Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Mary Kelly Foy and Sarah Jones(4 days, 16 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
The Minister for Policing and Crime (Sarah Jones)
We are ensuring that neighbourhood officers are focused on tackling issues like antisocial behaviour, which can blight our communities. Through our neighbourhood policing guarantee, every neighbourhood now has a named contactable officer dedicated to tackling crime and ASB in their local area. They will respond to neighbourhood queries within 72 hours. Every force in England and Wales also has a dedicated antisocial behaviour lead and will be publishing local antisocial behaviour action plans in April.
Sarah Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for his campaigning and drawing attention to a significant issue in parts of the country, where its impact on wildlife and people seems to be on the rise. I am pleased to have the roundtable and am grateful to him for the advice he has given as we have put that together. Of course, when evidence is there, we will look to see what we can do, whether through legislative change, more policing resources or other measures, because this crime is unacceptable. We are keen to work with him on finding solutions.
Mary Kelly Foy
Residents in Langley Moor, Belmont, Esh Winning, North Road, Pity Me and the Sunderland Road estate are seeing growing levels of antisocial behaviour. From yobs on e-bikes to intimidation of shop workers, public disorder and arson in parks and woodlands, antisocial behaviour is getting out of hand. My constituents do not feel safe and, despite the efforts of our police and crime commissioner, Durham constabulary officer levels remain lower than 2010 due to the outdated funding formula used by previous Governments. Will the Minister reassure my constituents that this Government are investing in policing, with a plan to tackle antisocial behaviour? At present, they are not seeing it.
Sarah Jones
As someone who used to live in Pity Me, I know what a wonderful area it is. I say “live”, but I was at university when I lived there, as did Mo Mowlam when she was at university. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to draw attention to the fact that low-level antisocial behaviour, as it is called, is actually deeply damaging to our communities, and this Government are taking it very seriously. Of course, her area will see, I think, 26 additional officers by the end of this month, and we are bringing forward legislation on respect orders and more powers to tackle theft, public disorder, shop theft and all these things, but I will work with her to make sure we get the results that she and her community deserve.
Westferry Printworks Development
Debate between Mary Kelly Foy and Sarah Jones(5 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
There seems to be to be a bit of a theme developing here. The Government seem to think that the rules that apply to everyone else do not apply to them. First, we had the Prime Minister’s chief adviser flouting the lockdown rules that he himself helped to create, and now we have the Housing Secretary seemingly deciding that planning regulations are flexible—as long as it is your friend asking and he has a spare £12,000.
I welcome the fact that we are having this debate, because, as they say and as we have heard, sunlight is the best disinfectant. Accountability should be at the heart of this place, but, sadly, it is often lacking. With that in mind, it was a shame that the Secretary of State refused to submit himself to parliamentary scrutiny the other week. Whether a Government have a majority of eight—[Interruption.] It is a shame that he did not present himself for scrutiny the other week when it was an issue—the issue was raised. Whether the Government have a majority of eight or 80, the same scrutiny should apply.
To me, and in the minds of many of my constituents, it is clear what has happened here. Two influential figures in the Conservative party have gone out of their way to approve a development project, headed by a Conservative party donor, that blatantly broke regulation and was strongly opposed by the local authority. Following that, the same developer made a £12,000 cash donation to the Conservative party, before the Secretary of State admitted an apparent bias and that he knew he was saving the developer millions. Whatever else we call that, it is clearly morally wrong.
The legalities are one thing, but this is also about local democracy, and I want to talk about who the Secretary of State was really short-changing: the people of Tower Hamlets. As someone who has served as a councillor for 14 years and who knows the hard work that the desperately underfunded county council does in Durham, I know the importance of that money to local authorities. I also know the importance and value of social housing.
Sarah Jones
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, as I have been trying to get in for a very long time. Does she agree that what is shocking about what we have heard today is that the Secretary of State watched the promotional video on the night of the Conservative fundraiser? The rules on a Secretary of State’s decision making on planning state:
“Privately made representations should not be entertained unless other parties have been given the chance to consider them and comment.”
It is clear from what we have heard so far that that has not happened. We need answers on that exact point from the Secretary of State.
Mary Kelly Foy
I thank my hon. Friend for that and totally agree with what she says. The fact that the Secretary of State knowingly made a decision that reduced affordable housing, and deprived a local council and its communities of much-needed funding, is a disgrace. It is deeply worrying, if not surprising, that the Secretary of State appeared more concerned with the interests of the wealthy property developers than the Tower Hamlets community. As Members of Parliament, we serve the public, not the powerful—at least we do on our side of the House. This is not just about leadership; it is about honesty, integrity and transparency. The public must be able to trust that the Government are making decisions in the people’s interest, not in their own personal interests or those of their wealthy friends.
It is going to be difficult for the Secretary of State to regain the trust of the public. He has promised to immediately publish all documentation and correspondence that relates to this matter—that really should have already happened. I hope that that clears up why he decided to overrule his own inspectors and provides the justification as to why, despite having a bias by his own admission, he actively brought the decision under his own control. The Secretary of State still has serious questions to answer, and I hope that we get the answers, because the voting public deserve better than this.