Northampton Town Football Club

Debate between Lord Greenhalgh and Lord McColl of Dulwich

Wednesday 3rd March 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, I am not an expert in football finance, but I can say that it is very ill-advised for the leader of any council to undertake a loan that is not properly secured; this has resulted in the loss of a tremendous amount of income to the people of Northampton.

[Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I am very pleased to hear that the Government plan to try to deal with the situation, but it is not a petty party-political thing. The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, is of course not involved in petty party politics; he was just trying to make sure that this situation did not arise in the future.

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, I take that as a comment on the intentions of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, rather than a question.

Religious Groups: Financial Support

Debate between Lord Greenhalgh and Lord McColl of Dulwich

Wednesday 6th January 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My understanding is that DCMS funding is open to places of worship. In fact, a number of places of worship, including many cathedrals, have been in receipt of funding already.

[Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con) [V]]

My Lords, many places of worship are open for people of all faiths and of none as places of refuge and renewal, as are organisations such as the Salvation Army, which has already been mentioned. They provide invaluable help to many people, particularly those who have been rescued from abuse of all kinds, such as human trafficking and domestic violence. As their income has been greatly reduced by the Covid pandemic, will the Government help so that their work can continue? Perhaps, as my friendly colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, suggested, they can have some form of tax relief.

National Planning Policy Statements: Climate Change

Debate between Lord Greenhalgh and Lord McColl of Dulwich

Thursday 3rd December 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, I am not going to take the prompt from the noble Baroness. We need to write to her on the matter, because I do not want to make policy on the hoof.

[Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con) [V]]

My Lords, in view of our dire financial situation and the huge cost of reducing our carbon emissions, should we not give priority to reducing air pollution and the pollution of the sea?

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, Mark Carney, who is the finance adviser for the UK presidency of COP 26, made the point that we make our choices today very rationally, and around two-thirds of the journey will be made because it is the right thing to do—because the right choice is actually a green choice. He called on more creativity from business to be able to get that extra leap to hit the target. That is very salient; we are a long way down the right path. We need to focus on air pollution and sea pollution and ensure that it is not only right morally but the right thing to do in business terms as well.

Housing: Cladding

Debate between Lord Greenhalgh and Lord McColl of Dulwich

Tuesday 22nd September 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, at this stage we have not made a decision to move the high-risk regime beyond those buildings above 18 metres. As Dame Judith has said, it is those high-rise buildings that have the greatest risk, and we are attempting to stop the multiple fatalities that we saw at Grenfell. That is where we will focus our efforts.

[Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con) [V]]

My Lords, the Government’s pledge of £1 billion to help solve this problem is very welcome indeed. I was a bit puzzled by the House of Commons Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, which said that this £1 billion was unlikely to be sufficient. Did it give any accurate figures to back up this statement?

Do we know what led the Blair Government to allow this dangerous cladding in the first place? In June 2017, Jeremy Corbyn tried to blame this whole subject—and the Grenfell Tower fire—on this Government, and Prime Minister Theresa May had to remind him that the cladding began under the Blair Government.

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, there is no doubt that the costs of historic failure, with regard to the quality of construction, mean that the costs will exceed the £1 billion that we have committed—but we do not expect the entire burden to fall on the taxpayer. We should note that, from the first fund, a number of private building owners have moved to remediate that or used warranties to raise the funds, so it has not fallen on leaseholders. I would point out that there has been an unacceptable culture within the construction industry, built up over successive Governments, that this Government are trying to address.