Coronavirus: Supporting Businesses and Individuals

James Daly Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd February 2021 Commons Chamber

[James Daly (Bury North) (Con) [V]]

I thank my right hon. Friend the Chancellor for his work so far in addressing the pandemic’s economic impact on business and jobs throughout the country. The Government have provided a financial support package of approximately £280 billion at present, making it one of the most generous and effective in the world. It includes the furlough scheme, which has protected almost 10 million jobs.

My local authority in Bury has been provided with £107 million in extra funding for this financial year to cover covid-related costs and support local business. Bury Metropolitan Borough Council will receive a further £5.3 million in additional funding for the first three months of new financial year. The Government have provided nearly £50 million in direct grant funding to support businesses, retail outlets, the self-employed and sole traders in the last 12 months, to be distributed locally by my council. On top of that, businesses that are being required to close under the current restrictions continue to receive monthly payments through the local restrictions grant.

With the Prime Minister’s announcement yesterday of the road map out lockdown, I have been contacted by a number of businesses across my constituency towns of Bury, Ramsbottom and Tottington that will be among the last to open. Even with the generous support package that I have outlined, many businesses need further financial help to survive the next months and benefit from the positive trading conditions that I am sure will result when lockdown ends. Under step two of the road map, hospitality will be able to operate indoor services in 83 days’ time at the earliest. Therefore, this sector, which has been so badly impacted by the pandemic, needs help now. In my constituency of Bury North, there are a number of businesses, such as the absolutely fantastic Leckenby’s tearoom, that simply do not have outside space. They must not be left to struggle while other business that are fortunate enough to have outdoor seating are able to operate. I hope that will be addressed now that the road map has been announced.

Further to that, I turn to the distribution of already assigned support. I came together with colleagues from across the House to welcome the support provided through the additional restrictions grants, which have been made available for distribution at the discretion of local councils. The fund has already helped many businesses that might not otherwise have been eligible for grants. Again, I welcome that. However, while some councils had great success with the distribution of these funds, others have not. In my constituency, many businesses are struggling to access the funding, and Bury Council still holds an estimated £5 million from the ARG fund. The road map is conditional on the tests set out by the Prime Minister, but we must support those businesses both nationally and locally to ensure that they benefit when lockdown comes to an end.

Council Tax: Government’s Proposed Increase

James Daly Excerpts

Monday 25th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[James Daly (Bury North) (Con) [V]]

I have been a councillor in my constituency for the last nine years. Much like my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Chris Clarkson), I have sat through repeated budgets from a Labour-controlled council, and they have never needed any encouragement at all to increase council tax. Year after year in Bury, we have council tax increases. What is the reason for that? Clearly, it has not been pandemics or any other reason—it is down to sheer incompetence.

I have listened in amazement to some of the contributions from Labour Members. The plain fact of the matter is that the north of England has been blighted by a decades- long record of incompetence from Labour councillors, and that incompetence has been palmed off on to the poor taxpayer with continued tax rises. To hear some of the stories today is somewhat nauseating when my constituents have suffered as a result of continued incompetence from Labour authorities. One of the things that we never hear from Labour politicians is, what money do councils need? What do they want to deliver? What do they want local residents to see? In my area, it is very difficult to see what my Labour authority has changed or what innovative projects have been put in place, because none have. We have suffered through incompetence, and it is no good Opposition Members simply using tired old slogans and politics by soundbite, with no record in local government upon which to base any of these claims.

Over the last financial year, this Government have supported Bury Council with £107 million of extra spending, with further business support on top of that. That is an unprecedented level of support for my local authority. But we must hold local authorities to account. Democracy is both a national and local concept. Labour politicians would seek to hide the incompetence of Labour councils and mayoralties in the north of England by speaking in generalities about matters that are not affecting people’s lives.

I am proud of this Government; they have found the money to support councils through this pandemic period, and continue to find the money to support councils to deliver the services that are needed. Just once, I hope that the Labour party comes forward with proposals that would have an actual impact on constituents such as mine in Bury North, rather than just talking in generalities and soundbites, and setting up a social media storm that I am sure will hit all Conservative MPs the moment that this debate finishes.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

James Daly Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd September 2020 Commons Chamber

[James Daly (Bury North) (Con)]

May I say what a fine speech that was? I may not agree with much of what was in it, but it was a heartfelt plea to protect our Union. To Unionist politicians such as me, it is a strange thing indeed—I am elected in Bury but I consider myself part of the same country as the Scottish National party Members. I may have a naive point of view, but I believe that we all live in the same country, with defined, different nationalities—I understand that. However, I consider myself British, and although SNP colleagues may well not do this, I consider them to be British as well—[Interruption.] I see the shaking of the heads, but the preservation of a Union that I think has benefited the whole of the people of all our islands is so important.

Rather than commenting on internal Scottish or Welsh politics, I would like to make some general points on the Bill and why I support it. In the era and the time that we are living in, a Bill that regulates and standardises the way that firms and businesses interact with one another across the United Kingdom has to be a good thing. I understand the arguments that have been put forward, but from my point of view, free and unfettered access, fair access and fair treatment for all individuals and businesses is an honourable intention.

[Dr Whitford]

Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that there has been about a year’s worth of work on agreeing common frameworks to deal with difference? The hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) talked about having a consensus. Would that not be a more successful approach than one country bullying the other three?

[James Daly]

I think that there is a lot of merit in that approach. I suspect—I am sure that the hon. Lady will tell me that I am wrong—that, literally, Ministers could say anything and the Scottish National party would not agree and would find a different argument to take a different course. However, I think it is a very valid point.

I want to make two simple points. I think that the Bill is meritorious and positive and that it seeks to achieve an outcome that increases prosperity for everyone within the United Kingdom. This is the first opportunity that I have had to speak in this debate, but I was somewhat surprised that on the first day of debate, SNP Members were arguing that money should not be invested in Scotland because it comes from the United Kingdom Treasury, so—[Interruption.] That is certainly my perspective—

[Dr Whitford]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[James Daly]

I will just develop my point and then of course the hon. Lady can come back in. I see a Bill that allows Ministers of the Crown of the United Kingdom to invest moneys in different parts of the United Kingdom, in collaboration with the devolved Assemblies, as an extremely positive thing. The argument will come back that there is nothing in the Bill to confirm what the framework is—whether they are going to build a bridge or whatever the investment will be—but I would never stand here and say, and I cannot understand the argument to the contrary, that money should not be invested in an area to benefit citizens because it comes from a certain pocket. Hon. Members constantly argue that the EU is a positive change for good. They had no objection to the way EU money came in. I believe that my Government have the most honourable and positive intentions to invest moneys in all parts of the United Kingdom to kickstart and supercharge the economy to get us through the coronavirus period, and that is why I think that this Bill is a positive step.

[Dr Whitford]

rose—

[The Temporary Chair (Siobhain McDonagh)]

Order. I am sorry, but we have strayed a bit off the point. I like to give flexibility and latitude, but I do not want to kick off a long-standing discussion about something that was discussed last week.

[James Daly]

To get to the point about regulation and standards, I have listened to the debate and there have been numerous comments regarding a race to the bottom, and a derogation of standards. I can see no evidence at all in the papers that I have seen that anything other than the highest standards are to be maintained in regulation, food and all the other powers and competences that the UK Government will now be administering. There is no evidence for any of this. I appreciate the point that has been made, but numerous examples can be put forward by those who say, “I have concerns about this and concerns about that. This might happen or that might happen.” The central point is that the UK Government have repeatedly stated their commitment to the highest standards, whether that be in food, health, animal welfare standards and all the other examples that have been given.

[Dr Whitford]

Why, then, will the Government refuse to protect those standards in legislation? We have had an Agriculture Bill and a Trade Bill, so there was plenty of opportunity to put in writing the commitment not to go below the levels that we currently have.

[James Daly]

Certainly, in my view, the Government have not at any point refused to give such a commitment. Let me repeat again for the hon. Member: the Government have repeatedly stated their commitment to the highest possible standards. I am talking about EU standards—standards that have regulated businesses and the various sectors of the economy to which I have referred. I would accept the argument if some evidence could be pointed to by SNP Members, but there is no evidence at all that the Government are going to derogate from the highest possible regulatory standards.

[Anne McLaughlin]

The hon. Gentleman says that there is no evidence at all that the Government will lower standards, but there is nothing to stop them doing so in the legislation. It is all very well their telling each other, chatting in the corridors and saying to us, “No, don’t worry, we won’t do that”. They have to put it in the legislation, otherwise how are we supposed to be clear that we will not have to lower standards against our will?

[James Daly]

Many, many things could happen in life, but the point remains that not one Opposition Member has been able to point to one action of the Government—they have not pointed to literally anything—that would indicate that they are derogating from the highest possible standards and the standards that we enjoy at this moment in time and that we have under the European Union.

This is a good Bill and this is a positive Bill. Rather than dwelling on the legal argument, which would be somewhat going off the point in respect of where we are today and which I am tempted to do, I will say that this is a Bill to strengthen our United Kingdom, to invest moneys in every part of it, to ensure that we have free unfettered access and to ensure that all parts of the United Kingdom are within the UK internal market, as set out in the withdrawal agreement and the Northern Ireland protocol. I congratulate Ministers on this Bill as it will only do good for our fellow citizens in all parts of the United Kingdom.

[David Simmonds]

At this stage in the debate, my challenge is to try to say something original on the various different topics that we are considering. Today’s business concerns mutual recognition and non-discrimination. Having spent many happy days of my life in the Centre Borschette on the rue Froissart in Brussels, alongside very good colleagues from Scotland, Ireland, Wales, the United Kingdom and the other composite states of the European Union, debating these issues in respect of, in my case, education, while committees alongside us debated those issues around financial services, veterinary products, fish and every possible type of goods and services, it is clear that the United Kingdom has long played a key role in writing these rules.

I welcome the commitment that was alluded to by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (James Daly) that, at the end of the transition period and as part of the process of withdrawal, the United Kingdom’s commitment is that all those standards are written into the law of the United Kingdom, so the minimum standards that apply to us as a member of the European Union that already prohibit chlorinated chicken and hormone-fed beef will become the law of the land.

Let me try to concentrate on three points that have not been covered in sufficient detail yet. The first is the importance of the integrity of the UK single market and why this matters in the context of the trade deal that we are seeking to achieve. In 2018, the United Kingdom was fined £2.4 billion for failing to uphold its treaty obligations as a member of the EU to enforce the standards that we are committed to apply at our borders.

Having spent so much time in Brussels, I do understand that the UK is a little notorious with our friends and allies, and the risk they fear is that the United Kingdom, with our global reach in terms of our international maritime trade, will become a backdoor into the European single market for goods that do not meet the minimum standards that we need to uphold. That is a legitimate concern, especially as Brussels expects to receive significant amounts of trade tariffs on those goods that are coming into the UK single market and, potentially, with an open border on the island of Ireland, would then be re-exported. We need to respect the fact that that is a genuine concern on the part of the European Union, we need to pay the attention that Ministers have referred to to ensuring we uphold rigorous standards on our own borders, and we need to ensure that our voters and the wider public recognise the commitment that the United Kingdom single market will continue to uphold the high standards that we have in the European Union, and in future, where we seek to diverge, it will be in an upward direction, with higher standards, rather than lower.

The second issue I would like to touch on is devolution. I do have some sympathy with the concerns of Members from devolved nations about the power grab point. Many colleagues—Tony Buchanan and Stewart Maxwell from Scotland, Arnold Hatch and Jonathan Bell from Ireland and many others from across the United Kingdom, and other Members of this House, including the hon. Member for Leicester East (Claudia Webbe) and my hon. Friends the Members for Northampton South (Andrew Lewer) and for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill)—have played a role in exercising UK local and regional government powers in Brussels over the way in which we, as part of that wider single market, both regulate and choose to spend the funds that we are part of, like the European structural fund and the European social fund.

I note that those issues have already been exhaustively debated, but a point that has not been aired very much in the debate is that, following the ending of the arrangements whereby we participated in those bodies, we have a range of UK Joint Committees, including ones that are there to exercise a similar scrutiny and oversight role around how that regulation is undertaken and how those funds are expended. It should be of concern to us that with an agreement already in place—I know Scotland has nominated SNP Members to the Joint Committee, with the Committee of the Regions to supervise and provide oversight of the run-out period of the European structural funds—we still need to hear a little more about how we are all committed to making those arrangements, which were committed to by Ministers on the Floor of the House, work effectively in the interests of our UK single market in future.

We are seeing many parts of our constitution—our local authorities, our regional authorities—stepping up to the plate, and our businesses being a part of that. It is very sad not to hear that debated and aired in this place, especially when in the case of structural funds there is £730 million unspent that the UK has already contributed, which will be returned to Brussels if Members across the House do not put pressure on our Front-Bench team to make sure it is spent by the end of this year.

Finally, I would like to touch on the point about legality. I am not a lawyer by background, but it is very clear to me that this debate has been something of a lawyers’ delight. We have had advice from those with eminent legal qualifications about whether things do or do not contravene international law and what triggers those decisions, and opinions given by people with immense political experience about the impact that that will have on the UK’s reputation. It strikes me, however, that what is being proposed by the Government is quite similar to what is common practice when sending our armed forces to places where there is a high degree of tension, when the rules of engagement say that people will not fire unless fired upon. What I am hearing from the Government is that these arrangements are there in the backstop so that unless the negotiations— which, as the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland indicated, are proceeding in good faith—break down irretrievably, they will not come into play, but it is a fact that, whether they are in the Bill or not, the UK would have recourse to those provisions if we needed them, and it is an appropriate precaution for the Government to take to bring those forward now.

These kinds of conflicts are not unusual. On 5 May, the German federal court handed down a judgment in respect of Germany’s signing up to the European Central Bank’s buying of bonds in order to enable a European recovery from coronavirus, and said that that was not lawful and conflicted with the domestic law of Germany. While there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth in the Government there, I understand that that is one of many judgments that have been handed down over the years demonstrating that there will be these conflicts between domestic and international law and that they need to be resolved not as a matter of taking down a legal textbook, but as a matter of negotiation in good faith between partners and allies. I have every confidence that that is what will be achieved.

I understand the fury and frustration of many of our colleagues who have given so much of their political lives in seeking to reach a deal. To me it is very clear that both sides are seeking to negotiate in good faith and the more that we can respect that, the better. The European Union is our largest, our most valuable, and, importantly, our most mature single market partner that we engage with. It is crucial to our economy and enormously valuable to their economy that we get a deal. I can see that behind the scenes Ministers and negotiators on all sides have been putting the mechanisms and structures in place to deliver that. I support the Government in seeking to ensure that the deal is in place for the good of the United Kingdom and our allies by the end of the year.

Planning Process: Probity

James Daly Excerpts

Thursday 11th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Christopher Pincher]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question. I remind him that the decision of the Secretary of State, as I have already said, is in the public domain. The application is a live one, and documentation will be published in the usual way. We always take seriously, and consider weightily, requests from the Committee, and I am sure that we will happily consider this one. However, my right hon. Friend has published his decision, it is a very clear decision, and all documents will be published in the usual way, as they are through live planning applications.

[James Daly (Bury North) (Con)]

While the Conservative Mayor in the West Midlands is getting homes built by making the best use of brownfield sites, the Labour Mayor in London keeps missing his housing targets and the Labour Mayor of Greater Manchester proposes ripping up the green belt against the wishes of my constituents. Is it only the Conservatives that are able to get it right on housing?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Unfortunately, we need to get the question right. The Urgent Question is certainly not about Manchester, and certainly not about that. [Interruption.] I think it is for me to decide. It might be helpful if Members were to go and read what the Urgent Question is about, and then we can link the two. I call Rachel Hopkins.

Greater Manchester Spatial Framework and the Green Belt

James Daly Excerpts

Wednesday 18th March 2020 Westminster Hall

[James Daly (Bury North) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Greater Manchester spatial framework and the green belt.

I am here on behalf of all my constituents in Bury, Ramsbottom and Tottington who believe that we should do everything possible to protect the green belt. The Greater Manchester spatial framework is described as GM’s

“Plan for Homes, Jobs, and the Environment…to deliver the homes people need up until 2037.”

The Greater Manchester Combined Authority website comments:

“This plan is about providing the right homes, in the right places, for people across our city region. It’s about creating jobs and improving infrastructure to ensure the future prosperity of Greater Manchester.”

In my view, however, talking specifically about my home town of Bury, the GMSF does not deliver that. Instead, it is a charter to build unaffordable homes in the wrong place, without ensuring that the necessary infrastructure will be in place to support such large-scale construction. Furthermore, the plan ensures the destruction of large areas of green belt unnecessarily and the devastation of important wildlife habitats. It is also a guarantee of congestion on our roads, which will increase along with air pollution.

This debate presents an opportunity for Members, specifically from Greater Manchester, to tell the Mayor and the leaders of the 10 metropolitan authorities that the draft GMSF is unacceptable. More must be done to ensure that the green belt is protected within the framework of the plans recently announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to bring Britain’s planning system into the 21st century.

Next month, the Government will launch a register of brownfield sites that will map out unused land, as part of plans to encourage councils to make the most of such land first, backed by £400 million to bring mostly unused land back into use. Developers will be able to demolish vacant commercial, industrial and residential buildings, and replace them with well-designed homes, without the delay of a lengthy planning process. Crucially, £12 billion of investment is to be ploughed into building more affordable homes.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate, which is of great importance to all our constituents. I apologise; I will have to leave early for another meeting at 3.30 pm. His point about brownfield sites is vital at New Carrington in my constituency. It is a massively contaminated site, but one with great potential. We will need very substantial investment to undertake the necessary remediation.

Will the hon. Gentleman join me in urging the Government to ensure that all the funds we need to remediate those brownfield sites are made available to Greater Manchester? Otherwise, it will be difficult for us to build the houses we need in the places where they could be constructed.

[James Daly]

I am sure the Minister will comment on the hon. Lady’s intervention when rounding up.

Given the drive to regenerate our town centres—through building beautiful, affordable homes more densely, in part—it is clear that the green belt in towns such as Bury is being sacrificed unnecessarily. The local environment of the residents of Tottington and Walshaw, and in the vicinity of Elton reservoir, is being decimated because the local council is a signatory of a planning document that is not fit for purpose. It has no plan to take advantage of the funding opportunities provided by this Government to reclaim and build truly affordable houses on brownfield sites.

[Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con)]

I appreciate the support given by the Government for the development on brownfield sites, but does my hon. Friend share my concern that the plan, the GMSF mark 2, was only to be published for public consultation and public challenge after the local elections? People would not have been able to judge councillors, local authorities and the Mayor on what they are proposing. Even though we want local democracy, this is hardly a good example of it.

[James Daly]

My hon. Friend speaks powerfully, and I agree with every point he made.

One of the great faults of the GMSF is that it does not require local authorities to be proactive or innovative in their planning policy. Instead, it allows them to go for the easy option of allowing developers to build three, four and five-bedroom houses all over the green belt—houses that will be totally unaffordable to the vast majority of my constituents.

[Chris Clarkson (Heywood and Middleton) (Con)]

My hon. Friend makes an interesting point about the nature of the housing being built. My local authority in Rochdale has signalled its intention to build more houses than required, and they will be mostly unaffordable. Does he agree that the strategy should take account of housing need?

[James Daly]

I agree with every word of my hon. Friend’s powerful point, which I am sure the Minister will address.

The proposals to build on the green belt come despite the Government’s alterations to the national planning policy framework, which have strengthened green belt protections. Why are local authorities such as Bury Council determined to build on the green belt rather than work innovatively to regenerate brownfield sites and provide truly affordable homes, by which I mean houses and flats with a value of less than £100,000? I believe that they are simply taking the easy option.

The defence to that charge by those who support the GMSF is that the Government are forcing them to build a certain number of homes in line with national guidance, and that to do so they must encroach on the green belt in Bury and elsewhere. That question was put to the Minister in a Westminster Hall debate the week before last, and has been put to Housing Ministers before him. Will the Minister confirm that councils are not mandated to build definitively the number of homes required under 2014 population projection figures? Those figures should be the starting point. Local authorities should conduct their own assessment of the number of homes that need to be built over the length of a local plan, and those homes should be affordable and in the places that people need them.

[Chris Green]

There is concern that as GMSF mark 1 was torn up, GMSF mark 2 will also be rejected—the Mayor of Greater Manchester should do that—so we will be in limbo. Local authorities should be respected and valued, as should their determination of what their communities need. The planners and developers should follow what the local authority wants.

[James Daly]

My hon. Friend speaks very powerfully on this issue and I agree with every word that he said.

I also bring to the Minister’s attention the fact that 2016 Office for National Statistics population forecast figures revised down Bury’s population by 43%, and recently released 2018 provisional figures show a further fall of 13%. On the basis of recent population projections, no homes would have to be built on the green belt in my constituency. Will the Minister confirm whether the Government will review the use of projections published six years ago?

[Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. The issue of “brownfield first” quite rightly comes up all the time and, as an Opposition MP, I point out that, in fairness, that is the Government’s policy. Certainly, in my constituency and in the Borough of Tameside, almost every bit of brownfield land has been found for use, even if its viability is borderline. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the Government should find more money to make unviable sites viable, or is he saying that we should build fewer homes in Bury, Tameside, Greater Manchester and so on? Those are two different ways to solve the problem, and I want to understand his approach.

[James Daly]

There are three questions in the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. I have already commented on the funding that the Government are making available to assist local authorities in remediating brownfield sites—that will be very important. The question comes down to housing need. It is the easiest thing in the world simply to say, “We need to build more houses,” but we need a robust formula that allows each local authority to build the number of houses that they need and where they need them over the course of a local plan. I am making the point that using the most up-to-date population projections reduces the need to build on the green belt, and in my borough—I am sorry, I cannot comment in respect of the borough of the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds)—that would allow properties to be built on brownfield sites.

The question, though, is the “brownfield first” policy. “Brownfield first”, again, is a statement, but there is nothing within the GMSF to force councils to build on the brownfield first. If the GMSF was in place, the green belt would undoubtedly be concreted over and no developer would be interested in building truly affordable homes on brownfield sites.

Coming back to the point, we have to build homes for people who need them, at a price that is affordable, in the right place. In the GMSF in respect of Bury, there was virtually no comment regarding building affordable flats in the town centres within my borough. That is one of many reasons why I believe the document is not fit for purpose.

[Kate Green]

Will the hon. Gentleman join me in asking the Minister—this is slightly tangential to the GMSF, but none the less pertinent—to look again at permission in principle? That is also being used in my constituency by developers as a means to try to build on green belt where the planning and obligations that the developers are required to meet are much less rigorous, and both the public and the planning committee have really no say in stopping such applications. Will he join me in asking the Minister to look again at that particular regime and what it might mean for building on the green belt?

[James Daly]

Again, I thank the hon. Lady; that it is a very strong point, and I am sure the Minister will address it in his closing remarks.

As you can probably tell, Ms Noakes, I could talk on this subject at great length, but a number of other hon. Members wish to speak. I have been contacted by numerous constituents, so in bringing my contribution to an end I ask the Minister to comment on the following points, which they raised.

First, does the Minister agree that housing occupancy rates should be used to calculate how many houses we require in Bury and elsewhere? The average occupancy rate, I believe, is 2.35 persons per home in Bury, against the national average of 2.4. For example, that would mean 5,733 new homes needed within the metropolitan borough of Bury, rather than the 9,500 currently indicated in the GMSF. That is taking into account the 2,000 current offset, and it would be the case even using 2014 figures.

Secondly, returning to a point that has already been raised, will the “brownfield first” policy be made a legal requirement, which it has to be if it is to have any teeth? How can local authorities access national funding to assist in clearing toxic sites and making them financially viable for development, which they have to be? Those sites are the ones where we can develop truly affordable homes. We must be aiming to build homes that are innovative and green, but that are truly affordable for £40,000, £50,000 or £60,000. We must have a real vision for ensuring that we have the houses our populations need.

Thirdly, what measures are the Government taking to ensure that developers contribute to local public transport and infrastructure requirements? Fourthly, what measures are the Government taking to ensure that there are no further impacts from flooding as a direct consequence of the construction of roads and housing? In my seat, it is proposed to build on fields within Walshaw. Those are areas that flood, and have flooded in recent times. If we build there, that is only going to get worse.

Finally, the Government are committed to protecting, restoring and expanding natural habitats. How can sites in GM gain access to the Nature4Climate fund to ensure the preservation of local mosslands and woodlands?

The one thing that all our areas have is vociferous, committed and passionate community groups, who have been at the forefront of the fight to protect the green belt. I finish off by paying tribute to the Bury folk, numbering in the thousands, who are passionate and determined to protect their environment, to protect their community and to do what they feel is best to ensure that we all have a positive future.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Daly]

I thank all colleagues for their contributions and the Minister for commenting on the points that have been raised. This is not a party political issue. I agree with most, if not all, of what Labour Members said. The recent announcement by the Secretary of State that he will review NPPF guidelines is good. We can all play into that, and a number of us in this Chamber will urge him to consider using the most recent population projections from 2018 as a basis for local plans for housing need.

My final comment is that this is not simply a debate about housing projections, but about how we deliver truly affordable houses to the people who need them, in the areas where they need them. The GMSF is a charter to build very expensive houses on the green belt. At present, there is no legal mechanism within the GMSF to stop that happening. We can all unite to fight to ensure that that does not happen and that people get the houses they deserve in our areas.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the Greater Manchester spatial framework and the green belt.

Housing and Planning

James Daly Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd March 2020 Westminster Hall

[James Daly (Bury North) (Con)]

I am a Greater Manchester MP, so the proposed strategic housing plan for my area for the next 20 years is the Greater Manchester spatial framework. The planning system has created a scenario predicated on the building of three, four and five-bedroom houses on the green belt. That cannot be right. There is no requirement within the Greater Manchester spatial framework to provide affordable housing—certainly not truly affordable housing. The present definition of affordable housing means that most of the people in my constituency cannot afford an affordable house. We need to amend that and prioritise development. We need to incentivise development on brownfield sites within boroughs, and within plans.

We must look at how the population projections in particular are calculated. The GMSF is built on population projections from 2014 figures from the Office for National Statistics. If the housing numbers were based on the most recent figures, which are the 2018 figures, that would mean that in a seat such as mine, and in the Metropolitan Borough of Bury, no green belt would have to be built on. The planning system must be fair. It must produce plans based on the most accurate and recent information. I urge the Minister to consider insisting that local authorities use the most recent figures rather than 2014 figures, and prioritise truly affordable housing. We cannot have a situation where developers get to take the easy way out, building houses at £400,000 and £500,000, which cater to only a small number of people in my constituency.

My last point echoes what some of my hon. Friends have said. Within the Greater Manchester spatial framework, new schools, roads and doctors’ surgeries are required. At the moment they are merely words on a piece of paper. There is no requirement within the document. Planning officers tell me that they will be built. There is no guarantee that they will be built, but I believe there is an absolute guarantee that the green belt will be built over by three, four and five-bedroom houses. We must find a way to get cast-iron guarantees, before planning permission is granted, that infrastructure will be put in place to support the thousands of extra houses that are proposed—certainly in my area.

Criminal Law

James Daly Excerpts

Tuesday 28th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Imran Hussain]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her intervention, but the fact of the matter is that in the last 10 years, this Government have enacted policies that at best ignore the impact on public safety, and at worst actively undermine it. Cuts to the police service have led to frontline police officer numbers being slashed and to forces being under-resourced elsewhere. My police force in West Yorkshire has had its budget cut by £140 million since 2010. We have seen cuts to the Prison Service; prison officer numbers have fallen by a quarter between 2010 and 2015, which has left many of our prisons—including high-security prisons—being staffed by inexperienced officers. We have seen an ill-advised decision to break up the probation service, with catastrophic consequences—something that the whole House now accepts—and just days ago, we were found to be leaving the public less safe as a result of under-staffing and overloading with casework.

Prosecution and conviction rates for serious offences have stalled. That has been driven by these cuts to important services that work to keep reoffending down and the public safe. Most alarmingly, prosecution and conviction rates for the offence of rape have fallen by 32% and 26% respectively in a year, creating a situation that women’s groups say effectively amounts to the decriminalisation of rape. Reoffending rates across the whole range of offences remain stubbornly high, with proven reoffending rates for sexual offences fluctuating at about 14% between 2006-07 and 2016-17. The figures for violence against the person offences have increased from 20% to 26%.

Under this Government, the public are less safe. Faced with such a record, we and the public should rightly be sceptical when the Government talk about cutting crime and keeping the public safe. To try to correct their abysmal record and create an impression that they are tough on crime, the Government have brought forward this order, but even they know that it will not be enough to overturn the problems that they have created. Taken on its own, it will increase neither public confidence nor public safety, and it is far from the silver bullet that the Prime Minister would like to praise it as being.

Throughout this process, the Government have consistently failed to make the case for the order and its implementation. As their own impact assessment and explanatory note point out, judges already have powers akin to the ones set out in this order for dangerous offenders. They have the ability to hand down extended determinate sentences, which not only require an offender to serve longer in custody, but are subject to the double lock of the requirement that the parole board be satisfied the offender is no longer a danger to the public before they are released. Conveniently for the Government, however, Ministers seem to have been remiss in telling the public about that when talking about the action they are taking.

Instead of the Government bringing in such measures without properly making the case for them, and without showing evidence that supports their proposal, they should get serious and tell us how they will reduce the rampant overcrowding and violence in our prisons; how they will increase the quality and availability of real, purposeful activity both in prisons and in the community; how they will deliver an effective probation service that is not hampered by the Government’s failed privatisation agenda, which has proven so disastrous; and for non-violent and non-sexual offenders, how they will deal with the number of ineffective super-short sentences that their own evidence, in the report the Ministry of Justice published last year, shows lead to more people becoming victims of crime than if effective alternatives were used. The Minister accepted that earlier.

[James Daly (Bury North) (Con)]

Does the hon. Member agree that letting violent and sexual offenders back on the streets after they have served just half their sentence is clearly letting victims down?

[Imran Hussain]

Let me remind the hon. Gentleman that I made it absolutely clear at the beginning that we are in full agreement that serious and dangerous offenders who pose a risk to the public must serve sentences that reflect the severity of their crimes and keep the public safe. The point we are making—I will go on to make it, if the hon. Gentleman will allow me—is that this is a missed opportunity. Quite frankly, there are so many underlying issues that are not being addressed, and as I have said, the order will not single-handedly achieve the objectives mentioned.

We are concerned about the additional pressures that the order will place on an already overstretched Prison and Probation Service. That point was made by the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk), who does not appear to be in his place now, but is a learned Member and comes with some experience. The probation service, without sufficient places or staff, will be forced to do the same level of rehabilitative work with offenders after their release, but in the shorter time before the end of their licence period.

The Government have not made the case for this order. To do so, they could have brought forward a comprehensive plan to deal with the additional burden the order will place on our already overstretched Prison and Probation Service—evidence shows that is the most effective way to protect the public—but they did not. We urge the Government to look into and address these issues, and to ensure that prisons have the investment and support they need to meet the needs of their existing population.

The Government must also ensure that the forthcoming changes to the probation service see it better funded and better supported, so it can return to being the award-winning service, protecting the public, that it was before the Conservative party made the disastrous decision to break up and part-privatise probation. The Government must ensure that the Parole Board is sufficiently respected and resourced to deal with release decisions for the most serious offenders and keep the public safe.

This order is ultimately a missed opportunity for the Government. It is a missed opportunity to bring forward a comprehensive and evidence-led sentencing reform package that would make the changes necessary to reduce the number of victims of crime, and to begin to allow the public to regain confidence in our crumbling justice system.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Daly (Bury North) (Con)]

Prior to coming to the House I was a criminal legal aid defence solicitor for 16 years. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) mentioned, this statutory instrument simply takes us back to a position that I recognise from the courts prior to 2003. It is no more than that. Sentencing is a multifaceted matter that covers many issues, but I have yet to hear one positive, coherent argument as to why we should keep automatic release at the halfway stage in sentences for the most dangerous offenders. There is no argument for doing that. I have yet to have a constituent in Bury North knock on my door to say that we must keep that for the public good—there clearly is no public good in it.

We are here to defend the public interest. Why is this statutory instrument in the public interest? It will protect the public, for the reasons articulated by all speakers in this debate. Importantly, it will increase the deterrent impact of long-term sentences. What I take from my experience in the courts is that severe, deterrent sentences have an impact on behaviour, which this debate sometimes seems to ignore.

As other colleagues have said, this measure allows an extra period of rehabilitation for offenders. Valid points have been raised about the nature of the rehabilitation programmes that are available, especially in prisons, because sentencing is worth little if it is not effective. Sadly, despite our having fantastic probation officers and fantastic prison officers, my experience of working in the criminal justice system is that rehabilitative sentences have simply not achieved the expected outcomes, whether in reducing reoffending rates or putting people on to a more positive way of life. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to look at those sentences, because they are not working. Much work has to be done to address the underlying reasons for offending. Most importantly, victims and their families must be at the centre of our thoughts in any sentencing guidelines and sentencing measures that come through this place. I am sorry for repeating myself, but it is inconceivable that we could say dangerous offenders should automatically be released at the 50% stage—it is as simple as that.

We are dancing on the head of a pin. We can debate other important things, but I would welcome it if any hon. Member could point to a constituent who thinks such automatic release is a good idea.

[Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)]

We recently had a tragic case in Ipswich in which a young man was murdered. The murderers were sentenced to life in prison, and another was sentenced to 14 years for manslaughter. He bragged on Facebook about how easy it is in prison and how he will be let out halfway. As a direct result of that action, would it not be reasonable to eliminate any chance he has of being let out halfway?

[James Daly]

Absolutely. My hon. Friend’s words speak for themselves.

I congratulate the Front-Bench team and my other colleagues. We are acting on a manifesto commitment that is in the public interest and that will have an impact on offending behaviour. We have all talked about other related issues, but this is a good measure that is supported by the public, and I warmly welcome it.