Housing Targets: Planning System

Debate between Gordon Henderson and Dan Poulter

Tuesday 15th November 2022 Westminster Hall

[Gordon Henderson (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered housing targets and the planning system.

This is not the first time I have raised the subject of overdevelopment in my constituency. In the last 12 years, I have done so on a number of occasions, so I will not repeat what I have said before, except to emphasise the problems that excessive housebuilding has caused my constituents. Our local roads are congested and cannot cope with the level of traffic generated by the new housing. My constituents struggle to get a GP appointment, because there are not enough doctors to service the thousands of extra people who have moved to the area. Many of our local schools are over-subscribed, and new arrivals struggle to get school places for their children.

The huge increase in housing development in my area has been driven by my local authority, Swale Borough Council, attempting to meet the top-down housing targets imposed by the Government. In past debates, successive Housing Ministers have insisted that the Government do not impose targets, and that it is up to local authorities to determine housing growth after consultation with the Planning Inspectorate, which of course is a Government quango. An example of the outcome of such consultation is that Swale Borough Council submitted its most recent local plan, which had a housing land allocation for 776 homes per year, only for the Planning Inspectorate to reject the proposal and insist that the figure should be increased to 1,048 per year.

The irony is that, despite the massive increases in housing in Swale over the past 30 years—17,000 new homes have been built in that time—developers have not once matched even the 776 figure in the past 10 years. The problem with nationally imposed mandatory housing targets is that they are arbitrary and lack supportable evidence of need. Officers and members of Swale Borough Council believe that targets should be set at local and sub-regional levels, and should take into account an area’s ability to deliver them. They believe that the housing delivery test, buffers, housing action plans and housing targets have served only to increase pressure on local authorities, rather than to deliver more housing.

[Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate; he is making some important points. Does he agree that unless local housing targets are set according to local need, it is difficult to adequately provide the necessary infrastructure he referred to earlier—education, health and transport in particular? Will he join me in urging the Minister to consider that there should be a right of appeal for local communities against inappropriate housing applications? There is a right for the developer; there is not currently a right for communities.

[Gordon Henderson]

I could not agree more, and I will touch on one or two of those issues.

Ministers have recently made a number of encouraging remarks about scrapping mandatory top-down targets, but there is little concrete evidence to suggest that that will ever happen. The lack of clarity is causing uncertainty, which is crippling the ability of Swale—and, I am sure, other local authorities—to put together meaningful local plans. In addition to the uncertainty over targets, producing local plans is becoming much slower, because the overall process is getting more complicated. Swale Borough Council believes that the difficulties will increase with the burden of the Environment Act 2021, other emerging legislation, including the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, and revised national planning guidance.

Leaving the EU

Debate between Gordon Henderson and Dan Poulter

Wednesday 18th January 2017 Westminster Hall

[Gordon Henderson (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the process for the UK to leave the EU.

I am pleased that you are chairing the debate, Mr Bailey. I drafted the wording of the motion with a purpose. We have come to use Brexit as shorthand for our country’s extricating itself from the EU, but Brexit does our friends and neighbours in Northern Ireland a grave disservice. It is not Britain that will be leaving the EU, but the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Technically, if we are to use a shorthand at all it should be “UKexit”.

I applied for the debate before the Prime Minister’s excellent speech yesterday, in which she set out her objectives for the negotiations that will take place with the EU during the next couple of years. I wanted a debate because some of my constituents are confused. Like me, they are simple souls who believed that they knew exactly what they were doing when they voted to leave the EU in June 2016. The more knowledgeable among them even knew the process for achieving our withdrawal.

However, they are now confused, because they see certain hon. Members who apparently do not understand what is meant by democracy, such as the leader of the Liberal Democrats, the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), who seems to think that a referendum result is only democratic if he is on the winning side. My constituents do not understand why, having voted overwhelmingly to leave the EU, their wishes are dismissed as only “advisory” by many remainers. They also do not understand why some MPs do not themselves seem to understand the process for leaving the EU, so I called the debate to allow the Minister to clarify that process. Let be me clear: that does not mean I want him to reveal any of the Government’s negotiating plans. I will explain more on my reasoning for that later.

My understanding of the process of leaving the EU is probably an oversimplification of the situation, although, as I said before, I am a simple soul. I believe that the first step is to notify other EU members that we intend to leave, by invoking article 50, and that nothing can be done until that happens, including negotiating with our EU partners. Article 50 is also bandied about as shorthand for setting the ball rolling, but I wonder how many people have actually read what it entails. I will enlighten those who do not know by reading it out:

“1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.

2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.

3.”—

this is important—

“The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.

4. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it.”

That seems pretty clear to me: the United Kingdom will leave the EU two years after invoking article 50, whether or not an agreement has been reached. That is my understanding of the process. I would like confirmation that I am right, and that article 50 of the Lisbon treaty will be triggered by the end of March.

[Dr Daniel Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. Does he agree with my interpretation of the triggering of article 50: once triggered, it is an irrevocable process that nothing—not even Parliament—can stop either that being completed or Britain’s leaving the European Union?

[Gordon Henderson]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, because it allows me to emphasise again that not only is that his interpretation and mine, but it is the EU’s interpretation. What he says is quite true: once we have invoked article 50, that is the end of the matter —we will be leaving the EU. That is my understanding of the process, and I would like confirmation that I am right.

I would also like the Minister to clarify what will happen should the Supreme Court uphold the High Court’s ruling that Parliament should have a vote on any decision. As the Prime Minister made clear yesterday, leaving the EU will entail divorcing ourselves from all of the EU’s institutions, rules and regulations, including the single market, the customs union and the free movement of people—except under terms negotiated between the UK and the remaining member states. That is what my constituents understood, and it is what they voted for by a large majority in last year’s referendum.

Nationally, the United Kingdom voted by a margin of 52% to 48% to leave the EU. Some Members have said that that result is indecisive and should be ignored, but most of those Members were elected to this place with a lower percentage of the vote than 52%. Does that mean that we can ignore their opinion? I should add that, in my constituency of Sittingbourne and Sheppey, the margin in favour of leave was 62% to 38%.

I also add that my constituents who voted to leave are absolutely livid that some professor at Cambridge University called Nicholas Boyle is reported to have said:

“The referendum vote does not deserve to be respected…Like resentful ruffians uprooting the new trees in the park and trashing the new play area, 17 million English, the lager louts of Europe, voted for Brexit in an act of geopolitical vandalism.”

That is a disgraceful slur on my constituents and the rest of the 17 million decent people who voted to leave the EU—many of whom were Irish, Welsh and, indeed, Scottish.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gordon Henderson]

Thank you, Mr Bailey. My comments were in no way designed to influence whatever the Supreme Court decides, but it is fairly common knowledge that it will give its ruling. My views are irrelevant to it.

The people I was talking about dress up their subversion with weasel words that would do credit to a used car salesman. They claim not to oppose UK exit, but their actions belie those words. I have no respect for those who say they want to abide by the referendum result but are desperately trying to find ways to somehow delay triggering article 50, in the hope that a way can be found to have a second referendum or a general election. As it happens, I think they are clutching at straws if they believe that voters would change their minds. In my view, if there was another referendum, the result would be an even more resounding vote to leave, because the “Project Fear” fox has been well and truly shot. In addition to realising that they were lied to by some remainers, the voting public do not like cheats and whingers, as those with a long political memory will know.

[Dr Poulter]

There is a point of view—I think a legitimate one—that as it took us passing an Act of Parliament to enter the European Union, Parliament will also legally be required to pass an Act of Parliament to take us out. That does not mean those of us who take that position in any way want to override the desire expressed by the British people to leave.

[Gordon Henderson]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s intervention, but he will not be surprised to know that I do not agree. I believe that when the Government hold a referendum in which they make it clear, as the then Government did, that the will of the people will be listened to, and when this Parliament—of which he and I were both Members at the time—decides to allow a referendum and for the British people’s view to be heard, we should hear it.

I talked earlier about those of us with a long political memory, and I want to remind people what happened in Winchester at the 1997 general election. The Conservative candidate lost by two votes to the Liberal Democrats, but after a successful petition, there was a rerun of the election, at which the Lib Dems won by a majority of more than 21,000. It is ironic that it is the Lib Dems leading the charge for another referendum. They appear not to have learned anything.

I mentioned the Government’s negotiating position. There are repeated calls from all sides of the House for Ministers to allow Members to scrutinise their plans in advance and vote on them. In my view, that would be quite ludicrous and could only be suggested by people who have little experience of business or absolutely no experience of negotiating. I have experience of both.

I left school at 16 and worked in the real world of business and commerce for almost 50 years before being elected to this House. For some of that time, I worked as a senior contracts officer for GEC-Marconi Avionics, which was then bought by British Aerospace. In that role, I negotiated with various customers, including the UK Ministry of Defence and McDonnell Douglas in America. There are no circumstances on earth that would have enticed me to reveal to those with whom I was negotiating information in advance about my negotiating stance. To have done so would have been akin to committing commercial suicide, so why should Ministers let our European neighbours know in advance what the Government’s strategy is? That would be stupid.

health

Debate between Gordon Henderson and Dan Poulter

Tuesday 18th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Dr Poulter]

I accept that the Secretary of State has always had responsibility for the health service, and that was implicitly made clear in the Health and Social Care Act 2012. It is, however, important that we no longer have a system in this country that micro-manages the delivery of local health care services. We must listen to local doctors and nurses, and put them in charge of the configuration of local services because they are often the best advocates for the needs of local patients. Reconfiguring local services should be led—as per the four tests I outlined previously—on good clinical grounds where there is a clinical case for reconfiguration and where local communities have been consulted. That is something we should listen to and we must move away from the Whitehall micro-management of local health care delivery.

[Gordon Henderson]

Will the Minister give way?

[Dr Poulter]

I will give way one more time, and then I will make some progress.

[Gordon Henderson]

Does the Minister accept that local people wanted Royal Brompton hospital to be kept open, and that the decision to remove the intensive care unit was not taken by local people? The Minister is arguing against himself.

[Dr Poulter]

The initial process for the reconfiguration was started, I believe, by John Reid when he was Secretary of State in 2002, after listening to evidence at the time. We should remind ourselves why we are discussing congenital heart services. All speakers have accepted the principle that there is good clinical evidence—acknowledged by doctors and specialists—that having fewer units actually delivers better care for patients. That was accepted by my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey. I am not going to go into the rights and wrongs of individual units as that is under judicial review and I will not be drawn further on that point today.