Scarcity by Design argued that Britain’s housing crisis is not simply a failure of planning, but the result of planning constraints interacting with global capital flows. When supply cannot respond, capital inflows reprice land rather than finance construction. The consequence is rising prices, weaker affordability, and persistent undersupply.¹ The natural follow-up question is whether domestic capital can be redirected to solve a problem that foreign capital has helped to intensify.

The answer is yes. Britain has deep household savings, a large pool of retail investors, and an acute shortage of homes.² What is missing is a mechanism that channels those savings into new supply rather than into bidding up existing stock. A targeted tax reform could do precisely that, without public spending, without subsidies, and without inflating prices.

The proposal is straightforward. UK resident investors who pre-purchase newly built homes off plan would receive a time-limited income tax relief on rental income from those properties. In return, developers would gain early sales that unlock finance and accelerate construction. The state would forgo tax on income that would not otherwise exist, while gaining additional housing supply, higher transaction volumes, and wider economic activity.

This is not a demand-side giveaway. It is a supply-side financing reform.

The development finance constraint

Housing shortages are often discussed as though builders simply choose not to build. In practice, the binding constraint for small and medium-sized developers is finance. Banks will not lend at scale without pre-sales, particularly in the residential development market.³ Equity capital is expensive. Planning delays increase risk and compress margins. The result is a system that favours large volume builders and disadvantages the smaller firms that once delivered the majority of new homes.⁴

Pre-selling homes off plan is the cheapest form of development finance. It reduces risk, satisfies lender requirements, and improves cashflow certainty. Large developers already rely on this model, particularly in London, often using overseas investors. Smaller builders, especially outside prime markets, struggle to attract early buyers and therefore struggle to build.⁵

A tax incentive that encourages UK savers to pre-purchase new homes would directly address this financing bottleneck. It would substitute domestic capital for foreign capital, while expanding supply rather than inflating prices.⁶

How the policy would work

The policy has four core elements.

First, UK resident investors who pre-purchase a new-build home before construction begins would receive a partial or full exemption from income tax on rental income for a fixed period, for example fifteen years.

Second, these purchases would be exempt from the additional stamp duty surcharge normally applied to second homes, provided the property is newly built and bought off plan.

Third, to avoid crowding out owner-occupiers, no more than fifty per cent of units in any development could be sold under this scheme. The remaining units would be sold conventionally, most likely to owner-occupiers or standard buyers without tax relief.

Fourth, eligibility would be limited strictly to new supply. No existing homes. No conversions. No speculative flipping. The relief would apply only to homes that would not otherwise be built.

This is a supply-conditional incentive. If nothing is built, nothing is claimed.

Why this works

From a development perspective, the benefits are immediate. Pre-sales unlock bank finance, improve loan-to-cost ratios, and reduce the amount of equity required. Risk premia fall and projects that would otherwise stall become viable, particularly for small and medium-sized builders.⁷

From an investor perspective, the policy shifts housing investment away from capital gains and towards income. A time-limited tax exemption raises net yields, making rental investment viable in lower-value regions where price growth is modest but housing need is acute. Capital is therefore directed towards areas with strong rental demand rather than speculative upside.⁸

From a macroeconomic perspective, the reform channels domestic savings into productive investment. Pettis and Klein argue that global imbalances arise when surplus economies export excess savings that are recycled into asset inflation rather than real output. In a deficit country like the UK, those inflows are absorbed domestically, and binding housing supply constraints ensure that this absorption takes the form of higher land prices rather than meaningful additions to housing supply.⁹ This proposal changes the channel of absorption, directing savings into construction activity, labour demand, and physical capital formation.

From a fiscal perspective, the cost is limited and largely notional. The state forgoes income tax on rental income that would not exist without the incentive. In return, it gains stamp duty from transactions, VAT on construction inputs, corporation tax from developers, and income tax from construction employment.¹⁰ The net effect is likely to be neutral or positive.

Addressing the objections

Some will worry that this subsidises landlords. That concern is understandable but misplaced. This is not a blanket tax break for buy-to-let. It is narrowly targeted, time-limited, and conditional on new supply. Investors cannot use it to bid up existing homes.¹¹

Others will argue that planning reform alone is sufficient. Planning reform is essential, but finance still matters. Even with better planning, projects fail without capital. This proposal complements planning reform by ensuring that once permission is granted, homes are actually built.¹²

There will also be concerns about regional distortion. In practice, the opposite is likely. Because the incentive rewards income yield rather than capital appreciation, it favours places where rents are strong relative to prices. That naturally channels investment towards less affluent regions where housing shortages are severe but speculative demand is weak.¹³

A centre-right reform

This proposal aligns squarely with a centre-right economic agenda. It uses markets rather than mandates. It mobilises private savings rather than public spending. It supports small and medium-sized builders rather than incumbents. It increases supply rather than inflating demand.

Most importantly, it recognises that Britain’s housing crisis is as much a financing problem as a planning one. Scarcity by design is not only about what we block, but about what we fail to enable.

If Britain is serious about delivering 1.5 million homes, it must make it easier to finance them. Allowing UK savers to invest tax-efficiently in UK housing supply is a pragmatic and conservative place to start.

1. Michael Pettis and Matthew C. Klein, Trade Wars Are Class Wars: How Rising Inequality Distorts the Global Economy and Threatens International Peace (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2020), chapters 2–4 and 8–9. ↩︎
2. Office for National Statistics, Housing Purchase Affordability, UK: 2024 (Newport: ONS, 2024). ↩︎
3. Bank of England, The UK Commercial Real Estate Market and Financial Stability, Financial Stability Report (London: Bank of England, latest edition). ↩︎
4. Institute for Fiscal Studies, The Determinants of Local Housing Supply in England, IFS Working Paper W24/35 (London: IFS, 2024). ↩︎
5. Centre for Economic Performance, London School of Economics, Supply Constraints and House Price Dynamics, SERC Discussion Paper 181 (2016). ↩︎
6. Filipa Sá, “The Effect of Foreign Investors on Local Housing Markets: Evidence from the UK,” Journal of Housing Economics 49 (2020): 101692. ↩︎
7. Paul Cheshire, Christian Hilber, and Ioannis Kaplanis, “Land Use Regulation and Productivity: Land Matters,” Journal of Economic Geography 15, no. 1 (2015): 43–73. ↩︎
8. Alain Niyibizi, Elena Patel, and Gabriel Zucman, The Effect of Foreign Investors on Local Housing Markets: Evidence from the UK, EU Tax Observatory Working Paper (2023). ↩︎
9. International Monetary Fund, World Economic Outlook Database, 2024 Edition (Washington, DC: IMF, 2024). ↩︎
10. Department for Business and Trade, Overview of Greenfield Foreign Direct Investment (FDI), 2003 to 2023 (London: Government of the United Kingdom, 2024). ↩︎
11. Christian A. L. Hilber and Wouter Vermeulen, “The Impact of Supply Constraints on House Prices in England,” Economic Journal 126, no. 591 (2016): 358–405. ↩︎
12. Office for National Statistics, Balance of Payments, April to June 2025 (Newport: ONS, 2025). ↩︎
13. Charles Goodhart and Manoj Pradhan, The Great Demographic Reversal (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2020), chapters 6–7. ↩︎

The post From Capital to Construction: How UK Savings Can Finance Housing Supply Without Public Spending appeared first on Onward.

1. Executive Summary & Introduction 

Wasted potential is a phrase often used about the state of the UK. Sadly, it also applies to many of  our students and working-age adults.  

At the heart of our social contract is an understanding that if people put in the effort – in the  classroom, in the workplace, and in their communities, society will give them the chance to succeed.  Too often, that promise is not kept. For those with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD),  the gap between potential and opportunity is especially stark. 

Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) is thought to affect around 5% of children and  between 3-4% of adults in this country. Yet, because diagnosis varies so much depending on where  you live, the real figure is hard to pin down. This paper looks at how ADHD has been understood over  time, how it is recognised today, recent political developments, the rise of self-diagnosis, and the  debate over recognition. It also sets out a national ADHD Strategy with practical policy measures. The  aim is simple: if we tackle ADHD earlier and more effectively, and focus on giving people a hand up  rather than a hand-out, we can unlock huge amounts of educational, economic and social potential. 

Although ADHD has been recognised here for more than two decades, public understanding still falls  short. For years, children and adults showing signs of ADHD were dismissed as lazy or disruptive,  which left them stigmatised and without proper support. Those old misconceptions are one of the  reasons the condition remains so underdiagnosed. 

In recent years, there has been a sharp rise in ADHD diagnoses, especially among adults. Greater  awareness and reduced stigma around mental health have both played a part. The downside is that  demand for assessments has outstripped the NHS’s capacity, leading to long waits and patchy access  across different regions. Politically, there is a case for building on existing frameworks, such as the  Autism Act, so that ADHD and other neurodiverse conditions are properly covered and supported. 

The rise in diagnoses has also triggered debate. Some worry that the criteria are being stretched so  far that everyday behaviour risks being medicalised. Others argue the figures show that a condition  neglected for too long is finally being taken seriously. Either way you choose to look at it, accurate  identification and tailored support remain vital. 

Concerns have also been raised about private ADHD clinics, some of which offer snap diagnoses after  brief online assessments. These practices exploit vulnerable people and damage the credibility of all  diagnoses, making robust regulation essential. 

Social media has added a layer of complexity. On one hand, people sharing their experiences online  has helped encourage others to seek help. On the other hand, it has fuelled self-diagnosis based on  half-truths. While personal stories can be powerful, they are no substitute for professional expertise.  If left unchecked, this trend will trivialise ADHD and pile extra pressure onto challenged services. 

For all the obstacles, people with ADHD bring remarkable strengths. Their creativity, drive and fresh  perspectives can be invaluable in classrooms, workplaces and communities alike. Yet time and again,  those talents go to waste because of the barriers built into our systems and attitudes. If we are  serious about honouring the social contract, making sure effort and ability are matched by  opportunity. Then we cannot afford to leave this potential untapped. Giving neurodiverse people the  tools to thrive would not only make society fairer, but it would also help get the UK economy moving  by putting their skills to work where they are needed most.

2. History and Recognition of ADHD in the UK 

In the early 20th century, what we now call ADHD was barely understood. Children who struggled to  sit still, focus, or control their impulses were too often dismissed as troublemakers. Teachers  complained, parents were blamed, and the children themselves carried the weight of being seen as  lazy or unruly.  

Nobody thought to look deeper. 

Doctors weren’t much different. For decades, there was doubt, even within medicine, over whether  ADHD was a real condition at all. This scepticism meant countless people went without the help they  needed. Many left school with few qualifications, struggled to hold down work, and ended up on the  margins of society. A wasted generation – not through lack of talent, but through lack of  understanding. 

Things began to change at the turn of the millennium. In 2000, NICE (National Institute for Health  and Care Excellence) published its first guidelines confirming ADHD as a genuine medical condition.  Eight years later, those guidelines were extended to adults, underlining that ADHD doesn’t just  disappear when childhood ends. Schools followed suit, adding ADHD to the list of recognised special  educational needs. Teachers received training, and children were offered support. Yet too often that  support was framed around what they couldn’t do, rather than what their condition might enable  them to achieve. 

Outside government, progress was pushed by individuals and charities. Dr Geoffrey Kewley raised  awareness in clinics, while campaign groups gave parents somewhere to turn when the system fell  short. Over time, public attitudes shifted. Awareness campaigns, media coverage, and later social  media all played their part. Stories from real people cut through stereotypes and showed that ADHD  could affect anyone – not just “naughty boys” in the classroom. 

But new problems came with this visibility. TikTok and other platforms have made ADHD a trend,  with quick-fire videos encouraging people to self-diagnose on shaky evidence. While some are  nudged towards proper help, others convince themselves they have the condition without ever  seeing a professional. That risks trivialising ADHD and adds pressure to a system already stretched. 

And stretched it is. NHS waiting lists for ADHD assessments run into years in some parts of the  country. Many turn to private clinics, but standards there vary wildly. A BBC Panorama investigation  found cases where people were diagnosed after online calls lasting less than an hour. One reporter,  with no ADHD symptoms, received three separate diagnoses and was offered medication each time.  That kind of practice not only exploits vulnerable people, but it also undermines confidence in  genuine diagnoses. 

The bigger picture is this: Britain cannot afford to keep sidelining people with ADHD. When our social  contract works, it is simple – those who want to contribute should be given a fair chance to do so.  Right now, too many with ADHD are locked out of education, shut out of work, or left dependent on  benefits.  

That isn’t just unfair to them, it’s a drag on the economy. 

We need people in jobs, not parked on waiting lists or written off as NEETs. With the right support,  those with ADHD can be innovative, creative and highly productive. Unlocking that potential would  strengthen the workforce, reduce dependency on welfare, and give the UK economy a boost it  desperately needs.

3. The Self-Diagnosis Crisis 

In the last few years, more and more people have been diagnosing themselves with ADHD. Part of  the reason is frustration with NHS waiting lists, but the other part is the sheer amount of content  available online. Anyone can take a short quiz or watch a few videos and be sure they “must” have  ADHD with just a few clicks. For some, this is when they start looking for real help. But for a lot of  other people, it’s the end of the road, and that’s where the danger lies. 

The problem is that these online tests and videos focus on broad and very human traits, such as having trouble concentrating, feeling restless, and having trouble meeting deadlines. Who doesn’t go  through these things?  

It’s easy to see how a teen who watches TikTok could see themselves in a sixty-second video and  think they have a problem. But without a proper medical evaluation, it’s just a guess. 

This trend is most obvious among teens and young adults. TikTok, Instagram, and YouTube all make  short, eye-catching videos that show ADHD as a set of strange but relatable habits. Algorithms then  show viewers more of the same, making echo chambers where doubts are drowned out and subtlety  is lost. What starts as raising awareness quickly turns into false information. The more one watches,  the more one thinks they “fit the mould.” 

The results are not small. Some teens and young adults stop engaging with education and the  workplace because they think their “ADHD” makes it pointless. Some people leave the job market  before they even get there, believing that a label – often one they give themselves and can’t prove – explains and excuses their lack of success. This is a worrying trend in a country that already has a lot  of NEETs and people who have been dependent on welfare for a considerable time. People feel  validated in their struggles, but society loses out when their potential contribution is never realised. 

There is now a profitable business based on this trend of self-diagnosis. Online clinics give quick  evaluations, sometimes in less than an hour, and give out labels and medication without much  thought. People who need clarity or a sense of belonging end up paying the price, both in money and  in their personal lives. Even worse, these actions make people less sure of real diagnoses and make  people who have gone through the right channels look suspicious. 

There are also real risks to your health. If you say you have ADHD when you really have depression,  anxiety, autism, or something else, you might miss it. Some people use stimulants that aren’t  prescribed to them to “treat” a disorder they might not even have. Instead of making it easier for  people to get jobs and go to school, this cycle can keep them dependent, making the problems they  were trying to explain even worse. 

It’s good that people are becoming more aware of ADHD, since stigma has kept too many people  from getting help for too long. But awareness without accuracy is a false economy. If the UK really  wants to help people keep their end of the social contract, public campaigns need to change their  focus. They should promote accurate clinical evaluation, emphasise the dangers of self-diagnosis,  and clarify that ADHD does not merely signify common distraction. 

This is important for more than just health outcomes. The goal is to get people into jobs, training,  and roles where they can help instead of just watching. It’s not about letting people off the hook for  their long-term dependence on benefits. Most importantly, it’s about making sure that people who  really have ADHD get the help they need and keeping others from being misled by false information.  We need to cut through the noise on social media if we want to rebuild trust in our health system and get Britain working again. 

4. Political Progress of ADHD in the UK 

Over the past 20 years, ADHD has gained more recognition in UK health and education policies.  ADHD is increasingly being covered under Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND)  provisions, with schools taking the lead in this development. Individualised support for children with  ADHD must be provided by schools, including classroom modifications and the creation of Individual  Education Plans (IEPs). Although there has been noticeable progress, regional variations in  implementation remain. Some schools lack the tools and expertise necessary to offer successful  interventions. 

In order to bring about political change for ADHD, advocacy groups have been crucial. battling  stigma and advocating for legislative changes. Their work has demonstrated the need to increase  funding for mental health support, facilitate access to diagnostic services, and discuss ADHD as part  of a broader disability rights discourse. 

The effects of ADHD have drawn the attention of all of the UK’s major political parties, but their  approaches to solving the problem differ. Although everyone agrees that ADHD needs to be  addressed, no concrete steps have been taken to make this happen. Conflicting priorities,  misunderstandings, or disinterest frequently halt progress because of the way UK politics operate.  not providing a clear legal path for those with ADHD. 

For those with ADHD in the UK who require assistance, not being able to obtain a diagnosis is a  major issue. The NHS’s diagnostic pathways for ADHD are plagued by lengthy wait times. For an  evaluation, some patients must wait years. In addition to harming children during critical  developmental stages, this delay also affects adults who are seeking a late diagnosis after living with  a condition that may have gone untreated for a long time. 

The void has been filled by private diagnostic services, but issues with quality and equity have been  brought up by their exorbitant prices and dubious methods. Lack of funding is not limited to  diagnosis. There are insufficient treatment options available in many places, such as behavioural  therapies, counselling, and medication access. 

The way that the UK incorporates ADHD into its mental health policies hasn’t always been consistent.  Although the government has pledged to treat mental and physical health equally, laws pertaining to  mental health and disability rights frequently overlook ADHD. Despite having a significant impact on  individuals and families, it is occasionally overshadowed by disorders like autism and depression. 

Although it is a good thing to include ADHD in SEND frameworks and disability rights laws,  implementation is still inconsistent. In order to ensure that ADHD is addressed alongside other  conditions in public health strategies, workplace policies, and educational frameworks, an integrated  approach is required. Without this, people with ADHD will still struggle to get the support they  require. 

5. Unlocking Potential: A National ADHD Strategy  

People with ADHD’s strengths are often overlooked at work. Employers either don’t know how to  make the small changes that would help neurodiverse employees do their best, or they don’t think to. A little more flexibility with hours, clear and structured feedback, or a stable work environment can make all the difference between someone who is struggling and someone who is driving  innovation and productivity.  

This begins long before you get a job. Schools are the first place where kids with ADHD can get the  help they need to do well. Problems can get worse if you don’t get help early, get personalised  instruction, and have teachers who know what they’re going through. If you do things right in the  classroom, you can cut down on suspensions, get better results, and most importantly, get kids ready  for jobs and training.  

If you don’t do it right, you will have more NEETs, more people who depend on welfare, and more  wasted potential. 

It is not enough to just raise awareness of ADHD; we need to do it if we want to make the most of all  of Britain’s talent. Bigger public information campaigns should help get rid of the myths and stigma  that still surround the condition. The more correct information there is, the less room there is for  false information and stereotypes that spread so quickly on social media. 

Workplaces can set an example. Employers can set the tone for society by being open about showing what can be done with the right support. Government and charities can help with this by  running awareness campaigns. This way, people will understand that ADHD is not an excuse for not  doing well, but rather a condition that can lead to amazing results when it is treated properly. 

This change in culture needs to be supported by changes in policy. Adding ADHD to the Autism Act  would make it clear that the government needs to come up with a national ADHD strategy instead of  letting families fight over who gets what. It should also be easier and faster to get a diagnosis. Kids  shouldn’t be left without a name until they’re teens, and adults shouldn’t have to wait years for NHS  tests. It will take work and money, but the long-term savings – both in terms of less reliance on  welfare and more productivity – more than make up for it. 

The only way to make real change is through a coordinated national effort. That means: 

• Making the production of a national strategy for ADHD a legal duty for the Government by  adding it to the Autism Act. 

• Enhanced training for Primary School teachers to spot ADHD, to enable them to notify  parents/guardians 

• By 2030, the NHS should be able to cut the time it takes to get an ADHD diagnosis to no  more than six months. 

• Making it easier to get work with clear ADHD-specific instructions. 

• Stopping abuse by regulating private clinics. 

• Starting a national campaign to combat false information. 

If we choose to do nothing, the cost will be great. People who have undiagnosed ADHD are less  productive, use the NHS more, and even get involved with the criminal justice system more. It is also  over-represented among people who get Universal Credit. That should make us all worry. We can  reduce reliance on benefits and create pathways to meaningful employment by enhancing support.  Finding problems early can stop students from being kicked out of school, keep them in regular  classes, and help them do better in school. All of this makes the economy stronger and lessens the  need for the state in the long run. 

This is not only a moral argument – it is also an argument about money and the economy. If Britain  wants to grow, and if we want to see more people working and fewer people stuck on benefits, then we need to deal with ADHD the right way. The social contract is all about helping people make a  difference, and right now, we’re not doing that.

George decided to write this paper after encountering conflicting reports in the press, some suggesting ADHD is widely underdiagnosed, while others claim it is already overdiagnosed. Growing up in Kent, George faced challenges in the education system, being suspended from school at 15 before finding his footing through an apprenticeship that better suited his learning needs.

The post Unlocking the 5%: A Strategy to get Britain Moving  appeared first on Onward.