Chatham Docks Basin 3 Redevelopment
Neil Coyle Excerpts(6 months, 3 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Kelly Tolhurst (Rochester and Strood) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the redevelopment of Chatham Docks Basin 3.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Philip.
The debate over the future of Chatham docks has stirred strong emotions in our community. On one side, Peel Waters has proposed a residential-focused mixed-use development, but closer examination raises concerns about its sustainability and impact on our already thriving industries. The proposal has prompted legitimate worries about the quality of jobs, uncertainty surrounding investments and the overall environmental footprint, echoing sentiments that I have been expressing for several years.
In response to those concerns, I have been championing an alternative vision alongside the Save Chatham Docks campaign. It centres around the SPPARC Architecture masterplan, which sets out revitalisation focused on modern industrial space, emphasising job creation, economic growth and environmental sustainability—all essential for the future of the port’s activities. I appreciate the opportunity today to highlight that cause and to bring further information forward as to why saving the docks is the only sensible solution.
Chatham docks was part of the old Royal Navy Dockyard Chatham estate, which has stood proudly for 457 years.
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
Sir Philip, is it not normal to declare interests at the start of a debate? Is the right hon. Lady intending to make any such declarations?
Neil Coyle
Sir Philip, you may wish to explain the rules—but I think it is a requirement that where we have interests in a particular area, or a potential financial interest, we declare them before we comment on or speak to that issue. I again invite the right hon. Member to make any declarations that are relevant.
Kelly Tolhurst
I would like the hon. Gentleman to elaborate on which financial interest he thinks I have.
Kelly Tolhurst
My understanding is that there are other organisations operating within the port facility that want to stay where they are. Some have relocated because they unfortunately did not have another option; their leases meant that they were unable to stay.
The operations at Chatham docks span a diverse range of high-value industries. Materials and goods are brought in via water channels, undergo processing and manufacturing, and are subsequently exported.
Neil Coyle
Two of the companies that have been operating in Chatham docks for marine repairs are EAPL and Stick-Mig Welding. Does the right hon. Lady have anything to say about the relationship between Skipper Ltd and those two companies?
Kelly Tolhurst
I think the hon. Gentleman is referring to Skipper (UK) Ltd, which I am still a director of—and which has no customers or interests in Chatham docks or any of the businesses that operate in Chatham docks.
A sometimes overlooked aspect of the incumbent operations at Chatham docks is the strong commitment to nurturing talent. The array of apprenticeship programmes provides excellent avenues towards rewarding careers. In 2020 alone, 16 apprenticeship programmes offered 20 positions per 1,000 jobs, massively surpassing the Medway average of about nine apprenticeships for every 1,000 jobs. The investment in people not only benefits the individuals involved but strengthens the workforce of the entire region, offering high-quality careers that make a real difference.
Importantly, the jobs offered at Chatham docks provide above average wages, raising the median wage in Medway. The average annual earnings were £43,000 in 2023—nearly 9% higher than the Medway median wage. These positions serve as a crucial driver of economic stability, especially in an area where 13.5% of Medway’s workforce earn below two thirds of UK median pay as of 2021. It is clear that Chatham docks are absolutely essential for the local population. In 2019, it was found that 20% of its workers lived in the Chatham docks three-digit postcode—ME1—and 45% across Medway.
The economic significance of the docks extends beyond direct employment and wages: it contributes significantly to the regional economy, accounting for more than 4% of Medway’s gross value added and generating approximately £89 million in GVA annually. In addition to its economic contribution, Chatham docks also plays a vital role in generating tax revenues, which contribute essential funding for local services and infrastructure. The annual tax revenues are estimated to range between £27 million and £36 million, and the annual business rates payments are about £2 million. Those revenues also provide financial resources to support the community.
The main issue at hand, and my reason for calling this debate, is the progress of Peel Waters’ attempt to end the use of Chatham docks as a commercial port, displacing the businesses within it, with the loss of high-quality jobs. Peel Waters has a vision to implement a residential-led, mixed-use development across the site. It has been over a decade since Peel Waters first set its sights on the redevelopment of Chatham docks, and started to redevelop part of the land. Its 2013 application initially boasted that development of Chatham Waters would provide 3,549 permanent jobs once fully developed, or 2,418 net additional jobs, with an associated GVA of around £92.4 million.
The projections suggested a substantial boost to both employment and the local economy. Looking deeper into the plans as time progressed, however, all is not as it seemed. The 2013 planning statement provided a more specific breakdown of the employment that would be delivered. It showed a significant proportion of projections included employment for retail and hospitality. For the projected 764 jobs as part of phase 1, 400 to 450 would be provided at the Asda retail food store, 40 to 50 at the pub and 20 at a coffee shop. I have long championed the hospitality industry, but this would be a stark contrast to the jobs that they would replace from the manufacturing, construction and transport industries.
Social Housing Occupancy
Neil Coyle Excerpts(8 months, 2 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered social housing occupancy levels.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Gary. I shall be speaking about an important issue that my constituents raise weekly—one that I have been campaigning on for many years as a Member of Parliament and a London council leader before that. It is about overcrowding in social housing, and indeed the housing crisis. I hesitate to use the term “crisis” because that would imply that the problem was sudden, unexpected and appeared out of nowhere, but no, the housing emergency intensified after the global financial crash of 2008-09 and in ensuing austerity years under consecutive Conservative Governments.
The generation born at the end of the second world war grew up in a world where people from a range of backgrounds had the opportunity, rightly, to live in an affordable and secure home. However, that completely changed after Mrs Thatcher’s privatisation, which created a property boom, and for the first time ever, homes became a barrier to social mobility. Over the years, the right-to-buy policy has led to the depletion of high-quality social homes. Nowadays, people are more likely to own a home if their parents own a home.
In England, there are now 1.2 million families waiting for social homes. In my own borough, 13,343 households are on the housing register. To date, over 2 million council homes across the UK have been sold off, with only 4% of them replaced. The Chartered Institute of Housing found that, as of 2021, 40% of the homes sold under right to buy were owned by private landlords who could charge as much rent as they wanted. Rather than subsidising rents through millions of pounds of housing benefit, surely it would be easier and cheaper to build council homes.
In my constituency of Hornsey and Wood Green, the average house price is £630,000, way above the national average of £285,000, according to a Library briefing from March 2023. Home ownership is an impossible dream and council homes are in short supply. Young people growing up in my constituency are forced to move away, or to live with their parents, or to spend up to 60% of their monthly income on expensive, insecure and often poor-quality privately rented housing.
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate. Will she take the opportunity to congratulate the London Mayor on trying to tackle part of the problem by building homes? In my own borough of Southwark he has built 926 homes, including on the Manor and Rennie estates in Bermondsey, in Rotherhithe, and, in partnership with the Leathermarket Joint Management Board, off Long Lane.
Catherine West
My hon. Friend is right that this issue takes political will. If people cannot afford to save while privately renting, they are not able to save for a deposit, so it is a Catch-22 situation.
Since becoming a Member of Parliament in 2015, I have campaigned for the building of social and affordable homes. I am particularly concerned about the level of overcrowding and its long-term impact on children and young people.
Catherine West
As ever, the hon. Member makes an extremely important point. I am aware from reading in the press that Northern Ireland also has a shortage of the correct sorts of homes. Perhaps the right number of bedrooms are available, but not in the right configuration.
In Haringey, 1,053 individuals are estimated to be living in overcrowded or severely overcrowded council homes, and 871 private sector tenants in the highest social housing priority band are overcrowded or severely overcrowded. We know that no local authority wants to place a household in unsuitable or overcrowded accommodation. However, the severe reduction in the number of homes available to let through social housing and the changes to the local housing allowance mean that councils are forced to use the dwindling private rented sector, bed and breakfasts, low-quality accommodation, and hotels.
Sadly, constituents get in touch with me all the time who are exhausted with living in overcrowded, damp and mouldy homes, waiting years or even decades for suitable social housing. Last summer, one constituent told me she lives in an emergency one-bedroom studio with her 16-year-old teenager and six-year-old severely autistic son. As well as the cramped conditions, she told me,
“the roof has collapsed, and our bulbs keep going out as there is some electrical fault here, the fridge doesn’t work, I keep feeling constantly ill because there’s no windows that work either”.
Of course, in London, we all live with the shadow of the terrible tragedy of the Grenfell fire. Another constituent told me that she lives with her elderly parents and two children aged 17 and two. She tells me she has been waiting for her own social home since 2012. She says:
“my parents are elderly, they love me and my children, but due to being overcrowded and being in each other’s space every day, it has caused a major communication breakdown and arguments. I am a single mother with 2 children trying to build a bright future for my children”.
Another constituent currently lives in two-bedroom temporary accommodation with his wife and two children. He has been bidding for a permanent three-bedroom property for eight years with no success—and the list goes on.
London’s housing catastrophe has been 14 years in the making. When London Mayor Sadiq Khan arrived at City Hall, the number of new genuinely affordable homes, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle) said, had fallen to the lowest levels since records began. The previous Mayor left the cupboard bare and changed the definition of affordable housing to make it even harder for working families. However, things are gradually changing. The Mayor of London is leading a renaissance in council housing development in London. Thanks to Labour, London has seen more new homes completed during Sadiq’s tenure than at any time since the 1930s.
In Haringey—a Labour authority—the council is on track to deliver 3,000 council homes by 2031 and will continue to improve the existing stock. Last year, council house building in London was higher than in the rest of the country, built almost entirely in Labour-run authority areas, where members are pragmatic and tend to agree planning applications where they fit best-practice recommendations, and get on with it over the four years of their term.
Neil Coyle
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Southwark Council is the biggest landlord in London, but it also has the biggest council house building programme in the country. Does she agree that it is only with Labour working in partnership with the private and social housing sector that we will address these problems fully, and that we need a Labour Government to do that?
Catherine West
I completely agree. The combination of a Labour Government and Labour authorities at regional level would have a huge impact on house building. We know that it needs to be scaled up to a national level, and regional leaders need the power and backing to build more homes. Imagine the difference that a Labour Government could make.
Neil Coyle
Will the Minister tell us whether the number of people in overcrowded social housing is going up?
Jacob Young
I do not have that figure to hand, but I am happy to write to the hon. Gentleman. I should say that I am not the Social Housing Minister; I am responding on behalf of Baroness Scott in this debate. But I will ensure that the hon. Gentleman gets an answer to his question.
We are also working to improve the quality of social housing nationwide, taking action through the Social Housing (Regulation) Act 2023, which will deliver transformative change across the sector, rebalancing the relationships between landlords and tenants, and ensuring landlords are held to account for their performance. The Act is one of a wide range of measures we are taking to drive up standards across the sector, which include supporting a new regulatory regime to improve the quality and regulation of social housing; introducing new standards on competence and conduct for staff involved in the provision of housing management services; and the introduction of Awaab’s law.
I know the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green is particularly concerned about households that struggle with damp and mould. Awaab’s law, following the tragic death of two-year-old Awaab Ishak in Rochdale in 2020, will now require landlords to address hazards, such as damp and mould, in social homes, within a fixed period. Collectively, those measures support our ambition to halve the number of non-decent rented homes by 2030, as set out in the levelling-up White Paper.
Neil Coyle
In the light of the specific case he just referenced, does the Minister regret the Lib Dem-Tory coalition decision to slash the Homes and Communities Agency’s funding by 83%, which prevented some of those home improvements happening for at least the five years of that Government?
Jacob Young
I would say that we are acting, through legislation, in the Social Housing (Regulation) Act 2023. We introduced Awaab’s law as an amendment to that Act, to ensure that such issues are tackled in a timely manner, to prevent more tragic deaths such as Awaab Ishak’s.
Turning to local housing allowance, the Government recognise the cost of living pressures that tenants face, and that paying rent is likely to be a tenant’s biggest monthly expense, as the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green said. From April 2024, we are investing £1.2 billion, restoring local housing allowance rates to the thirtieth percentile of local market rents. That significant investment will mean 1.6 million low-income households will gain, on average, nearly £800 per year in additional help towards their rental costs in 2024-25.
Decisive action has been taken across the UK to support households through cost of living challenges, meaning that more than 8 million of the most vulnerable households will continue to be supported through winter by additional cost of living payments. Discretionary housing payments are also available to help meet shortfalls in housing costs. Cost of living payments are also available this year to households on means-tested benefits, those on disability benefits and pensioners, with the household support fund now extended by a further six months, to help cover the cost of essentials.
As this debate has shown, we all recognise that social housing is a precious resource, which is why it must be used wisely and fairly. The British public want to know that decent, hard-working people, who have contributed to this country and played by the rules, can secure a home in their local community. That is why we are taking action to ensure that those who abuse the housing system should not benefit at the expense of those who play by the rules, and that local housing authorities do not disproportionately allocate housing to those newly arrived in the country or local area, while local families are left on waiting lists.
In conclusion, we will ensure that all applicants and tenants of social housing can benefit from a system that rewards responsible behaviour and protects local households, while supporting the most vulnerable and those most in need. That system would provide good homes as the building blocks for strong communities to be proud of, and the launchpad for people and families to get on in life.
Question put and agreed to.
Social Housing Standards
Neil Coyle Excerpts(2 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Michael Gove
The hon. Lady raises a number of important issues. First, local authorities such as Leicester can use selective licensing, which can be a powerful tool. Local authority leaders were recently in front of the Select Committee to discuss the appropriateness of using selective licensing; some regard it as a useful tool and others do not, but I believe it has an important role to play.
The hon. Lady’s second point is about tracking down the ultimate owner, which is a big problem. On coming into the Department, I was surprised by the way in which ultimate owners of property hide behind myriad opaque structures. Through the Land Registry and elsewhere, we need to find means of determining the ultimate beneficial owners of property so that we can take appropriate enforcement action. I look forward to working with the hon. Lady on the issue.
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Ind)
The Government spend more on housing benefit and its equivalents than on policing and transport combined. How much of that £20 billion of public money is paying for substandard, mould-ridden private rented accommodation? Will the Secretary of State accept the invitation from the housing ombudsman to extend its remit to the private rented sector?
Management of the Economy and Ministerial Severance Payments
Neil Coyle Excerpts(2 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lisa Nandy
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I will say more about that in a moment. This country is facing not just a housing crisis, but a growth crisis. Housing is a central part of the answer to the growth problem that the Tory Government have presided over for the past 12 years and it has to be part of the solution. This is a Tory crisis; it was made in Downing Street and is being paid for by working people. It is not Tory Ministers who will pay the price for it, but working people who will do so for years to come.
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Ind)
There are 8,000 mortgage payers in Southwark who face a rise, on average, of £1,254 a month. Does my hon. Friend agree that they are owed and still waiting for an apology from the Government for the mess of the mini-Budget, which directly caused their mortgages to rise?
Lisa Nandy
The hon. Member is absolutely right. Like many others, I was astonished to see the former Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng), recently give an interview in which he said that the only thing that the Government had got wrong was not to explain themselves properly. That is absolutely disgraceful. We are giving Government Members the chance to set this right today and to show whose side they are on. Are they on the side of the people they put in office, who walked away with ministerial severance payments and profited from the crisis that they caused, or are they on the side of working people, who are currently paying the price?
Lucy Frazer
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention, because I think it is really important to be honest with the British people about the challenges we face, why we are facing them and, therefore, how we can deal with them. To suggest that they are simply being caused by an event that happened two months ago is simply wrong, and Opposition Members know that.
As well as providing immediate support, we have focused on doing everything we can to get our finances in order domestically, because the risk of higher inflation becoming entrenched is the greatest danger. Sound money and a stable economy are the best ways to deliver what the hon. Member for Wigan asked for: lower mortgage rates, more jobs and long-term growth. We have taken every opportunity to do that in the first weeks of this Government—to restore credibility to the public finances, being up front about the enormous task ahead—and the markets have responded positively to what we have done and the direction in which we are going.
Let me now deal with a specific issue raised by the hon. Member for Wigan, that of interest rates. It is important to point out that the pricing and availability of mortgages are not decided by the Government; they are commercial decisions for lenders in which this Government—indeed, any Government—do not seek to intervene. However, let me highlight four points that I am sure Opposition Members would like to hear.
First, as I mentioned earlier, we have already taken immediate action to secure the UK’s economic stability, demonstrating our commitment to fiscal discipline. That has provided stability for the markets, including mortgages. Secondly, although I recognise that many people are concerned about their mortgage payments and do not want in any way to diminish their real and legitimate concerns about the cost of living, about 75% of residential mortgages are on a fixed rate and are therefore shielded from rate rises in the near term. Moreover, because of changes that have been made to the regulatory regime introduced by the coalition Government applying the lessons of the last financial crash, the mortgage application process has been more rigorous, ensuring that borrowers will be able to continue to afford to make repayments. Today’s mortgage holders are therefore better placed to weather the changes.
Thirdly, the Government have some lines of support available aimed at helping people to avoid repossession, including support for mortgage interest loans for those in receipt of an income-related benefit. As I am sure the hon. Member for Wigan heard, the Government announced earlier this year that they would allow homeowners to access support for mortgage interest earlier than the current nine-month wait time. The details on that will follow shortly.
Lucy Frazer
I will give way shortly.
Furthermore, there is some protection in the courts through the pre-action protocol, which makes it clear that repossession must always be the last resort for lenders. Fourthly, if mortgage holders do fall into financial difficulty, guidance from the Financial Conduct Authority requires firms to provide support through tailored forbearance options, which could include a range of measures depending on individual circumstances. We continue to work with the FCA and the financial services sector to explore what additional measures may support efforts to help people facing rising mortgage costs.
Lucy Frazer
I am grateful for my hon. Friend and neighbour’s intervention. He is knowledgeable on all these matters and makes an important point about rhetoric and not action, because I also know, as I am sure hon. Members across the House do, that the Labour party did not deliver the building of the same number of affordable houses—social houses—as this Government did.
On house building, the hon. Member for Wigan seemed to suggest that she was not aware that the Levelling Up Secretary had committed to our plans to work towards 300,000 homes a year—[Interruption.] I have heard him commit to that several times since I have been in the Department. To that end, we have already announced £10 billion-worth of investment in housing supply since the start of this Parliament, with those supply interventions ultimately due to unlock over 1 million new homes over the course of this Parliament and beyond.
Lucy Frazer
I am going to continue for a moment.
Let us be clear about this. There has been a lot of criticism from the Opposition about what we on this side of the House would do, but what is Labour’s record of delivery? This Government have always been clear that it is difficult to solve everyone’s problems all the time, but let us consider what solutions a Labour Government would have come up with in this challenging time and their record of delivery. Our Prime Minister’s approach is one of fiscal responsibility and sound money. Does anyone across this House know what Labour’s annual fiscal black hole is? Labour has racked up £147.8 billion— [Interruption.] I am happy to provide the details. Labour has racked up £159.8 billion of annual spending commitments and only £11.2 billion of annual revenue raisers across a five-year Parliament. Does the hon. Member for Wigan know what that would cost every household? It would be £5,474—
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
There was a time, not so long ago, when Governments took responsibility. Listening to the Minister, it seems that time has passed, as we heard no contrition and no humility for the Government’s calamitous decisions.
The events of the last few months in particular have been unbelievable, even by the standards of this Tory Government. “It’s all the fault of Putin. It’s all the fault of covid. A big boy did it and ran away.” People across the UK, including in my North Ayrshire and Arran constituency, are now suffering real financial harm and real financial hardship as a result of this Government’s incompetence. The Minister says there are tough roads ahead, and there are indeed tough roads ahead, but those roads will not be travelled by all equally.
Neil Coyle
The hon. Lady shows more courtesy than the Minister did.
The Minister would have us believe that the Government’s Budget had nothing to do with the 8,000 people in Southwark paying higher mortgage rates, and she would like to blame Russia. Does the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) believe that the Government should take measures to punish those in Moscow and Russia who have profited since the war broke out, such as the Prime Minister’s family, to the tune of £7 million?
Patricia Gibson
The public are becoming increasingly wise to the snake-oil salesman approach in which one thing is said, accompanied by handwringing and head shaking, but no real action is taken to tackle those who profit in a way that most people would find obscene.
If we listened to the Minister, we would think that the so-called mini-Budget had not happened at all. The name “mini-Budget” is ironic because it makes it sound small, but the damage it has caused is very considerable. This Budget revealed, for those who still harboured any vestiges of doubt, whose side the Tories are really on. The so-called mini-Budget sought to scrap the bankers’ bonus cap, reduce taxes for the most well off, cancel the planned increase in corporation tax, refuse to bring forward an extended windfall tax and weaken the rights of trade union members.
Labour’s opposition to the mini-Budget amounted to £24 billion out of £43 billion of tax cuts, and it was left to the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), as it so often is, to call this mini-Budget what it actually is:
“the most socially divisive Budget in a generation.”
I understand that Labour is a bit worried about upsetting hardcore Tory voters in England, but sometimes harsh language has to be used.
Once the markets took fright and Labour saw the extent of the mini-Budget’s fiscal irresponsibility, it demanded that the entire mini-Budget be reversed, which was not its original position. The Resolution Foundation noted that almost half the gains from the proposed tax cuts would have gone to the richest 5%, who would have gained £8,650 on average, while the poorest half of households would have gained £230 on average. Almost two thirds, 65%, of the gains from the personal tax cuts would have gone to the richest fifth of households.
Torsten Bell from the Resolution Foundation described the measures as a
“simply staggering…tax cut for richer households”.
Save the Children described the tax cuts as
“a hammer-blow to low-income families”.
There were £45 billion of unfunded tax cuts, almost exclusively benefiting the rich.
While all this was going on, the SNP in Scotland was being urged, not least by the hapless hon. Member for Moray (Douglas Ross) among others, to follow the Tories in Westminster in entering the bowels of tax-cutting hell, where the most well off enjoy the windfall of a tax-cutting bonanza. Of course, he U-turned on this, as he so often does. It is often hard to tell if he is going somewhere or coming back.
It was, quite frankly, immoral for such a Budget to be delivered when so many are struggling to pay their bills, and the consequences of announcing these measures—again, it is difficult to call it a mini-Budget given its consequences—were catastrophic. The pound dropped by nearly 2% against the dollar, to the lowest level since 1985. The IMF rebuked the Government for causing such damage to the economy, and international investors declared that the UK’s greater economic suffering than similar countries is a consequence of the “moron premium” it pays due to its terrible leadership under the Tories. The cost of this so-called moron premium stands at £30 billion.
For households across the UK, the cost of the Government’s staggering incompetence is still being counted. Forty-one per cent. of mortgage deals that had previously been available were pulled by the banks, with more than 1,700 mortgage products being reintroduced at rates 2 percentage points higher, leaving hundreds of thousands of families across the UK paying far more for their mortgage. Pensions almost collapsed, and the instability within the UK was the talk of the international steamie. The Minister talks about restoring financial stability, but such urgent measures would not have been needed had the Government not caused such instability.
Building Safety
Neil Coyle Excerpts(2 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Michael Gove
Absolutely the intention of today’s statement is to try to address the concerns raised so powerfully by my hon. Friend on behalf of constituents who face those imminent bills. I am really grateful to her for drawing attention to the immensely hard work being done by Ministers in the Department. The Minister for Housing, Lord Greenhalgh and the Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North (Eddie Hughes), who has responsibility for rough sleeping, have all been working incredibly hard to engage with colleagues across the House and with others in order to try to move this forward. It has been a collective effort and I am very grateful to my colleagues for that.
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
It is four and a half years since Grenfell. The Secretary of State has made clear today that the Government have failed to solve the problem, but he then said that his chief action has been to write a letter to developers to ask them to come along to a meeting. That is simply not good enough for the thousands of leaseholders affected in Southwark. The biggest threat in this statement is to allow the backdating of action against those who have installed unsafe products over 30 years, but it is leaseholders who will be forced to take on the legal and other burdens involved, including the fees. Will the Secretary of State therefore amend the Building Safety Bill to finally clarify responsibility and load the burden where it belongs—on the developers, builders and manufacturers—so as to properly protect leaseholders, as Ministers have promised multiple times but which today’s statement fails to deliver?
Michael Gove
The proposals that the hon. Member enjoins on me are the ones that we are seeking to bring forward. However, in fairness to the hon. Member, for whom I have a great deal of respect—he is a courageous and doughty campaigner—I can understand a degree of cynicism and/or scepticism, given some of the missteps we have had in the past. If we manage to make progress along the lines that he has outlined, I hope that he will be in a position then to say that his worst fears were not realised. I think it is perfectly legitimate for him, at this stage, to want to see the colour of other people’s money.
Fire Safety Bill
Neil Coyle ExcerptsMonday 22nd March 2021
(3 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Fire Safety Bill 2019-21 View all Fire Safety Bill 2019-21 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Commons Consideration of Lords Messages as at 22 March 2021 - (22 Mar 2021)
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab) [V]
Nearly four years after Grenfell, it is very disappointing that the Government still have not finalised support to make people’s homes safe, and that leaseholders are still waiting for the protection that Ministers promised multiple times, and that the Lords amendments could help deliver.
I am in touch with more than 3,000 households affected in my constituency, and hundreds of leaseholders have completed my online survey. These are people left in limbo by our Government, but already facing the cost of service charges or waking watches. There are also those facing costs where there is an uncertain timeline for the work. Seven out of 10 people who completed my survey said that works had been identified as necessary but they had yet to get the date for repairs. There are also people whom the Government deliberately excluded from help with compartmentalisation safety measures, and people living in buildings less than 18 metres tall. I am working with people living in 28 such buildings, and with people who have seen delays in Government action, despite the Government having failed to ensure that regulations meant that house building and renovations were safe. Of course, other people have seen Government guidance needlessly affect their insurance or mortgage.
Today, I am supporting the Lords amendments, but I am also asking the Government not to profiteer from this situation. I am seeking, with cross-party backing, including from the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Royston Smith), who has already spoken, a VAT exemption on essential works required through fire safety surveys, in line with VAT changes made three years ago for some new builds. If that measure is adopted, the Government’s building safety fund will go 20% further, as money will not be lost to VAT. That fund goes on not luxury changes, but essential remedial works required by the Government to make people’s homes safe. Put simply, we cannot go from dishy Rishi eating out to help out last year, to rip-off Rishi profiteering from people’s misery today. I hope that this cross-party request will gain further support, and that Ministers will meet campaigners on this issue.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) [V]
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle). The Government have moved swiftly to try to remediate the cladding on tall buildings. There has been slow progress, but progress is being made. In medium-rise buildings—those below six storeys—leaseholders will have to bear a cost, but we do not know what that cost will be, and we do not yet know the results of the proposals for the loan scheme. It is quite clear that the Government are trying to find a way forward, but we have yet to see the details.
There is also the issue of fire safety in buildings. The Bill is vital to preserving fire safety across the country in all buildings, whatever their structure. The Grenfell inquiry lifted the lid on the scandal of the tall buildings erected in this country without following proper fire safety regulations. Once a survey is carried out on a building, we know the extent to which work is required, whether regulations were followed, when the building was put up and whether the materials used in the building were correct. The people who provided substandard materials should be made to replace them free of charge. If builders put buildings up without following the proper regulations, we should go back to them and required them to carry out the remediation.
The one set of people who are completely and utterly innocent is the leaseholders. They did not build their building; they bought their lease in the belief that it was safe and secure. We should send out the strongest signal tonight that leaseholders should not have to pay a penny piece towards the cost of remedying things that were not their fault.
The Minister may say that the Bill is the wrong place to put that provision, but it will take at least 18 months—possibly two years—to bring the building safety Bill to fruition. Leaseholders do not have time to wait for us to deliberate, so let us join together and send the signal that leaseholders do not have to pay a penny. If the Government believe that Lords amendment 4B is somehow flawed, let them come forward with an amendment that is satisfactory and will result in the key outcome: not requiring leaseholders to pay.
Building Safety
Neil Coyle Excerpts(3 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Robert Jenrick
I honestly do not know. The Scottish Government have, as far as I am aware, done nothing with the very significant sum of money that the Chancellor has given them through the Barnett consequentials process. I am not aware of what the Welsh Government are doing. I think those questions are better directed to the Scottish Government and the Welsh Labour Administration.
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab) [V]
The Secretary of State has said that his mission is safety and fairness for leaseholders. How do today’s proposals protect a leaseholder who has been paying £50 a month but still has a large loan outstanding on their home at the point of sale, because of the cost of removing unsafe cladding? Is the truth not that the Secretary of State has failed to deliver on his promises of fairness, and that he is choosing to leave thousands of leaseholders facing massive costs?
Robert Jenrick
The hon. Gentleman, for whom I have great respect, misunderstands the scheme that we have just announced. For buildings of between four and six storeys, where the risk is much lower, leaseholders will have the opportunity, if they wish—there will be no compulsion—to take advantage of the financing scheme. That loan scheme financing arrangement will sit with the building, not with the individual. It will not affect the individual’s personal credit rating, and it should not have a material impact on the value of their property. It will be akin to paying somewhat more on their service charge every month. As I say, it will be capped at £50 a month, which is similar to the average service charge. Of course, in many buildings the service charge is already far in excess of that.
Unsafe Cladding: Protecting Tenants and Leaseholders
Neil Coyle Excerpts(3 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
Happy birthday, Madam Deputy Speaker. I congratulate those on the shadow Front Bench on prioritising this debate in the absence of sufficient attention or pace from the Government. I enter into the spirit of today’s debate mindful of the cross-party support for amendments aimed at addressing the issue, and in the hope that we will see that support reflected in today’s vote. Frankly, everyone affected has waited far too long.
In Bermondsey and Old Southwark, more than 60 blocks of homes and thousands of people are affected. People have often bought in good faith and then been told that their home may not be safe. They have since been left in limbo. They include NHS worker Lucy Grayston, who attempted to sell her L&Q flat. A buyer was found, and Lucy, who was five months pregnant, moved out. The sale fell through due to an external wall survey issue, and she is now having to pay for two properties. They also include William Lecky, who celebrated the birth of his new baby with his wife and had plans to relocate to Scotland. They are now trapped in a one-bed property in Borough that they are unable to sell until this matter is resolved.
This could have been sorted by now, with the right political will and wherewithal, but it has not been, despite the Government’s promising 15 times to protect leaseholders. My constituents are still waiting and some face extortionate costs while they do so. One block is paying £40,000 a month for a waking watch, which is well above average and in no way a reasonable fee. I have asked the Government many times about the waking watch relief fund, and I am glad that they have finally published the eligibility criteria, but I hope Ministers will now answer my other questions on the fund. When will applications be assessed, and when will those funds begin to be distributed? The people waiting for news cannot wait any longer. They cannot sell their homes, they cannot reinsure and they cannot remortgage. Some of the people affected have also lost their job due to covid. They cannot afford their existing mortgage, and speed is of the essence. For many people, sadly, all they have seen is delay, and Government guidance has even contributed to the problems they face. For example, homeowners in Sudrey Street, Leathermarket Street and Monmouth Court are all being asked to provide EWS1 forms, despite the height of their blocks not reaching the threshold.
Last year, I raised concerns on behalf of constituents affected and asked Ministers to provide new guidance or clarify existing guidance, given the misapplication of the 18-metre rule. Today, I again ask Ministers to prevent misinterpretation, to ease pressure on the system and to take many of the people affected out of coverage altogether. Today’s motion would address many of the concerns of so many people affected and I hope that it is successful in the vote, to ensure that the thousands of my constituents who are experiencing these huge concerns can begin to plan their lives again.
Winter Homelessness Support
Neil Coyle Excerpts(3 years, 11 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to join this debate with you in the Chair, Mrs Miller. As co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on ending homelessness, I wholeheartedly congratulate the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) on securing this debate.
A year ago, the Government were elected with a manifesto commitment to end rough sleeping in this Parliament. That is a welcome and ambitious agenda. This year, they could go some way to meeting that target through Everyone In, which is estimated to have helped 30,000 people.
We should put on the record our gratitude to charities such as St Mungo’s, which operates in Southwark, and councils such as the London borough of Southwark for all the support they have given in this difficult period. Southwark has helped 799 people, and at one point was providing help to more than one third of all those accommodated in the entire capital city.
That 30,000 figure follows the Government claim in January that there were only 5,000 rough sleepers in the country. My first question to the Minister is: when will the Government implement a new, robust measurement, rather than that finger-in-the-air approach? During Everyone In, Combined Homelessness and Information Network stats showed that there were still 3,500 people sleeping on the streets from July, so has the Minister done an assessment of why that was happening that can be shared with the House?
One of the reasons that has been identified today is no recourse to public funds. The Government simply are not funding everyone. Ten per cent. of those helped in the London borough of Southwark had no recourse to public funds. Is that figure the same nationally, Minister? Will the Government fix the misnomer of Everyone In and actually fund everyone? Will the Minister acknowledge that it is cheaper to cancel the no recourse to public funds restrictions than to require councils, using public money, to spend more on emergency accommodation?
We should recognise that Everyone In has saved lives. One study published in The Lancet suggested that 266 deaths, more than 21,000 infections and more than 1,000 hospital admissions had been avoided, so it has saved lives and saved the NHS from being overwhelmed. That safety-first approach needs to continue.
Southwark is using the Robes Project—a fantastic organisation—to provide self-contained rooms this winter, because communal shelters cannot operate due to the risk of covid. Will the Government also commit to funding safe accommodation for everyone this winter? I ask that because their cold weather fund, which has already been announced, is £3 million lower this year than it was last year, despite the covid risks, the higher costs and the growing risk of not just becoming homeless but being homeless.
We have just heard about the ONS figures, which were published on Monday, that show that there is a greater risk of dying on our streets. It was 778 last year—up 7% on the previous year. An extra person every week dies on our streets. That is the highest ever figure. It rose last year and is very likely to jump again in 2021 if the Government do not act now. It would be interesting to hear from the Minister what specific measures are being adopted to tackle the problem of people dying on our streets.
That is a legitimate question. Look at the situation we face: not just covid, but the rise in unemployment, the return of evictions and the continued lack of support for people facing hostile environment policies. To put some numbers on that, nearly 67,000 people approached English local authorities for homelessness assistance between April and June this year. That figure is likely to rise further in the next statistics. The Government need to recognise the scale of the problem, and fully resource councils to respond to and manage the volume they are seeing. A failure to act will mean not just a missed manifesto target, but that councils and charities are overwhelmed, that covid infections will rise, and that there will be more deaths on our streets. That will be the brutal reality if the Government fail to act.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Miller. I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) on securing this very important debate.
The covid-19 pandemic has hugely impacted so much of our lives. Many people are now facing redundancy and financial hardship. This public health crisis proves now more than ever that ending homelessness and rough sleeping should be a priority. Obviously, housing and homelessness is a devolved topic, but by virtue of our third party obligations here, we are compelled to take part in the debates. This has been an interesting debate, and I want to offer just a few thoughts on what happens in Scotland—and not by any means to say that we are doing this better, because I think that homelessness is a blight on all of us. I do not think any of us would disagree that one person homeless is one too many. But certainly in Scotland, the SNP has ensured that Scots have some of the strongest homelessness rights in the world. They mean that anyone who is experiencing or even at risk of homelessness is entitled to receive help from the local authority, including accommodation.
The SNP is clear on the fact that a settled home is vital in supporting people to have a happy and healthy life. That is why the Scottish Government are investing £32.5 million, which is more than half their £50-million Ending Homelessness Together fund, to support local authorities to prioritise settled accommodation for all.
In addition to more investment, this year the Scottish Government, along with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, published an updated “Ending Homelessness Together” action plan, and one of the most significant recommendations in the action plan is the phasing out of night shelters in Scotland. Night shelters will be replaced with rehousing welcome centres for people who would otherwise be sleeping rough this winter. The centres will provide emergency accommodation, and people using the centres will be offered targeted support, including for wellbeing, health and social care issues, legal rights, employment and welfare. I think that that will be life changing for people experiencing homelessness.
The Scottish Government have also announced a £100-million package of further measures to alleviate the social harms caused by the covid-19 pandemic. That includes £5 million to help those at risk of homelessness to find a settled home. As part of the £100 million, Scotland’s winter plan for social protection includes £15 million of flexible funding for local authorities entering covid-19 protection level 4, which Glasgow has just been in. That can be used to pay for food and essentials.
It is clear that UK Home Office policies are causing people to face destitution and homelessness over the winter months. My party and I remain very concerned that the Home Office plans to deport non-UK nationals who are sleeping rough. That is clearly a very inhumane and backward policy. I am afraid that those actions will undermine the UK Government’s commitment to end rough sleeping in England, alongside undermining the vital work of the devolved Administrations to help those most vulnerable during the pandemic.
The issue of no recourse to public funds has come up this afternoon. Likewise, the SNP Government have repeatedly called on the UK Government to suspend the no-recourse-to-public-funds policy and enable people to access public services, including health advice, during the coronavirus pandemic. The Scottish Government will continue to extend support to people with no recourse to public funds where possible, but it would be good to have action by the UK Government on that as well.
On 16 November, the Scottish Government announced a further £278,000 of funding for six organisations supporting people subject to NRPF. The grants will support projects in Edinburgh and Glasgow that are helping people subject to the UK Government’s policy, which imposes conditions on someone because of their immigration status and restricts access to welfare, housing and financial support. I think we would all agree that coronavirus is not something that respects people’s immigration status—I will leave the Minister to reflect on that.
Despite the measures put in place by the Scottish Government, this area of work and pensions policy is clearly reserved to Westminster, and I think that that brings us to the crux of the issue, because until Scotland is an independent country, it is an inescapable reality that—
Neil Coyle
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is coming on to this, but perhaps he could outline what the SNP Government are doing to tackle drug deaths in Scotland, given the alarming figures that we have seen for Scotland—they are higher than average—and given the prevalence of such deaths in the homeless community.
David Linden
The hon. Member is absolutely right. I am a Glasgow MP and the drug death figures in Scotland are totally and utterly unacceptable. More action is needed on that and I will not hide from that fact. If the UK Government are unwilling to take action on the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, they should devolve those powers to the Scottish Parliament—that would be very helpful.
Politicians not just in Scotland, but right across the UK, have got to have a very difficult conversation. It is a brave thing for politicians to stand up and say, “Perhaps look at moving to safe consumption rooms, as they have done in many parts of the world.” If we want to tackle the drugs issue, it should be above party politics. UK Government Ministers are going to have to come to the very difficult decision about something like what we see in Portugal, Australia and Germany. The hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle) is right to put that on the record. The drugs death issue has been forgotten about during this public health crisis.
The covid-19 pandemic has proven to us all just how utterly tragic this Government have been at handling a crisis. With the possibility of a no-deal Brexit on the horizon, I dread to think how much worse it could get for the poorest people in our society.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Kelly Tolhurst)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Miller. I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) on securing this debate. I pay tribute to her work and passion in this area, which I have felt strongly in the couple of months that I have been in post. I also pay tribute to my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Adam Holloway), whose direct experience in the area—he probably has more than many hon. Members present—and long-standing passion to target work on the issue is inspirational.
I thank the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle) for his work with the APPG. As he knows, I look forward to working with him on some of the challenges. I am grateful to all hon. Members who have taken the time to speak on behalf of their constituents for the passion with which they have made their arguments, particularly the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe), with whom I have had several conversations already about a number of issues. Again, I commit to working with him on the things that concern him.
I know that many of these issues are close to hon. Members’ hearts. The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mick Whitley) rightly highlighted the release on Monday of death stats of people who have sadly and tragically died in emergency accommodation or on the streets. Today’s debate is key because in 2019, two in five of those poor individuals, which equates to 289 people, lost their lives due to drug poisoning, and 112 people lost their lives due to suicide. I will not name the individual, because I have not checked with his mother before speaking, but I lost a primary school friend last year for that reason. For many years, he had been part of the rough sleeping fraternity in my community that I have worked with. I am not ignorant of the challenges that those individuals face on the streets, which is why I am pleased to be in this role in Government.
It is unacceptable that people should be without a roof over their head during the cold winter months. Winter poses a number of new challenges for rough sleepers and for those who work tirelessly to support them. That is why we have put in place measures to ensure that local authorities can protect vulnerable people this winter and meet the challenges of the coming months.
In October, we announced a comprehensive winter support package for rough sleepers, which gives local areas the tools that they need to protect individuals from life-threatening cold weather and covid. It included the £10 million winter fund, which is available to all local authorities to protect rough sleepers. Those vital funds are being used to bring forward self-contained accommodation to support rough sleepers off the streets.
We understand the role that faith and community-led accommodation plays in local authority pathways out of homelessness during winter. Like the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) and others, I pay tribute to the voluntary sector and our faith and community-led organisations that do so much to support the work of Government and that work directly with those individuals. That is why we have been working with Public Health England to provide the operating principles that enable shelters to open as safely as possible. We have been clear, however, that night shelters should be used only where absolutely necessary—based on a detailed covid-19 risk assessment, to protect against the risk to health and life of individuals remaining on the streets—and when there is no alternative: in cold weather, for example.
Local authorities and shelter providers have been working together to offer self-contained accommodation options to users. We expect to see a reduced number of shelters opening this year. To address that, we have created the £2 million homelessness winter transformation fund, to help the faith, community and voluntary sector groups move away from their traditional communal models. They have been providing more innovative solutions, and I am pleased to update Members about how there have been some innovative and exciting bids from the voluntary, faith and community sector. Homeless Link has also been able to add £1.3 million to the fund from the national lottery and Comic Relief, increasing the budget to meet demands. The successful applicants will get notice of their grants ahead of Christmas.
In response to national restrictions, the Protect programme was launched. It provides £50 million in targeted support to address the housing and health needs of rough sleepers during the winter months. Local authorities are already delivering those key services. The Protect programme involves intensive work with a number of local authorities, including Westminster and the Greater London Authority. The additional funding is bringing forward new provision, including additional off-the-street emergency accommodation and a pan-London covid-care facility, which will save lives.
To answer the hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire) directly about allocations and whether those funds are with authorities, I should say that we are working with the areas in most need. We are working with them to agree forward plans, and those funds will be issued as soon as we are able. Ultimately, however, the authorities that we are having those conversations and agreeing those plans with have the assurance of the delivery of that work. We are working with councils up and down the country. We have asked local areas to update their rough sleeping and severe weather plans, so that the measures will ensure that the wider sector has the resource to protect rough sleepers not only from severe cold weather but from the risks of covid.
I remind Members that such programmes do not sit in isolation. Many have mentioned the success of the Everyone In campaign, so I will not restate the figures, but we supported more than 29,000 vulnerable people during it.
Oral Answers to Questions
Neil Coyle Excerpts(4 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Robert Jenrick
I do not agree with that analysis of the actions that we have taken as a Government. We are bringing forward the biggest change to building safety regulations in a generation. We have outlined plans for our £1.6 billion fund. Of course there is more that we could do. This is one of the most challenging and difficult issues faced by the Government today, or indeed any Government, and has built up over many generations, but we intend to tackle it and to provide support for those in need.
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)