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 17 January 2008(Afternoon)[Mr. Roger Gale in the Chair]Housing and Regeneration BillClause 43Guidance
Question
proposed [this day], That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
1
pm
Question
again
proposed.
The
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local
Government (Mr. Iain Wright):
It is a pleasure
to see you back in the Chair this afternoon, Mr.
Gale.
I think that
this morning I covered adequately the points about guidance raised by
hon. Members, and I gave some examples.
Lembit
Öpik (Montgomeryshire) (LD): I am grateful for the
clarification that the Minister provided. However, one concern remains,
to which he could respond now or, if necessary, in writing. Will he
provide clarity on the question of whether the guidance is binding or
advisory, as it would be useful for the Homes and Communities Agency to
know what is expected of it? I am not putting him on the spot: if he
wants to consider that question, and respond in writing, or later in
Committee proceedings, I am comfortable with
that.
Mr.
Wright:
As I think I mentioned this morning, my
understanding is that guidance is guidance, and that it is not binding.
However, if I have inadvertently misled the Committee, I shall make
Members aware of
it.
My right hon.
Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich made a point about
guidance to the regulator. Clause 40, which we agreed this morning,
places a duty on the agency to co-operate with the regulator. We expect
that to ensure that the two bodies can work together and exchange
information where appropriate. A reciprocal arrangement is provided for
in clause 102, which places a similar duty on the regulator to
co-operate with the agency. I hope that that reassures hon.
Members.
Andrew
George (St. Ives) (LD): In my contribution, I sought
clarification on the question of whether guidance could go up from the
HCA to the Secretary of State in the manner that I described. That sort
of communication is important. The HCA should be free to give such
guidance and advice, but that is not made explicit in the
Bill.
Mr.
Wright:
I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for not
addressing that point. Guidance could certainly be given upwards to the
Secretary of State, although it would not be binding, as I said to the
hon. Member for Montgomeryshire. However, the free exchange of
ideas and opinions will certainly be important to
the Secretary of State and the agency. I hope that that reassures the
hon. Gentleman.
Question put and agreed
to.
Clause 43
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clauses
44 to 46 ordered to stand part of the
Bill
Clause 47Support
services
Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Mr.
Nick Raynsford (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab):
In an
earlier debate, I expressed concern about whether the definition of
a project in clause 47(1) was unduly restrictive. I
hoped that the amendments that I tabled at the end of our discussions
on Tuesday would be considered today, but I was working on the basis of
older procedures under which a one-day notice period was acceptable. I
had forgotten that two days are now required, so my amendments were not
eligible for selection today. Nevertheless, the issue remains
important. I know that we discussed the matter earlier, but my hon.
Friend the Minister undertook to consider further whether the tight
definition of a project, although important to emphasise the time
limit, might be unduly restrictive geographically if a group of
projects are part of one initiative. Has he reflected further? We may
need to return to the issue if it is not possible to provide
satisfactory
assurances.
Mr.
Wright:
I am pleased that my right hon. Friend caught your
eye, Mr. Gale. I wish to put on record the fact that
references to a project, which we discussed in an
earlier sitting, will not prevent the agency from providing services to
a project that is under way in a number of locations across England. In
that respect, it is not geographically constrained. Equally, the clause
does not mean that the agency can provide support services only to a
single project at any one
time.
The use of the
word project is intended to identify circumstances that
have a start and end date, between which times the agency has been
asked, or has offered, to provide support services in one of the ways
identified later in the clause. I hope that that reassures my right
hon.
Friend.
Question
put and agreed
to.
Clause 47
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clauses
48 and 49 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause 50Consents
of the Secretary of
State
Question
proposed,
That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Sir
George Young (North-West Hampshire) (Con): I believe that
you were in the Chair, Mr. Gale, when we discussed clause
10. In that debate, markers were put down for our discussion of clause
50. I refer to column 233 of our proceedings of 15 January.
The context of the debate was the disposal of land at less than best
price, and the Minister said:
I will touch upon that
in some respects as I answer the amendments, but I suggest that we put
a marker down in terms of discussing it further under clause
50.[Official Report, Housing and
Regeneration Public Bill Committee, 15 January 2008; c.
233.]
As we are now debating
clause 50, will the Minister define slightly more clearly than he did
in the debate on clause 10 the circumstances of any general consent
that the Secretary of State might give the HCA to dispose of land at
less than best price? He will recall that the Committee spent some time
on that, and there was concern about an over-restrictive approach to
such disposal. Will he do what he said he would do, and discuss the
matter further
now?
Mr.
Wright:
As the right hon. Gentleman said, we had an
in-depth discussion on the matter when we debated clause 10, and I
undertook to do additional work to reassure hon. Members on clause 50.
The point is important, and I was rightly challenged on best
consideration and the agencys wider
objects.
Clause 50
empowers the Secretary of State to grant consent to the Homes and
Communities Agency when it proposes to exercise powers that are subject
to that consent, such as the giving of financial assistance, forming or
acquiring companies orthis was the point mentioned under clause
10the disposal of land for less than best consideration.
Consent may be given with or without conditions, and generally or
specifically, as circumstances require.
Following our debate on clause
10, I should like to set out in more detail the way in which general
consents for the disposal of land at less than best consideration are
operated by local authorities, the role of English Partnerships and an
indication of the nature of general consents that we plan under clause
50. First, I shall first set out the situation for local authorities.
They have sought, and been given, the Secretary of States
consent to dispose of land at less than best consideration under the
Local Government Act 1972 and the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
The most recent guidance on general disposal consents was issued in
2003 under the 1972 Act. It sets out measures whereby local authorities
can dispose of land at less than best consideration if the disposal
meets a well being test, as well as the difference
between the open-market value on disposal and circumstances in which
its value, subject to conditions imposed by the local authority, is
less than £2 million. The provisions have been used by local
authorities on several occasions, but as I told the Committee on
Tuesday, consent is not required, so we do not hold records of
disposals carried out under the general
consent.
On disposals
above the £2 million level, approximately eight consents are
given each year under the Local Government Act 1972 and the Town and
Country Planning Act 1990, and I can give the Committee examples to
illustrate the point and drive the debate forward. In October 2003, in
the London borough of Brent, there was a freehold disposal of land on
the Chalkhill estate in Wembley for the purpose of housing. It was
disposed to the Metropolitan Housing Trust, and the under-value was
£2.04 million. Similarly, in August 2004, Basingstoke and Deane
borough council disposed of the freehold of undeveloped land at
Foxdown, in Hampshire, to Westbury Homes Ltd;
the land was for residential development, and the under-value was
£2.5 million.
The point
that I made earlier about the wide definition of well-being is not
confined to housing. The London borough of Greenwich disposed of the
leasehold of a school site in Abbey Wood to St. Pauls Academy;
the land was for a city academy school, and the under-value was
£7.39 million. Ipswich borough council disposed of land to
University Campus Suffolk for the development of a university campus,
and the under-value was £9.32 million. The important point is
that there are precedents, and the definition of well-being, as set out
under the general consents in the Local Government Act 1972, is
incredibly wide. That shows what the agency could do when disposing of
land at less than best consideration.
Margaret
Moran (Luton, South) (Lab): As it was I who asked for the
evidence base, I feel compelled to ask my hon. Friend what proportion
of all requests those eight consents representI guess that they
are a tiny number in relation to the number of permissions that were
needed or asked for. Given that we are talking about a mix of
residential and other permissions, what is the percentage of
residential permissions, particularly for social housing
purposes?
Mr.
Wright:
My hon. Friend makes an important point, but she
will appreciate that I do not have that information to hand. However, I
will endeavour to provide it to the Committee as soon as possible. As I
said, we are in the dark in some respects, but I will do my best to
find out the precise proportion of residential permissions in terms of
the general consent above £2
million.
Grant
Shapps (Welwyn Hatfield) (Con): The Minister mentioned
Chalkhill estate in Wembley and a figure of £2 million. I
actually stood for election in that estate under the unusual election
slogan of Vote for us on Thursday and we will knock down your
house on Friday. It was a disastrous 60s estate, and
the proposal turned out to be quite popular, as I missed out by 60-odd
votes on taking what had previously been a very safe Labour seat. The
point, however, is that it took an awfully long time to get housing
development in that area going; in fact, it was only many years after
that election in 1994 that a project got under way. Is the Minister
suggesting that his proposals will make it more or less likely that
such projects will take place? As he rightly said, it is a question of
getting the right deal and the right valuation in place and of getting
the whole thing moving. As I said, it was very complex to get that
development going. Does he believe that what is described in the Bill
will make that process easier? I am sure that that is an easy question
to answer.
Mr.
Wright:
I am intrigued. The hon. Gentleman seems to have a
knack and panache for slogans. I do not think that Vote for me
on Thursday and Ill knock your house down on Friday is
as good as No way to 10k, but it is still a good
slogan. I think that the hon. Gentleman knows the answer to his
question, which is that the whole point of the Homes and Communities
Agency is to remove as many barriers as possible and to facilitate,
smooth and lubricate the processes. Notwithstanding the statutory
planning framework in
which it will operate, it will ensure that developments are accelerated
as much as possible, that difficulties are analysed quickly and that
possible solutions involving partnership with the relevant authorities
are introduced as quickly as possible.
Mr.
Andrew Love (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op):
My hon. Friend the
Minister has reassured us on the question of compliance with the
objects of the HCA, and he is right to reassure us about continued
well-being and the fact that that provision is widely drawn. May I
raise with him an issue that an Opposition Front-Bench spokesman raised
yesterday? What would happen if improvements that are needed to an
estate resulted in a reduction in the number of housing units? Does the
well-being definition that the Minister is considering include such a
situation?
1.15
pm
Mr.
Wright:
It could well do. I return to the point that I
made about referencing to the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire
with my hat on as Minister with responsibility for housing market
renewal. The density of an area, with two-up two-down housing and large
tracts of terraced housing, for example, may mean that we need fewer
affordable housing units on the site. The circumstances that my hon.
Friend mentioned would be entirely reasonable, so I hope that that
reassures him.
English
Partnerships does not have the general consent to dispose of
land at less than best consideration, and if it wanted to do so, it
would need to seek the consent of the Secretary of State. We touched on
the following issue in clause 10. English Partnerships disposes
of land with attached specifications that meet its regeneration
objectives through an open-market competition and it then accepts the
highest bid. Such specifications may need the consent of the
Secretary of State if they include matters of wider
public benefit.
Mr.
Raynsford:
My hon. Friend has pointed out that English
Partnerships does not have the benefit of the general consent, so will
he make it absolutely clear to the Committee whether he intends the
general consent to apply to the new agency? If so, first, will it
specify the categories or circumstances in which the power may be used
and, secondly, will a financial limit apply, above which the consent of
the Secretary of State will be required?
Mr.
Wright:
As ever, my right hon. Friend focuses on the key
point. He is right to point out that English Partnerships does not have
the general consent, but we need a step change, a culture change, and
it is right that it applies to the agency. The specific circumstances
in which the general consent will be made, and the limits on it, will
be subject to the tasking framework, but I shall come on to what I
think will be the parameters, and perhaps illustrate the type of
circumstances to which the general consent will apply. I hope that I
have reassured Members about that.
On whether the Bill provides the
right framework, I mentioned on Tuesday the Goldilocks principle
regarding clauses 10 and 50. It involves providing the right
legislative basis to ensure that the new agency can dispose of land at
less than best consideration in order to achieve its objectives of
improving housing supply and driving forward regeneration, while
ensuring that the public purse is as protected as much as possible. I
do not think that further amendments are necessary.
We have
mentioned today that the Committee has sought reassurance about how,
underneath the legislation in the Bill, we will give the agency the
framework to deliver the necessary housing and regeneration that all
Committee members have emphasised. I have also already said that we are
committed to issuing the general consent under clause 50 to enable the
agency to act without having to seek the Secretary of States
consent for every disposal. In response to my right hon.
Friends point, we need to consult stakeholders about the terms
of the general consent. We are examining the local government model,
but we must consider whether the levels are
appropriate.
Margaret
Moran:
I am pleased to hear that the Minister wants to
consult more widely on general consent; that is helpful. However, when
he does so, and when he considers the local government model, will he
remember that we are trying to reach a practical outcome in order to
meet the objectives? Currently, the general consent is narrowly defined
and administratively onerous. When one looks at the form, which is 36
pages long, one can imagine local government and the HCA being put off
from considering such consents. Consequently, the opportunities for
social housing from the disposal of land may be missed if the sale goes
to a private
developer.
Mr.
Wright:
My hon. Friend is spot-on in her analysis. We do
not want the procedure to be too onerous, and the point of general
consent in many respects is not to have to go to the Secretary of
State. If my hon. Friend will allow me, I will give an example of where
general consents might be used, because that is pertinent and a good
illustration for the Committee. They tend to involve the disposal of
land, and the agency might be disposing of many, similar plots of land
throughout England. In such circumstances, I do not think it is
unreasonable for the Secretary of State to issue a general consent
stipulating that so long as the land to be disposed of is worth less
than a specified amount, the agency could do so without having to seek
separate consent from the Secretary of State on each
occasion.
That is
important, because there will be a step change in housing supply and
quality in England if a local authority or registered housing landlord
can use infill when it has a bit of land on an estate or a bit of
wasteland that could be used for five, six or seven houses. I am not
talking about garden-grabbing, so the Opposition need not get excited,
but about pieces of land that might be on estates and could be used for
six or seven houses. Going to the Secretary of State to dispose of that
land would be onerous in many respects, and I do not think the numbers
would stack up if it was at less than best consideration. If we agree a
certain amount, which could be £2 million or whatever, I think
that would help to free up and
accelerate the use of land for infill developmentI see hon.
Members nodding. I think it would be reasonable for the agency to do
that, and it is a reasonable framework in which general consents could
be considered by the Secretary of
State.
Andrew
George:
I caution the Minister that the market for land is
not an even or homogenous market throughout the country. For example,
the price of land in some villages overlooking the sea in Cornwall
command very high prices for small levels of development. I want to
probe the Minister on the specified consent available to English
Partnerships. It is presumably specified that it may dispose of land if
that would provide employment on that land. Could the Government extend
that in the Bill to the HCA and specify that such land must be used for
affordable housing? English Partnerships currently has that general
consent to specify that land can be used for employment, so could the
principle not be extended to the HCA specifying that the land must be
used for affordable
housing?
Mr.
Wright:
The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point and
has emphasised the importance of English Partnerships work on
regeneration throughout our proceedings. That is not unreasonable. We
have established the legislative framework in the Bill, and I want to
consult on the framework below that for what can happen operationally.
His suggestion can certainly be considered. I draw the hon.
Gentlemans attention yet again to the point that I made earlier
about the well-being test, which is broadly defined so that it can take
account of social, economic, environmental and regeneration objectives.
I hope that that satisfies
him.
Returning to the
hon. Gentlemans earlier point, I am keen to see the culture
change and the step change that the new agency can offer. I want to
ensure that we accelerate the supply of housing in England, and this
could be a means of doing so. English Partnerships, the Housing
Corporation and a number of authorities are already forging ahead with
innovative projects such as those that I mentioned, and we want to do
everything we can to encourage that in future. I give way to my hon.
Friend.
Margaret
Moran:
I will give my hon. Friend a breather and reiterate
an earlier point. Will he consult on the extreme complexity of the
current consent requirements? My point is not just about length: the
requirements are extremely technical and I can imagine that both the
HCA and local government might be put off by the resources involved in
putting them forward to the Secretary of State. That slows down the
whole process and risks affecting the speed of development that we are
trying to achieve.
Mr.
Wright:
My hon. Friend looked poised to get to her feet,
and I apologise if I made her do so, but she makes a good point. I have
asked my officials to work with existing bodies and stakeholders to
consider this issue and what the terms of consent should be, as well as
considering the issue more widely in relation to the opportunities,
challenges and barriers to disposal of less than best consideration.
Her point about the length and complexity of guidance is a valid one,
and I shall ask that that be included.
Grant
Shapps:
We like a lot of what we are hearing. It sounds
like good common sense to think about having a limit of £2
million or so. However, we ask that it be future-proofed, so that we do
not end up with a figure that has not been uprated. Hon. Members have
made similar points about regional differences, and more work probably
needs to be done on that, but it sounds as though things are moving in
the right direction.
Mr.
Wright:
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his positive
comments, and I shall take on board his points. Future-proofing is an
important
consideration.
I hope
that I have reassured the Committee today and with the points that I
made on Tuesday about clause 10 and the Goldilocks principle. Clause 10
is not too onerous on the selling of land and is not so flexible that
the public are not reassured that they are getting good value for
money. It is just right, and that is the right approach to take. We are
taking the right approach by introducing clause 10 in conjunction with
clause 50 and the framework behind it, which I have explored today, and
which hon. Members have probed.
Question put and
agreed
to.
Clause 50
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause 51
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
|
| |
©Parliamentary copyright 2008 | Prepared 18 January 2008 |