I am the MP for Walthamstow Constituency. As your MP, it is important that I and my office can keep in touch with constituents about my work, take up casework on their behalf and ask for views on local issues.
This post explains how I collect and use personal data, the legal basis for doing so and provides information about your rights in respect of your personal data for which I am the data controller. You can contact me directly about this on firstname.lastname@example.org.
Data collection and use
The office of Stella Creasy MP will only collect and use personal information for the specific purpose for which it has been obtained.
I will undertake casework using personal information provided by or on behalf of a constituent. It may be necessary for me to share your information with third party organisations. I will only do where it is necessary and reasonable to do so, and I will share only the minimum amount of personal information necessary in order to advocate on your behalf. Please see the “who I share your information with” section for further details.
When registering with this website or by completing a form or survey sent to you by my office, you may be asked for personal information. In each case, I will ask for your explicit consent to use your information, and I will only use it for the purposes for which you provide it.
I may communicate by post, email, phone or text message about my work and to give you the latest news on my campaigns and opportunities to get involved. I have a legal entitlement to the full electoral register for my constituency, which includes the full name and address of every registered elector and I may write to you in connection with my activities as an MP.
I will only send emails, texts or contact you by telephone where you have provided explicit consent for me to do so. You may withdraw your consent or unsubscribe at any time from communications in any medium by contacting me directly to request this or by using the unsubscribe option I provide in all communications.
I will not use personal data for any automated decision making or profiling.
Who I share your information with:
When I take up casework on your behalf, it may be necessary for me to share the details you provide with government departments, local authorities and other public bodies. I will only share as much information as is necessary to take your case forward. If you have any questions or concerns about how information you provide as part of a casework request is used, please contact me directly for more information.
Other than in the circumstances above, I will not share personal information with other organisations without your explicit consent.
In order to communicate with you about my work as the MP for Walthamstow Constituency, it may be necessary for me to transfer personal information to countries or jurisdictions outside the EU. In each case, I will take steps to ensure that the suppliers I use comply with the General Data Protection Regulation or are subject to the Privacy Shield scheme agreed between the European Union and the United States.
Retention of personal data
I will only keep your personal information for as long as it is necessary to fulfil the purposes described in this policy. Information relating to casework will only be retained for as long as it is necessary to resolve or otherwise complete your request, although I may retain a minimum amount of information about closed cases in the event that you contact me again for help.
If you have consented to receive information about my work, I will only retain your personal information so long as I am the MP for Walthamstow Constituency, or you ask not to be contacted further.
I will regularly review the personal information I hold to ensure that its use is necessary and proportionate.
IP Addresses and Cookies
This site does not automatically capture or store personal information, other than logging the user’s IP Address or the location of your computer or network on the Internet, for systems administration and troubleshooting purposes. I also use IP addresses in the aggregate to track which pages people visit in order to improve the quality of the site.
A cookie is a tiny text file that is stored on your computer. Cookies may be used in order to tailor your experience on this site according to the preferences you have specified. Cookies on this website do not contain personally identifiable information, other than your IP address, which itself is only very rarely enough to identify you as an individual.
Links to other websites:
This website contains links to other websites. I am not responsible for the content or privacy practices of these websites.
You have a number of rights in relation to your personal information and the opportunity to choose how it is used. You can:
- Obtain copies of the personal information I hold about you (known as a “subject access request”)
- Request that I correct or update any personal information held about you
- Ask that we erase or restrict the way in which I use your information
- Request that personal information you have given your consent for me to use is provided in an electronic format so it can be transferred to another data controller (also known as “data portability”)
You may opt out of receiving further communications form me in any medium at any time. All requests to unsubscribe are dealt with promptly, and in all cases within a week.
If you wish to exercise your rights in respect of your personal data or have any concerns about how your data is used, please contact me directly on email@example.com or at 23 Orford Road E17 9NL or on 020 8521 1223.
Alternatively you have right to raise any issues or concerns directly with the Information Commissioner’s Office.
Following the horrific use of chemical weapons by President Assad against civilians in Eastern Ghouta last weekend, there has been much speculation as to what action the world will take to challenge this latest breach of international human rights law. For seven years now, Syrians have been stuck between the brutality of the murderous death cult of ISIS and President Assad’s repeated use of chemical weapons and barrel bombs to repress those who oppose his dictatorship. This has led to seven million Syrians fleeing their homes as well as the deaths of half a million innocent people.
Along with many other MPs I have repeatedly challenged the Government to work with international agencies including the UN to protect civilians and hold Assad – and his Iranian and Russian backers- accountable for these actions. Separately to this, in 2015 following parliamentary scrutiny of the proposed action I also supported extending air strikes by UK forces into Syria against ISIS which targeted their wealth in oil and training camps – each of the strikes undertaken by UK forces have been documented here and are responsible for substantially diminishing the capabilities of ISIS.
During this same time period the international community has not been able to agree how to tackle the behaviour of President Assad and so he has continued to act without consequence. These latest chemical weapon attacks and the horror and barbarism they represent highlight the impact of this on the people of Syria.
I want to be clear the above analysis does not justify or provide support for the action taken by the Prime Minister. It highlights the importance of securing democratic consent for UK involvement in military action, irrespective of the actions of the American or French Governments and for seeking a long term political solution to this crisis to secure peace and safety for all the Syrian people.
Instead of recalling parliament on Friday 13th April ahead of any proposed action, the Prime Minister and Cabinet chose to involve UK military in air strikes in Syria unilaterally, using the prerogative of the executive to justify this decision. Consequently, as parliamentarians we have had no access to any details as to why those sites were targeted, how the Government believe this intervention in Syria will aid in securing long term peace and security for civilians or why the Prime Minister felt she did not need to secure democratic consent.
This is in direct contrast to previous interventions- including the decision to extend air strikes in 2015 when we were able to debate this matter as evidence was presented to parliament, briefings were offered to MPs about the intentions behind a course of action and a clear process set out for holding Ministers accountable if civilian casualties were to occur.
Whilst this action has now happened, many of you have raised with me differing questions and concerns. The Prime Minister has agreed to face parliament when it returns on Monday 16th April. As a backbench MP I will only be able to ask a single question in this session and so I have set up a short poll for Walthamstow residents to feedback on which of these questions they wish to see prioritised. Below I have also compiled a short round up of what we know so far as a background brief for Walthamstow residents.
Please note to participate in this ballot you must be a resident of Walthamstow. I will consult this poll ahead of any parliamentary debate on Monday and will keep this poll open until this debate begins.Read more Share
Walthamstow Town Centre Update: Clarification From Council on Increase in Affordable Provision and Timing of Viability Assessment Publication
In my last update of March 20th 2018, I shared with residents the Mayor's decision on this matter. I stated that I had requested further information from his office and the Council as the update from the Mayor stated that these plans had been amended but did not provide full details as to what this would entail. You can find this update here.
I have now received the following clarification from the Council regarding the statement that was made regarding the additional provision of affordable housing in this letter. I have also received an update about the timing of the publication of the viability assessment for this proposal. The Council have provided me with the following two statements for residents:
“Given the complexity of the viability appraisal and the fact that parts of this will need to be redacted for commercial reasons a summary statement is being prepared by the developer Capital &Regional. Following sign off by the Council this will be provided with the more detailed document and will assist interested parties in understanding the purpose and content of the viability appraisal itself. We expect to be able to publish the full assessment shortly after the Easter break”
“A financial contribution of £7.28 million has been agreed as an additional section 106 obligation falling to the developer of the Mall, to be utilised to deliver additional off-site affordable housing at affordable/social rent levels in Walthamstow. The financial contribution is in lieu of a further 10% affordable housing (calculated in terms of habitable rooms) being provided within the development. The ambition is to deliver these additional units through the Council’s new build affordable housing programme.”
I hope that this update and the clarification it provides as to what additional affordable housing will be generated by this change and where it will be placed is of interest. I will of course also share the viability information as soon as it is made available to me by the Council to enable residents to scrutinise these decisions accordingly.
As part of keeping residents updated on the Walthamstow Town Centre Development proposals, regular updates have gone out to all those who have requested these on this subject. The below message regarding the Mayor of London's decision on this development was sent to residents on Tuesday 20th March 2017.
Apologies for the third email in one week, but have just received this from the Mayor of London's office regarding the Walthamstow Town Centre Development- as you will see the Mayor has given this development approval and as part of this the amount of affordable housing in the proposal has been increased to 30% from 20%.
The Mayor states " This increase will be secured through an additional £7.3m from the development that will fund new council homes for genuinely affordable rent in Walthamstow." I have no doubt that many of you will have questions about what this means and so I have asked for further information on this part of the new plans from both the Council and the Mayor's office which I will share as soon as it is available. I have also again requested the viability statement which covers the nature of the 'exceptional costs' also mentioned in this release.
I hope the below is of interest and kind regards
Tuesday 20 March 2018
Mayor and Council boost affordable housing in Waltham Forest
- Mayor hands over former Webbs industrial site to housing associations for 100 per cent affordable scheme
- Sadiq and Waltham Forest secure new council homes through Mall plansafter listening to local community
The Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, today further underlined his commitment to working with Waltham Forest Council to deliver more genuinely affordable homes for Londoners as two major developments took important steps forward.
Sadiq has handed over the Webbs Industrial Estate site in Walthamstow to Catalyst and Swan Housing, who will deliver around 330 new homes - all of which will be affordable. The homes will be targeted at first-time buyers through shared ownership, one of the Mayor’s favoured housing delivery schemes in his £3.15bn Homes for Londoners programme.
The Mayor instructed the Greater London Authority to purchase the site in July 2016, and then agreed a sale to Catalyst the following August with the provision that all homes delivered there would be affordable. The site will also become home to a creative hub providing more than 3,000 square metres of new affordable workspace and artist studios, retail space in the heart of the Blackhorse Road area, and a green link which will provide easy access to Blackhorse Road station.
Today the Mayor has also approved plans for redevelopment of The Mall shopping centre in Walthamstow with more than 500 new homes. The plans were recently approved locally with 20 per cent affordable housing – but after listening to the local community, and by working closely together over recent weeks, the Mayor and Waltham Forest Council have boosted this to 30 per cent. This increase will be secured through an additional £7.3m from the development that will fund new council homes for genuinely affordable rent in Walthamstow.
The level of affordable housing has been scrutinised in detail by the Mayor’s planning team, who agreed that this is the maximum amount which can be provided. The site is subject to exceptional costs – including complex foundation works to keep the shopping centre open during construction and to avoid damaging the nearby Victoria line tunnels and Walthamstow Central station. The Mayor and council worked together to boost the number of genuinely affordable homes for rent.
The plans to redevelop Walthamstow Mall, approved by Waltham Forest Council planning committee in December and now approved by the Mayor will bring 200 million pounds of private investment, 8,000 square meters of new retail space, 350 new permanent retail jobs and a new children’s play area.
The Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, said: “Today is an important day in the delivery of genuinely affordable homes in Waltham Forest – an area of the capital which has seen significant pressure on housing and a sharp rise in property prices in recent years – and we have listened carefully to the local community.
“Through these two developments, Londoners will soon be able to benefit from hundreds of new genuinely affordable homes, including those that the council will look to build through their own homebuilding programme.”
Waltham Forest Council Leader, Cllr. Clare Coghill said: “The Mayor’s decision to approve the redevelopment of the Mall in Walthamstow will radically improve the town centre, replacing the existing town square and shopping centre which is tired, underused and not good enough for our residents.
“A new and expanded Mall will give a significant boost to the area, including creating 350 new permanent jobs as well as giving our residents the opportunity to shop in the borough rather than going further afield, which has a detrimental effect on our local economy.”
In 2016, the Mayor instructed the GLA to buy the former Webbs Industrial Estate, now known as Blackhorse Yard, with the intention of finding a development partner to build more new and genuinely affordable homes for Londoners. The site had stood derelict for seven years.
The site attracted a City Hall record of 13 bids, with Catalyst selected as preferred bidder. Catalyst will work in conjunction with Swan Housing Association and C.F. Møller Architects.
Notes to editors:
- Shared ownership is one of the Mayor’s favoured housing delivery schemes in his £3.15bn Affordable Homes Programme for 90,000 homes, alongside London Living Rent and London Affordable Rent. Shared ownership homes allow a home buyer to purchase a share in a new home, and pay a regulated rent on the remaining, unsold share.
- The Mayor also recently secured an additional £1.67 billion from government, which will fund 26,000 further homes including those based on social rent levels.
- For more information what the Mayor is doing to tackle London’s housing crisis, visit: www.london.gov.uk/what-we-do/housing-and-land/homes-londoners.
Below is the latest update I have sent out to residents in Walthamstow about the proposed redevelopment of Walthamstow Town Centre- it contains the further details of information provided by Waltham Forest Council about the public services impact of this development. If you are a local resident and want to receive these updates directly please email firstname.lastname@example.org.
Update to Walthamstow Residents sent Saturday March 17th 2018
As someone who has emailed me about the proposed development of Walthamstow Town Centre, please find below the latest update of information I have received about this development. Please be aware this is a long email - you can find the last update I have sent out on this matter on my website here which sets out my concerns about this development and the information residents have access to on which to assess it. This email is a follow up to this one and my request for further detail from the Council on specific points.
Further to my previous correspondence to local residents regarding the proposed town centre developing, residents will know that I have proposed four tests to assess whether any proposed development is of a standard suitable for Walthamstow. One of these tests relates to the impact of any development on local public service provision. This test is as follows:
“With any major development can come investment in supporting services- whether money provided for healthcare and education facilities or for physical and environmental improvements. Our local voluntary and community organisations are struggling to find premises in our community due to the high rental costs of our limited office space too. No development in Walthamstow should stand alone- it has to make an active contribution to supporting the wider provision of services and community services residents require and supporting its impact on our area.”
In a previous update, I noted that the Council had stated they had been provided with an update from the local healthcare service providers as to their assessment of need in our local area, and had also undertaken this in relation to schools:
“The number of children likely to be living in the proposed development is anticipated to be fairly low given the mix of the units and the quantum of larger family size units being proposed as part of the development. The education department were consulted and they have advised that there would be a sufficient number of school places within the local Walthamstow area to serve the additional child population that would arise due to the scheme. Further to this the WFCCG were also consulted and have advised that there are sufficient doctors’ surgeries within the local area to cater for future residents within The Mall development. In these respects, there would not be a strain on public services.”
Following this, I asked for further details of this statement and the Council have now responded to me with the following statement,
“Given the likely property type provided through the new development it is not anticipated that the development will put significant pressure on local school places. The table below sets out that there is significant surplus capacity at primary and secondary school level, and that there will be surplus capacity across local schools at all year group levels even after the anticipated increase in the number of school aged children linked to the Mall development is taken into account.
|Walthamstow Region||Year Group|
|Estimated development yield||6||4||4||3||3||3||4||3||3||3||3||3|
In regards to proposed pressure on local GP practices, the Council have provided the following statement after seeking advice from WFCCG,
Short to Medium Term
There are a number of GP practices s in the vicinity of the development. North of The Mall, Forest Road Medical Centre has capacity. Around The Mall, The Firs Practice, Queens Road Medical Centre and, slightly further away, Grove Road Medical Centre have recently been successful with NHS Premises Funding to enable them to be more compliant and have increased capacity. Works should commence and finish by March 2018.
WFCCG have been working closely with LBWF to ensure the re-provision of St James Medical Centre which continues to face exponential growth due to the regeneration in the area. The medical centre, which is located in the heart of Walthamstow, is in need of significant modernisation. The new St James Medical Centre will operate as a health ‘hub’, which will offer multiple health services in a fit for purpose build. As part of this process WFCCG will undertake an engagement exercise in the area to gather the views of residents. This will be used to help plan appropriate healthcare for the future.”
I hope this information is of interest in understanding the Council’s statements on this particular test – I am still awaiting further details as to when the viability assessment that they have committed to sharing will be made public too, to enable residents to consider what possibility for alteration- if any- there is to these plans. As soon as I have this information I will also share it with those who have been in touch and please do feel free to share this update with other residents interested in this matter.
With kind regards
In the summer of 2017, Sainsburys announced it was withdrawing from Fairtrade and setting up its own range of ‘Fairly Traded’ tea in place of Fairtrade certified tea, a decision that will impact an estimated 229,224 farmers and workers.
The Fairtrade model has been developed over the last 25 years and core to Fairtrade are the principles of producer empowerment through the control of the financial investment - the Fairtrade Premium, and independence, underpinned by fully transparent, industry endorsed, standards of certification. In contrast the Sainbury's scheme is self certified and the Fairtrade Foundation are clear it does not meet their own standards.
Sainsburys met with MPs in September 2017 to discuss this scheme and hear the concerns of MPs that in withdrawing from the scheme not only were the standards Sainsburys set not as good for producers as Fairtrade, they were also undermining the Fairtrade scheme itself. In response a group of MPs took a complaint to the Advertising Standards Authority that Sainsbury's 'Fairly Traded' tea was misleading in its advertising by appearing to compare 'Fairly Traded' tea with Fairtrade certified tea.
In March 2017 the Advertising Standards Authority upheld the MPs complaint, reflecting that Sainsbury's scheme is not to the same standard as the Fairtrade Foundation. The MPs involved- Holly Lynch, Stephen Timms, Stephen Doughty and Stella Creasy welcome this decision and call on Sainsburys to rethink their approach to Fairtrade for the benefit of those farmers and workers affected by their decision. Speaking on behalf of the group Stella Creasy said:
‘When Sainsburys came to explain to us why they were abandoning Fairtrade Tea, we warned them that it wasn’t fair to consumers who trust these ethical standards to try to sell them their own tea under a similar name so we’re pleased to see the ASA take action following our complaint.
This ruling should be a wake up call for Sainsburys that backing out of the Fairtrade movement and pretending their Fairly Traded tea is the same won’t wash- the ASA agree how Sainsburys present their products will confuse consumers. Put simply, their ‘fauxtrade’ tea is not the same thing and consumers deserve the right to know.
We hope this will encourage Sainsburys to reverse their decision to stop working with the Fairtrade Foundation and get back round a table to renegotiate- on behalf of our constituents we will certainly continue challenging them to be part of this important scheme which helps food producers around the world’
A number of residents have used social media to contact me regarding the proposed development for Walthamstow Town Centre - I've been providing regular updates for all those who have emailed me about this issue regarding the information I have received and the questions I have put to the Council. If you are a Walthamstow resident and want to receive these directly please email with your name and address to email@example.com.Read more Share
There is a country that taxes British residents, and British companies, when they make money on selling commercial real estate, but doesn’t tax anyone else. That country is the UK. And as the Paradise Papers showed this loophole is widely exploited, with almost every large building in London held by an offshore holding company. Not only is that unfair to British businesses who have to compete with these companies, it costs us billions in lost tax revenue each year.
Last year we campaigned to close the loophole - and we won! From 2019, The Government has agreed to make sure offshore companies holding UK commercial real estate will be fully taxed. But there is a problem: the “Luxembourg Loophole”. It will be easy to avoid the new rules by using “brass plate” companies in Luxembourg. Despite highlighting this to the Government, they have no plans to change this and so prevent companies continuing to avoid this tax. It could be the difference between raising £5bn and £0.5bn a year for our public services.
We need to keep up the pressure on the Government to do better. Please send the below response to their consultation to ask them to act by Friday 16th February 2018.Read more Share
Stella gave a surprise visit to Greenleaf Primary School to announce the winner of the annual Christmas card competition. The winning design was drawn by Jenny Williams aged 10 from class 6LG depicts a scene of celebration and unity, her design will feature on the front of this year’s Christmas card. Stella said on her visit:
'This year, my office received hundreds of beautiful and festive designs from very talented children all across Walthamstow which made choosing just one very difficult. However Jenny's colourful design really stood out. We loved the wonderful Christmas message she had written to reflect our local community. I want to thank all the children across Walthamstow for sending us their designs, we had great fun looking at all the different ideas and designs you came up with. I'd also like to thank the local businesses and organisations without whom this wouldn't have been possible because of their generous sponsorship of this project. The support of Sodo Pizza, Lee Valley Estates, Vinn Garment Care Centre, Yard Sale Pizza, Mother’s Ruin, Today Bread, Incoming Coffee, Riney, The Mall Walthamstow, Bates of London has been brilliant and has made it possible for 4,000 local and national people to receive Jenny's fantastic design.'
Jenny and all the children at Greenleaf Primary School were very excited to hear the card was going to be sent to 3,500 people, including local residents, Members of Parliament and the Prime Minister. The competition was open to all children under 12 across Walthamstow, Greenleaf Primary school won the competition for the first time with Jenny’s entry. Jenny and her family have been invited to Parliament with Stella.
Next time you have an appointment cancelled at hospital, or a headteacher tells you their school will be losing staff because of budget cuts, ask how much PFI debt they have – the answer may surprise you. My hospital trust, in north-east London, spends nearly £150m a year repaying its PFI debt – nearly half of which is on interest payments. If Theresa May is serious about taking on the unacceptable face of capitalism, she could save Britain a fortune if she goes after the legal loan sharks of the public sector.
New research from the Centre for Health and the Public Interest (CHPI) shows just how much these debts are hurting our NHS. Over the next five years, almost £1bn of taxpayer funds will go to PFI companies in the form of pre-tax profits. That’s 22% of the extra £4.5bn given to the Department of Health in the 2015 spending review, and money that would otherwise have been available for patient care.
The company that holds the contract for University College London hospital has made pre-tax profits of £190m over the past decade, out of the £725m the NHS has paid out. This alone could have built a whole new hospital as 80% of PFI hospitals cost less than this to construct. This is not just about poor financial control in the NHS – UK PFI debt now stands at over £300bn for projects with an original capital cost of £55bn.
Private finance initiatives are like hire-purchase agreements – superficially a cheap way to buy something, but the costs quickly add up, and before you know it the debt is crippling.
For decades, governments of both main parties have used them for the simple but ultimately short-sighted view that it keeps borrowing off the books – helping reduce the amount of debt the country appears to have, but at great longer-term expense. Its now painfully clear that the intended benefits of private sector skills to help manage projects have been subsumed in the one-sided nature of these contracts, to devastating effect on budgets.
No political party can claim the moral high ground. The Tories conveniently ignore the fact that these contracts started under the John Major government – and are expanding again under Theresa May, with the PF2 scheme. Labour veers between defensive rhetoric that PFI was the best way to fund the investment our public sector so desperately needed during its last government, and angrily demanding such contracts be cancelled outright, wilfully ignoring what damage this would do to any government’s ability to ever borrow again.
It’s time to grasp the nettle and get Britain a better line of credit. That requires both tough action on the existing contracts to protect taxpayers’ interests, and getting a better deal on future borrowing. Some have already bought out contracts – Northumbria council took out a loan to buy out Hexham hospital’s PFI, and in doing so saved £3.5m every year over the remaining 19-year term. But as the National Audit Office has shown, gains from renegotiating individual contracts are likely to be minimal – what is saved in costs is paid out in fees to arrange.
However, the CHPI research also shows up another interesting facet of PFI. Just eight companies own or appear to have equity stakes in 92% of all the PFI companies in the NHS. Renegotiating not the individual deals done for hospitals or schools, but across the portfolios of the companies themselves could realise substantial gains. Innisfree, which manages my local hospital’s PFI and others across the country and has just 25 staff, stands to make £18bn alone over the coming years. If these companies are resistant to consolidating these loans into a more realistic cost, then it’s time to look again at their tax reliefs, or – given the evidence of excessive profits in this industry that shareholders have received – resurrect one of New Labour’s early hits with a windfall tax on the returns made.
Longer term, we need to ensure there is much more competition for the business of the state. Despite interest rates being low for over a decade, these loans have stayed stubbornly expensive. The lack of viable alternatives – whether public borrowing or bonds – gives these companies a captive market. If the government wants better rates, it needs to ensure there are more options to choose between, whether by allowing local authorities to issue bonds, or reforming Treasury rules that penalise public sector borrowing in the first place.
As our public services struggle under the pressure of PFI, Labour must lead this debate to show how we can not only learn from our past, but also provide answers for the future too. The government has already spent £100bn buying the debt of banks through quantitative easing. With Brexit expected not only to add £60bn to our country’s debt but also affect our access to European central bank funds, taking on our expensive creditors is a battle no prime minister can ignore in the fight to stop Britain going bust.
This article was originally published by the Guardian newspaper on Wednesday August 30th 2017.