Notes on an oligopoly: What did we learn from the Lords' report on the housing crisis?

The good old days. Image: Hulton Archive/Getty.

House of Lords select committee reports are not always the most the riveting of reads. Friday’s, however, from the economic affairs committee was the exception to the rule.

“Building more homes” is a truly devastating assault on recent Whitehall orthodoxy regarding housebuilding, and reveals in great detail much of what has been going wrong. Many of the points contained in the report have been made before – but not often with the authority and heft of a cross-party parliamentary committee.

It is also brilliantly timed (more luck than judgement, one supposes) given that we have a new prime minister and a new communities & local government secretary. If Theresa May and Sajid Javid want to finally get to grips with the endemic undersupply of new homes, they would do well to start with this report.

Here are some of the highlights:

England needs 300,000 homes a year – not 200,000

The government’s commitment to building 1m homes by 2020 (equivalent to 200,000 a year) will not be enough to meet future demand and tackle the backlog after years of undersupply. “To meet that demand and have a moderating effect on house prices, at least 300,000 homes a year need to be built for the foreseeable future,” the committee says. “Otherwise the average age of a first time buyer will continue to rise.”

Note too that the government is nowhere near hitting even 200,000 a year. Completions last year were just 155,000, just over half what is now recommended.

The large housebuilders restrict output to optimise profits

Private developers alone have neither the ability nor the motivation to build all of the homes we need. The housebuilding market is “oligopolistic”: its business model is to restrict the volume of housebuilding in order to maximise profits.

The government’s reliance on the private sector to meet its housebuilding targets is therefore misguided. “To achieve its target the government must recognise the inability of the private sector, as it is currently incentivised, to build the number of homes needed,” the peers say.


Land hoarding should be penalised to stimulate quicker building

There is also too big a gap between the number of planning permissions granted and the number of homes which are built. Councils should therefore be given the power to tax developments that are not completed within an agreed timeframe. 

“We recommend that local authorities are granted the power to levy council tax on developments that are not completed within a set time period,” the report argues. “This time period should be negotiated when planning consent is sought and be varied according to the size and complexity of a development.”

Local authorities should be allowed to borrow build social housing

The government is too fixated on home ownership at the expense of other tenures, and the current cap on council borrowing to invest in social housebuilding is “arbitrary” and should be scrapped.

The committee points to the government’s recent abandonment of its target to achieve a fiscal surplus in 2019-20 and the current low cost of borrowing. “There is no set limit on the amount a local authority can borrow to build a swimming pool,” it notes. “The same should apply to housing.”

Councils should also be encouraged to enter partnerships with housing associations, whose efforts to build more homes have been undermined by reductions in social rents.

Public land is not being released quickly enough

There is surplus public sector land enough in London for at least 130,000 homes – across England there could be enough for 2m. But the government’s efforts to release this for residential development have so far been “ineffective”.

The report recommends that a senior Cabinet minister should be put in charge of this process in future, and the National Infrastructure Commission given responsibility for keeping tabs on the number of homes that are actually built on it. Importantly, the requirement to achieve the best possible market price – often the cause of delay – should be “relaxed”, the committee says.

 

How likely is the government to adopt any of these ideas? On Monday, in her last speech before becoming prime minister, Theresa May spoke of the need to do “far more” to build more homes, which sounds like she may be amenable to a change of strategy. It is not difficult to imagine her getting much more tough on the release of public sector land. And there have been hints already that the new chancellor, Philip Hammond, might be prepared to borrow to invest in infrastructure.

The biggest challenge will come from the major housebuilders, and their many hangers on in the housing and planning industry, who will fiercely resist any effort to make them build faster than they are already. There are many interests vested in the status quo. Whether they are overcome may depend, in the end, on Mrs May’s level of determination.

Daniel Bentley is editorial director of the think tank Civitas and the author of “The Housing Question: Overcoming the shortage of homes”. He tweets @danielbentley

 
 
 
 

“Black cabs are not public transport”: on the most baffling press release we’ve seen in some time

An earlier black cab protest: this one was against congestion and pollution. I'm not making this up. Image: Getty.

You know, I sometimes think that trade unions get a raw deal in this country. Reports of industrial action almost always frame it as a matter of workers’ selfishness and public disruption, rather than one of defending vital labour rights; and when London’s tube grinds to a halt, few people will find out what the dispute is actually about before declaring that the drivers should all be replaced by robots at the earliest possible opportunity or, possibly, shot.

We should be a bit more sympathetic towards trade unions, is what I’m saying here: a bit more understanding about the role they played in improving working life for all of us, and the fact that defending their members’ interests is literally their job.

Anyway, all that said, the RMT seems to have gone completely fucking doolally.

TAXI UNION RMT says that the closure of the pivotal Bank Junction to all vehicles (other than buses and bicycles) exposes Transport for London’s (TfL) symptom-focused decision-making and unwillingness to tackle the cause of the problem.

So begins a press release the union put out on Thursday. It’s referring to a plan to place new restrictions on who can pass one of the City of London’s dirtiest and most dangerous junctions, by banning private vehicles from using it.

The junction in question: busy day. Image: Google.

If at first glance the RMT’s words seem reasonable enough, then consider two pieces of information not included in that paragraph:

1) It’s not a TfL scheme, but a City of London Corporation one (essentially, the local council); and

2) The reason for the press release is that, at 5pm on Thursday, hundreds of black cab drivers descended on Bank Junction to create gridlock, in their time-honoured way of whining about something. Blocking major roads for several hours at a time has always struck me as an odd way of trying to win friends and influence people, if I’m frank, but let’s get back to the press release, the next line of which drops a strong hint that something else is going on here:

TfL’s gutlessness in failing to stand-up to multi-national venture capital-backed raiders such as Uber, has left our streets flooded with minicabs.

That suggests that this is another barrage in the black cabs’ ongoing war against competition from Uber. This conflict is odd in its way – it’s not as if there weren’t minicabs offering a low cost alternative to the classic London taxi before Uber came along, but we’ve not had a lengthy PR war against, say, Gants Hill Cars – but it’s at least familiar territory, so it’d be easy, at this point, to assume we know where we are.

Except then it gets really weird.

With buses stuck in gridlock behind haphazardly driven Uber cars – and with the Tube dangerously overcrowded during peak hours – people are turning out of desperation to commuting by bicycle.

Despite its impracticality, there has been an explosion in the number of people commuting by bike. Astonishingly, 30% of road traffic traversing Bank Junction are now cyclists.

Soooo... the only reason anyone might want to cycle is because public transport is now bad because of Uber? Not because it’s fun or healthy or just nicer than being stuck in a metal box for 45 minutes – because of badly driven Ubers something something?

Other things the cabbies will blame Uber for in upcoming press releases: climate change, Brexit, the outbreak of the Franco-Prussian war in July 1870, the fact they couldn’t get tickets for Hamilton.

It is time that TfL refused to licence Uber, which it acknowledges is unlawfully “plying for hire”.

Okay, maybe, we can talk about that.

It is time that black cabs were recognised and supported as a mode of public transport.

...what?

It is time that cuts to the Tube were reversed.

I mean, sure, we can talk about that too, but... can you go back to that last bit, please?

RMT General Secretary, Mick Cash, said:

“RMT agrees with proposals which improve public safety, but it is clear that the driving factor behind the decision is to improve bus journey times under a buckling road network.

“Black cabs are an integral part of the public transport system and as the data shows, one of the safest.”

This is all so very mixed up, it’s hard to know where to begin. Black cabs are not public transport – as lovely as they are, they’re simply too expensive. Even in New York City, where the cabs are much, much cheaper, it’d be silly to class them as public transport. In London, where they’re so over-priced they’re basically the preserve of the rich and those who’ve had enough to drink to mistakenly consider themselves such, it’s just nonsense.

Also – if this decision has been taken for the sake of improving bus journey times, then what’s wrong with that? I haven’t run the numbers, but I’d be amazed if that wasn’t a bigger gain to the city than “improving life for the people who take cabs”. Because – as I may have mentioned – black cabs are not public transport.


Anyway, to sum the RMT’s position up: we should invest in the tube but not the buses, expensive black cabs are public transport but cheaper Ubers are the work of the devil, and the only reason anyone would ever go by bike is because they’ve been left with no choice by all those people in the wrong sort of taxi screwing everything up. Oh, and causing gridlock at peak time is a good way to win friends.

Everyone got that straight?

None of this is to say Uber is perfect – there are many things about it that are terrible, including both the way people have mistaken it for a revolutionary new form of capitalism (as opposed to, say, a minicab firm with an app), and its attitude to workers (ironically, what they could really do with is a union). The way TfL is acting towards the firm is no doubt imperfect too.

But the RMT’s attitude in this press release is just baffling. Of course it has to defends its members interests – taxi drivers just as much as tube drivers. And of course it has to be seen to be doing so, so as to attract new members.

But should it really be trying to do both in the same press release? Because the result is a statement which demands TfL do more for cab drivers, slams it for doing anything for bus users, and casually insults anyone on two wheels in the process.

A union’s job is to look after its members. I’m not sure nonsense like this will achieve anything of the sort.

Jonn Elledge is the editor of CityMetric. He is on Twitter, far too much, as @jonnelledge.

Want more of this stuff? Follow CityMetric on Twitter or Facebook.