Animal Welfare (Kept Animals)

Debate between Andrew Gwynne and Jim McMahon

Wednesday 21st June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Jim McMahon]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. You made that point in response to the point of order, and the right hon. Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne) will know that I do not have the facility to come in on a point of order, but I can and I will cover that in my speech. To be clear, and I have been clear: this is a Government Bill. There is no other Bill to publish—it does not exist. The only Bill that exists is the Bill that passed on Second Reading in this House and that Members voted for. Let us move on from the smokescreen here. Members know exactly what Bill we are debating, because they have been lobbied by their constituents and by charities, which desperately want to see these protections brought forward.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for bringing this Government Bill back to the Floor of the House so that Members can decide whether to proceed with it. The point is that this Government made a commitment to improve animal welfare laws, but this same Government have a track record, having already backtracked on banning fur imports and the import of foie gras. Is this not just another logical step in them saying one thing about animal welfare and doing something completely different?

[Jim McMahon]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Let us be clear about some of the tensions here. The fear was never that the Labour party would vote down protections for animals; our history and legacy is about protecting animal welfare. The real fear is that the protections that we and many on the Government Benches believe should be in place are seen by some on those Benches as red tape and bureaucracy and as things that should be banished and not supported. That is a real issue. If I were the Prime Minister with a majority and I could not even get an animal welfare Bill through the House of Commons, I would be wondering what power and authority I had in my own party, frankly.

Let us reflect on what we were told when the Government did a U-turn. We still need to find out how many animals have been affected in the time between the election and the first promise to bring in the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill in 2021 and today. The Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries, the right hon. Member for Sherwood (Mark Spencer), said:

“The Bill risks being extended far beyond the original commitments in the manifesto and the action plan. In particular, Labour is clearly determined to play political games by widening the Bill’s scope.”—[Official Report, 25 May 2023; Vol. 733, c. 495.]

I am guessing from the comments today that the Whips have sent that out in the briefing note because that is exactly what we have been hearing today. I am afraid it does not pass the test because what Tory Members really mean is that Labour has ambition for animal welfare. We want to see the protections strengthened—absolutely—but not in a way that would derail the Bill. That was not our intention and it never would be.

Greater Manchester Spatial Framework

Debate between Andrew Gwynne and Jim McMahon

Thursday 21st February 2019 Westminster Hall

[Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer.

I thank my Greater Manchester neighbour, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr Wragg), for securing this very important debate. It is a debate that has attracted a lot of attention and emotion, certainly within Oldham West and Royton, and I want to explore some of the issues involved. I also place on the record my thanks to the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne), for allowing me to speak from the Back Benches.

I absolutely support the development of a spatial framework for Greater Manchester. We are a growing city region, we are a thriving city region and we are—in my opinion—the best place in the UK to live, and it is important that we plan ahead and make sure that we are fit for purpose in providing employment land, housing land, recreation and quality of life; but how we do that is critical, and I shall point out a number of ways in which we have not quite got the balance right.

We need to start at the beginning, and the beginning is that the Government have imposed a housing target on Greater Manchester that does not hold up to scrutiny. Greater Manchester does not need the housing numbers that the Government are imposing on it when, as has been outlined already, the latest population estimates show that we need far fewer homes than have been proposed. Today the Government could commit to using the latest population data and save us a lot of aggravation, a lot of grief and a lot of really high emotion, where people are losing valuable green-belt land unnecessarily. Why is there such emotion? For that reason, but also because there is in many of our communities a range of brownfield sites—sites that are dirty; former industrial sites—that the community would love to see redeveloped.

However, all of us present in Westminster Hall know that those brownfield sites will not be the ones to be developed if the developers are holding the ring on this issue. The spatial framework does not provide for the sequencing of land development, to enable us to have a genuine “brownfield first” policy whereby sites that commanded community support were developed, obviating the need to use the green belt.

[Andrew Gwynne]

My hon. Friend makes a really important point, because this issue is about more than the sequencing of the disposal of sites for development; it is also about market economics, or supply and demand. If there is an oversupply of green-belt land that does not meet the real housing need of the conurbation, is it not the case that in 25 years’ time our successors might be debating in this place the next version of the Greater Manchester spatial framework, speaking with regret about the missed opportunity whereby we had lost green-belt land but those brownfield sites were still brownfield?

[Jim McMahon]

That is absolutely the point, and it will be echoed by thousands of people in Greater Manchester who are not happy with the current settlement.

In my constituency, we had a programme called housing market renewal. The idea was that areas of the housing market that were underperforming would be transformed through modernisation, demolition and rebuilding, to create urban environments where people were proud to live—not houses that were simply built to service the industrial revolution but houses that were fit for the future, too. In 2010, when the coalition Government came to power, that scheme was cancelled overnight. That left many streets in my constituency with their windows boarded up. Actually, many of those houses eventually had the boards taken off and are now in the hands of private landlords, who are making an unreasonable amount of money from housing benefit, so that people can live in what I still consider to be substandard accommodation.

The principle of a brownfield fund is really important. Not only is green-belt land more advantageous to build on, but green-belt sites are often the sites that are commercially viable to build on. The problem with many brownfield sites is that mediation—such as taking out any services that might have been there for a different road layout, removing contamination, and removing a lot of very expensive material to landfill—costs a lot of money. In areas such as Oldham, where some of the house prices are depressed—that is certainly the case in Oldham town—it is just not possible to reconcile the high development costs with the end-sale value of those properties. So there must be Government intervention to bridge that gap. None of that is proposed as part of this new settlement for the community, so, as has already been stated, we will have a situation where green-belt land is taken because it is developable and viable and it will make a profit for the developer but, for a range of reasons, brownfield sites will be left as eyesores.

Many sites in active use in my constituency are waste transfer sites—abattoirs or former haulage yards, for example. They are currently earmarked for employment use, because that is their current use, but they are in predominantly residential areas, so the road layout does not service large-vehicle movements. The community would love those sites to be re-categorised for residential development, but that is not allowed under this process, because there is a requirement that sites be practically deliverable within the life of the plan. Of course, if the current landowner has no immediate intention of developing that land, it cannot be included because it has no reasonable prospect of being delivered.

We all know that demand for sites for employment use is changing rapidly. Oldham used to have 300 mills. Those that remain are now self-storage. People always said, “We’re always going to need storage, so there’s always going to be a role for Oldham’s mills,” until, of course, we built high-bay warehousing out of town on the green belt because distribution companies wanted more than mills with five floors, in which it is more expensive to move goods around. That shift in demand should be taken into account.

Local areas should be allowed more flexibility to re-categorise and transform dirty industrial sites into new residential sites. That is not the case at the moment, due to the requirement for there to be a reasonable prospect of a site’s being brought into use within the life of the plan. That does not enable local areas to lead from the front and say to landowners, “We have a better vision for our community than a waste transfer site.” [Interruption.] I am being heckled by the Minister. That is fine—I am quite used to being heckled—but it would be great if he provided a substantive answer to some of these fundamental questions.

Why have an inflated target for housing and population when the latest data says we do not need that target? Why not allow the creation of a proper brownfield fund, so that we have the cash in place to redevelop the land that people want to see redeveloped? What about infrastructure? In Greater Manchester, we have lost more than 1 million miles of bus journeys since 2010.

Enterprise Bill [Lords]

Debate between Andrew Gwynne and Jim McMahon

Wednesday 9th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Burrowes]

Let me take my pick. I give way to the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne).

[Andrew Gwynne]

Is it not misleading for the Government to describe this as a devolution measure? Is it not simply a fact that the moment one council adopts these powers, every neighbouring council will be forced to follow suit?

[Jim McMahon]

rose—