Topical Questions

T1. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

Last Thursday marked the two-year anniversary of the publication of the Grenfell Tower inquiry phase 2 report. We remain committed to ensuring that the Grenfell tragedy is not forgotten and never happens again, and we will continue to work closely with the community and the building industry as we deliver lasting change.

Some constituents are facing exorbitant service charges for retirement properties inherited from a family member that are proving impossible to sell. One of my constituents is paying £770 a month in service charges for an empty one-bedroom flat, after inheriting the home from their late mother. What steps will the Government take to regulate the sector and stop these companies ripping people off?

I have great sympathy with what the hon. Member says, and the Housing Minister has just indicated that he would be happy to meet him. That is something that we want to tackle. We have been very clear on service charges and fleecehold, and we will make sure that we bring forward legislation that protects people from unfair charges.

T2. My constituency is packed full of beautiful rural villages, but house prices are through the roof, and social housing stock is being sold off by housing associations such as the Sovereign Network Group. That is forcing my constituents out of the places where they grew up. I welcome the Government’s measures in the Social Housing Bill to protect rural social housing stock, but will my right hon. Friend consider strengthening the rules to protect against the sell-off of properties that could be housing local families in my community?

I recognise the strength of feeling in the House on this matter. I want to ensure that every opportunity is taken to retain homes in the social housing sector. Although housing associations remain independent organisations that are responsible for their own asset management decisions, I can assure my hon. Friend that we are exploring what further steps could be taken to protect much-needed social housing stock.

I call the shadow Minister.

I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the Secretary of State on her return to her position, and to welcome her to her place. What steps is she taking to proactively protect the green belt?

As I have said, there are strong protections in the national planning policy framework. It is for local authorities to decide whether exceptional circumstances exist for the release of green-belt land, and whether very special circumstances exist that would outweigh the harms involved when it comes to inappropriate development. Those safeguards remain. We are committed to preserving England’s green belts, which have served our towns and cities very well over many decades.

I agree with the Minister’s last point, but I am not too sure that I believe the preceding point. If the Government are serious about protecting the green belt and generating new housing, one of the best ways of doing both would surely be to ensure that planning permissions are actually built, but according to the Local Government Association, there are up to 1.4 million housing units that have been granted planning consent over the past decade and have not been completed. The Government may claim that they are serious about solving this problem, and point to their planning reform working paper, entitled “Speeding Up Build Out”, but that paper was published in May last year and requires primary legislation for it to have any effect at all. If the Government are serious about protecting the green belt and getting homes built, where is the legislation?

The shadow Minister, for whom I have a lot of time, knows full well that development can stall at particular sites for a variety of reasons, not least the viability pressures that we discussed earlier. We are taking action to get sites moving, and the NPPF strengthens expectations in this area. On the specific matter that he raises, primary legislation is not needed. Primary legislation was taken through by the previous Government, and we have a plan to switch on the necessary secondary legislation to ensure that we have transparency over build-out rates. He does not have long to wait for that to come forward.

T3. The Government’s renewed commitment to devolution is welcome in Bletchley and Milton Keynes; we are eager to deepen our partnership with the neighbouring local authorities in Luton and Bedfordshire, with whom we share a strong labour market and a broader economic geography. In that vein, will the Minister meet me and parliamentary colleagues to discuss how we can create a combined authority, with a directly elected mayor, at the very heart of the Oxford-Cambridge growth corridor?

I am always happy to meet my hon. Friend. I think that the matters in question will fall to another Minister, thankfully, but I am more than happy to join that meeting if housing issues are involved.

T6. [901214] I have received over 70 complaints from tenants in my constituency who are resident in Places for People properties about its failure to maintain its obligation to fix the property and carry out basic maintenance. Are the Government aware of whether this is a more widespread problem, and is there anything they can do to encourage Places for People to fulfil its obligations?

Places for People will no doubt have heard the concerns the hon. Gentleman has raised today. Social housing providers are regulated on the basis of consumer standards, and they are inspected on that basis. We have introduced Awaab’s law, which provides that landlords have to fix hazards within specified time limits. If he wants to write to me with further information about the development in question, I will be happy to look into it.

T4. Rough sleeping is a huge challenge in Brighton Kemptown and Peacehaven, so I am delighted that the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State are making it such a big priority, but will any of the very welcome additional funding go to existing schemes, such as the ending homelessness in communities fund—a brilliant scheme, but heavily oversubscribed—or charities in my constituency?

As I mentioned earlier, I think it is important to look at local initiatives. I repeat that the Government’s new £442 million rough sleeping programme and the ending homelessness fund will look at that. Brighton and Hove has received £1.35 million through the rough sleeping programme allocation, while Brighton Women’s Centre has been allocated £371,380 through the ending homelessness in communities fund, subject to grant agreement completion.

Last week, police and Trading Standards carried out co-ordinated visits, led by our local police officer, to retail premises on Fleet Road over suspected criminality, which is of increasing concern to me and my constituents. How is the Minister working cross-departmentally with the Home Office to keep our high streets safe and lawful?

The hon. Member highlights an issue affecting many town centres and high streets, which is that, for far too long, organised criminal gangs have been acting in plain sight and getting away with it, but now they have a Government who are ready to take them on.

T5. The inspection by the BBA—the British Board of Agrément—at Goodrich Mews in Dudley confirmed that the retaining wall installed by the Keller Phi Group will not have met the criteria that must be met if it is to have the stated service life, and it needs emergency repair. The Keller Phi Group has absolved itself of any responsibility, leaving residents with a dangerously collapsing wall. Will the Minister meet me to discuss how we can hold such companies to account?

Homeowners should not be expected to shoulder the financial consequences of defective work. However, the case of Goodrich Mews is a challenging one, in that the legal liability appears to now lie with the resident management company. My hon. Friend knows that I have been looking into the matter for her, and I am more than happy to meet her again. I believe that my office has been seeking further information from hers, which we would be grateful to receive.

Increased energy costs, increased material costs, the increased cost of employing people, particularly young people, the increased cost of bureaucracy and business taxes are all pushing up the cost of building and squeezing the viability of projects. Does the Secretary of State not realise that her Government’s policies are making it harder for young people to get on the housing ladder, or does she simply not care?

Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that he does not agree with minimum energy efficiency standards? Is he saying that he does not agree with a modernised decent homes standard? These measures are driving up the quality and the safety of homes, and we can do that while increasing supply.

T7. Having previously worked for a homelessness charity, Streets2Homes in Harlow, I welcome the Housing First approach that this Government are taking to tackle rough sleeping. However, would the Secretary of State, or whichever Minister answers the question, agree with me that, along with that housing, we must provide long-term support to ensure that people can keep tenancies securely?

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that important initiative in Harlow. Housing First is an important intervention, which evidence has shown can transform the lives of people with complex needs. We are funding Housing First and other forms of housing-led accommodation through our £2.7 billion homelessness, rough sleeping and domestic abuse grant for areas like Harlow. That includes, as I have mentioned, the £442 million for the rough sleeping programme.