Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Steve Barclay and Peter Aldous(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Steve Barclay
The hon. Gentleman’s question merely highlights a fundamental difference between the Front Benchers of the two parties: I want to work with farmers, which is why through SFI—the sustainable farming incentive—we are looking at permissive access, where we pay incentives to farmers to provide access to their land; but Labour would impose a top-down requirement with the right to roam, rather than work constructively with our farmers and landowners, which is the approach that the Conservatives are taking.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
Steve Barclay
I pay tribute to the amazing campaign led by my hon. Friend on behalf of those in his constituency. Already, £80 million of support has been secured from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for that scheme. He will be aware that the local authority has changed the scope and driven the cost, so there is a question as to what contributions are made by partners, but he is a formidable champion of the scheme and £80 million has already been allocated.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Steve Barclay and Peter Aldous(6 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Steve Barclay
My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has set out a whole range of methods to support consumers with the cost of living—[Interruption.] Just as the hon. Lady raises her hands on that, it is also worth remembering that, under the Barnett consequentials, Scotland receives more per head than those consumers in England. So those in Scotland are better able to meet those cost-of-living pressures—[Interruption.] SNP Members do not seem to like the facts, but it is a fact that under Barnett consequentials the funding in Scotland is higher per head that the funding in England, which allows consumers to meet those cost of living pressures and to make those choices, should they so wish.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
Over the past six weeks, the Suffolk and Norfolk coast has taken a real battering. Homes have tragically been lost to the sea, not least in Pakefield in my constituency. Will my right hon. Friend review the support provided to such households and businesses, to ensure that they receive parity of support with those impacted by pluvial and fluvial flooding?
Steve Barclay
As a fellow east of England MP, I know what a fantastic champion my hon. Friend is for his constituents and how rigorously he will ensure that those points are made. He, as an experienced parliamentarian, will also know that many of those fiscal issues are for colleagues within the Treasury, but I am very happy to have discussions with him and to make representations where required.
Sale of Park Homes
Debate between Steve Barclay and Peter Aldous(9 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Peter Aldous
I agree with my right hon. Friend that there is an awful lot of work to be done in the sector. As I complete my remarks, she will see that I do not think that now is the right time to look at this one issue in isolation. The 2013 Act was one of the biggest changes in the sector in 30 years. I think that it needs to bed down and that we should then carry out a full review.
I have learned a great deal about the sector in the past two and a half years. One message that I have very much taken on board is the importance of achieving an equilibrium—a balance whereby park home owners can enjoy a high standard of living, a peaceful environment and quiet enjoyment, while responsible site owners can manage their parks efficiently and properly, and make a reasonable living and a return on their investment. In the feedback that I have received from responsible and good park home owners in my constituency, the concern has been expressed that if the 10% commission were removed, that equilibrium would be lost.
Given that there are fewer opportunities for new developments on sites and that the lifespan of homes is increasing, site owners are very reliant on pitch fees and sale commissions for their income. The majority of their income is derived from pitch fees—the figure of 70% has been mentioned to me—with sales commission providing much of the remainder. In many cases, the income from sales is the difference between profit and loss. I have seen figures to confirm that. Changing the 10% commission rate might therefore lead to some businesses becoming financially non-viable. That could result in cuts being made in the management of parks, with less money being spent on investment in infrastructure such as roadways, footpaths and communal areas. The result could be that parks take on a more run-down, down-at-heel appearance, which would have a negative knock-on effect on the value of the homes.
Stephen Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
My hon. Friend speaks with authority, given his long-term commitment to this matter. However, I take issue with his point on the deterioration of standards. Is not the issue the bundling of costs? As a fellow Conservative, I would have thought that he would be concerned at the bundling of costs into an overall price, which means that the sale price and the 10% commission do not reflect the services that are being offered. The review will deliver greater transparency on what services are being offered, what the price of those services is and what competition might be introduced in respect of those services, so that there is not just an overall 10% figure that may or may not have a bearing on what the park owner is delivering.