Future of Social Housing

Graham Stringer Excerpts

Wednesday 19th April 2023 Westminster Hall

[Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the future of social housing.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once again, Mr Paisley, for this important debate. I am glad that so many Members from across the House have joined me to make their case and give their perspective on the future of social housing. I want to acknowledge the contribution of the stakeholders that have campaigned for social housing over a considerable number of years, and especially those that have supported this debate, including Shelter, Crisis, the Local Government Association and its constituent councils, the National Housing Federation and the housing associations in my constituency.

I will make a passionate case for a new generation of social housing in this country, built at scale, in mixed communities, from north to south and throughout out devolved regions and nations. It should put tenants centre stage in the healthy and affordable—I mean genuinely affordable—houses of the future.

I will start with the story of a real family in my constituency to add context to the debate. Members from across the House will have encountered similar stories in their caseloads. Sarah and Eddy are a young couple who approached me some time ago. They have a baby on the way. They had been living in the private rented sector for nine years, and were served a section 21 notice. Section 21 should have been consigned to the history books some time ago. There have been many promises that that will happen, and I am sure the Minister will elaborate on that.

Sarah and Eddy were desperate. Weaver Vale Housing Trust, one of the housing associations in my constituency, was in the process of building affordable housing in a place called Helsby, and I was able to go along with the chief exec and hand keys not only to that family but to other families that the housing association and I had helped. I saw their desperation, then their hope, then their happiness. It was one of those days that makes us all tick in this job. Those issues keep us awake at night, but resolving them gives us a sense of purpose and achievement.

That example is one of only a few that I can refer to, because housing is not being built at a sufficient scale to meet the need that is out there; it barely scratches the surface. We have 1.2 million people in housing need, and the number is growing. There are 100,000 families living in temporary accommodation. I am sure some Members have seen the report published today—I think it was from City Hall, commissioned by the Mayor of London—which shows that there are 300,000 children sharing bedrooms with their siblings in very cramped conditions.

Of course, we see the visible consequences of not building enough genuinely affordable housing, whether we walk around the streets of Westminster, Manchester, Norwich or Birmingham, and undoubtedly it will be the same in Northern Ireland, Scotland and so forth. Quite simply, the status quo is broken.

The consensus on the need to build 300,000 homes of all tenures has now been ditched by the Conservative party—the Conservative Government—to placate Back Benchers and some Tory councillors. Now it is being reported that planning applications in England have fallen to their lowest level in 16 years. The Government are once again well below their target—I say “target”, but I am not sure that it is now. Is it a target or not? It changes by the day.

Limiting supply is shattering the dreams, hopes and aspirations of so many families and young people. There will be Government Members sat across from me now who are very much aware that it is actually market-led housing schemes that are providing some of the affordable housing schemes in our community. The situation provides yet more evidence that the current Government have set in train a collapse in house building across England, with all the harmful social and economic consequences that that entails.

Let us take our minds back to the covid pandemic. There was grand talk from Ministers of “building back better”, with the homes for key workers scheme draw on the post-war programmes of homes for heroes. We saw that scheme being announced, and spun, in the press. Unfortunately, it amounted to little in the way of substance. It was policy by press release, soundbite and broken promises. Lessons from history are simply being ignored.

During the current cost of living crisis, the relationship between housing and income has been magnified more than ever. Many commentators refer to a housing crisis; in reality, at its heart this is an affordability crisis. Too many people and families are excluded from what should be a basic right for all—a decent, genuinely affordable home that is safe and secure, and free from damp and mould. The case for social housing is stronger now than ever before—for now, not just for the future. That case is not just a moral one; it is about sound economics, too.

Let me start with the economic case. The cost of housing benefit in the UK is now truly astronomical. The Government’s own figures show that it is £23 billion a year. I will repeat that figure: £23 billion a year. Much of that goes into substandard properties in the private rented sector, where—as we all know from looking at our caseloads—rents are rocketing and local housing allowance rates are not meeting the basic costs of those rents. Again, I would like to hear from the Minister whether that will change.

As Sadiq Khan and City Hall have highlighted, over £1.6 billion is being spent on very bad—substandard—accommodation. The Government talk about the affordable homes programme, don’t they? In reality, in a lot of cases that programme is not building affordable homes, yet it costs £11.4 billion over four years. There is £23 billion every year going into the private rented sector, much of it for substandard accommodation, and yet £11.4 billion over four years has been spent on the so-called affordable homes programme.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is a measure of the waste of public funds and the state of the housing crisis that in Kersal and other areas in my constituency—and, I dare say, in his constituency and others—small terraced houses are being turned into houses in multiple occupation for four families, with each individual family in these tiny properties claiming housing benefit? It is bad housing policy and bad public finance policy.

Building Safety Remediation: Leaseholders

Graham Stringer Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd June 2022 Westminster Hall

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

I will call Shabana Mahmood to move the motion and I will then call the Minister to respond. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up. That is the convention for 30-minute debates.

[Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the financial effects of building safety remediation on leaseholders.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I am grateful to have the opportunity to directly address the Minister on some of the ongoing financial impacts of building safety remediation—what has come to be known as the cladding scandal—on behalf of leaseholders in Birmingham, Ladywood, and all over the country.

Last week, we saw the five-year anniversary of the Grenfell disaster. It was a truly horrific tragedy that claimed the lives of 72 people. No one who saw that building aflame or the images on the news will ever forget them. It has left a mark on not just those affected but the whole country. The inquiry into that disaster is ongoing. I have a real concern that it may prove to be one of those cases, which we have seen too many of in this country, of justice delayed being justice denied, and that, while the inquiry may result in new procedures, those responsible for the events that led to that disaster may not be held directly to account. We live in hope and I send my solidarity—I am sure everyone present will agree—to the loved ones of those who perished at Grenfell.

The impact of Grenfell has extended much further than most of us could have imagined. That tragedy has exposed a shocking litany of regulatory failures and, in my view, outright negligence, which has led, as I say, to what we now call the cladding scandal. We have gotten a little too used to calling it a scandal when we consider the huge impact it has had on my constituents and people all over our country. It has exposed huge issues in building safety. My experience has been that just as I get my head around one part of the problem, many more present themselves—I am sure that that has been the experience of the Minister and his predecessors.

The cladding scandal has cost many of my constituents their peace of mind. It has cost them financially and wiped out life savings. It has left people languishing in the stress of knowing that the building where they live, raise their family and go to sleep every night is unsafe and poses a real fire risk. It has brought many to the brink of a complete mental and physical breakdown. I have sought to support my constituents and have dealt with many of the issues they have raised with me over the many years since this scandal was revealed. We have been campaigning together ever since, along with other leaseholder action groups that have sprung up all over the country. I am particularly grateful to the UK Cladding Action Group and the Birmingham Leaseholder Action Group, as well as other groups across the country, which have relentlessly supported leaseholders. Of course, many of them are leaseholders themselves trying to press the Government to act.

The Government have passed new legislation, and I state at the outset that I recognise how much the Government have moved from their original position, and I welcome many of the changes. However, and it will not surprise the Minister to hear me say this, I do not consider the new cap, which means that some leaseholders will pay some money towards the cost of remediation, to be fair, because they have done nothing wrong. This is not, and should not be, on them—not any part of it, not even at a capped amount. They should be spared any financial contribution. I regret that there is no direct assistance in the Building Safety Act 2022 for leaseholders who have already paid towards remediation work. There is the possibility of redress through civil action but the Act does not offer any direct assistance.

Nevertheless, the main provisions of the Building Safety Act, which received Royal Assent on 28 April, come into effect next week and the landscape in respect of leaseholders will change. However, as the Minister has already heard from me and other hon. Members, getting to this point has taken far too long. The Government have resisted acting in respect of many of the issues that MPs have been raising from the outset, only to concede that space some years later.

I remember my first pieces of casework relating to the cladding scandal, when Government Ministers and officials were still distinguishing between aluminium composite material cladding and non-ACM cladding. All of us involved in trying to seek redress, including Members of Parliament from across the House and leaseholders all over the country, pointed out the unavoidable truth that non-ACM cladding was just as dangerous as ACM cladding and would have to be removed from all the buildings where it was present. Originally, the Government held their ground and maintained the distinction, but then gave ground and bowed to the inevitable acceptance that non-ACM cladding would have to be removed.

In fact, most of the topics on which the Government have had to give ground represent issues that have been campaigned on from the start by all the groups I have mentioned, and by the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee as well. We have come a long way, but these five years have taken a very heavy toll.

Building Safety Bill

Graham Stringer Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 19th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Christopher Pincher]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for the forewarning of what his speech may contain. I would say to him that quite apart from the body of case law that exists with respect to the 1972 Act, and quite apart from the fact that even if a company has become defunct directors can still be held liable for the decisions made, as it were, “on their watch”, the challenges that he has described are the sorts of things that we will want to discuss in this place and in the other place, across parties, to ensure that such challenges are addressed.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Christopher Pincher]

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment, but I am conscious that I have been speaking for 22 minutes and that there are one or two other remarks that I ought to make before the House has an opportunity to debate the new clauses and amendments.

Since the introduction of the Bill, it has become clear that a number of buildings affected by cladding and other serious fire safety defects were completed prior to 2007. We have listened to hon. Members from across the House who wanted a route to redress for those buildings. I pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland), for Kensington (Felicity Buchan), for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) and for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning), as well as a great many Opposition Members.

That is why we tabled Government amendment 41, which will retrospectively extend the limitation period for section 1 of the 1972 Act to 30 years, meaning that there will be access to this route of redress for buildings completed from mid-1992 onwards. That represents a substantial extension beyond the current six years. I recognise that changing the law in this way is unusual and that 30 years represents a long limitation period. However, I consider that the exceptionality of the current circumstances in respect of cladding and other serious fire safety defects warrants the longer retrospective limitation period of 30 years.

--- Later in debate ---

[Christopher Pincher]

I shall give way to the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) and then to my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage.

[Graham Stringer]

The Minister is being extraordinarily generous with his time. The Government have moved a good distance to get all-party support for what they are doing and to take the burden away from leaseholders. However, I suspect that in many cases, the people responsible for the defects will have liquidated themselves and will no longer be there. Is not one possible solution that a charge be put against the land, so that neither the leaseholder nor the taxpayer has to pay? Has he considered that?

[Christopher Pincher]

We will consider all proposals that are put to us to see whether they work and to ensure that leaseholders are protected. As the Secretary of State said in his statement, we will conduct a series of summits with the sector to put people on notice that they must pay for the problems they have caused. If they will not do it voluntarily, we will find a means of requiring them to do so.

The hon. Gentleman was wrong to say that I am being generous with my time. In fact, I am being generous with the House’s time. I propose to be less generous in future, but not before I have allowed my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage to intervene.

Hospitality Industry: Government Support

Graham Stringer Excerpts

Monday 11th January 2021 Westminster Hall

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

I remind Members that there have been at least two sets of changes since we moved back into Westminster Hall. I will try to clarify them so that people are not confused about the procedure that is there to ensure social distancing and keep Members safe.

Members who have not arrived at the start of the debate will not be allowed to intervene or speak. Members are expected to respect the one-way system. Members should also sanitise their microphones using the cleaning materials that are provided before they use them and afterwards. Members speaking in the latter stages of the debate should use the seats in the Public Gallery if there are not enough seats in the horseshoe. Although Members are expected to stay till the end, if there simply is not enough room, it might be helpful if people leave for that purpose. Finally, Mr Speaker has asked that people wear facemasks in the main Chamber, and I think it would be sensible if Members do that in this Chamber when not speaking, to be consistent with the main Chamber.

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine McKinnell]

The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point; perhaps the Minister will comment on that in his response.

This is a timely debate, because although many businesses have taken a significant hit since March, hospitality, which thrives on social mixing and travel, has been crippled by repeated lockdowns and the risks posed by the virus. Local economies with a higher proportion of workers employed in such sectors have been disproportionately hit.

Many restaurants have pivoted to providing cook-at-home and takeaway offers with contact-free delivery or kerbside collection. In these strange times, Geordies can enjoy takeaways from all manner of venues across our city, from the Thyme Square café on Station Road, with its carry-out Sunday lunches, to the cook-at-home offerings from 21 and the Michelin-starred House of Tides on the quayside. None the less, the situation remains incredibly challenging for all. A recent UKHospitality study found that 41% of businesses in the sector thought that they would fail by mid-2021, and one in five thought that they would have enough cash flow to survive beyond February.

Even when restrictions were relaxed over the summer, most people could still go to restaurants or pubs only with the people they lived or bubbled with. The simultaneous closure of sports stadiums, cinemas, music venues and theatres has a knock-on impact. If the business of people catching up with family and friends over drinks, going on dates, or having a bite to eat after a match or film is lost, that is a huge chunk of revenue. Hospitality also lost out badly from the drop in tourist spend this winter. Other parts of the hospitality sector, such as nightclubs, have remained closed since the first lockdown in March. From the reaction to the recent debate on the night-time economy, I know that Newcastle’s iconic nightlife is sorely missed by visitors and locals alike.

On Friday, when I met the petition’s creator, Claire Bosi, and some of its leading supporters, including the founder and CEO of Home Grown Hotels, Robin Hutson, and chefs Tom Kerridge and Angela Hartnett, I heard powerful examples that demonstrate the Government’s lack of deep understanding of the sector. To be clear, there is enormous gratitude for the considerable support that the Government have provided through the billions spent on measures such as the job retention scheme, the business rates holiday and various grants, including those announced by the Chancellor last week. The Government would do a lot better, however, if they stopped seeing the sector as being amenable to a one-size-fits-all approach. Ministers’ main lever for controlling the virus over the last nine months has been to switch the entire sector on or off at a moment’s notice, with little consideration given to its complexity and diversity.

When restrictions were eased over the summer, we saw the reopening of large chain pubs—with customers often bunched together at outside tables—at the same time as small restaurants and bed-and-breakfasts, where social distancing is easier to maintain. The curfew policy suffered from the same one-size-fits-all mindset. It was evidently drawn up with bars in mind, but unlike restaurants they do not have to turn over tables. The curfew might have been appropriate for a city centre bar—although there were many issues with large groups of customers all leaving at the same time—but it made no sense for small restaurants or rural hotels, which might have been unable to safely spread out the accommodation of all their guests for dinner as a consequence.

August’s eat out to help out scheme, although clearly popular at the time, was seemingly designed with little regard to whom it would help and the incentives that it would create. Rather than supporting those who are struggling the most, it potentially ended up being an untargeted giveaway to customers and businesses. It also made eating out much cheaper relative to takeaways and, in retrospect, helping restaurants by targeting subsidies at takeaways might have been more effective at boosting sales while maintaining the social distancing that is so required.

I understand that there are reasons why the Government have made lockdown announcements very shortly before their introduction, but that has caused some real issues for the sector. I was told of a chef in London who had two tonnes of oysters delivered just two hours after London entered tier 3, with no customers to serve them to. Yesterday, we heard reports of chickens possibly being culled due to a fall in bulk egg orders. When hotels were closed by national lockdown or entering tiers 3 and 4, hoteliers were left guessing whether they were even allowed to serve their guests breakfast in the morning. I know that these are not decisions that any Minister takes lightly, but if it is genuinely not possible to give more notice of such changes, what more can the Government do to support businesses that are caught off guard?

The repeated shutdowns of the hospitality sector have also meant that the businesses that supply it have been forced into hibernation for much of the past year. There is a whole other set of issues there that the current support measures—which are largely designed around jobs and rent, not around businesses holding large amounts of stock, often perishable—just do not reach. Little financial support has been available throughout the pandemic. With severe restrictions in place across the country since the autumn, demand for their stock has diminished seriously.

I also worry about the impact of that on-off cycle on the mental health of the staff who work in the sector. They have had to return suddenly to public-facing roles, turning on the charm and smiling at customers, when they do not know whether they will be able to hold on to their jobs for much longer. It has been great to see the widespread recognition of the strains that lockdown has put on the nation’s mental health, but we need to pay particular attention to the sectors most affected.

Thanks to the ingenuity and dedication of scientists in the UK and across the world, there is now a clear way out of this crisis. We know that the economic disruption will not be permanent. We will, no doubt, expect hospitality to play a significant part in the hoped-for bounce back of economic activity and employment, in particular among young people. We have good reason to believe that for at least the businesses that manage to survive.

The pandemic has concentrated a tremendous amount of economic pain on workers in certain sectors, predominantly insecure workers, and they deserve our utmost support. However, there has also been a build-up of savings among those more fortunate, who have been able to maintain a steady income. Many have saved the money that they used to spend on bars, hotels and restaurants, rather than splurging it on more parcels from Amazon, but there are limits to how much of that will ultimately be spent on hospitality in due course. In all likelihood, people are likely to go out to the pub two or three times a week, eventually, but that will not happen soon.

There will be a catch-up on spending in that social consumption—or we very much hope so—when things eventually return to normal. As the nation is vaccinated, the economy reopens and the rules we apply in hospitality inevitably become more nuanced and complex, it is important that we have input from the hospitality sector as to how we can design policy not to repeat the mistakes that were made in the summer of 2020 when the sector reopened.

We need to get ahead of the problems, and the petitioners have argued that splitting that representation between two crowded Departments—the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, and the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport—is not working. One of the leading supporters of the petition, Robin Hutson, put it succinctly:

“I’ve long held the view that the hospitality sector requires really focused representation in government. This is about the future of our industry and the campaign and petition showcases the strength of feeling across the country on this issue. Hospitality is a sector that deserves a seat at the top table.”

That responsibility sits across two Departments, which is not a problem. Hospitality sector businesses are businesses, but they are also a creative art—in fact, much of the arts sector relies on hospitality as a source of revenue to underpin its activities. We used to have more Ministers with cross-Department briefs, out of recognition that some issues unavoidably straddle Government Departments, but that seems to be out of fashion at the moment. I worry that it creates an incentive for passing the buck between Departments, which reinforces the case for a Minister for hospitality.

It is hard to believe some of more farcical debates that we have had, such as the controversy about whether a Scotch egg constitutes a meal. If we had a dedicated hospitality Minister, we might not have ended up with that mess. If a new ministerial role is not something that the Government are open to, we must at least recognise that the sector needs a strong voice in Government, with a genuine recognition of its diversity, greater engagement with businesses and a much deeper understanding of the different ways that they are affected by lockdown measures.

The hospitality sector is an industry that has always been driven by passion and soul. It is not an industry in which businesses generally have huge amounts of cash reserves, and we know that many businesses operate at just above break-even point. The industry knows it needs to encourage more home-grown talent, now that it cannot rely on people coming over from Europe. There is a levelling-up piece here, as I have mentioned. Hospitality is one of the few industries that is represented in almost every part of the country. It is an industry that is a gateway for so many people who do not particularly enjoy the academic side of school but who have creativity and graft and can be successful, if just given the chance. If the Government understood and took the industry seriously, it could be a route to transformation in every community right across the country. We need to raise the profile of hospitality and encourage young people from the UK to do apprenticeships and to see entering the industry as a “Sky’s the limit” career. As we set out our stall on the world stage in the post-Brexit era, one of the key things that will attract people to our country—with their investment—is our culture and its offerings, and a big part of that will be the richness and quality of our hospitality.

Newcastle’s hospitality sector has something for everyone: restaurants offering everything from hearty traditional Geordie pub grub to innovative fine dining, hipster-style hang-outs for craft beer and gourmet burgers, and a thriving street food scene. Our nightlife is famous in its own right and is regularly featured in guides and magazines—Newcastle is often one of the top places for an unforgettable night out. However, my fear in the current situation is that the larger, more standardised chains will have the resources to survive into the post-pandemic era, but the smaller, heart-and-soul operations might not. We will see a hollowing out of the sector. I do not want to see my city lose any part of what makes it unique, and I am sure colleagues feel the same way about their areas.

I know there is a limit to how much heart and soul people can give when they have been hammered month after month. Even in the best-case scenario, there are several months of closure ahead. Countless smaller owner-operators are now worse off than they were when the pandemic began. Some took out personally secured loans in March. Having spent the last nine months in difficulty, they are now looking at losing not only their businesses, but their homes. It is a real tragedy, because they were good and viable businesses before this unseen crisis came along.

What does the sector need? The one-off grants announced by the Chancellor last week will of course be strongly welcomed, and they should help more businesses to stay afloat. The resource that the Government have put in through the job retention scheme has been a lifeline to sector employees, but industry representatives have made it clear that the current support is not enough to cover the costs of many businesses and will not secure their long-term viability. We need a longer-term plan to help businesses to plan their survival while the vaccine is rolled out, starting with clarity on how long the new support payments will be available. UKHospitality and others have called for an extension of the business rates holiday and a 5% VAT rate, to provide certainty in the longer term. I would be grateful if the Minister commented on whether that is under consideration.

I also urge the Government to commit to examine urgently the inadequacies of their support measures as they relate to hospitality suppliers and, as I said in our previous debate on the night-time economy, to consider introducing some flexibility to the local restrictions support grants, to give local authorities the freedom to grant and target support towards the businesses that need it and can use it best.

The petitioners do not expect to go back to dining out, dancing in nightclubs and checking into hotels straightaway; the public health situation is at a critical point, and saving lives must take precedence. However, they want there to be a greater understanding of the diverse nature of their sector and a strong voice for them in Government. Above all, and like us, they want this country’s mix of pubs, hotels, restaurants and clubs, which does so much to enrich our lives, to still be standing when this crisis is over.

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

I think it would be appropriate to impose a time limit of three minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jane Hunt (Loughborough) (Con)]

I first declare an interest, in that my husband works for a logistics company and deals directly with the hospitality sector in his role.

Looking at hospitality as a whole, we must first recognise the level of support that has been received generally within the sector throughout the covid crisis. However, three main themes are of great concern. The first is that there are many supporting and spin-off businesses that co-exist within this sector, but that seem not to have been included in all aspects of the support offered. The second is that the prolonged period in which the sector and those spin-off businesses have had to endure no customer revenue is stretching the limits to which they can wait for the sector to reopen once more, and the third is the lack of customer confidence in when the sector will be able to trade again.

A great many businesses in Loughborough are either directly part of, or related to, the hospitality sector: pubs, restaurants, cafés, bingo halls, nightclubs, bed and breakfasts, and hotels are obvious examples, and we have 290 such businesses locally, employing 3,000 people. We also have conference organisers, wedding event organisers and venues, lighting and audio technicians, event carpet and equipment suppliers, hair and beauty technicians, florists and printers, food production plants, breweries and catering equipment suppliers. Everything from hiring a tablecloth to arranging a major corporate event in Kuala Lumpur can be obtained from businesses in Loughborough. We are a very hospitable place.

Before covid, all of these business were not only viable, but thriving. However, economic output in this sector was down 92% in April 2020 compared with February 2020. If we want a V-shaped recovery, we must plan for one and support the businesses that will deliver it. For example, I understand that 264,000 weddings were missed last year. There will be pent-up demand, but if there are no businesses to deliver the events and services when we open up once more, that demand will not be met, and tax revenues will not materialise. There are revenues to be had: 475,000 weddings are currently scheduled for 2021, getting on for double the usual amount, creating the potential for an additional £25 billion in the sector. However, a lack of confidence that events will be allowed to go ahead means that weddings for spring and summer are already starting to be postponed and cancelled. In the meantime, finances are stretched to the limit for the whole of the hospitality sector, while businesses wait for permission to operate again. My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) will present a 10-minute rule Bill tomorrow, advocating the abolition and reform of business rates. That would really help pubs and other hospitality outlets, both with immediate effect, and into the future, giving pubs the chance to remain the centre of our communities. In supporting my colleague’s aim I ask that business rate relief for the hospitality and leisure sector be extended for a further year to include related businesses during the pandemic.

The best way out of this crisis, for business, is to be able to trade. For businesses to be able to do that with confidence, we need the people we are most concerned about in our communities to be vaccinated, and we are well on the way to achieving that—

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

Order.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I congratulate and thank my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) for securing the debate and for her excellent opening speech. I fully support her comments about remote participation in Westminster Hall.

I thank the instigators of the petition and the 200,000-plus people who signed it. That is an impressive number, but it is unsurprising, given that hospitality is the hardest-hit sector, as well as associated activities such as weddings, events and live entertainment. At the heart of the petition is the fact that people are looking for leadership, which is why they want a specific Minister. They want leadership, focus and understanding. I mean no disrespect to the Minister, with whom I share a lot of these occasions, but what we have had is bits—piecemeal, sticking-plaster support offers—alongside stop-start restrictions that have sometimes felt particularly pernicious for the sector and that have often lacked evidence.

The petition reflects the idea that the Government do not get hospitality in all its forms. As we have heard, hospitality includes lots of different businesses, but at the heart of it are people who have put their life’s work, livelihoods and love into creating businesses that bring people together. Often they have used personal assets to guarantee those businesses.

We have heard that hospitality is a huge part of our economy. It was the third biggest employer before covid, generating billions in turnover and tax. Such businesses make up the heart and soul of our town centres, city centres, high streets and communities. They are a key part of the ecosystem and they bring people and places together. We saw that recently in the BBC documentary that Tom Kerridge, one of the supporters of the petition, presented—it was an excellent programme. There is a wider ecosystem, too, from the supply chain that we have heard about to taxi drivers and security, as well as hotels, events and weddings. Hospitality is a huge, interlinked and diverse sector, and it employs many young people, those from black and minority ethnic backgrounds, and women. It was growing before, and it will grow again.

We welcomed the support that the hospitality sector had at the start of the pandemic. It was the right thing to do then, and it is right now that that support continues. Then, however, cash grant support was worth more. The other packages brought in at the time were designed for a much shorter period of time—loans, deferrals, moratoriums and so on. They are now not fit for purpose after nearly a year and growing of closures and lost trade. That is the key issue, which I think other Members have raised: what was initially designed for three months is now not appropriate for the 12 to 18 months that we are talking about.

Supporting businesses is the right thing to do economically. The Government said they would put their arm around the shoulder of the sector, but that must be maintained. Every previously viable business that goes bust will lengthen and deepen the long tail of recovery. That is not just the Labour view, but the view of the International Monetary Fund, the Bank of England and the OECD. We cannot cut our way out of a crisis. Lots of focus early on was rightly on the furlough scheme to protect jobs, but leading businesses now warn that without further support, those jobs will no longer be able to be furloughed as businesses go bust. A survey out today says 250,000 businesses, many of them in hospitality and associated areas, will fold this year. That is a devastating warning.

Supporting businesses is also the right thing to do morally, because they have closed to keep us safe. It is only right that the Government should step in to support them and keep them going. With light at the end of the tunnel, it is now even more important that there is a proper long-term plan to help businesses survive to that point and then thrive beyond it. I am sorry to say that despite some of the early actions taken, no such plan is forthcoming. We have the sticking-plaster approach to economic support, and there is no plan or route map for reopening. Contrast that with the approach of other countries, such as Germany and elsewhere. Speak to any business and it will say that cash flow is the major issue now. Action simply cannot wait until the Budget, because many businesses will be bust by then.

The furlough extension is welcome, but contributions are now stretching balance sheets. Businesses have taken the loans, deferrals and holidays, and they have not paid the rent, yet it is still not enough. The stop-start nature of the lockdowns has damaged business confidence and liquidity, and we have heard about the costs of restocking and losing stock along the way. Businesses were expecting the job retention bonus, but they had it taken away at the last minute, despite it being priced in. That was all before hospitality lost its golden months of the pre-Christmas trade, so it is no surprise that some of the latest business surveys show that more than half of hospitality businesses have less than three months of cash reserves. Only one in five hospitality businesses has enough to survive until March.

Just this week, we heard of Mitchells and Butlers, one of the oldest and biggest players in the sector, seeking to refinance. It is losing £40 million a month just to stay closed. I do not like to say so, but it feels a little like Ministers are asleep at the wheel. I am sure the Minister will tell us about the billions of pounds that have been spent, but unless the Government set out a long-term plan and a comprehensive framework to see businesses through to the spring, there will be waves of insolvencies and job losses. As somebody asked earlier, that prompts questions about the billions that have already been spent. What was it for if, at the critical juncture, the rug is pulled, and jobs and businesses are lost anyway?

We have to be honest about the announcements that have been made this week. The £9,000 is not available to most businesses; five out of six will get a lot less than that. Even when taken together with the local restrictions grant, it is still a lot less than what was received last time around. It does not even cover businesses in the supply chain, who are again waiting to see whether discretionary grants will come to them; for many, they will not.

What about the medium-sized businesses—the hotels, the chains, the breweries and others? As somebody said earlier, £9,000 is frankly a drop in the beer glass. There is no mention of the excluded, many of whom are associated with this sector. What was an outrage for these people for three months is now economically and mentally fatal for many after nearly 12 months. We called on the Government to begin by using the £2 billion repaid by supermarkets to provide proper support to businesses and the excluded, but they have yet to do so.

I am afraid that a huge amount of business uncertainty lies ahead. The Government urgently need to get ahead of that and make sure there is a comprehensive plan. There is a massive surge of a cash-flow crisis ahead of us, with businesses going bust. In the next few months, we are going to see the end of the evictions ban, the business rates holiday and the Government-backed loans. Corporation tax payments will be due and there will be an end to the VAT cut, the VAT deferral and measures to prevent insolvencies.

Businesses will need to start repaying their VAT deferrals and business rates in April, yet we heard this weekend that hospitality businesses will not even be reopened by then. This is now urgent. Businesses looking ahead at their cash flow are taking decisions about their staff and the future of their businesses today. This cannot wait until March. Something must be done. The VAT reduction will have little benefit for most businesses, because they have been closed during that time.

The failure of the Government to set out what might happen to those deadlines is creating massive anxiety, and will lead to wave after wave of insolvency and consequential job losses, not only extending and deepening the economic crisis, but taking with them all the loans and the previous investment in keeping them going up to this point. It makes no economic sense whatsoever.

Alongside this economic spring plan for businesses, we need a clear route map to reopening, as called for by the British Beer and Pub Association, UKHospitality and others. They want proper discussion now about the route map to reopening. What levels of vaccination, hospitalisations and mortality are needed for reopening, and what does that reopening look like? No household mixing? Substantial meals again? Curfews again? These have all caused extra burden when the evidence is clear.

In conclusion, hospitality businesses and their associated ecosystem need better leadership, focus and understanding. They need cash support that matches business need and revenue loss. There will be no businesses for firms to employ people unless this is done. They need immediate action on the uncertainty created about these cliff edges. That may involve big, creative thinking on some of the big issues coming up the track, with rent deferrals and the huge debt overhang, that will need to be addressed at some point. The Government need to stop their scattergun approach, which leads to sticking-plaster solutions, and come up with a proper long-term plan for this hugely important sector in distress.

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

Minister, I ask you to leave two or three minutes at the end for the proposer.

Oral Answers to Questions

Graham Stringer Excerpts

Monday 24th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Luke Hall]

Local authorities should make other local authorities aware of it when they are placing out of area; of course, we would always encourage local authorities to place in their area wherever possible. I am more than happy to speak to my hon. Friend about the specific example he raises.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

20. What recent assessment he has made of the adequacy of the local government finance settlement for local authorities to deliver their statutory duties for the protection of children.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Luke Hall)]

This Government have recognised and responded to the pressures that local authorities are facing in delivering their statutory duty to protect children. For 2021, we are delivering an extra £1 billion for child social care and 4.4% into core spending power.

[Graham Stringer]

Andy Burnham’s inquiry into the abandonment of Operation Augusta showed a shocking scenario in parts of Manchester where children were being groomed in open sight. It also showed that before Operation Augusta was abandoned, and when the children’s department was working with the police, it was beginning to be effective in stopping that grooming. I simply do not accept the Minister’s answer that there is sufficient money now or that sufficient money will be provided. Ninety per cent. of children’s departments in this country are underfunded, and all the children’s departments in Greater Manchester are underfunded.

[Luke Hall]

Of course, of the additional £1 billion of social care grant, Manchester City Council will have access to an additional £30 million to use on children’s social care in the coming year. As we set out in our manifesto, we are committed to undertaking a review of the care system that will allow us to go even further and to make sure that all care placements and settings provide children and young people with the support they need.

I understand the review also made recommendations about policing, and of course we will be starting to recruit 6,000 police officers in the coming year.

Commission on Justice in Wales

Graham Stringer Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd January 2020 Westminster Hall

[Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (SNP)]

I concur with the point made by the hon. Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) and others. I am contributing here not because I am a nationalist Member, but because this is about the best contribution to the administration of justice in Wales. I have great sympathy with my colleagues in my sister party, Plaid Cymru, but I am not commenting on that basis. The irony is that I am commenting because I was asked to contribute to this particular commission’s report. It was thought that the points and the experience that I have, having been Justice Secretary of Scotland for almost seven and a half years, would be of benefit.

I was happy to contribute, because there are lessons to be learned. There are things that we have done right that Wales can follow and emulate, and there are pitfalls that Wales can avoid. There are also mistakes, which hopefully Wales will not replicate. No system in any Administration is perfect, and it is very hard to deal with challenged and challenging people, because they frequently make irrational decisions despite the best endeavours of those trying to look after them. There are lessons and there are similarities, because the demographics are similar. The challenges in many instances are the same: alcohol abuse, deprivation and inequality, all of which are the drivers of criminal offending.

We have to recognise that a small minority in every society in every country in the world are career criminals. They make a decision to break the law, and prison is an occupational hazard. The only way we can deal with them is through law enforcement—through the offices of the police and the courts, and thereafter by the prison service. Thankfully, they are few. The overwhelming majority of people who come into the clutches of the justice system, if it can be called that, do so because they face challenges and are challenged; they are often with difficulties. That does not obscure or condone what they have done, and it does not mean that they should not pay a penalty for it, because people have to be held to account.

One of the most significant points I made to the commission was to address the issue of alcohol. In Scotland, Wales and, indeed, England, as night follows day, as strong drink is taken to excess, issues arise. There is sense in having a symmetry and an assimilation of powers because, at the end of the day, the overwhelming majority of the people we are dealing with—whom we are required to deal with, as our citizens—come from our communities where services have failed, or where the services that look after them are based. They are accountable to the Government of Wales, in many instances.

We also have to remember that those who are incarcerated —other than a few who will not again see the light of day, but they are very few; a handful in Wales and a handful in Scotland, thankfully—will return to our communities, and they have to be dealt with in our communities. On that basis, the best way to administer justice for them is on a more local basis.

A great comment was made by the hon. Member for Cardiff North (Anna McMorrin) about symmetry with Scotland. There are still challenges, because Scotland is on a journey itself. As Justice Secretary, I had, in the main, responsibility for all aspects of justice. I was rarely down in these parts until I was elected last month. I first came down to meet Jacqui Smith when she was Home Secretary, and I returned finally to meet to Theresa May when she was Home Secretary. I met Justice Ministers and other Home Secretaries in between, but I did not really have a great deal of requirement, other than for the odd meeting with Jack Straw or Ken Clarke. That does not mean that there were not issues.

The Justice Secretary every week—as Government Ministers will do—signs off warrants for interception and covert surveillance, which are invariably related to firearms are narcotics. It will come as no surprise that responsibility for both of those is reserved to Westminster, which brings challenges. We had to seek the devolution of powers to address, for example, the licensing of air weapons, which have been welcomed in our communities. Similarly, as we seek to tackle alcohol abuse, we sought the devolution of powers over the alcohol limit for drivers. There is a journey there, but I was happy to make that comment.

Equally, I can also say that I was asked for a meeting by the Police Federation, brokered by the Scottish Police Federation, about a move towards a single police service in Wales. I know that that has not been greatly touched on in the commission’s report, but I was happy to say in the presence of the Scottish Police Federation, which supported a single Police Service of Scotland, and to the four Welsh forces representatives, that it makes sense. Not only should justice be accountable in Wales in terms of the legal services, but the police should be accountable there too, so it would make sense for a police service of Wales to exist, rather than having individual constabularies.

There are challenges. Police numbers have dropped significantly. One way to address that is to try to preserve frontline forces and reduce the back-office services and all the accommodation that goes with having four chief constables. That on its own is not a sufficient remedy, but it would be much better to do that, by creating a police service of Wales, than to strip those constables’ powers and pass serious organised crime to the National Crime Agency, leaving the police as some glorified security service patrolling housing schemes, whether in the valleys or the cities.

Those are the issues needing to be addressed. Structural change is necessary. Bringing those elements together is essential, but there are other issues that are touched on through policy. Legal aid is challenging. Scotland is not perfect by any means. I have to say that I was a legal aid practitioner for 19 years, and it shames me that I had to preside over cuts, but there was no alternative. It was not so much the implementation of swingeing cuts, and certainly not the abandonment of core services, because we tried to protect them, but it has been challenging under austerity.

I do not say that things are perfect in Scotland, but we have tried to ensure that legal aid is not simply for those in extremis and not simply for those in involved in criminal justice. Some of the solution has to be evidentiary changes. Until such time as we can reduce the drain on the legal aid fund from the criminal expenditure, it will be difficult to protect the civil cases that are fundamental. Scotland has done much better in preserving the rights of people to apply for legal aid on immigration and employment issues, which matter in communities. There are challenges. No legal aid lawyer will jump up and say, “Whoopee! Kenny MacAskill was fantastic, and his Government did a wonderful job.” They will say that there are issues, which there are, but we have managed to protect the system and provide some integration, so that it is not about criminal justice alone.

The hon. Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) was correct to raise the issue of female offenders. They are a distinct group with challenges that do not apply in the main. That is not to say that women should not go to jail. We do not take that position in Scotland. Sadly, a ladette culture has come about and, in extremis, women do bad things for which at the end of the day they must go to prison, because no other tariff is available. However, far too many women go to prison—even in Scotland, although we are reducing the numbers—for offences that occur because of their circumstances. As the hon. Gentleman eloquently said, the fact of the matter is that there are knock-on effects, which do not relate to male prisoners, such as children going into care, resulting in an escalation down through the generations and those who have suffered continuing to suffer.

I always remember the money we poured into—

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

Order. I know the hon. Gentleman is newly elected to the House. Normally in these debates, the Scottish National party spokesperson has five minutes. Because we have time, I have been generous, but I would be grateful if he focused primarily on the topic of the debate, namely the Commission on Justice in Wales.

[Kenny MacAskill]

My apologies, Mr Stringer. Legal aid and the position of women was touched upon in particular by the commission, because there are serious issues there. That must be addressed. Their needs are distinct, the challenges are different, and we must deal with that if we are to break the cycle of offending down through the generations.

Equally—this is why it comes back to the requirement for synergy and, indeed, the devolution of powers—serious violence has been mentioned. Violence is a culture. That is why alcohol abuse must be addressed. The proposal of the commission must be supported. At the end of the day, these issues must be pulled together. The lack of education suffered by many, the failure of social workers to pick up the needs and challenges of individuals, and the inability of people to obtain work are all issues we must bring together. Not all those issues are devolved to the Welsh Assembly at the moment, but many are. If we are to have a successful justice policy—something that all parties and Administrations seek, because it is their fundamental duty to secure the safety of their people—we must bring all this together.

To conclude, there is merit in seeking the devolution of these powers not for devolution’s sake, but for the better administration of justice for the people of Wales.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

On a point of order, Mr Stringer. I am sorry to be a pain, but some of us were a bit confused about the timing this afternoon. Obviously, we have had votes and so on, which have interfered with the system, and I know that the second half of the day is three hours, but I wonder whether, in future, when there has been an afternoon such as this, there might be a means of making the House generally aware of when each of the new debates in Westminster Hall is going to start.

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

Thank you for that point of order. As Chair, I probably should have made it clear at the start of the debate that the time gained on the first hour-and-a-half debate was carried over. I apologise to hon. Members for not having made that clear.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the report of the Commission on Justice in Wales.