National Plan to End Homelessness

Anneliese Dodds Excerpts

Thursday 11th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Alison McGovern]

As part of the strategy, I have worked closely with my colleagues in the Home Office to support their priorities, which are to secure our borders, deal with the dreadful criminality of people trafficking across borders and get the backlog down. That is the best way to achieve what the right hon. Gentleman suggests, which is to have the resources to support people who have fled conflict and need to rebuild their lives. We want to ensure, through this strategy, that we get help quickly to the people whose cases have been decided, with the outcome that they are a refugee and will be settling in the UK. That means councils knowing where the people are and the support being available. I welcome the right hon. Gentleman’s support for that approach.

[Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)]

As my hon. Friend knows, homelessness pressures in Oxford are some of the worst in the whole country. Will she join me in commending Oxford city council’s plan to purchase 260 additional homes for temporary accommodation to get kids out of hotel rooms and other unsuitable accommodation and into decent-quality, much cheaper accommodation? What will she do to back initiatives such as that and to preserve councils’ ability to impose requirements on developers so that they also provide social accommodation?

[Alison McGovern]

I will join my right hon. Friend in commending Oxford city council’s plans. That is exactly the sort of action that this strategy envisages. We must get kids out of totally unsuitable B&B accommodation and help councils to have the resources to acquire much better accommodation that can stabilise family life. In order to back councils to do that, we have the £950 million local authority housing fund, which I mentioned earlier. I want to see local authorities charging forward to tackle this problem. Oxford’s council is not the only one that is getting this right—there are others across the country—but I would encourage all local authorities to look at the approach that Oxford is taking.

Oxford to Cambridge Growth Corridor

Anneliese Dodds Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd December 2025 Westminster Hall

[Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to be part of this important debate.

I very much share the assessment given by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner): after many years of rhetoric, we are finally starting to see delivery for the growth corridor under a Labour Government. Recent months have seen so many announcements and so much practical action, including the creation of the Oxford growth commission, under the excellent Neale Coleman, on top of local financial commitments—with money, at last, for the reopening of the Cowley branch line. I am pleased to see that East West Rail is powering ahead, and there are new towns, artificial intelligence growth zones and reservoirs as well. Now is the time to drive this forward.

I will focus my remarks on areas where we need to see even more action, particularly so that we can realise Oxford’s potential for contributing to the corridor and to economic, scientific, social and cultural growth. First, local government reorganisation has to align with the goal of inclusive growth, not push against it. It is imperative that LGR delivers a greater Oxford, rather than the growth-sapping, democracy-reducing option of a great Oxfordshire or a split of the county into two. Research from Volterra shows that by focusing growth on Oxford city, Oxfordshire-wide annual gross value added could increase by 70%.

Housing is critical, as has already been mentioned. Oxford has extreme housing need, for a range of reasons, from the under-bounded nature of our city to the anti-housing approach of neighbouring local authorities. We are the least affordable city in the whole UK, with average wages at 68% of average rent levels and average house prices 13.6 times the average wage. As was mentioned, there is an overwhelming need for social housing, as well as genuinely affordable homes, as part of the corridor.

The duty to co-operate, such as it is, will cease to apply from early next year, so it is really important that LGR leads to a greater Oxford, not an anti-growth unitary Oxfordshire, and that that is confirmed quickly so that the city can be in control of housing delivery. We also need a homelessness prevention grant that is based on genuine needs, not on inaccurate proxies such as claimant count, and there must be no dilution of the ability for high-demand areas such as Oxford to impose conditions on developers for genuinely affordable and social homes. I would be grateful if the Minister could refer to that in his response.

We also need inclusive growth. I was encouraged by the launch of Equinox by the University of Oxford. The clue is in the name: Equitable Innovation Oxford. Some amazing companies are already delivering on this locally, and the city council has been pushing the Oxford living wage.

We have heard about motorsport. BMW Cowley is a jewel in the crown of advanced manufacturing not just in Oxfordshire, but nationally. We need the changes in industrial energy to speed ahead as quickly as possible to support production, including at BMW Cowley. We also need a campaign to show the public that electric vehicles are still cheaper. We must recognise that, although our country will need luxury electric cars in the future, it will also need affordable ones, such as those produced at BMW Cowley.

We need to tackle educational inequality. Sadly, some of the schools in my area of Oxford have some of the worst results in the whole country. We are trying to deal with London-style problems with a shire’s budget. That needs to end.

Finally, we need transport infrastructure that matches the challenge. That means getting the Kennington bridge sorted out so that the Oxford flood alleviation scheme can be unblocked. [Interruption.] I am pleased to see the Minister smiling; I know that he will persuade his Department for Transport colleagues to also smile, and to give it the green light.

Political Donations

Anneliese Dodds Excerpts

Monday 31st March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Irene Campbell]

I thank the hon. Member for his contribution, and I agree with his point.

At the time of the Elections Act 2022, the House of Commons Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee, whose corresponding Department was responsible for introducing the Act, also concluded that there was no need for such statements and no evidence to justify their introduction. The recent Backbench Business Committee debate on political finance rules mentioned some case studies and evidence from previous elections of overseas donations. For example, the 2020 report of the Intelligence and Security Committee found that Russian oligarchs had used their business interests, donations to charities and political parties to influence UK affairs.

[Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. She talks about the considerable parliamentary interest in this issue; we know there is considerable interest among the public too, because of the number of signatures on Mr Stone’s petition. Is she also aware that survey evidence has indicated that over three quarters of those polled do not want foreign nationals not registered to vote here to be able to donate to our political parties? As a result, does she agree that we need to see legislative change?

Local Authorities (Changes to Years of Ordinary Elections) (England) Order 2025

Anneliese Dodds Excerpts

Wednesday 26th March 2025 General Committees

[The Minister for Local Government and English Devolution (Jim McMahon)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Hobhouse. This Government have been clear on their manifesto commitment to widen and deepen devolution across England. We have moved at pace to realise the benefits of devolution for more people in more places. However, a lot of change is being undertaken at the same time. That requires focus and capacity. We have been clear on our vision for simpler, more sustainable local government structures and the transfer of power out of Westminster through the devolution revolution. Taken with the work being undertaken to fix the broken audit system, introduce a new standards regime and rewrite the local government funding formula so that it truly takes into account needs and resources, we are doing the hard work of rebuilding—not simply returning to what was there before, but using a new approach that is both efficient and more effective.

[Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)]

I note that, in his helpful statement released two days ago, my hon. Friend made it very clear that core to the Government’s approach is ensuring that there is a starting point, which is

“to support and empower local leaders and to respect their knowledge, expertise and insight.”—[Official Report, 24 March 2025; Vol. 764, c. 25WS.]

That listening approach was also in evidence in the comments that he made to the District Councils’ Network conference, where he stated clearly that the 500,000 figure was potentially an “average”. Does he agree that the clarity that bids of significantly below 500,000 are acceptable is useful for smaller cities that are engines of economic and housing growth but which have populations significantly below the 500,000 mark?

[Jim McMahon]

We have tried to strike a balance between answering the demand—the fact that all 21 counties have submitted to the interim phase is testament to the support in the system for this—and finding enough of a framework at a national level so that areas know what to report to, while building enough flexibility to take into account that England is very different in its construct and make-up. There are huge variations between urban centres, rural communities and coastal communities. In forming local authorities that have a clear anchor that can be understood and respected by the local community, we have to allow for flexibility in that system.



The statutory invitation that went out was clear that that means population sizes of 500,000 as a starting point, but we have been clear with the County Councils Network, the Local Government Association and the District Councils’ Network, and in trade press interviews, that we will see a range. Some will say that the mid-300,000s is right for them, and we are seeing some city districts looking at moving their boundaries outwards. But others will say, “Actually, our county does not have that characteristic—we haven’t got that city anchor or coastal issue that might be present elsewhere—and we think the best option for our place is maybe 600,000 or 700,000”.

We want to be flexible enough to take into account local representations as we receive them. Our working assumption is that when all that balances out, we will end up with an average of 500,000, but who knows? We need to see the submissions that come in, but flexibility is important, and it challenges the idea that this is a top-down, mandatory system of uniform councils that all look the same, regardless of local circumstances. It is not that. It is very important nationally that we give the framework and direction—and we have done that—but this is about co-operation and partnership. I appreciate that that point has been picked up on.

We have been clear about our willingness to drive forward to deliver this vision, and to work with local councils to support communities to fix the foundation of local government in delivering that ambition. Alongside the English devolution White Paper, I wrote to all places in the 21 areas inviting them to express a clear commitment to delivering to the most ambitious timeframe, and to flag any requests for a delay in elections to take place.

Where authorities made such a request, we have judged it to meet a very high bar that was rightly set, and we have kept our commitment that clear leadership locally would have to be met with an active partner at a national level. We have taken the necessary decisions to postpone local elections where it will help to smooth the transition process and deliver the benefits of mayoral devolution, supported by strong and stable local government reorganisation as quickly as possible. We are now working with those areas to prioritise in parallel the necessary steps to explore the establishment of new mayoral authorities in time for the May 2026 mayoral elections, and to deliver plans for new unitary local government.

On devolution, public consultations are already under way, running from 17 February to 13 April in these areas. More than 12,500 responses have already been received in that process. We are getting on with delivering reorganisation as well. All district and county councillors in the two-tier areas, and their neighbouring smaller unitary authorities, were invited, and I am pleased to say that every area—comprising of councils of all political stripes—has responded to the invitation to reorganise. They shared with Government an interim plan containing updates on their thinking about options for creating new unitary councils. The response demonstrates without doubt the groundswell consensus from communities that change is overdue and needed. Earlier this week, I made a written statement setting out the details of this, providing parliamentary transparency and supporting the commitment we made to ensure there was active reporting during the course of the process.

Local engagement with Members of Parliament, public sector providers, residents and other key local partners will now be led by the councils as they develop detailed proposals to establish strong, stable unitary councils that are fit for the future. This order is essential to allow the first wave of this ambitious programme to be delivered. It grants postponements for 12 months only, and only for the nine councils whose requests met the high bar we set.

We are extremely clear that these decisions were made on the basis of local requests to free up capacity and enable the practical steps needed, which would not be feasible so quickly if the 2025 local elections went ahead in those areas, for reasons that are self-evident. These areas have demonstrated the clear and strong local leadership and the necessary ambition to drive forward the programmes to the timelines that the Government have set out to deliver for those areas, including taking the difficult decisions that are needed.

Let me address the points that have been made. I sense that a lot of the debate today has picked this process out as being unusual in English local government, but it is not. Members will know that between 2019 and 2022, 30 sets of elections were cancelled: 17 to allow preparatory work for local government reorganisation, which is what we are talking about here, and 13 as part of legislation to allow the unitarisation process to take place after the proposals had been submitted. So this is not unusual; it is a natural part of the cycle to free up capacity and enable those proposals to be developed— I can go through the list, and provide the details in writing.

But I do think we need to be careful here. First of all, we absolutely believe that this is the right thing to do, and that is not because we have an ideological view about how local government should sit. All the Members in this room are here because we care about local government and local communities, and we cannot have a hand-to-mouth funding regime where local government is just not sustainable. We have to find a solution that really fixes the foundations, and this is one small part of that—there is a lot more we need to do—but it is important. If we did everything else but not this, it would just not hold together. I think that it would devalue—I will be honest and direct about this—the work that local leaders have put into this at a local level to build consensus and show leadership. I am not talking about exclusively Labour leaders; in many areas, they are Conservative, Liberal Democrat or independent. We have a collective responsibility to at least mirror the leadership that they have shown across political parties in the interests of their communities, and to reflect that here in the national Parliament. I do not think that is too much to ask.

Greensill Capital

Anneliese Dodds Excerpts

Tuesday 13th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the process by which Greensill Capital was approved as a lender for the coronavirus large business interruption loan scheme.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)]

Greensill Capital (UK) Ltd was approved by the British Business Bank for the coronavirus business interruption loan scheme and the coronavirus large business interruption loan scheme last year in accordance with the bank’s published guidance on accreditation. All decisions taken by the bank were made independently and in accordance with the bank’s usual procedure.

The criteria by which the decisions were made were based on those used in the existing enterprise finance guarantee scheme, dating back from 2009, and were set out in the CLBILS request for proposals, which was a publicly available document. These criteria included minimum requirements such as the ability to demonstrate a track record of lending to larger enterprises, provision of evidence-based forecasts, the ability to demonstrate sufficient capital available to meet the lending forecasts, a viable business model, robust operations and systems, that the proposed lending will not have unreasonable lender-levied fees and interest, and that the lender has all the necessary regulations, licences, authorisations and permissions to operate the scheme. All accredited lenders are subject to regular audit by the bank to ensure their compliance with scheme rules.

Following analysis of loan data as part of its standard due diligence, the bank opened an investigation into Greensill Capital’s compliance with the terms of the scheme in October 2020 and informed the Government of this on 9 October. That investigation is continuing and the Government’s obligations as guarantor under the CLBILS guarantee are suspended on a precautionary basis. It would not be appropriate to comment further on the investigation at this time.

[Anneliese Dodds]

I start by paying tribute to the Duke of Edinburgh, who was an extraordinary public servant. My thoughts today are with the Queen and the rest of the royal family as we all mourn his passing. They are also with the friends and family of Cheryl Gillan, and I would like to associate myself with the very moving tributes that we quite rightly heard a few moments ago.

I welcome the Minister’s presence, but it was the Chancellor who needed to come to the House today; the Chancellor who told David Cameron that he would “push” his team to amend emergency loan schemes to suit Cameron’s new employer; the Chancellor whose officials met with Greensill 10 times; the Chancellor who took the credit for Government business loan schemes when they were in the headlines and, indeed, who personally announced those schemes. Yet the Chancellor is frit to put his name to those loan schemes today. He has just spent £600,000 on communications. I would have thought that that would extend to communicating with Parliament. In the Chancellor’s absence, let me ask: what was the alternative that the Chancellor pushed his team to explore after David Cameron texted him? What discussions did the Government have with the British Business Bank about Greensill’s access to CLBILS after it had already been rejected for the covid corporate financing facility? Were the criteria for CLBILS amended so that Greensill could access the scheme? Why was Greensill the only supply chain finance firm accredited for CLBILS, and what due diligence was done?

Hundreds of millions of pounds of public money were put at risk by giving Greensill access to this scheme. With Greensill’s collapse, thousands of jobs—in Rotherham, Hartlepool and right across the country—have been put at risk. Those workers and taxpayers across the country deserve answers. The Chancellor said that he would “level with” the public. Why is he running scared of levelling with them on the Greensill scandal?

[Paul Scully]

I associate myself with the hon. Member’s words about the Duke of Edinburgh and, of course, our colleague Cheryl Gillan, both of whom will be sorely missed.

The Chancellor wrote to the hon. Member last week with a comprehensive response to her questions regarding engagement between Greensill and HM Treasury. The Prime Minister has asked Nigel Boardman to conduct a review to look into the decisions taken around the development and use of supply chain finance and the associated schemes in Government—especially the role of Lex Greensill and Greensill Capital—and to set out any findings as necessary. The Government recognise the interest in the matter. It is right that we now let that review happen.

In the interests of transparency, the Chancellor has provided all the messages that were sent from him to David Cameron on this matter; they relate exclusively to Greensill’s proposals for the covid corporate financing facility. The Chancellor is right to push officials, as we all have, to explore all ways of capital getting to businesses—large and small. That is what all Members of this House were asking and demanding the Government to do at that particular point. It is important to remember that the Chancellor rejected the idea that he should rewrite the CCFF to include any banks.

The reason the Chancellor is not here is that the question is about the CLBILS. I suggest to the hon. Lady that she asks her question in a different forum or that she asks a different question, because the coronavirus large business interruption loan scheme, to which this question pertains, is administered by the British Business Bank. The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy is the sole shareholder in the bank. As such, the responsibility for the delivery of the scheme sits with BEIS. The accreditation process for any of the covid loan schemes is run independently by the British Business Bank; neither BEIS nor HM Treasury had a role or were involved in the CLBILS accreditation decision for Greensill.

There were two other non-bank lenders accredited under the CLBILS, with over 75 accredited for the CBILS. It was an important feature of the covid loan schemes that there was a diversity of lenders to ensure a broad range of choice for borrowers, enabling them to access the finance they needed to survive and recover from the pandemic. Greensill was not accredited to provide supply chain finance through the CLBILS. It was only accredited to provide invoice finance, term loans and revolving credit facilities.

Planning for the Future

Anneliese Dodds Excerpts

Thursday 12th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick]

The new affordable homes programme, which we announced yesterday, will be over £12 billion. We have not yet finalised the details, but will set them out shortly. They will show the proportion of those homes that will be for different tenures, from shared ownership and affordable rent to social rent. We want a significant increase in the number of those homes in the social rent category. I hope we can make a positive announcement on that shortly, when we have finalised the details, having spoken to and listened to the sector.

I am very sympathetic to the argument that my hon. Friend has made in the past about properties that are not eligible for right to buy and, indeed, about some councils and housing associations that are making it more difficult. I would like to work with him to take action on that. We need to ensure that the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, takes housing seriously. As I have said before, we will never be able to meet our housing targets and ambitions as a country unless London pulls its weight, and I am afraid that at the moment we have a Mayor whose ambitions are way below what we should all be expecting at every level of the market. As long as he continues in place, which I hope is not for very much longer, the Mayor needs to get building in London.

[Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Secretary of State has just been talking about the delivery of homes for social rent, but I would like to ask him about the impact of two of his Government’s policies on the delivery of homes for social rent. The first is yesterday’s changes to the Public Works Loan Board when it comes to the delivery of homes for social rent by local housing companies. The second is the First Homes policy, which, because it is delivered through section 106 as it is currently designed, is likely to lead to a reduction in the production of homes for social rent by local councils. What is his response?

[Robert Jenrick]

The hon. Lady will know as a follower of Treasury matters that what we announced yesterday in the Budget with reform of the Public Works Loan Board makes it cheaper for councils to borrow to invest in housing and regeneration. I hope that she will support the changes that we made. The changes we are making to the PWLB will make it harder for councils to waste money on speculative investments outside of their boundaries and get highly indebted, and make it easier to spend money on things that really matter. We have lifted the housing revenue account borrowing cap, and many councils across the country are responding to that and building council houses at a pace that we have not seen for many years, as was reflected in the statistics I gave earlier. We built more council houses last year than we have done for many years, and I hope that her local council in Oxford will do the same, if that is what she wishes.

Housing and Planning

Anneliese Dodds Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd March 2020 Westminster Hall

[Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Harborough (Neil O’Brien) on securing this debate. I have two specific and brief questions for the Minister. The first concerns the first homes scheme. The Government’s consultation document on the scheme, released last month, includes an extraordinary sentence. It states:

“We are mindful of the trade-off between the level of ambition for First Homes, funded through developer contributions, and the supply of other affordable housing tenures.”

Yet, astonishingly, the consultation mandates that section 106 must be used to deliver first homes, rather than asking whether that is appropriate in the first place. We should not use section 106 contributions for this, especially at the late stage when many local plans have just been concluded or are in contention, and without any ameliorative action to preserve local councils’ abilities to facilitate council and other social housing.

I note that my own local authority has already been prevented by the Government’s planning inspectorate from requiring developer contributions to social homes from smaller sites. There are already problems, which will be massively exacerbated if the first homes scheme is ruled out in such a way. Will the Minister commit to conduct a proper impact assessment on the impact of the first homes proposal on the provision of new social homes? Secondly, on the Oxford-Cambridge arc, some contest the need to have any additional housing along the arc. I am not one of them, and I very much concurred with some of the words spoken by the hon. Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti) when it comes to the need for additional housing and looking at the issue in a manner that is not hypocritical.

As for the arc, I am astonished that the Government have not provided even a signal or an expectation on two critical issues: first, the proportion of new homes, which should be available for social rent and genuinely affordable; and secondly, the energy efficiency and broader environmental performance of those new homes. It is not good enough to suggest that local authorities will deal with all the issues. The Oxford-Cambridge arc is a central Government programme, staffed with dozens of central Government civil servants, and central Government have the power, should they wish to use it, to ensure that the new homes are genuinely affordable, that they include many social homes, and that they are sustainable.

Finally, will the Minister please commit to determining two targets or standards, or even just expectations, for the arc for the percentage of new homes that should be affordable, including social homes, and for the expected environmental performance of the homes?

Homelessness

Anneliese Dodds Excerpts

Wednesday 29th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)]

In the brief time I have available—I am very sorry the Secretary of State is leaving, just as I am starting to speak—I want to focus on the Government’s approach to delivering directly funded services for rough sleepers. I am sure we could all talk a lot about the drivers of rough sleeping, but I want to focus on the approach to directly funding those services, which is very problematic. It is based on a very short-term approach, which is failing many people who need those services. I will set out why in the time I have left.

I welcomed the stamp duty surcharge, especially once the Government had resiled from their previous decision to slash the amount coming from it by two thirds. At least it has been put back to the previous amount. I welcomed it because I thought it would lead to a situation where we would not have a bidding-led system of a pot into which different bodies have to bid for very short-term funded projects. But no, we seem to have the same approach now. The problem is that it does not lead to reliable support for projects that we know work. For example, in Oxford we have received funds from the rough sleeper initiative and the rapid rehousing pathway. I am really grateful for them—of course I am—but they are only for a year or 18 months. We have had absolutely brilliant projects— the hub at Bonn Square and the Trailblazer project—but they were funded only for the short term. Virtually by the time staff had been taken on and services got going, the funding was evaporating.

Oxford City Council has just set up a brilliant facility, Floyds Row, investing £2 million in capital—of course, it is not the authority that should be funding it in the first place, but it has done so because of the rough sleeping crisis we have in Oxford—but it will now be at the behest of finding different pots of short-term funding to deliver the running of that facility, as is St Mungo’s, which will be helping with it. So much effort is going into chasing around after short-term funds—I could not have agreed more with what my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) said about the situation there. This is really problematic not just for the staff who are trying to deliver excellent services without knowing whether they will be employed in the future, but for the users. We have the data and we know the evidence. We know that when the same workers are delivering services, especially to those who are hardest to reach, they are far more effective. I would be delighted to send the Minister evidence from the Old Fire Station, working with Crisis, which shows that clearly in black and white. We need that continuity of provision. If he reports back on anything at the end of the debate, please deal with the issue of the funding being too short term.

Deaths of Homeless People

Anneliese Dodds Excerpts

Tuesday 1st October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Luke Hall]

The importance of the 2017 Act is that now we are really going to have some evidential information about why. If Members look at the information we have from the first year, they will see the progress that has been made, especially on supporting single men, and the importance and priority of early intervention. The hon. Gentleman raises an extremely important point, though, and there is no shying away from the hugely difficult set of statistics released today. We will strain every single sinew going forward. We are increasing the funding, with £54 million more next year, £30 million from NHS England to support health projects and £2 million for urgent intervention in community health services.

[Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)]

There have been some groundbreaking projects to help with the rapid rise in rough sleeping in Oxford, but they have really suffered from being short-term funded. Most of the money the Minister is talking about is just for the short term. The stamp duty surcharge on overseas property buyers is sustainable funding that is meant to last over the long term, but his Government decided that it was going to be set at a third of the level they originally committed to. Will the Minister explain why his Government apparently decided to prioritise the wealth of overseas property investors over the needs of vulnerable rough sleepers? I just do not understand it.

[Luke Hall]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising that point, which I am happy to look into in more detail. In Oxford, as in so many other areas throughout the country, the rough sleeping initiative is reducing rough sleeping—it is down by 19% directly since 2017 and there has been a 32% reduction compared with where we would have been had it not been introduced—but I absolutely take seriously the points that have been raised from all parts of the Chamber.

Oral Answers to Questions

Anneliese Dodds Excerpts

Monday 22nd July 2019 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

I am pleased to say to my hon. Friend that some further positive steps have been taken since my visit to India last October to forge those relationships between the midlands and Maharashtra in India. I hope to be able to give him some positive news very shortly on signing a memorandum of understanding to really regularise that and underpin how we ensure we have that shared expertise to create jobs, boost trade and take other steps to cement this and create that positive sense of prosperity that I know he strongly advocates.

[Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)]

T8. Why has the Housing Minister not accepted the need for new primary legislation to implement the Letwin review’s call for land value uplift to be properly captured? That would support social housing construction, including in areas such as Oxford.

[The Minister for Housing (Kit Malthouse)]

We cannot wait for primary legislation; we have to get on with it now. In particular, there are lots of things in the Letwin review that can work with the grain and the weave of current planning policy. For example, we will shortly be issuing guidance on housing diversification, which is one of the key suggestions in the review. We are encouraging local authorities to introduce local plans, as the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) urged us to do, so that landowners can realise the obligations placed upon them and so that the value of community contributions and affordable housing can be factored into the land price.