Revised National Planning Framework

Layla Moran Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd January 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Housing, Planning and Building Safety (Lee Rowley)]

I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Dame Maria Miller) for securing the debate and for the excellent speech she just delivered on behalf of her constituents. She clearly stands up for her constituents, and I know they will have been listening tonight.

I know housing and planning is an important issue for the people of Basingstoke and, indeed, many people across the country. That is exactly why we took to update the national planning policy framework just before Christmas. This Government want to build more homes, but we want to build them in the right places. We want to build them more quickly, beautifully and sustainably. The right way to deliver that is through a reformed planning system that works. We are clear that it is only through up-to-date local plans that local authorities can deliver for communities, protect the land and assets that matter, and create the conditions for more homes to be delivered all across the country.

As the House knows, we consulted last year on a series of proposals and received more than 26,000 responses, demonstrating the interest in planning to so many communities up and down the land. The resulting update of the framework builds on the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 and delivers on the intent set out by the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities last year. It does so in a way that seeks to promote building the right homes in the right places with the right infrastructure, which will ensure that the environment is protected and will give local people a greater say on where, and where not, to place development.

[Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)]

I thank the Minister for giving way and congratulate the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Dame Maria Miller) on securing the debate.

On the issue of a local say, will the Minister expand slightly on the placement of things like solar farms? It is the wild west. In places such as Oxfordshire, we have a number of solar farms coming forward, including possibly the largest one in Europe at Botley West. For those that are over 50 MW, it does not feel like local say has anything to do with it. Did he consider that when the Government were creating this policy?

[Lee Rowley]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her comments. Many colleagues in the House will have experienced solar farms, both on a constituency basis and from a national policy consideration. There is obviously a trade-off to be made here. The Liberal Democrats are extremely keen on renewable energy, as we all are, and there are implications to that. She is right to highlight that this has to be considered within the appropriate boundaries of the individual areas. That is exactly why the Government amended the national planning policy framework and exactly why the Conservatives are seeking to establish that balance. We will continue to try to ensure that that balance works for communities, while also getting us the energy we need, so that when we switch on the lights in the morning, they work.

As I said, we consulted on a series of proposals last year and received more than 26,000 responses. That demonstrates the importance of planning for local communities. I understand the concerns of my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke that Basingstoke and Deane district council has seen a high level of housing delivery, including in recent years, in excess of that set out in the adopted local plan in 2016. Indeed, the housing delivery test results for 2022, published in December, show that the district has delivered more homes than is required through the test. As my right hon. Friend outlined in her excellent speech, a number of measures were announced in the national planning policy framework update, and I hope to highlight a number of those that may assist the district council and other local councils bringing forward their local plans.

First, as my right hon. Friend indicated, we have been consistently clear that the standard method is a starting point for local authorities in assessing what to plan for and that it does not set a mandatory target. The framework now sets that out in national policy. Local authorities should be in no doubt that the outcome of the standard method is an advisory starting point for establishing housing requirements through plan-making. Again, for the avoidance of doubt, that means that local authorities can put forward their own approach to assessing needs where certain exceptional circumstances exist.

Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill

Layla Moran Excerpts

3rd reading
Wednesday 10th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)]

It is with a heavy heart, again, that I am participating in today’s debate. Throughout December, alongside the Pope and the Archbishop of Canterbury, I sought to shed light on the suffering of Christians in Gaza city, who include my own family. Let me express sincere gratitude to Members across the House who have approached me in the last few days to ask how they are. Although the media attention mitigated the immediate dangers, the plight of Gaza’s residents persists—living hand to mouth, drinking unclean water and wondering how on earth the world is letting this happen. I am equally concerned about the impact on the streets in the UK. We are seeing a rise in antisemitism and anti-Muslim hate, which is unacceptable and must be called out.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

I, too, extend my sympathies to the hon. Lady and her family. My own council Cyngor Gwynedd called for an immediate ceasefire last month. Echoing people’s concerns, it condemned both Hamas violence and Israel’s disproportionate attacks on civilians. The Senedd has also called for a ceasefire. The Bill will restrict members of Welsh democratic institutions from voicing their views, and I am sure the hon. Lady agrees that such restriction on free speech is a threat to our democracy across the nations of the United Kingdom.

[Layla Moran]

I absolutely agree. The Bill does not respect directly elected bodies and those representatives. The issue is also about the timing. The death toll in Gaza now exceeds 22,000, and over 100 Israeli hostages remain. I do not put those numbers side by side to compare, because every single individual lost or missing is a tragedy. The humanitarian situation has reached new depths. A doctor constituent of mine who is working in Gaza said that he has seen preventable deaths due to staff shortages, and the medical system has totally collapsed. We now have injured with nowhere to go.

Tomorrow, the International Court of Justice will consider South Africa’s case on Israel’s alleged violations and obligations under the genocide convention. I am sure I need not remind this House that it was precisely local government-led interventions here in the UK—which would be outlawed under the Bill—that pressured the Thatcher Government to add their support to the people of South Africa. Yesterday, the Foreign Secretary said that he did not agree with the ICJ case and

“I do not think we should bandy around terms like genocide”.

South Africa is not bandying around terms. The ICJ is precisely the court in which those allegations should be looked at. The principle is simple: the UK should not pre-judge the outcome of the legal case. It should back the process and the court itself full-throatedly.

I end by simply saying that the Liberal Democrats will continue to advocate for an immediate bilateral ceasefire, securing hostage release, delivering aid and working towards that precious two-state solution. Our response to this war will be judged by history. In a fractured world where democracies need to be strengthened and the international rules-based order helped, the Bill undermines local government, damages our global standing and divides our streets. This place should be a place where we unite, not divide people. Frankly, the Liberal Democrats believe that this debate should not be happening. We stand with humanity and peace, and it is for that reason that we will be voting against the Bill today.

Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill

Layla Moran Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 25th October 2023 Commons Chamber

[Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham). I, too, wish to speak in particular about amendment 7, tabled by the hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse).

It is with a heavy heart that I am taking part in this debate. I was half minded not to do so, because now is not the time. The impact of the awful violence in Israel and Palestine on communities across the world cannot be underestimated, but the answer is not to debate the Bill right now. By all means let us have some space, some time: there have only been statements, and we have not had a chance to talk about it. By all means let us do that, but not this. It was unwise even to table the debate for this week, and on Monday I urged the Prime Minister to change his mind. In his response, he spoke about the importance of not undermining “community cohesion”. I politely suggest that if a Government do not want to undermine community cohesion, the last thing they should do is introduce a Bill such as this.

May I associate myself with the arguments advanced by the right hon. Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge)? What she said was exactly what members of my Jewish community have said to me. They are appalled that the Government are choosing to play politics at this time. The Bill was divisive at the best of times, and the fact is that this is the worst of times. That holds true regardless of what we may think of the Bill’s contents. The Liberal Democrats are on the record as registering our opposition to specific clauses on Second Reading, but I am here primarily to talk about the timing.

Amendment 7 cuts to the chase. It addresses the fact that on the face of the Bill, in clause 3, is a reference to the conflict in Israel and Palestine—a conflict that has cost thousands of innocent lives over the past three weeks, and a conflict in respect of which intense diplomacy is required. I am shocked that the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister, having toured the middle east and having understood the strength of feeling but also the sensitivities, have decided that this in any way helps them to do their very important jobs. Make no mistake: those leaders in the Arab world are watching what is happening here today, and I do not think that it shows us in the best light. If the Prime Minister backs two states and wants to take any sort of lead, he needs to mean it.

I am sorry to say that arranging for this Bill to be debated this week is not the mark of a statesman. It is a disgrace. It is a disgrace because this conflict is affecting families across the UK as well as those abroad. Maybe they are fearful of becoming the victims of hate crime. We have seen a dreadful rise in antisemitism and Islamophobia over the last three weeks. The Community Security Trust has recorded the highest ever number of antisemitic incidents across this 17-day period. Or maybe they are fearful for their family in the region. I have spoken many times already about my fears for my extended family in Gaza. Or maybe they are fearful for their loved ones who are being held hostage by Hamas. If we are going to engage in this conflict, we should speak about how to get those hostages freed.

Earlier this week, I and my party leader met some of those families, including the aunt of Ariel and Kfir, who are four years old and nine months old. I was disgusted to see a picture of four-year-old Ariel defaced with horns and Hitler imagery at a bus stop in Finchley this morning—an utterly grotesque act. I hope the perpetrators are caught and the full force of the law is applied. This hateful antisemitism has no place in our society, and that is not up for debate.

On Palestinians, we should be speaking about the situation on the ground in Gaza and how we can get aid in. Children in Gaza are writing their names on their hands so that if they are killed, they can be buried with their families. I attended a vigil yesterday where we mourned those innocent children whose lives have been needlessly lost. It is not right that innocent Palestinians are being held accountable for Hamas’s atrocities.

I have heard arguments, primarily from the Government Benches, that Hamas are purportedly telling people not to move and find safety, but that is not what I am hearing—certainly not from my own family. I find it deeply offensive for people to suggest that Hamas are giving my family orders. The reason people are not moving is that they are frail and cannot move, but even if they do, the south is being bombed too. The conversation has changed in Gaza. No longer do they ask, “Where do I go to be safe?”. The question now is, “Where do I go to die?”. So how are we to facilitate releasing those hostages? How are we to safeguard innocent civilian lives? It is through a humanitarian ceasefire. That is a position backed by the Pope, the Archbishop of Canterbury, United States Secretary of State Blinken and—finally, it seems—the Government this morning.

What the House should be doing at this time is digging deep into our humanity and our compassion. It is a time for leadership, for soothing words and for calm to bring people together—all people, directly affected or not—and to demonstrate, by what we do here, how to let the light pierce into the darkness and despair. So I support amendment 7 wholeheartedly and I believe that this place can and should offer more than division.

Let me make my final point very clearly. I do not want something like this to drive a wedge between any Members in this House and our Jewish community. I stood with members of my Jewish community in Oxford in the first week of the attack and I grieved with them. We shed tears together. I stand shoulder to shoulder with them now. We all stand shoulder to shoulder with them now. I say to those Members who suggest that I should pick a side or, even worse, that by not voting with the Government today I am against peace: how dare they? I will tell them what I am on the side of. I am on the side of basic humanity. I am on the side of those who want to bring consensus. I am on the side of the Israeli community, the Palestinian community and the Jewish, Muslim and Christian communities. This is a tragedy that affects the whole world, and I say to this Government: do better.

[Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)]

I support the amendments in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) and wish to speak specifically to amendments 7 and 3.

This Bill was introduced pursuant to a Conservative manifesto commitment at the last general election,

“to ban public bodies from imposing their own direct or indirect boycotts, disinvestment or sanctions campaigns against foreign countries.”

It is important to note that the wording of that commitment is not country-specific. It is agnostic. But it is very clear from the debate thus far, most particularly on Second Reading but also today, that the measures contained in the Bill are aimed primarily at the BDS campaign that has for some two decades targeted the state of Israel. This is quite proper. Foreign policy in this country, as other hon. Members have said, should be determined by the Government of this country, not by local authorities or other public bodies.

The Bill is broadly drawn, except in one respect, which paradoxically robs it of its breadth. It contains a specific measure to prevent any attempt at a later date to modify its provisions in respect of the conduct of the Government of Israel in relation to the territory of Israel, the Occupied Palestinian Territories and the occupied Golan Heights. It is clear from the Secretary of State’s remarks on Second Reading that the principal mischief that the Government intend to target is the undoubted evil of antisemitism and antisemitic behaviour, which have been among the most regrettable—in fact, deplorable—consequences of the BDS campaign. Clamping down on antisemitism is obviously important. Indeed, it is essential. No one would dispute that it is a good thing. In fact, given current events in and close to Gaza—and, indeed, on the streets of London—doing everything possible to prevent it is very much a priority.

It is more than arguable that in the case of public bodies, there is a legislative vehicle for doing that already, in the shape of the Equality Act 2010, most particularly section 149, which imposes a “public sector equality duty” on such bodies, requiring them to pay

“due regard to the need to foster good relations between persons”

of different religions, ethnicities and nationalities. However, the Government have decided that the Equality Act is insufficient and have decided to go further by effectively outlawing the activities of the BDS movement in relation to Israel only, using this Bill as the vehicle. That is not a country-agnostic ambition of the sort envisaged in the manifesto commitment.

This is a broad Bill with one particularly anomalous element. As such, it throws up problems, which the amendments seek to rectify. Amendment 7 addresses the problem that arises under clause 3(5), which provides that

“The Secretary of State or the Minister for the Cabinet Office may, by regulations, specify a country or territory as one in relation to which section 1 does not apply.”—

in other words, permitting a public body to make a procurement or investment decision in such a way as to express political or moral disapproval of the conduct of a foreign state. Clause 3(7), however, goes on to provide that such regulations may not specify Israel, the Occupied Palestinian Territories or the occupied Golan Heights. The effect of clause 3(7), therefore, is to make it absolutely clear that the sole purpose of this Bill is to give total and unique protection to Israel from BDS activity.

I do not believe that it should be necessary to state that in the Bill. There may well be future circumstances in which it would be appropriate and desirable for public bodies to seek to express disapproval of the conduct of a foreign state. If any regulations were made permitting such conduct, they would self-evidently be done in circumstances in which they were approved of by the Government. However, excepting Israel, the Occupied Palestinian Territories and the occupied Golan Heights from the ministerial power to make such regulations is a very strange approach. In the first place, it is not, as I have said, country neutral, which it should be. The absence of neutrality may indeed cause offence to people from other countries around the world, not least those moderate Islamic states that are doing their very best at the moment to try to defuse the tension that has arisen in the middle east. Moreover, it creates an unacceptable equivalence between the status of the Occupied Palestinian Territories and the Golan Heights, both of which are arguably illegally occupied and are certainly in the view of the Government in the case of the OPTs illegally settled, and that of the sovereign territory of Israel itself. That is a matter, I am afraid, that is likely to attract significant international criticism as it may well put the United Kingdom in breach of its obligations under UN Security Council resolution 2334. Being found to be in breach of that resolution is not something that the Government should be happy to risk.

Building Safety and Social Housing

Layla Moran Excerpts

Thursday 6th July 2023 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that. I know he has a lifelong interest in social housing and cares very deeply about the fates of tenants in those conditions. I would never say that we have done everything that we should. I do believe that significant progress has been made, not least in remediating high-rise buildings and making sure that everyone who should plays their part. I will say a little bit more about it in a moment, but he is right to focus on how, when it comes to fire safety, it is not just the external cladding, which was of course the principal cause of the fire at Grenfell, but internal safety measures that we need to look at. Has progress been fast enough? No. Does resource need to be allocated? Yes. So I do agree with him that more requires to be done.

I was reflecting, just before that very helpful intervention, on the particular fate that disabled residents faced at Grenfell, and the vital importance of making sure that we have personal emergency evacuation plans in place. I hope to be able to update the House with the Home Secretary in due course.

As the hon. Gentleman has pointed out, a broad range of issues affect building safety overall. Of course, one finding of the Grenfell Tower inquiry will inevitably be a recognition of systemic failures in the way in which we dealt with building safety, because the public, residents and indeed the Government put their faith in the building and approving of high-rise blocks and in the construction products being supplied for those high-rise blocks. We believed that the law was being followed and that the right thing was being done, but this trust was misplaced and abused. Industry profits, as we now know, were prioritised over safety and the safeguards that should have been observed were flouted.

We are now, with the help of all parties in this House, fixing the broken building safety system and we are seeking redress. I have been clear that those responsible—those at the apex of the building industry—must take responsibility. As of today, a total of 49 developers, including the 10 largest house builders, have signed our developer remediation contract, and I am grateful to them for showing such leadership. All developers that have signed the contract now have a legal duty to get on with remediation.

[Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)]

As I am sure the Secretary of State knows, one key recommendation of the Hackitt review was to set up the Building Safety Regulator. So he will understand the concern when amendments have been tabled to the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill giving the Secretary of State powers to scrap the building safety regime via a statutory instrument. If the No. 1 thing that the state needs to do is to keep its citizen safe, can he explain why those amendments have been tabled, and under what circumstances he would use that power to get rid of that regulator without proper scrutiny in this House?

[Michael Gove]

I absolutely would never do anything to undermine the position of the Building Safety Regulator. Indeed, I have been working with colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions and the Health and Safety Executive to make sure that we have the right team in place, the right person as regulator and the right powers for the regulator. All the legislation that we are bringing forward—not just the previous building safety legislation, but the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill—is designed to strengthen the hand of the regulator. I would be delighted to talk to the hon. Lady in greater detail outside this House to provide reassurance.

Abingdon Lodge Hill Junction and Local Infrastructure

Layla Moran Excerpts

Wednesday 26th April 2023 Westminster Hall

[Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Abingdon Lodge Hill junction and local infrastructure.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I start by sincerely thanking the Minister for coming today. I am delighted to have secured this debate, because Lodge Hill junction is infamous among local people in and around Abingdon, but I rather expect less so in Westminster. For the uninitiated, I will explain why this is important.

Lodge Hill junction is between Abingdon and Oxford on the A34. The A34 is part of the strategic road network; it connects Oxfordshire to both the south and the north. Currently, the junction only has north-facing slips. That means that all the traffic from the north of Abingdon wishing to travel south to places such as Didcot, Newbury and Southampton has to pass through the centre of the town to the next junction that has southern-facing slips.

For well over 30 years, local people and politicians have been calling for the completion of the junction with south-facing slips. In that time there have been many promises made and broken by Governments. Frankly, local residents have all but lost hope that this is going to be completed. However, I am confident that today we can give them some hope.

The issue is primarily to do with funding, but before we get to that, I will set out why the scheme is vital to Abingdon and its surrounding areas. Abingdon-on-Thames is a delightful town. It is the oldest continuously occupied settlement in England, with a charming town centre and river frontage. I would encourage anyone to visit, if they have not already done so. However, residents are plagued by the sheer volume of traffic clogging up the town’s central arteries.

Lifelong Abingdon resident, Jim, told me:

“Abingdon is at breaking point with traffic and it’s only going to get worse”.

Another resident, Victoria, said:

“The traffic in this town is out of control! It makes shopping in town very unpleasant at certain times and it’s difficult for elderly residents to safely cross the road. It puts people off coming into town!”

The air pollution can be dangerous when traffic along Stert Street or Ock Street becomes gridlocked. The solution is clear to everyone involved. As my constituent, David, put it:

“Anything that can be done to stop cars having to come through town in order to get to the A34 will make Abingdon a safer and more attractive town for residents, and therefore better for businesses."

The scheme will also help boost active travel. The one- way system is usually at standstill during rush hour, which does not make for a pleasant cycle or commute to school or work. Local resident, David, told me:

“We try to walk around town whenever possible but the atmosphere is unpleasant and unhealthy with stationary traffic and exhaust fumes.”

Another constituent, Mary, said:

“As a cyclist I feel that there are already far too many cars in Abingdon and it worries me that there will soon be even more.”

Supporting active travel is a key part of local Liberal Democrat policy for Oxfordshire. Our councillors have worked tirelessly to ensure that the plans for Lodge Hill include cycle lanes and pedestrian crossings. Less traffic flowing through the town centre will encourage more people to cycle and walk into the town, and the changes to the junction itself will improve connections with surrounding villages. I know that residents in Sunningwell and Kennington are concerned that the completion of the junction will lead to their roads becoming a rat run. I want to assure those residents that I am working with the county council to ensure that that does not happen.

The issue where Lodge Hill is absolutely critical is building. An unpopular local plan, adopted by the then Conservative-led district council in 2017, planned for 1,100 homes to be built in north and north-west Abingdon, with an additional development of 1,200 homes planned at Dalton Barracks. That was part of a wider plan to build 100,000 homes across Oxfordshire, which was pushed very hard by the Government. Local Liberal Democrats raised concerns at the time, and a major part of those concerns was that local infrastructure needed to be improved before the large housing developments were completed. That is what the Conservatives promised residents at the time, but sadly it was not delivered. After a huge community campaign, plans for the developments in north Abingdon included, on the planning application, a Grampian condition stating that no more than 400 homes could be occupied before this junction is improved.

The houses have started to go up. If people come to Abingdon, they will see that we have diggers everywhere. That is causing its own problems, but the houses are happening—they are coming. Residents in the area look on, and see more and more houses springing up and being occupied, but we are not seeing improvements to the infrastructure. Carol, who lives in north Abingdon, said:

“I am very much in favour of housing in my backyard but am worried there is…little in the way of infrastructure”.

I think she speaks for many. Another resident, Patricia, said:

“I did not think the noise and disruption would have begun so early and before the construction of the new slip road! As far as I understood the negotiation process, this was a condition of the ‘Deal’”.

Should the Lodge Hill scheme be delayed, the proposed development of 1,200 homes at Dalton Barracks would also be in trouble, and so would the other 700 homes proposed for Abingdon. That is 1,900 more homes in the local plan that are reliant on this scheme. The Minister knows very well what happens when we fail to meet targets set by local plans. I hope that, with her help today, we can avoid any more delay, because that is critical.

More important is the intense frustration felt by the whole community about the broken promise to deliver infrastructure ahead of the development. I do not blame residents for that frustration—frankly, I share it—because if we look at the history of the funding announcements in particular, it has been a story of overpromising and underdelivering. Back in 2017, the Government did commit £9.5 million of funding from what was then the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. At the time, and notwithstanding our wider concerns about infrastructure, I and my Lib Dem colleagues of course welcomed that commitment, but we expressed a level of scepticism about the funding materialising. The then Conservative leader of Oxfordshire County Council said in response:

“It won’t fall through. A lot of people are being very disingenuous saying that.”

But sadly we were right, and fall through it did.

Last year, the Department dropped the funding, apart from the £1.87 million that had already been spent. I nearly cried, because as soon as I was elected in 2017 I made it my top priority to help to deliver this scheme—it was in my maiden speech. Since then I have raised it in relation to countless issues—in debates on infrastructure and the Oxford to Cambridge expressway, in oral questions, in countless letters to many different Secretaries of State and in numerous written questions asking for updates and pressing for funding. I have attended every available ministerial surgery that I could, sent countless emails and had meetings with Highways England. I pressed, year on year, for Government to bring forth the money. I am sorry to say that, while I was doing that, the county council seemed to give up.

It took an historic change in Oxfordshire—May 2021 saw the Lib Dems at the helm of the county council—for the project to again become a priority locally. I am pleased to report that, in October 2022, thanks to the hard and persistent work of local Lib Dem councillors, a planning application for the scheme was submitted to the county council. A decision is expected in June this year—it is just a few weeks away. This is the furthest that Lodge Hill junction has ever progressed. In a recent meeting, county council leader Liz Leffman confirmed that the council is literally shovel-ready and raring to go, so if the rest of the funding is not secured by June, it will be the Government holding up the process, and I am confident that that is not what they want to do.

I will break this down. The scheme costs £33 million in total. Some £6.5 million of section 106 money from the developers is now secured. As I mentioned, we already had the £1.8 million-odd from the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, and that has been spent. We also have £12 million of funding allocated as part of the growth deal; that is theoretically in place, and I hope the Minister will release it to the county as soon as possible. But there remains a £13 million gap. The county council is in discussion with Homes England about unlocking that piece. I was disappointed to see in the response to my written questions this week that the Secretary of State has not engaged—yet—with Homes England on the issue. My ask of the Minister is to please help me do that, although if she could do it herself, that would be even better. Imagine—over 30 years of promises would be fulfilled if we delivered this.

It may feel like this is just a junction, but it is not; it has become an allegory of why we cannot trust Government to deliver for people. Today we have an opportunity to change that for thousands of people. This proposal has been talked about, cross-party, for years. Local people are tired of their voices being ignored, and frustrated at promises being broken, but the Minister can help to fix that today. It is high time that this Conservative Government listened to the people of Abingdon, made good on their promise to release the funding for Lodge Hill and delivered the infrastructure that will make the lives of the residents and businesses of England’s oldest town better.

[The Minister of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Rachel Maclean)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey, and to listen to the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) as she ably sets out her case on Lodge Hill junction. She has been an assiduous representative, and I am happy to work with her. I will set out the position, as she said, and provide a little more context.

I am grateful for the chance to talk about what the Government are doing to back these ambitions through significant funding for local leaders of all parties in Oxfordshire. The hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon sketched out a little of the landscape and the political colours involved, and it is fair to say that everybody needs to work together in these times to deliver these significant infrastructure projects, which have such a huge impact on her constituents. The Government stand firmly behind local leaders, in Oxfordshire and elsewhere, through upcoming measures such as legislative changes supporting sustainable housing growth.

I think the hon. Lady started from 30 years ago, but I will not go quite that far back—I will go back just to 2017. Oxfordshire has long been pivotal to the UK economy, with nationally significant assets and world-leading strengths in science and innovation. That was underlined by the critical role played by its university and research facilities in the development of the covid-19 vaccine. Its success is central to cementing our whole country’s reputation as a science superpower, which is one of the Prime Minister’s key priorities, and our wider ambitions to level up innovation and opportunity throughout the country.

We agree with the hon. Member that a lack of affordable housing could make it harder for the area to attract and retain talent when competing in a global market. That is why the Government have gone to such lengths to drive housing and growth in Oxfordshire. In March 2017, the Government agreed a £215 million housing and growth deal with Oxfordshire councils to deliver 100,000 homes, including more affordable housing, as well as infrastructure improvements to support sustainable development across the county. That underlines our commitment to championing local leaders, who are rightly elected to represent their local communities and dedicated to tackling the challenges facing their areas. It is right to put those local communities in the driving seat when it comes to making decisions about how best to allocate taxpayer resources that have been allocated to them from central Government.

That deal is just the start. Oxfordshire is also benefiting from £107 million of housing infrastructure funding for the A40 smart corridor scheme and £35 million of local growth funding for the Oxford science transit project, which will unlock substantial infrastructure investment along the key corridor west of Oxford. I do not think anybody can claim that this Government are not backing Oxford’s ambitions for its local economy.

I will turn specifically to the Lodge Hill junction, which the hon. Lady discussed in a lot of detail. She is absolutely right to highlight the concerns of local residents, who rightly want to see infrastructure delivered. In the main, they do support housing, because they understand the need for it, but they make the case every time that the infrastructure must be there. That is also the position of the Government. The project that the hon. Lady talked about is to deliver an upgraded interchange on the A34 trunk road north of Abingdon-on-Thames—a new, grade-separated dumb-bell junction. I am not a transport expert, but I am sure people listening to the debate will know exactly what I mean when I say that. It is a junction over the A34 on the A4183 Oxford Road, with new south-facing slip roads on and off the A34. That is required, along with pedestrian, cycle and traffic-calming works and a lay-by on the A34.

The existing Lodge Hill junction provides northbound on-slip and southbound off-slip only, which means that all residents of north Abingdon who commute to and from major employment centres including Didcot, Milton Park science and technology park, and Harwell science and innovation campus, or to the M4 and beyond, travel through Abingdon’s historic town centre to the Marcham interchange to the south to access the A34, causing congestion and delay. I understand the frustration of the hon. Lady’s residents, which she has described.

This long-standing strategic highway project has been included in successive local transport plans and is supported by Vale of White Horse District Council. The responsibility for delivering the scheme lies with Oxfordshire County Council, subject to technical approval from National Highways. Oxfordshire County Council—as you might be aware, Ms McVey, and as I understand it—is run by a coalition involving a working arrangement between the Liberal Democrats, Labour and the Green party.

In autumn 2022, my Department asked Homes England to explore whether the funding shortfall that had emerged could be funded from the brownfield, infrastructure and land fund. The latest is that the business case for that brownfield, infrastructure and land fund programme is expected to be submitted shortly to the Treasury for final approval.

It is right to pause for a second to reflect on what we are talking about. May I gently correct the hon. Lady? This is not a question of the Government blocking funding. Funding is required beyond the initial business case. That needs to be met from somewhere, and we all understand, as we have seen it across the country, that sometimes infrastructure projects are delayed for covid or other reasons, and costs go up. When that happens, naturally, and as we would expect, a responsible Government and a responsible Department must undertake discussions around the business case. After all, we are talking about taxpayers’ money.

If we were to find a shortfall for a project in the hon. Lady’s area, the money would have to be taken from a project somewhere else. No doubt the residents of that area would ask why £13 million, or whatever the figure, had been taken from their project, which they, too, desperately needed, and been allocated to a project in the hon. Lady’s area. It is right that the Treasury and the Government take a responsible view.

Those discussions are taking place and, as I understand it, there are cost estimates in the project plan. I am happy to have further meetings with the hon. Lady on that point because I understand that there is an awful lot of detail involved and it is not possible for us to get into it here. We do not have the time to consider the detail of a project of such long standing.

The hon. Lady referred to Homes England, which is continuing to engage with Oxfordshire County Council and Vale of White Horse District Council to achieve some of the clarifications required to develop the business case. That involves, as I think she said, agreeing an approach to grant recovery via developer contributions and clarifying other elements of the scheme.

The hon. Lady is right to point to the link with the housing project, because the funding for the junction unlocks further funding for the houses that are required to be built. There are wider transport and economic benefits, and we do not want much-needed future housing to be blocked for any reason, least of all with respect to important transport infrastructure.

I will draw my remarks to a close unless the hon. Lady wants further clarification in the time remaining.

[Layla Moran]

indicated dissent.

[Rachel Maclean]

The hon. Lady is indicating that she does not seek further clarification. Therefore, I thank her once again.

I am happy to have a meeting in the Department with the relevant people so we can see what else we can do. I would encourage the hon. Lady to work with her local partners—lots of local authorities are involved in this process—because they bear a responsibility to do their part and to get the much-needed business cases in place so we can all work collaboratively.

Question put and agreed to.

Homes for Ukraine Scheme Anniversary

Layla Moran Excerpts

Wednesday 1st March 2023 Westminster Hall

[Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I congratulate the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Olivia Blake) on securing such an important debate. I could not agree more that we need to keep this subject at the forefront of our mind. It has been over a year, but we must never forget what it was like at the beginning. I certainly do not forget waking up a year ago to those dreadful scenes on the news—Putin’s maniacal aggression destroying homes, schools and hospitals, and turning communities into war zones. Understandably, millions were desperate to flee Putin’s war machine.

The UK has a proud history of welcoming refugees fleeing war and persecution. It was right that we provided a safe and legal route for those fleeing the conflict. In the early days of the conflict, the focus was on getting Ukrainians into the UK. That was no small undertaking. I am sure many hon. Members here will remember the frustrations we had with the Home Office, which often took a “computer says no” attitude to visa applications. We were dealing with incredibly complex, highly emotive cases of families separated and loved ones left behind in Ukraine.

I thank the teams in my constituency and Westminster offices who helped 114 Ukrainians travel to Oxfordshire. They spent hours and hours waiting to speak to UK Visas and Immigration and queuing outside the hub in Parliament to help those fleeing the conflict. I remember one case of a mother who was eight months pregnant and had a five-year-old child. She was in Italy and needed a visa within days or she would not be allowed to fly because her doctor would not give her the fly note. She was terrified about having to give birth with doctors she could not understand because she did not speak Italian. Luckily, we were able to sort out her visa.

Helping people get here to the UK was only the first piece in the puzzle. In the last year, 2,113 Ukrainians have arrived in Oxfordshire and settled. That is the fourth highest number out of any local authority in England. Yulia Horetska moved in with me and my family. Supporting her in her time of need has been an honour and a privilege. I know that that feeling is shared by many of the hosts. Many people wanted to host, but were not able to—maybe they did not have a spare room. We have gained a lot, so let us not frame this debate as though we were giving, because we also got.

Such help would not have been possible without the vital work that our councils have done alongside community groups and voluntary organisations. This has been a whole community effort. South Oxfordshire and Vale of White Horse District Councils provided fantastic wraparound support to settle guests in the districts, and Oxfordshire County Council helped. The councils co-ordinated and distributed grants and provided housing and homeless advice; they supported access to schooling, language lessons, medical services, benefits and employment advice. I give a special thanks to Adrianna Partridge at the Vale, who went above and beyond in leading the co-ordination of that effort. I am delighted to say that in February the councils decided to fund vital support for a further two years. We did not think we would get to a week, let alone a year, but we now need the certainty of the medium and long term.

I also thank the community groups and volunteers who have provided huge support and help for guests and hosts. St Michael and All Angels in Summertown run a Ukraine friendship centre every Wednesday, which I was lucky enough to visit. It provides English classes and children’s activities. Hubs have been set up with citizens advice and the council to provide a one-stop shop and a co-ordinated place with translators, so that a Ukrainian family in need of help knows where to go and has one place to go get it.

As we mark the anniversary of the scheme, there are, as has been ably set out, a new set of challenges that I want to focus on. With Putin continuing to wage war, what began as a temporary stay, a short-lived safe harbour, now looks for many families to be more permanent. One sponsor said,

“As the children begin to form friendships through schooling and other local activities many refugees are seriously contemplating setting their roots down here in the UK.”

Many hosts, with the best will in the world, are simply unable to continue their sponsorship arrangements for more than a year, so local councils are working hard to provide rematching.

Councils are also trying to help guests into affordable independent living arrangements and to alleviate the pressure on homelessness services, but there is a problem of housing capacity in Oxfordshire. Ukrainians are struggling to access the private rented sector because referencing procedures can penalise people on universal credit and those with no credit history. There is a case for the Government stepping in pretty strongly on that point. One Ukrainian mother of two wrote to tell me about the problems that she faced. The host asked the family to move out and they searched for rented accommodation, but they were refused by numerous landlords because they do not have suitable proof of income or credit status. She said,

“We want to settle here, give our children some stability and keep them in the schools they have started, and we want to find more secure employment. We have degrees and are young, healthy and hard working. We thought the UK government would support us in settling here but we are completely reliant on the help of friends and neighbours.”

Eventually the family found accommodation, but it was over three hours away in West Sussex. They have been forced to move house, move schools, and change jobs. We have a desperate need of workers in Oxfordshire, so I was desperately sad to read that. Also, it is a huge upheaval for that family

Another issue that councils have identified is the temporary legal status of those in the UK under the scheme. At the beginning, we thought the situation would last for weeks or months, not years. Two years sounded generous, but we are now a year in and people are looking to move out and find new, permanent employment. However, when employers see that people have only a year left on their visas, that is a black mark against them when it comes to interviews. I hope the Government will ensure that an automatic extension is applied, which will give families and employers certainty if the situation continues. It is common sense to step in at that point and help people get on the job ladder; they will then pay taxes and contribute back, which is surely in everyone’s interest.

Above all, the councils that have done so much are in desperate need of longer term funding solutions. They are doing their best, but with budgets already squeezed, there is a limit to the support they can provide. The Homes for Ukraine scheme has shown the UK at its best, with communities coming together and providing support for those in need. The Government has listened and there have been tweaks, but we now need them to put their shoulder to the wheel and work out how we are going to keep funding and supporting the scheme in the medium and longer term. The Ukrainians who have come to the UK have contributed so much to our families and our society. I hope the Minister agrees that we owe it to them, and to ourselves, to do that little bit more.

--- Later in debate ---

[Felicity Buchan]

I will address the different schemes and how they fit together in a few moments.

Before the Homes for Ukraine scheme even opened, thousands registered their interest in helping. As soon as it did open, thousands more opened their hearts and their homes to people whose lives had been torn apart by a conflict that they did not ask for. The scheme was the first of its kind in the UK and, since we launched it on 18 March 2022, we have welcomed a remarkable 115,800 people. When combined with the Ukraine families scheme, we have now helped to find over 163,500 people a safe and secure home.

At the outset, we vowed to keep the routes for Ukrainian refugees under constant review, and that is what we have done. The scheme did not stay static; it evolved as the weeks and months went on, including an extension to bring over unaccompanied children who were not travelling with a parent or legal guardian, with robust additional safeguarding checks. We have also adapted the scheme in terms of rematching. We have offered further money. The scheme is a living organism; it will potentially adapt further with time.

As a Government, we have been determined to reciprocate the generosity of the hosts who have come forward with offers of help. To that end, we have provided £1.1 billion to councils through a tariff for each arrival in their area to support guests and sponsors alike. In recognition of their generous support, all Homes for Ukraine sponsors will receive an increased “thank you” payment of £500 a month once guests have been in the country for over a year. We have extended the duration that sponsors can get “thank you” payments from one year to two years. Our absolute focus is providing stable homes for Ukrainians fleeing war and starting a new life on UK soil.

Let me take this opportunity before my concluding remarks to follow up on a few specific points. I will start with homelessness, because a number of Members raised it, and will go through our latest homelessness numbers. For the Homes for Ukraine scheme, it is 2,495. For Ukrainians as a whole, including the families scheme, it is 4,295. Homelessness is defined as a local authority having a duty to prevent and relieve, so, just focusing on the prevention part, a lot of these numbers will cover local authorities that are going in there to help people and put roofs over their heads. I want to be very clear on that definition. Local authorities are doing their job in many of these cases and preventing. If one looks at the 2,495 number in the context of 115,000 arrivals under the Homes for Ukraine scheme, it is a small percentage. We do not want any Ukrainian to be homeless but, if one looks at the prevention and relief duties, it is a small percentage. As I said, it is a good thing that local authorities are doing their jobs and doing them incredibly well.

There are 735 households in temporary accommodation. What are the Government doing to support local authorities? I want to put it on the record that I think local authorities are doing a tremendous job. First, as I have already mentioned, the Government are providing £1.2 billion in tariffs. Those tariffs can be used for homelessness prevention—for example, to help guarantee private rental sector rents. We have also put a £150 million fund in place to relieve homelessness. I believe it was the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam who asked how that fund would be allocated. It will be allocated to the devolved authorities, and in England. We are in discussions with the devolved authorities—I have regular update calls with them—and are finessing the split of that fund. As soon as that has been done and we have agreed the split among the DAs, we will communicate the allocations to local authorities, but that is very much a work in progress.

[Layla Moran]

I thank the Minister for thanking local authorities, because they have done an extraordinary, incredible job—South and Vale have taken a wraparound approach and been very successful in driving down homelessness, not just in the scheme but across the entire district. I encourage the Minister to look not just at the raw homelessness numbers, but at local authorities that are efficient and have done that, often by taking resource from elsewhere and putting it into this team, which has stopped many people from being homeless or even getting anywhere close to that point. When the Government look at the allocation, will they not just assume that, because the numbers are not huge, there is not a problem elsewhere in the council? Indeed, the fact that there are very few has caused problems elsewhere in the council.

[Felicity Buchan]

That is a well-made point. As I say, we are looking at how we will allocate that money, but I hear what the hon. Member says.

Voter Identification

Layla Moran Excerpts

Tuesday 21st February 2023 Commons Chamber

[Lee Rowley]

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan). It is incorrect to perpetuate this 2 million number. A number of those people do not have elections this year. Ultimately, it will be down to people to decide whether they wish to get a voter authority certificate. I encourage them to do so. I hope that they will do so, but, ultimately, it is the choice of an engaged citizenry how to do that. We will continue to highlight and advertise this change to those people up to May and beyond.

[Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)]

I am proud to represent young people in my constituency and also the students at Oxford University and at Oxford Brookes. One of them wrote to me, saying:

“It is outrageous that the over-60s Oyster card will be considered valid ID, but the 18-30 card will not. This is clearly an attack on young people and will disproportionately impact their ability to vote.”

The fact is—we all know this—that younger people are less likely to vote. We encourage them to do so at every opportunity, but, because they are transient, many do not know whether they will be in one constituency or another. What are the Minister’s plans to target young people in particular so that they can make sure that they are not disenfranchised? Can he seriously stand there and say with a straight face that this has nothing to do with the fact that most of them will not be voting Tory?

[Lee Rowley]

When I was a student in the hon. Lady’s constituency, one thing I was told by tutors at my college was to look at the detail. The detail on the Oyster card for 18-year-olds is different from that on the over-60s Oyster card. That is identified on the website, and I encourage the Liberal Democrats to look at it.

Homes for Ukraine Scheme

Layla Moran Excerpts

Thursday 31st March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Eddie Hughes]

The pace at which we are getting through applications is ramping up: we will very soon be working our way through more than 10,000 a week. I completely understand the frustration that the hon. Gentleman expresses, because we would all like to see the process working far more quickly than it is already, but we are committed to ensuring that it works more quickly by the day.

[Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)]

We are all so proud of our constituents who have stepped up to be hosts. We should equally be proud of the council officers who are scrambling yet again and will absolutely deliver. They need two things to make their lives easier. The first is the housing checklist that was promised on Tuesday but is still not in place; the worry is that people will be put in homes that are not suitable. The second is DBS checks. The Minister will be aware that, during the pandemic, powers were delegated to second-tier authorities to help to make the checks work. That legislation has expired, which means that it can be done only at county level; in Oxfordshire, only three people are allowed to do it. Will the Minister have a look at those two issues and come back to us as quickly as possible? If we need new legislation, we should be ready to make it.

[Eddie Hughes]

Yesterday, I met the leader of the District Councils’ Network, who explained that the checking process with properties seemed to be going very smoothly, that councils were completely familiar with what they were expected to do, and that they were making the appropriate checks. What I think we need to understand is that sometimes we do not need to be totally prescriptive. Councils have great experience in the area and can use common sense and be proportionate in the checks that they make. I think that those checks are being carried out and that appropriate property is being identified.

I agree with the hon. Lady about the fantastic effort. This feels like a period of genuine national endeavour. I commend all colleagues across the House and their staff who have engaged with the process and are working tirelessly on behalf of constituents to ensure that problems are overcome and matches are made. Long may that continue.

Budget Resolutions

Layla Moran Excerpts

Monday 1st November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)]

The Budget proved one thing about this Conservative Government: they are totally out of touch. They are out of touch with the cost-of-living crisis: despite people struggling with rising heating, food and mortgage bills, the Conservatives’ response is to raise their taxes. They are out of touch with the crisis facing our children: despite the dramatic loss of learning, thanks to covid, the Conservatives plan to spend less than a third of what their own catch-up expert recommended. They are totally out of touch when it comes to climate change: despite the Budget taking place on the eve of the most important set of climate talks ever, the Chancellor had literally nothing to offer on positive action for the climate. Instead, he offered tax cuts for people using fossil fuels, not least on short-haul flights.

[Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)]

It was such a missed opportunity and such an own goal. Does my right hon. Friend agree that there were other things that the Government could have done, such as the electrification of east-west rail, which would have affected my constituency? That would have shown that the Government were serious about decarbonisation, but what they did was encourage people to fly when they should not be flying.

Rough Sleeping

Layla Moran Excerpts

Wednesday 8th September 2021 Westminster Hall

[Christina Rees (in the Chair)]

I remind hon. Members to wear masks when they are not speaking. This is in line with current Government guidance and that of the House of Commons Commission. Please also give each other and members of staff space when seated and when entering and leaving the room. Members should send their speaking notes by email to [e-mail]. Similarly, officials should communicate electronically with Ministers.

[Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered ending rough sleeping.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Rees. It is a joy to be back in Westminster Hall with colleagues after what has felt like a very long time. While it looks a bit sparse, and I appreciate that there is a lot going on in the Chamber, I know that ending rough sleeping is important to many Members across the House. I am grateful to have been granted this debate to bring it up the agenda.

Here we go again: we are debating how we end the blight of rough sleeping. The pandemic has shown us that the will and capacity to radically change policy is there, albeit in an emergency. “Everyone In” was without doubt a success. It was a phenomenal response to an international health crisis, but it is not a sustainable response to a national rough sleeping crisis. That is what I want to focus on. The pandemic has shown that there are systemic problems preventing us from grasping the nettle and getting to the root causes of rough sleeping and homelessness.

I do not dispute that “Everyone In” was remarkable, and I applaud the Minister and the Government for their efforts. During the pandemic, 355 people in Oxford were brought off the streets and out of hostels into safe accommodation. Now, 215 people are in settled housing. It is becoming clear that we need to turn our minds to a long-term, permanent solution. Insight from the CHAIN database tells us that in 2021, at the height of the pandemic and the “Everyone In” campaign, London saw more people returning to rough sleeping than it had in the last four years. That is about one third of the rough sleepers that were on the streets. Why, when we had the successful programme, was that happening?

We have to ask those who were affected. There is a gentleman called Mr T, who spoke to the Mayday Trust last year as part of their “Wisdom from the Pandemic” work. From Westminster tube station, just metres from where we are now, he said:

“They gave me a room in a hotel. It was miles away. I was lonely, everyone I know is here. I didn’t know what was going on, how long I was going to be there, so I came back here.”

The “Everyone In” campaign may have worked, but it did not work for everyone. We need to learn from these experiences.

Councillor Ben Martin, cabinet member for housing at Swale Borough Council, told me that his experience is that rough sleeping must be about the individual, not the symptoms, and about their hopes and dreams, not their problems. To fundamentally end rough sleeping, we need to treat rough sleepers and the homeless as humans with individual needs, not as statistics. Take substance abuse. Councillor Fran Oborski, who is the treasurer of a homelessness charity, emailed me about how many rough sleepers have substance abuse issues—something that is often not helped in hostels or temporary accommodation—and said that we need to improve access to rehabilitation services for those who want or need them.

Someone who used to be homeless and who now works with rough sleepers emailed me to say that the speed with which services want people to make progress only adds to their problems instead of solving them. Given the pressure the services are already under, they cannot address the traumas rough sleepers have faced. That point is echoed by the Salvation Army, which points out that we need more funding for support services to tackle the root causes.

“Everyone In” brought people off the streets, but it did nothing to repair trust between many rough sleepers and authorities—councils, services and Government. Someone who simply goes by the name London Homeless Info emailed me to say that they are sceptical about the aims of councils, charities and services. We will not solve the rough sleeping crisis without addressing that issue of trust. How do we do that? That is what we all want. How do we break the negative cycle of people returning to the streets and failing in those services—and, more to the point, those services failing them?

The liberal approach would be to empower those forced to sleep rough, not to dictate—as is often unfortunately the case currently—narrow pathways designed by others. People going through tough times should be able to decide for themselves what support they want, and the state should then be ready to respond. I appreciate that that is no easy task and actually flips the entire system on its head, but if we actually listen to rough sleepers we know what they want.

Gemma, who was sleeping outside Joe & The Juice on Oxford Street last year, told the Mayday Trust:

“Living in a hostel is no life. It doesn’t help me with my depression. The atmosphere feels like a graveyard in there.”

Richard, who was begging on Victoria Street, said:

“I’m being told I have to go to a hostel; I really don’t want to go. I know I will relapse. Everyone there takes drugs. I’m trying to stay sober but they are forcing me to go.”

Talk about a rock and a hard place—someone gets themselves on their feet and is told that they have to put themselves in a position that will send them backwards.

The answer to rough sleeping is not just more money, more emergency accommodation or more housing, especially social housing. We have to look beyond the statistics. All of that is important, but when we are commissioning the services, we need to change our mindset. We are commissioning with, not just for, people. We need to provide them with unconditional and personalised support.

We also need to appreciate, Ms Rees, that a rough sleeper could be us. They could be our friends or our family members. Their stories highlight that often what causes someone to become a rough sleeper is a series of events that compound—family breakdown, job loss, ill health. We cannot think of rough sleepers as an other. They are us. We need to give them the autonomy and respect that any one of us in this room would want.

Aspire and Oxfordshire Homeless Movement do something like that. They treat the person as an individual, with coaching, and catch them just before the point of rough sleeping. After Adeline reached out to them, she says, she has

“now found a part-time live-in role, complemented by my freelance graphic design work, and sleep well and safe. This experience made me realise that anyone can become vulnerable at some point in their life”.

I dare say that, after the pandemic, more and more people of a background that most of us here might recognise—perhaps even more than before—are ending up in this situation.

The Mayday Trust has done lots of work to develop a new approach called the person-led, transitional and strength-based response, or PTS. That gives people the ability to choose the support that they want at a time that works for them, working with someone who coaches them through and helps them find the right pathway. Upcoming research from the New Economics Foundation shows a correlation between being treated with dignity and respect and a person taking positive actions. We all want those positive actions to happen, because that is how we end the rough sleeping crisis. That kind of approach—trusting people with their own decisions—helps to build trust between the individual and the state.

As the Local Government Association, Crisis, Shelter and others have said, we urgently need a renewed, detailed, cross-departmental strategy for how the Government plan to meet their commitment to end rough sleeping by 2027. I say that knowing, of course, that the Minister takes a particular interest in this matter. However, we are very concerned that, to end rough sleeping, we need all Government Departments to join up in their thinking. Without a new strategic approach, the Government will not meet this manifesto commitment. The Government have broken three of those so far. Will this one be next?

The Government are not short of expert recommendations from local government, the sector and elsewhere to draw on. Crisis, which has an event after the debate that I want to plug to all Members, is absolutely right to urge the Government to adopt the Housing First approach to permanently end homelessness for those with the most serious needs. Should the Treasury be listening, if the priority is to rebuild our finances after the pandemic, then it should prioritise the analysis published by Crisis today, which shows that Housing First is cost-effective. For every £1 we put in, we get £1.24 back because we are reducing dependencies on services. It is win-win. Can the Minister tell us if there have been any discussions with the Treasury and the Chancellor ahead of the spending review about rolling out Housing First across England?

The Government are making things harder by cutting the universal credit uplift and freezing the local housing allowance. Shelter has suggested a model of “protect, prevent and build” for this strategy, which I hope the Minister is considering. Shelter, the LGA and individual councillors have told me about the need to fix local authority funding in this area. There should be ongoing, dedicated funding for councils to tackle rough sleeping and prevent homelessness in the first place.

Councils need to be given sufficient time to bid for money, and then to spend it. Giving them two to four weeks to bid for the rough sleeping accommodation programme, which requires that properties are purchased and occupied within the same financial year, makes it almost impossible for local authorities in the south-east to be successful. Surely some common-sense tweaks to that bidding process could achieve better value for the money that is coming in.

There are more lessons that we need to learn, but at the heart of a renewed strategy must be that the rough sleeper is an individual. They should be part of the process, not have policies imposed on them. I have heard too many stories of the bad experiences some people have had with councils, rogue landlords and service providers. I fundamentally believe—I genuinely do, which I do not often say—that this Government want to improve the situation, but I urge them to put it high up on their priority list because 2027 is not that far away. The pandemic has been challenging, but it has also provided an opportunity to see what can work. I say grasp this nettle and use this opportunity.

In conclusion, I have a few simple questions. The Minister will be surprised that I have not mentioned this yet, but when will we scrap the Vagrancy Act 1824? I have been banging on about this for over four years. Six months ago, the Secretary of State said that it is happening. Please can we have an update on some timelines? When will we give councils certainty and long-term funding for rough sleeping programmes? Will the Minister come back to the House with a renewed, detailed and thought-through strategy for how we are going to end rough sleeping for good, recognising the changing circumstances that we are in?

We need to give rough sleepers support, but I urge the Minister to consider that the plan must also give them control. What we are doing is not working, particularly for the last few, who will be the most difficult to win round. We need to start building a strategy that reaches out to them now if we are to be successful in just over five years’ time. With a combination of intervention through programmes like Housing First, prevention through better mental health and financial support and through social house building, and empowerment through a system that works with the individual, we can do this. I believe there is cross-party support to do it. I thank all those who are here today and I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Christina Rees (in the Chair)]

We do not need to concern ourselves with time limits.

--- Later in debate ---

[Layla Moran]

On the rough sleeping initiative, I would seek a point of clarification, and I think that many council officers would also be desperate for a clear answer on this. Councils received letters from the Government saying that, because of the rough sleeping initiative, they should end all “Everyone In” programmes, and, in particular, the use of hotels. Meanwhile, they have heard elsewhere from Government that the “Everyone In” scheme is still ongoing.

That has caused huge amounts of confusion, not least in my own area in Oxford, and other councils have also contacted me, desperate for an answer. My question is: has “Everyone In” now stopped completely, or are councils still allowed to use money to put people in hotels, or was that letter not saying the right thing?

[Eddie Hughes]

I would say that “Everyone In” continues; we still have people who are in emergency accommodation. However, we also need to appreciate that “Everyone In” is not a sustainable approach. It was fantastic that, during the height of a pandemic, we were able to move people into emergency accommodation, but the type of accommodation that many of those people were moved into is, by its very nature, not something we would expect people to stay in for a sustained period.

I make no apology for constantly referring to my time with YMCA, but we would have had a range of accommodation. With off-the-street accommodation, we had a 72-bed hostel, but would then move people through a system where they were supported in accommodation until, eventually, they were in a position to perhaps gain employment and support a tenancy on their own.

We still have people in emergency accommodation; I do not think that councils will be pressured to get people out because, for some reason, it is coming to an end. The pressuring we are doing over moving people on is around moving them to more stable, permanent accommodation, which is appropriate to their needs.

[Layla Moran]

The problem with the step process, though, is that those people who do not want to go into a hostel do not get on to that first step, and therefore remain on the street. In light of that, what steps can the Minister take to try to encourage local authorities—or even provide for local authorities—to release housing for Housing First?

[Eddie Hughes]

I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention, but I would suggest that the question is slightly more nuanced. If, for the sake of argument, I was running a hostel that people did not want to come into, I would be questioning why that was the case. As I have moved around the country, I have seen excellent examples of accommodation which people feel is safer, more secure and more appropriate than sleeping on the street. If the hon. Lady has examples of hostels where she thinks that people do not feel that degree of comfort, I would be happy to work with her and look at that with my team. We should be ensuring that all accommodation of this type, for particularly vulnerable people, is appropriate.

To run through some of the other things the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon said regarding scrapping the Vagrancy Act, my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster reminded us what the Secretary of State said previously: we do have quite a busy legislative programme. It is almost amusing to me that it feels like we have barely had the previous Queen’s Speech, and already the hon. Member for Weaver Vale is talking about the next one. We have reviewed the Act, and are considering what action to take. We do not want to get rid of an Act and find that there is an unintended consequence; some useful element that we have thrown in the bin, but which we in this room would not be keen on losing.

With regards to long-term funding: the upcoming spending review is something way above my pay grade. However, it is something that I am contributing to as somebody who has experienced the vagaries of waiting for funding settlements in order to employ staff, and, unfortunately, as someone who has even had staff leave because they felt their position was insecure. We would all accept that, like the rest of us, the Chancellor has been through a pretty dramatic 18 months. We are moving into a more settled position thanks to the success of the vaccine rollout, and the economy seems to be getting back on its feet. Hopefully, the Chancellor feels suitably reassured and is able to give us a couple of years’ funding to provide that certainty.

With regards to a refreshed strategy, I am delighted to have spent a considerable amount of time discussing with Ministers in other Departments what they need to contribute to help us reach the ambition of ending rough sleeping during the lifetime of this Parliament. We have seen some fantastic schemes, such as work done with the Ministry of Justice on the accommodation and settlement of prisoners when they come out of prison—a very delicate time to ensure that they do not automatically reoffend and go back in.

--- Later in debate ---

[Layla Moran]

First, I warmly thank all hon. Members who have contributed to the debate today. As many have said, and as I know, there are other Members of the House in all political parties who feel as strongly as we do. I agree with the Minister that there is not a paper between us on where we want to end up; however, there is a genuine debate to be had about how we get there.

The support for Housing First is welcome, but equally welcome is the Minister’s acceptance that nothing is perfect, nothing is a panacea. In some parts of the country—in the south-east, for example, where there are only 255 Housing First places—we need to work out how we can unlock that housing. I am genuinely concerned about the planning Bill and the impact it will have on councils’ ability to deliver the policy. It feels a little like one hand of the Government does not know what the other is doing. We need to make sure the actions are joined up. I have other concerns about the planning Bill—that is just one of them—but they are not a matter for this debate.

Regarding the Vagrancy Act, I thank the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) for the work that she and others do on that. I am hopeful that we will get a positive result in the next few years, but—to push the Minister gently on this—I do not believe that new legislation is needed. The example from Scotland and the legal advice obtained by Crisis and others show that there is already provision in law, and in large swathes of the country local police have decided not to use the Vagrancy Act at all. That shows that already in England the Act is not needed. I understand the precautionary principle, but it has been proved that we do not need it, so just get rid of it.

I will end by asking the Minister for a favour. I mentioned that trust is an important part of this work. An innovative charity, the Mayday Trust, which I mentioned a few times, has come up with a programme that I genuinely believe is the answer to that final 10% we have been talking about today. Will he consider meeting me and the trust, so that we showcase that important work?

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered ending rough sleeping.