---

Housing and Regeneration Bill

I appreciate what the noble Earl says and point him to the many conversations we have had with the housebuilding industry. They make it quite clear that we do this best if we do it in partnership. We do it through regulation only if it is not making the kind of progress that we want to see. We left the industry in no doubt that we will regulate if it does not do as we wish. The point is that we are looking at significant amounts of housebuilding, much of which is already in plan. It is a big challenge to the industry when we are also asking for sustainable homes, sustainable building and so on and so forth. However, the noble Earl is right that it is important and something that we must and will do. I look forward to later debates on this on those parts of the Bill where we can go into even more detail. Apropos RADAR, we work uniquely closely with the disabled and ageing organisations lobbying on this. The policy has had a warm welcome because they know the realities with which we are dealing. The argument about putting the requirement at this point of the Bill and in this way has been picked up by the noble Lord, Lord Best. We resist the notion of a list principle for very good reasons: we get ourselves into far greater problems creating exclusions and anomalies once we start adding things. I do not agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, because I believe that accessible homes are not necessarily different from, for example, affordable, sustainable homes or those with any other generic name. Once you have that on the face of the Bill, you are looking at other sorts of descriptions that could cause greater problems. I have absolutely no doubt that accessible housing is important, but even I do not think they should be at the expense of other forms of housing that a community may need. However, we are clear in our commitment and we have a specific timetable that we will make work. I refer briefly to Amendment No. 19 on inclusivity. Although I agree with the intention behind it, we are not able to accept it because by building communities that work and attending to their well-being, we are building inclusive and fair communities in which you cannot tell the type of homes that they are—that is, rented, social or owned. We also want to be fair in our housing policy and to have mixed communities. All that is contained within the notion of well-being and the sort of thriving communities we want to see. I therefore believe that the proposal is already served by the Bill. Finally, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, talked about the renewal and regeneration of the existing stock. We have said in the paper on housing and ageing that we must make it absolutely clear that the homes of today must be safe and accessible. We do not want people who are at risk falling over for want of a grab rail that costs £50 and going into hospital for a hip operation that costs £6,000. Of equal priority is a major new investment in rapid repair services, which exist throughout the country but which are patchy, albeit often brilliantly delivered through the voluntary sector in partnership with local authorities. We want to see more and better rapid repair services, and we are working to put this policy into operation. Indeed, we have put more than £30 million in additional funding into it. I am sure the noble Baroness knows that the regional allocation pot is £10 billion over the next three years. Our intention is that investment is targeted and that decisions are taken at the regional level according to regional needs. We continue to look for the right balance between new builds and improving the existing stock in different ways. I hope the noble Lord will feel that he can withdraw his amendment.