Planning (Community Right of Appeal)

Debate between Andrew Smith and Anne Marie Morris

Tuesday 20th January 2015 Westminster Hall

[Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Streeter. This debate is about the potential for changing the planning system to give communities a genuine stake in the planning process. My proposal is to introduce a community right of appeal.

The Government rightly recognised when they came to office that there was a significant housing problem, and that one of the challenges was unburdening the planning system of bureaucratic processes so that the houses we so badly need could be developed. The Government said that while liberating planning processes to make them easier, they would give communities a greater say in what happens in those communities and in planning decisions.

However, the reality was that the changes in the planning system and in communities’ rights did not move at the same pace, although the legislation was passed pretty much in parallel. The benefits of the community legislation—the Localism Act 2011—inevitably lagged, because neighbourhood plans, the last stage of the planning process, could not be put in place until local plans were in place. Although there was some grey debate about whether they could precede local plans, in reality, neighbourhood plans must conform with a local plan, so one had to follow the other. Clearly, they will give communities great benefit, as they bring community infrastructure levy benefits, but they are late.

There were many other provisions in the Localism Act 2011: for example, communities’ ability to identify community assets, which could therefore be considered for preservation for community use, and a further provision enabling them to be acquired. The problem is that many such community assets are owned by local authorities, which decide whether or not an asset can be listed, giving them an inevitable conflict of interest.

Likewise, although the potential sale option was not intended to give communities a particular financial advantage to give them time, the reality is that it will not help communities acquire time, because if the local authority owns the asset in question, all it has to do is wait for the months to expire and then sell to a developer who will give a better price. I have some concerned constituents in Shaldon and Kingsteignton who have suffered as a result of those deficiencies in the legislation.

Meanwhile, the planning side of the balance—the national policy planning framework and local plans—moved ahead apace. The Minister wrote to me recently to advise me that 80% of all planning authorities now have local plans in place. That is much to his credit, but the problem is that during that tortuous three to four-year process, developers have been able to develop without communities feeling that they have a real say. Clearly there are provisions for consultation, but that is not quite the same thing. Communities feel that they are in no better position now than in the old days, when parish councils used to be consulted and then, they felt, roundly ignored. As I am sure the Minister will tell me, where communities are agreed, there is the option of judicial review, but the problem is that it is an expensive process that few communities can afford.

I will give some examples from my constituency of how the process has frustrated constituents and made them feel that they are not being listened to and do not have a voice. As local plans were introduced, the Government indicated that as a plan got closer, more weight would be given to it. In Shutterton, in Dawlish, an application was made for 350 houses. Those houses were not part of the local plan provision, and the council and constituents violently opposed them. None the less, three weeks before the local plan was adopted, the application went through. After our local plan was adopted, the council continued to authorise infill development. Although some infill development is understood and accepted, the amount in this case was substantial.

In other cases, we have found that a number of developers applied for more housing on the site allocated than was in the plan. On other occasions, due to density changes, where a site would not take the designated number of houses, the local authority extended the land on which the development could take place. The result in Dawlish was that instead of the expected 1,200 houses in the area, the community are now facing 2,000. That seems to be a significant mission creep from what was originally intended.

[Mr Andrew Smith (Oxford East) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this important debate. Does she agree that what ought to be at issue is not a question of more or less development but of the quality of planning decisions? Would not the right of appeal for which she advocates correct an asymmetry in the present system, whereby an applicant who thinks that a refusal is contrary to the planning framework can keep appealing to get the decision that they want, whereas a community that thinks an approval is contrary to the planning framework has no right of appeal other than judicial review, which as she says is prohibitively expensive? Therefore, it would empower people to balance things out.

[Anne Marie Morris]

I could not agree more, and I commend the right hon. Gentleman on his comments. The point that he makes entirely supports the point that I am making. It is about creating a balance and fairness in the planning system that do not currently exist.

The final complaint, which it is worth articulating for the Minister, involves the infrastructure challenge. Although stakeholders involved in roads, schools and so on are consulted, some stakeholders who are relevant are not statutory consultees, including the NHS. There is no obligation for the NHS to put forward its views about whether there is an adequate number of GP surgeries and the like. It is probably fair to say that although county councils have a duty and will consider infrastructure issues carefully, if one looks at how they justify some developments, it is in the hope and expectation of a school that might open in five or 10 years’ time, or a road that might be built if some other development occurs in two or three years’ time. Sometimes, communities feel that that is a bit fanciful. They perceive—I share that perception—that some communities have significant infrastructure issues that seem to have been ignored.

Late Payments (SMEs)

Debate between Andrew Smith and Anne Marie Morris

Wednesday 14th September 2011 Westminster Hall

[Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con)]

This is an excellent debate and very timely. The focus to date has been on the challenge in the public sector, but as the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) explained at the outset, the biggest offenders are in the private sector. They are the large British corporates. My comments will therefore focus on what we might be able to do there.

RSM Tenon examined the figures and found that in the first quarter of 2011, 80% of SMEs were paid late. A lot of evidence has been given about the length of those periods. The points made have referred to 30 days, 60 days and 90 days. What we have not put on the table and should is that some SMEs are waiting six months. That is not in any way acceptable.

To deal with the problem, we need to understand why it exists. This has already been implied, but I think that it is worth putting on the table the fact that one of the main problems is the imbalance of power. The large companies have significant trading power over the smallest, and as the recession has bitten, so all the very small companies are fighting for every contract that comes through the door and do not necessarily think as strategically as they might about whether a contract is a good one or a bad one.

Small businesses could do a couple of things to help themselves. I was interested to learn that a large number of small businesses enter into no form of written contract. The consequence is that they are then dependent on the Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Act 1998. That is excellent legislation, but as has already been expressed, it depends on the willingness to enforce it, because clearly there is a cost to litigation.

I was also surprised by how few small businesses do any form of credit check. According to the Institute of Credit Management, 25% of businesses make no checks at all. If people make those checks, they can be a little more streetwise in terms of how they negotiate the contract and they might think about some form of part-payment in advance.

[Mr Andrew Smith]

On contracts, does the hon. Lady think that there would be merit in exploring the idea of a default contract that automatically applied if one had not explicitly been negotiated and in legislating to that effect?

[Anne Marie Morris]

I think that it is very difficult to imply a contract, because contracts are inevitably quite complex and varied and depend very much on the nature of the business. However, the 1998 Act gives protection. I suspect that in terms of legislative moves, that is probably as far as it is sensible to go.

May I now consider the current solutions? Credit insurance was mentioned. Clearly, that is expensive for the smallest businesses. I spoke yesterday to one of the agencies, which told me that the average cost is 45p for each £100 of turnover. That makes it almost a luxury for the smallest businesses. The other challenge is that those schemes have to some extent been discredited, as they have been withdrawn, sometimes in a rather prompt manner, leaving some of the smallest businesses with particular problems.

However, the schemes do have a place. I am pleased to say that in my own constituency, Westaway Sausages has taken out credit insurance, which has made a huge difference to that business. It suffered a bad debt of £22,000 and now annually pays £10,000 to ensure that the business is protected. It has also considered the trade terms that it enters into and is very diligent in what it does.

With regard to current solutions, we have talked briefly about the prompt payment code. I certainly agree with the comments that we need more corporates to sign up to that. The challenge, of course, is whether they comply when they sign up and, if they do not comply, whether the small businesses that suffer act as whistleblowers. As has been well evidenced in the Chamber, the challenge, given the imbalance of power, is the extent to which those small businesses are willing to do that. Therefore, I am not sure that the answer is necessarily a greater number of people signing up to the code, although I would like that to be encouraged, because I think that it is morally the right thing to do.

The Companies Act 1985, which has been referred to, requires public companies at least to submit payment term details to Companies House and to list on the register their average payback time to SMEs. The problem is that getting all that information into Companies House is a mammoth task, requiring substantially more resource than is currently available. It might be desirable, but I have a suspicion that it might be unaffordable. In a minute, I will make a suggestion that might be equally effective but not as expensive.

Questions have been asked about whether the best way forward is through compulsion or through an additional voluntary code of practice or steps to impress on companies the fact that there is a better way to behave. Compulsion has been tried in California with the public sector, but the experience in Australia and the European Union is that it has not really worked. I suspect that that is partly because of the cost of litigation.

So what about voluntary solutions? What could we do in that respect? Clearly, we could consider a league of shame, which I think was one of the things suggested by the FSB, but at the end of the day, we have to come up with something that will put pressure on and change the attitude of the customers of the offending companies, rather than the suppliers. That is really the challenge.

I have three suggestions. First, I think that local enterprise partnerships have a role. We have asked them, on a region-by-region basis, to consider how they can support private sector growth. I believe that they have a role in providing advice and training for SMEs and that they could well collect information about bad payers. That information could then be shared among SMEs.

Government Skills Strategy

Debate between Andrew Smith and Anne Marie Morris

Wednesday 19th January 2011 Westminster Hall

[Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) on his excellent contribution and the Government on their skills strategy, which is an excellent piece of work. Clearly, if we are to get this country back on its feet, apprenticeships will be key. They will generate private sector jobs, particularly in manufacturing and industry, which will create wealth, so I really welcome this strategy. The fact that we are creating 50,000 new apprenticeships for young people, using, in part, some £50 million from the Train to Gain fund is good news. Moreover, we will put some £605 million into creating 75,000 apprenticeships for adults. That is an area that has not been given the funding or attention that it deserves, so I really appreciate the investment.

My hon. Friend talked about the challenge of creating apprenticeships that are valued, and that goes hand in hand with making manufacturing jobs, or any job that requires the use of one’s hands as well as one’s brain, valued in this community. In Germany, those involved in such industries are well respected, and we must bring that view here. I agree with my hon. Friend that bodies should be created to help build some pride in the idea of being an apprentice. I ask the Minister to think of a way in which we can regenerate some value in the word “technician”. Those of us who have been lucky enough to go to university can call ourselves graduates, which is an incredibly valuable term. It would be good if we could make the word “technician” resonate in the same way.

The Government are looking to raise the baseline for apprenticeships. At the moment, we have NVQ level 2, which is the basic apprenticeship scheme, NVQ level 3, which is the advanced apprenticeship scheme and NVQ level 4, which is the higher apprenticeship scheme. The Government plan to make the advanced level the new baseline, which is an excellent idea. That will help people to aspire to something higher and enable employers to see how much we value the scheme.

Research has shown that those who take on apprenticeships do better economically than those who do not. An advanced apprentice is likely to earn £105,000 more over a lifetime than a colleague with a lower qualification, so there is a definite win for the individual who makes that investment.

The hon. Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson) talked about some apprentices starting courses and not completing them. I am heartened to find that the apprentice success rate is on the increase. The latest figures that I have seen put the success rate at 70.9%, which, in the grand scheme of things, is not bad at all. In my constituency of Newton Abbot, we have a history of manufacturing. Originally, Newton Abbot was at the heart of the railway industry. When that fell away in the 1950s, a number of individuals were taken on at Centrax, which has been the hub of engineering and manufacturing in my constituency. I am pleased to say that the organisation has attracted a number of other businesses to the area. Getting apprenticeships working well in the area should help more engineering businesses—some of them will be very small—to establish and develop in the area.

[Mr Andrew Smith]

I am following the hon. Lady’s remarks with interest. She referred earlier to the shift of more apprenticeships to the higher levels. Has she seen the Association of Colleges briefing for this debate, which points out that such a shift is not as simple as it might appear, because the time commitment and the cost increase for both the apprentice and the employer? Moreover, it found that there was less demand from employers for apprenticeships at the higher level. Does that not reinforce the point that I made earlier that there must be a thorough dialogue and engagement with employers, with incentives where appropriate, to ensure that they take advantage of the scope to expand the higher level apprenticeships?

[Anne Marie Morris]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a good point. It is crucial that we get employers as engaged in the process as the potential apprentices. A private sector vocational organisation in my constituency is an excellent example of that. Before finding the apprentices, it makes contact with local businesses to explain the opportunities offered by the scheme and to create those apprenticeships. That sort of proactive approach is invaluable. The more of that we can do, the better off we will be.

The real value of the apprenticeship scheme is that it will give young people an alternative. Not everyone is suited to an academic career. Many NEETs in our society feel that there is no real alternative. Nationally, we have more than 1 million NEETs, which is far too high. In Devon, within which my constituency sits, there are 1,190 NEETs between the ages of 16 and 18 —5.7% of the youngsters—which is a huge waste. Research shows that the cost to the taxpayer is substantial—around £97,000 over a lifetime. Some people put the cost as high as £300,000 because of the associated benefits, which is a huge price to pay both financially and socially. Therefore, this must be the right way forward.

To get the apprenticeship programme working well, we must look at the linked-in skills training that is on offer and establish the link between training colleges and sixth forms. Will the Minister tell us what sort of grant might be available to those skills colleges, because, at the moment, that is an area that lacks clarity? A number of training organisations and colleges in my constituency have questioned me on the matter. They ask what the picture will be when the Train to Gain programme slowly begins to evaporate. They are particularly concerned that grants will be as available to the smaller organisations as they are to the larger organisations. I am interested to hear the Minister’s thoughts on that particular front.

As I have said, it is important to get employers to play their part and to incentivise them, as the college I referred to earlier is doing. We want our colleges literally to go out on the streets and find those young people. I have been very impressed by South Devon college, which does just that. There are parts of Newton Abbot where young people with no education, training or job congregate. Individuals go to those places to talk to young people about what might be possible. That is absolutely the right way forward, and I welcome it.