Tag: 2023

PRESS RELEASE : More must be done to prevent grave violations against children – UK Statement at the UN Security Council [February 2023]

The press release issued by the Foreign Office on 13 February 2023.

Statement by Ambassador James Kariuki at the UN Security Council briefing on children in armed conflict.

I would like to thank the Government of Malta for convening us today and congratulate you on taking up the chair of the CAAC Working Group. We look forward to working closely together. I also thank our briefers today for their powerful contributions.

The international community must do more to prevent grave violations against children. In countries like Ukraine, Afghanistan and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, children are experiencing the horrors of war and conflict. And when violations do occur, we must act robustly to ensure children get the support required. In this regard I want to make the following three points.

First, we must ensure that existing UN mechanisms are able to work effectively. The Children and Armed Conflict Working Group and the work of the Office of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Children and Armed Conflict are critical pillars of the Council’s architecture for addressing these violations and we urge all member states to engage constructively and collaboratively with both.

Second, the United Kingdom is concerned by the dramatic rise of conflict-related sexual violence globally, with a 20 percent recorded increase in the Secretary-Generals 2022 CAAC Report. Last November, the United Kingdom launched the Platform for Action Promoting the Rights and Wellbeing of Children Born of Conflict-Related Sexual Violence. Along with key partners and Special Representative Gamba, the UK has committed to taking action under this Platform. This includes the deployment of UK expertise to support the Democratic Republic of the Congo in conducting a national review of laws, policies and practices. We believe these actions will help change the lives of tens of thousands of children.

Third, and finally, the United Kingdom is exploring all levers, including sanctions, to deter perpetrators of conflict related sexual violence. We have already announced a sanctions package which included six targets in Mali, Myanmar and South Sudan who were designated for their involvement in sexual and gender-based violence, including conflict-related sexual violence.

President, the international community must send a clear message that violations against children are intolerable. The United Kingdom is committed to playing its part in that cause.

Thank you.

February 13, 2023
PRESS RELEASE : 10-year ban for Thomas Whyte, boss of Fortress Restructuring Ltd after wrongly claiming £50,000 loan [February 2023]

The press release issued by HM Treasury on 13 February 2023.

Thomas Whyte claimed £50,000 Bounce Back Loan for dormant Scottish restructuring business, and withdrew cash before firm was wound up.

Thomas Whyte, 76, from Carluke, was the sole director and shareholder of Fortress Restructuring Ltd until it was wound up following an Insolvency Service investigation in February 2021.

In May 2020, Whyte applied for a £50,000 Bounce Back Loan for the company, stating on the application that its turnover was £250,000.

In October 2020 representatives of Fortress Restructuring Ltd advised the Insolvency Service that it had no trading address, had never traded and was not currently trading.

Following the liquidation, investigators discovered that up to the end of April 2019, accounts filed with Companies House showed that Fortress Restructuring Ltd was dormant, and the company’s only asset was £100 share capital.

On the day Whyte applied for the loan, the company in fact had just £203 in its bank account, and less than £1,000 had been received into it over the preceding year.

The Secretary of State for Business petitioned for the company to be wound up in the public interest, and the petition was presented at the Court of Session and issued publicly in the Gazette on 1 February 2021, with a copy emailed to Whyte four days later.

Thomas Whyte denied to the Insolvency Service that he had received the petition until late February, although he acknowledged receipt of the email on 5 February 2021, and between 5 and 16 February the balance on the company bank account reduced from £28,150 to a little over £1,590 with payments made to Whyte, the company accountant and others.

The Secretary of State accepted a disqualification undertaking from Thomas Whyte on 7 February 2023 after he did not dispute he had applied for a Bounce Back Loan for his company to which it was not entitled, and had disposed of substantial funds when he knew, or ought to have known, the company was being wound up.

His ban begins on 28 February 2023 and lasts for 10 years. The disqualification prevents him from directly or indirectly becoming involved in the promotion, formation or management of a company, without the permission of the court. The Insolvency Service investigation did not find evidence that warranted any disqualification action against any other individuals in relation to Fortress Restructuring Ltd.

The company’s liquidator has recovered £37,500 from Whyte towards the £50,000 owed.

Rob Clarke, Chief Investigator at the Insolvency Service, said:

Bounce Back Loans were for trading companies adversely affected by the pandemic and to be spent on legitimate business expenses.

The fact that Fortress had filed dormant accounts, and only £949 had passed through its bank account should have made it abundantly clear to Thomas Whyte that his company was not entitled to a £50,000 loan, yet he took it anyway and used the majority of that money for his own benefit.

We thank the liquidator for their efforts which have seen £37,500 recovered, and repeat that we will not hesitate to take action against directors who have abused Covid-19 financial support in this manner.

February 13, 2023
PRESS RELEASE : Independent Member Lady Arden appointed to the Committee on Standards in Public Life [February 2023]

The press release issued by 10 Downing Street on 13 February 2023.

The Prime Minister has today confirmed the appointment of Lady Arden as an Independent Member of the Committee on Standards in Public Life.

Lady Arden has today been confirmed as an Independent Member of the Committee on Standards in Public Life (CSPL). Her term will begin on 13 February 2023.

The appointment follows a recent open campaign.

The Right Hon Lady Arden of Heswall DBE

Lady Arden served as a Justice of the UK Supreme Court from October 2018 to January 2022. Prior to that she was a Judge of the High Court of Justice (1993 to 2000) and a Lady Justice of the Court of Appeal of England and Wales (2000 to 2018).

Lady Arden was also Chair of the Law Commission of England and Wales (1996-9), a member of the Steering Group for the DTI’s Company Law Review (1999-2001), Chair of the Judges’ Working Party on Constitutional Reform (2004-6), and Judge in Charge, then Head, of International Judicial Relations for England and Wales (2005 to 2018). She is a member of the UK’s National Group for nominating candidates for the International Court of Justice.

Baroness Neville-Rolfe DBE CMG, Minister of State, Cabinet Office welcomed Lady Arden’s appointment saying:

I would like to congratulate Lady Arden on her appointment to the Committee. She has a distinguished judicial career and her extensive experience will benefit the Committee.

February 13, 2023
Douglas Alexander – 2023 Comments on Standing for East Lothian Constituency

The comments made by Douglas Alexander on Twitter on 12 February 2023.

He’s running! Humbled and grateful to be overwhelmingly selected today by local party members as Scottish Labour’s candidate for East Lothian. Change is coming to our country and I’m determined to play my part by winning East Lothian back for Scottish Labour.

February 13, 2023
Greg Smith – 2023 Speech on Brownfield Development and the Green Belt

The speech made by Greg Smith, the Conservative MP for Buckingham, in the House of Commons on 9 February 2023.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Fovargue. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) on securing an incredibly important debate, as the other place continues its deliberations over the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill. I worked alongside my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) and my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) on many amendments. We will start to see some big wins in protecting the countryside from development on green belt, open countryside and greenfield sites, which will push the Government much more towards their stated aim of brownfield development.

I will start by trying to define what we are talking about. It is not just the green belt. That is a technical term. The green belt is vital to many constituencies, but in mine, we have very little technical green belt. What we have is 335 square miles of open countryside. Ninety per cent of the land in the constituency that I am fortunate enough to represent in this place is agricultural.

I echo the points made by the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet when I say that it is important to remember when we debate these matters that there is a point to the countryside. It is not just there to be pretty and beautiful, although it is both of those things. It is not just there for people to enjoy for leisure: to walk, camp and do all of the things we enjoy the countryside for. It has specific purposes. First, obviously, to produce the food and drink that we all enjoy eating and drinking. It is part of the vital backbone to our national economy. It is also important to things such as water management, allowing drainage to run, rivers to flow and chalk streams to be vibrant and active. The more we build over open countryside, green belt and agricultural land, the greater the risk there is to those things.

I will give a couple of examples from my own constituency. When the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill was in Committee, I used the village of Ickford as an example when speaking to some of the amendments on flooding. The village is small and close to the Oxfordshire border with Buckinghamshire. Deanfield Homes has almost finished building nearly 90 homes on a site there —a site that has always been known to flood. It is on the flood plain of the River Thame.

Throughout the planning process, every excuse under the sun was accepted. Every clever scheme that was introduced for clever drainage solutions, or whatever it might be, was proposed and ultimately accepted by the Planning Inspectorate. Of course there are no surprises in the fact that that land continues to flood to this day, to the extent that the developers have even raised the level at which they are building the houses, with the fancy graphics used on the marketing materials even showing enormous slopes in the back gardens to allow water to run off, which of course goes into the existing and older properties in that village.

Only this week, I heard from a concerned constituent in the village of Haddenham, which has seen considerable development over recent decades, who reported a development at the back of their house on The Clays, off Churchway. The drainage pond that was put in as the developers started to dig foundations has been way above its natural level for some time. The amount of concrete that is going into those foundations is forcing the water towards their cul-de-sac, which is surrounded by walls made out of a cob unique to Buckinghamshire called wychert that, if it gets wet, quickly falls down.

We therefore have to ensure that we encourage the development of the houses and commercial properties that we need on brownfield and regeneration sites; I very much appreciate the soundbite that my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills came up with, namely “the regeneration generation”. It is important that we are cautious about the impact that development on the countryside has on flooding.

The big issue, of course, is food security. The more we build over our countryside—our farmland and prime agricultural land—the lower our self-sufficiency in food will drop. We are already down to about 60%. Of course we will never hit 100%, because there are lots of things that we like to eat and drink that cannot be grown in this country. Nevertheless, the more we build over our agricultural land, the more reliance we will have on imports, which is crazy.

I was pleased when, off the back of an amendment that I tabled to the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, the Government and the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities agreed to put into the consultation on the new NPPF a reference that food production can be “considered” in the planning process for the first time. That is important and I urge the Minister to ensure that that change makes it through to the final NPPF. More than that, however, I urge her to ensure that planning authorities up and down the land are given a clear instruction that that is now available to them and they can use it.

A big flaw in the current NPPF—the previous NPPF, if we can call it that—is that the best and most versatile agricultural land was often walked all over and ignored by planning authorities and indeed the Planning Inspectorate. It would therefore be much appreciated by my constituents if the Minister could give some assurances in her response about the pressure that the Government will apply to planning authorities and the Planning Inspectorate on the provisions that will hopefully, in the not-too-distant future, be in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act and the new NPPF.

My last point is about consistency within the Planning Inspectorate, because if we are to achieve the ambition of the homes, commercial properties and solar panels that we need being on brownfield sites, or on rooftops in the latter case, rather than across our fields, we will need consistency in the planning process. I have a perverse case that has come to light regarding land—open countryside —that was always believed to be protected as a buffer zone next to the town of Princes Risborough in my constituency. Despite two previous decisions by the Planning Inspectorate saying that the land should be protected, a third planning inspector has now granted retrospective permission to a number of plots that have been developed on the site, so the residents of the hamlet of Ascot and the nearby hamlet of Meadle are up in arms. We need consistency from the Planning Inspectorate when it considers such matters and—if it can be achieved through the Minister’s good offices—we need that clarity to be pushed down, not only to planning authorities but to the Planning Inspectorate.

The facts speak for themselves. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills, the hon. Member for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood) and others have mentioned, the plots are out there on brownfield land. The CPRE’s data is pretty clear: there is space for 1.2 million homes. The Government’s manifesto talked of an ambition to build 300,000 houses, whereas brownfield development can deliver 1.2 million without touching a blade of grass on the green belt—precious agricultural land, open countryside, nature reserves and so much more. I urge the Government to be bold in their ambition to move towards brownfield development.

Margaret Greenwood

The hon. Member has made the case very clearly. Does he agree that we need a much more positive way to talk about brownfield development? Wirral Council’s plans for the Wirral, which is a peninsula, involve the development of the east side of the borough, which has brownfield sites with fantastic views of the Liverpool city skyline. Brownfield sites can be incredibly exciting urban developments that people will want to live in, but we need the political drive to make sure that they happen. The design of many brownfield sites can be very attractive for people.

Greg Smith

I fundamentally agree with that proposition. Lots of brownfield sites offer spectacular views—whether of a skyline or out towards the countryside. The big challenge is political ambition, but we also need recognition within the tax system through the infrastructure levy to ensure that prospective developers do not look at a brownfield site and a comparator in the green belt or open countryside and say, “It is far cheaper for us to develop the countryside.” If we had a sliding scale to make it cost-neutral to the developer, so that they paid far less in the infrastructure levy or another form of taxation to develop a brownfield site, that would be a quick political win to get us to the brownfield development that I think all right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken in the debate want to see.

February 13, 2023
Margaret Greenwood – 2023 Speech on Brownfield Development and the Green Belt

The speech made by Margaret Greenwood, the Labour MP for Wirral West, in the House of Commons on 9 February 2023.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Fovargue. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) on securing this important debate.

It is vital that we protect the green belt because it brings huge benefits to people’s health and wellbeing, and has a major role in supporting wildlife habitats, allowing nature to flourish and mitigating the effects of climate change. I echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) in pointing out that that is important for everybody, regardless of how much wealth they enjoy.

It is vital that we build the houses that people so desperately need on brownfield sites. We need to build truly affordable homes on brownfield sites that have high insulation values, and heat pumps and solar panels as standard, so that people can enjoy the benefits of moving into a high-quality home that is cheap to heat. Who would not want to do that?

The last “State of brownfield” report by CPRE, the countryside charity, published in November last year, found that the number of new homes that could be built on brownfield land has reached record levels, with more than half a million homes with planning permission waiting to be built. It revealed that

“over 1.2 million homes could be built on 23,000 sites covering more than 27,000 hectares of previously developed land.”

However, it also highlighted that despite that,

“development of the highest quality farmland has soared 1,000-fold in 10 years”.

As Tom Fyans, the interim chief executive of CPRE, said:

“You know the system is broken when hundreds of thousands of vulnerable people and families are on social housing waiting lists, many in rural areas. Meanwhile, across the country, tens of thousands of hectares of prime brownfield sites are sitting there waiting to be redeveloped.”

There is work to be done to ensure that the development that can take place on brownfield sites does indeed take place there.

The Secretary of State has said that as part of a “brownfield first” approach, Homes England, the Government’s housing and delivery arm, is spending millions on acquiring sites in urban areas to regenerate new housing, but it is no good acquiring the land if it then sits unused. It has been noted that there are often barriers to developing brownfield sites, one of which is the need for remediating works. Will the Minister outline whether she thinks the Government are doing enough to help local authorities to ensure that brownfield sites in their areas are viable for homes to be built on? Have the Government made any assessment of the amount of brownfield sites in the country that could be suitable for housing, but where significant remediation is necessary before development can take place?

Another CPRE report from 2021 pointed out that 793 applications were submitted for building on green belt land between 2009-10 and 2019-20, of which 337—just over 42%—were approved. That resulted in the building of more than 50,000 housing units on the green belt in that time, so for all the Government’s talk about protecting the green belt, it is clear much stronger protections are needed. The Government know that people care passionately about this. We need action now to make it easier for development to take place on brownfield sites and we need much stronger protection for the green belt. Without that, developers will simply carry on pushing to build on green belt sites.

With the absence of such protections, it is perhaps no wonder that developers feel emboldened when it comes to submitting applications for housing on green belt land. In my constituency, Wirral West, 61.9% of the land is green belt. It is a very beautiful part of the world and is clearly attractive to developers, given that in recent months we have seen four planning applications from Leverhulme Estates for homes on land in Barnston, Irby and Pensby. All were refused by Wirral Council last autumn, following a determined campaign against the proposals by local residents. I attended and addressed two public meetings—one at Greasby Community Centre and one outdoors in the village—in support of the many people in my constituency who oppose the destruction of the green belt. People will not forgive politicians who destroy the things that they love.

People in Wirral West value the green belt extremely highly, and they have made it very clear that they do not want to see it built on. I fully support them in this. Leverhulme Estates has appealed against Wirral Council’s decision to refuse these applications, and the appeals are now in progress. There is to be a public inquiry, which is distressing for local people, who want the local green belt to be preserved. A further application from Leverhulme Estates, for up to 240 homes in Greasby, is due to be decided by Wirral Council this evening, and the officer recommendation is to refuse that application as well. It was reported in the Wirral Globe last week that 6,000 people have signed petitions against the application, further demonstrating the strength of feeling in Wirral West, and wider Wirral, against development on the green belt. I have previously called on Leverhulme Estates to abandon its plans to build homes on the green belt in Wirral West, and I do so again.

Wirral’s local plan is currently going through its inspection process, but the plan, which was submitted to the Secretary of State in October last year, states:

“Sufficient brownfield land and opportunities exist within the urban areas of the Borough to ensure that objectively assessed housing and employment needs can be met over the plan period. The Council has therefore concluded that the exceptional circumstances to justify alterations to the Green Belt boundaries…do not exist in Wirral.”

Local people are extremely concerned about the actions of Leverhulme Estates and a series of other developers that are actively challenging that position.

Jon Trickett

Has my hon. Friend had a similar experience to ours, where the houses built on the green belt are often not accessible financially to local people? It adds insult to the injury of losing green belt land when their children or grandchildren cannot afford to live in the houses that are being built.

Margaret Greenwood

My hon. Friend points to a serious problem that we see in constituencies up and down the country. Developers want to build homes on Wirral West’s precious green belt, while local residents want to preserve it for the benefits its brings to health and wellbeing, as well as for environmental reasons. I stand with local residents in their fight to protect the green belt.

Brownfield land is not a static resource. Over time, some brownfield land leaves local authority registers as it is reused and new brownfield land enters the register as it becomes available. It continues to be a renewable resource, and every effort should be made to ensure that it is used to the greatest possible effect.

The Government should bring forward much stronger protection for the green belt as a matter of urgency. We need to see policy that drives the development of brownfield sites to build the truly affordable, zero-carbon homes the country so desperately needs.

February 13, 2023
Alex Chalk – 2023 Speech at the Global Investment Summit in India

The speech made by Alex Chalk, the Minister for Defence Procurement, in Lucknow, India on 13 February 2023.

Thank you Honourable Chief Minister for that warm introduction. It is an enormous pleasure to be here in Lucknow today for the Global Investment Summit.

As some of you may know, for me personally this has felt less of a visit and more of homecoming.

Because it was here in Uttar Pradesh that I spent a formative period of my life as a young graduate, living and working as a teacher in this beautiful state and gaining experience that continues to influence me today. Yesterday I travelled to Bakshi-ka-talab for an emotional reunion with Sushma Singh and her family.

It was emotional because I formed a strong attachment to this remarkable country and its people. From the holy city of Varanasi, to the wonder of Agra. I knew then that India was destined for an extraordinary future. In the intervening two decades, India has indeed become great. But in truth, it is only just getting started.

As well as successfully holding the presidency of the G20, India’s growing economy is accelerating past others, and is already bigger than Britain’s. That trend will only continue. We don’t just acknowledge that – we admire it and we celebrate it.

Because I come here today as a representative of a new kind of British Government. The torch has truly passed to a new generation of British ministers, led by my friend and colleague, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak – who has already established an excellent relationship with Modi Jee.

Because this is a generation of ministers that has studied and come of age in one of the most diverse countries on Earth. A country of pluralism, of tolerance. A country where I can tell you that this minister’s children celebrate Diwali with all the enthusiasm that they show for Christmas.

And above all, like you, a meritocracy – a country where it doesn’t matter where you’re from, it’s where you’re going that counts. And UP is certainly going places.

And when it comes to our country, the United Kingdom is more open, more outward-looking, more globalist than ever before. Global Britain is not a slogan – it is a fundamental part of our modern DNA. And it’s absolutely at the heart of why I’m so delighted to be here.

And so when I come back to Lucknow, and I see the road signs bearing that famous name, my mind does not turn principally to the past, our shared history or my own past. It turns with wonder to the extraordinary present of this mighty metropolis, and it soars on the promise of what tomorrow will surely bring.

Because we meet here in one of the fastest growing economies in India, a state of over 200m people, a hub of research and development. A state that is restless for its future – just as Britain is.

We know your ambitions Chief Minister for this state, for growing the economy this decade, for developing the infrastructure, and for establishing a defence corridor – the engine of new India’s growth. That vision is hugely exciting, and I would like our comprehensive strategic partnership to be the engine of each other’s growth.

Indeed, we stand ready to be at your side, as partners, as we hurry towards that future. And to demonstrate that commitment I am joined today by more than 30 British businesses – firms that are already partnering with Indian counterparts and stand ready to deepen and intensify that relationship. We want to achieve great things together, and today they are signing seven MOUs, committing £165m of investment into UP and generating almost a thousand jobs.

And when it comes to ties to India business is not beginning from a standing start. Since the turn of the century no G20 country has invested more in India than Britain. For its part, India is Britain’s second-biggest jobs creator.

And in Defence we see with growing clarity where our relationship can go. On land, on sea, and in the air. And even in space and cyber.

At sea, the crew of HMS Tamar’visited the Andaman and Nicobar Islands last month and exercised with the Indian Navy. Our flagship, the great carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth, sailed to the Indian Ocean in 2021 and took part in our most demanding bilateral exercise to date, Exercise Konkan Shakti, conducted by all three services from both countries.

In the air, you’ll be aware of our regular joint exercise, Indradhanush, with tactics, techniques and procedures being shared between our aviators.

And on the ground, where British participation in exercise Ajeya Warrior has strengthened our interoperability and shared skills in tackling terrorism, and boosting counter-insurgency capability.

And that’s all before you factor in the extensive collaboration at an industrial level.

Whether it’s our new Defence Industry Joint Working Group – launched last year. Whether it’s our Enhanced Cyber Security Partnership. Or whether it’s the regular bilateral consultations on space technology.

And I see huge opportunities for our industries to collaborate in electric propulsion technology to power the Indian Navy, and complex weapons systems.

And to support greater defence and security collaboration the UK has issued an Open General Export Licence to India, reducing bureaucracy and shortening delivery times for defence procurement. This is our first such licence in the Indo-Pacific.

And tomorrow I look forward to emphasising to Indian defence colleagues that the UK stands ready to commit to something truly special: the largest ever transfer of jet engine technology from Britain to any other nation in our history. Technology that will give India sovereign Make-in-India intellectual capability, that will ensure India joins an exclusive club and becomes just the sixth country in the world to acquire this cutting-edge capability – and will empower India to export future fighters on India’s terms around the world.

A strong, self-reliant, resilient India, with a sovereign defence industry to match.

That’s good for India. That’s good for the region. And it’s vital for the world.

That’s because wherever you are in the world, there is a growing, inescapable feeling that our planet is become more dangerous.

Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine has shown us that the world is more connected and interdependent than ever. Rising costs, food shortages and instability are triggered across the world.

And I know I don’t need to remind this audience that China’s increasing belligerence poses systematic challenges to the international rules-based order. It threatens to undermine those values that our free nations hold to be inviolable – democracy, good governance, human rights, the rule of law. And the right of any nation to preserve its territorial integrity.

So accelerating our partnership is not a ‘nice to have’. It is a geopolitical necessity. And we need to get on with it.

Prime Minister Rishi Sunak recognises that, and fired the starting gun on the latest sprint last week when he joined a meeting between India’s National Security Adviser Ajit Doval and his British counterpart Tim Barrow.

Together they framed plans to strengthen cooperation on trade, technology and defence. And I know Alan [Gemmell, HM Trade Commissioner for South Asia] is going to be speaking in a moment about the various agreements we’re set to commit to writing shortly.

We also have our Foreign Secretary, Chancellor and First Sea Lord all coming here in the coming week to further strengthen our relationship.

And I’m here in UP, because we see special opportunity in this extraordinary state of UP, and the vision you have set out for development and defence investment.

Twenty years ago, my pupils taught me:

Pardesi pardesi jaana nahi

Foreigner, don’t leave

Pardesi pardesi jaana nahi

Foreigner, don’t leave

Mujhe chhod ke, mujhe chhod ke

Leaving me behind

Pardesi pardesi jaana nahi

Foreigner, don’t leave

Mujhe chhod ke, mujhe chhod ke

Leaving me behind

Pardesi mere yaara vaada nibhana

My foreigner friend, fulfill your promise

Mujhe yaad rakhna kahin bhool na jaana

Remember me and don’t forget me

Today, the Hindi slogan that comes to mind is:

UK-UP: sAbka sat, sAbka vikAAAs.

February 13, 2023
PRESS RELEASE : Mary Starks appointed to lead review of The Pensions Regulator [February 2023]

The press release issued by the Department for Work and Pensions on 13 February 2023.

The review will examine how TPR is performing its role and where it can improve, providing greater efficiency and value to taxpayers.

The Department for Work and Pensions has announced the appointment of Mary Starks to lead a review of The Pensions Regulator (TPR).

This is in line with the expectation that public bodies are reviewed each Parliament. The Minister for Pensions has asked Starks to aim to deliver the report in May 2023.

Stark’s previous experience includes serving as executive member of the Board and Director of Competition and Chief Economist at the Financial Conduct Authority. She has also served as Executive Director of Ofgem, focussed on innovation, customer behaviour and safeguarding public confidence while moving towards a net zero carbon and digitalised energy system.

Minister for Pensions Laura Trott MP MBE said:

All public bodies must ensure that they are accountable and working for taxpayers.

Mary Starks has a background working in the regulatory sector and with public bodies, which will help her to deliver effective recommendations.

TPR Lead Reviewer Mary Starks said:

I am delighted to be appointed to lead this review. The Pensions Regulator plays a vital role protecting the interests of savers and ensuring employees benefit from workplace pensions.

As well as drawing on my own regulatory experience, I look forward to hearing from stakeholders from across the pensions sector and working closely with the teams at DWP and TPR.

The lead reviewer aims to identify efficiency savings of more than five percent where possible.

February 13, 2023
PRESS RELEASE : Sara Weller CBE appointed new Chair of the Money and Pensions Service [February 2023]

The press release issued by the Department for Work and Pensions on 13 February 2023.

The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has announced the appointment of Sara Weller CBE as the new permanent Chair of the Money and Pensions Service (MaPS).

Sara has been serving as a non-executive board member since September 2022 and will formally take up the role of permanent Chair on 29 March 2023.

Her prior experience includes serving as Joint Managing Director of Sainsbury’s, Managing Director of Argos, and non-executive director and Responsible Business Committee Chair at Lloyds Banking Group.

Minister for Pensions, Laura Trott said:

It’s brilliant to see Sara appointed as the permanent Chair of MaPS Sara will bring a wealth of experience to this challenging but rewarding role, continuing the work of her predecessor in supporting people across the country with vital money guidance.

Economic Secretary to the Treasury, Andrew Griffith said:

I’d like to welcome Sara to her new post as Chair of MaPS, and to thank Sir Hector for his successful leadership over a number of years.

Sara’s expertise in delivering for the consumer will ensure MaPS is well geared in the years ahead – taking forward vital work enhancing the financial capability of people across the country.

Sara Weller CBE, said:

I am delighted to have been appointed as the second Chair of the MaPS, with great thanks to Sir Hector Sants for his stewardship of MaPS in its early years.

MaPS has a key role to play making impartial money guidance accessible to all, particularly so at the moment given the current economic challenges, and I look forward to working closely with our many partners, to help people right across the country feel more able to manage their money.

Outgoing Chair of MaPS, Sir Hector Sants said:

I warmly welcome the appointment of Sara as my successor. In her current role, as a non-executive, she has already made a significant contribution to the work of MaPS.

MaPS is an arm’s-length body of the DWP and provides free and impartial MaPS guidance across the UK, as well as debt advice in England. In providing these services it supports the policy delivery of DWP and HM Treasury.

The appointment was made following an open competition regulated by The Office for the Commissioner of Public Appointments. Sara will serve as Chair of MaPS for five years until 28 March 2028.

February 13, 2023
Theresa Villiers – 2023 Speech on Brownfield Development and the Green Belt

The speech made by Theresa Villiers, the Conservative MP for Chipping Barnet, in Westminster Hall, the House of Commons on 9 February 2023.

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Fovargue. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) on securing the debate. It is an honour to follow the powerful speech from the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett).

I am delighted to be taking part in this debate as the Member of Parliament for a constituency that contains substantial amounts of green belt land. I know how hugely my Chipping Barnet constituents value the breathing space that green belt gives them. It has kept urban sprawl at bay for more than 70 years, but excessive housebuilding targets have been making it harder and harder for councils to turn down bad development proposals. In a number of areas, that is leading to loss of greenfield and green belt land around the country, and to increasing pressure to urbanise the suburbs.

I was very struck by the comments of the hon. Member for Hemsworth on the progressive blurring of the gaps between different communities and communities being merged together, and the crucial importance of giving people access to the countryside on their doorstop. For all those reasons, green belt protections are crucial.

Even where councils refuse planning applications, there is a risk that a planning inspector will overturn the decision on the basis that the development is needed to meet the centrally set, top-down housebuilding target. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills said, that is why I tabled new clause 21 to the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, which was signed by 60 Members of the House. In response, the Secretary of State brought forward significant concessions to rebalance the planning system to give local communities greater control over what is built in their neighbourhood. That is very welcome. It is being taken forward in the consultation now under way on the new national planning policy framework, but the battle is by no means over because the extent to which the compromise delivers real change depends on how it is implemented. It depends on that consultation.

Let me give an example. I very much welcome the new NPPF footnote 30, which promises that brownfield development will be prioritised over greenfield, but even on brownfield sites, it is crucial to respect factors like local character and density. “Brownfield first” must not mean brownfield free-for-all. We need more detail on how the “brownfield first” approach will be delivered in practice, including how the new developer levy will be used to promote it.

I very much welcome the proposal that councils will no longer be required to review green belt boundaries, even where doing so would be the only way to meet the centrally determined target. I also welcome the crucial concession that if meeting a top-down target would involve building at densities significantly out of character with the area, a lower target can be set in the local plan. Wording needs to be added to the new NPPF to make it clear that a substantial proportion of councils are likely to be able to benefit from that new flexibility and to depart from the target determined by the standard method. We also need additional wording in the NPPF to give more strength and clarity to what will be considered sufficiently “significantly out of character” to justify lowering the target, and how councils will be able to satisfy the test for establishing it.

As the Better Planning Coalition says, the whole target- setting process should focus on housing need, rather than housing demand. They are not the same things, and should be properly distinguished. The consultation also proposes removing the test that local plans have to be “justified”, which would be a welcome way to reduce the evidential burden councils face in establishing the exceptional circumstances that justify reducing their target. However, if that measure is to deliver the outcome promised by the Secretary of State, firm and clear instructions must be given to the Planning Inspectorate to accept local plans from councils that are based on reasonable evidence.

Scrapping the duty to co-operate was a key part of the compromise, too. The duty has created great pressure to build on green belt and greenfield areas outside our major towns and cities. Although the consultation proposes abolition, which is welcome, it envisages that the duty will be replaced by what is called an alignment policy. It would be good to hear from the Minister about this, as we need to know what that policy is if we are to be confident that the duty to co-operate is being scrapped and not simply relabelled.

Giving councils new powers to set design codes is also welcome, but design standards need to be additional to, not a substitute for, existing planning protections on matters such as green belt and greenfield density, height and character. A project that is an overdevelopment cannot be cured with high-quality design.

I would also highlight continuing concerns over national development management policies. Local development management policies provide a bulwark of defence against bad development, protecting greenfield sites and open space, constraining height or preventing loss of family homes to blocks of flats. Central control over all those policies could be deeply problematic and undermine the primacy of the local plan. Ministers say that that is not intended and that the NPPF consultation delivers on the Secretary of State’s promise to consult on NDMPs and their scope, which is welcome. However, NDMPs could still be used to rewrite the entire planning system and significantly restrict local decision making. I therefore urge the Minister and the Secretary of State to look again at this issue in debates in the other place and consider amendments that restore the primacy of the local plan in the event of a conflict with an NDMP.

Finally, I want to say a brief word about London. I welcome the indication by Ministers that the new flexibilities contained in the compromise proposals in the consultation will apply in London, but there is still an urgent need to curb the power of the Mayor of London to impose targets on the boroughs. We are the party that promised to scrap regional targets, yet they are alive and kicking in our capital city. The Mayor has used the London plan to try to load additional housing delivery obligations on to the suburbs, especially boroughs such as Barnet, which have already delivered thousands of new homes in recent years.

Crucial progress has been made as a result of the discussions between Ministers and Back Benchers on the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill and my new clause 21, but my long-running battle to safeguard the local environment of Chipping Barnet, which it is my honour to represent, must continue. Know this: I will fight with diligence, determination and perhaps even a little obstinacy.

February 13, 2023