 House of Commons |
Session 2007 - 08 Publications on the internet General Committee Debates Housing and Regeneration Bill |
Housing and Regeneration Bill |
The Committee consisted of the following Members:Hannah Weston, Committee
Clerk
† attended the
Committee
Public Bill CommitteeThursday 10 January 2008(Afternoon)[Mr. Roger Gale in the Chair]Housing and Regeneration BillClause 2Objects
Amendment
proposed [this day]: No. 34, in
clause 2, page 1, line 11, at
end insert—
‘(aa) to carry
out, or provide for the carrying out of, regular assessments of the
nature and scale of housing need in England,’.—[Andrew
George.]
Question
again proposed, That the amendment be
made.
1
pm
Amendment No.
35, in
clause 2, page 2, line 2, after
‘subsection (1)—’,
insert—
‘“housing
need” includes the condition of those who are homeless and those
who are housed in insecure, unsatisfactory or overcrowded
accommodation.’.
New
clause 7—Rough Sleepers Steering
Group
‘(1) The Secretary of
State shall, within six months of the coming into force of this Act,
establish a body (“the Steering Group”) to review the
services provided to rough sleepers in England and draw up an action
plan to provide adequate hostel and permanent
accommodation.
(2) The
membership of the Steering Group shall include an equal number of
members from central government, local government, registered providers
of social housing and other relevant charitable organisations, with an
independent chair.
(3) The
Steering Group shall make recommendations within six months of its
establishment in respect of the matters referred to in subsection
(1).’.
Grant
Shapps (Welwyn Hatfield) (Con): As I was saying, our
greatest concern with homelessness is that the figures for rough
sleepers are inaccurate, and it is rough sleeping that concerns us most
here. Two main points remain to be covered.
The rough
sleepers unit was disbanded on the basis that the two-thirds reduction
target had been met; the unit, which can be credited with a great deal
of that reduction, was effectively wound up by bringing it into a wider
homelessness body under the Department for Communities and Local
Government. To have the new body deal simply with the wider issues of
homelessness—Labour Back Benchers have pointed out that there is
a great difference between homelessness and rough
sleeping—rather than having a unit that deals only with rough
sleeping may be a mistake.
The new
clause is an attempt to bring a rough sleepers steering group into
being. Its purpose is to re-emphasise the importance of tackling rough
sleeping and its consequences. We propose setting up a separately
recognised body within six months, and having it report within a
further six months. We can draw upon the experience of
the rough sleepers unit, and the work that it did in contributing to the
reduction in rough sleeping. It worked, because it concentrated minds
on the issue, which is the point of the new
clause.
I
had anticipated an intervention along the lines of the one made this
morning by the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich, that the
new clause would simply add to the list of objectives under clause 2.
We do not want to repeat that earlier debate—it went as far as
it could—but the objectives of the agency need to be set out
somewhere. The problems of homelessness and rough sleeping are
sufficiently important that I am surprised that a detailed reference
has not been made to plans to improve the lot of rough sleepers or to
re-emphasise the issue anywhere else in the Bill.
I am
interested to hear from the Minister whether I have missed something in
the 280 clauses that could help, or whether he is amenable to seeing
mention of the issue in the Bill or to providing some reassurance on
the question of rough sleeping. In particular, will he comment on the
problem with the counting of rough sleepers that was referred to
earlier, when we heard that the Department counts an estimate of nought
to 10 rough sleepers as zero? I would be interested to hear whether
anything can be done about
that.
I
have provided an outline of our reasons for tabling new clause 7. I
hope that the Minister will take some of those points on
board.
Dr.
Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab): May I take
this opportunity, Mr, Gale, of welcoming you to the Chair this
afternoon and say what a pleasure it is to serve under your
chairmanship?
I
want to speak against new clause 7, but not because I am not interested
in the issue of rough sleepers. It is important to put on record that
the Government have put a substantial amount of effort into decreasing
the number of rough sleepers. Indeed, Opposition Members recognise that
numbers have fallen by 73 per cent. since 1998. The Government have
signalled their intention to continue the reduction, with a range of
measures to tackle new homelessness. A key aim of the Bill is to enable
more accommodation to be made available to help tackle the problem of
rough sleepers. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham
that the problem of rough sleeping goes much wider than the
availability of accommodation and involves issues of individuals and
their wider
circumstances.
I
want to correct the impression given by the hon. Member for Welwyn
Hatfield that the Government have not invested in social housing, which
is not accurate. By 2010, the Government will have invested about
£40 billion in social housing and bringing homes up to the
decent homes standard, and about 3.6 million homes have already been
brought up to that standard. That is important, because the Government
have rightly accepted that the emphasis and priority with social
housing should be about not only improving numbers, but improving
quality and trying to tackle the decades of under-investment in social
housing under previous Conservative Governments. I want to put on the
record my support for that and for Labour’s record on tackling
homelessness and investing in social housing. Of course, we want to
invest a lot more in social housing—hence, the Bill—but
the record is reasonable, which should be
acknowledged.
The
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local
Government (Mr. Iain Wright):
Good afternoon,
Mr. Gale. May I wish you a happy, peaceful and prosperous
new year, as I did Mr. Benton, this morning? It is good to
have you in the Chair.
I welcome the
hon. Member for Montgomeryshire to the Committee. He was consigned to
the touchline for most of the morning, which I thought a bit
cheeky—it does not get any better, Mr.
Gale—but that was to do with the procedures of the House. The
hon. Gentleman did his best in the Hartlepool by-election to stop me
from coming here, but since I have been here, he has been kindness
personified. He is a true friend, and I look forward to battling with
him over the
Bill.
I
also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Paul Holmes), who
was with us on Second Reading and during the oral evidence sessions.
His commitment to social housing, particularly council housing, is in
no doubt, and I thank him for his work in
Committee.
Lembit
Öpik (Montgomeryshire) (LD): May I thank the
Minister and the Committee for their generosity? I felt the
Minister’s sympathy as I sat out there, homeless from the
Committee. I did my best to prevent the Minister from being elected in
his constituency, but that was because I knew that he would be too good
as a Minister. Even so, he has exceeded my
expectations.
Mr.
Wright:
I shall move on swiftly, Mr.
Gale—we have all just had lunch and might start to feel a little
sick; mutual appreciation societies can go too far.
We have had
an interesting debate, and I have been grateful for our discussions on
the amendments, which are helping us to tease out ideas about the
agency and what it should do. I must point out that all the objects of
the agency, including improving the supply and quality of housing, must
be carried out with a view to meeting the needs of people in England,
including their housing needs.
I was
interested in the comments of the hon. Member for St. Ives on the need
for a more substantial awareness and analysis of the national housing
need—I think that those were his words. It is also important
that local authorities have a central role in identifying specific
housing needs in their areas and that there is wider regional
consideration. That is why regional planning bodies and local
authorities carry out assessments of housing needs in their areas,
using advice from the national housing and planning advice unit. My
hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton made that point very well in an
intervention.
The
Homes and Communities Agency will be expected to work in partnership
with those regional and local bodies to consider social housing needs
in different places. I imagine that that work will feed into regional
and local plans and the overall work of the agency. The agency will
also be expected to support local authorities and build their capacity
on housing and regeneration issues. As part of that, it is likely to
work with local authorities to develop housing needs assessments for
various places. We are keen to avoid unnecessary duplication of such
work.
I
concede that better national assessment of housing need is necessary,
but I emphasise the central role of local authorities in assessing that
need in their areas in
conjunction with a regional perspective. I do not consider the Homes and
Communities Agency the right body to make an assessment—it would
be done better by an independent researcher or body or by central
Government. One theme that I want to advance in Committee is that the
agency was set up to allow the Department for Communities and Local
Government to take a strategic and policy-making role with others
providing the delivery function, and this matter is a good example of
that. We are considering models of how better to assess housing need,
and I pledge that we shall make an announcement in due
course.
On
new clause 7, I am not convinced that we need a statutory body, which
would add a layer of bureaucracy, to consider rough sleeper services.
Both Government and Opposition Members have rightly said that in the
past 10 years, we have achieved an enormous amount in partnership with
the voluntary sector and local authorities to tackle and reduce
homelessness, particularly in its worst form—rough sleeping.
Because of that, it is difficult to see what added value would arise
from the establishment of a steering
group.
One
reason why I like serving on Public Bill Committees is that themes seem
to emerge. We have discussed year zero, whether or not it is 1997,
since which everything was good and before which everything was bad.
The hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield made an important point:
politicians and Members of Parliament are criticised an awful lot, and
I do not accept that hon. Members of any party come into public service
in order to increase homelessness—I agree with him on every word
of that. However, public service, particularly the governing of the
country, is about priorities and where to allocate resources to match
those priorities and to achieve objectives. I must say that the record
of the Conservative Government before 1997 on homelessness and rough
sleeping did not match our priorities, and since 1997 this Government
have a record that is second to
none.
Sir
George Young (North-West Hampshire) (Con): I hope that the
Minister recognises that in 1990, the rough sleepers initiative was
launched, devoting substantial resources to reducing rough sleepers in
London, with the back-up of hostels and the co-operation of voluntary
organisations. Against that background, I hope that he will tone down
his somewhat harsh criticism of the regime before
1997.
Mr.
Wright:
I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that,
although that he was a first-class Housing Minister in a Conservative
Government, he was swimming against the tide of his Administration. The
priorities were not there in the Thatcher and Major
Administrations.
Lyn
Brown (West Ham) (Lab): Does the Minister agree that one
issue in dealing with rough sleepers in that period was that the
problems of those on the streets were not analysed? It was therefore
not possible effectively to place resources that would get people off
the streets and keep them off the streets, giving them an opportunity
for life to come.
Mr.
Wright:
I agree absolutely, and I pay tribute to my hon.
Friend’s work on the matter. She is a passionate champion, and
she is rightly pushing to
ensure that we do even more, building upon our unprecedented success in
tackling homelessness and rough
sleeping.
Mr.
Nick Raynsford (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab): Does the
Minister recall that, in the dying days of the Conservative Government
in 1996, they legislated, against the strong view of the entire
voluntary sector and our party, to reduce the statutory obligation on
local authorities to assist homeless people? That was remedied by
Labour when it returned to power, with legislation that was introduced
in 2001 and that eventually reached the statute book in 2002. The only
advances in the statutory definition of the rights of homeless people
have come under Labour Governments—in 1997, with the strong
support of the Liberals, and in 2002. That is when there has been
definition in law of rights for the
homeless.
1.15
pm
The
Chairman:
Order. I was under the impression that the
Government want to make progress this afternoon. I cannot find anything
in what the right hon. Gentleman has just said that is remotely
connected with any of the clauses or amendments under discussion.
Perhaps we can return to the
Bill.
Mr.
Wright:
I want to put on record that I completely agree
with what my right hon. Friend has said. The Government have
effectively tackled the most visible form of homelessness—that
of people sleeping on the streets. We want to do more, and we will. In
1998, the then Prime Minister set a target that by 2002 the number of
rough sleepers should be reduced by at least two thirds. That target,
as the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield has conceded, was met ahead of
time and is being sustained. I am wary of your rulings, Mr.
Gale, but it is important to focus on the real success of the past
decade. In 1998, there were 1,850 rough sleepers on the streets of
England on any single night. In 2007, as the hon. Gentleman said in his
contribution, there are now fewer than 500; he made an important point
about rough sleeping counts, which he has done outside the Committee.
That has been echoed in the Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for
Edmonton; no one is suggesting that we are collecting the number of
every single person who sleeps rough on every single night of the year.
That is not the intention, and it would be difficult to
achieve.
Street
counts provide a useful snapshot of people sleeping rough on a single
night. The methodology was developed by the Government some nine years
ago, in partnership with the voluntary sector. I want to reiterate that
those counted on a single night do not represent all those who may have
experienced sleeping rough over the course of a year. As my hon. Friend
the Member for Edmonton has rightly stated, street counts are still the
most robust method for measuring the changing situation on the streets
over a sustained period. That conclusion is backed up by the National
Audit
Office:
“The
count is designed to capture the number of people sleeping rough on a
given night rather than over the course of a year. Counts might not
capture all of those sleeping rough, but because the methodology has
been applied consistently area-to-area and year-on-year, it is the most
accurate measure of the relative scale of the problem and change over
time.”
Grant
Shapps:
With respect, the Minister is somewhat skirting
around the issue. We are agreed that the count is inaccurate, because
not everyone is found and the actual number of rough sleepers is
therefore not provided. We also agree that the count gives an
indication of the trend. However, the point of the steering
group’s work would be to find and define a new system for
enabling the count to include those numbers—not counting them as
zero, but as the actual number that came in from the local authority.
Will the Minister address that
point?
Mr.
Wright:
The hon. Gentleman has raised an interesting
point. I do not want to carry out spin with rough sleeping figures. I
want to have robust evidence, so that we can drive down the figures
further. That is a major priority of the Government, and it will
continue to be
so.
Lyn
Brown:
Does the Minister agree that because services for
the homeless and street-sleeping people have increased over the past 10
years, we now have people on the ground who know the area that they are
dealing with and where those people sleep? The count has become more
robust and more accurate as we have progressed through the decade,
because we have more knowledge of people, locally, on the ground, who
know their clients at the shelters and the
hostels.
Mr.
Wright:
My hon. Friend has raised an interesting point,
which is useful in moving the debate forward. That partnership between
service users—I hate that phrase, but it is appropriate
here—local authorities and voluntary sector groups is vital to
driving the figure down
further.
I
am going to come directly to the important point about nought to 10
estimates being treated as zero, hopefully reflecting my indication and
that of the Minister for Housing that we want to be as honest, up front
and robust as possible in our methodology. I do not want to be
flippant, but the reason for the current situation is that it is not
necessary for all local authorities to carry out a full rough sleeping
count. In many areas, rough sleeping might not be an issue. Our
guidance
states:
“If
the local authority feels that it has developed a rough sleeping
problem — and in particular it estimates that there may be more
than 10 rough sleepers in the area, a full count should be carried out
to clarify the
situation.”
The decision
to go for the lower end of banded estimates was based on clear
precedence, where local authority estimates consistently overestimated
the number actually found in counts. The current approach was suggested
some nine or 10 years ago in consultation with the local government
sector, and we carried out its wishes.
I am mindful
of your ruling, Mr. Gale, but I want to reiterate an
important point: we have applied the same methodology in producing the
national estimate. We accept that the total does not represent everyone
sleeping rough, but it is an accurate reflection of changes in the
scale of rough sleeping nationally. I am committed publicly to
reconsidering the matter. As part of our work with the voluntary sector
and key local authorities, we are looking at the counting methodology
and a future rough sleeping strategy in order to have as robust a
methodology as possible.
Mr.
Wright:
Discussions about the review are taking
place between departmental officials. However, I
should be able to return on Report and provide a firmer indication, if
the hon. Gentleman
wishes.
I
shall return to our successes on rough sleeping, which resulted from
the effective partnership between central Government, local authorities
and the voluntary sector, which is recognised throughout the world.
Jenny Edwards, the chief executive of Homeless Link, which is the
national umbrella organisation for the voluntary sector,
said:
“Our
country has inspired the rest of the world in the way it has tackled
rough sleeping, with the Government, the voluntary sector and local
authorities working together. Thousands of people, many who had been
written off by society, have come off the streets and rebuilt their
lives. The key has been to make sure their aspirations are at the heart
of this journey. The progress so far inspires and encourages us to
redouble our efforts over the next few years, to get rough sleeping as
close to zero as possible in all areas of the
country.”
We are not
complacent and realise that we need to look
ahead.
The
time is right to consider a rough sleeping strategy for the next three
years. We have informally consulted the voluntary sector on the key
elements of that strategy, and we will work closely with our partners
to make further inroads into rough sleeping. Our strategy needs to
bring together all the elements involved in getting people off the
streets, such as tackling their support needs, making hostels places of
change that help rough sleepers get back on track and moving people
into settled accommodation and
employment.
We
have been talking about priorities in government. I have made the point
that rough sleeping and homelessness have been major priorities for the
Labour Government since 1997, backed up by substantial levels of
resources and funding allocations. It has always been important to
ensure that funding is available to tackle rough sleeping. To put the
discussion into context, we recently announced about £150
million of homelessness grants for local authorities over the next
three years to help prevent homelessness and to tackle rough sleeping.
That is the biggest ever cash injection for homelessness services. In
addition, we are providing more than £51 million of homelessness
grants to the voluntary sector over the next three years. Our work with
rough sleepers will extend much wider than just helping them off the
streets.
As
Minister with responsibility for homelessness, I am incredibly proud of
our considerable investment in improving hostels. Some £90
million has been spent over the past three years on 175 projects in 62
areas. We want good hostels with rough sleepers being linked into
training, employment and reskilling, so that they can move on to live
independently, and we are reiterating that investment with further
spending. In the latest comprehensive spending review, we have secured
£70 million of new funding for hostels over the next three
years, bringing the total investment in getting rough sleepers off the
streets up to £160 million. I say to the hon.
Gentleman—match
that!
Grant
Shapps:
It is clear, according to the Minister’s
figures, that £90 million has been invested over the past three
years. However, over the next three years, that
figure will reduce to £70 million. Will the Minister therefore
confirm that there will be a cut in expenditure on hostels over the
next three
years?
Mr.
Wright:
No. My sense, from speaking to the voluntary
sector organisations that are involved in this, is that they are
extremely pleased with the settlement. They thought that this whole
area would be cut substantially; it has not been. The settlement allows
us to build on very real successes. A lot of the work that went on in
the previous three years was to put down markers and set up the
necessary infrastructure. We can now go on and build almost 100 per
cent. on delivery, and I think that that is very important.
We are really
moving homelessness policy away from just helping somebody to get a bed
for the night. We are helping ambition, raising aspirations and
providing training opportunities to make sure that people stay
permanently aware. Therefore, all the elements are in place to ensure
we can continue to tackle rough sleeping and further reduce the numbers
of those who are unfortunate enough to be on the streets. Our rough
sleeping strategy, which will be drawn up with our partners, represents
the way forward. It will be backed by substantial funding for local
authorities and the voluntary
sector.
The
best way to tackle homelessness is to make sure that we have the homes
necessary to eliminate it. That was why I was disappointed that the
Conservative party did not support the Bill on Second Reading and thus
did not support our aim of ensuring that we have the homes needed to
make homelessness a thing of the past. I hope that the hon. Member for
St. Ives will withdraw the amendment.
Andrew
George (St. Ives) (LD): I am very grateful to the Minister
and others who have contributed to the debate on the two amendments
tabled by me and my no longer banished hon. Friend the Member for
Montgomeryshire. To be honest, they were intended to be probing
amendments to encourage the Minister to acknowledge that there were
difficulties. The housing market is not simplistic or two dimensional.
The figures need to be balanced for social housing, intermediate
housing and market housing. The task of establishing how sub-markets
work in different areas is much more challenging than perhaps others
had previously acknowledged.
I was
disappointed, especially in the light of my hon. Friend’s
effusive remarks about the Minister, by the way in which the Minister
dismissed the arguments that I advanced in our debate this morning. The
fact is that local authorities have a statutory responsibility, but
only for housing involving certain types of need. Not all types are
picked up by the local housing register, which is not sufficiently
sensitive to take account of a wide range of needs. For example, single
men cannot necessarily express their need or get on the register quite
as easily as other groups.
I mentioned
rural areas. The logic is compelling. There is no point waiting for a
bus on a Sunday if there is no bus. Likewise, there is no point
expressing a need for social housing in a village where there is no
housing available. Leaving this to local authorities and their
statutory responsibilities means that those kinds of nuances are simply
not picked up. Similarly, the way in
which the sub-market operates is not fully recognised—not just in
the Kate Barker review, but also in the Government’s response to
that, and in the regional assemblies and sub-regional plans. They all
seem to fail to reflect the relationship between the open market and
the need for an intermediate market. There is a need for a great deal
more work than has been provided up until
now.
1.30
pm
Let
me give an example. There is a requirement to understand properly the
extent of the need for intermediate market housing, such as low-cost
and shared ownership housing. Where the assessment is poor and the
figures perhaps provide for a large number of market houses, it makes
it much more difficult to bring forward the large numbers of
intermediate market houses that are needed in an area. That is because
landowners will always hope that their land will be apportioned for
market housing and will therefore not make it available for
intermediate markets. By getting the assessment right, we get the
figures right, and by getting the figures right, we will be more likely
to be able to
deliver.
Mr.
Andrew Love (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op): Local authorities have
a strategic role on housing in their local area. They have not only
responsibilities, but powers to allow them to intervene in the housing
market. While I accept that there are difficulties in relation to
funding, if there are other shortcomings, surely they relate mainly to
the reluctance of local authorities to use those powers—to use
the strategic overview that they should have in a local area—to
do what the hon. Gentleman is
asking.
Andrew
George:
That intervention is extremely helpful because it
emphasises that if local authorities are not using the full range of
powers that they have, and doing only the minimum that they can get
away with in terms of the statutory duties, it means that the new
agency will not be as well informed as it perhaps should be by
commissioning surveys, or perhaps academic analyses, so that it can be
satisfied that the information that it gets from the ground properly
reflects what is going on and helps it in its forward planning. It is
on that basis that I am troubled by the Minister’s response. I
will therefore press the amendment to a
Division.
Question
put, That the amendment be
made:—
The
Committee divided: Ayes 2, Noes
7.
Division
No.
1
]
AYESNOES
Question
accordingly negatived.
Dr.
Blackman-Woods:
I beg to move amendment No. 75,
in
clause 2, page 1, line 14, leave
out ‘or’ and insert ‘, sustainable development or
other’.
The
amendment, which stands in my name and that of my right hon. Friend the
Member for Greenwich and Woolwich, is essentially a prompt to the
Government that the concept of sustainability, and in particular
sustainable development, should be explicitly mentioned in the
objectives of the HCA in clause
2(1).
The
Government have an excellent record of putting sustainability at the
heart of the development and regeneration agenda. It is reflected in
the revision of planning policy guidance note 1 to planning policy
statement 1 to concentrate specifically on sustainable development in
the planning system. It is also reflected in PPS3, where there is a
specific mention in the Government’s strategic housing policy
objectives of the desire to create sustainable, inclusive and mixed
communities in all areas—urban and rural. As that is a strategic
objective of the Government, it would be useful if it were emphasised
in the objectives of the HCA. Of course, the Government supported the
Sustainable Communities Bill last year, meaning that we now have the
Sustainable Communities Act 2007, which concentrates in particular on
supporting local authorities to provide sustainable
development.
With that
wealth of legislation and policy, the Government have clearly flagged
their direction with respect to encouraging sustainability, not only in
matters such as renewable energy or greater energy efficiency for
communities, but in ensuring that communities have access to transport,
schools, community facilities and the necessary support infrastructure.
It would be helpful if that aspect were flagged up in the
Bill.
Alistair
Burt (North-East Bedfordshire) (Con): I want briefly to
support the amendment. The amendment brings us back to something that I
mentioned earlier: the concern at the back of some minds that what is
happening is all a numbers game that is about being determined to push
through a certain number of houses, without regard to the other things
that will make for serious, sensible, sustainable communities in the
future, such as design, quality and sustainability. Some guidance from
the Minister about how seriously he takes the issues that the hon. Lady
has raised would be
helpful.
Lembit
Öpik:
I support the amendment. It looks to me as if
sustainability is missing entirely from clause 2 in word and in spirit.
As far as I can see, there is no element of the amendment that is
compromising to the Government. As the hon. Lady has pointed out, the
Government have been clear about their support for a sustainability
agenda throughout their work and specifically in housing. I hope that
this will be one of those occasions when the Minister, after
consideration, will be able to accept an amendment that evidently has
cross-party
support.
Mr.
Wright:
That was a short but sweet debate on an important
and serious amendment, which I thank my hon. Friend the Member for City
of Durham and my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and
Woolwich for tabling. It is clear from all that has
happened in the past few months that the Government take climate change
and wider sustainable development extremely seriously. That is the
reason for the proposals that we have published in the Climate Change
Bill, the first of its kind in the world, to provide a clear, credible,
long-term domestic framework for the achievement of the UK’s
long-term goals of reducing carbon dioxide emissions. With
responsibilities for housing, planning and regeneration, the Department
has a key role to play in tackling climate change, not least when we
think that nearly half of all carbon emissions in the UK come from
buildings and something like 27 per cent. come from
homes.
We
have already made progress, as my hon. Friend the Member for City of
Durham has said and as has been recognised by the Sustainable
Development Commission and other green NGOs. Green stakeholders have
told us that the Department is critical to successful Government action
on climate change—perhaps more than any other Department.
However, as the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire has mentioned,
sustainable development will and should be at the heart of what the
agency does, and it is crucial that the Bill makes that
clear.
The
agency’s functions in relation to sustainable development are
set out in clause 34, which provides that
it
“may contribute to the
achievement of sustainable development.”
However, I agree with the cross-party
consensus that we need to go further. I should like to consider in more
detail the suggestion that the agency has a stronger duty to
sustainable development. I shall consider whether incorporation in the
agency’s fundamental objects would be appropriate, and I will
look at the duties placed on comparable bodies, such as regional
development agencies, the Greater London Assembly and local
authorities, which are required to provide sustainable community
strategies.
I
am sure the whole Committee recognises that it is important that we get
the clause right. I am clear that we must not constrain the
agency’s ability to deliver new homes, or leave it open to
persistent legal challenges on matters such as its work on eco-towns
and other initiatives that will help to achieve the 3 million homes
target, which may require, frankly, the development of greenfield
sites. If we were to place on the agency an unqualified duty, it would
be almost impossible for the agency to achieve its targets. However, I
hear and agree with what the Committee has said, and I shall consider
the issue in more detail and return to it at a later
stage.
Lembit
Öpik:
I shall be interested to hear what the hon.
Member for City of Durham says in response to the Minister’s
comments. I am encouraged by what the Minister has said, and I hope
that it means that the Government will adopt the amendment on
Report.
May
I underline something that the Minister himself said about clause 34?
In the clause, “may” is used, not “must”.
We are in changing times, and if the Government are serious about the
environmental agenda, it seems appropriate to enshrine that element in
the objects of the agency that we are setting up. There would be no
cost to the Government, but the provision would be directionally
important.
Mr.
Wright:
I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s
contribution. I have made my and the Government’s position
clear, subject to the constraints that I have mentioned. To that end, I
hope that my hon. Friend will withdraw her amendment, which we may
consider later in the Bill’s
proceedings.
Dr.
Blackman-Woods:
The Minister has given me supportive
comments and assurances that he will consider the issue seriously. I
beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment,
by leave, withdrawn.
Sir
George Young:
I beg to move amendment No. 14, in
clause 2, page 1, line 14, at
end insert
‘inclusive’.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to discuss
amendment No. 12, in clause 86, page 37, line 38, after
‘well-managed’, insert ‘,
inclusive’.
Sir
George Young:
I hope that we are now on a winning streak,
because when I moved an amendment this morning, the Government said
that it was very worthy but that it added to a list, which was a
powerful argument for rejecting it. The previous amendment added to a
list, but after an obviously good lunch, the Minister decided that
although it added to a list, it was none the less worth considering.
Against that background, he will find it hard to resist amendment No.
14.
Alistair
Burt:
Does my right hon. Friend feel that the absence of
the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich, who would have nipped
the Minister’s ankles, led the Minister to make that
concession?
Sir
George Young:
I was surprised that the right hon. Member
for Greenwich and Woolwich tabled an amendment that added to a list,
given what he said about my amendment this
morning.
Returning
to my amendment, if there is one theme running through the
Government’s housing policy, it is social inclusion, which is
one reason why they have introduced the Bill. Social inclusivity is a
fundamental element of the Government’s homes and communities
agenda. The amendment would not add to a list; it would simply add an
adjective to an existing list. I hope the Minister agrees that we want
to build inclusive communities, and I see no reason why he cannot smile
on the amendment. To some extent, this debate overlaps with our first
debate and with the previous debate about focusing not only on building
but on building inclusive
communities.
By
an inclusive community, I mean something broader than accessible
housing. I mean homes and infrastructure that are planned and delivered
to empower disabled people and other groups to get out and about, which
are the sort of communities that the hon. Member for City of Durham
referred to in the debate on the previous amendment, when she said that
such communities should be sustainable. It means accessible and
integrated transport, ensuring that facilities are located in places
that everyone can reach easily and cheaply and that people in sheltered
and supported accommodation can play a full role in a properly mixed
community.
The Disability
Rights Commission has provided some invaluable guidance for planners
and housing professionals on what it thinks should be factored into the
planning of such communities. I hope that the Minister agrees that the
amendment would take forward the Government’s agenda and put in
the Bill one of the main objectives of their housing and community
policy. On that basis, I hope that he will give me the same benign
treatment that he recently bestowed on his Back-Bench
colleague.
1.45
pm
Mr.
Wright:
I am afraid that I must disappoint the right hon.
Gentleman—I have sobered up quickly from my good lunch. A theme
that emerged this morning, along with year zero, was the list
principle. The amendment is unnecessary, as it takes us back to that
principle.
Amendment
No. 14 refers to the HCA, which, as I said this morning, will already
have the objective of improving the supply and quality of housing in
England, with a view to meeting the needs of people living there. I
suggest that that includes ensuring that housing of all tenures and
types appropriate to the needs of the community is provided. By meeting
the needs of the community, the agency will contribute to its
inclusiveness. Similarly to what we discussed this morning, I would be
reluctant for inclusiveness to be elevated above the community’s
other needs. It should also be sustainable, to take into account what
we discussed on amendment No. 75, and it should be mixed. Those needs
and others are reflected in the requirement for the agency to meet the
needs of the
community.
Amendment
No. 12 relates to clause 86(2), which sets out one of the
regulator’s 10 fundamental objectives. We shall discuss part 2
of the Bill in subsequent sittings, but it is worth my briefly
summarising objective 1, which is set out in clause 86. It requires the
regulator
“to encourage
and support a supply of well-managed social housing, of appropriate
quality, sufficient to meet reasonable
demands.”
The amendment
would add the word “inclusive” after
“well-managed”. The clause sets out the fundamental
objectives of the regulator, which must perform its functions with a
view to achieving them as far as possible. It will be for the regulator
to balance its objectives in carrying out each of its functions, as it
deems appropriate. The objectives are intended to provide a constraint
on how it exercises its functions under part 2 of the Bill, for example
by setting out the purposes for which it can act and matters that it
must weigh up in deciding how to
act.
The
purpose of objective 1 is to ensure that the regulator is concerned
with ensuring that adequate social housing is available to meet needs,
and with the quality of the stock and housing management. It is
expected to take a view about what is needed across the social housing
sector and to perform its regulatory functions accordingly. Adding the
word “inclusive” would not have any useful effect.
Objective 1 already states that the regulator must support a supply of
social housing sufficient to meet reasonable demand, which will include
demand from older or disabled people, whom we discussed earlier. Social
homes will also need to be of a quality appropriate to those using
them.
In addition,
both the agency and the regulator will operate under a duty of
equality, as do all public bodies. We will table consequential
amendments in due course to amend schedule 1A to the Race
Relations Act 1976, to include the regulator and the HCA. The
Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and the Sex Discrimination Act 1975,
as amended by the Equality Act 2006, now contain a general duty that
applies to all public
authorities.
It
was a joy to watch two Privy Councillors this morning jousting and
duelling. It reminded me of the rumble in the jungle or the thriller in
Manila. However, the amendment takes us back to the list principle, so
I hope that the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire will
withdraw
it.
Sir
George Young:
I am a little disappointed by the
Minister’s reply, because I thought that the list argument had
died in the previous debate, but it has been exhumed and deployed
against the amendment. I honestly cannot see what damage it would do to
the Bill to state that the HCA’s objective should be to support
the development of inclusive communities in England, rather than simply
the development of communities. His argument is that if we were to
include the word “inclusive”, we should refer also to
“mixed” and “sustainable”, but he conceded
the argument on “sustainable” a few moments ago, so he is
in danger of contradicting
himself.
I
recognise, however, that the Government are not minded to make such a
concession, although I thought that I was simply taking their agenda
forward a stage. However, if they do not share my view, there is no
point in my trying to help them any further. I beg to ask leave to
withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
The
Chairman:
Order. Before we proceed, I want to say that I
have always taken the view that hon. Members have a right to debate the
detail of any clause, and that we can therefore have a stand part
debate at the beginning or the end of consideration of a clause. On
this occasion, however, having looked at the breadth and depth of the
amendments tabled, I shall probably determine that a clause stand part
debate is unnecessary. I am telling hon. Members that now in case they
wish to raise any burning issues between now and
then.
‘(d) to
facilitate the provision and supply of home ownership including, in
particular, low cost home ownership through community land
trusts.’.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following: Amendment No. 32, in
clause 2, page 1, line 15, at
end insert—
‘(d) to
facilitate the provision and supply of housing for low cost home
ownership and low cost rental through community land
trusts.’.
New clause
1—Definition of “Community land
trust”
‘“Community
land trust” means a non-profit organisation which is an
industrial and provident society, a company limited by guarantee or
other incorporated body whose governing instrument contains provisions
to the following
effect—
(a) the primary
purpose of the organisation is to hold land and other assets in order
to promote the social, economic and environmental sustainability of a
specified local geographic community by providing or facilitating the
provision of affordable or other sub-market housing or other
community-based facilities and
services,
(b) the organisation
will not dispose of its land and other assets save in the furtherance
of its objectives as set out in paragraph
(a),
(c) the membership of the
organisation is open to organisations which are located in or persons
whose principal place of residence, work or business is located in the
specified community the organisation is established to serve (although
the organisation may have different classes of
membership),
(d) over 50 per
cent. of the governing body is elected by the members of the
organisation,
(e) the
organisation is accountable to the local community through annual
reporting or otherwise, and is responsive to the local
community’s needs and to representations made on its behalf,
and
(f) it is an organisation
established to help enable the community and those who live or work
there to benefit from the land or other assets it
holds.’.
Grant
Shapps:
I shall try to make this contribution relatively
brief, because I believe that, on this matter, the Committee is in
agreement. The idea of CLTs has been around for a while, and they have
started to happen. I have heard this Minister and the Minister for
Housing speak in favour of them, and we, too, back them. CLTs are
useful vehicles for encouraging low-cost ownership and rental, and they
can play an important role in enabling communities to retain the
benefits of the value of land, which makes it much easier for the
Government to achieve their stated objective of reviving low-cost
housing. As I understand it, it is beyond debate that CLTs are a good
idea.
So
why are CLTs not moving as fast as we would like? Some pilots have been
set up, and more are coming in down the line. However, from talking to
those involved with CLTs, there appears to be some hesitation and lack
of confidence, and a concern that policy changes and other factors
might stop CLTs in their tracks. It seems that the HCA and this Bill
present an excellent opportunity to make a positive difference to the
future of CLTs. The most important thing, as with all Government
policy, is to provide a sense of certainty that the provisions are here
to stay and that those who invest in them, either financially or with
their own confidence and backing, will see CLTs flourish in 10 or 20
years’ time, so the investment needs to be long term. The
purpose of the new clause, and the easiest way in which to achieve that
objective, is to provide a legal definition of what a CLT would
actually do—no such definition exists at the moment. I very much
hope that that will attract the Minister’s eye and
support.
Lembit
Öpik:
The hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield is right
that there is a high degree of cross-party support for what the
amendments and the strategy of CLTs seek to achieve. The extent to
which land prices
influence the effectiveness of CLTs in any given environment is, of
course, beyond our control, and there is probably no benefit in my
going through the mechanism now. However, I am interested to know
whether the Minister and the Government are sympathetic to the concept
of CLTs. If they are, I hope that he will be sympathetic to the
amendments.
Once
again, this is not a party political question, but a question of how we
best manage land in the public interest. Given that the CLT agenda is
very similar to what I believe to be the agency’s agenda, I hope
that we can generate a conceptual partnership in which the CLTs regard
the new agency as an ally. That will make it easier for local
communities to manage land in a way that is in their best interests,
rather than just in those of developers. Developers will not lose out,
but their activities will be made indirectly accountable to the
communities that, ultimately, their constructions will serve. I hope
that the Minister and others will take a benign view of the hon.
Gentleman’s sensible
proposition.
Mr.
Love:
I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Gale.
From experience of past Bills, I know that you will keep us on track
during our
sittings.
May
I add to the cross-party consensus on the issue? Without adding much, I
agree with almost all of what has been said so far and, without simply
repeating it, I want to emphasise the importance of the provision being
included in the Bill and the objectives. A primary function of the HCA
is to provide affordable accommodation, and I think that it is
recognised across the board that CLTs have a major part to play in
providing that affordable accommodation.
As has been
said, there are a number of pilots up and down the country. A lot of
them are striving hard to get the idea off the ground and to show that
it can work in practical terms, but they are meeting major
institutional barriers of a number of sorts. Making the amendment to
the Bill and including a definition of a CLT is important, and it is
particularly important to state that the land is secured for the
community, which is a principle within the
definition.
At
this point I should explain the difference between my amendment No. 32
and amendment No. 1. Simply, my amendment includes a commitment not
only to low-cost home ownership, which is important, but to low-cost
rented accommodation. I am simply trying to widen the narrow definition
in amendment No. 1. That has got nothing to do with any worries about
low-cost home ownership, which is incredibly important, but affordable
rented accommodation is also important. The Minister will be only too
well aware of the acute shortage of affordable rented accommodation not
only in urban areas, such as my London constituency, but in many rural
areas, where there is a problem for young families, who cannot afford
to buy, even with the subsidised prices that may be available through
community land trusts, but who can afford to rent, if more property
were available. My amendment would enable that and two other things as
well.
We
were talking about sustainable communities. We have talked in the past
about balanced communities. Providing low-cost home ownership only will
not give us balanced, sustainable communities, and we need to stretch
across. What is important, perhaps more so in
rural rather than urban areas, is that we try to balance the community
by providing rented as well as home-ownership accommodation. Added to
that, the measure would promote mixed tenure, hopefully in a positive
way. Take an example from my constituency, where I was involved in a
development of what was meant to be a mixed tenure scheme—part
low-cost home ownership and part affordable rented accommodation. All
the plans were laid out, and the development looked marvellous, and
when the houses were built, it looked even better. Lo and behold,
somewhere along the line, before getting around to selling the homes, a
wall was erected between the ownership homes and the rented homes. We
want to try and protect ourselves against
that.
2
pm
Amendment
No. 32, with its commitment to both home-ownership and rented
accommodation and to inherently mixed communities and mixed tenure
estates, will go a long way to achieving the Government’s
ambition. I come back again to the rationale that community land trusts
will be a major contributor to the objectives of the Homes and
Communities Agency, and therefore should be in the objectives of that
agency. I assume that the Minister is sympathetic, but if he is not
minded to accept the amendment, I hope that he will give sympathetic
consideration to the cross-party concerns that have been expressed, and
will try to find a way to ensure that, through this Bill, we galvanise
community land trusts to achieve what we all hope and know that they
can achieve in terms of delivering the objectives of the
agency.
Mr.
Wright:
I welcome the debate that we have had on these
amendments, and on the issue of community land trusts. As I think my
right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing made clear in the oral
evidence sessions in December, we are committed to community land
trusts and think that they have real potential to help provide more
affordable housing. In that regard, I hope that I can provide a further
element of cross-party consensus. Community land trusts are an exciting
model. As has already been said, we have 14 pilots under
way—seven in rural areas and seven in urban areas—which
are supported by the Housing Corporation. We are using these pilots to
look in more detail at how to develop the community land trust models,
and will follow the pilots with a great deal of interest.
I would point
out that the Housing Corporation and English Partnerships already have
the ability to support community land trusts within the existing
framework. The Bill gives the HCA the power to support CLTs. I do not
want to pre-empt what the agency will do when it is up and running, but
I am sure that, where appropriate, the HCA will assist community land
trusts as part of fulfilling its objects of improving the supply and
quality of housing in England. However—this is a crucial
point—we do not want to dictate to the agency the precise
mechanism by which it delivers those objects. Singling out a vehicle
such as community land trusts for the delivery of housing, regardless
of the merits of that particular vehicle, must suggest that this is the
preferred way to provide housing. I suggest that that is the wrong
approach.
Similarly, I
am a big fan of local housing companies, and I think that the agency
may encourage them as well. However, I do not want to dictate the
promotion of local housing companies in the Bill. To reiterate, I do
not think that it is wise or necessary in this case to embed one
particular mechanism in legislation, as circumstances differ and times
change.
Mr.
Love:
The Minister will be aware from the pilots
that there has been some concern that English
Partnerships has not been as positive in the process as one would hope.
Recognising that, can he give any reassurance that the HCA will not
replicate that concern, but would be more sympathetic to the objectives
of community land
trusts?
Mr.
Wright:
As I have said, I am personally very interested in
the manner in which the 14 pilots are operating. I want to see how they
are working and how they can help to provide the new homes that we
need. Crucially, as my hon. Friend said, I want to identify any
barriers to their development that we can help unblock. I am also very
interested in the role that the agency can play in moving forward with
regard to community land trusts. I do see CLTs as a big part of what
will happen in terms of the delivery of housing in the future. As such,
I am hoping to meet with representatives of community land trusts next
month to hear how they are operating on the ground, to listen at first
hand to their concerns, and to try to unblock the barriers. I hope that
that provides reassurance to my hon. Friend and others.
In summary, I
do not want to box the agency into any particular model in the Bill. I
hate this phrase, Mr. Gale, but we need to
“future-proof” the agency as much as possible. Innovative
new models will come forward and specifying individual models on the
face of the Bill may compromise the agency’s ability to deliver.
I hope that I have reassured the Committee that I am very keen to make
sure that community land trusts prosper. I am going to take a personal
interest by seeing them next month, but I hope, on that basis, that
hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield will feel able to withdraw the
amendment.
Grant
Shapps:
I hear everything that the Minister says. I am
slightly surprised by the response, inasmuch as hon. Members on both
sides of the Committee agree with community land trusts. The point
that, I think, has not been addressed in the short debate is how
community land trusts get off the ground. If they are to do that, they
require the reassurance of some kind of framework, some kind of
definition. That does not exist in the Bill. One can possibly accept
the argument that it should not be written into the Bill in clause
2—as that might overplay CLTs in comparison to local housing
companies or some other form of housing, but it is odd that CLTs are
not given a little more prominence in the Bill. None the less, I am
sympathetic to what the Minister said with regard to his personal
interest in community land
trusts.
I
also heard, during the evidence sessions, the Minister for Housing talk
about the 14 or so trials that are being set up. On the basis that the
results of those trials are published—unlike the results of the
£4 million trials into six home information pack areas, which
have never been published by this Government— I would be pleased
not to press the new clause. I seek an assurance that the results of the
trials will be published and available to the
public.
Mr.
Wright:
It somewhat surprises me that it has taken until 6
minutes past 2 in the second session of clause-by-clause consideration
for the hon. Gentleman to mention HIPs. I though it would be something
like 2 minutes past
9.
I
hope that I have made the Government’s intentions and my
personal intentions clear. This is something that we are very much
interested in. We want to see community land trusts work and we want to
make sure that any blockages to development are eliminated. To that
effect, I am working on the matter and I will meet the trusts next
month to see what we can do. I reiterate the point about defining CLTs
in the Bill. I do not want to risk failing to future-proof the agency.
I hope that the issue will be debated again on Report, but I hope that
I have made the Government’s intentions clear and that the hon.
Gentleman will be able to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
‘(ca) to act, in
cooperation with relevant local authorities, as the strategy, planning
and delivery vehicle for the London Thames
Gateway.
(cb) to promote the
right to buy and social homebuy in the developments it undertakes or
facilitates.’.
Thank
you, Mr. Gale. I echo the warm welcome that has been given
to you by others. Can I now slightly dent the atmosphere that has been
built up, by talking about the Thames Gateway. Mr. Gale, you
were not here this morning and therefore might be unaware of an
exchange that took place. Much to our surprise, at 9.30 the Minister
for Housing tabled a written statement on the very matters that we are
talking about, including the decision by the Department for Communities
and Local Government to transfer some powers relating to the Thames
Gateway to the Homes and Communities Agency, which is the substance of
the
amendment.
I
was slightly surprised that a decision on a matter that had been under
consideration for some time in the Department was announced this
morning, at a time that did not give us any chance to consider it
before the Committee dealt with it this afternoon. I expressed myself
in strong terms this morning. I said that the Committee should have an
adjournment in order to deal with the matter. I do not blame the
Minister. He was good enough to draw the Committee’s attention
to the written statement. Part of the reason why I need to explain the
amendment at some length, if I may, is the annoyance that the written
statement was produced this morning. The statement is on a topic that
the Government knew we were going to deal with. They certainly knew
from the amendments that were tabled on Monday that the matter would be
raised today.
There are two
parts to the amendment—one part about the right to buy and
social home-buy and the other on the Thames Gateway. I am interested in
the Minister’s view on, and determination to promote, social
ownership through social home-buy and the right to buy. I should like a
word from him about the way in which he intends to tackle the issue
through the Homes and Communities Agency. I do not want to linger on
that because I want to talk about the Thames
Gateway.
The
amendment was designed substantially to give effect to a recommendation
by the Public Accounts Committee, which published a report on the
Thames Gateway on 15 November 2007, entitled “The Thames
Gateway: Laying the Foundations”. It was not a complimentary
report, but one suggestion that it made was that the
Department’s responsibilities for the Thames Gateway be
transferred to the new agency, partly because of what the agency was
set up to do, and partly because of the Department’s abysmal
record on handling the Thames Gateway.
I questioned
the Minister for Housing about the issue when she appeared before this
Committee on 13 December. I asked her:
“Do
you think...you would follow the recent recommendation of the
Public Accounts Committee and give the Thames Gateway to the HCA to
run?”
She said in
response:
“We
will confirm our views on precisely what will be covered by the HCA in
time for you to have those debates in
Committee.”——[Official Report, Housing and
Regeneration Public Bill Committee, 13 December 2007; c. 120,
Q191.]
The written statement
giving the Department’s decision states that
“the Agency will take on housing
and regeneration delivery functions from
CLG”—
the
Department for Communities and Local
Government—
“in
the Thames Gateway, including driving forward the implementation of the
Thames Gateway Delivery Plan published in November.”
For the Minister for Housing to believe
that by publishing the statement at half-past 9 this morning, she
fulfils her commitment to the Committee on 13 December that we would
know her views in time for us to have this debate, is wrong.
I make no
criticism of the Minister before us, but the situation is not
appropriate. There has not been any time for consultation on precisely
what the statement means. We shall discuss it now, and I hope that he
will have sufficient information to answer in detail precisely what the
Homes and Communities Agency will take over, and precisely what will be
left with the Department. There has not been any time for consultation
with outside bodies either. Over lunch time, I contacted several local
councils in the Thames Gateway area to ask whether they had been
consulted about the decision, and the answer that I have so far from
them is no. What happened between 13 December 2007 and now? Who was
consulted before the decision was made? And why, during that process,
was it not possible to give the Committee even 24 hours’ notice
that the matter would be dealt with in this way, knowing that it would
come up as one of the first amendments, right at the heart of the
Bill?
I am
disappointed, because I cannot see any political angle to the
situation. It is either carelessness or a slight contempt, again, for
the process of Parliament for the Department to feel that, with
impunity, it can publish something when it wants, regardless of the
fact that a
Committee will be exploring it, saying, “Oh, it’s all
right, it’s being produced in the morning, so they won’t
bother and it won’t matter.” It does matter, and the
Department could have done
better.
That brief
rant is over the top for me, as colleagues know, but having put it on
the record, I shall now consider the background to the amendment and
the reason why we support the transfer to the HCA but want to
explore—this is what the amendment does—the role of local
authorities and more of the
detail.
2.15
pm
The
original vision of Michael Heseltine to see the area to the east of
London as a tremendous opportunity for growth and development has been
bedevilled over the past decade by the structure of the organisation
that was designed to give effect to that vision. Even Lord
Rogers—a Government supporter—was led in his urban task
force to contrast the way in which the gateway is being handled with
London docklands under Michael Heseltine. The structure of the earlier
project was much more tightly handled and delivered far better. In the
case of the gateway, there have been too many bodies, too many funding
streams, not enough leadership and accountability, and, by and large, a
mess, which has prevented it from delivering on its immense
potential.
Those
complaints and concerns were there for some considerable time before
the Public Accounts
Committee—
Mr.
Love:
Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that we return to
the days of development corporations, bypass local authorities and
local communities and simply deliver, or is he suggesting an
alternative model halfway between the corporations and what we have
now?
Alistair
Burt:
I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s
intervention. What we want to do through this amendment is, bearing in
mind the announcement this morning, explore precisely what the
Government currently have in mind. I do not think a return to a
development corporation model is right, because the local authority
involvement needs to be substantial. One of the problems has been the
expression of their needs and desires and the swiftly changing nature
of their economies, which is reflected in their plans and proposals for
the gateway. That has not come through the existing structures. I take
it that the existing structures have failed, which is why the
announcement was made this morning. It would be nice to get an
admission on that, and we are exploring what kind of structure there
should be in our amendment.
Following a
number of concerns raised by many different sources, the Public
Accounts Committee had a chance to look at Thames Gateway, and its
report was pretty damning. In dealing with this matter on Second
Reading, the Minister for Housing tried to bluff by saying from a
sedentary position that the report was not all that bad. Bearing in
mind what we have been through today, I think we need to examine in
more detail the PAC’s conclusions and
recommendations.
The
first conclusion was this:
“The
Department’s management of the programme has been weak and has
not demonstrably added value to the programme.”
That was the conclusion that led to its
recommendation that the programme should go to the HCA to sit alongside
the other housing growth programmes to utilise the agency’s
housing and regeneration expertise—that is, to remove it from
DCLG control.
This is a further
conclusion:
“The
Department has not translated the vision for the programme into
comprehensive and measurable objectives, nor are there robust systems
to measure
progress.”
This is a
third
conclusion:
“The
delivery chain for the Thames Gateway is
unclear.”
Another
conclusion
states:
“The
Department does not know how much the regeneration of the Thames
Gateway will cost the
taxpayer.”
A further
conclusion
states:
“Multiple
inward investment agencies operating within the region and the lack of
a co-ordinated marking strategy have led to poor visibility of the
programme outside the area and amongst potential
investors.”
I am not
quite sure precisely what the DCLG has done in relation to Thames
Gateway that gets a thumbs up and a tick, but there is not very much
there, hence the interest and concern about whether this is the right
thing for the Department to be carrying
on.
Then
there is the curious business about the sacking of the chief executive,
Judith Armitt. Just before the Committee met on 13 December, news
emerged rather slowly that the chief executive of Thames Gateway,
appointed barely 12 months before by the Minister for Housing herself,
was being removed. We had a little exchange about that in Committee,
when I asked the Minister for Housing about progress at the gateway,
and she gave the impression that the previous 12 months had produced
extremely strong, beneficial changes—indeed, she waxed lyrical
about them. I asked her why the chief executive was being sacked if
things were so good, but she did not answer. She
said:
“You
will appreciate that it is not appropriate for me to comment on
departmental staffing arrangements, which are a matter for the
permanent secretary...Those are internal civil service staffing
matters.”
I
replied:
“I
don’t think you will be able to get away with that for long, but
thank you for your answer.”——[Official Report,
Housing and Regeneration Public Bill Committee, 13 December 2007;
c. 121,
Q193.]
The
Department cannot get away from that any longer. Why has the chief
executive been removed? If progress at the gateway was poor in the
previous 12 months, why did the Minister wax lyrical about
it on 13 December? If it was good, why was the chief executive sacked?
If it was to do with the proposed change to the HCA, why was that not
stated at the time—it would have been a perfectly valid reason?
If it was because of the change to the HCA, why were we not told about
the intention to move departmental responsibilities to the agency
before this morning? Frankly, the situation is a mess, and it looks as
though there has been a straightforward scapegoating.
That is not
the first problem with DCLG delivery. My hon. Friend the Member for
Welwyn Hatfield has made a lot of the HIPs issue, about which the
Department has been criticised. There has been criticism about
pathfinders and Thames Gateway, and in this case, the criticism seems
to have been taken out on a chief
executive, whose reputation has thus been sullied and affected, despite
having been in post for barely more than a year. She seems to be
carrying the can. I also checked with council leaders in the area,
asking whether the performance of employees has been particularly poor,
but they said, “No, we don’t think that’s the
case; we think this is a
scapegoating.”
The
Minister may not be able to answer this, because it is personal stuff
that relates to the Minister for Housing, but it is entirely pertinent
to how the gateway is run and to whether the transfer of
responsibilities to the HCA will produce anything better than what has
been produced up to now. If it is not out of order for him to do so,
will the Minister address the unfortunate removal of Judith Armitt
?
Where
does the amendment leave us. It relates specifically to the involvement
of local authorities, and it covers the point made by the hon. Member
for Edmonton about the involvement of local authorities. Precisely what
will be the responsibilities of the HCA in relation to the Department?
What local authority involvement will there be? When looking at the
problems of gateway delivery, we have picked up on a sense among
authorities that they do not feel fully engaged and involved in the
process. Things can move quickly on the ground in local economies, and
sometimes local authorities know best where jobs should be created and
where investments should be made. That has not been communicated well
enough through the DCLG chain of command, or whatever there is of it.
How will that be dealt with through the agency? For the agency to
deliver effectively, we would like it to work in conjunction with local
authorities.
The big
question is the extent to which the agency’s handling of such
matters will be different from what has happened up to now. There are
some specific problems that I have been looking for the agency to deal
with in a different manner. For example, there have been issues about
the progress made by the DCLG when the Highways Agency is involved in
decisions and where it uses its methodology in relation to congestion
and to veto vital road connections. It works more or less as a
bystander and not as a key part of the process. One would have thought
that a Department handling such matters would make sure there was a
degree of co-ordination, but that has not happened in relation to the
Highways Agency. Will that problem be sorted by the new structure?
Equally, the Environment Agency does not need to lecture the gateway on
flood risk; it needs to be actively involved in ensuring there are
improved defences and opportunities for creating space for development
around water, rather than being on the sidelines making comments. To
what extent will the HCA provide a better chance of the Environment
Agency being brought into those decisions to make sure that more is
done?
To
what extent will the agency be able to ensure that there are fewer
targets and less mess in terms of that part of the gateway? There have
been too many targets. I arrived in Newham this lunch time—I
have been out to the gateway and back—to be greeted by a
headline in the Newham Recorder, which states,
“Regeneration is dealt a blow”. That refers to a
consortium pulling out of a £3 billion project, because it wants
to concentrate on building the nearby 2012 Olympic village. That is not
a disaster for the gateway as a whole, because the work will still be
done, but a group that has been involved in a
major project to develop Newham’s old docks area has pulled out
at a late stage, because another target in the same gateway area has
assumed greater importance, leading to a headline that will be
disappointing for residents, for the Minister and for everyone else. To
what extent will targets be revised and better handled through the new
agency’s
working?
To
what extent will the new agency deal better with greening
issues—greening the gateway is tremendously important? I am
delighted by the greater involvement of Sir Terry Farrell, in an
appointment announced in the autumn, because he is a first-rate man and
has a clear grasp of the subject. I am interested in how greening will
take place. Who will have responsibility? Will the greening issue be
part of the Department’s responsibility, or will it be
transferred to the HCA? Clearly, the integration of the greening of the
area with the planning and delivery of housing is a key
matter.
Lastly,
do we have another leadership problem, because the agency will be
involved alongside the DCLG, or will the agency have greater
responsibility? Where will the Minister for Housing sit in all this?
Those are my concerns—I could say more things, but I will not
raise them now. My point is clear—the gateway structure has been
poor. It seems to me that the Government have acknowledged that, and I
think it would help if they were to say, “We got some of this
wrong, which is why we are making the transfer. It has not all been
marvellous.” If it has all been marvellous, why was the chief
executive sacked? If it has not been marvellous, the Government should
say so and explain the transfer to the agency. It may be a good
development, but we need to know precisely what will be handled by
whom, what the relationship with local authorities will be, and whether
it will solve some of the practical, everyday problems that I have
mentioned.
If we had had
a week to consult people in the area about the impact of the
Government’s decision, which was announced today and about which
the Government must have known for a little while, I would have asked
fewer questions and we would know more about it. I am sorry that the
Minister has to deal with those balls being bowled at him, but
following the release of the PAC report, we did not get a
statement—oral or written—from the Department. We have
not had a chance to question his colleague, the Minister for Housing,
so it falls to him to explain how the matter might be handled and
whether our solution of the HCA working with local authorities is the
best bet. Alternatively, perhaps he will explain the structure, as it
is going to work according to the Minister for Housing’s
statement this
morning.
2.30
pm
The
Chairman:
Order. Some hon. Members may feel that some of
the remarks that I have allowed have not been entirely within the order
and context of the amendment. My view, having said what I said earlier
and not knowing that any of that was going to be said, is that they are
in order within the context of the wider clause. I indicated that I was
not going to permit a stand part debate, which remains my view more
than ever, but I felt that it was only right to allow the hon.
Gentleman to make his case. I have listened carefully to the arguments
and been briefed on the exchanges that took place this morning.
Mr. Benton ruled, quite
properly, that it is the responsibility of the Secretary of the State
and the Minister to determine when they release documents. However, I
ask the Minister to say to the Secretary of State that it might have
been helpful had the document been released earlier, if only because it
might have made his task a little easier this afternoon and, perhaps,
allowed us to make a little more
progress.
Andrew
Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab): I welcome you to the
Chair, Mr. Gale. I trust that my earlier declaration of
interest during the evidence session still stands on the record,
although I would like to correct something: I am a member of Tameside
metropolitan borough council, not Thameside, which is something that
prickles the leader of the council, particularly because we are in
Greater Manchester and not Greater
London.
I
rise to discuss the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for North-East
Bedfordshire. In particular, I want to discuss the right to buy and
social homebuy, which are important. Like him, I am interested in what
the Minister has to say. The Bill envisages many hundreds of thousands
of new homes being built over several years totalling in the region of
3 million. Some of those homes will be to buy; some will be for social
rent; and some will be shared equity. On Second Reading, lots of
arguments were put forward by hon. Members, mainly on the Labour side,
concerning the long waiting lists in our constituencies and the
problems that have built up over a number of years. In some part, that
has been because of the right-to-buy
policy.
Right
to buy is a popular, long-standing policy, and it was once floated by
the Labour party, although it was not taken up. It was eventually taken
up by the Thatcher Government and, at the time, it was vociferously
opposed by Labour, but time moves on and we are where we are. The
policy has led to a dramatic reduction in socially rented
accommodation. The problem does not necessarily concern the
right-to-buy policy on its own, because we have not replaced those
socially rented houses that have been sold off, let alone increased the
number to meet
demand.
Like
the hon. Gentleman, I am interested in the Minister’s response
to that element of the amendment, and I hope that he will acknowledge
that errors in allowing the social stock to diminish cannot be
repeated. Although I accept that the right to buy is a popular policy
and that it will continue, we must ensure that we build up socially
rented accommodation, prevent the stock from diminishing and keep up
with demand, so that we do not end up in the future in the situation
that we are in
now.
Mr.
Wright:
I welcome what the hon. Member for North-East
Bedfordshire has said—he may be surprised by that. He called his
speech a rant, but I would say that it was a passionate and reasoned
argument. I disagree with a lot of it, if not all of it, but it was
well contained and well produced, and I pay tribute to
that.
Mr.
Love:
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. Does he agree
that it is somewhat curious that the hon. Member for North-East
Bedfordshire failed to justify
the second part of his amendment? I did not hear a cogent argument for
the inclusion of the right to buy or social
homebuy.
Mr.
Wright:
My hon. Friend has made a really good point. I
will use the same approach as the hon. Member for North-East
Bedfordshire and take the second amendment first. He dealt with the
second amendment in three or four sentences in order to get to the
party-political bashing of the Thames Gateway, but the right to buy and
low-cost home ownership deserve better than that. I agree with my hon.
Friends the Members for Edmonton and for Denton and Reddish, whose
analysis is exactly
right.
In
the 20 years or so since the right-to-buy policy has been in place,
councils have gradually diminished their housing stock, which they have
not replaced. The measures in the Bill will help councils to step up to
the plate much more, and they will ensure that there are greater
incentives for councils to be part of social housing—I hope that
everybody welcomes that. The constituency of my hon. Friend the Member
for Denton and Reddish is very similar to mine—we need more
houses and more social
houses.
Having
said that, it is important that a Labour Government are an ambitious
and aspirational Government for the people of the country. Nine out of
10 people would like some sort of home ownership, and it is right and
proper that the Government do all that they can to encourage that. One
of the objectives of the HCA stated in the Bill is to improve the
supply and quality of housing in England, with a view to meeting the
needs of its people. That includes ensuring that housing of all tenures
and types appropriate to meeting the needs of the community is
provided. The HCA will promote the right to buy and social homebuy,
where
appropriate.
On
a similar theme to that which I have advanced on other amendments, it
would be inappropriate to dictate to the agency the precise mechanism
by which it delivers on the face of the Bill. Regarding its objective
to improve the quality and supply of housing in England, the agency, in
partnership with others, will have the expertise to determine what is
appropriate. It does not seem sensible to elevate the promotion of a
particular tenure type over a general requirement to meet the needs of
the community. It is not wise to promote particular schemes through
legislation such as this, as circumstances differ and times
change—I made a point about future-proofing on an earlier
amendment. The legislation will need to be sufficiently flexible to
work for the future as well as for today. However, I suggest that the
tasking framework will examine the issue and move it forward on the
part of the
agency.
I
spent some time over Christmas promoting a number of initiatives that
the Government have advanced with regard to low-cost home ownership.
One of those is that service personnel will be classified as key
workers, which will boost their buying power in terms of getting a
house. I hope that all members of the Committee welcome that. We will
be debating on a later clause a means by which service personnel can be
helped with regards to housing, and again I hope that that will be
welcomed. What came out clearly on Second Reading, to me and other
Ministers, was the argument made by hon. Members, and Government
Members in particular, that housing is needed not only in London and
the south-east, but
across the country. To that end, we have extended key worker schemes to
all regions to recognise the fact that affordability problems persist
across the board. I return time and time again to the central point,
which is that we need more homes. We need a variety of homes in order
to promote choice as much as possible, which is what the Bill and the
establishment of the HCA will help to
achieve.
Regarding
the Thames Gateway, we had a debate through points of order on the
manner of the statement, and I think that the hon. Member for
North-East Bedfordshire recognises my sincerity in trying to ensure
that the House, and particularly the Committee, had sight of the
statement as early as possible. I take on board what he has said, but I
think it important to set the matter in context. The Thames Gateway has
entered a new phase with the launch by the Prime Minister on 29
November of the Thames Gateway delivery plan. The plan sets out a clear
and compelling long-term strategic direction for the gateway and for
what the Government will do to provide the basis for private sector
investment.
It is vital
that the arrangements to deliver those commitments to 2016 and beyond
are clear to stakeholders and investors. Listening to the hon. Member
for North-East Bedfordshire, one could be forgiven for thinking that
the agency is up and running now and that it will take responsibility
for the Thames Gateway on Monday. That is clearly not the case, and
there is a very clear road map for how the next phase of the Thames
Gateway—the exciting delivery phase—will move forward in
the medium term. As I have said, the Thames Gateway delivery plan sets
out that clear direction for the coming years. Until April 2009, when
the agency becomes established, the DCLG’s Thames Gateway
executive will continue to be responsible for driving forward the
commitments in the plan. Delivery arrangements will be further
strengthened by the establishment of a new management board between the
Thames Gateway executive, the three RDAs and the regional directors of
the three Government
offices.
Alistair
Burt:
I am slightly puzzled. There was a great fanfare at
the Thames Gateway forum for the announcement of the delivery plan. Why
was the HCA’s involvement not mentioned then, only a handful of
working weeks ago? If this was the great plan and programme for the
next few years, why has a new element been introduced just five or six
weeks later? Was it known then? If so, why was it not announced? If
not, why is such a significant delivery vehicle being introduced after
the announcement of the great plan for the next 10
years?
Mr.
Wright:
There is no inconsistency; there is a very clear
direction. It is clear that, in the broad sense that I mentioned this
morning, communities and local government will set the strategy in the
medium term in order to ensure that we have housing, growth,
regeneration and sustainable development, and that different and
appropriate delivery mechanisms are produced as close to the community
as possible. We are going to do that with the establishment of the HCA,
and it is entirely right and proper that Thames Gateway could be part
of that. I think that the general direction was very clear. I do not
want to put words into the hon. Gentleman’s mouth, but I suggest
that the amendment
was a probing one to make sure that we are going down that route. I know
that events have moved on, but that was certainly the way things would
have gone. It is clear that, the way things are moving, central
Government are responsible for strategy, and various organisations
—centrally, in this discussion, the HCA—are responsible
for
delivery.
Alistair
Burt:
I am grateful again for the Minister’s
courtesy. We will know more about the allocation of functions as time
goes on. I will press him a final time on the time scale and
announcement in order to deal with the issue of courtesy to the House
and to this Committee. It is clear from what the Minister said on 13
December that there had been some consideration of the matter. When was
the decision made? If the decision was made some days ago, why were we
not told earlier. It was a material matter for this Committee, which
the Minister had promised we would be told about in time for the
debate. If it was decided very late, that sounds very strange, bearing
in mind what he has said. If it was decided some weeks ago, why were we
not told
earlier?
Mr.
Wright:
I have made my position quite clear: we were
discussing the various functions of the agency, including the Thames
Gateway. I tried to make sure that the Committee had sight of the
relevant statements as soon as possible, and I hope the Committee
acknowledges
that.
Moving
on, I think we are in a new, very exciting phase of delivery. We have
had planning and pre-delivery, but I do not want anyone to think that
Thames Gateway has been a failure. Before I was a Minister, I was a
member of the Public Accounts Committee, and I absolutely loved being
on it. I think that it is a fantastic Committee, but I have to say that
I stand shoulder to shoulder with my right hon. Friend the Minister for
Housing in her analysis that the PAC conclusion is out of date. Let me
reiterate and advance some of the arguments that my right hon. Friend
made in discussions with the hon. Gentleman on 13
December.
2.45
pm
We
have had real progress with the Thames Gateway. We have had the
announcement that Crossrail will proceed through Canary Wharf and
Woolwich to Stratford and from Woolwich and Abbey Wood, bringing with
it £16 billion investment, opening up new employment
opportunities and accelerating housing growth. We have had the
completion of the High Speed 1 line, with Eurostar services from St.
Pancras stopping at Ebbsfleet, thereby boosting the economic prospects
for east London and north Kent still further. We have had planning
permission for three substantial gateway projects: the London Gateway,
which is a world-class deep-water port and business park; Eastern
Quarry, which is a new residential community by Ebbsfleet station; and
Barking Riverside, which has the largest residential planning
permission ever. We have the opening of the acclaimed O2 concert venue
and entertainment complex on the Greenwich peninsula, which had over
600,000 ticket sales in its first three months. I believe Led Zeppelin
played there before Christmas and, slightly less interestingly to me,
the Spice Girls have played there as
well.
Mr.
Wright:
Well, of course I am. I have misled the Committee
and I apologise. We have seen a huge amount of progress. I do not want
to give the Committee the impression that it has been complete failure,
because we have seen employment growth of 9 per cent. over 2001 to
2005, which is far faster than the national average. We have funded two
new universities—at Southend and Medway—with nearly 5,000
higher and further education places so far to boost the skills of local
people. We have procured high-speed domestic services, serving east
London and north Kent. We have started construction of the extension to
the docklands light railway and have secured doubling of the capacity.
I could go
on.
I
want to give the impression that achievement has been made. It is
right, proper and crucially timely that we move to the next phase. We
have been entirely consistent in our approach and policy considerations
that those responsibilities would move to the agency in the medium term
and that the DCLG would set the strategy. I hope that, in the spirit in
which I have tried to advance things, the amendments will be
withdrawn.
Alistair
Burt:
As always, I appreciate the Minister’s style.
We already have a good relationship, and I think that he is doing a
sterling job. He will lay a good foundation for me in a couple of
years’ time, and I wish him well. He has made a brave attempt,
and I appreciate the spirit in which he has done
it.
I
will turn to Thames Gateway in a second, but on the hon. Member for
Edmonton’s point, which was a good niggle, I want to say that we
discussed housing tenure quite a bit in the oral evidence sessions.
Housing tenure—both right to buy and social homebuy—is
important. We commented that the Government’s efforts to
encourage more people into shared ownership and the like have not been
terribly successful, but they have been trying. We had a good
discussion about that and, for reasons of brevity, I did not want to
overplay that with the amendment, which is why I did not say a lot
about it. However, the hon. Gentleman is right that the matter is
important. Both the Minister and I have dealt with it relatively
briefly, but that should not disguise its importance. I did my best in
those discussions to indicate my concern about the home ownership issue
and whether, as a nation, we are completely fixated on home ownership
and whether we need to reconsider housing tenure as one of the answers
to the future of housing supply. I stand by that point, which is
important to me, and I am sure we will consider the matter
further.
The
Minister may not be able to answer the question why, if it has all been
so good, the chief executive was sacked. If it was because of the
change of direction and the HCA coming along in the manner that he
described and that the Minister for Housing mentioned on 13 December,
there was ample opportunity for the Minister for Housing to say that
the next phase was going to be handled differently and that the chief
executive was going, but she did not do so. As far as I am aware, the
removal of Judith Armitt remains a mystery. There is therefore a cloud
over the career of a very good chief executive, which is unfair, and I
am not certain whether the matter has been clarified. That is an issue
that should not be left, because it is unfair to her—and to the
Department if there were a good reason for the change. We do not know,
and we should.
In
response to the Minister’s general remarks, I say that,
“We are where we are,” which is one of the great
political phrases in our lexicon—as good as, “I hear what
you say.” Of course, we must find out about the detail, and I
wish the Thames Gateway well. We know that there have been successes,
but people do not feel that the potential has been realised in the
manner in which it might have been. My sense is that the Government
have recognised that in their direction of travel, but that they find
it difficult to say, “We got it wrong.” To that extent,
it is good news.
We
are still interested in how the local government aspect will be handled
and want to ensure that local authorities feel more involved with the
new structure than they did with the old, which we will test out in
times to come. However, I do not think that anything will be gained
from pressing the amendment, because the Government have already
conceded the major point in their announcement this morning. The hon.
Member for West Ham and I have struck up two wins in this session
already, which is sufficient for
me.
Mr.
Wright:
I think that we are establishing
an unhealthy, bipartisan relationship. The hon. Gentleman is more than
welcome to cross the
Floor.
I
would like to put on the record a very serious matter concerning the
chief executive. The hon. Gentleman is aware that I cannot comment on
the circumstances surrounding the chief executive. Judith Armitt is
still an employee of the DCLG. These are internal civil service
matters, and he knows that, owing to the personal circumstances, it
would be wrong for me to comment.
Alistair
Burt:
I fully accept what the Minister has said. However,
this issue probably still needs to be cleared up, because of the
uncertainty in the public mind. Until it is cleared up, difficulties
will remain.
With that, I
think that we have run around the issues quite a bit. We wish the
gateway well and look forward to its further progress. I shall be very
interested to see how the agency sets about the new structures, and I
am looking forward to engaging with it. I beg to ask leave to withdraw
the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
The
Chairman:
It will not have escaped the attention of the
Committee that I allowed some leeway in the discussion of the former
chief executive, which might seem slightly harsh in view of the
fierceness with which I stamped on the right hon. Member for Greenwich
and Woolwich. However, I now rule that no further discussion of this
issue will be permitted, and my view will be made plain to
Mr. Benton. It is a matter for
others.
‘(1A) In
assessing the needs of people living in England in accordance with
subsection (1), the HCA shall take particular account of the changing
age profile of the
population.’.
We
come to the last of the amendments to clause 2. It has been tabled by
an Opposition Back-Bench Member and therefore has a fairly short life
expectancy. To some extent, the debate on this amendment has been
reflected in some of our earlier debates on the assessment of need and
on the one that I initiated on disabled people.
The amendment
has the support of Help the Aged and Age Concern. Listening to the
debates this morning, and to those on the Bill as a whole, I am
slightly concerned that the 3 million new homes are targeted at
families and key workers, because there is the risk that the needs of
the elderly will be squeezed out. For example, the regional spatial
strategies published by the Government do not mention age as one of the
factors that need to be taken into account. Will the Minister provide
some reassurances and answer some questions? When is the
Government’s national strategy for housing in an ageing society
due to be published—I think that it is some time this month. It
would be helpful if we could be given some information on
that.
Furthermore,
can he bring us up to date on the work of his Department’s
housing and older people development group—it is known as
HOPDEV—which is a committee driving forward the agenda for
housing in an ageing society? My concern is that, given the very large
increase in numbers of older households over the next 20 years, there
is a risk that those needs will not be taken into account unless some
reference is made to them in the Bill. I concede that we are discussing
a probing amendment rather than one that has a high expectation of
reaching the statute book, but there is a need to reassure elderly
people that, as this agenda is driven forward and money is put into
housing, the needs of the more elderly people in the population are
properly taken into account and that they are not neglected as this
agenda is driven
forward.
Andrew
George:
I rise primarily in support of lists, because
lists in this inclusive age are not necessarily exclusive. On that
basis, the fact that a Bill may include a prompt to an agency that they
must have consideration for an ageing population does not necessarily
mean that it excludes the possibility of that agency considering other
matters as well. In any case, in support of this issue there is a
matter which the HCA should consider in its future plans—the
matter of preparing itself for adaptations and, in its design
guidelines for new developments, making sure that there is the capacity
to adapt the design of properties or particular neighbourhoods to take
account of an ageing population.
Another
matter which arose, as it perpetually does, in the evidence sessions,
was that of older people, particularly older single people, living in
large family houses, and of there being insufficient incentives within
the system to enable or even encourage them to move, releasing the
family house and living in appropriate—very
comfortable—accommodation. There are, therefore, very strong
arguments for considering the issue and for its being part of the
HCA’s objectives.
I support the
right hon. Gentleman in hoping that the Government will not share the
view, which the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich seemed to
take in an earlier intervention, that simply creating one additional
item on a list by implication denigrates or excludes other matters
which are therefore not included on that list. I hope the Minister will
take that into account generally, but specifically on this
issue.
Mr.
Wright:
I am afraid I am going to have to disappoint the
right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire. The agency, as he is aware
and as I have
pointed out many times today, must carry out its objects with a view to
meeting the needs of people living in England. If that community is
ageing—frankly, England is ageing—it will be reflected in
their needs. We will ensure that the HCA is appropriately tasked to
provide or facilitate the provision of homes appropriate to the needs
of the community, including the ageing population. We also see a role
for local authorities in ensuring that all housing funded by the public
sector is developed to lifetime home standards from 2011, as published
in our response to the consultation on the code for sustainable homes,
and as I mentioned earlier today. We would expect the agency to work
with local authorities and support them in their efforts to develop
lifetime homes.
The social
exclusion unit report, “A Sure Start to Late Life: Ending
Inequalities for Older People”, identified a number of key
issues in relation to housing and support services for older people,
such as access to information, housing options, joining up support
services and maintenance and repair. We have started to address those
issues through technical consultation, and we will continue to work
with stakeholders to ensure that the final, updated technical guidance
included in the CSH technical manual is appropriate and achievable. The
right hon. Gentleman mentioned two direct questions: one about the
national strategy for housing in an ageing society, and one about the
strategy advisory group, the housing and older people development
group.
3
pm
I
do not want to box in my noble Friend Baroness Andrews, who is leading
on that issue in the Department, but the strong expectation—I
discussed it with her on Monday—is that both things will be
published imminently, certainly by February. I hope that that does not
box her in too much and that it reassures the right hon. Gentleman. On
the basis of that and the fact that he knows that I do not particularly
agree with the list principle, I hope that he will withdraw the
amendment.
Sir
George Young:
I am grateful to the Minister for his reply.
He sugared the pill as best he could. I recognise that the Government
will not accept the amendment and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment
,
by leave,
withdrawn.
The
Chairman,
being of the opinion that the principle
of the clauses and any matters arising thereon had been adequately
discussed in the course of the debate on the amendment proposed
thereto, forthwith put the Question, pursuant to Standing Orders Nos.
68 and 89, That the clause stand part of the
Bill:—
Clause
2 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
s
3
and 4
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
The
Chairman:
It is too late. It always breaks the civil
servants’ hearts when I deny the Minister the opportunity to
read the brief.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2008 | Prepared 11 January 2008 |