New Homes Commitment

Debate between Lord Naseby and Lord Greenhalgh
Tuesday 21st June 2022

(1 year, 10 months ago)

Lords Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Greenhalgh Portrait Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I recognise that we cannot look at housing in isolation; we need to get investment in the infrastructure and other factors to allow for growth. It is a good start to have had a £10 billion investment in housing supply since the start of this Parliament, but there is also investment to enable brownfield sites to be built out rather than the—sometimes easier—greenfield sites. We want to see brownfield development and that requires infrastructure, and the money is in place to do precisely that.

Lord Naseby Portrait Lord Naseby (Con)
- Hansard - -

My Lords, is it not time that we had a meaningful new towns project which would benefit both owner-occupation and social housing throughout the United Kingdom?

Lord Greenhalgh Portrait Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I think we need to find ways of coming up with new town projects but to do that we need the infrastructure, the transport, the roads and the rail, and that is why we recognise that a programme just to build homes is not enough. We need to get that in the round, and we are taking it forward as part of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill in this Session.

Elections: Multiple Voting

Debate between Lord Naseby and Lord Greenhalgh
Tuesday 14th June 2022

(1 year, 10 months ago)

Lords Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Greenhalgh Portrait Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

The purpose of the Elections Act was to ensure that we did not have this arbitrary cut-off point. Those living abroad have always been able to vote in elections for up to 15 years, which we have now extended as part of that legislation. People cannot vote in local elections if one of their properties is, let us say, in Spain, so I do not think that arises.

Lord Naseby Portrait Lord Naseby (Con)
- Hansard - -

My Lords, as one who was first elected to the other place with a majority of 179, after three recounts, and later in that year by 141, is not the proposition from the noble Lord on the Liberal Benches correct? Otherwise, there will be tactical voting by students in marginal seats.

Building Safety Defects

Debate between Lord Naseby and Lord Greenhalgh
Monday 7th February 2022

(2 years, 2 months ago)

Lords Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Greenhalgh Portrait Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My Lords, I cannot give a guarantee around retrospective application, but through these measures we are ensuring that many hundreds of thousands of leaseholders do not face eye-watering bills. These measures are about ensuring that that does not happen.

Lord Naseby Portrait Lord Naseby (Con)
- Hansard - -

Is my noble friend aware that this problem has been with us for over four years? Is he confident that this demand that Her Majesty’s Government are making on the construction industry is the right way forward? Using the law, as every Member of this place knows, takes an awfully long time. Would it not be better if everyone sat down round the table and found an answer without implying the use of a new law?

Lord Greenhalgh Portrait Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My Lords, that is an incredibly helpful point, because in fact it is exactly what I did on Friday. On Friday we sat down to a virtual meeting with the developers and sought precisely that: to understand how we could ensure that we brought resolution to this crisis, which has taken over 30 years to evolve. In seeking voluntary contributions, that is precisely what is happening: engagement at every level.

Building Safety Defects

Debate between Lord Naseby and Lord Greenhalgh
Wednesday 5th January 2022

(2 years, 3 months ago)

Lords Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Greenhalgh Portrait Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

We have quite a lot of the data on the number of medium-rise buildings, and there are far more medium-rise buildings than there are high-rise ones. The figure of 77,000 is broadly correct, but the number within that requiring remediation is very small indeed. I cannot give the noble Baroness those statistics, but I have seen our survey work. The number requiring mitigation is also very small. Frankly, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors seems to be more interested in how it can raise money for surveyors than being proportionate in terms of the approach towards this crisis.

Lord Naseby Portrait Lord Naseby (Con)
- Hansard - -

Nevertheless, does my noble friend recognise that there is great hardship for significant numbers of people who are stuck in the middle? I speak as a former chairman of the housing committee in the London Borough of Islington. I am sure that local authority housing departments would, if it were put to them properly, be willing to look at taking over a limited number of flats to ensure that those who have to move can move.

Lord Greenhalgh Portrait Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

As someone who has served in London local government in, I think, Lambeth—

Lord Naseby Portrait Lord Naseby (Con)
- Hansard - -

No—Islington.

Grenfell Tower: Demolition

Debate between Lord Naseby and Lord Greenhalgh
Monday 6th September 2021

(2 years, 7 months ago)

Lords Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Greenhalgh Portrait Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My Lords, I want to be absolutely clear that this was not a briefing by the Government; it had nothing to do with the Government. On Friday, I had a meeting where it was made very clear that no decision had been taken—so I was as surprised as the noble Lord by what we read in the Sunday papers and subsequently. The Government have embarked on a phase of concentrated engagement on the future of the tower; this started around a year ago and has intensified since May, when we published a series of engineering reports that included a peer review of the major review that was carried out by Atkins. I can certainly continue to make the point that the Government will proceed by very carefully engaging with and consulting the community on this very sensitive matter.

Lord Naseby Portrait Lord Naseby (Con)
- Hansard - -

Is my noble friend aware that this site reminds one of the failures of building safety provisions? It has been there for too long now. The noble Lord on the Opposition Benches is right that we need to move on. Against that background, will my noble friend make sure that the project he has just outlined does not drift and that, certainly this side of Christmas, there will be a clear and concise provision of what is to happen?

Lord Greenhalgh Portrait Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My Lords, I underline that no decision has been taken, but we are aware that we have had unambiguous advice from engineering experts that the tower should be carefully taken down. We have published those studies, but I reiterate that no decision has been taken. Obviously, a decision on this cannot be put off indefinitely, and one will be made in due course—but not via the media.

Covid-19: Local Government Finance

Debate between Lord Naseby and Lord Greenhalgh
Tuesday 7th July 2020

(3 years, 9 months ago)

Lords Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Greenhalgh Portrait Lord Greenhalgh
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I can give a commitment that funding will extend beyond a few well-known names to the important local theatres and museums that are often supported by local authorities. I cannot give the noble Baroness the precise extent to be distributed via local authorities and will have to write to her with further information on that.

Lord Naseby Portrait Lord Naseby (Con) [V]
- Hansard - -

I was formerly the leader of a local authority in London, as was the Minister. We both appreciate how important local authorities are to the public. Yesterday, we had the Second Reading of the very important Business and Planning Bill. It will have implications for local authority expenditure, and some charges, I imagine. Is the Minister in a position to confirm that the Government will make sure that all those costs are covered? Finally, on care homes and social care, the Government have to recognise that procedures were not adequate for the transfer of patients from hospitals to care homes, in the early stages of the pandemic. There were huge costs incurred and the Government must pick up the bill. Can the Minister confirm that that will be looked at?

Covid-19: Local Government Finance

Debate between Lord Naseby and Lord Greenhalgh
Monday 29th June 2020

(3 years, 10 months ago)

Lords Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Greenhalgh Portrait Lord Greenhalgh
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

As we have said, our focus is on covering both the demand pressures and the income deficit and on providing the comprehensive package that will ensure that council tax payers do not face that unnecessary burden.

Lord Naseby Portrait Lord Naseby (Con) [V]
- Hansard - -

Is the Minister aware, as a former leader of the London Borough of Islington, that key revenue streams in summer come from recreation, particularly by cricket clubs using council-owned pitches? Why on earth are the Government preventing men, women and young cricketers from playing just club cricket?

Lord Greenhalgh Portrait Lord Greenhalgh
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I know of my noble friend’s love of the game of cricket. I am sure that we can take that up with the Ministers responsible.