Alistair Burt (Shadow Minister, Communities and Local Government; North East Bedfordshire, Conservative)

The debate provides for a short comment from myself and an opportunity for the Minister to give us some sense of how regeneration powers are going to be used. I shall bring to the Committee’s attention some of the briefings that we have had from outside bodies that are concerned that the housing element will dominate the regeneration element of the new agency and worried that, in the pursuit of targets and numbers, other things may be lost. I will mention two or three of those things.

The British Urban Regeneration Association does great work, and I am sure that it is already known to the Minister. It has a particular concern. It says:

“The new agency appears to be only concerned with physical regeneration with only passing aspiration to furthering community  development...The primary objective is physical regeneration (housing and infrastructure, including premises necessary to provide social and economic services)...Accordingly, all planning and financial powers are oriented to land assembly, remediation, provision or infrastructure, and development...It seems a missed opportunity for an integrated approach to regeneration, where powers and planning of physical regeneration are joined up community support services and providers.”

Perhaps I could flesh this out a bit. In my own work in regeneration, both in the past with city challenge and more recently in my current role, I have been concerned—as I am sure the Minister and the whole Committee are—with the problem that endemic poverty and difficulties in some of our poorest estates are not necessarily relieved simply by changing the physical infrastructure. Yes, one can create bright, new houses, but a number of the people who have been in the most impoverished housing have all sorts of issues—typically, relationship breakdown, addiction, problems with children, poor educational achievement, low aspiration and a sense of hopelessness. Merely moving them out, reconstructing the housing and moving them back in again will not solve those problems.

I have looked at the work done by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith). His work with the Centre for Social Justice has looked at breakdown issues and to what extent some of the things revealed can be tackled through existing regeneration projects. One does not have to accept everything that my right hon. Friend has put forward in his analysis of “Breakdown Britain” and “Breakthrough Britain” to recognise that objective evidence of a series of problems suggests that physical regeneration is not sufficient.

I wanted to task the Minister with the issue raised by BURA. What can he tell us about the clause 6 powers for regeneration being taken in the broadest sense, rather than in the narrowest sense of powers purely for land assembly and dealing with the physical aspects of regeneration? Will the Homes and Communities Agency be able to work in an integrated manner with other—social and community—aspects of regeneration or are the powers and objectives of the agency solely confined to physical regeneration? In the latter case, we would have to look for other mechanisms to work with the agency to tackle the problems that I have just mentioned. BURA is interested in that and thinks that if the agency is not going to do that, it would be a missed opportunity. I am sure that the Minister would not want to miss that opportunity.

Andrew Love (Edmonton, Labour)

The hon. Gentleman has touched on an incredibly important point. All the evidence on urban regeneration projects for the last 40 years has been that physical regeneration by itself will almost inevitably fail. Does he accept that one of the best ways to intervene to reduce the level of what is called “residualisation” on some estates, is to provide new housing whereby people can be moved physically from those estates to create a more rounded community, thereby helping in the very way that he is talking about?

Alistair Burt (Shadow Minister, Communities and Local Government; North East Bedfordshire, Conservative)

Absolutely. There is no question of disagreement about that. The hon. Gentleman is right. In some of the best examples, a combination of  changes in land use and sometimes in density can make things work better—there can even be high density with the right sort of public squares and open spaces—and the provision of new housing can be the key in that respect; some terrific places are being built in some urban areas. Manchester, and other places in the north-west, are great examples.

The point that the hon. Gentleman made at the beginning of his intervention is important. More and more we are coming to realise that it is the combination of the two things we have discussed that is crucial. Outside bodies, who wanted us to scrutinise the creation of the agency in the manner to which I referred at the start of the sitting, expressed some worry, but that is not to deny that it could work very well. However, to ensure that it concentrates on the right thing it must bring together, within its existing terms and objectives, personal and social regeneration and physical regeneration

The second matter arises from one or two different sources. Again, we are not the only ones who worry about the agency pursuing targets and the numbers game being paramount. The brief from the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors states:

“It is essential that a strong commitment to regeneration is retained by the new ‘superquango’. The RICS has concerns that the regeneration aspects of the new body could be lost in the Government’s push to increase house building levels significantly.”

In its submission to the Committee, the Federation of Master Builders, said:

“Genuine concerns about unmet housing needs and house price inflation have meant that the emphasis is on housing numbers. Whilst we acknowledge the need to provide more homes there is also a risk of a return to the numbers game which characterised housing policy in the 1950s and the 1960s.”

My third and final point on the clause is that the federation also raises the interesting matter of how much the new agency will be able to get involved in improving the quality of existing housing, so that the answers to our housing policy are based not just on the provision of new homes. There is no doubt that new homes are needed, but there is still the opportunity to do more with existing homes and existing areas and the federation’s submission talks a lot about that. It says:

“Existing neighbourhoods, villages and towns can solve the housing crisis by offering an estimated 18 million family sized homes, empty and underused buildings, ready infrastructure and other small underused spaces that have the capacity to meet the Government’s projected housing need.”

I am interested in the answers to three questions: first, how will the new agency ensure that social and physical regeneration are handled together? Secondly, how can the Minister further reassure the Committee and the outside bodies that made representations that it is not just a numbers game? Thirdly, to what extent will the agency also be charged with the need to regenerate existing neighbourhoods and communities without new build but with existing properties, using regeneration in that sense?

Roger Gale (North Thanet, Conservative)

I am probably about to make a rod for my own back, but the hon. Gentleman referred to infrastructure. As the provisions of clauses 6 and 7 are closely inter-related, if hon. Members wish to refer to either or both, and to take both stand part debates together, I shall not be too concerned.

Andrew George (St Ives, Liberal Democrat)

The circumstances have changed with your ruling, Mr. Gale. Both the clauses deal with regeneration and infrastructure. During the evidence sessions in December I was, as the Minister knows, seeking evidence in the Bill that the important role played for many years by English Partnerships would be taken forward in this new agency. The role simply was not sufficiently spelt out. As the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire said, there are concerns that the motivation behind this is to achieve a numbers gain for the Government with regard strictly to housing. There is a fear that, irrespective of comments about physical infrastructure, the workshop development role of English Partnerships and its other roles in employment and economic regeneration will be subordinated by this Bill. Reading clauses 6 and 7, my fear is that this remains the case. The objectives described in clauses 6 and 7 are sufficiently vague not to reassure me that those aspects will be covered.

I wanted to make a brief contribution at this point, given that I will also raise the matter when I move amendment No. 36 to clause 54. I am concerned that the role that English Partnerships currently plays might not be carried forward in the Bill as presently drafted.

Iain Wright (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Communities and Local Government; Hartlepool, Labour)

Thank you, Mr. Gale, for that ruling, which I think is important and shows the very close synthesis between the two clauses. Clause 6 sets out the power of the HCA to regenerate or develop land, to bring about the more effective use of land, and to facilitate the regeneration or development of land or the more effective use of land. Clause 7—which I think is one of the most important clauses in part 1 of the Bill—enables the HCA to provide, or facilitate the provision of, infrastructure.

We have had an interesting but brief debate on this, and I want to point out that the definition of infrastructure here is the same as that used in clause 2; that is, it includes utilities such as gas or water, and retail or other business facilities. I expected to be criticised because the term “infrastructure” was too wide, and so I am pleased that we have not gone down that route. Indeed, the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire has provided some welcome and thought-provoking suggestions.

As I said earlier, a key object of the HCA is to regenerate communities and support their well-being. We cannot do this simply by providing the bricks and mortar of housing. Hon. Members may recall my saying during the oral evidence session—under threat from my boss, the Minister for Housing, my right hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford—that if we simply plonk 3 million homes in a field in the middle of nowhere, we will not have done our job. We need sustainable communities that are inclusive, and that also have good, sustained economic bases.

Sir George Young rose—

Iain Wright (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Communities and Local Government; Hartlepool, Labour)

Ah. [Laughter.]

George Young (North West Hampshire, Conservative)

In which case, why did he reject my amendment?

Iain Wright (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Communities and Local Government; Hartlepool, Labour)

As soon as I said “inclusive”, I wondered what on earth I was doing. It is a very important point that a healthy, strong community will be sustainable. That means more than simply homes. A range of infrastructure needs to be in place—roads,  retail facilities and community facilities. That is why the HCA will work with other relevant agencies to determine what infrastructure is needed, where it is needed and when it needs to be put in place. In most cases, the agency will facilitate the provision of this infrastructure, but it must also be able to be a direct provider if necessary. That is because, if the agency delivers the needed infrastructure for a development, it may make it more viable for a private developer to invest in the wider development area; the agency’s provision of infrastructure would tip the development for a private developer to provide a large element of social housing.

I have seen this in practice. English Partnerships has pre-funded the southern section of the Bedford western bypass, the A41, which has opened up to the south-west of Bedford two major development areas to which 2,250 homes have been allocated. That is exactly the sort of thing that I imagine the agency doing.

To complement the provision of traditional transport infrastructure, English Partnerships has also been involved in the provision of more community-focused facilities, such as schools and health care facilities.

Alistair Burt (Shadow Minister, Communities and Local Government; North East Bedfordshire, Conservative)

Will the Minister use his best endeavours to encourage English Partnerships to work with Bedford borough council to complete the north-western section of the same bypass by using the same skills and facilities? It goes through my constituency and it would be a real help if the job could be done.

Iain Wright (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Communities and Local Government; Hartlepool, Labour)

Yes, I shall move swiftly on, Mr. Gale.

The broad definition of infrastructure is very important and quite deliberate. It would be unusual but not impossible for the agency to provide schools and health care facilities to attract and ensure development. English Partnerships has already built 11 schools, one of which, in the Greenwich millennium village, is a primary school with an integrated health centre. Both were operational within weeks of the first residents moving into the village. Again, that is the sort of joined-up thinking that the agency will be able to bring—the skills that are necessary to provide sustainable communities that can really make a difference to the quality of life in our country. It is exactly what I want to see.

The hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire made a few important points about the comments from the British Urban Regeneration Association. I fully appreciate the fact that the issue is not just about physical regeneration, and that is why the objects of the agency include the continued well-being of communities. That is important, and it is why the definition of infrastructure in clause 7 is broad.

I shall draw the Committee’s attention to clause 33. I do not want to incur your wrath, Mr. Gale, but the clause relates to community service facilities and says that the agency may

“encourage or develop existing or new businesses; provide employment...provide safe and attractive environments; prevent or reduce anti-social behaviour or crime...provide transport services, health services, social, religious or recreational services, or cremation or burial services”.

There are powers already in the Bill to ensure that we can help to produce a well-planned and sustainable community, moving this country forward and regenerating the communities that live in it.