Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,779 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
I thank my hon. Friend for securing such an important debate. Neighbourhood plans give local communities a voice. They know their areas better than anybody else. With this withdrawal of funding, the Government are basically saying that they know better. People will no longer have a voice or a say in their area, which is devastating for local communities.
Order. The winding-up speeches will have to start at 5.30 pm. There are 37 Members standing on both sides of the House. I am not allowed to impose a time limit, but were I to do so, it would be about four minutes. It is for Members to decide whether to allow their colleagues to speak or to take up more of the time, in which case it is quite clear that not everybody will be called to speak. I call John McDonnell.
Order.
I congratulate the hon. Lady on bringing this subject to the Chamber. Is she as mystified as I am by the fact that, when serving in the armed forces was at its most dangerous and there was conscription—namely during the second world war—people were only too happy for warriors of any sexuality to participate, and that many people of non-heterosexual orientation won gallantry medals, with no questions asked and full admiration rightly expressed?
Does the Minister agree that one of the worst features of the US justice system is the extreme process of plea bargaining, which gives such a huge differential if somebody pleads guilty that it creates a perverse incentive to do so, even if they are innocent but not confident that they will be acquitted? Can she guarantee that we are not going down that route, with a 40% discount for pleading guilty coupled with early release for other reasons?
I am very glad that the Minister has concentrated on the truth and justice aspect of the legacy Act. Can he reassure the House that in their proposals to repeal the legacy Act, the Government are not going to lose the opportunity of having the trade-off, as it were, between immunity from prosecution and truth recovery, which was always the basis of the legacy Act?
It is kind of the Minister to give way one more time. I urge Ministers not to be blinded by what political parties in Northern Ireland say, because the truth of the matter is that they have to take certain positions—usually ones that favour their side and disfavour the other side—and the prospect of getting all those parties to agree on something like this is minute. That is why the legacy Act cut through all that, in the same way that Nelson Mandela came up with a similar solution that worked in South Africa.
Is my hon. Friend aware that in the south-west the house building target for Somerset has risen by 41%, but in nearby Bristol, recently controlled by the Labour party, it has gone down by 11%?
Does my right hon. Friend agree that probably half of Labour Members are pleased with the enormous reductions in housing totals in their urban constituencies and those who represent rural constituencies are just too embarrassed to show their faces?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) for securing this debate. The Localism Act 2011 gave parish and town councils the ability to produce neighbourhood plans, which formed policies to make decisions on planning applications alongside a wider local plan. That was strengthened by the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, which gave greater weight to such plans when it came to planning decisions. That is because Conservatives believe that planning decisions should, to the greatest extent possible, be made with the consent of local communities. We believe that local residents know best what they need. Neighbourhood plans are an important way to allow residents to shape development in their area in a way that reflects local needs and priorities. There are several such neighbourhood plans in effect in my constituency, in Burnham-on-Sea and Highbridge, in Nether Stowey, in Puriton, and in Wembdon. There is even a referendum on a neighbourhood plan in Cannington going on tomorrow. I am sure there will be many hundreds of people in Cannington watching this debate at this very moment. I urge them to turn out and vote tomorrow. Neighbourhood plans are particularly important in my constituency, where Liberal Democrat-led Somerset council says it will take at least another four years to come up with a local plan that applies across the whole county. I would like to criticise it, but I understand it is fairly normal for a unitary authority to develop a new local plan. The previous Government provided funding for groups that wanted to create their own neighbourhood plan. It is very disappointing that the Government have now stopped that funding with no warning at all. Will the Minister explain the rationale for that decision? It is the latest in a series of decisions by the Government to take planning powers away from local people and give them to the Deputy Prime Minister. The Planning and Infrastructure Bill, for instance, seems designed to allow central Government to impose huge amounts of building in rural communities, especially those that do not vote Labour. A crucial element of the Bill is to reduce the power of planning committees, which will mean that there is less democratic accountability for development. No doubt the Minister will disagree with me, but I wonder whether he will reflect on why Somerset has had a 41% increase in its house building target while Bristol has had an 11% reduction. I am not against development. We need houses so that our children can afford a place of their own, but they need to be supported by the right infrastructure, such as GPs, schools, transport links and parks. I want us to build beautifully, and in line with the character of the local area. According to a report by the University of Reading, almost 90% of neighbourhood development plans seek to improve the quality of development in their area. That is often done through policies and guidelines to influence new building design or alterations to existing buildings. My message to the Government is simple: we must support local people to properly engage in the planning process and have their say over development in their communities.
If neighbourhood plans are as important as the Minister says, why are the Government withdrawing funding?
Q12. The Prime Minister was elected on a promise to smash the gangs. He said he would reduce small boat crossings. He said he would close asylum hotels. Why are all these issues going wrong?
We should thank Sir Brian for his report and carefully consider his recommendations. Criminals already get a one-third discount for an early guilty plea, and the idea that that should be increased to 40% risks undermining trust in the criminal justice system by victims. Jury trials are a centuries old cornerstone of the British justice system. The creation of an intermediate court to save £35 million is not worth it, when we have 81 empty courtrooms, and judges available and ready to sit. We need to build capacity and make the jury system work.
The hon. Member makes an incredibly powerful and telling point about the disincentive of trying to get into work for people who have a varying and fluctuating condition, such as MS. That is an unanswerable point and I will listen with interest to what the Minister has to say in response. Does he agree with me that in conversations that the Minister has with what we are too lazily inclined to refer to as “the disabled community”, unless we are able to break down disabled groups into those who have a permanent condition and those who have a fluctuating condition, and to individually tailor responses to that, it will be a missed opportunity to get this right?
With the greatest respect, the hon. Lady is putting the cart before the horse, as are the Government. You do your review first, you find out what it says, and you tailor your policies and your response to it. Is that not the best way of making policy? This half-baked idea satisfies no one.
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Justice if she will make a statement on her plans to restrict trial by jury through the creation of a Crown court bench division and related sentencing changes.
All of us agree that justice delayed is justice denied. That is why it is so important to get control of the court backlog. No one pretends that this is straightforward, but the Government have made the crisis worse. The backlog is at a record high, and accelerating, with 750 cases being added every month. Sir Brian Leveson’s review rightly acknowledges that we must increase the number of court sitting days. We thank him for his work and welcome many of his recommendations. However, it cannot be right to give another sentencing discount to those convicted of crimes such as burglary and stalking. That could see criminals serve as little as a fifth of their sentence, when combined with the Gauke review—20% of a sentence served. Is that justice for victims? Out of court settlements for drug dealers and thieves mean that they will not even get a criminal record. It makes a mockery of the justice system. Just as concerning is the proposal to scrap jury trials in many cases. The report admits that this will have only a “limited effect” on the backlog. It will save just £31 million—0.2% of the Department’s budget. As the report states, there is no limit to the cases for which jury trials could be scrapped. This is a slippery slope towards abolishing jury trials altogether. Jury trials have been a central part of our constitution for centuries—in Magna Carta, and indeed before it. They are a gift that we have given to the world. To throw them away so casually shows a total disregard for our constitution, and for such limited benefit. It seems that too many on the Government Benches want to scrap jury trials regardless of the backlog, because they do not trust the British public’s instincts on justice. They say that judges know best; we say that the public know best. It does not have to be this way. The Government must take up the Lady Chief Justice’s offer of more sitting days. Will the Minister rule out yet another sentencing cut for criminals? Will she rule out letting drug dealers and thieves avoid even a criminal record? Does she accept that scrapping jury trials is a disgraceful and unnecessary rejection of one of our country’s proudest and most ancient liberties?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) on securing this important debate. He is a champion for his community, and I know that his constituents will be grateful to him for standing up for them. Both my hon. Friend and I are in an unenviable position as two examples of MPs whose constituencies are set to be paved over under Labour’s new house building algorithm. He and I both have a Liberal Democrat council, and I know that his council has lacked an updated local plan since 2019. His council may not be engaged in speculative development itself, but my council has given developers a blank cheque in Hinckley and Bosworth to build at will, while nearby Labour-run Leicester city will be spared for their failures by having their brownfield site targets cut. My hon. Friend is right to pick up on what is, as I have called it in this House before, a politically gerrymandering algorithm put forward by this Government. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) said, I find it really surprising that there are no Labour Back Benchers here today. We have seen housing targets being massively increased in rural areas, but in urban centres where the infrastructure already exists, housing numbers and requirements are going down. I think that shows that colleagues in the Minister’s party who represent rural areas, as my hon. Friend said, are staying quiet because of the housing boom that they will have to explain to their constituents, while Labour MPs in urban centres are celebrating, or quite frankly embarrassed by, the reduction that this Government are allowing their councils to get away with. I know of some of the problems that my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth has with his Lib Dem council. Like me, I am sure that he will recognise that in many Liberal Democrat “Focus” leaflets going out on people’s doorsteps there is an excuse as to why development is going forward in his constituency. But it is not the fault of the Lib Dem council, who make the decisions in the first place to grant planning permission; it is either the Tory county or the national Government at the time forcing them to make this huge sacrifice—that is why they are building across my hon. Friend’s constituency and mine. The Lib Dem spokesman, the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne), was a living embodiment of that example today by saying that it was not the national housing targets that were forcing our councils to build, and then excusing his own councils for not putting forward local plans that would stop that speculative development in the first place. My hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth will know that Liberal Democrat councils are in themselves speculative, which is one of the reasons they are failing their residents in planning going forward across this country.
I thought that might come, so I will give way.
Again, the Liberal Democrats need to be clear about what they are promising the country. The hon. Gentleman again says that targets are the problem and that councils have difficulty in meeting them, but in the main Chamber his party is calling for more national housing targets. With all due respect, if a Liberal council in Hinckley and Bosworth is not delivering on a local plan, that is his party’s responsibility. Doing so would protect that constituency from the very targets that Liberal Democrats are bemoaning. The Liberal Democrats need to be clear on where they stand on national targets versus delivering locally for the people they claim to represent.
I will briefly, but I must make some progress.
I am happy to congratulate any council controlled by any party if it has a local plan process going through, but the hon. Gentleman should have a word with his party spokesman, the hon. Member for Horsham, who just said that local plans cannot be delivered because of housing targets that put pressure on local councils. Dorset is an example of a Lib Dem council that has taken its responsibilities seriously, so I suggest that the Lib Dem spokesman has a meeting with the leader of that council.
Very briefly, and then I really must make some progress.
We have probably exhausted this line of debate, but, again, we have an example on the record of a Liberal council, Hinckley and Bosworth, that has not delivered on a local plan. Liberal Democrats in the main Chamber are asking for more national housing targets, but here in Westminster Hall they are claiming that targets are the reason why Lib Dem administrations cannot deliver local plans. We will let the record stand. My hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth and I were proud to serve under the previous Conservative Government, which built on the coalition’s achievements in introducing the Localism Act 2011. In that landmark legislation, we took bold and progressive steps to empower local communities. We made it a statutory requirement for local authorities to support and advise communities on neighbourhood planning. That was not just a policy, but a principle that local people should have a direct say in shaping the future of their towns, villages and neighbourhoods. As I am sure colleagues are aware, schedule 9 to the Act created a framework through which parish and town councils, neighbourhood forums and community organisations—in other words, local voices—could lead the charge in designating local development plans, not as spectators, but as active participants in the planning system. District and county councils may hold formal planning powers—as Conservatives, we rightly believe that power should be delegated to the local level—but, if we are to build places that people are proud to live in, we must also make sure that the views of residents are heard, respected and acted on. Parish and town councils should never be relegated to the role of rubber-stamping planning decisions; they must be central to shaping the development of their local areas. Villages know best. All my hon. Friends have talked about how villages in their constituencies want to build and want an active say in how their villages are shaped. I say to the Minister that this Government’s long-standing position has eroded planning committees, the rights of local councillors at parish, district and county level, and the ability of councillors to make decisions on behalf of local people. I, like many others, welcomed the strengthening of neighbourhood planning in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, which gave greater weight to those plans in decision making. The introduction of neighbourhood priority statements was a practical and positive step forward, giving parish councils and neighbourhood forums another mechanism to shape local policy, with a duty on local authorities to listen. Sadly, that progress has been halted. Since taking office just over a year ago, this Government has made their mission clear: to sideline local people and centralise control. Through changes to the national planning policy framework, their smoke-and-mirrors “grey belt” policy and now the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, they are systematically removing local voices from the process. This is not reform—it is a power grab, and the message is clear: the future of our towns, villages and green spaces is being determined in Whitehall, not in our communities. That is a betrayal of the very principle of localism. When local voices are ignored and planning decisions are imposed from the centre, trust in the system is eroded and disillusionment grows. We are becoming accustomed to disappointment when it comes to this Government, but to see, without so much as a ministerial statement, that Ministers have pulled funding for neighbourhood plans is another mark on their scorecard. This decision poses a serious setback for the principle of localism and undermines a widely celebrated initiative that has empowered more than 2,500 communities, with over 1,000 neighbourhood plans successfully passed at referendum. Parish and town councils have historically played a vital role in this process, driving forward locally led planning that reflects the needs and aspirations of their communities. Neighbourhood plans have been a massively successful policy. Across the country, from small villages to growing towns, communities have embraced the opportunity to shape their future, but the Government’s plans threaten to undo these successes. Not only are they centralising power, but, with looming unitarisation, we will see even more erosion of these local voices, as these bigger local government councils will not have the time—nor, likely, the inclination—to bother with designating development areas, leaving already overdeveloped communities at risk of yet more reckless building. My hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth has been a consistent and passionate advocate for neighbourhood planning. He has highlighted the benefits of the process in this Chamber on many occasions, and rightly so. I commend him for his speech today, in which he outlined many of the problems that local councils face and the pressure they are under. This erosion of the right and responsibility of local people to have a say over local decisions must stop. We will continue to be a constructive but challenging Opposition on the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, and I urge the Minister to speak to the Secretary of State about giving back power to local communities.
I thank the Minister for giving way; he is being most generous. From his language—he said that this was not a decision taken lightly—this is clearly another victim of the Prime Minister’s U-turn on welfare and the Chancellor now having to find money. Can he not see that there will be a problem? The simple logistics of getting together a local neighbourhood plan with no funding, including consultation—parish councils are not paid, but are often the most trusted of the councils—will mean a reduction in the number of neighbourhood plans and consultations. Does he not see that that is a bad thing for our villages across this country?
I am grateful for the Minister’s generosity, which he always shows in this Chamber. Based on the poverty assessment, he now says that 50,000 children will be uplifted and taken out of poverty. Given that the decision was taken because of the fiscal impact of the Chancellor’s Budget, I asked him last week about the £5 billion of savings that then became £2.5 billion. He then said that he had not costed his decisions, which would have put an extra 150,000 children into poverty. Will he tell the House how much extra the measures on which he has capitulated will cost the taxpayer?
Over the weekend the Prime Minister rather pathetically told the BBC that he was “a hard bastard”. I think members of the public would find it surprising that letting criminals out of prison early is a way of showing that he is. The Minister has said, not unreasonably, that she wants time to consider Sir Brian’s recommendations, but it is the case that some things are clearcut. Will she take this opportunity to rule out reducing sentences by 40% for criminals who plead guilty?
I call the final Back-Bench speaker, David Pinto-Duschinsky, after which I will call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
I call the shadow Minister.
Order. Before the hon. Member makes her intervention, will colleagues make sure that their language is parliamentary and respectful?
That is a point of debate, not a point of order. Continue, Minister.
I echo the Prime Minister’s sentiments about the horrific terrorist attack of 7 July. I was pleased to be at the commemoration service on Monday. In particular, our thoughts are with the families of those who lost their lives, those who had to go on without their loved ones. I would like to pay tribute to Lord Tebbit, who died yesterday at the age of 94. He was a man of iron integrity and conviction, who, by his efforts, helped to save our country from the chaos of the 1970s. We all owe him so much. In its manifesto last year, Labour promised not to increase income tax, not to increase national insurance and not to increase VAT. Does the Prime Minister still stand by his promises?
It is rare—[Interruption.] It is rare that the Prime Minister is able to give a clear answer, but I am glad that he has done so now. He also promised—in fact, he boasted—that he had solved the doctors strike. Only a Prime Minister who was so weak would give doctors a 28% pay rise—only for us now to see them vote to strike again. He folds in every negotiation and claims it is a triumph. [Interruption.] Yes, he does. We saw more promises at the Budget: the Chancellor promised that she would lift the freeze on income tax and national insurance thresholds, because, in her words, they “hurt working people”. Is that still Government policy?
There was no clear answer there. The whole House will have heard the Prime Minister fail to rule out freezing tax thresholds. He could say yes to the first question—he could promise—but could not this time. What does this mean? He is talking about record investment and more jobs. We know that people are losing their jobs; unemployment has gone up every single month of Labour’s year in office. What does the issue of tax thresholds mean? It means that under Labour, millions of our poorest pensioners face being dragged into income tax for the first time ever. Does the Prime Minister think it is right that struggling pensioners should face a retirement tax?
Investors are fleeing the country. The Prime Minister says he will stick to his manifesto promises, but Labour promised not to put a tax on working people and then we got the jobs tax, and all we have seen are jobs disappearing. Before the election, the Prime Minister promised “not a penny more on your council tax”. The Institute for Fiscal Studies says that council tax bills will now rise at their fastest rate in 20 years. Will the Prime Minister admit that under him council tax is set to soar?
The Prime Minister still does not understand, so I am going to make it very simple for him: this is a mess of his own making—he should not be asking how we would clean it up. The fact is this Government raised national insurance through the jobs tax, and that is why they have to put up council tax. The truth is that his catastrophic Budget has created a domino effect that he cannot now control. We on the Conservative Benches know that you cannot tax your way to growth, but now he is flirting—[Interruption.] Labour Members are all muttering, but I remember that Budget. They were laughing and cheering; they had no idea of the mess that they were creating. They should go and explain to their constituents why unemployment is going up. What is more worrying is that now the Prime Minister is flirting with Neil Kinnock’s demand for a wealth tax. Let us be honest about what that means: it would be a tax on all our constituents’ savings, on their houses and on their pensions. It would be a tax on aspiration. Will the Prime Minister rule this out?
The Prime Minister says that he has stabilised the economy. Has he spoken to any farmers recently? It is time for him to take responsibility for the mess that he is making. He has been in office for a year, and all we see is him congratulating himself on what a fantastic job he has done. [Interruption.] Nobody out there believes it—not even Labour Members. What a weak cheer! He is congratulating himself, but we can compare records. He talks about the fastest growing economy. We left him the fastest growing economy of the G7. We cut the deficit in every year until the pandemic, and we got inflation down to 2%. On his watch, taxes are up, unemployment is up, inflation is up and this weak Prime Minister has been forced into a series of chaotic U-turns. Yesterday, the Office for Budget Responsibility said that our economy is being eroded under Labour: doctors strikes; tax bombshells; the wealthy leaving in droves. Is it not the truth that, under him, he is dragging us back to the 1970s?
The jury system is essential to protect us against oppressive judges, malicious individuals—sometimes malicious police officers—or even Governments. The Minister speaks of the most serious cases. Is it not a fact that the most serious impact on individuals may result not necessarily from what she may regard as the most serious cases, but from any case that goes to court? The impact on the individual can totally change the course of that person’s life, even if the charge is not as serious as the Minister might consider it to be. It can be devastating to the person’s family life, career, or any other aspect of his or her future.
I rise primarily to speak to the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately). However, I would like to begin by addressing the amendments brought forward by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. We were first presented with the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill in June. Then, after being held over a barrel by her Back Benchers, the Secretary of State returned to the House with something quite different. Then, at the eleventh hour on Second Reading, just last week, amendments 4, 5 and 10 were hastily drawn up. Why? It was to cobble together enough support to get something that resembles welfare reform over the line. Only a Labour Government could pledge to reduce the cost of something and end up doing the exact opposite. The people who will pay the price for this additional welfare spending are our constituents who get up early, work hard and pay their dues. New clause 12 and the associated amendments are key to fairness in the system, key to protecting the social contract that underpins our society and, most importantly, key to balancing the books to support our economy. There is no way we can continue to have a situation where individuals receive their PIP payments after attending only a virtual session. There is no way we can continue to have a spiralling welfare bill driven by the over-medicalisation of conditions such as OCD and anxiety. And finally, there is no way we can continue to hand out benefits willy-nilly to those who have come to the United Kingdom without any means of supporting themselves. These are not fringe views. They are widely supported by the public, by working men and women across the country who do the right thing and who increasingly ask, “Why are we footing a bill for a system we no longer believe in?” The social contract is fraying, and the blame lies not with the public but with the state in allowing the system to drift and grow to unsustainable levels.