Housing and Regeneration Bill

moved Amendment No. 27: 27: Clause 2, page 2, line 3, at end insert— ““( ) In assessing the needs of people living in England in accordance with subsection (1), the HCA shall take particular account of the viability of rural communities.”” The noble Earl said: I have received many briefings from different non-governmental organisations on the plight of rural communities, not least the Countryside Alliance, of which I am a member. Nineteen per cent—or one in five—of the English population live in rural areas. The Government’s definition of rural areas are those with a population of less than 10,000. This does not, however, include the 3.5 million to 4 million people who live in large market towns and districts that are defined as rural, many of which, in spite of their size, are affected by and susceptible to the same problems as their more rural hinterlands. This amendment would place the HCA under an obligation to take into account the needs of rural communities when pursuing and taking forward their objectives. At Second Reading, a number of noble Lords raised the issue of rural housing. It was heartening that the noble Baroness, Lady Dean—I am sorry that she is not in her place—said: "““It is essential that, somewhere within the new system, there is something ensuring that rural housing is not forgotten. It would be so easy to forget it””.—[Official Report, 28/4/08; col. 59.]" When moving the first amendment, I argued that there should be a board member to champion rural housing. It was disappointing that the Minister did not share my view. Maybe we need to come back to this or take up the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Best, to require the HCA to consult a number of organisations whose interests should be represented. I cannot see that the Minister will object to this amendment, as it follows the conclusion of the Government’s own Affordable Rural Housing Commission. This commission was set up by Defra and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, which is now the Department of Communities and Local Government. The executive summary of the commission’s report stated: "““It was evident from the urgency with which Ministers asked the Commission to report that both Departments shared the concern surrounding this issue, which is widely held across the political spectrum and throughout rural England””." The commission concluded that, "““to meet the scale of the need in rural communities in all regions, the issue must be addressed in its own right, and with urgency, rather than only after urban needs have been met””." That seems to imply that rural housing up until now has been an afterthought. By putting the HCA under an obligation to take into account the needs of the thousands of individual rural communities, with their quite different and disparate housing needs, we can get one step closer to realising the goals of the Government’s own commission. People in rural areas are finding it increasingly difficult to get on to the housing ladder in the area in which they were brought up or where they wish to work. Many are faced with little option but to move out of their area to obtain a roof over their head. This problem is recognised by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister in the report of 2003—five years ago. The report, Sustainable Communities: Building for the Future, acknowledged: "““The availability of housing, especially social and other affordable housing, is a critical issue in many rural areas … Rural housing is often in high demand from in-comers, long distance commuters, people moving in to retire and owners of second homes and holiday homes. This can squeeze out local people on lower incomes””." Britain’s rural population is growing. Defra’s report on the population trends in rural areas of England from 1991 to 2001 found that the population in rural districts had risen almost eight times faster than the population in urban districts. Pressure on affordable housing is becoming more acute in rural communities than in urban areas. It is therefore imperative that the Bill addresses this new trend of population movement before it escalates into an even worse situation. Rural areas cannot continue with the position as it is at present. The Affordable Rural Housing Commission reported that only 5 per cent of housing in rural areas is social housing compared with 23 per cent in urban areas. In 2007, the Halifax Rural Housing Review found that the typical house price in rural areas stood at £246,000 compared with £215,000 in urban areas, £30,000 more expensive. The Government’s commission found that average earnings were £17,400 against £22,300 in urban areas; that is, incomes are £5,000 lower in rural areas. Rural purchasers of housing have to find £30,000 more with £5,000 less income than their urban counterparts. Only this year, the Government’s own rural advocate, the Rev Dr Stuart Burgess, stated: "““In 2007, there were almost 1 million households in rural England with incomes below the official poverty threshold of £16,492 per annum””." Average weekly wages in rural areas are not only much lower than those in urban areas, but the problems of the low paid are compounded by the lack of affordable housing. There are also concerns about the breakdown of community cohesion in rural areas as people are forced to move to cheaper urban housing, which no doubt exacerbates the urban housing problem. In addition, we must consider the problems that are particular to rural areas: the lack of transport, the distance to essential services—not just to post offices, about which we have heard so much of late, but to schools, GP surgeries, dentists and shops. I would be interested to hear from the Minister exactly how she envisages the HCA will tackle these growing rural problems. Now for a little dig at the Minister. On the first day in Grand Committee, I had to remind her when she was summing up the amendment on the composition of the board, that she had forgotten—I repeat, forgotten—my point on rural areas. I do not blame her, but as the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, said at Second Reading, it is of course so easy to forget rural areas. The Minister responded by saying: "““I am sorry I did not address that point. There will be an amendment later on under which we will be able to explore it, but I am not in favour of a single champion for rural areas. I would hope that the board will achieve this by having a genuine mix of experience, so rural areas will not need a separate champion because they will be championed by the board””." She then went on to concede: "““The rural areas must be spoken up for and their interests promoted, but that must be seen as seamless with the work of the HCA””.—[Official Report, 13/5/08; col. GC 271.]" That is the very problem. The system up until now has been seamless—so seamless, in fact, that the activity in rural areas has hardly been noticed. It is all very well having a genuine mix of experience on the board but, for all that experience, unless the agency is required to give specific consideration to rural areas, urban areas may be given priority at the expense of rural areas, as has undoubtedly happened until now. There is also no guarantee that the mix of experience will include those with experience and understanding of rural areas, which is needed if affordable housing solutions are to be found in those areas. Moreover, while it is welcome that the Minister argues that rural areas must be spoken up for and their interests promoted, it is less clear what she meant when she said that that must be seen as seamless with the work of the HCA. If it is meant that the needs of rural areas will be given equal attention to the needs of urban areas, taking into account the important differences between the areas, and that those on the board will have the necessary expertise to address both urban and rural needs and the impact of urban developments in rural areas, that is welcome. However, it is equally open to interpretation that although rural needs will be considered, the bulk of the board’s efforts and expertise will be directed towards urban areas, with the occasional nod to rural areas. Far from being seamless, there must be a clear voice on the board and a requirement in the Bill that both urban and rural areas be treated on their own terms and the differences between the two be recognised. That cannot be seamless. Those are two distinct dimensions of the agency's work and that should be made clear in the agency's statutory functions and reflected in the make-up of the board. If the Minister can accept the amendment, or a similar one, I might just pipe down about representation on the board. To have neither would neglect one in five of the population—one in four if you count market towns. We all know that we like to support minority groups. In the amendment, we do not seek special treatment; we ask for rural areas not be forgotten but to receive their fair share of attention—a fair crack of the whip. The Minister has already rejected the idea of a single champion for rural areas on the board; I ask her, before she rejects this amendment as well, to take it away and work out with her advisers how she proposes to address the issue in its own right and with urgency, as recommended by her own department's Affordable Rural Housing Commission. I hope that the Government will listen to their own research advisers. I beg to move.