Autumn Budget 2025

Lord Wood of Anfield Excerpts

Thursday 4th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, as always, and I welcome the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth. I welcome the main proposals of this Budget: some as important measures to combat inequality and support households; others as necessary responses to what remains a very difficult time for the British economy.

As a social democrat, I applaud the Budget’s wide-ranging package of cost of living measures, including the reduction in energy bills, the minimum wage increase, and the freezing of prescription charges and rail fares, alongside the pre-announced expansion of free childcare for working families. This was the most important issue for millions who supported Labour at last year’s election, and the Government are delivering on those concerns.

I welcome the ending of the two-child benefit cap—the single biggest policy driver of child poverty in Britain. I have been disheartened to hear Conservative and Reform voices in the past week caricature this move, which primarily benefits children in working families, as paying for welfare. Children who grow up in poverty are significantly more likely to rely on benefits in their adult life. If you support work and oppose dependency, you should support the end of the two-child cap, not denigrate it.

I also strongly welcome the increase in the minimum wage. The Government already have a proud record on wage inequality. Wages are up more in the first year of the new Government than in the first decade under the last Conservative Government. In 2015, 20% of all employees were low paid—that is, earning less than two-thirds of the median wage. That figure today is 2.5%.

The Chancellor’s commitment to an expanded headroom on her fiscal rules is also welcome. I hope it will give the Government more space to consider big decisions based on their merits rather than operating on the cliff edge of fiscal rules and living in fear of events that cause small changes in fiscal parameters or bond market reactions.

Much has been said about the OBR-Treasury relationship, and I will make just one observation. The process of dynamic scoring, estimating the long-term growth and productivity effects of major policy measures, is an important part of forecasting, but everyone can see that there are clearly issues and tensions in the way this process currently works, on both sides—in particular, which measures are considered sufficiently significant to score and using announcements to fish for dynamic scoring from the OBR. I hope this is an area where clearer rules of the game can be worked out in time for the next Budget.

I also support the Chancellor’s fiscal stance: spending and borrowing more in the early years of the Parliament, increasing taxes and tightening spending growth in the latter years, all while maintaining a significantly more expansive approach to capital spending. Yes, it is a strategy with risks, but taking a more aggressive fiscal stance now to improve growth and protect long-term investment spend is, in my view, the right approach after a decade of stagnation.

I also welcome the proposed council tax surcharge on high-value homes. There will, of course, be issues to sort out through consultation—for example, developing a system that is fair to those who are asset-rich and cash-poor, and the challenge of adding a tax system based on current prices of high-value homes on top of a council tax system that is still based on 1991 valuations.

This brings me to one last point on which the Budget had less to say: long-term tax reform. Tax policy is deeply political; nothing is more political. But, as the joint proposal from nine think tanks across the political spectrum argued last month, there are many sensible structural tax reforms that all parties could endorse and that would increase fairness and revenue, such as addressing punitive marginal tax rates, reforming the VAT tax base, updating council tax valuations, and equalising tax rates on income from different sources. In opposition, Labour spoke positively of such reforms. I hope that we will set up work to address some of these in the remainder of this Parliament.

OBR Forecasts

Lord Wood of Anfield Excerpts

Monday 1st December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Earl for pointing out my message discipline at this Dispatch Box. I am proud to have mentioned that £22 billion black hole over 50 times. The two noble Lords sitting next to each other are the other two Members of this House who have mentioned it almost as many times as I have. I think every time the noble Earl has made reference to the £22 billion black hole, I have pointed out to him that the OBR review ran up to six months before the end of the previous Government’s time in office. It identified a black hole and then the party opposite had another six months to continue adding to that hole and to continue to conceal it from the OBR. The OBR says in terms that it was concealed from it. That is a very serious charge.

Regarding what the OBR says about headroom, as I said, on 4 November, the Chancellor had £4.2 billion of headroom before any policy choices we had already announced were accounted for. Once those policy choices were accounted for, she would have a deficit of £2.7 billion. I do not think that anyone on the opposite side of the House thinks that going to the country with a £2.7 billion deficit rather than any headroom would be a fiscally responsible thing to do, given how uncertain the world around us is. It is absolutely right that we increased headroom to £21.7 billion.

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)]

My Lords, I add my praise for Richard Hughes and his outstanding public service, mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, the Minister and others. I have two questions for the Minister about the Treasury-OBR relationship going forward, learning the lessons from what has happened.

First, the Treasury was clearly very annoyed by the OBR’s letter to the Treasury Select Committee, detailing the timeline of discussions. Is it the Minister’s understanding that there is a strong Treasury preference that the OBR does not do that in future? I think I know the answer, but how important is that to the Treasury-OBR relationship? Secondly, the Minister has rightly talked about defending the independence and continued existence of the OBR, but is there now discussion about changing its remit and role in the process, in the light of what has happened in the past few weeks?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend for the points and questions he raises. I had the great privilege of working with him in the Treasury at a time when Richard Hughes was working for us, so we both know the commitment that Richard Hughes has to public service.

My noble friend asked about the relationship with the OBR. I start by saying how strongly we support the Office for Budget Responsibility and its ongoing independence. The first piece of legislation passed by this Government after winning the election was to strengthen the role of the Office for Budget Responsibility, because we had seen, during the Liz Truss mini-Budget, what happens when it is cut out of the process. We saw how damaging that is to the living standards of working people and we are determined that that never happens again. We have absolute commitment to the ongoing independence of the Office for Budget Responsibility.

My noble friend asked about the letter from the OBR to the Treasury Select Committee. We put the utmost weight on Budget security. The OBR chose to publish some further information, which is set out fully in Richard Hughes’s letter to the Treasury Committee. The Treasury agreed in advance to its publication. However, it is important to maintain a private space between the Treasury and the OBR for the exchange of forecast information and Budget policy development, so we welcome the OBR’s statement that this is not intended to become usual practice.

Spending Review 2025

Lord Wood of Anfield Excerpts

Thursday 12th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his question. On the specific question that he asked about whether the manifesto commitments that we have given to working people still stand, yes, they still stand. The manifesto very clearly says there will be no increase in working people’s income tax, national insurance or VAT. That commitment continues to stand. In terms of future decisions on tax and spending, as I have said already, I am not going to write now—it is not in my gift to write now—four years-worth of Budgets. As he knows, the OBR will produce a new forecast in the autumn for the Budget, and the Chancellor will take decisions at that point, based on that forecast. He can be assured, though, that, at all times, we will meet the fiscal rules, but I am not going to prejudge those decisions now.

I am not sure whether he was defending at that point the Liz Truss mini-Budget or not. He shakes his head vociferously. I do not blame him: I would not want to defend it either.

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)]

My Lords, there is much to welcome in this spending review. Can I especially welcome the £39 billion of investment in social and affordable housing that the noble Baroness mentioned earlier on? Shelter yesterday called this a game-changer. The National Housing Federation said it was the most ambitious affordable homes programme in decades. All of that is extremely encouraging. I note that the ramping up of extra funding is gradual, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, mentioned, reaching an additional £4 billion per annum by the end of the spending review period. What needs to be done as this money is ramped up in the next couple of years to ensure that this funding is generally transformational? In particular, I know he is passionate about improving the supply of skilled workers in the housing construction sector so that it really does result in the step change we all want in social housing.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for his question. He is absolutely right. The Government are providing the biggest boost to social and affordable housing investment in a generation, and giving social housing providers the long-term certainty that they need to focus on development. We are putting in £39 billion for a successor to the affordable homes programme. We are making a 10-year social housing rent settlement from 2026 at CPI plus 1, alongside a consultation on how to implement social housing rent convergence. We are putting in over £1 billion of new investment to accelerate the remediation of social housing. So I think that is genuinely, as he says, transformative, and I am glad that those experts in this field have welcomed that allocation.

As my noble friend said, it is a gradual increase, which is probably sensible for public finance reasons, but probably for delivery reasons too, to ensure that it can actually be implemented, but he is absolutely right to point to skills. In this spending review, we have a record allocation in terms of skills, but also, at the time of the Spring Statement, the Chancellor set out a construction skills package, which I think is vital. Clearly, not just on housing, we are doing a lot of infrastructure investment and a lot of infrastructure spending. We must have the skilled workers to do that work; I absolutely agree with my noble friend on the vital importance of skills alongside this investment.

Regional Growth

Lord Wood of Anfield Excerpts

Thursday 5th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I tried to address that in answer to the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon. Yesterday we talked about interconnectivity within the city regions. We will be announcing the full regional transport plan and regional growth plan for the whole of the country—England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland—next week in the spending review.

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)]

My Lords, one way you can tell that I am a Treasury nerd is that I am really looking forward to the Green Book review being announced next week, and I welcome what my noble friend has said about that today. There are many problems with the way the Treasury has, historically, allocated money for long-term investment. One is the regional bias that we have discussed today, but another is that capital budgets are allocated for short periods with an incentive to spend them by the end of a three-year cycle, whether it is appropriate or not for the project. Does the Treasury still intend to move towards longer-term capital budgeting, and will we hear something about that next week in the spending review?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am very grateful to my noble friend for his question and for his expertise in this matter. He is right on capital budgets, with which, historically, there have been two problems. The previous Government’s fiscal rules did not prioritise capital investment, so when they had holes in their day-to-day spending plans, they would raid the capital budget to top up them up. That is why we have seen the infrastructure of our country deteriorate over the past 14 years. This Government’s fiscal rules ensure that we do not cannibalise those investment budgets to fund day-to-day spending. That is incredibly important, and it is why we have this £113 billion of extra capital spending to announce in the spending review. My noble friend is also absolutely right about the short-term nature of those capital budgets. Yes, three years is probably too short a planning horizon, which is why we will be announcing five-year capital budgets in the spending review.

National Debt: It’s Time for Tough Decisions (Economic Affairs Committee Report)

Lord Wood of Anfield Excerpts

Friday 25th April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to speak in this debate on such an important topic, and I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Bridges—my predecessor as chair of the Economic Affairs Committee—and thank him for his kindness in the tricky transition period between our tenures and for his time chairing the committee. I have the privilege of succeeding him and now working with the excellent team that helped produce this report.

There is a lot in the report that is worth careful study—particularly that on the nature and composition of debt, as the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, and others have discussed. As the report says, the question of what exactly is our debt problem is not straightforward. It is a complex combination of the level of the debt-to-GDP ratio, its trajectory over time, the maturity profile changes, the robustness of the tax base that finances paying it off, fiscal policy plans and changing world circumstances. This report talks eloquently about the pressure points and why debt is a particular problem and under what circumstances. It discusses the key trends—the five Ds that the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, mentioned earlier—which push debt even higher. It also provides an excellent and crucial explainer of why, especially since Covid, the composition of the debt has changed in a worrying way.

It has not been said yet, but it is important to note that this report was written with reference to fiscal rules, before the current Chancellor changed various aspects of the fiscal framework. I think the Chancellor should be congratulated on those changes. In some respects, they make positive differences that very much chime with some of the concerns in the report. In particular, and most importantly, the shift to targeting the current budget balance, rather than overall borrowing as under the previous Government, reduces the budgetary incentives to cut valuable investment. I also very much welcome the switch in the debt definition to public sector net financial liabilities.

The Chancellor retained, of course, the principle in her second fiscal rule that debt needs to be falling at the end of a five-year period—now a three-year period as of 2026. The report’s main criticism of that is that a rolling target means the rule is easily gamed—you could have four years of rising debt and then one year of decline and meet the rule but still have a net increase in the stock of debt over time. That is a concern and is part of the design flaw of this five-year rolling, or three-year rolling, system. My concern about this rule is slightly different. The main problem is that it results in Governments basing long-term investment decisions on highly contingent, uncertain projections that are so dependent on complex, unknowable real-world developments. Making concrete long-term public investment decisions that have to be changed in virtue of forecasts that probably turn out not as accurate as you need them to be is a bit like chasing shadows.

In the spirit of being perhaps a friendly devil’s advocate to this report, let me just finish with three quick reflections. The first, to put some perspective on this, is that the debt-to-GDP ratio in the UK is now lower than it was in just under half of the entire 20th century.

Secondly, the question that financial markets are concerned with is less the level of debt-to-GDP ratio but whether Governments are using borrowing for productive growth-enhancing investment, as the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, referred to earlier, and whether they are prepared to take steps towards fiscal consolidation when the shocks that trigger debt increases subside. Our focus needs to be as much on those two concerns as it is on a numerical debt-to-GDP ratio.

Lastly, I personally have sympathies with the NIESR and economists who think that investment in service of long-term objectives crucial to the national interest should be taken out of the debt target. That does not mean they are taken out of public scrutiny; there are lots of things the OBR can and must do, but there is a case for the kind of long-term certainty, which the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, referred to, that the private sector needs in order to know that Governments will complete long-term transition investments.

Public Spending: Inheritance

Lord Wood of Anfield Excerpts

Tuesday 30th July 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his support for the announcements on the hospital building programme yesterday. As he knows, those plans were completely unfunded, behind schedule and overbudget. It is right that we have a full review of them. As I said to the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, the coming spending review will prioritise the manifesto commitments that we made on public services, including the NHS. We will take forward our commitment to reform adult social care, as he mentioned, and will work towards building a consensus for the reforms needed to build a national care service.

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for his Statement. Noble Lords will remember that, in 2010, when Conservative Chancellor George Osborne set up the Office for Budget Responsibility, he said:

“That means there will be nowhere to hide the debts, no way to fiddle the figures, and no way of avoiding the difficult choices that have been put off for too long”.


I think noble Lords will agree that the most shocking thing about yesterday’s Statement was that it was not the Labour Government but the Office for Budget Responsibility—set up by the Conservatives—that made clear that, a week ago, £21.9 billion of unfunded pressures were revealed to it for the first time. I was glad to hear that the Minister, the Chancellor and their colleagues at the Treasury will revisit the OBR charter, but what will the nature of that revisiting be? Will it make sure that, as George Osborne intended, the OBR will not be kept in the dark by any future Government?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend for his question. Yesterday’s letter from the chair of the Office for Budget Responsibility shows his views on these important overspends being kept from the OBR. My noble friend asks about the reforms that have been announced. As part of the longer-term plan to fix the foundations of the economy, we are going to introduce significant additional reforms to strengthen the fiscal framework and ensure that this can never happen again. Those initial reforms were welcomed yesterday by Richard Hughes, the chair of the OBR. He also said that he will initiate his own review to determine whether those reforms are sufficient, and he may make additional recommendations.

There are two elements to what was announced yesterday. First, we will introduce a fiscal lock, which has already been introduced in the other place as the Budget Responsibility Bill. This fiscal lock will ensure that there is always proper scrutiny of the Government’s fiscal plans. Secondly, we will increase transparency by, in future, requiring the Treasury to share with the OBR its assessment of immediate public spending pressures and enshrine that in the charter for budget responsibility, in essence so that this never happens again—no Government can ever again cover up the true state of public finances.

UK Economy: Growth, Inflation and Productivity

Lord Wood of Anfield Excerpts

Thursday 29th June 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Eatwell for this debate and for his excellent opening speech, which I agree with almost every word of. It is also a privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, from whom I always learn a lot, as I did again today on inflation.

I will make a few remarks about investment: how poor our record is, how fuzzy our thinking around it often is, and what we need to do to improve it. I fear that, historically, the left and the right have not served the cause of investment that well. The right tends to assume that investment will flow from lower taxes and a small state, when it does not, and my side of politics is often more enthused by state intervention in the cause of greater social justice than the cause of boosting business investment.

But our economy is in fundamental trouble. We have a strong record on employment, but it is no longer true for millions of families that working hard can keep their heads above water: 15 years of wage stagnation have left households £11,000 worse off each year on average. Productivity remains shockingly poor: the average of all other G7 nations is currently 16% higher. On the eve of Covid, levels of investment were the lowest in the G7, and they have been low for decades. The promise of liberalisation and deregulation has not brought the promised revolution in investment and productivity. Instead, it has brought the expected side-effects of lower wages and higher inequality.

An indicator of the depth of the problems that we face comes from just one statistic: the UK’s year-on-year inflation rate is currently 8.7%, with core inflation rising. This is the highest in western Europe and the highest in the UK since 1990. You would expect the growth rate that goes along with that to be middling to high; instead, UK growth is barely above 0%—we have an economy that is overheating at 0% growth. This tells us that something is fundamentally wrong with our supply side, with the way that the real economy works. Of course, Brexit is a huge part of that. That is the shock we chose to have, rather than the shocks like Covid and Ukraine, which we had to have. I will leave others to debate the Brexit issue, because I want to talk about investment.

In my view, the UK political debate around investment and growth suffers from considerable fuzzy thinking. Take the disaster of the mini-Budget last year, which the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, mentioned. It has left us with a national paranoia about the reaction of bond markets to policy changes but also with a misunderstanding about what alarms markets so much. The Liz Truss episode showed not that markets punish Governments who want to tax less or, indeed, borrow more but that, if you do so without setting out the fiscal plans that should accompany these decisions for the medium term, the uncertainty that that creates, for demand and for the anticipated reaction of the bank in interest rate setting, raises the risk premium on UK assets. Investment requires borrowing, of course—for people, families, firms and countries. Borrowing to invest makes sense. Sensibly planned borrowing does not spook markets, only badly planned borrowing.

The fuzzy thinking goes wider. The Government’s fiscal rules make no distinction between investment spending and current spending, which makes no economic sense. I am pleased to say that Labour’s pledge on eliminating the deficit in its own fiscal rules excludes investment spending, as it should, but there is a long way to go in the debate on both sides about a commensurate treatment of debt and targets on debt reduction.

The fuzzy thinking extends also to the relationship between investment and welfare. The health of our welfare state is crucially about the health of citizens, of course, but it also has huge implications for labour supply, as we have discovered with the link between rising sickness leave and labour shortages since Covid. Welfare policies in the UK are also far too little designed to help workers retain the skills that they have acquired when they become unemployed, because, in our country, we prefer instead the philosophy of getting people who are unemployed into any job as soon as possible. Thereby, we contribute hugely to significant skill scrapping over time.

Then there is the fuzzy thinking around how our public utilities work. The experiment of turning public utilities into privatised utilities with independent regulation has many problems, as we can see from today’s news. Chief among them is that the regulatory arrangements for utilities to have investment stimulated have not worked and the investment that has been generated is not consistent with their viability or the public purpose that they are supposed to serve. We need a mindset change, and a long hard look at the way we fail to put investment first: we use rules with contradictory approaches, and we fail to make connections between different policy areas and the drivers of productivity and investment.

So what can we do? I do not think that business investment will be transformed by tax cuts. For much of the last two decades, the UK has combined some of the lowest corporation tax rates in the G7 and the advanced world with one of the worst records in business investment in the advanced world. We need to look at the range of capital allowances; there is much more room to secure long-term expensing arrangements so that companies have certainty in the future. We should strengthen the R&D tax credits system, looking at better incentives for green and digital investment. We should be more courageous about speeding up planning laws and timeframes, especially for infrastructure projects. We also need to work on how to channel the trillions of pounds available in UK pension and insurance assets into UK companies. Currently, only just under 1% of that money goes to UK equities.

Mostly, we need a Government who use their fiscal, regulatory and procurement leverage to take a lead in public investment. Every major competitor around the world—from China to South Korea and Taiwan, from the EU to the USA—is using active state intervention on a large scale to promote investment, productivity and growth. The laissez-fairists, I am afraid, have lost the argument. The question is: what form should state leadership on investment take? I am happy that this territory is the area that my party’s shadow Chancellor is occupying at the moment. Whoever wins the next election is going to face very tough times. If Labour is in power, I hope to see a step change in the way that we as a country prioritise the stimulation of investment.

Budget: Household Impact

Lord Wood of Anfield Excerpts

Wednesday 16th September 2015 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Wood of Anfield]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they intend to publish a distributional analysis of the impact of the Budget on households with different levels of income.

[The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord O'Neill of Gatley) (Con)]

My Lords, distributional analysis of the impacts of government policy across household income distribution was published by HM Treasury alongside the summer Budget. The analysis presents the cumulative impacts of policy decisions since the June 2010 Budget, up to and including the 2015 summer Budget. It shows that the proportion of public spending received by households in each income quintile remained similar between 2010-11 and 2017-18.

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for that Answer. The Institute for Fiscal Studies estimates that the Budget has made 8.4 million working families worse off, many considerably so, through tax credit changes. However, the Chancellor has unilaterally decided not to tell the British public from now on what the distributional impact of the Budget measures will be. It is ludicrous to argue, as he does, that having a deficit justifies not publishing information about the regressive effects of the Budget. Does the Minister agree with the Resolution Foundation, which said:

“Deciding to ditch Budget distributional analysis is a retrograde move for which there is no plausible good explanation”?

Will he urge the Chancellor to rethink this attempt to hide information from the public?

[Lord O’Neill of Gatley]

My Lords, contrary to that question, as a result of some discussions involving the Chancellor, the specific distributional analysis that was requested was posted on the government website on 21 July. There followed a number of conversations outlining the Treasury’s belief that the new analysis was intellectually superior to those in the preceding Parliaments. I should add, however, that the requested distributional analysis has indeed been published, despite the apparent lack of awareness of it displayed in the previous question.

Income Tax

Lord Wood of Anfield Excerpts

Wednesday 19th November 2014 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Wood of Anfield]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their assessment of the level of income tax receipts so far this financial year.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, the Office for National Statistics’ latest estimate for income tax and capital gains tax for the period April to September 2014 is £71.5 billion.

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for that precise answer. As today’s alarming ONS figures confirm, this Government are presiding over a recovery in which wages, far from recovering, have continued to deteriorate. As a result, the public finances are getting worse and social security spending targets are being missed by over £15 billion. The deficit continues to rise. Will the Minister tell us why this is the case, and say whether he agrees that in the light of this, the Prime Minister’s promise in October of further unfunded tax cuts lies somewhere between heroic and reckless?

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, I remind the noble Lord, and the House, that growth in the UK is the highest among the G7 countries; that unemployment has fallen by 324,000 in the past year; and that the other piece of news today, which he omitted to mention, is that the gender pay gap has fallen to an all-time low.

Economy: House Prices

Lord Wood of Anfield Excerpts

Thursday 3rd July 2014 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Wood of Anfield]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of increases in house prices on the strength of the United Kingdom economy.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, the housing market is recovering alongside the rest of the economy. As in previous recoveries, house prices have risen but, with the exception of London, remain below their pre-crisis peak in real terms. As a result of increased confidence in the housing market, planning approvals and housing starts are now at their highest for six years. With the creation of the Financial Policy Committee we now have the tools to guard against risks in the housing market.

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)]

My Lords, the list of those expressing serious concern about the impact of the UK housing market now includes the IMF, the European Commission, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, the Bank of England, Vince Cable, the Deputy Prime Minister and the entire economics profession. However, in a week where new figures showed house prices in the UK rising by 10% and by nearly three times that figure in London, a leaked document from the Department for Communities and Local Government showed that the Government are, astonishingly, expecting new housing starts to fall by 4% this year. Can the Minister explain why government housing policy seems to be based on a mixture of denial, bad economics and passing of the buck? What is their plan to do something about the UK’s chronic shortage of housing?

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, I remind the noble Lord that in Q1 2009 there were 17,000 housing starts and in Q1 2014 there were 36,000. There has been a major crash in the housebuilding sector. This is now being corrected with housing starts and planning permissions being significantly greater—typically around 30% more—than a year ago. I also remind the noble Lord that while we have had a rapidly rising population in the UK, for decades housing starts have been 200,000 fewer than in France, for example, where the population has not been rising in the same way. There is a chronic problem in housing. We are beginning to tackle it by programmes that support people buying their own home, liberalising planning and providing support for small to medium-sized housebuilders. This is not going to be an easy fix for a Government of any colour.