Drugs Policy

Debate between Graham P Jones and Lindsay Hoyle

Tuesday 18th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Newton]

That is out of order.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I reassure the Minister that that is not the case. It is for the Chair to decide. Thanks for your help, but you are wrong.

[Graham Jones]

Lancashire constabulary, because of budget cuts, has had to remove the mental health workers who were embedded in its police response unit. Is that not an example of the Government asking for something to be done while undermining local authorities, which are unable to deliver these services?

Neighbourhood Planning Bill

Debate between Graham P Jones and Lindsay Hoyle

3rd reading: House of Commons & Legislative Grand Committee: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 13th December 2016 Commons Chamber

[Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 2—Planning Applications: award of costs—

“(1) Where a planning application for development meets the terms of subsection (2), and is—

(a) refused by a local authority, or

(b) an appeal under section 78 of the TCPA 1990 which is dismissed,

the planning authority may apply to the Secretary of State for an award of costs to reimburse the expenses incurred by individuals who submitted objections to the unsuccessful application or appeal.

(2) A planning authority may only use this power if the following conditions are met—

(a) the unsuccessful application or appeal concerned a new commercial or residential development; and

(b) the application or appeal was unsuccessful, at least in part, due to its incompatibility with the relevant approved neighbourhood development plan.”

New clause 4—Sustainable development and placemaking—

“(1) The Secretary of State must issue guidance setting out how the principles of sustainable development and placemaking can be—

(a) reflected in neighbourhood development plans;

(b) used by local authorities to support neighbourhood planning.

(2) “Sustainable development and placemaking” means managing the use, development and protection of land and natural resources in a way which enables people and communities to provide for their legitimate social, economic and cultural wellbeing while sustaining the potential of future generations to meet their own needs.

(3) To support this aim local planning authorities should—

(a) identify suitable land for development in line with the economic, social and environmental objectives so as to improve the quality of life, wellbeing and health of people and the community;

(b) contribute to the sustainable economic development of the community;

(c) contribute to the vibrant cultural and artistic development of the community;

(d) protect and enhance the natural and historic environment;

(e) contribute to mitigation and adaptation to climate change in line with the objectives of the Climate Change Act 2008;

(f) promote high quality and inclusive design;

(g) ensure that decision-making is open, transparent, participative and accountable; and

(h) ensure that assets are managed for long-term interest of the community.”

This new clause would clarify in statute that neighbourhood planning should be focused on the public interest and in achieving quality outcomes including placemaking.

New clause 5—Neighbourhood Planning: Payments to support production of plans—

“(1) Where a parish is designated as a neighbourhood area under the Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations 2012, and where the parish council agrees to forego some or all of the relevant Community Infrastructure Ley Monies, the Local Planning Authority may make available the amounts foregone to support the parish council in the production of a Neighbourhood Plan or a Neighbourhood Development Order.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) the relevant Community Infrastructure Levy Monies are those that will be payable to the Local Planning Authority under Regulation 8 of the CIL (Amendment) Regulations 2013 if the Neighbourhood Plan or Neighbourhood Development Order, when made—

(a) provides for the number of houses specified for development in that neighbourhood area under the relevant Local Plan, and

(b) those houses are built.”

This amendment would require Local Planning Authorities to make advances available to parish councils to support the production of Neighbourhood Plan or a Neighbourhood Development Order. The advances will equal the amount of income that the parish council agrees to forego out of the CIL revenues that would otherwise be paid to them by the Local Planning Authority once the housing specified in the Plan or Order is built.

New clause 7—Planning decisions: involvement of neighbourhood planning bodies—

“In place of section 75ZB of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as inserted by section 156 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016) insert—

“75ZB Responsibilities of decision-makers in respect of Neighbourhood Development Plans in the exercise of planning functions

(1) In considering whether to grant planning permission or permission in principle for development which affects land all or part of which is included within the area covered by a made or emerging Neighbourhood Development Plan, the local planning authority must—

(a) have regard to the desirability of upholding the policies and proposals contained in the Neighbourhood Development Plan;

(b) send a copy of the application to the relevant neighbourhood planning body;

(c) allow the relevant neighbourhood planning body a period of 21 days from receipt of the application to make recommendations about how the application should be determined; and

(d) take into account any recommendations made under paragraph (c).

(2) Where a neighbourhood planning body recommended against the application, under subsection (1), and the following conditions are met, the local planning authority may not approve the application without first consulting with the Secretary of State.

(3) The conditions mentioned in subsection (2) are—

(a) the development is not classed as a householder development;

(b) the development is not on a site identified for the proposed development in the relevant neighbourhood development plan.

(4) Consultations with the Secretary of State under subsection (2) must follow the procedures set out in provisions 10 to 12 of the Town & Country Planning (Consultation) (England) Direction 2009.

(5) In this section—

“emerging Neighbourhood Development Plan” means a Neighbourhood Development Plan that has been examined, is being examined, or is due to be examined, having met the public consultation requirements necessary to proceed to this stage.

“householder development” means proposals to alter or enlarge a single house, including works within the curtilage (boundary/garden) of the house.

“neighbourhood planning body” means a town or parish council or neighbourhood forum, as defined in section 61F of the 1990 Act (authorisation to act in relation to neighbourhood areas).””

This new clause would require planning authorities to consult neighbourhood planning bodies on decisions to grant planning permission. Where a planning authority wants to approve a major development against the wishes of a neighbourhood planning body, the planning authority will be required to consult the Secretary of State before granting permission.

New clause 8—Delivery of housing development—

“After section 74 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 insert—

“74A Delivery of housing development

(1) The Secretary of State may make provision, by a development order, for regulating the manner in which applications for planning permission for housing development are to be determined by local planning authorities with regard to the assessment of a five year supply of housing land.

(2) A development order issued under subsection (1) may in particular—

(a) define a methodology to be used by local planning authorities to assess a deliverable five-year supply of housing land, including confirmation of types of sites that may be included;

(b) specify the minimum period of time after which, if a local authority has not demonstrated a five-year supply of housing land, the presumption in favour of sustainable development should be applied in accordance with paragraph 49 of the National Planning Policy Framework;

(c) set out the desirability of upholding policies and proposals of made or emerging neighbourhood plans, where these are positive towards housing development, notwithstanding any lack of a five-year supply of housing land in the local authority area in which the neighbourhood plan is wholly or partly situated.

(3) In this section “five year supply of housing land” means specified deliverable sites identified as sufficient to provide five years’ worth of housing against the area’s housing requirements (see paragraph 47 of the National Planning Policy Framework).””

The proposal would empower the Secretary of State to issue a development order to: clarify the means by which housing land supply is assessed; define the minimum amount of time before a local planning authority’s failure to meet its housing targets results in its local plan being “out of date”; and specify that neighbourhood plans should be taken into account notwithstanding the lack of a five-year supply of housing land.

Amendment 1, in clause 1, page 2, line 3, at end insert—

“(c) it has been examined by an independent examiner who is registered with the Royal Town Planning Institute.”

This amendment ensures that the examination of a neighbourhood plan is conducted by an RTPI registered examiner.

Amendment 2, in clause 2, page 2, line 19, at end insert—

“(3C) To support Neighbourhood Plans, the Secretary of State should set out the weight that should be given to approved neighbourhood development plans at key stages in the planning process.”

This amendment gives weight to the Neighbourhood Plans at key stages along the process and not just at the post- referendum stage.

Amendment 3, in clause 3, page 2, line 28, at end insert

“after consultation with the local area involved.”

This amendment ensure that any changes to a neighbourhood development order or plan are first subject to consultation with the local area involved.

Amendment 4, in clause 4, page 4, line 7, at end insert

“providing that the subsequent area is not smaller than a parish or town council area or local authority ward.”

This amendment ensures that the size of a neighbourhood area is not smaller than a parish or town council area or local authority ward.

Amendment 7, in clause 5, page 5, line 10, at end insert—

“(c) reasonable payments made by local authorities for the purpose set out in paragraph (a) and (b) shall be recovered from the Secretary of State’s department.”

This amendment allows for the full recovery of costs of assisting with the development of a neighbourhood plan to be recovered to the local authority.

Amendment 5, page 5, line 11, at end insert—

“(2BA) Such statements of community involvement must include a right for members of the community to make representations.”

This amendment would give local people and communities a statutory “right to be heard”.

Amendment 6, page 5, line 11, at end insert—

“(2BA) Such statements of community involvement shall include measures to enable local parish councils to be set up in a streamlined and speedy manner.”

This amendment would make it easier for new parish and town councils to be formed.

Amendment 8, page 5, line 21, after subsection (3) insert—

“(4) Section 120 of the Localism Act 2011 (Financial assistance in relation to neighbourhood planning) is amended as follows—

(a) at the end of subsection (2)(a) leave out “, and” and insert “subject to the condition that such assistance is prioritised for bodies or persons in deprived communities, and”,

(b) after subsection (3)(b), insert—

“(ba) a deprived community is defined as being any area which is among the 20 per cent most deprived Lower Layer Super Output Areas according to the most recently published English Indices of Deprivation,

(bb) prioritised financial assistance is defined to mean that no less than 50 per cent of the total value of the financial assistance provided under this section is provided to deprived communities.””

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to prioritise deprived communities when making available financial assistance to support the development of neighbourhood plans.

Amendment 23, page 5, line 21, at end insert—

“(4) To support Neighbourhood Plans, all councils should have a Local Development Plan in place by December 2017.”

This amendment ensures that Local Plans are in place so Neighbourhood Plans can be made in line with the strategic aims of Local Plans.

Amendment 24, in clause 6, page 5, line 26, at end insert

“which must consider the current and future housing needs of the whole population including older and disabled people”.

Amendment 25, page 6, line 7, after “strategy” insert

“which must consider the current and future housing needs of the whole population including older and disabled people”.

Amendment 28, page 6, line 21, at end insert—

“(3) In section 70 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 ((determination of applications for planning permission: general considerations) after subsection (4) insert—

(5) No grant or other financial assistance shall be payable by the Secretary of State in connection with development of land in the circumstances set out in subsection (6) below.

(6) The circumstances are where a development plan document includes any of the following policies—

(a) the removal of the Green Belt designation from land in order to accommodate 10 or more dwellings;

(b) the designation of land that falls within a designated National Park, Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, or Site of Special Scientific Interest to allow major housing development;

(c) the designation of land that falls within a designated Site of Special Scientific Interest to allow major housing development.

(7) The Secretary of State must by regulation set out—

(a) what constitutes “major” development for the purposes of subsection (6) (c); and

(b) any exceptions to subsection (5).””

This amendment would have the effect of preventing the Government from making payments under the New Homes Bonus scheme for developments proposed in development plan documents on land (i) where the Green Belt boundary had been redrawn or (ii) within a National Park or Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, where a development is considered to be “major”. The amendment also allows the Secretary of State to set out exceptions to this provision within policies or guidance, which would include the NPPF.

Amendment 10, in clause 10, page 10, line 19, at end insert—

“(c) they must set out a timetable to review the need for technical documents.”

Government amendments 17 to 19.

Amendment 29, in clause 11, page 10, line 35, at end insert—

“(4) Such Statements of Community Involvement must outline—

(a) the links between Neighbourhood Plans and Local Plans; and

(b) consultation arrangements for Parish and Town Councils in the drawing up of Local Plans.”

This amendment outlines the relationship between local and neighbourhood plans and the role parish and town councils would play in their development.

Government amendment 22.

Amendment 9, in schedule 2, page 42, line 15, at end insert

“must consult the relevant lower-tier planning authority.”

This amendment ensures that district councils are consulted before a county council writes a local plan for their area.

[Graham Jones]

I want to speak to new clause 1, tabled in my name and those of many hon. Members from across the House, and planning guidance on the clustering of betting offices and payday lenders. Fixed odds betting terminals have been described as the crack cocaine of gambling and plague our high streets. Members have witnessed innumerable issues following the explosive growth in betting shops on their constituency’s high streets. Given the number, clustering and impact of betting shops, it is high time that there was clarity in planning law on this significant problem, which my moderate new clause seeks to address.

Research by the Local Government Association reveals a clear correlation between high-density betting shop clustering and problem gambling. Betting shop loyalty cards show that 28% of people living within 400 metres of betting shop clusters are problem gamblers, compared with 22% of those who do not live near a cluster. Research from the Institute for Public Policy Research shows that problem gambling, exacerbated by clustering, costs secondary mental health services and the taxpayer £100 million a year. Further academic research has revealed that clustering disproportionately affects vulnerable communities. The poorest 55 boroughs have more than twice as many betting shops compared with the most affluent 115 boroughs. There has been an adverse impact on our high streets. Those findings were summed up by Mary Portas, who said that

“the influx of betting shops, often in more deprived areas, is blighting our high streets”.

I remind some Members who might disagree that the Portas review was set up by Conservative Members when they were in the coalition Government, in the previous Parliament.

To date, deficiencies in the legislative framework have hampered efforts to address the effects of clustering on local communities. We have only to walk down any high street in a deprived area to see clusters of payday lenders and betting shops, which are affecting the vitality of our high streets.

Rwandan Genocide

Debate between Graham P Jones and Lindsay Hoyle

Thursday 8th May 2014 Commons Chamber

[Graham Jones]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Before the hon. Gentleman responds, it might be helpful if I point out that there are five further speakers to come as well as the Front Benchers and the winding-up speech. I believe there was an instruction to keep the length of speeches to about 10 minutes, and the hon. Gentleman has gone way over that, but I am sure he is coming to the end of his remarks.

[Graham Jones]

Travelling around the country, we see the reconciliation villages, the process of peace and reconciliation and the coming together. What we see is people openly admitting that they committed crimes, although one gets the impression that where they have committed 40 crimes, perhaps they will admit to four or two. We also get, rather bizarrely, reconciliation villages in which there is intermarriage between families, the members of one having murdered those from the other. It is remarkable that people in such circumstances now get on and can be so forgiving. To be absolutely honest, where people do not get on, they tend to accept that and move out of the area, but in general there is not any conflict. We do not see retribution; instead we see people openly admitting that they need to come together. I never thought I would ever in my life see people so forgiving as I saw in Rwanda.

The Government have been instrumental in all of this and it is important that the Government move Rwanda on. They have been very helpful to those who have been involved in these events. This has caused tensions, as it is necessary to let the perpetrators off and sometimes the victims feel frustrated about that. It is a managed process, but it has been managed very well.

The Rwandan Government have had to absorb some 3 million refugees returning to the country, which is a huge challenge during such a process of forgiveness and reconciliation. The Gacaca courts have been criticised by human rights and civil liberty groups, but it has been difficult to deal with so many criminals. This has been a remarkable process. I do not think anybody would say that it was an all-round success—there might have been individual injustices, although it is not a Faustian pact—but it has moved Rwanda on and I think we have to accept certain things as part of that process.

I will conclude now, Mr Deputy Speaker, to allow others to speak.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Marvellous; that is very generous.

Energy Markets Competition Assessment

Debate between Graham P Jones and Lindsay Hoyle

Thursday 27th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Last but certainly not least, the voice of Hyndburn, Graham Jones.

[Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)]

I was most interested in the answer that the Secretary of State gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith)—that he had had four years of impatience or that he had been impatient over the period. Looking back, does he not regret that the Energy Act 2013, which took more than a year to go through Parliament, does not contain a single concrete measure to improve competition in either the wholesale or the retail energy market?

Scrap Metal Theft

Debate between Graham P Jones and Lindsay Hoyle

Monday 18th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Mr Jones, is it correct that you have arranged with the Minister and the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) to speak briefly?

[Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)]

I am fine.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

In which case I call the Minister.

Whitsun Recess

Debate between Graham P Jones and Lindsay Hoyle

Thursday 24th May 2012 Commons Chamber

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

I want to reinforce the point that my hon. Friend is making about age. My constituency has the lowest age structure of any in the country, and yet it has some of the highest health needs. Under the system that he is describing, we would suffer.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Before the hon. Gentleman gets back on his feet, I point out that he has been talking for almost 30 minutes. I am sure that he must be coming to the end. What he has said has been very fruitful for the House, but he needs to come to an end due to the lack of time and the need to get other people in.

[Graham Jones]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for that kind advice.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. I assure the hon. Gentleman that it was not advice.

[Graham Jones]

I apologise, Mr Deputy Speaker. Thank you for those firm words.

The talk about shifting health funding concerns me because the GP surgeries in my constituency are all at the bottom of the performance league tables produced by the PCT, whereas those in the affluent areas score far better. All the deprived areas in Lancashire come at the bottom of those tables. I am therefore deeply concerned about the transfer of health funding.

I want to mention briefly my concern about Great Harwood health centre, because it has been transferred to PropCo. It was built under the LIFT initiative. On several occasions we have thought that it will happen and then that it will not happen. We are now at a stage where we think it will happen and £10 million has been set aside by the PCT. However, all that money is to subsumed into a Whitehall quango called PropCo, which will decide how it will be spent. I would appreciate a commitment from the Deputy Leader of the House on whether PropCo will carry through the decisions that have been agreed with local people and the PCT.

Finally, I will talk about individual voter registration. I did not get the opportunity to speak in the debate yesterday. I concur with the hon. Member for Pendle (Andrew Stephenson) that there are issues with postal voting that need to be looked at. It seems that it is being used to drive up turnout. I do not believe that anything wholly illegal has happened, but I do believe that it has been used to drive up turnout and win elections. Will the Deputy Leader of the House acknowledge that the Conservative party in Hyndburn is currently under investigation for proxy voting fraud? That is unacceptable. The legislation that his Government are bringing forward should look at that element, and not just at individual voter registration. With that encouragement, I will close my comments.

National Planning Policy Framework

Debate between Graham P Jones and Lindsay Hoyle

Thursday 20th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. It appears that rumours are circulating that Colonel Gaddafi has been captured. If that is true, will you ask a Secretary of State or a Minister to make a statement to the House today?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

What I can say is that it is up to the Secretary of State to decide whether to make a statement. The point has been noted and everybody is aware of it. Has the Minister finished?