Adam Wildsmith is deputy director of Blue Beyond.
In his first party political broadcast as Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak’s focus was firmly on his five pledges to Britain; what he called, “the foundations, on which to build a better future for our children and grandchildren”.
The theme of family is central to the Government’s rhetoric; Sunak has said that “family runs right through our vision of a better future”.
The trouble is that this pro-family rhetoric rarely translates into policy. Aside from the cost of living, other issues plaguing families, such as childcare and housing, weren’t referenced in either of his two big televised moments of the new year and have been little heard of since.
It isn’t hard to see why this was the case. The Government has failed on these issues time and again, and seems unlikely to present plausible solutions any time soon.
The latest proposal to construct 300,000 new, affordable homes per year by the mid-decade is a fanciful notion; Michael Gove, the Housing Secretary, concedes the proposal will be “difficult” to deliver because of the economic slump and rising inflation.
For the thousands – perhaps millions – of young people who hope to own a home of their own, they face a mountain of challenges. While according to YouGov opposition to increased house building consistently hovers around 30 per cent, this soares to 45 per cent if the new construction is in the person’s local area.
And far from tackling the scourge of nimbyism, the Government has actually fuelled the campaign against new property development.
Last month, it announced it will scrap mandatory housing targets, the only policy that tells councils to build and punishes them for not doing so. At the time Robert Colville, Director of the Centre for Policy Studies, warned in an article for the Sunday Times that this would result in reduced building, concerns cemented this week in a Financial Times report which warned that:
“[H]ousebuilders are concerned about changes to the planning system proposed by prime minister Rishi Sunak which will dilute development targets and give local communities more power to rebuff proposed new housing.”
Nevertheless, targets alone aren’t enough to combat underdevelopment in the industry.
As David Davis has argued on this site, there is widespread concern with land banking, in which large developers acquire as many permits as possible and then build fewer homes than pledged, enabling the sale of the homes or the land at an inflated price.
Permission ought to be time-limited; if building is not carried out, councils should be empowered to purchase back the land at the original sale price.
Yet that can’t be the whole solution. Drive for a few minutes outside any town or city across the United Kingdom, and you will see vast swaths of undeveloped land. We need to build on some of it.
For years, debate has focused on redeveloping brownfield sites. But often these spots are absurdly expensive to decontaminate, and situated in undesirable locations where factories or former gas stations once stood.
Greenfield sites are comparatively cheaper to develop, requiring minimal land preparation or groundworks; free from the constraints of developing near or within an urban centre; and with the flexibility to expand for future growth.
Our ambitions must move towards developing new areas, where people want to live, and away from the current fixation on trying to reuse undesirable and difficult to develop ex-industrial sites.
On childcare, too, the Government has been quiet. Meanwhile soaring costs continue to bedevil parents; Britain now has amongst the most expensive childcare in Europe, with a full-time nursery place for a child under five costing in the region of £14,000 per year.
In the new year, the Prime Minister told us that his plans would “support those who can, to move back into work”.
But childcare costs mean many women would be paying to return to work after maternity leave, and if a young family couldn’t afford to support a child on a sole income, they’d likely be unable to afford to raise a child at all.
Liz Truss had planned big-bang reforms of the sector, pledging to expand the state-funded childcare provision from 30 hours to 50 hours, while deregulating the sector and freeing providers from the manacles of rigid teacher-to-child ratios.
Currently, one adult is required for every four two-year olds; that was expected to rise to five. With 78 per cent of the costs in the childcare sector going towards staffing, increasing the ratio would have saved families around £40 per week, assuming the savings would be passed on.
But these reforms have now been scrapped by Sunak, and seem unlikely to re-emerge in the future.
Even were that not the case, those reforms would not have gone far enough. A means-tested system would help to ensure support did not go to parents who would – and could afford to – pay for childcare anyway.
Meanwhile reducing the red tape on childminders, who must jump through a multitude of regulatory hoops even just to look after the children of friends, would help parents find the best solutions for their circumstances.
At present, all childminders must follow an Early Years educational framework with children required to progress in maths, literacy, “understanding the world” and “expressive arts and design”. This is all well and good – but remember this is for children five and under.
If children of this age are cared for solely by their parents, we don’t insist they work towards these excessive goals. So why are childcare providers forced to follow these stringent rules?
For Sunak to deliver on his pro-family rhetoric, he must be bold. People need decent homes in which to raise families, and practical, affordable options for looking after their children when they return to work. There is great scope for government to make this happen; at present, it does much more to stand in the way.
Adam Wildsmith is deputy director of Blue Beyond.
In his first party political broadcast as Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak’s focus was firmly on his five pledges to Britain; what he called, “the foundations, on which to build a better future for our children and grandchildren”.
The theme of family is central to the Government’s rhetoric; Sunak has said that “family runs right through our vision of a better future”.
The trouble is that this pro-family rhetoric rarely translates into policy. Aside from the cost of living, other issues plaguing families, such as childcare and housing, weren’t referenced in either of his two big televised moments of the new year and have been little heard of since.
It isn’t hard to see why this was the case. The Government has failed on these issues time and again, and seems unlikely to present plausible solutions any time soon.
The latest proposal to construct 300,000 new, affordable homes per year by the mid-decade is a fanciful notion; Michael Gove, the Housing Secretary, concedes the proposal will be “difficult” to deliver because of the economic slump and rising inflation.
For the thousands – perhaps millions – of young people who hope to own a home of their own, they face a mountain of challenges. While according to YouGov opposition to increased house building consistently hovers around 30 per cent, this soares to 45 per cent if the new construction is in the person’s local area.
And far from tackling the scourge of nimbyism, the Government has actually fuelled the campaign against new property development.
Last month, it announced it will scrap mandatory housing targets, the only policy that tells councils to build and punishes them for not doing so. At the time Robert Colville, Director of the Centre for Policy Studies, warned in an article for the Sunday Times that this would result in reduced building, concerns cemented this week in a Financial Times report which warned that:
“[H]ousebuilders are concerned about changes to the planning system proposed by prime minister Rishi Sunak which will dilute development targets and give local communities more power to rebuff proposed new housing.”
Nevertheless, targets alone aren’t enough to combat underdevelopment in the industry.
As David Davis has argued on this site, there is widespread concern with land banking, in which large developers acquire as many permits as possible and then build fewer homes than pledged, enabling the sale of the homes or the land at an inflated price.
Permission ought to be time-limited; if building is not carried out, councils should be empowered to purchase back the land at the original sale price.
Yet that can’t be the whole solution. Drive for a few minutes outside any town or city across the United Kingdom, and you will see vast swaths of undeveloped land. We need to build on some of it.
For years, debate has focused on redeveloping brownfield sites. But often these spots are absurdly expensive to decontaminate, and situated in undesirable locations where factories or former gas stations once stood.
Greenfield sites are comparatively cheaper to develop, requiring minimal land preparation or groundworks; free from the constraints of developing near or within an urban centre; and with the flexibility to expand for future growth.
Our ambitions must move towards developing new areas, where people want to live, and away from the current fixation on trying to reuse undesirable and difficult to develop ex-industrial sites.
On childcare, too, the Government has been quiet. Meanwhile soaring costs continue to bedevil parents; Britain now has amongst the most expensive childcare in Europe, with a full-time nursery place for a child under five costing in the region of £14,000 per year.
In the new year, the Prime Minister told us that his plans would “support those who can, to move back into work”.
But childcare costs mean many women would be paying to return to work after maternity leave, and if a young family couldn’t afford to support a child on a sole income, they’d likely be unable to afford to raise a child at all.
Liz Truss had planned big-bang reforms of the sector, pledging to expand the state-funded childcare provision from 30 hours to 50 hours, while deregulating the sector and freeing providers from the manacles of rigid teacher-to-child ratios.
Currently, one adult is required for every four two-year olds; that was expected to rise to five. With 78 per cent of the costs in the childcare sector going towards staffing, increasing the ratio would have saved families around £40 per week, assuming the savings would be passed on.
But these reforms have now been scrapped by Sunak, and seem unlikely to re-emerge in the future.
Even were that not the case, those reforms would not have gone far enough. A means-tested system would help to ensure support did not go to parents who would – and could afford to – pay for childcare anyway.
Meanwhile reducing the red tape on childminders, who must jump through a multitude of regulatory hoops even just to look after the children of friends, would help parents find the best solutions for their circumstances.
At present, all childminders must follow an Early Years educational framework with children required to progress in maths, literacy, “understanding the world” and “expressive arts and design”. This is all well and good – but remember this is for children five and under.
If children of this age are cared for solely by their parents, we don’t insist they work towards these excessive goals. So why are childcare providers forced to follow these stringent rules?
For Sunak to deliver on his pro-family rhetoric, he must be bold. People need decent homes in which to raise families, and practical, affordable options for looking after their children when they return to work. There is great scope for government to make this happen; at present, it does much more to stand in the way.