Andy Burnham’s plans to give councils greater powers to take control of privately owned homes have triggered a political row over property rights, with former Conservative minister Tom Pursglove describing the proposals as sounding “a little bit like Communism”.
Burnham and housing secretary Angela Rayner announced plans this week to strengthen councils’ ability to intervene in properties that are empty or deemed to be of poor quality, as Labour seeks to increase the supply of homes available to families.
Speaking at the Labour conference, Burnham said landlords would first be ordered to improve properties that failed to meet required standards, but warned: “We will legislate if necessary” if they refused.
Rayner is also seeking to reduce the period a property must remain empty before councils can intervene from two years to six months.
“With so many children and families still in need of a safe and secure home, we can’t sit by and allow 300,000 long-term empty dwellings to be left unused,” Rayner said.
“That’s why Labour in power is putting the tools in local leaders’ hands to take over desperately needed derelict homes and put them back into use.
“We’re reversing the Tories’ damaging changes by supporting councils to intervene and use untapped powers to meet local housing need.”
The proposals have prompted concern among Conservative politicians over the balance between increasing housing supply and protecting private property rights.
Pursglove, a former migration minister, told GB News: “I don’t like the sound of what is being proposed here.”
“It sounds a little bit like Communism to me, taking people’s property off them.”
He argued that there were alternative ways of encouraging owners to bring empty properties back into use, including expanding existing council tax penalties.
“Actually, there’s probably a more sensible middle way where you penalise empty properties that are long-term empty properties through a system, perhaps through the council tax system,” he said.
“There’s a little bit of that that happens already. You could perhaps go a little further, but you ought to work with landlords to get properties back into use.”
Pursglove also cautioned against treating all landlords in the same way, arguing that properties could remain vacant for legitimate reasons.
“There are many good landlords who take real pride in what they do, want to do the right thing, and provide high-quality accommodation,” he said.
“I think it’s wrong to tar everybody with that brush, and this has a flavour of that to it.”
The dispute reflects a wider debate over how Britain can increase housing supply while addressing properties that are empty or in poor condition.
Pursglove argued that Labour’s proposals did not address what he considered the underlying causes of the housing shortage.
“There have been decades of problems in house building and a shortage of new homes coming on stream,” he said.
He also linked housing pressures to immigration, arguing that population growth had increased demand for infrastructure, public services and accommodation.
“It also comes back to the immigration point, doesn’t it? The constant pressure on infrastructure, services, and housing is only compounded by the number of people coming here,” he said.
Pursglove defended the previous Conservative government’s efforts to reduce visa numbers, saying it had been intended partly to ease pressure on housing and public services.
“It was absolutely the right thing for the last government to bring visa numbers down in the way that I was tasked with doing in those last six months,” he said.
“The fall of 80-odd per cent in visa numbers that this government takes credit for, they had absolutely nothing to do with it.
“They fought us every step of the way. And one reason was to try to relieve some of that pressure.”
The proposals now face scrutiny over the safeguards surrounding council intervention, including how long-term vacancy and poor property conditions will be defined and how owners will be able to challenge decisions.
For Labour, the policy is part of a broader attempt to increase the effective housing stock by bringing unused properties back into occupation. For critics such as Pursglove, the central question is whether the government can pursue that objective without weakening protections for legitimate property owners.
Leave a Comment