Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Greg Mulholland and Greg Clark

Tuesday 14th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

The whole of the industrial strategy is an invitation to businesses in every sector to come forward and propose to the Government what is required to grow jobs and skills. That is the invitation to all digital companies.

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

The Pubs Code Adjudicator Paul Newby failed to declare a much more fundamental direct conflict of interest than Charlotte Hogg, yet Ministers are ignoring it. Tomorrow, tenants will protest outside his office. How long will Ministers keep failing to do their duty and not face up to this situation?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Greg Mulholland and Greg Clark

Tuesday 31st January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

The midlands engine is a very important part of the strengthening of the economy, and there is real momentum there. My hon. Friend can look forward to some very important announcements that will be made imminently.

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

Last week, the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Margot James), said that there had clearly been instances of the pubs code being flouted and that Members should bring such things to her attention. I have a case in her own constituency to bring to her attention, which also shows that the adjudicator is not doing his job. May we discuss this matter please?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Greg Mulholland and Greg Clark

Tuesday 13th September 2016 Commons Chamber

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

Following the recommendation of the Select Committee to remove Paul Newby as pubs adjudicator, new evidence has emerged that shows that he failed to properly declare his interests and also misled the Select Committee. So far, he has refused to resign. Will the Secretary of State now restore confidence in that post by sacking him?

[Greg Clark]

My understanding is that the appointment followed a proper process. That is what I understand to have taken place, but I will look at the suggestions that the hon. Gentleman has just raised.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Greg Mulholland and Greg Clark

Monday 6th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

I would be delighted to meet my hon. Friend. Neighbourhood plans are one of the most important successes of the Localism Act 2011 and they are catching fire across the country as more and more communities want to be able to shape the character of their communities. It is notable that when they go to referendum, the average yes vote is 89%. I think either side of the referendum campaign would regard that as emphatic.

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

Some councils, including Leeds City Council, are prioritising “easy” areas with neighbourhood plans and ignoring and not properly assisting those where it is difficult and there are huge pressures, such as Aireborough. Will the Secretary of State look at the guidance issued to councils, particularly as developers can carry on developing even though neighbourhood plans are being produced?

[Greg Clark]

I hope the hon. Gentleman will involve himself in the scrutiny of the new Bill, which is designed to help precisely those neighbourhoods where support from the local authority has not always been forthcoming and enthusiastic, so that they can insist on that and proceed apace.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Greg Mulholland and Greg Clark

Tuesday 24th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

The hon. Lady’s initial question was about how the Government’s policies on devolution and constitutional reform have benefited her constituents and I set that out in terms. I would have thought that she would want to recognise that, as did the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer). The front page of the Manchester Evening News put it in this way: “We’re All Winners!” Part of the gain for Manchester is that local people can make more of the local decisions, including those on housing, as I mentioned in my previous answer.

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

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Local Growth Deals

Debate between Greg Mulholland and Greg Clark

Monday 7th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend. I am just sorry that he will not be able to use it for his commute to this place. However, it will be a good monument to his campaigning over the years.

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

The unforgettable amazing two days in which the Tour de France went through Yorkshire showed what can be delivered by Welcome to Yorkshire, the local councils, the local businesses and the local people if they are allowed to get on with it. This announcement is great news for the Leeds city region, but will the Minister confirm that it will allow us to make the decisions that he knows we need to make with regard to transport, including a link to Leeds Bradford international airport and getting something better than the trolleybus?

[Greg Clark]

My hon. Friend is right to say that with £1 billion of investment available, it is up to Leeds, through the combined authority and the local enterprise partnership, to make those choices in a way that it could not before.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Greg Mulholland and Greg Clark

Tuesday 11th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

In answer to an earlier question, I said that I have written to all of the banks and asked them—and they have agreed—to forbear on charging businesses where these matters are in dispute and if the company has financial problems. I am also speeding up the process to resolve these issues once and for all. The matter is rightly of concern to many businesses right across the country and I will do everything I can to help.

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

The beer duty escalator was brought in by the previous Government in a very different economic situation. Many CAMRA members will come to Parliament tomorrow. The Economic Secretary said that he would reflect on and consider the issue. How is he getting on?

National Planning Policy Framework

Debate between Greg Mulholland and Greg Clark

Tuesday 24th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

It certainly will be. What I did not say was that the National Housing Federation specifically commended the inclusion of the exceptions policy in the draft NPPF.

The framework is good for sport. The Rugby Football Union, the Football Association, the England and Wales Cricket Board, the Lawn Tennis Association and the Rugby Football League said:

“We all welcome the safeguards for sport contained within the NPPF. Thank you for your support and commitment to the sports sector—we are extremely grateful”.

The NPPF is good for excellence in design. The Royal Institute of British Architects said:

“We are delighted that the Government has accepted many of the key recommendations put forward by the RIBA.”

It stated that the framework

“will send a clear message to developers, planning officers and committees that poor quality development will no longer be accepted.”

The Design Council said that it

“wanted to say how much we welcome the fresh approach to design and to raising the bar on design standards to new heights”.

The framework is good for wildlife. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds said:

“We had 3 red lines for a successful NPPF and these have all been met. The NPPF properly reflects the ambitions of the”—

natural environment White Paper—

“to halt the decline in biodiversity and to secure net gains”.

The NPPF is good for the arts. The Theatres Trust said:

“we celebrate a national planning policy that not only recognises culture, it also creates specific policies that both plan positively for cultural facilities and guard against their loss.”

It is good for our historic assets. English Heritage said:

“Thank you for your confident engagement with EH. Between us we should have secured our fabulous historic environment. We are well pleased with the result”.

The NPPF is good for local democracy. The Local Government Association said that

“local people will have a real say”

and that the framework will

“make it easier for town halls to tailor the planning system towards supporting growth that meets the area’s needs.”

The National Association of Local Councils, which represents parish and town councils, said that the proposals

“will empower communities and local councils to energise their neighbourhoods”.

The NPPF is good for everyone. The National Trust said:

“Thank you for listening to our concerns and those of our members. It is a remarkable achievement to have united almost all of the disparate voices involved”.

I think that the “almost” might have referred to some Opposition Members, but I have not given up on them.

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

I am sure that my right hon. Friend is coming to this point, but as the chair of the all-party parliamentary save the pub group, I commend him and the ministerial team on including pubs in the national planning policy framework for the first time. Will he ensure that the message goes out strongly that this is not the end of the matter? Local authorities will have the responsibility of ensuring that local services such as pubs, post offices and local shops are protected. Council planning departments can no longer ignore that consideration, because it is becoming their responsibility.

[Greg Clark]

My hon. Friend has made a distinguished contribution to the debate. Modesty alone forbade me from including the praise that was sent by the representatives of the pub companies.

Localism Bill

Debate between Greg Mulholland and Greg Clark

Tuesday 17th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

We are not quite in the dark. I hope that I have illuminated some of the dark, given what I have been able to say about the proposed contents of that White Paper. At the time of the Budget, I said that we would try to bring forward the definition a little earlier than the rest of the document, because I know that there is an interest in it. That will at least allow the other place to have the benefit of that thinking. If a greater token of good faith than my words at this Dispatch Box is required, it will appear quite shortly.

I think hon. Members will be satisfied with our approach. I have long regarded the matter as a personal interest, having shadowed the energy and climate change brief in opposition, and there is nothing in our approach that does anything other than enhance matters. By clarifying, and taking away much of the undergrowth around, planning policy, it will make more resonant the principles that the hon. Lady, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington and my Liberal Democrat hon. Friends so rightly want to promote.

Neighbourhood planning is another important addition to the Bill. I freely accept that the initial version of our clauses on this could have been improved, and I made commitments in Committee that we would reflect on improvements that could be made. The hon. Gentleman was particularly exercised, and indeed lyrical, about the opportunities to improve some of these provisions. He was dismayed that a neighbourhood forum in which these issues could be discussed was liable to take place in the saloon bar of the Dog and Duck, thinking that too intimate a space for such a gathering and suggesting that it should be larger. We have reflected on the size of public houses across the country, and we think we need to enable more people to attend the forums.

There is no Dog and Duck in Birmingham, as far as I was able to establish, which is a great disappointment. There was a Dog and Duck in Holloway Head, which is perhaps an area of the city that he knows, but sadly it was demolished some time after 1899. I have brought in this very appealing photograph of the pub, which I will give to the hon. Gentleman so that next time he is in his city he can research its antecedence. I have to say that it does not look the most salubrious of establishments, but then I do not know what his taste is in public houses, and he might regret its disappearance. He may also be dismayed to hear that another public house demolished in Birmingham in recent years was the House That Jack Built. I am sure that that is a source of regret to everyone in Birmingham, but perhaps it is an opportunity for him.

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

While my right hon. Friend’s comments are amusing, does he understand the frustration of many of us, including members of the all-party save the pub group, that even after this Bill has been passed, it will remain perfectly possible for people to demolish free-standing pubs without the community having any right to have a say?

[Greg Clark]

I understand my hon. Friend’s point. I will say a few words about that in moment, and I hope to give him some comfort. He is absolutely right that one of the types of building that communities value most, whether in towns or villages, is their local pub. The frustration they feel in seeing some of these buildings demolished without the opportunity to do anything about it is a source of great concern. The Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), who snaffled very sharpish the title of “Pubs Minister” when the portfolios were being handed out just after the general election, takes a particular interest in this and has been meeting representatives of the Campaign for Real Ale, as has my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland) and his group.

For Members of the House who were not in Committee, I should explain that we asked a series of questions about neighbourhood planning. First, is it right for neighbourhoods below the local authority level to be able to promote a vision of their future? We agreed that it was. This is easily available to areas that have parish councils or town councils: a standing democratic body is available, so it is easy to give it such powers. The next question is whether areas that do not have parish councils or town councils should be excluded from the ability to have a neighbourhood plan. There is an argument that they can apply for parish status, so we can provide a little bait to attract them towards doing that. Those on both Front Benches reflected on this and agreed that if some parts of the country decided that they did not want a standing parish council or town council but nevertheless wanted a neighbourhood plan, they should not be denied that.

How can we bring together people in those places in an acceptable way to discuss these matters? In the Bill, that question turns on neighbourhood forums. We agreed to increase, through amendments, the minimum number of members of a neighbourhood forum from three—the number at which it was rather unfeasibly set—to 21. Landlords across the country can now count on at least 21 customers being in their snug to discuss neighbourhood plans rather than the minimum of three. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington argued strongly that we should increase the number. We have gone a little beyond the number that he suggested, and that is absolutely right. Government amendment 160 makes that clear.

Amendment 160 also makes it clear that businesses should be involved. Clearly, any conception of a neighbourhood—certainly one that includes a high street—must reflect the fact that sometimes the people who have the interests of the community most at heart and who most epitomise the community are those who run businesses, because they are at the heart of the community. The fact that someone runs a business in a town but lives elsewhere should not preclude them from participating in the neighbourhood forum. We are happy to reflect that point, which again was urged by the hon. Gentleman, in Government amendments.