Middle Level Bill

Debate between Kevin Foster and Lord Jackson of Peterborough

2nd reading: House of Commons
Wednesday 29th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Foster]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention; I could not have put it better myself.

Why do we need a Bill? As many hon. Members know, I regularly make the point on Fridays that legislating is not something to do for the fun of it or a unique form of parliamentary sport. For a Bill to be worthy of parliamentary time, there must be a clear need for it. This private Bill is being promoted by the Middle Level Commissioners, a statutory corporation constituted under the Middle Level Act 1862. The commissioners provide flood defence and water level management to the Middle Level area, and they are the navigation authority for the Middle Level river system. The legal framework that governs the commissioners’ navigation function is made up of several 18th and 19th-century Acts that regulate the use of these waterways, which were mainly laid out in the 17th century.

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

May I, through you, Madam Deputy Speaker, offer my sincerest apologies for my lateness? I was detained coming into the Palace.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the area covered by the Middle Level Commissioners is not strictly analogous to that of other navigation authorities, in that the Middle Level area consists essentially of interconnected drainage basins rather than stand-alone, bespoke rivers and canals?

[Kevin Foster]

My hon. Friend shows his exceptional knowledge of his constituency and the assets that support it. He is right. Fundamentally, as I will come on to say when I talk about the regulatory framework, the waterways in question were built as a drainage system, but they have gone on to be used by pleasure boats and other vessels. One of the reasons why the Bill is necessary is because some of the uses were not envisaged at the time of the 1862 Act. Clearly motorboats did not exist at the time, and the concept of canal usage was very different.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Foster]

I will make some more progress and then I will be only too happy to give way again.

The regulation of these waterways, which were mainly laid out in the 17th century, is considerably out of date and does not align with modern requirements or the statutory framework applicable to other navigation authorities, including neighbouring ones. In particular, the current legal framework that governs the commissioners does not include adequate provision for the registration of vessels using the waterways or the levying of charges for the use of the waterways and associated facilities. In my briefings with the promoters, it was remarked that the framework means that the exemptions are for pleasure craft and those transporting manure. As a result, the commissioners currently do not receive any income from the navigation of the waterways, so money raised through drainage rates and levies has to be used to fund navigation, rather than flood defences. In the financial year ending on 31 March 2016, this amounted to £178,929.06 of unfunded expenditure. The commissioners are therefore seeking to update and clarify their powers to enable them to regulate and fund their waterways properly.

The powers sought are similar to those already used by other large inland navigation authorities, such as the Canal & River Trust, the Environment Agency and the Broads Authority. In essence, the future maintenance and management of the waterway will be funded in a similar way to others, not based on one set of users, and those who benefit can be asked to contribute.

Why do we have a private Bill? The commissioners originally proposed to update their governing legislation in the 2000s using a Transport and Works Act order. They approached the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, which rightly considered that the introduction of the proposed registration and charging schemes would be outside the powers of a TWAO, so the proposals did not proceed any further. Having consulted on updated proposals, the commissioners approached DEFRA again last year, but in October 2016, the Department confirmed that its position had not changed and that a TWAO could not be used. Its reasoning was that a TWAO could not be used to impose charges on navigation governed by primary legislation that does not itself contain charging provisions, as is the case for Middle Level navigation. It was therefore suggested that the commissioners should pursue a private Bill to update their powers.

I am sure that Members will agree that this is the right approach. It is welcome that we can debate these important subjects in our consideration of the Bill. Although this is the first opportunity for a wider debate in the House on this matter, the proposals will not come as a surprise to those who might be affected, as there has already been a wider consultation.

[Mr Jackson]

My hon. Friend is making a very good speech. May I put it to him that, at first sight, the Bill is an attempt to regularise the Middle Level vis-à-vis legislation for other navigation authorities, but what is missing from it—this might be different with secondary legislation—is any commensurate commitment to upgrade facilities that are similar to those of other navigation authorities? That is the Achilles heel of the Bill, and it is where it might need to be looked at again by this House or the other place.

Protection of Family Homes (Enforcement and Permitted Development) Bill

Debate between Kevin Foster and Lord Jackson of Peterborough

Friday 28th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to be called to speak in this debate, and not least to follow the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe). I believe that he secured this Bill by joining us for the sleep-out a few months ago. We had a slightly uncomfortable but very successful evening, in which we spent about eight hours on the floor upstairs outside the Public Bill Office.

I welcome the fact that we are debating what we should do about family homes. In Torbay, Victorian villas that were once fairly substantial properties are now being converted, with mixed success, either into homes explicitly in multiple occupation or, as the hon. Gentleman alluded to, into homes in which a suspiciously large number of people live, which were designed to avoid the HMO regulations. That is especially common in places where the local authority is trying to restrict the number of HMOs.

In Morgan Avenue in my constituency, residents are concerned about one property—it would be unfair to name it on the Floor of the House—which may be being used as an HMO even though permission to convert it into one has been turned down. Even if that property is not being used as such, a large number of properties in the area have undergone conversions, which have not necessarily been sympathetic. That has put pressure on local services and removed desperately needed three and four-bedroom family accommodation, particularly in areas where the local services nearby are very useful for those who do not have a car.

I am glad that we are having this debate. When I think back to my time as deputy leader of Coventry City Council, when the Minister and I knew each other rather well, we faced a dilemma over how to enforce the rules and how to justify tying up a planning officer for a significant period. That would be fine if we were dealing with a very large enforcement case, but we had to decide which ones came first and how to reach the required evidential standards. I hope that the Bill will give the Government an opportunity to look at the rules. I suspect that the Bill will not make a huge amount of progress beyond today, but it provides a useful chance to look again at how we deal with developers who seek to turn family homes into HMOs.

I was interested to read in the Bill the suggestions around sanctions and creating codes of practice in the next six months. Even though the Bill may not reach the statute book, perhaps the Minister could reflect on those things in his response—[Interruption.] I hear heckling from the shadow Front-Bench team. I am happy to keep going, because I presume that they would like to hear more of my comments. I will not be cruel, however; I will make sure that the Front Benchers have time to respond to the Bill. I can see the clock.

I am keen that future development in Torbay should be appropriate and provide family homes, and that those homes should be protected. In our debate on the previous Bill, we talked about getting people off the streets, and the hon. Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham) pointed out that we have to ensure that there is good accommodation for those people to go into. If their housing offer is a room at the back end of a Victorian villa with perhaps a bathroom or a very small bedroom off it, they will end up doing their washing, cooking and sleeping all in the same room, and it will be only one step up from a hostel. I find it particularly difficult when families approach me, as so many do, because they are struggling to find accommodation that meets their needs, especially if they have a child or a family member with disabilities. They need a particular type of house—probably a family home with a garden—but if such houses can easily be converted to different uses, the situation is made much harder.

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Bill has evident merits but should be seen within the context of other action by local authorities to regenerate city centres using permitted development rights and the appropriate use of selective licensing schemes, particularly in urban areas?

[Kevin Foster]

My hon. Friend makes a useful and interesting observation. I agree with him on selective licensing schemes in areas where there have been issues with rogue landlords. The active residents group in Melville Hill, Torbay has been campaigning for a selective licensing scheme for some time, and my view has always been that people renting higher-value properties on the edge of town are able to advocate for themselves, but licensing schemes are welcome in areas where there have been problems. The merit of the Bill has to be seen against the whole range of powers available to local authorities, but I accept that its main thrust is to try to make some of those powers more usable on a practical, day-to-day basis. I welcome what is being done.

Finally, permitted development rights make particular sense where a building has been out of action for some time. I ask the Minister to ponder how we ensure that office blocks in significant locations, such as Roebuck House on Abbey Road in Torquay, that are converted from commercial to residential use do not end up being converted into one-bedroom studio flats with few facilities around them, essentially becoming a large house in multiple occupation, rather than being converted into two or three-bedroom properties that might be more needed in the local housing market?

I am conscious of the time, so I will now conclude my speech. I welcome that this issue has been brought to the Floor of the House. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.