Aleppo/Syria: International Action

Graham P Jones Excerpts

Programme motion: House of Commons
Tuesday 13th December 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr George Osborne (Tatton) (Con)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) on speaking with such passion and compassion for the citizens of Aleppo, and on bringing to bear his experience as one of the country’s outstanding International Development Secretaries. I also thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this debate; it is good to see my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary here to respond to it.

What we have heard already moves us to tears: the tens of thousands of civilians trapped in Aleppo; the reports today of residents being shot on sight; and the barbarous assault by the Syrian army, Iranian militias and Russian airpower that the Morning Star, as we have heard, describes as a “liberation”. Let me offer my support and gratitude to the incredibly brave people who are risking their lives as doctors and White Helmet workers in that war zone. I support everything that has been said about what we need to do to get aid into Aleppo, or to provide some kind of ceasefire so that civilians can get out of Aleppo.

The whole concept of an emergency debate suggests that this tragedy has somehow come upon us out of the blue and that there is an almost natural aspect to it, but that is not the case. The Syrian civil war has been waged since 2011, so this is something that we could have foreseen and done something about. We are deceiving ourselves in this Parliament if we believe that we have no responsibility for what has happened in Syria. The tragedy in Aleppo did not come out of a vacuum; it was created by a vacuum—a vacuum of western leadership, including American and British leadership. I take responsibility, as someone who sat on the National Security Council throughout those years, and Parliament should also take its responsibility because of what it prevented being done.

There were multiple opportunities to intervene. In 2012, David Petraeus, the head of the CIA, devised a plan for a much more aggressive intervention in Syria, providing lethal support to what was then clearly a moderate opposition in the Free Syrian Army. That approach was rejected. Britain provided support for flak jackets, medical kits and so forth, but it was clear throughout 2012 and 2013 that there was not a parliamentary majority in this House for providing lethal support to that opposition so that they could shoot down helicopters and aircraft, and fire back with sophisticated weaponry.

In 2013, of course, this House of Commons took a decision not to back a Government motion to authorise airstrikes when Assad used chemical weapons, breaking a 100-year-old taboo—we established it in the west and it survived the second world war—that you do not use chemical weapons, as well as crossing a red line that the President of the United States had established.

[Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)]

Does the right hon. Gentleman think that such lethal force would have overcome the Iranians, the Russians and Assad? Does he really think that if we had provided more munitions, this was a winnable war?

[Mr Osborne]

On the narrow point, in August 2013, we were responding to the use of chemical weapons and providing airstrikes as a demonstration that the use of those weapons was completely unacceptable and that a red line had been crossed—and, indeed, that the west had established that red line. Of course, once this House of Commons took its decision, I believe it did have an impact on American politics. We cannot have it both ways—we cannot debate issues such as Syria and then think that our decisions have no impact on the rest of the world. I think that that did cause a delay in the American Administration’s actions and did cause Congress to get cold feet.

This is where I want to begin to draw my remarks to a close, because I know many Members want to speak. The last time I spoke from the Back Benches was in 2003, from the Opposition Benches, when we were debating intervention in Iraq. We all know the price of intervention. My political generation knows the price of intervention: the incredibly brave servicemen and women who gave their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan; the thousands of civilians who died in those conflicts; the cost to taxpayers in this country; the chaos that inevitably follows when there is intervention in a country; and, of course, the division in our society, our families and our communities.

I believe, however, that we have come to a point where it is impossible to intervene anywhere—we lack the political will, as the west, to intervene. I nevertheless have some hope for what might come out from this terrible tragedy in Syria, which is that we are beginning to learn the price of not intervening. We did not intervene in Syria, and tens of thousands of people have been killed as a result while millions of refugees have been sent from their homes across the world. We have allowed a terrorist state to emerge in the form of ISIS, which we are now trying to defeat. Key allies such as Lebanon and Jordan are destabilised, and the refugee crisis has transformed the politics of Europe, allowing fascism to rise in eastern Europe and creating extremist parties in western Europe. For the first time since Henry Kissinger kicked it out of the middle east in the 1970s, Russia is back as the decisive player in that region. That is the price of not intervening.

Let us have our debate, and let us do everything that we can to help the civilians of Aleppo. Let us hope that the new American Administration and the new Secretary of State work with the Russians to get the ceasefire, but let us be clear now that if we do not shape the world, we will be shaped by it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

Here we are once again: once again congratulating the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) on securing an emergency debate on the situation in Syria; once again hearing from both sides of the House of the atrocities and the unimaginable horror of life in the city of Aleppo; once again asking the same questions to the Government. Where is the head of the snake that our bombs were going to cut off? Why is the United Nations so powerless in the face of this disaster? Why is it that we can drop bombs, but not bread?

In the time I have, I want to reflect on the situation on the ground, on some of the practical solutions we have heard about and on the role the Government can play. We hear that the Assad forces are on the brink of seizing control of the city, but in doing so it seems they are playing out the ancient saying: they have made a desert and called it peace.

[Graham Jones]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Patrick Grady]

No, I have very little time.

Quite how the word “victory” could apply to the almost utter destruction of a city and to the death and displacement of so many people is beyond me and, I suspect, most of us. The destruction continues, with both sides responsible for atrocities and horror. The number of people displaced within the country and over its borders is greater than the population of Scotland and just slightly greater than the population of London.

While we recognise the humanitarian contribution the United Kingdom has made, there must be more it can do. That must extend to the welcome it provides to the Syrian refugees who make it to the United Kingdom—20,000 refugees from Syria over the lifetime of this Parliament is simply not enough. It would be helpful to hear from the Government how they want to work with humanitarian organisations on the ground in Syria and in neighbouring countries. Local organisations have a much deeper reach and much better understanding of the immediate situation than multilateral or bilateral agencies.

In Aleppo itself, as many Members have said, we now surely require an urgent and specific response. We on the SNP Benches have repeatedly called for aid drops, and the Government have repeatedly said that that would be an option of last resort. Well, what is the penultimate resort? What is preventing these aid drops? No food has been delivered to Aleppo for seven months. What alternatives are the Government pursuing?

We have heard repeatedly of the risks and of the difficult logistics of aid drops, but we have also heard of the proposals from graduates at the University of Aleppo about how the United States joint precision airdrop system could be deployed. I have asked the Minister written questions about that. It would be helpful to hear from him what discussions the UK is having with the US and other allies about the applicability of that system, and whether it presents a more secure way of delivering aid by air.

The Minister might also be aware of proposals in recent days from members of the Disasters Emergency Committee and other non-governmental organisations for use of an air bridge system to deliver aid by helicopter to safe landing sites identified by the White Helmets and others. In their letter to the Prime Minister, the agencies cite the UK’s role in the 1948-49 Berlin airlift, when over 2 million tonnes of cargo were delivered to 2 million residents of west Berlin. Will the Prime Minister be responding to that letter from some of the most respected aid agencies in this country?

The agencies also make the point that UN Security Council resolution 2165 authorises the UN to undertake cross-border aid delivery without the permission of the Syrian Government. Indeed, the International Syria Support Group, of which Russia remains a member, called on the World Food Programme to use air bridges and airdrops if land access continues to be denied. So what steps are the Government taking to be ready when, or if, the situation stabilises?

Neighbourhood Planning Bill

Graham P Jones Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Legislative Grand Committee: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 13th December 2016 Commons Chamber

[Gavin Barwell]

My right hon. Friend makes a perfect point on which to end this section of the debate. The point is that compulsory purchase should be a last resort. We should encourage all acquiring authorities to seek to secure land that is needed for major infrastructure projects or redevelopment schemes on commercial terms, which is quicker and cheaper and avoids all the legal costs, as he said. What we are legislating for here should be a last resort for when it is overwhelmingly in the public interest and necessary to acquire sites in order to allow projects to go ahead. With that, I hope that hon. Members will not press their amendments and that we can proceed to the next part of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

New clause 6 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.



New Clause 1

Guidance on clustering of betting offices and pay day loan shops

“(1) Before exercising his powers under section 36(1) the Secretary of State must issue guidance to local authorities on the granting of planning for permission change of use to betting offices and pay day loan shops.

(2) This guidance must set out the manner in which policies in neighbourhood plans and local plans about the number, density and impact of betting offices and pay day loan shops shall be taken into account when determining applications for change of use, to prevent a deleterious effect on the neighbourhood or local area.”—(Graham Jones.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 2—Planning Applications: award of costs—

“(1) Where a planning application for development meets the terms of subsection (2), and is—

(a) refused by a local authority, or

(b) an appeal under section 78 of the TCPA 1990 which is dismissed,

the planning authority may apply to the Secretary of State for an award of costs to reimburse the expenses incurred by individuals who submitted objections to the unsuccessful application or appeal.

(2) A planning authority may only use this power if the following conditions are met—

(a) the unsuccessful application or appeal concerned a new commercial or residential development; and

(b) the application or appeal was unsuccessful, at least in part, due to its incompatibility with the relevant approved neighbourhood development plan.”

New clause 4—Sustainable development and placemaking—

“(1) The Secretary of State must issue guidance setting out how the principles of sustainable development and placemaking can be—

(a) reflected in neighbourhood development plans;

(b) used by local authorities to support neighbourhood planning.

(2) “Sustainable development and placemaking” means managing the use, development and protection of land and natural resources in a way which enables people and communities to provide for their legitimate social, economic and cultural wellbeing while sustaining the potential of future generations to meet their own needs.

(3) To support this aim local planning authorities should—

(a) identify suitable land for development in line with the economic, social and environmental objectives so as to improve the quality of life, wellbeing and health of people and the community;

(b) contribute to the sustainable economic development of the community;

(c) contribute to the vibrant cultural and artistic development of the community;

(d) protect and enhance the natural and historic environment;

(e) contribute to mitigation and adaptation to climate change in line with the objectives of the Climate Change Act 2008;

(f) promote high quality and inclusive design;

(g) ensure that decision-making is open, transparent, participative and accountable; and

(h) ensure that assets are managed for long-term interest of the community.”

This new clause would clarify in statute that neighbourhood planning should be focused on the public interest and in achieving quality outcomes including placemaking.

New clause 5—Neighbourhood Planning: Payments to support production of plans—

“(1) Where a parish is designated as a neighbourhood area under the Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations 2012, and where the parish council agrees to forego some or all of the relevant Community Infrastructure Ley Monies, the Local Planning Authority may make available the amounts foregone to support the parish council in the production of a Neighbourhood Plan or a Neighbourhood Development Order.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) the relevant Community Infrastructure Levy Monies are those that will be payable to the Local Planning Authority under Regulation 8 of the CIL (Amendment) Regulations 2013 if the Neighbourhood Plan or Neighbourhood Development Order, when made—

(a) provides for the number of houses specified for development in that neighbourhood area under the relevant Local Plan, and

(b) those houses are built.”

This amendment would require Local Planning Authorities to make advances available to parish councils to support the production of Neighbourhood Plan or a Neighbourhood Development Order. The advances will equal the amount of income that the parish council agrees to forego out of the CIL revenues that would otherwise be paid to them by the Local Planning Authority once the housing specified in the Plan or Order is built.

New clause 7—Planning decisions: involvement of neighbourhood planning bodies—

“In place of section 75ZB of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as inserted by section 156 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016) insert—

“75ZB Responsibilities of decision-makers in respect of Neighbourhood Development Plans in the exercise of planning functions

(1) In considering whether to grant planning permission or permission in principle for development which affects land all or part of which is included within the area covered by a made or emerging Neighbourhood Development Plan, the local planning authority must—

(a) have regard to the desirability of upholding the policies and proposals contained in the Neighbourhood Development Plan;

(b) send a copy of the application to the relevant neighbourhood planning body;

(c) allow the relevant neighbourhood planning body a period of 21 days from receipt of the application to make recommendations about how the application should be determined; and

(d) take into account any recommendations made under paragraph (c).

(2) Where a neighbourhood planning body recommended against the application, under subsection (1), and the following conditions are met, the local planning authority may not approve the application without first consulting with the Secretary of State.

(3) The conditions mentioned in subsection (2) are—

(a) the development is not classed as a householder development;

(b) the development is not on a site identified for the proposed development in the relevant neighbourhood development plan.

(4) Consultations with the Secretary of State under subsection (2) must follow the procedures set out in provisions 10 to 12 of the Town & Country Planning (Consultation) (England) Direction 2009.

(5) In this section—

“emerging Neighbourhood Development Plan” means a Neighbourhood Development Plan that has been examined, is being examined, or is due to be examined, having met the public consultation requirements necessary to proceed to this stage.

“householder development” means proposals to alter or enlarge a single house, including works within the curtilage (boundary/garden) of the house.

“neighbourhood planning body” means a town or parish council or neighbourhood forum, as defined in section 61F of the 1990 Act (authorisation to act in relation to neighbourhood areas).””

This new clause would require planning authorities to consult neighbourhood planning bodies on decisions to grant planning permission. Where a planning authority wants to approve a major development against the wishes of a neighbourhood planning body, the planning authority will be required to consult the Secretary of State before granting permission.

New clause 8—Delivery of housing development—

“After section 74 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 insert—

“74A Delivery of housing development

(1) The Secretary of State may make provision, by a development order, for regulating the manner in which applications for planning permission for housing development are to be determined by local planning authorities with regard to the assessment of a five year supply of housing land.

(2) A development order issued under subsection (1) may in particular—

(a) define a methodology to be used by local planning authorities to assess a deliverable five-year supply of housing land, including confirmation of types of sites that may be included;

(b) specify the minimum period of time after which, if a local authority has not demonstrated a five-year supply of housing land, the presumption in favour of sustainable development should be applied in accordance with paragraph 49 of the National Planning Policy Framework;

(c) set out the desirability of upholding policies and proposals of made or emerging neighbourhood plans, where these are positive towards housing development, notwithstanding any lack of a five-year supply of housing land in the local authority area in which the neighbourhood plan is wholly or partly situated.

(3) In this section “five year supply of housing land” means specified deliverable sites identified as sufficient to provide five years’ worth of housing against the area’s housing requirements (see paragraph 47 of the National Planning Policy Framework).””

The proposal would empower the Secretary of State to issue a development order to: clarify the means by which housing land supply is assessed; define the minimum amount of time before a local planning authority’s failure to meet its housing targets results in its local plan being “out of date”; and specify that neighbourhood plans should be taken into account notwithstanding the lack of a five-year supply of housing land.

Amendment 1, in clause 1, page 2, line 3, at end insert—

“(c) it has been examined by an independent examiner who is registered with the Royal Town Planning Institute.”

This amendment ensures that the examination of a neighbourhood plan is conducted by an RTPI registered examiner.

Amendment 2, in clause 2, page 2, line 19, at end insert—

“(3C) To support Neighbourhood Plans, the Secretary of State should set out the weight that should be given to approved neighbourhood development plans at key stages in the planning process.”

This amendment gives weight to the Neighbourhood Plans at key stages along the process and not just at the post- referendum stage.

Amendment 3, in clause 3, page 2, line 28, at end insert

“after consultation with the local area involved.”

This amendment ensure that any changes to a neighbourhood development order or plan are first subject to consultation with the local area involved.

Amendment 4, in clause 4, page 4, line 7, at end insert

“providing that the subsequent area is not smaller than a parish or town council area or local authority ward.”

This amendment ensures that the size of a neighbourhood area is not smaller than a parish or town council area or local authority ward.

Amendment 7, in clause 5, page 5, line 10, at end insert—

“(c) reasonable payments made by local authorities for the purpose set out in paragraph (a) and (b) shall be recovered from the Secretary of State’s department.”

This amendment allows for the full recovery of costs of assisting with the development of a neighbourhood plan to be recovered to the local authority.

Amendment 5, page 5, line 11, at end insert—

“(2BA) Such statements of community involvement must include a right for members of the community to make representations.”

This amendment would give local people and communities a statutory “right to be heard”.

Amendment 6, page 5, line 11, at end insert—

“(2BA) Such statements of community involvement shall include measures to enable local parish councils to be set up in a streamlined and speedy manner.”

This amendment would make it easier for new parish and town councils to be formed.

Amendment 8, page 5, line 21, after subsection (3) insert—

“(4) Section 120 of the Localism Act 2011 (Financial assistance in relation to neighbourhood planning) is amended as follows—

(a) at the end of subsection (2)(a) leave out “, and” and insert “subject to the condition that such assistance is prioritised for bodies or persons in deprived communities, and”,

(b) after subsection (3)(b), insert—

“(ba) a deprived community is defined as being any area which is among the 20 per cent most deprived Lower Layer Super Output Areas according to the most recently published English Indices of Deprivation,

(bb) prioritised financial assistance is defined to mean that no less than 50 per cent of the total value of the financial assistance provided under this section is provided to deprived communities.””

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to prioritise deprived communities when making available financial assistance to support the development of neighbourhood plans.

Amendment 23, page 5, line 21, at end insert—

“(4) To support Neighbourhood Plans, all councils should have a Local Development Plan in place by December 2017.”

This amendment ensures that Local Plans are in place so Neighbourhood Plans can be made in line with the strategic aims of Local Plans.

Amendment 24, in clause 6, page 5, line 26, at end insert

“which must consider the current and future housing needs of the whole population including older and disabled people”.

Amendment 25, page 6, line 7, after “strategy” insert

“which must consider the current and future housing needs of the whole population including older and disabled people”.

Amendment 28, page 6, line 21, at end insert—

“(3) In section 70 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 ((determination of applications for planning permission: general considerations) after subsection (4) insert—

(5) No grant or other financial assistance shall be payable by the Secretary of State in connection with development of land in the circumstances set out in subsection (6) below.

(6) The circumstances are where a development plan document includes any of the following policies—

(a) the removal of the Green Belt designation from land in order to accommodate 10 or more dwellings;

(b) the designation of land that falls within a designated National Park, Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, or Site of Special Scientific Interest to allow major housing development;

(c) the designation of land that falls within a designated Site of Special Scientific Interest to allow major housing development.

(7) The Secretary of State must by regulation set out—

(a) what constitutes “major” development for the purposes of subsection (6) (c); and

(b) any exceptions to subsection (5).””

This amendment would have the effect of preventing the Government from making payments under the New Homes Bonus scheme for developments proposed in development plan documents on land (i) where the Green Belt boundary had been redrawn or (ii) within a National Park or Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, where a development is considered to be “major”. The amendment also allows the Secretary of State to set out exceptions to this provision within policies or guidance, which would include the NPPF.

Amendment 10, in clause 10, page 10, line 19, at end insert—

“(c) they must set out a timetable to review the need for technical documents.”

Government amendments 17 to 19.

Amendment 29, in clause 11, page 10, line 35, at end insert—

“(4) Such Statements of Community Involvement must outline—

(a) the links between Neighbourhood Plans and Local Plans; and

(b) consultation arrangements for Parish and Town Councils in the drawing up of Local Plans.”

This amendment outlines the relationship between local and neighbourhood plans and the role parish and town councils would play in their development.

Government amendment 22.

Amendment 9, in schedule 2, page 42, line 15, at end insert

“must consult the relevant lower-tier planning authority.”

This amendment ensures that district councils are consulted before a county council writes a local plan for their area.

[Graham Jones]

I want to speak to new clause 1, tabled in my name and those of many hon. Members from across the House, and planning guidance on the clustering of betting offices and payday lenders. Fixed odds betting terminals have been described as the crack cocaine of gambling and plague our high streets. Members have witnessed innumerable issues following the explosive growth in betting shops on their constituency’s high streets. Given the number, clustering and impact of betting shops, it is high time that there was clarity in planning law on this significant problem, which my moderate new clause seeks to address.

Research by the Local Government Association reveals a clear correlation between high-density betting shop clustering and problem gambling. Betting shop loyalty cards show that 28% of people living within 400 metres of betting shop clusters are problem gamblers, compared with 22% of those who do not live near a cluster. Research from the Institute for Public Policy Research shows that problem gambling, exacerbated by clustering, costs secondary mental health services and the taxpayer £100 million a year. Further academic research has revealed that clustering disproportionately affects vulnerable communities. The poorest 55 boroughs have more than twice as many betting shops compared with the most affluent 115 boroughs. There has been an adverse impact on our high streets. Those findings were summed up by Mary Portas, who said that

“the influx of betting shops, often in more deprived areas, is blighting our high streets”.

I remind some Members who might disagree that the Portas review was set up by Conservative Members when they were in the coalition Government, in the previous Parliament.

To date, deficiencies in the legislative framework have hampered efforts to address the effects of clustering on local communities. We have only to walk down any high street in a deprived area to see clusters of payday lenders and betting shops, which are affecting the vitality of our high streets.

[Rob Marris]

I support my hon. Friend’s excellent proposal. He, like me, will be aware that for some people gambling is an addiction. This House has repeatedly passed measures in relation to addiction to alcohol and tobacco to restrict the availability of those legal products. Surely, that is all he is seeking to do here: place restrictions, through guidance, on the availability of a legal product, to cut down on its availability and lessen its attraction to addicts.

[Graham Jones]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I could add that we also have planning frameworks and guidance in place for things such as supermarkets, so why not do the same for betting shops? It seems remarkable that we can pick on supermarkets—

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

There are far more pubs and fast-food takeaways per square mile in poorer areas than betting shops. Does the hon. Gentleman also want to restrict them, to protect the people in the poorest communities?

[Graham Jones]

I presume the hon. Gentleman has done an impact survey and a geographical study of the number of alcoholics and whether they live near pubs and of the number of people who may be obese because they live near takeaways, but he did not offer that information, so I presume that he has no argument and is just trying to make an invalid point. [Interruption.] Caring about this issue is caring about the people who go into these bookmakers and get caught by these FOBTs, because there are clusters and these things are attractive. We also have to look at the impact on the viability of our high streets, on communities and on other retailers.

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

Is it not also true that there is a traumatic impact on the children and families of those who spend money on these terminals? Should we not also be conscious of that?

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Jones]

Absolutely, we should be. A societal concern about this issue is about licensing, where we have the review, but this debate is about planning, because it is about clustering. That issue is separate from licensing and whether we have a limit of £2 instead of £100, or whatever the Government’s review decides. Licensing is one aspect, but today we are here to discuss the completely different issue of the impact of clustering and density and the planning provisions, or the lack of them, in legislation that allow significant clustering on our high streets. We have all read about the situation in Newham, where bookmakers face bookmakers of the same franchise.

[John Redwood]

Can the hon. Gentleman give the House some idea of how many would be a reasonable number on a high street, so that we know what he is talking about?

[Graham Jones]

The right hon. Gentleman makes my point for me; he shows why this is a modest proposal, as it asks the Secretary of State to make that designation. It is not for the Opposition or for me to prescribe this, but for the Secretary of State to provide that clear guidance to local authorities. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for making his point, because he, along with his Conservative colleagues in government, will be able to decide what the density, impact and clustering should be. I hope that he joins me in the Lobby when this is pressed to a vote.

[Philip Davies]

As the hon. Gentleman seems so concerned about evidence and facts, can he tell us whether the number of betting shops is going up or down?

[Graham Jones]

The issue is not whether the number of betting shops is going up or down, but whether ordinary people are affected by the consequences of this product. If there are 1 million smokers now but 999,999 tomorrow, the number is going down, but still, as Philip Morris said this week, this is a disease. No matter whether the number is going down or up, the people who are affected should be our primary concern.

[Rob Marris]

We are discussing a planning issue, and no doubt my hon. Friend will be aware that the density is decreasing in some neighbourhoods, whereas it is increasing in others. That is precisely the sort of thing that the new clause and the pursuant guidance would address.

[Graham Jones]

Absolutely. The new clause asks the Government to provide clarity. It is not a prescriptive. It does not say that the number should be x, y or z. It asks the Government to produce clear guidance for local authorities.

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for speaking quite a bit of sense. I do not often disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), but he is wrong on a few occasions. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the key issue is the proliferation of fixed odds betting terminals and not betting shops per se? It is quite in order for local planning authorities to bring forward supplementary planning documents to address specific issues such as antisocial behaviour; it is normal in planning law.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Jones]

The hon. Gentleman is talking about the licensing aspect and the planning aspect. The answer is both. What we want is licensing. The Government are reviewing that and the number of fixed odds betting terminals in a bookmakers. I do not want to prejudice the outcome of that review or the Government’s decision. What we are talking about is the failure of the planning system, because we are dealing with planning in the Bill. The straight answer to the hon. Gentleman, with whom I am familiar, is that it is both. It is not one or the other. It is licensing and planning.

Too often, it seems that neither central Government nor local government have the capacity or the will to take responsibility in planning law for the proliferation and concentration of betting offices and payday loan shops on the high street. I want to stress here that new clause 1 is also about payday lenders. The current planning legislation is very weak at best. Any Member knows from looking down their high street and speaking to their councillors that planning law is weak on this issue, so local councillors on planning committees often err on the side of caution and grant permission to bookmakers, because their budgets are under pressure and they do not want to lose appeals. Therefore, there is a secondary reason why clarity is really important—why the law must be tightened up.

Despite the protestations of the Government and the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), article 4, which is often used by the Government as a reason in law to assist local authorities in dealing with this matter, is totally fallacious and unhelpful. Local authorities do not use it. It is not the tool that the Government say that it is. It is completely counterproductive, because it just adds to the confusion of local authority members on planning committees. They are unsure about the law and whether they can act, which is why they often grant planning permission for bookmakers.

In theory, a direction under article 4 can require bookmakers to seek planning permission, but in practice, a direction must be justified according to the strict criteria, can be overturned by the Government and is likely to be legally challenged. Its cost and complexity mean that councils are unwilling to utilise such measures. Not many local authorities use article 4. I have not made a freedom of information request recently, but when I speak to Local Government Association members and local authorities, no one tells me that they find this aspect of the law suitable for the purpose for which it was designed.

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

I am sure that the House will be aware that the reason local authorities very rarely use article 4 is that they can be involved in paying substantial sums in compensation for using that power.

[Graham Jones]

Absolutely. That returns to the point that I have just made, which is that we need clarity. The new clause is an opportunity to bring clarity. It is not about the Opposition trying to be prescriptive. If Members read new clause 1, they will see that it asks the Government to come forward with what they think is reasonable. It just clarifies the law and takes up the point that we do not have clarity now. It will bring clarity, so the consequences on planning committees in making decisions and compensation claims are there for all to see. That is why the LGA, the all-party group on fixed odds betting terminals and local authorities have all demanded a clearer framework for granting planning permission to these types of development, so avoiding the problem of clustering. The new clause does exactly that, and I intend to press it to a vote.

By setting out guidelines that lay down parameters for quantity, density and the impact of those businesses on the high street, central Government will assist local authorities in their efforts to ensure that proposals for new developments are approved on public interest grounds. Accordingly, this cross-party proposal seeks to address these concerns by injecting greater accountability and responsibility into planning considerations.

[John Redwood]

I am still trying to learn how the measure would work. Is there a danger that, if it were adopted, there would be more betting shops in other communities that currently do not have them, because there would be a spread-out effect and more people would have easier access to betting shops?

[Graham Jones]

I reject that argument. It does not stand up. As I said, I shall seek to divide the House on new clause 1. The nation wants action on FOBTs, betting shops and payday lenders, and this is the opportunity.

[Nick Herbert (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)]

I welcome the opportunity to talk about neighbourhood planning, not betting shops. I shall speak to new clauses 7 and 8, which attempt to deal with the problem of undermining a very good policy that the Government have pioneered. The good policy is that of neighbourhood planning, which embodies the spirit of localism by giving local communities control over where development takes place. People are empowered to take responsible decisions about development. It changes the terms of the conversation from communities resisting the imposition of development to one where communities ask themselves what they want in their area. Where communities have taken neighbourhood plans forward, they have produced more housing than was anticipated in local plans. Neighbourhood plans are therefore not a means by which development can be resisted. Rather, they ensure that communities have a proper say in where development should go.

The basis on which communities have been encouraged to embark on neighbourhood plans is that for a period of 15 years they will be able to allocate sites where development will take place, and sites where development will definitely not take place and which will be protected green spaces. Many hon. Members, including me, appeared before our local parish or town councils and encouraged them to take forward neighbourhood plans on the basis that they would be protecting themselves from future development if they did so.

These neighbourhood plans are a very good thing, but they are immensely burdensome on local communities. It is volunteers who draw up the plans, and the process takes years. We are probably making it unnecessarily complex, with much inspection of the plans; they have to go through many hoops. The responsible volunteers who sit on the neighbourhood planning committees to draw up the plans often face a great deal of criticism from parts of their community that may not want development on sites whose suitability the committees have to assess. The individuals concerned put a great deal of time and effort into the plans.

West Sussex was one of the earliest counties to produce neighbourhood plans. When they were submitted to referendum, support for the plans was very high among the local communities. One of the thorniest questions in planning is what happens when communities are confronted with development that they really do not want. We embarked on the policy of neighbourhood plans with confidence that they may be a means of settling that question in a way that produced local housing in the area. One small village in my constituency, Kirdford, has only 120 houses at its centre. People there actually produced a neighbourhood plan for another 50 houses—a very big number of additional houses—because that was what they wanted, and they wanted that housing to be affordable and for local people.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Oliver Letwin]

I am delighted to hear that. I wish I could be absolutely confident that the inspectorate will always listen to the guidance it receives from Ministers, but I hope that it will on this occasion. If it does, I believe that the written ministerial statement will do the trick that we were trying to perform with the new clauses. If it does not, I am sure the Minister will come back with further evolutions of planning policy, of which, effectively, the written ministerial statement is a part.

Secondly, I want to refer briefly to the powerful speech made by the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Graham Jones) on new clause 1, which relates to clusters. Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson), I usually do disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), amiable and enthusiastic though he is, and this is one of the many occasions on which I disagree with him profoundly. It is a very sad spectacle to see our fellow citizens—I have watched them do this—moving from payday lending shops directly into betting places. Nothing could be more deleterious to the things that this Government hold dear and that my party has fought for over many years—since the days when my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith) first brought out “Breakdown Britain” and “Breakthrough Britain” to try to restore the stability of family life and workfulness in households that suffer all too often from a desperate effort, as part of a chaotic lifestyle, to improve their lot through betting, which is a snare and a delusion.

It is extremely reprehensible that there has been a focus on building payday lending and betting shops right by each other. It is also extremely reprehensible that betting shops have been built in the poorest areas. If they were built in the middle of the richest areas of our cities, one would object to them much less, because people there can afford to bet. I am therefore very much on the side of the hon. Member for Hyndburn and those, including hon. Friends of mine, who have signed his new clause to try to ensure that the Government come forward with measures to limit such clustering. The reason I shall not join him in the Lobby this afternoon is solely that the new clause would require the Government to do so before going forward with the rest of the Bill, and I cannot accept that. I hope that Ministers will respond by taking forward the spirit of the new clause without that caveat.

[Graham Jones]

I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman’s generous comments. The Government are taking forward licensing, but this is probably the last chance to deal with the planning element, which is not part of the Government’s review—those are two separate entities. I wondered whether that was the point he was raising.

[Sir Oliver Letwin]

I do not think this is the last chance anybody will have to reflect on the planning element, partly because the Bill will be considered in another place and partly because history shows that there is roughly one planning Bill a Session. As we can never get these things right, there is a process of continuous revision. It is also partly because I hope that, as part of the licensing review, the Government will look at the issue of clustering—it might be possible to approach it in that way—and partly because it is open to the Minister to produce the kind of guidance that the new clause seeks without turning that into a precondition for moving forward with the rest of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Jones]

My hon. Friend mentions that the Minister has said that a Bill is coming down the track, so I would like to draw attention to new clause 1. There is a Bill coming down the track, and we have an opportunity to include new clause 1 in it.

[Rob Marris]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because that segues me nicely into the next and final section of my speech, which is about new clause 1. I hope that the Government will accept it, but if not, it looks as if we will have a Division tonight. I believe that new clause 1 is quite mildly worded, and the Minister may say that he accepts its spirit. As for the possible restriction on the rest of the Bill coming into force—that this provision might be a block, which was raised by the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin)—if the Minister says to my hon. Friend that he agrees with the spirit of the provision and wants the guidance, but fears that it will act as a block, that would be great. In that case, I suspect that we will not have a Division. The Minister will guide us on that.

The content of new clause 1 seeks to have the Secretary of State “issue guidance”, not to make detailed rules about whether a betting shop or payday loan shop should be open in a given high street. If the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) visited his salad days again, having been to school in the west midlands, and went back to Dudley borough, he would see the transformation there as in other black country boroughs in respect of clusters of payday loan shops and betting shops. Those clusters are not helpful to community cohesion, or to some of the most disadvantaged people in our society.

My hon. Friend and I have made it clear that, in asking the Government to issue guidance, we are not seeking to ban payday loan shops or betting shops, but to restrict the density of them. What seems to be happening—this is anecdotal; I have no statistical evidence to present—is that we are getting a clustering of such outlets in different areas, which is often, but not always, deleterious to those areas. We have an over-concentration of them. The same thing was happening, until the law was changed, with off-licences. Older Members might remember when getting a licence to sell alcohol was quite difficult because there was an unofficial density system operated by planning authorities. That went out the window, and every place—including petrol stations, for goodness’ sake—seemed to get licences to sell alcohol. We saw the same over-concentration with attendant social problems in some places, and we are rightly rowing back from that.

My hon. Friend wants guidance—I fully support him—so that we can row back from over-concentration of payday loan shops and betting shops. Part of this problem comes from a mistake made by the Labour Government, and some Back Benchers pointed out to them at the time that fixed odds betting terminals were bad news and should not be encouraged. I have to say, to my chagrin, that my own Government did not listen, just as they only partially listened—some longer-standing Members and you, Mr Speaker, will remember this—when there were proposals for 16 super-casinos. There was a lot of to do on the Labour Back Benches at the time, and we got it down to two super-casinos. On fixed-odds betting terminals, we made a mistake.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Jones]

I take my hon. Friend’s point that the Labour Government were responsible for bringing in the Gambling Act 2005. In trying to be responsible about the problem we face, does he agree that the Government should accept that their own 2011 Portas review talked about clustering and density as being a problem? We are now five years on from that; time has passed and mistakes have been made. We need to tackle those mistakes today, not tomorrow, next week or next year.

[Rob Marris]

I agree with my hon. Friend. We need to learn from our mistakes, just as I hope any Labour Members who were on the Front Bench in 2005 when they were pushing fixed odds betting terminals have now done their mea culpas and recognised that they made a mistake then, because it is still rebounding on many urban constituencies around the country, including mine. We need to row back from that, but part of the mechanism, which is being reviewed, for doing so is not, and cannot be, the subject of this Bill. We can address another part of it, however: the over-concentration and the guidance which this Government ought responsibly to be issuing. They ought to have the statutory authority to do so within primary legislation, which is the very reasonable measure put forward by my hon. Friend in new clause 1. I hope that the Minister can support the spirit of it, if not the exact wording.

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies]

No, the new clause is all about being against betting shops. It is a solution looking for a problem.

The reason there is concern about fixed odds betting terminals is a chap called Mr Derek Webb. The hon. Member for Hyndburn knows him very well, but for those who do not know him, he made millions—tens of millions and maybe even hundreds of millions—out of making gambling machines. When the Labour party allowed bookmakers in 2005 to introduce fixed odds betting terminals, Mr Derek Webb was so concerned that he wanted his machines to be installed in betting shops, and the bookmakers turned him down—probably the biggest mistake they have ever made in their business. So he has made it his business ever since to make sure that his machines cannot be in betting shops and people have to go to casinos where they are installed. That is basically what all this is about. It is, in effect, a rich man’s grudge match. He has spent millions trying to get these machines out of betting shops for no other reason than vindictiveness; that is the long and short of it. He set up the Campaign for Fairer Gambling on the back of this issue. He has spent millions. He gave half a million pounds to the Lib Dems in the previous Parliament, trying to buy their support, and he has now started giving a great deal of money to the Labour party in the hope of buying some influence with it.

[Graham Jones]

What would be the hon. Gentleman’s comments on Channel 4’s exposés on “Dispatches” and on the BBC’s “Panorama” where people just made up fake news?

[Philip Davies]

That bears no relation to the facts. We all know that people can make a hour-long TV programme and portray anything in any way they want to if they are so determined.

[Philip Davies]

I am going to press on if my hon. Friend does not mind.

These are the facts, whether people like them or not. The average time that somebody spends on a fixed odds betting terminal is about 10 minutes. Their average loss in that time is about £7. These machines make a profit of about £11 an hour; people may say that that is excessive, but I do not believe it is. The rate of problem gambling in the UK has not altered one jot since fixed odds betting terminals were introduced—it is still about 0.6% of the population, as it was before. The biggest problem-gambling charity in the UK, the Gordon Moody Association, was established in 1971, 30-odd years before fixed odds betting terminals were even introduced in the UK. The idea that we will eliminate problem gambling by getting rid of fixed odds betting terminals is for the birds. People who have a gambling addiction will bet on two flies going up a wall if they get half a chance. The answer is to solve their addiction, not just to ban a particular product in a way that will make not one blind bit of difference.

In this House we have an awful lot of upper-class and middle-class people who like to tell working-class people how they should spend their money and how they should not spend their money.

[Graham Jones]

rose—

[Philip Davies]

Well, if the cap fits—I give way the hon. Gentleman.

[Graham Jones]

I came here from a factory where I was on £10 an hour. I went straight from the factory into Parliament. I am not one of the middle-class or upper-class people the hon. Gentleman is talking about. Unlike him, I am one of the normal working-class people.

[Philip Davies]

It is a shame that the hon. Gentleman has become so detached from his roots, along with the rest of his party. Perhaps Labour would not be in such a mess if it stuck a bit more closely to its working-class roots.

I was astonished to hear my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) talk about all those people in West Dorset going from payday loan companies into betting shops. It is a while since I have been in West Dorset, but it has clearly changed an awful lot since the last time I was there.

Neighbourhood Planning Bill

Graham P Jones Excerpts

Ping Pong: House of Commons
Tuesday 28th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Gavin Barwell]

It is not an easy question for me to answer, because I am not aware of the nature of Lord Taylor’s interest in this matter, so I cannot really respond to it at the Dispatch Box. However, I am sure that his attention will be drawn to the concerns raised on the Floor of the House and that he will make the record clear.

I want to say a few words about neighbourhood planning in general and address the specific point about the application mentioned by my right hon. Friend. He will understand that I must be careful about not saying too much about particular applications, even after a decision has been made, because the decision letter is the record of the decision, but the key point to draw the House’s attention to was that a relevant neighbourhood plan was not in place. Work was under way to prepare one, but that work was at a sufficiently early place to mean that I was unable to give the plan a great deal of weight in making my decision.

A clear lesson for when such decisions have to be made—if it is possible to spread this out to the generality—is the importance of two things. The first is that the relevant local council has a five-year land supply in place so that the presumption does not apply. The second is ensuring that the processes for producing neighbourhood plans are as streamlined as possible from the point at which people start work on them to when they receive examination. It is worth putting on the record that the Bill will give plans weight at an earlier stage in the process—as soon as they have gone through examination. We want to make that process as quick as possible, so that planning decisions that undermine what a community is trying to achieve are not being made during the preparation of plans.

I have a couple of general observations that will allow me to give my right hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs the clear assurance he wants. I am a real advocate of neighbourhood planning, in which I strongly believe. There are tensions in public policy, and it is important that Ministers are honest about that. If the Government were to give complete protection to all neighbourhood plans in all circumstances, there would be a danger that in areas with a large level of neighbourhood plan coverage but where a local authority does not have an adequate five-year land supply in place and is not delivering homes, we would have no mechanism for getting homes delivered. There has to be a balance, and I tried to strike the right balance in the written ministerial statement we published before Christmas, but the Bill will bring plans into force quicker, will make it easier to simplify plans and to change the areas covered by plans, and will put more pressure on councils to engage with neighbourhoods that want to produce a plan. We are taking a significant step forward from the written ministerial statement.

More widely, my main reflection having been in the job for eight or nine months is that it is a great privilege to serve in this position, but the thing I like least about my job is having to take decisions on planning applications for places I do not know. One of my main objectives is therefore to ensure that, across the country, we get local plans in place that are up to date, that have a five-year land supply and that are delivered by local authorities. I say clearly and categorically to my right hon. Friend from the Dispatch Box that if a council has an up-to-date plan, has a five-year land supply and is delivering the required number of homes each year, I do not expect my inspectors to be overturning the planning decisions of local communities in anything other than the most exceptional circumstances—I have to add that last caveat because all Members will know that sometimes councils take decisions on individual applications that are contrary to their plan because in a particular case there are pressing reasons for it being the right thing to do. If councils are doing the right things, the Government should generally leave the decisions to local authorities. That is where I am trying to get housing and planning policy to, and I know the Secretary of State shares that view.

[Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)]

I share the Minister’s view that decisions should be taken locally. It is costing Lancashire constabulary an absolute fortune to police the fracking protests in Lancashire. Can he explain why that decision was taken by Lancashire County Council and then overturned by the Secretary of State, who approved the planning application, which is now costing £14,000 a day to police? If local people know best, why was it not the case then?

[Gavin Barwell]

There are exceptions to every rule. Although I cannot get drawn into discussing that case, perhaps I can give some hypothetical examples. Certain types of application raise issues of key pieces of national infrastructure that have relevance beyond an individual local community. I invite hon. Members to imagine that a neighbouring local authority to their own were considering an application for a large out-of-town retail centre, which would clearly have implications for local high streets not just in that authority’s area but in neighbouring areas, too. There might therefore be an interest in ensuring that all those wider communities have a say, rather than in the decision being taken by a specific local authority.

[Graham Jones]

rose—

[Gavin Barwell]

I will happily talk to the hon. Gentleman outside the Chamber, but there is a difficulty. I cannot discuss individual applications, so I will not take a further intervention. I am happy to have a separate discussion.

There have been no votes on the two areas on which the Government disagree with the Lords amendments, which I hope sends a clear message to the other place about the unanimity in this House on pubs and planning conditions. I hope this will be the last time I speak on this Bill.

I shall end my contribution by saying that the Bill, on its own, is not the answer to the housing problems we face in this country, but it makes an important contribution: by supporting neighbourhood planning, which is delivering more housing in those communities that adopt it; by speeding up our system, through the reform of planning conditions and compulsory purchase; and, vitally, by ensuring that we do a better job of getting up-to-date planning policies in place right across this country.

Finally, on my behalf and that of the Secretary of State, I wish to thank the outstanding officials in our Department for their work on this legislation. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price), one of the stars of the Government Whips Office—given my background, that is a very high compliment —and my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow) for their support during these proceedings.

Lords amendment 1 agreed to.

Lords amendments 2 to 9, and 23 to 84 agreed to, with Commons financial privileges waived in respect of Lords amendments 4, 5, 23,40, 44, 48 to 50 and 84.

Ordered, That a Committee be appointed to draw up a Reason to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their amendment 12.

That Gavin Barwell, Jackie Doyle-Price, Vicky Foxcroft, Chris Green, Jim McMahon and Rebecca Pow be members of the Committee;

That Gavin Barwell be the Chair of the Committee;

That three be the quorum of the Committee.

That the Committee do withdraw immediately.—(Steve Brine.)

Committee to withdraw immediately; reasons to be reported and communicated to the Lords.