefit from a further reduction—

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

Of 5p.

[Dan Rogerson]

A 5p reduction. That would have a huge impact, particularly on small businesses in my constituency. I urge the Minister to redouble his efforts to secure that.

[Mr Gauke]

My hon. Friend is right to say that we are having further discussions with the European Commission about that. Obviously, we will update the House as soon as we are able to do so. However, I do not want to leave the A30 just yet—not a comment that people often make. The scheme to which I referred, and for which I know my hon. Friend has campaigned long and hard, will relieve congestion and improve journey times. It will also attract business growth and inward investment to Cornwall by improving links to the rest of England. The Government welcome the commitment from Cornwall council, to which my hon. Friend alluded, to deliver and part-fund the scheme on behalf of the Secretary of State. Its drive in taking the scheme forward demonstrates how much of a priority it is to the council and to Cornwall generally. Work on the scheme is set to start in 2014-15, subject to the completion of planning processes and funding agreements, and the road is due to be open to traffic in 2016. I am sure that it will bring real benefits to the area.

My hon. Friend may feel that my contribution took a long time to reach Cornwall, and I am sure that is a feeling that many motorists will at times sympathise with. However, it is important for us to look at the national context of spending and the impacts that decisions made at that level will have in each region. I hope that my comments have been useful in laying out the Government’s position.

Badger Cull

Debate between Andrew George and Dan Rogerson

Thursday 25th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Dan Rogerson]

That is absolutely true, although in parts of my hon. Friend’s constituency and of mine that choice is not available, so land will go out of production, with the loss of all the environmental “goods” such as stewardship and protection of the landscape.

The only piece of work that we have on which we can base an understanding of the science is, as hon. Members on both sides of the debate have said, the report that the ISG submitted to the Government based on the randomised culling trials. The hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon was right that its conclusions are crucial to the debate, but the question is whether one stops just before the end of the report, where the group said that culling has an effect and can help, or goes on to the coda, where it outlines its ultimate position and states that it does not think culling is practical. I argue that that is for the Government, politicians and those who will implement the policy on the ground to resolve. That I why the Select Committee felt that we needed to give the Government a chance to respond.

The hon. and learned Member spoke of the Select Committee’s membership in the previous Parliament: the late David Taylor, an active Member on many issues and on culling; the former Member for Stroud, David Drew; and Dr Lynne Jones. They were of such independent minds that it was a great comfort to Lord McAvoy when the Committee visited rural North Yorkshire or the south-west to look into the issue, because if instead they had been here, they might have been a little more challenging of the then Government’s position on whatever matter was being debated. They freely admitted that they were not convinced that culling was the answer to the problem, whereas others wanted to give those in the farming community the opportunity to show that it could work. The collective view that we reached appears in black and white.

The scientists—Professor John Bourne, Christl Donnelly, Rosie Woodroffe and Sir David King—gave evidence before us. The atmosphere between them was interesting; it was probably more of an atmosphere than we sometimes have in here for Prime Minister’s Question Time, such was their commitment to the work they had done. None the less, the Select Committee reached the view that it did.

I should like to look at the alternatives to the culling trials. I emphasise that we are discussing pilots, not country-wide implementation overnight, and moving forward carefully, sensitively and in line with the science in two areas to demonstrate that culling is effective.

[Andrew George]

Of course, after these two pilots merely assess the effectiveness and humaneness of the culling method, the intention is then to roll it out throughout the country at a very much accelerated pace.

[Dan Rogerson]

We will see what happens during the pilots. Looking at the methodology is one of the key issues, as my hon. Friend rightly points out. It might be that other problems are pointed out, which would make it impossible to continue, but we have to give the people involved the chance to carry out and test what happens. As Opposition Members have said, we will not have the data that we need to move on unless we try to do what the ISG findings point towards: using the hard boundaries, using the wider area and getting on and doing it.

I have heard some hon. Members say that the coalition Government have cut spending on vaccination. Actually, since 1994, just over £40 million has been invested; over the next four years, the Government are planning to invest over £15 million. That means an acceleration of the effort towards vaccination. We still have problems with the tests. It is possible that the DIVA test will get us where we want to be, but we are still not there yet. The practicality of vaccination is another issue. We have talked about the practicality of a cull, but there are huge problems around vaccination.

We would all like to get to a state where it is not necessary to carry out intervention of this sort in wildlife. We would all like farmers and others concerned about animal welfare issues to unite around something—but we are not yet there. Effectively, we are saying, “Let’s do nothing.”

On biosecurity measures, the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), who, as she said, has looked a great deal at food policy, painted a bit of a picture of farmers who were completely lackadaisical and not at all interested in biosecurity. It is in their interests to be interested in biosecurity, as they are the ones who suffer in their businesses from restrictions and all the other problems that we have now. Of course they are taking the issue seriously. The one or two of them who are not will be rejected by the rest of the industry, which is absolutely committed to delivering on the further restrictions that the Government are introducing.

To say that the cull is an easy option and that farmers are going to hang up on biosecurity, forget all about it and just get on with killing badgers is absolute nonsense. I do not want to over-characterise what the hon. Lady said, but the gist was that farmers do not care. Of course, the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) was quite scathing in what he had to say.

I am running out of time. To Members who think that those of us with rural constituencies are doing this because we are after votes, I should like to say that we are not. Huge numbers of people even in my own constituency where bovine TB is a problem have told me that they are worried about a cull of badgers. We are doing this and supporting it because it is the only game in town at the moment—it is the only thing that we can possibly do to bear down on this problem. If we fail, we will deserve to be roundly criticised.

Water Industry (Financial Assistance) Bill

Debate between Andrew George and Dan Rogerson

Wednesday 14th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Dan Rogerson]

The hon. Lady is referring to the money identified for the south-west, and the worry that it might, to use a watery phrase, be diluted and spread out across the country. I suspect that that could potentially happen, but I know that the coalition Government are absolutely committed to seeing this provision through for the people of Devon and Cornwall. Who knows what might happen under a future Government? I hope that they would take the plight of our water bill payers equally seriously and continue that level of support. The hon. Lady makes an interesting point.

As I understand it, the amendment seeks to ensure that if a Government wished to offer such support to further areas, a statutory instrument would have to be tabled and debated. I find it hard to believe that any Government would consider doing such a thing without a debate not only in this place but out in the country at large and, I am sure, a debate in the Treasury too, which would have to be conducted publicly as well as privately. I know that that has been the case with the programme we now have for Devon and Cornwall. Although I accept the logic of what the hon. Member for Luton South said, I will wait to hear what the Minister has to say in reply before I decide what approach to take. Naturally, I want to support the Government—as I would on every occasion, but particularly as regards the provisions in this Bill.

The new clause concerns social tariffs and the next steps that we might want to take to help people who are under water stress, which, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, will still be a significant problem for people in the south-west after the support set out in the Bill is delivered. Of course, water stress is also a worsening problem in other parts of the country.

I am delighted to see that the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) is in her place. On Second Reading, when we debated this subject, I intervened on her and made the point that any social tariff within a water company area presents problems as well as opportunities. If there is to be a social tariff at a significant level for those experiencing the worst problems in an area such as the south-west, despite the fact that many people will benefit we must be aware that within an area with a small population, a huge amount of the funding for the tariff will be provided by people just above the qualification threshold. I am very worried that in-region social tariffs will be unable to deal with the problem. When the hon. Lady set out where she would like the Bill to be improved, she said that she would do something about national water tariffs. It is a shame that we do not have such a provision and Devon and Cornwall MPs have put the matter before the Government. I understand that there are issues with the Treasury’s response, as that might be regarded as a tax, but we must consider how we can address that situation.

I do not see how a league table will help, however. Indeed, it might mean that water companies were under pressure to introduce the tables in such a way that it might disadvantage those people about whom I was talking—those just above the threshold who will not benefit from the tariff but whose water bills will increase to pay for their hard-pressed neighbours.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

My hon. Friend is making a very good point. At the risk of delaying the process of the Bill through the further elaboration on the amendments, does my hon. Friend agree that the best way of addressing the issue would be to seek the assurance of the Minister that the issue will be addressed in the forthcoming water Bill as quickly as possible after the Queen’s Speech?

[Dan Rogerson]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. The water Bill will be a further opportunity for us to revisit these issues and I welcome the fact that hon. Members across the House are still considering this matter as one that needs further exploration.

Water Bills (South West)

Debate between Andrew George and Dan Rogerson

Wednesday 30th November 2011 Westminster Hall

[Dan Rogerson (North Cornwall) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Mr Crausby, and I am very grateful for the opportunity to cover this particular topic. It will not be for the first time, I must say. Those who have sat in your position over the years have seen many debates secured by Members from our part of the world on this huge issue for our constituents: very high water bills.

We have moved on a little since we last met. I recall being here in March for a debate secured my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr Sanders), at which point we were still looking at how the responses to the Walker review of 2009 would come forward. We now have a concrete response from the coalition Government, about which I am delighted. Politicians are always looking out for our constituents, so there are one or two things I want to ask the Minister later, particularly about social tariffs and WaterSure, but I would like to start off the debate by congratulating the Department and the Minister’s colleagues across Government for the contributions they have made.

It bears repeating why we are in this situation and what the experience of our constituents has been in Devon, Cornwall and the west of Somerset and Dorset over the past couple of decades since privatisation. At the time of privatisation, there was an aspiration on the part of the Conservative Government to see private investment coming in to develop infrastructure that had been neglected. There is no doubt that it had been neglected for decades, but there was huge concern at the time from those who could not see how competition could work in a sector where there was one main supplier and one main company dealing with waste. That has been an issue, in that no sort of market emerged, unlike in other privatised industries.

The key question for us in the South West Water area was one of infrastructure. The company was able to do a huge amount, both to deal with the environmental legacy that it was left and to meet the requirements set by the Government and the European Union. We welcome that, of course. Organisations such as Surfers Against Sewage, which has been around and done fantastic environmental work over the years, were at the forefront of holding Government and industry to account to deliver on their commitments and obligations. While we have seen progress, investment can only be secured against an income stream. The company had to seek that investment—get investment from shareholders and go to the markets for money—on the basis of an income stream.

In Cornwall and south-west England, we have seen a huge legacy of environmental works that need to be carried out, to a far greater degree than any other part of the country. I refer to the fact that the population of Cornwall accounts for 3% of the population of England, but we have 30% of the coastline. That is an easy way to illustrate the scale of the problem; we have a large amount of work to do, but a relatively small population to pay for it, despite the fact that the coastline is a national treasure, if you like. It is enjoyed by people from across the country who come to take advantage of it. We have the south-west coast path and all sorts of attractions for people to come to enjoy the beaches and countryside of Cornwall and Devon, but we have not had a way to capture a contribution from those people towards the maintenance of infrastructure. It falls to people living closer to that national asset to pay for the whole lot.

There has been some concern in the press recently about the policy of contribution outlined in the Budget and referred to in the autumn statement, and the money set aside to help in this regard. There was an article in The Times last week, in which there were rumblings from other parts of the country about how unfair this was. I do not think that that unfairness exists; this is a much fairer solution to a problem that people in my constituency and those neighbouring it have experienced for a couple of decades. There is still, however, a lack of understanding. We have perhaps not made a big enough effort at national level to get across to those who are concerned in other parts of the country just why there is a desperate need.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

First, I congratulate my hon. Friend on having secured this important debate. I would like to congratulate the Government and welcome the announcement in the autumn statement yesterday, although I have to say that it was a 20-year ask. My hon. Friend referred to WaterSure and the social tariff. Does he agree that the statement yesterday does not mean that we should not also make a strong case for an equitable outcome with regard to the future statement on WaterSure and the social tariff when the water White Paper comes out next week?

[Dan Rogerson]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Earlier, I hinted that I would return to that, and of course he understands that further questions remain, which, if settled fairly and equitably, could ensure that the contribution set aside in the Budget has the maximum impact, and that none of its benefits are lost through unintended consequences with regard to tariff schemes.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Debate between Andrew George and Dan Rogerson

Monday 1st November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan), who makes a case for which I have a great deal of sympathy. I should like to express the great frustration of hon. Members representing Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly that we have not had an opportunity to advance the voice of, and the case for, Cornwall in debates on a Bill that will have a significant impact on Cornwall and its future. We should really have had such an opportunity before but, because of the arcane way in which we still manage our business in the House, we are left with the clock ticking away, and with very little time to make our case. As my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso) said earlier, this is a clash between two principles. The first is that of equalisation, and no one could properly argue against that. However, we must also consider the important principle of respecting tradition, history and geography.

I draw attention to my amendments 196 and 4. One deals with the principle of discretion for the Boundary Commission to apply not just to Cornwall, but to other places, too. Sometimes people are not aware of the potential consequences that flow from their own community, their own identity and their own place. It is important to have an amendment that provides the Boundary Commission with a great deal more discretion. The other amendment deals with the historic and essential boundary of Cornwall, the integrity of which must be respected and protected.

[Dan Rogerson (North Cornwall) (LD)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his contribution and on his amendments, to which I have appended my name. On the principle of allowing areas to opt out of the system, it is important to note the ability to opt to be under-represented. Accusations have been made that the provisions are about areas seeking to be over-represented in order to get away from the general principle of equalisation. In fact, the Liberal Democrat amendment says precisely the opposite—that the boundary may be so important in a particular area that the people in it can signal that they wish to be under-represented, as it were.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Debate between Andrew George and Dan Rogerson

Tuesday 19th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Andrew George]

I would be straying beyond the limits of this debate if I discussed compulsion in registration, but it could perhaps be debated in relation to other parts of the Bill.

As well as the groups in the community that the independent Electoral Commission found were under-represented, my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson) and I, and many other hon. Members—the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) referred to this—represent parts of the country where there are large numbers of second homes. Those part-time residents often like to ensure that they are on the electoral register. Given the relative weight of the significance and marginality of the two, or possibly three or more, seats in which they have their votes, one suspects that in some cases—of course, this should not happen—they might decide where they might most effectively cast that vote, if indeed they cast it only once. There are questions about whether they should register to vote in the first place, which of course they are entitled to do for local authority elections. Strictly speaking, they should not cast a vote in the general election because they are not in their primary residence.

[Dan Rogerson]

My hon. Friend has a long record of pointing out anomalies with regard to second homes, and he knows that I had a meeting about that last week with the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), who is not in his place. It is felt keenly in my constituency by people who stood in local authority elections—independents as well as party members—that second home ownership in an area can be influential in determining results. If someone is not normally resident in a place, they should not be on the register there. The problem is that local authority officers may not have had the point reinforced to them that they have the power to prevent people from getting on the register if they cannot prove that they are normally resident in the area. It is not about whether they own a property there.

Academies Bill [Lords]

Debate between Andrew George and Dan Rogerson

Monday 26th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Dan Rogerson]

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point, and I am sure the Minister will want to respond to it in respect of how the funding agreement will work as the academies come into being. However, the hon. Gentleman said earlier that he thinks that academies are a good thing and that if Labour had continued in government, they would have increased in number. [Interruption.] Well, the issue of variance that has arisen between the Government’s proposal and that of the hon. Gentleman is how the academies come into being. Until now they have undoubtedly had an effect on their local area, but there is an issue of critical mass, as many Opposition Members have said: there must be a tipping point at which there is a sufficient number of academies to have a particular effect on the local authority. That would have happened under the hon. Gentleman’s vision for expanding the number of academies as well as under the Government’s, so that is a separate question; it is a question about how many academies we have and what effect they have collectively.

I was tempted to rise and respond to the question of whether the model under discussion is the same as that which the Liberal Democrats have advocated throughout history. It is not of course, but real progress has been made in that the Government have now introduced a Bill that includes a provision to allay a lot of the concerns that many of us have raised, but which also opens a way for communities that feel they want to go in this direction.

I am concerned that scare stories are being told that everybody will want to go for this in a big rush, but I do not think that will be the case. I think that many governing bodies, schools and groups will want to—[Interruption.] Well, the Secretary of State has talked about the huge amount of interest in this programme and I am sure that that is true, but I think that many people will want to see what happens and how things develop before deciding whether to take advantage of the provisions.

[Andrew George]

My hon. Friend has said that his concerns have been allayed. He will have heard my intervention on the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) in respect of the impact of these proposals on the admissions policies of each of the academies and what will happen when parents are unable to find a place in their local school which happens to be an academy—from whom they can seek redress in those circumstances if they have a justifiable reason to take the matter a stage further. I wonder how my hon. Friend might allay my concerns, given that his concerns in respect of the admissions policy have been allayed. This point is particularly important if we bear in mind the fact that the first academies are likely to be the outstanding schools—those that all pupils would wish to go to.

[Dan Rogerson]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. He has intervened on both the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) and me, and he will no doubt want to raise his question with the Minister when he responds—indeed, the Minister may well wish to do address it in any case. When talking about fears being allayed, the particular point I was addressing was to do with community cohesion, which is very important. It is about the way in which the existing maintained schools, the new academies that have transferred over and other new school provision that is offered will interact and relate to the surrounding community. There has been a bit of progress on that, which I welcome.

On the tempting invitation from the hon. Member for Hartlepool to support the Labour amendment, I must say that their conversion comes a little late on some of these issues. As my party colleagues, my hon. Friends the Members for St Ives (Andrew George) and for Redcar (Ian Swales), have already said in this brief debate, in respect of how the relationships emerge most of the provisions were in existence and operation under the previous academies programme. I do not think there is any huge difference therefore. The only difference is that this is someone else’s academy programme, not that of the hon. Gentleman.

[Mr Gibb]

Amendment 79 would require the Secretary of State to consult all those listed in the amendment before making an academy order in respect of a maintained school. As I have mentioned a number of times, clause 5 already requires the governing body of a maintained school wishing to convert to academy status to consult on its proposals. That provision was included in the Bill in response to concerns raised in the other place and in order to demonstrate the importance that this Government attach to consultation. I believe, therefore, that it is unnecessary and inappropriate, not to mention impractical, for the Secretary of State to consult on those same proposals. It should be the school’s decision to become an academy, except in those cases where the school is eligible for intervention. It is our aim to reduce any unnecessary bureaucracy surrounding the academy conversion process, and I believe that potentially duplicating consultation would fall into that category.

We have made it very clear that we believe that schools are in the best position to determine how best consultation should take place. That includes deciding who should be consulted, although some guidance is provided on the website as to who is consulted, and when and how that should be done. We do not intend to provide an inflexible checklist, such as that proposed in this amendment, which would not, in itself, ensure that consultation was any more meaningful.

New clause 7 would mean that before a school makes an application for an academy order or an academy arrangement with an additional school, a local authority must be asked to assess the impact of academy status on admissions, on funding between all publicly funded schools and on social cohesion in the local authority area where the school is situated. It would also mean that before making an academy order or an academy arrangement with an additional school, the Secretary of State would be required to have regard to the impact assessment.

Clause 9 requires the Secretary of State, when deciding whether to enter into academy arrangements with an additional school—an entirely new or “free” school—to take into account the impact of such a school on the existing schools and colleges in the area. We believe that requiring the local authority to consider the impact of an additional school as well is unnecessary and will simply result, again, in the duplication of work. The clause does not include provisions for the Secretary of State to assess the impact of schools that convert into academies. We are clear that schools should convert “as is”; in most cases, it will be the same head, the same staff, the same parents and the same children in the school, but with additional freedoms to innovate and raise standards. Furthermore, the requirement for converting schools to consult means that those other schools in the area may have the chance to make representations on the proposed conversion. Where schools convert “as is” we do not believe, therefore, that the nature of the change is such that there is any need for an impact assessment.

Housing policy

Debate between Andrew George and Dan Rogerson

Tuesday 8th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

I am particularly pleased to have secured this evening’s Adjournment debate, as it is on a very important aspect of Government policy that I now know needs to be developed. There were a number of welcome statements in the coalition agreement about the abolition of regional spatial strategies, shared equity accommodation, and the removal of garden grabbing from the planning system.

In my part of the world, the most important issue facing local communities is the lack of affordable housing for local people. It has bedevilled the area for decades but, if anything, the situation has become significantly worse in the last decade. We know that the planning system is fuelled primarily by greed rather than need: in those circumstances, it is difficult to design a system that enables need to be met, and I am particularly pleased to see that the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Andrew Stunell), is here to respond to this important debate.

In the short time available to me, I intend to develop a number of issues, and I have a number of questions about what will happen with the supply side. The Government are to abolish the regional spatial strategies and the housing targets that go with them, so what role will development control play in meeting affordable housing need after that abolition?

With regard to planning policy statement 3, I believe that there will be an increasing number of questions about the integrity of exception sites and about maintaining that integrity, especially in rural areas. In addition, I know that my hon. Friend the Minister will be keen to respond to what I believe is widespread concern about how some elected members of planning committees are finding themselves at risk of predetermination in the consideration process.

Other supply-side questions have to do with the management and regulation of the private rented sector, its relationship with the housing benefits system, and whether there should be formal regulation of landlords and letting agents. On the demand side, I particularly want to probe the Government’s approach to the control of second homes—something that has a significant impact on communities in my constituency and many other areas around the country. I also want to discuss the Government’s attitude to property taxation, given the earlier announcement of the extension of capital gains tax and the impact that that is likely to have on the private rented sector in particular.

On the abolition of regional spatial strategies, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government has embellished the previous coalition agreement statement with his own statement. On 3 June, he said that

“the new Government has announced it will abolish Labour’s unelected Regional Assemblies, top-down building targets and unwanted Regional Spatial Strategies.”

In my part of the world, the housing stock has more than doubled in the last 40 years. In fact, the area is one of the fastest growing places in the UK, yet the housing needs of local people have got dramatically worse over that period. The previous Government’s approach of adding another 70,000 houses in a place like Cornwall, which is what they proposed in the regional spatial strategy over 16 years—as if somehow, by magic, that would address the housing needs of local communities—is disproved by the way the market has operated in the past 40 years. We need a much more sophisticated approach if we are to address the deep-seated, endemic and serious housing problems in such a place as Cornwall. Simply turning it into a developers’ paradise is not the answer.

The Secretary of State went on in his letter:

“In contrast to Labour’s regime of targets, we will be seeking to introduce new incentives to reward councils which build more homes and support local business growth.”

The question really is how the Government intend to do that. If fewer private market houses are to be heaped in where it is not helpful in places like Cornwall, which I would welcome, does that mean that the Government will introduce a system driven more by need than demand? If that is the case, would the outcome be that in places like Cornwall a higher proportion of any new development would be affordable housing to meet local housing need than was originally the case in the previous Government’s regional spatial strategy?

On the wider implications of development control in meeting the need for affordable housing, sometimes the best way of meeting local housing need is to have strict control on housing development, although that sounds counter-intuitive, especially in rural areas such as Cornwall. Then one can apply the exceptions approach not only in rural areas but perhaps in others. Often the value of the land is determined by the planning process and what that land can be used for. That determines ultimately whether we can achieve the ultimate goal of developing affordable housing.

The role of the intermediate market is developed in the coalition agreement. Shared ownership accommodation is encouraged, which is something that I warmly welcome. That is encouraging. The coalition agreement says that we will

“promote shared ownership schemes and help social tenants … own or part-own their own home”,

but how will we do that? There is a serious lack of mortgage finance to develop a meaningful intermediate market. In places like Cornwall it is vital that we create a new rung on the housing ladder for people at the very bottom who cannot make the enormous jump on to the first rung of the private market.

[Dan Rogerson (North Cornwall) (LD)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way and congratulate him on obtaining this debate so early in the new Parliament. In talking about definitions and the Government’s policy, does he agree that “affordable” housing can sometimes be used by developers to provide housing for sale that is still very much unaffordable to local people? It is discounted when compared to the full market price, but really socially rented accommodation would do the most to bite into that need in our communities.

[Andrew George]

My hon. Friend is right to suggest that we need a lot more social rented accommodation, but much of the pressure on that accommodation is from people who might otherwise get on to the intermediate rung of the housing ladder. I am keen that we should develop that. The problem is the lack of mortgage finance. Only three lenders are currently lending, and in order to get schemes to go ahead it is necessary to have all three lenders on a site. With that, of course, comes significant pressure for relaxation of the section 106 agreements, which often go alongside such developments.

Before I was elected I was a rural housing enabler before such things were properly invented. I was involved in many of the kind of developments that have taken place since the early 1990s as a result of what was then PPG3 and is now PPS3. We found exception sites. What I found then, and has been found since that time, is that it is easier to find exception sites where the development value is significantly less than £10,000 a plot. People were finding it a great deal cheaper than that in the early 1990s. Such sites could be taken forward in an environment in which the integrity of the planning system was maintained. Otherwise, the hope value on all those sites will be lost.

Rural exception sites—also known as departure sites—are sites beyond or close to defined settlements. Exception sites are acceptable for the provision of 100% affordable housing but not for the provision of open market housing. Often such schemes consist of fewer than 20 houses—more often than not, far fewer. It is very important indeed, , as PPS3 states, that:

“Rural exception sites should only be used for affordable housing in perpetuity.”

The problem is that there is pressure from some local authorities to weaken, or lessen, the pressure on that. I therefore urge my hon. Friend the Minister to ensure that the integrity of the exceptions approach in PPS3 is retained. That has been supported—I spoke to Matthew Taylor before he produced his report last year—by the Taylor review, the Affordable Rural Housing Commission, the rural housing trusts and all the housing charities that work in this field. It is vital that such sites provide affordable housing in perpetuity 100%. There is a risk that we might lose that.

I mentioned predetermination; I shall be interested to hear what the Minister says on that. There is concern among many elected members; they feel unable to campaign on the issue before they are elected, in case, once they have expressed a view about the way in which their local community might or should develop, it would restrict what they might be permitted to do on a planning committee. A statement on that would therefore be particularly helpful.

I mentioned housing benefit. In areas such as mine, where a large proportion of the local community live on the very margins of economic survival, because of the very high private rents those people often depend on the housing benefit system whether they are in or out of work. The problem is that the system as it operates at the moment still results in the withdrawal of housing benefit at the rate of about 85p in the pound earned for people in that situation. If that is the case, clearly there are a lot of people, particularly in areas such as mine, who are going in and out of work who suffer from that mechanism and a housing benefit system that does not take fully into account the difficulties of living at that level. As a result, a lot of people living in my part of the world, and many other places, are living in awful accommodation, which certainly does not meet national standards, and are often paying very high rents indeed.

In my area there are some excellent private landlords and the private rented sector is run extremely well, but of course there are some who do not run it as well as perhaps they should. For example, one family that I was seeking to help earlier this year during the very cold winter, who were living in a one-bedroom flat up some stairs and had a one-year-old baby boy—the mother had epilepsy—found themselves in and out of both accommodation and the working environment and were unable to maintain the housing benefit at rental levels. They found themselves under a great deal of pressure from their letting agent at the time. I will quote from a letter that the letting agent, Antony Richards Property Services, sent to my constituents, a Mr Shaun Burden and Ms Rosemary Jarmain, who were living in Morrab road at the time. They have since been housed by the council in accommodation in Newlyn.

The letting agent wrote:

“In the absence of any rent forthcoming and your apparent refusal to help yourselves by providing the information…we are left with no alternative but to seek to enforce the possession notice served last year…the Council will deem you as intentionally homeless and are highly unlikely to offer you accommodation. You will then be homeless.

The choice is yours.

I am told the streets are cold at night.”

Such treatment of local families in a desperate situation is not acceptable.

Adverts for Homechoice in Cornwall have shown that this week, of the 42 properties available, 14 are one-bed, 21 are two-bed, six are three-bed and one is four-bed. In Cornwall, there is a serious shortage of family accommodation—three and four-bed accommodation.