| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
17 Mar 2010 : Column 312WH—continued
4.19 pm
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Jim Fitzpatrick): It is a pleasure to see you presiding in the Chair this afternoon, Mr. Howarth. I hope it is in order for me to express my appreciation of your consideration yesterday, when I was not feeling quite as well as I do today.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Liddell-Grainger) on securing the debate. I welcome the opportunity to respond to the issues raised, and to explain our work to build on the improvements of the past few years, as the Rural Payments Agency aims to provide a more consistent, reliable and cost-effective service.
In many ways the RPA has an unenviable task. The payments that it makes are welcomed by recipients, but there can be scepticism about the accompanying European Union rules and regulations. Those rules have laudable aims-the control of public funds, safeguarding the environment and protecting public and animal health-but their practical application can be seen as draconian or disproportionate. Against that background, and given the problems experienced with the introduction of the single payment scheme or SPS in 2005, it is no surprise that strong emotions are generated by the agency's activities, as was articulated by the hon. Gentleman at the beginning of his contribution. However, I do not intend to dwell on the events of 2005 and 2006. That debate has been held on a number of previous occasions. The main point is that we learn the right lessons from that experience and take forward the recommendations of various reports, including those of the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Public Accounts Committee.
In each scheme since 2005, the agency has met its formal targets and avoided late payment penalties. Under the 2009 scheme, 86,500 farmers received some £1.31 billion within two days of the payment window opening on 1 December. The agency met its target to make 90 per cent. of payments on 24 February, some five weeks ahead of schedule and three months earlier than had been achieved two years previously. Such an improvement to the payment timetable inevitably creates an increased focus on the position of those farmers who remain to be
paid. There are around 7,500 such cases, some of which involve complex issues such as probate, business partnership changes and domestic disputes. As hon. Members representing the relevant constituencies can testify, some of the outstanding cases are also connected to specific remote sensing checks, which affect groups of farmers in particular locations.
In all cases, I can assure all concerned that the RPA is working hard to complete the necessary checks and to release payments as soon as possible. Arrangements are also in place to deal with genuine hardship cases that arise before full payments are possible. However, experience tells us that partial payments lead to further problems down the line and are generally to be avoided for that reason. Improvements in payment performance are reflected in customer survey results. Two years ago, those asked about their overall level of satisfaction with the agency rated it 6.2 out of 10 on average; that figure has now risen to 7.4.
Inevitably, challenges remain. Completion of the map upgrade is one of those. The data currently used are based on Ordnance Survey's 2001 MasterMap information, which is out of date and does not reflect the true position on the ground.
Mr. Cash: Will the Minister give way?
Jim Fitzpatrick: I am sorry; if I get to the end of what I have to say, I shall be happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman, but he has already taken some of the time that I had anticipated having. If he will allow me, I shall get through my remarks and see how much time is left before 4.30.
Given EU requirements to use the most recent mapping information available, no change was not an option. The exercise has been a major logistical one involving over 2 million land parcels. The work was planned carefully, with a trial, then a pilot of 1,000 farmers and a gradual roll-out of the first set of map packs. All 107,000-plus first maps have now been sent, with special arrangements in place for those subject to an inspection during 2009. In line with expectations, a little more than 50,000 people have requested amendments, and more than 70 per cent. of those have had a revised set of maps provided. I have had close involvement in the exercise and have had weekly conversations or meetings with the RPA chief executive to track progress. The exercise has not all been plain sailing, and it is by no means complete, but I hope that all those concerned would acknowledge that the process has been considerably smoother than the last mapping exercise in 2005.
The remaining maps are now being processed and checked, and will be returned to farmers over the coming weeks. Tailored advice is being provided to those who will complete the 2010 application form over the coming weeks and who have yet to be provided with revised maps. To improve customer service more generally for the 2010 scheme, the agency is taking a number of additional steps. Most significantly, this year there is a full SPS online service for the first time. All farmers will be able to apply online for an easier, quicker and reassuring service, which is free to use. Additional drop-in centres will be opened, where farmers can deposit their claims with RPA staff who will perform a basic check on the
spot in order to help avoid common errors causing problems at a later stage. Those staff will also offer help in completing the application form online. For the first time, SPS specialists from the RPA will work with the Farmers Weekly Interactive website on a special SPS forum to answer questions posed online by farmers and agents.
Looking further ahead, I announced last September that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs would undertake a review of the RPA to ensure that the agency was ready to react to changes arising from future common agricultural policy reforms. The review is to consider the RPA's financial and operational processes and to identify where the RPA might be able to make improvements and efficiencies. The information gathered will also be helpful in responding to the recommendations of the recent reports-referred to earlier by the hon. Member for Bridgwater-by the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee, in particular on tackling outstanding data quality and overpayment issues, on IT improvements and on driving down processing costs.
The review is not scheduled to be completed until the end of the month, and it is too early to give any details on the findings. However, our intention is to report those findings to the House in due course. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said to the National Farmers Union annual general meeting last month, at that point we will sit down with farmers' representatives and listen to their specific ideas about what more can be done.
However, I can confirm that we will not introduce a minimum payment amount, which is what some have called for. The idea that that would save millions of pounds conveniently ignores, first, the fact that small claims require relatively little processing effort-the larger claims push up the average processing costs-and, secondly, the fact that the claims would still need to be processed to determine whether the value exceeded the given figure. What we have done for the 2010 scheme, after consultation and with the full support of the NFU and others, is introduce a minimum claim area of 1 hectare. Those claims can then be filtered on receipt at the RPA.
I would like to register my appreciation of farmers' continued patience as the agency continues consistently to raise its performance to the levels that we all want to see. I extend that appreciation to farmers' representatives; I have met the heads of the NFU, the Country Land and Business Association or CLA, and the Tenant Farmers Association on a number of occasions to discuss progress, and I have always found them constructive in their criticisms. We have another meeting scheduled for next week.
On the statistics, in 2007, 75 per cent. of payments by value had been made by 22 February. In 2008, that percentage of payments had been made by 22 January, and in 2009 it was made by 17 December. In 2007, 90 per cent. of the payments by value had been made by 21 May; in 2008, that was done by 16 March, and in 2009 by 24 February. The hon. Member for Bridgwater said that no progress had been made, but those statistics clearly demonstrate year-on-year progress. I am not in denial, and I am not for a second saying that further improvements are not possible, but the agency is doing everything that it possibly can to improve the situation, and DEFRA is doing the same.
Mr. Cash: Will the Minister answer my question, if he can, or give some indication of whether the Department is thinking of changing its name from DEFRA to something more along the lines of "the Ministry of agriculture"? That concern is strongly felt by the farming community.
Jim Fitzpatrick: The hon. Gentleman makes a reasonable point, which I have heard articulated in different visits to agricultural communities. Clearly, any future Government would always consider such a point when ensuring that the title of each Department reflects its interests. A split in the references came about when the Department of Energy and Climate Change was created, taking some of DEFRA's old responsibilities. DEFRA is clearly much more focused on agriculture, because it has a much more specific reference.
At some point in the future, whether the Labour party or the hon. Gentleman's party is returned after a general election, whoever is the Prime Minister might well want to review the Departments and ensure that the structure is as efficient as possible for the delivery of services to communities. Such a review would always take on board the names of the organisations, although such changes always have a cost, not least because of letterheads, e-mail addresses and the rest of it. However, I understand that many in agriculture would like to see "agriculture" back in the departmental title, but we have no plans to change at the moment. We believe that we fairly reflect the issues and the matters of concern to agriculture. We are certainly doing our best to ensure that they are dealt with as efficiently as possible.
In conclusion, there is more to do, and the RPA and DEFRA will do all that they can to ensure further progress.
Private Rented Sector (Durham)
4.30 pm
Dr. Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab): It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mr. Howarth.
I speak this afternoon about an issue that is extremely important to my constituency. When I was elected in 2005, many residents quickly came to me to say that they were very concerned about the lack of balance in our local community and the fact that more and more of the city was being taken over by private rented housing. That was a problem because the housing was empty for a huge part of the year and local residents felt it was destroying our sense of local community.
In response to residents' concerns, I set up a local group called the balanced and sustainable communities forum, which had representatives from the local council, residents' groups, the university and the police, to see whether we could find a way forward. We quickly started to lobby the local council to adopt policies to give us a greater mix of housing in the city centre. That included asking the council to have planning policies to promote family housing, to stop giving planning permission to so many apartment blocks, to use selective and/or additional licensing to control better the private rented sector and, overall, to have a strong policy in favour of affordability. Unfortunately, all those requests fell on deaf ears. The local Liberal Democrat council at the time simply did not want to hear us and certainly did not want to respond to the points that we were making.
In addition to setting up the local group, which was pressing for local solutions, I decided that we probably needed a change in legislation if we were really to tackle the issue facing us, so I set up in Parliament the all-party group on balanced and sustainable communities. We campaigned particularly on changing legislation with regard to planning permission for houses in multiple occupation and when the trigger for planning permission for an HMO comes into being, and with regard to further powers to register private landlords.
I emphasise that we were not anti the private rented sector. Indeed, it was always our view, and it remains my view, that responsible landlords have nothing to fear from additional regulation, because responsible landlords generally manage their properties very well. It is the landlords who do not manage their properties well and who need to improve the service they are offering their tenants who are concerned about greater regulation.
There was thus a lot of local and parliamentary activity designed to get the issue on the agenda. One of our early strategies was to hold an Adjournment debate in this very Chamber. My right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham), who is now Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, was then arguing alongside me. He, my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) and I were arguing that a change was needed in the legislation. I am delighted that today I can stand here and congratulate and thank the Secretary of State and my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing, and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government who is in the Chamber today. They all listened to what was being said by the all-party group, set up a review of the private rented sector and
of HMO licensing and came back with a set of proposals that have been turned into new statutory instruments and other new legislation relating to HMO planning permission and the registration of the private rented sector.
That legislation is very important because it captures exactly what we wanted it to do. In cities such as Durham, most of the HMOs are not huge properties. The previous legislation that required only houses or homes with more than six people to apply for planning permission meant that most of the HMOs were not covered, because most of the houses in Durham are small terraces that do not accommodate six or more people, or they are ex-council or ex-social rented sector housing and also not very big. Therefore the change in legislation whereby it is up to six people suits us very well. I am also very pleased that the Government have decided to go ahead with registering all private sector landlords. That gives us two important tools to better manage private renting in our area.
That is an important step forward, but we still have a problem, which is how we deal with the fact that there are currently too many private rented houses in a particular area. We still require policies that will help us to bring back properties from the private rented sector to provide family houses in order to get a better mix in our communities. We still have the concentration problem. We hope that the local council can buy back some of the properties, and one of my questions for the Minister is whether consideration could be given to a fund that would enable registered social landlords or the council to start to buy back properties, especially now, when market rates are relatively low.
I also want better regulation of the private rented sector. That means that the local council will have to adopt and implement the statutory instruments that are now in place, but it will have to do more. It will have to clamp down on antisocial behaviour and put in place community development policies, because much of what has been lost with the spread of the private rented sector is community spirit and community cohesion.
In Durham, the problems of the private rented sector are exacerbated by some additional policies-or lack of policy. The first issue is a lack of proper conservation area policies in the city centre, which has been a long-standing problem with previous councils of a mixture of political cultures. What we need now is a strong set of conservation area policies from the new council that will help us to tackle some of the problems associated with private renting. The most obvious one is the predominance of "To Let" boards in the city centre. A number of people will know that Durham is a very beautiful city. It has a wonderful heritage, but that heritage is being blighted by the proliferation of "To Let" boards in the city centre. They go up in October or November and stay until February or March. It is unsightly and upsets the local population.
There is also too lax an attitude to the licensing of pubs and clubs locally, which leads to the concentration of a particular type of activity in the city centre. Accompanying that is lack of attention to the concerns raised by city centre residents, not only about their problems with private renting but about the wider society in which private renting operates.
As I said earlier, between 2003 and 2009 there was the council's complete non-implementation of policies on getting affordable housing back in the city centre, and there were no policies whatever on family housing or mixed communities. If we are to take advantage of the new legislation, we need a whole set of additional policies, primarily put forward and implemented by the local council, to enable changes to the private rented sector to take effect.
We need the council to engage proactively with the local community in deciding what sort of mix it wants in its communities. I can report that that has already begun. Council and planning officers have started a series of meetings with local residents about how to change the city in a way that reflects their concerns. The council is also consulting on what more conservation area policies should achieve, and how they could better reflect Durham's heritage, ensuring that future development, including any housing development in the city centre, is appropriate and adds to and enhances the city's wonderful heritage.
Residents are asking for a city centre regeneration plan that has new housing at its core. Local residents are not against new housing or redevelopment, but they want it to be of good quality, and they want it to bring mix into the community. They want policies that, as far as possible, do not bring more luxury apartments into the city centre, especially as people have such trouble selling and renting them at the moment.
In addition to new affordable and family housing, people want better retail provision. That has suffered over the last few years, and people want a vibrant retail sector. They also want the council to make more of the skills that the university brings to the city centre, to bring about regeneration not only of the physical environment but of our economic environment, based on knowledge and a skills transfer between the university and the industrial sector. We absolutely need more of that. There is pressure on the university to build more student accommodation, using some of the available land for purpose-built student accommodation to relieve housing pressure on the city centre, and to free up accommodation so that it can be transferred back to the social rented sector or the council sector.
People want a set of cultural activities that go beyond drinking and that aspect of the night-time economy. That does not mean that they, or I, are against a night-time economy in Durham, but we are arguing for balance; local residents, who are often on the receiving end of the activities of those who have had too much to drink, should be able to go out for the night and enjoy themselves. The view of residents, which I share, is that those activities are out of balance at the moment, and that a wider range of activities should be on offer.
The Government have gone a long way to addressing the concerns of the all-party group on balanced and sustainable communities, and should be applauded for the legislation they have introduced. We now have significant tools to tackle the concentration and spread of private renting throughout the city centre. The legislation needs to be implemented by the county council, but it must done by implementing the policies in the wider framework of regenerating the city centre, not only economically and in its built environment but culturally. Everyone who lives in the city would thus have a much better quality of life.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |