Clause
52
Abolition
of the Commission for the New
Towns
Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Sir
George Young:
I would like a short debate on this clause,
which gives the Secretary of State powers by order to appoint the date
of the abolition of the Commission for the New Towns. I thought that it
had already been abolished. It is rather like going to the House of
Lords and finding that someone whom one thought had died some time ago
is still around.
I
have a press release from 1995 from the National Audit Office, which
states:
In
July 1993 the Secretary of State for the Environment announced his
intention to wind-up the Commission itself by the end of March
1998.
Given that English
Partnerships was created in May 1999 as a merger between the commission
and the Urban Regeneration Agency, it is unclear to me why the
commission has survived. What is it doing? No new towns have been
created since 1970 and I think that most were wound up in 1980. I
remember going around the country winding them up and meeting local
authorities that pleaded to be allowed to go on for even longer, to
invest in their areas, although they had all opposed their
establishment at the beginning. What assets does the commission have?
As I recall, all that it was given were some roundabouts that the
original new town had not been able to pass on to the local
authority.
Although
we are abolishing the commission in clause 52, it is being
exhumed in clause 54. Will the Minister tell us why the residuary body
that was set up in 1981I may have had something to do with it
myselfis still around? What is it doing and how much has it
left to do? When will he finally put the gravestone on top of
it?
1.30
pm
Mr.
Wright:
The right hon. Gentleman might be disappointed to
hear that it is still in operation; it is still technically alive.
However, he is correct that all new towns have been wound up. The CNT
calls them residuary assets, which were not transferred back to the
local authority at that time. He mentioned roundaboutsI imagine
that it is that sort of thing. I have not got details to hand, but
could provide the Committee with them if it wishes. However, given that
the residuary assets will be held by the agency, which will have
responsibilities towards them, it will take over the
commissions functions in respect of those assets.
There is always the possibility
that the Government will choose to establish new new-town development
corporations to help with, for
example
Mr.
Wright:
My hon. Friend is quite righteco-towns. If
so, the assets of the new new towns would eventually transfer to the
agency. That is the technical explanation, and I hope that it reassures
the right hon.
Gentleman.
Question
put and agreed to.
Clause 52
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Schedule
5 agreed
to.
Clause 53
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Schedule
6 agreed
to.
Clause
54
Role
of the HCA in relation to former CNT
functions
Andrew
George:
I beg to move amendment No. 36, in
clause 54, page 23, line 17, at
end insert
(3A) The
Secretary of State shall make provision for the continuation of the
functions of the Commission for the New Towns in respect of workshops
and industrial building, through the transfer of those functions to
another
authority..
Having
listened to the debate on clause 52, I feel that my amendment is
deficient in some respects. However, I shall use this as an opportunity
to probe the Minister, who is aware of my concerns. The clause should
be made more explicit to protect the valuable work of English
Partnerships, which otherwise could easily be lost or submerged in the
clear objectives set out in clause 2. English Partnerships has always
supported the provision of employment floor space, which is one of the
outputs against which it has been measured since it was established.
The agency has progressed specific programmes on, for example, priority
sites and network space, designed to deliver employment floor space in
areas where the private sector is reluctant to invest.
That key
provision could easily be neglected in the Bill. Perhaps unbeknown to
some, English Partnerships has developed workshops in communities where
no social housing remainscommunities in which the HCA might not
be interested. None the less, such communities have a need for
employment opportunities and the prospect that local businesses could
flourish, but the
private sector might find that it is not commercially viable or
attractive to set up workshops and employment space in such places. In
those circumstances, English Partnerships has made a significant
difference, and its work should not be overlooked. From the perspective
of those concerned about the future of rural areas, it is important
that that important work is not
lost.
The statutory
background to English Partnerships support for employment floor
space can be found in section 159 of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and
Urban Development Act 1993, which sets out the objects of the Urban
Regeneration Agency. Section 159(4)(b)
states:
by developing,
or encouraging the development of, existing and new industry and
commerce.
I acknowledge
that the Bill includes powers to allow the HCA to support existing or
new businesses and these are set out in clauses 31 to 33 which were
debated earlier. The Bill, in clause 42, would also allow the HCA to
provide advice. What concerns me is that in those clauses, particularly
clause 33, the provision of work space in the context which I described
earlier is not sufficiently explicit. If a list is going to be made
then something could easily be overlooked or submerged in the future
work of the agency. I urge the Minister, therefore, to look very
carefully at this issue and see whether he could bring forward
proposals or perhaps work together on a proposed amendment which would
allow this to be more explicit.
Targets are set through English
Partnerships corporate planning process and agreed with
Ministers. English Partnerships core targets cover housing
units and other issues but also employment floor space and
private-sector investment attracted. In 2006-97, English Partnerships
provided 326,000 sq m of employment floor space which matched well
against their target of 300,000 sq m. I do not see anything in the Bill
where such a target would be permitted or required of the HCA to ensure
that employment floor space of this type is produced and that is why I
hope that the Minister will consider carefully the need to make more
explicit that important function, which I fear otherwise will be lost
and
submerged.
Mr.
Wright:
I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman who has been
tenacious in this line of questioning. He has been so throughout the
debate, from oral evidence sessions onwards, in a very sincere manner.
I suggest that such a provision is not necessary in respect of his
concerns because the powers of the agency are already sufficiently wide
to provide industrial building or workshops, should the regeneration or
sustainability of a community or area warrant such development. I draw
his attention to clause 33 which contains the
phrases
encourage or
develop existing or new businesses...provide business or
employment
services.
Those
specifically and sufficiently refer to encouraging or developing the
matters to which he
alluded.
We
are reiterating and rehashing some of the earlier debate but it is
important to reassure the hon. Gentleman that, while the focus of the
agency may be towards increasing the supply of housing, it is also
tasked with ensuring that any housing developed is supported by
the necessary infrastructure, which will include the provision of
adequate employment facilities for the area in question should it be
needed.
I have made
the point on a number of occasions that I do not think that plonking 3
million homes in a field will be adequate. We need to ensure there is
sufficient infrastructure, and an employment base is essential. The
agency may facilitate the provision of these developments rather than
develop itself but it has the power to do so which will be important in
helping to fulfil its objects.
Andrew
George:
The Minister used the expression that the
provision of housing is supported by other infrastructure. The question
that I raised in my opening remarks was that there are some communities
where English Partnerships has developed its workshops where no social
housing has been provided at the same time. In some villages, social
housing has been lost because it has all been sold but English
Partnerships still provided those workshops. If the Minister is saying
that industrial floor space and workshops will only be provided in
circumstances where there is also some housing development, I remain
concerned.
Mr.
Wright:
I hope that the hon. Gentleman does not forget
about the importance of regional development agencies, the sub-national
review and the explicit requirement for local authorities to be
involved in economic development. That triumviratelocal
authorities, RDAs and the agencywill be essential in reassuring
him with regard to the importance of that regeneration of necessary
industrial floor space. I hope that he asks leave to withdraw his
amendment.
Andrew
George:
Having listened to what the Minister said, I still
seek some further reassurance. I hope that he will take on board the
concerns that I have raised, particularly in respect of rural areas,
which are not necessarily scheduled to receive social housing of the
type that we all want to see across the country in future. However,
from a drafting and placing point of view, the issue that I am raising
could be more appropriately drafted. I hope that the Minister will take
this matter on board and consider the need for a more explicit
statement in the Bill to reassure rural areas that these objectives
will be met.
I am
grateful for the Committees patience in allowing me to probe
the issue. I am happy to beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
Clause
54 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
55
Interim
arrangements
Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Mr.
Wright:
Let me take this opportunity to update hon.
Members on the smooth transition from the existing bodies to the new
arrangements. I have to pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member
for Greenwich and Woolwich, who has been articulate in
expressing concerns that the new Homes and Communities Agency should hit
the ground running to help achieve the ambitious target of 3 million
new homes by 2020. It is pertinent and relevant to update the Committee
on where we are with regard to
that.
I should like to
mention the work that is currently being carried out by the
agencys project board, which will be chaired by Sir Bob
Kerslake. The work to date has identified three key work strands that
will need to be delivered if the agency is to be established and become
operational by April 2009. The first is organisational design and
development; the second is the investment plan and finance; and the
third is interventions, policy and
stakeholders.
I am
happy to provide Committee members with copies of a letter that Sir Bob
Kerslake has sent to English Partnerships and Housing Corporation staff
in the last few days, but I thought that it would reassure them if I
cited it. Sir Bob
states:
I am
personally delighted to have had confirmation of such an important
transfer of delivery functions from CLG, including major new
initiatives such as the delivery of the growth areas. This will
underline the importance of the HCA as local governments best
delivery
partner
he uses
an important phrase
there
able to
bring together all of the strands of housing and regeneration delivery
in powerful packages in support of local authority
plans.
I stressed that
myself. With specific reference to the clause, Sir Bob
says:
As I
mentioned in my last letter, I am creating a dedicated set up team to
oversee the creation of the new Agency. This will be led by Trevor
Beattie, currently Corporate Strategy Director of English Partnerships,
who will be responsible for a small team of about a dozen headed up by
Margaret Allen, currently the Housing Corporations Field
Director Central, and Ros Dunn, a senior member of CLG who was formerly
Director of Strategy for the Thames
Gateway.
I am more than
happy to provide Committee members with a copy of Sir Bobs
letter. I hope that it reassures them that work is ongoing and that Sir
Bob has hit the ground running in ensuring that the agency starts
delivering as soon as
possible.
Grant
Shapps:
I am pleased to hear about the interim
arrangements and the progress. I represent two new towns, Welwyn Garden
City and Hatfield. One of them, Hatfield, has had a new town centre
promised for a very long time. It has proved to be a difficult and
much-delayed project, the building of which should finally get under
way in 2009, or perhaps at the end of 2008. The project falls under the
auspices of a partnership between the council and English Partnerships,
which will take over from the Commission for the New Towns.
I think that when people learn
about the Homes and Communities Agency, they will seek the kind of
reassurance that the Minister has been providing, because the last
thing they want in a project with a time scale that runs to 2011 or
2012 is to feel that there could be another six months or
years delay while the HCA gets up to speed. I am grateful for
the Ministers comments. They will be important for Hatfield and
many other projects around the
country.
1.45
pm
Sir
George Young:
I may not have accurately caught what the
Minister said. On the interim arrangements, the clause
states:
The
Secretary of State may...require the Urban Regeneration Agency and
the Commission for the New Towns to provide staff, premises...on a
temporary basis,
but not
the Housing Corporation. Is there any reason why it is left out of the
requirement?
Mr.
Wright:
On the point that the hon. Member for Welwyn
Hatfield made about Hatfield town centre, I mentioned earlier the three
broad work strands: organisational design and development, investment
plan and finance, and intervention policy and stakeholders. Under those
three work strands, there are 20 further discrete ones that are
intended to ensure that the establishment of the agency does not
disrupt the continuing work of the Housing Corporation or English
Partnerships, or the delivery functions of the Department for
Communities and Local Government. Therefore, in respect of the
particular example that the hon. Gentleman, as a good constituency MP,
refers toobviously, it would be better if there were a Labour
gainI hope that I have reassured him that we are moving forward
and that there will be as little disruption to current plans as
possible.
Mr.
Raynsford:
On that very point, I do not know whether
inspiration has reached my hon. Friend the Minister, but it strikes me
that there is an interesting curiosity in the Bill, in that we have
already dealt with clauses 51 and 52, which abolish respectively the
Urban Regeneration Agency and the Commission for the New Towns, but we
have not yet reached clause 66, which provides for the dissolution of
the Housing Corporation. It occurred to me that there may be some logic
in making interim arrangements for those bodies that have already been
abolished but not yet making such arrangements for the one that is due
to be abolished in the next hour or so, if we proceed
expeditiously.
Mr.
Wright:
I shall address the two points, which are the
same. The Committee will be thrilled to hear that I have tabled new
clause 35, which addresses the issue. It
states:
The
Secretary of State may by notice require the Housing Corporation to
provide staff, premises, facilities or other assistance
to
(a) the
regulator, or
(b) the
HCA.
Sir
George Young:
Does that not show the risk of providing a
list in a
Bill?
Mr.
Wright:
A fair
point.
Clause
55
ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause
s 56, 57 and 59
ordered to stand part of the Bill.
The
Chairman:
In case anyone is worried, we shall reach clause
58 with schedule 7 some time on or before 31 January.
[
Interruption.
] You have to be sharp on your feet,
Mr. Shapps. You will learn.
|