ePolitix.com stakeholders comment on Gordon Brown's legislative priorities for the next session of Parliament.
The key issues of housing, education and the NHS will top the prime minister's agenda. However the governments agenda will also focus on issues of security and counter-terrorism, climate change and constitutional reform.
Party response: The Labour Party
Prime minister Gordon Brown said: "To respond to the rising aspirations of the British people we must deliver new and better opportunities - in education, employment, the provision of housing and health - to ensure that in a fast changing world there is opportunity and security, not just for some, but for all."
Housing minister Yvette Cooper said: "We have to be more ambitious. We have got to set a higher target, we do need more (housing) because if we don’t, we’ll see first-time-buyers being priced out of the market, we’ll see longer council house waiting lists and we'll see those on the lowest incomes suffer the most.
"We have already very substantially increased the proportion of housing built on brownfield sites, and encouraged local authorities to look for potential brownfield sites among their land stocks.
"Of course, you won’t stop all building on greenfield land because there has always been building on some greenfield land but we’ve made very clear that we want the vast majority of houses to be built on brownfield land."
On housing
Stakeholder response: The CML
To send a comment to the CML, click here
CML senior policy adviser Rob Thomas said: "Innovations in mortgage funding are a key driver for new types of mortgages, so the Treasury is right to examine this area closely.
"But the issue is just as much about the consumer appetite for long-term fixed rates as about how they are funded.
"It is too early to say whether these announcements will create a significant shift in the design of the mortgage products of the future, but we welcome the government's willingness to look at the funding side and we also welcome the renewed focus on increased housing supply."
Stakeholder response: Help the Aged
To send a comment to Help the Aged, click here
Joe Oldman, senior policy adviser at Help the Aged, said: "While there is comfort that the prime minister is focusing on housing as a key policy direction, he has clearly failed to make any sign of a commitment to lifetime homes and mixed tenure for older people.
"Making houses affordable is one thing, but there must be an onus on making them available for a lifetime.
"The concept of designing 'lifetime neighbourhoods' should therefore be given much higher priority, as opposed to focusing simply on specialist segregated developments, such as retirement villages.
"Given we will experience a rapid expansion in older households over the next 20 years, older people can no longer be considered a marginal group within housing policy.
"With this in mind, we really need to see a 'Decent Homes Plus' initiative that is designed to make housing more adaptable to the needs of older people.
"This would help them stay independent in their own homes – a goal of particular importance for owner-occupiers living in poor housing.
"Any such initiative should be rolled out nationwide and not just targeted in regeneration areas."
Stakeholder response: The CPRE
To send a comment to The CPRE, click here
The CPRE said: "We welcome the prime minister's promise of robust protection for the green belt, following earlier worrying indications it might be weakened.
"We are also encouraged by Gordon Brown’s emphasis on brownfield regeneration as the key to tackling the nation’s housing needs.
"While great progress has been made in recent years, there is great scope for recycling more previously developed land and buildings throughout the country.
"The government should set a new national target of at least 75 per cent of new housing on brownfield land and develop fiscal and policy measures to help achieve this.
"But critically, there should be no decision on housing numbers without full consideration of the environmental consequences.
"In setting housebuilding levels, the government should avoid a return to 'predict and provide'.
"There is also a desperate need to improve the quality of new housing. The focus on subsidised, affordable housing is particularly refreshing.
"Up to now, politicians have assumed that simply building more market homes will solve the affordability problem.
"In fact there has been a massive decline in the provision of affordable housing since the 1970s, while levels of market housebuilding have increased only slightly.
"Delivering the affordable homes we need will require a significant injection of public funding and more effective planning policies to ensure a better mix of market and affordable housing.
"A more sustainable approach to housing development is urgently needed.
"We need greener housing which regenerates our towns and cities, and meets the needs of rural communities in ways which protect and enhance the countryside.
"We are concerned by Gordon Brown’s indication that the forthcoming Planning Bill would, 'implement the Barker and Eddington reports to speed up the development of major infrastructure projects ... and speed up planning generally'.
"There is an ongoing consultation on the government’s Planning White Paper.
"Environmental NGOs are united in saying that many of the proposals in the White Paper will be a disaster for the environment and for local democracy.
"We fear the prime minister may be pre-empting the outcome of this consultation.
"In the spirit of his earlier statements about the need to listen to individuals and communities, we urge the prime minister to listen to the serious concerns being expressed about aspects of the White Paper before making final decisions about new legislation."
Stakeholder response: The Construction Products Association
To send a comment to The Construction Products Association , click here
Allan Wilen, economics director at the Association, said: "We welcome the prime minister's moves to increase housing provision by raising the annual house building target for England from 200,000 to 240,000 new homes a year by 2016.
"However, delivering the new target of 240,000 homes will be a significant challenge, particularly given that the 178,000 new homes started last year falls far short of the government’s previous modest aspirations.
"Planning reform and improved supply of development land are urgently needed if the government is to secure its target, while a substantial increase in infrastructure investment is needed to successfully unlock the potential of development areas such as the Thames Gateway."
Stakeholder response: The NHBC
To send a comment to The NHBC, click here
Imtiaz Farookhi, NHBC’s chief executive, said: "We welcome the prime minister’s growth targets for new house building and the prominence he has given to sustainable and affordable homes.
"Whilst this presents significant challenges to the industry, we are encouraged by the government's commitment to improve the efficiency of the planning system.
"Customer satisfaction remains paramount and is thrown into sharp focus as we work towards improving the environmental performance of new homes.
"It is essential that consumers are not used as guinea pigs for new technology.
"NHBC will use its unique position working closely with industry, government and consumers to help meet these housing challenges ahead."
Stakeholder response: The Woodland Trust
To send a comment to The Woodland Trust, click here
Lee Bruce of the Woodland Trust said: "We are heartened by the assurances from Gordon Brown that there will be a robust defence of green belt land and would hope that the building of new homes will not put at risk the oft stated desire to build truly sustainable communities.
"Restoring a sense of British identity has been a central theme in Mr Brown’s opening weeks as prime minister and we believe that an emphasis on a shared Britishness should mean protecting and enhancing for the benefit of all our natural environment which is such an important national asset.
"The forthcoming Climate Change Bill will introduce a legal framework for the reduction of emissions through strict targeting.
"The Woodland Trust would like to see a more ambitious target of an 80 per cent reduction in emissions and far more focus being lent to the issue of how we can help the adaptation of the natural resources upon which we depend.
"Unfortunately there is little sign of rethinking the suggestions made in both the Barker and Eddington reports, and Planning White Paper. The announcement of intentions to implement the proposals and speed-up the planning system pre-empt the outcome of the current consultation process without guaranteeing a fulsome consideration of the serious concerns expressed by many."
On education
Stakeholder response: The ATL
To send a comment to The ATL, click here
ATL general secretary Dr Mary Bousted said: "ATL – and teachers throughout England and Wales – are very pleased to hear the government does not have any plans for yet another large education Bill.
"We give a qualified support to the proposed Bill. Raising the age of compulsory education or training will not be popular, although it will raise the national levels of achievement.
"The proposed bill will be a challenge for employers, trainers, and those working in schools and colleges.
"It will only succeed with the government’s target group – the 10 per cent of 16 to 18-year-olds not in education or training - if the curriculum is radically improved to make it relevant and interesting for them.
"The new training levy is good news, but the government should look again at the sums in its Comprehensive Spending Review as increasing the number of students over 16 will require more state funding than previously announced."
Stakeholder response: The ICSA
To send a comment to the ICSA, click here
Deputy director of marketing and communications Suzanne Dobson said: "Along with many other professional bodies we have been hit by the governments decision not fund, through the LSCs, professional education.
"Given that also on the agenda is a need for a more highly skilled workforce and a desire to encourage people into employment and to better paid – for example, more sustainable jobs; this seems a contradiction.
"So I guess one of my thoughts is about more coherence across policies."
Stakeholder response: Cipd
To send a comment to Cipd, click here
Martyn Sloman, CIPD skills adviser said: "Many of the proposals contained within the education and skills bill are aimed at giving young people and lower-skilled employees access to training.
"The duty on employers to release young people to undertake training and check that they are participating before employing them is particularly noteworthy.
"However, while HR will be expected to encourage and check that such training is being carried out, it should not be the employer’s role to enforce this policy."
Ben Willmott, CIPD employee relations adviser added: "We are delighted that the government is acting upon the the Gibbons review recommendations made earlier this year, particularly in scrapping the statutory dispute resolution procedures.
"As CIPD research shows, these have done little to improve the dispute resolution process, and actually made things worse."
Charles Cotton, CIPD reward adviser, commenting on the new Pension Bill said: "Many of the proposals contained in the Pensions Bill would improve access to occupational pension schemes without harming employers or existing pension arrangements.
"As CIPD research shows, the introduction of mandatory employer contributions would not lead to a levelling down of existing pension arrangements.
"Such an introduction also levels the playing field between companies, which may stimulate fairer competition."
Stakeholder response: The NCPTA
To send a comment to The NCPTA, click here
David Butler, chief executive of the National Confederation of Parent Teacher Associations (NCPTA) said: "We welcome the focus the prime minister is giving to education and training to achieve higher levels of skills and qualification.
"However, whilst this extension will provide greater opportunity for young people the proposal to raise the leaving age to 18 is a complex issue that will have a significant impact on young people and their parents.
"Not all parents are in a financial position to support their children in education or training until they're 18 and the Education Maintenance Allowance (EMA) may not fully cover their living expenses.
"Also, of concern, is the potential to criminalise young people if they fail to participate.
"And there will be a perceived contradiction that young people can marry at 16, pay adult fares/fees for travel and entertainment and yet would be legally obliged to attend school or college.
"Parents will seek to understand that the academic and vocational needs of their child are fully understood and the reassurance that the resources, venues and staff will be available to deliver this additional education/training.
"The implications on employment opportunities are a further element that parents and young people will expect greater detail on."
On the NHS
Stakeholder response: Age Concern
To send a comment to Age Concern, click here
Gordon Lishman, director general of Age Concern, said: "We welcome Gordon Brown’s pledge to put people first in the NHS and begin reform of the social care system.
"We also welcome the pension reforms. However, the needs of older people must be considered in all the government priorities if we are to resolve the disadvantages and inequalities facing too many older people now and in the future.
"Age Concern wants to see legislation fundamentally reforming the social care system and ensuring that the dignity of older people is at the centre of the health service.
"We also want mandatory retirement ages to be scrapped, the state pension to be re-linked to average earnings now, not in 2012, and for low skills levels amongst older workers to be tackled.
"Gordon’s focus on the family must not overlook the needs of older people.
"For example, he must consider and invest in the diverse housing needs of older people in his proposal to build three million new homes."
Other issues
Stakeholder response: The RHA
To send a comment to the RHA, click here
The RHA said: "Lorries should be excluded from proposed road pricing schemes outlined in the draft Local Transport Bill.
"The issues surrounding trucks are very different from those of cars and much more complex.
"Car drivers going to and from work can vary their start time or choose to go by bus or train; lorries are at work and haulage cannot be demand managed in the same way.
"Pricing trucks would impose a new journey tax on business that would add to burden of red tape on road haulage operators, be burdensome for councils to administer and would have little relevance to congestion.
"The Department for Transport has made clear that the purpose of these schemes is to reduce congestion.
"Widening the debate, we would like to see more resources made available to tackling congestion and more public debate on issues such as working culture and start times - the public sector could take a lead, here.
"There is much that can and should be done, from low-cost improvements to local infrastructure to larger road widening and new build schemes.
"We should not forget that road users already pay £45bn in road-related taxes, of which only 15 per cent is re-invested in the network, and that the sector is disproportionately taxed to most other energy sectors."
Stakeholder response: Energy Retail Assocaition
To send a comment to the Energy Retail Association, click here
Duncan Sedgwick, chief executive of the Energy Retail Association, said: "We welcome the fact that energy policy remains high on the government’s agenda.
"The Energy Bill could provide solutions to many of the challenges that face the industry.
"This is an excellent opportunity for the government to tackle many of the issues that affect consumers and industry, such as climate change, security of supply, fuel poverty, energy efficiency and smart metering.
"Britain has one of the most competitive energy markets in the world, and we hope that the Energy Bill will provide the framework for government to remain focused on its long-term objectives."
Stakeholder response: PAT
To send a comment to the PAT, click here
PAT general secretary Philip Parkin said: "PAT does not agree that there is a case for introducing compulsory participation to age 18.
"The motive for bringing about this whole society shift has to be clear – is it mainly for the benefit of young people or the country’s economy? PAT does not believe that the interests of all young people will be served with the implementation of this proposal.
"PAT believes that the overriding priority should be that the highest quality provision is available to all young people, at the appropriate time, in recognition of their readiness to learn.
"In the spirit of lifelong learning, the exciting opportunities in education and training that can be offered to these young people should be the carrot and not the stick in encouraging participation.
"We see far too many young people 'switched off' from learning at an early age as a result of rigidly prescribed programmes of study and an overbearing testing regime.
"PAT is fully supportive of the need to reduce the number of young people not in education, employment or training and would like to see opportunities on offer that would encourage participation without conscription."
