Employment Rights Bill

Kevin Hollinrake Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 21st October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “That” to the end of the Question and add:

“this House notes the balanced reforms made by previous Conservative governments to improve workers’ rights, including the National Living Wage, the prohibition of the use of exclusivity clauses or terms in zero hours contracts and the introduction of shared parental leave and pay, and declines to give a Second Reading to the Employment Rights Bill because it has been rushed into Parliament without full consultation to meet an arbitrary 100-day deadline and Monday 21 October 2024 Business Today: Chamber 19 has not been accompanied by an Impact Assessment considering the impact on the Employment Tribunal, especially as a result of the removal of the qualifying period for the right to claim unfair dismissal or the impact of the extra red tape on SMEs or the impact of establishing the Fair Work Agency; because the repeal of trade union laws will lead to more strikes and intimidation in the workplace, and will force taxpayers to foot the bill for inflation-busting pay hikes without public service reform; because the Bill undermines choice for workers about whether they want to fund political campaigning and forces firms and public bodies to bankroll more trade union facility time, including trade union diversity jobs; and because the Bill is contrary to the Government’s stated goals of improving productivity and economic growth and will increase costs for businesses and consumers.”

The Conservative party will always be the party of business, but we are pro-business and pro-worker, not least because many Conservative Members have been both workers and people who have started and grown their own businesses. Those who have done so are the first to appreciate the symbiotic relationship between the two. We acted during our time in office to improve workers’ rights in several areas: flexible working, parental leave, redundancy protections, ensuring that workers keep the tips left for them by their customers, and significant increases to the national living wage.

I started my first significant business back in 1992. Over three decades, we grew to become a national business employing hundreds of people. We valued every one of those people. We were one of The Sunday Times’s best 100 companies to work for and were certified by Investors in People. I believe that business is a force for good and that businesspeople do great service to our communities and the wider economy. As Winston Churchill put it, they are the strong horse that pulls the whole cart.

The question I now ask myself is whether I would start that small business again today if the Bill were in place. Sadly, the answer is probably no—certainly not a business that employed any people. The very high cost of these measures will be borne by all companies and passed on in the form of higher prices, reduced wages and lost jobs. The measures will fall most heavily on small businesses, for which they could be existential.

[Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does the hon. Member remember 1997 and 1998, when the Conservative party said that the social chapter and the national minimum wage would cost half a million jobs? In the late 1990s, half a million jobs were actually created.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I was not here at the time, but it is clear nevertheless that the minimum wage and the national living wage have had a positive effect on prosperity in this country, and I would be the first to admit it. I want the hon. Lady, and other Government Members, to understand that those measures fell equally on all businesses across the UK. The measures in this Bill fall disproportionately hard on small businesses.

What the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) fails to understand is that the implication of these measures, such as a day one right to an employment tribunal, is that even a spurious case of unfair dismissal costs time and money. It is potentially tens of thousands of pounds to defend that case. As one business organisation put it, “You lose when you are accused.” Most small businesses saddled with such a cost would be sunk without trace. It is not just that, but the deterrent effect, which it would have had on me, and which will be felt right across the economy and by every existing and aspirant business person across this entire nation. When the Deputy Prime Minister reflects on what she is hearing from people who have actually run a business, will she at the very least consider exempting small and medium enterprises from this catastrophic Bill?

[Graham Stuart]

Like my hon. Friend, I started a business—I started mine a little earlier than him, but that is how much older I am. I followed the Deputy Prime Minister’s speech as carefully as I could. From what I could understand, because of the changes in the Bill, someone can fail to turn up to work on day one claiming that they are sick and then, because they will now have rights against unfair dismissal, they will be able, without ever doing a day’s work, to hold a small business to ransom and put that business at risk.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

As drafted, that is certainly the case. My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Members may not know that small businesses stand the cost of statutory sick pay. It is not reimbursed by the Government, so the Bill would have a significant cost for businesses.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I am happy to give way to the hon. Member for Leeds East.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Ind)]

I have listened with interest to what the shadow Minister is saying about people being entitled to go all the way to an employment tribunal hearing from the moment they take up employment. Has he ever heard of pre-hearing reviews for employment tribunals?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The point I was making is that the case may go all the way to an employment tribunal, as the hon. Gentleman knows, but there would also be the cost of defending the case even if it does not. That small business will have to bring consultants in and will have to speak to lawyers. That itself costs money, and in many cases that will be thousands of pounds. That is what the hon. Member fails to understand: when you are accused, you lose.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Kevin Hollinrake]

No, I will make a little progress. The cost of all these measures—in individual opportunities and to the wider economy—is huge. The Government may try to deny that, despite their clear lack of experience of the real world of business. It is extremely alarming that not one of those on the Front Bench today have ever started or run a business that employed anyone. Even worse than that, only one member of the Cabinet has ever done so, and that is the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Shamefully, given what is at stake, the Government cannot deny our case that the Bill will have a huge economic cost, because today—finally, two hours before this debate—they have actually produced the impact assessments. The cost of the Bill is on the very first page: up to £5 billion per annum. The word “uncertain” appears 302 times in those impact assessments, and the word “risk” is used 432 times, so the cost is likely to be much more.

[Paula Barker]

The shadow Minister has just said that shamefully there is only one person on our Front Bench who has run a business. How many of his Front-Bench team are trade union members?

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I am not a trade union member, and I would not know about my colleagues, but I started a business, as did my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), as did the shadow Chancellor and as did many others in our party. We are proud of that fact.

This morning I met business representatives covering all parts of the British economy. Like us, they have serious reservations about this Bill. The Institute of Directors highlighted the fact that 57% of its members will be less likely to hire staff, with only 2% saying that would be more likely. The Confederation of British Industry said that the costs associated with this Bill cannot be afforded by 54% of businesses.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

This legislation applies to England and not Northern Ireland, but I echo the hon. Gentleman’s concerns. I am concerned about small and medium businesses that employ a small workforce. If one or two of them have a long-term illness, they may be off for a while, come back to work and then go off for a while. Is there not a need—I look to the Deputy Prime Minister—for a methodology whereby small businesses can employ someone in the short term for those positions, otherwise they will go to the wall?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I agree. I was interested that the Deputy Prime Minister said that her menopause measures would be exclusive to large businesses. I welcome that, and I ask her to look at attaching the same conditions, ideally, to the entire Bill, but if not to certain parts of it. The risks for small businesses are simply catastrophic. Even one or two cases could completely sink a business.

[Dr Luke Evans]

When it comes to risk, is my hon. Friend concerned about the timing of this legislation if, as reported, the Budget raises national insurance for those businesses? Is that yet another risk in addition to this legislation?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

My hon. Friend is right. This morning we met representatives from UKHospitality, who said exactly that: the Bill is coming on the back of a number of changes and some difficult times during covid for industries that employ a lot of people, which will be particularly badly affected by this legislation. The Government should think twice about implementing it at this moment in time.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

My hon. Friend mentioned the 302 mentions of uncertainty. It is hard to know how that can foster growth. Let us be honest: businesses are already more highly taxed and regulated than ever before. We all know the reason—the pandemic— and we have to take responsibility for that. Will he assure me that, as a party, we will use this period of opposition to once again proclaim our values as a low-tax, deregulated economy? Otherwise, how will we foster growth in an increasingly competitive world? If we tax businesses more, we simply lay the foundation of a future Labour Government.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I agree. We should be low tax and low regulation. One of the saving graces of this legislation is the detail, although the Bill itself is light on detail: many of the measures will be brought in through secondary legislation, therefore making it easier for a future Government to reverse some of the catastrophic changes.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I will make some progress. The Government’s own impact assessment acknowledges that the measures will mean price rises for consumers and job losses. In it, 40% of firms surveyed said that prices would go up, and 17% said that they will reduce the number of employees. That is hundreds of thousands of jobs at risk.

The criticism of the Bill does not stop there. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has warned that it risks lower employment rates and lower wages for employees. The Local Government Chronicle has warned that the Bill will place financial pressure on councils. The Recruitment and Employment Confederation has said that the Bill will fuel long and complex litigation. The Financial Times has warned that the Bill is causing deep unease among business leaders. In short, jobs down, wages down and prices up.

In their failed attempt to allays concerns about the Bill, the Deputy Prime Minister and the shadow Business Secretary have stated that they have consulted businesses—

[The Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Jonathan Reynolds)]

You are the shadow Business Secretary.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Sorry, though I think the Prime Minister is guilty of similar; I do apologise. The Deputy Prime Minister and the Business Secretary have stated that they have consulted businesses. Really? The Federation of Small Businesses said not only that the Bill will

“inevitably deter small employers from taking on new people”,

but that it is a

“rushed job, clumsy, chaotic and poorly planned”

and that the Government are guilty of shallow engagement. So much for the “strong horse”. Several representatives at this morning’s meeting said that they have been talked to but not listened to—including those representing the hospitality and retails sectors some of the most labour-intensive in our economy, which is acknowledged in the impact assessment.

[Kit Malthouse]

Alongside the many negatives relating to the Bill that my hon. Friend has laid out, does he recognise the strong possibility that, particularly in small and micro businesses, the legislation could inject quite significant resentment among the staff body itself? For example, just to amplify my previous point, if you have six members of staff and three of them apply for flexible working, that has an immediate impact on those who do not have flexible working. The ability of the business to offer flexible working to future workers is also reduced, which turns the whole thing into a massive negotiation between six or seven people. That could have a significant impact on morale and sense of fair play within businesses themselves.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. There speaks somebody who has actually run a business and understands the impact on a small employer. That is why we say there should be a carve-out, certainly for small and micro businesses.

We have to ask ourselves this: if the Government are not listening to businesses who “pull the whole cart”, who are they listening to? I think we all know the answer to that. A consultation is not five minutes inside No. 10 and a photo opportunity. Proper consultation is working with business, listening, taking your time and not rushing things—the exact opposite of what the Government have done. We know why that is. The Deputy Prime Minister made a misguided promise to Labour’s trade union paymasters that legislation would be introduced within 100 days. Despite 100 days of gloom and doom, talking the economy down and wrecking business confidence, they managed it—just.

The Government are not even listening to their own legal experts. Only last week the Attorney General said:

“excessive reliance on delegated powers, Henry VIII clauses, or skeleton legislation, upsets the proper balance between Parliament and the executive.”

Because the Bill is such a rushed job, it takes swathes of delegated powers, including Henry VIII powers, meaning the final policy will be decided later at the Secretary of State’s whim—not now by Parliament. Legislating that way is causing real concerns for businesses today. The Deputy Prime Minister and her colleagues preach stability, yet in the same breath they are causing instability, uncertainty and falling confidence at a cost of jobs and investment today. There are already 58,000 fewer payroll jobs than when Labour took office. Confidence levels at the Institute of Directors on future investment intentions have dropped from plus 30 in June to minus six today. The Government are planning 30 consultations on the measures in the Bill. They should have taken place before the Bill was introduced, so the legislation could be precise about what it will do.

[Saqib Bhatti]

I thank the shadow Secretary of State for giving way. He talks about trade unions. I have just seen a news update on the Unite union’s Birmingham hotel and conference centre being investigated by the Serious Fraud Office. The total cost was £112 million, but it has now been valued at £29 million. Who will hold the trade unions to account in the Bill?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

My hon. Friend makes a strong point. That certainly needs looking at very carefully.

As the Government’s attempt at business consultation has clearly failed, and as no one on their Front Bench has any business experience, I will draw the right hon. Lady a picture of what the Bill actually means for businesses.

[Mr Richard Quigley (Isle of Wight West) (Lab)]

As the owner of two successful small businesses—[Interruption.] I know Opposition Members like to do that—it’s pantomime—but they can listen. As the owner of two successful small businesses and an employer of 25 people in the hospitality sector, I welcome the Bill. Do Opposition Members agree that the main reason they are against this groundbreaking employment Bill is because they are embarrassed about their own record over the past 14 years?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I welcome the fact that there is at least some business experience on the Government Benches. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman joined the wrong party.

The hon. Gentleman will recognise the picture of what the Bill means for businesses. They will be terrified to take new people on for fear of huge compliance costs and legal action. They will be tied up in red tape, something that the Prime Minister said he was taking an axe to. They will have to cope with measures such as the need to frequently recalculate all workers’ hours for each reference period for each separate employee, each of which will have a unique date as they will be required to proactively offer guaranteed hours. This is not even restricted to those on zero-hours contracts. It will be for anyone on low hours—a bureaucratic nightmare. They will have to deal with a new right to demand flexible working, such as a four-day week. The right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) must be proud. Businesses will have to become the free speech police to prevent any of their customers offending their staff. They will have to deal with a new regulator, the fair work agency, which will have the power to enter any business premises, confiscate documents and levy fines—all backed up by new criminal offences with penalties of up to two years in jail.

[Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)]

As someone who has started and run a business, I should like to know the hon. Gentleman’s opinion of the views of the former Business Secretary, the right hon. Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch), that the minimum wage is a burden, that statutory maternity pay is excessive, and that equal pay protection in respect of race and disability is akin to segregation policies in South Africa—or does he want to distance his party from her comments?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

That is not what my right hon. Friend said at all. I worked with her when she was Business Secretary, and at no point did she ever say that about maternity pay. She was talking about regulation costs. She was simply pointing out that for many businesses, particularly in retail and hospitality, the rise in the national living wage has been very difficult to cope with. She was not talking about abolishing it. Businesses will have to deal with new union powers to gain access to any business premises and contact its staff—wonderful!—in order to recruit and organise members and make it much, much easier for a union to gain recognition. As the impact assessments state—this is great news; this will really cheer everyone up—there will be “increased industrial action” and tax rises to pay for increased pay demands. [Interruption.] That is what the Government’s impact assessments say. Labour Members should check their impact assessments. 1970s, here we come! There is much more, but in short, it all means that the tail will be wagging the dog.

[Nigel Huddleston (Droitwich and Evesham) (Con)]

I am sure that my hon. Friend will be aware of the history of Labour Governments since the second world war. Every single one of them has left office with employment higher than it was when they started. Is he concerned about the possibility that this Government will repeat the same mistakes, especially given their lack of business awareness and understanding of the private sector?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I am very concerned about that. Today there are 4 million more jobs in our economy than there were in 2010, and 1.2 million fewer people are unemployed. I am very worried about the things that my hon. Friend is very worried about.

Making work pay is a laudable aim, but as one stakeholder put it this morning,

“work doesn’t pay if there’s no work”.

Most people recognise that one of the reasons why the UK is the third most popular destination in the world for inward investment, which creates hundreds of thousands of jobs throughout the economy, is the flexible labour market that the Government are now seeking to eliminate. Do the Deputy Prime Minister and her Cabinet colleagues realise that? Perhaps they secretly do, given that nine out of 10 of those Cabinet colleagues recruit on terms that are at odds with these new regulations. Sixteen Cabinet Ministers, including the Chancellor, the Foreign Secretary, the Home Secretary and the Energy Secretary, have hired people for roles that involve working outside regular hours and at weekends; six Cabinet Ministers have hired people to roles with extended probation periods; and seven Cabinet Ministers, including the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and the Deputy Prime Minister, have hired on “insecure” fixed-term contracts. Why would they introduce legislation that they do not understand or even comply with themselves? The answer is, of course, their union paymasters.

Much like the more than 200 Labour MPs who have taken trade union cash, the Deputy Prime Minister has her donations to think of. She declared her interests as a union member, but she did not declare her interests as someone who had taken £13,000 from unions in donations. The question of what is orderly is up to your judgment, Madam Deputy Speaker, but it seems to me that that should be declared at the start of any Member’s contribution.

This is not an Employment Rights Bill, but a trade union charter—a charter that will bring about no-knock warrants that allow unions to access all business premises, from the local takeaway to the local pub. Clearly, shutting the beer gardens is not enough for this Government; they are now relying on strike action to stop you getting a pint. Under this trade union charter, trade unions will revert to requiring people to opt out of donating to unions’ political funds. That will line Labour’s pockets with default donations from working people. This trade union charter will abolish the thresholds for strike action, unleashing waves of low-threshold strikes, and crippling public services by putting power in the hands of militant trade unions. This trade union charter will force employers to inform their staff that they can join a union at every turn. This trade union charter will reduce notice periods for strike action, meaning that businesses will be plagued by zero-warning strike action, which will unleash misery on the public at the last minute.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

We have just had a general election. The Labour party won a historic majority on the basis of a manifesto that was pro-business, pro-worker and pro-growth. Through the Bill, we are bringing forward provisions that were sketched out in our manifesto. Why is the hon. Member choosing not to listen to the result of the election? In choosing to reject the provisions in the Bill, he is not learning from the result of the general election.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

We deserved to lose the election fair and square, but the hon. Gentleman should look at that result, because it was not a popular vote for Labour. The party’s popularity is dropping by the day, and the business confidence that we need to protect in this country is dropping by the day.

The Bill is a trade union charter. By repealing the Trade Union Act 2016, it will increase the number of strikes by 53%. It is a charter that will take Britain back to the 1970s—a stated goal of the Deputy Prime Minister. The public will pay the price not just through uncollected waste, dysfunctional local government and picket lines outside hospitals, as in the 1970s; they will be forced to pay through higher taxes—a fact that the Government have now admitted in the impact assessment, despite pledging not to increase taxes on working people.

At a time when the Government claim to be scrambling for cash and are taking the winter fuel payment from 9.5 million pensioners, they have the gall to drive up taxes to reward their trade union paymasters. That will be done not just through higher national insurance, a hike in fuel duty or whatever other punishing measures the Government choose, but through council tax. Because of the Government’s Corbyn-style collective bargaining for social care, councils will be required to stump up an additional £4.2 billion, or £150 per household.

The path that we took in government was pro-worker and pro-business. Whereas this Government put party first and country second, we worked in partnership with businesses and workers to deliver improvements without risking investment, unemployment and businesses going bust.

[Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)]

I just want to double-check: have you actually read the Bill? It talks about a consultation period with businesses, and the provisions will not be rolled out until 2026. There will be a probation period for certain businesses. We are pro-business, and maybe the shadow Minister should read the Bill properly.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. We should not refer to other colleagues in the Chamber as “you”. It is quite simple.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I wish the hon. Member for Dudley (Sonia Kumar) was with me for the hour I spent with the representatives of organisations this morning. They do not feel as she does—that there is nothing to see here and nothing to worry about. They are very concerned, and we should all be worried about that.

Through our approach, we doubled the minimum wage, boosted employment by 4 million, cut taxes on working people by £900, cut youth unemployment, slashed the employment rate and rolled out the biggest ever expansion of free childcare. Our approach recognised that by harming business, which is the strong horse that pulls the whole cart, we are harming workers—a fact that this Government have clearly failed to grasp. This Bill puts the cart firmly before the horse. For small businesses particularly, it creates an existential crisis of a magnitude not seen since the pandemic. The future of hundreds of thousands of business people and millions of jobs is in the Deputy Prime Minister’s hands. I urge her to think again, withdraw this legislation and listen carefully, not just to the unions but to the voice of business, before it is too late.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Planning Policy: Traveller Sites

Kevin Hollinrake Excerpts

Wednesday 11th September 2024 Westminster Hall

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the adequacy of planning policy for Traveller sites.

It is a pleasure to hold this debate with you in the Chair, Dame Siobhain. My constituents are reasonable people; they totally understand and appreciate people’s wanting to live alternative ways of life, including nomadic lifestyles. I have lived all my life in my constituency, and the Travelling community has been part of the constituency for that whole period of time. We respect the contribution the community makes to our society, as long as communities are law-abiding and let other people peacefully enjoy their property, settlements and communities.

The real concern in my constituency is about a number of planning applications, and whether planning policies apply equally to local people and to other communities, including Travelling communities. The basic principle is that there is one law for all, rather than one law for one person and another for another person: the law applies equally to everyone in our communities and society. With some of the applications, there is a real feeling that that is not the case, and that contributes to a feeling that we are moving to a form of two-tier society, which would be a dangerous state of affairs.

Where some applications are being made, our local communities do not understand why planning policy is not being overseen equally, and there is a deal of anger about that. That is the case with a number of applications, including one at Sheriff Hutton, one near Rillington and a number of potential others. The applications are being considered, and in some cases recommended for approval, on the basis not of planning law but of other laws, such as the Human Rights Act 1998, the Equality Act 2010 and the UN convention on the rights of the child, as well as the European convention on human rights, which obviously has other consequences in different parts of our system.

Normal, law-abiding citizens go about a planning application in the appropriate way: they first find a site that suits their needs, before looking at planning policy and probably instructing an agent to act on their behalf, and they then submit an application before doing any work to that site. The application must conform to planning policy, or they will not get consent. They go through the various iterations of the planning process. It may take years to get planning consent for the property development, but hopefully at some point they get it. Most of my constituents respect the planning process and its outcomes.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I apologise to you, Dame Siobhain, and to the hon. Gentleman, because I have other engagements and cannot stay. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the delicate balance to be struck between allowing travellers to carry on their way of life and ensuring that the community around them is not adversely affected relates not just to planning policy but to all policies? We want to foster Traveller communities that feel engaged in and a part of our communities; that can be achieved by building relationships and through a little bit of understanding.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

As always, the hon. Gentleman is very reasonable. That is exactly the position that my constituents and I take: this is about fairness and applying the law equally. The Human Rights Act contains a requirement to consider the rights not just of the individual but of other people in such situations, but it seems that some applicants’ rights are given greater consideration than those of others. That is my biggest concern. This issue has been dealt with to some extent through planning policy, but that has not been sufficient to deal with some of the problems.

I have set out how someone who respects the law and the planning process might set about applying for planning permission. In some applications it has not been done that way. Some applicants purchase a site first, probably a roadside site, with or without access—they might create access. Sites in Sheriff Hutton and Rillington are in open countryside and not in a location where someone would normally get planning consent for such developments. The site is prepared with the access and hard standing, for example, which is not a major contravention of planning policy and not something the planning department might have too big a problem with at the time. There might be an agricultural building on the site, for example, and water and power put into the site. Preparation occurs.

Then one evening—overnight or on a bank holiday weekend when the people who look after these matters might not be in their offices—the site is occupied unlawfully without planning consent. Caravans might move on to the site, along with other equipment, and maybe toilet blocks are built overnight, which happened at one of the sites, and the site is occupied with a view to being occupied permanently. It is not a temporary position; the people occupying the site intend to occupy it permanently.

Then the planning authority has to go through an enforcement process following complaints from local people about the application. The planning authority’s wheels turn pretty slowly, which I think the people occupying the site are aware of, and enforcement measures take place. That might take months, during which time the community might experience some disturbance and real concerns are expressed.

When enforcement measures are taken, the owner of the land will submit a planning application retrospectively. Despite the flagrant breach of the proper planning process, the application is then considered as if it were made using the proper process. That is where it fundamentally goes wrong: the fact that the retrospective application is considered on the same grounds as though it were a normal lawful process is what is wrong. The application is made, of course, on the basis of the rights of the people occupying the site. The Human Rights Act, the Equality Act, the UN convention on the rights of the child and the European convention on human rights are all cited in relation to the rights of the occupants—generally the families on that site who need healthcare and education. No one would doubt the need of the children and the people in need of healthcare to access such facilities. That is the basis of why the application should be considered, despite the fact that it is retrospective.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for graciously allowing a second intervention. Is he aware of the latest Irish Traveller accommodation strategy 2020-2025? If he or the Minister are not, may I suggest that they access it? It sets out guidelines to provide, in this case, Irish Travellers

“with access to good quality, culturally appropriate housing accommodation which fosters a sustainable, vibrant Traveller community”.

That allows the Travellers to enjoy their own lifestyle but at the same time consider the possibility of integration. Does he agree that perhaps those guidelines, which are from a different jurisdiction, might be helpful?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Perhaps understandably, this is not my policy area. I am holding this debate because it is a constituency issue. I am not particularly aware of the Irish rules that the hon. Gentleman mentions. But it is right to say that local planning authorities have a requirement to facilitate the peaceful enjoyment of people who live nomadic lifestyles. I support that totally. North Yorkshire should provide such facilities, and it does. That site is occupied despite the fact that there are available places on a designated Traveller site nearby. That is one of the concerns: there are other facilities available, but the person who made this application does not want to be on them. I believe they are misusing the planning policy. I have no objection to people’s right to live alternative lifestyles and to live in different ways in their own communities; what I object to is the misuse of the planning process.

The issue was dealt with, to some extent, by my very fine colleague—sadly, my late colleague—James Brokenshire when he was Housing, Communities and Local Government Secretary. In February 2019, he published some new recommendations for planning authorities, stating that the intentional unauthorised development of a site should be considered a material point within a planning application. That is absolutely critical. He was saying, therefore, that the local planning authority had grounds to refuse the application on the basis that there was an intentional unauthorised development. Despite the North Yorkshire planning authority’s awareness of that requirement, it still recommended approval on this site, which I find astounding.

I find the whole situation astounding, and so do many of my constituents. It is important that we look at the facts. Members engaging in this debate and people watching it on Parliament TV may look at the application on the North Yorkshire portal—the planning reference is 22/00102/FUL. The things I am saying are based not on local rumours and concerns, but on the actual documented situation with the planning application.

The site in question is on Cornborough Road, about half a mile out of the village of Sheriff Hutton. It is in open countryside, and is outside the development plan. The application is for eight units of accommodation—four permanent breezeblock-built units, and permanent static caravans—and 12 car spaces. It has been occupied for three years without planning consent by a family with six children. Obviously, we respect their right to go about their lives in a way they feel appropriate, and we have every hope that those children will be properly educated and receive proper public services.

The planning officers, in their wisdom, decided to recommend the site for approval, with one significant condition: occupancy of the site was to be restricted to the family and their dependants—the adults on the site, the owners of the site and their children. Of course, those children will be adults one day, which means that the site could be occupied for many decades. The application also says that there could be a variation in the application for an extended family, for example, which could mean that the site is occupied for a very long time. Remarkably, the agent for the applicant objected to that condition, again on human rights grounds. It is clear that the site will be occupied in the very long term, and that there will be the ability to sell it on to someone else.

I think it is absolutely wrong that people can effectively drive a coach and horses through the planning system. My law-abiding constituents would not go about it in that way. Unless we deal with this situation properly, it will breed a sense of unfairness—the idea that there is one law for one and another for others. Unless we deal with the problem by clarifying the planning guidance, to ensure that anybody who is guilty of a flagrant abuse of the planning system cannot ever get planning consent on a site in that way, we will see more and more such applications, not in just my constituency but in constituencies around the country.

I know the Minister is freshly in the job. I welcome him to his place. He is a good man, and we have dealt with many things in the past, when our roles were reversed, so I know that he will look at this seriously. We have engaged on this particular matter already. Furthermore, my colleague the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), is also experienced in these matters.

I urge the Minister to tighten the rules to ensure that our constituents, law-abiding citizens of this country, feel that we are on their side. Law-abiding people go about the planning process properly, and should not feel that we favour people because of abstract laws, laws potentially imposed on us by the UN convention on the rights of the child or the European convention on human rights—now embedded in our own Human Rights Act—which mean that some people are treated more fairly than others during the process. It is important that we act and that we clarify the planning process, so that people who act in that way can never get planning consent. That is the only way we will stop such rogue applications being submitted.

[Olivia Blake (Sheffield Hallam) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. I thank the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) for securing this debate on a subject with which I am sure many hon. Members are familiar, although sadly that familiarity does not always come from a good place. Often it is driven by casework.

My understanding of the issues has been enriched by listening to the Traveller community in my constituency and hearing about the problems that they have experienced. I have heard the concerns about a two-tier system in planning, but it was interesting to hear, in a discussion on a long-standing site run by the council in my area, that they are not eligible for the right to buy, even though some of those families have lived there for 40-plus years. The idea that there is a two-tier system in planning ignores the fact that there is also a two-tier system for this very prejudiced-against group of people.

Too often our familiarity comes from lurid headlines that generate a lot of heat rather than shedding light on the problems experienced by a community facing discrimination and disadvantage across the board. It is important that we bear that in mind when we talk about the issue in the context of the planning system, and it is important that we are honest about the context of those problems. It is difficult to have a sensible discussion about how we best serve Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities when words like “incursion” are used and when groups of Travellers are repeatedly characterised as ruining picturesque landscapes, towns or villages, creating nuisance and disturbance, or somehow being above the rules.

Given that context, we need to be explicit in saying that, far from the invalidation and demonisation of such communities that we often see in the media, the planning system should support this group to live in the way that they choose. There has been an absolute failure to provide adequate sites for those who do travel. Stopping places simply have not been available, so it is no wonder that families are looking for alternatives. Unfortunately, that means a huge shortage of sites and pitches across the UK, particularly in England. As a result, in 2019 some 13% of caravans were on unauthorised land, as the organisation Friends, Families and Travellers reports. What we are seeing is not an incursion, but rather a forced displacement due to the lack of available sites for those who choose to travel.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I absolutely agree that sites should be made available, but may I reiterate the point that I raised? For the family I mentioned, sites were available. In fact, the family occupied a site at Tara Park in Malton until they moved on to that particular site, so it is not the case that no sites are available. There are also nearby sites in Osbaldwick in York. It is not as if there are no alternatives to occupying the site unlawfully. It is important to understand that.

[Olivia Blake]

That is why I think it is important that local authorities work with the community to understand their needs. There are many reasons why individual families may not feel able to be on a site. They may also want to create their own space and home, which I completely understand.

Rather than creating more sites, the previous Government moved to criminalise GRT communities through the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022. Those laws should be repealed, in my view. We should be tackling the root cause of the issue: the failure of the system to support a diverse group of people who already suffer prejudice and discrimination. There is a lack of understanding about the realities for this group.

It is not just that we need new sites and more pitches; the ones that we have are not up to scratch. That is certainly true of the sites in my constituency: they are often segregated from settled communities and suffer problems with access to services, transport and schools. There is no path to reach the community that I represent, so children have to walk down a 60 mph road to get the bus to school. When the street lights were updated, for some reason the contractor did not realise that the council owned the properties, so the community has been living with poor-quality street lighting rather than LEDs. I hope that that will soon be resolved on the site.

That is the kind of suffering that we see in those communities. They are often seen as other, as different or as difficult to deal with. That is not true, in my experience. If we listen to the concerns of the community, we will see progress and clarity of responsibility, not only from the community itself but from the services that are meant to serve it. Decisions are often made to place sites in unsafe areas next to main roads, refuse destructors, traffic-laden areas, intersections of motorways, busy highways or railway tracks. There are many reasons that people would not want their children to be near those things. That has contributed significantly to the health, education and other social inequalities that we see in the community.

We have to acknowledge that the isolation and segregation are partly due to political pressure. We know that local authorities have not achieved what they should in terms of sites, options and working with the community as best they can. That is why this is not just a technical debate on planning laws; we have to talk about tackling attitudes as well. When the Caravan Sites Act 1968 gave councils a statutory duty to create sites, many people opposed having them in their area. To put it bluntly, the location of many sites today is a consequence of anti-Traveller racism. The site in my area is right on the edge of town, away from many services.

We need more sites and pitches, and we need to end the criminalisation of people living in a legitimate way, but we also need to work with the community and listen to their needs, understanding that they are individuals and have individual rights, as we all do. The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton probably disagrees; he alluded to European human rights putting one group ahead of another. I disagree. I think that those rights protect us all and allow us all to have the individual rights and freedoms that we so richly deserve.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I agree with the principle. My point is that that is how the European convention on human rights and the Human Rights Act are framed, but it is not how things operate in practice. My constituents cannot occupy a field and build a house on it if it is in open countryside and not within the development limits of a village. They operate on that basis. Why should somebody else from a different community be able to occupy that site and develop it in a way that my other constituents, who work on a lawful basis, cannot? Why should that be the case?

[Olivia Blake]

The hon. Member highlights an important issue for his constituency that points to the failure in this space. I am not disagreeing, but I think we have to recognise that these rights come to the fore because of that failure, not the other way around. We really need to focus on that in our planning policies. We need to communicate with the community, work with them to understand their needs and make sure that those needs are being adequately met. We should not hold it against communities that have bought their own land; we should work with them to ensure they can go through the planning process adequately for their community needs and family needs.

We also need better integration within communities of amenities and services, and we need to end the criminalisation. To do that, we need to challenge anti-GRT attitudes and the lurid headlines that drive them. That would be a good start to ensuring that the planning system works for the community. I do not disagree with the idea that the planning system is broken, but I think there is certainly a better way into the conversation that starts with an understanding of all our communities, not just one or the other.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under you in the Chair, Dame Siobhain. I thank the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) for bringing forward this important debate. I have also listened carefully to the other hon. Members who have spoken today, and I appreciate that in some cases there is a misuse of planning. It is clear that we need the system to work better to tackle those attitudes.

I appreciate what the hon. Member for Sheffield Hallam (Olivia Blake) said, in that this is often seen as a difficult matter to deal with. But that should not be the case, and we need to ensure that sites are put in the right place to avoid segregation and isolation. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) spoke passionately about how we have simply not progressed. Neither community feels represented, and we must seek to change that. The hon. Member for Rugby (John Slinger) spoke about the risk of the GRT community becoming second-class citizens and the need to find appropriate sites to stop the reoccurrence of conflicts. Let us engage with and listen to the GRT community and treat them with respect and dignity. The hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) raised his concerns, which I think we all share, about agencies passing the buck and the emergence of tensions.

In the space of a month, I have received correspondence about illegal Traveller sites from concerned constituents in Wincanton and Glastonbury, towns that are at the opposite ends of my constituency. The complaints are a symptom of the fact that Somerset, like most counties in the country, is facing huge challenges in properly supporting our GRT community. Friends, Families and Travellers, a national charity, received a response to its engagement campaign this summer which called for an increase in

“site provision for nomadic people, transient and permanent.”

I do not know if that respondent lives in Somerset but I would not be surprised if they did. Somerset has no transit provisions—none at all.

Members of the Gypsy and Traveller community, like all of us, have to travel across the country to attend funerals and weddings and to see family, but because we have no transit sites, and therefore nowhere for them to legally stay for short periods, the only way they can stop when passing through our sizeable county of Somerset is in the form of an unauthorised encampment. We only need to look at my casework to see that such encampments inflame tensions between my constituents and Travellers—some of whom are, of course, my constituents—and reinforce dangerous stereotypes.

With 91% of English local authorities having some form of GRT presence, we are unfortunately not alone in that, so it is alarming to see the trend growing nationally, either because local authorities are selling off sites or because they simply cannot afford to maintain them. I worry that we could soon find ourselves with huge distances between transit sites, which would make it impossible for Travellers to legally travel. That also harms our relationship with the GRT community, because then the only response that local authorities are left with is enforcement.

Not only do we need more transit sites; we need permanent pitches where members of the GRT community can stay longer than just three months. There are well-known, documented and dangerous knock-on effects of not providing the community with stability. While the community is naturally transient, it needs access to a permanent base. Without a permanent pitch or a brick and mortar address, it can be a struggle to access mental health support and GP appointments, which forces more people to use our overburdened accident and emergency services to access healthcare. It is tragic, but not surprising, that life expectancy for members of the GRT community is 10 to 25 years lower than for the general population and that the suicide rate for Traveller men is seven times higher than for settled men. We also know about the reduced attainment rates for those in education, with only 18% in GRT communities meeting the expected standard in their SATs last year.

Councils could avoid huge additional costs if they did not have to waste officer time dealing with complaints and cleaning up encampments. The case for providing permanent pitches is clear, and local authorities have a quota for delivering Traveller provision, but there is nowhere for them to obtain funding. Funding has recently taken the form of ad hoc grants that are too small and oversubscribed. If we expect local authorities to be able to maintain a constant and consistent number of sites, we must provide them with consistent and adequate funding. The Liberal Democrat manifesto pledged to ensure that all development has appropriate infrastructure, services and amenities in place, by integrating infrastructure and public service delivery into the planning process. This should also include the development of permanent pitches.

I was recently elected vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Gypsies, Travellers and Roma, which wrote to the then Government in the last Parliament to urge them to increase site provision. That Government failed to deliver sites, but the new Government could. The Liberal Democrats have a strong record of supporting the GRT community, but we want to work with colleagues to bring about an end to these systemic problems.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The hon. Lady is making a very valid and interesting point, but she seems to think that it was central Government’s responsibility to provide Traveller sites—I think that is what she said.

[Sarah Dyke]

indicated dissent.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Okay, I have misunderstood. Perhaps she will clarify that she accepts that it is the local planning authority’s responsibility to provide these sites.

[Sarah Dyke]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention; he misunderstands. I am fully aware that it is local authorities that provide Traveller sites, but the funding is not there for them to provide it. That is my case. As we know, over and over again, many local authorities find themselves on the brink. They are under such pressure at the moment. The crucial point is that they are unable to provide the resources within their remit. That is what was lacking in the last Parliament, and that is what we need to see from this new Government, to ensure that local authorities have the resources and the capabilities they need to provide sites for our Traveller community.

It was confirmed in the King’s Speech that this Government intend to reform our planning system. When they do so, they must not treat Gypsy and Traveller provision as an afterthought to bricks and mortar housing. Looking after this community is a housing requirement, not an add-on that can be addressed when there is more time and money. I would like the Government to introduce a statutory duty to provide sites, along with proper funding measures. With a reasonable approach to location and funding, this could be the single most transformative measure for Gypsies and Travellers in England. Our planning regulations and guidance are not fit to serve the community. The guidance dictates what local authorities need to deliver on a site, but it is not properly delivering that provision, which leads to the GRT community being viewed negatively and the community feeling less safe. The Government should make updating those documents a priority.

Finally, not all these problems can be solved with reforms or increased funding. The narrative from the previous Government was not constructive and made it challenging for local authorities to build meaningful dialogue. Over the last decade, Somerset and much of the rest of the country has seen a reduction in publicly owned sites, fewer community liaison officer roles in local authorities, a lack of new private sites, an increase in unauthorised encampments, a reduction in funding for site development, and political inertia slowing down pitch development. We need this new Government to provide real leadership and ensure that the needs of the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller community are met. We should engage with and treat our Gypsy, Roma and Traveller community with respect and dignity, and provide them with the sites they need to live their lives.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dame Siobhain. I formally congratulate you on your honour—I have not had the chance to do so yet.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) on securing this important debate and thank him for the characteristic clarity with which he made his case. I also thank the hon. Members for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine), for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke) and for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas), and my hon. Friends the Members for Sheffield Hallam (Olivia Blake) and for Rugby (John Slinger) for their contributions. Lastly, I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), for his thoughtful remarks, and warmly welcome him to his place. I will certainly take away the specific points that he raised. More widely, I look forward to working with him, as he said, on a constructive basis wherever possible.

I must make it clear at the outset that, while I noted the specific case that the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton raised—and indeed other cases that have been raised today—I hope that hon. Members will appreciate that I am unable to comment on individual plans or applications due to the quasi-judicial nature of the planning process and the potential decision-making role of the Deputy Prime Minister. I therefore propose to make some general comments about national planning policy as it relates to Traveller sites and specifically the role of local planning authorities, including in respect of enforcement, within that national framework, thereby addressing many of the points that have been raised today, while recognising that this is an incredibly complex area of policy and law, particularly as it relates to individual cases.

Turning first to national planning policy, the Government’s approach to Traveller site provision is set out in the planning policy for Traveller sites policy paper, which should be read in conjunction with the national planning policy framework and has the same policy status as it.

My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Hallam, and others, raised a number of wider issues outside the subject of this debate, but I reassure her that the Government’s overarching aim is to meet the housing and accommodation needs of all communities in our society, and that we are committed to ensuring fair and equal treatment for Travellers in a way that facilitates their traditional and nomadic way of life, while respecting the interests of the settled community.

The policy paper in question makes clear that local planning authorities should set pitch targets for Gypsies and Travellers to address the accommodation needs of Traveller communities within their area. Specifically on the points made around human rights law, that is often engaged when a proposed development is closely linked to a particular person’s interests. In the case of Gypsy and Traveller developments, the right to respect for private and family life under the European convention on human rights, and in relation to the rights of the child, under the Children Act 1989 and the UN convention on the rights of the child, are often engaged. However, such considerations can be addressed by planning adequately for Traveller pitches to meet needs, and that is ultimately through the local plan process.

I think that that touches on a wider issue. In respect of the community that the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton represents, for example, the North Yorkshire emerging local plan is in its very early stages. We need to see local plans across the country come forward in short order. We want to achieve universal coverage, but we need to see those plans progress because they are the best way that local communities can shape developments in their areas.

I noted the points made by the hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton on funding, and by my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby regarding the concern, which I do recognise, that local planning authorities do not face sufficient consequences for failing to adequately plan for those pitches. That is a concern raised in other areas, and, typically, as I am sure my hon. Friend will know, the penalty for not having a local plan in place—for not adequately providing for sites—is that a local authority will leave itself open to speculative development or retrospective applications. However, I appreciate that that does not address the specific challenges covered in this debate in the way that it does with more conventional planning applications.

The policy paper also states that local planning authorities should consider the existing level of and local need for sites, and the availability of alternative accommodation, among other relevant matters, when considering planning applications for Traveller sites.

I appreciate that the specific case that the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton raised did not concern a green-belt site—as far as I understand it—but hon. Members may find it useful if I provide some detail on the proposals that we have set out in relation to Traveller sites as part of our proposed reforms to the national planning policy framework and other changes to the planning system.

As hon. Members are aware, we are consulting on a range of policy changes to ensure that our planning system is fit for purpose, supports the right development in the right places, and is able to deliver on the Government’s growth agenda. They include changes to green-belt policy to enable the targeted release of low-quality grey-belt land to meet unmet housing and other development needs. Those policy proposals will not compromise our environmental objectives or undermine the overall function and purpose of the green belt, but will support opportunities for development in areas of highest need and deliver tangible benefits to local communities and nature through our golden rules.

We intend that the proposals will address unmet need for Traveller sites and we are seeking views, through the consultation, on how the policy will operate. To be clear, that is a departure from the current policy position on the green belt set out in both the NPPF and the planning policy for Traveller sites policy paper, but we believe that it better supports the development needs of our communities and contributes to sustainable growth.

However, we will consider all these matters carefully and will finalise our position after considering the consultation responses and following targeted engagement with the key stakeholders, including specialist planning consultants, charities representing the interests of the Traveller community and professionals working in this space.

As part of wider changes to national planning policy, we will also consider how planning policy for Traveller sites should be set out in the future, including which aspects need to form part of the suite of proposals for national development management policies introduced in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023.

I now turn to the role of local planning authorities. Although the Government are responsible for setting the legislative and policy framework within which the planning system operates, including the national planning policy framework and the planning policy document for Traveller sites, it is for local planning authorities, who know their communities best, to prepare local development plans and make decisions in accordance with such adopted plans unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

I hope hon. Members appreciate that when it comes to police enforcement of unauthorised encampments, that is a matter for the Home Office and not for the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. However, I can certainly pass back some of the concerns and the comments made to my colleagues in the Home Office.

When it comes to enforcement more generally, local planning authorities have a wide range of powers, with strong penalties for non-compliance. As the hon. Member for Bromsgrove mentioned, these powers were strengthened by reforms introduced in the 2023 Act, which were implemented earlier this year. Those reforms included longer time limits for enforcement action, and action to address a loophole with retrospective development, so that there is only one opportunity to appeal.

On the basis of the available powers, it is for local authorities to decide what action, if any, to take, depending on the particular circumstances of each case. That would include intentional unauthorised development, which would be weighed by decision makers in the determination of planning applications and appeals, as I recall the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton mentioning. Ultimately, however, it is for individual local planning authorities to determine what weight they should afford to a relevant consideration based on the circumstances of a particular case, rather than Government mandating them to follow a particular course of action.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I support potential revisions to enforcement powers to give perfect clarity about how enforcement can happen in these circumstances. However, I want to touch on the Minister’s last point about intentional unauthorised development. Currently, that is dealt with as part of planning law, through a ministerial statement, rather than being formally in the NPPF—nevertheless, that does apply. Is he happy to maintain that situation, or will he look at that again? It is very important that that does form part of planning policy. Otherwise, planning authorities would have even fewer levers at their disposal to make sure that this kind of development does not happen. The problem is not planning policy; it is people who subvert the policy through other devices.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the hon. Member for that point. To answer him directly, on national development management policies, which I mentioned, we stated in the NPPF consultation—which is still open and closes on 24 September—that we were committed to creating NDMPs to provide more certainty and consistency about decision making in a range of areas. As part of that, we will look at all existing national policies, including the policy in relation to unintentional authorised development, as set out in the 2015 written ministerial statement.

I hope that gives the hon. Member some reassurance that as part of bringing in those NDMPs, we are looking at that particular issue, which I do understand. Those NDMPs will have to consulted on, so hon. Members from all parties will have an opportunity to feed in their thoughts about whether we have got the policy right in any particular area.

I thank the hon. Member again for giving the House an opportunity to discuss these matters, and I thank other hon. Members for taking part in the debate. I genuinely welcome and look forward to further engagement on this issue with Members across the House. In the interim, I encourage all hon. Members with an interest in how national planning policy relates to Travellers to respond to the consultation on a revised NPPF before the deadline of 24 September.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I thank the Front Benchers for their excellent contributions. The tone of the debate was generally very constructive. I think we are all on the same page in terms of local planning authorities having to fulfil their requirement to make sure that suitable provision is made for people who live different and nomadic lifestyles. I thank the hon. Members for Sheffield Hallam (Olivia Blake), for Rugby (John Slinger) and for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) for their points.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) touched on the key point: we cannot have a planning system where it is easier to apologise than to ask permission. If that is the case, it creates chaos in the system. Everybody can play by those rules, and there will be chaos in terms of planning applications and wider society. It undermines faith in the system. That is the point I want to make. Whatever the protected characteristics of certain communities, it cannot be the case that in our society there is one law for one and another for another. That feeds the perception that we operate a two-tier society, and that cannot be right. It undermines the entire system.

I hope that the Minister will look at two things. As the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) rightly said, we should continue to look at bolstering enforcement powers. I also make it crystal clear that the recommendation for the planning application I mentioned was for approval despite the fact that the written ministerial statement from February 2019 said that intentional unauthorised development should be a material consideration in a planning application. Nevertheless, the planning officers recommended approval, which I think was totally wrong. I congratulate the planning committee who still rejected the application, but that might well go to appeal. I welcome the fact that the Minister is going to look at the full context of this. I hope he will make it even clearer in planning policy that somebody who is guilty of intentional unauthorised development will never be given consent for their application when there is such a clear abuse of process, and that that will not be tolerated.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the adequacy of planning policy for Traveller sites.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kevin Hollinrake Excerpts

Monday 2nd September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Alex Norris]

The right hon. Lady is exactly right. The future of the high street is not about returning to how things were. There must be a place for leisure, a place, of course, for retail and a place for residential properties, and councils of all political persuasions throughout the country are trying to find that perfect alchemy. We have inherited an extremely difficult funding situation, but we are working our way through it, and future funding decisions will be made in the Budget on 30 October.

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

I am not sure that Mel would be all that flattered, actually!

Banking facilities are important to our high street traders. Bedale, among other towns, has no banks, and does not even have a working ATM. Given that banks have saved about £3 billion a year by closing branches, what is the Minister doing with his counterpart in the Treasury to ensure that we have proper banking facilities in towns such as Bedale?

[Alex Norris]

The hon. Gentleman knows whereof he speaks. This is another question that we are addressing up and down the country. We know that banking facilities bring people into towns and villages, and give rise to a virtuous circle. We have committed ourselves to providing 350 new banking hubs and, as the hon. Gentleman suggested, we are working with Treasury colleagues on their delivery.