Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Lee Rowley and Tim Farron(7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lee Rowley
It is vital for local councils to follow what is in the national planning policy framework. We know that where local plans are in place councils build more houses, but, most important, they build more houses in the right places, so that communities can be confident that they are being built where they are needed.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
The problem with the Government’s developer-led approach to planning is that it means that we see houses built for demand, but not for local need. In a community such as the Lake District, developers will sell anything they can build, but will it meet the need of local communities? Often it will not. Will the Minister ensure that local authorities and national parks putting together local plans are allowed to designate land specifically and exclusively for genuinely affordable housing so that they can say no to the houses we do not need and yes to the ones we do?
Lee Rowley
As the hon. Gentleman knows, the planning system has a substantial amount of flexibility—it is one of the frustrations—to ensure that local councils do the right thing. Where they do the right thing, they should be celebrated; where they do not, we should criticise them and hope that they are thrown out. If the hon. Gentleman is arguing against developer-led planning—capitalism, as it is otherwise known—that is a very interesting place for liberalism in this country to go.
Housing in Tourist Destinations
Debate between Lee Rowley and Tim Farron(12 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Minister for Housing (Lee Rowley)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Charles. I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) on securing this important debate. I know that colleagues in Cornwall and Devon have returned to this issue time and time again and that there are very strong views about it. As clear advocates of their constituencies, they have highlighted the issues they see in their individual areas. I particularly thank my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay for all the work he has done with colleagues, both today and more broadly, to highlight this issue.
The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) talked about the role of Housing Minister being sponsored by a certain company, and I liked the role so much that I came back a second time. I recall some of the discussions I had when I was first in this position, and the issue before us was one of the bigger ones raised by colleagues who are in the room today. In my first debate back in this role, it is a pleasure to be able to talk about it and to understand the continuing challenges faced in not just the south-west but other parts of the country. Colleagues have seen first hand, and have heard from constituents about, the benefits of tourism but also the challenges that come with it. I pay tribute to all the work they do.
As my hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Simon Jupp) rightly highlighted, there is a balance to strike. First, in responding on behalf of the Government, I acknowledge, as all hon. Members have done, the benefits of tourism. It is an economic, social and cultural asset, and it is hugely valuable for parts of the country such as not only Cornwall and Devon, but mine in North East Derbyshire. It employs 1.7 million people and contributed nearly £74 billion, pre-pandemic. Up to one in five jobs in Cornwall is supported by it, and that is one of the reasons why we need to get this right—so that people who work in the sector can live. My hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) highlighted the staffing challenges.
To enjoy the tourism offer, people need somewhere to stay and to rest. This is not a new issue, but it has come into sharper relief in the past 10 or 15 years, particularly with the rise in digital platforms and the sharing economy. That change has accentuated the offer in many parts of the country, but it has also created significant challenges, which were outlined.
Tourism has brought benefits, but we know and have heard about the challenges and the impact on communities, including the growing number of lets, which limits the availability of housing for people permanently resident in the community, and the reduction in the permanent population. That translates into problems for families and neighbourhoods, and issues with public services. Those are problems of popularity, of desire, and of people wanting to experience and enjoy the benefits of such areas, but as colleagues have indicated, they are still problems, on which it is reasonable and proportionate to take action.
As I am sure hon. Members will appreciate, the same issues do not apply in all parts of the country. We have to be cautious in how we approach this issue, to ensure that we deal appropriately with the different challenges and opportunities found in the south-west and in the city of Chester, which the hon. Member for City of Chester (Samantha Dixon) highlighted. Areas such as mine might not face the same kind of tourist issues as other areas, despite it being even prettier than Cornwall, Devon, and Strangford—a point that I will take up separately with the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon).
Hon. Friends and colleagues have asked me to talk about our work in Government, but it has been described already, so I will not go through it in extraordinary detail. As has been outlined, my colleagues in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport have consulted on a registration scheme that we intend to introduce under the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, which received Royal Assent a short time ago. That is a tool to provide local authorities with stronger evidence. It was consulted on earlier this year, with more than 2,500 responses received. We are part of the way through analysing those receipts, and the Government will respond as soon as we can. I assure the House that I have heard what Members say about the importance of moving quickly, and I will pass that back to colleagues in my Department, and in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport.
Lee Rowley
I am usually delighted to give way, but given the limited time, I will demur in this instance. On the consultation on use-class changes and short-term lets, I have heard clearly that there is a desire for clarity and speed. We are moving as quickly as we can. The hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Ms Qaisar) highlighted the Scottish example, which I will refrain from commenting on, apart from to emphasise that it took four years and a delay to get to that point. I do not anticipate ours being a four-year journey, but we need to ensure that we do this correctly, and work through the issue in the depth that it deserves. I assure hon. Members that we will try to do that in the time we have available. Given that I have made up a little time, I am happy to hear the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron).
Tim Farron
The Minister is a good man. During my enjoyable time on the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill Committee, his predecessor guaranteed to me that the change in planning use class for short-term lets would come in this April. Can he deliver on that promise?
Lee Rowley
I am happy to talk about that separately. I will try to move that as quickly as I can, recognising that we have had a large number of consultation responses, which we are working through as quickly as we can.
In the few minutes I have left, I turn to some of the points made. My hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay, who secured the debate, raised a concern about the implications for parish councils. I am grateful to him for doing so, both in the debate and a short time before. I spoke with officials in advance of the debate, and we are unsure about some of the challenges that are experienced. I am very happy to receive direct information on that from the parish council in Mevagissey—I tried to pronounce that; I hope that gives me some credit. If the parish council gets a power of competence, as it can, it should be able to spend the money that it talks about in a more flexible way. I am happy to speak to my hon. Friend about that, if that is helpful.
My hon. Friend the Member for East Devon rightly talked about balance, and the importance of the broader tourist ecosystem, as did my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon. The hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) talked about a taskforce, but I think we have clarity about the challenges, at least as far as I can see from this initial debate with colleagues who are impacted by tourism. The need now is to move at the greatest pace to hopefully bring in measures that we have said we are looking at.
My hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Cherilyn Mackrory) highlighted some of the more extreme instances of these issues; in particular, she mentioned the single child in Portloe, who is now in school. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Strangford for the Northern Ireland perspective, as ever. This is day 11 in this job, and I have not yet spoken specifically to colleagues in Northern Ireland, but I look forward to doing so through our inter-ministerial groups.
My hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Derek Thomas) talked about the importance of building housing, and the opportunities to build it in the right place. That is absolutely at the core of what we are trying to do in the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities: to build more housing, but in the right place. Where there are opportunities in rural areas as well as urban ones, we should take them.
Finally, given the comments from the hon. Members for Ellesmere Port and Neston, and for City of Chester, let me gently ensure some balance in this debate, in the short time that I have left. I understand that we have challenges around housing, but taking a broader perspective, home ownership has started to rise again in this country for the first time in many years. It is important for that to be recognised and anticipated. Three of the years with the greatest house building in this country have been in the last five years. We also have the largest number of first-time buyers in many years. There is always more to do—I would not want to suggest otherwise, particularly in this debate, when there are specific, localised issues that need to be dealt with—but that needs to be placed in the wider context of the progress that is being made.
I conclude by saying again how grateful I am for the opportunity to debate this important issue, and I recognise the challenge in individual areas. We have to get the balance right, and recognise that there are many different circumstances, as well as areas that are impacted and those that are not. The impact may be felt in differently in different parts of the country. I acknowledge and recognise the points made, the challenge that has been set for us to move as quickly as possible, and the opportunity to make progress on this issue, for the benefit of all the areas represented in the debate.
Levelling Up Rural Britain
Debate between Lee Rowley and Tim Farron(2 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lee Rowley
My hon. Friend makes a strong point.
I have only three and a half minutes left, so I will try to address a number of the points that have been highlighted by colleagues. My hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby), along with my hon. Friends the Members for Witney (Robert Courts), for Redditch (Rachel Maclean), for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Miriam Cates), for Penrith and The Border (Dr Hudson) and for Meon Valley (Mrs Drummond), among others, raised the point about connectivity, be it of the physical kind, in terms of buses and public transport, or the virtual kind, in terms of broadband. They are absolutely right to advocate on the challenges that this brings. We all know that there have been challenges associated with buses in the past few years. When the level of decrease of passenger use is so profound as it has been with covid, of course we want to try to work through how we can support rural communities. That is no different in my constituency. We have to try to look at the innovative solutions that my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch highlighted with regards to a demand response to travel, while also ensuring that people have good quality bus services over the long term.
I had the pleasure of discussing many of these things with the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), along with the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris)—the representative of that rural idyll—during the Committee stage of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill. The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale made some strong points about the importance of skills, which is the subject of one of the missions in our White Paper, demonstrating our commitment to that and highlighting the importance of trying to make progress on public transport connectivity and accessibility.
Lee Rowley
Sadly, I will not as I have further points to cover.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne) mentioned funding formulas. Although I am only 10 days into the job, I am very happy to talk to more colleagues about local government finance in general. I am keen to understand, to learn and to take the expertise that the all-party group and others have demonstrated over so many years to assist me in my role in the months ahead. He is absolutely right to raise the issue of park homes, as it is so important to many of us with rural and semi-rural constituencies.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) highlighted the importance of trying to get some of these points right both in terms of application processes to make applications for improvements and of making sure that central Government evaluate those in a way that works. His points on that were very strong. The triple tag team of my hon. Friends the Members for South Dorset (Richard Drax), for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) and for West Dorset (Chris Loder) made some very good points about the importance of enabling the input of the private sector, about ensuring that we have parish and town councils that work for the communities that they serve and also about negative revenue support grant. I have heard all of those points and would be happy to talk to my colleagues about them. My hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Dr Hudson), who is an important and doughty campaigner, made a strong point about trains in his area, particularly about the Avanti Service.
My hon. Friends the Members for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart), for Buckingham (Greg Smith), and for Devizes (Danny Kruger) demonstrated the importance of tourism and hospitality and the importance of consideration of communities when large infrastructure projects take place in local areas. My hon. Friend the Member for Devizes highlighted the immense importance from a rural perspective of remembering the long-term history and the reasons why these communities have developed in the way they have. As he said, the recollection and the acknowledgement of that history is so important in helping us to understand how we develop policy in the future.
In the moment that I have left, I thank all hon. and right hon. Members for their contributions today. It has been an incredibly interesting and important debate, which demonstrates our ability to have a nuanced, detailed and open conversation about the challenges and opportunities that face our rural communities. By doing that, we have the opportunity to make progress in the long-term to support these communities as we develop in the decades ahead.
Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill (Twenty Sixth sitting)
Debate between Lee Rowley and Tim FarronThursday 20th October 2022
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 View all Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 20 October 2022 - (20 Oct 2022)
Lee Rowley
I thank the hon. Members for Westmorland and Lonsdale and for York Central for expressing their views on this new clause.
The legislative framework governing the disposal of surplus land is, as the hon. Gentleman outlined, a long-standing one and it is designed to protect taxpayers’ money. The starting point is that land should generally be disposed of at the best price that is reasonably obtainable. However, as he also indicated, there are on occasions the opportunity to dispose of land for less than its maximum value where that creates wider public benefits, such as facilitating community projects. Therefore, it is possible, with the Secretary of State’s consent, for local authorities to dispose of land at less than best consideration in some circumstances.
As the hon. Gentleman also indicated, a general consent is in place for disposals where there would be a loss of value of up to £2 million, and in those cases it is at the discretion of local authorities, and above this threshold—as he also indicated, because he is seeking to change it—disposals require a specific application to the Secretary of State for consent. The legislative framework is designed for local authorities and other locally accountable bodies. It already includes the fire commissioner, and other bodies are accountable in different ways to different regimes.
So, while I completely appreciate the sentiment that the hon. Gentleman expressed, and I have read the correspondence from the hon. Member for Twickenham—although I cannot comment on individual cases, I know that she is making a very clear case regarding a particular instance within her Twickenham constituency—I ask him whether he would be prepared to withdraw the new clause. I know that it seeks to offer solutions.
As a new Minister, I would be interested to understand in more detail from the hon. Member for Twickenham the specific problems that she sees, and while I cannot give her any guarantees, if she wants to write to me with that detail I will happily read it and go through it in more detail. However, at this time I ask him whether he would consider withdrawing the new clause.
Tim Farron
I appreciate the Minister’s response. I am also grateful for the remarks from the hon. Member for York Central. This is a huge issue for all of us and there is much public land, particularly in a community such as mine, with multiple local authorities and, indeed, predecessor local authorities, national parks and all the other parts of the public sector that are present. Sometimes, that land becomes available and there are opportunities for us to make good public use of those other properties in ways that get far more lasting value to the community than a slightly inflated cash value upfront that could then be spent filling a black hole, no doubt, for next year’s budget.
I will not press this to a vote, as the Minister asks, but I encourage him to engage with my hon. Friend. If I could push him, I am sure she would be very grateful to have a sit down with him to talk through the issue to see whether he could provide additional guidance. All we are really asking for here is that the Government update the list of what counts as a public body and accept that there has been some inflation since 2003. They are not big asks, and I ask that the Government take those things into account. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 56
Annual pubs reports
“(1) Each tier 2 local authority in England must produce an Annual Pubs Report.
(2) A report under this section must consider the latest trends in pubs and on-licensed establishments across the authority.
(3) The Secretary of State may by guidance suggest the contents of such reports.
(4) Central government must provide funding to local authorities to cover the costs of this new responsibility.”—(Alex Norris.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Tim Farron
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The crises we are going through at the moment—the political one in this place, the cost of living crisis, and even the appalling Russian-inspired war in Ukraine—are secondary compared to the threat of climate change to our species and way of life. The buildings we live, study and work in are the single biggest contributors to greenhouse gases in this country and in others. The role of central and local government in ensuring we minimise and reduce to zero carbon emissions from our buildings and in particular from our homes, existing and new, has to be an absolute imperative.
The Government’s failure to tackle this in any meaningful way over the last few years does not only have lasting and terrifying climate consequences; it also has consequences today, as people are feeling in their pockets the cost of paying for energy bills. The Government through programmes have sought to champion our existing building stock. The green homes grant, for instance, was meant to help 600,000 homes and would on today’s prices have saved £1,800 a year, but 600,000 homes were not helped—only 43,000 were. That lack of ambition in central Government’s plans to insulate the stock that already exists is matched by a lack of ambition out there in the country when it comes to new builds.
Most local authorities, certainly ours in Cumbria, are determined to ensure that new builds are built with zero-carbon specification, yet they are not allowed to. If they seek to enforce zero-carbon homes when it comes to insultation, heat pumps, solar panels or a variety of other mechanisms that will ensure there is literally a zero carbon footprint from that property, the developers can object if they think they will incur an unreasonable expense, and the council or planning authority are powerless to do anything about it. It is incredibly frustrating.
This new clause is significant, as it will genuinely empower local authorities to do the right things, which they desperately want to. It breaks the heart of councils of all political parties when they see what they need to do and are not allowed to enforce it. The clause will allow them to do the right things, and more importantly even, it will do something to reduce energy costs and make a meaningful contribution to the battle against climate change. This is a really important clause, so I will seek to push it to a vote, because I think the Government have had plenty of time to take action of their own initiative over the last few years. I commend the new clause to the Committee.
Lee Rowley
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for outlining the new clause. I am afraid the Government will not be able to accept it, so we will no doubt have a Division in a moment, although I ask him to consider not pushing it to a vote. If he wishes to do so, that is of course his right.
Tim Farron
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
This is the last provision of a suite from me, and it is really important to me as a person with members of their family who have disabilities and as someone who many years ago worked for Lancaster University in a role supporting students with a range of disabilities.
At the time that the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 came into force, one of the glaring errors was that many older buildings were allowed to continue to be thoroughly inaccessible. I am particularly concerned about railway stations, of which there are many in my community. We are blessed with the Settle to Carlisle line; the Lakes line; the Furness line; and, of course, the main line through Oxenholme to Penrith and beyond. I am deeply concerned that there are stations throughout our country, but particularly in my community, that are not just slightly inaccessible but totally inaccessible.
In particular, I am concerned about Staveley station, which is on the Lakes line from Oxenholme to Windermere. Staveley is the first village in the Lake district. It is a beautiful and vibrant place, with a young community. It is a community that, often, lives there but works elsewhere. There are 41 steps up to Staveley station. There is zero accessibility, not just for people with a disability but for people with pushchairs or anybody who has any baggage with them. That is outrageous.
Because Staveley is a relatively small station, the Government’s schemes and funds such as Access for All, as well as those of previous Governments, were never in a million years going to give it any money. In the end, it is outrageous that one of our railway stations—I could also mention Arnside in my constituency and Ulverston in the constituency of my neighbour, the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Simon Fell)—has serious accessibility problems. It is outrageous that just because these are not huge main line stations they are inaccessible for many people in our community.
New clause 66 seeks to prevent the kind of bidding game that we will always lose because the station is too small. It makes it compulsory for there to be direct decent access to railway stations for people with disabilities and other mobility issues.
Lee Rowley
I thank the hon. Member for tabling the new clause. I completely accept that access to railway stations—and his particular point about smaller railway stations—is hugely important, and over a long period of time we absolutely must seek to improve accessibility where we are able to do so.
Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill (Twenty Fifth sitting)
Debate between Lee Rowley and Tim FarronTuesday 18th October 2022
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 View all Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 18 October 2022 - (18 Oct 2022)
Tim Farron
I congratulate the hon. Member for Buckingham on bringing forward these important new clauses. I agree with an awful lot of what he said. Undoubtably, food security is something that our country has overlooked hugely in recent decades, to our great cost. By some metrics, we produce only about 55% of the food we eat. That is not just a dangerous position to be in given the global situation, but it is morally questionable. As a first-world nation, we will go out and find the food we need, and we will inflate prices on the commodities markets, which will end up increasing prices for the poorest people in the world. On that level, we have a moral requirement to make good use of the land we have to produce food to feed ourselves so that we are not literally starving other people around the world.
It is worth pointing out that 70% of England’s land and about 72% of the United Kingdom’s land is agricultural. If we are serious about tackling global carbon emissions and improving biodiversity, we have to start with those working in farming. Anyone who thinks we can improve our environment without keeping people farming to deliver those environmental policies is not living in the real world.
The other thing that makes the new clauses attractive to me is that they refer to the responsibilities not just of planning authorities, but of Ministers. When it comes to planning authorities, a requirement to look at the impact of any proposal on food production and farming may sometimes mean that we protect land and do not allow development. It may also sometimes mean that we permit development, in order to allow, for example, diversification. Some level of renewable energy on farm sites is something that farmers actively want, to help shore up their businesses. I agree that we do not want to see whole farms handed over to solar, but many farmers would like the option to use renewables for environmental reasons and to cross-subsidise and diversify their business. Also, sometimes we simply need labour in those communities, and we may need to build some houses to ensure that we have sustainable farming.
I wish that the provisions of these important new clauses were already in law, because they would stop the Government botching the transition from the common agricultural policy, which was far from perfect, to the new ELM scheme. That will see farmers lose 20% of their income by the end of this year, with very little to replace it. Fewer than 2% of the 1,000 farmers in my patch—13 of them—have signed up for the new sustainable farming incentive. The botching of the transition means that farmers will lose their income, and so far they have very little to compensate for it.
However, to botch the unbotching is almost inexcusable. In the last few weeks, the Government have signalled that they might be ready to rip up ELMS altogether, after farmers have spent two years preparing for it. We see foolishness upon foolishness, all of which puts our farmers in a desperate position. They have never been more angry with the Government of the day—and we do not have time to go into the damage being done to our farming community by trade deals. We desperately need to remember, at the heart of policy making, nationally and locally, the importance of farmers and farming to food production and the environment. If the hon. Member for Buckingham were to press the new clauses to a vote, he could count me on his side—I would vote with him.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Lee Rowley)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Mark. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham for his introduction to the new clauses and for the work he is doing on this important policy area. We absolutely accept the challenge that he puts to us. He made strong points about the importance of balancing competing demands, all of which are important in isolation and need to be thought through and integrated as best as possible, while recognising that it is sometimes not possible to do everything. The point of Government, both local and national, is to try to ensure that that balance is struck in the best possible way.
I hesitate to go too much into an agricultural discussion, although the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale was keen to move into that space, but I acknowledge the points that have been made. It is critical that we continue to have food security in the United Kingdom, that consumers have access to good quality, healthy and sustainable food and that domestic producers have a viable business in the long run. Although I do not want to trade figures, the figures I have in front of me state that we produce about 60% of what we eat, and we produce roughly 70% to 75% of what we can produce in this country. Given the problem of dates, times and the like, I recognise that those things move around, although they seem to have been relatively static over the last 20 years. Therefore—to my hon. Friend’s point—the question is whether the planning system needs further content and signals so that it is clear that these things can be weighed up more clearly.
At the current time, things are going on elsewhere in Government, particularly around the Agriculture Act, which my hon. Friend referenced. The Act commits the Secretary of State to have regard to the need to encourage the production of food by producers in England and for that production to be done in an environmentally sustainable way. Also in the Agriculture Act is a legal obligation to produce an assessment of food security once every three years. I hope that goes some way towards reassuring my hon. Friend, although I acknowledge that he is also interested specifically in the planning element.
This might be one of the statements that I make regularly over the next few minutes or so, but I am happy to talk to my hon. Friend in more detail about the underlying intent and calls behind his new clause. However, at the current time, I ask him to withdraw it in lieu of further discussions and debate outside after our sitting.
Tim Farron
These interesting new clauses highlight two issues about which I am particularly concerned—issues to which the hon. Gentleman alluded. They are very helpful new clauses, and I am grateful to him for tabling them. He is right that, over the past decade, roughly a million properties granted planning permission have not been built. That tells us something. When the Government consider growth and the need for new developments, they think they just need to loosen planning regulations. Well, the answer to that is that 1 million new homes have obtained planning permission but have not been built. Let us focus on making sure that those developments get delivered, rather than on reducing the regulations, because that tends to lead to the wrong sort of homes in the wrong sort of places.
Another issue affects tens of thousands—but not a million—houses. It is when developments begin but are not completed. That may be for a range of reasons, such as genuine business failure. It may also be due to a disreputable developer; we have seen plenty of those. I think of one in my constituency, a serial bankrupt, and it seems obvious to me that in their case, we are talking about a deliberate business tactic. Developments are either completely or partially abandoned. That is a waste of time and money, and it creates eyesores for communities, when the development could have provided nice, decent homes for people to live in.
Would the Government consider going further than the new clauses suggest and applying existing legislation, namely empty dwelling management orders? They allow local authorities to commandeer empty properties after a period. It should be noted, however, that the period is seven years, which is far too long, but we should be able to commandeer developments that were begun but not completed for public use and public good. I can think of one house in the Kendal Parks area of Kendal that has been uncompleted for 20 years. It is an eyesore, and damaging to the local community. It could be a decent home for someone. I can also think of a whole development in Burton-in-Kendal that has been poorly managed and has fallen out of the hands of one set of owners into those of another. The ability of local authorities to commandeer properties for the public good would be of huge benefit, not just to my community but to every Committee member’s community.
Lee Rowley
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale for his comments, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham for tabling the new clauses.
I accept that this is another area of policy that is difficult and challenging and that a balance needs to be struck. I completely understand the concerns that have been raised. In order not to detain the Committee, and without offering any guarantees, I would be keen to continue the conversation outside the realms of the Committee to consider and reflect on the points made by those who have spoken. I am happy to discuss that in advance of further stages of the Bill, should my hon. Friend be content to do that.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Lee Rowley and Tim Farron(2 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lee Rowley
My hon. Friend is right to emphasise not only the importance of nuclear in concept but the huge significance of the supply chain, which is estimated to support more than 60,000 jobs across the whole of the United Kingdom, including in SMEs in Stourbridge and Ynys Môn. And if I may shove in my knowledge of early 2000s pop music, we are working hard to make the nuclear industry whole again. [Laughter.]
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
That was written by a member of Orchestral Manoeuvres in the Dark, so we will give the Minister that.
Energy security is of vital significance, particularly at the moment, and nuclear is part of the clean energy mix. Does the Minister understand that the United Kingdom, which has the second highest tidal range on planet Earth after Canada, is not making anything like sufficient use of that permanent tidal energy? Will he look again at his Government’s policies on tidal, marine and hydro energy and give a boost not only to Cumbria and its energy coast but to the whole country?
Lee Rowley
The hon. Gentleman raises an important point about the importance of a diversified and secure energy supply. This is one of the reasons that the Government are looking at all forms, including tidal, and it is why we would encourage people from across the House to agree not just with tidal but with nuclear as well.