Tag: Caroline Nokes

  • Caroline Nokes – 2024 Speech on Planning, the Green Belt and Rural Affairs

    Caroline Nokes – 2024 Speech on Planning, the Green Belt and Rural Affairs

    The speech made by Caroline Nokes, the Conservative MP for Romsey and Southampton North, in the House of Commons on 19 July 2024.

    It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Hexham (Joe Morris). I thank him for his full tribute to his predecessor, Guy Opperman, who was loved on both sides of the House.

    Very early in my political career, in 1999, when I was first elected as a councillor, my dad told me that nothing in politics is quite as vexed as the politics of the southern area planning committee of Test Valley borough council. He was right, but I reassure the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, who is responding to this debate, that the council has already modernised its planning committee. It has already taken great strides and, until the nitrate issue in the Solent hit us, it was one of the councils delivering the highest number of houses in the country, but it has faced challenges. I welcome the announcement on compulsory purchase orders and the changes that might come, but we need detail. I seek reassurance that the detail will come and will give real powers to local authorities, because Test Valley borough council has faced a challenge since 1982, when the Romsey brewery started its last brew. I was at school at the local primary school and I remember the smell well.

    That brewery site has an extant planning permission that has not been built out in the last 40 years. It is a phenomenal shame to the town that every time the local council has tried to put place in a successful compulsory purchase order, the developer has simply started work on one more unit of accommodation to delay that from happening. Given the part of the country that you are from, Mr Deputy Speaker, you may be familiar with Stanborough Developments, the company that brings that curse to Romsey. Its actions mean that we have a brownfield site in the middle of the town, with extant planning permission for a project that has never been finished, and that could be providing homes for local people.

    I vividly remember a Westminster Hall debate on this subject back in 2019, brought forward by my former right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford, the great Anne Milton. That was the first occasion on which I had the dubious honour of trying to both chair and speak in a debate. Alex Cunningham, the former Member for Stockton North, said that the Labour party would bring forward “penalties” for this sort of developer. I appreciate that it will require retrospective legislation, but I seek reassurance that the Labour Government will make good on the promises made by Mr Cunningham about extant planning permissions, and that we will see developers like Stanborough suitably punished.

    I reassure colleagues that I will not bang on about green belt this afternoon, for the good reason that there is no green belt in Hampshire, save for a tiny corner in the very south-west, designed, as you will know, Mr Deputy Speaker, to prevent the spread of the urban conurbation of Bournemouth, which is in an entirely different county. We would love some green belt, but we simply do not have any. What we do have is an area that is under extreme water stress.

    We cannot take our foot off the brakes on building without also considering where the drinking water will come from. The Abbotswood development in my constituency frequently has to have water delivered by tankers because Southern Water repeatedly fails in its duty to provide water. It is not exclusively to blame, because although water companies can be consulted on development, they have no right to say no to it. They have no ability to say, “We simply cannot deliver water to this development.” In areas like the Solent, the situation will become increasingly challenging. I saw in the pages of the Daily Mail that the expectation is that southern Hampshire will take an enormous amount of development under this Government’s plans. It cannot do that if those homes cannot have a water supply.

    Mr Richard Holden
    (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
    My right hon. Friend talks about the need for proper infrastructure alongside developments. In my Basildon and Billericay constituency, around Burstead, Billericay and Laindon, there is a lot of concern about huge infrastructure going in without local consent. Do her constituents face that issue as well?

    Caroline Nokes
    Absolutely. Infrastructure is key to making new developments work, but we need to take communities along with us, and to work hand in hand with them.

    In the debate, we have heard about villages up and down the country; they are the heart of our rural communities. Many villages in Romsey and Southampton North have worked incredibly hard to get their neighbourhood development plans in place, and held local referendums to confirm them, but now they are scared that that work will go to waste. Yet again, I seek reassurance from the Minister that that work will be upheld and cherished, because it will give us the scale and type of communities that we wish to see. When local people have been involved in the process, the Government should not turn around and tell them that their views are now irrelevant, and that a development will be imposed on them anyway.

    In the minute I have left, I wish to make a couple of further points. Over the last 48 hours, a number of issues have popped into my inbox. First and foremost, there is still a problem with the quality of new builds. When houses are thrown up at speed, people are sometimes left with significant build quality problems. One gentleman emailed me yesterday saying that he had to spend £350,000—fortunately, he had insurance covering that amount—to rectify the developer’s problems. In my constituency, we have sometimes seen houses torn down because the build quality was not good enough. Let us ensure that we do not see a repeat of that.

    While we are talking about new-build estates, can we solve the issue of estate management companies ripping off homeowners and not bringing estates up to the quality needed if the estate is to be adopted? [Interruption.] I can see that the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice (Emma Hardy), is taking that on her shoulders. She should believe me. I will be beating a path to her door, because there is much that still needs to be done to ensure that the housing that is delivered is of good enough quality for people to live in.

  • Caroline Nokes – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    Caroline Nokes – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Caroline Nokes on 2016-02-08.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Education, if she will take steps to make sex and relationship training mandatory for all the teachers.

    Edward Timpson

    This Government believes that all children should have the opportunity to receive a high quality and appropriate sex and relationship education (SRE). SRE is compulsory in all maintained secondary schools and many primary schools also teach it in an age-appropriate way. The Government also expects academies and free schools to deliver SRE as part of their provision of a broad and balanced curriculum.

    Any state-funded school teaching SRE must have regard to the Secretary of State’s SRE guidance (2000). The Department does not collect data about the number of schools that follow the guidance. The Department has received requests about updating the existing SRE guidance which we will carefully consider.

    Ofsted does not inspect individual curriculum subjects. However, aspects of Personal Social, Health and Economic (PSHE) education and SRE will inform its judgment on personal development, behaviour and welfare. Inspectors must also consider the spiritual, moral, social and cultural development of pupils. Schools have responsibility for acting upon the inspection reports they receive and any weaknesses will be considered when the school is next inspected.

    Initial Teacher Training is currently determined by the Teachers’ Standards, which all trainee teachers must be able to demonstrate by the end of their training. The Standards set out the key principles of good subject pedagogy and the importance of subject knowledge development across the curriculum. Schools and headteachers are best placed to determine which staff learning activities will be most beneficial for their schools and we expect them to lead the personal development of their teachers to improve the quality of all round teaching.

    The Department supports schools’ efforts to improve PSHE teaching, by drawing schools’ attention to a range of high quality PSHE education teaching resources, including quality resources, lesson plans, a programme of study, factsheets and case studies. These resources are kite-marked by the PSHE Association to ensure that schools can trust the materials they use and improve their teaching.

  • Caroline Nokes – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    Caroline Nokes – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Caroline Nokes on 2016-02-08.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Education, what plans she has to improve the teaching of personal, social, health and economic education and sex and relationship education in schools that Ofsted inspectors have assessed as requiring improvement in the teaching of those subjects.

    Edward Timpson

    This Government believes that all children should have the opportunity to receive a high quality and appropriate sex and relationship education (SRE). SRE is compulsory in all maintained secondary schools and many primary schools also teach it in an age-appropriate way. The Government also expects academies and free schools to deliver SRE as part of their provision of a broad and balanced curriculum.

    Any state-funded school teaching SRE must have regard to the Secretary of State’s SRE guidance (2000). The Department does not collect data about the number of schools that follow the guidance. The Department has received requests about updating the existing SRE guidance which we will carefully consider.

    Ofsted does not inspect individual curriculum subjects. However, aspects of Personal Social, Health and Economic (PSHE) education and SRE will inform its judgment on personal development, behaviour and welfare. Inspectors must also consider the spiritual, moral, social and cultural development of pupils. Schools have responsibility for acting upon the inspection reports they receive and any weaknesses will be considered when the school is next inspected.

    Initial Teacher Training is currently determined by the Teachers’ Standards, which all trainee teachers must be able to demonstrate by the end of their training. The Standards set out the key principles of good subject pedagogy and the importance of subject knowledge development across the curriculum. Schools and headteachers are best placed to determine which staff learning activities will be most beneficial for their schools and we expect them to lead the personal development of their teachers to improve the quality of all round teaching.

    The Department supports schools’ efforts to improve PSHE teaching, by drawing schools’ attention to a range of high quality PSHE education teaching resources, including quality resources, lesson plans, a programme of study, factsheets and case studies. These resources are kite-marked by the PSHE Association to ensure that schools can trust the materials they use and improve their teaching.

  • Caroline Nokes – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    Caroline Nokes – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Caroline Nokes on 2016-02-08.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Education, what assessment she has made of how (a) academies, (b) primary schools and (c) other schools have implemented the Sex and Relationship Education Guidance published in 2000.

    Edward Timpson

    This Government believes that all children should have the opportunity to receive a high quality and appropriate sex and relationship education (SRE). SRE is compulsory in all maintained secondary schools and many primary schools also teach it in an age-appropriate way. The Government also expects academies and free schools to deliver SRE as part of their provision of a broad and balanced curriculum.

    Any state-funded school teaching SRE must have regard to the Secretary of State’s SRE guidance (2000). The Department does not collect data about the number of schools that follow the guidance. The Department has received requests about updating the existing SRE guidance which we will carefully consider.

    Ofsted does not inspect individual curriculum subjects. However, aspects of Personal Social, Health and Economic (PSHE) education and SRE will inform its judgment on personal development, behaviour and welfare. Inspectors must also consider the spiritual, moral, social and cultural development of pupils. Schools have responsibility for acting upon the inspection reports they receive and any weaknesses will be considered when the school is next inspected.

    Initial Teacher Training is currently determined by the Teachers’ Standards, which all trainee teachers must be able to demonstrate by the end of their training. The Standards set out the key principles of good subject pedagogy and the importance of subject knowledge development across the curriculum. Schools and headteachers are best placed to determine which staff learning activities will be most beneficial for their schools and we expect them to lead the personal development of their teachers to improve the quality of all round teaching.

    The Department supports schools’ efforts to improve PSHE teaching, by drawing schools’ attention to a range of high quality PSHE education teaching resources, including quality resources, lesson plans, a programme of study, factsheets and case studies. These resources are kite-marked by the PSHE Association to ensure that schools can trust the materials they use and improve their teaching.

  • Caroline Nokes – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    Caroline Nokes – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Caroline Nokes on 2016-02-08.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Education, when she plans to update the Sex and Relationship Education Guidance that was published in 2000.

    Edward Timpson

    This Government believes that all children should have the opportunity to receive a high quality and appropriate sex and relationship education (SRE). SRE is compulsory in all maintained secondary schools and many primary schools also teach it in an age-appropriate way. The Government also expects academies and free schools to deliver SRE as part of their provision of a broad and balanced curriculum.

    Any state-funded school teaching SRE must have regard to the Secretary of State’s SRE guidance (2000). The Department does not collect data about the number of schools that follow the guidance. The Department has received requests about updating the existing SRE guidance which we will carefully consider.

    Ofsted does not inspect individual curriculum subjects. However, aspects of Personal Social, Health and Economic (PSHE) education and SRE will inform its judgment on personal development, behaviour and welfare. Inspectors must also consider the spiritual, moral, social and cultural development of pupils. Schools have responsibility for acting upon the inspection reports they receive and any weaknesses will be considered when the school is next inspected.

    Initial Teacher Training is currently determined by the Teachers’ Standards, which all trainee teachers must be able to demonstrate by the end of their training. The Standards set out the key principles of good subject pedagogy and the importance of subject knowledge development across the curriculum. Schools and headteachers are best placed to determine which staff learning activities will be most beneficial for their schools and we expect them to lead the personal development of their teachers to improve the quality of all round teaching.

    The Department supports schools’ efforts to improve PSHE teaching, by drawing schools’ attention to a range of high quality PSHE education teaching resources, including quality resources, lesson plans, a programme of study, factsheets and case studies. These resources are kite-marked by the PSHE Association to ensure that schools can trust the materials they use and improve their teaching.

  • Caroline Nokes – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    Caroline Nokes – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Caroline Nokes on 2016-02-19.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what progress his Department has made on ensuring that all judges and family court sittings in private family proceedings cases where there is evidence of domestic abuse adhere to Practice Direction 12J: Child Arrangements and Contact Order: Domestic Violence and Harm.

    Caroline Dinenage

    The Government is committed to supporting victims of domestic violence and abuse.

    The Ministry of Justice is undertaking research to explore how the family judiciary are currently managing cases where unrepresented alleged perpetrators of abuse can cross-examine vulnerable witnesses in the family court, and to establish what, if any, additional provisions could be considered to support them in doing so. A report will be published in due course.

    The research did not aim to assess the psychological impact of any cross-examination on victims of domestic abuse. However, some of the findings relate to the considerations the judiciary make in managing such cases appropriately, and the report will outline options to further protect vulnerable witnesses in the family court. It was out of scope of this research to explore cases where an unrepresented litigant who is a victim of domestic abuse may have to cross-examine their alleged abuser.

    Family judges have a range of powers and training to manage difficult court room situations and to ensure they are handled sensitively for victims of domestic violence and other vulnerable witnesses. Judges can intervene to prevent inappropriate questions or have questions relayed. Practical protections, for example, protective screens, video links, separate waiting rooms and separate entrances are available where appropriate. It is for the judge involved, on the basis of the evidence, to determine how the framework will be applied in a particular case.

    The family courts take the issue of domestic violence extremely seriously. The Child Arrangement Programme and Practice Direction 12J set out a strong and clear framework where domestic violence is alleged and all judges receive specific training on this framework.

  • Caroline Nokes – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    Caroline Nokes – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Caroline Nokes on 2016-02-19.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many family courts have designated safe waiting rooms for vulnerable victims and witnesses.

    Caroline Dinenage

    The Government is committed to supporting victims of domestic violence and abuse.

    The Ministry of Justice is undertaking research to explore how the family judiciary are currently managing cases where unrepresented alleged perpetrators of abuse can cross-examine vulnerable witnesses in the family court, and to establish what, if any, additional provisions could be considered to support them in doing so. A report will be published in due course.

    The research did not aim to assess the psychological impact of any cross-examination on victims of domestic abuse. However, some of the findings relate to the considerations the judiciary make in managing such cases appropriately, and the report will outline options to further protect vulnerable witnesses in the family court. It was out of scope of this research to explore cases where an unrepresented litigant who is a victim of domestic abuse may have to cross-examine their alleged abuser.

    Family judges have a range of powers and training to manage difficult court room situations and to ensure they are handled sensitively for victims of domestic violence and other vulnerable witnesses. Judges can intervene to prevent inappropriate questions or have questions relayed. Practical protections, for example, protective screens, video links, separate waiting rooms and separate entrances are available where appropriate. It is for the judge involved, on the basis of the evidence, to determine how the framework will be applied in a particular case.

    The family courts take the issue of domestic violence extremely seriously. The Child Arrangement Programme and Practice Direction 12J set out a strong and clear framework where domestic violence is alleged and all judges receive specific training on this framework.

  • Caroline Nokes – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    Caroline Nokes – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Caroline Nokes on 2016-02-19.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what steps his Department is taking to ensure that all victims of domestic abuse attending the family courts have access to special measures similar to those available in the criminal courts.

    Caroline Dinenage

    The Government is committed to supporting victims of domestic violence and abuse.

    The Ministry of Justice is undertaking research to explore how the family judiciary are currently managing cases where unrepresented alleged perpetrators of abuse can cross-examine vulnerable witnesses in the family court, and to establish what, if any, additional provisions could be considered to support them in doing so. A report will be published in due course.

    The research did not aim to assess the psychological impact of any cross-examination on victims of domestic abuse. However, some of the findings relate to the considerations the judiciary make in managing such cases appropriately, and the report will outline options to further protect vulnerable witnesses in the family court. It was out of scope of this research to explore cases where an unrepresented litigant who is a victim of domestic abuse may have to cross-examine their alleged abuser.

    Family judges have a range of powers and training to manage difficult court room situations and to ensure they are handled sensitively for victims of domestic violence and other vulnerable witnesses. Judges can intervene to prevent inappropriate questions or have questions relayed. Practical protections, for example, protective screens, video links, separate waiting rooms and separate entrances are available where appropriate. It is for the judge involved, on the basis of the evidence, to determine how the framework will be applied in a particular case.

    The family courts take the issue of domestic violence extremely seriously. The Child Arrangement Programme and Practice Direction 12J set out a strong and clear framework where domestic violence is alleged and all judges receive specific training on this framework.

  • Caroline Nokes – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    Caroline Nokes – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Caroline Nokes on 2016-02-19.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment his Department has made of the potential psychological effect on victims of domestic abuse who are representing themselves as litigants in person in the family court of being cross-examined by their alleged abuser.

    Caroline Dinenage

    The Government is committed to supporting victims of domestic violence and abuse.

    The Ministry of Justice is undertaking research to explore how the family judiciary are currently managing cases where unrepresented alleged perpetrators of abuse can cross-examine vulnerable witnesses in the family court, and to establish what, if any, additional provisions could be considered to support them in doing so. A report will be published in due course.

    The research did not aim to assess the psychological impact of any cross-examination on victims of domestic abuse. However, some of the findings relate to the considerations the judiciary make in managing such cases appropriately, and the report will outline options to further protect vulnerable witnesses in the family court. It was out of scope of this research to explore cases where an unrepresented litigant who is a victim of domestic abuse may have to cross-examine their alleged abuser.

    Family judges have a range of powers and training to manage difficult court room situations and to ensure they are handled sensitively for victims of domestic violence and other vulnerable witnesses. Judges can intervene to prevent inappropriate questions or have questions relayed. Practical protections, for example, protective screens, video links, separate waiting rooms and separate entrances are available where appropriate. It is for the judge involved, on the basis of the evidence, to determine how the framework will be applied in a particular case.

    The family courts take the issue of domestic violence extremely seriously. The Child Arrangement Programme and Practice Direction 12J set out a strong and clear framework where domestic violence is alleged and all judges receive specific training on this framework.

  • Caroline Nokes – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    Caroline Nokes – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Caroline Nokes on 2016-02-19.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment his Department has made of the potential psychological effect on victims of domestic abuse who are representing themselves as litigants in person in the family court of having to cross-examine their alleged abuser.

    Caroline Dinenage

    The Government is committed to supporting victims of domestic violence and abuse.

    The Ministry of Justice is undertaking research to explore how the family judiciary are currently managing cases where unrepresented alleged perpetrators of abuse can cross-examine vulnerable witnesses in the family court, and to establish what, if any, additional provisions could be considered to support them in doing so. A report will be published in due course.

    The research did not aim to assess the psychological impact of any cross-examination on victims of domestic abuse. However, some of the findings relate to the considerations the judiciary make in managing such cases appropriately, and the report will outline options to further protect vulnerable witnesses in the family court. It was out of scope of this research to explore cases where an unrepresented litigant who is a victim of domestic abuse may have to cross-examine their alleged abuser.

    Family judges have a range of powers and training to manage difficult court room situations and to ensure they are handled sensitively for victims of domestic violence and other vulnerable witnesses. Judges can intervene to prevent inappropriate questions or have questions relayed. Practical protections, for example, protective screens, video links, separate waiting rooms and separate entrances are available where appropriate. It is for the judge involved, on the basis of the evidence, to determine how the framework will be applied in a particular case.

    The family courts take the issue of domestic violence extremely seriously. The Child Arrangement Programme and Practice Direction 12J set out a strong and clear framework where domestic violence is alleged and all judges receive specific training on this framework.