Legal Highs

Debate between Rehman Chishti and Mark Pawsey

Tuesday 1st July 2014 Westminster Hall

[Mark Pawsey]

It is part of youth’s belief in its invincibility. People take those products, believing that because they are young, their bodies are resistant, and they can deal with those things without a massively detrimental effect. How wrong can they be?

Another issue is the use of the term “legal high”, and the conclusions that it leads people to. If something is legal, they think it will perhaps do them no harm. If it is legal, why should they not do it? What should prevent them? The long and the short of it is that my constituent, frustrated at the lack of support available to his son, and concerned about others who might be dragged into using those products, identified a gap. He answered the question “What can be done about it?” by doing something himself: he set up his own company offering education and harm reduction advice. He set up five programmes, the first of which is called Legal Highs Game Over. It is a national awareness and harm reduction campaign targeting social media. It has a YouTube video and Facebook page, it is on Twitter, and there are posters. It addresses exactly the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South made about where young people now get advice and information.

[Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point about education and the role of the media. Does he agree that the media have a key role in making people aware of the dangers of such substances? My local paper, the Medway Messenger, ran a campaign on the effect and consequences of such highs, and other papers should do the same, to make people aware.

[Mark Pawsey]

My hon. Friend is right—we need to raise awareness; but we should not use the term “legal high” when we do so. In this place, and in all work that is done on the matter, we need to start using the term “new psychoactive substances” rather than an expression that includes the word “legal”.

Housing

Debate between Rehman Chishti and Mark Pawsey

Wednesday 5th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mark Pawsey]

Absolutely. The national planning policy framework is starting to bear fruit, so it was disappointing to hear Labour Members criticise the changes.

Planning delays have been stifling house building. I want to focus on planning guidance and the delays that planning applications consultees continue to be able to cause in the development process. The Government’s consultation paper on statutory consultees drew attention to 27 external bodies. It stated:

“This can mean authorities are reluctant to determine applications without input from these key bodies.”

That is where planning delays come in. I refer to my own constituency of Rugby where, I am proud to say, we have a very positive attitude to housing development and recognise the need to grow to provide accommodation for new households. Work has just started on the Gateway site, which will provide 1,300 new homes.

In addition, over a period of time landowners have been working on proposals for a major house building site that will generate 6,200 homes—the former BT mast site. It is just the kind of development that the Government recognise as necessary to provide housing and, as Members across the House have indicated, move the economy forward. So what is the problem at the mast site? Even though the development complies with the local core strategy and the land was previously developed, the proposals are being slowed down, in my view needlessly, by stakeholder agencies such as Natural England and English Heritage, which are concerned about their own single issues, which I believe are being given disproportionate weight.

In a second case, a constituent has applied to develop a site adjacent to a pond. As a result, a full newt survey has been requested before development can proceed, even though it is known that the habitat does not and cannot support newts. Again, that is holding up development. Even post-NPPF, external bodies have the powers to frustrate development. The NPPF was a good start, but there is still much more to do, and the Government recognise that in the new economy Bill, which will focus on reducing the time allowed for repeals and reviews, among other things, and help both development and the economy.

The substantive motion states that

“the Government needs to take urgent action to get the economy and house building going again”.

They have and they are. I congratulate the previous Housing Minister on all his hard work in supporting the housing industry and look forward to the new Minister taking the Government’s agenda forward. Knowing his previous ministerial role on business, I have every confidence that the Government’s housing strategy is in safe hands.

[Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that many Conservative local authorities, such as Medway council in my constituency, are building far in excess of their affordable housing targets, which clearly shows that there is a massive increase in housing development in certain parts of the country?

[Mark Pawsey]

I happily agree with my hon. Friend. It is great that there are authorities that are willing to deliver houses, but they remain frustrated by the issue of consultees. I very much hope that the Government and the Minister will pay particularly close attention to the issue in the coming months.