Supporting High Streets
Andrew Griffith Excerpts(6 days, 20 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House calls on the Government to support high streets by cutting public expenditure to facilitate the abolition of business rates for thousands of retail, hospitality and leisure premises on the high street; and further calls on the Government not to proceed with the Employment Rights Bill to avoid hiring freezes and job losses, to remove red tape for businesses, including by reviewing IR35, to cut energy bills for businesses and to tackle retail crime, thereby protecting key pillars of local communities including post offices, pubs and pharmacies.
I am pleased to move the motion in my name and that of the Leader of the Opposition. We celebrate and support our high streets—their independent shops, the warm refuge they provide from loneliness, and the way that they incubate new business. They bring us together as communities, provide markets for local farmers and food producers, offer venues for street festivals and often afford young people their first step on the career ladder, but across Britain’s high streets, the lights are dimming, the laughter in our pubs is falling silent, and shutters on shops are coming down for the last time. When high streets thrive, communities thrive. When our high streets retreat, so does civic society. We Conservatives profoundly value our high street enterprises, which is why one of our first actions in government will be to abolish business rates for thousands of retail, hospitality and leisure businesses.
In July, the Chancellor said that she will make the UK
“the best place to start and grow a business”.—[Official Report, 29 July 2024; Vol. 752, c. 1051.]
Well, goodness me, she has an odd way of showing it! In her very first Budget, the Chancellor slapped businesses with a £25 billion tax raid, and with a national insurance jobs tax, which hit high-street businesses the hardest, and meant that it cost business owners more simply to give someone a job.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
Hospitality was hit particularly hard by that toxic concoction. A UKHospitality survey found that 76% of businesses put up their prices, one third restricted their hours and 63% had to cut their staffing as a result. Is that not the reason why we need this policy to try to improve our high streets?
Andrew Griffith
My hon. Friend makes exactly the right point: it was a devastating concoction of the Chancellor’s last year, and I believe that I am right in saying that UKHospitality calibrated the figures and estimated that 98,000 jobs have been lost across the hospitality sector. How proud this Government must be of costing mostly young and often vulnerable people their first chance!
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
My hon. Friend is giving a powerful speech. Hospitality is fundamental to social mobility. I would have thought that Government Members would be ashamed of a policy that means that those furthest away from the labour market—young people—are put off from trying to get their first job. Hospitality is essential to enabling them to join the labour market, and the Government have put blocks in the way of people who want a better life.
Andrew Griffith
My right hon. Friend is exactly right. Let us be optimistic: we are here to celebrate our high streets, and perhaps all is not lost. The Chancellor could yet repent and reverse some of her most damaging policies, or adopt our policy of cutting business rates entirely for 250,000 high-street businesses.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
When I visited Salisbury chamber of commerce on Friday, it gave me the example of a single mother doing 30 hours a week on the national living wage. As a result of the combination of the increase in the national living wage, the threshold changes and the rate changes on national insurance, that individual costs a business 11% more than they did last year. As a consequence, they cannot take on anyone else. What does my hon. Friend think about the impact that has on the economy?
Andrew Griffith
My right hon. Friend represents his constituents in Salisbury diligently, and makes exactly the same point. With respect, the Government have not understood business, and the Treasury did not pause to consider, or to conduct an impact assessment. In particular, the capricious change in thresholds from £9,100 down to £5,000, without any impact assessment from the Treasury, has done immense damage to high-street businesses. The Government should hang their head in shame.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
My hon. Friend will know that cafés, including small cafés, play an important part on the high street and bring people to it. Is he aware that under this Government, mushrooms are up, bacon is up, eggs are up, sausages are up, bread is up, tea is up and milk is up? Therein is a threat to the full English breakfast. This Government might be forgiven for many things, but taking away the full English breakfast from the high street is not one of them.
Andrew Griffith
I enjoy a full English as much as I suspect my colleague does. It is not just breakfast that is under threat; it is also lunch, supper, tea, dinner and the great British pub.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the shadow Secretary of State for bringing this debate forward, and I welcome it. I am always constructive and encouraging, so let me say that Ards and North Down borough council, my local council back home, has a scheme for a new, thriving high street. A council grant enables shop owners to repaint their premises, provide new signage and address the blight of vacant shops. Online shopping without investment means that the high street cannot survive. Does he agree that the Government should extend the initiative that we have back home in Northern Ireland, in my council area, to councils here, to help with jobs and rebuilding the high street?
Andrew Griffith
I agree with the hon. Gentleman. There is so much that we in this House and those in the Government—if they are minded to do so—can do to alleviate the burden on business. It is hard to run a business at the best of times, and it is even harder when the Government seek to be a headwind, rather than a tailwind.
Andrew Griffith
I have so many wonderful contributions to take from my colleagues. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have his chance later.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
One thing that the Government might like to reflect on is the perverse situation that people facing VAT find themselves in. The £90,000 threshold is causing many small business people, such as barbers, to adjust their behaviour—classically, reducing their working week from five days to four or three. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Treasury needs to look at the increased tax take that it might receive if it changed VAT thresholds to allow those small businesses to work full time?
Andrew Griffith
My right hon. Friend makes another excellent point. I recently had the wonderful opportunity to meet Dr Arthur Laffer, whose pioneering economic research showed that reducing taxes increased not only the growth rate of the economy but, as a consequence, the tax take to the Treasury. That is a very important point about incentives and what we in this House can do.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
The hon. Member is speaking about the tax rate. Is it not also important to talk about the tax gap? That gap is £46.8 billion, of which £6.4 billion is linked to tax evasion. We are seeing a lot of that on our high streets up and down the country. What does he think should be done across Government to tackle it?
Andrew Griffith
I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman must have overstayed oral questions to the Chancellor, because what we are doing in the Chamber now is celebrating, cherishing and supporting our high streets, not accusing businesses in our constituencies of tax evasion. However, I am sure he has impressed his Treasury colleagues, who are never shy about trying to transfer wealth from the private sector to the less productive public sector.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Growth, increased turnover and increased profits for microbusinesses should be a cause for celebration, but the reality is that crossing the reduced VAT threshold can be a disaster. So many suppliers of small businesses are themselves small businesses; there is no VAT that they can reclaim, so it can be dreadful.
Andrew Griffith
Again, that is an excellent point. It is something that the Chancellor, who is spreading uncertainty and consternation again this morning, should think about in relation to the conduct of His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. While businesses absolutely understand that part of their role is to contribute to society—to the communities in which they exist—it seems that HMRC so often goes out of the way to make it hard for our businesses. This is an organisation that literally sought to turn its telephone lines off for six months of the year, until the previous Government refused to allow it to do so.
Hospitality venues, which we have talked about, are really suffering. They are at the apex of those affected by the changes to employment law, taxes and business rates.
Andrew Griffith
I will make some progress. Last week, I had the opportunity to visit the Queen’s Head in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), which brought home to me the challenges that that business is facing. Of course, all hon. Members in this Chamber represent constituencies, and traders on high streets in places like Arundel, Midhurst, Petworth, Pulborough, Storrington and Henfield have worked tirelessly throughout history to make our high streets and our communities what they are today, but—from the unacceptable time it has taken to fix the fire-damaged Angel Inn in Midhurst to the imposition of higher parking charges by Liberal Democrat councillors—government is too often a headwind, rather than a tailwind.
Helena Dollimore (Hastings and Rye) (Lab/Co-op)
The hon. Member is talking about the importance of high streets. In Hastings town centre, £150,000 of levelling-up money was provided to renovate the old Debenhams building and open a family fun factory. Sadly, that closed after a couple of weeks, the staff were not paid, and the building was boarded up. That taxpayer money was given to one of the biggest Conservative donors, Lubov Chernukhin. She has left with the money, and has not replied to my letter asking for it to be given back to the people of Hastings. Will the hon. Member, or perhaps the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel)—who received £70,000 from that donor last year—help me to get a response about where our money is?
Andrew Griffith
I am sure that the hon. Lady will wish to take that matter up with Ministers through the appropriate channels, but there will not be many fun factories on our high streets when they feel the burden of Labour’s further changes.
Running a business—something that Conservative Members understand—is not easy at the best of times, but thanks to this Chancellor and this Government, these are far from the best of times. For the average pub, business rates have soared from £4,000 per year to over £9,000, and this morning, we have learned that the Chancellor is coming back for more. A year ago, she promised that she was done—that her tax raid on business was the end of it. She is leading us down the garden path. Spending is out of control, and she expects taxpayers, including businesses, to clean up her mess.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that we have a Government who simply do not understand business? They seem to think that they can just squeeze and squeeze small businesses because they make unlimited profits. If they do that, there will be no businesses left on our high streets.
Andrew Griffith
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. One only has to look at the wording of the motion we are debating and that of the Government amendment. We Conservatives talk about lifting burdens, removing business rates, cutting red tape, and taking more action to address crime on our high streets. The Labour party talks about compulsory purchase, more grants and more subsidies—it is not interested in lifting the burden on business.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government present an illusion of choice? I will give him a very brief example. Two weeks ago, I met the owners of a business in my constituency—a young couple who own a hospitality business. They have two young children; one is three weeks old. They are buying a new house, and have said to me that because of the pressures bearing down on them as a result of choices made by this Government, they fear for the future of their business, which may have to close next year. Is it not the case that the Government are giving people an illusion of a choice, when in reality they are stifling the economy?
Andrew Griffith
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and the choices that businesses face are enormously difficult. Every single day, they have to ask themselves whether they should put up prices to try to claw back some of the damage—some of that £25 billion cost—thereby increasing inflation and keeping interest rates higher for longer, pushing up the cost of living. Do they reduce the number of employees or the hours per employee, or do they simply fold in the face of disincentives, a lack of support and headwinds rather than tailwinds? Do they shut up shop before the Chancellor’s next intervention heaps on more and more burdens?
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
The hon. Member is making a very powerful speech. High streets across my constituency are struggling, and one additional burden that they carry is a parcels border in the Irish sea caused by the Windsor framework and the protocol. It cost a children’s clothes retailer over £200 to get a delivery from GB. Does the hon. Member agree that this is an extra burden that retailers should not have to carry, and that the Government need to do something about it quickly before businesses go out of business?
Andrew Griffith
Rather than giving away our fishing for 12 years and getting nothing in return because of a dogma, or spending time on international affairs—giving away the British Indian Ocean Territory and paying for the privilege—the Government should be prioritising the needs of business and focusing on the specific barriers mentioned by the hon. Member. Doing so would make a huge difference to businesses in her constituency.
It is not just the Chancellor. The Business Secretary seems to be doing his bit too, creating more small businesses by shrinking existing large ones. His 330-page unemployment Bill, which is due to come back before the House tomorrow, will make life a nightmare for every employer on our high streets. It will make flexible and seasonal working impossible, and will prevent employers from taking a risk on young people and work returners—some of the most vulnerable people in society—for fear of joining the backlog of 490,000 claims to employment tribunals.
Andrew Griffith
If the hon. Lady wants to talk about what the Government are doing to help employment, I would love to hear her intervention.
Amanda Martin
The flexible labour market under the Tories meant that people were employed but did not know when they were working, how long they were working for and how much they were getting paid.
Andrew Griffith
You do not improve workers’ rights by making them unemployed, creating a generation of jobless young people who cannot find their way into gainful employment. And do you know what? It is not just the Conservatives who are saying that. Even that finishing school for socialists, the Resolution Foundation, opposes Labour’s Bill because of the unemployment that it will yield.
What this shows us is that the Government are simply not serious about business. We Conservatives get it. Many of us have worked in business ourselves, and we understand that businesses take risks, create wealth and employ millions. That is why we introduced business rates relief before this Labour Government cut it, and it is why we will introduce a 100% relief for retail, hospitality and leisure businesses, taking 250,000 high street premises out of business rates entirely.
Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)
The shadow Minister will, of course, be delighted to know that the Scottish National party was the first party anywhere in the United Kingdom to introduce business rates relief for small businesses. As for the Labour Government’s business literacy, which the hon. Gentleman critiques quite accurately, does it concern him that it manifests itself in deeply disingenuous moves, like taking a penny off the price of a pint, while the same pub—the Taybank in Dunkeld, perhaps, or the Stag in Forfar—is seeing its national insurance contributions put up and its energy bills going through the roof? This Government cannot join the dots. Is the hon. Gentleman concerned that this is only going to get worse?
Andrew Griffith
I am enormously concerned. I was concerned when I woke up this morning, and I am even more concerned after hearing the intervention from our Chancellor: no certainty, confidence plummeting, and the promise of more taxes to follow.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
I hope that the shadow Minister will explain something to me. I totally agree that business rates need reform, but I am deeply concerned about the hole in local government finance that it will cause. My local council, Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole, has calculated that it retains £66 million from business rates. Can he please tell me where that will come from?
Andrew Griffith
To coin a phrase, we are not going to balance the books of local government on the back of entrepreneurial businesses that are keeping our high streets alive, providing services for the community and allowing our economy to grow.
Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)
When the shadow Minister’s party came into government in 2010, I was working in the Animal store in Queens Arcade in Cardiff, which was an anchor institution there: it brought people in, and ensured that retail was thriving in the community. When his party left government 14 years later, the Animal store was closed, as were the majority of the other units in the arcade. Can he comment on why that happened on his party’s watch?
Andrew Griffith
I am not sure that we were in charge in the particular area that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned, but I am pleased to know that, like so many of us, he had his first experience of work—his first leg-up, his first work opportunity—in the retail and hospitality sector. It is hugely important, and gives people great opportunities in life.
I have talked about our promises—[Interruption.] I do not want to get too deflected by stories about the Animal store, of which the hon. Gentleman clearly has enormously fond recollections, and where he spent many a happy hour.
Dr Hudson
May I move the conversation on from animals, much as I would love to talk about animals today?
In Epping Forest we have fantastic pubs, restaurants and cafés—including the Queen Vic, Il Bacio, Gosht, Alecco, Papillon and Poppy’s—but they are all struggling under this Labour Government. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government should listen to our sensible proposals to cut business rates and help them to get their energy bills and food costs down?
Andrew Griffith
I absolutely agree. We are all here individually today representing our fantastic constituencies, our wonderful high streets and our entrepreneurial businesses—those residents and constituents who seek to be employed and contribute to a growing part of our economy. That is why we in the Opposition are here to talk about our plan to save the high street, not to make the sort of partisan points that we are hearing from Labour Members.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
Family businesses are crucial to our high streets, including mine in Inverurie, Ellon, Turriff and Huntly. Indeed, they are the backbone of our high streets, yet this Government’s national insurance contributions changes and Employment Rights Bill, and their slashing of business property relief, will have a huge impact on them and employment in them. What does the shadow Minister think of that, and what can we do to help our high streets and, in particular, family businesses in them?
Andrew Griffith
So many family businesses will be devastated by the family business death tax introduced by the Labour party. We often hear about the plight of farmers and food producers, but family businesses are even more numerous. If you have survived Labour’s job tax, if you have survived Labour’s more than doubling of business rates, if you have survived the red tape— so much more of it—that Labour is imposing, all that awaits you when you seek to pass your business or your family farm on to the next generation is Labour’s family business death tax. That is why, as part of our plan for the high street, we will repeal those damaging measures.
Andrew Griffith
I hope that the hon. Lady is rising to commit herself to repealing them too.
Catherine Fookes
No; I want to remind the shadow Minister that we on this side of the House talk up our high streets, while all I can hear from the opposite Benches is people talking them down. As for red tape, the family businesses in my constituency were desperate to get rid of the red tape that the Conservatives created during their botched Brexit deals. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that by giving £5 billion to the Pride in Place scheme, this Government are doing a great deal more to support our high streets than his Government ever did?
Andrew Griffith
That was a valiant attempt to return to past history, but on this side of the House we are looking forward. Our plan for the high street would remedy the damage that has been done not over past years but over past months, and even again this morning—the collapse in confidence caused by our Chancellor.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
Will my hon. Friend reflect on the fact that many of those sitting on the opposite Benches have clearly been dragooned into coming here to support the Government—as often happens in government, God help us. Does he think that they walk down their high streets telling the shopkeepers, “It is great to have national insurance charges so high that you cannot employ anyone, it is great to have an employment Bill that means you will not be able to employ anyone again, and with the rates that are out there, you may all be out of business—suck it up”?
Andrew Griffith
My right hon. Friend has made exactly the right point. It is genuinely bewildering—and we will see this again tomorrow—that when every single major business group in the country urges the Government not to proceed with their damaging unemployment Bill, when Labour think-tanks urge them not to proceed with that Bill, and when not a single business in favour of that Bill can be named by a Labour Minister—other than the Co-op and one that is overseas—they still seek to proceed with it.
Several hon. Members rose—
Andrew Griffith
I will make some progress.
We have talked about the damage being done by the Chancellor, and we have talked about business rates and our plan to reform them and give the high street a chance, but there is more. Our cheap power plan will cut energy bills by 20%, with the average restaurant saving a very real £5,000 and the average pub saving £1,100. Perhaps Labour Members would like to emulate that energy plan. We will save the high street from the scourge of crime and shoplifting, and early release of prisoners, by hiring a further 10,000 police officers, tripling the use of stop and search and reversing Labour’s release of criminals to make our high streets safer. We will repeal those most damaging elements of the Employment Rights Bill, and rather than paying lip service to cutting red tape, we will take a chainsaw to bureaucracy and blockages to business, from planning to licensing to IR35, and so much more.
We stand with the makers, not the takers: the people who put their time, energy and money on the line to make our communities a better place. We know that one cannot build prosperity by punishing those who create it, that one cannot revive our high streets by taxing them into submission, and that one cannot protect a worker by bankrupting their employer. Our message to the Government today is simple: give businesses the confidence they need; remove the threat of taxes hanging over their head; listen to the voice of business; and support our plans to support our brilliant high streets.
Employment Rights Bill
Andrew Griffith ExcerptsMonday 21st October 2024
(1 year ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Employment Rights Bill 2024-26 View all Employment Rights Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)
Many small business in Meriden and Solihull East are rightly concerned about the Bill for a number of reasons. Since the election, I have spoken a number of times demanding that the Government be more ambitious for growth, for our entrepreneurs and for our small businesses. Indeed, it is the moral duty of every Government to unleash the full potential of our businesses and, where possible, to create an environment to embolden entrepreneurs and encourage economic growth.
Instead, the Bill will kill off any ambition and any focus on growth. If we want to focus on inclusive growth, we must nurture our start-ups, scale-ups and small businesses, and let them be nimble in how they operate, rather than shackling them. That is how economic magic will start to happen. The businesses to which I have spoken are worried about the insufficient consultation. The Government’s impact assessment, which we received late, shows that small businesses are likely to be hit hardest. The costs, according to the Government’s own analysis, will be in the low billions—up to £5 billion. For a Government who keep talking about the alleged black hole, those low billions seem rather reckless. It proves that this is nothing more than an ideological Bill that does not ensure growth.
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that, with just nine days until Halloween, the impact assessment we have seen today is an early horror show?
Saqib Bhatti
My hon. Friend makes a valid point. A lot of people are in a holding pattern for business decisions on investment and employment.
All the Bill will do is leave our businesses at the mercy of the trade unions and take us back to the 1970s. It will merely align us with the growth-gobbling guidelines set by bureaucrats in Brussels and hold our businesses back. It is not just me who thinks this; I am going by the Government’s impact assessment. The CBI claims that employers expect Britain to become the worst place to invest and do business over the next five years—a damning indictment of the Government.
Renters’ Rights Bill
Andrew Griffith Excerpts(1 year, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Angela Rayner
My hon. Friend makes a really important point about deposits and paying rent in advance. This Bill will protect tenants from requests for large amounts of rent in advance, but we are in listening mode. We will keep this issue under review during the passage of the Bill, and we will take the necessary action. We think that we have done enough on that, but we are open to interventions, if people feel that they would help.
Unlike in the previous Government’s Bill, the tribunal will not be able to increase rent above what was originally proposed by the landlord. In cases of undue hardship, we will give the tribunal the power to defer rent increases by up to two months, thereby finally ending the injustice of economic evictions.
However, that is not all we will do to tackle unfair rent costs. We remain committed to ending rental bidding wars, which all too often price hard-working families out of a home. Landlords and letting agents will be required to publish an asking rent for their property, and will not be allowed to ask for, encourage or accept a higher offer. We are delivering real change for working people.
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
The challenges faced by tenants in the private sector are very real, but is the right hon. Lady familiar with the law of unintended consequences? What have she and her officials learned from the study of the application of similar rules in Scotland, which have made the plight of renters worse, not better?
Angela Rayner
I do not accept that from the hon. Member. We have had scare stories about this before. As I have said, the majority of landlords are doing the right thing. The Bill is about fairness for landlords and tenants, and I think it strikes the right balance. I am acutely aware of the law of unintended consequences. In fairness, the previous Government were batting around these ideas for years, after promising in their manifesto to tackle the issues, but they let down the people who are in these situations, who deserved better from their Government. This Government will do better than the previous Government.
As I set out at the start of my speech, tackling the blight of poor-quality homes is a priority of mine and of this Government. That is why part 3 of the Bill will apply a decent homes standard to the sector for the first time, requiring privately rented homes to be safe, secure and free from hazards.
Mrs Badenoch
I am still on that subject, Madam Deputy Speaker.
As I was saying, the hon. Member for Canterbury took the brave decision to leave the Labour party. I have followed her career in this place closely and, although we do not agree on everything, she is very brave. Perhaps the Secretary of State will feel nervous as she introduces the Bill, because I know that her Department is already breaking promises of its own. It promised a new national planning policy framework within 100 days, yet there is no new framework. There is just a consultation, as I predicted during our last debate on this subject.
To be fair, the Department has finally produced this Renters’ Rights Bill, after copying and pasting quite a lot of our Bill, but it is still not ready. The truth is that it cannot fix the rental market by tying it in knots with further interventions and directives. The simple truth is that this Bill will not work and the proposals will fail.
We know the Bill will fail because this approach has been tried in Scotland by those great experts in failure, the Scottish National party. Research by Indigo House, the housing expert, has found that none of the Scottish legislation since 2017 has protected the majority of private residential tenants against excessive rent increases or high advertised market rents. It has discovered that tenants have found it more difficult to find a home, and that there is a particularly negative impact on those in greatest need, including homeless households and those with less economic power, such as those claiming welfare benefits.
Andrew Griffith
My right hon. Friend is making a powerful speech on an important subject. Is she familiar with this week’s report from Scotland’s Housing Network revealing that 16% of landlords are reducing their supply, and fully 12% are considering leaving the sector over precisely this sort of attempt to over-regulate what would otherwise be a free market?
Mrs Badenoch
I have not seen that specific report, but I have seen others that indicate that this is happening. We have to be careful. I appreciate that the Government want to make renting more secure and affordable, and we want to do that too, but this Bill will have the opposite effect, as we have seen in Scotland. As this Government will find out over the course of this Parliament, they cannot buck the market.
Building Homes
Andrew Griffith Excerpts(1 year, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Angela Rayner
Let me start by welcoming the right hon. Lady to her place. I wish her luck for her leadership campaign, now that she has confirmed that she is running. It was her ambition all along to be Leader of the Opposition, not mine. I must say that she seems to be taking to opposition very naturally. I think she will find herself comfortable for a long, long time on the Opposition Benches. She had a lot to say in her response and I will come to the substance of it in a moment. She has already put in quite a few written questions. I look forward to many more from her once she has had a chance to read and digest her brief after the election.
There were a couple of things that I am not quite sure the right hon. Lady understood. First—this is critical—the British people kicked the Conservatives out of office in a landslide. Secondly, why was that? Let me remind her. The Government in which she served left us to clear up the mess. They crashed the economy and trashed our public services. They bankrupted Britain and they covered it up. They threw the book at the doctors and then they doctored the books. She keeps speaking about the Tories’ record on housing, but I remind her again that year after year the Tories failed to meet their housing targets. She speaks about the Mayor of London and the bizarre figures they set for him, but the Conservative Government—talking of promises they can’t keep—failed to meet their own target in every single year.
On the right hon. Lady’s question about the NPPF consultation, it starts today, for eight weeks. We are asking people to engage. It is an incredibly detailed consultation, because we mean business. It will come as no surprise that the work needed to be done after the disaster of the last Tory Government, which ripped up the NPPF and made a right mess of it. The right hon. Lady talked about the affordable homes grant. The former Tory Secretary of State handed £1.9 billion of vital funds back to the Treasury. This Government will, working with Homes England, make it more flexible to get the homes we need.
Members of the party opposite—
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
You are just reading! You are supposed to be answering the questions, not just reading out what has been written for you to read.
Angela Rayner
These are the answers to the questions. [Interruption.] No, they are the bits that I have written, actually, in regard to her questions.
Members of the party opposite are now talking to themselves and not the country. The right hon. Lady mentioned chaos and uncertainty; I really do not know how Opposition Members can say that with a straight face after the chaos and uncertainty that we have seen, with countless Housing Secretaries not knowing what was going on.
In every inner-city area—this is in answer to the question—there are increases in the targets. I remind Members that we inherited the most acute housing crisis in living memory. I say to the right hon. Lady that the green belt definition is in the consultation document, and I suggest that she read it. It also tackles the issue of “beautiful homes”, We will build homes at scale and they will be beautiful. We will protect the natural environment, and we will make sure that people have the homes that they deserve and need.
I was astonished by what the right hon. Lady said about councils and council leaders. The council leaders I have spoken to are overjoyed by the fact that the Tories were kicked out. They say to me that they have been left in a dire situation. I know that Opposition Members like to think that that is just Labour councils, but councils across the political spectrum have been left in a disastrous situation, because the party opposite did not build the homes that people need. We have a homelessness crisis in this country. People under the age of 30 cannot get homes now. It is impossible for people to get on to the housing ladder. That is the failure of the last Conservative Government, and that is what we are going to fix. That is what we are going to get on and do.
Planning
Andrew Griffith Excerpts(4 years, 3 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
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con) [V]
It is a pleasure to speak with you in the Chair, Mrs Cummins, as I join the debate from here in West Sussex. I join others in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) on securing the debate.
I welcome that, as much as some may try to make it so, this is not a party political matter. We know that the Lib Dems’ housing policy is for an identical 300,000 homes, while the Green party plans 500,000 homes a year—that is before factoring in the extra building from their open-door policy on settlement.
The Minister is well aware of my opposition to the large-scale and inappropriate development proposals on greenfield land across my constituency, in Adversane, Ashington, Buck Barn, Barnham, Eastergate, Mayfield, Kirdford, Rustington, Westergate and Wisborough Green.
I draw the Minister’s attention to the 556 local residents who, over just the last few weeks, have signed a petition against a development on Rock Road in Storrington. The development is opposed by the parish, the district council and, of course, by me, the Member of Parliament. As a site, it is a spectacular example of the wrong homes in the wrong places. It would put unsustainable strain on infrastructure, such as medical services, GPs, schools and transport. None of that is a surprise, given the very rural setting of Heath Common. The developer Clarion Homes masquerades as a provider of social housing, but so far it appears to be anything but.
Today is about how we move forward. I offer the Minister a five-point plan out of this crisis—one that will give the nation the homes it needs, while protecting the environment we love. First, we need to level up. The economic activity of development has to be spread more evenly across the whole United Kingdom. I know algorithms are not his Department’s strong point, so let me use some basic percentages. Before the second world war, only a fifth of the population lived in the south of England outside of London, while twice as many lived in the north and Scotland. Now, equal numbers live in both.
By piling on even more growth in the south-east, the algorithm is locking the north and midlands into permanent economic disadvantage. That was something the Prime Minister talked about earlier today. He said,
“By turbocharging those areas, especially in London and south-east, you drive prices even higher and you force more and more people to move to the same expensive area. The result is that their commutes are longer, their trains are more crowded, they have less time with their kids.”
I agree.
Secondly, we need to turn consents into homes. We need a time-based levy between consent and completion with real bite to deliver those 1 million new homes before we have to give planning permission on a single extra green field. Third, we need a truly muscular approach to brownfield first—actions, not words, and a real distinction in the planning system to tilt the playing field brownfield. Fourth, we need to go up, not out. As the Minister knows, we have some of the lowest density urban areas in Europe, yet the London Mayor clearly suffers from acrophobia. The construction rates of tall buildings under his tenure have more than halved. He is a mouse, not an eagle. The failure of leadership is so significant that I am afraid the moment is coming when the London Mayor will need to be stripped of any say on planning.
Fifth, we need a tax system that helps, not hinders, the problem—a stamp duty break for downsizers, which will help free up the market. There is much to commend in the planning White Paper, but there is very much more to fix in today’s planning system. On behalf of all my concerned constituents in Arundel and South Downs, I look forward to hearing the Minister’s reply—not just today, but as he thinks about bringing forward a planning Bill in the autumn.
Planning System Reforms: Wild Belt Designation
Andrew Griffith Excerpts(4 years, 4 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
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Cummins, and I join other Members in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho) on securing such an apposite debate. It is a testament to her and to the importance of the issue that so many colleagues have joined us. It is always a pleasure to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes).
If hon. Members will indulge me, I will stake a claim to representing rewilding central, because I share not only the estate of Knepp with my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Jeremy Quin), where we have beavers and white storks, but the Norfolk estate, which has done such a fantastic job nurturing the difficult-to-rear grey partridge.
Last week, the Minister visited the Barlavington estate in my constituency, where there is one of the last surviving populations of the rare Duke of Burgundy butterfly. Unlike a fellow yellow or orange-tiered species, this is one that we do wish to foster in the south of England. All this is connected by places such as the Wiston estate, where Richard and his family continue to nurture environments. Sadly, we do not have any water buffalo—I shall take the message back to west Sussex that no rewilding project is complete without them.
We benefit in many parts from the South Downs national park, where genuine protection is given. Areas between the national park can be knitted with areas of natural beauty, such as Chichester harbour or the North Weald. However, too often—and increasingly—they are separated not just by islands of concrete, but by encroaching areas of it. The wild belt proposal from the Wildlife Trusts, which has my full support, would be a magnificent endeavour to protect the precious species we have heard about. It commands my support and I hope the Minister will take that into account. We know he is listening and has been extremely diligent in consulting with colleagues. However, as we bring forward proposals, would the wild belt not be a wonderful component within a new planning system that put nature at its heart?
Judith Cummins (in the Chair)
I remind Members to wear masks when they are not speaking.
Planning Decisions: Local Involvement
Andrew Griffith Excerpts(4 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Steve Reed
The point the right hon. Gentleman makes is important. If he listens to my speech, he will hear me go on to talk about the 1 million consented homes that have not been built, which all those people could be living in if the Government would address that issue, rather than tackle the wrong issue, which they seem intent on doing, despite the backlash from their own political supporters against their proposals.
Under the Government’s proposals, residents will be gagged from speaking out, while developers will be set loose to bulldoze and concrete over local neighbourhoods pretty much at will. These proposals are nothing less than a developers’ charter that silences local communities, so developers can exploit local communities for profit.
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman talks about the Government’s proposals. I think that he should bring them here and table them in this House, because all that we on the Government Benches have seen is a White Paper. We have not seen the Government’s response to that. Perhaps he has.
Christopher Pincher
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising neighbourhood plans. We are keen to advance the opportunities that they afford to their communities. We are very conscious that they tend to occur in the south of our country or in the more rural parts; we are determined to roll them out into places further north and places that are much more urban, so that those communities too can benefit from the opportunity.
Our proposals will transform how planning and plan-making is done, taking us from an era of planning notifications on lamp posts to digital, interactive services enabling prop-tech companies to develop more engaging ways to visualise and communicate planning information, in turn improving everyone’s overall understanding of what is happening and where. Plans will be more accessible, presented in new, visual map-based formats based on machine-readable data accompanied by clear site-specific requirements. As I say, communities will be engaged at the earliest stages of the plan-making process to ensure that their views are fully reflected. To make sure that local authorities have the tools that they need, we promise a holistic review of council planning resources, because we want councils and their officers to have the scope and the skills to plan strategically for their communities, involving communities much more closely in their plan-making, the design of their communities, and the infrastructure to support them.
Andrew Griffith
Fundamental to building a consensus around the new planning structure will be making better use of brownfield land and, in particular, investing in brownfield land registers. Land is our most precious commodity. We are all into recycling. Recycling our land must be the way to go. Does the Minister agree?
Christopher Pincher
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That policy point is enshrined in the national planning policy framework and we will take it further in our proposals. The £400 million of brownfield regeneration funding that has been made available by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, added to by a further £100 million, is all designed to add teeth to our determination to develop on brownfield first.
There will be a continuing role for the existing planning application process. As I have said before in this House, that system does not go away. Where applicants wish to vary from the local plan, they will need to make a full planning application in the usual way. Even where the broad principle of development is agreed through the plan, all the details will still need to be consulted on with communities and statutory consultees, and approved by officers or committees where appropriate. We are also looking closely at enforcement rules to ensure that where, such as in growth sites, the local authority has set up clear rules about development—which, by the way, will have had community consultation and agreement in the local plan—the authority has the tools and the ability to monitor and enforce those rules as development is built out.
The hon. Member for Croydon North mentioned build-out. We are very conscious that Oliver Letwin and, before him, Kate Barker produced a series of reports about build-out. We reckon that introducing this new, speedier process, which will aid small and medium-sized enterprises, will make it easier to bring forward plots of land with planning application for development much more quickly, and there will be more competition among developers. If people know that there are some up-front rules that they have to adhere to in order to build, there will be no necessity to land-bank. We are also very conscious of the points that have been made by many Members across the House, and those beyond it, about the importance of getting permissions built out, so we are looking closely at ways in which we can incentivise developers to continue to work closely with local authorities and with landowners to make sure that permissions are built out as rapidly as possible.
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
We in West Sussex are on the frontline of the debate on planning, squeezed between the coast and the capital. In my short time here, I have spoken many times against proposed developments on greenfield land at Adversane, Ashington, Buck Barn, Barnham, Mayfield, Kirdford and Wisborough Green. Today, we can add Rock Road, Storrington to that list, where Clarion Housing Group is trying to build on more than 30 acres of species-rich woodland, against the wishes of local people and the neighbourhood plan.
The homes that the nation needs should be built on brownfield land or in urban areas. A perfectly sensible national target for new dwellings is roughly one new dwelling for every 160 adults living in an area. That would be reasonable if everyone paid their fair share. In the south-east, London built only one new dwelling for every 400 of its people, and of that diminished figure, just one in 10 were sold to a conventional owner-occupier. The construction rate of tall buildings, which soared under Mayor Johnson, has plummeted by half. Under Mayor Khan, we see more foot dragging than on a bunioned millipede.
Faced with a hostile environment and weighed down by planning conditions and social housing mandates, it is no wonder that developments look to where the grass is literally greener. We do not even have to travel to London. The Green and Labour-led Brighton Council is proposing 16 developments on 28 green hectares when there is abundant brownfield land inside that city, so I congratulate the Conservative councillors there.
We must learn lessons from one of Aesop’s Fables, “The North Wind and the Sun”. I know that the Secretary of State, who is a very decent man, recognises the challenge, but blowing harder simply increases the level of noise and sees communities understandably pull their cloak tighter for protection. As we reform planning, let us instead bring out the sun and unleash a field of carrots that would put Beatrix Potter’s Farmer McGregor to shame.
Levelling Up
Andrew Griffith Excerpts(4 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Eddie Hughes
We have no intention of reviewing how the money is allocated. The criteria were determined by civil servants. There was no political influence, so we are still comfortable with the basis on which funds are being allocated. However, the hon. Gentleman will probably not be short of cash. Like you, Mr Deputy Speaker, I am a keen reader of The Yorkshire Post and I understand that it is the hon. Gentleman’s intention to borrow £500 million to spend in the local region, so that area, for one, will not be short of money.
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con) [V]
Can my hon. Friend assure the House that areas such as the districts of Arun, Chichester, Horsham and Mid Sussex, which all fall into my constituency but which are not in category 1, will still be able to succeed if we submit compelling bids?
Eddie Hughes
I can absolutely offer my hon. Friend that assurance. What is important is that those bids will be assessed on deliverability, value for money and strategic fit. As I said, that strategic fit element will include the support of an excellent local MP, such as my hon. Friend.
Dark Skies
Andrew Griffith Excerpts(4 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
It is good to see Members from across the country here this evening, representing their own dark sky places and reserves. It is an immense privilege to represent in this House Arundel and South Downs, with its rivers, castles, downlands, woods, vineyards and, yes, its dark skies at night. Much of the constituency lies within the South Downs national park, which, among its many virtues, shares something with only a handful of places on earth: since 2016, it has officially been an international dark sky reserve, as recognised by the International Dark-Sky Association. On a clear night, the Milky Way can clearly be seen from locations such as Bignor hill, which is one of the darkest spots in the park. For literally millions of people in the overdeveloped south-east, this is their last window out to the galaxy, as the cataracts of light pollution gradually obscures their vision.
I co-chair the all-party parliamentary group for dark skies with my noble Friend Lord Rees of Ludlow, the Astronomer Royal. A contemporary of Stephen Hawking at Cambridge, he has spent over 50 years contributing to our understanding of the cosmos, but what if Lord Rees had never been inspired to pursue this career path? Would he ever have dreamed of contributing to our understanding of the universe had an orange skyglow in rural Shropshire obscured his vision as he looked upward to the sky? Together, he and I founded the group in the hope that future generations may still be able to see the stars and the Milky Way—features that generations of our ancestors have looked up to—which is already impossible in many parts of the country. It is an experience that gives a unique sense of perspective about our place in the universe.
Sadly, light pollution is growing exponentially in its geographic coverage and population reach. CPRE’s recent annual star count found that 61% of UK citizens live in areas with severe light pollution, meaning that they could count fewer than 10 stars in the Orion constellation. That was a 4% increase in light pollution on the previous year. The case for controlling light pollution is not just for the benefit of astronomers, just as it is not only ornithologists who would miss songbirds if they disappeared from our gardens. It also has health, educational, environmental and economic benefits.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on bringing the debate forward. He might not be aware that I represent a mixed rural and urban constituency. I am very blessed to live in the countryside, with fresh air in every breath, wildlife aplenty and lovely dark nights to sleep through. I am very supportive of his drive to ensure that the Government take this issue seriously. Does he agree that the mental health benefits of a good night’s sleep are well documented, and that dark skies can therefore play a very beneficial role?
Andrew Griffith
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his wise intervention. Indeed, mental health, like so many aspects of health, is affected by sleep deprivation caused by light exposure at the wrong time.
In 2018, Nature magazine reported that
“light at night is exerting pervasive, long-term stress on ecosystems, from coasts to farmland to urban waterways, many of which are already suffering from other, more well-known forms of pollution.”
It stated that a UK study sequentially over 13 years found that
“artificial lighting was linked with trees bursting their buds more than a week earlier—a magnitude similar to that predicted for 2 °C of global warming.”
Light pollution is a huge waste of energy too. Lighting accounts for 5% of global carbon emissions—that is more than aviation and shipping combined. Within that category, street lighting is the single biggest contributor.
Finally, our dark skies are increasingly an economic activity on which many livelihoods depend. Like many of our national parks, the South Downs runs an annual festival attracting thousands of visitors, led by the excellent dark skies officer, Dan Oakley, who helped me research for today’s debate. Dark skies tourism is one of the fastest growing parts of the outdoor tourism sector, with memorable opportunities to sleep and dine under the stars offered by businesses such as Woodfire Camping in Graffham in my constituency.
Fay Jones (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. He mentions tourism, which is of course a big part of the Brecon Beacons. We are very proud to be the only dark sky reserve in Wales and the fifth international dark sky reserve in the world. I think he is going to come on to some of the recommendations made in a report by the all-party parliamentary group for dark skies. Does he agree that the Welsh Government and other devolved Administrations need to work well with the UK Government to ensure that there is a cross-UK approach?
Andrew Griffith
My hon. Friend is a doughty champion for her constituency and its virtues. I am encouraged to hear that they include dark skies. I agree with her that it is imperative that the devolved Administrations, which are responsible for so many facets of life for our citizens and constituents, fully embrace the report’s recommendations. It is a very inclusive report, as I shall go on to say.
This is a growing area of economic returns.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
On that point, my hon. Friend has extolled the wonderful virtues of Arundel and the South Downs, but Lowestoft has a unique selling point: it is the most easterly point in the UK and the place where the sun rises first. We are trying to make a tourism attraction of this, with the first light festival. Does he agree that unnatural light takes away that special appeal and special offer that we have in Lowestoft?
Andrew Griffith
I certainly agree with my hon. Friend. Although he did not invite me, I would be very willing to come and see the charms of first light, as it rises in the east off Lowestoft.
For health, for nature, for the environment and for the economy, there are excellent reasons to protect a dark sky at night. I think all of us in this House can agree on that. If the problem is so clear, what is to be done? Well, the good news is that it really is as simple as flicking off a switch. Unlike acid rain, lead pollution or even carbon emissions, there is no long and complex supply chain or difficult trade-offs to be made. The even better news for the Minister is that the all-party group for dark skies has already done the hard work and brought it together in a simple 10-point plan that I believe he has already seen. We do not even have to go first as a country. There are several models around the world of countries that have legislated for the improved protection of dark skies, such as South Korea and, although I hesitate to say it just at this moment in time, France. Our 10-point plan was produced following a consultation in which over 170 academics, legal professionals, national park associations, astronomers, lighting professionals, engineers and businesses participated.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman not only for his generosity in giving way but for his success in bringing this debate, which is massively important, to the Floor of the House. He is the Member of Parliament for Britain’s newest national park, whereas I speak as one who represents two rather old ones: the Lake District and the Yorkshire Dales. I am sure he would agree with me that part of the attraction of places like ours is not just the landscape itself, but the landscape that is silhouetted by the canopy of stars above. In his report and recommendation to Government, will he call on them to toughen up planning powers, in national parks and in other planning authorities as well, to prevent developers encroaching on our areas and adding to light pollution, which removes the appeal and the beauty that we both share in our beautiful parts of the world?
Andrew Griffith
The hon. Member makes an excellent point and anticipates one of the points I hope to get on to.
The first of our recommendations concerns the Minister himself. As has been widely reported, we would like to see a designated Minister for the dark skies with cross-cutting responsibility for this issue. Last week, I and others met the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow). As a DEFRA Minister, she told us about the contributions her Department has made towards assessing the impact of artificial light on wider biodiversity. She also shared with us a fascinating story of her visit to Skomer a few years ago to witness the Manx shearwaters flying at night to find their chicks, making her aware of just how sensitive such creatures are to light pollution, which impacts their flight paths. However, so many of the issues involved lie with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government that if we had to pick one Department, and I believe we do, it is there that we think the designated Minister should sit.
Secondly, the language in the national planning policy framework on avoiding light pollution should be significantly expanded, allowing local planning authorities to impose specific planning conditions related to external lighting, including curfew hours, standards for brightness, colour temperature, as well as the direction and the density of lighting. The most recent NPPF from 2019 makes very little reference to lighting, with paragraph 180(c) being the only reference, which states:
“limit the impact of light pollution from artificial light on local amenity, intrinsically dark landscapes and nature conservation.”
Although a number of local authorities have adopted policies that seek to do that, in practice most development proposals are simply not assessed against such policies. CPRE’s “Shedding Light” survey found that almost two-thirds of local authorities do not have a lighting policy in their local plan and only a third had proactively adopted one to comply with the NPPF.
This need not be the case. The South Downs national park contains approximately 2,800 local authority streetlights, all of which point downwards and minimise the colour temperature. National planning policy on light pollution should require all proposed developments to conduct a dark sky impact assessment and ensure there is no net impact of a scheme on a dark sky location. Much of this could be overseen and enforced by a new statutory commission for the dark skies to develop standards and regulations, and work with local authorities to enforce them. We should also create a national programme of best practice, dark sky hours, in which categories of lighting can be dimmed or turned off completely in consultation with the community, lighting professionals and the police.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
My hon. Friend and I share much the same views on dark skies: I am a huge fan. While we need to be careful of safety at night, people walking, pavements and safe passage home, does my good friend agree that turning out the lights could save councils an absolute fortune in money and cost?
Andrew Griffith
As ever, my hon. Friend, with his varied experience that he brings to the House, makes an excellent point. Not only can hard-pressed local councils save money that they can redirect to supporting their residents elsewhere, but there is also, surprisingly, no evidence at all that street lighting contributes to greater safety and it has impacts on the environment, as well as some of the other impacts that we talk about. He makes a very good point.
Before we leave the planning process, we cannot ignore the elephant—or perhaps I should say the Ursa Major—in the room: over-development in the south-east. I pick up a point that the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) has already made. I have spoken on these matters many times in this House in my short year here, and I make no apology for doing so again tonight. Right now, my constituents face a veritable clone army of developments, with proposals in Adversane, Barnham, Ford, Kirdford, West Grinstead, Mayfield and every compass point in between.
Consideration of light pollution in the planning system can only be palliative relief while the Minister’s Department consults on taking an algorithm that already lists heavily towards the overcrowded south-east and tilting it still further, rather than levelling up. We are building the wrong types of dwellings in the wrong place. Before the second world war, roughly a fifth of the population lived in the south of England outside London, while twice as many lived in the north and Scotland taken together. Now, equal numbers live in both. We should be building far more in our great urban centres of London, Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds, Liverpool and many others—building environmentally friendly supertalls that reach up to the stars, instead of concreting over our last remaining natural places. We should be pursuing commercial to residential conversion on a galactic scale in places where the infrastructure already exists.
Where rural areas such as West Sussex have their own housing needs to fulfil, that should be through a brownfield-first policy, utilising brownfield land registers that are able nationally to accommodate more than 1 million potential homes. How can we teach our children to recycle plastic bags from a supermarket to save the environment, and yet bulldoze by numbers through the ancient fields, hedgerows and woodlands of West Sussex?
Elsewhere, I am proud that this Government are the greenest in our country’s history. We have one of the most ambitious plans for our environment of any leading nation. At the climate ambition summit this weekend, the Prime Minister confirmed that the UK will cut its emissions by 68% by 2030 versus 1990 levels, while our neighbours and friends in the European Union could only manage 55%. I contend that is because conservation has always been at the very heart of conservatism. Our manifesto last December pledged to protect and restore our natural environment by setting up a new independent office for environmental protection. Perhaps protecting our dark skies could be an early and easy win for that organisation.
Finally, we need to give local authorities a more effective method of acting on light nuisance. The current Environmental Protection Act 1990 requires light nuisance be prejudicial to health, which sets an incredibly high threshold for action, and the provision is only focused on the impact of light emission on humans, rather than the environment. It is subjective and difficult to prove. Further to that, relevant sections should be added to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to prohibit accidental or deliberate disturbance by inappropriate artificial light.
I want to conclude and allow my right hon. Friend the Minister to respond, but first I thank all those who have made this document possible. They are too numerous to mention, but one whose involvement was quite singular was my researcher, and secretary of the all-party group, Chris Cook.
Next week on the winter solstice, the two largest planets in our solar system, Jupiter and Saturn, will align in the night sky to appear to form a single superstar. This rare event is called a conjunction, and it will be the closest to earth since 1623 and the most observable since 1226, a time when English kings still ruled most of western France. If the night is clear, I shall be lucky enough to observe it from the South Downs. I am told that this particular combination will not be seen again until the spring of the year 2080, which is a humbling reminder of our small place and transient tenure in the universe. I would like to think that we might witness a similar conjunction down here, with a Government who are serious about tackling the damage we are doing to our environment, a White Paper leading to a new national planning policy framework and a growing recognition of the importance of protecting the dark sky.
Planning and House Building
Andrew Griffith Excerpts(5 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Bob Seely
I am just coming to that point. The 10 largest developers control 70% of supply. They withhold land to inflate value; while 80% of residential permissions are granted, half remain unbuilt and 900,000 permissions, as my hon. Friend says, are outstanding. If just 10% of those were finished every year, the Government would be close to or on target. That raises two critical questions. First, is the problem with the system, or with the building firms that are abusing it, maybe because of the foolish laws being put in place? Secondly, do we need to scrap the current system and potentially face the law of unintended consequences, or do we need to reform it?
I think the Minister and I can both agree that the market is failing first-time buyers. The answer is not greenfield sprawl or unachievable targets, but a new generation of community-based, affordable housing, accompanied by creative rent-to-buy schemes accessible to first-time buyers in existing communities, whether in city, suburb or countryside.
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for the detailed work he has done and the figures he has shared. Does he agree that this is not about the national figure, which many Members on this side of the House fully support and want to see built, but that the test of any good planning system is whether it reflects the true geography of an area and fully takes into account the need to protect things such as national parks, to take care of floodplains and the inability to build on them, and to make full use of brownfield land?