My Lords, I rise to give fulsome support to this amendment. It addresses an issue which is high on the priority list of the Local Government Association, and I declare my interest as its president. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, on those remarks, which will probably have more weight than anything I say, but perhaps I could add a little elaboration to the excellent points already made.
During the passage of this Growth and Infrastructure Bill, noble Lords from all parts of the House have noted that a key element in the growth agenda is the necessity to reduce the housing deficit—the acute and growing shortage of the homes that we need—and as in all previous recessions, to use housebuilding as a key engine for economic recovery. If we returned to housing output levels of just a few years ago—even then we were not building enough—we would add 1% to GDP. That is enough to lift the country above the threshold for an officially defined recession. That is the reason why the backing in the Financial Times today came not just from the bodies representing housing providers, but the CBI and representatives of British business and industry.
At present, there are few levers to pull to get housebuilding going again. Another part of this Bill is based on the hope that allowing housebuilders to cut back on their obligations to provide affordable housing will persuade them to start work on stalled sites. I hope that that part of the Bill, following our earlier deliberations, and the Minister’s helpful clarification of the Government’s intentions, will prove fit for purpose. However, it seems unlikely to make a huge difference. It is, of course, about less not more affordable housing—fewer homes at prices or rents that the next generation can afford.
This amendment, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Shipley, Lord Tope, Lord Jenkin of Roding and myself, goes for a bigger prize—a real opportunity to get a lot of homes built for those on more modest incomes, and almost miraculously, without recourse to large amounts of public subsidy. The amendment would allow local authorities, within constraints required by the Secretary of State, to borrow prudentially and to use the security of their housing assets. Thereby, they will make a significant local contribution to meeting housing needs and boosting the output of the construction industry.
Not so very long ago, councils were building 200,000 homes in a single year. By 1990, the annual output was down to 14,000 new homes in 1990. Today, it has dropped to virtually zero. In London, for example, just 80 new homes were built by local authorities in the years 2003 to 2010. The Government’s admirable self-financing housing revenue account reforms should now make possible a programme of an average of 5,000 new homes, from councils, for each of the next five years. This is a good start, but local authorities have the capacity to do far better.
Many councils have sites—plots of vacant land, redundant council buildings and all those unsightly garages on estates that can be demolished. They now need the opportunity to borrow and repay from rental income, and indeed to use cross-subsidy from house sales in mixed tenure developments to boost affordable housing numbers. Very often, they would achieve these results through working in partnership with a housing association or a private sector builder. What they need is the current artificial constraints on their borrowing powers for housing purposes to be lifted.
The Chartered Institute of Housing, with the Local Government Association and others, set out the case in a report Let’s Get Building: The Case for Local Authority Investment in Rented Homes to Help Drive Economic Growth, by John Perry. This shows that another 60,000 homes would be built over the next few years if the lending cap was lifted. This represents an addition of 10% on top of the private sector’s efforts and the important work of housing associations, and that would make a real difference.
Why would the Government not wish to see this modest extension of local freedoms taken forward at a time when there are so very few other ways of stimulating growth and tackling the backlog of unmet housing need? The answer is that the extra borrowing would add to the total UK public sector debt. However, since this borrowing can be comfortably repaid, it does not add to the structural deficit. Also, extra taxes, benefit savings and reduced expenditure on temporary
accommodation, et al, would immediately return much of the extra spending. As London Councils and CIPFA have pointed out, the borrowing caps are unnecessary given that councils are not subject to caps on their non-housing borrowing.
Moreover, there is an anomaly here, which the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, has pointed out. In the other countries of Europe, this kind of borrowing by the municipalities is counted as trading and falls outside the definition of public expenditure used by the EU, the IMF and the OECD. By inventing borrowing rules that are unique to the UK, we are tying one hand behind our backs, as Professor Steve Wilcox of York University, the real expert in this field, has been pointing out for many years.
I understand the dilemma facing the Treasury. The problem is that raising the cap or changing the definition used in this country to mirror that elsewhere could send out the wrong signal. Even if it is entirely justified and sensible, the impression could be given that the UK is taking a more relaxed view of borrowing in the public sector. However, the sums involved are small. Council borrowing accounts for just over 6% of the total, and the estimated extra £7 billion that would be borrowed over five years, if this amendment was accepted, is a small part of local government borrowing. Managing the presentation of this change should surely be possible.
Turning to housing associations as the key providers of affordable homes has worked well but has relied on them borrowing heavily as grant levels have been cut back. Many will run out of borrowing capacity in about two years’ time and many of these so-called registered providers will not then be in a position to keep up their current modest but important level of development. We are going to need to bring on stream another source of investment in rented affordable housing. Fortunately, just such a source of investment is at hand.
This is a carefully calibrated amendment that enables the Secretary of State to be cautious in raising the cap for each local authority’s housing investment as he so determines. But it opens up the possibility of a real opportunity to get some significant growth going of the most positive sort, boosting the economy by some £20 billion in return for borrowing £7 billion, without the need for subsidy, raising taxes or burdening the next generation. I believe that the time has come for the benefits that this amendment could undoubtedly achieve.