Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Martin Horwood (Liberal Democrat) in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 18 April 2007. It occurred during Adjournment debate on Housing (Hertfordshire).


Housing (Hertfordshire)

I am very grateful, Lady Winterton. However, just in reply to the hon. Lady, I think that she is slightly confusing buy-to-let with second homes. In counties such as Cornwall, second homes lie vacant for large parts of the year. That was the issue that I was seeking to address. As I was saying, housing supply is obviously a major factor, but not the only one. I do not think that it should dominate Government policy to the extent that it does, not least because it might not work. That is another point that we emphasised in our Select Committee report last year. The Select Committee concluded that:"““A simple supply and demand model cannot be applied uncritically to the behaviour of the housing market and house prices. The particular nature of the housing market makes it very difficult to be certain about the effect which a certain level of increase in supply will have on prices and thereby affordability…""It is unclear what impact the Government’s objective to increase house building to 200,000 by 2016 would have on affordability.?" We concluded:"““There are many factors, other than supply, which affect the affordability of housing. The Government needs to examine a range of strategies which might influence demand such as interest rates, the availability of credit and taxation, as possible approaches to stemming price rises and improving affordability.?" My point is that it is one thing to say that we need more housing, but it is quite another to continue to rely arbitrarily on a massive increase in supply as the only, or dominant, policy tool in addressing the issues of affordability, especially when, as hon. Members have pointed out, the policy also has grave implications for the environment, sustainability and infrastructure. Another obvious demand factor is regeneration—in other words, trying to rebalance the scales between areas of high demand, like St. Albans and others in Hertfordshire, and areas which are less well off. I have to acknowledge that the Government have made serious efforts on that front, including the recent announcement in Gloucestershire of significant regeneration money for Gloucester city, which I hope will rebalance the local housing market there. However, the Government risk undermining that with the market-led approach to house building. One of the most interesting pieces of evidence that the Select Committee received when considering its report was from the West Midlands regional assembly, which said:"““The West Midlands is seeking to halt the out migration of households from the conurbation. The proposed approach by ODPM is market led with the potential for increased development on Greenfield sites in areas of high demand.?" It went on to say that it feared that"““ODPM proposals will undermine developer confidence in the growth of the Major Urban Areas and lead to demands for an ever increasing rural residential land release and further out migration to the Shire Counties. This approach would be highly unsustainable and wholly against the principles of the West Midlands RSS.?" I find it strange that I am arguing with a Labour Minister that the Government are too slavishly in hock to market forces, but that seems to be the case.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
459 c118-9WH 
Session
2006-07
Chamber / Committee
Westminster Hall
Subjects
Construction Housing Environment protection Infrastructure Green belt Housing stock Overcrowding Hertfordshire
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk