---

Earl Peel: My Lords, I reassure the noble Lord that some Tory Peers have remained consistent in that view. I never for one moment thought we were going to discuss rural housing under this amendment, but since the noble Lord has raised the issue, I take this opportunity to endorse everything that has been said, particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Carter. If the abandonment of the right of staircasing goes ahead, and I really believe that this will happen, there is a genuine concern that among landowners and farmers, people who would let land go for reduced values in order to allow for special rural needs housing, the market will dry up. I really hope the Government take that on board. I regard this as a very serious matter.

Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I speak from personal experience, although not specifically in relation to exception sites. We had the good fortune, if one could regard it as such, to get caught up in a major development. There was the usual negotiation over what I would regard as wholly proper gain for the community, as a result of this development. It was a
 
15 Mar 2006 : Column 1306
 
very large development and part of the price was 200 social houses. We thought that was a perfectly acceptable price to pay. The way it works is that the gross value enhancement is diminished by the cost of those houses to the landowners, who were me and my brothers. We thought that was a reasonable price to pay. The problem was overcoming, in those days, the right to buy. We were quite prepared to give up the value and we accepted that the town should have this benefit. We were not prepared to do it, however, if the first people to move in could live there for three years and then have the complete capital enhancement as a result, because they had lived there for three years and therefore had the right to buy. That was a technical problem, writ somewhat smaller.

This is precisely the same problem. As the noble Lord, Lord Carter, the noble Earl, Lord Peel, and my noble friend said, if the protection of this social ownership is removed, nobody will be prepared to put their sites into a scheme of this nature in order to provide social housing for their local communities, whatever their need may be. They will feel it is a gross abuse that somebody can move into that property and, after a relatively short period of time, inherit the gross value, which was infinitely greater than the sum for which they originally provided, which is in effect at a sacrificed price. This is a very significant matter and I do not know what the effect of this change will be. If it does happen to go wider than the specific case of exception sites, then it will bedevil the whole construction of social housing on a wider scale. It is common practice nowadays for social houses to be provided on quite a large scale as a large part of major developments. In effect, society gets those houses for nothing, because the landowner sacrifices the value in order to make it possible. Although landowners do have a desire to make a profit, they also happen to have a social conscience that goes with it. That is right and proper in view of social housing.

Perhaps I may make a slightly acid comment. One of the weaknesses of the development gain/charge which the Government are considering is that it will make what is at present a free negotiation between a landowner and his local communities, as to the gain that the community should get, into something that will be bedevilled by a national charge and that will, heaven help us, go back to the Treasury and not to the local community who generated the development in the first place.

Lord Carter: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord will agree that he has just given an excellent example of land that had inherent development value. The crucial point about exception sites is that they will never get development value. They are only allowed in by the planners on the basis of social housing and staircasing.

Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, that is perfectly true, but the two are part of the same equation. I agree that I was talking about land that would get development. But equally it is the same principle. If this change is made, the occupant would in effect get the
 
15 Mar 2006 : Column 1307
 
development value, rather than the landowner who gave up the land knowing that, for the benefit of their community, they would not get the development value. The principle is precisely parallel. It is a very dangerous move, in my view.

9 pm

Lord Cameron of Dillington: My Lords, I support what we have heard about the seriousness of the situation. In our village, I too have given some land for affordable housing. Some of it is done under shared equity and, come April, the village will be at risk of losing that housing. As the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, said, the point endorses what I shall say about rural-proofing under my Amendment No. 102. To correct what the noble Lord, Lord Carter, said, I point out that the rural-proofing should have been done by the ODPM in its systematic examination of all the legislation made and initiatives taken, to ensure that there are no adverse rural consequences—or, preferably, that there are positive rural consequences.

Lord Hylton: If possible.

Lord Cameron of Dillington: Exactly, my Lords. I gather that people in the ODPM now realise that they have made a mistake, and wonder how they will deal with it. It seems as though they need primary legislation to deal with it, which is quite serious, but there may be other ways round it. I hope that we can get some sort of statement before 1 April—perhaps it is 3 April—when the measures come into operation. It is a prime example of where rural-proofing could have avoided the whole problem in the first place.

Lord Bach: My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment No. 99 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, who moved it in her customary, short and articulate way. The debate then took another course. It was important that the strong expressions of opinion about the issue were heard, even though it is clearly outside the scope of what we are discussing under the amendment. I am not in a position to be able to answer in an adequate way on the issue. I promise to make sure that my honourable friend Jim Knight, the Minister responsible for rural housing in Defra, has his attention directed to tonight's Hansard and what has been said tonight in Parliament. I am sure that he is aware of the matter, and I shall speak to him about it myself. I thank noble Lords who have dealt with it.

The advice that I have received is that the CRC could not stop the situation because it is a housing regulatory matter. However, I confirm that it is exactly the kind of issue that the CRC might in future pursue with the ODPM as a rural-proofing matter, as the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, said. I hope that noble Lords who have spoken with such feeling about it will excuse me if I say no more about it tonight. I shall return to the amendment.

The noble Baroness will know that, from April last year, regional development agencies' activities have been driven by what is described as a new tasking framework. That framework requires each RDA to
 
15 Mar 2006 : Column 1308
 
show, in its corporate plan, how it will address the priorities identified in the regional economic strategy for the region, and contribute to delivery of four overarching government PSA targets. One of those overarching targets is sustainable development, a target that we in Defra hold on behalf of government.

RDAs welcomed the introduction of the strengthened remit for sustainable development and, through their six-monthly reports to Ministers, will provide a summary of how they are contributing to delivery of sustainable development in their regions. That new requirement will be an effective method of ensuring that RDAs not only undertake their activities in a sustainable manner, but contribute to sustainable development in their regions. RDAs are aware of their role in that; I was pleased to hear that Sir Martin Doughty thought that there was genuine interest from the RDAs in that area. In addition to funding sustainable development projects, many RDAs have established environmental management systems, sustainable transport plans and project appraisal tools that help to mitigate the environmental impacts of their operations and activities.

Although RDAs are already making a significant contribution to the delivery of sustainable development, the steps that the Government have taken to strengthen the framework in which RDAs operate should improve their effectiveness in delivering sustainable developments in the region. Guidance to the RDAs on producing regional economic strategies was reviewed last year to ensure that they and the actions to implement them are based on sustainable development principles, set out in our 2005 national sustainable development strategy.

I hope that the noble Baroness is reassured to some extent, both by what I have had to say and by the meeting she attended earlier this week. Ministers will be looking very closely indeed to make sure that RDAs with any responsibilities carry them out in the manner that Parliament expects.

---