Local Government Finance
John Slinger Excerpts(2 weeks, 3 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
It is an honour to speak in this debate. The hon. Member for North Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) spoke about auditors, and we are all aware that auditors are spread pretty thinly, which may, in part, contribute to delays in getting accounts signed off.
Local authorities are complex environments. In my area, we have two unitary authorities with populations of less than 100,000 people, so I commend the Government for looking very seriously at a more sensible local government structure. We are fortunate to have a Local Government Minister with such experience and expertise. It is a real boon, especially as we embark on such an ambitious and radical programme.
I welcome this year’s local government finance settlement. Councils have been subject to steep funding cuts since 2010-11, and these cuts have had a disproportionate impact on the most deprived areas. Many authorities face effective bankruptcy, putting essential services and jobs at risk. By 2025-26, councils in England will have received a 15.9% real-terms cut in their core spending power compared with 2010-11. Councils in the special interest group of municipal authorities, like Middlesbrough, have seen an average cut of 19.9%. Middlesbrough itself has seen cuts worth 22%, which is a real-terms cut of £55 million per year that amounts to around £835 per household, so this year’s settlement of more than £69 billion in overall national funding is welcome. It represents a cash-terms increase of almost 7% and a more than four times real increase on the past year.
The Government are on the right track in redirecting funding to areas that are in the most need and have the greatest demand for services. Those areas are often less able to raise income locally, as much as the Conservatives sought to pass the buck to local council tax increases. In areas like mine, many households pay over £3,000 per annum more in council tax than is paid by Buckingham Palace, so this settlement is fairer for councils and will provide welcome relief to the most deprived areas.
In Middlesbrough and Thornaby East, we very much welcome the settlement announced by the Government and the long overdue reforms to council funding. Middlesbrough council is now in a position to invest more money in key services. I welcome the fact that Mayor Chris Cooke, the Labour council and the new chief executive, Erik Scollay, have established the Middlesbrough priorities fund, worth over £4 million, and initiatives such Middlesbrough’s empty homes strategy, which will use £6 million of Government funding to purchase and refurbish empty homes for emergency accommodation.
While the settlement is under way, many authorities continue to face a shortfall, and the Minister has been very candid that this is not a done deal. We look forward to the three-year settlement later this year, because councils will not be able to rely on the additional funding being repeated. As colleagues from across the House have said, the three-year settlement gives councils the ability to plan much further ahead. I hope we can extend our commitments to wider investment in our services on a longer-term basis, through a fairer funding system that delivers long-term financial stability across all council services.
The position of our wonderful councillors has been raised. They do a terrific job, with very little reward, and they are sometimes on the receiving end of the ire of members of the public—sometimes justly, but sometimes unfairly and unkindly—so we need to address that.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
I am a serving councillor at Rugby borough council. I agree with my hon. Friend that councillors and council officers go out of their way to serve the public, which is extremely difficult when councils have faced 30% to 40% cumulative cuts. We need to remember that they are often trying to deliver services with one or both hands tied behind their backs, which is why the reforms set out by the Minister are so important.
Andy McDonald
I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. It is incumbent upon everyone in politics to recognise the work of our local councils and to treat them with the respect that they deserve. Some of the comments that I have heard in recent times run contrary to that. Councillors in my area have been put in harm’s way by careless and irresponsible comments made by people in this House who really ought to know better.
I will finish by talking about not only councillors, but the local government workforce and the issue of pay. The Minister will be aware that local government workers have missed out on the higher wage settlements paid out to workers in other parts of the public sector in the past year. Overall, they have seen 25% wiped from the value of their pay since 2010. In drawing the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, I note that Unison, the GMB and Unite have said that a substantial pay award for local government staff is essential. Will the Minister therefore take steps to address those concerns and look to the upcoming spending review to deliver the finances and provide a long-overdue £15 minimum hourly rate for those workers who served us so incredibly well—I think of the covid days of maintaining those public services—so that they are properly compensated for their work?
Parking: Town Centres
John Slinger Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Alex Norris
I absolutely agree. It is at the heart of this Government’s approach to give communities tools to change places, and I will go through some of those at the end. There is a financial aspect to that, but there also a power aspect about shaping the things that shape the community. The debate gets to the heart of that, because parking is one of the major levers that a community has. The important point is that it is the community’s lever. Yes, it is held by the local authority, but it is the community’s lever.
Fundamentally, responsibility for parking provision in town centres rests with the relevant local authority under the Traffic Management Act 2004. The accompanying statutory guidance clearly sets out that parking policies have to be proportionate and have to support town centre prosperity, and that it is for local authorities to decide how parking should support that—whether it should be free, whether it should be tariffed and for how long. Local authorities are best placed to do that, through their local transport plans and their local insight. They have to find a balance between residents, local businesses, those who live and work in an amenity and of course access for emergency services. Under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, local authorities can set their own parking tariffs. I think almost everybody will at some point set tariffs, certainly in a busy area, but they must be proportionate and should not be set at unreasonable levels.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley emphasised that the point of local parking policies is not to be revenue raisers or indeed cash cows. How a surplus is spent is prescribed under section 55 of the 1984 Act, which requires any surplus raised from parking schemes to go back into local authority-funded transport or environmental schemes—back into communities, as my hon. Friend said. Colleagues need to keep a discerning eye on that to ensure that that is really taking place, and that, crucially, communities have a voice. I and other colleagues in the Chamber have been council members. I remember wrestling with the problem of how to create that convection in Nottingham. We do not want people to come to a town centre and park there all day for work and then go home again and not contribute to the local economy. We want a turnover, but we want incentivisation as well.
Colleagues have talked about the effectiveness of providing a free hour in pulling people through. There are very good examples of where that has worked. The challenge for me and for local authority colleagues who are listening to this debate is that, yes, this is a local authority function, but local authorities are their community. All our local authorities should ensure that their policies reflect the wishes and interests of the local community and that they are getting the public into the conversation—I was challenged to do this when I was a member of my local authority and I challenge mine to do so now.
Local authorities must also get business into that conversation. I was surprised to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley that local businesses clearly do not feel that that has happened.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for visiting Rugby and having a walk around. One bit of the town that we did not reach was Elliott’s Field, which is an out-of-town shopping centre. Does he agree that those out-of-town shopping centres compete with town centres, not least because they can attract anchor clients, but also because they can offer free parking?
Rugby borough council—I must declare an interest as I am still a councillor—is thinking very carefully about innovative measures that it can take, whether that is free parking, which was offered in some car parks in December, or making rapid decisions on opening one particular council-owned car park when the theatre was showing a production. Is there anything else that central Government can do to help councils achieve this difficult balance?
Alex Norris
That is a really important intervention. I wonder whether, looking back on some of those decisions on out-of-town retail, communities would make the same decisions now as they did at the time. It is clear from my hon. Friend’s intervention that parking is a driving factor in success. To some degree the public are telling us what they want to see and we really ought to listen to them. My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley talked about broader support, particularly around vacancy. I encourage colleagues to support their local authorities in promoting the new high street rental auctions to bring those vacant units back into use.
I also point to our work on safety in town centres. If we are driving footfall, people will only come, or come a second time, if they feel that they are safe. Footfall alone promotes community safety because energy and people being present deter crime and antisocial behaviour. Nevertheless, our commitment to 13,000 more police and police community support officers will have town centres at its heart, so there is that visible presence and our town centres are places where people feel safe to park their cars and shop.
I want to address the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton North East about parent and child parking bays. There is no current legislative requirement in this space. I am conscious that my hon. Friend has a ten-minute rule Bill designed to change this. In the interests, as she says, of challenging colleagues—particularly male colleagues—to come up with solutions, there is a possible workaround solution using the current legislative framework. Authorities can make parking provisions for specific road users, whether residents or blue badge users—we have many examples in our own communities. Under current rules, it would be feasible for a local authority to make specific on-street bays permit holder only, and to include a permanent identifier on that sign—again, we see those in our resident schemes and in our communities—but then issue those permits only to pregnant women or parents with children. Authorities would have to justify reserving those spaces—I think my hon. Friend probably did that for them—and find a decent way to publicise where those bays are located. I expect it would probably be about those being in the right place. That is something that colleagues can raise with local authorities. It is a bit of a workaround, but in the spirit of meeting her challenge to be being solutions focused, it would be one option. I thank her for her contribution.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley again for securing this important debate. She set out clearly some of the challenges that face our town centres. At the heart of it comes footfall, and at the heart of footfall is that lever of available and affordable parking facilities. Local authorities have leadership, responsibility and stewardship of local transport plans, but fundamentally that is for the community, and should be something that reflects the needs of local residents and local businesses. Clearly, that is not happening here, and that is why my hon. Friend had to take the significant step of bringing this from the high street in Dudley all the way to Parliament. She was right to do so. It is hugely important that the communities in Dudley, Kirkcaldy, Ilford, Bolton, Southend, and all the other places we have heard from today, are heard. The subject is clearly important throughout the country and I am grateful to colleagues for raising it.
Question put and agreed to.
Town Centres
John Slinger Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Luke Murphy
Absolutely, and this is something that we have seen businesses plagued with over the last 10 to 14 years. It is really important that, as well as improving footfall and stabilising the economy, we tackle those costs facing businesses.
During the election campaign, the Prime Minister and the businessman Theo Paphitis visited Gabardine Bar together—a fantastic independent business in my constituency. It is great to see Kevin and Fran, who run Gabardine, here with us today. They represent exactly the kind of small business owners we have to support—ambitious for their own business, but also for the Top of the Town and Basingstoke as a whole. I rarely have a chat with Kevin that does not include a new idea, not just for his own business, but for rejuvenating the town centre.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
Hearing about my hon. Friend’s constituents and the great work they are doing reminds me of the excellent work happening in my own constituency of Rugby around the night-time economy and live music, particularly in places such as Inside the 22, which provides live music, and The Squirrel Inn. Does he agree that this shows that small businesses are very entrepreneurial? They have the ideas about how to regenerate their own towns; what they need is an empowering ecosystem, which I believe is what the Government are seeking to create.
Luke Murphy
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. It is just those kinds of entrepreneurial businesses that are seeking a better future not just for themselves, but for the town as a whole. We must create a supportive environment for them. Like many local businesses, they are community minded at The Gabardine—they put on food and refreshments for the recent local remembrance activities—but they need to operate in a stable economic environment, which is why I welcome the recent Budget to protect the smallest businesses and shore up our economy.
It is also important that the Government deliver on securing our energy supply, with a credible plan to increase the availability of cheap, clean, home-grown sources of power through Great British Energy. I would value knowing what more the Government can do, and are planning to do, to support high street businesses in Basingstoke and elsewhere, which have been crippled by the weight of soaring energy costs.
One of the other issues raised with me by local businesses is about reliable bus routes and public transport. These are essential for driving footfall in towns such as Basingstoke. The Government’s plans to allow public transport to be put into local hands is a welcome step towards ensuring that every town and village has the bus services and public transport access that it needs.
English Devolution
John Slinger Excerpts(2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jim McMahon
We are very mindful that there is a lot of change in the system quite early on. That is deliberate. We believe strongly that when the next general election comes, people will make judgments based on whether they feel better in their own financial security—whether they have money in their pocket and feel like they are getting on in life—and feel secure in the place where they live. Local public services are part of that. As such, we have made a deliberate decision to make the necessary structural changes early on in the Parliament, through the White Paper and other measures, so that we can get them out of the way and people can really see the benefits towards the end of the Parliament.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
I declare an interest as a member of Rugby borough council. Page 16 of the White Paper speaks about
“Reforming and joining up public services”,
and says that,
“Over the long term, the government is announcing an ambition to align public service boundaries”.
Will my hon. Friend expand on how these reforms can enhance people’s ability to hold public service leaders to account through their elected representatives, and to exercise greater democratic control over such services?
Jim McMahon
We talk quite a lot about how sufficient funding was not provided over a decade of underfunding, but that does not mean there were not growing costs in the system. We have found that in the end, local government is where all the demand presents itself—whether it likes it or not—when there is failure in other parts of the system, whether that is the failure of developers to build enough properties, the NHS not quite being able to co-ordinate with community services, or the private sector exploiting its audience and charging eye-watering sums, such as in children’s services. We have to redesign local public services around people, place and communities, and public sector reform and prevention are part of that. The alignment of public service boundaries is critical; if people do not have democratic control and oversight over things such as integrated care boards or police and crime commissioners, aligned to strategic authorities, we will not make the progress that we need to make.
Grenfell Tower Inquiry
John Slinger Excerpts(2 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
I strongly welcome the Deputy Prime Minister’s statement, which shows that she cares and is resolute in seeking redress. The essence of how our country is run with regard to public safety is at stake, so I hope my right hon. Friend and other hon. Members will agree that, for public confidence and for the deterrent effect to grow, not only must we ensure that justice is not denied by being delayed; it is also for us to ensure that justice—in the form of individuals, organisations and companies being properly held to account—happens at all. That is important because, as other hon. Members have alluded to, in previous cases of egregious state and business failure, there has been insufficient justice of this kind. We owe this to the Grenfell victims, to the survivors and indeed to wider society.
Oral Answers to Questions
John Slinger Excerpts(3 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Angela Rayner)
This Government are getting on with fixing the mess the Tories left behind. We will deliver the biggest increase in social and affordable house building in a generation, and at the Budget this week the Chancellor will set out the next steps, including an additional £500 million for the existing affordable homes programme to deliver up to 5,000 new social and affordable homes.
Angela Rayner
Again, my hon. Friend makes an important point. We want to support councils to make a greater contribution to affordable housing supply. That is why the Chancellor will set out at the Budget our plans to allow councils to keep 100% of the receipts generated by right-to-buy sales and to increase protections for newly built social homes. We are committed to giving first-time buyers a first chance to buy homes and to introducing a permanent, comprehensive mortgage guarantee scheme.
John Slinger
At Rugby borough council, there are 300 households on the waiting list for social houses. Officers and councillors are working hard to meet the demand. They have knocked down older tower blocks and are replacing them with one to four-bed, energy-efficient, good-quality homes. Last year was the first year for many years that they built or acquired more social homes than were lost through right to buy. Does my right hon. Friend agree that while that is good work, my council is ultimately able only to tread water? My constituents who are in need of decent, affordable social homes desperately need a Government who will help councils to reverse this trend. Will she consider visiting Rugby to see the great work being done in difficult circumstances?
Renters’ Rights Bill
John Slinger Excerpts(4 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
I congratulate Members from across the House on their excellent, humorous and moving maiden speeches.
Most landlords are good landlords and play a vital role in the housing market. I am glad that the Secretary of State changed the name of the Bill from the Renters (Reform) Bill to the Renters’ Rights Bill, because decent housing is a human right. However, making that right meaningful to private rentals has been rendered meaningless in recent years. Bizarrely, but perhaps not surprisingly, that is because the rights of those with vested interests have been allowed to trump those of millions of hard-working people, families and, especially, young people.
It is part of what I call “the moon landing paradox”: human beings can land a man on the moon and, here in the UK, we can build the Elizabeth line under London, but we cannot provide decent, affordable private rented accommodation. We can do the spectacular, but not the simple. In previous Parliaments, I imagine constituents who asked their MPs about the issue were often given the answer that providing such accommodation was too difficult. That is why I am delighted that this new Labour Government are simply not accepting that something so fundamental to human dignity is too difficult.
I wish to touch on a couple of areas raised by my constituents in and around the town of Rugby. First, ensuring that rent increases are more controlled and predictable will greatly help my constituents who have suffered from landlords demanding rent increases with as little as 10 days’ notice. That is wrong and this Bill will protect people by reinforcing the rule that rents can be increased only once a year and with at least two months’ notice.
Secondly, abolishing section 21 no-fault evictions will help protect constituents such as mine who have been evicted from their private rented properties at short notice for no other reason. This has left some of them on the street, rendering them homeless, which is shameful. Supporting this Bill will give them greater protection and peace of mind. Preferencing the interests of ordinary working people over the vested interests of others requires that we overcome what I term the “moon-landing paradox” and achieve something that is obviously much needed, that is a right and that should be possible in the year 2024 in a country as rich as ours. I know that this Government can and will do it for the renters of Rugby and across the country.
Finally, when a constituent comes to my next surgery, I am glad that I am one of an intake of MPs who will be able to say, after many decades and thanks to the efforts of my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State, and her Ministers, that it is not too difficult, that it is doable and that soon it will be done.
Planning Policy: Traveller Sites
John Slinger Excerpts(5 months, 1 week ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) on securing this important debate. He spoke about a two-tier society. He spoke about one law for all of us. He spoke about being “on their side”—the side of the law-abiding community. I seek a one-tier society, frankly. I represent all citizens, as we all do in this House.
I declare my interest: I serve on Rugby borough council. All citizens, including the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller community, have an equal right to their housing needs being met; I have had that confirmed by officers, and I think we are all aware of that fact. Their right is equal to that of every other group within society—every other citizen. We should reflect on that.
I want to reflect briefly on a case that I was involved in, and it talks to some of the issues that have been raised by other hon. Members in this debate. Six applications relating to a site in my constituency came before the planning committee, which I served on. They were rejected, but the context is critical. Rugby borough council had not met its obligation to provide sufficient pitches for the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller community. They have a statutory obligation to do the surveys and ultimately to provide those pitches. They have failed to do that over many, many years.
They have tried calls for sites, as I am sure colleagues will be aware of, and those resulted in no sites being offered by local landowners. As I said, applications then come in. The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton referred to the case in his constituency. I appreciate that he said that proper sites are available and I accept that point, but in this case there were not.
Inevitably, the local community was very exercised and angry about these applications. The then Conservative-run local council, which had a majority on the planning committee, rejected those applications. I would argue that the rights of those citizens were not respected by that decision. Their rights to housing were not respected, and their additional rights, which have been referred to by other Members, were also not met. In a sense, they became second-class citizens.
Local authorities, such as the one I still serve on, need to be strongly encouraged—required, even—finally to provide the proper sites that the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller community need. I would be very interested to hear the views of my hon. Friend the Minister on this. Those sites need to be near amenities and services for education, transport and so on. Those need to be provided because if they are not, the situations that I experienced as a member of that planning committee, and that the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton experienced, will reoccur, and the two communities will be in a continual state of conflict, which is bad for everybody.
Finally, let us listen to the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller community and do things in accordance with their needs. Let us not just do things to them—almost as if they were people who can just be dumped in particular sites because of the inconvenience of providing them with proper facilities and places to live—but treat them with dignity. Let us also listen to the settled community, whose needs and views are important as well, and do everything we can to bring communities together. But that simply will not be possible until local authorities, backed—I hope—by the Government, provide pitches and places where the GRT community can live with dignity and as equals within the communities that we, as Members, represent.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dame Siobhain. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) for securing this important debate. We need a planning system that respects the rights of the Traveller community but also provides local authorities with the power to support good development, while being able to enforce their planning policy. When I served as a district councillor for 10 years and leader of a district council for five years, I saw the difficulties in securing adequate sites and integrating Traveller communities in areas where they were looking to settle.
I welcome the steps the previous Government took to strengthen the planning system, including passing the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, which extended the period during which enforcement action can be taken against unauthorised development to 10 years in all cases. I also commend the last Government for bringing in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, which strengthens powers available to the police to tackle unauthorised encampments that cause damage, destruction or distress.
As my hon. Friend outlined, there are many examples across the country where the careful balance between Travellers, local communities and the environment appears to be incorrect. As a Member of Parliament, I do not intend to comment on routine planning applications as they are a matter for Bromsgrove district council. However, there is an ongoing case in my constituency that perfectly highlights many of the challenges associated with planning applications for Traveller sites. Travellers bought land and moved on to a rural greenfield site that had long been designated as amenity land, then retrospectively applied for planning permission. The local community are against the proposal and nearby parish councils have raised serious concerns about the suitability of the site, including poor and dangerous road access, loss of biodiversity, and a significant impact on a long-standing public right of way that runs through the land, where local residents are being harassed with antisocial behaviour and are unable to follow their usual route.
More importantly, and to the considerable worry of my constituents, in recent months there has been a large upswing in rural crime. That started in a minor fashion with the theft of chickens from a farm and we have seen theft of items from gardens, a massive surge in general antisocial behaviour and abuse of local residents, as well as the emergence of some much more significant elements of crime. As a result, I have engaged with local police and residents to try to tackle that specific issue, but of course the nub of the issue comes back to the fact that a piece of land was bought and a change of use application submitted, and residents are concerned that the system and public agencies often pass the buck.
This case has been stuck in the planning process for many months now, and the delay in any decision is causing significant further uncertainty and the emergence of community tension. It is clear to me that the system as it currently stands is not working for any of the parties involved, but that is in this specific case. I want to put on the record that I know there are thousands of Traveller communities across the country who are law abiding; they want to identify plots of land that they can occupy with their families and wider communities and where they want to integrate into the areas they are looking to settle.
I was elected on a mandate to protect the green belt across Bromsgrove, and my constituency was formerly 89% green belt. I am deeply concerned about the prospect of losing that green belt, which gives Bromsgrove its rural identity, including in greenfield sites of the kind I have already described. I fail to see how permitting unplanned Traveller sites on the green belt will do anything to protect the identity and cohesion of the rural communities that exist there. It has already been noted by hon. Members that the sites are often far away from local services, become car-dependent settlements, and suffer from a lack of footways and nearby schools. One important topic, which I saw during my tenure as leader of Wychavon district council, is that many of the Traveller families have children that need to go to school and they want their children to be able to go to school, but there is often a lack of local provision already, which puts an unsustainable strain on services and local amenities across our communities.
Those problems isolate communities, which are already remote from the services they access and may have a different social or economic identity relative to the areas they are looking to settle. That is all exacerbated by the broken planning system, which needs to work better with local police and other services to allow for a coherent public response, rather than having, as it seems to residents and as I have already mentioned, different public agencies passing the buck between each other, with no one able to get clear answers on where the responsibility lies for tackling the pressures that arise from the emergence of Traveller sites. Those sites are often outside of the conventional planning process where sites are identified, and problems emerge when new sites are bought and a retrospective planning application is put in.
The current regulations around the sites do not seem to support a culture in which permission is sought. Instead, quite often the culture appears to be one in which an action is taken and the sentiment is more of forgiveness being sought, rather than going through the usual process that the vast majority of law-abiding citizens follow—one in which we do our due diligence, put in a planning application, allow for communities and those affected to submit their comments in the usual way and go through the proper planning process. That is what frustrates my constituents the most. They go about their lives in a law-abiding fashion: if they want to put an extension on their property, they will apply for planning permission in the usual way, if it is not subject to permitted development already. There is a general feeling that a small number of Traveller communities—I stress “small number”—appear to ride roughshod over the system. That is not just to the detriment of affected communities: it really undermines the integrity of the planning system as a whole.
The planning system needs to work better across the board and with public agencies. We need to have a much more joined-up response to how we tackle this issue, particularly the impact of antisocial behaviour and rural crime. Residents and developers must work carefully within green-belt policy in the same way that Traveller communities must. We must get away from this perception that, whether it is because of a retrospective application, just a general disregard for planning policy or even, more broadly, a disregard for the law, people are able to queue jump while providing some of the worst forms of development. I sincerely hope that as the Government review planning policy over the coming months, they will look closely at all these issues and ensure we have a system that promotes good development in the interests of not just existing communities, but those Traveller communities looking to integrate and settle into our existing and quite often rural communities.