Nesil Caliskan
MP for Barking · Labour · United Kingdom
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. This is the second or third time we have been in the same debate this week, so Members are in competition with me. I thank my hon.”
“There has clearly been a reduction in the speed of provision across the country—I am not in the business of rejecting the evidence in front of us—but the Government’s important spending review included a record spending settlement for local government, and spending decisions should be taken locally. The 2021 regulations were significant.”
“My hon. Friend is right to highlight the important point he made earlier. I was coming on to say that of course I absolutely welcome a dialogue with him, but also with the consortium that has been referenced in the debate, which does such good work already.”
“The Government want people to be able to live well, work, enjoy days out, shop and socialise, and we recognise that access to appropriate public facilities can be an important part of enabling that. Reasonable adjustments, as has already been mentioned, are instrumental to changing lives and allowing everybody to live fulfilled lives.”
“It is absolutely right that MHCLG has that engagement and I am confident that it will going forward. I am happy to discuss with my hon. Friend any letters, correspondence or meetings that we need to have as a Department in the coming weeks and months to make sure that we can continue to make the case for these facilities.”
“However, for some individuals with profound and multiple disabilities, or other conditions that severely limit mobility, standard accessible toilets might not provide the support they need.”
The complete record
Every one of 310 lines we hold for Nesil Caliskan, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 4 of 7.
“Nesil Caliskan accordingly presented the Bill. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 12 September , and to be printed (Bill 281 ).”
“The responsibility these people hold is greater than their responsibility to any individual child; they are helping raise and educate the next generation in our communities, and shaping our society—a society in which I want everyone to thrive and to which I want everyone to contribute, including those with SEND. This Bill supports teachers to do their job properly. They deserve adequate training, enabling them to deliver the early help that children with SEND need. I ask hon. Members from across the House for their support for this Bill, so that we can begin to fix the broken SEND system in this country. Question put and agreed to. Ordered, That Nesil Caliskan, Anna Dixon, Chris Ward, Chris Kane, Mr Clive Betts, Danny Beales, Daniel Francis, Dawn Butler, Jen Craft, Lloyd Hatton and Sarah Hall present the Bill.”
“With the lack of specialist support or training for teaching staff in mainstream schools, those children are too often left unsupported. Of course, for some children, access to specialist SEND schools is the most appropriate fit; however, the majority of SEND children are in mainstream schools. We must therefore recognise that our schools should fundamentally shift to being better equipped to support children with SEND, with teachers who are better trained, because SEND children deserve the opportunity to succeed in our mainstream schools. Being a good teacher, or good at any of the professions that look after and teach our children, takes a special kind of person.”
“That was apparent before the 10-year fight to secure an EHCP for her son, which she only managed to do towards the end of his time at secondary school. This little boy was in mainstream school for 10 years, being taught by teachers with inadequate SEND training. His mother feels that teachers equipped with better skills and training on SEND would have identified her child’s needs sooner, and could have helped him earlier. SEND support for children is a complicated picture that requires input from different agencies, and parents must always be at the heart of any discussion or decision about SEND support for their child. That is especially true for the many children who will, and do, fall short of the statutory duty to secure an EHCP.”
“Parents—certainly those I have met in my constituency—are often left wondering who they can turn to as they fight to get the support that their child deserves. One parent in my constituency told me about the exhausting decade they have had fighting for an EHCP for their son, who has autism. After five years of school becoming too difficult a challenge for her son once he started secondary school, in 2020 her little boy was referred by the NHS to neurology. It took until 2024 for a doctor to confirm that he also had epilepsy, which was causing brain seizures resulting in short absences. The point here, which the little boy’s mother made to me, is that her child was clearly struggling at school for years, finding it difficult to focus.”
“One teacher in Barking and Dagenham told me about the four-hour training seminar on SEND that they attended, but that was their only training, followed by a “get on with it” attitude from the education sector. The lack of training means that well-meaning teachers inevitably create an exclusive education environment, resulting in nine out of 10 children with SEND being left behind. This is a two-tier education system, working against our children who have the greatest need. Early intervention must be at the core of the Government’s SEND strategy, but it will not be successful if it is left only to special educational needs co-ordinators and teaching assistants, and this Bill seeks to address that. For most schools, a dedicated SENCO on the school’s senior leadership team is a nice to have, rather than a must have.”
“The evidence overwhelmingly shows that ensuring a child receives speech and language support, for example, would reduce behavioural issues in children with SEND, making a mainstream setting more successful for many children who might otherwise be excluded from school. SEND children are five times more likely to be excluded and have some of the widest attainment gaps of any demographic, impacting on earning potential and overall life chances. It does not have to be that way. With more than 50% of students with an EHCP being in mainstream schools, the current system is letting down children who have special educational needs and disabilities. Schools are trying their best, but the truth is that teachers feel ill-equipped to provide support for children with SEND.”
“Teachers require professional expertise to effectively provide wraparound support for all children, but I am afraid children with SEND are instead forced into an overstretched EHCP process managed by overburdened local authorities because mainstream school support has been stripped away after 14 years of Conservative cuts. When I visit schools and meet parents in my constituency—I recently held a coffee morning attended by more than 100 people—I hear the same thing over and over again: early help makes a big difference. Early help can happen only with appropriately trained teachers with the skills to identify children in need.”
“As my Bill sets out, requiring compulsory SEND training for teachers and teaching staff would provide them with the skills they need to educate our children. Initial teacher education and continued professional development programmes have no dedicated SEND training. SEND seminars and sessions are woven into the existing curriculum but fail to give teachers the expertise they need to support SEND children. The depth and practical application of existing training is often too variable, and many teachers feel underprepared.”
“Children in Barking and Dagenham have been let down because the national SEND system is broken. Across the country, parents feel hopeless and teachers are overwhelmed. Last night, my constituency neighbour and hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham and Rainham (Margaret Mullane) secured an important debate in this House on SEND. She highlighted that requests for education, health and care plans in Barking and Dagenham doubled in 2022—an increase that was four times the national average. I know that improving the life chances of children, regardless of their background or needs, is central to the Labour Government’s mission. However, we cannot achieve it without fixing special educational needs support.”
“I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about the evaluation of training about special educational needs and disabilities in initial teacher education; to require training about special education needs and disabilities for certain persons working in schools as part of their continuing professional development; and for connected purposes. May I first remark on how touching the tributes we just heard were? Every child deserves an inclusive education in an environment that enables them to thrive. Every child should have teachers and support staff who understand their needs and have the professional capacity and skills to care for and teach each child. I propose this Bill because sadly that is not the experience of many children with special educational needs living in my constituency.”
“As a member of the cross-party UK delegation to the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, I have had the opportunity to meet Ukrainian Members of Parliament, who make the powerful case for continuing support from NATO allies. It has become clear in recent months that other countries in the region—Poland and the Baltic states of Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia —are growing ever more nervous about their vulnerability to invasion by Russia. Can the Prime Minister comment on the UK’s efforts and dialogue with those countries at this unsettling time? Does he agree that the security of the Baltic states is important for our national security?”
“I take this opportunity to mark an important week for our armed forces. I welcome everything my hon. Friend says about support for our armed forces and their families by way of investment in their homes and more money in their pockets. Does he agree that supporting our armed forces goes way beyond just the equipment that they need on the frontline? It is about making sure that their families are valued through the support that the Government can give them and that they receive from the communities they live in.”
“Barking community hospital in my constituency has been providing antenatal services to mothers in Barking for many years, and women also use its services to give birth. I was therefore really disappointed when I heard last week that the maternity birthing unit is likely to close. Many in my community are deeply concerned. They are being redirected to Newham hospital, which the Care Quality Commission has rated as “requires improvement”. Women deserve to give birth in a safe clinical environment. Will Ministers ensure that additional attention and resources are provided to Newham hospital, so that it improves its standards and my constituents who are being redirected to give birth there can do so in a safe clinical space?”
“20. What assessment he has made of the potential impact of extending the warm home discount to all households in receipt of means-tested benefits on people receiving those benefits.”
“I thank the Minister for outlining the support available to households with high energy bills. Some 6,000 households in my constituency benefit from the warm home discount, but many in Barking and Dagenham, alongside almost 2 million other households in this country, are dealing with high energy debt. What plans are under way for energy debt relief schemes, or a scheme to help those who built up debt under the previous Government, so that we can support them now? Unlike the Conservatives, we do not abandon those households suffering from debt that arose as a result of the legacy of past Governments.”
“T7. Thousands of my constituents in Barking receive their energy via a heat network provided by their landlord or a housing association. In many cases, they are not eligible for the warm home discount. What plans do the Government have to make sure that those constituents receive the support they need?”
“As a fellow London Member of Parliament, I recognise everything that my hon. Friend has described. Was she surprised, as I was, to hear from the shadow Minister that the planning system is fine and should not change?”
“At the heart of the debate is a recognition that the housing crisis cannot be solved by individual local politicians seeking to gain political favour by campaigning against new homes in their area. I know how difficult it is for local authorities to develop and agree local plans, but we cannot have a situation in which even though 90% of planning decisions are currently made by planning officers, key projects that would see infrastructure delivered in this country are held up, as are the thousands, if not millions, of homes that we need to deliver. I absolutely support this important Bill, and I look forward—”
“It could make the difference between whether an infrastructure proposal is viable or not, and between whether homes are built in an area or not. To be clear, that does not mean that applicants will avoid a duty to consult. As the Minister outlined in his statement to the House on 23 April, local communities and local authorities will still be able to object to applications, provide evidence of any adverse impacts, and have their say as part of the post-submission NSIP process. As a vice president of the Local Government Association and a former council leader, I understand all too well how important it is that local people have a voice, but I also understand that a national housing crisis needs a national solution, and this Bill is an important step in trying to achieve that.”
“Like others, I have previously highlighted the lower Thames crossing, so I will not repeat that example, but it is really important that Members keep in mind the amount of money that is wasted through such processes. That is why I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Minister considered representations made by me and others in respect of reforming the pre-application procedure specifically. I welcome clause 4—alongside Government amendments 58, 60 and 67, and new clauses 44 and 45—which removes the statutory requirement to consult as part of the pre-application stage for NSIP applications. The changes will mean that delays are reduced and essential infrastructure is consented to faster. That will save up to 12 months from the pre-application stage and millions, if not billions, of pounds.”
“Hope is demonstrated through the actions of a Government who are committed to delivering 1.5 million homes and who will tackle the housing crisis—a challenge that has been absolutely ignored for decade after decade. Supply is one of the fundamental reasons why communities like mine are facing a housing crisis. Our planning system is hindering supply in a housing market that is already experiencing huge demand. It is a planning system that too often blocks or delays the necessary infrastructure that would support new homes being built, particularly as overall business cases for house building are intrinsically linked to infrastructure delivery. On Second Reading, I spoke about the pre-application consultation requirements for NSIP.”
“I was pleased to be a member of the Public Bill Committee, and I welcome the opportunity to speak in favour of the Bill. I will also speak to clauses 4 and 46, and to new clause 55 and amendment 1, which I worry will further frustrate the planning process—the opposite of what the Bill tries to achieve. As the Member of Parliament for Barking, I see and hear at first hand the impact of the housing crisis, as others do in their constituencies. Every week, I meet constituents who share with me their personal and desperate stories about overcrowding, years spent in temporary accommodation, poor-quality housing and sky-high rents. Let me say this about hope.”
“The International Red Cross chief has said that Gaza is “worse than hell on earth”. Is it any wonder that he did, when those children who have escaped bombs face death from starvation? The United Nations has said that one in five people in Gaza faces starvation because of the blockade. Does the Minister agree with me that the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation is clearly incapable of addressing the starvation in Gaza—that is now very clear—and that Israel should immediately hand over any aid operation to the United Nations?”
“Let me emphasise the point around viability and the impact of a precarious economic situation on developers’ ability to build. Does the Minister agree that the challenges for the private sector that he has set out also apply to local authorities? In estate renewal in London, for example, many have had to relook at the viability of that and have seen delays for a number of years because markets have changed and the land analysis has altered. It is a changing picture depending on the moment in time, and one that it is inextricably linked to the economic picture at the time.”
“Does the hon. Member recognise that targets were in place for a number of years, and that in most cases local authorities failed to meet them, not because of a lack of trying, but because market circumstances meant that viability did not work and planning permissions could not get through, and for a variety of other reasons? Targets do not, in and of themselves, drive delivery in the numbers we need in this country.”
“I thank the Minister for reiterating the Government’s position and commitment to infrastructure delivery alongside housing. Will he comment specifically on infrastructure that allows people to get on a train and go to work? Does he agree that transport infrastructure is critical and that we must not build homes in the middle of nowhere, which condemn people to poverty? The ability of people to connect to places by getting on a train or a bus to go to work and earn a decent wage, and then to get back home, is crucial for an economy that works for everyone.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. I would like to make a couple of points about the green belt, not least because I would like to address the direct comments from the shadow Minister.”
“Of course, they should be first, but if people think there is a secret drawer full of brownfield sites that will deliver the housing numbers we need in this country, they are out of touch with the housing pressures facing our communities.”
“In our discussions about well-connected neighbourhoods, we often forget the pressure on strategic industrial land, too. That is a good example of where infrastructure was delivered and houses have followed. The rest of the country can follow that example. On the point about urban areas needing to be the priority for development, of course, we have to see urban development intensify in housing delivery, but many of our urban areas already have high density, and overcrowding is a familiar picture. It is simply not possible to deliver the housing numbers we need by looking only at urban areas. I often hear the argument that it should be brownfield sites first.”
“I do not expect him to have followed my very short career to date or my position on the green belt, but just for the record, my long-standing position has been to identify appropriate areas on the green belt, particularly in London, where we have a housing crisis, that can be built on. The truth is that there are many areas of the green belt—areas that could, indeed, be described as grey belt—that already have some kind of development, perhaps without planning permission, or where enforcement is needed, that are entirely appropriate for housing development, and many of those areas are already well connected. In my constituency, a new train station has been built in the Barking Riverside area in recent years. It is not green belt, but it is strategic industrial land.”
“People deserve to have access to open and green spaces, and our rural communities deserve to have the infrastructure necessary for well-connected neighbourhoods. I firmly believe that the Bill supports that, and that the debate around green belt and access is more nuanced than some Opposition Members have set out.”
“The biggest threat to the green belt is not having a strategic approach to planning in this country. If we take the absence of local plans in areas, as it stands, the legal framework means that if a planner says no to a planning application, and there is no up-to-date local plan, then on appeal, the appeal process can enforce such that the development happens in the green belt anyway. We need a strategic approach across the country that not only encourages or, in fact, forces local authorities to have up-to-date local plans, but ensures that house building—alongside infrastructure, which I firmly believe the Bill will help to deliver—is fair in its approach to delivering homes. We cannot just build in urban areas. We do not have that capacity. It is unfair for those who are already living in overcrowded accommodation.”
“The hon. Member gives me the opportunity to make two points. First, the Planning and Infrastructure Bill will allow the Government to spearhead infrastructure delivery in this country in rural areas that do not have the necessary infrastructure. That is why the Bill is so important. With the necessary infrastructure, we will be able to see the delivery of homes not just in urban areas. Secondly, to the point about housing delivery in Barking and Dagenham, the area has some of the most impressive stats for house building in London and the rest of the country. It has been delivering housing at a much better rate than areas not just in London, but in the rest of the country. My final point is about the threat to the green belt, which the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington mentioned.”
“Q14. Every week, I meet families in Barking and Dagenham who tell me that they worry about paying their bills because they are on zero-hours contracts. My constituents want the chance to work hard in a secure job, earn a decent wage and have dignity in their workplace. As Labour’s plan for change delivers the biggest uplift in workers’ rights in a generation, does the Prime Minister agree that Reform MPs working and voting against our Employment Rights Bill show that they are no friend of workers in this country?”
“When we speak to companies that manufacture vehicle charging points, they are clear that the number of installations helps them to reduce the cost per head. This measure will mean that it becomes easier to install at a faster pace, with the hope that the overall cost will be reduced. I support the measure and think it will be a crucial step in this Labour Government’s important mission to reach net zero.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I echo the points made by other colleagues: I absolutely support the roll-out of electric vehicles, which is more likely due to this change. To be clear, I think local authorities will welcome it. They have long been frustrated by the current framework, which means that as they seek to roll out electrical vehicle charging points they are met with a planning system that prevents them from doing so at the necessary scale. Clause 43 removes the burden from local authorities and also from individuals, who often want to purchase an electric vehicle but think twice because being able to get a charging point in the convenience of their individual home is too difficult. Finally, the point about cost is important.”
“Does the hon. Member not recognise that a local plan has to be approved by full council? That already gives every single councillor the ability to have their say at a full council meeting. Democratic oversight sits not just with local planning committees, but with different local authority functions. Democratic oversight is at its best at full council, and local plans are approved at full council, with a vote for every member.”
“Does the hon. Member not recognise that once a local plan is approved at full council, it is a regulatory framework that has legal standing? That is the framework on which a planning committee bases its decision. I take the point that members may want to voice a view, but in the context of a regulatory framework, all we are doing is setting people up for failure and costing taxpayers money for decisions that will be overturned on appeal.”
“It is about recognising the severity of the housing crisis in this country and its impact on millions of people, and choosing whether one is willing to take action to address that need.”
“We cannot simply depend on a handful of brave councillors who too frequently find themselves in the firing line of decision making for schemes that it is clear to everybody should already have been approved. I hear what Members say about local authorities, and what the LGA has said. However, the LGA is also clear about the housing crisis our communities are experiencing. The national scheme of delegation gives clarity not only to local authorities and planning officers, but to the industry that we so depend on to be able to build homes up and down the country. The scheme will also speed up processes. The speed at which planning permissions could be granted means that developers are more likely to put bricks on the ground and build homes.”
“I have heard comments about the planning system during the debate, but less focus on the fact that we have a housing crisis that has manifested itself in record numbers of people living in temporary accommodation, with young people unable to buy properties and many people priced out of the communities into which they were born and in which they live. A national housing crisis requires a national solution. I do not believe that the proposed changes in any way hinder or damage democratic oversight from a local perspective. The reality is that with the existing framework, it is not possible to deliver planning approvals at the scale that is required to meet the national housing crisis, and a national delegation will help to speed up delivery.”
“Members of the public, and indeed councillors, will still have the opportunity to submit their views through what will be a statutory consultation period. Local authorities and planning officers will be obliged to take those views into consideration. I want to underline the point that if we accept that there is a housing crisis in this country and that the planning system is broken, surely planning has to be an aspect that we look at in recognition that local authorities are sometimes being hindered by the existing framework. The speed at which we can deliver housing through a more streamlined planning system, putting faith in professionals in a local authority alongside councillors, will allow us to deliver the 1.5 million homes that we so desperately need.”
“Finally, on councillors having their say, the idea that councillors run for public office only because they want to sit on a planning committee—it sounded as if a number of Members were insinuating that—is, I am afraid, a little out of touch. There are lots of ways in which local authorities and councillors can make a difference. Planning committees are indeed one of the most attractive committees, but there are multiple layers of regulatory policy in a local authority that members not only can have a say on, but get to vote on. Earlier, I referenced a local plan that full councils are required to vote on. An officer making a decision on an application that will not go to a planning committee does not remove a local authority’s ability to put out for consultation.”
“I recognise a number of those points, but supply of housing is the fundamental reason why we have a housing crisis in this country. The amendments being proposed sit alongside many of the solutions that she is seeking. Without our ability as a country, including local authorities, to see housing delivered at the necessary speed, we will never see the number of affordable homes we need or a buy-to-let market being constrained in the way that it needs to be. Supply is the No. 1 reason why we are experiencing a housing crisis. We cannot deliver the number of homes we need without fundamentally looking at the planning system.”
“The hon. Gentleman will recall that he and I worked very closely: we are part of a small percentage of ex-council leaders who actually saw through a local plan.”
“We had to work together on a statutory basis to consult each other’s local authority, so I recognise the points that the hon. Gentleman makes around the pressures of the planning system, particularly as we both have scars on our back, having seen local plans through. However, I ask him to reflect on the fact that a number of the issues that he raises can be effectively dealt with through local guidance and design principles—an authority within the administration that has set out clear guidance, not just for the public in their place but for applicants. Those are very separate issues from what the Government propose around a national delegation scheme, which is about speeding up the process for what will be a national framework to agree to a number of houses to meet a target.”
“Delays caused to pre-application contribute not only to the length of time that it takes for infrastructure to be delivered, but to the cost. Other Members rightly identified the lower Thames crossing, which impacts my constituency; 2,000 pages and £800 million spent are figures that have served absolutely no one, and certainly not the taxpayer.”
“I was rising to make my speech, Mrs Hobhouse, not to intervene; I apologise. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship. A crucial component of the ability to deliver homes across the country will be to deliver transport and other infrastructure projects. The measures in the Bill go some way towards speeding up the statutory processes of consultation in the delivery of infrastructure projects. As I outlined in my speech on Second Reading, the pre-consultation period for infrastructure projects is a major cause of delay for infrastructure being delivered. To echo the Minister’s remarks, the status quo in this country is simply not working to speed up the process. As matters stand, applicants operate in what I describe as a hyper-risk-averse context.”
“I thank the hon. Member for his intervention, but I do not think that the change would prevent applicants from continuing to engage with residents and elected Members. All it would do is avoid putting additional onus on a process that is costing the taxpayer a huge amount of money. I will go further. Having spoken to members of our community, I have heard over and over again that there is consultation fatigue with the endless stream of negotiations. Before we even get to a statutory consultation period, we have had many years of something that has been proposed with no statutory framework. This proposal has the good intention of a material change that will shorten the consultation period.”