Planning Policy: Traveller Sites

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 11th September 2024 Westminster Hall

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the adequacy of planning policy for Traveller sites.

It is a pleasure to hold this debate with you in the Chair, Dame Siobhain. My constituents are reasonable people; they totally understand and appreciate people’s wanting to live alternative ways of life, including nomadic lifestyles. I have lived all my life in my constituency, and the Travelling community has been part of the constituency for that whole period of time. We respect the contribution the community makes to our society, as long as communities are law-abiding and let other people peacefully enjoy their property, settlements and communities.

The real concern in my constituency is about a number of planning applications, and whether planning policies apply equally to local people and to other communities, including Travelling communities. The basic principle is that there is one law for all, rather than one law for one person and another for another person: the law applies equally to everyone in our communities and society. With some of the applications, there is a real feeling that that is not the case, and that contributes to a feeling that we are moving to a form of two-tier society, which would be a dangerous state of affairs.

Where some applications are being made, our local communities do not understand why planning policy is not being overseen equally, and there is a deal of anger about that. That is the case with a number of applications, including one at Sheriff Hutton, one near Rillington and a number of potential others. The applications are being considered, and in some cases recommended for approval, on the basis not of planning law but of other laws, such as the Human Rights Act 1998, the Equality Act 2010 and the UN convention on the rights of the child, as well as the European convention on human rights, which obviously has other consequences in different parts of our system.

Normal, law-abiding citizens go about a planning application in the appropriate way: they first find a site that suits their needs, before looking at planning policy and probably instructing an agent to act on their behalf, and they then submit an application before doing any work to that site. The application must conform to planning policy, or they will not get consent. They go through the various iterations of the planning process. It may take years to get planning consent for the property development, but hopefully at some point they get it. Most of my constituents respect the planning process and its outcomes.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I apologise to you, Dame Siobhain, and to the hon. Gentleman, because I have other engagements and cannot stay. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the delicate balance to be struck between allowing travellers to carry on their way of life and ensuring that the community around them is not adversely affected relates not just to planning policy but to all policies? We want to foster Traveller communities that feel engaged in and a part of our communities; that can be achieved by building relationships and through a little bit of understanding.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

As always, the hon. Gentleman is very reasonable. That is exactly the position that my constituents and I take: this is about fairness and applying the law equally. The Human Rights Act contains a requirement to consider the rights not just of the individual but of other people in such situations, but it seems that some applicants’ rights are given greater consideration than those of others. That is my biggest concern. This issue has been dealt with to some extent through planning policy, but that has not been sufficient to deal with some of the problems.

I have set out how someone who respects the law and the planning process might set about applying for planning permission. In some applications it has not been done that way. Some applicants purchase a site first, probably a roadside site, with or without access—they might create access. Sites in Sheriff Hutton and Rillington are in open countryside and not in a location where someone would normally get planning consent for such developments. The site is prepared with the access and hard standing, for example, which is not a major contravention of planning policy and not something the planning department might have too big a problem with at the time. There might be an agricultural building on the site, for example, and water and power put into the site. Preparation occurs.

Then one evening—overnight or on a bank holiday weekend when the people who look after these matters might not be in their offices—the site is occupied unlawfully without planning consent. Caravans might move on to the site, along with other equipment, and maybe toilet blocks are built overnight, which happened at one of the sites, and the site is occupied with a view to being occupied permanently. It is not a temporary position; the people occupying the site intend to occupy it permanently.

Then the planning authority has to go through an enforcement process following complaints from local people about the application. The planning authority’s wheels turn pretty slowly, which I think the people occupying the site are aware of, and enforcement measures take place. That might take months, during which time the community might experience some disturbance and real concerns are expressed.

When enforcement measures are taken, the owner of the land will submit a planning application retrospectively. Despite the flagrant breach of the proper planning process, the application is then considered as if it were made using the proper process. That is where it fundamentally goes wrong: the fact that the retrospective application is considered on the same grounds as though it were a normal lawful process is what is wrong. The application is made, of course, on the basis of the rights of the people occupying the site. The Human Rights Act, the Equality Act, the UN convention on the rights of the child and the European convention on human rights are all cited in relation to the rights of the occupants—generally the families on that site who need healthcare and education. No one would doubt the need of the children and the people in need of healthcare to access such facilities. That is the basis of why the application should be considered, despite the fact that it is retrospective.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for graciously allowing a second intervention. Is he aware of the latest Irish Traveller accommodation strategy 2020-2025? If he or the Minister are not, may I suggest that they access it? It sets out guidelines to provide, in this case, Irish Travellers

“with access to good quality, culturally appropriate housing accommodation which fosters a sustainable, vibrant Traveller community”.

That allows the Travellers to enjoy their own lifestyle but at the same time consider the possibility of integration. Does he agree that perhaps those guidelines, which are from a different jurisdiction, might be helpful?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Perhaps understandably, this is not my policy area. I am holding this debate because it is a constituency issue. I am not particularly aware of the Irish rules that the hon. Gentleman mentions. But it is right to say that local planning authorities have a requirement to facilitate the peaceful enjoyment of people who live nomadic lifestyles. I support that totally. North Yorkshire should provide such facilities, and it does. That site is occupied despite the fact that there are available places on a designated Traveller site nearby. That is one of the concerns: there are other facilities available, but the person who made this application does not want to be on them. I believe they are misusing the planning policy. I have no objection to people’s right to live alternative lifestyles and to live in different ways in their own communities; what I object to is the misuse of the planning process.

The issue was dealt with, to some extent, by my very fine colleague—sadly, my late colleague—James Brokenshire when he was Housing, Communities and Local Government Secretary. In February 2019, he published some new recommendations for planning authorities, stating that the intentional unauthorised development of a site should be considered a material point within a planning application. That is absolutely critical. He was saying, therefore, that the local planning authority had grounds to refuse the application on the basis that there was an intentional unauthorised development. Despite the North Yorkshire planning authority’s awareness of that requirement, it still recommended approval on this site, which I find astounding.

I find the whole situation astounding, and so do many of my constituents. It is important that we look at the facts. Members engaging in this debate and people watching it on Parliament TV may look at the application on the North Yorkshire portal—the planning reference is 22/00102/FUL. The things I am saying are based not on local rumours and concerns, but on the actual documented situation with the planning application.

The site in question is on Cornborough Road, about half a mile out of the village of Sheriff Hutton. It is in open countryside, and is outside the development plan. The application is for eight units of accommodation—four permanent breezeblock-built units, and permanent static caravans—and 12 car spaces. It has been occupied for three years without planning consent by a family with six children. Obviously, we respect their right to go about their lives in a way they feel appropriate, and we have every hope that those children will be properly educated and receive proper public services.

The planning officers, in their wisdom, decided to recommend the site for approval, with one significant condition: occupancy of the site was to be restricted to the family and their dependants—the adults on the site, the owners of the site and their children. Of course, those children will be adults one day, which means that the site could be occupied for many decades. The application also says that there could be a variation in the application for an extended family, for example, which could mean that the site is occupied for a very long time. Remarkably, the agent for the applicant objected to that condition, again on human rights grounds. It is clear that the site will be occupied in the very long term, and that there will be the ability to sell it on to someone else.

I think it is absolutely wrong that people can effectively drive a coach and horses through the planning system. My law-abiding constituents would not go about it in that way. Unless we deal with this situation properly, it will breed a sense of unfairness—the idea that there is one law for one and another for others. Unless we deal with the problem by clarifying the planning guidance, to ensure that anybody who is guilty of a flagrant abuse of the planning system cannot ever get planning consent on a site in that way, we will see more and more such applications, not in just my constituency but in constituencies around the country.

I know the Minister is freshly in the job. I welcome him to his place. He is a good man, and we have dealt with many things in the past, when our roles were reversed, so I know that he will look at this seriously. We have engaged on this particular matter already. Furthermore, my colleague the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), is also experienced in these matters.

I urge the Minister to tighten the rules to ensure that our constituents, law-abiding citizens of this country, feel that we are on their side. Law-abiding people go about the planning process properly, and should not feel that we favour people because of abstract laws, laws potentially imposed on us by the UN convention on the rights of the child or the European convention on human rights—now embedded in our own Human Rights Act—which mean that some people are treated more fairly than others during the process. It is important that we act and that we clarify the planning process, so that people who act in that way can never get planning consent. That is the only way we will stop such rogue applications being submitted.

Housing: Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 9th September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to have the opportunity to raise the rather grave issue of providing affordable housing in the housing emergency-ridden communities of Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly. I am grateful to those engaged in business earlier this evening who have permitted us a little extra time to explore the issue. Perhaps that was done for good reason, so that the grave and important issues of Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly could be properly and fully debated. I welcome the Minister to his place. Indeed, Liberal Democrat Members warmly welcome him and fully take on board the sincerity, intensity and determination of the Government to address the serious housing problems that exist across the country, and the housing emergencies that exist in many communities as well as Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly.

I should also declare an interest. During my nine-year sabbatical from this House I went back to my profession as the chief executive of a registered provider—a housing charity—working at the front line on predevelopment work and delivering affordable homes for local people. It is a challenging environment, and because of the man-made—or man and woman-made—nature of the regulatory environment in which professionals operate, and the topographical challenges that we face in places such as Cornwall, it is a little like trying to push boulders up a steep slope. I hope the Minister will take into account that if measures can be taken to improve the availability of opportunities for those who are ticking all the right boxes to deliver genuinely in-perpetuity affordable homes, which are desperately needed in our communities, the Government will do that.

This is not my maiden speech, and after having taken a sabbatical—perhaps it was an enforced sabbatical, but it was one I enjoyed—away from the Chamber for so long, I would in normal circumstances praise my predecessor. We did not share much in the way of political agreement, but he worked hard for the constituency and achieved a great deal. Indeed, Mr Derek Thomas strived on a large number of projects, and I hope that I will reflect the efforts he made to ensure that those projects are delivered during my time in this House.

Because it is not my maiden speech, I therefore do not need to remind the House, as I did on 22 May 1997, that my constituency is the most beautiful and most remarkable place in the country, occupied by the most beautiful, remarkable people.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

On that point, will the hon. Member give way?

[Andrew George]

Am I giving way on “beautiful” or “remarkable”?

[Jim Shannon]

On both.

[Andrew George]

Okay, on both points.

[Jim Shannon]

First, I commend the hon. Member on securing the debate. It is good to see him back in his place. He brought much to the Chamber when he was here before, and I was fortunate to share some time with him in the Chamber. We have many things in common. The first is that we have beautiful constituencies, and the second is our concern about affordable housing and its accessibility. Does he welcome the Government’s manifesto pledge to increase housing? In my area, the housing lists are massive. Does he agree that when it comes to the Government’s policy, it must first be better streamlined planning? Secondly, they should allocate funding to getting families into homes. Thirdly, does he agree that we need a strategy and a programme motivated and driven by Westminster for all the regions of this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, because, as I always say, we can do it better together?

[Andrew George]

The hon. Member anticipates many of the subjects that I will be coming on to, which are about the delivery and streamlining of planning and so on.

Part of my background is not only in the delivery of housing through a community land trust and the charitable housing sector, but also in my volunteering. For many years, I was involved in Penzance street food project and was working at the frontline addressing and speaking to people who were suffering from the most severe housing problems in the country. Indeed, in Cornwall we often have to repeat that although people come and have enjoyable holidays, as I know the Minister did, beneath that veneer are extremely severe housing problems and severe and exceptional levels of homelessness, which perhaps are beyond the vision of those who come and enjoy our beautiful beaches, our beautiful environment and our wall-to-wall sunshine.

I have given the Minister advance notice of some of the subjects I intend to cover, but one is to probe a little harder on the Government’s intention to raise house building targets and to challenge how we can properly ensure that if we are to build more homes, that will address need, rather than developers’ greed. I will come back to that in a moment. Under the surface—I think a lot of people are not fully aware of this—the public purse is making a major contribution to the injustices going on in the housing sector, in that multi millions of pounds in public money are going into the pockets of holiday home owners, especially through various tax loopholes and covid aid grants and so on. That clearly is driving the sector in the opposite direction to the one in which it should be going.

By way of background, Cornwall has high levels of housing need. The latest Homechoice register is 20,332, but that is after the annual administrative process of removing people who have not been active on the register for the previous year. The month before that, the register was 27,000, so the numbers oscillate. From my experience of undertaking housing need surveys across many communities in Cornwall, the numbers often underplay the significant level of unexpressed housing need. We often find that the level of need in most communities is at least double what is recorded on the Homechoice register, because many people think it is a waste of time putting their names on it, because they have little chance of ever getting a home.

Of course, every location has housing problems of one type or another—other places experience similar problems—but in Cornwall we face a rather unique combination. For example, just 12.8% of our housing stock is social housing against a national average of 17.1%, and although 20% or thereabouts of the housing stock is privately rented—that is about the national average—it is an extremely vulnerable sector for people to find themselves in. Particularly in recent years, a large proportion of families in that sector have found themselves on the verge of being evicted to make way for yet more holiday lets.

Housing completions have been good. We have an effective register and a housing association sector that is delivering well, and indeed Cornwall is one of the best local authority areas in delivering numbers, but it achieves that as one of the larger local authorities, so it is bound to be up at that end of the league.

My first substantive point for the Minister is about the Government’s stated intentions on house building targets. I fully endorse and support the Government’s intention to deliver in order to meet housing need, but, as I said to the Deputy Prime Minister when the announcement was made in July, Cornwall shows how simply having house building targets does not work.

Cornwall is one of the fastest growing places in the United Kingdom, having almost trebled its housing stock in the last 60 years—I have been living there through most of those years—and yet at the end of all that the housing problems have got worse. I am not saying that it would be better if we had not built any houses, but simply setting very high housing targets in itself does not address housing needs. The two-dimensional view of housing being somehow a simple relationship between supply and demand in which equilibrium will be found and prices will therefore reflect what local wages can afford has never been the case in Cornwall. That reflects, in effect, a sub-London housing market, with house prices having been significantly inflated by people and property investors buying second and holiday homes.

In the present local plan for Cornwall, covering 2010 to 2030, the house building target is 52,500. The Government propose to increase those projections under their new formula from 2,707 properties per annum to 4,454. I urge the Minister to allow places such as Cornwall to be granted devolved powers to vary the way in which we achieve what needs to be done in our local environment: not simply to give us house building figures but to set targets to reduce housing need. After all, house building targets are a means to an end—the end is to meet the housing need—and if we have built the homes but that has not achieved the purpose, we must ask ourselves: are we going about it in the right way?

The Government’s new standard method has a different starting point from the old method. It is based on a two-step process of a 0.8% annual uplift on existing housing stock, plus a further uplift for the affordability gap. The problem with that approach is that, in places such as Cornwall, it bakes in demand for second and holiday homes, because that has to be included in those overall figures. That was a problem in the previous plan, when we had our local plan projections rejected and the inspector wrote in much higher figures, saying that we had to increase the numbers to 52,500—more than another 5,000 homes—in order to address, as they put it, “the growing demand for second homes in Cornwall.” We have high and growing demand for affordable homes—that should be baked into the figures.

We should have a mechanism by which we can deliver those homes, because the way in which the system works is that we get all the second and investment properties—the developers are very pleased to do those, but they are not so keen to deliver the genuinely affordable homes, which are the ones that we need. There is a simplistic view that there is equilibrium between supply and demand, and there is a presupposition that developers will release properties in the market when the Government’s policy achieves its stated intention of reducing house prices in that locality. We found that they only release them at times of housing inflation, so that is simply not the case.

In my experience at the development end, trying to deliver the affordable homes that local people need, the policy is counterproductive because if the number of homes announced in the local plan increases, the hope value of land adjoining every single community in Cornwall goes through the roof. If a local housing charity goes there and says, “I would like to look at your land and build some affordable homes on it,” the developer will not talk to them. They will wait for the lottery win when they get the full open market development value on that land, which is significantly greater than what a local charity can offer. I urge the Minister to have a conversation with those who are trying to deliver the products on the ground, to set targets to reduce need rather than feed developers’ greed, because that is what housing targets do in places such as Cornwall—elsewhere they might have a different impact. Again, I ask the Minister to come to Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly and see what it is like. I am sure that all the local MPs, who are all champions for their own localities, will be fighting hard to address these issues.

A further point I wish to make is on the rural exceptions policy, as I used that tool when working in the sector on a regular basis, and I have raised it with the Minister already. It works well; since the 1990s when it was introduced, it has been very effective in delivering affordable homes on land that otherwise would not get planning permission. All I would say to the Minister is that we should look at ways in which we can expand and grow development on rural exception sites. In Cornwall we are doing very well; we deliver 50% of what is delivered on rural exception sites across the whole of England. About 20% or 30% of delivery in Cornwall is through rural exception sites. What the local authority has done, and what we as a charity sector campaigned for it to do, is extend the entitlement to deliver rural exception developments from the smaller villages to the edge of towns. It may sound counterintuitive, but one of the best ways of delivering affordable homes is to draw the development boundary very tight around a local community and to use rural exception as a way of ensuring that we keep the development land values low and deliver genuinely affordable homes.

The other thing I urge the Minister to do, perhaps to correct the mistake made by Cornwall some 15 years ago, is not to allow cross-subsidy on rural exception sites. That has created a slippery slope where more and more landowners and private developers find ways around normal planning procedure and use rural exception sites as a Trojan horse to crowbar in far many more unaffordable homes on those sites than would otherwise be the case if we stuck to the principle of the policy itself.

Against that, there is a very significant challenge of construction industry inflation, which is affecting Cornwall as it is many other places. That has caused a lot of developments in places all around Cornwall to be stalled, as the cost-to-value ratios have resulted in the unviability of many projects. I urge the Minister to look—I am sure he is—at Homes England’s affordable housing programme. While it is looking to the next five to 10 years, the current programme up to 2026 needs a further injection to address the current difficulties that many developments face.

I said that I would address housing injustice. I am conscious of time and I know other hon. Members wish to speak, so I will be brief. When I was first elected, in 1997, the Conservatives had just introduced the 50% council tax discount for second homes. I campaigned against that at the time, and was grateful to Chris Mullin and the late Michael Meacher for being receptive to the arguments to remove the 50% council tax discount. However, in 2012, the Conservatives then introduced another loophole, which allowed second home owners to flip their properties from being registered as second homes for council tax to being registered for business rates as a holiday let, if they could demonstrate that the property was available for 140 nights a year. They did not need to let it, but it had to be available for 140 nights a year as a holiday let. Then they could apply for small business rate relief and pay nothing at all.

We have ended up with a situation where all that has to be covered by the Treasury. Initially, in 2012, when I first blew the whistle on it as an MP, that resulted in £6.5 million going each year to holiday homeowners in places such as Cornwall. Within a couple of years, that had doubled. There has been an industrial-level movement of properties from council tax to business rates. When covid happened, they were all entitled to a covid grant as well, on top of that. As a result of that, the furnished holiday lettings and other loopholes, in Cornwall alone over 10 years we ended up with over £500 million of taxpayers’ money—that is our money—going into the pockets of holiday homeowners, at a time when only half that amount was going into housing associations to deliver affordable homes. I urge the Minister to work with his Treasury colleagues to close those loopholes and to find far better ways of using that money. If, as the Prime Minister rightly says, those with the broadest shoulders should bear the greatest burden, this is an area where that burden should be borne by the people who can afford extra properties and property investment in holiday and second homes. That is not, in my view, an appropriate way for us ever to spend public money.

I said to the Minister earlier that I wanted briefly to mention the Isles of Scilly, and I hope that he will come and visit the area. Many people find it surprising that it is currently experiencing depopulation, which is largely driven by the lack of affordable housing. Here I declare an interest, as one who has been working in the sector. Our charity had been working with the council on a project for which we had planning permission, and everything else, to deliver 12 self-build affordable homes for local families. Those homes were desperately needed—I believe that only eight homes have been built on the Isles in the last 10 years—but the construction costs were extremely high. It costs three times as much to build a home there as it does to build one on the mainland. Moreover, the project did not meet the requirements of Homes England in relation to subsidies.

I urge the Minister to have a look at the very special environment that exists on the Isles of Scilly, and to address its housing needs. It is 28 miles from the mainland coast, and it should not be said that members of its community can commute, because they simply cannot do so. I also urge the Minister to consider the community-led homes sector. If we want to change the whole narrative and the way in which communities operate, we should give people the power to start representing themselves and local housing needs through, for instance, community land trusts and co-housing communities. The last Government had a flirtation with that sector and gave it some support, but then withdrew it. However, this work has started, and I think that more can happen to deliver more. If communities have local land trusts or local housing working parties, that is far better than allowing the nimbys to take over and start driving the development process.

Let me also encourage the Minister to consider the issue of discounted sale homes. Before I worked in a community land trust I was a sceptic, but I have to say that I am a convert to that method as one of the additional mechanisms to provide intermediate housing. I believe that it would be a cost-effective way for Homes England to engage with communities that want to deliver in-perpetuity homes for locals, which is clearly very important.

Of course we do not want Rachmans and of course we want to drive bad practice out of the sector, but I hope that, perhaps taking a cue from what is happening in the holiday lettings, the Minister will consider this suggestion. As well as regulating the private rented sector, why should we not reward good landlords? If they are delivering security—affordable rents, a high-level energy performance certificate and the decent homes standard—surely there must be a way, within the tax system, of rewarding those good landlords, as well as regulating and penalising the bad ones.

I hope that the Minister will consider each of the points that I have made to him. I am grateful for the additional time that I have been given to elaborate on those important points, and, of course, he has plenty of time in which to respond. I do not know whether other Members wish to speak as well.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 2nd September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Angela Rayner]

I absolutely agree that it is important that infrastructure is built around our 1.5 million homes target. That is why we set out the proposals in the consultation on the national planning policy framework to ensure that people see the homes they desperately need, the right homes that they need and the vital infrastructure around that.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for her answers. Sometimes it is easy to dwell upon the negativity, but there are positives as well. There were positives in my constituency when two people decided to burn down the mosque, because they were caught by the police and they will hopefully be imprisoned, and because the community came together, which is the issue I want to put over. Across this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, there are many people who want to live together. All the people in the Baptist church that I go to in Newtownards were praying for those people in that church, and that is the Ards and the Strangford that I know. Sometimes we need to put over the good things as well.

[Angela Rayner]

It is always a pleasure to hear from the hon. Member, and he is absolutely right. When I was visiting those communities, I saw them coming together. I saw the way in which they worked well and the way in which everybody looked out for each other. It reminded me of why I am in this place and why I do what I do for the great British people and what they do.

Building Homes

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 30th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Angela Rayner]

I absolutely agree. That goes back to the point that far too often people object to development because they do not see the infrastructure, and people see that in some cases developers try to wriggle out of their obligations. As I set out in the consultation document we are putting forward today, we believe this will strengthen the hand of local authorities and we will be able to ensure that we get the infrastructure we desperately need alongside the houses.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The Deputy Prime Minister has outlined the dire need for house building across this great United Kingdom and set out a system to try to achieve that. However, there is the important issue of people trying to get mortgages. In the mainland, those who earn £75,000 a year are having difficulty getting a mortgage, but back home in Northern Ireland, those who are earning much less—say, £40,000 to £45,000—have no chance of getting a mortgage. What can be done to help people to get mortgages and thereby enable them to buy a home and move forward?

[Angela Rayner]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that we have to fix the situation not just on the affordability of houses, and in the general election campaign we talked about our proposals for a mortgage guarantee scheme. The new deal for working people, which is coming forward with legislation in October time, will ensure that we make work pay. The Chancellor announced a pay rise for public sector workers, and we recently wrote to the Low Pay Commission to expand its remit so that we will make sure that over a million people get a pay rise, because jobs that pay will also mean people can then afford to have their own home.

Families in Temporary Accommodation

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 20th May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Dame Siobhain McDonagh]

My hon. Friend’s story of that particular family is sadly not unusual. I know of the work of the Shared Health Foundation, which is part of the secretariat of the all-party parliamentary group on households in temporary accommodation. I know what brilliant work it does, and that, in the foundation, my hon. Friend will have a strong advocate in trying to resolve the difficulties that she is experiencing. I will use my speech to tell the House about a few families I know of, and the disadvantages that their children face at every stage of childhood, from pregnancy all the way up to A-levels.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Lady for rightly bringing forward this debate on families in temporary accommodation. People in my constituency face similar issues. Some sofa surf and some have been in temporary accommodation for years. Does she agree that there is a need for much more new build social housing, and that it can only go hand in hand with funding and planning in local authorities, which needs to be centralised? Does she agree that that is one of the solutions?

[Dame Siobhain McDonagh]

I agree; indeed, it is the only solution. The only way we are going to bring an end to use of expensive and appalling temporary accommodation is through building more social housing units. After I have spoken about the consequences of temporary accommodation, I will look at its cost to the taxpayer, and the billions of pounds that we are spending on it, which frankly I could think of such better uses for. Finally, I will speak of the solution to this mess.

Stories of dislocation and crisis alone could fill the debate. I have managed to get two or three such cases resolved in the last week. These are a selection; I could have doubled, tripled or quadrupled the examples of the conditions that people are being kept in, but I will start with just one. Joanna was placed in a shared house when she was four months pregnant, along with four men she did not know. She had been living there for 14 months, and by the time she came to see me she had a nine-month-old daughter. Like countless other pregnant women and parents with small children, she worried endlessly for her safety. The biggest worry for people like Joanna is that they have no safe sleeping arrangements for their babies. That is important, because we know that between April 2019 and March 2023, 55 children died as a result of the temporary accommodation they were housed in—42 of them were under one. The most likely cause of death is sudden infant death syndrome because of the lack of safe sleeping provision, such as cots. I would like to think that I speak for the whole House when I say that that is unacceptable.

After their children start going to primary school, families in temporary accommodation face a whole new set of challenges, because at least 30,000 families were placed in a borough outside their home: taking children out of school, and the families away from their support networks; taking parents and adult children away from jobs; and taking the families away from the hospitals and GP surgeries that they might desperately need. Once we remove a desperate, vulnerable family from their home environment, there are consequences for their children in school attainment and attendance, and all sorts of other things.

The guidance code on dealing with homeless families suggests that priority for local temporary accommodation should be given to children in their exam years. That is a great aspiration, but I know it is not being realised on the ground because local authorities cannot find such accommodation, particularly for larger families. Most schools would be loth to take a child in year 11 or year 13 because they would be in the second year of their exams and the curriculums would not match. Schools of all statuses are concerned about their performance. One child was moved homes five times in the first five weeks of his GCSE exams and was forced to rely on a charity that paid for his taxi to his first exam.

On one day at the civic centre in my constituency, the only temporary accommodation that could be offered to families was in Telford—170 miles away from their home borough—and that is not unique. How can someone possibly start putting their life back together when they are 170 miles away from the borough they have been living in? It is a ludicrous situation, and it means that thousands of children turn up at school dirty, tired and underdeveloped, far from ready for their vital first year. Some will have grown up confined to a small room, shared with the rest of their family, with no space to play, walk or socialise with other children. Others might live in mixed housing blocks alongside drug users, where their older siblings prefer to use a potty in the cupboard rather than queue in the corridor for a shared toilet.

I am happy to take the Minister to the temporary accommodation that many of the families that I represent have to live in. She can meet Mr and Ms N, who have five children all under the age of eight. They were originally living in my local borough of Merton in south-west London when they were made homeless, but they have been sent to every corner of London to find temporary accommodation—first to Walthamstow in north-east London and then to Ilford. Ms N is now living over an hour away from St George’s Hospital in south-west London, where she needs to go for her for appointments, medication, and scans. Her kids are missing school because of the more than two hours they have to spend on public transport every day.

The Minister can also meet Mr and Ms G, who were made homeless when they were living in Colliers Wood, which is also in my home borough of Merton. They were moved to West Croydon, from where their kids had a 90-minute journey to school, and at the end of last year they were relocated to temporary housing in Tottenham—again, miles away from the place they called home for nearly two years. They had finally found a school where their children were happy and starting to be more social, confident and secure, and I can read to the House what their primary school had to say about one of their children:

“Alfie is currently in reception. He has settled in really well and has a strong friendship circle. His attendance is extremely strong at 97% and amounts to only two absences due to illness. His punctuality is currently 100%.

Alfie’s confidence has grown, and we are very proud of his development. We look forward to seeing him progress at this school.

Alfie’s parents have relied on a strong network of parents to help them navigate through the daily aspects of school life.

I would worry that the impact of moving school as well as a new home would be very upsetting for him.”

That is one of the many consequences of our country’s lack of investment in new social housing. I am conscious of time, although I realise I have benefited from the early closure of the previous debate.

Gypsy and Traveller Sites

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 15th May 2024 Westminster Hall

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered planning policy for Gypsy and Traveller sites.

It is a delight to see you in the Chair, Ms Rees. I thank Mr Speaker for granting me permission for this debate, and I welcome the Minister to his place. I also thank him for visiting Kettering to discuss this issue on 8 February.

The purpose of the debate is to make it clear to the Minister that we need changes to the legislative framework for Gypsy and Traveller pitch provision, unauthorised development, and licensing and management of Gypsy and Traveller sites. It will be frustrating for residents in my constituency that I will not be able to go into detail in this debate about specific local sites, because various forms of planning enforcement and legal action are under way. I will highlight in passing Oakley Park and Peasdale Hill in Middleton in the neighbouring Corby constituency, and sites in my own constituency at Loddington, Broughton, Braybrooke, Stoke Albany and Desborough.

I will also highlight controversy locally over a proposed Traveller stopping site at Rothwell, which is to deal with the slightly separate issue of unauthorised encampments under Home Office provisions. I appreciate that is not the direct responsibility of the Local Government Minister in front of us today. To deal with that one first, under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, as amended by the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, section 62A allows a senior police officer to direct those in an unauthorised encampment, consisting of at least one vehicle and caravan, to leave land upon which it does not have permission to be, if the local authority can provide a suitable pitch elsewhere in the area. My view is that a senior officer should be able to direct them to leave the local authority area, without the local authority having to provide alternative provision.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Over the past number of years as my constituency’s elected representative, I have had to deal with this issue on some occasions, as has the council. Does the hon. Member agree that it is essential that local community planning and provision goes hand in hand with the right for Travellers and Gypsies to have the freedom to live as they culturally and historically have done, and that perhaps sensitivity is the best way forward?

[Mr Hollobone]

The hon. Gentleman brings me to my next point. The Government’s planning policy for Traveller sites sets out national planning policies for Gypsies and Travellers. It states:

“The Government’s overarching aim is to ensure fair and equal treatment for travellers in a way that in a way that facilitates their traditional and nomadic way of life while respecting the interests of the settled community.”

My contention is that fair and equal treatment goes both ways. In my assessment, the current planning policy enables Gypsies and Travellers to develop sites in the countryside that members of the settled community would simply not be able to develop under the same planning regulations. Although the aim of the policy is fair and equal treatment, it actually amounts to preferential treatment for Gypsies and Travellers.

Leaseholders and Freeholders

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 15th May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the right hon. Gentleman for rightly bringing this issue to the attention of the House. Does he agree that, although the Leasehold Advisory Service gives free advice for England and Wales—as it should—the advice is not granted in all situations, so when his constituents sought advice, in many cases they would be unsure about where they stood without costly legal advice, and that the Government and the Minister must provide much more clarity across the board?

[Sir Liam Fox]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I will go on to set out just how horrendous some of those charges are and how it can be very difficult for my constituents to get legal redress. That is no doubt a situation that my hon. Friend the Minister has heard on a number of occasions.

We all understand that communal land must be managed for the benefit of all. No one disputes that, but it needs to be done in a way that is fair and equitable, predictable and transparent. The current position is none of those things.

Substandard Housing

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 13th May 2024 Commons Chamber

[George Galloway]

I hope it is clear that they are leaving not because I am rising to speak, but because of the dramatic events we have just witnessed. I hope it is duly noted that I was the one-vote majority.

I dedicate this debate to a two-year-old boy. His name was Awaab Ishak, and he was the boy who died of damp. Awaab died because he lived in a house so affected by dampness and the mould that ineluctably followed. Innumerable complaints were made, unattended to, of dampness in the house owned by his landlord Rochdale Boroughwide Housing, one of the worst housing associations in England—pity Awaab—in a town with an incompetent, inefficient and, indeed, corrupt Labour council. The housing association has been in special measures because of its extreme incompetence and social exclusion. It is officially accused of othering many of its own tenants. Little Awaab would now be getting ready for school, but he is dead. And he died of damp.

Of course, this problem is not unique to Rochdale. Millions of homes in our country are unfit for purpose and unfit for human habitation. Government policy over many years has exacerbated that which has been inherited from previous generations.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing this forward. He is absolutely right that millions of homes in this great United Kingdom have the same problem.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, although rents have substantially increased—in my constituency, there is a £126 increase in the new annual contract, an increase of 18% in one year—the standard of housing has not improved, and no improvements have been made? Does he agree that, while rents have increased, standards are slipping, and that councils need greater enforcement powers to ensure a basic standard of living can be legally secured? Everyone should have a good house to live in, in which they feel safe and secure.

[George Galloway]

Britain is a rich country that can gaily increase its defence budget, that can boast of its wealth on international league tables, yet millions of its citizens are living in inadequate housing and, in Awaab’s case, dying in inadequate accommodation. It is a national disgrace, and I am grateful to the Members who have stayed for this debate, which affects everyone’s constituency, or almost everyone’s constituency.

Rochdale has a special place. We are at the top of every league that people would not want to top, and at the bottom of every league that people would want to top. I will give some vital statistics: 11.7% of our houses are officially deemed to be in housing deprivation, compared with the national average of 7.8%. That is in a town that was once something in England. It was a notable place, 20 minutes from the gleaming spires of Manchester city centre, where people rightly enjoy a high standard of living and prosperity. The national average is 7.8%; in Rochdale, it is 11.7%.

We have 35.8% of our people officially living in fuel poverty, compared with 27.8% nationally. We have 20.5% of our people suffering poor health—one in five of the people in Rochdale suffers poor health—compared with a national average of 17%. Even in the asthma stakes, we are at the bottom of the league: 7.4 % of our people have asthma, compared with 6% nationally.

This scandal is down to the matrix I discussed earlier, of a Tory Government in power and an utterly incompetent—bewilderingly so—Labour local authority. Now a Labour super-Mayor is presiding over those gleaming spires in central Manchester, enjoying popularity, as undoubtedly he, at least in part, deserves, for helping prosperity in the metropolis. But in the towns around Manchester, in particular in Rochdale, we have been left to sink, and nobody is doing anything about it.

Coastal Communities: East Devon

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 8th May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Richard Foord]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me an opportunity to talk up the great work that goes on in our leisure facilities in east Devon. As he says, the Flamingo pool in Axminster is brilliant; I take my daughter swimming there, and the volunteers who work there are fantastic. Given that he not only knows the Flamingo pool but has LED Community Leisure facilities in his constituency, the hon. Gentleman will know that we must do everything we can to help local authorities to apply for any funding that is available.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for initiating the debate. Does he recognise the good work that levelling-up funding has done, and the fact that so many people and many councils can take advantage of it? Does he also endorse the view that whatever party may be in government in the future, it should be an integral part of the funding structure of every council in the United Kingdom?

[Richard Foord]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question. Of 500 bids for levelling-up funding, only 111 were successful, and I am mindful of the 389 that involved so much work on the part of council officers. The Minister may correct me if I have got the number slightly wrong, but that is my understanding. We should remember that councils are not well staffed; in fact, they have many vacancies, because they are constantly having to cut staff numbers.

When the Conservatives talked of levelling up in their 2019 manifesto, they were talking to communities that were crying out for just that, but many of the east Devon coastal communities that I represent have been disappointed. Let me draw an analogy with a cream tea. In Devon, if someone talks about adding toppings to a scone, we immediately think “cream first”, and when someone talks about levelling up, we immediately think “investment in our communities”. Little did we know that in both cases, what the Conservatives actually meant was “jam tomorrow”.

The Government’s approach of encouraging councils to use reserves and capital receipts to subsidise their revenue expenditure is unsustainable. Let us take, for example, the recent use by Devon County Council of £7.8 million of clawback money, which it had received from BT in connection with the provision of broadband internet. Rather than using that money as intended—to extend the provision of broadband to rural areas—the council used it to close its deficit. That got it through the 2023-24 financial year, but what will happen next March when there is no payout from BT, and what will happen to the thousands of my constituents who struggle to access the internet, which in the 21st century is an essential utility?

In the first round of levelling-up funding, the south-west region was ranked ninth out of 12 regions of the UK for the amount of funding received. It amounted to just £23 per person, which is less than the price of a single railway ticket from Honiton to Plymouth. We might as well buy a round of ice creams with the money, given how far levelling-up funding for east Devon will not stretch. The west country received less than 8% of all levelling-up funding from round 1. Even London received more than half that proportion, despite the fact that it was London’s levels of wealth and infrastructure to which other regions of the UK were supposed to be levelled up.

Given that we are talking about the coast, let me draw another analogy, this time with building sandcastles. If my eldest child had a bucketful of sand and my youngest child had half a bucket, I would expect levelling up to enable them both to have full buckets with which to make grand sandcastles. Instead, what we seem to have found under this Conservative Government is that levelling up has meant that children have to make sandcastles on east Devon’s beaches by half-filling their buckets, and anyone who lives locally will know that that will be with pebbles. If we are lucky, central Government will give us a flag to go on top, provided that we accept that the flag will have to have a blue tree on it.

East Devon District Council has submitted a bid in each round of the levelling-up fund since I have been the MP for Tiverton and Honiton. Had it been successful, the bid for the Axe valley would have supported £15 million-worth of projects. It would have transformed Seaton seafront and provided new opportunities for decent jobs. East Devon District Council was looking to provide three new employment sites: in Colyford Road and Harepath Road in Seaton, and at Cloakham Lawns in Axminster. Together, these could have provided around 3,000 square metres of employment space and created up to 140 decent jobs for local communities. However, rather than choosing this proposal or, indeed, the absolutely essential proposal for a town centre relief road in Cullompton, which was submitted by Mid Devon District Council, the Government chose to support Dinan Way in Exmouth. I do not doubt the merits of that proposal, but the costs of Dinan Way have ballooned.

Devon County Council’s cabinet met earlier today. It considered a successful bid to round 1 of the Government’s levelling-up fund, which awarded over £15.5 million for Destination Exmouth. East Devon District Council put in additional funding, as did other local councils, making a local contribution of £1.75 million. We learned today that the gateway project around the station in Exmouth will not go ahead, and that roughly £4.4 million that had been earmarked for schemes to help with active travel will be shelved. Instead, the more than £4 million will be rolled into the cost of the bypass in Dinan Way to offset the inflation that we have seen since the bid was submitted. If decisions around that investment had been made locally, we might have made different decisions, and we may have prioritised the funding and investment differently.

An increasing proportion of east Devon’s communities are older, which is particularly true of coastal towns and villages. An ageing population is increasing the complexity of the care required. In Sir Chris Whitty’s “Chief Medical Officer’s Annual Report: Health in an Ageing Society”, published last October, he wrote specifically about the tendency of older people to retire and move to coastal areas, such as east Devon. He said:

“We’ve really got to get serious about the areas of the country where ageing is happening very fast, and we’ve got to do it now. It’s possible to compress the period of time that people spend in ill health...because otherwise we will end up with large numbers of people leading much more dependent lives.”

His report says:

“Providing services and environments suitable for older adults in these areas is an absolute priority”.

Sir Chris Whitty says that, specifically, we need policies to reduce disease and disability, and to help people to exercise, eat well and stay fit.

A report written in February this year by Beccy Baird from the King’s Fund calls for a radical refocusing of health and care, with primary care and community services at its core. It says that

“progress has been hampered by an incorrect belief that moving care into the community will result in short-term cash savings. Other factors include a lack of data about primary and community services leading to a ‘cycle of invisibility’”.

Baird talks about

“urgent challenges such as A&E waiting times and planned care backlogs becoming the priority for politicians tempted by quick fixes instead of fundamental improvement.”

In the face of that, the proposed closure of one whole wing of Seaton Hospital makes absolutely no sense to me or the constituents I represent, as I have said to various Ministers in the Department of Health and Social Care, and to the Prime Minister himself at Prime Minister’s questions.

How can we expect this Conservative Government to level up in respect of complicated services, such as health and social care, if they cannot even level up potholes? The annual local authority road maintenance—or ALARM—report reveals that the average cost of filling in a pothole is £46, which rises to over £70 for a pothole that is filled on a reactive basis, rather than having been planned. On my summer tour, constituents told me that they see repair vans coming to respond to a request to patch up a single pothole, rather than dealing with the whole road. Round 1 of the levelling-up fund awarded the west country £23 per head. That is the equivalent of half of one pothole filled per person. It is no wonder that when we drive in and out of Devon’s craters, we sometimes think we are on the moon.

I contend that the levelling-up concept was designed to win over marginal seats in the midlands and the north of England in the run-up to the 2019 general election. Following that election, it has become apparent to the Conservatives that their 2019 electoral big tent has been shredded by the successive storms of partygate, the interregnum ruled over by the right hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss) and the crumbling infrastructure of our coastal communities, including those in east Devon. It will take Liberal Democrat influence in the next Parliament to devolve and restore services to our communities in east Devon.

Youth Homelessness

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 1st May 2024 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. First, I thank the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Paula Barker) for leading the debate and for illustrating the issue so well with the story of Zephyr. Nothing tells a story better than an example like that. It is also an example of what can be done to help that person: he has accommodation and a job to go to, and he wishes to be a councillor and help others. That tells me that if the effort is made, a change can be made. The hon. Lady deserves to be congratulated, as do all the groups and charities that work to ensure that Zephyr and others can have a better life.

It is also a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Gravesham (Adam Holloway). I thank him for his interest, his observations, his focus and his two suggestions, which the Government should be encouraged to support.

I will give a Northern Ireland example, as I always do, because it is important that we have a perspective from across the United Kingdom: it adds to the debate and shows that what happens here is also an issue elsewhere. Homelessness has become a major issue across the UK, especially among our young people. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree referred to early intervention; I believe that there is a real opportunity for early intervention and to ensure that our young people, who are our future, have the means to get the best possible start in life. It is great to be here to talk about the issue and hear about experiences in other constituencies.

“A Place to Call Home”, a report produced by Queen’s University on behalf of the Northern Ireland Commissioner for Children and Young People, included interviews with some 32 participants across three main strands. It showed that the basic minimum to support children and young people in Northern Ireland is not being met. I know that that is not the Minister’s responsibility, but I want to give a flavour of where we are. Now that the Assembly is up and working again, the responsibility for an action plan to address the issue will fall on the shoulders of the Minister in the Northern Ireland Assembly.

The issue of young people and families in temporary accommodation within the Northern Ireland Housing Executive has become a prevalent one back home, as they simply have nowhere to go. That is, without doubt, a form of homelessness. The figures speak for themselves and cannot be ignored. In the period from January to June 2022, households and families accepted as homeless in Northern Ireland included 3,495 children. Furthermore, in July 2022, 3,913 children aged under 18 were living in temporary accommodation in Northern Ireland, an increase from 2,433 in January 2019. That includes children living with their families and young people aged 16 to 17 living independently. That massive increase shows the size of the problem and illustrates that this is an issue not just here, but across the great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Young people not having a decent place to live has a direct impact on other aspects of their life, such as poor health and wellbeing. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree talked about how Zephyr’s anxiety issues rose as a result of what happened, and depression and mental health had knock-on effects as well. We also have to be aware of wellbeing outcomes and the inability of children to learn at school and beyond. If someone is focusing on their health issues and how they feel mentally and physically, it is quite difficult to have a positive focus for the future.

It is worth noting that Northern Ireland has a major problem with hidden homelessness among our youth, who sleep rough or sofa-surf with friends or family. I probably encounter that every week in my office myself or through my staff: people depending on the good will of family members, or more often friends, living in their cars, sleeping on benches or sofa-surfing.

The Simon Community in Northern Ireland is instrumental in supporting young people with accommodation. It has youth accommodation projects designed to assist young people aged 16 to 25 in their transition towards independent adulthood. We must recognise just how difficult that is. Those projects provide a nurturing environment where young people can flourish. I give credit to the Simon Community for what it does and for how it tries to address these issues.

The hon. Lady’s introduction emphasised to me and everyone here how sympathetic she is to this cause. She has done some fantastic work on it through her role as shadow Minister for Housing. Data from the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities shows that 54% of homeless people report experiencing homelessness for the first time when under the age of 25.

This debate is so important, because it focuses on a group of young people who we hope will have opportunities for the future, as well as a job, accommodation and relationships that can help them to build the society we live in. Some 48% of those people experience rough sleeping for the first time before the age of 25. The impact of the youth homelessness crisis can be seen all across society. Until the root causes of youth homelessness are addressed, this crisis will continue to escalate.

I am ever mindful of the importance of this debate, and I want to suggest two suggestions that I think will be helpful. We are here not just to raise awareness of this matter, but to give suggestions, as the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree has done. We will hear more from others in this debate, and we look to our Minister to ensure that we can get positive responses.

What can we do? First, we need an early identification programme to ensure that children at school—as early as that—who are at risk are identified and supported. I suggest respectfully that the Minister should co-ordinate our campaign with the Department for Education to ensure that those who are showing signs of having problems at home and who may end up homeless or on the street are identified and supported.

Secondly, we need to have more affordable youth-friendly accommodation, like the accommodation the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree referred to, which saved young Zephyr and many others. Such accommodation will probably save many more lives in the future, but it needs help to make that happen. We need to have a focus on more affordable youth-friendly accommodation that young people can be expected to afford to live in. The hon. Lady outlined the issues: these young people are trying to study for their exams, their money issues are piling up around them, and they are wondering, “Where am I going to go next?”. These issues compound each other. We have all seen the extortionate prices people are paying for rent—it is completely unrealistic to expect a young person to be able to pay that, especially looking at the figures in London.

I look respectfully and honestly to the Minister for solutions. While there is an understanding of this situation, I believe it is so important that we take the appropriate steps to support our young people and, as the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree says, address the issue of youth homelessness. It is a blight on society and it needs to be addressed. I look to the Minister to give us those solutions.