English Devolution

Lord Jamieson Excerpts

Thursday 19th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend and she is quite right. I remember very well the regional development agencies, back in the day. Some of the departments in government already have a regional presence. My own department has offices in each of the regions, and we intend to extend that and offer a widespread programme of secondments to regions. I think it will be of real benefit to the Civil Service to be working in our regions and then bringing that back to central government, or the other way round: working in central government and going out to the regions. I look forward to seeing how that programme develops. My noble friend is right to say that it will be very important to see that the offices in our regions are fit and well equipped to serve the mayors and combined authorities.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, we are the most centralised country in the OECD. Can the Minister enlighten the House on the real powers and fiscal devolution that this will lead to? In particular, what is the Government’s target for the proportion of taxation that is devolved? Secondly, I appreciate the Minister’s comment on the letter. However, it is causing confusion to a number of councils, which have been told that they need to submit a letter by 10 January. Many believe that, if they do not, they will miss out on devolution and it will be imposed on them. What is the deadline, what is expected of those who do submit and what does it mean for those who do not meet the deadline? Can this be clarified to councils?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his questions. This is about real devolution of powers and funding, and there are real benefits there to those who take up the offer. The earlier they start to get established, the more powers they will be able to take on. That is a really important step for councils to take.

In terms of the letter, I have looked closely at it and it is asking for expressions of interest only by 10 January. For those who want to move quickly, we will ask them to submit their proposals by May—that is, full proposals for reorganisation and devolution. For those who want to move more slowly, they can do that at their own pace. We would hope to get proposals across the board by autumn this year.

Provisional Local Government Finance Settlement

Lord Jamieson Excerpts

Thursday 19th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a councillor on Central Bedfordshire Council. I thank the Minister for bringing this Statement to the House of Lords. While I welcome the additional funding announced in the spending review, it is unfortunately not keeping pace with the increases in costs and demands seen by councils, and it is dependent on an above-inflation 5% increase in council tax. Is this not yet another tax on hard-working people?

The Government are also imposing additional costs on local government, and while they are funding the £550 million of national insurance increases for directly employed staff, they are not funding the LGA’s estimated £1.25 billion impact due to costs imposed on our suppliers. I might add that this ignores the impact on many of those local charities that do so much for our communities. This will lead to cuts in local government services and a reduction in the support that those local charities provide. Will the Minister commit the Government to look again at this matter?

I remind the House that, in the Autumn Budget, the Chancellor pledged to raise the national living wage. It is set to increase by a further 6.7% in April 2025, with minimum wage rates for younger employees and apprentices set to increase by between 16% and 18%. This is welcome for those on some of the lowest wages. However, it will have a cost impact for local councils, where many social care services are provided by suppliers that pay close to the living wage. This is another cost that local authorities will have to absorb, unless the Government agree to fully fund the increase. Will the Government fully fund the impact of increases in the living wage?

As the Minister is well aware, the rapidly increasing costs of SEND services is crippling councils, and this desperately needs to be reformed, as we have often debated in this House. Continuing the statutory override for dedicated schools grant deficits will delay a number of councils going bust, but with the deficit set to increase by a further £3.2 billion in the coming year, this is just kicking the can down the road—again, this needs to be fixed.

The Government propose to look at the funding formula and, if I have interpreted them correctly, to focus on deprivation. While this may superficially seem appropriate, in practice the major cost driver of local government is social care, including SEND services, which represents around 70% of cost. This means that the focus should be on population demographics and where there will be the greatest need. Analysis by the County Councils Network and PwC demonstrates that rural areas will see the greatest increase in demand compared to metropolitan areas. We have just finished a debate in this House on rural areas. Can the Minister commit that the Government will look at and consult on the underlying cost drivers before any changes to funding formulae are made?

Furthermore, the Government are imposing a number of additional burdens on councils, including through their children’s Bill, renters’ reform Bill and planning measures Bill. Can the Minister confirm that these additional costs will be fully funded through the new burdens doctrine?

I turn now to the Government’s changes to the funding formula, with the repurposing of the rural services delivery grant and the new recovery grant. The latter is heavily focused on metropolitan authorities, with only three county and rural unitary authorities receiving the grant. I reiterate that 70% of the cost of upper-tier authorities is for social care, which is largely driven by demography. Along with the pernicious impact of national insurance increases on social care providers and charities, this will inevitably lead to further cuts to services.

Finally, I turn to growth and fiscal incentives. There have been few fiscal incentives for growth, but the new homes bonus and the business rates retention scheme were genuine incentives for growth and gave some compensation to communities for the impact of this growth. I add that growth imposes significant additional capital costs on councils, and these incentives were helpful there. The proposals to stop the new homes bonus and to reset business rates are deeply concerning, as they will have significant deleterious impacts on the councils that have done the right thing and supported growth, while benefiting those that have not taken the tough decisions to support growth. Given that the Prime Minister has said that growth is his number one mission, milestone, step and so forth, can the Minister assure the House that the councils and communities that have supported growth will not lose out?

I thank the Minister for sharing this Statement from the other place. I wish her, and the rest of the House, a very merry Christmas and a peaceful new year.

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

I thank the Minister for the opportunity to discuss the provisional local government finance settlement. It is always an early Christmas present for finance departments in councils up and down the country.

Local government was brought to its knees under the last Government, with funding cuts happening at the same time as further responsibilities were given to our hard-working local government workforce. From the Liberal Democrat Benches, we welcome the move set out in the Statement for multiyear settlements—something my party has long called for.

The Statement suggests that funding previously allocated to rural local authorities under the rural services delivery grant will be repurposed under a need and demand basis. This is despite the grant providing rural local authorities with £100 million for the rollout of essential public services, including emergency services and the provision of social care in the last year.

From these Benches, we are concerned that this new system of allocation will not recognise—as has just been discussed—that the sparse and isolated nature of rural areas drives higher costs for the delivery of essential services, creates challenges in the recruitment of staff for key services, and of course requires local authorities to provide a greater public subsidy for the provision of services such as public transport.

Deprivation in rural areas would also likely be hidden through the use of this measure because it occurs over a wider geographical area. Using deprivation as an indicator of demand for services also does not consider local authorities with a higher number of elderly or vulnerable residents and the additional demands these residents place on services, as the noble Lord just outlined in his response.

I urge the Government to provide rural councils with a funding settlement which reflects the impact of the rurality and sparsity of the areas they serve, through the application of the fair funding formula. With additional pressure on councils to deliver further scrutiny in planning decisions, deliver further housebuilding and accept additional NICs changes, it is essential that they are funded robustly to achieve these aims. Can the Minister say what plans the Government have to ensure that local authorities in rural areas have the support that they need? These authorities face unique challenges and their funding settlement needs to reflect this.

We are also concerned about the funding of certain services such as special educational needs and indeed special educational needs transport. What assurances can the Minister give that the new funding settlement will allow local authorities to deliver special educational needs services at the level needed, as well as child and adult social care?

From these Benches we welcome the consultation on wider local authority funding reform, but we urge the Government to move as fast as possible with this, as 2026-27 feels a long time away and, the more time passes, the more the contents of this Statement will feel rather like a sticking plaster. Can the Minister say anything more today about the timescale of the consultation and whether genuine fiscal devolution will be considered, so we are not looking just at how the government funding is divided up but at powers to enable local authorities to raise funding to invest in services and infrastructure for their local communities, rather than always being reliant on the Government of the day?

Finally, given that we are on the final sitting day before the Christmas break, I take this opportunity to wish the entire local government workforce a very happy Christmas, and of course I extend that to all noble Lords as well.

Housing: Permitted Development Rights

Lord Jamieson Excerpts

Wednesday 18th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, and for his time in meeting with me to discuss embodied carbon. We have been talking to the construction industry and to developers across the board, and there are some complex issues involved. I know the noble Lord is doing work with stakeholders as well, and I look forward to working with him further in the new year. I believe we have a meeting scheduled for early in 2025 to discuss this further.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a councillor in central Bedfordshire. To deliver the housing this country needs, we need to ensure that planning permissions and allocations are being built out in a timely manner. Yesterday, I asked the Minister whether the Government will provide local councils with adequate powers to ensure that allocated and permissioned sites actually get built, and she responded that there is a whole section on sanctions in the report. Can the Minister tell me which section that is in the NPPF, as I could find in it no meaningful additional tools being provided to councils to ensure build-out?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord and apologise for misleading him yesterday: it is not in the NPPF but in the accompanying notes. There are powers that local government can use, including completion orders and so on, to encourage developers to build out when necessary. I will provide him with a detailed written response about all the powers that are available to local government to do that.

Building Homes

Lord Jamieson Excerpts

Tuesday 17th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a councillor in Central Bedfordshire. I thank the Minister for the Statement from the other place.

I think we can all agree that we need more homes. However, they must be in the right places, with the right infrastructure, and constructed in a way that fosters a sense of home and community—homes that will stand the test of time. Under the Conservative Government, between 2013 and 2023 we saw a record level of new housing, greater than in any other period since the 1960s. We also delivered 550,000 affordable homes since 2010, including some 63,000 in 2022-23 alone.

The Government have taken a one-size-fits-all approach to a region-specific issue. Many rural areas, which do not have the requisite infrastructure to support rapid population growth, are facing sky-high housing target increases. In Westmorland and Furness it is 487%, in North East Lincolnshire it is 272%, in North Yorkshire it is 200% and in the New Forest it is 106%, while London and Birmingham see a reduction. How will the Minister achieve these targets while still ensuring that the required local facilities and infrastructure are in place? The Centre for Cities and the OBR have both said the Government are going to manage only around 1.1 million homes this Parliament.

I do not disagree that the planning system needs improving. It is too complex and takes too long. However, concreting over green fields rather than focusing on supporting building in urban areas will not solve this problem—nor will removing the local democratic accountability of planning committees, or the suggestion that regional mayors allocate housing with call-in powers and greater call-in by the Secretary of State. I must ask the Minister to assure the House that the Government do not intend to bulldoze through low-quality developments in rural areas just to hit their housing targets.

The Government are demanding that all councils rapidly review their local plans to deliver the new mandatory targets. Having spent eight years trying to get a local plan over the line, and succeeding, I know how difficult it can be to get local plans through, particularly when challenged by landowners who are incentivised to challenge the plan. These proposals risk making local plans harder to deliver. What will the Government do to make local plans easier and speedier to deliver?

I would also like to raise some concerns about mandatory housing targets. These are based on a flawed methodology. Affordability is a reasonable metric to look at, but it needs to compare similar properties. Comparing the cost of a one-bedroom apartment in Camden with a three-bedroom home in Stevenage, for instance, is not a fair comparison. Will the Minister look at the affordability ratio on a cost per square metre basis?

There are other challenges regarding the delivery of homes. We need to look at capacity to build, the use of judicial review and the impact of other legislation, such as on nutrient neutrality. Can the Minister tell the House what the Government are doing to address these?

I must also add, even though I may be accused of stating the blindingly obvious, that councils do not actually build homes, or not that many; developers do. To that end, will the Government provide local councils with adequate powers to ensure that allocated and permissioned sites actually get built?

The Government have said that they want brownfield first, but other than rhetoric, what evidence is there of this? All we have seen so far is substantial housing target increases for rural areas, where brownfield sites are somewhat thin on the ground. Will the Government continue with the previous Conservative Government’s proposal of a strong presumption in favour of brownfield development? I suggest that this is the best way of protecting the green belt and our countryside, and focusing development on where it is most needed.

Will the Government’s proposals actually improve the planning system? Will they simplify the system? Will they help councils to deliver quality homes in the quantity and locations needed? Will they speed up the planning process? Will they encourage developers to build where homes are most needed? I fear not. I thank the Minister once again for repeating this Statement and I look forward to hearing her response and answers to my questions.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I too have relevant interests, primarily as a councillor in a metropolitan authority in west Yorkshire.

This is the season of good will, so I am going to start by sharing the areas of agreement with the Minister. There is an agreement in principle on the fundamental need for considerably more housing units, and we on these Benches broadly agree with the total numbers being proposed. We agree that housebuilding is a stimulant for economic growth, although not on its own. We agree with the notion of strategic planning at a sub-regional or mayoral level, and we agree that all councils should have an up-to-date local plan. I am still shocked that only 30% do; how that has escaped past Governments, I have no idea.

Now I will have to move on to the areas where there is less agreement. First, on strategic planning, there has to be a greater element of democratic and community involvement in making judgments about areas and sites within a strategic plan. The single mayor and leaders system simply does not enable that. Will the Minister spell out how the Government anticipate community involvement and wider democratic involvement in developing such plans?

The second area of less agreement—the Minister will not be surprised to hear me say this—is that there is a constant confusion in government thinking, probably deliberate, between so-called affordable housing and social housing. There is a need for about 150,000 homes for social rent every year. That is essential, and it must be a priority, so why is it not? Why does the plan not say that, within the 370,000 homes the Government are committing to, they will commit to build whatever number they choose—I would choose 150,000—of homes for social rent?

That brings me on to land use, which we are now colour-coding, apparently. Who thought we would colour-code land use? Green belt, grey belt and brown belt—well, brownfield. The NPPF accepts that green belt has a role to play. That definition of green belt is being nibbled away at, though, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, suggested, in rural areas there could be considerable use of green-belt land where there is not already brownfield or grey belt. I am not sure how acceptable that is going to be to those local communities. Local plans currently have to consider the green-belt boundary. How do the Government anticipate that that will now work, given what is said in the NPPF?

The grey belt, our next colour, is very grey because it is not very well defined. I was at a seminar this morning on all this, where it was suggested that it is so poorly defined that it will be open to constant legal challenge as it stands. Perhaps the Minister will spell out how the Government will get greater definition of the grey belt.

It must be 25 years ago or so that I first heard the phrase “brownfield first”. That is interesting, because in my own town there is still a large area of brownfield land that has planning consent but has still not been built on.

I shall now move away from land use and on to the planning process. It seems to me that we are moving to a more top-down planning approach, and I do not think that is acceptable to local people and their democratic representatives. Power currently remains in the hands of landowners; they can still offer up their sites in the system and challenge local plans, as has been said. The major housebuilders have the power to determine what is or is not built. How will the Government influence or constrain that power, so that the types of housing tenures defined by local councils are actually built by developers? Unless we do that, we are not going to get, as the Statement says, houses in the numbers and types of tenures that we need.

I turn to the issue of the five-year supply, the lack of which leaves local councils open to speculative building. It has always struck me that the five-year supply ought to include sites that already have permission but have not been built or even started. That is a game developers play: they get planning permission and then they can say, “There is not a five-year supply”, and more sites are allocated but we still not have the homes we desperately need. I hope that the Government are considering dealing with that sleight of hand by developers.

Finally, I emphasise that we on these Benches will completely oppose any suggestion that reduces the democratic nature of our planning committees. Planning committees have an important role to play. They enable a local voice to be heard. They enable the experience and knowledge of local people to be shared, and I will give one example. Where I am, of course, there are a lot of Victorian mineshafts, which are not recorded. Fortunately for a builder, some local people knew exactly where they were, which is not where he thought they were. That would not have come out unless there had been a planning committee where they could speak. We need a local voice, local decisions and local influence. I hope that the noble Baroness agrees.

Older People’s Housing Taskforce

Lord Jamieson Excerpts

Monday 16th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My noble friend makes a very important point. I will take it away with me and discuss it with Minister Pennycook. It will also be a cross-departmental discussion with the Department for Transport to ensure that the particular issues that my noble friend raises are addressed and thought of when moving forward so that we can make not only the house accessible within, but the route to the house.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as set out in the register, particularly that I was a member of the Older People’s Housing Taskforce. It is widely acknowledged that supported accommodation can significantly benefit the health and well-being of older people. That has the additional benefit of saving social care and the health service considerable costs. In addition, if it is placed in urban areas, it can support town centre regeneration.

However, due to the additional facilities, the building costs of supported accommodation are substantially higher than those of mainstream accommodation. In recognition of this, one of the task force’s recommendations to help to deliver supported accommodation was that it should not be subject to demands as heavy as the affordable housing and Section 106 planning obligations of mainstream housing. Will the Minister confirm that the Government will support this?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

The Government will publish a housing strategy that will set out a long-term vision for the housing market that works for communities, building 1.5 million high-quality homes and the biggest increase in affordable housing in a generation. Supported housing plays a vital role in delivering better life outcomes, improved well-being and health, as the noble Lord mentioned, and greater independence for many vulnerable people, including older, disabled and homeless people.

We recognise the challenges local authorities are facing as demand increases for critical services. We have listened to voices across local government and have announced £4 billion in additional funding for local government services at the Budget, including £1.3 billion, which will go through the settlement.

Housebuilding Targets

Lord Jamieson Excerpts

Thursday 12th December 2024 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Jamieson]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what tools they will provide to local authorities to support the delivery of mandatory house-building targets.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)]

My Lords, the Government have announced a £46 million package of investment into the planning system to support capacity and capability in local planning authorities, including the recruitment and training of 300 planners and the development of the skills needed to implement reforms and unlock housing delivery. We have also consulted on proposals to increase resources in the planning system by increasing planning fees and empowering local authorities to set their own planning fees so that they can carry out their vital role in supporting economic growth and delivering 1.5 million new homes during this Parliament.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interests as laid out in the register. I thank the Minister for her Answer. My particular concern is houses that have planning permission and sites that have been allocated that are not being brought forward. The LGA estimates that there are around 1 million houses with planning permission and around a further 1 million allocated sites that have not yet been brought forward for planning permission. What will this Government do to help councils get landowners, promoters and developers to bring forward those sites?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

The noble Lord is quite right to raise this. I am pleased to say that we have today published the National Planning Policy Framework, which sets out a broad framework of advice for local authorities. This is a particular issue, and we have set up our acceleration scheme to make sure that those sites that are stalled can be brought into use as quickly as possible. The department will work with all areas that have stalled housing sites to find out what the blockages are and make sure that we support them as they work to get those sites released as quickly as possible.

Planning Committees: Reform

Lord Jamieson Excerpts

Thursday 12th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, the Government committed in their manifesto to involving local authorities in the planning process. However, the Deputy Prime Minister recently announced that applications that comply with local development plans will not have to get approval from local planning committees. Given that sites in local plans often have very little detail associated with them, how will the Government ensure that local voices are heard throughout the planning process?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)]

My Lords, I want to be clear that I do not think local authorities should have the finger pointed at them for holding up planning. However, applications can get stuck, and we need to do all we can to make the processes as efficient and effective as possible. We recognise the great importance of democratic oversight of planning decisions. This is a working paper for discussion with the sector, and the changes we propose will support that plan-led system by ensuring that planning committees operate as effectively as possible and encourage better-quality development that is aligned with local development plans. The paper puts forward for discussion with the sector three models for how this could work. It is not the intention to exclude local authority members but to get them, and the public, more involved at local plan stage, so that they can influence things at an earlier stage in the process before detailed applications come forward.

Homes: Existing Communities

Lord Jamieson Excerpts

Thursday 12th December 2024 Grand Committee

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interests as detailed in the register. I thank my noble friend Lord Wolfson of Aspley Guise for tabling this important debate and coming up with a provocative presentation that makes us think. In planning, we always need to think. The temptation is always to carry on doing what you are doing, which tends to mean you get the same result.

I think we all agree that we have a housing crisis, and the current planning system is not working as it should. Two important points were raised. First, how do we build houses where people want to live? Secondly, how do we extract a planning gain that is in many, but not all, areas for the benefit of residents not landowners?

I will focus on building the right houses in the right places with the right soft and hard infrastructure. The greatest need for housing in many parts of the country is in urban areas. That is also where there is the best infrastructure. I note that, in London, we are shutting schools because there are not enough pupils; in Bedfordshire, we are building schools because there are not enough schools. Should we not be having more children in London—that is, houses?

That is one of the issues: it is incredibly hard to build on brownfield sites. This is why the previous Government came up with the proposal—I was involved in it—that there should be a strong presumption in building on brownfield land. I am quite disappointed that the current Government are moving away from that and suggesting that we should build on the grey belt. There may be a need to build on the grey belt but we should do everything in our power to build on brownfield first. We should also regenerate on brownfield and regenerate some of our older housing estates in many of our urban areas with gentle densification.

I add that, if we compare some of our major cities—for instance, London—to others, Madrid and Barcelona are four times as dense as London. Paris is nearly twice as dense. That gives a whole number of advantages: as well as being able to use not as much greenfield land, it means that your transport system is much better and that people have much better access to local services. This really is a very important issue.

I want to come on to some of the issues with the planning system and the one-size-fits-all approach. By way of example, in Central Bedfordshire, we were inundated with speculative applications because there was a big uplift in land value. They were all supported by highly paid barristers challenging our planning system. I talked to some of my colleagues in areas with lower land value; they were not facing that issue. Their problem was that they did not have viable land, particularly where they were seeking to regenerate brownfield land, so they had a different problem. I then talked to developers who told me how hard it is to develop in certain urban areas.

What we need is a planning system that gives local authorities clear guidance on what objectives are to be achieved then provides them with the tools to deliver those objectives. It needs to be a coherent and consistent planning system—something that I fear we do not have. I welcome the new NPPPF proposals and what is said on the outside of the tin, so to speak. My concern is that, with planning, the detail is always the problem. Although we all superficially want better houses, more brownfield and better infrastructure, it is the detail that really matters—what is inside the tin—and it genuinely worries me that we will continue to get this wrong.

Finally, several noble Lords mentioned the Building Beautiful programme. The previous Government had the Office for Place, a department responsible for creating beautiful, successful and enduring places. I am very disappointed that it is not being continued. I ask the Minister: do this Government intend to build as many houses as quickly as possible, regardless of their appearance and impact on the local community? We must focus on building as many new homes on brownfield sites as possible and, where they are not on such sites, on ensuring that they have the right infrastructure and that the community is taken into account. We need to increase urban density gently and do so in combination with regenerating communities, such that we end up building homes and communities that people want to live in.

Housing (Right to Buy) (Limits on Discount) (England) Order 2024

Lord Jamieson Excerpts

Tuesday 10th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Porter of Spalding (Con)]

I rise briefly to take part in this debate. Before doing so, I draw Members’ attention to my register of interest: I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association and a director of a fully privately funded affordable housing provider that actively encourages its tenants to buy their homes after five, 10, 15 or 20 years. It is called Rentplus and it does what it says on the tin: you rent at a discounted price and you buy at a discounted price. I work for somebody in the private sector who preaches the possibility that home ownership should be within everybody’s reach.

I will support my noble friend by going through the Division Lobby with him when he chooses to divide, but I will not agree on the reason. My reason is not that the Government are being unreasonable in setting the numbers they have chosen. Putting numbers on a piece of paper is a big mistake when talking about property markets; they are so varied in so many places for so many different reasons that it is better to put a percentage figure. I disagreed with what the last Government did by increasing the discounts to such a level that only really rewarded avaricious grandchildren, not the hard-working tenants who had occupied their homes for a long time. A number of elderly people were pressured into buying their houses for a capital sum that would go to their grandchildren. That should not have happened unless that grandchild had lived with those grandparents.

But, as my noble friend Lord Fuller said, right to buy is probably the single biggest piece of social mobility legislation enacted since the war. It enabled a million families to gain access to capital who never had done in the history of their families. I do not think anybody has done any work, but somebody should do, on how many businesses were set up in this country by people who could leverage capital they had not previously had access to. For a number of reasons—I think about our care sector, as people need access to capital to be able to pay to have care nowadays—this country would fall apart without it.

We should not lose sight of the fact that just over a million homes were lost to councils through right to buy, but 2 million homes were lost to councils through propositions put forward by the Tony Blair Government. Out of the 4 million homes that used to be in council ownership pre-1980, 1 million, so 25%, were lost through right to buy and 2 million—50%—were lost through LSVT. Councils such as my own were summoned to the Government Offices for the Regions to explain why they were not transferring their homes out. So this is not a tribal issue between the red team and the blue team; it is a proposition about whether we believe most people in this country aspire to be home owners. Clearly we do—I think all of us across the Chamber believe that—but do we also believe that people should be able to live in a safe, secure, decent, affordable home even if their financial circumstances mean that they are unable to do that completely unaided at the time they need it?

Right to buy is a good thing, but the right to build is the most important thing, and I agree that the Labour Government are right this time round to allow councils to keep 100% of the receipts, which would otherwise have been lost to the Treasury. Who wants to give money to the Treasury? It is much better for it to be spent locally. If the Labour Government had said that the discounts would be set at a local level by local councils to stimulate demand but not to reward avaricious grandchildren, I would not be going through the Division Lobbies tonight. But that is not what they have said; they have said, “Whitehall knows best. We’ll set an arbitrary figure that’ll have no bearing to the marketplace in a year or two’s time”.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I draw Members’ attention to my interests as detailed in the register, including being a councillor in Central Bedfordshire, which has its own housing HRA. I very much support my noble friends’ comments regarding the opportunities that right to buy has given to so many people, but I will highlight the fact that this is an issue not of the sale of council homes but of a complete failure to build.

There are 4.25 million affordable homes—an increase of some 35,000 over the last two years, even with the sale of around 30,000 affordable homes in that period. I am pleased that the last Government had the 100% retention of right-to-buy receipts, which facilitated councils building homes. If we are to build the homes that we need, it is essential to maximise all avenues to building more homes. Allowing tenants to buy their own homes with a reasonable incentive and reinvesting the proceeds in new homes is an opportunity for more, not fewer, homes.

I will give the example of my own council, and I will trump my noble friend Lord Fuller because Central Bedfordshire was at 1.5%, not 1%. I am proud that, as leader of Central Beds, we had a proactive council house building programme. For example, in the period 2021-23 we built 259 homes and acquired a further 76, and we sold 82 under the right-to-buy rules —a net increase of 253. Without the proceeds from right to buy we would have ended up building substantially fewer homes. That would have meant tens of families—possibly even 100—not having a home because we would not have had the right-to-buy proceeds. That is important, because it gives more people the opportunity for an affordable rented home.

I reiterate: the ability to reinvest proceeds from right to buy is an opportunity to provide more, not fewer, homes. The issue is one of getting homes built, which should be the focus, not curtailing opportunity.

[Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)]

My Lords, from listening to this debate, I recognise that there is a certain amount of agreement around the Chamber. It seems, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Porter, that this is very much a question of balance. Of course right to buy was a wonderful thing for many people, but the right to have a roof over your head is also pretty important. Therefore, if you take it too far and there are no council houses to put vulnerable people into, you will have a real problem. It seems there is a consensus that could lead to the right way forward—namely, the right amount of houses being available for right to buy but preserving enough and, as has been said, building more to protect fragile communities.

Housing Supply and Homelessness

Lord Jamieson Excerpts

Thursday 5th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interests in the register and my membership of the previous Government’s London housing task force and the Older People’s Housing Taskforce. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, for securing this very important debate on the genuine housing crisis that we face. I also thank the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury for the great work he has done in this area. I really appreciated his speech.

There have been many statistics, and normally I throw out lots of statistics, but I am going to try to curtail that today. Homelessness is a genuine scourge for this country. For most people, that is perceived as rough sleeping, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Bird, mentioned, is a very complex issue. But I want to deal with the rest of the iceberg that people do not see—the temporary accommodation, the sofa surfing, the overcrowding and the cost to families and their budgets, limiting their ability to pay for their energy bills and food bills and support their children. This is a genuine housing crisis and it is simple: we are not building enough houses in this country.

I shall compare us to, say, France. Between 1983 and 2021, the UK built 7.3 million homes. France built 13.5 million homes. It is no surprise then that the real increase in house prices in the UK since 1970 has been 400%, whereas in France it has been 170%, and elsewhere in Europe prices are now substantially lower. Build more houses and houses will cost less. It is relatively simple. This is exacerbated in the UK by our very uneven demand. Demand is very much focused on the south, particularly in London. London is the issue I want to focus on. It is where we have the biggest housing crisis, with 300,000 people on the housing waiting list, 70,000 children living in temporary accommodation, local authorities spending more than £1 billion a year on temporary accommodation and rents representing more than 50% of average gross earnings. House prices are approaching £20,000 per square metre in central London. In my authority or the authority of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor—Stevenage—the figure is more in the region of £3,000. That has a massive impact on availability. The ripple effect of London is impacting homelessness and the cost of housing outside.

London is not doing well on delivering houses. It is down at 32,000 in the last 12 months, 30% below the figure of a few years earlier. The rest of the country is also down, but only by around 10%. The risk is that, this year, London will deliver even fewer houses. The London Plan suggests that we should build 52,000 homes. The latest government figures suggest it should be 80,000. The previous Government suggested 100,000. Whatever the figure, it is genuinely far more homes than are being delivered today. And it is not because of a lack of opportunity. The GLA identifies that there are sites for more than 1 million homes in London. Anecdotally, this could be increased significantly through regeneration of housing association and council housing estates, densification and the use of industrial land. It is not unreasonable to suggest that we could build 2 million homes in London.

Why is this not happening? As I speak to developers, they constantly tell me that it has got harder and harder to build in London. There is more and more regulation, more and more legislation, more and more consents: it is just too difficult and the planning system is incoherent. Many housebuilders are no longer prepared to build in London unless they have the full co-operation of a local council.

The London Plan is one example of this, and while there are many admirable aims in that local plan, its 133 clauses were described to me by one developer as “133 reasons not to build”. There is not one clause in the London Plan that actually makes it easier, faster or quicker to build a home.

That is why, when I was on the taskforce, we recommended that there should be a strong presumption in favour of granting planning permission on brownfield land where the local authority in question is not meeting its housing targets. This was adopted by the previous Government. Will the Minister also commit her Government to this?