Housebuilding

Debate between Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Evans of Rainow

Thursday 21st September 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)]

My Lords, I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the noble Lord for his public service over many years as a councillor in Bredbury, a Member of Parliament in the West Midlands and, indeed, chair of Stockport County Football Club back in the day. I accept that it is vital that local planning authorities have the resources they need to provide an effective planning service. We did consult on a proposal to ring-fence the fee increase, and I recognise that it is strongly supported. However, we are not taking ring-fencing forward as it would overly restrict the local authorities. In relation to housing targets, the Secretary of State’s Written Ministerial Statement published on 6 December 2022 confirmed that the standard method of assessing local housing need will be retained. National planning policy continues to expect local authorities to follow the standard method to make sufficient provision for housing and identify the sites that will deliver much-needed homes to meet the needs of our communities across the United Kingdom.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Snape, rightly refers to the resources that planning departments need to draw up their local plan, but they also need the political will to deliver this. Last week the Housing Minister rightly rebuked Spelthorne Borough Council, which is under independent control, for not updating its plan for 14 years and failing to meet housing need. Will the Government take equally robust action against any council, of whatever colour, if it fails to meet the ambitions the Government have aspired to of 300,000 homes a year?

[Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)]

My noble friend and former Chief Whip is exactly right. He is a formidable campaigner on issues of home building. I pay tribute to my right honourable friend the Minister for Housing, who is absolutely right; the current Spelthorne local plan is nearly 15 years old, meaning that the policies in it will not be up to date. Withdrawing the plan from examination could lead only to significant further delay and additional expense while a new plan is prepared. Local authorities are more at risk from appeals and speculative planning applications being successful if they do not have a local plan setting out an up-to-date housing requirement, as the presumption in favour of sustainable development applies. Intervening in this plan will accelerate plan production, given that the current plan is submitted and an examination will ensure that an up-to-date plan is in place sooner, therefore preventing speculative developments taking place. Local plans should be reviewed every five years. The good people of Spelthorne should expect better from their local politicians of all colours.

Leasehold Properties: Building Insurance

Debate between Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Evans of Rainow

Thursday 15th June 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)]

The noble Lord is absolutely right. This Government are committed to promoting fairness and transparency for tenants and homeowners and to making sure that consumers are protected from abuse and poor service. I assure him that we remain determined to drive up professionalism and standards among all property agents, and we continue to work with the industry on improving best practice across the property agent sector.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, would not the problems referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, be largely eliminated if more leaseholders bought the freehold, thereby avoiding the potential of abuse by the current freeholder? Will the promised leasehold reform Bill make it easier for leaseholders to enfranchise, and will it remove some of the obstacles used by unscrupulous freeholders to deny enfranchisement?

[Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)]

My noble friend is absolutely right, and I pay tribute to the work he does on housing. The Government remain determined in their promise better to protect leaseholders and empower them to challenge unreasonable costs, and to make it easier and cheaper for them to extend their lease or buy their freehold. We wish to extend the benefits of freehold ownership to more homeowners, and in line with our manifesto commitments, we will continue leasehold reform within this Parliament. We are working closely with the Law Commission to bring forward game-changing reforms to the system and we thank the commission for all the work it has done in this area to date. However, the Government cannot pre-empt the King’s Speech, which we expect by the autumn, by confirming what will or will not be in future legislation.

Business of the House

Debate between Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Evans of Rainow

Thursday 1st March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

The right hon. Gentleman has a very busy social calendar and will be attending a number of events that I will not be at.

To return to his question, he might remember that I made a statement in 2010 explaining why the state opening of Parliament would always be in the spring/summer because we now have fixed-term Parliaments. The general election will always be in May, so the first state opening will be in May. We want full, one-year Sessions rather than the six-month truncated Session that he has just advocated. If we have a state opening in November and a fixed-term Parliament ending in May, we would not have a full Session, which I know he would miss.

[Graham Evans (Weaver Vale) (Con)]

Like Sir Stuart Rose, I started my working career stacking shelves in my local Co-op in Poynton, which gave me a great work ethic. I fully agree with the former chairman of Marks & Spencer that it is baffling that anyone would oppose unemployed young people being given the opportunity to gain good-quality work experience. May we have a debate on workfare so that we can take on the misguided opponents of that vital scheme?

[Sir George Young]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reinforcing a point that some of our hon. Friends have made. I would welcome such a debate. I should point out to him that we have the same success rate as the future jobs fund at a 20th of the cost, so we are getting much better value for money than the scheme we were left with.

Business of the House

Debate between Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Evans of Rainow

Thursday 26th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

My hon. Friend has undertaken to raise the matter with the Exchequer Secretary, who has responsibility for taxation.

[Graham Evans (Weaver Vale) (Con)]

Given the recent unemployment figures, can we have a further debate on High Speed 2 and how it will directly create tens of thousands of jobs in the midlands and the north, solve the capacity challenge of the west coast main line and help equip our economy to compete in the 21st century?

[Sir George Young]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support for HS2. I think I am right in saying that we have recently had at least one debate on HS2. Whether there is appetite for another one in the immediate future I am not sure, but I am grateful to him for his support for the project.

Business of the House

Debate between Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Evans of Rainow

Thursday 13th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

There will be a debate this afternoon in Westminster Hall on the riots, and the hon. Lady might like to go to that and to ask that question. She is right to say that there is an ongoing report into gang violence and related issues, and I hope that it will be made available in the relatively near future.

[Graham Evans (Weaver Vale) (Con)]

Well over 2,000 early-day motions have been tabled in this Parliament so far, and it is estimated that they cost the taxpayer around £1 million each and every year. Given that in the last year we had a spending review that carefully considered every aspect of public expenditure, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is right that we should now have a debate to examine the cost-effectiveness and value of early-day motions?

[Hon. Members]

Table an early-day motion!

Business of the House

Debate between Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Evans of Rainow

Thursday 19th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

I will draw the right hon. Gentleman’s concern to my right hon. Friend’s attention and ask her to write to him about our policy on compulsory water metering. I am sure that he shares the concern of Members on both sides of the House about doing all we can to drive down water consumption and conserve water, and I hope that he will not rule out measures such as the one that he has touched on.

[Graham Evans (Weaver Vale) (Con)]

Last weekend, my youngest son went on his first cubs camp, and I went along as a helper. However, I was not able to stay at the camp overnight because I do not have an up-to-date Criminal Records Bureau check for the cubs. That is a pity, as I have helped out at the same Cheshire cubs branch, which my older son went to, for the past seven years. May we have a debate on the over-the-top CRB requirements that can be such a disincentive to volunteering?

[Sir George Young]

I would like to find time for such a debate, and perhaps the Backbench Business Committee could provide it. One of the unforeseen consequences of trying to protect children by introducing CRB checks is that fewer people are then able to help children through voluntary organisations such as the scouts. We have to try to get the right balance that gives children the protection to which they are entitled but does not discourage volunteers such as my hon. Friend from playing an active part in their activities.

Business of the House

Debate between Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Evans of Rainow

Thursday 12th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

I would welcome a debate on the important issue of youth unemployment, where we inherited a substantial figure—I believe it was 1.4 million. My hon. Friend may have heard today’s announcement of £60 million to get more vulnerable young people into work, and he will know that we are committed to 250,000 more apprenticeships over the next four years and radical reforms to transform vocational training. I would welcome such a debate, but I am afraid that I cannot promise the time for it immediately.

[Graham Evans (Weaver Vale) (Con)]

Parents in my constituency have come together to work to set up a free school in Sandymoor. This exciting development will bring a much-needed boost to local school choice and it has my full support. May we have a debate on the importance of providing top-quality advice and support to aspiring free school founders, so that we can help to make their efforts just that little bit easier?

[Sir George Young]

I am delighted to hear that parents in my hon. Friend’s constituency are planning to set up a free school and I welcome the support that he is giving them. It is important that those interested in setting up free schools have access to advice and support, which is why the Department for Education has funded the New Schools Network, an independent charitable organisation, to offer support to individuals and groups such as those he mentioned.

Business of the House

Debate between Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Evans of Rainow

Thursday 17th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

I am sure the hon. Gentleman is not casting any aspersions on the integrity of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health, but I will share with my right hon. Friend the concern that he has just mentioned and seek to reassure him that there are no irregularities at all in the arrangements for GP commissioning.

[Graham Evans (Weaver Vale) (Con)]

Members of Sandymoor parish council recently presented me with a petition signed by hundreds of parents in my constituency about a lack of secondary school choice in that new-build area. The root cause of the problem is the Labour council giving planning permission for many thousands of new homes without thinking to provide essential amenities such as schools. May we have a debate about planning policy and the importance of avoiding such problems in future developments?

[Sir George Young]

My hon. Friend will know that it is not unusual for local authorities to use their section 106 planning powers to require a developer to make provision for a new primary or secondary school to cope with rising population. He will also know that we have passed legislation introducing free schools and reducing the planning barriers that confront them, to respond to parents’ wishes when they want a new school to be established in their area to provide high-quality education.

Business of the House

Debate between Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Evans of Rainow

Thursday 10th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s concern. I prefer to rest on the answer that I gave to the shadow Leader of the House. It is our intention to secure the LCM before we proceed with the Committee stage of the Bill.

[Graham Evans (Weaver Vale) (Con)]

A recent e-mail to Members from the Stop HS2 campaign was riddled with inaccuracies, exaggerations and distortions. The high-speed rail link between London and Manchester is absolutely essential for promoting investment in northern constituencies such as mine, but unfortunately a ragtag alliance of luddites and nimbys appears to be making ludicrous arguments against the plans. May we have a debate on high-speed rail so that these falsehoods can be tackled head on?

[Sir George Young]

The Attorney-General will have heard the robust language used by my hon. Friend to describe other hon. Members. I think that I am right in saying that there is a bid to the Backbench Business Committee for a debate on HS2, and I hope that that will be an opportunity to debate the matter further. I remind my hon. Friend that, as he knows, it is the Government’s policy to proceed with this investment.

Business of the House

Debate between Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Evans of Rainow

Thursday 3rd February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

The Government are committed to providing timely replies to hon. Members and I am sorry for the delay. I have seen the letter, which does offer an apology for the delay in responding, and I shall raise the matter again with my colleagues in the Treasury. Of course, there will be an opportunity for the hon. Gentleman to repeat his point on Tuesday, when Treasury Ministers will be here.

[Graham Evans (Weaver Vale) (Con)]

The village of Sutton Weaver is divided by two separate postcodes, which has caused numerous problems to my constituents. Despite a very strong campaign by Sutton parish council, Royal Mail has refused to unify the village under a single postcode. May we have a debate on applications for postcode changes and enhancing local democracy?

[Sir George Young]

I understand my hon. Friend’s concern. I shall pass his comments on to my right hon. Friend the Business Secretary. My hon. Friend will be familiar with the code of practice that governs changes to Royal Mail’s postcode address file, known as PAF. Royal Mail will consider making changes only if they will not materially affect the efficiency of its nationwide network of operations.