Lord Greenhalgh (Con)

My Lords, it is great to be back speaking again. It has been some time since I have made a contribution in this House; I have had some challenges. It is wonderful to speak on a topic secured by the noble Lord, Lord Bird. I join the chorus of congratulations on his 35 years tackling homelessness, dealing with successive Governments and being frustrated. We are now at the beginning of a new Government, and the noble Lord is giving huge praise to them and the current Prime Minister—he sees huge opportunities. I am sure the noble Lord is drawn to the fact that this Prime Minister has made it his very first pledge to see the end of rough sleeping. He wants to ensure that everyone is in by Christmas, which is a very noble endeavour. However, I hear echoes: I have heard this before. In January 2009, when I was council leader in Hammersmith and Fulham, the then Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, summoned me to the Broadway centre in my borough, in Shepherd’s Bush, to launch his campaign to end rough sleeping. At the time, Boris set the ambitious target of ending rough sleeping in London by 2012. Some years later, that pledge has been met by neither him nor successive mayors. When he was Prime Minister, he made the same pledge to end rough sleeping in England. Unfortunately, we did not see the end of rough sleeping by 2024, and we are not going to see it by 2027, by which time Theresa May wanted to end it. These challenges are here for some time, and it is important to come up with concrete policies that address them. This is a timely debate. I am interested in data and statistics, and the numbers are not good. The number of homeless people, whom we owe a duty to help, has increased from 269,000 in 2019 to a record 330,410. My noble friend Lord Young mentioned the number of children in temporary accommodation. The number of households in temporary accommodation has hiked from 95,000 to 135,000. The number of rough sleepers is now at a record level, at 4,793 in autumn on a single night, up from 2,443 in 2021. The numbers are going up, and it is not for lack of housing support. The amount of money going on direct housing benefit and the housing element of universal credit is ratcheting up all the time. It is now at £39 billion, up from £27 billion in 2018-19. It is right to set challenges. It is right for the noble Lord, Lord Bird, to set the challenge of bringing need and resource together. It is right for the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, with his personal experience of homelessness and “smelling the panic”, as he put it, to ask how we bring in assets to find a way through this. I am delighted that my noble friend Lord Young went back into the far reaches of history to come up with specific policies that might make a difference. I would like to add a few to the three that he mentioned. First, if we are to do something about addressing the challenge, we have to recognise the problem that we are dealing with. I would zero in on one number, not many numbers. Let us look at the number of homes that have remained empty for more than six months; I think we can all agree that bringing those homes back into use is the policy challenge. The number remained stable for five years from about 2012 to around 2017-18, but it has now risen from 248,000 in 2022 to 309,000, so it is up by about one-third since those stable years around a decade ago. Let us focus on that. Why are those homes empty? Let us be clear: they are not all private homes; a number of homes in social housing remain empty for long periods of time, and there can be very good reasons for that. The problem of long-term vacancies is irrespective of tenure. We have only anecdotal data about this, but sometimes it is due to a lack of funding to refurbish and renovate a home. Sometimes people invest in and hold an asset and do not use it, just to see a return on investment—the so-called buy to leave. Other times, family members die and there is no clarity about who the beneficiary is, so a home remains empty. Whatever the reasons, let us think of specific policies that can help. This is where I turn not to the 1980s and 1990s but to the coalition Government. They initiated the empty homes programme, which involved a direct amount of money, not a general housing grant, which was successful in bringing more empty homes back into use. So the first thing I would call for is a dedicated pot of money, recognising that we are all in favour of long-term empty homes being brought back into use. Secondly, if we agree that that is a good thing, can we have a progressive, far-reaching and generous Treasury that realises that there is no benefit to it of a long-term empty home? It is not securing any tax revenues. How about thinking about not charging VAT on long-term empty homes for refurbishment? That is the same as a new build. With a new build, no VAT is payable. What about removing VAT specifically for long-term empty homes? There might be homes that are vacant for more than six months. Perhaps we could create a threshold for that. Why not look at stamp duty? You have to pay that if you transfer ownership of empty homes yet, with new builds, no stamp duty is payable. So, specific things can be done. I ask the Minister if she would consider these three things: can we go back to the idea of a dedicated pot of money to bring long-term empty homes back into use? Can we come up with creative mechanisms that incentivise? A carrot is often better than the stick, as my noble friend Lord Young has said. Let us look at whether there can be a waiving of VAT or stamp duty to bring this resource back into use for social good.