Housing: Young People

Baroness Donaghy Excerpts

Thursday 14th March 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Donaghy (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, for initiating this debate and for his comprehensive presentation. I am afraid this is going to go from the sublime to the gorblimey now.

This debate is one to which my noble friend the late Lord McKenzie of Luton would have probably been first to sign up. His knowledge of all aspects of housing need and his understanding that dealing with it was an integral part of tackling poverty were second to none. He was gentle and forensic in his questions to Ministers, seemingly diffident, but a towering force in his campaigning for more social housing and safeguarding jobs in the construction industry.

I had been in the House for only two or three weeks when, on 8 July 2010, there was a debate on social housing, in which the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner of Kimble, made his maiden speech, on rural housing, and my noble friend Lord Touhig made his maiden speech, on housing in Wales. The noble Lord, Lord Best, participated in that debate, and I am so pleased that he is here for today’s proceedings. Lord McKenzie gave the usual comprehensive speech that you would have expected. He was proud of the fact that the Labour Government had launched the largest council house building programme for almost two decades. He regretted the fact that the coalition Government were about to sweep away proposals for a national register of landlords—does that sound familiar?—the regulation of letting and managing agents and the requirement for compulsory written tenancy agreements.

Today, in a debate on housing initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Young, with the noble Lord, Lord Best, and my noble friend Lady Taylor of Stevenage, all genuine experts, putting my name down feels a bit bold. Plenty has been written in Lords reports on intergenerational fairness and the impact of student loans and consequent debt, so I will not be concentrating on those aspects.

I do not think that there was any golden age for housing for young people. I was 38 when I bought my house in London, after 13 years in four bed-sits, only one of which was en suite, as we call it nowadays—we would not have known what that meant in those days. The difference now is that someone on my then equivalent salary would not be able to buy a house without financial assistance from the bank of mum and dad or some government wheeze. The other difference, in the 1960s and 1970s, was that there would not have been so many banks of mum and dad available, and we were used to a lower standard of housing—at least, some of us were.

London is a different world from the rest of the UK when it comes to housing. For instance, there has always been a tendency for young professionals to move out of London when they start raising a family. It used to be when the children were approaching secondary school. Now, they move out when the children reach primary school age. This may explain why so many primary schools are closing in London. Most public sector workers in London with childcare expenses to pay would not be able to buy a house in London. This impacts on the ability to recruit and retain the best staff in London, particularly in Westminster and Whitehall.

The Home Builders Federation has stated:

“The UK is a very unaffordable place to buy or rent a home, and increasingly so”.


It echoed what has already been said:

“House prices in the UK have been growing faster than incomes and this disparity is greater than when compared to the EU benchmark”.


Belgium and France have seen house prices fall slightly as a proportion of income, and Finland has ensured that both rental and buying are more affordable.

In the UK, owner-occupiers aged 25 to 34 have dropped by 12% in 20 years. The average age of first-time buyers is increasing—last year, it was 33.5 years —while 58% of first-time buyers were among the highest earners. Research from the Resolution Foundation found that lower home ownership rates among young people mean that

“millennials spend longer in the private rented sector … a typical private renter spent over a third … of their net income on housing costs, more than three times the proportion of net income that a typical mortgagor devoted to their mortgage interest payments”.

I spoke to some of my neighbours when they moved in—young professional women sharing a rented house. Their rent was such that they would never be able to save for a mortgage. It is not a house in multiple occupation; a common feature, particularly in London, is that landlords sidestep HMO requirements and let the house to one name only, so they do not have the safety requirements. That is all too common, and there are not the resources in local government to ensure that it is stopped. If councils were properly funded, they would have an important role to provide accommodation for young people; the GLC, for instance, had a scheme for hard-to-let dwellings.

However, since 2010, councils have had a 60% cut in spending by central government. Government Ministers, as the noble Lord, Lord Young, has said, encourage councils to be more entrepreneurial and raise their own funds. In 2015, the Government abolished the Audit Commission, which kept a check on local government spending; this was an appalling act of irresponsibility.

This week’s New Statesman contains an article about the dire financial state of local government. It gave the example of Hastings in East Sussex as

“a borough full of Airbnbs and Londoners moving in and pushing up house prices”.

Hastings is spending nearly half its annual budget on temporary accommodation. The council leader has called for a Ukrainian refugee-style scheme to house local people in spare rooms.

The director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies has indicated that house price rises since rates were last set mean that the average property in the Westminster council area is taxed at 0.06% of its value, while a far cheaper property in Hartlepool is taxed at 1.3%. We all know that it would be a brave Government that did something about rateable values.

What difference do the various government schemes make? The Home Builders Federation has indicated that the closure of the Help to Buy equity loan scheme has exacerbated the challenge facing aspiring home owners. It states that the scheme supported a third of a million first-time buyer households to purchase a new-build home with an equity loan. It claims that it produced “a doubling in housing supply” and generated an estimated £65 billion in economic activity. What it does not say was that Help to Buy benefited those who could probably have afforded a house anyway, and the resulting inflation of house prices made it impossible for the lower-paid to put a foot on the housing ladder. This was taxpayers’ money, which would have been better spent on social housing.

My only question to the Minister is about the First Homes scheme, which was launched in 2021. Is there any information she can give us about how the scheme is going, and is there any consideration of expanding it?

Finally, I mentioned to the noble Lord, Lord Young, the other day that I am a fan of “Homes Under the Hammer” on television, and I like to think I can guess the price of a house anywhere in the UK. Key factors are whether it is in the north or south, whether it has transport links, the presence or absence of higher education institutions and the increasing numbers of younger entrepreneurs in the south who are buying houses in the north to refurbish and rent or sell off —or “flip it” in the jargon. Skills shortages and the steep cost of raw materials are slowing things down. Solving the issue of housing for young people is not a one-dimensional issue, therefore, and the Government’s record on local government, infrastructure skills, support for refurbishment schemes and controlling the cost of living is pretty woeful. This debate is an important opportunity to air these matters.

Local Regeneration: Industrial Areas

Baroness Donaghy Excerpts

Thursday 7th March 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Donaghy (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend Lady Armstrong for initiating this debate and for her powerful and moving introduction. My noble friend Lady Chapman referred to listening to her when she was a younger woman and being influenced by her. At the risk of turning this into a sketch by John Cleese, I will say that I canvassed for my noble friend Lady Armstrong’s father, Ernie Armstrong MP, so it is an area that I love very much and am very familiar with. As we are having to establish our regional credentials, I say that my mother’s family comes from Barnsley, and I spent the first 21 years of my life having Christmas there, so it is a town I am extremely fond of—end of John Cleese sketch.

When I think of the wasted years we have lived through—with an absence of government industrial strategy, underinvestment in our transport network and the reduction of local government to virtual serfdom—I could weep. To be fair, one version of this Conservative Government, led by Theresa May and in this House for BEIS by the noble Lord, Lord Henley, did have an industrial strategy. There was support from all sides of the House. However, we woke up one morning and it had been disappeared. Although it was somewhat limited in its scope, it acknowledged the need for co-ordination in support for business, education and skills and local involvement, but it came to nothing.

Indeed, we have witnessed years of so-called levelling up, where a complex maze of funds was created, many with overlapping purposes, and where local and regional authorities were invited to bid for limited amounts and in competition with one another. The Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, was very frank at the Dispatch Box recently in saying that there was not enough money to support all local authorities, so we endured a giant bingo game, with Michael Gove the chief bingo caller handing out the cash to the lucky winners. Then my imagination started to run away with me, and I was thinking of things like “Clickety-click: new theatre in Clwyd”; “Legs eleven”—well, I will leave the rest to your imagination.

It is calculated that 23 million people live in older industrial areas in Britain—that is one-third of the population. This does not include seaside towns, many of which have similar problems, as outlined in my noble friend Lord Bassam’s excellent committee report on that subject. People suffer multiple forms of disadvantage in those areas, apart from being older on average, lower paid and disabled. The Government take pride in the number of jobs available at the moment, and it is a matter of pride, although I doubt that they had very much to do with it. However, between 2012 and 2019, job growth in older industrial towns was around one-third of the equivalent rate in London—there were 66 jobs for every 100 adults. Commuting to larger towns for work is the norm and sometimes commuting by public transport is not possible. The possession of a car provided access to 28 times more jobs within a 30-minute journey compared with three times in London.

I am a strong supporter of local government, and it is not a perfect system. There will always be a need to moderate between wealthy areas and poor areas to ensure some kind of fairness. Let us be honest: it is how that distribution has been made by successive Governments which determines how really fair the deal might be. We need a return to strong local government, but that requires a step change in funding. It also requires a period of capacity building, given the dire state of affairs in many parts of the country.

The Resolution Foundation and the Centre for Economic Performance produced a report in June 2022 entitled All Over the Place: Perspectives on Local Economic Prosperity. They ran four focus groups in Yorkshire and Humber. The people were from all walks of life, and they talked about their lives in Leeds, Hull, Barnsley and Scarborough. They cared very much about their area but felt strongly that things should get better. In every region of England, more than three-quarters of the population think their area has either trodden water or deteriorated in recent years. The focus groups were aware that their local areas had different routes to prosperity and were alive to the tensions and trade-offs that growth could bring.

All the groups were upset about the degradation of their places and public services—empty shops, unsafe public spaces and weak policing were cited. Although work was readily available, job quality was a pressing concern—low-paid jobs, casual employment, zero-hours contracts, a lack of training and progression, and the sometimes unlawful behaviour of employers.

There is a generation of young people in those areas who do not go into higher education and whose work experience would depress the strongest heart. In the levelling up debates, the Government recognised the criticisms by local government of lack of co-ordination, inefficiencies, complexity of decision-making and reporting burdens. It talked about empowering local decision-makers, local satisfaction and engagement, and a needs-based approach. That is all very good, but it is some time in the future and yet to be delivered. Now the Government are offering a long-term plan for towns. Local government will still need to put in bids and set up town boards, including the local MP, and central government will set up a new towns task force, offering capacity support to town boards. This just sound like the same centralising bidding process—it is just a bigger bingo game.

Yesterday’s Budget covered investment zones, freeports, trailblazer devolution deals and a levelling up fund—even the renovation of local village halls. That is all well and good, but there was no co-ordination to ensure appropriate infrastructure and transport links. It is still a system of handing out the sweeties, along with namechecks for the class favourites—no genuine empowerment.

Finally, the Government have made a big thing about the so-called freeports, to which the noble Baroness from the Green Party referred. A lot more announcements have been made about freeports than actual freeports. I share the scepticism of some commentators about freeports’ potential impact, and I agree with the comment that they are more likely to encourage displacement of economic activity from surrounding areas, rather than increase overall growth. There is no proof that freeports generate high-skilled jobs.

The Office for Budget Responsibility has said that any additional economic activity generated by a freeport would

“probably be difficult to discern even in retrospect”.

It stated that enterprise zone reliefs act more as a reward than an incentive, and that existing infrastructure and transport links are stronger determinants of levels of activity.

In conclusion, the contrast between those with the most opportunities and those with the least opportunities in the UK is shocking and unacceptable. For the Government to start saying some of the right things does not make up for 13 years of not listening, and it is no substitute for a strong and vibrant local government.

Domestic Violence Refuges: Charities and Local Government

Baroness Donaghy Excerpts

Monday 4th March 2024 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Donaghy]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what support they give to charities and local government to provide places of safety for women subject to domestic violence.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Baroness Scott of Bybrook) (Con)]

The Government are committed to ensuring that all victims receive the support they need when they when they need it. Councils in England have a duty to provide support within safe accommodation to victims and their children under the Domestic Abuse Act 2021. Since April 2021, the Government have provided more than £507 million to councils across the country, including £129.7 million for the years 2024-25. This will enable long-term commissioning decisions and give certainty to local providers such as specialist domestic abuse refuges.

[Baroness Donaghy (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for her Answer. Noble Lords may have read an article in the weekend’s press about Kate Kniveton MP, formerly a wife of a former Minister. She has experienced domestic violence, and her words cut across a lot of the debate:

“After years of manipulation and denigration, you lose your self-worth and don’t think anyone will ever believe you”.


I mention that because this issue is without class: a lot of people do not have a choice about staying at home and within the danger area. Local government is financially on its knees, and the majority of charities turn away references. What will the Government do to improve this dire situation?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, the Government are supporting local authorities on this issue and they have given the money required, as I said. Yes, it is not good enough, so we have set up a national expert steering group, which is co-chaired by my colleague, Felicity Buchan, and the Domestic Abuse Commissioner. They will closely monitor this and have agreed a protocol to support further local authorities in meeting their duty of requirement. So, we are on the case.

International Women’s Day

Baroness Donaghy Excerpts

Friday 10th March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Donaghy (Lab)]

My Lords, how pleased I am to be participating in the International Women’s Day debate. Although it is two days after the event, the fact that we achieved three gender-based Questions out of the four Oral Questions on the day was good. Witnessing the noble Baronesses, Lady Deech, Lady Shackleton and Lady Brady, in full sail was an awesome sight. One of our new Labour Peers, my noble friend Lady Twycross, asked a Question on equal pay and showed that she is a class act. From the Lib Dem Benches, the noble Baronesses, Lady Janke and Lady Walmsley, made their usual excellent contributions.

I want to say something about influencing international campaigns on women’s safety, health and rights, and about domestic violence and maternity/gynaecological rights in the UK. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office document referred to by my noble friend Lady Armstrong is a good document; it is just a shame about the money. Continuous cuts have significantly impacted areas that are central to the Government’s strategy, according to the organisation Plan International, particularly gender-based violence, sexual health and reproductive rights. To give an example, the 2021 UK aid cuts mean that 9.5 million fewer women and girls will receive contraceptive services and supplies, leading to an additional 4.3 million unintended pregnancies and 8,000 maternal deaths in that year alone. Can the Minister say when and by how much the ODA budget will be improved?

Another area of concern relates to Minister Andrew Mitchell’s statement in that document—a very good statement—that we also have to overcome concerted and well-funded international efforts to dilute women’s rights in the UN and other standard-setting bodies. I understand the need for some diplomacy, but at a time when the world is in turmoil, with war, famine and Covid, we need to know more about these well-funded international efforts so that we can play our part in giving the oxygen of publicity to this. Will the Minister find out, if she does not have the answer today, what information is available and how we can help to overcome these well-funded campaigns?

The Global Partnership for Education, which has helped to enrol more than 160 million children in school, has called for the UK to ensure that it follows through in a timely manner on its £430 million pledge to the global partnership. The Government’s cuts to ODA spending represent a 71% drop, making it the lowest allocation to basic education since at least 2009.

In the UK, gender-based violence and harassment are at an all-time high, with 1.5 million police-recorded incidents in England and Wales in the year ending March 2022. Yet prosecutions and convictions are falling, and 62% of domestic abuse referrals are turned away from refuges because of lack of space. Refuge is calling for more protection in the Online Safety Bill against violence against women and girls, better funding for specialist services, restoring the confidence of women and girls in the police, and improving criminal justice outcomes for survivors. Can the noble Baroness say more about sustainable funding for women’s refuges and specialist services? The noble Lord, Lord Murray of Blidworth, did a good job of treading on eggshells on Wednesday, but he did not answer my question on specialist service funding.

Finally, on maternity and gynaecological services in the UK, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists reported that there are over 550,000 women on a gynaecological waiting list as of December 2022. Imagine the impact on women’s lives and careers and on the economy due to these delays in treatment. The royal college has asked for a fully funded NHS workforce plan. When will the full increase in maternity funding be announced and will there be any ring-fencing of funding for training? Can the noble Baroness answer any of these points from the royal college?

Housing: Cladding

Baroness Donaghy Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd September 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, my noble friend should rest assured that we are focused on the pace of remediation. The Secretary of State or I will be speaking to building owners, local authorities and fire and rescue services to press them to accelerate this pace. We are also looking at the interventions that we may need to take as a Government to deal with this blight. We will obviously continue our engagement with all the stakeholders he mentioned in the course of that endeavour.

[Baroness Donaghy (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, the Minister must be quite daunted to have two respected former Ministers on this Oral Question. The National Audit Office has said that the department has a long way to go to make all the high-rise buildings safe. The slowest to change has been the private sector. Councils have difficulty in checking these buildings, as the owner may well be a shell company registered abroad. The Housing Act gives councils the right to investigate, but the procedures are slow, costly and subject to a high legal bar. What practical steps will the Government take to overcome these challenges so that they keep their promises?

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, we recognise that there are a number of enforcement approaches, both through the Housing Act but also through the fire safety order, which is being updated and will be debated in this House next week. We continue to use a joint inspection team to look at the best way of enforcing against those building owners that are not moving to remediate unsafe cladding.