Holiday and Second Homes Regulation: Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd October 2024 Westminster Hall

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the regulation of holiday and second homes in Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly.

I am delighted to have secured the opportunity to debate this motion. It is worth emphasising that this is about not the politics of envy, but the politics of social and housing justice. Many people are concerned about the proper provision, allocation and use of property, particularly residential properties, in those areas with a significant preponderance of holiday and second homes. The tourism industry in such areas is vital, but it is important to get the balance right in the usage of properties and how, and which, properties are used in the industry. In such areas there is often a big mismatch between earnings levels and house prices, given the large amount of wealth that wishes to invest in those properties, so we need to ensure a proper balance.

It is also important to understand the distinction between second and holiday homes. Often, in discussions and media commentary, the two are confused. They are two sides of a coin, but in regulatory terms they are significantly different. Some properties flip from one form of regulation to the other, from being second homes operating under the council tax regime to the holiday lettings sector, which operates in the business rates system.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate. In previous Parliaments, he has proven himself to be an advocate for those who have such issues. Does he not agree that we need to make the most of tourist potential—as we seek to do in the incomparable Ards peninsula, which I represent—but a fundamental need is to have housing stock available for people to live and raise their children in, without being outpriced by the demand for second homes?

[Andrew George]

Indeed I do agree, and I am grateful for that intervention emphasising the points that I and many of those present wish to make. Although we are talking about Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly specifically, the subject clearly has wider impact across the country as a whole.

The context is important in Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly. Over the past decade, more than half a billion— £500 million—of taxpayers’ money has been handed out to holiday home owners in Cornwall alone under a variety of different and variable tax incentives available to the holiday lettings sector, such as the small business rate relief system for furnished holiday lets. Perhaps most scandalously, because those properties were entitled to such relief, they were entitled to covid aid as well—£20,000 to each one of them, for no very good reason.

The latest figures in Cornwall show nearly 14,000 second homes and more than 11,000 properties registered as short-term lets, as far as businesses are concerned. The most recent trawl through the larger of the holiday letting websites showed nearly 22,000 active listings. That figure was recorded on an initial trawl, but it does not represent the full scale of holiday lets available.

Postal Voting at General Elections

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

What a delectable, delicious prospect we have before us: a two-and-a-half-hour Adjournment debate on postal voting. If the Whips thought that the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) made a long speech, I am tempted to say, “You ain’t seen nothing yet!”

First, may I welcome the Minister to her place? I assure her from the start that this is not an attack Adjournment debate; it really is designed to be helpful to her and colleagues. I sought to secure this debate having reflected on the operation of postal voting during the general election, which I did through the prism of being the then Minister in charge of elections policy. Just for the record, I note that Mr Speaker has kindly invited me to join the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission, and I have accepted.

If the House will indulge me for just a moment, I want to put on record one of those things that often do not get noted when Ministers are ushered out of office by the electorate. This place, all of us who have been returned to it, all who stood in the election and represented their party interests across the United Kingdom, and all our electorates owe a debt of thanks to the elections team at the former Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities—I see one or two of them in the Officials Box. The team worked flat out to deliver the policies that came from the Elections Act 2022, and they had the local elections in May and then the general election shortly thereafter. They worked tirelessly to support the delivery of those elections, and I put on record my thanks to them.

I also thank David Gold and his team at the Royal Mail, and all the people at the Royal Mail who strove so hard to deliver the postal votes and all the other literature and documentation that supports the delivery of a general election. David and his team were more than generous with their time and, during the election campaign, as issues were coming to the fore that they were trying to manage and we were trying to raise as the Government, they made themselves available on a daily basis, if necessary, and certainly on a weekly basis to make sure that the ship of state was still afloat.

It would be remiss of me not to thank the Association of Electoral Administrators and all those in local government who keep the electoral register and deal with the paperwork and the logistics, which certainly became more complex and demanding, as the Minister will doubtless have been briefed by her officials, as a result of the changes to the rules and regulations in the Elections Act. I had the great honour of speaking at the annual conference earlier this year—I am sure that the Minister will be invited to do it; if she can, I urge her to—and they are a great bunch of women and men who work tirelessly in our town halls and county halls to make sure that elections are delivered. Of course, we should also thank the Electoral Commission, which is the guardian watchdog that keeps an eye over all of us to make sure that the rules are adhered to.

Our democracy works only when and because the defeated and their supporters—not the victors—accept the result. We saw the dangers of that in the previous American presidential election, and just how close we can get to anarchy and a complete collapse of confidence, the ramifications of which are still being felt in the States, when the people who lose say, “We was robbed. The system was against us.”

We have been hugely lucky in this country that all our election results have been beyond challenge and have been accepted by the victor and the defeated, and that the legitimacy of those who have been chosen to govern has been accepted and agreed, but we cannot rest on our laurels. We cannot presume that just because that is how it has always been, that is how it will always be, and that is the spur that prompted me to apply for this Adjournment debate.

My message to the Minister is that although 2029 seems a long way away, in governance and organisational terms it is effectively tomorrow. The Government and the House need to think about whether and how any changes are to be delivered to the way that postal voting operates, such as through amendments to the Elections Act or statutory instruments, to ensure that the electorate accept the legitimacy of the result.

The next general election will not be fought on the same franchise that we had this year. We have an ageing population, so it is a legitimate presumption that there will be a higher demand for postal votes as people get older. There is also the potential to increase the franchise by giving the vote to 16 year olds, which could increase future demand for postal votes, and I understand that proposals may be in train about franchise rights for EU citizens, which would create another demand. If all the newly enfranchised overseas voters had registered to vote who were hitherto exempt because of the 15-year cut-off point, who would by definition be seeking a postal vote or a proxy vote, the totality of additional voters coming on to the roll—I am giving this figure from memory—would have been about 3 million.

I do not know what percentage of that 3 million got on to the register and had a vote; the Electoral Commission’s report about the operation of the election will be published in November. As sure as eggs are eggs, though, as time goes by—their legitimacy to vote was accepted by my then shadow, the hon. Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi), so there will be no change in policy there—one can only presume that a greater percentage of those 3 million will apply for a vote as their knowledge and understanding of their ability to secure one grows.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Simon Hoare]

I am tempted to say that this Adjournment debate would not be an Adjournment debate—it would fail the Trade Descriptions Act—unless I gave way to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon).

[Jim Shannon]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing this debate forward. He is absolutely right to bring this issue to the Floor of the House for consideration by the Minister. I would like to make a helpful contribution. He is very knowledgeable in relation to Northern Ireland. We have had a postal vote system for some time, but there was a problem at the last election. When people were taken ill suddenly, the doctors in the hospitals could right away send a letter, and those people were accepted for a postal vote. However, those in their late 70s and 80s who were infirm and perhaps not so mobile were not able to get postal votes even though they needed them, because for some unknown reason, their GPs took a decision not to sign their forms for postal votes. To me, that is absolutely ludicrous. If you are elderly and infirm and not able to get out, you should get a postal vote. There should be no two-tier status for those with postal votes.

[Simon Hoare]

I certainly agree with the hon. Gentleman that all those who are entrusted with the discharge and delivery of our elections—our police, our medical certifiers and others clearly play a part—should play an active and engaged part. It should not be an option to opt out; this should just be an accepted part of the job. I will mention Northern Ireland specifically in a moment or so.

I want to give the House some facts provided by the Royal Mail, which I think are of interest to put this issue into scope and scale. At the general election just gone, on 4 July, the Royal Mail delivered more postal votes and candidate mail than in any previous general election. Postal votes were up by 50% and candidate literature was up by 30% in comparison with 2019—and that was just your election literature, Madam Deputy Speaker! The Royal Mail delivered 50.8 million poll cards, 7.26 million postal votes and 184 million candidate leaflets. It did sweeps of all its 37 mail centres and 1,200 delivery offices to ensure that all the postal votes that had gone into the system were delivered to the counts, to make sure that those votes were counted. On election day itself, 70,000 postal votes were handled by the Royal Mail across the United Kingdom to be delivered. That is a huge number.

This is the challenge that I set for the Minister. I am not looking for the de facto answer today, but I would like an assurance that it is on the radar and people are thinking about it. We know full well that the Royal Mail is going through a period of change. I think we feel this particularly acutely in rural areas. It is by definition, because of email and everything else, handling fewer and fewer letters, and staff numbers reflect that. One of the joys of the 2015 general election, as far as Royal Mail was concerned, was the fact that we still had the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 and it could structure additional recruitment to deliver the demand—and that demand was far less than that which prevails at the moment—because it knew with certainty when the general election was going to be held. The snap elections of 2017 and 2019, and the perhaps earlier than expected 2024 election, caught the Royal Mail napping, because it had to put on a sudden spurt to recruit people to deliver all the pieces of paper that needed to be delivered. In the absence of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act, that issue will remain with us.

I made the point to the Royal Mail that in fact only one election was controlled by the Fixed-term Parliaments Act. Every other election had always been at the whim or the prerogative of the Prime Minister when the House was dissolved. However, in comparing previous with future general elections, we must consider the changes in volume that the Royal Mail is handling.

I mentioned rural areas. I am still awaiting the delivery of election address 2; I am sure that I had exciting words to say, but it never came through my letterbox. Last week, a wonderful bundle of 12 pieces of mail was delivered in the one-delivery-a-week service that my part of North Dorset is currently experiencing.

There will not be a Member of Parliament, urban or rural—though this applies particularly to rural areas—who has not had constituents contacting them after the general election to say that they did not receive their postal vote in time or could not get it back in time. That takes me to a point that requires possibly secondary legislation and certainly some thought: the cut-off point between the close of nominations and everything going to the printer, and everything getting bundled up in the postal vote packs at the same time as people are trying to update the register, check that polling stations are available, recruit polling clerks and so on. It is all incredibly tight. It was incredibly tight this year, but the system just about coped. I am anxious to future-proof, given the increased demand that I mentioned at the start of my remarks.

The Government could go back to the old system, thus putting the postal vote genie back in the bottle, with the tight criteria that used to prevail. I do not believe that that will happen, and I do not think it would be desirable. We could introduce digital voting for overseas voters, but that has the potential for fraud and hacking. It also opens up the Pandora’s box of digital voting for everyone in the United Kingdom.

There is no easy solution. There is the tightness of the timetables and the capacity of the Royal Mail—not its good will; the Royal Mail is honoured and delighted to have the contract that the Government give it. David Gold and his team were conscious of the pivotal role that their organisation played in delivering the general election, and always prepared to say so up front.

The Electoral Commission noted, in a briefing that I received today in advance of the debate, for which I am grateful, that several people experienced problems in voting by post, such as delays in receiving their postal ballot. Its research shows that the vast majority of postal votes were delivered promptly, and that there were no widespread or systemic issues. However, there were voters in the UK and abroad who could not vote because of the late arrival of postal votes. Problems were prevalent in Scotland, which gave us a lot of concern because the election coincided with the school holidays there and in Northern Ireland, which created additional pressure for the postal voting system. I look forward, as I am sure that the Minister does, to the Electoral Commission’s report on postal voting, which will be published next month.

Something needs to be done to give us all confidence that the result of the general election in 2029—probably—will have the same legitimacy as those held in 2024, 2019 and previously. There will be some challenges. Although our constituents are not forced to vote, they have a legitimate expectation, as part of their contract with the state, that their vote will be counted if it has been cast.

I do not have the answers for the Minister. That is her job, not mine. She knows that the system needs to be reliable, robust, easy, seamless and trusted, because all of us, irrespective of party or geography, are united in being motivated by one guiding principle: the result, whatever it may be, has to command authority through the electorate’s trust in it. If it does not—if people can cry foul, say that the system is loaded against them, or that it is too creaky and analogue for a digital age—then faith in our democratic system erodes. When faith erodes, participation is likely to decline; that is when extremes always flourish, and I know that His Majesty’s Government and the Minister will not want that. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say. For what it is worth, having been the Minister over the election period, I would be happy to do anything I can with her—through conversations, et cetera—to ensure that we get this right.

Employment Rights Bill

Jim Shannon Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 21st October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I am not a trade union member, and I would not know about my colleagues, but I started a business, as did my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), as did the shadow Chancellor and as did many others in our party. We are proud of that fact.

This morning I met business representatives covering all parts of the British economy. Like us, they have serious reservations about this Bill. The Institute of Directors highlighted the fact that 57% of its members will be less likely to hire staff, with only 2% saying that would be more likely. The Confederation of British Industry said that the costs associated with this Bill cannot be afforded by 54% of businesses.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

This legislation applies to England and not Northern Ireland, but I echo the hon. Gentleman’s concerns. I am concerned about small and medium businesses that employ a small workforce. If one or two of them have a long-term illness, they may be off for a while, come back to work and then go off for a while. Is there not a need—I look to the Deputy Prime Minister—for a methodology whereby small businesses can employ someone in the short term for those positions, otherwise they will go to the wall?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I agree. I was interested that the Deputy Prime Minister said that her menopause measures would be exclusive to large businesses. I welcome that, and I ask her to look at attaching the same conditions, ideally, to the entire Bill, but if not to certain parts of it. The risks for small businesses are simply catastrophic. Even one or two cases could completely sink a business.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

As hon. Members may be aware, I am not a career politician. I worked as a pork delivery driver with Henry Denny’s, until I opened my own small business as a pork retailer. I worked from early morning, before I did my work for the council and then for the Northern Ireland Assembly. I employed staff members. I did the books as well as I could, then handed them to my accountant. I delivered to local businesses and shopped local. I understand what it is to be a part of small business; indeed, it was a microbusiness. I say respectfully to the Minister that I know I would have struggled to implement some of the things currently under discussion, so I remind hon. Members of the implications of the Bill on small and microbusinesses. The Northern Ireland statistics will show why I hold those concerns.

Microbusinesses in Northern Ireland are no different from those in the United Kingdom mainland. Employment law is mostly devolved, but much of the law in Northern Ireland follows the direction of what is passed in the House of Commons, which is why I want to make my comments in a constructive fashion. The fact is that most employers are not skilled at making changes. The changes made by the Bill and additional obligations on employers must be made clear, be cost-effective and not mean that they need to hire an HR consultant, which is simply out of the question.

For example, I recently heard about a case of a small business that had worked out holiday pay using the online Government calculator. An employee moved to another job and queried the holiday pay. The Labour Relations Agency has said, according to the employees’ representation, that the owner owes approximately £800 per annum to each staff member. The owner has told me that they will need to close the business. I gave that example because I want to show what can go wrong—and, my goodness, it can go wrong at an absolute volume—with regulations that the Government put in place. The business is viable, but does not have the capacity to pay £10,000 in back pay to its staff. It used online tools to get it right, and yet has been left in an untenable situation. That makes it clear that when changes are made to employment practices, the advice for employers must be accurate and easy to understand. This is clearly not currently the case.

With great respect to colleagues on the Government Front Bench, the Bill is a curate’s egg—it is good in part, but not in every part. I welcome some of the measures, such as the end of zero-hours contracts and the enhanced protections, and look forward to seeing the minutiae of the detail.

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

On Friday, I attended an event hosted by the Northern Ireland Chamber of Commerce and Industry. It offers the Government no ill will and wants to engage positively and pragmatically on the issues, but it is concerned. Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be useful if, instead of continual hubris and politics from one side to the other throughout this debate, there were a willingness on the part of Front-Bench Members to engage thoughtfully with businesses?

[Jim Shannon]

My right hon. Friend makes exactly the point that I want to make. Through the Bill, the Government are pushing forward legislation that is necessary and welcome, but they need to work better and more closely alongside small businesses and microbusinesses of the kind I worked with many moons ago, whenever I had hair—that is a thing of the past. We cannot expect almost 80% of small businesses to behave as if they have an HR department, a payroll department and a board when most of them are simply retailers as I was, hiring local people and trying to be a good boss in a world with changing obligations.

Support must be central to any change in legislation. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), I ask the Secretary of State to take that point on board. If he is able to do so, I believe we can move forward constructively and help our businesses to maintain their status as employers.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call Imogen Walker to make her maiden speech.

City and Town Centres: Regeneration

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 16th October 2024 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I will certainly endeavour to do so, Mr Vickers. I thank the hon. Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson) for setting the scene so very well and for giving us all an opportunity to participate.

As ever, I will give a Northern Ireland perspective. I have three towns in my constituency: Newtownards, Comber and Ballynahinch. The main town, Newtownards, is thriving. It is bucking the trend of high streets across the UK, but its success is because of the independent traders and retailers who work in their own small shops and are part of the local community. From Sheldon Galleries, which produces artwork of local and international renown, to independent clothing boutiques and shoe shops, the town centre has fought hard to remain relevant, although it is not immune from empty spaces and old shutters.

What is the secret? One of the secrets is having vibrant chambers of trade. We are pleased to have one in Newtownards, one in Comber and one in Ballynahinch. Despite their hard work, people in local chambers of trade, such as Derek Wright in Newtownards, cannot save the high street alone. Their contributions and partnerships are important, but they are not the only thing. Government help must play a part.

I welcome the Minister to his place. I am pleased to see him here; we have had many debates in Westminster Hall on different subjects, and I am looking forward to his response. I am ever mindful that he is not responsible for Northern Ireland, but I want to set the scene and raise some issues relevant to the debate. The chambers of trade need Government investment, because we have a circular economy: those local shopkeepers will use that money to buy locally and, importantly, spend locally.

After years of trading—100 years, in some cases—our shops have adapted to the times. We have family businesses, clothes shops, antique shops and coffee shops; the coffee culture in Newtownards brings people to the town centre. There are also restaurants and pubs; the hon. Member for Bury North (Mr Frith) referred to pubs, which are an integral part of any town.

I once read a sign that said, “Your custom is not paying for a CEO’s holiday home. It pays for me and my children to swim in the local pool. It pays local people’s wages. It keeps your money and work within our community.” That is a paraphrase—it would have been an awfully big sign if it were word for word—but the point really struck me. In the age of online purchases, the importance of the high street and the economy cannot be overstated, which is why I was incredibly concerned when the news came that the city deals had been paused. We are very pleased in Ards and North Down about the Belfast city deal, and we hope to feel some of the benefits that spin off from it. The tourist attractions in the area and the Bangor waterfront redevelopment will breathe life into Bangor. The title “city deals” hides the impact on smaller towns, but such deals are vital for their survival.

The high street is the lifeblood of the local economy. We rightly encourage our retailers to go online and make the most of a bigger audience, but we also need to retain face-to-face customer service and kindness. That will only come if our Government prioritise people and sow into the regeneration of our town centres. There is everything to play for, and we all need to play by the same rules.

Building Safety and Resilience

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 11th September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Alex Norris]

My hon. Friend will be pleased with the answer that I have to that question, which, with his forbearance, I will give once I have dealt with the next few questions.

My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East referenced the Morrell and Day report, published last year, to which the previous Government did not respond. The intention of this Government is to bring forward proposals for system-wide reform of the construction products regulatory regime, which will tackle issues both in that report and the Grenfell Tower inquiry report. We think that it makes sense to do that as a collective piece of work.

My hon. Friend mentioned product manufacturers and remediation costs, which the shadow Minister also talked about. We are currently working on identifying how we might strengthen the Building Safety Act 2022 to ensure that such manufacturers can make a contribution. We have been taking action already through the recovery strategy unit to hold those construction product manufacturers to account and to get money out of them for their share of the costs. Where the work has not had the results that we wanted, we have written to institutional investors and encouraged sponsors to reconsider their partnership, which has resulted in the severance of two sponsorship deals, as well as another to which a colleague referred earlier. We know that more may be needed in this space, so we will continue to do that.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Alex Norris]

I will.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

It is very hard not to have an intervention from Jim Shannon.

[Jim Shannon]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I outlined the case for the legislation and for building safety and resilience going forward. Does the Minister intend to share the findings with the regions of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, which I represent, so that the appropriate Department in the Northern Ireland Assembly can take the legislative measures forward constructively to ensure safety for us in Northern Ireland as well?

[Alex Norris]

I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. We will absolutely share the best of our knowledge and insight—I am sure that will be a two-way process—to ensure that we are doing right by everybody across Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

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.