| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
3 Nov 2009 : Column 184WH—continued
This crisis has been coming for a long time. It is a crisis with three strands. First, in many of the villages in my constituency, there is quite simply no affordable
housing-that is the reality. We are not talking about the odd unit; they have all gone. I will go on to say what the repercussions are.
Secondly, on the back of that loss of housing we have lost services. That is a key reason why post offices have closed. Government policy has not helped, but the reality is that few people in rural areas either want to use or can use those facilities. Thirdly, there is a lack of social mix in many of our communities now, which is often underrated. It is a very bad thing, because it feeds into the other two factors and is a consequence of them.
To be fair, if the Government accepted the recent report of the Commission for Rural Communities on the issue, it would be a move in the right direction. I know that we have been here before; reports from the Countryside Agency have laid down clearly what the problems are and have come up with solutions. However, let me start from a slightly different perspective from the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale; I put this perspective four-square and I hope that the Government are at long last listening. The reality is that we will not solve the problem until the state takes the lead on housing. We need about 300,000 units a year, but obviously, we are barely building half that number at the moment, because of the recession.
The way that we got to that figure of 300,000 units a year is completely misunderstood. Looking at history, particularly the '60s and '70s, we can see that it was only ever achieved when the state was leading the housing market. It is a myth to pretend that it is a private enterprise-led initiative. Of course, the market has a part to play, but not the leading part.
The Government need to get real and look at how the state drives the process forward, which it can do in a number of ways. Principally, the Government have to put money in. We are beginning to put in some serious money, although it is a bit little and a bit late. Secondly, it is about finding land and about the nature of the provision. I am a complete supporter of local authority housing. I am not a supporter of bad local authority housing, but the local authority has a role to play in the process, because it is trusted and where it does well, it delivers well.
Where are we with regard to rural areas? One of the great successes of the '45 Labour Government was that they actually provided housing in our rural communities-in every community, from memory. Everyone got housing. We provided that row of local authority housing; it did not necessarily have to be provided in a row, but the houses are all there. Of course, they are not owned by local authorities any more; they are not even housing association properties. They have all been sold off over time, and the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale used a very good example when he said that such properties often go for hundreds of thousands of pounds now. That is fine for the people who received the capital benefit, but the next generation have been sold out, because those people can never get into the housing market.
Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD):
I reinforce what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Before I came to this place I was a rural district councillor in a local authority where members of all parties were entirely
united in the view that their priority was to ensure that there was sufficient affordable housing in each village community. That process continued until central Government started to intervene and did not understand the need that councillors of every party were prepared to meet in their own communities.
Mr. Drew: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that point; as always, he is right on the button. Let us not fool ourselves-the right to buy in rural areas has been an unmitigated disaster. It has been an unmitigated disaster as a policy overall, because it has completely skewed the housing market and the effect has been generational. The generation that had the ability to buy and sell on has done very well but, of course, that has been at the cost of future generations. At long last, the Government have made it much more difficult for the right to buy to operate. The trouble is that there are so few properties left that it is a fairly irrelevant change in policy.
The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale is absolutely right; it is no good building houses in the countryside if we do not provide jobs to go alongside them. Again, however, it is a complete myth that there is no work in the countryside. That is what is so annoying. Those of us who live in rural areas know that there is plenty of work there-in the public services, in the care industry and providing the basic core services that we need. There is, of course, also a growing provision and need in rural areas related to crafts industries, because those industries can operate and deliver from anywhere. If we can get broadband to some of our more isolated rural communities, people can work from home.
I hope that the Government, with their new planning policies, recognise that. It is no good having planning policy statements 3 and 7, which look at both housing and sustainable development, if we do not invest in the future of work in the countryside. Of course, that investment is absolutely vital at this stage. I must also say that it would help if we could provide some building jobs in the countryside, because that would of course provide some work. In that regard, we must understand that the big developers will never be able to help us in the countryside. They will only be interested in the larger sites. That is part of the problem. We must disaggregate the way in which the construction industry works.
Lembit Öpik: Regarding employment, I was able to attract a company called Regal Fayre, which is a burger manufacturer, to my area. The problem, however, was that the bank was resistant to lending money to the company. Therefore, does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is an opportunity for a proactive strategy, to get companies that might assume that they should be in an urban environment to invest in a rural environment, with the quality of life, low crime rates and good industrial relations that go with it?
Mr. Drew:
Yes. That point is something that binds my argument. It is also something that I would like to ask my hon. Friend the Minister about, because I would be interested to know how the Government are driving forward rural policy, in terms of employment generation and trying to find innovative solutions, not just in housing but in job creation. That is a real challenge for
the Government. As I said, it would have been helpful if that thought had occurred to them some years ago.
There are some indications, notwithstanding some of the mistakes that have been made in getting rid of rural housing enablers and in not giving enough support to local communities. In a sense, the boot is on the other foot; even if central Government want to do all these things-provide the resources and look for land-it will be no good if the communities themselves are not willing to take on the challenge. That is something that most of the communities in my constituency are willing to do, but some are not, and there needs to be some parity of treatment in the way that we expect local areas to provide sufficient affordable housing. It is possible through the exceptions policy, but too often, the policy is seen as too difficult. I know that in some cases where we have made provision, usually for housing associations, it is a bit like walking through treacle-it sometimes takes as long as a decade to implement. Again, I challenge my hon. Friend the Minister to find ways to reduce the period of time that it takes from planning to getting the money together-as the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale said-to deciding on the appropriate housing and then, of course, to getting people into that housing, which is not always easy. The exceptions policy is a good policy, but it is often underused and it is often too difficult to implement.
That brings me to my penultimate point, which is that I totally agree-as people would expect-with what the hon. Gentleman said about community land trusts. However, we should be wary. As the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps), who is the Conservative Front-Bench spokesman, knows, we have one of the pioneering community land trusts in Stroud, at Cashes Green-I cannot remember if the hon. Gentleman has visited that trust, but he certainly knows about it and he is a supporter of community land trusts. However, delivering on that project is not just like walking through treacle; it is like walking through concrete-it is absolutely devilishly difficult, both in terms of English Partnerships and the Homes and Communities Agency. I will point the finger now; they have failed to deliver on the Cashes Green site. We are still at least a year away from being able to bring together all the different parties so that we can deliver on the project and I just do not know why.
I could argue that I am part of the problem, because I want the whole Cashes Green site to be used. It is a former hospital site and it is ideal for the type of delivery that community land trusts would allow, but I am willing to negotiate. The trouble is that every time I get parties together, we seem to have gone backwards rather than forwards. We have a planning application in place, but there are months and months of drift. Surely, one of the things that the HCA can do is to drive things forward. I want to see a mutually-driven community land trust, which would be pioneering. That is what we should be doing in rural areas; we should be looking for different types of scheme and driving forward different types of solution.
Mr. Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD): The hon. Gentleman speaks positively about community land trusts, and rightly so, but my experience is that every time we wish to implement one, we seem to have to reinvent it, with a lot of effort. One thing that the Government or the agencies could do is to derive a model that could be used consistently and persistently.
Mr. Drew: I agree strongly. I thought that there were just two models: the mutual housing model and the equity release model. Someone-I cannot remember who, because I have met so many wild and wonderful people over the years who were supposedly experts in the matter-found 11 or 12 models. I do not know what they are because no one could ever show me, but I was told that there were many different models that were appropriate in different places. That just causes confusion.
I wish that we could get on and examine the two main models. I am not saying that the mutual model will work in every situation, but it is at least worth trying. That is what we have done in the 13 or 14 pilots. My hon. Friend the Minister might want to say where those pilots have got to. Some have delivered, some are still delivering and some-I must say that this is the case with mine-have yet to deliver. We need to get on with it.
Grant Shapps (Welwyn Hatfield) (Con): I have visited the community land trust project in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. It is most impressive and could deliver 70 or maybe even 100 homes. Does he agree that following English Partnerships' insistence on repeating the work already carried out by the community land trust by re-surveying all local residents, at a cost to the public of about £100,000, it could be argued that English Partnerships, now the Homes and Communities Agency, is hindering the project rather than helping it?
Mr. Drew: I agree. As I said, it is like walking through concrete. I thought that having got to the stage where the community knew that the site was going to be developed, it was completely irresponsible and unhelpful to go back and ask them what they wanted to develop it for. That is completely at odds with where we should be.
Community land trusts are important because they are community-led and can provide a solution in rural areas, but we need to get on with it and consider how they can deliver thousands of houses in many different areas, not see them as small projects that grind on. There are other things that we can do as well. I am aware that the Government have moved and are moving, but they need to move a lot further. My last question to my hon. Friend the Minister is this. Of the substantial increase in money for housing, what allocation can we in rural areas expect? We are not asking for a ring fence; we are asking for some notion of what will be allocated to rural areas. Unless we get state pump-priming, the rest is irrelevant.
10.3 am
Mr. Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con): I thank the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) for securing the debate and congratulate the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) on his common-sense view, which I wish were shared by those on his own Front Bench. This debate gives us the opportunity to discuss one of the most pressing issues in many of our communities. Affordable rural housing and the lack of adequate provision have been addressed before, but with a conspicuous lack of progress.
In 2003, in "Sustainable Communities", the Government acknowledged that
"The availability of housing, especially social and other affordable housing, is a critical issue in many rural areas".
In 2006, the Affordable Rural Housing Commission stated that
"to meet the scale of the need in rural communities in all regions, the issue must be addressed in its own right, and with urgency, rather than only after urban needs have been met".
The 2009 Taylor review on rural economy and affordable housing stated:
"Without change we will simply repeat the mistakes of recent decades...we will fail to stem the trend of smaller villages becoming dormitory settlements of commuters and the retired, ever less affordable for those who work within them."
Yet report after report has led simply to shortfall after shortfall.
I acknowledge that action has been taken, but too little is still being done too slowly to address the problem. By the Government's own figures, they have missed the target of 2,800 units for rural housing by 13.7 per cent. for 2009-10. Research by the Countryside Alliance paints an even bleaker picture. Need has been identified for 235,000 new affordable homes, but it is estimated that only 51,000 will be created in 2009-10, representing only 22 per cent. of the number required.
Although I acknowledge that the recession makes it harder to deliver the solution to the problem of affordable rural housing, it also worsens the problem itself. Wages are, on average, £4,600 lower in rural communities, while house prices for first-time buyers are £16,000 higher. Someone earning £17,000 a year might be able-just-to buy a home in 50 per cent. of urban wards, mostly in the north of England, but in only 28 per cent. of rural wards. Such disparities create barriers to opportunity. Local people, particularly the young, are unable to afford rising costs on lower incomes and are forced to move away from villages to find cheaper housing. A family moved from the village of Brook on the Isle of Wight to the capital, Newport, 10 miles away. We may find that affordable housing is moving not simply elsewhere on the island but to the mainland. Such an exodus fragments communities and families.
Those who choose to stay in rural areas and small towns also face problems. Though the rural population is increasing, local population is decreasing and the quality and availability of local services is declining. Some are getting better-Chale, with a population of 500, has a superb shop and post office-but others are getting worse. Roughly 10 post offices have closed in the past few years.
The elderly in rural communities are specifically affected by people moving away. Many elderly people are isolated as younger relatives leave villages and are forced in turn to rely on public services, where before, relatives would have looked after them. Furthermore, they often depend on lower-paid welfare workers who themselves find it difficult to live in the communities where they work. Daily commutes increase environmental costs as people travel from urban homes to rural workplaces.
That is why we must address the issue in the same manner that it affects people. Rather than attempting to provide a specific number of houses nationwide, the Government should treat each locality as a specific case with specific needs. Granting greater planning powers to councils and parishes would be a step towards that.
The powers should grant councils the opportunity to provide more ably for local people, rather than to interact better with national targets as at present.
We find time and time again that targets have not been met. As I have noted, the Government are 13 per cent. below their own target for this year. Revising targets down while house prices go up, as this Government have done, creates a chasm between the desire to get a foot on the housing ladder and the opportunity to do so.
Communities should be at the heart of rural development. Too often, new rural housing is simply deposited in existing communities with little thought for how it will integrate. For example, increasing the amount of hard surfaces in rural areas can increase flood risk. New rural housing should therefore seek to extend and complement communities, not simply exist as an urban appendage of a rural village. Houses must be constructed in proportion both to a village's need and its capacity to sustain such a need. The need for those measures is accentuated by the influx of more affluent people in rural areas. The movement of people from urban to rural areas reduces the number of homes available to local people who cannot compete with the purchasing power of those who benefit from higher urban wages.
I do not advocate a right for local people to live locally. I believe that local homes should be more available to local people. More must be done to achieve that. Landowners must be encouraged to play a greater role in rural housing. Where necessary, people should be relieved of the burden of having to own the soil under their feet to put a roof over their heads. Housing costs would be lower if landowners could retain the land that properties are constructed on, possibly through a series of tax incentives. If portions of land were effectively free to buyers and sellers, local people would have greater opportunity in the housing market. Such a scheme could be started immediately on new sites that are unsuitable for commercial development.
Finally, reducing VAT on maintenance work for current houses would encourage the re-use of almost 1 million empty properties in the UK. Before any new houses are built, we must free up the ones that are not in use. Such a scheme would have a lower environmental cost than building new homes from scratch.
This issue holds a mirror up to our society. It is not as small as just providing for a need, nor as complex as the problems it creates. Affordable rural housing is at the heart of what we think our society should be: fair and equitable. That should be our starting point and our ultimate destination. If it is, we will be able to see statistics as the lives that they represent and families will be supplied with the homes that they deserve. The opportunity that we have can become a potential fulfilled.
Robert Key (in the Chair): I will call the Front-Bench spokesmen at 10.30 am.
10.12 am
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |