Housing and Regeneration Bill

I took pity on the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, for the loneliness of his name beside this amendment and added mine to it. I did so also, and more importantly, because I agreed with the sentiments behind it. I shall speak also to the remaining amendments in this group, which are in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Hamwee. I associate myself with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, just said. It is very important that when this large new national quango is launched on the world it is welcomed by all the organisations and people that it will have to work with and through if it is to begin to achieve all the objectives set for it. Amendment No. 28 would set out that the basic relationship between the HCA, local authorities and other agencies, particularly the local agencies, is primarily one of support. My amendment reads: "““In seeking to achieve the objectives … the HCA shall … primarily support and facilitate the work of local authorities and ""other agencies, and only carry out work itself in exceptional circumstances, and … only carry out work in exceptional circumstances with an order from the Secretary of State””." I think that that is what the Minister said in the material read out by the noble Lord. If they are not her exact words, they certainly represent the general feeling behind them. It is not a partnership of equals that is envisaged—it cannot be, because the HCA will be the body with all the resources and all the loot. It can put that into schemes in the social housing and regeneration sectors, and into other work that it does. Local authorities in particular will need to get those resources from and through the HCA. As the HCA will in many ways have the whip hand over whether to provide the resources, it has huge influence and power already. It is clear that if the HCA wants to carry out many successful schemes, it will have do so in a way in which the local authorities co-operate and which they think is the right way forward; otherwise, in extremis, the local authorities will simply say, ““We’re not going to do it, because we don’t agree with it””. There is nothing new about this: it is the way in which the Housing Corporation already works with RSLs, and English Partnerships with local authorities. The greater the co-operation and agreement, the greater is the success. There is nothing new or exceptional about it. Clause 5 states: "““The HCA may provide housing or other land””." It is a bare statement which is not qualified in any way. The clause goes on to state that it, "““may facilitate the provision of housing or other land””." ““Facilitate”” is a good word here; it is exactly the relationship that should apply. When it says that the HCA may provide housing or other land in an unqualified way, there is a threat that the agency will come in and use it its powers, regardless of what the local authority or local people think. So Amendment No. 46 is to qualify that. Amendment No. 48 is to qualify a similar statement that the HCA may regenerate or develop land. Amendment No. 49 refers to bringing about the more effective use of land and qualifies it in the same way. Amendment No. 50 is to qualify the bald statement that he HCA may provide ““infrastructure””. There is a nice list on the previous page of the Bill, in Clause 2, as to what infrastructure includes—everything from water, electricity, gas, telecommunications, roads and other transport facilities right through to burial facilities and any other community facilities not falling within the previous list. So it is pretty well everything, really. Again, I suggest that that should be qualified. Amendment No. 52 would qualify the powers to deal with land, which ranges from, "““acquiring, holding, improving, managing, reclaiming, repairing””," and so on, housing and other property, right through to demolishing derelict buildings. I have a few derelict buildings in my part of the world and I would be delighted if the HCA came and demolished them—but I would rather that it did so after asking us whether it was a good idea, rather than just coming in and doing it. If it does that, it will get some of the wrong ones. These are probing and challenging amendments, which ask exactly what the relationship between the HCA and local authorities will be. What is the extent to which the HCA may take over local authority functions and the planning functions, as well as the ones listed in the amendment—as the noble Lord Dixon-Smith, said? In what circumstances do the Government expect these powers to be used? Perhaps most importantly of all, do the Government expect that these powers will be used in agreement with the local authority, as we are told happened in Milton Keynes, or to override local authority objections to what is being proposed? The obvious topical issue, where people are worried that these powers might be used in opposition to local feeling, is the whole question of the so-called eco-towns, which may or may not be imposed on communities whether or not they like them. If the Government decide to go ahead with eco-towns and the local authorities in the area do not agree with it, are these the powers that they would use or are there some other powers in the Planning Bill or elsewhere? Those are the key questions on the relationship between the HCA and local authorities. I do not think that local authorities generally object to the creation of the HCA; they are concerned that it will be a bigger and possibly more monstrous quango—but one hopes that it will not. But because it is bigger, perhaps it will have more clout and local authorities will have less discretion and less say about what happens in their areas. That is the basic issue that the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, and I are trying to tease out. We look forward to the Minister’s reply.