UK Parliament / Open data

Housing and Regeneration Bill

This debate has been a long and interesting digression on rural housing. I have heard a lot of wisdom in the Committee this afternoon. I am not unsympathetic to the thrust of what the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, has had to say. I was particularly interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Best, had to say, because it struck a chord with me. I sat here thinking about this and about the ironies of life. The noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, and I are of a similar age, and while he enjoyed the playing fields of Eton as a young man, I enjoyed the strawberry fields of Great Bentley. I grew up in a rural community, and I would wager pretty fairly that I am probably the only Member of this Committee who lived in a rural council house. I might be wrong—I have not checked everyone’s entry in Dods—but I have some personal experience, which is why I have particularly empathy with the points that have been made. The council bungalow that I grew up in was the product of post-war visionary planning. I know this because the then Labour Government, in their post-1945 period, ensured that we had a massive home-building programme because of national need. I have spotted in the many years since my childhood that the rural council bungalow that I grew up in is repeated in rural communities all over the country. I have seen it many times. That was because the foresight of politicians of an earlier generation. Wise they were, because it ensured that in many rural communities up and down the country there was social affordable housing, which people who worked the land and who came back from the war could access fairly easily and readily and could afford to live in. How does that affect where we are today? In some senses—this is a housing and regeneration Bill after all—we are talking about the need to regenerate and ensure that we have more than adequate housing and a range of affordable housing in rural communities. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, put her finger on this. Part of her critique of the amendment, with which she and I have some sympathy, was that it may fall down in the use of the term ““particular””. The post-war Labour Government did not have to have a particular need to achieve their overall policy objective, which was to ensure that housing was regenerated not only in urban areas but in rural ones. The noble Earl will probably be disappointed with what I have to say, although I hope that he also will be encouraged. I certainly understand where he is coming from. Ultimately, we conclude that the amendment is unnecessary and I will set out why we think that. Simply, the Homes and Communities Agency is charged with the creation of strong and sustainable communities. It will be a national agency with skills, expertise and budgets to meet the needs of people living in all areas of the country—both urban and rural communities. Clause 2 sets out objects for the agency which represent the set of principles to which it must work. Anything that the Homes and Communities Agency does must come back to the principles of providing decent affordable housing alongside the regeneration of all our communities, wherever they are located, with a view to meeting the needs of people living in areas of England. As I have said, we share the noble Earl’s concern about the viability of rural communities. I think that it is fair to say that all too often these communities have not been sustainable. Young people and young families just starting out find themselves priced out of the housing market in their villages or have to travel a long distance to their place of work. Strong and sustainable communities in rural areas can be maintained only if those families living there can afford to remain there. Members of the Committee have referred to the impact of the right to buy on rural areas. The noble Lord, Lord Best, made the point rather well. He said that the percentage of affordable council housing was lower in rural areas and that the percentage of those houses which were bought under the right to buy is higher; both are true statistically. So we have to take very careful account of that. It is for those sorts of reasons that the Homes and Communities Agency will continue with the national affordable housing programme from one of the transferring organisations, which has targets for rural affordable homes, for social rent and home ownership. The Government have recently announced their target of 11,000 homes to be built between 2009 and 2011. The agency will be the Government’s foremost delivery agency and will be tasked with delivering strategic housing and regeneration priorities. In practice, the agency will do that by working closely with local authorities to deliver their aspirations for their communities. Local authorities in rural areas will assess the needs for their communities and will, quite rightly, have regard for the viability of those communities. Local authorities in rural areas will set out their aspirations for strong, viable and sustainable communities in their local development plans, in the regional spatial strategies and in their regional economic strategies. They will be knitted together and will have a bearing on how the local authority, as the lead organisation in the area, approaches these issues. When the Homes and Communities Agency approaches local authorities to plan how to deliver national targets at the local level, these sorts of plans and strategies are the immediate tools which will inform their work and inform the agency’s investment decisions. By working with the local authority at the local level in rural areas in drawing up regional investment plans in partnership with local authorities and regional development agencies, the agency will ensure the viability of rural communities. There is a desire to specify representation at board level; I understand that. I know that we have had some of this argument, but, picking up the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, on representation on the board, I do not think that it is desirable to specify one particular group. In order to avoid having a board where all the specifics are identified and associated with just one individual, we want to ensure that the board as a whole reflects our priorities, including making sure that there is affordable rural housing. However, in paragraph 1(3)(a) of Schedule 1, there is a requirement on the Secretary of State to, "““have regard to the desirability of appointing a person who has experience of, and has shown some capacity in””," a relevant matter. Consideration will clearly be given to this in the construction of the board to ensure that particular interests are reflected in its overall makeup. It is worth making a couple more points here. We will ensure that the agency will be well advised in terms of benefiting from broader advice on issues related to rural regeneration and rural housing. In March last year the Housing Corporation itself was asked to set up and chair the Rural Housing Advisory Group which reports annually to the department. That group is chaired by Candy Atherton, who is a member of the Housing Corporation with special responsibilities for rural housing. The new agency will have the benefit of that continuing work, and members of that group include former members of the Affordable Rural Housing Commission, whose work has been extremely valuable in helping us design our strategy and general approach. Our case is this: we are very conscious of the particular needs of rural communities. The advice, guidance, help and assistance is already in place and will be incorporated into the agency. In terms of board appointments, of course it is going to be one of those issues that will be reflected in how the board is composed. Finally, on resources, it is worth making the point that currently the Housing Corporation’s programme for 2006-08 allocates to rural districts some 21 per cent of all affordable housing allocations, which pretty much matches the noble Earl’s quoted figure of one in five living in rural communities. We are getting the balance right in terms of funding for that particular housing sector as well. One would expect that to continue over into the new agency, which will be charged with specific responsibilities. We have had a good debate on a live and current issue. I certainly recognise the strength of feeling and interest, but our approach takes on board many of the noble Earl’s concerns as well as the others which have been expressed without having to go into the business of specifying in the way he suggests. That could have the effect of distorting the general balance in terms of the policy of the new agency.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
702 c11-4GC 
Session
2007-08
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand Committee
Back to top