| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
7.13 pm
Mr. Roy Thomason (Bromsgrove): First, I declare an interest as a consultant to a building society and to a firm of solicitors, both of which inevitably have property matters relevant to their activities, although neither of them, nor any client of the solicitors, has invited me to express an opinion in the debate.
I welcome the opportunity to discuss housing as a major issue and, in particular, the Select Committee report. Housing is and always will remain at the forefront of political debate, and policies related to it are deeply contentious and go to the core of social division and the distribution of wealth. The Select Committee was probably extremely courageous to take on this subject, and it is a tribute to the co-operation of all members of the Committee that the report has received almost unanimous endorsement. I hope that cross-party co-operation within the Environment Select Committee will continue despite a temporary setback.
After the provision of food, shelter for oneself and one's family is the most vital human need. It is estimated that the average cost of housing is now about 15 per cent. of disposable income. There has been a sharp increase in that figure in the past few years, but that is reflective of the sacrifices that people are prepared to make to acquire the home of their choice.
The first issue to address in a debate of this kind is the definition of housing need itself. Is it limited to those who simply want a better home? That would certainly be reflected by the expression "housing demand", but "need" goes to a narrower definition. The Committee chose not to be limited to the other extreme--those totally lacking any dwelling at all--as that would have been far too narrow. However, there are clearly individuals or families living in overcrowded conditions, lacking basic amenities or with no reasonable home available at all, and it is they who can be said to have a housing need.
There are difficulties even on the margin of that definition, particularly those who are sharing with their parents. Sometimes the space will be adequate and the amenities satisfactory, but they will still want a home of
their own, which they may have difficulty in achieving. The key additional component is, therefore, that they also cannot afford a market price, whether to rent or to buy. Inevitably, that led the report to concentrate on social housing, rather than exclusively on owner-occupation.
In considering the number of additional units that may be required, it is necessary to look at the historic position. There are clearly large numbers of people currently seeking alternative accommodation, many of whom may rightly claim a need. Should the estimated future provision required take into account that backlog, or simply address the numbers year to year, that is, keep pace but not reduce the backlog? In part, the historic backlog is also dependent upon estimating the numbers of those who live in sub-standard housing--a difficult estimate, compounded by some who do not want to move. We have heard examples of that from my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Sir I. Patnick).
The next issue to consider is the expected level of owner-occupation. If owner-occupation is to increase as a proportion of the stock--as it has done substantially in the past two decades--less provision will be required for new household formations in the social housing sector. Conversely, fewer buyers will lead to a greater requirement for social housing. Most of us, myself included, tend to support the Government's argument that the total number of owner-occupied households is likely to rise by about 3 per cent. in the next few years to a total around, or just exceeding, 70 per cent. That takes account of those who wish to move into owner-occupation, either from adequate rented accommodation or on new household formation, coupled with right-to-buy applicants.
The right to buy remains a substantial force, and applications remain considerable. Against this figure, we must take into account those falling out of owner-occupation, particularly through repossession. The number of repossessions has fallen since the peak in the early 1990s caused by difficulties within the property market. The rise in house prices in recent months--particularly since our report was published--suggests that negative equity may be increasingly something of the past. However, it would not be unreasonable to assume that there will still be a number of repossessions, even if that is below current figures. In addition, demolition of sub-standard stock that is currently owner-occupied will have some impact on the figures.
The next factor we had to consider in calculating owner-occupation numbers relates to changes in tenure caused by social adjustments. Thus, as people live longer, there will be a tendency for them to move into sheltered accommodation or residential care from traditional owner-occupation.
The figure for owner-occupation, showing a small but still significant increase, takes into account all those factors. Thus there remains a strong determination among people generally to own their own homes. All the indications show that at least 80 per cent. of the population would like to be home owners, even if some, for financial or other reasons, will not be able to achieve it. Despite the temporary unpopularity of home ownership caused by falling property prices, there is no real indication that there has been a shift in people's desire to own their own home--the concept that the Englishman's
home is his castle and the ambition to be its owner remain dear to our national psyche, and they appear to be almost as strongly held in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
Another important aspect of social change that we had to consider was the desire of young people to set up home more quickly than has been traditional. Many of us did not feel that it was appropriate for public resources to be devoted to the provision of homes for young people the moment they cease to be schoolchildren. They may have some need to establish themselves, but scarce public funds should not be made available to provide homes in those circumstances.
The exception must be particularly vulnerable youngsters, such as those leaving local authority care and others in similar circumstances. I was impressed by one scheme based in London which was making provision for young people in this situation. However, as a general rule, it is clear that while the earlier maturity of young people will create additional housing pressures, we should not expect them in general to be accommodated in social housing subsidised by the taxpayer or by fellow tenants. They will have an impact on household formation numbers, but they should not generally lead to increasing social housing demand.
As the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) mentioned, the Government estimate that up to the year 2001 there will be an annual need for between 60,000 and 100,000 units of social housing. The Government believe that a target figure towards the lower end of that range would be appropriate as slight under-provision will create demand for private rented accommodation and lead to more investment in housing for rent. The Government have estimated the figures on the basis that the number of households in England will rise by 4.4 million over the next 20 years as a result of factors such as increased life expectancy, higher net immigration, changes in marital status and co-habitation, and general growth in the rate at which people form independent households.
We received other estimates of the number of social housing units that will required. Most were in the range of 60,000 to 100,000 units, with 120,000 probably being the largest. The Government are therefore talking of pitching the figure towards the lower end of their range, somewhere below what is considered by most observers to be the likely need, but they are not that far out, particularly if they are correct in their expectation that there will be new investment in housing. Indeed, that could ensure that the gap is made up.
That new investment, therefore, will be critical to the equation. It is imperative that housing investment trusts are a success and that private sector capital is introduced into the letting market. Some units will not be suitable for people who are able to afford only social housing rents--with or without housing benefit--but it is clear that the attraction of public sector investment in the lower range of private rented accommodation will be a vital component if pressures are not to build to an unacceptable level.
I am convinced that the Government are right in believing that that can be achieved, but they will need to monitor developments in the field closely and be prepared to step in to encourage more private investment if it appears to be failing to make up the anticipated substantial supplement to the social housing stock that is required.
Flexibility is therefore important, and I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will be able to assure us later that he will continue to keep the position under review.
Little can be said about housing generally and housing need in particular without referring to planning implications. Whether provision is for social housing or for owner-occupied housing, land must be found. I represent a constituency that is particularly sensitive to development proposals. We are bordered by the west midlands conurbation and our neighbours are Solihull, Birmingham and Dudley. To the south lies the expanding town of Redditch, and Kidderminster, which has grown substantially in recent years, is not far away.
With major transport links running through the constituency, the Bromsgrove area has become a particularly popular place in which to live. Part of its popularity, as with so many other similar places, is its semi-rural nature. If we allow further development within the green belt, which covers most of the constituency, that attractive quality will be lost. This view is not simply driven by the short-term and selfish attitude of those who wish to protect their own position--the NIMBY principle--but is more about retaining green lungs around our cities and ensuring that we do not have long and continuously developed corridors of development stretching out across the countryside so that for many city dwellers a view of a field becomes a rarity.
We must ensure that our planning policies are designed to retain open areas around our cities. If that is to be achieved, it follows that there will be continuing pressure on land available for development. I therefore particularly welcome the Government's determination to ensure that 50 per cent. of new development will take place on brown-field sites. The target is not terribly ambitious, however, as the Select Committee discovered, for existing levels of development are not far from that already--itself a point worth noting.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |