Housing and Regeneration Bill

This innocuous little amendment has led to more debate than I had expected—perhaps more than the Minister had expected—but there are some important issues here. She mentioned housing market renewal pathfinders. I should declare a further interest in that I am still responsible for housing market renewal in my local authority, Pendle. I did not declare that at the start of the Grand Committee, because I thought that I would be summarily removed from that position last Thursday; but the processes of democracy are curious and sometimes they do not go the way that you want or expect them to. I am still lumbered with that responsibility. Never mind; I will do my best. On the narrow point of the amendment, the Minister said that it was not just a matter of quantity, but making housing better, which is precisely why I worded the amendment with the aim of increasing supply and improving quality. Making housing better is a matter of quality, not the amount. I did not quite understand the Minister’s reply on that. However, on the wider issues, the Government have announced their target of 3 million new houses by 2020 or whenever, but suddenly, for reasons that are nothing to do with agencies such as the Housing Corporation and English Partnerships, it is all going the wrong way, because, in the words of Harold Macmillan, ““Events, dear boy, events”” have got in the way. The wider issues of the global housing market and the economy have got in the way. Suddenly they are going the wrong way. Of course, we have only three months’ figures and in a year’s time they may be going up again. But that is my point—it is not within the power of the new Homes and Communities Agency to have more than a marginal effect on the total, because the number of new housing units that will be supplied by the agency will not vary much. The effects of what is happening in the rest of the world could vary enormously. The Minister said that ““improve”” includes working towards the Government’s targets to increase quality and quantity. It is all a matter of money. We are told that English Partnerships and the Housing Corporation have met their targets. Of course they have met their targets, because they are determined by the amount of money that has been available to those organisations for investment. If you have £10 million to invest in new housing and you are dealing with certain types of housing, by and large, you get a certain number of housing units. That will continue to be the case. It would be extraordinary if the targets had not been met, because they were largely determined by the resources available. That generalisation is not 100 per cent true, but it is largely true. One of the unspoken issues behind all of this is not only whether the Homes and Communities Agency will have extra powers to bring the different agencies together with some of the functions of the department, but whether the agency will have more resources. We must assume that it will not have more resources, unless the Government suddenly tell us otherwise and find those resources. When legislation states that: "““The objects of the HCA are … to improve the supply and quality of housing in England””," that is fine for the parts of housing market and housing stock that those objects relate to. It may relate to 30 per cent of new investment. That would be ludicrously ambitious in relation to the total amount of housing in England. The HCA would not be able to achieve that, because it will target areas of the housing market aimed at people in need and areas in need of regeneration. That is the point that the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, was making; that legislation sets these things out, but that there is no way of knowing whether something has been achieved in a way that could be challenged in the courts. On improving the supply, no one can get the judicial review in 10 years’ time on whether the supply has been improved, because the whole terminology is so vague. That was the purpose of the amendment. I do not think that legislation should be as vague as this. However, it has been an interesting debate, and the Minister has said some interesting things about the way in which the HCA will work. I will be interested to read it in Hansard and consider it further. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.