Business of the House

Debate between Anne Main and Hilary Benn

Wednesday 3rd April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

I want to speak briefly to amendment (a), which stands in my name and has been selected. In response to the contribution from the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse), she will note that amendment (a) would give the House, if carried, the opportunity on Monday to engage in a further round of indicative votes.

I note that since I put my amendment down the Prime Minister has become an enthusiastic convert to the notion of indicative votes. In the statement she made from Downing Street, she said, of the process she is now, as we speak, engaging in by talking to the Leader of the Opposition to try to find a way forward, that if we cannot agree on an approach

“we would instead agree a number of options for the future relationship that we could put to the House in a series of votes to determine which course to pursue.”

I think that that was a very significant announcement, because the Government had talked in general terms about giving the House such an opportunity. Although we have had two rounds, since the Government have had three goes for their withdrawal agreement, or part of their withdrawal agreement, it would seem rather churlish of Members not to give the House a further opportunity.

I want to reinforce the point made by the hon. Member for Bath. Looking at the results from last time—the customs union came within three votes of passing and a confirmatory referendum came within 12 votes of passing—there is now an opportunity, given that we are going to have to compromise to try to find a way forward, to see whether Members can come together and combine some of the propositions in the way that she suggested to see whether we can assist in the process the Government are now embarking on in reaching out to the Leader of the Opposition. Monday, if amendment (a) were carried, would give us the opportunity to do so.

[Mrs Main]

I am so puzzled. Many of the issues the right hon. Gentleman mentions on which we may have to compromise will need the withdrawal agreement, yet only five Labour Members have ever voted for it. Does he not find it funny that there is no compromise on the withdrawal agreement from those on the Labour Benches?

[Hilary Benn]

I am on record as saying that I do not have a problem with the withdrawal agreement, but I am also on record as having voted against the Government’s attempt last week to separate the withdrawal agreement from the political declaration, because they come as one. I cite, as the authority for that argument, the Prime Minister.

Humanitarian Crisis in the Mediterranean and Europe

Debate between Anne Main and Hilary Benn

Wednesday 9th September 2015 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn]

I agree with my right hon. Friend, who is very knowledgeable about that country. I am sure that is the Government’s position. The practical problem in relation to aid to Yemen is access. Concerns have been expressed that some of the aid is being used for purposes connected with the nature of the conflict. Humanitarian aid should be given to people on the basis of need, not on the basis of which side of the conflict they happen to be on or find themselves on because of where they happen to live at any particular moment.

I say to the Government that Britain’s proud record on humanitarian aid gives us particular authority, which I know the International Development Secretary uses, to speak out and urge other countries to do their bit. We cannot run the international humanitarian system on the basis of insecure and intermittent funding. That will not work.

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

My concern is that if we are to speak with authority and ensure that the support these families need is delivered, the process needs to be ongoing. We need sustainable, ongoing community support for people who are traumatised, who need language skills and who need school places. That is vital and all Members on both sides of the House need to support local authorities.

[Hilary Benn]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. The Government will use the international development budget, as the official development assistance rules allow, in the first year to support local authorities, but she raises the question of what will happen the following year. I have no doubt that one of the first questions local authorities will ask Ministers when they meet will be, “If you’re going to help us in the first year, how are we going to sustain that support?” Every one of us knows the extraordinary pressure that local authority budgets are under.

Turning to the cause of the crisis, the Prime Minister was right to say that it will be solved only when peace and stability return to Syria. Despite considerable efforts, no progress has been made and yesterday the UN envoy, Staffan de Mistura, said there was no more time for a long political process, and he is right. He urged Saudi Arabia and Iran finally to start talking to each other, as Russia, the United States and other countries are doing. We need an urgent diplomatic effort, under the auspices of the United Nations, to work out a future for Syria. It is time that Syria’s neighbours started trying to solve the conflict instead of continuing to fuel it. They should also discuss—I understand that this is extremely difficult in Syria—whether it is possible to establish safe havens to help those who are fleeing violence, and they should talk about the humanitarian funding crisis that we have just discussed.

We also have a responsibility, as part of the international coalition, to defeat ISIL/Daesh, politically and militarily, and to confront its brutal ideology. We should be unashamed in proclaiming our values of openness and respect for others in direct opposition to its brutality and ignorance, which have forced so many people to flee for their lives. One of the best ways in which we can give expression to the best of British values is to welcome and take in those who have fled, because we have a long and honourable tradition as a nation of giving shelter to those fleeing further persecution.

Growth and Infrastructure Bill

Debate between Anne Main and Hilary Benn

Tuesday 16th April 2013 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

I welcome the Government’s decision to accept all but one of the amendments that were passed in the other place, in particular the sunset clause on section 106, the Secretary of State’s announcement today on the assessment of viability, the fact that at least some criteria will now be published for identifying so-called failing planning authorities, and the right hon. Gentleman’s agreement that when it comes to broadband development, the Secretary of State should have regard to the environment and the conservation of the natural beauty of our countryside.

That leaves the House with the one amendment on permitted development rights, and the very large attendance here today demonstrates the extent of concern. I listened extremely carefully to what the Secretary of State said. There have been many references to eggs in the course of the debate so far. One Member said that the Secretary of State was a good egg, but this particular egg is completely empty when it comes to the detailed proposal that he has in mind. What he said was not persuasive, not just to those on the Opposition Benches but I suspect to those on the Government Back Benches.

This is, in essence, a debate about how decisions should be taken on extensions to residential properties. It is a debate about, first, the process, and secondly, who should take those decisions. At the heart of the debate is a simple question: is it sensible for the Government to impose the change in permitted development rights on every single local planning authority in England? That is what we are debating. The Secretary of State tries to suggest that the proposal is about empowering people, but what he is trying to do is to take away the rights of neighbours to object to developments that they think will affect their rights and their amenity. That is why there is so much concern.

I think it is a centralist proposal that the right hon. Gentleman has advanced. I do not think that it will give the boost to the economy that is being claimed, because I do not think the back gardens of England should be made the victims of the failure of the Government’s economic policy.

[Mrs Main]

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider his phraseology? The issue is not necessarily the back gardens of England, but the curtilages of England, which could be a different point entirely.

[Hilary Benn]

The hon. Lady makes an extremely important point. I was going to raise it in a moment, but I shall raise it now. The Planning Minister told the Select Committee that the development would be limited to 50% of the garden, but the consultation document does not say that. It says 50% of the curtilage of the house. As the Royal Town Planning Institute has pointed out, the two are self-evidently not the same. I would happily give way at this moment to the Secretary of State if he could clarify a simple question. Is it 50% of the garden or 50% of the curtilage?

Growth and Infrastructure Bill

Debate between Anne Main and Hilary Benn

Monday 5th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn]

Perhaps my hon. Friend will just bear with me for a second, as I am very interested further in the Secretary of State’s answer because he has not defined the worst. I have here before me a list of the slowest decision makers on all applications and the slowest decision makers on major applications. The top three—or the bottom three, depending on our interpretation, in those two categories are Stratford-upon-Avon, Stafford and Warwick for all applications, and for major applications Torbay, Kensington and Chelsea, and North Norfolk.

Government Members really ought to see where their authorities are in the league table that the Secretary of State is in the process of making up as he goes along. They may well find that, unless we remove clause 1, planning decisions will be taken not by locally elected councillors—that is my definition of localism—but by the Planning Inspectorate. The truth is that if he knows the criteria he should make them clear now. Clause 1 will in effect give the Secretary of State the ability to nationalise planning decisions in respect of as many authorities as he likes. It will completely change the basis on which planning applications have been traditionally considered by local communities. That is the very opposite of the localism that he used to speak about, because decisions will be taken not by councillors but by the Planning Inspectorate on behalf of the Secretary of State. There will be a strong reaction when the first local authorities discover that the power to decide has been taken away from them by the Secretary of State under the Bill.

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

The right hon. Gentleman needs to go back a little in history and look at the imposed housing targets that local authorities were expected to deliver. This scaremongering—that the Secretary of State, in a micro-managing sort of way, will look at every planning authority and decide the plans himself—is frankly ridiculous. I sincerely hope that the right hon. Gentleman gets back to the real nub of the argument, which is that the coalition Government are trying to get away from imposing things on local people and are letting them choose how they want their areas to develop.

[Hilary Benn]

I say to the hon. Lady that it is not ridiculous; it is what clause 1 says. If she has not read the clause, I suggest that she does so carefully. On housing targets, the truth is that under the new arrangements the figures that local authorities will have to come up with for housing numbers in their area will not be very different from the figures produced by the regional spatial strategy, because there is still the same housing need. That is certainly the case for the authority in Leeds, because I have spoken to the chief planning officer about that.

The truth is that if hon. Members read the Bill, they will see that the Secretary of State will decide which authorities will lose the right to decide applications for themselves, he will decide what kinds of applications will come to him for decision, and he alone will take the decision in the place of local councillors. Of course, there will be no right of appeal—something the Bill also states.

I want to turn, as my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) invited me to a moment ago, to the grounds on which the Secretary of State may designate authorities. Clearly, he has made up his mind; he is just not telling us how he has done it. The clause gives him the power to do that anywhere, on any basis, for as many authorities as he likes, and there will be no check or balance from anybody else.

As for the criteria, when the Minister with responsibility for planning appeared before the Select Committee he said that speed and poor quality measured by decisions overturned by the Planning Inspectorate would be the factors that Ministers would take into account. On speed, I am genuinely puzzled. First, councils currently decide 82% of applications within eight weeks and 93% within 13 weeks. Those are the facts. The percentage of applications approved reached a 10-year high in 2011-12. Secondly, developers can already appeal to the Planning Inspectorate on grounds of non-determination in the required time under section 78(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. What does the Bill add to that power? Thirdly, there is a practical problem, as the planning Minister had to admit. He said that there was a wrinkle in the statistics. The data on timeliness do not take account of planning performance agreements. As hon. Members will know, that is where developers and councils jointly reach agreement to say, “Hey, this development could take a bit more time to approve. Can we agree, in effect, to set aside the time limits?” Instead of there being a simple measure, the Secretary of State will have to decide whether he thinks the reason given by an authority, when decisions are apparently slow, is good enough to justify his not taking the power away from them.