Fisheries Policy

Debate between Iain Wright and Peter Aldous

Thursday 3rd December 2015 Westminster Hall

[Mr Wright]

The hon. Lady makes a really important point. This is not an easy matter to solve, and successive Governments have struggled with it, although the Minister has gone some way towards addressing it. The hon. Lady is right that the quota allocation has a value and can be classed as an asset on the balance sheet, so there would need to be some sort of legal compensation if it changed. I fully recognise that it is a complex issue, but I am trying to represent my constituents, who are suffering deeply because the allocation of quota is incredibly unfair.

[Peter Aldous]

The hon. Gentleman is making his point extremely well, and we represent very similar constituencies with the same issue. However, I want to question what he said about quota being an asset on the balance sheet. Lord Justice Cranston, in his judgment in summer 2013, said that fish was a public resource, not an asset for any company to own.

[Mr Wright]

But the producer organisations can often lease quota and put the lease and the future revenue streams on the balance sheet, so, in that regard, quota can be seen as an asset.

What can the Minister say about making sure we fully implement article 17? Despite the complexities and confusions, which I fully recognise, can he do anything to increase the quota for the under-10 metre fleet? Will he commit to ensuring that under-10 metre fleet representatives have a place at the table when decisions are made on fishing at national and EU level?

I started by saying that the fishing industry in Hartlepool is more than 800 years old. It is a tough way to make a living, and it is made tougher by the restrictions and market distortions that are in place. As I said, the arguments I have set out are not new, and I have raised them time and again in fisheries debates. None the less, will the Minister do all he can following this annual debate to ensure that firm and tangible action is taken, and taken now, to ensure that this 800-year-old heritage industry, which, crucially, provides the livelihood of fishermen in Hartlepool, is not lost to history in the next few months or years?

Sale of Park Homes

Debate between Iain Wright and Peter Aldous

Thursday 30th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

May I begin, Madam Deputy Speaker, by apologising to you, to the right hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) and to the House for not being present for most of the debate? I have been in Committee considering the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill and have just hot-footed it from Committee Room 10. I want to pay tribute to the Minister there, the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson), who has allowed me to come here, and to the Labour Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), who is holding the fort at the moment. However, my constituents come first when I am dealing with matters in this place, which is why I wanted to contribute in this debate.

I am pleased that the Backbench Business Committee considered this matter to be worthy of debate. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel) for her work and her strong interest in this matter and to the right hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole for pursuing her case so professionally and with such tenacity.

I wish to make representations on behalf of my constituents who live in Elmtree Park, which is close to the coast at Seaton Carew in my constituency. Comprising 100 park homes, the site caters for people without children who are over the age of 50, and it has a vibrant community life. Indeed, it is a great community, and the people who live on that park are its greatest assets. It is always a pleasure for me to visit the residents, eat their scones, drink their coffee and discuss matters relating to the ownership of their homes.

It is clear, from speaking to the residents of Elmtree Park over many years and from my time as a Department for Communities and Local Government Minister with responsibility for park homes, that the current business model is broken, as it provides far too much power to site owners at the expense of park home owners. Although there are many good site owners who invest for the long term and who want a good and mutually beneficial relationship with residents, far too often the sector sees malpractice, a lack of investment, poor if any maintenance and unscrupulous and often criminal site owners who are content to make a fast buck and fleece residents. Time and again I hear of unfair fees that are opaque and subject to no challenge, poor maintenance of the land, and site owners either making it difficult for home owners to sell their homes or hounding people out so that they can consolidate pitches. Either way, the owners often take a whopping profit when park homes are sold.

During my time as Minister, I was particularly keen to reform the licensing regime to ensure that we incentivised the good park home site owners and punished the bad, to the point of driving them from the industry. I wanted to push the concept of fit and proper persons for site owners so that the sector encouraged responsible owners, good behaviour and good conduct, and to ensure that this responsibility was reinforced through effective regulation. I also wanted to make the fee regime transparent, so that park home owners knew precisely what they were paying for. I also wanted them to have the opportunity to negotiate and discuss the fee with the site owner before it was finalised.

It is the fee regime that most concerns my constituents on Elmtree Park. A balance needs to be struck between allowing site owners to raise enough revenue to maintain the site, provide amenities and produce a reasonable return while, at the same time, protecting residents from unfair costs. As a Minister and a constituency MP, I have always been struck by the lack of consensus on whether the 10% commission on sales should be reduced. Some people see their park homes as homes for life and so would rather see a reduced annual pitch fee than a reduction in the commission on sales; conversely, others would like to ensure that the commission was reduced or even eliminated, maximising their income on any sale.

Despite the lack of consensus, it is clear that too much power lies in the hands of the site owner, at the expense of the park home resident. The current regime allows for site owners to benefit twice from any sale, which is very wrong. It allows them to coerce a park home owner, through fear and intimidation, to sell their home to them for a reduced price—the so-called site blocking. The site owner collects 10% on that sale. He or she can then bundle up sites or sell the home, often at a huge profit. All the upside and none of the risk is with the site owner and that cannot be fair.

[Peter Aldous]

The hon. Gentleman is making a passionate speech with which I wholeheartedly agree. However, does the Mobile Home Act 2013 not provide local authorities and park home owners with the ability to stop those problems?

[Mr Wright]

I understand where the hon. Gentleman is coming from, but my main point is to do with that 10% commission on sales as part of the overall fee regime. With his permission, I will elaborate on that, as it is an incredibly important matter. Forgive me, Madam Deputy Speaker, for not being here at the start of the debate when this issue must have been touched on time and again. I am keen to push the idea that the fee regime should be as transparent as possible.

I want to preserve the unique character of park homes that attracts older owners to want to live there. In many respects, therefore, there is possibly an argument that the site owner should be able to vet potential buyers. However, it cannot be right that the home owner is unable to sell his or her asset, in most cases the biggest asset they have, without first seeking approval from the site owner and then paying 10% for the privilege of doing so. I cannot see how that is fair at all.