Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Annette Brooke and Michael Fallon

Thursday 3rd April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Michael Fallon]

We have introduced compensation for the EU emissions trading system, as I have said. We have already paid out compensation to more than 50 companies in the steel, paper and chemical industries. Some of the major industries concerned have welcomed the further proposals that the Chancellor announced in the Budget, including Tata Steel, which said that the measures that were announced in the Budget

“will make an important difference to Tata Steel in the UK.”

[Annette Brooke (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

6. What steps the Government are taking to help people who live in park homes to reduce their energy bills.

Growth and Infrastructure Bill

Debate between Annette Brooke and Michael Fallon

Tuesday 23rd April 2013 Commons Chamber

[Michael Fallon]

Yes, I can confirm that this does not apply to conservation areas, and that the ability of a local authority to use an article 4 direction is not impaired by the changes we are making.

I hope the House will now allow me to turn to the employee shareholder clause.

[Annette Brooke (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Michael Fallon]

Of course; I shall do so one last time.

[Annette Brooke]

I thank the Minister for giving way. I have some remaining concerns about situations in which objections are not made, perhaps because of loyalty to neighbours or because of absent landlords. That could result in a building being erected that has long-lasting implications on future householders in an area. Will the Minister address that point in discussions with the Local Government Association?

[Michael Fallon]

I am very happy to ensure that my colleagues at the Department for Communities and Local Government will discuss that with the LGA, if that will be helpful.

Let me now turn to—

--- Later in debate ---

[Annette Brooke]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I assure you that I rise to speak very briefly to Lords amendments 7B and 7C. I acknowledge that we are in a better place than we were last week and thank the Secretary of State for his work on the issues. However, because so many questions remain, I certainly retain a preference for Lords amendment 7, which I think sets out a good solution.

I will quickly run through the objections to the proposals and the uncertainties. I would like to reinforce the point about finance for local authorities. If we are not careful, and if there is no extra money going to local planning authorities when they clearly have duties for which they are not receiving a fee, we might have a situation in which those people who cannot afford extensions end up subsidising those who can, which seems unfair. We are talking not only about planning applications, but enforcement, because there might well need to be enforcement, whether or not there have been objections, if a building does not match what was submitted in the first place.

I remain concerned that not all neighbours will object, possibly because they are absent at the time or because elderly and vulnerable people who depend on their neighbours for help will not feel able to object. It is essential that we build in a requirement for the local authority to at least conduct a desktop exercise to consider all the plans in their context.

I reinforce the points made against seeking objections from adjoining landowners only. In some circumstances it would be appropriate to go further afield. There will be knock-on effects for a row of terraced houses, possibly right along the row, and precedents will be set, even if the initial application was for just one end.

I plead with the Minister to look at the number of outstanding issues, so that we can truly get the best of both worlds by incentivising building while ensuring proper protection for neighbours.

[Michael Fallon]

I will first address some of the points that have been made on the change to permitted days. It has been suggested that 21 days might be too short, but that is exactly the same as the equivalent period under the planning regime.

My hon. Friends the Members for St Albans (Mrs Main) and for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) have suggested that neighbours further afield than those who adjoin might be denied the opportunity to object to something, but it is hard to understand why they would have stronger objections than those who live much closer. I therefore suggest that the focus of objection needs to be the impact on immediate neighbours.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Annette Brooke and Michael Fallon

Thursday 6th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Annette Brooke (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

20. What recent steps he has taken to support small and medium-sized businesses.

[The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Michael Fallon)]

In total, 450,000 new businesses were registered last year compared with 360,000 in 2009-10. We have cut corporation tax rates to an all-time low, we continue to cut red tape, we are incentivising bank lending, and we have a range of other schemes to support high-growth businesses in particular.

[Michael Fallon]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He is exactly right: cheaper credit is the key for many small companies. The whole aim of the funding for lending scheme is to ensure that banks pass on the reduction in the cost of the money that they themselves are accessing. The Bank of England will monitor that, but my Department will check that each bank continues to do it.

[Annette Brooke]

I welcome the Minister to his post. Undoubtedly, many small firms are getting a raw deal from the banks, with increased charges and limited credit. The board of Wimborne business improvement district is exploring the possibility of setting up a “bank” of Wimborne in conjunction with a local credit union, the idea being to go back to old-style banking with strong local relationships. What comment would the Minister make about that?

[Michael Fallon]

I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already met my hon. Friend’s constituents to discuss the issue, and I believe that he has already met the founder of the Bank of Dave as well. One of the recommendations of the Independent Commission on Banking was that the Financial Services Authority should look again at the requirements for a banking licence, to see whether they are too onerous and disproportionate for the providers of very small credit. We expect the FSA to publish its recommendations shortly and I would be very happy to discuss them with my hon. Friend.