National Scheme of Delegation of Planning Functions

Debate between Jim Shannon and Wendy Morton

Wednesday 28th October 2026 Westminster Hall

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the National Scheme of Delegation of Planning Functions.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. From Saturday, councillors across England will lose powers—powers to bring planning applications before elected committees. For communities like mine in Aldridge-Brownhills, which are already facing huge speculative development, this is a serious loss of accountability. My residents have faced an onslaught of applications in relation to green-belt sites, including York’s Bridge for 330 houses, Queslett Road East for 850, Barns Lane for 77, Longwood Lane for 78 and Bosty Lane for 550. Those are just some of them. These applications have brought the debate about the future of our countryside very close to people’s doors. These green spaces help to give our communities their identity. Residents want to know what development will mean for their already busy roads, school places and GP access. They are right to expect those questions to be properly considered before Ministers introduce sweeping changes, yet here we are, just days before the new rules take effect, still looking for answers.

It seems that of the outstanding applications for 2,350 homes across my constituency, 80% will be determined under the new rules and behind closed doors. Residents and councillors will not easily be able to ask questions of the developers or raise issues in open committee. Of course, we agree on the need for homes that local people can afford. I want brownfield sites brought back into use, with supporting infrastructure. As I have said time and again in this place and will probably keep saying, once agricultural land is built on, it is gone, and it is gone forever. I want to see planning consents built, not banked. That brings me to the current consultation on Walsall borough’s local plan.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the right hon. Lady. I spoke to her beforehand, and I always look to be helpful by talking about what we do back home. In Northern Ireland, under section 31 of the Planning Act (Northern Ireland) 2011, each of our 11 district councils is legally mandated to operate its own bespoke scheme of delegation. Although that gives local authorities excellent democratic autonomy over local developments, it has at times led to the exact regional inconsistencies in application processing times that the new English model explicitly seeks to correct. Does the right hon. Lady agree that the learnings from Northern Ireland’s process should be shared to achieve best practice in planning and hopefully address some of the very issues that she is highlighting?

[Wendy Morton]

I am always grateful to the hon. Gentleman, because he always makes useful contributions in Westminster Hall that allow us to reflect on and share our different experiences. To me, the fundamental thing is making sure that our communities feel that their councillors have a voice, rather than the democratic deficit that we are faced with. I thank him for his intervention.

Our local plan consultation closes on Monday, and over the last six weeks I have been encouraging residents to respond. I have been holding public meetings, helping with objections and making it clear to them that their views, whatever they are, matter, including when the plan goes before an independent inspector. But what message are the new regulations sending? Residents take the time to go through the documents, attend the meetings and help shape their area’s future, while the Government restrict their councillors’ ability to secure full and public scrutiny when an application arrives. That is not democracy in action—it is neither scrutiny nor accountability—so what is the point of asking communities to invest their time in a local plan if contentious decisions about its application are then to be taken behind closed doors?

UK Aid Policy: Global Funding Trends

Debate between Jim Shannon and Wendy Morton

Tuesday 7th July 2026 Westminster Hall

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) on securing this important and timely debate. As ever, he brings considerable knowledge and experience on development issues and, importantly, an understanding that the world in which we deliver development has fundamentally changed—as indeed do a number of other speakers today, not least my constituency neighbour, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir Andrew Mitchell). I think it is fair to say that few in this place have the depth of knowledge that he brings to the debate.

Today, the international landscape is defined by conflict, instability and strategic competition. Russia continues its illegal invasion of Ukraine. Sudan has become the world’s worst humanitarian catastrophe. Fragility stretches across the Sahel and the horn of Africa. China is using finance and infrastructure investment to expand its geopolitical influence. At the same time, donor budgets across western democracies are under increasing pressure.

Against that backdrop, Britain must ask a simple question: how do we ensure that every pound we spend overseas delivers the greatest possible benefit for the British people—our national security, our prosperity and health—as well as for the recipients? That is why we Conservatives believe the debate should not simply be about the size of the aid budget; it must be about reform.

Following the Government’s decision to reduce ODA from 0.5% to 0.3% of GNI, the spending review allocated £8.9 billion in ’27-28 and £9.4 billion in ’28-29. We believe it is right to go further, reducing ODA to 0.1% of GNI, and delivering almost £7 billion of savings across those two years, to help fund the sustained increase in defence spending required in today’s far more dangerous world. But reductions in spending alone are not enough; they must be accompanied by genuine reform. That is where I fear the Government have failed to provide the meaningful clarity that we deserve.

After two years in office, Ministers continue to speak of moving from donor to investor, yet we still do not know what that means in practical terms. I gently point out that it was almost a decade ago that the Conservative Government published a strategy for how to do economic development. Can the Minister explain what criteria are now being used to determine whether a programme represents value for money and serves Britain’s national interests? Which programmes have been cancelled? Which partnerships have been scaled back? Which priorities have been strengthened? What measurable outcomes will the Government use to judge success? I believe the British taxpayer deserves answers and so do we, as parliamentarians.

The Conservatives’ approach is clear. We believe Britain’s development mission should be redefined. Development assistance must be tightly focused on advancing Britain’s economic interests, national security and wider strategic influence. That means asking of each and every programme whether it strengthens Britain’s security, supports economic resilience, helps to prevent instability, counters authoritarian influence or creates stronger, long-term partnerships.

[Jim Shannon]

The right hon. Lady always makes incredibly important and helpful contributions. In my contribution, I suggested that there is another way of doing things, which is working alongside church groups and faith-based organisations. Does she feel that that is a possible way to spend money and have influence more wisely?

[Wendy Morton]

The hon. Gentleman always brings great passion to this place and is never afraid of sharing ideas. I think we are at a stage with development where we are, I think all of us, looking for more answers and ideas. It is also important that we look to partners in other donor countries, and learn from them too.

Coming back to the point about longer-term partnerships and areas where programmes should be helping us, if they do not we should ask why not and why British taxpayers are funding them. That also means introducing far greater conditionality. The British taxpayer rightly expects the organisations and countries receiving our support to demonstrate accountability, transparency and good governance.

That principle must apply equally to the multilateral system. Under the previous Conservative Government, Britain led international efforts to reform UN agencies, reduce duplication and introduce stronger performance-based funding. We challenged international organisations to deliver better value and greater accountability. What reforms is the Minister pressing for across the United Nations and the wider multilateral development banks? What conditions are attached to UK funding? What discussions has he had with our international partners about driving greater transparency and accountability throughout the multilateral system? What are the Government doing to promote positive reform where it takes place, such as that being rolled out by the president of the World Bank, Ajay Banga.

Equally important is the role of bilateral and minilateral partnerships. Britain’s relationships, particularly across the Commonwealth, remain one of our greatest strategic strengths. Rather than relying on large multilateral institutions, how are the Government exploring more agile bilateral and minilateral partnerships that can better advance our economic and security interests? What discussions has the Minister had with key partners, particularly across the Commonwealth, about developing those new models of co-operation that deliver greater impact, stronger accountability and better value for the taxpayer? Have the Government also explored the potential for development partnerships with countries such as Japan and South Korea, as well as the Nordics and Germany? These are allies whose interests align with ours in different parts of the world, and they matter for our security and prosperity.

Economic development must sit at the heart of our approach to international development. Conservative Governments demonstrated that development is not simply about grants, but creating jobs, building markets and enabling countries to stand on their own feet. As we heard today, British International Investment has become one of Britain’s genuine development success stories, mobilising private capital to support sustainable economic growth. Can the Minister tell the House whether BII will receive further support, and what level of private capital do the Government expect to leverage through development finance?

If development is to support Britain’s national interest, global health must also remain central. The Conservatives have a proud record of supporting Gavi and the Global Fund to fight AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria. Those investments have not only saved millions of lives but strengthened Britain’s own health security. Can the Minister confirm today the Government’s future commitments to Gavi and the Global Fund, and, importantly, the sequence of that funding?

I want to turn quickly to a humanitarian crisis, because Sudan cannot be ignored. It is now the world’s worst humanitarian emergency. Will the Minister tell us what additional action Britain is taking to secure humanitarian access and what discussions are taking place with regional partners?

I am conscious of the time. I am coming to an end, but I first want to touch on Ukraine, which I visited earlier this year. One of the gravest humanitarian issues arising from the war is the systematic abduction and forced deportation of Ukrainian children. Can the Minister update us on the latest support the UK is providing to help locate, identify and reunite the children with their families?

Conflict is increasing, donor funding is under pressure and strategic competition is intensifying. Britain’s development policy must change, too. I hope the Minister will explain not only where the Government are spending the money, but how their approach is being fundamentally reformed to meet the realities of a more dangerous and contested world. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

Aldridge Train Station

Debate between Jim Shannon and Wendy Morton

Tuesday 17th December 2024 Westminster Hall

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the future of Aldridge train station.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on the proposed development of a new train station in my Aldridge-Brownhills constituency and its funding through the city region sustainable transport settlement, known as CRSTS, which is less of a mouthful.

I will start with a little background about Aldridge-Brownhills and where we have got to with the development of a train station. Currently Aldridge-Brownhills is one of only 49 constituencies in this country that do not have a passenger train station and one of three in the West Midlands combined authority area. That is worth remembering. As in so many other areas, we lost our station in Aldridge due to the 1960s Beeching cuts. The last passenger train left Aldridge in 1965. Although we still have a freight line with freight trains operating on it, we do not have passenger services, but what we do have is a vision and determination to once again see passenger train services stopping at and running through Aldridge.

Things began to change in 2017. Following the first West Midlands mayoral election and the establishment of the West Midlands combined authority under Andy Street, the mayor laid down a bold and ambitious transport plan for the West Midlands region up until 2040.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the right hon. Lady for securing this debate. I suppose her ambition will be not just for the train station, because in this day and age there is definitely a need to ensure that those with disabilities can have access to all the train stations. I know the Government are committed to making those changes, but in the new build that the right hon. Lady is asking for, is it not possible to have disabled access there at the beginning so that everyone has the right to travel in this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?

[Wendy Morton]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. New trains stations must have disabled-friendly access, and also access for those who might have a pram, a pushchair or bags that are hard to carry up the stairs. That is really important. I am conscious that across the rail network, as the Minister will be aware, we have a lot of older train stations and heritage buildings. I know there is a programme to bring those up to speed. Perhaps she will say a little more about that.

I am passionate about a train station for Aldridge because I want to make sure that my constituents have opportunities to go into Walsall, Birmingham and beyond. I want young people to have the opportunity to get the train to go to study, to university, and of course to access employment—so, yes, I am ambitious for Aldridge. When Andy Street was the mayor, part of his ambition was to bring a train station back to Aldridge. In fact, I remember the day he launched the plan and it almost looked like a smaller version of the London Underground map with all the different lines linking together and taking passengers into New Street. Such maps probably get the Department for Transport thinking about a mass transit system and the ability to move people around an area.

A city region such as the West Midlands combined authority needs an integrated transport plan. In Aldridge we have the train line. All we need is a station and then we will be part of that integrated plan. Throughout the intervening period since 2017 a huge amount of work was undertaken by the West Midlands combined authority and Transport for West Midlands. The gamechanger came in February 2021, when Andy Street, on behalf of the combined authority, purchased land from the NHS for car parking. That was a clear demonstration of intent to reopen a station in Aldridge.