Permitted Development and Shale Gas Exploration

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

Thursday 28th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered use of permitted development and the nationally significant infrastructure project regime for shale gas exploration and production.

First, may I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing time for this important debate, which I am honoured to lead? I also thank colleagues from all parties who have turned up to contribute, even though we have had a rather long and difficult week.

This debate follows two over-subscribed Westminster Hall debates. Last October, the Government consultations on giving shale gas exploration permitted development rights and classifying sites under the national significant infrastructure regime came to an end. The Government have yet to publish their responses to those consultations and are instead choosing to push the issue into the long grass. The first two Westminster Hall debates on this subject made one thing clear: Parliament has a view and would like to be heard. The proposed measures to give shale gas exploration permitted development rights and to classify sites under the national significant infrastructure regime are a bad idea for many reasons, but I shall focus on two central points.

First, to give fracking companies access to permitted development rights under the mantle of nationally significant infrastructure deprives local communities of a voice. Secondly, and even more fundamentally, fracked fuel is a fossil fuel. To support the new development of any fossil fuel is a travesty, given that the threat of global warming should urge us all to rethink completely how we produce our energy.

[Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am pleased that the hon. Lady has secured this debate and congratulate her on the way she has started it. Does she agree that the context of the Government encouraging fracking is bad enough, but the way in which they have treated renewables, by making them so difficult through the planning process and completely cutting away the subsidy regime, means that renewables are now at a standstill? It is a disgrace.

[Wera Hobhouse]

I could not agree more. We have such a long way to go before we become carbon zero and it is so important. What are the Government doing promoting fracked fossil fuel over renewables? We are living through a global climate crisis.

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

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this important debate. She said that fracking is a new fossil fuel sector, but is it not right that shale gas would simply displace imports, rather than create additional demand on gas-fired power generation?

[Wera Hobhouse]

I have been involved in the fracking debate for a long time—since 2014—and just to say that it is a bit less of a fossil fuel than the gas we are importing is the wrong argument. It is a fossil fuel and it contributes to global warming; we should not explore these old-fashioned ideas about how to produce our energy.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

I completely agree with the hon. Lady that we should not open up a new fossil fuel front and increase the contribution to climate change; she is absolutely right about that. On planning, my local authority has now twice voted overwhelmingly against fracking in nearby West Lancashire, which affects my constituency as well, but the authority’s views are completely ignored by the approach the Government are taking. Does that not demonstrate that significant local interests should be taken on board? It cannot just be a national Government issue in respect of permitted development rights.

[Wera Hobhouse]

Absolutely. There are two big wrongs here: first, it is a fossil fuel industry that we should not support; and secondly, we are overriding local communities and not allowing their voices to be heard. I feel for the communities in Lancashire and the way they have been treated. It is simply wrong. As somebody who used to be a local councillor, I cannot agree more on how wrong it is if local councils and communities are not being heard.

[Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on her powerful speech. On community engagement, does she recall a former Conservative Minister saying that fracking could take place in the “desolate” north? This is not good enough. My constituents do not want fracking and communities should be listened to.

[Wera Hobhouse]

Absolutely. To classify different regions of our country in that way is appalling.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

I am enjoying the comments of the hon. Lady, my constituency neighbour, but for balance could she remind the House which country is top of the league table in the G20 for decarbonisation?

[Wera Hobhouse]

This country has made great strides, and we are leaders, but we will fall behind badly if we do not keep up that lead. That is what worries me. Things have gone badly wrong in the last three years. We are living through a global climate crisis and we must align our policies to become carbon zero before 2050. I am sure the Government have read the report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

I have been campaigning against fracking since 2014. In Bath, not only is there concern about global warming; there is concern that fracking will interfere with our hot springs, causing unknown damage to the water table, our unique geology and the natural springs that are the very reason for Bath’s existence and prosperity throughout its rich history. There are additional concerns about the wider environmental damage, such as earth tremors, gas leaks and the huge water consumption the process requires. I do not know whether people have read the recent reports about water shortages. Why are we encouraging an industry that wastes water in this way? What are we doing? Why are we not listening to the environmental concerns?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

My point earlier was about displacement: we use gas anyway, so this is not about more gas, but about whether we import it or produce it. There are 23 million homes in the UK connected to the mains gas network. Is the hon. Lady’s home one of them?

[Wera Hobhouse]

My home is heated through a community energy centre. That said, I am talking about how the gas is produced. I am saying that fracked gas is a fossil fuel but that there are renewable gas alternatives that we need to explore and invest in, and which the Government should be prioritising.

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

I commend the hon. Lady for bringing this debate to the House. I appreciate the point the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) is trying to make, but we have been building an unprecedented number of houses in the last few years, and the 15,000 to 18,000 in my constituency will all have gas boilers. They did not have to. They could have been heated by air source heat pumps, for example.

[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.

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

The hon. Lady is probably aware that satellite data over the United States shows that 5% of the methane from fracking is leaked through fugitive emissions. Given that methane is 85 times more powerful than CO₂ for global warming, that makes fracking nearly twice as bad as coal for global warming. Does she therefore agree that under no condition should we go ahead with fracking?

[Wera Hobhouse]

I certainly agree that we do not really have comparative data. Fracking is hailed as this new thing that would reduce global warming, but it absolutely does not.

Giving permitted development rights to shale gas exploration would mean local communities being removed from the decision-making process. That is one of my biggest concerns. This issue was picked up by the report of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, which concludes:

“Shale gas development of any type should not be classed as a permitted development. Given the contentious nature of fracking, local communities should be able to have a say in whether this type of development takes place, particularly as concerns about the construction, locations and cumulative impact of drill pads are yet to be assuaged by the Government”.

[Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Wera Hobhouse]

I really have to get on now.

Since the Government proposals were announced, 300,000 people have signed petitions against them and 40 councils have passed motions to reject them. With such widespread opposition, giving fracking companies access to permitted development rights would not simply speed up the process; it would serve to muzzle opposition, effectively silencing local communities. This is outrageous and I hope that colleagues across the House will join me in voicing their strongest opposition.

The consultation that looked at making larger fracking sites part of the nationally significant infrastructure regime is entirely incoherent and, frankly, dangerous. According to the Select Committee report, there is no precedent for this classification. Shale gas extraction sites fail to meet the criteria that normally determine nationally significant infrastructure. The report suggests that this issue would undermine the ideals on which nationally significant infrastructure was founded, and would damage the relationship between fracking companies and the communities they are placed within. Combined with permitted development rights, this adds to the Government’s callous attempt to take the decision-making process away from local communities. Shale gas exploration and extraction would be a decision for private companies and the Government, bypassing those who are most affected by it.

Let me turn to the climate crisis. The big problem that we face is the Government’s energy strategy and our continued reliance on fossil fuels. Fracking is not sustainable, and even classifying it as a transitional fossil fuel does not stand up to the science. It recently emerged that investing in fracking would produce as many carbon emissions as 300 million new cars. It is blatantly obvious that the Tory Government favour fracking over renewable energy. The Environmental Audit Committee found that investment in renewable energy had fallen by 56% in 2017, which was the greatest decline of any country that year. In May 2018, investment in renewables was at its lowest in 10 years, despite the claims by the Government that renewable energy is booming. That must be wrong if we must now urgently turn our attention to becoming carbon zero before 2050.

The recently released IPCC report states that globally we must become carbon zero by 2050, if we are to limit a global temperature rise to 1.5 °C. Scientists have concluded that a temperature rise that is higher than that will bring irreversible damage. The IPCC report gives us 12 years to completely transition away from fossil fuels in order to prevent this from happening— 12 years. With the proximity of that deadline, how can this Government argue that now is the time to be rushing into a massive national project of shale gas production? My view, which I hope will be shared by others in this House, is that they absolutely should not. We must reinvest in renewable energy. This Government have removed subsidies for onshore wind and have spearheaded a 65% cut in subsidies for household solar panels. The 2017 Budget ruled out additional investment in renewables before 2025. Yet communities up and down the country are asking for more investment in renewables. Only a few weeks ago, our streets were filled with schoolchildren who were making their voices heard and saying that the climate crisis is the biggest issue for them.

We urgently need a culture change. All Government Departments should have sustainability and a zero-carbon target at their core. As a developed country, we should lead the fight against climate chaos, but this Government have gone in completely the opposite direction. Policies such as those proposed by the Government stand in the way of progress. This Government cannot keep prioritising big oil over the urgent need to combat climate chaos. They have to drop these proposals. As a country, we must legislate in a way that restricts fossil fuel industries and instead invests heavily in renewable energy. There is no time to lose. We owe it to ourselves and future generations.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)]

I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, especially in respect of solar power and community energy renewables.

When I was Secretary of State and had to deal with these issues, some people in the coalition thought that shale gas was the answer to everything and would reduce energy prices. They were extremely keen to push it forward. I was not one of those people. I was helped in my far more cautious approach by colleagues such as the hon. Member for Fylde (Mark Menzies) and others on the Conservative Benches, who realised that we had to be extremely cautious about the environmental issues and the local planning issues. One reason I am proud of my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) for calling this debate is my concern that the controls agreed by the coalition—being very strong on local democracy and risks such as seismicity—are in danger of being removed. I was concerned that this relatively new industry had to be safely regulated, for the environment and to take account of local issues.

When we looked at seismicity in particular, we took advice from the experts. We had advice from the Royal Society and the Royal Academy of Engineering about what would be the right approach to regulation on seismicity. We consulted widely. I published the report that was given to me, and I asked for people’s opinions on it. We took a precautionary approach even to the evidence.

I came to the view, and accepted the recommendation, that the traffic light system was the way to go and that we needed a precautionary approach, not least because the geologists and experts were telling us that even a small seismic event underground could damage the casing of the wells and the bore holes of the fracks. I therefore accepted that we needed to be cautious, and it was important to give that reassurance to the public. We decided that we would go ahead, but only on that explicitly cautious basis.

In the ministerial statement I gave in December 2012, setting out that cautious regulatory regime, I said that it could perhaps be looked at again in due course. However, for the benefit of the House, let me be really clear about what we were saying at that time. We wanted a significant amount of evidence—this had to be evidence based. So far we have had very few fracking experiences in this country, so we do not have anywhere near the number of data points or the amount of evidence that we would need to possibly allow anything to go forward.

[Wera Hobhouse]

On that point, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is interesting to compare the Government’s planning approach to fracking with their planning approach to renewable energy?

[Sir Edward Davey]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. If the Government proceed to allow permitted development, that will be in sharp contrast to their planning approach to onshore wind. I had almost weekly battles with the then Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, who was trying to stop onshore wind. We won most of them, but after the 2015 election the Government made it almost impossible to build onshore wind in England and Wales. That very negative approach to renewables stands in stark contrast to what the Government appear to want to do on fracking.

I bring that to the House’s attention because those are completely the wrong priorities, not least because of the climate change crisis. If anything, I have got more sceptical about fracking over the years, because the evidence—particularly after Paris—is that we need to be even more rigorous in reducing our fossil fuel usage. Now that we have gone from a 2° target to a 1.5° target, we have to push the renewable agenda further forward.

I would say to the Minister that when we were thinking about shale gas, we were thinking about making sure it was linked to technologies such as carbon capture and storage, which are now in abeyance. Without CCS, there is much less of an argument for fracked gas. Moreover, renewables technology has increased and improved dramatically. Prices have come down much further. We have seen storage technology come on. We are not going to need the gas that people thought we would need just a few years ago.

The relaxation of regulations, whether on seismicity or planning, is completely unjustified, and I hope the House will send a clear message to Ministers. However, I would go even further. Given that we have had such progress on renewables and storage, the case for fracking gas is much weaker than it was just a few years ago. I urge the Government to rethink their priorities. Let us bank and capitalise on the amazing success of new green technologies; let us not look backwards.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wera Hobhouse]

I thank all hon. Members from across the House for their powerful contributions to this important debate. There is real anger across the board about the Government riding roughshod over local communities, and not allowing local people a voice on shale gas exploration sites. Across the board, there are concerns about the environmental impacts, particularly the industrialisation of the countryside, water contamination and seismic activity. But most of all—I wish the Minister would listen—there is a concern that fracked fuel is a fossil fuel. The Government should entirely change direction and invest in renewables instead. Let us change direction, take some action on climate change and ditch fracking.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered use of permitted development and the nationally significant infrastructure project regime for shale gas exploration and production.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Colleagues, I have to inform the House of some corrections to yesterday’s recorded votes. In respect of Mr Nicholas Edward Coleridge Boles’s motion (D) on Common Market 2.0, the Ayes were 189, not 188. In respect of Mr George Eustice’s motion (H) on EFTA and EEA, the Ayes were 64, not 65. In respect of Mr Kenneth Clarke’s motion (J) for Jemima on customs union, the Ayes were 265, not 264, and the Noes were 271, not 272. The published lists of how Members voted will be amended. The decision on the Question in each case is unchanged.

Antisemitism in Modern Society

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

Wednesday 20th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for highlighting the incredible work of the CST not simply at these memorials and annual events but week in, week out, in schools, synagogues and other places, and the safety and security it conveys in so doing. She will understand that funding decisions are quite germane, particularly given the upcoming spending review, but I understand her call for a multi-year settlement, and I will take that away and reflect on it further. This is about providing assurance and confidence, and I know the difference the CST makes in that regard.

Some of the increase in the number of antisemitic incidents will be down to increased reporting, which we encourage through our hate crime action plan. Similarly, however, a survey carried out by the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights in December found that 89% of respondents felt that antisemitism had increased in their countries over the past five years. When asked how big a problem antisemitism was, three quarters of respondents from the UK answered that it was either a “very big” or a “fairly big” problem. I say that with a very heavy heart. It troubles me deeply that some Jewish communities are concerned about their future. It should trouble us all.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

The House will know that through my mother I am of Jewish descent, and in 1938 my uncle found a safe haven in this country. Does the Secretary of State agree it is regrettable that this country might lose its good reputation as a safe haven if we continue with this tendency?

[James Brokenshire]

I believe that this country is a safe haven. It needs to be that safe haven. It is important that across the House we underline the significance and importance that we as a country attach to that intrinsic value.

On that point, I want to give the following assurance to our Jewish communities: you are an intrinsic part of what makes Britain great, and the Government will always stand by you to challenge bigotry and intolerance. We will not walk by on the other side when that is present. That means learning the lessons of the past and facing up to modern manifestations of antisemitism, which continues to evolve. To quote the former Chief Rabbi, Lord Sacks:

“Antisemitism is not a belief but a virus. The human body has an immensely sophisticated immune system which develops defences against viruses. It is penetrated, however, because viruses mutate. Antisemitism mutates.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb). Although some time has passed since his resignation from the Government, this is the first chance I think I have had to say to him in the Chamber that Defence questions are not the same without him. His contribution was heartfelt and welcome, as indeed was the tone set by the Secretary of State at the beginning of the debate. I should acknowledge, not least because he is a fellow Glaswegian, the tone struck by the shadow Secretary of State.

It is somewhat depressing, as the hon. Member for Aberconwy has said, that we are debating antisemitism for the second time in less than 12 months, and we are doing so against the backdrop of Members of this very Parliament feeling that they have to leave their political party because of antisemitism. Although I have no desire to tread on the broader political grief of the Labour party, I will single out, if I may—I did not tell her beforehand that I would do this—the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger). Having looked at some of the vile poison that she has put up with, I can tell her that she has the solidarity of Scottish National party Members and our admiration for the way in which she has stood up to it.

In the previous debate on antisemitism, I was able to say, in setting out the history of antisemitism in Scotland, that we are one of the few countries, if not the only country, never to have had an antisemitic law on the statute book. Indeed, the declaration of Arbroath, which is understood to be the most ancient medieval text in existence, specifically refers to Jews and gentiles as equal. To bring things a bit more up to date, I am pleased to say that the Scottish Government have accepted in full the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism.

I do not want to deceive Members into thinking that all is well and rosy north of the border, because the sad fact is that it is not. I thank Joel Salmon from the Board of Deputies of British Jews for the briefing he has given me, with some specific key figures on what is going on in Scotland. There have been 21 recorded incidents of antisemitism in the past year. Although that may not seem like a huge number, it does not feel all that small to Scotland’s Jewish population, given how small it is.

I want to read out a few examples of what has happened in the past 12 months. A brick was thrown at a glass door on a synagogue, but thanks to their foresight in expecting something like that to happen, a non-smash coating had been put on the glass so it did not shatter on that occasion. In another example, a woman who was converting to Judaism was spat at in the face while being called a Jew on a bus in Edinburgh.

In possibly the most vile of the examples sent to me, a Jewish organisation in Scotland received the following email:

“I’m going to kill every single one of you ugly rat-faced kikes. I think I’ll use a knife. Then after I’ve cut you, I’ll shut that dirty, filthy, lying Jew mouth of yours once and for all. Make sure you have a good hiding place ready. I’m gonna stick your children into an oven and then I’m gonna serve roasted kike to my dog. Good luck finding, you worthless piece of shit.”

I will not read out the rest, as though that was not bad enough.

A few weeks ago, the front page of the Sunday Herald featured a story about the Scottish Council of Jewish Communities highlighting the deep problem of antisemitism that too often plagues elements of Scottish society. Too many responded to that story with conspiracy theories or by saying that somehow that could not happen in Scotland or that the Jews were complaining about nothing. That is rubbish. As with any other minority community, when the Jewish community complains about being the victim of hatred and highlights it on the front page of a national newspaper, any decent person would respond by extending a hand of friendship.

[Wera Hobhouse]

Is it not the case that we are all responsible for this problem? Sometimes we just say, “Oh, these sorts of things exist,” but we do not stand up enough and we do not say loudly enough, each time, that this is totally unacceptable.

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald]

I completely agree with the hon. Lady. As the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) mentioned when he intervened on the Secretary of State at the start of the debate, there is perhaps a misunderstanding about how bad it actually is to be called an antisemite. I think the hon. Gentleman is right that the term perhaps feels a little too gentle sometimes. The Secretary of State himself said that people should be confronted with the fact that it is Jew hate. Let us put it to people in those stark terms, and then I think they can understand exactly what they are being accused of.

I want to draw the House’s attention to a school, Calderwood Lodge, which is actually just outside my constituency and in that of the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Paul Masterton). This is a brilliant example of bringing together children of different faiths to better understand people from those faiths. Calderwood Lodge is the first joint Catholic and Jewish school anywhere in the world, and I encourage all hon. Members, if they get the chance, to visit it.

In thinking, as the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) just said, about how we get young people and others to better understand the problems and understand that this is a problem for us all, I reflect on what my own mother chose to do. My own mother, when I was in my early teens, gave me a copy of the book “The Five Chimneys”, written by Olga Lengyel, a survivor of Auschwitz, and that book has stayed with me forever. I have read it a great many times, and I will probably give the book to my own nephew when he is of an age to take in the horrors of the holocaust.

That brings me to something that had never actually crossed my mind before. About this time last year, I was very kindly invited to dinner at my vet’s house. My vet, who looks after my cat very well, is himself Jewish, and he invited me and my partner, Gordon, to come and have dinner with his family, which we duly did. This had not even occurred to me, but when we were there and we got talking around the table about antisemitism, he had to explain to me that he had not yet told his young daughters what the holocaust was and did not quite know how to approach it or at what time. It was not until I was in the car afterwards that I said to my partner, “How do you even begin to explain to your children that they belong to a faith that has been hunted in the way that Jewish people have over time?”

I want to draw my remarks to a close because I am conscious of time, and many hon. Members want to speak, so I will end with this. I was heartened, and at the same time quite depressed, to see the scenes last night from Paris, where a great number of people took to the Place de la République, rising up against antisemitism in France. The Chief Rabbi of France, Haïm Korsia, put it perfectly, in outlining the challenge for us all not just here but around the world, when he asked in Paris last night

“who must lower their eyes? The anti-Semites or the Jews?”

Let us flip that question around: who is it who gets to raise their eyes? I preferred the days when antisemites and racists felt ashamed and they kept their eyes to the ground. But when the Jew raises her eyes, what will she be confronted with? Will she be confronted with love or hate, friendship or hate, solidarity or hate, understanding or the ignorance that drives the hate we are trying to drive out of our society today? The Jew is looking up at this debate today, and although I suspect we will all speak with one voice, as we should, against antisemitism, what will happen when the Mace is lifted up? Will we all go back to our constituencies with a hand genuinely held out and renewed in our desire for friendship and in our desire to drive out antisemitism from society, or will we have a lot of warm words and not very much by the way of action? I sincerely hope not.

Local Government Finance

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

Tuesday 5th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

The past few years have seen the deliberate and systematic destruction of local government. It is local services delivered by local councils that most people see from day to day. From bin collections to park maintenance, from library services to food safety, from highway repairs to care services, these services matter—they are a core part of our local democracy and what people experience from government. With the excuse of austerity, this Tory Government have deliberately stripped out the ability of communities to shape their local areas. Most services are now being contracted out to private companies, and the oversight of good local services is deliberately fragmented and complex.

The biggest cuts to local government are still to come and still to be felt. Councils have emptied their reserves, cut services to the bone and shed the maximum number of council staff. The consequence of all this is poor local services—a tatty public realm, non-existent youth services and unmaintained parks. Worse than that, it is homeless people on the streets, low-quality care for the elderly and limited provision for vulnerable children, especially those with mental health problems. The Government offer nothing new for children’s social care, which has seen a £1 billion shortfall.

In my constituency, 82% of Bath and North East Somerset Council’s budget is spent on adult and children’s social care. This leaves the remaining 18% to fund everything else, from waste collection to road maintenance, library services, the arts, public realm improvements and community outreach services. These services are an absolute shadow of their former selves, becoming more and more squeezed under the pressure of a growing responsibility for social care. Bath and North East Somerset Council cut 15% of its total staff last year and still has another £12 million of cuts to make to meet central Government targets. We have heard today about inequalities. I acknowledge that Bath is one of the better local councils, so I absolutely understand what councils have to face in areas that are even less well off than Bath.

What is the Liberal Democrat answer to this? It is properly funded local government. We have been talking about the revenue support grant and how it provides some fair funding across the board. The Conservative Government currently plan to completely abolish the revenue support grant, which has distributed resources fairly from richer to poorer areas, and replace it with a system where councils can substantially increase council tax and retain the business rates that they collect. These proposals are highly divisive and will starkly increase inequalities across the country. Liberal Democrats are totally committed to the fair distribution of money across all areas of the UK for the provision of good local services. Wherever people live, there should not be a postcode lottery for local services. We will replace business rates with land value taxation, which will help to protect our high streets for the long term.

Liberal Democrats propose additional higher council tax bands so that everybody, including people in high-value properties, makes a fair contribution to the public purse. I understand the argument that just adding council tax bands will not make the substantial difference, so I confirm that the revenue support grant, as one of the fairer ways of providing fair council funding, is the absolute bottom line. There must also be, after 30 years, a revaluation of property values to correctly establish the correct council tax band for every property. While we still have council tax in the mix, it has to be fair.

Finally, I will touch on devolution and democracy. It is not only local government finance that is being cut to the bone by this Government—they are also taking every opportunity that arises to weaken local democratic accountability. Every structural change in local government proposed in the past few years has been to cut out the democratic levels and to have fewer elected councillors making local decisions.

The Tory agenda is clear: weaken local government, cut its budgets to the bone, remove the checks and balances of local democracy, and pave the way for large private sector providers answering to Whitehall. Liberal Democrats have a completely different vision for local government: properly funded and properly democratic, taking decisions about local services, delivering them locally and being locally accountable. This funding settlement is woefully inadequate and I will vote against it.

Vagrancy Act

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

Tuesday 29th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Layla Moran]

I could not agree more with every word the hon. Lady said. Indeed, if we want an example of how badly the Vagrancy Act can be used, last year Windsor Council suggested, just before the royal wedding, that local police use the Act to “clean up the streets”. That was a disgraceful display, but, unfortunately, it is not uncommon. The Act is a common tool that is available to the police across the country.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on bringing this very pressing issue to the House. Does she not agree that it is particularly cruel, given that a lot of homeless people are actually ex-military men who have devoted their lives and given their commitment to this country? They are on the streets for various reasons, but we should treat them in a very different way, rather than punishing them when they were originally prepared to give their lives for this country.

[Layla Moran]

In fact, this comes back to why the Act was controversial 200 years ago, let alone now. The use of the Act is damaging and counterproductive in tackling rough sleeping. Rather than addressing the root causes of homelessness, which we all know are incredibly complex, the Act simply displaces people from one area to another, which is particularly problematic given that the funding of support is still to an extent based on local connection.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jake Berry]

I am coming to our review of the law, but it is heavily engaging the Home Office and thereby the police and law enforcement more generally.

[Wera Hobhouse]

Will the Minister give way?

[Jake Berry]

I do not want to be timed out, so this will be the last time I give way.

[Wera Hobhouse]

From the list the Minister is reading out, I get the strong feeling that local authorities have also been involved. Could he clarify with the LGA where it stands on this?

[Jake Berry]

I will happily go away and find out the LGA’s position, although, having been involved in such commissions myself, I can say there is often robust debate as they come to their conclusions, but many people with differing views happily come behind one report and one set of recommendations, so the LGA will not necessarily have had the ability to set out its view separately, but will have been bound as part of the panel.

As I have said on the record, the Government do not believe that anyone should be criminalised for simply sleeping rough, but equally we should not rush to a wholesale repeal of the 1824 Act without proper consideration of the consequences. The hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon said—I wrote it down—that we needed a cool-headed assessment of the law before acting. I agree, and I rather hope she accepts that that is the Government’s approach.

We developed our rough sleeping strategy in collaboration with many national charities, many of which I have named, and they form part of the rough sleeping advisory panel. Enforcement can form part of moving some people away from the streets, but it should come with an offer of meaningful support. Some charities working with rough sleepers are clear that the ability to secure income through begging can make it harder, not easier, for vulnerable people to leave their damaging lifestyles behind. The 1824 Act is sometimes the only option to get someone off the street when they have become dependent on begging income to support their drug or alcohol dependency and to find ways of moving towards the support they need.

The rough sleeping strategy made a commitment—partially based, I am sure, on the hon. Lady’s sterling work—to extend our review of the Homelessness Reduction Act to include a review of other relevant homelessness and rough-sleeping legislation, including, of course, the 1824 Act. She acknowledged that homelessness and rough sleeping was a complex issue, and we know from engagement with stakeholders that there are conflicting views about the necessity and importance of the 1824 Act, which is why the Government believe that a review, rather than immediate action, which I know she would prefer, is the appropriate course of action.

We recognise that there is a wide variety of views about the Act among stakeholders. We have engaged with homelessness charities, such as those referenced by the hon. Lady, and the panel held wide-ranging views, although many panel members thought the Act necessary. My Department will continue to work with the Home Office, the Ministry of Justice and the homelessness sector to understand why the Act is used as part of this wider review, and one thing we want to get to the bottom of is why it is used to varying extents in different areas. Before we rush to repeal it, we must understand why that is the case. We will report the review findings by March 2020.

There is obviously considerable interest in this debate, and I would like to make an open offer to all interested hon. Members. I know the hon. Lady met my hon. Friend the homelessness Minister, and she is more than welcome to do so again. As part of this review of the law, we want to seek as many views as possible in order to get it right, so the door to my Department remains open, and I know that my hon. Friend, too, will happily meet colleagues from across the House to make sure we get this right, because it is very, very important. We must act to help the most vulnerable in society.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

Monday 28th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

I am pleased to say that our rough sleeping strategy is intended to give that prioritisation, through work not only by my Department but across Whitehall. My hon. Friend is right about that need, and that is what we are determined to provide through the strategy.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

Centrepoint estimates that local funding for Bath and North East Somerset Council would need to double to deliver on new duties for homeless young people under the Homelessness Reduction Act. Can the Secretary of State confirm whether he will bring forward proposals to ensure that post 2020 Homelessness Reduction Act funding is based on the level of local demand for homelessness support?

[James Brokenshire]

As I have indicated, we will conduct a review of the implementation of the Homelessness Reduction Act and look at evidence about local authorities’ pressures and needs. I want to ensure that the Act is implemented well and that we are preventing people from becoming homeless.

Tenant Fees Bill

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

Ping Pong: House of Commons
Wednesday 23rd January 2019 Commons Chamber

I believe that the Lords meant well in tabling some of their amendments, but I also believe that some of them are unfair and potentially unworkable, and might have unintended consequences, particularly for tenants in adverse circumstances. I think that we should keep this under review to ensure that the rules are fair for landlords, agents and tenants, and that those who are on the margins when it comes to affordability are not disadvantaged.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

I, too, draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

The Bill has returned to the Commons in a much better state than it was in when it left. The loophole relating to default fees has now gone. The detail on default fees will be on the face of the Bill, which will specify

“a key…or other security device”.

There is much more transparency in relation to the holding of deposits, with a fairer transaction between letting agents and tenants, and the deposit levels are better aimed at people on low incomes, having been reduced to five weeks’ rent.

I listened carefully to both sides of the argument about the length of deposits. I listened to what was said by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn), but I also listened to the counter-arguments. I entirely agree with the hon. Lady that we need to protect tenants and make the system easier for them, because there is a tough world out there for people on low incomes. I also agree that we should not inadvertently disadvantage renters. As long as we do not have the number of affordable and social homes that we need, they will always be in that tough world in which, ultimately, they are at the mercy of landlords when it comes to charges. This is only the beginning of an overall improvement for renters, and I hope very much that we will continue to make changes in the law that will make life easier for them, but I also hope that we will eventually provide the number of homes that we need in order to create an entirely fair rental market.

I pay tribute to my colleagues in the House of Lords, Lord Shipley and Baroness Grender. Lady Grender initiated these proposals in a Private Member’s Bill in 2016 and, with Lord Shipley, worked assiduously with the Government to improve the Bill. I also congratulate the groups that have long campaigned for this change in the law, including Shelter, Generation Rent and Citizens Advice.

For too long, upfront costs—often rip-off fees charged to tenants by unscrupulous lettings agencies—have pushed people into unmanageable levels of debt, and sometimes into homelessness. The current system means that people, particularly those on low incomes, must pay as much as £3,000 to move, even if they will be paying a lower rent. Some have predicted that we will see a rise in rents as a result, but evidence from Scotland suggests that that is unlikely. If rents rise, the relatively small amount per month will be manageable in comparison to the extortionate amount that it costs to move.

For too long people living in the private rented sector have been treated as second-class citizens, and the Bill goes some way towards putting that right. The Liberal Democrats welcome it, and welcome the Conservatives’ change of heart. We look forward to its introduction on 1 June, with only the small regret that it has taken so long for it to reach this stage. As I said earlier, I hope that we will continue to make changes in the law to make it easier for people to rent in a fair market where there is a good number of affordable and social homes.

[Mrs Wheeler]

With the leave of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker. I shall be very short and very pithy.

I thank Members on both sides of the House for their passionate and constructive contributions to the Bill’s passage. I also thank the civil servants who have worked so hard to bring the Bill to this successful stage. We particularly wanted that to happen quickly so that the lady who is pregnant would not give birth in the Box. I have told her that if the baby is a boy, it must be called Bill!

I hope we can all agree that improvements have been made, thanks to the work of many Members on both sides of the House, and that as a result the Bill will be even more effective in delivering its promise to protect tenants from unfair charges. I hope that the assurances I have been able to give will mean that the Commons amendments will not be pressed to the vote.

Lords amendment 1 agreed to.

Lords amendments 2 to 35 agreed to.



Schedule 1

Permitted Payments

Motion made, and Question put, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 36.—(Mrs Wheeler.)

The House proceeded to a Division.

Deaths of Homeless People

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

Thursday 20th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

I do, and the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017, which was championed by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), is about that duty to refer, and the obligations on public bodies to consider the issues raised by homelessness. The hon. Gentleman highlights a point about custodial settings, and we have pilots in three prisons, supported by the Ministry of Justice, to ensure that someone who is released on a Friday evening when housing services are shut does not simply go out on the street. We must break that and stop it happening, and I take very seriously the point raised by the hon. Gentleman.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

As Liberal Democrat spokesperson for housing, I too send my condolences to the family and friends of the homeless man who died two nights ago. It is a tragedy that can leave no one in this House untouched and unconcerned.

One month ago in Bath I organised a homelessness conference with Julian House. Some excellent organisations took part, including my housing association, Curo, and the Albert Kennedy Trust, which do excellent work on homelessness. They all agree that at the bottom of the issue lies a chronic shortage of social housing. The Liberal Democrats are demanding the building of 100,000 new social homes every year—the current output is less than 10,000—to address that chronic shortage. When will the Government recognise that the private sector will not deliver the number of social houses that we need? A public sector has to deliver those houses. Social housing is a social project, and the Government need to put resources into it.

[James Brokenshire]

First and foremost, the issue is about individuals—a point made by the hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire) and other hon. Members. Secondly, there has been a lack of focus and attention on social housing for years, frankly. That is why we are investing through our affordable homes programme and, just as importantly, through the release of borrowing restrictions so that councils can build the next generation of council homes and increase the number of social and affordable homes, to meet need.

Local Government Funding Settlement

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

Thursday 13th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

We will certainly be doing our utmost to ensure that councils are able to bid into the £675 million, knowing that, yes, there are challenges on our high streets; no one can deny that. There is a need for innovation and a need to see investment going in there, as well as a taskforce that will support that activity, learning and recognising very firmly the recommendations from the Timpson review, which has been of great assistance.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

I was really disappointed with the announcement, as it really does nothing to address the growing inequalities across our country. One of the biggest problems, of course, is that much of local government funding is now based on council tax, and council tax is so very unfair. When will the Government revalue properties so that dwellings worth £300,000 in one area are no longer in the same council tax band as dwellings worth £100,000 in another area?

[James Brokenshire]

I am always sorry to disappoint the hon. Lady, but I will have to do so on that point. However, I can highlight the £3.5 million additional funding from 2018-19 to 2019-20 for Bath and North East Somerset unitary authority. Therefore, we do take account of the differentials in council tax and how grant is applied, and that is very firmly recognised and understood within the system.

Oral Answers to Questions

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

Monday 10th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

It is our intent to see rough sleeping ended. I highlighted in my earlier answer the additional beds, the additional workers and the funding support that has been put in place, because it is about progress over the next few years, but also action now, which is what the rough sleeping initiative is all about: saving lives and seeing more people come off the street.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

12. If he will make an assessment of the effect of social housing providers’ allocation policies on levels of homelessness.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Mrs Heather Wheeler)]

Access to social housing is managed locally, but certain people must be given priority, including homeless households. The social housing Green Paper announced an evidence collection exercise to understand how the allocations framework is working and whether it is striking the right balance of fairness, support and aspiration.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

Two hundred and eighty-nine young people are presenting themselves as homeless in Bath and North East Somerset Council alone. Will the Minister’s Department use the current review of social housing regulation to ensure that social housing allocation policies do not lock out young people, who are especially disadvantaged by the current policy?

[Mrs Wheeler]

Yes.

Section 21 Evictions

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

Thursday 6th December 2018 Westminster Hall

[Ms Buck]

That is absolutely right. It is important to address the points from landlords. Having seen some of the concerns expressed by landlords in the social media commentary in the build-up to the debate, and having spoken at the Residential Landlords Association conference and at other conferences, one hears from landlords that they feel unfairly treated and tarred with the same brush as the rogue minority, which I think is probably fair. Unfortunately, the rogue minority bring down the sector as a whole. However, addressing section 21 is not about the behaviour of the small minority; it is about recognising that there is now a structural imbalance in tenancies that unexpectedly provide long-term homes for a much wider spectrum of society than was previously the case.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

Is it not true that we want to make sure that good landlords remain good landlords? This change is not against them. If they do the right thing, they should not be afraid of what we propose.

[Ms Buck]

It is absolutely true that good landlords should have no reason to fear a change in policy that reflects the differences in the demography of the sector, but I know that some do. It is also fair to say that the minority of landlords, whether we are talking about housing conditions—I acknowledge the Minister’s consensual approach to the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Bill—or security of tenure, bring down the reputation of the sector as a whole, which needs to be addressed.

Some of the better landlords may not have among their number the person who posted on social media before the debate:

“We need to fight to protect section 21…2 months is plenty to find a new rental…although if a tenant has annoyed me I wait to pull the trigger in mid-November to screw up their Christmas”.

That is not the behaviour of the overwhelming majority of landlords, but it is certainly not helpful to their wider reputation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Hollobone.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) on securing this very important debate. I still consider myself to be a new MP, but the number of people who have contacted me in my constituency of Bath about this issue has been shocking. It is really difficult to hear these heartbreaking stories and not feel that we need to do something about this issue very urgently.

The housing crisis and severe shortages of social housing mean that more and more vulnerable people are reliant on the private rented sector. There are now 4.3 million households in privately rented homes. According to the English housing survey, more than half of renters are aged over 35 and the private rented sector is home to one in four families with children, with 20% of the families in private rented homes having a baby or an infant under the age of five.

The hon. Lady has already related to us the severe impact that these insecure tenancies have on family life. I am a member of the all-party parliamentary group on the prevention of adverse childhood experiences, and that type of situation is exactly one of these adverse childhood experiences, which invariably lead to children struggling at school, and from there on finding it difficult to get qualifications. Such situations early in life lead almost directly to later adversities, so we need to do something urgently for families in these very insecure housing situations.

As a result of the lack of social homes, more and more people have no other choice but to rely upon privately rented accommodation. Section 21 evictions lock these individuals into situations where the landlord has total control, creating a culture of uncertainty whereby tenants are afraid to exercise their rights.

Section 21 evictions are known as “no fault” evictions and they are highly damaging, because they mean that a landlord can evict a tenant at two months’ notice without offering an explanation and without the tenant having breached the terms of their contract. That forces the evicted tenant into unwanted and undeserved financial strain. On average, an unwanted house move costs around £2,306. Understandably, many families find this cost impossible to pay, so they end up in in debt and struggle to afford alternative accommodation. We have heard that the biggest reason for homelessness is now the end of a private sector tenancy. That is a serious problem in my constituency, where the prices of rented accommodation have shot up in recent years. I would like to share the story of one of my constituents, who wrote to me about her eviction; I hope it illustrates the very real consequences of the uncertainty in the private rented sector.

My constituent lived alone with her daughter in a property they had rented for four years. Despite making promises when they moved in, the landlord never made repairs, and rubbish that was left by a previous tenant was never removed from the property. My constituent, who suffered from both anxiety and depression, was incredibly distressed about the landlord’s refusal to pay for or complete repair work. She repeatedly tried to get the landlord to listen, with no progress. Eventually, worn down by the stonewalling, she withheld rent for a very short time. Within a matter of days she was issued with an eviction notice, requiring her and her daughter to leave the property within eight weeks. She had not breached her tenancy agreement. She described her situation this way:

“I have nowhere else to go, I haven’t breached my tenancy agreement and therefore feel it appalling that I have been requested to leave within 8 weeks. My daughter and I are going to be homeless in the winter. I have registered my application for general needs accommodation but as the housing crisis is so very real I worry I could be on the list for years before I am offered a property. I cannot afford to rent anywhere else privately in Bath. My daughter goes to school in Bath and I don’t own a car therefore it is completely impractical for me to look to rent elsewhere. I am at my wits end. I don’t know what else I am supposed to do.”

These are real stories. These are the people who talk to us directly, and we Members need to listen.

Section 21 evictions permanently tilt the balance of power towards landlords and cement a culture of fear, in which tenants are afraid to stand up for themselves. Given the threat of losing a cherished family home, unwanted financial pressure and the risk of homelessness, that cannot be surprising. Section 21 evictions and short-term tenancies have a direct impact on the ever-expanding problem of homelessness across this country. We must review the policies that govern the private rented sector, to ensure that tenants have freedom and security. Of course, at the bottom of this problem lies the severe shortage of social housing, and we Liberal Democrats committed at our autumn conference to build 100,000 new homes for social rent every year in order to address the housing crisis, which is so very severe. Ultimately, only the social rented sector will secure the long-term and affordable tenancies that we need. However, in the meantime we must reform the private rented sector, making it fit for purpose.

In the rapidly changing context of our housing crisis, there has been an ongoing failure to protect tenants’ interests, which cannot be allowed to continue. The charity Shelter has asked for all leases in the private sector to be no shorter than three years, as proposed in a recent Government consultation, and I hope the Government are seriously looking at that proposal. The growing housing shortage, especially of affordable housing, has made it imperative that we in this place look at how we can reform the private rented sector to avoid throwing hundreds of thousands of people into destitution and homelessness.

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to say a few words with you in the Chair, Mr Hollobone. I thank the hon. Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) for her excellent speech. I had not intended to speak in this debate, but I wanted to say that I find it very powerful, and I personally am persuaded that this is something we need to look at again. I should declare an interest: my brother, my sister and I are joint landlords of a cottage just outside my constituency. I wanted to give a few words of perspective.

First, it is worth emphasising that a house is not like any other commodity: it is not like anything else that one might consume. It is a matter of supreme, central importance to the security of individuals, their sense of wellbeing and their mental health. In those circumstances, it is critically important that we have a framework in place that ensures that on the one hand, there is a sufficient pipeline of that essential resource, and on the other, the pipeline is regulated in a way that is fair to all parties, particularly those who dwell in those houses.

It would be unfair to suggest that we have not come an awfully long way, and this Government can take some credit for the extent to which they have properly rebalanced the tenant-landlord relationship. I am thinking, of course, about the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Bill: it is axiomatic that homes should be fit for human habitation, and I am glad that that Bill will be in statute. I am also glad that there is a more rigorous system of penalties for rogue landlords who act in a capricious and vicious way, or do not take proper account of the wellbeing of their tenants. I am thinking, of course, about legislation regarding carbon monoxide detectors and so on. The penalties are now far more severe—financial penalties and potentially even criminal penalties. That is as it should be.

I feel it would be appropriate to look again at the issue of no-fault evictions. Although it is right to say that in the overwhelming majority of cases, landlords behave appropriately and with a proper sense of their responsibility to their fellow citizens, it does cause me some unease that there remains scope in the legislation for landlords to act in a capricious way. The hon. Member for Westminster North has identified some chilling examples, and the quote that she read, while wholly unrepresentative of the broad mass of landlords, revealed that a landlord could seek to leave someone homeless over the Christmas period for vindictive reasons. That would be an act of appalling cruelty.

However, I wanted to make some other points, very gently. As the hon. Lady was right to mention and acknowledge, this is a balance, and it is important that as part of any examination of this matter, the Government should consider what the implications are for the pipeline of homes. I say that because there is a potential risk—probably a tolerable risk, but none the less a risk—that further measures could seek to interfere with that pipeline. For the reasons that the hon. Lady indicated, I suspect that risk is tolerable, and if the conditions were crafted appropriately to ensure that there was a genuinely good reason to issue a notice, that risk ought not to eventuate. It would be important to allow landlords to issue a notice if, for example, their financial circumstances had changed or they were selling up to move abroad.

Any measures would have to be drawn up with appropriate flexibility. However, as long as that could take place, as long as any examination proceeded with care, and as long as projections could satisfy us that those measures would not lead to an intolerable diminution in the pipeline of available homes, the hon. Lady has a point—a point that the Government would in conscience do well to consider. We should keep this matter under constant review, and I pay tribute to the hon. Lady for drawing this important issue to the attention of the House.

[Wera Hobhouse]

On a point of order, Mr Hollobone. I failed to draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Interests, and I do so now. I apologise that I failed to do so.

[Lyn Brown]

This might be the time to do mine, too. Thank you, Mr Hollobone.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy Slaughter]

I thought I was making one of my most conciliatory speeches in the past 13 years. I am sure that when the hon. Member for Cheltenham hears from our Front Bench, a lot more of the Rottweiler tendency will be on show.

[Wera Hobhouse]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Andy Slaughter]

In a moment.

I should not look a gift horse in the mouth, because the hon. Member for Cheltenham has come here to be conciliatory and supportive, so I will move on. Although I regard Labour Governments as scrupulously honest, fair and absolutely on the ball in many respects, I agree that there are one or two aspects of housing that past Labour Governments have not got 100% right. Shall we leave it at that?

[Sir Graham Brady in the Chair]

I think there is now a realisation that things have shifted too far in one direction. There is a willingness to look at the issue again and to effect change, whether through rent-to-buy schemes, which are a big part of the Mayor of London’s platform, through longer-term tenancies or through wholesale reform, as has happened in other jurisdictions within the United Kingdom—Scotland is the example that we have used. Labour party policy has moved on beneficially, not least since I was sacked as shadow Minister last year and somebody far more radical and impressive has taken over.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)]

I am always delighted to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter), who always makes pertinent and important remarks. To carry on from where he left off, let me say that I hope the Minister hears the plea from my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) and ensures that when his council asks for powers to improve housing stock and stop tenants being exploited, it will receive the same powers that have been extended to my council. That would be a jolly good thing for the Minister to offer this afternoon. I realise that the civil servants behind her might suggest that she should not act so radically and precipitately, but I genuinely believe that it would be very welcome. It would show that she had listened to the debate, understood it and taken positive action.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) for securing the debate. She has already accomplished a huge amount in the fight to secure safe and affordable homes for all, and the debate is an important continuation of that campaign. I think that I can say without fear of contradiction that the housing crisis is more severe in Newham than almost anywhere in the country. We have an enormous shortage of affordable homes, with almost 26,000 households on the council’s waiting list. The average time for a family to wait for a three-bedroom home in Newham at the moment is 13 years, and it has been higher.

I want to deviate slightly from what I was going to say to talk about my family, which was cleared from a slum in West Silvertown in 1963. I was born a little earlier. We moved into a beautiful two-bedroom flat overlooking the dying docks. It was that flat—that secure accommodation —that everything else stemmed from. My mum and dad had stability. They both worked locally, to provide for us. That home, however small and inadequate it was, gave me the ability to study, to build community support and to continue with my education in just two schools. So many children in my constituency do not have those privileges now. They have to move from school to school, or face journeys of more than an hour a day, which their families can ill afford, in order to continue having the same friends and teachers and some stability in their lives.

Instability is creating enormous difficulties for such families, and that will go on for years. Often it means that they are not registered with doctors. Often it means that the children are not fulfilling their potential in education. Often the implications of what has happened to them go on into the future. I could try a Conservative argument: there will be a cost effect for the families and for the state in years to come. Children who do not fulfil their potential at school will not fulfil their potential in a functioning economy. The children and parents who are not getting the primary healthcare they need often go on to cost the NHS more in years to come. It is a false economy not to invest in our families, and if that investment had not been made for me, I would not be here today and my little sister would not be a solicitor. It would not have happened and we would not have been able to accomplish what we have. I want the same for my constituents as was given to me.

In Newham, like many other places, the social housing stock has declined massively because of right to buy. The council did not see the return from that—the Treasury did—and it has not been able to borrow as cheaply in order to replace the stock. Half of the local homes bought under right to buy are owner-occupied, but the other half—5,000 in Newham—have made their way into the private rented sector, where rents have shot up. Rents in Newham increased by 47% in just five years between 2011 and 2016.

[Wera Hobhouse]

The lack of social housing is at the root of this huge problem. We should not play a blame game here, because the problem has increased under successive Governments. Does the hon. Lady not agree that it is now for all of us to work together to massively rebuild our social housing stock? Otherwise, we will not solve the crisis.

[Lyn Brown]

I am absolutely fully committed to building social housing and ensuring that the people I represent have proper access to it and to stability, because a single mum in my constituency, working full time on low pay with two children, living over a chicken shop, will spend 73% or more of her income on the private sector rent on even a cheap flat like that—73% or more of income, before paying for food, heating, travel or clothes.

Evictions from the private sector are now by far the biggest cause of homelessness in Newham, and homelessness is increasing rapidly. Some 14,611 people are now homeless in Newham, which is one in every 24 residents—the highest rate in the country. I genuinely believe that section 21 is one of the reasons behind the rising rents that have led to such a horrifying level of homelessness in my constituency.

I want to mention one story—I should have taken up the offer from my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and nipped back to the office to get a few more. I want to tell hon. Members about Martin, who lives with his wife and two children in a rental property in Newham. The property had not been properly maintained and is not fit for a family to live in. The bathroom had tiles falling off the walls when they used the shower, and the ceiling was at risk of falling in under the weight of water that was sitting in the plaster. In his son’s bedroom, water streamed down the walls and through the ceiling, damaging the laptop that he needed to do his schoolwork. The landlord promised to act because Martin had repeatedly gone back to him in desperation, but the repairs were never done. Instead, Martin and his family were served with a section 21 eviction notice in August this year. He was given absolutely no reason why the family needed to move.

Martin is still in the property, resisting the eviction, with support from the London Renters Union. I pay tribute to the work that that organisation does in supporting many of my constituents who find themselves in similar situations. The family have been faced with illegal tactics from the landlord. He regularly sends his family members and agents to the house to try to make them leave—they try to bully them into leaving. Frankly, if it had been other constituents of mine who I am in regular contact with, that tactic would have worked by now and I would be arguing with my council over intentionality.

Martin believes, as I do, that this is a revenge eviction. By demanding their right to live in a home fit for human habitation, Martin and his family have simply made themselves more trouble than they were worth. The landlord knows that he can rent the property to someone else, probably for a higher figure, and can just sit it out and wait until they start to complain about the conditions, and then he will go through the same cycle again.

It is so distressing for a working family who are on a low income. They have had to fill out a homelessness application to the council. Given their financial circumstances, they may not be able to access any other private accommodation in Newham, because letting agent fees, deposits and rents are quite simply extortionate. Vulnerable and poor families are paying the price for a housing system that unfairly empowers landlords to carry out no-fault evictions. Our councils and our council tax payers are paying the price too. We desperately need to bring homelessness down and improve housing conditions in the private rented sector. For that to happen, section 21 just has to go.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Wheeler]

They will not go? Okay, we will find out.

The hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) mentioned affordability. That issue is exactly the reason the Government introduced the £1 billion Build to Rent fund, and the £3.5 billion private rented sector guarantee scheme, to help support the building of thousands of extra homes specifically for private rent. We want Build to Rent to continue to grow and make a significant contribution to housing supply.

[Wera Hobhouse]

I fear that the Minister may have misunderstood what I meant. We need to build social homes for rent, because the private sector will just not build the affordable homes we need. Giving the private sector money to build homes for the private sector will not solve the crisis.

[Mrs Wheeler]

Fortunately, as I go on with my speech, the hon. Lady will hear even more good news.

We are going further, delivering the homes that the country requires. The Government are committed to building more affordable homes, supporting the different needs of a wide range of people. The Government are committed to increasing the supply of social affordable housing and have made £9 billion available through the affordable homes programme to March 2022, to deliver 250,000 new affordable homes on a wide range of tenures, including homes for social rent. Furthermore, we abolished the housing revenue account borrowing cap on 29 October. That will help to deliver a new generation of council homes. We expect it will help local authorities to double their building from around 5,000 to 10,000 homes per year by 2021-22.