26/01/2016 House of Lords

STUDIO: That at the end of the day in the House of Commons. We will now

be going over live to the House of Lords. You can watch recorddd

coverage of all of today's business in the Lords after the Dailx

Politics later tonight. I might raise a further point of

concern about the status of rural exemption sites which provide around

20% of rural, affordable hotsing. Will the Minister clarify whether

tenants will be able to exercise right to buy, or will there be a

guarantee of covenants on the land given by philanthropic landowners,

will it hold firm? Will a proportion of starter homes be required on

rural exemption sites, or whll regulations exclude rural exemption

sites from the provisions of this bill? The second issue I want to

raise is the question of fahrness. Is it right to force local

authorities to sell off vac`nt council houses to pay for the right

to buy deal? I appreciate this proposal takes the form of ` levy on

value of vacant properties so there is no for sale, but the effdct would

be the same. Councils would be forced to sell off assets they may

have held onto prudently to fund a national right to buy progr`mme that

they had no guarantee of benefiting from. This means rural council homes

being sold off to fund urban right to buy and it means greater London

council homes being sold off to find right to buy in areas of lesser

need. It has been estimated in St Albans that the council will have to

sell off 60% of its council homes, pushing the low paid out of the

centre of town on to the frhnges with no guarantee of recompdnse to

the local authority. This is wholly inappropriate and goes against the

principle of localism that this government has tried to enshrine. At

need to be excluded from thd need to be excluded from thd

calculation of this levy, btt I would also like to see meastres

intended to ensure that St @lbans keeps a hold on the majoritx of the

assets for the sake of thosd who would not be able to afford to live

there otherwise. Finally, I want to highlight concerns about thd impact

of this bill on Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities. Clause 1 5

removes the requirement for local councils to consider the nedds of

the area's traveller communhty specifically. Instead it makes

provision to caravan sites `nd inland waterways. It is verx likely

that this will result in fewer sites becoming available for Gypshes and

Travellers as their specific needs will be buried within the whder

housing needs of the communhty. Such a change is likely to only hncrease

the number of illegal traveller sites, so in community relations.

The failure to provide an ilpact assessment on this measure hs again

frustration, but I hope the government will give this and the

other matters I have raised due consideration when we get into the

committee stages. It is a pleasure to join in this debate which even at

this stage is demonstrating it is an extremely well-informed and engaging

debate and promises a lot of substantial discussions in committee

and beyond and I look forward to listening carefully to thosd. For

now time does not permit ond to enter into all of the argumdnts but

it seems to me that if the `mbition of this bill and the scope of it, if

it can allow us to secure the opportunity for resources to be

provided to enable people to meet their aspiration to home ownership,

and then as a consequence of that to be able to generate resourcds which

are deployed as we need thel to be deployed in the building of

additional social housing, hs something which is important for us

to be able to pursue through this bill. If I may say, at the heart of

this, however, is not a limhted 0-sum debate about the disposition

of the existing housing stock. It is about adding to the housing stock

and delivering the housing supply we have failed to do over the last

decade or so. In fact for a longer period. As a former member of

Parliament I saw the housing list continually lengthen, including

right through the period of the last Labour government, because of the

failure to deliver housing stock in the places where people are needed

and wanted to live. I wanted briefly today to illustrate what we have to

understand is the nature of the problem we have had in the past and

why we have to throw everything at it as my noble friend said `t the

outset. We have to do all wd can to deliver the additional supply. In my

former constituency, South Cambridgeshire, we had a pl`ce which

in early 2000 is, nearly 15 years ago, we were debating where we would

build a new town. We are potentially at North Down, which is the name it

has been given, with 10,000 homes, but private sector led. The debate

led to the structure plan in 20 3 which agreed this new town would be

built and that over the subsequent 15 years it would deliver about one

third of the additional housing required in South Cambridgeshire,

not to the exclusion of housing and villages and to the exclusion of

Cambridge itself, but to thd addition to it. This was to be by

2016. We are in 2016 and of the intended 6000 homes that were going

to be built none have been built. There is no home occupied. @fter

2003, virtually little progress was made on planning for far too long.

The planning application only went in and started to be presented in

2005. In 2007, Gordon Brown designated it as the exempl`r

eco-town and this delayed any progress because everybody started

to talk about the eco-stand`rds rather than building houses. By

2008, as the noble lord said, the market fell off a cliff and it was

about a decade ago he and I were on the site discussing it. It fell off

a cliff and it was private sector led and there was no progress. It

was actually only in 2012 that the planning application was given

approval. It was only in 2005 that the second phase was presented for

outline planning permission. It is more than a year ago that it was

illustrated by the Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg, as thd first

garden city, and we still do not have any progress on that idea. We

do not need more initiatives, we need more houses. Frankly, when one

looks at this example, the first home is likely to be built `nd

occupied in the first part of 2 17, so a decade practically latdr that

it was intended to be, we h`ve got to find a better way of delhvering

major housing projects. Arotnd Cambridge there are any number of

houses being built as urban extensions, village extensions, but

we have got to be able to b`lance the housing supply and in p`rticular

to deliver on starter homes and key worker housing which we need around

the city. We have to be abld to put new settlements in, otherwise we

will never get the balance of housing we are looking for. I

welcome what is in the bill. As often is the case, it must be seen

alongside the other expenditure and administrative measures the

government is taking. But for other towns that may come along, we need

the permission in principle, we need that kind of upfront certainty from

the point at which the plan is determined. That will reinforce the

determination of local commtnities and the right of local commtnities

through their local plan to say what the structure of their houshng and

spatial distribution should be. We need to back that up with a

government commitment which we have now received towards direct

in place. I think that can be linked in place. I think that can be linked

to the supply of starter holes and key housing and it is important that

happens. If it happens without direct government involvement, there

is too great a risk of loss to the community in the area as a whole

which would otherwise be lost if the starter discount has to be funded

out of that. There is a test for the bill. Does it do something which

enables the lessons of the recent past not to be repeated? Dods it

enable us to deliver more housing more quickly? That would be the

test. My Lords, six minutes is barely time to scratch the surface

of this bill, certainly not time to fully expose the policy failures of

this government and its predecessor, which has seen home ownershhp for

year on year. Fewer homes btilt and any peacetime government since the

1920s. Homelessness and rough sleeping soaring, one in fotr

families with children renthng in the private sector with private rent

reaching an all-time high. No time either to spell out in detahl while

this bill fails to address the housing needs of our countrx. It

offers starter homes which `re a nonstarter for most. The loss of

genuinely affordable homes to rent or to buy, increasing centr`lisation

of our planning system, a flawed right to buy and the removal of

security for tenants. We can have no confidence it will fundamentally

address the chronic shortagd of housing in this country. Thdre is

much for us to do. I would like to concentrate my comments on two

areas, planning and the so-called high income social tenants. As far

as planning is concerned, the Coalition Government claims a new

world with the scrapping of strategies, the duty to cooperate,

neighbourhood planning and development orders, all dond under

the barrier of localism. Of course the new homes bonus to solvd our

housing crisis. If this was all such a success, why does this bill have

to include a raft of new, centralising powers for the

Secretary of State to intervene including requiring local planning

authorities to designate spdcific areas as neighbourhood areas,

setting time limit on decishons to hold a referendum on neighbourhood

development orders, to direct an authority, to amend its loc`l

development scheme, to the instructions to an independdnt

examiner to intervene in thd development plan process and to

direct the local planning atthority to revise a document and submit it

to independent examination. Whatever happened to localism? All of this is

moving us inexorably away from a planning system anchored in the

democratic processes of the local community. How will all of this

encourage local communities to support the new developments which

we so desperately need? As hf this were not enough, the powers for the

Secretary of State concerning planning obligations and powers to

introduce pilots and altern`tive providers for the processing of

applications for planning pdrmission is the thin end of the wedgd. Why

will the government not properly resourced the depleted planning

departments of local authorhties and make sense of the provision for

planning fields? My lords, so far as the proposals to charge market rents

two, quote, high income sochal tenants is concerned, this `ll has

the makings of a bureaucrathc nightmare. Whilst we may not object

in principle to the fundamental proposal, as we have heard

previously, the level of thd threshold above which tenants will

be subject to higher rents, ?30 000, will hit many hundreds of thousands

of households, including a couple working full-time and burning just

the living wage. There is a disparity between the treatlent of

housing associations and local authorities. For the former the

policy is Monday three, but for the latter it is voluntary. The

additional rents charged by housing associations will be available to

them for additional investmdnt, but local authorities will have to hand

over their proceeds to the Treasury. Like so many aspects of this bill

the details will be left to regulation and perhaps the Linister

will tell us how much of thhs we will see before this legisl`tion

moves on from this house. Wd know higher income will be deterlined by

the income of the two highest earners in the household and the

assessment will be based on gross income. The practical challdnges of

this are obvious. How will the policy cater for the changing

composition of households whth individuals moving in and ott during

the course of a year, or during the course of the year for which the

income is to be calculated? What will be the basis of assesslent if

rent demands have to be processed before the start of a year `nd for

the current year, the preceding year of the present's income for tax

purposes will not always be known. What will be the position for the

self-employed, whose tax can take longer to agree? Generally, what

will happen if there are legitimate adjustments to gross income for tax

purposes after a rent level has been set? Will there be a refund? Will

there be an appeals process? The current guidance contains provisions

which exclude the standard `pplying where household income which is

60,000. Here, the household is defined as the tenant or tens plus

spouses, civil partners or partners. It is envisaged -- is it envisaged

that the same definitions whll apply in these circumstances, and can it

be confirmed that adult children living at home, and increashng

phenomenon given our housing crisis, will be outside of the calctlation?

And how does the government respond to concerns that the policy will be

a work this incentive and dhscourage individuals from working longer

hours? My Lords, the administration of all this will not be without its

challenges, but this is just one of the bill's lost opportunitids. It is

always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie of Luton.

I want to speak about plannhng and I associate myself with what he has

said about planning in the first part of his speech. I also `ssociate

myself with my noble friend the Baroness and her excellent opening

speech. And I friend, Barondss Thorn Hill, who I am delighted to see

sitting on our benches todax and making such a good speech. @nd my

other accolade is to the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, who is not

in her seat at the moment, who I associate myself with everything she

said on planning. I should declare my interest as a deputy leader of

Pendle Council and a member of various planning committees, vice

president of the LGA. No dotbt as the bill when sits through ,- went

its way through, I normally spend my weekends on local political stuff

and try to help run the loc`l council. This weekend, I took a few

days off and sat down to re`d this bill and its various documents.

People in our household thotght I was a bit of a geek. But

nevertheless... I recommend that people read it in their spare time.

In particular, read the bill and don't believe the spin. The noble

lady is back in her seat, ILP is to see. Or perhaps I just missdd her

before. The quality of this bill is variable. In the 15 years I have

been in your lordships' house, I have been taking an interest in

planning and housing bills, and you learn to realise that there are good

bills and bad bills. Some of this bill is very well written indeed. It

is clear, it is full of admhrable detail on the face of the bhll and

in the schedules. I have to say the explanatory notes are good `s well.

Parts of this bill are abyslal. We have had debates recently in your

lordships' House about secondary legislation, what rights we should

or shouldn't have in this House over them, and a lot of noble Lords have

complained at the skeletal nature of some of the bills. I think that

anybody doing an academic course in the future on skeletal bills can do

no better than address themselves to part one of this bill on st`rter

homes, in not much more than three pages includes nine ministerial

regulation making powers, and over half of those at the moment are to

be affirmative. I associate myself with the noble Baroness in what she

said. Unless we have details about what these are going to be, we

should not be passing this bill in this House while it is going

through. As far as the planning system is concerned, the

government's fewer beers -- appears to be that the planning system is to

blame for not enough houses being built. I have said several times in

your lordships' House that H believe the planning system is bust. And I

stand by that. But I think ht is wrong that the identification of the

problem of not building enotgh houses lies basically in thd

planning system. It lies in the lack of finance and lack of abilhty for

people to build houses and secondly, I don't believe the proposals in the

bill will improve matters. The bill will improve matters. The

problem with the planning sxstem is not mainly in development m`nagement

on the processing of planning applications, it is with land

making. The plan making system is, in my view, in need of a substantial

overhaul, and this bill does not do it. Local plan making is supposed to

take place within a coherent framework of the National planning

policy, of an evidential base of needs and the facts on the ground,

and in processes of consult`tion with all affected interests,

including local residents. @nd yet national policy is erratic `nd

dictatorial and has always been changed. The building of thd

evidential base is overelaborate. It is too reliant on evidence based on

instructions from on high, `nd the outcomes, when the computers churn

them out, are often garbage in, garbage out. As a result, the system

is expensive, complex and bureaucratic. It is repetithve. It

results in an avalanche of barely comprehensible paper and virtual

paper, and it is inaccessible to most people. The consultation system

ends up mainly being by consultation with vested interests, landowners,

developers, organised bodies, a few powerful people, but mainly the

people who are able to pay the experts to understand the sxstem and

take part in the continual requirement for more and more input

into the consultation, the consultants and people who lake

their living is out of this. I have read this bill carefully, and I have

read every damned word of it. This bill will make things worse. It will

make the planning system more centralised. There will be lore

detailed centralised control over everything that happens, less

influence for anybody locally, more complicated, less access of all to

people even to put their spoke in, and if you don't believe me, read

the bill, not the spin. My Lords, I declare an interest as a farmer

landowner and a chartered strveyor. I congratulate the government on

attempted to grip our housing crisis both through this bill and other

measures. We are making progress and this bill is part of that. But it

doesn't provide all the answers and I hope we can work on how to improve

the situation. The key is to provide adequate housing across all sectors

of society and all forms of tenure to suit as many people at as many

levels of income as possibld. It is essential that we do not reduce the

amount of housing available to the less well off, which I fear we are

doing. Government has a mor`l obligation to step in where

circumstances upset the norlal supply and demand, and for le, that

means rural England, where 80% of the population want to live, at

least in southern England, but where society rightly decrees that there

should be a limited number of houses built. Supply can never meet demand.

Actually, I am struck by how similar the problems are between thd

countryside and London. The on affordability of starter holes to

the majority of locals, for instance. The almost imposshbility

of finding space in the immddiate neighbourhood to replace those

affordable homes that are bding forcibly sold off. The despdrate

need to find housing for kex workers and impossibility of doing so. And

even the tendency for vacant houses to be bought up by outsiders at

prices that no local could possibly afford. And then sometimes, they are

left empty for large parts of the year by their new owners, foreigners

in London, second home in the countryside. Let us start whth the

starter homes in this bill. These add to our repertoire of making

homes more available to be owned by the young. But we know that these

particular young will have to be well above average wage earners in

at least 40% of local authority areas. The real problem with starter

homes is their transient sed, here today, gone tomorrow. Can wd

continue to build more and lore so starter homes ad infinitum to cater

for the continuous waves of aspiring young? Can we afford to? In the

countryside, you can't keep on building. In the Commons, the

minister said, we want to sde rural exception sites being used for

starter homes to enable thrhving rural villages to grow. This must

not happen. This is a compldte misunderstanding of what exception

sites are for. They are put in place for all time. Ackley, it will not

happen, because no farmer whll donate land to how is if it can be

sold to anyone in five years' time. No village will agree for the same

reason, unless the limited planning permission and the discount remain

in place for all time. That might help. Moving on to the voluntary

right to buy, hopefully, rural Housing associations recognhse the

urgent need to protect the lixed nature of rural communities, but it

is dangerous to introduce the possibility of the right to buy in

rural communities. Farmers `nd communities will have to gr`pple

with the new safeguards to protect sites in perpetuity, and will be

suspicious, making these much-needed exception sites less likely than

ever to come forward. I would like to see a blanket protection in law

for communities under 3000 from this right to buy. Let's face it, the

government will have troubld funding these right to buy discount anyway,

so why not make it clear to rural tenants from the beginning? Moving

on to local authority sales of high value stock, do the figures add up?

I will leave that to others. More importantly, will the replacement

houses to be built in the s`me communities, even built in the same

local authority where I comd from, that could mean 20 or 30 miles away,

roughly the distance between Hackney in north London and Sevenoaks in

Kent. I worry that rural villages will lose their last remainhng

public sector affordable hotses on a never to be replaced, and the next

generation will have nowherd to live. Moving swiftly on, pax to

stay, good idea in principld, but the 40,000 figures are too harsh.

Don't forget that rural famhlies below the poverty line often make

ends meet by being self-employed, with variable income is etc. Some

years, it works well, and in some years, the income is paltry, so over

what period of time does thd ?3 ,000 minimum apply? A three-year average

would be fair. In conclusion, this is a very bold bill. It is ` huge

social experiment. I'm in f`vour of a lot of things in the bill, like

starter homes and even pay to stay, providing we can tweak them so that

they do not have disastrous consequences. I support

homeownership. I can see thd argument that continuous letting

from generation to generation holds back the social mobility of the

aspiring young, but I do not agree that we should pay for the dream

that the noble lady referred to by selling off and reducing thd number

of affordable homes which still remain vital for those living at or

below the average wage. I hope we can work with government to avoid

the dangers inherent in the bill. In the countryside, I hope we can raise

the percentage of affordabld homes from its current 12% of housing

stock to the nearer urban average of 20%. Finally, the monitoring of this

social experiment Busby Rall proved for both religious and markdt towns

so that we can adjust and adapt to the inevitable problems that will

arise -- the experiment must be proved. I thank the noble Lords for

their excellent speeches. Wd are all too aware of the housing crhsis we

find ourselves in, which thhs bill is trying to address. Having a home

is a fundamental -- is important to us all. It gives long term

stability, giving an individual a stake in our society. We nedd to do

all we can to help more asphring homeowners realise their drdams

Nowhere is the lack of houshng more severe than here in London, as we

have heard. The soaring property prices mean it is very diffhcult for

young people wanting to comd here to work to find somewhere to lhve they

can afford. It is crucial that this is addressed. I wonder if mx noble

friend has figures of what percentage of residential property

in central London is now earned by foreign nationals. In recent years,

it would seem there has been crowding out of settled poptlation.

It is important that our own young people should not only be able to

come to work in London, but they can also buy a flat or a house.

Whilst clearly there is a nded for a quantity of housing, I hope you

would also degree that qualhty is important. Winston Churchill once

remarked that we shape our buildings and thereafter they shake us.

Upholding architectural standard is also essential in all types of

housing. Our environment has a dramatic impact upon our lives,

affecting our outlook and wdll-being and our health. It can be s`id that

of all artists, architects have the greatest responsibility to `nd for

the world around them. We already have many beautiful buildings in the

UK, but it would seem that this aspect is all too often forgotten in

new construction. We need to ask ourselves why the issue of planning

causes such tensions among local communities. Many housing

developments fail due to opposition from local communities. Usu`lly it

is because they are unhappy with the housing proposed. Too often there is

development from another. Whilst I development from another. Whilst I

believe our localism provishons which empower local authorities to

have a greater say should h`ve helped, they are only effective if

pricing is comparable. Big developers frequently ignordd the

specific and local context hn which they are building and local

materials. For example the beautiful stone of The Cotswolds and the dark

stone of Yorkshire. I also have concern over planning gain `nd it

may sometimes sway planning decisions. Existing residents need

to know new housing will enhance, not diminish their environmdnt, and

indeed diminish the value of their homes. If we just build an

attractive, low quality homds, we will not be achieving sustahnability

and it short-changes those who purchase them as well. 50 ydars ago

we thought tower blocks werd the answer to housing. How wrong we

were. We must avoid the samd mistakes and ensure we do not

present our successors with similar challenges. In smaller towns there

is much resentment when new development is bolted on in ways

that do not reflect or complement the original community. It hs

crucial new housing fits in and enhances the local communitx and

create cohesion. If we were to ensure new housing is sensitively

designed in relation to existing architecture, we could see ` step

change in local attitudes. This bill encourages building on brown field

sites and it is essential local authorities have sufficiently

knowledgeable and expert st`ff to assess potential developments and to

designate the sites. The current framework states the constrtction of

new buildings should be reg`rded as inappropriate for the green belt.

But I understand there are proposals currently under construction to

allow some local plans to bdgin allocating green belt land for

starter homes and there has been a sharp increase in the number of

homes that get full planning approval in the green belt. I

applaud the starter home concept. It is an innovative measure to help

first-time buyers, but rely upon them to infringe upon our precious

green belt cannot be the answer The green belt is sacrosanct and should

not be compromised as once concreted over, we will never get it back

Conservation officers have ` critical role to play and I hope my

noble friend will give issudrs this bill will continue to provide the

same level of protection to historic buildings. One of the most hmportant

ways we can ensure welcome `nd sustainable housing is built in the

right places is to include those affected neighbourhoods in the

planning process. Involving residents in the design of new

housing delivers a range of social and economic benefits, bettdr

meeting the needs of new and existing residents and creating more

attractive areas. I commend the measures contained within this bill

to extend the designation of neighbourhood areas. I belidve this

is crucial to ensure greater consideration is given to the

appropriateness of new houshng and will reduce the gridlock of

opposition to new developments and everybody wins. I welcome the

efforts to address the need for more homes which is so badly needed,

however we need to build holes that will last, nurture and enhance the

communities for years to cole. I think we are all in agreement about

the importance of housing and affordable housing, especially with

the new predictions on even greater population growth, and we all want

to see houses as secure and affordable homes in which pdople can

thrive and they are provided in ways which Foster mixed communithes and

are financially sustainable for the future. I do not think this bill

contributes much to that and it could make matters worse rather than

better. Several provisions have been introduced in haste at the last

minute, so we have got a serious job of work in front of us. I do not

want to focus in my brief mhnutes on the issue of the rush for starter

homes and home ownership, btt I agree with many noble Lords who have

already spoken on my concerns about reducing the availability of social,

supported housing and affordable housing for rent. I also endorse the

view that this bill is a bit of a pig in a poke. It is such a large

pig in such a large poke th`t you can hear it squeaking. It's primary

legislation is very broad, ht gives wide powers to the Secretarx of

State and is highly dependent on legislation. Will we be abld to see

the draft secondary legislation during committee stage, othdrwise

she is asking us to buy this pig in a poke and seeing? I want to focus

on the bill is a serious assault on the planning system and it hs a pity

the noble lord Lord Greaves is not in his place because I am a fan of

the planning system. It has stood us in good stead and has been one of

the jewels in the crown of British democracy and I do not agred with

the noble lord Lord Greaves that it is bust. It enables elected local

authority members to review evidence from a wide variety of sources and

to balance competing economhc, social and environmental nedds in

the interests of local commtnities. It has got clear mechanisms for the

involvement at all stages for local people and it is not as impdnetrable

as he makes it out. I find ht difficult to think that he finds it

impenetrable if he likes re`ding bills on his weekends off. H believe

the obligations on planning authorities to deliver the

government's starter homes policy means the planning system bdcomes

starter home lead rather th`n planning lead.

There are challenges under the viability system, so I would ask the

Minister to show how section 10 agreement and the role they provide

in shaping local infrastructure in providing local services and in

delivering other social bendfits will not be doubled up under the

pressure for starter homes. The second challenge that the bhll

introduces is a category of permission in principle for any

sites that are identified bx qualifying documents. The bhll

itself is very general in its approach to this, though I

understand initially this would be for Brown field registers. But it is

not clear they may not be other registers and qualifying documents

that would allow for this pdrmission in principle process to go `head.

Once a Brownfield site is on a list or a qualifying documents the

intention seems to be that hn order to give us your astute investors or

developers it then cannot bd removed. It has permission hn

principle. It is absolutely vital that there is clarity and

consultation on the criteri` for what I'm going to constitutd

qualifying documents and local people are able to be consulted on

and comment on such documents before they are agreed and immutable. If we

are talking about speed, I `m not sure we are simply putting `

requirement to consult very early on in the process rather than later on,

I am not clear that will silply reduce the logjam. The Minister

kindly organised the meeting with peers from across the House and I

asked the Minister for clarhfication at what stage local people would be

consulted. We need a flow chart showing what issues, such as

environmental, the importance of wildlife, flood risks, stiff

sustainability, open space `nd design, would be considered in this

new process. After it is on the register or in a document, the local

authority can only consider technical details. I have not had

the promised clarification from the Minister. I look forward to seeing

that shortly. We need to understand what this process will conshst of

before we agree it in this bill I would be very loaf if the process

did not ensure that there w`s proper consideration and consultathon on

environmental sustainabilitx and quality standards and if thhs

process did not involve loc`l people throughout. -- load. There `re a

number of other challenges to the planning system in the bill. It is a

shame some of them do not t`ckle the issues that really are at the heart

of some of the concerns. In my view, the slowness of the houses coming

forward on site is not necessarily availability of sites, but the

availability of finance for small builders for whom these small sites

are best suited. I hope that we can debate further during the p`ssage of

the bill other challenges to the planning system. The Secret`ry of

State being able to grant consent for housing through the

infrastructure process is a gross centralisation, the most am`zing

assault, which I do not unddrstand how big words, is the last-linute

insertion of scope for alternative providers to process planning

applications rather than thd local planning authority, particularly as

their advice will be binding on the planning authority. I am confused as

to how that will work. Thesd fundamental changes to the planning

system risk over focusing on speeding up the planning system when

the problem is not planning approvals, but building on

applications already granted. Skills, finance, measures to ensure

a large developers do not h`ng onto site to keep prices up, thex need to

be tackled before we rode the planning system which is a tribute

to localism and community involvement and democratic

accountability. In the limited time available to speak in this debate I

would like to speak from thd perspective of somebody who has been

involved for the last 12 ye`rs in challenging the housing associations

to improve their performancd and do more for development. I must declare

my interest is currently ch`ir of Housing Ok 21. Because of mx

experience of wanting to ch`llenge organisations to do better, I accept

that one should not take a totally negative view of the governlent s

challenges to housing assochations at this time, although I accept at

times I have been somewhat tested. Every challenge is an opportunity to

improve performance and there is great potential in housing

associations to build more homes, if only the government would rdalise

that potential. But that potential depends on a stream of rates, using

their assets well, creating surpluses so that you can fhnd funds

to do more development. There are two general questions I would ask

about this bill. The first hs will the bill help us build more homes

over the next ten years? Thd ten years is a relevant timescale, not

least because of the fact wd do not want to see 1 million homes built by

the next general election and then the housing industry going hnto its

normal, cyclical downturn and we are back to the average of

house-building for the next decade that we have seen in the past

decade. The second question I want to ask is, is it the type of housing

we want? Is it the quality `nd balance we want to meet gentine

need? Let's deal with the b`lance first. I just cannot believd that

the whole emphasis of this housing strategy on private ownershhp is

right. It cannot be right socially to have all your eggs in ond basket

and it is certainly not economically right either.

Subtitles will resume on 'Tuesday In Parliament' `t 2 00.