Housing and Regeneration Bill

My Lords, before I begin I would like to declare an interest as the chair of Circle 33 Housing Association and a trustee of Shelter. Having contributed to several other debates in the Government’s current programme, I can truly say that I welcome this debate this evening because this Bill, more than many of the others, has the capacity to deliver significant radical change that can improve the living conditions of hundreds of thousands of people. As we already know, this in turn impacts on their health, education and broader well-being. In particular, the backdrop to the Bill, in the Government’s committed target of 3 million new homes by 2020, represents a welcome and exciting challenge to us all. So it is in this context that I make the following comments. First, I am not the first person to point out that the housing economy has shifted significantly since the Bill was produced in November. I, too, was going to mention Persimmon but that would make it sound as if we were persecuting it. I think, though, that we all assess that the phenomenon we are discussing represents a wider trend. While the private sector will undoubtedly continue to be a partner in our housebuilding strategy it may no longer be rushing ahead and we have to have the imagination to fill that gap. This must be an opportunity to tackle the thorny issue of land supply, land banking and land prices. Given the current shortage of suitable land, the Homes and Communities Agency could insist that any public body considering land disposal should notify it in the first instance. They should then have a pre-emptive right to acquire the land on a cost-effective basis. I am not convinced that the ““less than best”” provision in the Bill goes far enough in this regard. Equally, there have been press reports that developers are trying to offload surplus private land on to housing associations by creating informal bidding wars. I am pleased to say that in some cases that the associations have clubbed together to stop this happening, but could not more be done to limit market pressures at this level? There is also a suggestion that housing associations could buy up the surplus speculative developments, particularly the endless riverside ““buy-to-let”” glut, much of which we now know to be overpriced. Interestingly, this fails to take account of the fact that many of these blocks have been built to poor standards which would not have been tolerated in the private sector. It underlines the need for all new build, public and private, to meet level 3 of the Code for Sustainable Homes. This also highlights the danger of allowing the wrong type of development in the wrong place. For example, my own housing association is crying out for extra family-sized accommodation but these developments are frequently unsuitable for families and therefore of only minor use in tackling real housing need. Housing associations play a crucial third sector role in housing delivery. Their not-for-profit business model enables them to recycle surpluses from sales to build more affordable rented accommodation. Unfortunately, the Bill as it stands risks them being squeezed out of the low-cost home ownership market. We are handing the private homebuilders a competitive advantage by giving them a free rein while the housing associations are closely regulated. This cannot be in the interests of consumers or government in the longer term, and I hope the Minister will recognise that there is a strong case for a level playing field between these sectors. I do not want to spend a great deal of time on housing association issues, but on regulation I very much share the concerns of the National Housing Federation and others who have commented on it today. It is both acceptable and desirable for the regulator to set standards on the core housing features of rent, quality and management of the stock. But more recently the progressive associations have experimented with local projects to meet particular community needs. These are, by their very nature, innovative and unproven, and often carried out with other partners. It therefore makes no sense for them to be part of the formal regulatory regime; otherwise, we run the risk of stifling the very creativity we want to encourage. The changing economic situation inevitably offers new opportunities for the public sector. I personally hope that this includes a greater role for local authorities to build and manage new homes. Their understanding of what makes sustainable communities has changed beyond all recognition since the days of monolithic council estates. They should be enabled to build considerably more than the few thousand homes referred to in the Bill’s impact assessment. I would like to see the Local Government Association show some real enthusiasm for the prospects of 3 million new homes for its citizens, based on partnership and innovation, rather than concentrating on a defence of its current powers. For example, although it is not a new idea, could community land trusts play a greater role in securing more affordable homes? These would hold the land in perpetuity and lease it to the owners of the properties on it. This community ownership of the land could help to keep homes affordable and deliver the crucial mix of tenures such as owner-occupiers, mutuals, social rented and co-operatives, which I think we all find desirable. I hope that the Minister will recognise the advantages of such models and will give a commitment to clarifying their legal status in the Bill, which would enable them to thrive. I would like to say something about the very welcome emphasis in the Bill on tenants’ rights. First, I am confident that the Government mean well with regard to tenant involvement, but it must be more than tokenism and must be seen to be so. For example, my housing association, which has just completed a major review of tenant involvement, has identified key demands for more localised and responsive services and better communications, rather than more seats on the board. We need to be quite sophisticated about how we measure real tenant participation. Secondly, it is important that tenants involved in potential stock transfers are guaranteed impartial advice on the options and are not just buffeted around by the competing propaganda of vested interests. I would go further than that and say that individual blocks of tenants should be able to initiate a ballot to change their landlord, potentially breaking up the big estates and enshrining real tenant choice. Thirdly, we should not lose sight of the value to many families of a secure tenancy. If tenants are to be really empowered, we have to find ways of making those tenancies portable so that individuals can become more mobile and respond to job opportunities and other reasons to move. The importance of secure tenancy is also a crucial factor in the family intervention projects initiative. For example, Shelter has already demonstrated that moving families with complex needs to different accommodation for intensive support can be effective; but the loss of a secure tenancy may override the benefits. It is vital that the interests of the children involved take precedence. I hope that the Minister is able to acknowledge these concerns. Finally, if we are serious about tenants’ rights, we need to change the outdated definition of overcrowding, which counts children aged between one and 10 as half a person and includes living rooms and larger kitchens in the equation. I know that the Government have already made a commitment to review that formula, but it is not clear why that cannot be delivered in this Bill. There is a great deal more that I could say on this issue, but I recognise the Government’s clear intent to transform housing provision in this country and to tackle a long legacy of housing need. I also welcome the Government’s record on engaging with stakeholders on the detail of the Bill, and I look forward to further discussions as the Bill progresses.