---

Housing and Regeneration Bill

It has been a thoughtful debate on important topics that, in part, anticipate later debates on the designation powers of the Secretary of State. It is worth anticipating some of those issues briefly as we explore the implications of the amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, was completely disarming and his language was clearly reflected back to him. I wondered when my noble friend Lord Howarth was speaking whether I had been too kind to him on his previous amendment; however, I will forgive him because he raised very important issues. The noble Lord said that he wanted to make it plain in the Bill that we were very much on the side of local authorities and that we understood that everything was going to happen within the planning system. I know that he knows that it belongs within the planning system. He quoted me at some length—I must have gone on for hours if that was typical—and said that the Bill disregarded its context and planning powers and that, without something being expressed in it, they might be overlooked. The same goes for the nature of the partnership with local authorities. I cannot agree with the noble Lord. I must build on my statements at Second Reading in regard to the spirit of partnership with local authorities in the planning system and the practicalities of what we want to achieve. There is no way that we can do any of this without partnership with local authorities and without observing the explicit and transparent rules of the planning system. My noble friend spoke about housing and the challenge of meeting the housing targets. We already have a system which is responsive to what local communities need. We have planned through our existing system—through the growth areas and the work of EP and much else—hundreds of thousands of houses which are already in development. Our housing need and numbers are determined by the local authorities’ assessment. That in turn is fed through the regional strategies, the regional spatial strategies and the regional housing boards, so that everyone knows not only the current needs but also, with information from the latest ONS statistics and the National Housing and Planning Advice Unit, the future needs as well. There is no way in which the Government could impose those numbers on local authorities. They reflect the genuine nature, the demography and the aspirations of our communities. That is already a robust partnership which requires that we understand and respond to what local authorities face. That is the reality in which the HCA will work, a reality about which my noble friend Lady Ford spoke when talking of the negotiation in Basildon. Nor does the Bill in any way enable the HCA to circumvent any part of the planning system. It belongs in the planning system and has to observe it. Therefore, I believe that putting into the Bill the fact that the HCA must work within the planning system is redundant because there is no way in which it will be exempt. Once we put that sort of thing into the Bill, we should answer whether we should specify all the other legal requirements to which it must adhere. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, raised the issue of designation powers in relation to eco-towns. We know that the designation powers were a very rare event indeed with English Partnerships. They were exercised in that instance, and they would be in other instances; for example, in the rare circumstances of a very large regeneration project which crossed local authority boundaries, where there were specific barriers and difficulties and which was very challenging in terms of regeneration. In the unlikely event that the Secretary of State designates an area and confers responsibility for preparing and maintaining all or part of the local development framework for the designated area on the HCA, there is no way in which it would work outside the planning system. It is firmly in the planning system, with all the appeals processes, with consultation and with examination in public. Planning permission will have to be applied for. There is no way in which the designation powers would be used for eco-towns but the process for eco-towns would be within the planning system. More important than putting this on the face of the Bill is to ensure that the culture and the organisation of the HCA recognises the realities—I know it will—which are rooted in the strategic responsibility of housing authorities, in the role of regional spatial partnerships and strategies and in the knowledge that, unless partnership is true and transparent, it will simply not get off the ground in relation to any of its ambitions. We have the history and the record to prove that. For example, if you take the growth areas, we know how effective partnership working can be in delivering housing regeneration. For example, in north Northamptonshire, the local authorities of Corby, East Northants, Kettering and Wellingborough came together to form a joint planning committee. They worked together on the delivery of the core spatial strategy and the joint proposals for planning obligations. It is those sorts of partnerships that we want to cherish and encourage. That is rooted in local ambition and capacity. However, the HCA lives in the real world and it has to acknowledge that the housing markets do not divide along regional lines, let alone local lines. It has to be able to make the local and regional connection—that tripartite relationship which will make things coherent and manageable. It will have a more coherent regional presence; it will have a presence in government offices; it will be closer to local communities; and it will be more able to support local authorities. It will also be able to draw on the things that connect directly to communities. English Partnerships had a very fine record of being able to work with communities, particularly through the housing market renewal pathfinders. The HCA will certainly want to draw on that kind of experience and benefit from it. I do not believe that any of that can be captured, or is needed, in the Bill. That is the reality of how the HCA will work. Another problem with the amendment is that there may be circumstances in which the agency does not want to work primarily or only with these groups and it would prevent it working without them. For example, if there was a specific project or task that did not interest the local authority or other agencies, the agency would not be able to work unless it could get that co-operation and there might be very good reasons why the local authority was not particularly interested. The amendment reduces flexibility. There is also the possibility that its wording might place the HCA under an obligation to work in partnership with every other agency already involved in work related to the pursuit of its objects, however tangential. I am appealing for flexibility and trust on the record of achievement, the well established ways of working and what the HCA will have to do in order to meet the challenge. In his amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, probed further into the nature of that relationship. I have talked a bit about the role in relation to designation, and we shall have a longer debate when we come to that. The agency will be the best delivery partner of local authorities. For the first time, local authorities will be able to go to one place that can: assemble land and investment; look at situations that are complex for what is possible; broker and lever arrangements, finance and investment in a way that the combination of the Housing Corporation and EP could not; bring the skills in; bring the market intelligence in; bring in all the things that enable people to have a clear picture of what is possible; and then get behind them with the resources. It will be a one-stop shop. That is a real partnership, and that is why local authorities and the Local Government Association are so positive about how the HCA will help them to provide the homes that are needed in their communities. Far from being top-down, leviathan, a behemoth or any of the words that are along the lines of monster, this will be a responsive and transparent agency that will serve local government extremely well. When I look at the noble Lord’s amendments that refer within the same context to different bits of the operation—for example, his amendment that deals with housing targets—each of them does something that will damage the flexibility of the HCA and inhibit it achieving its option. For example, if we take the target relating to housing, his amendment is damaging because there may be circumstances in which we would wish the HCA to provide housing directly or to repair and improve housing. One of those programmes is the decent homes programme, which the agency will take over. That is designed to deliver our commitment that 95 per cent of social rented stock will be made decent by the end of 2012. That is an extremely important commitment, and we have spent £23 billion so far on making 1 million non-decent homes decent. That could not happen if the noble Lord’s amendment were carried because it would stop the HCA acting directly. It would disable the HCA in that respect. I could go on in relation to infrastructure and regeneration because it is again very important that the HCA can act directly, but I think I have made my point. I hope that I have answered most of the questions about the implications raised by the amendment and that the noble Lord will be able to withdraw it.