Housing and Regeneration Bill

This has been an excellent debate. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Howarth on his opportunism and on the coalition of support that he has marshalled around the House, on the way in which he marshalled his arguments and on the way in which noble Lords spoke both to the visionary opportunity as well as—as the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, concluded by reminding us—the practical needs that we have to address when we try to marshal support for more impetus for design. I start by addressing some of the issues raised under Amendment No. 1A. However, I shall reflect briefly on what the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, and the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, said about places shaping people. That is where we start from—with the notion that beautiful places may not shape beautiful people, but at least they promote pro-social behaviour. Design has a value in itself, but it also has a value for what it communicates and enables other people to do in the community. Members of the Committee know that I am sympathetic to much of what they have said. If they can bear it, I shall leave my final conclusions tantalisingly to the very end. On Amendment No. 1A, in relation to this notion of appointing someone to champion design, the challenge for the new agency will be in demonstrating that the skills are appropriate to what it needs. That has to be balanced. So while I am sympathetic to what my noble friend says, and I take the point of the rather alarming picture drawn by my noble friend Lady Ford of having to fight hand-to-hand with architects, I do not think that the proposal is necessary. We need to think very hard about how we put this expertise in the hands of the HCA, however, because there is certainly a role for CABE and an opportunity to develop that sort of relationship. So while I welcome the intent, I wish to give some more thought to how we might best deliver that objective. I have discovered the answer to the notion of capacity. When we talk about someone with capacity on the board, it means that they have the demonstrable ability and skills rather than expertise, necessarily. So when we think about what we want on the board, that is what we mean by that. I turn to the substantive amendment, Amendment No. 32. I shall skip over the amendment to which the noble Lord, Lord Best, put his name, if he does not mind, as I do not think that I can have a particularly exhaustive debate on ““and””. But there is no doubt that we are all of one mind here; we all want to see the highest possible standards of quality and design, not only in private architecture but in the public realm, in the built environment. I shall take Amendment No. 47 at the same time and discuss the notion of the built environment. We are seeking to build ambitiously and build for a new generation. We are seeking not to repeat the mistakes of the past. We must make that clear in the leadership that we show, the policies that we have in place and the way in which we use all the levers—and they are limited levers. The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, was right to point that out, but we have to use everything to hand. During his Second Reading speech, my noble friend Lord Howarth was concerned that the instruments that make it possible for planners and local politicians to deliver better than in the past—guidance, exhortation and reward—are not enough to see the real improvement needed. He both raised and answered on my behalf the questions that he thought that I would put to him. I would probably come up with a few different answers, but I need to make it clear that, although I am sympathetic to his intent, there are two major considerations that we have to address, which he has already identified. Is the amendment necessary to achieve the desired outcome—to put design at the heart of all new development? If it is necessary, is this the best way in which to achieve those desired outcomes? I have to be persuaded that the amendment is necessary to be put in the Bill. I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, that predictably I would say that. However, as he knows as a former Minister, we have to test to destruction the notion of what is necessary. Design is already—admittedly, not explicitly—covered by the objects of the HCA, but it is underpinned by planning law. The agency’s objects refer already in Clause 2(1)(a) to improving the quality of housing. That is about the built environment. I ask the noble Lord what we mean by quality if we do not mean quality of design. Quality is not merely functional, but it can ensure that the home, the place, is pleasing and desirable. I argue that quality without successful design is meaningless. Clause 2(1)(c) gives the HCA the object of supporting the continued well-being of communities. We have spoken this afternoon about the quality of place and place-making. The well-being of communities means that we need places that are well designed, sustainable and beautiful—places which make the spirit sing. It is hard to see how well-being is served by places that are ugly, cramped and confined. We all know of past design failures where we seem to have designed in crime rather than designing it out. Clause 2(1)(d) adds contributing, "““to the achievement of sustainable development””" to the agency’s objects. The noble Lord, Lord Tyler, was right when he talked about getting away from built-in obsolescence. We shall come back to that when we talk about lifetime homes. A key element of sustainable development is good design. That is given explicit force in law by Planning Policy Statement 1: Delivering Sustainable Development, which states, "““Good design ensures attractive usable, durable and adaptable places and is a key element in achieving sustainable development””." This debate has raised a degree of passion, to which I have listened carefully. I wish to do that passion justice by giving equally careful consideration to how best to address this. The second point is whether this amendment is the best way of achieving that outcome. I am unsure about that for a couple of reasons. The supply of housing, as defined in law, includes the supply of particular types of housing, so we are not simply talking about the HCA delivering numbers but about it delivering particular types of housing for the enormous diversity of people who need good homes. I cannot in good conscience say that making it clear that the HCA would not meet its object of improving quality if it did not also improve design quality is anything other than helpful. I accept that. I am slightly nervous about this wording because, in a sense, the HCA would always have to seek to improve design. I think there is a point beyond which realistically one would not be searching for innovation for the sake of it. I am also not sure that putting an amendment such as this into the Bill will help the HCA focus its activities where it could be of greatest value in tackling the problem of design quality and the barriers that prevent it happening at the moment. Those barriers were identified at Second Reading. The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, addressed the problems and quality of the planning committee, the training and supply of planners, the lack of qualified people, and the fact that it is very difficult to get people to focus on design when they are challenged by a new development with all the complications that arise. We are addressing this by placing the ASC at the centre of the work of the new agency, ensuring that we have, for the first time, a mechanism for getting training and advice into local authorities in a new way. We are also empowering the HCA to provide training and advice as well as support services, such as seconding or loaning staff. That will all make a real, practical difference to how local authorities can respond. However, I am concerned whether the amendment will secure the change. I am also considering how the HCA will interact with CABE, which is an enormously powerful and positive influence in this area. I am very aware, as a Minister who has a lot to do with planning inspectorates, just how seriously planning inspectors now take their design responsibilities. I have recently written to CABE on this issue. I want to discuss that role further with noble Lords and colleagues in CABE, the HCA and DCMS. I ask my noble friend to give me some time in which to consider his amendment. Notwithstanding everything that I have said, these are serious arguments. There is no point putting something in the Bill if it does not produce the changes that we all want to see. I want to hear the views of other noble Lords. It has been an excellent debate and I shall bear in mind my noble friend’s advice. I thought that Amendment No. 95 would be about empty homes and how design failures had led us to having some 600,000 empty homes; I can see now that it is not and that my noble friend is proposing a rather interesting idea. I would probably want to talk to Bob Kerslake about how we might pursue it in the context of the Bill. There are issues around it which we need to tease out. Asking people how they find the new accommodation which is provided is very interesting. I have the privilege of meeting people in new homes, particularly in housing market renewal areas. Their joy at having space, separate bedrooms for their children and a garden is extraordinarily powerful. I know that people who have worked in the housing association sector know exactly what I mean. On the final amendment, Amendment No. 97, on design review panels, I was interested to hear some of noble Lords’ qualifications. Having seen some design review panels in action, I agree that they are powerful instruments for improving how people are trained to look at and appreciate good quality in design. Bringing design professionals and planning officers together to review schemes in pre-application is a promising and productive approach. It will give force to the HCA’s role in place-shaping that all its schemes are of the highest design quality. However, the amendment will not deliver my noble friend’s desired outcome, not least because he asks for a power of direction for the Secretary of State. It is a very powerful tool, which must be very sparingly used. An example would be a Secretary of State issuing an accounts direction, directing the Housing Corporation to include certain financial information within its annual accounts. It is an inappropriate instrument for this purpose. It would be used only in limited circumstances. All that creates problems for what my noble friend seeks. However, I am sympathetic towards aspirations to improve design quality. The suggestion of an enhanced role for design review panels is interesting. I would like to explore it further outside the context of a power of direction for the Secretary of State. My noble friend Lady Ford asked how we find the people. We need more skilled people in planning; we need to recruit planners from other disciplines. Time and expertise are a problem. However, given what my noble friend said, given that we want to build on the good work of English Partnerships and the Housing Corporation and given that CABE is in place, I would like to think about how we can deliver some of the outcomes that he wants to see in the context of design review panels.