Lord Gascoigne (Con)

My Lords, I am delighted to speak in this debate, and I congratulate my noble friend on securing it and on setting a good tone of hope and practicality, as she said, where we can talk about the type of country that we want to be. There are three things I wish to raise. The first is a more general point. I am always struck by how many people in this country care passionately about all aspects of housing and growth. We should surely acknowledge that as a healthy sign. For those of us who want growth, we should, however, look at doing things differently, and articulate a clearer vision that faces the facts and comes up with solutions. In these debates—and you may hear it today—I sometimes get exasperated when hearing the terms “nimby” or “yimby” being thrown around. Too often, it belittles the debate and oversimplifies views. Broadly speaking, people want development. Last year, polling from Public First showed that 55% of the population are in favour of development in their area and, for many who do have concerns, that does not translate automatically into a total rejection of new housing. We greenies should not instantly object to growth and development, because you can do both. Last year, I visited a development in Aylesbury where they are delivering some 2,500 homes, yet biodiversity has flourished simply by planning to put nature and development together from the outset. While I am always delighted to see them, I am particularly glad to see my Chief Whip and leader on the Front Bench today. I never tire of thanking them for giving me the privilege of chairing the Built Environment Select Committee here in your Lordships’ House. Most recently, as the Minister knows all too well, we have been talking about new towns. This great endeavour has bedevilled many a Government, but the Minister knows better than many that, if done properly, they can create a lasting positive legacy. Our committee’s second report on new towns focused on making sure we can create strong communities. Some will say that we just need to build homes, but what those homes look like matters—they need to become places and communities where people want to live and that they want to take care of. To be fair, I would say developers want to build homes that people love and that will stand the test of time. We did a recent report about how to get the views of younger people embedded in the whole process, from education through to employment and through consultations. If we begin to combine this with doing other things differently—such as better ways of engaging, and ensuring people see the uplift locally by making sure Section 106 and CIL payments are being delivered, and looking at why on earth major infrastructure projects like HS2 take so long and cost so much—then I think we can begin to make a difference and change the tone of the debate. Optimism or “cakeism” alone is not enough, and you cannot satisfy everyone. There must be some trade-off, and of course there are challenges. But it is our job as politicians to take them on, to fix the issues we face and own this agenda. Secondly, I was in Downing Street under Prime Minister Johnson; we accomplished some great things on supply-side reforms, and in my view we should have carried on. I confess that, while I still have reservations about the Planning Act and how it will work, I think that the new NPPF, as the noble Baroness, Lady Gill, was just mentioning, should be welcomed. To give confidence and clarity, it would still be good to hear more detail about where exactly these well-connected stations are. If we look at the market right now, we have about 1.4 million homes sitting with approval yet waiting for work to commence. That is not to say we should reverse the policy to unlock land, but the debate should move on to the demand side. The Minister will perhaps say later that the Government will not set out the detail now, but I hope that, in the upcoming Autumn Statement, there will be a lot more on helping first-time buyers to get on to the housing ladder, which will hopefully kick-start the wider housing market beyond first-time buyers. If we look at what previous Governments have done, this area is a rare opportunity for government to step in and have a positive impact. What we did with Help to Buy, for example, when we were in government, had a net benefit to the Treasury, fired up the sector and helped get more than 300,000 first-time buyers over the line. Finally, I will briefly comment on the capital. I briefly worked in City Hall, and sometimes when I speak in these debates it feels a bit like a reunion—particularly when I see my noble friend Lady O’Neill, a good friend, on the Front Bench and the noble Lord, Lord John, opposite. I worked in City Hall for a few years after the crash, and I came to make London my home. As a northerner who made it his home, I can say that Samuel Johnson remains right: if you are tired of London, you are tired of life—it does have everything. However, there are challenges, and they are stark. There is the tragedy of families and children in temporary accommodation, and there are issues relating to the cost of rent, lack of social housing and supply not meeting demand, which are driving those less able to afford the costs out of the city. A fascinating yet sobering recent report from the Centre for London sets out the scale of the problem, as well as measures to tackle the plethora of issues at play that are: “Touching the lives of almost every Londoner”. In that vein, given that this is not a single issue but one requiring a much broader response, do the Government recognise this complexity? Is work taking place to develop a different and more comprehensive package of solutions? This is a vital debate beyond simply building homes. It is not something that has gone awry overnight, but there is a huge opportunity here to not just increase home ownership but create jobs and growth, do things differently and get people more involved in society.