Keith Cooper

Andy Burnham’s pledge to launch the largest council house-building programme since the post-war era faces major financial and institutional obstacles. Councils produce far fewer social-rent homes than in previous decades, receive more expensive borrowing terms than housing associations, and report that Homes England prioritizes private developers and offers slow, short-term funding. Analysts and housing organizations argue that Homes England needs significant restructuring or decentralization, while council debt of £31.8 billion remains a central barrier. Redirecting the £39 billion Social and Affordable Housing Programme toward social rent could improve access to genuinely affordable homes, but would require additional funding; without it, overall affordable-home delivery could fall. Delays to the programme have already put around 17,000 homes at risk.

Andy Burnham is being urged by Labour mayors and policy experts to break up or substantially devolve Homes England so regional authorities can control housing funds and accelerate council-house construction. Supporters say the quango is slow and bureaucratic, while developers warn that mayors may lack planning expertise and construction capacity. Burnham’s proposed programme also faces a potential £4.7 billion budget squeeze, a shortage of about 206,000 construction workers by 2030, and planning approvals that can take several years. He has proposed redirecting England’s existing £39 billion affordable-housing budget toward social-rent homes, but campaigners remain uncertain whether he will deliver on the promise.

Naomi, the adoptive mother of a teenage boy with foetal alcohol spectrum disorder, says repeated use of a school isolation room contributed to severe meltdowns, aggression and a stabbing injury that caused nerve damage. After discovering that her son was secluded several times a week, the family challenged the school and spent tens of thousands of pounds pursuing specialist education, but ultimately abandoned legal action. Her son is now at risk of withdrawing from education, while the family faces threats and exhaustion. Naomi argues that schools lack sufficient understanding of children with special educational needs and calls for fundamental reform.

An investigation examines the use of school seclusion and internal exclusion rooms in England, drawing on 100 parent accounts, independent document checks and research covering 1,195 schools. Parents—most of them caring for disabled children, particularly those with autism or ADHD—describe prolonged isolation, distress, self-harm, sleep problems and worsening mental health. University of Manchester research found that substantial numbers of secondary pupils spend significant portions of the school year in removal rooms. Campaigners plan to submit the evidence to the United Nations, arguing that the UK has failed to follow its recommendation against disciplinary seclusion. Government guidance now requires schools to record seclusion used for immediate safety but does not require records for disciplinary internal exclusion, while teachers’ unions and academics call for more specialist support and warn that the practice has become an ineffective institutional crutch.

Children as young as four are reportedly being left alone for hours in school seclusion or removal rooms, with particularly high use among pupils with autism, ADHD and other disabilities. An investigation based on 100 parent accounts, a survey of 6,121 teachers and University of Manchester analysis of nearly 1,195 schools found widespread use and links to distress, self-harm, suicidal thoughts, sleep problems and nightmares. Government recording rules introduced in April cover only safety-related seclusion, leaving disciplinary isolation largely unrecorded. The Department for Education’s adviser Tom Bennett said rooms are generally used briefly to defuse difficult situations, while researchers and campaigners argue that repeated isolation is being used as punishment and is harming children.

Hillingdon Council has withdrawn the pupils it funds from Witherslack Group’s Queensmead House special school in Windsor because of safeguarding concerns. The Department for Education is working with Ofsted and seven local authorities to monitor the school and says it could order its closure. Surrey County Council is also investigating allegations of injuries, trauma and inappropriate restraint at Witherslack’s Bramley Hill School, following reports from parents and scrutiny by Children’s Commissioner Dame Rachel de Souza. Witherslack, owned through Abu Dhabi’s Mubadala investment structure, denies safeguarding failures and says both schools are rated Good by Ofsted, while insisting physical restraint is used only as a last resort.

Pupils and parents allege that staff at Bramley Hill School in Surrey used excessive and painful physical restraint, leaving some children bruised, cut or traumatised. The school is operated by Witherslack Group, a taxpayer-funded private SEND provider owned through Mubadala Capital by Abu Dhabi's sovereign wealth fund. Parents have asked the Department for Education to intervene after complaints and declining confidence in the school's safety, while Surrey County Council previously found no procedural concerns and Ofsted rated the school good in 2024. Witherslack says restraint is used only as a last resort and is providing intensive support; the Government says it is urgently reviewing the situation following criticism of restraint practices at other Witherslack schools.

Homes England spent £117.6m on Evolve, an IT modernisation project launched in 2019 that was halted in May after consultants found serious governance, planning and delivery problems. A KPMG review said the programme was effectively impossible or highly challenging to deliver, with unclear scope, internal disagreement and little confidence in its business case. More than £34m was spent in 2024/25, including a £1.4m irregular payment to consultants without an approved contract. Critics argue the money could have funded between roughly 1,050 and 3,360 affordable homes and warn that Homes England needs closer government oversight to support Labour's plans for 1.5 million homes, new towns and a £27bn affordable-housing programme. Homes England apologised, accepted responsibility and said its remaining IT products could eventually generate up to £95m in productivity benefits, while the housing ministry pledged stronger scrutiny.

A surge in Right to Buy applications before discounts were sharply reduced could lead to around 18,500 council homes being sold in England in 2025/26, according to analysis of local-authority forecasts. That would be the highest annual total in two decades and could exceed the government’s planned addition of up to 18,000 social and affordable homes by 2029. Councils and housing experts warn that the sales will reduce social-rent housing, rental income and funds for maintenance, worsening homelessness and already lengthy waiting lists. The government argues that lower discounts will reduce sales over time and allow councils to rebuild their housing stock, but local authorities say the immediate spike will intensify existing pressures.

Labour’s planned new towns in England are intended to feature attractive, varied communities, drawing partly on traditional designs such as those at the King’s Nansledan development. Architects and housing experts warn that reliance on a small number of major house builders, weak design safeguards and planning uncertainty could instead produce uniform, unattractive homes. Part O building regulations may encourage smaller and fewer windows, while infrastructure and affordable-housing costs could push average prices above £500,000, particularly along the Cambridge–Oxford corridor. The Government insists the developments will be well designed and that building regulations will not prevent this.

Emergency Ofsted inspections found that pupils at Witherslack Group’s Hall Cliffe and Pontville SEND schools were subjected to excessive and sometimes routine physical restraint, poor behavior management and inadequate safeguarding, leaving children and staff at risk of harm. Pontville reportedly charged local authorities up to £116,611 per pupil annually, while Hall Cliffe charged up to £87,621. The investigation highlights more than six years of warnings about restraint at Hall Cliffe, alleging that Ofsted and the Department for Education were too slow to act. Witherslack, which is majority-owned by Abu Dhabi-based Mubadala Capital and made £34.8 million in profit in 2022/23, says it accepts the findings and has taken immediate corrective action. Eight families are considering legal action, while the Children’s Commissioner has called for restraint to be used only as a genuine last resort.

Outdated Department for Education guidance is leaving teachers unclear about when and how they may restrain pupils, according to polling of more than 7,000 teachers. Campaigners and England’s Children’s Commissioner warn that restraint can cause serious trauma, particularly among children with SEND, while a quarter of mainstream primary teachers reported restraining a pupil during the previous half term. A promised replacement for the 2013 guidance has been delayed for more than five years. Campaigners also dispute government-funded research suggesting that prolonged restraint in special schools is rare, arguing that voluntary participation and self-reporting may understate the problem. The DfE says it is reviewing the guidance, intends to introduce mandatory reporting, and is committed to minimising restraint in English schools.

Polling of more than 7,000 teachers found that physical restraint is widespread in English schools, while many staff—particularly in mainstream settings—lack recent or any training. One in five teachers who restrained a pupil in the previous year reported being injured. Parents and campaigners describe children with SEND experiencing repeated or prolonged restraint, bruising, nightmares and post-traumatic stress, including a teenager restrained 158 times at a special school. The Children’s Commissioner, the National Education Union and support organisations are calling for restraint to be used only as a last resort, alongside better training and guidance. The Department for Education says it wants to minimise restrictive interventions and is reviewing its guidance, which currently sets no maximum duration for a single school restraint.

Labour’s pledge to build 1.5 million homes by 2029 has been cast into doubt by Homes England chief executive Peter Denton, who privately described the programme as realistically requiring two parliamentary terms. Housebuilders broadly agree that the five-year target is unlikely, citing planning delays and the reliance on large developments. The government insists the programme remains on track and points to recent funding and planning measures. The report also details staff criticism of Homes England’s leadership, spending on consultants, high executive turnover and lack of strategic focus, while the agency rejects the allegations and cites an independent review that found it effective and value for money.

At least 17 housebuilders are consulting lawyers about creating for-profit registered providers to manage tens of thousands of affordable homes, with the first expected within a year. The move follows a financial crisis among housing associations, many of which have stopped buying Section 106 homes, leaving new properties empty and developments delayed. Tenants and housing experts fear developers will switch social-rent homes to more expensive affordable rents, cut maintenance and avoid vulnerable tenants, while councils may lack the resources to monitor compliance. Builders and their representative bodies say they are responding to market failure and will remain bound by planning agreements and social-housing regulations. The Regulator of Social Housing says it can enforce standards but cannot block affordable-rent increases below 80% of market rates.

Financial pressures on housing associations, including funding cuts and the cost of fixing unsafe cladding, damp and mould, are leaving Section 106 affordable homes without landlords. Developers and councils are consequently converting some homes intended for affordable or social rent into rent-to-buy, shared-ownership or discounted-sale properties. Experts predict that annual social-rent construction in England could fall by about half, while thousands of other affordable rental homes may be lost, worsening homelessness and forcing more families into expensive or poor-quality temporary and private accommodation. Housing charities and the National Housing Federation are urging urgent government funding and intervention.

Thousands of newly built affordable homes across England are standing empty, unfinished or stalled because financially strained housing associations are increasingly unwilling or unable to buy homes delivered through Section 106 agreements. Developers blame a lack of purchasers and warn that the problem is delaying wider housing developments, while the National Housing Federation says associations face years of funding cuts, major costs for cladding and repairs, and concerns about construction quality and high-carbon heating systems. Examples include vacant homes in London, Worcester, Norfolk, Surrey, East Sussex and Kent, where hundreds of planned or completed properties have no registered provider willing to take them on. Surveys indicate that more than half of major housing associations have reduced or stopped buying Section 106 homes, potentially delaying tens of thousands of affordable properties and complicating Labour’s pledge to build 1.5 million homes.

Homes England staff have raised concerns about weak leadership, low trust, missed housing targets, potential redundancies and excessive spending. The agency spent £398,507 on a two-day 2022 staff conference in Coventry, including venue hire, accommodation, travel and expenses, despite staff criticism that the event was unnecessary while budgets, pay and IT systems were under pressure. Chief executive Peter Denton defended the agency and attacked a previous investigation as inaccurate, while staff comments largely supported concerns about organizational culture and spending. A government review endorsed the need for Homes England but criticized its value-for-money evaluation, forecasting, risk management, transparency, recruitment and cooperation with local authorities. Homes England and its sponsoring department rejected or qualified the criticism and said they were working to implement the review’s recommendations.

An investigation portrays Homes England as a secretive and dysfunctional housing agency that has missed its key targets, returned £1.9 billion in unspent housing funds and reduced support for affordable housing and homeownership. Former staff, councils, builders and housing experts criticize waste, high consultancy costs, temporary staffing, internal restructuring and slow funding decisions, while spending on the Evolve transformation project rose to £20.9 million. Homes England and the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities attribute weaker performance and underspending to the pandemic, inflation, labour shortages, interest-rate rises and other market conditions, and point to the agency’s broader contribution to housing delivery. A government review of its governance, efficiency and accountability is expected as ministers consider expanding its remit.

Private healthcare companies are preparing to expand their provision of NHS-funded operations, scans and surgical hubs if Labour forms the next government. Providers say they could treat more than 1.8 million additional cases over five years, while NHS income for the private sector could rise from £3.1bn in 2022 to a projected £3.9bn in 2025. Supporters argue that spare private capacity could rapidly reduce waiting lists, including through high-volume hubs and same-day joint replacements. Critics warn that the NHS would still have to fund the work, private providers may avoid complex cases, and both sectors could compete for scarce medical staff, creating a permanent reliance on private healthcare without adding overall capacity.

Labour has proposed using Singapore-inspired technology to modernize the NHS, including digital patient tracking, self-check-in kiosks, virtual consultations, bedside iPads, mobile appointment booking and expanded electronic health records. The approach could improve efficiency, reduce administrative work and give patients more control, but it would be costly: existing NHS repair backlogs, staff shortages and limited capital funding would make nationwide implementation difficult. Experts also warn that Singapore's fee-based system, smaller scale, stronger data-sharing culture and long-term investment model cannot simply be transplanted into the UK. Healthcare workers broadly support better technology but argue that recruitment, equipment replacement and basic infrastructure must come first, while patient experiences suggest greater efficiency could sometimes come at the expense of personal care.