Charities hail ‘biggest cash injection in affordable housing in half a century'
Chancellor Rachel Reeves said the Government will invest £39 billion over the next decade.
Delivering her spending review statement in the Commons on Wednesday, she said social housing had been 'neglected for too many decades' and that she wanted to ensure people had the 'security of a proper home'.
She said: 'A plan to match the scale of the housing crisis must include social housing – neglected for too many decades, but not by this Labour Government.'
Ms Reeves said the Government, led by Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner – who is also Housing Secretary – is now 'taking action'.
Ms Reeves added: 'I am proud to announce the biggest cash injection into social and affordable housing in 50 years – a new Affordable Homes Programme in which I am investing £39 billion over the next decade.
'Direct Government funding to support housebuilding especially for social rent and I am pleased to report that towns and cities including Blackpool, Preston, Sheffield and Swindon already have plans to bring forward bids to build those homes in their communities.'
The Treasury said the programme will be delivered over 10 years from 2026‑27 to 2035‑36 and spending will reach £4 billion per year in 2029-30, subsequently rising in line with inflation.
Housing charity Shelter has described the funding as 'a watershed moment in tackling the housing emergency' and a 'huge opportunity to reverse decades of neglect and start a bold new chapter for housing in this country'.
The charity called for a clear target for delivering social rent homes.
Social rent homes are known as social housing, where rents are linked to local incomes, and can cater for people living in temporary accommodation, meaning they are officially classed as homeless.
Affordable housing is wider, covering things such as affordable rent and shared ownership.
Shelter estimated, using guidance on previous announcements on investment in affordable housing, that if 60% of funding goes towards social rent homes this could mean around 26,000 of these are delivered each year after five years.
A charity spokeswoman added: 'If this is coupled with measures to get developers building their fair share, we're confident the Government could ramp up to between 30,000-40,000 social rent homes per year – this is close to the levels of the last Labour government (40,000 per year).
'While this isn't enough to end homelessness for good, it's much higher than the current rate of delivery, which is around 10,000 social rent homes per year.
'We need 90,000 social rent homes a year for 10 years to clear social housing waiting lists and end the housing emergency.'
Kate Henderson, chief executive of the National Housing Federation, described the funding as a 'transformational package' for social housing which will 'deliver the right conditions for a decade of renewal and growth'.
She said: 'This is the most ambitious affordable homes programme in decades and alongside long-term certainty on rents, will kickstart a generational boost in the delivery of new social homes.
'Housing associations look forward to working in partnership with the government and with a Deputy Prime Minister who has tirelessly championed social housing.'
Riverside, which describes itself as one of the largest and most experienced housing association groups in the country, said this was a 'historic and ground-breaking funding settlement for social landlords'.
Its chief executive, Paul Dolan, said: 'The Affordable Homes Programme marks a major step in boosting the amount of social housing which is crucial if we are to cut the record number of homeless families living in temporary accommodation.
'We hope to see dedicated funding for urban regeneration play a significant part of the AHP.
'As an organisation, we have seen first-hand the difference regeneration makes in improving the quality of homes, neighbourhoods and the health and economic prospects of residents.
'With one in every six children living in an overcrowded home, dedicated regeneration funding can transform communities up and down the country.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
35 minutes ago
- The National
SNP policy should 'embrace the defence industry', say ex-MPs
The Scottish Government's current stance is not to use public money to fund the manufacturing of munitions. The Times reports that the First Minister has faced intensive lobbying, including from Holyrood backbenchers in the party, to relax the ban on such projects. And now, former Westminster leader Ian Blackford has called for investment in defence to 'kick-start the delivery of an industrial future for Scotland'. READ MORE: Inside the SNP's political strategy ahead of 2026 Scottish election Meanwhile, former SNP Westminster defence spokesperson Stewart McDonald branded the ban as a 'stupid policy'. It emerged in May that a specialist welding skills centre in Glasgow, planned by Rolls Royce, could be a risk after it was deemed to not be eligible for £2.5 million of Scottish Enterprise funding. UK Defence Secretary John Healy described the decision as 'student union politics', prompting a furious response from Scottish Rural Affairs Secretary Mairi Gougeon. Writing in the Times, Blackford (below) said: 'Investment in defence, though, can be a lever and transformative in itself in generating economic growth. (Image: PA) 'With the increase in defence spending requiring £60 billion-plus, it is beyond doubt that we need to make sure that Scotland gets its fair share, and I know the Scottish Government will be standing up for Scotland's interest in making it happen.' He pointed to Swinney stating that he had no objections if a company came to Scotland to set up a munitions factory, adding: 'There is a need to replenish munitions in support of the defence of Ukraine. In doing this, though, there are red lines and that means munitions supplied in the needs of strategic defence interests and never in situations such as Gaza where civilians are targeted.' 'ADS, the umbrella body for the industry, points out that the sector today employs 33,500 workers and delivers a value added of £3.2 billion, with an output per worker of £95,000,' he added. READ MORE: Home Office staff concerned over 'absurb ban on Palestine Action' 'These figures make it self-evident that there is an economic prize in attracting defence investment into Scotland.' Elsewhere, McDonald told Scotland on Sunday that the defence industry has a 'very awkward' relationship wih the Scottish Government. He branded the ban on investments relating to munitions 'a stupid policy', also criticising the restrictions in place for the Scottish National Investment Bank. 'Defence is the one industry that has enormous growth happening in it right now and that's not likely to end [any] time soon,' McDonald said. 'So why should our National Investment Bank not invest in it? 'It's entirely normal in every other country in Europe or the world for your national institutions to support your national interests, including your national security interests. "So why is the Scottish National Investment Bank not doing that? I think that's mad.' A Scottish Government spokesperson said: 'We recognise the importance of the aerospace, defence and shipbuilding sectors for Scotland's economy. Together they provide high value jobs, support across the wider supply chain and make a valuable contribution to local, regional and national economies.' 'Scottish ministers have been consistently clear on the Scottish government's long-standing policy position that it does not use public money to support the manufacture of munitions,' they added.
South Wales Argus
an hour ago
- South Wales Argus
Government's new health strategy ‘no more than hiding the crisps', Tories say
Under new proposals, retailers could be made to set targets to increase their sales of less fattening products. Shadow work and pensions secretary Helen Whately said setting mandatory targets for supermarkets was 'nanny state'. 'They had 14 years in opposition to think about what they wanted to do about the NHS, they've had a year in government, and the number one thing in it seems to be hide the crisps,' she told Sky News' Sunday Morning With Trevor Phillips. Mr Streeting said the Government wants to 'nudge people in the right direction' (Lucy North/PA) 'It's obviously the nanny state, but it's also not what people want for the NHS. 'People want to hear how they're going to get to see their GP. 'Telling people what to buy, I think, is not up to government. I believe in personal responsibility.' Health Secretary Wes Streeting told the same programme the Government will work with supermarkets to help 'nudge people in the right direction'. 'By taking the approach we're taking with supermarkets, they will decide through the combination of where they put their products, how they do price promotions, the reformulation, what products they choose to put on the shelves,' he said. 'They will work with us to make sure that we nudge people in the right direction without any of us even noticing, in the same way that we've nudged the country in the other direction since the 1990s.' Rejecting suggestions that the idea was too controlling, he said it was different to 'traditional nanny statism, where we regulate more heavily on price, on marketing, on what's sold'. Labour's 10-year health plan is set to be published next week. Other changes could include money for hospitals being linked to patient ratings. According to the Times, part of the proposals will see patients contacted a few weeks after their hospital treatment for feedback. Based on their responses, money could be diverted to a local 'improvement fund'. Another proposal could see NHS users awarded points for upping their step count and eating healthily. Points can then be traded for vouchers, with discounts at supermarkets and coffee shops, according to The Sun. Hundreds of bodies responsible for overseeing and running parts of the NHS in England are likely to be scrapped as part of the changes. Mr Streeting has said the current system is too complex and needs reform.
The Herald Scotland
an hour ago
- The Herald Scotland
Can anyone truly say Holyrood been a great success? I can't
The noise about which union Scotland should be in crowds out any real assessment of whether all is well within Scotland itself. The point of devolution was not to create a rival Government which could do what it liked but to create one with extensive powers over matters within Scotland which directly affect the daily lives of people here. Read More: Having a Parliament in Scotland whose job did not include things like energy policy, banking regulation, foreign policy and defence is not a weakness it is a strength. It enables the Parliament to concentrate, from a solely Scottish perspective, on things like health and education as well as dealing with issues which within a British context might not get the focus or priority they deserve such as ferries and roads. The system for electing the Scottish Parliament was designed to prevent one party gaining control and encourage consensus through a need for co-operation between parties in order to pass legislation. The Scottish Parliament was given no revising chamber but instead relied on Committees to make sure legislation proposed by the Executive was properly scrutinised and challenged. You would be hard pushed, whatever your political persuasion and view on Scotland's place in the world, to say the Scottish Parliament has been a great success. Economic growth, an essential foundation of a successful and cohesive society, has been lower in Scotland than the UK as a whole over the long term. Taxes are higher. Outcomes in health and education are poorer despite more money. Scotland specific issues such as transport links to the islands and the highlands have been - and still are - appallingly managed. Too long a domination by the SNP has reduced questioning of the Scottish Government's performance. If you don't salute the Saltire you can kiss goodbye to funding from the Scottish Government or a chance to gain a senior position in public life. Worse, we have turned in on ourselves. Scotland, which has a proud record of contribution to the world, now looks only at its own feet. Shakespeare bad, some second-rate Scottish poet good. Scottish history only. A complete unwillingness to learn anything new about the provision of public services if the source of innovation is England. There are some specific and intertwined problems. First, a misunderstanding of what democracy is. What it is not is the belief that if you get 50 per cent plus one on any vote you have a mandate do what you like. In a healthy democracy dissenting voices need to be heard, minority views respected and genuine consensus built. The SNP, especially under Nicola Sturgeon, understood none of those things. Second, the system itself has not worked as intended. Low grade people have ended up in our Parliament. Can you name any of your Region's List MSPs? How many outstanding MSP's are there? - one hand will be quite enough for the count. The parties have far too great a grip. Want to get into Parliament as a List MSP? - better toe the party line or your place in the order will be too low to have any chance. Sitting on a Committee scrutinising misguided and poorly thought through legislation? - better not challenge things as you will be moved further down the List or de-selected and be out on your ear at the next election. Occasionally there are individual heroes like Andy Wightman whose crucial vote meant the Committee investigating whether Nicola Sturgeon misled Parliament found she had, His reward? - to be hounded out of the Green Party. More recently Fergus Ewing, a delicious thorn in the side of loopy Government ministers and their daft legislation. He has left the SNP and will stand as an independent next time. Whatever your views on the Union vote for him if you can. Reform is needed to improve the quality of debate and outcome in the Scottish Parliament. The key problem - but also opportunity - is the hold parties have on their List MSP's. That control needs to be broken and two simple reforms could achieve this. First, when you cast your List vote for a party in elections for the Scottish Parliament you should then be able to rank the candidates for the party you have chosen in the order you prefer. Voters not parties should determine a candidate's place on the List. That way when voters see a candidate of real calibre they can boost their chances of being elected. This would incentivise parties to put forward capable candidates rather than idiots. Second, allow List MSP's to sit in Parliament for only one term. At a stroke the party control would be broken and List MSP's could put country before party when necessary. The more rapid turnover of people in the Parliament this would bring about would also be welcome. New people means fresh ideas. Fixing the problems is not too hard but the first step would be an acknowledgement that the problems are there and they matter. Guy Stenhouse is a notable figure in the Scottish financial sector. He has held various positions, including being the Managing Director of Noble Grossart, an independent merchant bank based in Edinburgh, until 2017
