Asked by
To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they remain committed to
building 300,000 houses a year.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for
Levelling Up, Housing & Communities () (Con)
Yes, the Government are committed to continuing to work towards
our ambitious target of 300,000 homes a year, as set out in the
2019 Conservative manifesto. Annual housing supply is up 10%
compared to the previous year, with over 232,000 houses built and
delivered in 2021-22. This is the highest yearly rate for the
last 30 years.
(Con)
I am grateful to my noble friend, who is dealing heroically with
housing and the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, which after
eight sittings still has as many groups ahead of it as at the
first. Does she understand the concern that the concession made
over Christmas to head off a rebellion in another place has made
it even more difficult to hit the 300,000 target? Does she
understand that many of us want to give the other place an
opportunity to think again by amending the Bill, and so help the
Government to hit their target?
(Con)
The Government are committed to building more houses of the right
type in the right places, but we know at the moment that there
are economic challenges faced by the sector. We need to work as
closely as we are, and more closely—and with Homes England—to
better understand those challenges and to provide support. We
have already consulted on changes to the planning policy that
will support how we plan to deliver these houses in our
communities, and we will respond to that consultation in due
course. I assure my noble friend that we remain committed to a
plan-led system, and national planning policy that expects local
authorities through their plans to make sufficient provision for
housing and identify the sites to deliver these much-needed homes
to meet local needs.
The Lord Speaker ()
My Lords, the noble Lord, , is participating
remotely.
(Lab) [V]
My Lords, if, prior to planning approval, land for both
high-density public and private housing development was acquired
at agricultural acreage prices, as has happened in parts of
Europe, and then allocated for both social rental and restricted
leasehold sale to housing associations and housing trust
development programmes, would that not be a huge incentive for
construction levels not seen since the 1970s, as against today’s
numbers, where scarcity is driving up prices and denying millions
a home?
(Con)
The noble Lord brings up a very interesting idea. We are looking
at different ways of land use in the levelling-up Bill, and I am
sure that there will be more discussions on those sorts of
issues.
(Con)
My Lords, will my noble friend bear in mind the immortal words of
William Morris, that a thing of use should also be a thing of
beauty? Can we have some attention paid, far more than in the
past, on the quality of housing, and make sure that it can easily
be equipped to deal with climate change?
(Con)
My noble friend is absolutely right and if he has the time over
the Recess to read the levelling-up Bill, he will see that the
Government have plans and are committed to building better houses
with better design, and building more energy-efficient housing as
well.
(Lab)
My Lords, changes to the planning system, to which the Minister
referred, pose a risk to the supply of new housing. In a recent
public letter to the Secretary of State, 19 leading organisations
from across the housing sector expressed serious concerns about
the impact of proposals, particularly for the new infrastructure
levy and its impact on the supply of housing, particularly social
and affordable housing. What steps are the Government taking to
respond to these widespread concerns and protect affordable
housing delivery?
(Con)
We do not agree. We absolutely want to protect the amount of
affordable housing and particularly the social housing part of
that affordable housing. We believe the Bill will help us to do
that. We will continue with it and continue to deliver
much-needed housing in that sector.
Noble Lords
My Lords—
(Con)
My Lords, it is the turn of the Cross Benches.
(CB)
Does the Minister agree that, of the 300,000 target, 10% or
30,000 homes ought to be for older people’s housing—retirement
housing—because this gives us terrific gains in terms of health
and care facilities? It also means two for one because, for every
one of those homes, another is released by an older person moving
on. Can we in the levelling-up Bill therefore insist on local
authorities including provision for older people—retirement
housing—in their local plans?
(Con)
The Bill makes it clear that local authorities, in their local
plan, have to include housing for older people and for disabled
people and other vulnerable groups. The Government want to
deliver the best possible outcomes for these groups by helping
them to live independently in safe, appropriate and good-quality
housing for as long as they can possibly stay in it. The £11.5
billion affordable homes programme includes the delivery of new
supported housing for older, disabled and vulnerable people, and
our planning rules already mean that councils must consider them
in their plans.
(LD)
Targets do not get homes built. People do, people with a wide
range of skills. Given that every single report, from Kate Barker
in 2004 to the recent BEIS figures, have warned us of a severe
skills shortage in the construction industry, what are the
Government’s plans to reverse this decline? Do the Government see
SME builders as part of the solution, as they appear to have been
phased out of significant housebuilding altogether over the past
decade?
(Con)
We are collaborating across government to ensure that we are
supporting the sector. The Department for Education is improving
training routes into construction and creating opportunities for
workers to retrain by working with employers to make
apprenticeships available and more flexible and to promote
T-levels. The Government are increasing funding for
apprenticeships across all sectors, including construction, to
£2.7 billion in 2024-25. We are continuing to fund more
apprenticeships in non-levy-funded employers, which are often
SMEs, and the Government will continue to meet 95% of the
apprenticeship training cost for those companies.
(Con)
Can my noble friend estimate the significance of a recent report
that the Nationwide Building Society has been directly involved
in the construction of 239 properties on wasteland? This would
suggest that there are other ways that we can make sure that the
Government’s target figure can be met.
(Con)
My noble friend is absolutely right. We need to look at all types
of construction ideas and use whatever financial incentives we
can to ensure that we are building the houses that we know we
need.
of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, having somewhere safe, stable and secure to live is
essential for good mental and physical health. For too many
people, housing insecurity and poor mental health reinforce one
another. Will the Minister commit to ensure that all new housing
developments include within their plans a priority to promote
good mental health and well-being for the population?
(Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for that question. This is something
that should be brought up in the LURB as we discuss it further.
She is absolutely right. We need more good-quality housing in the
United Kingdom because we know that if somebody is in a
good-quality, safe home their mental health and physical health
are better.
(CB)
My Lords, I declare my interest. I was grateful to the Minister
for mentioning energy efficiency in one of her earlier answers.
In the light of the CCC’s report about adaptation and the
Government’s proposals today on energy security, will she look at
my Amendment 486 to the LURB? The Government might save
themselves some time by adopting it in relation to solar panels
on new housing.
(Con)
I am sure we will discuss the noble Baroness’s Amendment 486 in
the LURB when we get to it.
