Did Tory MP breach the Data Protection Act in courting Muslim voters?

Concerns have been raised that Conservative MP for Stockton South James Wharton may have breached the Data Protection Act by sending a letter about the current conflict in Gaza, but only to Muslim voters .

I have been passed the letter sent on 22 July by a number of Muslim residents who are concerned that they have been singled out to receive the letter on the sole basis of having an 'Islamic-sounding' name. Their concerns are borne out to a degree by the fact a number of friends and constituents with non-Islamic names who frequently receive such unsolicited correspondence from Mr Wharton have not received this particular letter.

The case bears remarkable similarities to that of Labour MP Karen Buck who a fortnight ago admitted her staff trawled the electoral register singling out people with 'Islamic' names in order to send cards celebrating Eid - a practice Miss Buck was warned by the Information Commissioner's Office back in 2010, following a previous complaint, was probably in breach of the Data Protection. Correspondence should not be sent to selected voters 'merely on the basis of an assumption about their names' chided the ICO.

The strong pro-Palestinian sentiments expressed in Mr Wharton's letter, criticising Israeli military action as being "out of all proportion" and the consequences "horrifying", will doubtless anger many of his Conservative supporters. Indeed, there can be no doubts as to where Mr Wharton's sympathies lie, with his helpful inclusion of a photograph from 2011 of him shaking hands with the Palestinian Authority's Prime Minister Salam Fayyad.

Mr Wharton himself recognises his position will be widely unpopular, stating: "I know this is a matter which divides opinion and that my stance will not please everyone." His actions are somewhat less principled than he seeks to portray, however, when he attempts to court the votes of those he presumes will agree with him (i.e. those with 'Islamic' names) whilst hiding his position from everybody else.

It is such opportunistic cynicism that has become Mr Wharton's hallmark since 2010, and does so much to erode voters' confidence in their elected representatives.

In criticising Miss Buck, Tory MP Philip Davies said: 'The idea that you can win elections by this kind of vacuous, politically correct, cynical tactic is wrong." Mr Wharton would be well served to heed his colleague's words.

In the next day or two I expect we will hear an ardent denial of wrongdoing by Mr Wharton; maybe even some letters ostensibly received by local party members residents will be helpfully presented. Should such a situation remarkably transpire, I trust Mr Wharton will be helpful enough to clarify to whom the letters were sent and, more importantly, on what basis those individuals were singled out. For some reason, I very much doubt he will...

Tory MP inadvertantly admits Tory planning policy to blame for planning approvals

This week saw the latest controversial planning application to hit our area approved, with permission granted to build 330 new homes on the site of the iconic Tall Trees hotel (read the Evening Gazette report here).

The initial determination was deferred in December to allow the council the opportunity to take legal advice on the suggested grounds for refusal. At this week's meeting, enough councillors changed their mind to see the application approved, after the opinion of Alan Evans QC stated "...the merits of the Council’s reasons for refusal are weak and that they would be very unlikely to be defended successfully on appeal."

Furthermore, Alan Evans QC continued: "I also think that the Council is in territory where it would be at significant risk of an award of costs on the basis of unreasonable refusal". (You can read the full legal opinion here).

Whilst I have been a critic of the Tories' new planning rules from their inception, and indeed they were one of the major reasons for my resigning from the Conservative party (see here), hitherto our local Tory MP has refused to criticise the new rules.

However, in today's Darlington and Stockton Times, the mask slipped.

Although Mr Wharton, Tory MP for Stockton South, "refused to respond" to my call for him to speak out against the damaging planning reforms his government has introduced, he did comment:

"The reason Stockton Council keeps passing planning applications is because of the failure to meet its five-year supply."

Even on the face of it, Mr Wharton's comment is laughable - the idea that Stockton Council is solely to blame for approving the recent planning applications because it hasn't been approving enough planning applications is absurd and contradictory. Perhaps Mr Wharton can tell us which applications received were not eventually granted permission because, in nearly three years on the planning committee, I cannot recall a single one.

More seriously, whilst we do not know if it is ignorance of the detail of the Tories' NPPF (National Planning Policy Framework) that led to his remark, or whether it was a genuine Freudian slip, it was the NPPF which deliberately tied councils' hands when a five-year housing supply cannot be demonstrated.

Although councils have long had to publish a five-year housing target, it was only with the advent of the NPPF that a failure to meet these targets had any repercussions.

Paragraph 49 of the NPPF has been the absolute killer. It reads, "Housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption of sustainable development. Relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date if the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites."

In situations where parts of a planning authority's local plan are "absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of date", the NPPF takes precedence. This was a situation a majority of councils, including Stockton Council, found themselves in over a year after the NPPF came into effect.

As Alan Evans QC makes perfectly clear, it was the fact that the council's policies were 'out-of-date' which was the overriding factor in reaching the opinion he did.

So how about it Mr Wharton? Why don't you put aside your blind party loyalty, stop taking local residents for fools, and call on the government to immediately amend, or abandon, its catastrophic NPPF?

The Conservatives, in turning on Adam Afriyie, have revealed their true colours

Last week Adam Afriyie announced he was putting down an amendment to the EU Referendum Bill, which would set 23rd October 2014 as the date on which an In/Out Referendum would be held. In its current form, the Bill only promises a referendum to be held before the end of 2017.

There is a lot of merit in such a proposal. Given our current level of contributions to the EU, delaying a referendum by three years until 2017 would see our handing over a further £50billion to those unelected eurocrats before we are even given a say on whether we wish to continue doing so. We are told by the usual scaremongers that the ongoing debate is causing uncertainty and risks damaging trade; not an argument I accept, but an early referendum would quash any uncertainty there may be.

And that’s not to mention that a clear, consistent and growing majority of people want a referendum – now.

The response to Mr Afriyie’s amendment from his own Conservative colleagues has been startling. Instead of supporting his call for an early referendum like the eurosceptics many of them purport to be, he has been roundly abused. He has been branded a “fantatist” who has “lost touch with reality” by Conservative MPs briefing against him, anonymously of course. Not to be outdone, the Conservative-supporting press have branded him “a wally”.
Even the erudite Jacob Rees-Mogg got in on the act. Writing for the Telegraph, Rees-Mogg sought to explain how the amendment wasn’t helping the Eurosceptic cause and called for Mr Afriyie to “pipe down”. His reasons were twofold.

First, he declares the idea of renegotiating our relationship with Europe and seeking to repatriate powers to be eminently sensible. Unlike the Prime Minister, he went as far as to name what he sees as the minimum aims for renegotiation: opt-outs from the common fisheries policy, financial regulation and most importantly the free movement of people. And therein lies the problem.

It is incomprehensible to imagine that the Prime Minister will be able to secure the repatriation of any meaningful powers, particularly as the Commission has clearly set its face against it. It beggars belief they will concede ground on the free movement of people when this is the very bedrock of the European federalist dream. It cannot and will not happen, and it seems crazy to argue in favour of three years of negotiations which you know from the outset will not result in a satisfactory outcome. That way madness lies.
Secondly, he argues time is need to negotiate our exit under Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union, which would allow for transitional arrangements to be agreed thereby reassuring voters they have nothing to fear from voting to leave the EU. Again, these would be negotiations doomed to failure.

Make no mistake, the Commission want to see the UK remain part of the European project (or should I say they want us to continue to bankroll it). So why on earth would they risk damaging the prospects of an ‘in’ vote by agreeing to smooth our path towards the exit door? It makes no sense whatsoever. Instead, once an ‘out’ vote has been secured, we would be in a much stronger negotiating position as a net importer of goods and services from European countries. To borrow and paraphrase a recent quote, Mr Mercedes really isn’t going to want to stop selling us cars.

So why has there been such a vitriolic response to the calls for an early referendum? The answer is patently obvious.

Ever since the Conservatives reneged, in 2010, on their promise to deliver a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, there have been calls for an immediate in-out referendum on Europe, from within the Conservative party and from without. These calls were contemptuously and consistently rejected, right up until 2013. Why the sudden u-turn?

Between 2010 and 2013 something incredible happened: UKIP started doing rather well. From strong showings in parliamentary by-elections up and down the country, to gaining hundreds of council seats in local elections, we gained momentum. Whilst the Conservative party finally admitted its membership had halved during the years of Cameron’s leadership, UKIP’s had doubled in no time at all. That’s not to mention we now consistently poll ahead of the Liberal Democrats, making us the third party in British politics, and continue to punch above our weight whenever and wherever elections are held.

Suddenly, Conservative MPs with tiny majorities (such as James Wharton, the sponsor of the Referendum Bill and my own local MP) began to get twitchy and panic, and out of their terror the Bill was born. Not through any principled desire to give the voters the referendum they demand, but to kick the whole issue of Europe into the long grass until the next general election in a desperate bid to curtail the rise of UKIP.

But the electorate are neither stupid nor gullible. We may never know the real motives behind Adam Afriyie’s tabled amendment, but the Conservative party’s reaction to it tells us all we need to know about the party machine’s motives for the bill.

This article was first published on UKIP Daily.

Ingleby Manor free school plus 350 new homes approved

It has today been announced the 750-place free school and 350 new homes can now be built after the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government granted planning permission after this was refused by Stockton Borough Council.

Eric Pickles MP, Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

The announcement will prompt mixed feelings with residents - supporters will obviously be delighted; opponents to the housing distraught; and many will fear the effect of the new school on the current schools in the locality, particularly Conyers and Egglescliffe.

 

However, the announcement has been overshadowed by criticism of the government's centrist approach in driving forward new housing developments, no matter how unwanted or unneeded, (and which I blogged about just yesterday here), and the grubby way in which the announcement has been delayed for perceived political gain.

 

On three occasions, opponents to new housing schemes have requested the Secretary of State "call-in" the approvals granted by Stockton Council to review the decision.  On three occasions, the request has been refused, on the grounds the applications weren't sufficiently large to merit the government's intervention.

 

However, this particularly planning application was recovered, according to a letter dated 26th September 2013 from the Department for Communities and Local Government, "because it involves proposals for residential development of over 150 units".

 

Now bearing in mind the applications to develop the Morley Carr Farm, Green Lane, and Mount Leven Farm sites were each far in excess of 150 units in size, why weren't these called in?

 

The only rational conclusion is that the 'right' decision (as far as the Conservative party is concerned) was made in those cases and permission granted. The only application to build new housing in Stockton South (James Wharton's constituency) to be refused was Ingleby Manor, and this remains the only one to have seen the government step in and overrule a decision taken by locally elected and accountable councillors.

 

I spoke yesterday about how the residents of Yarm and Eaglescliffe had been betrayed by the Conservative party's approach to planning and craven, cynical desire to see hundreds of new homes built in more Conservative-leaning parts of Mr Wharton's marginal constituency; today we can add Ingleby Barwick to that list.

 

And who has been the cheerleader-in-chief of today's announcement? You guessed it, James Wharton MP.

 

As though this didn't smell enough already, it gets worse. The public inquiry in this matter closed on 28th June 2013, with the inspector, Paul Griffiths, indicating the decision would be made within 6 weeks. So we waited, and waited, and waited...

 

Lo and behold, and as I predicted at the time, the announcement was made today, some three months later, on the eve of the Conservative party conference!

 

That said, I suppose it's pleasing to see the Conservative party can still display some loyalty to its troops, as Mr Wharton receives his reward for bringing forward pro-EU Cameron's Referendum Bill...



Why I left the Conservatives part 1: The National Planning Policy Framework

In the first of a series of posts on some of the specific policies that pushed me to leave the Conservative party, I am going to focus on the one which has arguably caused more damage in Yarm and the surrounding area than any other - the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

Morley Carr Farm, the site of 300-350 new homes in Yarm

Since the introduction of the NPPF in 2012, Yarm alone has seen approvals granted to build up to 350 new homes at Morley Carr Farm, 370 homes along Green Lane and a further 350 homes plus a 100-bedroom care home at Mount Leven Farm. These are in addition to the Allens West site in neighbouring Eaglescliffe, where plans for 800 new homes have been approved.

None of the aforementioned sites in Yarm had been earmarked for development by Stockton Council in its current Core Strategy.  And whilst developers have either owned these sites or owned an option on them for decades, they had never been brought forward before the NPPF was implemented.

In the Conservative Manifesto 2010, it was stated, "We will create a presumption in favour of sustainable development in the planning system". Albeit a rare example of a manifesto pledge actually being honoured and delivered, the manifesto was silent on what else was to follow.

More detail was provided in the Coalition Agreement. It said, "We will... return decision-making powers on housing and planning to local councils." Excellent, we all thought.

It continued, "We will radically reform the planning system to give neighbourhoods far more ability to determine the shape of the places in which their inhabitants lived." Marvellous, we cried. And about time too.

Unfortunately, and as was ever thus, the devil was in the detail of what was to follow.

Paragraph 49 of the National Planning Policy Framework has been the absolute killer. It reads, "Housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption of sustainable development. Relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date if the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites."

In situations where parts of a planning authority's local plan is 'absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of date', the NPPF takes precedence. This was a situation a majority of councils, including Stockton Council, found themselves in over a year after the NPPF came into effect.

Suddenly, those council policies consulted on extensively with the public prior to approval which had protected the greenfield sites around Yarm for years, and which directed housing developments to the parts of the borough where they were both wanted and needed, were worthless, supplanted by the NPPF cuckoo in the nest. The presumption in favour of approving new housing developments became king.

If you clicked on the links attached to the three sites in Yarm I mentioned earlier, or if you have read other reports in the press I haven't included, you may have noticed one thing all the reports have in common - James Wharton MP criticising Labour-led Stockton Council for approving these planning applications.

Unfortunately, whilst he's quick to blame Labour for such planning travesties in and around Yarm after the event, his silence prior to those decisions has been deafening.

Mr Wharton failed to object to a single application, let alone speak up for residents at the relevant hearings; residents complain he failed to provide any meaningful support whatsoever to those opposing the schemes; he has consistently refused to utter a word of criticism of the NPPF which allowed these unwanted schemes to go ahead; and, despite the wholesale concern of residents, he didn't even bother to attend July's parliamentary committee debate on 'Localism in Planning' when a number of principled Conservative MPs queued up to represent their residents and, without exception, criticise the NPPF.

This is hardly surprising. For a young and ambitious MP who 'hardly ever rebels' against the party machine, and who has a slender majority of just 332, the NPPF and resulting approval of 1,000 new homes in a traditionally Conservative-voting ward within his marginal constituency could only have been regarded by Mr Wharton as manna from heaven.

That he, and the Conservative party through the NPPF, have not just let down but so badly betrayed residents in Yarm is unforgiveable.

But it isn't just Mr Wharton who is culpable.

When Morley Carr Farm was brought to the planning committee, then Green Lane, and the first time Mount Leven Farm was brought to the committee, not one single Conservative councillor (myself included) followed the national party's wishes and voted to approve these applications.

However, after the Mount Leven Farm application was initially rejected, the developer submitted a second, virtually identical, application was again brought before the committee just months after the first. Second time around, the application was approved with the committee voting 6-5 in favour.

'How did this happen' you might ask. The answer is simple - Councillor Ken Lupton (the chairman of the Stockton Conservatives Association, and leader of the Conservative group on Stockton Council) changed his mind, having voted against the application initially but voting for it the second time around.

Had the Conservative leader voted against the application, as he had previously, it would have been rejected. It is also noticeable that Councillor Lupton has been silent on what prompted his unexplained and devastating volte face.

It goes without saying that I could no longer remain a member of a party who nationally brought forward a policy so damaging to those I represent, and who locally can be described, at best, as duplicitous and opportunist.

I am proud to say that, as a member of the planning committee, I have listened to residents' concerns and not voted to approve a single inappropriate development in the area.

It is a crying shame that the leader of the local Conservatives cannot say the same thing.