Clause
30
Duty
to act as agent in respect of derelict land
etc.
Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Alistair
Burt:
I want to raise an issue that was brought to our
attention by the CPRE, which wants to ensure that the work of English
Partnerships on having an up-to-date register of brownfield land will
be continued, especially given the amount of time and money that has
been invested. It originally proposed that a new clause be tabled,
which would have been headed, “The duty to monitor and promote
the re-use of brownfield land”. The new clause would envisage
the new agency identifying, collating and publishing up-to-date
information on
“the
availability, including type and location of previously developed (i.e.
brownfield) land in England at district, regional and national
level.”
That data would be kept under review and
published annually, and the agency
would
“promote the re-use
and reclamation of brownfield land by acting as the Government’s
statutory adviser”
on it.
The CPRE made the following
point:
“To make
the best use of our brownfield resource, and reap the benefits in terms
of urban renewal, it is vital that English Partnerships’ work on
the National Land Use Database and National Brownfield Strategy
continues. Given that housing is the HCA’s priority, CPRE fears
this work could be sidelined should the HCA face pressure to deliver
housing numbers or cut costs. This would be short-sighted, given the
huge resource brownfield land represents and the need for action to
tackle brownfield blight and dereliction in ways which can improve the
quality of life of existing
communities.”
I wish to
take the opportunity to reiterate how important that work on brownfield
land is, and that it should be continued by the agency, whether or not
under the specific powers in clause 30 on its duty to act as an agent
in respect of derelict land or elsewhere. I know that the CPRE will
appreciate
that.
Mr.
Wright:
I will be brief. I can confirm that that will fall
within the Homes and Communities Agency’s objects, and there is
no reason why it should not be continued. The hon. Member for St. Ives
made a similar point during the oral evidence sessions. Having said
that, although I want to provide reassurance that the regeneration
activities and programmes carried out by English Partnerships will
continue, as they will be fully within the agency’s remit, I do
not want to tie up too much the specific managerial responsibilities
regarding where the money and resources will be
allocated.
Question
put and agreed
to.
Clause 30
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
31
Business
Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Lembit
Öpik:
The clause means that the HCA can do
anything—make films, run shops, go fishing—because
it
“may carry on any
business.”
I do not have
a particular problem with that; my only concern is the risk of mission
creep. It is important that the HCA is focused on its primary duty, in
line with the objects that we agreed in an earlier sitting. I seek
assurance from the Minister that it will not be expected to over-reach
itself, going way beyond the original intentions of the
Bill.
Mr.
Wright:
Yes, I can confirm that the agency will be able to
do anything that it likes. However, it must be purely within its
objects. That has been made very
clear.
Question put
and agreed
to.
Clause 31
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause 32
ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause
33
Community
services
Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Sir
George Young:
I rise briefly to see whether I can settle a
score with the Minister. Does he agree that clause 33(1) comprises a
list? Does he remember what he said a few sittings ago about the
problems of lists—that they elevate one strand above another? He
said:
“Singling
out any specific strand of housing would place a duty on the agency in
relation to that type of housing.”——[Official
Report, Housing and Regeneration Public Bill Committee, 10 January
2008; c. 159.]
Yet on community
services, apparently lists are all right. The list is not comprehensive
at all; there is nothing about training, pre-school or sport. Can the
Minister provide a cogent explanation of why, earlier in the Bill,
lists were out, but at this stage, lists are
in?
Dr.
Blackman-Woods:
Can the Minister confirm
that subsection (1)(d) will mean that the HCA should pay attention, in
determining what is an attractive environment, to the need for
communities that are being developed or regenerated to have a sensible
provision of open and recreational space? I am sure that he is aware
that some local authorities, such as mine, in Durham city, seem
determined to build on every single open space available, regardless of
the views of the local community or the impact on it. Will he confirm
that the HCA will not be similarly
encouraged?
Andrew
George: (St. Ives)(LD)
I enjoyed the point made by the right hon. Member
for North-West Hampshire about the clause being a veritable list.
Indeed it is, but it does not include provision of housing. The objects
of the HCA in clause 2(1)(c) make reference to the
“development of communities in
England or their continued
well-being”,
which clause
33 is clearly intended to address. My questions for the Minister return
to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire made a
moment ago about constraining mission creep. Who will decide how to
apportion the agency’s resources so that it can concentrate on
its primary purpose? How will it make those decisions? How will it fund
the provision of cemeteries and recreational services? How will those
interplay with the role of local authorities? Will it undermine
statutory provision elsewhere, or bail out local authorities from those
provisions?
A moment
ago, in relation to the stand part debate on clause 30, the Minister
referred back to questions that I raised about the continuing work of
English Partnerships in relation to the provision of work spaces, which
is not mentioned specifically in the list in clause 33. One would
assume, therefore, that it has been overlooked in the list. This is
purely a probing stand part debate, but it would be very helpful if he
could address the need for clarity in the interrelationships between
the HCA and the communities that it will
serve.
Mr.
Syms:
I rather agree with the last
points made. If there is going to be a major development, support
services will be needed. One can easily see a need for security guards
and so on. However, under the terms of clause 33, existing businesses
might well face competition from organisations supported by the HCA. My
concern is whether there is a code of conduct, because, for example, if
the HCA sets up a transport service in competition with a private
business, it might be unfair. I shall not labour that point, but I am
concerned that the moment that we allow an organisation to enter into
any business, we might come up against small
businesses.
Mr.
Raynsford:
I have been goaded by the
comments on the lists made by the right hon. Member for North-West
Hampshire, so I shall add my two penny’s worth. I have no
objection to the list set out in clause 33(1), which seems to provide a
broad definition of the kind of community services that are likely to
be supported by the HCA. It could be said to be a cradle-to-grave
definition, although there seems to be a rather strong emphasis on the
latter end of that process, given that “cremation or burial
services” are specifically identified. I referred back to clause
31 and was surprised that the only listed business is undertaking. I
wonder whether that meant the particular service being considered in
clause 33(1)(g)(iv). However, on the assumption that it will genuinely
be cradle to grave and that there will be no bias against the provision
of maternity services, when appropriate, I give my strong support to
the
clause.
6.45
pm
Alistair
Burt:
This has been a nice little debate to take us to the
end of this afternoon’s proceedings. I was delighted that my
right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire could make an
intervention modelled closely on the intervention that he made earlier
in Committee, to which I was pleased that the right hon. Member for
Greenwich and Woolwich responded. It is the end of the day, so it is
perhaps appropriate that we consider burial and undertaking services.
Moreover, perhaps that highlights the dying embers of a Government who
are peacefully drawing to their close, and why the services that are
listed have drifted quite subconsciously in that direction. I can well
understand how such a subliminal sense has affected Labour
Members.
However, I
have two things to add to the general merriment about such a lovely
catch-all clause. I wish first to ask the Minister quite a wide
question, but it is based on the measure to which the hon. Member for
City of Durham referred when talking about providing safe and
attractive environments. Will anything in the new agency act as a
driver to ensure the provision of more family housing? We covered that
matter in the evidence sessions and it has come up before in general
debate. Developers know that at the moment, one-bedroomed and
two-bedroomed apartments fly out the window in certain areas. They
cannot build and get rid of them fast
enough.
Family
housing is much needed to ensure that there are mixed and balanced
communities, but few provisions drive developers in that direction.
Will the Homes and Communities Agency be any more successful in
delivering the main object of the agency stated at the beginning of the
Bill, and comply with the clause to provide safe and attractive
environments?
My second point is similar and
relates to design. I hope that the Committee does not mind if I use as
a brief not a piece of paper but an electronic device, because it
contains information that, had it been written down, I would have used
in the same way. I shall be quick. Critics of the Bill are disappointed
that it does not contain specific mention of design, and I wonder
whether the
phrase
“provide safe and
attractive
environments”
will
allow the agency to take more notice of my proposal. The Minister said
earlier that the Academy of Sustainable Communities was coming inside
the agency, but no reference is made to the Commission for Architecture
and the Built Environment. A recent CABE report drew attention to a
problem that highlighted the concept of safe and attractive
environments.
Mr.
Syms:
My hon. Friend is raising a good
point. As I understand it, Bedfordshire police have an architectural
consultant who consults on schemes mainly from a point of view of
safety, but also on the quality of particular estates that are built in
my hon. Friend’s county. To meet some of those objectives,
design and indeed input from other bodies are
important.
Alistair
Burt:
Such matters have come up in the
margins of our discussions. They were referred to in our evidence
session, but now is the appropriate opportunity for the Minister, in
responding to this short debate on clause 33, to illustrate how
important design is to him and to the general welfare of communities,
particularly in respect of safe and attractive
environments.
I draw
attention to a recent CABE report, which was published in December. It
reveals that although new home owners like their homes, almost half
miss a sense of community spirit. The report is titled, “A sense
of place” and based on an Ipsos MORI survey of more than 600
residents of 33 new housing developments. It points to a quality blind
spot that suggests that house builders and planners need to work much
harder to create a sense of place. Paradoxically, although 91 per cent.
of respondents were satisfied with their new home, there was widespread
dissatisfaction with the wider development. The report
states:
“45 per cent say
that”
their
neighbours
“go their own
way rather than doing things together and trying to help each
other”,
that
“40 per cent thought that there
was not enough public open
space”,
which was the
point made by the hon. Member for City of Durham, and
that
“48 per cent thought
there was not enough play
space”,
or perfect places
to get to know each other. More than a third of residents thought that
their neighbourhood
“was
unsafe for children to walk, cycle or play
in”,
and almost a third
thought that it
“did not
have a distinct
character”.
Those
resident survey findings are consistent with the problems of layout,
character and public space that CABE identified in its first national
housing audit, which was completed in February
2007.
Mr.
Love:
I saw the results of the CABE study. Does the hon.
Gentleman agree that if we looked up and down the country, we might
find estates, towns and cities that have been redeveloped since 1945
that won awards at the time, but are now considered blighted? If we are
to address the issue that he described, we need to do more than find a
new design or architect; we need to build new estates in consultation
with the people who will live on
them.
Alistair
Burt:
Very much so. The hon. Gentleman made an extremely
good point. It is difficult for professionals or laymen and women to
look at designs and say what will work in 20 or 30 years. However, it
is clear that if we do not pay attention to design or look at the
mistakes of the past, and if we are driven by targets of numbers, there
is a danger that the things we are discussing will be squeezed out.
Will the Minister reassure us that concerns about the quality of design
and new estates will be at the forefront of the Homes and Communities
Agency, and that concerns that it will be a purely target, numbers and
unit-driven agency that at the behest of Government has to get its
numbers up, will not come true? We hope that there will be a place for
design and some reassurance that that will be brought into the body of
the agency in some manner. That would be
helpful.
Mr.
Wright:
I have enjoyed the debate, which has been good
natured and well meaning given that it has come at the end of the
day.
I detect two
main themes: first, the list principle and, secondly, the importance of
design. The right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire rightly
criticised me in a gentle manner on the list principle. We can go back
to our similar debates on infrastructure—I draw his attention to
clause 2(3), which sets out what infrastructure means. Essentially, the
measure is based on the same principle and will avoid doubt. That is
entirely what clause 33(1) will do. I mentioned the thriller in Manila
last time, and I enjoyed the two Privy Councillors joshing again.
However, the measure will avoid doubt as much as possible.
Hon. Members
mentioned the importance of infrastructure and the relationship that
other providers, such as Government Departments, will have with the
agency. It might be that a site is not attractive to a developer
because, for example, there is a lack of transport access, but if the
agency delivers the necessary infrastructure, a private developer might
take on the wider development. Therefore, if the HCA builds the
infrastructure, the wider development may be more viable for the
private developer.
It is
reasonable for hon. Members to ask whether the measure provides a
facility that Government Departments or local authorities should
provide—that point was made by the hon. Member for Poole. The
agency will work in conjunction with the Departments and authorities
that lead in such areas. The Government see the agency as complementing
the activities of those bodies and as helping to drive forward
regeneration and housing where necessary, as opposed to leading on
those
matters.
I
pay tribute to the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire because he
made an important contribution on design and planning. He is absolutely
right. He
reiterated a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham.
As I mentioned in the evidence sessions, we cannot have a similar
debate in 20 or 30 years’ time. We need sustainable communities,
and their design and planning is essential. I am tempted to say
“sustainable and inclusive communities”, but I had best
not this time. It is essential, however, that we factor those things
in. It is right that in a modern economy where people are busy and
travel to work we need to have that sense of community, and
recreational facilities and open spaces allow the community to come
together. I suggest
that we have provided guidance with regard to planning policy statement
number 3, which is about housing. Frankly, local authorities need to be
more robust in rejecting planning applications that do not come up to
the standard for design and quality. Local authorities should be
forthright and it is right that they should play the lead on that, but
I agree with what the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire said and
reiterate the point about the Academy for Sustainable Communities. I
think that the agency will be working with the Commission for
Architecture and the Built Environment to ensure that we drive up
quality, but his point is well made and I agree with every word he
said.
Question put
and agreed
to.
Clause 33
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
| 
