(1 day, 12 hours ago)
Commons ChamberThe Vagrancy Act is antiquated and no longer fit for purpose. No one should be criminalised for sleeping rough on the streets. We want to ensure that we avoid criminalising the most vulnerable, while also ensuring that the police and local authorities have the tools they need to make communities feel safe. We are currently considering our next steps.
Will the Government look at redefining affordable housing in national policy so that it is pegged to average local income rather than at the whim of an overheated housing market?
We did make changes to some of the definitions around affordable housing in the recently revised national planning policy framework, by separating out the definition of social rent, but I hear the hon. Gentleman’s concerns. I will certainly bear them in mind as we develop policy.
(6 days, 12 hours ago)
Commons ChamberUrgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
That is a very important point, and I pay tribute to MPs in Suffolk and Norfolk for the work that they have done in making the case for greater devolution of powers. I also pay tribute to county and district councils for the cross-party political leadership that they have shown in pursuit of devolution. Members will know that the original agreement for both Norfolk and Suffolk was not one to which the Government could agree, for a number of reasons that have been identified. However, the commitment from leaders in the area to finding a way through is appreciated and valued, and we will honour that in the next steps.
We absolutely believe that in large parts of the country—I see it in Exeter, Lincoln, Ipswich and Norwich—we have important economic anchors in cities that previously have not had a seat at the devolution table because they have been district councils. We have to deal with that as we go forward.
Will the Minister update the House on the capacity in his Department to manage these reorganisations? He spoke about the deadline having passed, and having received expressions of interest. How many can his Department manage at any one time? What will be the determining factor in which ones are chosen to progress now?
The Department stands ready to support local areas, both on devolution and on local government reorganisation, and will make sure that there is a genuine partnership when it comes to ensuring that capacity. We will not just rely on local areas to find it; we will work together on that.
We will have to present the information the hon. Member refers to on another date, not today. Until we know what the final programme is, we will not know what is required to deliver it. There is no arbitrary upper limit. Nevertheless, we need to be realistic that there is a high bar on devolution and reorganisation, and we can only allow forward plans that have a credible proposal for devolution. If plans are less developed when it comes to devolution, then even if other parts of them are compelling, and do things that we would want to see come about, politically, I am afraid that cannot stand. They have to be credible plans that ultimately lead to fulfilling the ambition for devolution, and that will be the priority.
(1 week ago)
Commons ChamberI thank the Minister for his constructive work with the Liberal Democrats and other parties in Committee.
For a generation cut off from the dream of home ownership who find that, after half a century of flogging off social houses and council houses—over 1.5 million have been lost since 1980—there are now basically none left, it is vital that we restore hope to millions who aspire to a decent home. As such, the Liberal Democrats support the key principle of this Bill, which is to bring an end to no-fault evictions. After the continual stop-start of the previous Government, giving tenants the security they deserve is long overdue. It is time to end once and for all the fear that any complaint from any tenant could be met with an instant eviction notice at any moment.
Of course, landlords do not generally act in such a cavalier fashion; most are good landlords, and we value them and what they bring to the market. As such, to sustain a healthy private rented sector, we have tabled amendment 10, which would extend to off-street student rental landlords the same possession laws that apply to purpose-built student accommodation. Given that fully 31% of properties on the Accommodation for Students website are one or two-bedroom properties rather than houses in multiple occupancy, as Unipol and the Higher Education Policy Institute have pointed out, that is a big chunk of the market, and one that needs to be addressed.
The need for more homes is why we have tabled amendment 2, which would particularly incentivise more build-to-rent accommodation. In Taunton and Wellington, our Lib Dem council has supported the delivery of tens of thousands of new homes; our population increased by 10% up to 2021. Our manifesto called for 150,000 social homes per year—I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests regarding my experience as a social landlord. We clearly set out the borrowing of £6 billion per year that would make that happen, unlike the Labour and Conservative manifestos, which included no numbers whatsoever for social housing.
We need a lot of that build-to-rent accommodation also to be rent to own, so renters can accrue ownership of their own home. It is time to give a whole generation of young people who have been excluded that elusive first step on the housing ladder. Amendment 2 would therefore give a developer of build-to-rent housing the security of a fixed term of 24 months for the first tenancy. Since that was tabled, I have heard from the British Property Federation and others, and they have suggested that an initial fixed term of six months would enable them to secure the investment they need to build more and to get building. That would not undermine the general principle of moving to periodic tenancies, as build to rent is only 0.1% of the housing stock. We will not press amendment 2, but I genuinely urge the Government to take up the idea, run with it and generate more investment in new homes.
Let me turn to the interests of tenants, which have been so overlooked for so long. My constituent and friend Mike Godleman, who was disabled, died while recovering from major surgery and under the threat of a no-fault eviction notice, for no reason he could possibly work out. In part in his memory, our new clause 23 would ensure that landlords of both private and social tenancies must give permission for home adaptations when a home assessment has been carried out. If rental bidding is to be outlawed, as the Minister said, it must not be replaced by bidding up rent in advance, so our new clause 1 would limit rent in advance to two months’ rent. In that respect, I welcome Government new clause 13.
In-tenancy rent increases also need to be limited to protect tenants from exorbitant increases. The most sensible way to do this is set out in our amendment 1, which would peg increases to the Bank of England base rate. Property is a financial and investment asset, and landlords’ costs are more directly influenced by mortgage rates rather than by the general inflation and the cost of living. New clause 22, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper), would require landlords to pay for alternative accommodation when dwellings are unfit for human habitation.
Turning to the amendments proposed by other hon. Members, we support the proposed new clause 10 in the name of the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), which will prevent the guarantor from being liable on the death of a tenant, and we recognise that the Government have tabled new clause 15 to limit that liability, rather than end it altogether. We also support amendment 7 on the content that must be submitted for inclusion in the database. The database could be a very powerful instrument for tenants if it provides information, as I spoke about at some length in Committee. We also support new clause 6, which would give care leavers support through funding for a deposit when they move out of care. Both those amendments are in the name of the hon. Member for Liverpool Wavertree (Paula Barker).
One of the biggest concerns to landlords, tenants and local communities in Taunton and Wellington, as it is in Cornwall, the lakes and other places, is that there is no control over the number of homes being turned into holiday lets and Airbnbs. This has prompted a significant increase to about 3,000 holiday homes in Somerset—a 33% increase in short-term rentals in the south-west since 2019. Visitors of course bring welcome investment, but in some areas second homes are pricing locals out of local markets.
My hon. Friend is talking about second homes, which can particularly affect rural communities. Schedule 1 provides mandatory grounds to recover possession in order to house an agricultural worker, but does he agree that the definition of “agricultural worker” is limited and does not reflect rural workers—for example, those who work in the horse training industry in the village of Lambourn in my constituency, where local housing is key to that industry given the nature and the hours of the work of stable staff?
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That definition needs to cover the breadth of agricultural workers, and I am sure the Minister has heard his point.
Liberal Democrats have long argued for a licensing system and tougher planning controls for second homes, with a new use class to cover second homes and short-term lets. Both this and previous Governments have said that they would create a new use class, so I urge the Minister to say in today’s debate whether that will really happen. Without controls, there is a serious risk of second homes proliferating if landlords do not wish to be part of a more regulated private rented sector following the enactment of this Bill. Our new clause 2 would therefore require the Government to assess properly the growth in short-term lets, and I urge the Minister to do so. In fact, I am not sure why anyone would oppose that amendment.
Finally, our amendment 3 would apply the Bill’s proposed decent homes standard to military service family accommodation. I am grateful to the Minister for taking the time to write to me on this, but the argument that a standard would not be suitable for service family accommodation does not stand up, because clause 98 allows the Secretary of State to establish whatever version of the decent homes standard they feel is appropriate. I do not think anyone across the House would understand why that should be different for service families. We will no doubt hear the Ministry of Defence say that 90% or more of service family accommodation already meets the decent homes standard so it is all okay, but in that case, why not make that claim evident by subjecting that accommodation to the decent homes standard in the Bill?
To say that the recently published “Service Accommodation” report from the Defence Committee, under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), says something different from the official reports would be a massive understatement. The Select Committee reported evidence from one service family, who said:
“It is impossible to challenge the ‘Decent Homes Standard’ without paying for a survey yourself. It is widely accepted that each house has not been checked but either guessed or it is assumed that the standard of one house is the same as all in one area.”
I therefore ask how sure we can be of the self-declared statistics from the Defence Infrastructure Organisation, or were they from Annington homes? As another witness before the Select Committee said:
“It is disingenuous for DIO to present glossy brochures about being ‘decent homes plus’ when they are anything but”
and
“it is clear that the DIO’s property frequently does not meet the standards.”
Crucially, the witness added:
“Moreover, there is no local authority”—
or anyone else—
“to hold them to account as would be the case for private and other local landlords.”
That is exactly what amendment 3 would provide.
In the Kerslake report, commissioned before the election by the now Secretary of State for Defence—a former Housing Minister—reports of damp, mould and, in other service accommodation, rat infestations abound. If all the witnesses and all these reports are wrong and the official figures are right, showing that over 90% of properties meet the decent homes standard, there is nothing for the MOD to fear in subjecting service accommodation to that assessment, just as social and private landlords will have to do under the Bill. The hard work of my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) got even the previous Government to come round to the idea, and the then Minister, the former Member for Redcar, said in this Chamber on 24 April last year that the Government:
“intend to ensure that service accommodation meets the decent homes standard”.—[Official Report, 24 April 2024; Vol. 748, c. 1029.]
Service families such as those of 40 Commando Royal Marines, part of our Taunton and Wellington family community, make massive sacrifices for our country, and sometimes make the ultimate sacrifice. They deserve decent homes, and the MOD should be required to meet the standard, just as the Government are requiring that of other landlords. I am grateful to see support for amendment 3 from across the House. We will be voting for it this evening to support our service families, and I urge Members across the House to vote for it, too.
(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberI call Lee Dillon, a member of the Select Committee.
I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: I am a member of West Berkshire council. Last Christmas, I was the leader of that council, and I can honestly say to the Minister that I would much rather receive in my inbox the settlement proposed by the Government than what I received from the Conservative Government.
In his statement, the Minister talked about fixing the foundations. I welcome the £3.7 billion for social care, but does he agree that, with councils spending up to two thirds on their budgets on adult and children’s social care, social care needs full-scale reform if we are to fix the foundations? Will he support the Liberal Democrats’ calls for a commission to undertake that piece of work?
To be honest, although I absolutely agree that we need reform, I believe the urgency is today. Think about the number of older people who would have been entitled to adult social care in 2010 who now do not even get support from the local authority, because eligibility has changed in so many areas. There is a crisis, and that crisis is not just being felt in the homes of all the people who have given to this country and deserve better; it is being felt in the acute sector and in the health service, where we are paying far more at the back end because community preventative services are not in place. We are working with the Cabinet Office and the Treasury to say, “Let’s learn as we go” on some of this, in terms of innovation and pilots where we can invest to save—invest in those community preventative services up front, to try to better reduce demand. Of course, it is about money, but in the end it is about the service we provide. I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s comments about the settlement in the round.
(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberThe assumption is that elections in counties will take place as planned, unless authorities actively approach us to say that they want reorganisation discussions and have proposals that they can work up. In those circumstances, we will take the view that elections to an authority that will not exist should be postponed so that an election for a shadow authority can follow. On Derbyshire, we need to be careful: the Government’s role is to invite and to receive, not to draw the maps, which is for local authorities to do. As my role is quasi-judicial and I will need to take a view on potentially competing proposals, I cannot comment on what individual counties may or may not look like.
Councils are clearly on their knees, and I welcome multi-year funding settlements and changes in the grant programme, but will the Minister confirm that the Government will support devolution so that not a penny of councils’ budgets is spent on it and they can focus on frontline services? In his statement, the Minister said that councils could
“take their time to decide on the course they wish to follow”,
but went on to say that the Government would
“legislate…to create strategic authorities”
where they felt that was necessary. How does the Minister square those two sentences?
This is about partnership, about tone and about how we can work together. Because there has been a fair amount of talk in the sector about reorganisation and devolution, even before the White Paper a number of authorities had approached the Government saying that they wanted to have a conversation about local government reorganisation and/or devolution. We have had to respond that we cannot have a hundred hares running all over the place without a transparent plan and timescale that can be understood so that people can make a judgment about whether this option is right for their area or not. What we will have is a proposal to double-run a devolution priority programme alongside a local government reorganisation, with a key point where those two pieces of work must come together for joint decision making. That will at least mean that every authority knows what stage it has reached, and can make a choice: is it at the right point in the process to opt in, or will it need more time?
The point about the backstop is very important. As I have said, there is no map that we are intending to impose anywhere. Let us suppose that within a region we have an agreement to compile every county bar one, and we reach the end of the current Parliament. In that event, I think it legitimate to say, “Well, there is nowhere else to go.” It is fairly self-explanatory that there will be a fundamental strategic authority in that area, and that is the type of process that we are considering. We are not considering redrawing the map of England and imposing this in one fell swoop. It is about partnership and working with local areas, and so far those conversations have been very fruitful.
(1 month, 1 week ago)
Westminster HallWestminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Pritchard. I congratulate the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) on securing this debate. I agree with his comments at the start of the debate about pre-consultation on planning permissions, and about developers learning from consultations that are carried out on regen projects, where communities’ aspirations are often captured and then delivered, whereas they are not on brand new applications.
I also declare that I am a member of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee. Prior to entering the House, I worked in social housing for 15 years. My experience in the housing sector showed me the importance of community infrastructure being at the heart of developments. I am concerned that current planning processes do not prioritise the essential facilities needed for communities to thrive.
In many developments, primary schools, community centres, recreational areas and other facilities are delivered later into the phase-in of the developments. That leaves families on the estates—many, for years—with nowhere near what was promised in the glossy vision and the sales catalogues. This reduces the chances for new communities to come together to form that important bond needed for those communities to be sustainable. I believe that the Government can do more to support the delivery of crucial infrastructure—from updating their planning policies through to helping with funding vehicles to ensure that new communities get the infrastructure delivered at the earliest possible time.
Another pressing issue is the maintenance of roads in new developments. I recently visited Lancaster Park in Hungerford, in my constituency of Newbury, where residents shared their frustrations about unadopted roads. In Lancaster Park, residents now face management costs for the upkeep of the roads, on top of paying their council tax. The developer does not want the roads to be adopted, and the council—already underfunded by central Government and under financial pressure—is keen not to take on new cost liabilities. That just is not right, so I am proud that my party, the Liberal Democrats, is calling for a change so that all local authorities must adopt roads. That will guarantee the roads’ standard, and stop those costs being passed directly to a small group of residents. Developments must reduce homelessness, and improve standards and lives, not place additional burdens on those they are aimed at helping.
Finally, I want to speak briefly about the decent homes standard. Currently, 3.3 million homes do not meet the standard. Social landlords are leading the way on improving their stock, but in the private sector more than half a million homes contain the most serious hazards. The Government must get on and consult on the decent homes standard, and enforce its implementation across all homes in the private and social sector.
(2 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberThe Liberal Democrats are deeply concerned that people are simply paying more council tax for fewer services. That is quite clearly the result of Conservative tax cuts and their failure to tackle social care. As a former council leader, I know that the burden on councils has increased to such an extent that they are forced to make impossible choices. The burden and the costs that councils of all colours have to shoulder as a result of the Conservative Government’s policies must be reviewed. Will the Minister ensure that councils do not have to close libraries, cut bus routes and reduce road repairs in order to meet the growing demands of the most vulnerable members of our community? Despite the announcement in the Budget, will the Minister recognise the LGA analysis that councils face a £6.9 billion shortfall because of inflation, increased wage demands and demand pressures on local services?
The Government certainly recognise the pressures on local authorities and the burdens placed on households as a result of 14 years in which local government was run down. We are determined to turn that situation around, as I have said, by providing the headroom that local authorities need to get ahead of some of the challenges that they have faced for many years. That is why the more than £4 billion in new local government funding announced at the Budget, including an additional £1.3 million in the local government finance settlement, has been so warmly welcomed. That brings the total real-terms increase in core spending to around 3.2%. We remain committed to the 5% referendum cap—we believe that is the right threshold. To protect the most vulnerable, we are also committed to the single-person discount and local council tax support schemes, under which, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware, more than 8 million households do not pay a full council tax bill.
(2 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberWill the Secretary of State consider allowing councils the ability to buy land for houses based on current use rather than hope value, and commit to reforming the Land Compensation Act 1961?
The hon. Member will know that we are looking at a number of measures to help council houses to be built. Further measures will be announced in the Budget, as I have mentioned in a written ministerial statement today. We want councils and social housing providers to be able to build those homes, and we will help them as much as we can.
(2 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberThere is a lot of clairvoyance and telepathy going on here, because I will also refer to that matter later. We absolutely need to consider what is going on with LHA rates, which have been frozen at the same level since 2011—a different era.
The Local Government Association said that local authorities in England have spent £2.29 billion on temporary accommodation—a 29% increase on the previous year, and 300% since 2015—and one in four councils say that they are likely to need emergency Government support to avoid a section 114 notice. So what are the solutions?
First and foremost, we must urgently improve conditions for families in temporary accommodation, such as Kelly’s. They should be entitled to essential facilities, and every effort must be made to prevent them from being displaced from their communities, support networks and the advice they need and deserve. Councils need emergency support to help them to avert imminent financial crisis. Eastbourne borough council leader Stephen Holt, who is also in the Public Gallery, led an emergency summit last year after which 118 other cross-party council leaders wrote to the previous Chancellor with proposals for emergency support. Those proposals fell on deaf ears, so I draw the Minister’s attention to that letter now. It includes proposals to uprate LHA rates with a view to updating them from their outdated 2011 levels.
We also need to address the appalling practice of people opportunistically renting private rented sector homes for the sole purpose of immediately sub-letting them to councils, at an inflated rate, so they can be used as temporary accommodation. That is contributing to the inflation. Beyond that, the Government must urgently publish a strategy to end homelessness in all its forms as soon as possible. That must involve building more homes, especially social housing.
My hon. Friend mentioned that 150,000 children are growing up in temporary accommodation. Does he agree that the health and educational outcomes of those children are adversely affected by their being in temporary accommodation, but the risk of moving reduces their chance to have a settled community and build up lifelong friendships? By developing more social homes with social rents, we would be able to give people secure tenures, and by removing hope value in development land parcels, we could develop more and cheaper social housing, reducing the economic pressures on the Government.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, which is why I am proud that the Liberal Democrats have been campaigning for Britain to build 150,000 social homes a year; that was in our manifesto. Having grown up in social housing, I am especially proud of that commitment.
To conclude, I say to Kelly that I hope I have said what needs to be said, in the place that it needs to be said in, and to the person it needs to be said to. On behalf of all families in temporary accommodation, and all those who would otherwise find themselves there in the future, I make a plea to the Government: honour their experiences with reform, and dignify their humanity with action. Please do not let us and our councils down. This Government are our last hope.
I will come on to what we hope we can do in the coming weeks and months. All temporary accommodation must be safe and suitable for the households affected. Interventions in place at the moment include our homelessness advice and support teams, who are drawn from local authorities and the homelessness sector to help local authorities address the placement of families in bed-and-breakfast accommodation for more than six weeks. However, I am clear that to turn this around, we have to tackle the root causes of homelessness and rough sleeping. We need to put in place lasting solutions, rather than quick fixes. For too long, we have seen the lack of a strategic approach.
The hon. Member has used his debate to highlight the devastating effects on his constituents. The story he shared is a powerful one that we can all relate to—one all our constituents have faced. Hon. Members have rightly raised the subject of the pressure on council finances. This Government are absolutely committed to resetting the relationship between local and central Government, and working in partnership in the interests of those living in temporary accommodation and who face homelessness. We want to work closely with the different nations, learning from each other about what works, as well as with regional and local government.
The Government will get councils back on their feet by providing multi-year funding settlements, ending the competitive bidding for pots of money and reforming the local audit system. We have heard from numerous councils that annual allocations are deeply problematic. The competitive nature of funding is really not helpful, and we need much more collaboration. We recognise that councils know their communities best, and with greater stability, they will be in a better position to enhance local services and facilities. I have seen many great examples of innovation and really effective work at local level, and we need to support those efforts and ensure that they are scalable. Local and national Government can learn from each other about the best models and best practice. How local government is funded is crucial in enabling councils to deliver the local services residents need, and it is also of course crucial in delivering on our missions. That is why we are committed to improving the local government finance landscape in this Parliament.
The hon. Member for Eastbourne and others have raised concerns regarding the different kinds of financing mechanisms and benefit subsidy payments for temporary accommodation. We appreciate that these are difficult times and understand the funding pressures local authorities are experiencing. The Department for Work and Pensions continues to keep rates for temporary accommodation subsidy under review and any future decisions on the levels of subsidy will be taken in the context of the Government’s missions, the goals on housing and the fiscal context.
Spending plans for the 2025-26 period will be set at the Budget on 30 October, as hon. Members know. Following the Budget, future funding allocations for homelessness and rough sleeping services will be confirmed later this year. We understand this is very challenging for the sector, and we are working closely with local authorities and want to continue to extend that work to ensure that we do all we can to relieve pressures and continue to support them.
With the benefits cliff edge, does the Minister agree that those in temporary accommodation should be given longer to be able to progress on to paying or having their benefits stopped, so that they can build up a bit of a nest egg? That way, when they move out of temporary accommodation, they are being set up for a chance to succeed in the tenancy by being able to furnish their homes right from the very outset, rather than having to start from scratch each time and not having any funds to call upon.
The hon. Member raises the important barriers to employment that I know are exercising my ministerial colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions, not least as they look at tackling the child poverty challenge—another dimension to the housing crisis. He makes an important point, and I hope we can continue to get those inputs from colleagues as we make progress on the work, which I will come on to, that we will do in relation to the inter-ministerial taskforce on homelessness.
On the housing funding point, we recognise the challenges with the cost of temporary accommodation, and earlier this year the Government confirmed allocations for round 3 of the £1.2 billion local authority housing fund, which is expected to provide around 7,000 homes by 2026. Eastbourne is due to receive around £4.4 million, and this fund aims to ease local homelessness pressures, reduce spending on unsuitable bed and breakfast accommodation and provide safe and sustainable housing for those fleeing persecution.
I recognise that, as others have pointed out, there is more to do, but this is an important part of the funding settlement that is currently available and is necessary in dealing with the supply issue, although of course we have a wider agenda on housing supply. We will deliver the biggest increase in social and affordable house building in a generation; we will build 1.5 million homes over the next five years. We are also committed to abolishing section 21 no-fault evictions, preventing private renters from being exploited and discriminated against—the hon. Member for Eastbourne raised that and gave a powerful example from his constituency in his opening remarks. The Renters’ Rights Bill will give renters much greater security and stability so they can stay in their homes for longer. The issues around safety and the decent homes standard will be addressed through extending Awaab’s law so that it covers private landlords. This will significantly reduce the number of poor-quality privately rented homes and empower tenants to raise concerns. Issues around quality of housing are not addressed, and we need to make sure that that is tackled. We very much hope that the combination of provisions we have already started will allow us to begin to make progress quickly.
It is just over three and a half months—just more than 100 days—that we have been in power, but we are determined to tackle these issues. I know that some of the other issues that have been raised, such as the out-of-area placement of our constituents, are deeply damaging. Families are moved away from their networks, from schools, from health providers and from other support systems. We are clear that if a local authority places a household into accommodation in another local area, they are required by law to notify the local authority of that placement. We have to build homes in the areas where they are needed so that we can reduce the need for out-of-area placements. That is why we will keep our focus on the house building agenda. Unless we tackle the supply of housing—affordable and social housing, along with other kinds of housing—we will be stuck in this cycle, and nobody wants that.
(4 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberI absolutely welcome it, and I commend the actions such as those taken by the Burton-upon-Trent mosque. I agree with my hon. Friend that building understanding among those from different backgrounds is vital to fostering strong communities. This Government are committed to working with communities around the UK to build a culture of cohesion, trust and mutual respect and we will outline further actions in due course.
Could I ask the Secretary of State whether she agrees, given the commitment to build 1.5 million new homes, that community cohesion comes from a planning system where community infrastructure is front-loaded in development, rather than people having to live 10 years on a new build estate without anywhere to come together to celebrate as a community?
I absolutely agree that it is important that infrastructure is built around our 1.5 million homes target. That is why we set out the proposals in the consultation on the national planning policy framework to ensure that people see the homes they desperately need, the right homes that they need and the vital infrastructure around that.