Neighbourhood Planning Bill

Debate between Greg Mulholland and Baroness Laing of Elderslie

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

[Greg Mulholland]

I thank my colleagues on the save the pub all-party group, particularly the hon. Members for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) and for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh), who are vice-chairs of it. I thank the hon. Member for City of Durham (Dr Blackman-Woods) for very kindly opening the debate for me. I apologise to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to the House for not being present at that time, but I was wandering over to the Chamber expecting a vote and suddenly saw that the debate on new clause 9 had begun. I also thank the hon. Lady and her colleagues for their consistent support on this issue. Above all, I thank the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach) for having the courage to add her name to the new clause. She will be toasted by many groups around the country.

I thank Protect Pubs for its excellent campaigning. It is now the leading organisation in the country for standing up for and protecting our pubs. I also thank the British Pub Confederation, which represents 14 pub sector organisations in the UK. I declare an interest as I am its chair.

Today we are campaigning on exactly the same issue that the hon. Lady’s colleague and great friend of pubs, the hon. Member for Bristol North West (Charlotte Leslie), set out in an amendment in February 2015 as vice-chair of the save the pub group. Too many pubs are still closing. The statistics go up and down slightly, but in excess of 20 pubs are closing a week.

The hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) has missed the point. The new clause is not about stopping pubs that are not viable from being converted into other things. Pubs are being converted into other things all the time. Some pubs might be unviable, but a considerable number of them are viable and profitable. Unfortunately, they are closing because of permitted development rights. Surely it cannot be right that a wanted, profitable business can be closed without local people having any say.

I will not go into the detail, because I know there is limited time, but I think that people are aware of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, which allows people to turn pubs into shops, supermarkets and offices, or to demolish them, without planning permission. May I ask how long I have to speak, Madam Deputy Speaker?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the debate has to finish in just over 20 minutes and that several other Members wish to speak. Of course, if the House does not wish to hear the Minister, that is up to the House. I would like to hear the Minister, but I cannot insist upon it.

[Greg Mulholland]

Of course we must hear from the Minister, but we need to hear the argument or people will not know what the new clause is about, as is clear from the comments made by the hon. Member for Shipley.

The new clause is about the simple principle that if someone wants to demolish a pub or to convert it into anything, the proposal should go through the planning process to allow residents to have their say on whether they oppose or support it. That is all we are talking about. This simple, common-sense change would mean that—as is the case, strangely, for theatres and launderettes—proposals for pubs would have to go through the planning process.

Let me quote a Conservative councillor. Councillor Michael Iszatt of Cheshunt North ward in Hertfordshire was quoted in The Guardian in 2014, talking about the closure of the Victoria. He said:

“It wasn’t a quiet pub”.

He clearly knew that it was not a failing pub, as did the planning authority, but it could do nothing. Councillor Iszatt said:

“Localism doesn’t apply here… Localism’s got to be a little village where the big supermarkets aren’t interested, because there aren’t thousands of people to buy things. We’re not allowed to have a community. But the reality is, we do.”

That profitable and wanted pub became a Morrisons. It was the victim of the sort of predatory purchasing that we see all the time.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. I must tell the hon. Gentleman that I was mistaken and have misled him. There are only 11 minutes left in the debate.

[Greg Mulholland]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will speak for no more than a minute to conclude, because otherwise people will not have heard any of the arguments for the new clause.

The Victoria was a profitable, wanted pub. It was closed in 2014 and turned into a Morrisons. And guess what? Because people did not want that and did not have the chance to comment, the Morrisons has closed. Permitted development rights have doubly failed that community, because a profitable business was closed and a supermarket that was not wanted has also closed, meaning that the building is empty.

I know that the Government will not listen and make a concession; frankly, they have not had the chance to hear the arguments properly. However, I urge Ministers to sit down with me and the save the pub group, with the hon. Member for Eddisbury and with Councillor Michael Iszatt to discuss how the Government can address the problem. While communities up and down the country—and councillors, including Conservative ones—are in uproar about the situation, it cannot continue.

Housing: Long-term Plan

Debate between Greg Mulholland and Baroness Laing of Elderslie

Tuesday 9th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Kelly Tolhurst (Rochester and Strood) (Con)]

Would you agree with me that your council could take guidance from Medway Council, a Conservative-run council that has been building council houses for the first time in a long time? It has smashed its own targets on affordable housing, delivering far more than our percentage target over a number years. Do you think that your council could take advantage of Medway Council’s experience in delivering in this area?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I do not want to interrupt the hon. Lady, but this happened yesterday five times and it has happened today three times. When you use the word “you” you are referring to the Chair. The hon. Gentleman is the hon. Gentleman and his council is his council. It is like the eight minutes—you just use the third person. We are back to year 3 again.

[Greg Mulholland]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I welcome the intervention from the hon. Lady, and indeed anything that will get Leeds City Council building more and using its powers. We need to learn from best practice everywhere and from councils of any colour.

My final point is that the planning system is not set up to deliver the solution to the housing crisis. Deregulating and making it easier for developers to build on green belt and greenfield sites will not help. I share the criticism of the housing targets and the fact that Leeds City Council will not revise its target. I have campaigned with my neighbouring MPs and with Wharfedale and Airedale Review Development, which highlighted the flaws in the council’s case. At the same time, WARD is very clear that there need to be changes in the planning system. It feels that, because of the planning system and the way that developers are able to exploit it, Leeds City Council will not stand in the way of developers. I again ask the Minister to look at my National Planning Policy Framework (Community Involvement) Bill, which came up with a number of solutions last year on how we can give more specific powers to communities and councils; look at housing targets not on a council but on a regional level; allow co-operation; and do more to put into practice the words from the Minister about ensuring that we incentivise development on brownfield sites.

The balance is not right on either the planning system or housing. Until the Government accept that and stop hiding behind the dangerous gimmick of the right to buy, it will leave many sections of our society with no way out of this housing crisis.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Debate between Greg Mulholland and Baroness Laing of Elderslie

Tuesday 19th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)]

I must start by saying that I did not know that the word “majoritarian” existed until now, so, as a politics graduate, I have learned something new. I rise to speak in support of amendments 341 and 342. I am pleased to say that they are, in parliamentary terms and in common-sense terms, remarkably simple. Amendment 341 would simply delay the introduction of new boundaries following any boundary review, whatever its findings, until after the next but one general election. That would mean that the next election would be fought on the current boundaries, and that the new boundaries—whatever they might be—would be introduced afterwards, in time for the election in 10 years’ time, if we have fixed-term Parliaments.

Amendment 342 relates to the regularity of boundary changes. Redrawing the boundaries every five years, for every Parliament, is simply not sensible. I am happy to support the principle of having more equal constituencies, but the proposals as they are now worded show no recognition of the reality of the process of introducing boundary changes. Every boundary review and change incurs a significant cost, which we should surely be concerned about in a time of austerity. They also cause chaos for the constituents of all hon. Members around the country, and for all the local authorities that have to work out the boundaries. Recently, I found out that one of my local pubs had been wrongly put into Leeds Central as a result of the latest boundary changes.

This illustrates the point of amendment 341. We introduced significant boundary changes for the election that took place just six months ago, and to ask the people of this country to understand why we are now going to redraw them again, even for a good reason, is simply not common sense. It is simply not acceptable.

[Mrs Laing]

I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but he must accept that those boundary changes were based on figures collected almost 10 years ago. Also, does he accept the principle of the equalisation of the numbers of voters in constituencies?

[Greg Mulholland]

Forgive me, but I do not think the hon. Lady has been listening to my comments very well, because I just said that I supported the principle of having more equal constituencies. I support that aim, although I also support many of the caveats relating to common-sense, physical boundaries and to local determination which other amendments deal with. However, I support equalisation as a principle.

[Mrs Laing]

I was listening to what the hon. Gentleman was saying, and I am still listening, but he is contradicting himself. If he agrees with the principle of equalising the number of electors in each constituency, he must accept that populations move and that their numbers change, and that there must therefore be boundary changes. If he is simply arguing that they are inconvenient for the boundary commissions, I do not think his argument is very strong.

[Greg Mulholland]

I think the hon. Lady must be the only person in the Chamber who could possibly regard what I have said as a contradiction. I will tell the Committee who is inconvenienced by the boundary changes: it is the voters of this country, as well as Members of Parliament. There are constituents in this country who have been in four different constituencies in recent times. They simply do not know what parliamentary seat they are in, who their MP is or even who they will be allowed to support at the next election.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Mulholland]

If the hon. Gentleman visited my constituency, he would understand why people not only would not want to leave but would want to move there in great numbers. [Interruption.] From a sedentary position, the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing) asks whether we do not need two Members of Parliament. Perhaps she is making the case for an English Parliament. As I have said, the English question with regard to devolution certainly needs attention.

[Mrs Laing]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Greg Mulholland]

I am willing to do so, although I suspect that you may not allow it, Mr Bayley. It is up to you to decide whether it is in order.

[Mrs Laing]

I thank the hon. Gentleman very much for giving way a third time. I had no intention of interrupting him at this point, but as he has put words into my mouth, I must ensure that they are not on the record as mine. I will advance no argument for an English Parliament, now or at any other time. What I was saying to the hon. Gentleman was that if many people came to live in his constituency—as he has just said that they might, because it is such a desirable place—the population would rise considerably, and it would need more than one Member of Parliament in order to have equal representation in the House.

[Greg Mulholland]

I am starting to worry that my acting as a tourism officer for Leeds North West may attract an undue influx of people to the constituency. I think a few would be good for the local economy, but if there is such an influx I will come back to the House and explain that we do have a real problem.