Social Distancing Restrictions: Support for the Night-Time Economy

Lloyd Russell-Moyle Excerpts

Tuesday 8th June 2021 Westminster Hall

[Stewart Hosie (in the Chair)]

I remind Members that we have made some changes to normal practice in order to support the new hybrid arrangements. Members attending physically should clean their spaces before they use them and as they leave the room. Mr Speaker has stated that masks should be worn in Westminster Hall, except when you are speaking.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered social distancing restrictions and support for the night-time economy.

I asked for today’s debate because I am vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for the night time economy. As the Member for Brighton, Kemptown, I also represent a large and diverse number of venues, bars and clubs. Not only am I the MP but, like many Members, I am a patron of many of the venues in my constituency, such as Revenge and Legends, and I miss my nights out with my friends as much as I know the venues miss having us. When I talk to bar and club owners, they tell me the same thing: the uncertainty is killing them.

On 16 December, when covid cases were spiralling out of control, the Prime Minister insisted it would be “inhuman” to cancel Christmas, and he gave every assurance that it would go ahead. Pubs and restaurants had their staff hired, and the stockrooms were full and ready for a shortened Christmas season. On 19 December, just three days later, and after saying it would be inhuman, the Prime Minister cancelled Christmas. I do not say that he made the wrong call in locking us down. History will show that he was right to do so or, if not, that he should have done it earlier.

I raise what happened in December because I worry that we are repeating ourselves. The Prime Minister bumbles away through his interviews, assuring the nation that everything will be just fine with the road map on 21 June. Meanwhile, we have Whitehall officials briefing today’s papers that the date will be pushed back. What is it? My fear is that the harsh reality will catch up with the Prime Minister yet again and he will have to acknowledge what we already know: the 21 June deadline might have to be pushed back a few weeks to get everyone vaccinated. Those who will suffer are the workers and businesses who have trusted in good faith that they should work towards that date, although—granted—no cast-iron guarantee has ever been given.

The Night Time Industries Association conducted a survey of its members. Nine in 10 businesses fear that a delay in the full reopening of nightlife would threaten their survival; 85% require at least two weeks’ notice to open up, and over a third said they need four; 95% have already made financial commitments; on the logistics of opening up on the 21st, 54% have already ordered stock—as a real ale man, I know that that stock goes off incredibly quickly, so it has to be used in time; 73% of businesses have called in staff; 60% have sold tickets; 64% have booked entertainment; and 80% have already spent finances on marketing and promotional materials.

Louise from the Camel Club, a family nightclub in Huddersfield, told our APPG that she does not know under what conditions the nightclub will be able to open. She does not even have a rough idea of the direction that it will be going in. For example, when it opens, is social distancing likely to be required? What other rough ideas will be given? This has made it extremely difficult to even prepare. She is plucking things out of thin air rather than at least following guidelines that could change. That makes things difficult operationally and financially, so what guidelines can be issued so that clubs can at least work towards a general direction? Will they be able to open on the 21st? If not, can there be reassurances that financial support will be offered?

The pandemic has presented a real jobs crisis too. According to Unite, 48% of hospitality workers say that they will look for work in a different sector post pandemic. The industry is heading towards a skills employment crisis. The problem is that the so-called barista’s visa—the roll-out of potentially low-paid, exploitative apprenticeships on a visa—is not the way forward. There have been 650,000 job losses across this sector alone.

This is not just a problem for those in hospitality. There is a knock-on effect—for example, in the security business. The UK Door Security Association warns that six out of 10 supervisor posts are now unfilled in nightclubs, music venues, pubs, bars and festivals. The posts being unfilled risks the venues being unopened. That was one of the reasons we had to cancel Pride in Brighton: we just could not secure the security staff, as well as not having the underwritten insurance, because the Government did not underwrite that either.

So many door staff have been forced to find other forms of income. They have opted to use their security licences in more stable environments, such as retail or covid testing centres. There is an increase in resource demand, as venues have to adhere to covid requirements. If they are able to go ahead, many festivals will now be squeezed into a tight summer season. We also see increased demand in certain pinch points.

The Government must work with the associations, and with organisations such as Unite and other unions, in their proposed hospitality commission, to establish a plan for the sector, to retrain workers who lose their jobs and to ensure that those people do not face long-term unemployment. In my view, the kickstart scheme is not fit for purpose on hospitality. It has offered only 60 of the 1,260 placements to hospitality workers. Hospitality training programmes should be focused on upskilling the industry and creating new, quality jobs with guaranteed hours.

Business owners in the night-time economy now have debts equal to three years of trading profit. That is £2.5 billion just in debts that they did not have before the pandemic and that they will have on opening day. They are also having to potentially invest in social distancing measures that they do not know will even be implemented. That is why the Government need to give more guidelines on what might happen.

The moratorium on forfeiture is to be lifted at the end of this month, and no solution has been offered to address the legacy of rental debt wrought by the pandemic. Some 75% of night-time businesses say they fear bankruptcy or insolvency when the moratorium ends, if there is no solution to commercial debts. Some 80% of commercial tenants in the sector still face unproductive discussions with landlords. The situation requires the Government not just to issue guidelines or suggestions to landlords, but to require landlords to get around the table and negotiate with businesses. The Government should come forward with a package to ensure that businesses take no more than a third of the burden—effectively, one year’s operating profits—and that the rest is shared with landlords, other suppliers and maybe even the Government in long-term solutions that would mean these businesses do not go bust, which many are doing.

Regardless of what decision is made next week on social distancing, this issue is not going to go away. We need to hear some concrete proposals from the Minister on what long-term help the Government plan to provide to solve the crisis. Will he commit to matching the Welsh and Scottish Governments in their commitment to 100% business relief for qualifying night-time economy businesses in the 2021-22 financial year? Will he commit to delaying the rise in VAT for cultural, ticketing and other night-time economy venues in the 2021-22 financial year? Will he pledge that the Government will follow the science, allowing events with the mitigations that have been shown to be effective in trials, such as testing, vaccines or other measures, and allowing venues to open in certain situations?

I end with the words from Matthew from Chalk, a nightclub next to my constituency—100 yards across the border. He said to the APPG that he has invested his life savings in the venue—his blood, sweat and tears. Nightclubs are responsible for life-forming experiences for young people—and those who are less young—and are an integral part of our society. They must be protected. They are an integral part of the economies of many cities and towns across our country, and provide jobs for hundreds of thousands of people. I hope the Minister can give Matthew and many others some reassurances about going forward in the next few weeks, so that we can start to get our businesses opened and our economy supported.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Scully]

That is an interesting point. I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. It is a really important point. I will come back to staffing overall in a second. He is right. I have had some interesting discussions with the hospitality sector over the past week or two, since the last reopening, when they have been looking at staffing issues. A number of people have come up with different ways of covering the staff shortages they have outlined. First, it is difficult to get some people back from furlough, because they are happy and prefer to be on furlough. They may be cautious about coming back to the workplace and have not the confidence to do so.

There are clearly some people who have left the country, especially in London and the likes of Brighton, where we rely on a significant number of workers from Europe and around the world. There are rural and coastal areas where businesses struggle to find people in general. There are also people on furlough who may have been running two jobs and have made a choice. For whatever reason, possibly because of the speculation that I was discussing about the uncertainty of hospitality and the night-time economy reopening, they have chosen to go to their other job—the non-hospitality job. That clearly provides a challenge and is something that we have to work through and be alive to.

The hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown talked specifically about security staff and the need to maintain safe venues. Clearly that is something that we are aware of and we are working through the Home Office to see what more we can do to support them.

I shall return briefly to the road map. The Prime Minister has the step-by-step plan to be led by the data as we ease restrictions. We have progressed through that road map, on the basis of the latest data, easing restrictions further when it has been safe to do so. We want to make sure that as the night-time economy and hospitality reopen, we remind people that the hospitality sector has done so much to put mitigations in place—the time, the money, the effort, the staff, the one-way systems, the screens and what-have-you. We want to reassure people that they are safe by following the guidance and putting those measures in place, but providing a really warm welcome as well. We want people to go out and enjoy themselves. We want to give them the confidence to come out on the first day and make sure that they have enjoyed a fun time and want to come back time and again. As we break the cycle of people being locked away at home, we do not want them to necessarily just sit there and contain themselves with their bottle of wine and ready meal in their garden, because there is so much that Brighton, London and Northern Ireland have to offer in the night-time economy.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Could the Minister address one request that I get a lot from the night-time economy, by giving some pre-guidelines of what the opening up might look like, even if that were to change? Looking at another sector, I went to visit my local caravan club site recently. They were given three days, from the announcement to open up the site, to implement the measures that the Government required. If they had been given just a week, they told me, even if it was to say, “This is what we are currently thinking; it might change, but this is where you can start planning,” it would have really helped.

Could we learn that lesson with the night-time economy and give them a heads-up? Could we say, “This is where the current thinking is. We don’t know the date when it will happen—it might be this week, next week or the week after—but this is roughly what it will look like when you are opening up”? Could we make it clear whether it will be a free-for-all when we do, or whether it will be a case of, “You can open up, but here are the requirements that you will have to meet”? That would make a big difference for a lot of these venues.

[Paul Scully]

I thank the hon. Gentleman and totally accept that. We are in a frustrating period; it is frustrating for all of us. None of us wants this to go on for a day longer than possible, but as he knows, a number of reviews are under way—the certification review, the social distancing review and the events pilot—all of which are due to be completed this week. They will not only inform the Prime Minister in making his decision ahead of 21 June, but inform us of what works, what might not work and so on for larger events and for social distancing.

In all this, we have worked with organisations such as UKHospitality, Hospitality Ulster, the British Beer and Pub Association and the Night Time Industries Association to try to get a view about what the effects of any residual social distancing and mitigations will be on their economy. We can therefore get the balance right in giving them a chance to make a profit. Let us bear in mind that every time we walk down a street at the moment and see a busy, bustling pub, it is still losing money; it is just minimising cash burn and minimising its losses. It is not making money. It has not got a chance of making money until it can open fully, because of the capacity issues. As I say, it might look busy, but it is still constrained.

I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the exact answer that he wants and that the sector needs, but we are trying our best to ensure that we can work with the sector and have a dialogue rather than just say, “Okay, this is the kind of stuff we are going to do. What do you think about it?” At every stage it has been difficult to work through those dates as we have come through them, but I believe that we will get there.

I know that not every venue will open fully on 21 June, because that is what happened on the other two dates as well. That is the date, and different people will work through their venues to best suit their staff rotas, their suppliers and perhaps just ensure that they can give that safe and warm welcome. We want to ensure that the Government’s programme is one-directional; and clearly, businesses do not want to be stop-starting because of economic constraints of a more local making, shall we say.

There were a number of issues on financial support. Let me first cover the rents moratorium. Throughout the process we have had a number of cliff-edge scenarios that we have tried to avoid, whether the end of the business rates holiday or the VAT relief. Those are big-ticket items. If I remember rightly—I might get these the wrong way round—business rates was about £11 billion of taxpayers’ money and VAT was something like £27 billion. It was of that order. Those are big amounts of money, so we clearly need to work that through in a holistic fashion for the Chancellor, but we have always tried to flex to view the situation as is, rather than try to predict too far into the future. Clearly, I do not think any of us expected us to be in this situation in March or April last year, when the pandemic Budget was announced.

The moratorium is the one complicated issue. Business rates relief is the Chancellor saying, “Okay, fine, we can extend this. The Treasury will take the hit.” I understand that ultimately it is taxpayers’ money, but the Treasury will take that view and it is the Treasury’s decision. On rent moratoriums, there is clearly a commercial rent, and landlords are businesses as well. We sometimes look at rogue landlords, but there are many mom-and-pop owners who own a property or two. There are also pension funds that own property, and that has ramifications on pensioners and investors in those pensions. Obviously, some landlords also have shareholders.

We must therefore look carefully at getting the right balance, but we are working through that as quickly as possible because we know that the most immediate effect will be on tenants. It will be on those hospitality venues who, for the reasons we have said, cannot operate to capacity very quickly. We are hoping to come up with something that works for both tenants and landlords and furthers those discussions. We want to have constructive discussions, as the hon. Gentleman said, because it is in the landlords’ long-term interests to ensure that they can do so. Beyond that, we will make sure that we can get to more of a fundamental review of the landlord-tenant relationship, because the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to talk about how we go beyond reopening.

I have been working with the hospitality sector on the strategy—what we do next. Bear in mind that our Department did not have a hospitality team before all this, but we now have a permanent hospitality team within the Department, and I now include Hospitality Recovery Minister in my vast array of titles and responsibilities. It is important that the hospitality industry has the seat at the table that it worked so hard for.

There are three Rs: reopening—we have to get back to full capacity to start making money again and start paying back the three years of debt that the hon. Gentleman talked about. Then, recovery—going through that process, starting to have more easements from local authorities to help support that. It is also about resilience, which brings us back to the long-term issue of staffing. What makes hospitality so flexible is that it has a low bar for entry. A student can go in and do a few shifts at a pub without any qualifications. But we want to make sure that people can see a career path in hospitality, so that although there is a degree of flexibility, that is not the same as instability. We want to give that stability through a greater skills offering for the hospitality sector. As we build back better and fairer for the workers in that sector, we will also build back greener, seeing what more we can do to further the Government priority of driving towards net zero, by means of practices in the hospitality sector. There is a lot to be working on.

We are gradually removing restrictions and reopening the economy via the road map. It is a frustrating time, waiting for Monday to see what the decision is, but we have to remain cautious and continue to follow advice on safe behaviours. It is key that we remind people that this is not like a thriller movie, when someone shoots the baddie at the end and the credits roll. We will be living with this for some time. In the meantime, hon. Members are sitting with their masks on because we need to remember social distancing, “hands, face, space and fresh air” and get the vaccine when it is offered.

We will continue to work closely with businesses, local authorities and other stakeholders to support those industries and ensure that the UK night-time economy can recover and return stronger. As we continue those reviews in tandem with the vaccine programme, we are hopeful that further venues will be able to reopen as we approach step four of the road map. That will be no earlier than 21 June, following a review of data. Protecting the health and safety of the British public is our top priority, but we will not keep the restrictions in place any longer than necessary. Until then, everyone must continue to play their part.

Question put and agreed to.

11.28 am

Sitting suspended.

Unsafe Cladding: Protecting Tenants and Leaseholders

Lloyd Russell-Moyle Excerpts

Monday 1st February 2021 Commons Chamber

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op) [V]]

We have today heard a long list of residences that continue to have cladding on them and people stuck in them, not able to sell and without enough resources to fix the problem. I have two serious cases here in my constituency and many more minor cases—Royal View and Grand Ocean to name a few.

One of the big problems is the arbitrary limit on size that the Government have introduced, meaning that while hundreds of flat owners in taller blocks may receive some support, those in shorter blocks, which may still have decent safety concerns, may not be able to sell their houses or get mortgages. They are stuck. It is not right that any leaseholder should have to pay for these mistakes. These were mistakes of deregulation and of not allowing independent assessments, in which multiple Governments took part. We, collectively, must now ensure that we fix that. We will do that by making sure, irrespective of what party holds the reins at the time, that our nation’s Government step in.

What is government for? It is to ensure that our people are safe from external and internal threats, but currently they are not safe when they live in these buildings. Their finances are not safe. The Government must act as the underwriter in this case. Of course they must protect public finances and, using the courts, legislation, levies and other means, they must get the money back. They must ensure that no individual is harmed. It is not good enough just to say that leaseholders should not pay.

There is a popular method of organisation whereby leaseholders have a share of the freehold, including in a number of blocks in my constituency. But they were not the builders. They were not the contractors. They were not the people who made this mess. They got their surveys done, and they bought in good faith. Often they bought to the limit, because they wanted to get on that ladder. We now have insurance issues, and we know that wider leasehold reforms are needed, but it is not right that the Government allow people to suffer as they are at the moment. Opposition day motions used to be binding, at least morally, on the Government. Let us do the right thing now and support our leaseholders.

End of Eviction Moratorium

Lloyd Russell-Moyle Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Christopher Pincher]

I have made clear in my previous answers the work that we are doing through the next steps accommodation programme to the tune of £263 million. I am not aware of the exact circumstances of my hon. Friend’s constituents, so it is probably better if he writes to me with more detail; I will be sure to follow it up.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)]

Ministers will know from my interventions and interests in this place that I am not an enemy of the landlord, but it seems to me that the balance here is totally wrong. Landlords and homeowners have been able to have mortgage deferrals, and they cannot be repossessed without the court looking at circumstances and the mortgage company discussing payment options. Why on earth does the Minister think it is acceptable for courts to have no discretion on section 8 notices on the grounds of rent arrears, and when will he fulfil his manifesto pledge to get rid of section 21 and introduce the renters’ reform Bill?

[Christopher Pincher]

Given what the hon. Gentleman sometimes says in this place and on social media, one might be forgiven for thinking that he is the enemy of everybody some of the time. We will reform section 21 of the Housing Act 1988 when we bring forward the renters’ reform Bill, which we will do in due course.

Financial and Social Emergency Support Package

Lloyd Russell-Moyle Excerpts

Wednesday 25th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s words. We have asked for a while, not least when we put forward our proposals last Thursday, that there should be a floor of the national minimum wage. If those who are on low pay get 80% of their pay, many of them will be taken below the national minimum wage. It is set at that level because it is a basic survival level, so we urge the Government to act. Again, that is only a small step.

It cannot be beyond the wit of the great minds in the Treasury to find a way to resolve a number of these issues, and that call was reiterated by the Resolution Foundation this morning. A YouGov poll found that one in 10 people surveyed are still in work but with reduced pay or hours. Those people are not protected by this scheme. For businesses to stay afloat, many of them will need part-time workers, and those part-time workers need the support that this scheme should provide.

Zero-hours contract workers and agency workers who are not on PAYE are limb (b) workers, as I explained to the Chancellor and wrote to him about at the beginning of the week. They must be made eligible for the job retention scheme; otherwise, there is the potential that 2 million workers will not be included in the scheme. These are some of the workers who are most at risk of losing work and not being able to put food on the table during this downturn.

Several Members mentioned this, but I urge the Government to give an assurance that non-UK nationals are eligible for this scheme. I also appeal to the Government to ensure that support is provided for non-UK nationals in the coming weeks when travel is so restricted. Let me echo what several Members have said: that must include the suspension of the rules of no recourse to public funds. The rules that have been put in place may be acceptable to some Members, but in this period those rules are brutal and will force people into penury.

Staff who can no longer work because of childcare responsibilities must be protected as well. Why on earth are they not eligible for this scheme? Just think of the single parent who cannot work because they need to stay at home with their child—surely they should be covered as well. On the subject of childcare, can the Minister be clear that childcare providers should not be charging parents for services that they no longer deliver or cannot now deliver? Those childcare providers must be supported in the long term as well, because we will need them.

My concern, which many Members have expressed today, is the gaps in the scheme and the fact that it will not be operational until April. People will not receive funding for weeks, and it certainly will not be taken up at the rate that many of us would hope for, given the indications from a large number of employers. Lay-offs are happening at scale.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government need to ensure that anyone who was laid off before the announcement of the scheme can be brought back into employment and put on the scheme, and that any employer that does not do that should be named or required by the Government to do that?

[John McDonnell]

The problem we have, as my hon. Friend points out, is that this is a voluntary scheme for employers to participate in. What we have to do is to use everything we possibly can to urge employers to participate, protect their workers and use to maximum effect the scheme itself.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Clarke]

I take that point to heart. If the right hon. Gentleman sends me the details, I will write to him after this debate and ensure that that company is contacted personally so that we can provide the guidance needed for his constituents.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

My ex has been sent a letter from his employer saying, “We want to put you on the 80% but we don’t yet know how this works. We do not know the details.” I suggest that it is perhaps not just one employer that needs to be written to; all employers in this country need to be given greater guidance. That letter came from a top law firm that his employer had got in to try to work out the system, and that firm could not work it out either. I do not think it is about an individual case. Will the Minister please put on the public record the details of how employers will use the scheme?

[Mr Clarke]

I can confirm that other Government Departments, alongside my own, will have heard the hon. Gentleman’s remarks, and we will ensure that they are taken to heart.

This is a convenient point to discuss universal credit and some of the related issues, which the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown raised, as did the hon. Member for Glasgow South West. I can confirm that advances for all new universal credit claimants are now available online or by phone, with no requirement to attend the jobcentre. Earning rules for the self-employed have been temporarily relaxed for those who are sick or self-isolating. From 6 April, we are increasing the standard allowance for UC and the basic element in working tax credit for one year: both will increase by £20 a week on top of the planned annual uprating, and that will apply to all new and existing universal credit claimants and to existing working tax credit claimants, too. We recognise that there is going to be an enormous increase in the number of people claiming universal credit; we will continue to make sure that the system responds to this fast-changing situation.

--- Later in debate ---

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I understand some of the difficulties, but perhaps we could get an assurance that we will at least have a copy of the proposals in advance, before the media. We will honour whatever embargo is placed upon us, as we always do with statements that are provided to us. That would give us the opportunity to frame any subsequent questions we want to put to the Government, to respond to any concerns that are raised by our constituents and to prepare a briefing for our own Members of Parliament.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Yesterday, the Health Secretary held a very innovative press conference that was completely online. On Monday, I and many other Members held a very good meeting with the immigration Minister via Skype. Can there not be a reassurance that Ministers will undertake to hold briefings over telephone calls or online for Members—it does not have to be a sitting of Parliament—so that we can ask those questions directly, because often one gets a better or more nuanced response in person than through written correspondence? It would help resolve some of the issues if Members had access to Ministers directly after an announcement in that kind of mode.

[John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. This is deeply unfortunate. I fully understand the work that officials will be doing and the pressure on Ministers. Whatever Ministers say to us, time and again it seems that people in No. 10 are working without any regard for the House of Commons and treating it as an inconvenience. We saw that with the Chancellor’s statement, when he did the press conference in spite of explicit assurances, as we understand it, that he would address Parliament first. We therefore need a statement, even if it is an interim one. If the announcement is going to be made tomorrow, there may be final details in some areas where he has to say, “We haven’t finalised that,” but he should be able to outline the main points. Frankly, we have a Treasury Minister on the Bench now and we should be getting answers to some of these questions, so that there can be proper scrutiny and accountability.

Planning System: Gypsies and Travellers

Lloyd Russell-Moyle Excerpts

Wednesday 29th January 2020 Westminster Hall

[Mr Hollobone]

My hon. Friend makes a superb point in an excellent way, and I entirely concur. However, the settled community does not include only residents and businesses, but Travellers. During one of his excellent debates on this issue, my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire pointed out that we know from the 2011 census that three quarters of Gypsies and Travellers live in houses, bungalows or flats. Only a quarter live in caravans or mobile homes, yet Gypsies and Travellers as a whole have an existing, separate planning law for themselves that only applies to a quarter of their population. That kind of special treatment within the planning system applies to no other ethnic group.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree—perhaps he will not—that historically, planning laws have discriminated against Travellers who live a nomadic lifestyle, the percentage who are not in the bungalows he describes? Those laws have sealed up areas in which Travellers have traditionally stayed; have prevented Travellers from being able to move easily from site to site; and have created hostilities not because they have given preferential treatment to Travellers, but because they have given them discriminatory treatment. Is it not an indictment that five councils in this country have still not identified any Traveller sites, and very few have identified their full limit? That is the discrimination in the planning system, not the other way around, as the hon. Gentleman seems to suggest.

[Mr Hollobone]

I do not think anyone has any objection to Gypsies and Travellers who legitimately want to travel, so long as when they park up, they do so lawfully, on land that they either own or have permission to park up on. The problem is that the quarter of the Traveller community who do travel all too frequently park up on land that they do not own, and where they do not have permission to be.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hollobone]

My right hon. Friend does not have to apologise for having a second bite at the cherry. He is welcome to intervene as often as he likes, because he is an expert on the issue. He makes an extremely good point in a thoroughly competent way.

I called for the debate because the activities of Gypsies and Travellers are a huge issue in the borough of Kettering. It is a combination of Gypsies and Travellers parking up on publicly or privately owned land without permission, and of their purchasing land in the countryside and immediately building plots without any intention of applying for planning permission. They clearly realise that the land is an unsuitable place for such a development, but they are cocking a snook at local authorities. There are therefore two issues. First, there is the trespass issue of parking up on land that they do not own. Secondly, there is the issue of purchasing land and developing Gypsy and Traveller sites with no intention of applying for planning permission.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

In local plans, councils must identify land that is acceptable for private housing and for business to meet the needs of the local community. If they do not identify suitable pieces of land, the local plan will be rejected. Why can councils fail to identify pieces of land suitable for being converted into sites for the Traveller community and have their local plans accepted?

[Mr Hollobone]

Kettering Borough Council has identified suitable sites for Gypsies and Travellers, but it is being abused by them. In the village of Broughton in my constituency, a Traveller encampment has permission for a limited number of plots, but the number of Gypsy and Traveller families living on that site far exceeds the permitted number of plots available, and is expanding all the time.

There is another case near the village of Loddington, where Gypsies and Travellers recently purchased land in open countryside. On a Friday, they moved in all the heavy building equipment, put in hard standing and started erecting plots without any kind of permission. The local borough council immediately served a temporary stop notice, which was ignored, and then a permanent stop notice, which was ignored. The development is there. Planning permission may or may not be sought. If anyone else were to dig up a field in open countryside and build a house, the local authority would intervene in the same way and the individual would stop the development, but that self-restraint does not seem to apply to Gypsies and Travellers.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Is the hon. Gentleman saying that in its local plan, Kettering Borough Council identified a number of sites, sufficient for local need, that can be purchased and that, if purchased, will be given planning permission only for Traveller sites? If he is, there should not be overcrowding, because there would be other sites for Travellers to go to. Overcrowding is surely a sign that there is not enough provision. If there were too few houses, the local plan would be rejected, unless the council identified sites that could be converted only to housing. Has Kettering Borough Council identified more sites for conversion only to Traveller sites, and for which it will not allow any other planning use? If it has not, surely it has under-provided in its local plan.

[Mr Hollobone]

Yes, there are two additional sites for Gypsies and Travellers with up to 16 plots that are not occupied. The problem is that more Gypsy and Traveller families are arriving from other areas all the time and are overloading the existing sites. It is simply not fair on the local community in Kettering to have to provide ever more provision for Gypsies and Travellers from across the country. That is why we need the planning system to work effectively, and why we need Gypsies and Travellers to respect the law.

The Government should ensure—I would like the Minister’s response to this—that someone in breach of an enforcement notice cannot apply for retrospective planning permission until that initial breach has been remedied. The Gypsies and Travellers who have moved into the site near Loddington, who have had a temporary and permanent stop notice served on them, should not be allowed to apply for retrospective planning permission until they have restored the field to its original state when they moved in on that Friday afternoon. That would be a real disincentive and would stop Gypsies and Travellers abusing the planning system in that way.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Sir George. I congratulate the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) on securing the debate. As he said, we are often here to debate this subject. My view is that he looks at the issue down the wrong end of the telescope, but then he probably thinks the same about me.

The hon. Gentleman quotes statistics, and I will probably quote some of the same statistics, but he draws the opposite conclusion from the one that I draw. I do not think there is any dispute that Gypsies and Travellers are not just a deprived community in this country, but possibly the most deprived community. Some of the statistics that apply to Gypsy and Traveller communities are quite horrific. Only 3% to 4% of the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller population aged 18 to 30 go into higher education, compared with 43% of the general population; 90% of the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller population have experienced racism; life expectancy at minimum is 10 to 12 years shorter than that for the general population; and the suicide rate in the Traveller community is six times higher than in the general population. Those are really shocking statistics.

The hon. Gentleman said that there are different people on whom the blame could be placed, or to whom the explanation could be ascribed, but that Gypsies and Travellers would need to bear some responsibility themselves. He said that planning policy or planning law discriminates in favour of Gypsies and Travellers, and he called for harsher remedies, including the implementation of the current consultation, which would criminalise trespass. I think that is the wrong analysis. Both the history of the planning process and the current situation suggest that the opposite is true: that there is discrimination against Gypsies and Travellers in the planning process; that it is more likely that applications from Gypsies and Travellers will be refused than from the general population; and that there is a large level of discrimination and hostility, which goes into the statutory sector as well. That is what needs to be challenged, first of all. Then, perhaps, we can come back to whether there is a continuing issue.

It is right that three quarters of Gypsies and Travellers are in bricks-and-mortar accommodation. A lot of those, even if not necessarily all, would like to continue with a nomadic lifestyle but do not have the opportunity. One reason why that has become institutionalised is a relatively recent change in definition, which effectively says—it is a Catch-22—that even if someone’s ethnicity is Gypsy or Traveller, if they stop travelling and end up, against their better wishes, in bricks-and-mortar accommodation, perhaps for reasons of health, perhaps because they need to settle in an area for education for a while, or perhaps just because of a lack of pitches or stopping sites, they are no longer counted for that purpose. Suddenly the assessed needs in any local authority area go down, because of that statistical change—perhaps by 60%, 70% or 80%. The issue is suddenly no longer there. It reminds me of how my local authority, when it was Conservative controlled, solved the housing issue by abolishing the waiting list. It is not a long-term solution; it simply hides a continuing problem.

We do not have time to go over the whole history of the provision of sites and the different policies adopted by different Governments over the past 50 years, which go back to the Caravan Sites Act 1968, but the change that was introduced in 1994, which for the first time removed a requirement for local authorities to provide sites, was a game changer. Without any national requirement, and now with the encouragement of national Government not to provide permanent or transit sites, local authorities simply do not provide those sites. There is a shortage. Whatever the hon. Gentleman may say, there is a lack of such provision. Until that is remedied in some way, stopping at sites that are not authorised will continue.

I have never met members of the Gypsy and Traveller community who want to stop on unauthorised sites where facilities are not provided, and who would not prefer negotiated stopping, transit sites or the ability to use permanent sites. It seems to be commonplace to say that that must be the case. Local authorities that take their responsibilities seriously and have tried to provide a remedy—most local authorities try to escape their obligations—have found that they have either no problem or a much reduced problem with that kind of stopping.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Let me give a pointed example. Since Brighton opened a transit site and expanded the permanent site, the number of encampments in unauthorised locations has reduced by almost half. Where they do happen, a negotiated move is often done within a day. That is an example of how we can solve the issue with a carrot rather than a stick.

[Andy Slaughter]

I could give a number of examples, but I am conscious of time.

The long debate, which is wearisome for everyone but particularly for Gypsy and Traveller communities, is about how we solve what is not a huge problem once it has been broken down by local authority area. The need for additional pitches and sites in this country will no doubt continue until we have a Government who can grasp that nettle. I am concerned that, while that rather sterile debate is going on, there is an increased attempt to vilify and criminalise the actions of Gypsies and Travellers. We saw that in the cross-borough injunctions that the Court of Appeal found to be unlawful, in a landmark judgment only last week—that was the Bromley case. It was no longer possible to stop anywhere in entire boroughs, some of which are very large. That was effectively a blanket ban that would have extended across parts of the country.

The attempt by the Government, through their consultation, to criminalise trespass in a way that goes far beyond what happens in Ireland, and without the compensatory duties to provide sites, is a regressive and intimidatory step. We need a change in approach, and we need to be constructive and positive. The last thing we need to be doing is further victimising Gypsy and Traveller communities.

Homelessness

Lloyd Russell-Moyle Excerpts

Wednesday 29th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick]

As I have said, we are increasing funding for this issue. We are spending £1.2 billion. This year, we are adding £430 million and more—for example, the £112 million I have devoted this year to the rough sleeping initiative. That is a 30% increase, and the funding the previous year was more than the year before that, so the Government are giving this national issue the resources it deserves. I hope that meets with approval across the House.

We are also taking action by implementing the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017, which will play a crucial role in tackling this issue. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) and all those who played an instrumental role in taking this ambitious legislative reform forward. It means that everyone, not just those deemed a priority, can get the support they need to prevent them from becoming homeless. The legislation also means that people can access support earlier, with new duties on public bodies, from the NHS to our prisons, to intervene earlier, and councils are now providing support of up to 56 days, ahead of someone needing help finding secure accommodation.

Since the Act was implemented, more than 130,000 households have had their homelessness successfully prevented or relieved, and nearly two thirds of the applicants receiving help have been single households who previously would have been less likely to have been offered support.

The duty to refer, which came into force in October 2018, is also encouraging strong local partnerships. It requires public authorities such as our prisons, our emergency departments and Jobcentre Plus to refer service users who they think may be homeless, or threatened with homelessness, to a local housing authority of their choice. That is a clear example of public services working closely together in the interests of the most vulnerable in our society.

We are also taking decisive action on the delivery of fairer, more affordable housing of all tenures, so that we can prevent and reduce homelessness and rough sleeping. The Government have delivered more than 464,000 affordable homes since 2010. Our commitment to increasing the housing supply means that we will go even further than that, delivering, on average, more affordable homes each year than the last Labour Government—and there is more to come, with 250,000 more new affordable homes due to be delivered by March 2022 through the affordable homes programme, which we have boosted with a further £9 billion.

In our manifesto we committed ourselves to a further affordable homes programme, which I hope will be even more ambitious. That commitment is underlined by our manifesto pledge to publish a social housing White Paper, which will set out more measures to empower tenants, provide greater redress and better regulation, and improve the quality of social housing.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Minister has agreed to introduce a Bill that will, hopefully, get rid of no-fault evictions and to provide a decent redress system. Will he meet me, and some representatives of Shelter? I presented a ten-minute rule Bill in the last Parliament that would pay for some of that, protecting deposits and allowing a disputes resolution mechanism, and working out some of the details so that we do not have to do it through amendment.

[Robert Jenrick]

I should be happy to meet the hon. Gentleman. He will not be surprised to hear that we have already met a range of stakeholders, including representatives of Shelter and other important organisations, to discuss this issue. We want to ensure that the social housing White Paper does the job that is required, and we are working closely with organisations such as Grenfell United to learn the lessons of that tragedy. We are also working with organisations such as Shelter in connection with our Renters’ Rights Bill, which will bring an end to no-fault evictions and create other important initiatives, including a lifetime deposit which will help those on low incomes and others throughout society by making it easier and cheaper for tenants to move.

We have a clear plan—backed by substantial investment and a proactive approach, and widely welcomed—to tackle homelessness and end rough sleeping for good. As the Prime Minister has made clear, that is an absolute priority for him and for this new Government. We are encouraged by the progress that we have made on rough sleeping in the last two years, and through measures such as the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017, the Housing First pilots and the rough sleeping initiative we are seeing results, but we know that we have to go much further to give some of the most vulnerable people in our society the future they deserve. I believe we can do this; I believe we must do this; and, as a compassionate, one nation Conservative Government, we will not rest until we achieve it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Adam Holloway (Gravesham) (Con)]

I shall be fairly brief. Over the years since the early 1990s, I have spent several months living undercover for television programmes on the streets of London, Birmingham and New York. Between when I first did it in 1992 and the last time I did it last year, I observe that almost nothing has changed. We still have the scandal of people with the most difficulties in our society—the untreated mentally ill and the drug addicted—prowling the streets of our cities. I therefore entirely agree with the Secretary of State—this is also my own experience—that street homelessness is primarily a health issue, not a housing issue.

I remember in the 1990s seeing a guy drinking like a dog from a puddle by Charing Cross station. I saw a similar thing last year. Things have not changed. Last year, I was sleeping next to a guy called Andy by the goods-in entrance of McDonald’s at Victoria among all the people smoking Spice. Andy was probably drinking 30 cans of beer a day, but he was not actually homeless. It was extraordinary. He had a flat—he showed me the keys—but Andy was living in Westminster for two reasons. First, he was lonely in his flat in north London. Secondly, how on earth is an alcoholic going to generate enough money to buy beer if not from begging on the streets?

I did not meet him, but a friend of mine reported that a guy who had been a heroin addict in Covent Garden for many years—he eventually had his leg cut off—absolutely maintained that if the public were not so generous and did not enable people to buy heroin and alcohol, he would have got off the streets an awful lot earlier. The reality is that many people choose to be on the street—[Interruption.] Before anyone stands up in outrage, let me say that there is a reason for that. People like Andy who are addicted to a drug have a problem: they need money. They cannot get money from begging if they are sleeping on the floor of one of the Government’s “no second night out” hostels, and they cannot get money to buy heroin if they are sitting in their council flat; they get it by being out on the streets.

When I was taken off the street under the “no second night out” policy, I was whisked off to a warm, safe place, but if I were a drug addict, there is no way I would have wished to be there. I would have felt safer and freer going back to my place on the Covent Garden piazza.

The reality is that, overwhelmingly, these are ill people. There are about a dozen rough sleepers in my constituency and, according to the excellent Gravesham Sanctuary homeless charity, the majority of them are addicted to drugs or alcohol. [Interruption.] This is my experience. Members who are shaking their head should intervene.

If this debate is really about street homelessness, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care should be at the Dispatch Box as this is a health problem. I know the Government are genuinely determined to do something about it. In fact this guy here, the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, came and spent a night out on the streets of Covent Garden with me last year. He did not make a big song and dance about it, and he did not issue a press release. My friend Chris, a former crack addict, took him round and showed him how the begging works and how, when people have the money, they go off and hunt for drugs before the cycle starts all over again.

I am convinced that this guy, the Secretary of State, has got the message that we will not deal with rough sleeping unless we see it as a health problem. We need to be honest about this. When people give cash to a beggar —not in every case, but in the vast majority of cases—they are buying heroin, alcohol or zombie Spice. We have to stop giving money to beggars. We need wet accommodation where people can take drugs and continue to drink, and we need good emergency psychiatric assessments.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

If the hon. Gentleman thinks we should have wet accommodation, does he support consumption rooms or shooting galleries so that we can also help people to ween off these awful drugs?

[Adam Holloway]

The truth is that I do not know, as I have not looked into it.

There is no point spending all this money if none of it gets to the tip of the spear—to the people in real need and in real crisis. There needs to be drug rehabilitation when people need it and when they are ready for it. I had one guy who decided he wanted to come off crack, and it took three months for him to get a place in rehab. We have to make sure that people are put in accommodation in which they want to stay.

--- Later in debate ---

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak in a debate that is important for my constituents in Putney, Southfields and Roehampton. I pay tribute to Glass Door, a charity which runs night shelters in local churches. There are no homeless shelters run by the state or the council in Wandsworth, so Glass Door is making up the shortfall.

I will focus on the hidden homelessness of temporary accommodation and what that really means for so many families in my area and across the country. The latest figures show that 3,070 children are living in temporary accommodation in Wandsworth—just one London borough —and that 35% of them, meaning nearly 700 from my constituency, are housed out of borough.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Does my hon. Friend agree that out-of-borough housing, often in seaside towns, means that people move away from their communities and support networks?

[Fleur Anderson]

I absolutely agree, and I will share the story of one family to illustrate how the benefits and housing system are failing. I have been working with the family for several years as a councillor—I am also a Wandsworth councillor.

The hard-working dad of three children works on the buses, so he is suffering from in-work poverty. At their lowest point, the family, including the three children, had been evicted and were sleeping in their car. One council provided help, providing them with temporary accommodation and storage for their possessions, but that is a postcode lottery; most councils do not provide storage for possessions at a time when people need it most. The temporary accommodation they were offered was in Colchester—miles away—and the dad had to spend his income on commuting back to London for work. The children had to move schools.

The family were then moved to other temporary accommodation, where they did not have enough room even for a table for the children to do their homework or to have a TV. They are now in other accommodation in my constituency, but the three children have to travel for two hours on three buses to get to school, and then two hours back. This is making them so tired that they cannot do their best at school.

There are families criss-crossing London, with children sleeping on their mother’s laps. Parents are having to wait near their children’s schools because they do not have time to go home and come back again, so they cannot seek work. That means they cannot save money for a deposit, so they cannot get out of this cycle.

Temporary accommodation is a symptom of a failing housing and benefits system, and the details of it really matter to parents. They need storage and they need funding for school journeys, and they should always be a priority. There should be a duty to place families closer to their children’s schools.

This system is failing hundreds of children from Putney, Roehampton and Southfields, and the 127,000 children across the UK who are in temporary accommodation tonight. The Government have had 10 years to fix this scandal, and it is shocking that this is happening in 2020. I hope they will finally take action.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)]

The street count system is not working, and people do not trust it. When they see the increasing number of people sleeping on our streets but the statistics say the numbers are going down, something is wrong and the Government need to review it.

Despite Labour-led Brighton & Hove City Council creating 50 new rough sleeper move-on beds and the country’s first 365-day emergency shelter, hundreds still remain on our streets and in our emergency accommodation every night, and it is costing lives. Five people have died in two months at one local emergency accommodation. The staff of another emergency accommodation call the basement room the “suicide room.”

[Fleur Anderson]

I have already mentioned that Wandsworth does not have emergency accommodation, so does my hon. Friend agree that there should be more emergency accommodation and that it needs to provide services, not just rooms?

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Exactly, and that might stop some of the deaths, but the deaths are not just in emergency accommodation; they are on our streets. In the past year Robert Bartlett, aged 30, died on 29 October. Robert was sleeping rough and died of an overdose.

William Morrow, aged 45, died on 4 April. He was described as an extremely likeable person. He had been living rough for a little while, and the inquest found he died of a heroin overdose after detoxing—a very familiar story.

Arna Bud-Husain, 49, died on 11 April. Arna was a resident at one of our homeless hostels. Andrew O’Connell, 54, was violently attacked for being homeless and died on 8 August while sleeping rough.

There are those who have not been named but are confirmed as having died while sleeping rough in Brighton. In October, a 39-year-old man died sleeping rough and a 60-year-old died while living in emergency accommodation. In November: a 34-year-old man who died from sepsis; a 41-year-old woman; and another 41-year-old who had been evicted from their emergency accommodation only the day before. In December, a 35-year-old woman. In January, a 50-year-old died in temporary accommodation. The year before: in March, a man in his 50s and a 33-year old-man died; in April, a 45-year-old man died; and in July, a 36-year-old man died. Those are just the people who have died in Brighton up until July 2019—many more have died in the past six months on our streets, in our city. Three of the men’s bodies were so badly decomposed when they were discovered that forensic testing was needed to identify them.

The failure to address the rising tide of homelessness under the Conservative Government is not only causing an increase in rough sleeping; it is literally causing the deaths of my constituents. We are talking about a 51% increase in the past five years alone, and the average age now for someone on the streets is 44. Being homeless is in itself a vulnerability and many councils up and down our country treat it not; they say, “You have to be vulnerable within the street homeless community to get support.” That must change, and I hope we can change it.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I thank the Opposition for bringing this debate to the House today. On the whole, we have had a constructive debate in which we have talked about many of the issues facing homeless people and rough sleepers in this country.

I congratulate the two Members who made their maiden speeches today. The hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Abena Oppong-Asare) made a passionate speech about her journey to this place. It was incredible to hear that her careers adviser told her not to bother even applying for a job in the House of Commons; I am sure that he will be hanging his head and wondering what sort of advice he is giving. The hon. Member gave us an incredible tour of her constituency; I would be delighted to take up her offer of chips in the Frying Pan in Belvedere. Of course, I am happy to meet her to discuss homelessness in her constituency as well.

The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mick Whitley) started by paying tribute to his predecessor, and I join him in that. Frank Field was an excellent Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee, and a fantastic advocate for working across the House. I hope that the hon. Member will follow his predecessor in that regard.

In 2020, it is unacceptable for anybody to have to sleep rough, particularly at a time of year when those on the streets are enduring sub-zero temperatures, on top of the enormous strains being placed on their physical and mental health. I do not have too much time, so I want to start by putting on record that the cold weather fund that we have doubled this year, and extended by a further £3 million, is still open and available for people to apply. I am around if any colleagues want to speak to me about how to apply for this fund, and would be delighted to have those conversations.

A number of colleagues, including the hon. Members for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) and for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle), have put on record their concern about deaths of homeless people on the streets. Every premature death of someone who is homeless is one too many. We take this matter extremely seriously, and are working closely with the Health Secretary to ensure that rough sleepers get the health and care support they need. That is why, as part of the rough sleeping strategy, the Government have committed £30 million of NHS England funding to address rough sleeping over the next five years.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Will the Minister give way?

[Luke Hall]

I will not at the moment, I am afraid—just because of the limited time.

We are working to implement test models of community-based provision across six projects that are designed to enable access to health and support services for people who are sleeping rough, with both physical and mental ill health, and substance dependency needs, being managed by Public Health England. All these projects are being informed by people who have lived experience of rough sleeping to ensure that rough sleepers receive the right support. In Portsmouth, Westminster and Newcastle, these projects include placing nurses and other specialist staff in homeless services to provide wraparound and intensive support.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Hall]

I am afraid I will not at the moment.

Since 2010, we have delivered more than 464,000 new affordable homes, including 331,000 affordable homes for rent. My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Ben Everitt) raised his concerns about temporary accommodation. Temporary accommodation means that people are receiving help and support, but of course we want to see those individuals and their families moved into settled accommodation as soon as possible, and on a permanent basis. We recently announced £263 million of funding for local authorities to support the delivery of homelessness services—an increase of £23 million on this financial year. That funding will also support prevention programmes to help those who are at risk of becoming homeless.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Will the Minister give way?

[Layla Moran]

Will the Minister give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Hall]

In a second.

We have also committed an additional £40 million in discretionary housing payments for 2021 to help those facing affordability challenges in the private sector. We understand the importance of this issue in tackling and meeting our ambitious target to end rough sleeping by the end of this Parliament, but we are always happy to come back to this matter.

We have talked a lot about substance misuse. My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Adam Holloway) put on record his experience in this matter and talked about the importance of substance misuse needs. My hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Dean Russell) spoke eloquently about his experience of cuckooing. We know that many rough sleepers have substance misuse needs and can struggle to access the support they need to tackle substance dependency. Indeed, data collected in 2018-19 identified that the second most prevalent reported support need among people seen rough sleeping in London related to alcohol, at 42%, while 41% of rough sleepers were assessed as having a support need related to drugs. Through our rough sleeping strategy, we have made a number of commitments to address this issue, including new training for frontline workers to help them to support rough sleepers under the influence of new psychoactive substances such as Spice. We are also working with the Home Office on the development of the cross-Government job strategy, as well as working closely with Dame Carol Black’s team to provide evidence and data to support the forthcoming independent review of drugs policy.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Will the Minister talk to his health colleagues who, in the public health grant to local councils, do not require a minimum standard of substance misuse services, meaning that it is a postcode lottery? Please, please sort that out.

[Luke Hall]

We are providing specialist funding. I am happy to go into that in more detail with the hon. Gentleman.

We understand that enabling access to and better outcomes from services that prevent mental ill health, improve mental health support recovery and promote good mental health will contribute to our ambitions to end rough sleeping. That is why, as part of our strategy, the Government have committed £30 million of funding from NHS England over the next five years for specialist mental health support for those who are rough sleeping.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lloyd Russell-Moyle Excerpts

Monday 13th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick]

It was a pleasure to visit Telford—a town that, as my hon. Friend knows, I know well. Telford is one of the fastest-growing towns in the country. While there are many examples of good-quality development —she took me to Lightmoor Village, being built with the Bournville Village Trust—there have been examples, on which she has fought for her constituents, of poor-quality development. Developers need to build high-quality, well-designed and safe homes, and we will take the steps necessary to ensure that they do. One step we are taking forward is the creation of a new homes ombudsman, which has been led in recent months by—now—my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mrs Elphicke). We will put that on a statutory footing in due course.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)]

5. What assessment he has made of trends in the level of new council homes since 2010.

[The Minister for Housing (Esther McVey)]

Councils built 26,185 affordable homes between 2010-11 and 2018-19, up from just 2,994 over the previous 13 years under a Labour Administration. We are giving councils the tools to deliver a new generation of council housing. In 2018, we lifted the borrowing caps for councils to deliver 10,000 new homes a year by 2021-22.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

But last year 6,287 homes for social rent were built and 10,000 were lost due to right to buy and other conversions. That was a loss of 4,000 social rented homes in our country. Is it not time, first, that the Government used net figures rather than these fantasy “built” figures; and, secondly, that we really reviewed right to buy, allowing councils good conditions and restrictions where there are areas of stress and ensuring that the discount carries on rather than just being pocketed by the individual?

[Esther McVey]

The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that we are consulting on right to buy to see what we can do with the sales receipts. Let me say what this Government have done to support councils in building. We increased to £9 billion the size of the affordable homes programme to which councils can apply. We have reintroduced social rents. We have removed the HRA borrowing caps for local authorities and given £2 billion to housing authorities to help with the ability to increase purchases and build by councils. So this Government are doing far more. Under this Government, social housing has gone up by 79,000, but in the previous 13 years under Labour it fell by 420,000.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jane Stevenson]

In recent years Wolverhampton city centre and, in my constituency, local centres such as Wednesfield high street have struggled. I am delighted that Wolverhampton city centre will benefit from the Government’s stronger towns fund, but will the Minister work with me so that local traders and retail businesses all over Wolverhampton North East, including market traders in Wednesfield high street—

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)]

Is Wolverhampton a city?

[Jane Stevenson]

It is a city. Will the Minister work with me so that they feel confident that the Government will support their hard work and further local regeneration?

Deaths of Homeless People

Lloyd Russell-Moyle Excerpts

Tuesday 1st October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Luke Hall]

One important thing in the rough sleeping initiative and the impact evaluation that we published a couple of weeks ago was the work on looking at the method we used to carry out the counts. The information and data that we have clearly proves that changing from a count to an estimate, or vice versa, did not have any impact on the reduction figures. Lots of different authorities represented by different political parties have made changes back and forward, but we have to be led by the evidence.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)]

In 2010, the annual count of homeless rough sleeping in Brighton was 500; it is now 1,200. Deaths on the street were a rarity; now, they come more than once a month in Brighton and Hove. What policy has changed between 2010 and now? Surely we need to understand the policy failure before we can fix it.

[Luke Hall]

As I said to the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), there are absolutely issues in Brighton, as there are throughout the country. The rough sleeping initiative is having an impact: in the places where we are trialling the rough sleeping initiative, there has been a 19% direct fall since 2017 and a 32% reduction compared with where we would have been had it not been introduced. There is no shying away from it, though: there is much more to do in Brighton, as there is in other cities, towns and villages all around our country.

Permitted Development and Shale Gas Exploration

Lloyd Russell-Moyle Excerpts

Thursday 28th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Wera Hobhouse]

I completely agree. Getting to carbon zero is a massive challenge and we must start today. We must think about how our new houses should be built, because the retrofitting of these properties will cost even more. All Departments need to put their minds to it.

These problems are not unique to Bath or the UK. We know from the United States that fracking operations can result in the contamination of the water table. The effect is wide-ranging. Sometimes people cannot even drink their own tap water because of the health risk. A report in 2016 by the United States Environmental Protection Agency demonstrated exactly how the hydraulic fracturing fluid used to split the bedrock can contaminate groundwater and release gases displaced by it. Communities across the USA have been forced to try to mitigate these problems. We should not even go there. Why should we risk water contamination?

Added to all this is the amount of industrial infrastructure that will scar our countryside if these proposals are pushed through. Giving permitted development rights to shale gas exploration would in effect remove the control that local authorities usually have over the planning process.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)]

On building infrastructure around these sites, does the hon. Lady agree that it is slightly hypocritical that the development arm of CDC Group—the Government-backed development bank—that invests in infrastructure outside Britain would not invest in shale gas because of the infrastructure and climate change risk, but for some reason we are happy to do it in our own country?

[Wera Hobhouse]

I certainly agree that there is a lot of hypocrisy around this issue. A wind farm was built over the communities of Greater Manchester in my old authority, and I remember people talking about the infrastructure that was built just to access the hills in order to put up the wind turbines; it was terrible. Fracking platforms need to move around all the time, and the infrastructure that we need to build to enable that is absolutely incredible. I do not think that people have ever put their minds to that point.

Vagrancy Act

Lloyd Russell-Moyle Excerpts

Tuesday 29th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does the hon. Lady agree that measures such as the Vagrancy Act not only criminalise homeless people, but put into the mind of the public that they are criminals and, as a result, they receive worse treatment? In Brighton, one homeless person was murdered last year and many others are regularly attacked. Removing the Act would show that it is not acceptable to treat people who have ended up in dire circumstances in that way.

[Layla Moran]

I agree entirely. The principle of no enforcement without support is vital. As funding for local authorities has decreased, there is often not enough money to tackle the root causes and to give the support to those who are at risk of homelessness or who are homeless. Rather than spending money enforcing laws that punish people and move them on, in the long term it would be a far better use of taxpayers’ money to invest properly in the very welcome Homelessness Reduction Act 2017, which I have no doubt the Minister will mention, and to ensure support is in place to prevent homelessness from happening in the first place.

We all know that the causes of homelessness are complex. The Government need to do more to support local councils in providing services to combat those root causes. The Homelessness Reduction Act is a welcome start, but it cannot be the end. It is clear that the Vagrancy Act, among other Acts, is the lowest hanging fruit—it just makes problems worse. We need a more compassionate and preventive approach to tackling the national scandal of homelessness.

Repealing the Vagrancy Act would be an easy first step. It would not take any money, just a three-line Bill. The private Member’s Bill is waiting there and I am desperate for it to receive support. I think it would receive support from all corners of the House. I am sorry to say—this is the way with private Members’ Bills—that it was blocked on First Reading. However, we are seeking another First Reading soon. I am delighted that the Labour party is now supporting the Bill—that is brilliant—as are St Mungo’s, Centrepoint and Crisis. There is a real swell in the campaign from across the political spectrum and beyond.

The Vagrancy Act is a symbol: what sort of country do we want to be? Rather than being a cold-hearted mean-spirited country, I believe we should show compassion and care to those who need our help. I ask the Minister to push as hard as he possibly can at the open door to scrap the Vagrancy Act.