---

Housing and Regeneration Bill

That is an important point. The presumption is always to have brownfield development, and we have been very successful in that regard over the past 10 years: some 75 per cent. of development is now brownfield. However, my hon. Friend makes the point that we must not accept the myth that brownfield is essentially factories and that greenfield is the rolling, beautiful hills of the English countryside. That is not the case, and the agency needs to have the flexibility to be able to allow an area that is designated as greenfield to be classed as just ““shrubbery”” if it can be built on without any loss to the bio-environment. With regard to planning and sustainability, we could in many respects go further and faster to make sure we attract better biodiversity. I therefore agree with my hon. Friend on this matter. The Government have tabled amendments Nos. 18, 27 and 28 to take account of the importance of London in the national housing market, and its particular governance arrangements. The amendments place the agency under a duty to have regard to the Mayor's recommendations contained in the London housing strategy. They will enable the Mayor to recommend to the Secretary of State how much money should be allocated to the HCA in respect of housing in Greater London. They will also enable the Mayor to recommend to the agency how it should exercise its functions of giving housing financial assistance in Greater London, including such matters as the amounts that should be given for different purposes and the number, type, tenure and location of houses that should be provided through housing financial assistance. We are providing the Mayor with more scope to shape the nature of housing and regeneration in London—that will be a key priority for Ken Livingstone as he secures a third term as Mayor in the next few weeks. All this is also consistent with our recent announcement of the proposal that the agency is to establish a London sub-committee to be chaired by the Mayor, and with the chief executive of the agency, Sir Bob Kerslake, as its vice-chair. On that basis, London's interests are appropriately served, which is why I cannot accept the Liberal Democrat amendment No. 230, proposing a seat on the national HCA board for a representative from London local authorities. I am keen to avoid narrow sectional interests at board level. An approach such as that which the amendment proposes would prevent full representation from other interest groups; all might be perfectly reasonable and have a perfectly valid case, but be impossible to accommodate. Such a move would make the board unwieldy and hinder its ability to deliver the necessary improvements in housing supply and quality, and in regeneration, investment and infrastructure. On that basis, I hope the amendment will be withdrawn. I was interested in a point made by the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps), who does not appear to be listening at present. Community land trusts are very important. I have a vested interest, as I have one in my constituency. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) for the assiduous work he has been doing to ensure that CLTs are an essential part of the housing offer for the 21st century. However, nothing that was said on this matter changed the opinion I formed in Committee, which is that we do not want to prescribe too overtly with regard to the various mechanisms by which the agency might help to deliver housing. CLTs are an important part of the new environment. There are real benefits in retaining land in order to ensure that we have affordable housing and renting in perpetuity, but we must be aware of the future-proofing issue.