Rhetoric and reality: Jenrick’s claims in the Queen’s Speech debate did not always stack up

He had a good line about Labour being “tough on homes, tough on the causes of homes” – a reference to the new politics of planning – but does that talk really add up? Here are some quotes from the rest of the debate that suggest not.

“For too many, this uniquely British dream has proved to be out of reach, and we face a generational divide between those who own property and those who do not.”

Uniquely British? In a European super league of homeownership rates, Britain would be flirting with relegation.

“Last year alone, more homes were delivered – 244,000 – than in any year in my lifetime. Were it not for the pandemic, more would have been delivered than at any time since Harold Macmillan stood at this dispatch box as housing secretary.”

If that’s true, why bother with the Planning Bill at all? In 1954, Mr Macmillan’s final year as housing minister, 293,000 homes were completed in England. They were very different times, but 193,000 of those were council houses.

The Housing, Communities and Local Government (HCLG) Committee, which has a Conservative majority, said last year that 90,000 social rent homes a year are needed to meet the government’s target of 300,000 new homes a year. But other Mr Jenrick policies, such as First Homes and the Right to Shared Ownership, directly threaten funding arrangements for new social housing.

“We have brought forward the biggest affordable homes programme for at least 10 years – £12bn, a very substantial sum. At the moment, there is no sign that the market is even capable of building more homes than that. If it can, I will be the first person to be knocking on the door of my right honourable friend the chancellor asking for more money so that we can build more affordable homes of all types,” Mr Jenrick said.

This was perhaps the most revealing comment by the housing secretary. I assume by “the market”, he means housing associations and local authorities and that they lack the capacity to build more.

If there is anyone out there who would like to dispute that, here is an open door to bid for more cash in the next Spending Review – and Mr Jenrick will apparently be first in the queue.

“The government first promised to abolish Section 21 in April 2019, but the real battle over details such as those strengthened possession grounds for landlords has not yet started”

“Since 2010, we have delivered over half a million new affordable homes, including 365,000 affordable homes for rent, many of which – 148,000 – are going to social rent.”

Even taken at face value, that is not much of a boast over 10 years – on an annual basis that’s about a sixth of what the HCLG Committee said is required.

But this is the same boast made by successive Conservative housing ministers since 2010 and, as they all know, most of those social rent homes were completions of projects funded by the last Labour government’s National Affordable Housing Programme. The years between 2012 and 2020 saw a net loss of 210,000 social rent homes.

“My department has a unique opportunity to achieve transformational change that will improve the lives of millions of people. We will be working on the most substantive reform of leasehold, property rights, building safety, renters’ rights and planning in a generation,” the housing secretary said.

All this is good news, but with some caveats. Leasehold reform is on the way, but there are still big challenges for existing leaseholders: renters’ rights will be reformed ‘in due course’ and the change in building safety seems more provisional than transformational.

“We are also backing a fairer deal for the millions of renters. To that end, we will publish our consultation response on proposals to abolish Section 21 no-fault evictions and improve security for tenants in the private rented sector, while strengthening possession grounds for landlords when they need that for valid reasons.”

The government first promised to abolish Section 21 in April 2019, but the real battle over details such as those strengthened possession grounds for landlords has not yet started.

“As MP after MP pointed out, the government has resisted all attempts to protect leaseholders from fire safety costs and only offered partial solutions to problems that the all-party HCLG Committee said will cost £15bn to fix”

“It feels especially poignant to be introducing the Building Safety Bill so close to the fourth anniversary of the tragedy at Grenfell Tower.”

Poignant? The bill does make long-overdue improvements to the building safety regime, but I can think of other adjectives to describe the fact that it’s taken four years to get to this stage.

“As members are aware, leaseholders in high-rise, high-risk buildings over 18m will pay nothing, with their costs being paid either by developers, insurers or warranty providers, or by the taxpayer through our £5bn government fund – the largest ever government investment in building safety and five times the size of the building safety fund set out in the Labour Party’s 2019 manifesto.”

This seems a point well made, but the fund mentioned in Labour’s manifesto was actually designed to fit sprinklers and other fire safety measures in social housing blocks.

As MP after MP pointed out, the government has resisted all attempts to protect leaseholders from fire safety costs and only offered partial solutions to problems that the all-party HCLG Committee said will cost £15bn to fix. Meanwhile, the larger External Wall System 1 problem is still unresolved.

Mr Jenrick is not the first housing secretary or minister to ramp up the rhetoric to distract attention from the gaping holes in his policies, and he will certainly not be the last.

How about “affordable and safe housing for all”?

Jules Birch, columnist, Inside Housing