---

Housing and Regeneration Bill

Ten wasted years, as my hon. Friend says—I wonder how long it will be before that phrase crops up. Let me raise two final points. First, several outside organisations are expressing concern about design and quality. In the great desire to build more houses, which we want to do, there is a danger that design will be squeezed out and we will not get the quality that we need. That would be a tragedy. Several hon. Members spoke about density. We can have high density and still have good-quality accommodation. Terry Farrell is very good on this subject, and the injunctions of the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment—I think that something is coming out tomorrow—should be carefully listened to. Secondly, I wish the new agency well—I hope that it gets everything right during its merger—but it must not concentrate solely on house building at the expense of regeneration. I put in a personal plea: it must recognise that there are other forms of regeneration besides the physical, such as the human and spiritual. Some of my colleagues spoke about the sheer misery of people trapped in poverty and deprivation. They need more than just a nicely built environment. They need time devoted to dealing with addictions, and to dealing with relationship breakdown, the aspirations of their children, and children who are carers. That is part of regeneration, and I hope that we will not miss that out. At the end of the debate, we are left with what we share, and with what divides the House. As the party that under Michael Heseltine began the modern regeneration of our cities and urban areas—a start built on by this Government, and when we look at the city centres of Manchester and Birmingham, we can see that—we share a deep concern for the areas of deprivation in our society. They are places of unfulfilled lives and poor aspiration, which are blighted too often by physical environments that hinder those seeking a better life rather than help them. We share a sense that the work to relieve such problems will not be quick, or cheap, but we know that we cannot leave such areas alone, or neglect the physical and human problems that lie within them. We share the view that more houses need be built, but we differ on how to go about that. We cited example after example of how money could be used better; of unnecessary waste; of targets cited and not met—the next one is always coming along, and of course it will be met, even though there has been no change in the process—of what is too often a top-down approach with a lack of communication with those affected; of a regionalist approach when a local one would be better; and of a bureaucratic and unaccountable style when a democratic answer is the right one. We ask why the Government persist with a one-club approach—the long ball down the middle to the inevitable end. Regeneration and housing in this country deserve better. The people affected in poor areas deserve better. The Bill could have been so much better, but the chance has been missed. Above all, the country deserves the future, rather than the past, and I shall ask the House to support our amendment, which offers just that.