Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,779 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s comments about the common fisheries policy. Will he join us on the Conservative Benches and go one further by urging the Government not to give up any of the sovereign fishing rights that the UK currently benefits from by giving away fishing to France for other seen-to-be benefits from a wider deal? Can he be strong and urge the Government on fishing, like those on these Benches?
I could speak about so many aspects of the Brexit renegotiation that the Government are entering into—Conservative Members in particular have spoken a lot about those issues—but I wish to focus on fishing and farming. It is always a worry when this Government go into bat in a negotiation, because when Labour negotiates, Britain invariably loses. The current agreement with the EU on fisheries should be a baseline, and preferably a springboard, so that if the Government negotiate, they improve on that deal. That was always the intention. What is a negotiation if we go into it with a mind to sell out and come away with a worse deal? That is what is on the mind of UK fishing communities right now. When my hon. Friend the Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth) asked the Prime Minister only last week to rule out giving away sovereign British waters to the EU, he refused to do so. The Minister may intervene on me to give our fishing communities the reassurance that the Government will not sell out to the EU on our sovereign waters. We know what the French want: to send their trawlers closer inshore to our fishing waters in order to catch fish from UK waters and take them back to the EU and sell them. We are already in a situation whereby Dutch trawlers—4,000 tonne vessels—travel up and down the English channel trawling the bottom of the ocean. They take a huge bycatch of fish, including bass, right in front of small British vessels—such as those fishing out of the Isle of Wight, where my constituency is—that have a set of rules restricting their bass catch. They have to watch the Dutch boats scrape those fish up by accident and take them home. If the Government enter a negotiation, the current arrangement for fishermen must be a baseline. They must improve on the deal and absolutely rule out any concessions to the French and the EU on sovereignty over British territorial waters.
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. You have said much that was true and good, and it is hard to improve on what you said as well as the Chief Whip, but may I add a few words? Roy Stone went into the civil service at the age of 16 and served his entire life there and in this House. Twelve Chief Whips across extraordinary moments were the beneficiaries of his sage counsel and advice. I think the House will be aware that there were several occasions on which I was able to benefit from his advice in somewhat tumultuous times, having offended various senior politicians. I did not always get a meeting with the Chief Whip with coffee—as hon. Members know, that is the key test—but Sir Roy and his team were the models of professional expertise, diligence, discretion, care and candid advice throughout. The fact that he has been taken from us so quickly, so prematurely and so early into his long-deserved retirement is, I am sure, a source of the utmost sadness for every Member of this House. I am sure that I speak for all members of His Majesty’s Opposition. We will remember him with great fondness for a very long time.
There has been an astonishing lack of transparency by the Government ahead of the dud deal that they look set to agree next week, and that was personified by the Paymaster General, who refused to engage on any of the substantive issues. Briefings suggest that the Government are preparing to sign a deal that pulls the UK back into the EU’s regulatory and political orbit. Anyone listening to the debate will have heard Ministers repeatedly refuse to deny that the Government are preparing to make the UK a rule taker once again. One of the frustrations when we were negotiating the trade and co-operation agreement was that the EU refused to back a veterinary agreement based on regulatory equivalence. Given our record and our commitment to high SPS standards, that was clearly the common-sense approach, but the EU simply refused to engage. Instead, it has imposed higher costs and regulations, which fall on businesses and consumers. Now, extraordinarily, it seems that this Government are simply going to roll over and concede that the UK will have to follow EU rules over which it has no say, and bring back ECJ jurisdiction. That is not necessary, desirable or consistent with a democratic vote to leave the EU and restore our sovereignty. Once again, let us see whether the Minister will rule it out when he speaks. Having spent three years in the Ministry of Defence advising the then Defence Secretary, I am concerned at the approach the Government are looking to take on defence and security. NATO is the cornerstone of our defence, and the alliance should be our focus, yet a leak reveals that the deal will pull the UK into the EU’s common security and defence policy, duplicating many of the functions and institutions of NATO—and for what? The deal does not even guarantee British firms access to the rearmament fund. Instead, that will be subject to future separate negotiations, and the UK will have to pay; how much and on what terms is completely unclear. It is very disappointing, given the need to defend our continent, that some in the EU want to link access to the defence programme to fishing rights. [Interruption.] France, indeed. Once again, the Government have simply rolled over. I know from my time in the Cabinet Office and No. 10 working on Brexit issues that the EU was determined to be inflexible from the start. Michel Barnier, the negotiator, embodied that rigidness. Unlike the man from Del Monte, he delighted in saying no. Improvements to the TCA can be made. The agreement provides for that precisely and deliberately in the review mechanism. To get trade flowing, there are easements that the EU could easily agree to, benefiting businesses and consumers. Instead of pursuing those from a position of principle, this Government are negotiating a backroom deal and look set to do so badly and undermine our national interest.
He has run a business, unlike you.
I start by paying a small tribute to the Government because just last week they passed secondary legislation, albeit made possible by the Conservatives’ groundbreaking Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023, that will mean more resilient crops, further food choices and enhanced food security. Although it might pain some of them, Labour Members have to admit they are making some use of the hard-won Brexit freedoms secured by the Conservatives. Why would we give them away? The example I have used might seem somewhat niche, but this is exactly what a modern industrial strategy focused on technology, productivity and the future looks like, and in doing this, we have a head start on the continent, which is now fumbling to produce regulation of its own in this area. We should be going further still. Gene editing has the power to reduce the impact of animal disease and stop pandemics in their tracks. Researchers at Imperial College London and the Roslin Institute, Edinburgh, are now close to making breakthroughs on bird flu-resistant poultry using gene editing. The Government must introduce secondary legislation for farmed animals, as they have done for plants. I visited Imperial’s Silwood campus in my constituency. The students there are doing incredible things. When they make breakthroughs, our regulatory framework should allow us to nimbly make use of them, but there is a very real risk that with next week’s reset the Government could kill the progress with the sanitary and phytosanitary agreement they are negotiating. Companies at the forefront of the agricultural industry have raised concerns about this reset, and I know that my colleagues, in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman), and the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee and the all-party group on science and technology in agriculture have done the same. This is a rare—and much needed as those on the Government Benches hammer our farmers—competitive unique selling point for British agriculture. Reports suggest that this Government will make concessions on SPS to give them more bartering power on other issues, setting a precedent for the wider agricultural relationship with the EU, bending over backwards for an establishment that the British people voted to reject. We would also be signing up to rules we have no power to influence. There were good reasons to leave the EU and good reasons to stay in the EU, and reasonable people could and did disagree, but there is no good reason to leave and opt into rules over which we have no say. That is the worst of both worlds. Under Switzerland’s agreement with the EU, it must align with almost all the EU’s food safety demands and replicate any further regulatory changes made in the future. That agreement may well be in the best interests of the Swiss but it would not work for Britain. Every time we want to diverge in a way that could benefit the British people, we would have to supplicate to those in Brussels once again. Carve-outs are possible, but we all know what tends to happen when the Prime Minister negotiates. When Labour negotiates, Britain loses. A reset deal with a deep SPS agreement would be short-sighted, perhaps offering a quick boost in the near term but taking the wind from the sails of longer term, game-changing investment that is starting to flow in. We need to maintain a competitive advantage to supercharge investment in areas like the Thames valley, where we have a world-leading life sciences sector. So I warn the Government not to chain Britain to the economic anchor of the EU and the dead hand of its precautionary principle regulators, especially when last week’s secondary legislation on precision breeding is such a clear example of what regulatory autonomy for an innovative UK could do for us.
Will the Minister give way?
The Minister mentioned that he was in Scotland yesterday, which is wonderful. As a Scottish MP, I am in Scotland every week, and I quite often meet people from distilleries, who have recently said that they are suffering because of the family farm tax that the Government have brought in. Their farmers are downsizing and not investing, which is reducing their supply of grain. Are the Minister and the Government proud of that legacy, and that contribution to the Scotch Whisky Association?
My hon. Friend has referred to the betrayal of our fishermen. I wonder whether the Minister will take the opportunity to deny media speculations that the Government are about to consent to multi-year agreements. The fishermen want single-year agreements, which are the international norm. Can the Minister rule that out today?
The hon. Lady and I have had a number of exchanges in the Chamber on this issue. In her role as a Church Commissioner, given the concerns she has raised about projects failing and craftsmen being put out of work, has she had any reassurance from the Government that schemes already started, even if above the £25,000 cap, will be allowed to progress so that the projects can continue?
I beg to move, That this House has considered flooding and planning and developer responsibilities. It is a great pleasure to be here under your chairmanship, Mrs Hobhouse. I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this issue, and to discuss how we can help the Minister to tackle the tsunami of inland flooding that is sweeping so much of the country—not just my beautiful Mid Norfolk constituency, but many other areas. The presence of so many colleagues from different parties and counties speaks volumes about the scale of the problem. I will start in December 2020, when I fully woke up to the scale of what was coming. It was a lovely Christmas in Mid Norfolk when the phone started ringing, as it did for many colleagues in our part of the world. Along with many people, I spent that Christmas week baling out constituents, clearing out sewage and getting Anglian Water to pump out houses. It happened in not just one village, but seven or eight across Mid Norfolk. At that point, I realised the scale of what was coming and why the issue had been becoming increasingly prevalent in the constituency letterbox. Following that, I set up the Mid Norfolk Flood Partnership with the 14 worst affected villages, as a result of which we set out 15 very practical things that we in Norfolk could do. We set up the Norfolk Strategic Flooding Alliance with the county council, and this year we held the first Norfolk flood summit. I want to update colleagues on some of that work and flag some of the things we have identified. I commend the Minister for the grip she has exerted on the problem since arriving in office. She is on the cusp of having the chance to do something quite significant for generations to come. I want to highlight the things we are particularly suffering from in Mid Norfolk, explain what the problem is in our part of the world—it is different in different parts of the country—and set out some suggestions that I hope the Minister will take on board in the flood review that she is leading. To that end, I have arranged an all-party flood summit on 2 June with the four all-party parliamentary groups. It says something that four APPGs have been set up—standing room only—in order to deal with flooding. Of the 400 or so new MPs who have arrived in Parliament, I think 100 have put flooding very high on their list, so this is a big issue; it is no longer marginal. I want to say something about the importance of gripping it at scale, so that future generations do not have to experience the horrors that our constituents have. In other words, I want to put wind in the Minister’s sails to do something that Whitehall often struggles with. As a veteran Minister myself, I know that the sticky-tape solution is often the tempting one to reach for, but this issue, as the Minister knows, requires a structural change in the way we think about water across our economy. Mid Norfolk—the clue is in the name—is not a maritime constituency. I am talking today about inland flooding, although I appreciate that there is also a coastal flooding problem. One of the issues in Norfolk is that we have had so much coastal flooding that the focus has been on that, and not so much on inland flooding. My constituency is largely made up of Breckland, the glacial clays and sands—a clue: it should not be flooding. It is dry—very dry. Where there is water and sand, there is very productive agricultural land. Yes, we have some lower-lying, very beautiful areas—the chalk streams, the Wensum valley, the Yare and the Tud—where we should not be building, not least because they are sites of special scientific interest and hugely strong habitats, but they are also prone to flooding. So why is Mid Norfolk flooding? That is the question I hear hon. Members asking, because it should not be flooding. Other areas should be, but not Mid Norfolk. There are several answers, but I will first explain the scale of what has happened in the last five years. There has been serious flooding in 22 of my villages, by which I mean sewage washing between houses, and more than five houses affected at one time. There are plenty of houses that are near a ditch or river and get some flooding; I am talking about at-scale, serious flooding, with chronic consequences for the people affected. I will give an example. At Mill Lane in Attleborough there is a culvert that was terribly designed in the 1970s. No one has taken responsibility for it, and the four houses at the entrance to the culvert have flooded every year for 10 years. Last autumn, 100 houses around Mill Lane flooded. That is when people really started to wake up and understand.
The hon. Lady makes a brilliant point; at the risk of opening the floodgate of interventions too early, I will absolutely come on to her point at pace, so that Members from across the House can pile in.
The hon. Member—I am tempted to say my great and hon. Friend, since we have spoken in this Hall together so many times—is absolutely right. My constituency has 130 villages and three towns. At the last boundary review, I lost Wymondham because the rest of my patch has had 10,000 new houses built in the last 10 to 15 years. Very few constituencies, apart from possibly that of the hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy), have had as many houses built as mine. That is part of the issue, but another part of it is that developers are tending to build on the outskirts of villages and towns, because it is the easy place to dump commuter housing, but they are not upgrading the drains. Little villages that have happily existed and been able to drain themselves for years and cope with some growth, are now finding huge problems with the existing drainage infrastructure not being able to cope, which leads to the sewerage problem.
That is a very good point, and I do agree—in fact, I will go a lot further than that, if Members will allow me to get to the radical, central elements of my Bill. However, I do agree that that is absolutely something we need to do. Across Mid Norfolk, the 23 villages—I will not list them all—go from Old Buckenham in the deep south east, through Wretham, Hockham, Rocklands, Thompson, Watton, Saham Toney, Cranworth, a cluster of co-adjacent villages, north Elmham, Billingford, Lyng, Elsing, Yaxham, Mattishall and right up to Weasenham in my north-west frontier, which should not be flooding. That tells us that this flooding is not just geomorphological. It is the result of housing and the lack of investment in the drainage infrastructure. The truth is that the patient people in Mid Norfolk—they are pretty patient, given that they have had me as an MP for 14 years—are getting really impatient with this. There is a contract between the state and the citizen whereby if they pay their taxes and buy a house, while they do not expect that much these days, they do expect that their house will not flood because of systemic and structural failures of national infrastructure. When it does flood, and they call, hoping that someone will come and pump it out, they expect the water companies, to whom they are paying very high bills, to be there and to help. However, the service and the responsiveness has not been there—at least until they are able to sit on the answering machine and ring enough times that eventually a tanker arrives. People are fed up with that and with the fact that this has been coming for quite a long time, so they are very excited by the fact that the Minister is gripping this issue. Let me spin through the problems, as I have experienced them in Norfolk. It is, of course, climate change; let us not undermine the importance of that. Last year we had the eight wettest months on record, one after another. That is not happening for any weird, strange, unexplained reason; it is happening because of climate change. The issue is also that in my part of the world we are building a lot of houses—but the country has to build them, so I do not think that not building houses is the answer. The devil is in the detail. Another problem is that our agricultural practices have changed. In my part of the world, a proud farming county, we now have a lot of contract farming. The big landowners are often things like pension funds and are remote. The farming is not done by a local landowner, but by contract farmers on a very tight, low-margin contract, with huge bits of kit, roaring around trying to get the job done and scratch a living. In the old days, on the farm I grew up on, in a rainy month we would go and mend the fences and clear the ditches, but that work does not tend to be in the farming contracts. Our county councils have also seen their budgets hammered by the rising cost of social care and through some of austerity 1.0. There is a basic maintenance problem. We also have a big planning problem. The point made by the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) was a good one, but the real problem in my patch has been that because of the five-year land supply, good planners have said, “Well, we don’t want to build here, and we shouldn’t build there,” as well as holding statutory consultations. Many of the big developers have then land banked—they have taken their permissions where they know they are going to get them and have not built them out—and then invoked the five-year land supply. The five-year land supply was a sensible coalition policy designed to ensure that a 20-year plan could not be ignored, but it has been used to blow the whistle and say, “You are not building out at your five-year land supply, so we will now invoke the freedom to dump where we want.” It is a win-win. They then dump 100 houses outside Yaxham and 200 outside Mattishall—they want to go near Norwich, dump on the outskirts of a village near a road, move on and not invest. That is what has driven a lot of the problem. Statutory consultation is fine, but this is also a planning issue. Part of what my Bill addresses is that we must somehow ensure that when developers are building like that, it should not just be that they are statutorily consulted and go through the tick boxes. The only way to make them take this seriously is to say, “Look, if you build, and within five or 10 years of your building there is significant flooding that never used to happen in that area, you’re going to be on the hook for upgrading the drains. You’re going to be on the hook for doing the repair work.” We have to create a fiduciary financial liability that makes the directors of those companies say, “I think we’d better upgrade; we’d better do the investment up front, rather than relying on consultations.” In the end, somebody has to pay. To be fair, the water companies have got to pay more, but we are also asking them to pay billions to improve pipes, build reservoirs and stop leaks. Somewhere in the system we have to find a bit more money to do the upgrade of the traditional drains and improve the infrastructure. It behoves us all to give the Minister some solutions. Where will the money come from? Nobody in Mid Norfolk wants to pay more council tax; it is already very high and it is going on social care. One answer is from the developers. There is another problem, however. When someone in Mid Norfolk picks up the phone and asks who is in charge, there are 36 organisations in Norfolk with responsibility for flooding prevention. In Whitehall that probably seems like a low number, but in Norfolk people only want one. We do have one: it is called the local flood authority. It is great, but it has no money and no power. The good news is that in addition to the LFA we have the internal drainage boards, which have been looking after flooding since about 1550; they really know their ditches and dykes. Colleagues with agricultural constituencies—I can see them nodding—will know that these are the very local experts who know about hydrology and water and how it all works. The problem is that their budgets have either been cut or not maintained to keep pace with demand. There are quite a small number of areas—I think15 to 20 districts—particularly in the east of England, such as the fens, Cambridgeshire, Norfolk and other areas, that have a very high incidence of flooding. The other problem is that where they are being hit, the IDBs have to be propped up by the district councils, which means the residents in those areas are then penalised as funding is—quite properly—diverted into flooding. That is funding that they are not getting into their public services. There is a huge problem with the allocation of funding.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who is my constituency neighbour and good friend. Yes, my Bill absolutely does address that issue; I will take his steer and get to the guts of it. He is absolutely right; IDBs are crucial in our part of the world. When I first looked into this issue, I thought, “How come Norfolk is top of the league table for flooding?” I soon discovered—even more shockingly—that we are not; I think we are county No. 6 or 7 out of 10, which is why many hon. Members from other counties are here. The problem is fourfold, and there are four provisions in my draft Bill—I am keen to use this debate as an opportunity to polish it. First, we need a much clearer and sharper set of responsibilities. At the top, the Environment Agency obviously has overall responsibility for flooding in the country, but this is a local problem, so we have to properly empower the strategic flood authorities locally and re-empower the IDBs. At the moment, many of them find that in dealing with flooding they come up against all sorts of environmental green tape produced by the very agencies that are there to stop flooding—as though the Environment Agency is more interested in filling our ditches and drains with mud and wild flowers than encouraging them to drain the water. People feel frustrated by well-intended green bureaucracy that is getting in the way of local solutions, so responsibilities should be put back locally. Secondly, on funding, I strongly believe that we should be top-slicing and ringfencing some of the Environment Agency’s funding and giving it to IDBs and strategic flood authorities. It would be a rounding error for the Environment Agency—
Certainly. Do we have 90 minutes?
I am sorry; I thought we had 90. We have to put funding in the hands of people who have responsibility. Thirdly, I want to create planning liabilities for development companies so that they have a proper incentive—not just a vague instruction—to upgrade the drainage.
The hon. Lady makes an important point. That is all part of the planning mix and we have to get it right. My last point is about data. When an area floods, we reach for data and ask, “How bad is it? How much worse is it than it used to be?” It is striking that there is not a properly collected dataset. I have a map with dots for all the flooding in my Norfolk patch, but it does not seem difficult to have a properly collected national flood heat map at the Cabinet Office to see where the flooding is coming. If it is coming much more quickly in Mid Norfolk and, I suspect, in many other areas, the Cabinet Office needs to be aware that that is a growing national critical infrastructure resilience issue. Locally, we need flood maps to prepare for which places are likely to flood this winter. As the former Minister with responsibility for the Met Office, I know that it has amazing data and can now predict when, for certain areas, when it rains to such an extent over in the west, the surge will hit because of the geomorphology. We can now make predictions with AI and other tools, but they are not being done properly. There is a lot more we could do with data. Forgive me, Mrs Hobhouse—I thought this was a 90-minute debate. I am conscious of time and how many hon. Members want to get in, so I will close. I look forward to hearing the comments from hon. Members from all parties.
Thank you, Mrs Hobhouse, for guiding us this afternoon. I thank the Minister, the Opposition spokesman, my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore), and the—I think—16 colleagues from across the House who have spoken; the rule of 10 normally applies in this place, so there are many others who would have wanted to come. That shows the Minister how much interest there is in this issue. This is a serious national problem that can only be solved locally, and the local solution is the key. It is getting worse fast. In Norfolk, 1,000 houses have been flooded and 200 have had internal floodwater in the past 18 months. That did not happen five or six years ago. It is getting bad, and it is costing the county and the country a fortune. This quarter—Q1—there was £200 million-worth of approved claims, which is up by £67 million on the previous quarter. This is getting a lot worse very fast. On behalf of all those people who are very nervous and worried—one constituent was so worried about this that they took their own life—I urge the Minister to be bold and brave. I urge her to strike a blow for local communities and local experts, and give them the power and funding to do what they know how to do best. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered flooding and planning and developer responsibilities.
Sarcasm!
Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?
As was put to the Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Lewes (James MacCleary), at the start of the debate, the red tape is coming from the EU, not us. Why is the ire of the Lib Dems never directed at the people responsible for introducing the trade barriers?
Will the hon. Member give way?
I am grateful to be able speak in this Opposition day debate ahead of next week’s UK-EU summit. I campaigned for, believed in and continue to believe in the promise of Brexit. At its core, Brexit was a vote for the importance of national democracy, a vote for national sovereignty and a vote against regionalisation and government by bureaucrats. I believe strongly in international co-operation, but I do not believe in institutionalisation. I do not believe that decision making gets better in aggregate. My experience has taught me that it only gets worse. It gets more remote, less well informed and riddled with compromises that barely satisfy anyone and please no one. I continue to believe that the UK—its people and its Government—deciding its own future, not locked into continental bureaucracy, provides the best possible future for us. Behind all the carefully choreographed language from Ministers about resets, there is one inescapable truth: this Labour Government risk laying the groundwork and taking the first steps to betraying the full promise of Brexit. That should not be any surprise, given that they are led by a man who campaigned for the leadership of the Labour party on the basis of restoring freedom of movement. He supported a second referendum and he voted against Brexit 48 times. We on this side of the House are not prepared to watch this slow train wreck in silence. Many issues have been raised by many Members, but I want to raise just two that are of particular importance. First, on the youth mobility scheme, the fundamental issues that made freedom of movement so unpopular would remain at the core of any youth mobility scheme. The level of economic disparity across EU member states is fundamentally incompatible with the scheme becoming anything other than yet another route for mass low-skilled migration, at a time when the Government tell us they want to drive that down. Secondly, there can be no dynamic EU rule taking or ECJ oversight. Any agreement on food standards, services or carbon trading must not come at the price of automatic alignment. We did not leave the EU to find ourselves bound to it in everything but name. We must demand mutual recognition and independent dispute resolution, and that is the only thing we should accept. That would reflect a relationship of mutual respect. These are not unreasonable demands. They are the bare minimum that any sovereign state would expect when engaging in talks with a foreign bloc. The United Kingdom voted to leave the EU, whether the Prime Minister and his Ministers like it or not. Is it any wonder that they are looking for answers internationally when we look at their domestic picture? They are restricting winter fuel payments, inflation is still biting us, business confidence is shaken, working families are being hammered with job-destroying taxes, and growth is stalling. We must not allow this to serve as a diplomatic distraction from their domestic failure. We will not allow Labour to turn a reset into a roll-back, and any future Conservative Government will not be bound by any agreement that breaches these clear red lines. We will not allow Brussels to disguise control as co-operation, and we will not let the democratic choice of the British people be eroded by stealth. Brexit was not a pause; it was a pivot. It was a huge opportunity for our country, and I believe that the benefits will accrue for decades to come. The Government might be able to hide their true intentions this week but they will not be able to hide them forever, and we will be here to make sure that the British people know what they really believe in. It is not the freedom and sovereignty of Brexit.
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I absolutely agree that the measures before the Committee are unobjectionable, particularly as I have the privilege of being sanctioned by the Russian Federation. Salisbury is close to my constituency, and the memory of the 2018 Novichok poisoning is still very raw in my part of the country. Beyond China, which my hon. Friend the Member for Weald of Kent rightly cited, there is an omission from the list: North Korea, which was a member of George Bush’s “axis of evil”. That country has shown itself to be a willing confederate of Russia in recent times. Why has the Minister not included North Korea? Can we expect a further measure that specifically cites North Korea under the arrangements that he has described?
The centenary of the second world war is way into the future, but will the Foreign Secretary ensure that the UK does not repeat the mistakes of the past when we were rather late coming to the party with the international commemoration of the centenary of the great war? Will he say when we will engage with international partners to start preparing for the centenary of the second world war, and will his Department, the Cabinet Office or the Department for Culture, Media and Sport take the lead?
Does my hon. Friend share my hope that in next week’s negotiations the Government will make it abundantly clear to our European partners that for decades this country’s contribution to our collective defence has been well above the level that our economy, our population or our size would dictate, and that Europe has benefited from that? While I am in no way recommending a Trumpian approach to these matters, it is nevertheless important for the Government to make clear to our interlocutors the scale of our contribution to collective defence.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. The Opposition broadly understand the direction of travel that the Minister has set out and the principles underlying it are clearly quite sensible. Will the Minister give us a degree of assurance, particularly about the process for determining the circumstances in which the authorities that are listed and the circumstances that are listed may be set aside? That is significant because significant infrastructure developments are often close to heritage railway buildings and historic sites where there will be a legitimate expectation from both local authorities and residents that a proper consultation will be undertaken. We know that, in the past, the effect of that regime has been that in many cases developers, in places such as Royal Quay in my own constituency in Harefield, have chosen to put historic buildings back into use for a new purpose. For example, formerly industrial buildings connected with Victorian transport networks could be used for residential development, rather than simply demolishing and clearing the sites and losing that heritage asset in the process. It would be helpful to understand how we will ensure, through the regime as set out, that those considerations are fully taken into account. I appreciate that we will debate the green belt later on, but there is significant interaction in the Bill between the different types of regime that apply, and we have already had much debate about the green belt and the grey belt. I am aware that the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government yesterday issued a decision with respect to a site just north of London, and the effect of her determination is that any land on a transport corridor located between, for example, a motorway and a village, even if it is currently in the green belt, will be considered to be grey belt for the purposes of developability. That will clearly have a significant impact in similar situations in locations with a significant heritage element that are close to railways, motorways and other such transport networks that would potentially, from a developer point of view, benefit from swifter development without a consultation being undertaken. However, from the perspective of local residents and the wider community concerned about heritage and land use, they are losing the opportunity to have this.
I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Hamble Valley wants to raise some points, but I want to ask a couple of slightly technical questions. The first relates to clause 44(6), on directions in relation to planning fees. The publication of a schedule of planning fees is part of the statutory council tax-fixing process, which every local authority is required to undertake. As we hear from our residents, that generally takes place in February and comes into effect at the start of the following financial year. If a local authority publishes its proposals, as the Minister described in respect of cost recovery, it needs to be confident that any change—in the form of a direction from the Secretary of State—will come in a timely manner that enables further consultation so that the lawful council tax fixing can occur. What provisions will be in place to ensure that any objection from the Secretary of State will come in a timely manner? My second slightly technical question is this. My experience of planning authorities is that there is huge variation in their cost bases. That partly reflects a shortage of staff, but it also reflects different local arrangements. An authority with large numbers of householder applications may use an outsourced service to process them at a relatively low cost. However, if senior, experienced, in-house planning officers are responsible for managing all planning applications, that will significantly increase the cost. Neither of those things is illegitimate; each is a manifestation of the democratic decision making of elected politicians about what is appropriate for their community. It would be helpful to understand what process the Secretary of State will go through in determining what a reasonable level of planning fees is. For example, will she consider the requirement for specialist input at a technical level because there is a significant amount of radon gas, which is found in certain challenging sites because of their topographical nature? Whether there is a requirement for remediation and specialist consultancy will be critical to a proper assessment of that planning application. Other local authorities may have development opportunities of a different nature. Will the Minister set out his thinking on that? That would be enormously helpful.
rose—
The Minister’s response has been excellent. Clearly, there will be a number of different arrangements at a local level. That should encourage us, as a Committee considering the legislation, to reflect a little further. In the example that the Minister talked about—the behaviour of local authorities—it may not be about those who have ill intentions. Some local authorities may have a planning and building control department—although the two regimes are separate, there is great commonality of skills—while others may have outsourced one or both those functions, or have them in-house but entirely separate. As part of the published council tax fixing, there is a requirement to set out a schedule of fees for building control. Some local authorities may choose to bundle that together, so when people put in a planning application, they pay for both; but others may do that separately. Some developers, including householders, may choose to purchase the building control privately, even though they could purchase it from the local authority. A lot of factors will determine what a reasonable cost base is. It would help if the Minister shared with the Committee some further thinking on how the Government might seek to establish a baseline, in particular in the light of potential challenges in the future by developers who feel that the level of cost at a particular spot is other than reasonable. I press the Minister a little on how that interacts with two further points that he made. Government new clause 39 refers to the power of the Secretary of State to implement a surcharge as a percentage of a planning fee that has been set. From what I understand of what the Minister said in his commentary, that will principally be to fund the work of the statutory consultees. Clearly, the imposition of a surcharge will then form part of the planning fees that have to be part of the statutory consultation on the legislatively fixed timetable that the local authority has to follow. How will the Government ensure that that timetable is respected, so that they themselves are not subject to the challenge?
May I press the Minister a little further? That is a really helpful answer in illuminating the Government’s thinking, but could he explain to the Committee how that will interact with the existing arrangements for planning performance agreements, which are very common in respect of larger-scale planning applications? Clearly, if a developer required to engage with all this wider statutory-consultee process is already entering into a voluntary agreement with the local authority to fund the process, there is a risk that that will have an impact. It risks either reducing the ability of the local authority, because that surcharge is effectively being taken by the Secretary of State, or increasing the cost base and therefore opening up the question whether the planning fees are reasonable in the first place.
I am struck by the Minister’s point about the need for consistency. We will all be conscious of the level of inconsistency in delegated planning decisions, which make up around 95% of decisions on planning applications. Does he have a programme in mind to achieve the level of consistency for those decisions that this measure will bring to decisions made by democratically elected members?
Actually, the answer is both. We will all know of people’s experience with local authorities: they meet a planning officer to discuss a delegated planning decision and they receive advice, but when it is submitted, it is considered by a different planning officer who takes a completely different view. Given that that is how the vast bulk of planning applications are dealt with, if the Government’s aim is to bring consistency and certainty to the process—it is a laudable aim—it will be necessary to focus on the more than 90% of decisions that are already made under delegated powers, as well as this measure, which is for that small number considered by the planning committee.
I will start where the hon. Member for Barking finished. We know that the planning system has delivered consents for 1.5 million new homes in England, where the development sector has failed to step up. One of the things much debated among political parties is the fact that that seems to suggest that, although there are undoubtedly issues, the planning system has been good at producing the opportunity for those new homes—the challenge has been the inability of the development sector to step up to the plate. That should be the priority to address. My hon. Friend the Member for Hamble Valley mentioned the Mayor of London’s recent decision about going into the green belt. That is in the context of a capital city that already has 300,000 unbuilt planning permissions for new homes. The Opposition’s argument is that the priority should not be increasing the stock of unbuilt planning permissions but delivering the homes that our country needs.
If we look at the statistics from the ONS on new household formation and the balance between that and the delivery of new homes, we see that they are reasonably in balance at the moment. We know that many people would like a bigger home or a different type of home, and that is why we have consistently argued that we need to focus on the nature of the homes we are delivering, not just on the units being delivered through the planning system. Members have consistently made the point about centralisation. The UK is already an exceptionally centralised country: we have fewer democratically elected politicians per head of population than most other developed democracies in the world. Our concern with these measures is that they further reduce the voice of a local resident through their democratic representative about a decision that may be the most significant thing affecting their home or their neighbourhood in their entire life. By creating a national scheme of delegations, we go beyond a point of saying that all local authorities must ensure, in the delivery of a quasi-judicial process, that they are following the law. We begin to say that this is no longer a delegation: it is compulsory. We are taking away the democratic power of the local authority, under which it delegates those decisions to planning committees and to officers, and we are deciding in Whitehall who will make those decisions. While I absolutely respect what the Minister is saying about expert planning officers, having served in the last Parliament as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on housing and planning and worked very closely with the RTPI, I think we need to be realistic. In many cases, when the Minister says “expert planning officers”, we are talking about newly minted graduates who do not live in—and have no experience of—the local area. They arrive and undertake a desk-based exercise to make these decisions. They are not highly experienced people with a level of local insight who understand why particular aspects of design, materials, or the nature of a development will have a real impact on a neighbourhood. There are specific examples; one is applications by elected members themselves. I know from my time as a councillor in Hillingdon that a standard rule to ensure transparency is that any application by an elected councillor must be heard by a committee. If someone wishes to change the windows in their home, or build a loft extension, it has to go through a planning committee, even when those things are covered by permitted development rights. That was to ensure that level of transparency. It is not clear how such issues are dealt with through this proposed scheme of delegation. Matters of detail can be critical: ensuring the acceptance of a proposed development at a neighbourhood level may often come down to issues like overlooking or how it respects the privacy of neighbours. Does it have tree planting, to screen developments that people are unhappy to see? Will there be mitigations around noise? Those are not trivial matters; they have a huge impact on people’s quality of life. The ability of elected representatives to say, “This decision made, entirely in accordance with planning law, needs to be taken transparently in public so that these representations can be heard” is critical.
rose—
I gently say to the Minister, who I look up to in many ways, that it is a challenge for the Committee to rely upon, on the one hand, an argument that this is not a big deal because it would affect hardly any planning applications, and on the other hand, an argument that it is so important we have to push it through via a national scheme of delegation. The concern that Members have is considering the 4% of applications that go to committee as a major problem, when in fact, by general acceptance in today’s debate, they are not really much of an issue. We lose the important element of local democratic accountability without any corresponding benefit in planning delivery.
I want to press the Minister on the point raised by the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington. On a visit to the London Fire Brigade I learnt that there is a particular set of risks associated with batteries—essentially, the difficulty of putting the fires out. In the grand scheme of things, batteries are not more serious than, for example, oil storage, but they require different equipment and differently trained and equipped crews to respond. Will the Minister say more about how, as batteries become a more significant part of the energy mix, he will ensure that fire brigades are able to take a view at the planning stage and are made aware of the risks—just in case they have to respond?
My great-grandfather spent his entire working life at the pit in Cwmcarn, which is now a forestry commission site. There is evidence of the coal that was dug for centuries on that site, which is now a place that is enjoyed for leisure by all. Broadly, I echo the comments about welcoming the clause. On page 35, line 20, the excluded types of fuel are listed, to determine what may be considered to be renewable. Waste to energy is not included; nor is the sustainable fuel mandate, which is currently focused on aviation fuel, but ultimately involves producing a gasoline product entirely from waste the purpose of which is to create energy. The fuel may go into aircraft, but it could be used for other purposes. The concept of waste to energy means, essentially, building an incinerator on forestry land to burn waste and generate electricity. By implication, that is something that the Government envisage as a result of that subsection. Could the Minister say more about that?