Council Tax and Stamp Duty Alternatives

Debate between Andrew Griffith and Tim Farron

Wednesday 17th May 2023 Westminster Hall

[Andrew Griffith]

Higher bands have been introduced over time. It has been a long time—just as a point of fact—since there has been a revaluation. I note that both the Labour party and the Liberal Democrat party served in Government for significant periods during that time, so it is not just among Government Members that there is caution about some of the unintended consequences of doing something that affects so many people. The impact on those with low and fixed incomes of moving any sort of basis of property tax should be thought about carefully.

The hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) was candid about his desire to soak the rich with wealth taxes. What we are talking about would effectively be an imperfect wealth tax, because it would be a tax on that proportion of wealth that relates only to residential property and it would not be comprehensive. For that reason, there would be people who were asset-rich but cash-poor, such as widows, who would have to think through the consequences.

Moving towards a more periodic review of values poses the question of how that revaluation would take place. Certainly, some of us are shy of algorithms, but in all likelihood, unless we were to recruit an army of estate agents-meet-inspectors, we would be using some algorithmic method. In fairness, colleagues on both sides have talked about the status quo, but there would also potentially be unfairness in a mechanistic approach.

[Tim Farron]

The Minister is being incredibly generous in giving way. In the short time available to him, he is providing a thoughtful critique of the proposal that has been put to him, and he is entitled to do that. He correctly says that none of the parties represented here is saying that this will definitely be in their manifesto, although I think we should all consider it. However, I would love him to consider the fact that the Fairer Share approach is cross-party. The people who have been advocating for the Government to think about this have made an extensive critique of council tax and how unfair and outdated it is. On the table is something that is potentially better. I would love the Minister to look again at council tax to see whether there are ways in which he could make it fairer.

[Andrew Griffith]

I hear the hon. Gentleman, and I look forward to reading his manifesto—whether it is for his party or for the coalition that his party and the Labour party both seem very keen on.

As we think about proposals, we must think about democracy and about the potentially disempowering impact on local government, of which I suspect that most colleagues are strong advocates. There is also the issue of accountability. My hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Jill Mortimer) talked about the debate going on in Hartlepool, and I suspect that it is one of the livelier debates that local people are having. However, it would not be able to take place if these things were simply set in Whitehall and the money was distributed algorithmically.

My hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Chris Loder) talked a little about the compensating mechanisms of revenue support grant. The Government are levelling up in many ways, but that is another way in which we can seek a fairer outcome for our constituents.

Dark Skies

Debate between Andrew Griffith and Tim Farron

Monday 14th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Griffith]

I certainly agree with my hon. Friend. Although he did not invite me, I would be very willing to come and see the charms of first light, as it rises in the east off Lowestoft.

For  health, for nature, for the environment and for the economy, there are excellent reasons to protect a dark sky at night. I think all of us in this House can agree on that. If the problem is so clear, what is to be done? Well, the good news is that it really is as simple as flicking off a switch. Unlike acid rain, lead pollution or even carbon emissions, there is no long and complex supply chain or difficult trade-offs to be made. The even better news for the Minister is that the all-party group for dark skies has already done the hard work and brought it together in a simple 10-point plan that I believe he has already seen. We do not even have to go first as a country. There are several models around the world of countries that have legislated for the improved protection of dark skies, such as South Korea and, although I hesitate to say it just at this moment in time, France. Our 10-point plan was produced following a consultation in which over 170 academics, legal professionals, national park associations, astronomers, lighting professionals, engineers and businesses participated.

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman not only for his generosity in giving way but for his success in bringing this debate, which is massively important, to the Floor of the House. He is the Member of Parliament for Britain’s newest national park, whereas I speak as one who represents two rather old ones: the Lake District and the Yorkshire Dales. I am sure he would agree with me that part of the attraction of places like ours is not just the landscape itself, but the landscape that is silhouetted by the canopy of stars above. In his report and recommendation to Government, will he call on them to toughen up planning powers, in national parks and in other planning authorities as well, to prevent developers encroaching on our areas and adding to light pollution, which removes the appeal and the beauty that we both share in our beautiful parts of the world?

[Andrew Griffith]

The hon. Member makes an excellent point and anticipates one of the points I hope to get on to.

The first of our recommendations concerns the Minister himself. As has been widely reported, we would like to see a designated Minister for the dark skies with cross-cutting responsibility for this issue. Last week, I and others met the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow). As a DEFRA Minister, she told us about the contributions her Department has made towards assessing the impact of artificial light on wider biodiversity. She also shared with us a fascinating story of her visit to Skomer a few years ago to witness the Manx shearwaters flying at night to find their chicks, making her aware of just how sensitive such creatures are to light pollution, which impacts their flight paths. However, so many of the issues involved lie with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government that if we had to pick one Department, and I believe we do, it is there that we think the designated Minister should sit.

Secondly, the language in the national planning policy framework on avoiding light pollution should be significantly expanded, allowing local planning authorities to impose specific planning conditions related to external lighting, including curfew hours, standards for brightness, colour temperature, as well as the direction and the density of lighting. The most recent NPPF from 2019 makes very little reference to lighting, with paragraph 180(c) being the only reference, which states:

“limit the impact of light pollution from artificial light on local amenity, intrinsically dark landscapes and nature conservation.”

Although a number of local authorities have adopted policies that seek to do that, in practice most development proposals are simply not assessed against such policies. CPRE’s “Shedding Light” survey found that almost two-thirds of local authorities do not have a lighting policy in their local plan and only a third had proactively adopted one to comply with the NPPF.

This need not be the case. The South Downs national park contains approximately 2,800 local authority streetlights, all of which point downwards and minimise the colour temperature. National planning policy on light pollution should require all proposed developments to conduct a dark sky impact assessment and ensure there is no net impact of a scheme on a dark sky location. Much of this could be overseen and enforced by a new statutory commission for the dark skies to develop standards and regulations, and work with local authorities to enforce them. We should also create a national programme of best practice, dark sky hours, in which categories of lighting can be dimmed or turned off completely in consultation with the community, lighting professionals and the police.

Town and Country Planning

Debate between Andrew Griffith and Tim Farron

Wednesday 30th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Tim Farron]

I am delighted to take the correction. And there was me praising a Conservative! What Macmillan did do was build numbers, and the estates of the ’50s were certainly better than the estates of the ’60s, but I do indeed stand corrected.

The biggest concern I think many of us will have is the undermining of democracy: communities having what will be done to them dictated to them, without them having the ability to contradict or to say otherwise. If you are somebody who represents two national parks, the lakes and the dales, and the wonderful communities within them—Grange, Kendal and others—you will be particularly worried about what that means. We are not nimbys, by the way.

[Andrew Griffith]

As someone who also represents an area of national beauty, if we do not build houses in brownfield sites where dwellings already are, where does the hon. Gentleman think we will build those homes?

[Tim Farron]

I am grateful for that intervention, because I am about to talk about that.

The key point is simply this. South Lakeland District Council, a Liberal Democrat majority authority, has built well over 1,000 social rented homes. What we are talking about is not saying no to development; we are talking about saying yes to the right kind of development, and being able to have power and community control over where those houses are built and what kind of houses are built. Local control means better quality.

That is what worries me most about not just these proposals today, but the suite of proposals they sit alongside in the White Paper. We need to able to build the homes we need. It is absolutely infuriating that we have to say yes to private developments of executive homes that we do not need in order to crowbar in a handful of affordables. The average house price in my constituency is £260,000. The average household income is £26,000. It is obvious why we lose a third of our young people. Our communities, our council, our national parks want to be able to build houses, but build the right houses so that there are homes for local people in the lakes, the dales and the rest of the south lakes. The replacement of section 106, as proposed separately by the Government, risks, as has been reported to me by our local housing associations, at least 50% of their developments. That will not do anything to meet the needs of people in my communities.

There is also a particular concern—I will finish with this—that the Government are planning to say that developments of up to 50 units would not have to take any affordables as part of that proposal. I can tell hon. Members that in our communities we very rarely get developments of larger than 50 units. This set of proposals would lead to the removal of any affordable homes being built in the south lakes for the foreseeable future. It seems to me that there are many stakeholders the Government could have listened to when bringing forward these and similar proposals. The only stakeholders they have listened to appear to be the biggest of the developers. They have carved out our communities and caved into the big developers.