Citizens’ Assemblies and Local Democracy

Valerie Vaz Excerpts

Tuesday 16th April 2024 Westminster Hall

[Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)]

I will call Debbie Abrahams to move the motion and I will then call the Minister to respond. As is the convention for a 30-minute debate, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered citizens’ assemblies and local democracy.

It is lovely to see you in the Chair, Ms Vaz. I am absolutely delighted to lead this Westminster Hall debate on how citizens’ assemblies can be used to enhance public engagement in political decision making, bringing benefits to our democracy and society as a whole.

As hon. Members may know, last month I introduced the Standards in Public Life (Codes of Conduct) Bill to Parliament. Many people across our great country and nation states feel that the UK Parliament—including MPs and Ministers who sit in this place—is disconnected from them and their lives. It is not just the poor behaviour of a few bad apples affecting how people feel; there is a much deeper malaise.

People have a growing lack of trust and confidence in politics and politicians. Last year, a King’s College London study of 24 countries found that the UK fares poorly in people’s confidence in the Government, political parties and even Parliament. Added to that, there is a marked difference by generation. Young people have experienced some of the biggest shifts in attitude: confidence in the Government among millennials in Britain has halved since 2005, falling to its lowest level on record, and generation Z has very low confidence in a wide range of other institutions, too.

In the Hansard Society’s audit of political engagement series, which was carried out between 2004 and 2019, people reported an increasing sense of powerlessness and disengagement over time. Similarly, polling by the think-tank Compassion in Politics showed that four out of five people have no respect for politicians, and that 40% of parents would be concerned if their child expressed a desire to become a politician, which is worrying if we want our democracy not just to survive but to thrive.

Antisemitic Offences

Valerie Vaz Excerpts

Tuesday 9th January 2024 Westminster Hall

[Nicola Richards]

I totally agree with the right hon. Gentleman. Just in the past few days, I have been alarmed by the responses I have received on Twitter, having reported an antisemitic incident to the police, and by the support for Hamas, but also by the number of people who do not understand why hate speech, tweets and what they call freedom of speech are being reported to the police. They do not understand the consequences. The statistics I have read out today about the number of Jews living in the UK and the number of antisemitic tweets—two antisemitic tweets per year for every Jewish person in the UK—show why it is important to crack down on it.

Since 7 October, the call for an “intifada until victory” has been plastered up and down campuses, and a model motion calling for that was passed at University College London and the University of East Anglia students’ union. Does the Minister agree that motions passed that call for an “intifada until victory” are disturbing, and that calls to globalise the intifada are extremely worrying? Perhaps we could have some clarity on the legality of the term in those contexts. Will he say something about the role of the prevent duty in relation to speakers and other activity on campus? Will he make it clear that support for Hamas, whether voiced by individual students or groups such as the Socialist Workers party, must be investigated by the police, because support for proscribed terrorist organisations, including Hamas, is illegal?

As we begin 2024, let us be clear. Policing must be robust, with zero tolerance. Sentencing must not be lenient. Education must be improved and widespread. Relevant authorities, whether they be universities, councils or companies, need to work to support Jewish colleagues, employees or students, and ensure that they recognise their duty of care.

This is my message to those engaged in antisemitism in response to a conflict in a place they are unlikely to have visited or know much about. Last week, I met people my age who had survived a massacre at a music festival purely because of their immense courage and chance. I met heartbroken but determined families of hostages and people killed. I witnessed a nation still overcome with grief. For those who diminish what happened on 7 October—or worse, seek to justify it—I hope they will never witness what those strong and brave people did. I watched 47 minutes of the gleeful spree and slaughter by Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad, as well as civilians. Nothing will erase those images from my mind: the look of fear in their eyes that I did not know was possible. Nothing will ever be the same again for Jewish people around the world following that dreadful day in October last year, so have some humanity, recognise the impact of your language and ask yourself what you stand for.

Antisemitism is centuries old, but it still persists. It does not give up, so neither should we. We must remain unwavering and uncompromising in our efforts to challenge it, and I thank all colleagues present for doing so. I hope this debate will play its part in doing that.

[Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)]

I propose to take the first Opposition spokesperson at about 3.28 pm.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)]

We have three more speakers. The wind-ups will start at about 3.28 pm. I call Jim Shannon.

--- Later in debate ---

[Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under you in the Chair in this important debate, Ms Vaz. I thank the hon. Member for West Bromwich East (Nicola Richards) for securing it, and my hon. Friends the Members for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) and for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols) for their important contributions.

The horrific attacks carried out by Hamas on 7 October have caused and continue to cause widespread grief within the Jewish community here in Britain. On top of that, the substantial increase in antisemitic incidents and offences in the months since has created an environment in which many members of our Jewish community feel threatened, vulnerable and unsafe, as we have heard.

We thank the Community Security Trust for its tireless efforts alongside the police to protect and support the Jewish community across Britain. Between 7 October and 13 December, the CST recorded more than 2,000 incidents of antisemitism, including 95 assaults and 165 direct threats. That is the highest total number of incidents it has recorded in that kind of time period since its records began 40 years ago. Police forces around the country have similarly recorded spikes in antisemitic offences in the months since 7 October. We know that many hate crimes go unreported, so those figures by no means reflect the full picture, and nor can they fully capture the deep and tangible impact that these incidents are having on the Jewish community as a whole.

Of course, events unfolding internationally have had alarming repercussions on many facets of community life. As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North, some of the most shocking incidents have included graffiti on a holocaust library and a Jewish primary school vandalised with red paint. We have also seen unacceptable words on placards at protests and rallies, and a steep rise in antisemitic incidents at schools and on university campuses. Threats have been made against Jewish institutions and individuals across major online platforms. All those disturbing developments have heightened feelings of vulnerability among British Jews, a sizeable majority of whom have said that they have felt less safe in this country since 7 October.

Sadly, the appalling spike in antisemitism over the past few months has been paralleled by rising antisemitism across the world. In Russia, a mob stormed an airport looking for Jewish passengers to attack. We have seen arson attacks on synagogues in Germany, Tunisia and Armenia. Jewish homes in Paris and Berlin were marked by antisemitic graffiti. It is essential that we stand together in condemning such horrifying attacks.

Urgent action must be taken to prevent antisemitic hate crime, as well as all categories and strands of hate crime, which have soared over the last decade in Britain. We must take steps to ensure that incidents are reported, investigated and prosecuted, and be clear that we mean business in tackling antisemitism. Labour stands totally and wholeheartedly with the Jewish community in that vital task. That is why we are grateful for the reassurance policing work that has been taking place across communities, and why we supported additional funding for the Community Security Trust. However, we remain concerned that the Government are taking too little action, and that the monitoring of antisemitism and Islamophobia has been downgraded by the Government in the last 12 months. Specifically, incidents that do not cross the criminal threshold are no longer being recorded by the police, despite the Home Office’s assessment that such data is vital for targeting resources and preventing serious crime.

Over the past decade, the staggering year-on-year rises in hate crime have laid bare the Conservatives’ decade of failure to keep our communities safe. More than 145,000 cases were recorded in 2022-23, and violent crime rose sixfold in the 10 years prior. Hate and division have surged in response to conflict in the middle east, and we desperately need reassurance from the Government that they take hate crime seriously and that perpetrators will face the full force of the law. We cannot and must not accept this hatred, which corrodes our communities. Will the Minister back our calls to strengthen monitoring requirements around antisemitic and Islamophobic hate incidents in response to the current tensions? There has not been a refresh of the hate crime action plan since it expired in 2020. A refresh is vital. Do the Government intend to refresh the plan? If so, when?

Between 7 October and 13 December, the CST recorded 133 incidents of antisemitism related to the schools sector and 157 incidents related to universities, and there have been similarly shocking reports of Islamophobia in the education sector. Has the Minister, or any of his colleagues, issued full guidance on how schools should respond to such incidents? Does he support calls for secondary schools to teach about contemporary antisemitism?

At a time when antisemitism and Islamophobia divide our communities, cross-community and interfaith activities can bolster community cohesion. What action have the Government taken to promote positive, long-term projects to support community cohesion, and have they sought to identify and share examples of best practice at local authority level? Based purely on incidents that have been proactively reported, the CST recorded 625 incidents of antisemitism online between 7 October and 12 December last year. Does the Minister agree that, as colleagues have said this afternoon, the Online Safety Act 2023 was stripped of its powers to effectively monitor and challenge online safety incidents? What steps are the Government taking to tackle antisemitism online? Finally, can the Minister say when the last meeting of the cross-Government working group on antisemitism was held, and will the Government arrange for an urging meeting of the working groups on antisemitism and anti-Muslim hatred?

It is essential that swift and firm action is taken to prevent antisemitic crime. In government, Labour will take firm action to do so.

[Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)]

I will call the Minister next, but I remind him to finish his remarks by about 3.58 pm to allow Nicola Richards to wind up.

Draft Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications, Deemed Applications, Requests and Site Visits) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2023

Valerie Vaz Excerpts

Wednesday 25th October 2023 General Committees

[The Minister of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Rachel Maclean)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications, Deemed Applications, Requests and Site Visits) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2023.

Good morning, Mr Robertson; it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. Laid before the House on 20 July, the draft regulations amend the Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications, Deemed Applications, Requests and Site Visits) (England) Regulations 2012 and, by increasing planning application fees by 35% for major applications and by 25% for all other applications, will provide much-needed additional income to local planning authorities. Importantly, the regulations introduce, for the first time, an annual inflation-related increase, so that fees retain their value in the future, year on year, and they give local planning authorities greater certainty.

The measures in the regulations are widely welcomed by the industry. They are designed to boost the income to local authorities. We expect local authorities, in turn, to invest that income in their planning services to improve the speed and quality of their decision making.

To state the obvious, it costs money to run the planning application service. At the moment, the cost of the service is more—by an estimated £225 million across England—than the income from the fees charged. That means that local taxpayers have to contribute to dealing with the shortfall, while those who stand to benefit the most could be paying a greater share. Planning fees have reduced in value over the five years since the last increase, in January 2018, while the costs and demands on local planning authority budgets have increased. The regulations will address the issue by ensuring that applicants for planning permission contribute a higher proportion of the estimated £675 million cost of the application service, reducing the burden on the local taxpayer.

As well as reducing the shortfall, the regulations will create greater sustainability for local planning authorities when the annual increase comes into effect from 1 April 2025. Local planning authorities will be able to use the additional income to procure more resources, including planning officers and other specialists, which will enable them to provide an improved service to applicants. That will benefit the whole of society as good planning decisions are made more quickly, enabling development to proceed without unnecessary delay.

Respondents to our consultation on proposals to increase fees were generally supportive. They acknowledged that local authorities needed more funding, and supported higher fees, with the important caveat that that should lead to improvements in planning performance.

I will now turn to the details. First, the regulations introduce a much-awaited national fee increase of 35% for major applications and 25% for all others. The maximum fee for a large planning application will be £405,000, up 35% from £300,000. Fees for householder applications will rise from £206 to £258, an increase of 25%. The regulations also introduce an annual inflation-related increase in fees from 1 April 2025. That will be at the rate of the consumer prices index from the previous September. To prevent the annual increases from becoming too onerous, they will be capped at a maximum of 10%. This measure will ensure that fees do not lose their real-terms value.

In addition, the regulations remove an existing fee exemption that allows applicants, in certain circumstances, to submit a second application without having to pay another fee—colloquially known as the “free go”. The removal of that exemption will enable local planning authorities to charge for repeat applications, which will help to fund their costs for dealing with the applications, which we know are a demand on their resources.

Furthermore, the regulations reduce the planning guarantee period for non-major applications from 26 weeks to 16 weeks. That means that, in most cases, if their application is not determined after 16 weeks and no extension has been agreed, the applicant will be entitled to a full refund of their planning fee. That measure is intended to encourage faster decision making, which applicants will expect as a result of paying higher fees.

Lastly, the regulations introduce a new prior-approval fee of £120 for the permitted development right for development by the Crown on a closed defence site. That right was introduced through an amendment to the general permitted development order in December 2021 and requires that a fee be paid for prior-approval applications.

We estimate that the fee increase will raise an additional £65 million for local planning authorities in the first year. In future years, from 1 April 2025, income will increase further, as the annual inflation-related rises take effect. That will provide much-needed income to local authorities. Some may consider that this is not the time to be increasing fees, since there are considerable financial pressures on businesses and householders, but if we do not increase fees, the planning application service will continue to deteriorate, to the detriment of applicants and the wider economy.

We need to find a way to get more resources into the system. The fairest way is for applicants, who stand to benefit the most from planning decisions, to contribute more toward the costs to local planning authorities of delivering the service. We consider our approach to be proportionate, with the greater burden falling on applicants for major developments, who, as I said, largely welcome these measures and are considered more likely to be able to bear a larger increase. That leaves householders and small businesses, who are more sensitive to higher fees, with a smaller increase. Together, the increases will provide additional income for local planning authorities.

The regulations do not introduce any new fees for applications for which there is currently no charge, such as applications for listed building consent, and they retain the existing exemptions, including for alterations to homes to provide facilities for a disabled occupant. I can reassure hon. and right hon. Members that we estimate that, in most cases, the cost of the planning application will still be less than 1% of the overall development costs, so we do not consider that it will be a burden or deter development.

The regulations do not contain any requirements for the additional fee income to be formally ringfenced. Hon. Members will note that we proposed in our consultation to ringfence the increase, and that proposal was strongly supported by some respondents. However, the primary legislation—section 303 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990—requires a fee to be charged so that local planning authorities can perform the function of determining planning applications. As there is no surplus to planning fee income, there is logically no underspend that could be used to cross-subsidise other services. The Committee will note that there may be cases where other services are ringfenced. That is usually because they make a surplus; it is a different category of funding in this case.

We have made it clear to all local authorities that they are expected to retain the income from planning fees for direct investment in their planning services, and we will reiterate that expectation after the regulations are made. We recognise that the circumstances of each local authority are different. In line with our general approach to simplification of funding, which is widely welcomed by local authorities, we believe that our approach strikes the right balance.

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

On a point of clarification, how many responses did the Government get to their consultation, as a percentage?

[Rachel Maclean]

I thank the right hon. Member for that point. I will have to write to her about that, if she will allow me.

As I was saying, local authorities have made it clear that they want and need this income so that they can build up the capability and capacity of their planning services and improve their performance. We expect them to do so, and we know that that is what applicants will expect in return for paying higher fees.

We need a planning system that supports appropriate development and functions effectively. The regulations will provide a welcome financial boost to local planning authorities, on top of the additional spending that we have already awarded to them through our planning skills delivery fund and other measures. These measures will generate additional income year on year. Local authorities will be able to invest the extra money in their planning services, including in staff and in digitising the service to make it fit for the present day and to improve their performance. Local authorities will be able to budget with more certainty and build up their capability and capacity.

I hope that Members will join me in supporting the draft regulations, which I commend to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Maclean]

I thank Members for their contributions to the debate, and I will respond to the questions raised.

I can tell the right hon. Member for Walsall South that the consultation received 495 responses.

The hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich asked me about ringfencing. I set out in my opening remarks how we have approached this matter. We believe that our approach is the right one. As I said, the response we have had from local authorities on our overall strategy of funding simplification indicates strongly that local authorities want to see a simpler picture for funding the essential services that they provide to their residents and businesses. That is why we have taken this approach. As the hon. Gentleman acknowledged, primary legislation already requires a fee to be charged so that local planning authorities can perform the function of determining planning applications. There is no surplus to planning fee income, so there is logically no underspend that could be used to cross-subsidise other services, which means that ringfencing is not necessary.

We have been very clear with local authorities that they are expected to retain the income from planning fees for direct investment in their planning services, and we will reiterate that direction once the regulations are made. It is worth observing that in my considerable engagement with local authorities, the Local Government Association and others, they have all been very clear that they need this funding, they must spend it on planning and they intend to do so. That is the clear expectation.

[Valerie Vaz]

I have two points to make. First, I would like the percentage of the number of consultations that were returned—was it 1% or 100%? Secondly, how will the Government monitor whether local authorities are actually using the fees for the purposes intended?

[Rachel Maclean]

I will be happy to respond to the right hon. Lady on that point, but can I clarify what she means by the percentage? I am not quite clear on her question.

--- Later in debate ---

[Valerie Vaz]

The civil servants have helpfully given the answer that there were 495 responses to the consultation. What was the percentage of returns? Was that a 1% return of the total number of people who were consulted, or was it 100%? Is it 495 of 495? What is the percentage?

[Rachel Maclean]

I think what the right hon. Lady is asking is whether it was a binary choice either for or against ringfencing. Is that right?

[Valerie Vaz]

No. There are two separate points. The point about the consultation is that there were 495 responses, but how many people were consulted? What is the percentage—was it a 1% return or a 50% return? On a separate point, the Minister helpfully said that local authorities have to spend the fees on planning and planning officers. How will the Government monitor whether they are doing that? The intention and the direction are there, but how can the public—my constituents—be reassured that that money will not be used for other purposes?

[Rachel Maclean]

I will respond to the right hon. Lady’s second point, as I understand that question very clearly. I think it is better if I write to her on the first question. My understanding is that there were 495 responses, but I do not know how many people were actually asked. I think she is asking for a response rate—

[Valerie Vaz]

indicated assent.

[Rachel Maclean]

We may be able to provide a further breakdown and further detail on those responses, and what they were in favour of and against. I am sure we can provide that information to the right hon. Lady and any other Committee member who is understandably interested in that.

The point about planning performance is really important. It is feedback I always hear from industry and householders, as my hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich has mentioned. Planning performance is an issue that is raised time and again. My overall conclusion and response is that when people are applying for these services, although they expect to get a good service, they have not always had that, which has led to overall dissatisfaction with the system. It also has a knock-on effect on the public’s confidence in the planning system more generally, which leads to a lot of the other issues that we see time and again. I am sure all Members have messages in their inbox about these sorts of issues, which are common across the country.

We recognise that the current metrics on planning performance, including the use of extensions of time, do not adequately reflect the performance of local authorities. We recognise that they do not capture the consumer experience either. We have therefore recently consulted on proposals to measure performance across a broader set of quantitative and qualitative measures, providing greater transparency of service delivery and enabling early action where local authorities are not performing. We will come forward with further details on those measures in due course.

Separately to that, my Department and civil servants in the relevant team have very granular information on local authorities’ performance in this area—as well as a number of other areas, of course—on which they regularly report to me. On that basis, other Ministers and I are able, where necessary, to exercise our functions and powers to intervene and to remove planning powers from local authorities, although we obviously only want to do that as a last resort. However, we do expect local authorities to be providing these services to their residents, which we monitor.

Before I come to my hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich, I will address the point about funding raised by the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich. As he rightly said, we have made available to the profession additional capacity funds, amounting to £54 million, to enable more planners to come into the profession. Also, on the back of the Secretary of State’s long-term plan for housing announcement this summer, we made £24 million available to the planning skills delivery fund. Local authorities will be able to use that fund to speed up planning applications and ensure that services flow faster, and that any backlogs are dealt with.

Voter ID

Valerie Vaz Excerpts

Thursday 27th April 2023 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Maclean]

The hon. Gentleman’s comments do him no credit. I will directly address the remarks about the Norfolk leaflet. The people responsible apologised straightaway. It went through, I am told, 200 doors. It was a mistake. The leaflet has been withdrawn. If he has been listening to my remarks throughout this session, he will know of the extensive work that has gone on to set out all the ways people can vote, the Government’s position on this, and the way that we have worked with local authorities and the Electoral Commission.

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

Apologies, Mr Speaker, for missing the start of the urgent question. May I ask the Minister when the data will be published, and will she ensure that it is published within 28 days of 4 May?

[Rachel Maclean]

Yes. I set that out in the earlier part of my answer to the urgent question, which I am afraid the hon. Lady missed.

Affordable Homes Programme

Valerie Vaz Excerpts

Tuesday 25th April 2023 Westminster Hall

[Mr Dhesi]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, and I commend the work of Councillor Ian Ward, whom I met recently. During my recent visit to Birmingham, I was able to meet council members, who spoke about their hopes and aspirations, but also to the constraints on them given limited resources from Government—indeed, they alluded to the high inflation they now have to contend with.

People sometimes say, “How can there be a housing crisis when there are cranes on our skylines and new houses and flats going up all over?” But those homes are rarely affordable and are often snapped up by investors off plan. Many remain empty—an investment by overseas property tycoons. That leaves hollowed-out communities with flats but no residents. That is why I am so glad that the Labour party has pledged to close the loopholes developers exploit to avoid building more affordable housing and give first-time buyers first dibs on new developments. I very much hope to hear more about those exciting plans from the Labour party spokesman, my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook), later in the debate.

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. It is not just Labour councils but Conservative-controlled councils that give land to the developers. There is one development on Broadway where the average house costs £800,000, which is way beyond the reach of most of my constituents. Does my hon. Friend agree that, as well as putting targets on developers, we must give housing associations the freedom to build houses? We see people at our surgeries crying out for homes. We must look at the need and then give housing associations the freedom to build those houses.

[Mr Dhesi]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention. The experiences she has at her advice surgeries talking to her constituents chime neatly with what I am being told. Yes, we must empower housing associations and others to build homes. The focus especially on building council homes is incredibly important, because that is where we as a nation are failing. There is huge demand for council housing in particular, not just in Walsall but in my constituency, but there is just not the supply to go around. That must urgently be looked at. Those targets are being missed.

I hope that Labour will end the scandalous practice of foreign buyers purchasing swathes of new housing developments off plan before local people can even see them. We will strengthen the rights of tenants with a new private renters charter. Only a generation ago a couple in work could aspire to get on the property ladder, to eventually pay off their mortgage and to give their children a helping hand. Today, that dream is out of reach for millions thanks to the utter failure of this Government. The Housing Minister, the hon. Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean), is the 15th since the Tories came to power and the sixth to hold the post in the past 12 months alone. What hope do ordinary people have with such chaos at the very heart of Government?

Labour will build the homes that people need. We will take steps to meet demand in the decades to come and we must also boost social housing, as I said to my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz). That is how a Labour Government will fix Britain’s broken housing market for people in Slough and across our nation.

If the Government cannot, or will not, commit to matching Labour’s focus on this vital issue, if they cannot deliver genuinely affordable homes and if they continue to let this programme fall even further behind, they should just admit that they have given up trying to help the millions struggling with housing across our country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under you in the Chair, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) on securing this important debate and on the compelling speech with which he opened it. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Coventry North West (Taiwo Owatemi), for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury), for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier) and for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) and the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) for participating this afternoon and for a series of powerful speeches.

The debate has covered a range of concerns, many relating to the housing crisis more widely, but, on the specific matter of the affordable homes programme, most fell within two broad categories—namely, the performance of the programme over recent years and the more fundamental issues of its design and purpose. I want to address each of those in turn.

When it comes to the performance of the programme, there is clearly significant room for improvement. The comprehensive National Audit Office report on the operation of the AHP since 2015, which was published last year, details concerns on to a wide range of issues—including governance, transparency and oversight—many of which were echoed in a report published shortly afterwards by the Public Accounts Committee. I would be grateful if, as part of his response, the Minister could tell the House whether the Department has acted on the eight specific recommendations made by the NAO in its report, and could take the opportunity to update hon. Members on the steps that his Department committed to taking in its response to the PAC.

A particular criticism levelled at the programme by both the NAO and the PAC and referenced by my hon. Friend the Member for Slough in opening the debate was the fact that targets were unlikely to be met. We know that, taken together, the 2016 and 2021 programmes are likely to miss their combined target by approximately 32,000 homes, with a shortfall of 9,000 starts under the 2016 programme compounded by a projected 23,000 shortfall in the current one. There is also a clear risk that the programme will fail to meet its sub-targets on supported accommodation and rural housing.

Opposition Members recognise that some of the factors undermining delivery on the targets are entirely out of the Government’s control, but there are others—such as local planning authority capacity and the need for funding and financing mechanisms to support providers in upgrading their stock—that the Government could take more proactive steps to mitigate. Might the Minister provide us with some assurance this afternoon that the Government are at least actively looking at what more can be done in that regard? Can he also explain whether and, if so, how rules about grant funding under the current programme might be being made more flexible—not least in terms of increased grant funding per unit—with a view to sustaining the Department’s central forecast of 157,000 completions in the face of inflationary pressure?

Lastly, when it comes to assessing the overall performance of the programme, effective scrutiny is still very much hampered by the absence of transparency and open reporting. The Department has now committed to providing an annual report to Parliament on programme delivery, but might the Minister go further today and commit at least to having Homes England publish its annual AHP targets, as the Greater London Authority has already done?

Let me turn to the design and purpose of the programme. One of the more damning conclusions of the NAO report was that the AHP lacks strong incentives for housing providers to deliver affordable homes in areas of high housing need and high affordability pressure. I would be grateful if the Minister could therefore update the House on how the Department is improving the way it works with local authorities to address local need, and tell us whether any further measures are being explored to ensure that more grant-funded affordable housing flows to areas of high need.

Providing more homes in such areas is, of course, not the only wider Government objective in respect of which the current programme is falling short. To me at least, it simply beggars belief that both the Department and Homes England did not include any specific targets relating to emissions reductions in the 2021 programme, with the result that outside London the Government are financing the construction of new affordable homes that in all likelihood we will have to retrofit in years to come.

The Government have committed to exploring the cost and deliverability of additional net zero requirements, but only in a successor to the 2021 programme.

[Valerie Vaz]

My hon. Friend is making an interesting speech. Does he agree that every new home should have a solar panel fitted when it is built?

[Matthew Pennycook]

There is a strong case for that. It is an issue—one of many—that we are exploring in detail. The situation speaks to a wider failure, which is the abolition of the zero homes standard by, I think, the coalition Government. We built tens if not hundreds of thousands of homes over recent years that we will have to retrofit at great cost. The least we can do is change the criteria the programme operates on, so that at least we build net zero-ready homes for which we will not have to do that in years to come. I would be grateful if the Minister could explain what precisely is stopping changes being made to the programme to ensure, as the Greater London Authority has done, that all new grant-funded homes are net zero carbon and air quality neutral.

Those issues aside, there is the more fundamental and important question of whether the programme provides the right kind of homes to meet affordable housing need in England. The answer of Labour Members is a categorical no. We believe it is a problem that the programme has constrained the overall amount of grant funding available for sub-market rented homes while also failing to deliver an increase in the supply of low-cost home ownership properties. We believe it is a problem that the Government’s decision to prioritise the so-called affordable rent tenure of up to 80% of local market rents has squeezed the amount of programme funding available for new homes for social rent and ballooned the number of households in temporary accommodation and on local housing waiting lists, as well as the housing benefit bill, as a result. Those are not technical design flaws; they reflect political choices about what a national affordable housing programme should aim to achieve and whether its primary purpose should be meeting the needs of people on the lowest incomes.

There is a clear difference of opinion between the Opposition and the Government on this matter. We believe the overriding purpose of a national affordable housing programme should be to provide as many genuinely affordable homes as possible, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch rightly argued. The Government believe, at least post-2018, that the purpose of such a programme is to provide—reluctantly —a small number of genuinely affordable social rented homes and a much larger number of sub-market rented and home ownership units that are branded as affordable, but, in practice, are anything but for many low-income households in swathes of the country. That is why—with the debasement of language we have seen in recent years in the concept of affordable housing—the Housing and Planning Minister could argue with a straight face in a debate that took place last week on the future of social housing that Conservative-led Governments since 2010 have outperformed the last Labour Government on affordable housing, despite the fact that the last Labour Government built over twice as many social homes as Conservative-led Governments since 2010 have managed, and that at no point over the past decade has annual social housing supply ever matched the levels delivered by the last Labour Government.

We want the performance of the affordable homes programme to improve between now and the general election, and I look forward to the Minister detailing the various ways in which the Government are attempting to achieve that. But as laudable an aim as fine-tuning the existing programme is, Labour is clear that a very different programme will be required in the future to markedly increase the supply of new net zero-ready, genuinely affordable homes to rent and buy, as is our aim. It is an aim based on a reassessment of the amount of grant funding directed toward sub-market rent and the building of social rented homes in particular; on a review of the scope of eligible sub-market products, not least the so-called affordable rent tenure; and on a reappraisal of whether there are better low-cost home ownership products than shared ownership.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lee Rowley]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right that it is not enough, but the whole point of trying to build more properties and of using programmes such as the affordable housing programme to bridge, where that is necessary, into home ownership through rent and part ownership is to boost those numbers. My point is not that there are no challenges—I acknowledged such challenges at the very top of my speech. It is to try to insert balance, if only into the record: some progress has been made over the last 13 years. A substantial number of properties have been built over that time—for home ownership, for rent and in the affordable sector—and most importantly, after a relatively clear-cut decline under Governments of all parties, the decline seems to have been arrested. There is a long way to go and there is absolutely the need for growth. I want everybody who wants to own their own home to have the opportunity to do so, but I hope that this is at least an indicator that we are moving, to an extent, in the right direction.

I have the greatest respect for the hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury), and would never dream of reading my phone when he is speaking. I was specifically texting—this is both the benefit and the tyranny of having mobile devices in a debate—about the point he had raised. I regret to tell him that I have been unable to get an answer in the 40 minutes since he spoke, but I will ask the Department to write to him. I will be honest with him: I do not know whether the Department has purview here, and I do not know any of the details of the problem that he highlighted. It is always a challenge for local communities when developers are unable to complete the properties that they have indicated they will. I know that causes issues. I have a similar one in the village of Tupton in North East Derbyshire, where the developer unfortunately went out of business and the site is now mothballed. North East Derbyshire District Council is working hard to try to move that issue on. I will endeavour to write to the hon. Member for Weaver Vale either way, and will see whether the Department can provide any advice or information about the point that he raised; I am grateful for his doing so.

The hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier) raised a number of incredibly important and detailed points, to which I will ask the Department and the Minister responsible to respond in detail. Part of the answer to some of her questions will, I hope, be answered by the further details that come forward in the next stage of the affordable housing programme, but I will ask for a letter to be provided to the hon. Lady with more detail about the specific questions that she highlighted.

The hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden made an extremely powerful intervention about the challenges of temporary accommodation—an issue that we all are aware of. We all want standards, quality and conditions to improve. As a former councillor in central London, albeit a number of years ago, I am under no illusions about some of the challenges of temporary accommodation. The Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, my right hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), has been clear that improvements are needed in this area and has indicated that further legislation will be forthcoming. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden for highlighting her concerns, and I hope the Department can make progress in the coming months and years.

The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) made a very important point about the challenges of access to labour, particularly in rural areas due to geography and topography and the like. I am sorry to hear about the issues his constituents are experiencing. While housing is a devolved matter, it is important, and I am grateful that he has put on record those issues and the work he is doing to address them. He will be aware that, at least from an England perspective, we are seeking to legislate as part of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill in order to offer councils the opportunity—which they do not have to take up; some will choose to, some will not—to vary council tax for second homes. That will hopefully put an additional tool in the arsenal of local authorities to respond, in England, to the local challenges he has raised.

The spokesperson for the Opposition, the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich, raised an important point about capacity in local planning authorities, which is an issue that the Housing Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean), and I are both involved in. Within planning, nationally significant infrastructure projects fall under my aegis. That is different from the debate we are having today, but there are very live conversations within the NSIPs and major infrastructure realms. I know from my colleague the Housing Minister that it is the same with regard to capacity in local planning authorities and within the appeals process, where a number of applications end up in their final stages.

The hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich raised a number of important points about green homes. We need to make progress on multiple different imperatives and initiatives. The part L uplift, which we brought in in the summer of 2021, constituted a 30% increase and improvement in standards. That is in place now and has been for almost a year. The transition period for the part L uplift ends shortly, meaning that all houses built from now on will be 30% more efficient than previously. That is a massive increase compared to a number of years ago. However, there is a trade-off here, and we are trying to work through the issues and make progress in all aspects.

The Labour party has spent much of this debate—reasonably, in my view—saying that we need more houses, and that they need to be affordable to own and rent. We agree, which is why we are trying to make progress in this area. We also need to make progress on the environmental agenda, but those things must be brought into balance. Every single time an hon. Member stands up in this place and says, “We just need this one thing added in”, we need to understand that there is cost involved. That is where we have to make considerations. The part L uplift is a great example: we are trying to make progress environmentally, while also trying to answer the question reasonably posed by hon. Members across this place as to how we increase housing supply in general. We hope we are striking the right balance.

[Valerie Vaz]

The Minister is doing a great job of expanding his speech. There is absolutely no cost to ensuring that there is an obligation for every new home built to have solar panels. Why does the Minister not look at that? My hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook), Labour’s Front-Bench spokesperson, has said that all these new houses have to be retrofitted. Surely the Minister can consider what can be done with new houses in terms of the environmental factors?

[Lee Rowley]

I understand the point that the right hon. Lady is making, but there is a cost to mandating solar panels on new properties: the cost that will be paid for the initial transaction. If right hon. and hon. Members want to see supply boosted, we have to accept that we have to set a balance; we are trying to do that by saying both that it is important to make progress with regard to the environmental imperatives that have been rightly highlighted and—to answer the exam question—to get the kind of supply that everybody in this debate wants to see.

I gently caution hon. Members not to be too prescriptive regarding the technology we use. Although solar panels will be appropriate in many instances—I would guess the majority of instances, as a non-expert and a non-surveyor—they will not be the solution to reducing the carbon footprint of every single new property built. We should all collectively accept that solar panels will not be a useful or effective way to spend money in that cohort—in situations where, for whatever reason, including the wrong aspect, the wrong part of the country or the wrong geography. We should seek not to impose a requirement in that regard but instead to say, “If you have that amount of money within the system to be able to spend on making that building greener, the Government will not be prescriptive that you have to do something that isn’t necessarily going to be effective, but we will encourage you to use that money to make it effective, be it in a different form of technology or doing it in a different way.”

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Valerie Vaz Excerpts

Tuesday 21st March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse).

We have had plenty of Budget debates, but this Budget has not fixed anything. The Chancellor stood here, in the middle of the strikes and the collapse of the Silicon Valley Bank, and said nothing about those events in his speech—just like an avatar Chancellor. For months, the unions asked to meet, but the Government refused, hoping to break them. The unions were not moved, except to make a concession, but, like President Zelensky, their cause was right. Worst of all, as a former Secretary of State for Health, the Chancellor knows the cause of the junior doctors, because he picked a fight with them, allowing a few senior doctors to top up their pension while denying the many junior doctors a decent pay rise. We need to be able to recruit and retain our brilliant staff who take care of the country when we need it most: the public servants, like the late Ruth Perry.

I agree with the Chancellor on something—getting rid of local enterprise partnerships, which are totally unaccountable—but he is placing his faith in the Mayor, who is so far removed from my constituents. There was a press release in my inbox at 8.30 am on 14 March, the day before the Budget, crowing about the west midlands being an investment zone. I thought we had to hear about it here in the House first.

The Chancellor set out his Es. We know what happens to people who have too many Es, but this Budget was not hyperactive. It fixed nothing, not even the economic injustice of non-dom status. Nor did it impose a further windfall tax on the huge profits of energy companies while people need support with their heating bills. There is £10.4 billion on the table.

There was nothing about the problems that local authorities have faced over the years. In Conservative-controlled Walsall, we have an abandoned town hall with no one there. The former police station on Green Lane is a pile of rubble. Nothing has changed. Jack Lowe, who was 18, Bailey Atkinson and Akeem Francis-Kerr were murdered in and around the town centre. On Milton Street, there are prostitutes and drug dealing—shopkeepers are saying they are tired of seeing young people with money in their pockets. I thank the Police and Crime Commissioner Simon Foster and Chief Superintendent Phil Dolby for meeting me on Friday to discuss the situation.

Our Sure Starts, an important focus for families, are gone. Palfrey Sure Start was rated outstanding. There is a lack of health visitors to support families. There is no investment in schools; Blue Coat Church of England Academy is still waiting for money to fix its heating. There is no direct support for children or for those who have been excluded from school. The Chancellor talks about childcare, but his policy will not come into effect until 2024. And what about social care? There is nothing. This Budget fixes nothing. It does not invest in people.

The Chancellor wants to get people with disabilities back into work, but we cannot even get a lift to help people with disabilities or parents with pushchairs to access Bescot Stadium station. I wrote to the Minister, who told me to write to the Mayor; the Mayor told me to write to the Minister again. He said that there was no money, but he has £70 million of unspent Commonwealth games legacy funding. My constituents cannot wait until 2029 for access.

The Chancellor said that he wants us to be the best place to do business and work and the best place for research and development, but what about other research? It cannot all be about digital and computers. He truly is an avatar Chancellor. There was no explanation for the return to the Treasury of £1.6 billion that should have been allocated to Horizon Europe. Is that what is holding us back from joining Horizon? Will the Chief Secretary to the Treasury please ensure that it is paid over so our scientists can collaborate on their research?

There is a democratic deficit. I have outlined the stuff of life that keeps people in our communities going. The Chancellor missed out an E—E for excuses—but so far the country has given him an F for failure. He is failing our constituents, our communities and the country. There is an alternative. It is time for change, and only Labour can bring that change.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call Anthony Browne.

Draft Police and Crime Commissioner Elections (Amendment) Order 2022 Draft Assistance with Voting for Persons with Disabilities (Amendments) Regulations 2022

Valerie Vaz Excerpts

Tuesday 15th November 2022 General Committees

[Lee Rowley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question, and I understand the challenge that he makes. I will say two things. First, the part of the process that we are talking about is essentially a mechanical one; it is about ensuring that the people who are in need of support can get to the place where they can vote, and the part of the process where people are making decisions will likely be independent of that. There are a range of devices, talked about separately, which will be available so that the individual is able to vote and is supported in the way that they need. Secondly, I am happy to write to my hon. Friend with clarification on his specific point, if that would be helpful. A piece of draft guidance has already come out, which the Electoral Commission has put forward with regard to some elements of these orders, and further guidance will be coming forward. There will potentially be an opportunity, where my hon. Friend or others have concerns about the more intricate details, to clarify them through the Electoral Commission guidance in the future.

The changes are made to UK parliamentary elections by the Elections Act 2022, and the instrument makes equivalent changes across a range of other polls, including most mayoral elections, local authority governance referendums and neighbourhood planning referendums in England, along with police and crime commissioner elections in England and Wales and MP recall petitions across the UK.

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

Can the Minister confirm it is the Government’s policy to have police and crime commissioner elections, particularly in the west midlands?

[Lee Rowley]

Police and crime commissioners have been an established part of the electoral landscape of the United Kingdom since 2012. I cannot comment on individual areas, but there is always a debate about how things are organised—Members should not read anything into that. The principle of police and crime commissioner elections is seeded. Those elections are utilised and are making differences on a daily basis across the country.

The proposed changes are being replicated at other polls, including at English local elections, Greater London Authority elections and London mayoral elections. Separate secondary legislation following a negative procedure will be laid before the House in due course to cover those. The instruments today are essential to ensure that improvements to support disabled voters in the polling stations introduced by the Elections Act are applied consistently across all polls reserved to the UK Government.

Solar Farms and Battery Storage

Valerie Vaz Excerpts

Wednesday 8th June 2022 Westminster Hall

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

Thank you for calling me to speak, Mr Paisley, and it is a pleasure to serve under you as Chairman.

I thank the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (James Gray) for securing this debate and I obviously thank Mr Speaker for granting it. It is very timely, certainly for me and for my constituency, because we, too, have an application for a battery energy storage system in an area called the Duckery—hon. Members can imagine what it is like—in Chapel Lane. It is a beautiful part of Walsall South and has a large amount of green belt around it, with St Margaret’s Church, Great Barr, very nearby. Anesco Ltd put in a planning application on 6 December 2021: I always worry about applications that go in just before Christmas, which makes it really difficult for local residents to be consulted.

The hon. Member is absolutely right—he does have green credentials. I have served on the Environmental Audit Committee with him. In fact, I seem to remember he was arranging an expedition to the south pole. Sadly, I will not be able to take part because I am not on the Committee anymore, but I might join him anyway. Maybe another book will come out of that.

I am really pleased that the hon. Gentleman focused on the national planning policy framework, because that is key, as it says the green belt should be protected. That is why it is concerning that this battery energy storage system is going to be placed on green-belt land. The Black Country core strategy says that green-belt land should be protected, and the Walsall site allocation document reaffirms that. In the main Chamber at the moment, they are discussing the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill. Notes on the Bill state that green-belt land will be made greener. We might think that means it will be protected, but we cannot be sure that will happen, which is why it is important the Minister gives us confirmation that green-belt land will be protected.

The area of Walsall South, near the Duckery, is grade 1 and grade 2 agricultural land. Previously, rapeseed oil was grown there. As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said, the Ukrainian war means we are short of sunflower oil and are looking to alternatives, which is why it is important that the area should be protected and not built on.

On 26 May, Anesco Ltd put in further documents looking at alternative sites. Let us look at those alternative sites. The planning officer from nearby Sandwell has said that the applicant should demonstrate why this development is necessary at the sensitive location of the Duckery on Chapel Lane, and why this proposal could not be adjacent to a substation power line on nearby land. There is a place called the Oldbury national grid substation, which could be used. It is near the national grid and that is where this facility should be placed.

My concern is that councils do not always take into account what is said and so I want a commitment from the Minister. A planning officer can make a recommendation in a report, and then the application goes through the cabinet or the planning committee, and they do not take local residents into account. I have suffered such a case for a site in my constituency, where 2,000 residents were against a particular site called Narrow Lane. We want a commitment from the Government and the Minister that they are committed to protecting the green belt. I ask the Minister to confirm that commitment, which is set out in the national planning policy framework, the Black Country core strategy and the site allocation document.

The hon. Member for North Wiltshire also mentioned that there have been fires in battery energy storage systems in Australia and California. Has an assessment been done on the safety of these sites?

The bottom line is that my constituents do not want green-belt land to be built on. They want it preserved. The pandemic has shown, like never before, how they need green-belt land and that such areas need to be protected.

Planning Decisions: Local Involvement

Valerie Vaz Excerpts

Monday 21st June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

I have had to cut my speech down.

I welcome this motion, following the publication of the report by the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee. The Minister will know that my Adjournment debate was a foretaste of what my constituents have had to put up with and what the future holds if the Government proceed with the as yet unpublished White Paper.

The Government’s hopeless response is to exclude the public even more from the process, instead of improving processes now. It is a developers’ charter that is becoming the people’s nightmare. The Select Committee’s report included an interesting statistic on the planning process, stating on page 112:

“63% said they were not satisfied with their experience. 61% said they did not think that the planning process was fair.”

The Minister will know the story of Narrow Lane, but I have to repeat it. In Walsall, we had a plan. We had the site allocation document—a document on how the land will be used. There was extensive consultation and it was approved by the planning inspector in 2019. Without any notice or consultation, Walsall Council’s cabinet decided that Narrow Lane was to be the location for a Traveller transit site. The site is on a junction, so there is poor air quality and there have been a number of accidents, including one two weeks ago, when an elderly person was knocked over.

The council’s cabinet agreed on the location without even looking at the site allocation document or referring to it in the background papers, and that is what is going to happen under the Government’s proposals: they will say that they have had the consultation with the local plan, but there will be no further involvement with our constituents and councillors, and the Secretary of State will be free to decide what they want, without local involvement. Here is the warning: the decision maker can depart from the local plan. Our constituents will remain helpless under these hopeless proposals.

The Government say that this is about housing, but 1 million homes have been approved but not built. Some are built on floodplains, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy) mentioned, and there is no mention of climate change. Why does the Minister not mandate that every new build should have solar panels on the roof? There are serious concerns about making planning changes.

My next point is about transparency and conflicts of interest.

[Emma Hardy]

I am sorry to intervene so early and thank my right hon. Friend for taking my intervention. My point was about not just building on floodplains, but the importance of having flood insurance for all the new homes that are not currently eligible for the Flood Re insurance scheme.

[Valerie Vaz]

I absolutely agree.

In our case, it was agreed in the SAD that the transit site would be placed on a site that was environmentally suitable, near to a settled community—everything to integrate that community—but it happened to be in the constituency of the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Walsall North (Eddie Hughes), who used to be a councillor on Walsall Council. The portfolio holder used to work for him, but he now works for the Conservative party, registering his interest only days after the scrutiny committee meeting. Our legal advice said that there was bias, just as there was with the approval of the £1 billion Westferry Printworks in Tower Hamlets. The Secretary of State has already admitted that that was

“unlawful by reason of apparent bias.”

I have asked the Minister to investigate the earlier decision of Walsall Council’s cabinet. I ask him again: could he please do so? If he is serious about making changes, could he also mandate that every planning committee has a compulsory recorded vote for every decision that they make, as that would increase transparency and accountability?

In conclusion, we need more consultation, not less, including with all civic society and historical associations. The Town and Country Planning Association said:

“All of these reforms have a common theme of removing local voices from the process.”

Buildings and places do not exist without the people who breathe life into them, just as we have seen during the pandemic. I urge the Minister to listen to local people, give them back control and end the people’s nightmare.

--- Later in debate ---

[Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)]

I am very pleased to be able to speak in this debate today, not just because there are local issues that I wish to raise, but because planning policy reveals so much about who really has a say in deciding the face and quality of our towns and country in the years and decades to come.

There are natural tensions between residents, conservationists, people seeking new homes and the developers who stand to benefit. A fair planning system gives them all an opportunity to present their cases and to be heard equally so that provision can be made without exploiting or spoiling our landscape and heritage. If this developer’s charter becomes law, there would be no way for local people to object to bad or inappropriate proposals, such as those to build over Peel Hall in Warrington despite the valiant campaigning efforts over the past three decades by residents against proposals from Satnam. This vital green lung in our communities is beloved by residents and is a vital part of our area’s biodiversity.

Working with Warrington’s Labour council, I am looking at ways to make nature more accessible to residents, including bringing together the green spaces and nature reserves that ring the town through connecting cycleways and pathways to create a Warrington orbital park, and working with volunteers to clean up these spaces. I am also working with our vibrant creative sector to bring sculptures and other artworks to the parks to celebrate our local culture and heritage. All of this is now under threat.

The Government’s White Paper has not only nothing on the natural environment, but almost nothing on affordable rent or on net zero. It does not address wider infrastructure such as transport, retail or leisure, and simply puts developers in the driving seat of their cranes and diggers and gives them a green light to do what they like. I am not opposed to house building. Indeed, probably the largest volume of casework that I deal with relates to the lack of appropriate housing, especially affordable housing for large families and for constituents of my age looking to get on to the housing ladder.

[Valerie Vaz]

It is not just about houses, though, is it? It is about decent quality houses and homes.

[Charlotte Nichols]

My right hon. Friend is exactly right. We need more three and four-bedroom family properties in Warrington where people can have a good standard of living, but what developers want is to convert or build endless one-bedroom flats where they benefit from their highest profit margins while delivering the least for families and our community.

Communities should have more say on planning and development. They know what is needed locally, and systems work better where people are working together rather than being shut out. So why have the Government put forward such obviously terrible proposals, angering their Back Benchers and even their own voters, as we saw in the by-election last week? Could it be connected to the fact that developer donations to the Tory party have risen 400% since the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) became leader of his party? Scarcely a week goes by without stories emerging of the Communities Secretary weighing in on behalf of developers who have made big donations to him or the Conservatives.

We can see the threat to our green and pleasant land from these greedy, present plans. I suspect that the Government would like to drop these proposals, but that is difficult when they have been bought. If Ministers press ahead with this developers’ charter, they must know that it will be resisted in the country, even in areas they have taken for granted. I call on them to listen to their constituents, not their paymasters, and to drop the proposals.

Transit Site: Walsall

Valerie Vaz Excerpts

Wednesday 26th May 2021 Commons Chamber

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

I thank the Speaker for granting this very important Adjournment debate about the choice of Narrow Lane as a transit site in my constituency. Narrow Lane is one of the oldest historically identifiable places in the neighbourhood of Pleck in Walsall. It currently includes a vacant site, which recently has been used for a neighbourhood office and a small home for the elderly. The site is surrounded by a densely populated and densely developed residential and commercial area and stands at the junction of two very busy major roads.

Along with thousands of local residents, I was flabbergasted when Walsall Council decided to choose this site for development as a temporary Gypsy, Roma and Traveller transit site. How the council made that decision and why goes to the very heart of why residents and voters feel that they are ignored and trampled over by politicians who refuse to include local communities in decisions that affect their lives. I know that the Minister will have a lot more representatives beating at his door with the planning Bill for very similar reasons. Not only has the decision-making process been completely flawed, but the site is environmentally unsuitable for a Travellers site because of severe air pollution issues, which would place serious health risks on children and families living in vehicles and caravans.

On behalf of the people of Pleck and the wider Walsall community, I want to persuade the Minister to do something about this, to launch an investigation into the decision-making process by Walsall Council, and to request Walsall Council to withdraw the current planning application and revisit its decision to place a transit site at Narrow Lane.

This is not about local residents rejecting the GRT community; on the contrary, it is about supporting my constituents and supporting the GRT community to ensure that the most suitable site is chosen in Walsall if one is required. It is also about preventing serious health issues for children and families who are already subject to poor health outcomes in comparison with the population generally.

Why did Narrow Lane appear from nowhere to be the council’s choice for the GRT transit site? The council had already identified and approved sufficient new Travellers sites to accommodate a transit site proposal. The Walsall borough site allocation document, which I will refer to as the SAD, was only recently approved by the planning inspector, in 2019. The proposals for new Travellers sites were presented to the public and the stakeholders for consultation, approved by Walsall Council and finally approved by the planning inspector.

The SAD is Walsall Council’s key land use document. It identifies sites that can be developed for new Travellers sites: Willenhall Lane caravan site, two pitches; the rear of 48 to 72 Foster Street, Blakenall, three pitches; and Dolphin Close, Goscote, 10 pitches. Dolphin Close is identified as particularly suitable because integration with the local community would be helped by the presence of a

“large GT community in bricks and mortar housing nearby”.

There is no distinction in the SAD on whether their use should be as a permanent site or a transit site. I have visited Dolphin Close. It is tranquil; it overlooks the canal and has open space. It has cleaner air for children to breathe, is close to a primary school, has road links nearby in every direction, and the Traveller community has settled links in the local community that will encourage community cohesion. There is a reason why Dolphin Close was identified as recently as 2019: it is the most suitable larger site in the borough, whether for permanent or transit pitches.

Legal opinion confirms that the decision taken by Walsall Council’s cabinet was flawed. It failed to take steps to properly inform itself; it took into account irrelevant considerations; and there was apparent bias. Regarding the council’s failure to take reasonable steps to inform itself, it could have looked at the relevant materials, in particular the SAD—the key land use document, which should have been central to the decision on where the site should be allocated and which had been the subject of extensive consultation. Yet no explanation or consideration was given to why the three sites identified in the SAD, which were capable of satisfying the more demanding criteria for permanent sites, were not considered.

What about consultation? The council designated this as a key decision—a very important one with significant financial or community impact. Article 11 of the council’s rules states that all decisions of the council have to be made in accordance with principles that include due consultation and a presumption in favour of openness. There was a working group, which met two representatives of the National Federation of Gypsy Liaison Groups and fifteen other people, mostly council employees. There was no wider consultation, and a host of other stakeholders, including the people who live nearby and even the democratically elected Member of Parliament and councillors, were not consulted. There was no list of potential sites.

As it is a departure from the widely consulted-on SAD, the council should have consulted on the Narrow Lane site and any other potential sites that were considered but not identified in the SAD, on the grounds of fairness, transparency and good administration. The issue was raised by local resident Shakil Younis, who told the council’s scrutiny committee:

“Wolverhampton City Council have got a similar project that they’re doing with their transit site; what they did was a public consultation. They invited all the people directly affected by these proposals and they sat down and had a discussion with them. But what have Walsall Council done? Nothing. we’ve not even had a letter, nothing. we mean nothing to them, just got to pay Council Tax .

Also at a meeting of the scrutiny committee, a council officer said that

“it is absolutely right to say that there was no direct consultation around this site”.

The council will say that it will consult on the planning application that was made on 19 March, but section 70 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 says that the planning committee is unlikely to consider site selection. That consultation will not address the issue of how Narrow Lane has been chosen; and whether there are more suitable sites that were overlooked or rejected.

What about the other criticisms—failing to take into account relevant considerations and taking into account irrelevant considerations? It is unclear why the existing criteria in the SAD were not used. If there were new criteria, there should have been a wider consultation process. It is not clear who drew up the criteria set out in appendix A of the council’s report to the cabinet or how they were settled on. No explanation has been given of how those criteria are applied as part of the desktop review. 

The refined set of criteria has not been disclosed to residents or councillors and is unexplained. There is no evidence that cabinet members themselves were presented with the refined set of criteria or an explanation for its use and how that affected the choice of Narrow Lane. That prompts questions of what the criteria were, how they were formulated, how many development sites they were applied to, how they were applied, and why Narrow Lane emerged as the only suitable site to put to cabinet.  

In Bushell v. the Secretary of State for the Environment, fairness was said to require disclosure of sufficient information about the reasons relied on by a public authority so that members of the public can challenge the accuracy of any facts and the validity of the arguments. Decisions based on undisclosed policies or criteria may be unlawful. Is the Minister going to say that that is acceptable?  

Why were environmental and health factors not taken into account by the cabinet in the decision? The Minister will know about a landmark case that established that air pollution from an adjacent road was a material cause of the death of nine-year-old Ella Kissi-Debrah.  Walsall Council appears to have given no consideration to the implications of that case for any children who will be affected by the decision. The Narrow Lane site is adjacent to the junction of Darlaston Road and Old Pleck Road, two busy A roads with signal controlled traffic. The Narrow Lane site suffers from extremely poor air quality—a criterion Walsall Council stipulated must be used in determining that locations/sites are not suitable for Travellers’ sites.  

Walsall Council’s own document “Air Quality—Walsall Nitrogen Dioxide Areas of Exceedance 2020” clearly identifies the junction and area surrounding Pleck as a nitrogen dioxide exceedance area. I raised that in a letter to the chief executive on 9 February, but received no response. The headteacher of the local primary school, Lynne Cherry, also raised that issue at the scrutiny meeting. She said:

“I do think the site is a poor site; I know for a fact how busy the roads are around there, I know how poor the air quality is and also how fast the roads are because the emergency vehicles will go to the Manor Hospital; it is really dangerous.” 

Dr Hesham, who also gave evidence to the scrutiny committee, commented: 

“The effect on children is particularly significant. The vast majority of children in hospital present with infections and the majority of those infections are respiratory infections, infecting the heart and the lungs in upper airways”.  

The report that went to cabinet claims in paragraph 4.34 that key council priorities for children will be met by the proposal for a Travellers site at Narrow Lane. Yet there are no comments or input from the director of children’s services in the report to justify that bold statement. Where does the director notify the cabinet that she supports families and children living in caravans and vehicles at a polluted junction of two busy main roads?  She does not.  No reasonable or responsible director of children’s services would.  

The cabinet report also claims that the health priorities of the council will be met. Where is the data on air quality and air pollution at this busy junction? The council identified this spot as suffering from poor air quality. A reasonable portfolio holder would be very concerned about housing children in a polluted environment when cleaner alternatives are available.  Where are the director of public health’s comments and analysis of the Narrow Lane site?  There are none. 

The report claims improved health for children living next to a busy road junction. Where is the evidence?  The council employs experts for public health and children’s services. Their analysis, based on data and real evidence, and their opinion and recommendations must form—and should have formed—an integral part of such a report. That is shockingly absent. There was no consideration of air quality and no evidence of an air quality assessment.

Sadly, in press reports, the children and families who would use a new Travellers site for transit purposes were described as “renegades” by members of Walsall’s cabinet. However, I did not think I would see in 2021 Traveller families being deliberately housed in an unhealthy environment, subject to poor air quality and pollution, when there is a perfectly viable alternative available and agreed upon.   

Turning now to bias, what would a reasonable or informed observer conclude? Councillor Adrian Andrew was the portfolio holder for regeneration and is deputy leader of Walsall Council, and the report went to the cabinet in his name and was presented by him. As confirmed by his entry in the council’s register of interests, he worked for the hon. Member for Walsall North (Eddie Hughes), who is aware, as I have told him, that I am mentioning his name in this debate. That is what was on the council’s website and what was held out to the public. That was until, at the scrutiny committee meeting, in response to the suggestion that this affected Councillor Andrew’s decision making, as the three sites identified in the SAD for the future Traveller sites but not chosen by the cabinet were all found in Walsall North, he said, “This is not true.” At the scrutiny committee meeting, the leader of the council said that he had this information in his pocket for eight months. That was not disclosed, yet the requirement under the members’ code of conduct, at paragraph 2.1(3), requires members to disclose this to the monitoring officer within 28 days of the change.

Within days, Councillor Andrew amended his entry in the register of interests to state that he is employed as the campaign manager for the Conservative party, although he has not included the fact, as confirmed on his LinkedIn profile, that this is for Walsall North and Walsall South. The fact that the three sites designated in the SAD were in Walsall North could lead to an informed observer thinking that the cabinet’s minds were closed to alternatives because they did not serve their party political agenda. The fact that we now know that Councillor Andrew is paid by the Conservative party to further its interests in the locality of the Narrow Lane site and in Walsall places an even greater question mark over the issue of bias in the making of this decision.

But there were other inconsistent matters raised at the cabinet meeting. Councillor Andrew said the Narrow Lane site was suitable as it was “near to motorways.” He appears to be completely unaware that air pollution is a criterion that must be used in determining suitable Traveller sites, despite this being Walsall Council policy. Councillor Perry said that the transit site option should not be rushed into:

“Legislation is changing and it’s going to change again, which will give further protective powers to the authority and to the police.”

I agree. Rushing into the transit site option is exactly what Walsall Council is doing, with the application put on an expedited timescale in time for the summer: not only that, but rushing through a decision at the height of the pandemic lockdown, when it would be far more difficult for residents to express their opinions or hold the cabinet to account. Councillor Bird concluded at the cabinet meeting:

“It may be and has proven to be the case in Sandwell, where the temporary transit site has never been used, because the travellers know that if they go into Sandwell, they will be directed to that site and they don’t want to do that.”

So the leader of Walsall Council believes that the transit site may never even be used by the GRT community in Walsall, and yet approved a budget of £160,000 for the construction of the site before consulting with residents in the area. He thinks that the transit site may act as a deterrent for Travellers entering into Walsall, which undermines his very claim that this site is being proposed in the best interests of the GRT community.

What does this tell us about the governance at Walsall Council? I would suggest that the Minister, if he could, view the proceedings of the scrutiny committee, which resulted from a call-in by Councillor Aftab Nawaz and ward councillors Harbans Sarohi, Khizar Hussain and Naheed Gultasib. All our councillors must abide by the Nolan principles of behaviour in public life when making decisions. The focus is on objectivity, openness and transparency. By law, the scrutiny committee’s purpose is to act as a check and balance on the cabinet of Walsall Council, not a rubber stamp. Members of a scrutiny committee must adopt an independent mindset. Members must put aside the natural impulse to support decisions made by their own party. The way that the scrutiny committee examined this matter does not bear out these principles at all.

I call on the Minister to carry out an investigation into the way that Walsall Council made its decisions and, in particular, the decision to place a GRT transit site at Narrow Lane. The reasons are compelling and can be summarised as follows: flawed decision making that did not take into account relevant considerations and took into account irrelevant considerations; failure of the council to take reasonable steps to inform itself; hidden conflicts of interests; failures by members to declare relevant pecuniary interests and to maintain the Nolan principles; perceived bias of key decision makers; lack of scrutiny of cabinet decisions; and a failure to abide by statutory guidelines.

I know that the Minister, who is a straightforward person, will look at the facts. My constituents, the residents of Pleck, have had their rights trampled on. The selection of the site was wrong and the planning application should be withdrawn. I am confident that the Minister will come to the right conclusion and intervene with an investigation into this erroneous decision of Walsall Council. I will be very pleased to meet him to discuss this urgently.