Affordable Homes Programme

Valerie Vaz Excerpts

Tuesday 25th April 2023 Westminster Hall

[Mr Dhesi]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, and I commend the work of Councillor Ian Ward, whom I met recently. During my recent visit to Birmingham, I was able to meet council members, who spoke about their hopes and aspirations, but also to the constraints on them given limited resources from Government—indeed, they alluded to the high inflation they now have to contend with.

People sometimes say, “How can there be a housing crisis when there are cranes on our skylines and new houses and flats going up all over?” But those homes are rarely affordable and are often snapped up by investors off plan. Many remain empty—an investment by overseas property tycoons. That leaves hollowed-out communities with flats but no residents. That is why I am so glad that the Labour party has pledged to close the loopholes developers exploit to avoid building more affordable housing and give first-time buyers first dibs on new developments. I very much hope to hear more about those exciting plans from the Labour party spokesman, my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook), later in the debate.

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. It is not just Labour councils but Conservative-controlled councils that give land to the developers. There is one development on Broadway where the average house costs £800,000, which is way beyond the reach of most of my constituents. Does my hon. Friend agree that, as well as putting targets on developers, we must give housing associations the freedom to build houses? We see people at our surgeries crying out for homes. We must look at the need and then give housing associations the freedom to build those houses.

[Mr Dhesi]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention. The experiences she has at her advice surgeries talking to her constituents chime neatly with what I am being told. Yes, we must empower housing associations and others to build homes. The focus especially on building council homes is incredibly important, because that is where we as a nation are failing. There is huge demand for council housing in particular, not just in Walsall but in my constituency, but there is just not the supply to go around. That must urgently be looked at. Those targets are being missed.

I hope that Labour will end the scandalous practice of foreign buyers purchasing swathes of new housing developments off plan before local people can even see them. We will strengthen the rights of tenants with a new private renters charter. Only a generation ago a couple in work could aspire to get on the property ladder, to eventually pay off their mortgage and to give their children a helping hand. Today, that dream is out of reach for millions thanks to the utter failure of this Government. The Housing Minister, the hon. Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean), is the 15th since the Tories came to power and the sixth to hold the post in the past 12 months alone. What hope do ordinary people have with such chaos at the very heart of Government?

Labour will build the homes that people need. We will take steps to meet demand in the decades to come and we must also boost social housing, as I said to my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz). That is how a Labour Government will fix Britain’s broken housing market for people in Slough and across our nation.

If the Government cannot, or will not, commit to matching Labour’s focus on this vital issue, if they cannot deliver genuinely affordable homes and if they continue to let this programme fall even further behind, they should just admit that they have given up trying to help the millions struggling with housing across our country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under you in the Chair, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) on securing this important debate and on the compelling speech with which he opened it. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Coventry North West (Taiwo Owatemi), for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury), for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier) and for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) and the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) for participating this afternoon and for a series of powerful speeches.

The debate has covered a range of concerns, many relating to the housing crisis more widely, but, on the specific matter of the affordable homes programme, most fell within two broad categories—namely, the performance of the programme over recent years and the more fundamental issues of its design and purpose. I want to address each of those in turn.

When it comes to the performance of the programme, there is clearly significant room for improvement. The comprehensive National Audit Office report on the operation of the AHP since 2015, which was published last year, details concerns on to a wide range of issues—including governance, transparency and oversight—many of which were echoed in a report published shortly afterwards by the Public Accounts Committee. I would be grateful if, as part of his response, the Minister could tell the House whether the Department has acted on the eight specific recommendations made by the NAO in its report, and could take the opportunity to update hon. Members on the steps that his Department committed to taking in its response to the PAC.

A particular criticism levelled at the programme by both the NAO and the PAC and referenced by my hon. Friend the Member for Slough in opening the debate was the fact that targets were unlikely to be met. We know that, taken together, the 2016 and 2021 programmes are likely to miss their combined target by approximately 32,000 homes, with a shortfall of 9,000 starts under the 2016 programme compounded by a projected 23,000 shortfall in the current one. There is also a clear risk that the programme will fail to meet its sub-targets on supported accommodation and rural housing.

Opposition Members recognise that some of the factors undermining delivery on the targets are entirely out of the Government’s control, but there are others—such as local planning authority capacity and the need for funding and financing mechanisms to support providers in upgrading their stock—that the Government could take more proactive steps to mitigate. Might the Minister provide us with some assurance this afternoon that the Government are at least actively looking at what more can be done in that regard? Can he also explain whether and, if so, how rules about grant funding under the current programme might be being made more flexible—not least in terms of increased grant funding per unit—with a view to sustaining the Department’s central forecast of 157,000 completions in the face of inflationary pressure?

Lastly, when it comes to assessing the overall performance of the programme, effective scrutiny is still very much hampered by the absence of transparency and open reporting. The Department has now committed to providing an annual report to Parliament on programme delivery, but might the Minister go further today and commit at least to having Homes England publish its annual AHP targets, as the Greater London Authority has already done?

Let me turn to the design and purpose of the programme. One of the more damning conclusions of the NAO report was that the AHP lacks strong incentives for housing providers to deliver affordable homes in areas of high housing need and high affordability pressure. I would be grateful if the Minister could therefore update the House on how the Department is improving the way it works with local authorities to address local need, and tell us whether any further measures are being explored to ensure that more grant-funded affordable housing flows to areas of high need.

Providing more homes in such areas is, of course, not the only wider Government objective in respect of which the current programme is falling short. To me at least, it simply beggars belief that both the Department and Homes England did not include any specific targets relating to emissions reductions in the 2021 programme, with the result that outside London the Government are financing the construction of new affordable homes that in all likelihood we will have to retrofit in years to come.

The Government have committed to exploring the cost and deliverability of additional net zero requirements, but only in a successor to the 2021 programme.

[Valerie Vaz]

My hon. Friend is making an interesting speech. Does he agree that every new home should have a solar panel fitted when it is built?

[Matthew Pennycook]

There is a strong case for that. It is an issue—one of many—that we are exploring in detail. The situation speaks to a wider failure, which is the abolition of the zero homes standard by, I think, the coalition Government. We built tens if not hundreds of thousands of homes over recent years that we will have to retrofit at great cost. The least we can do is change the criteria the programme operates on, so that at least we build net zero-ready homes for which we will not have to do that in years to come. I would be grateful if the Minister could explain what precisely is stopping changes being made to the programme to ensure, as the Greater London Authority has done, that all new grant-funded homes are net zero carbon and air quality neutral.

Those issues aside, there is the more fundamental and important question of whether the programme provides the right kind of homes to meet affordable housing need in England. The answer of Labour Members is a categorical no. We believe it is a problem that the programme has constrained the overall amount of grant funding available for sub-market rented homes while also failing to deliver an increase in the supply of low-cost home ownership properties. We believe it is a problem that the Government’s decision to prioritise the so-called affordable rent tenure of up to 80% of local market rents has squeezed the amount of programme funding available for new homes for social rent and ballooned the number of households in temporary accommodation and on local housing waiting lists, as well as the housing benefit bill, as a result. Those are not technical design flaws; they reflect political choices about what a national affordable housing programme should aim to achieve and whether its primary purpose should be meeting the needs of people on the lowest incomes.

There is a clear difference of opinion between the Opposition and the Government on this matter. We believe the overriding purpose of a national affordable housing programme should be to provide as many genuinely affordable homes as possible, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch rightly argued. The Government believe, at least post-2018, that the purpose of such a programme is to provide—reluctantly —a small number of genuinely affordable social rented homes and a much larger number of sub-market rented and home ownership units that are branded as affordable, but, in practice, are anything but for many low-income households in swathes of the country. That is why—with the debasement of language we have seen in recent years in the concept of affordable housing—the Housing and Planning Minister could argue with a straight face in a debate that took place last week on the future of social housing that Conservative-led Governments since 2010 have outperformed the last Labour Government on affordable housing, despite the fact that the last Labour Government built over twice as many social homes as Conservative-led Governments since 2010 have managed, and that at no point over the past decade has annual social housing supply ever matched the levels delivered by the last Labour Government.

We want the performance of the affordable homes programme to improve between now and the general election, and I look forward to the Minister detailing the various ways in which the Government are attempting to achieve that. But as laudable an aim as fine-tuning the existing programme is, Labour is clear that a very different programme will be required in the future to markedly increase the supply of new net zero-ready, genuinely affordable homes to rent and buy, as is our aim. It is an aim based on a reassessment of the amount of grant funding directed toward sub-market rent and the building of social rented homes in particular; on a review of the scope of eligible sub-market products, not least the so-called affordable rent tenure; and on a reappraisal of whether there are better low-cost home ownership products than shared ownership.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lee Rowley]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right that it is not enough, but the whole point of trying to build more properties and of using programmes such as the affordable housing programme to bridge, where that is necessary, into home ownership through rent and part ownership is to boost those numbers. My point is not that there are no challenges—I acknowledged such challenges at the very top of my speech. It is to try to insert balance, if only into the record: some progress has been made over the last 13 years. A substantial number of properties have been built over that time—for home ownership, for rent and in the affordable sector—and most importantly, after a relatively clear-cut decline under Governments of all parties, the decline seems to have been arrested. There is a long way to go and there is absolutely the need for growth. I want everybody who wants to own their own home to have the opportunity to do so, but I hope that this is at least an indicator that we are moving, to an extent, in the right direction.

I have the greatest respect for the hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury), and would never dream of reading my phone when he is speaking. I was specifically texting—this is both the benefit and the tyranny of having mobile devices in a debate—about the point he had raised. I regret to tell him that I have been unable to get an answer in the 40 minutes since he spoke, but I will ask the Department to write to him. I will be honest with him: I do not know whether the Department has purview here, and I do not know any of the details of the problem that he highlighted. It is always a challenge for local communities when developers are unable to complete the properties that they have indicated they will. I know that causes issues. I have a similar one in the village of Tupton in North East Derbyshire, where the developer unfortunately went out of business and the site is now mothballed. North East Derbyshire District Council is working hard to try to move that issue on. I will endeavour to write to the hon. Member for Weaver Vale either way, and will see whether the Department can provide any advice or information about the point that he raised; I am grateful for his doing so.

The hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier) raised a number of incredibly important and detailed points, to which I will ask the Department and the Minister responsible to respond in detail. Part of the answer to some of her questions will, I hope, be answered by the further details that come forward in the next stage of the affordable housing programme, but I will ask for a letter to be provided to the hon. Lady with more detail about the specific questions that she highlighted.

The hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden made an extremely powerful intervention about the challenges of temporary accommodation—an issue that we all are aware of. We all want standards, quality and conditions to improve. As a former councillor in central London, albeit a number of years ago, I am under no illusions about some of the challenges of temporary accommodation. The Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, my right hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), has been clear that improvements are needed in this area and has indicated that further legislation will be forthcoming. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden for highlighting her concerns, and I hope the Department can make progress in the coming months and years.

The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) made a very important point about the challenges of access to labour, particularly in rural areas due to geography and topography and the like. I am sorry to hear about the issues his constituents are experiencing. While housing is a devolved matter, it is important, and I am grateful that he has put on record those issues and the work he is doing to address them. He will be aware that, at least from an England perspective, we are seeking to legislate as part of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill in order to offer councils the opportunity—which they do not have to take up; some will choose to, some will not—to vary council tax for second homes. That will hopefully put an additional tool in the arsenal of local authorities to respond, in England, to the local challenges he has raised.

The spokesperson for the Opposition, the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich, raised an important point about capacity in local planning authorities, which is an issue that the Housing Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean), and I are both involved in. Within planning, nationally significant infrastructure projects fall under my aegis. That is different from the debate we are having today, but there are very live conversations within the NSIPs and major infrastructure realms. I know from my colleague the Housing Minister that it is the same with regard to capacity in local planning authorities and within the appeals process, where a number of applications end up in their final stages.

The hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich raised a number of important points about green homes. We need to make progress on multiple different imperatives and initiatives. The part L uplift, which we brought in in the summer of 2021, constituted a 30% increase and improvement in standards. That is in place now and has been for almost a year. The transition period for the part L uplift ends shortly, meaning that all houses built from now on will be 30% more efficient than previously. That is a massive increase compared to a number of years ago. However, there is a trade-off here, and we are trying to work through the issues and make progress in all aspects.

The Labour party has spent much of this debate—reasonably, in my view—saying that we need more houses, and that they need to be affordable to own and rent. We agree, which is why we are trying to make progress in this area. We also need to make progress on the environmental agenda, but those things must be brought into balance. Every single time an hon. Member stands up in this place and says, “We just need this one thing added in”, we need to understand that there is cost involved. That is where we have to make considerations. The part L uplift is a great example: we are trying to make progress environmentally, while also trying to answer the question reasonably posed by hon. Members across this place as to how we increase housing supply in general. We hope we are striking the right balance.

[Valerie Vaz]

The Minister is doing a great job of expanding his speech. There is absolutely no cost to ensuring that there is an obligation for every new home built to have solar panels. Why does the Minister not look at that? My hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook), Labour’s Front-Bench spokesperson, has said that all these new houses have to be retrofitted. Surely the Minister can consider what can be done with new houses in terms of the environmental factors?

[Lee Rowley]

I understand the point that the right hon. Lady is making, but there is a cost to mandating solar panels on new properties: the cost that will be paid for the initial transaction. If right hon. and hon. Members want to see supply boosted, we have to accept that we have to set a balance; we are trying to do that by saying both that it is important to make progress with regard to the environmental imperatives that have been rightly highlighted and—to answer the exam question—to get the kind of supply that everybody in this debate wants to see.

I gently caution hon. Members not to be too prescriptive regarding the technology we use. Although solar panels will be appropriate in many instances—I would guess the majority of instances, as a non-expert and a non-surveyor—they will not be the solution to reducing the carbon footprint of every single new property built. We should all collectively accept that solar panels will not be a useful or effective way to spend money in that cohort—in situations where, for whatever reason, including the wrong aspect, the wrong part of the country or the wrong geography. We should seek not to impose a requirement in that regard but instead to say, “If you have that amount of money within the system to be able to spend on making that building greener, the Government will not be prescriptive that you have to do something that isn’t necessarily going to be effective, but we will encourage you to use that money to make it effective, be it in a different form of technology or doing it in a different way.”