好色先生TV

Yvette Cooper knows that housing has been 鈥渞ising up the political agenda鈥� for all her four years as minister for housing and planning. But after it was second on the agenda at prime minister Brown鈥檚 first Cabinet, we can say it has finally risen. As has the minister responsible for it: Cooper has joined Ed Balls as half of the first married couple to sit in Cabinet.

There will be no time for sentiment, though. Last month鈥檚 housing green paper pledged a 20% increase in housing output, which if it were achieved, would add up to 3 million new homes by 2020. So Cooper has to deliver. To do so, she will need more than a charming smile and her characteristic frankness; she needs to get the housebuilders on her team.

鈥淚t鈥檚 important that the building industry itself recognises its responsibility to meet that challenge and to expand,鈥� she says in her spacious corner office on the top floor of the communities department鈥檚 Eland House. 鈥淢any in the development industry have told us that they have the capacity to expand quite significantly but we need to make sure that this is the case.鈥�

A thinly veiled attack on housebuilders鈥� pride is a fair enough place to start 鈥� after all, chief executives love nothing more than to compare the size of their development programmes. But Cooper鈥檚 BBC Question Time persona is of a minister who doesn鈥檛 venture far from her briefing notes (sample comments: 鈥淵ou have to get the quality as well as the quantity,鈥� and 鈥淲e need to bring more young people into training鈥�). But it will take more than platitudes to build all those houses.

Above all, she has to deal with the fact that much of the industry blames her for what it sees as a failure to bring enough land to the market. (Another sample comment, this time from a housebuilder: 鈥淚f the government wants to get the numbers of new homes it鈥檚 talking about then it鈥檒l need to simplify the planning system instead of constantly tinkering with it.鈥�) Although well known for her measured approach, this is an issue that seems to have got under Cooper鈥檚 skin 鈥� and two can play at the blame game.

鈥淚 want to look further at making sure developers don鈥檛 just sit on land with planning permission,鈥� she says, diving straight into one of the most controversial issues thrown up by the green paper. 鈥淎t the moment you can lose the planning permission after three years. If you have done a little bit of work to commence the development 鈥� and that can just involve putting a spade in the ground 鈥� I think that鈥檚 probably not enough. Therefore we want to look at ways of requiring more significant investment in the infrastructure of a site in order to be able to keep that planning permission.鈥�

Observers familiar with Cooper鈥檚 recent public jousts over housing numbers with the awkward squad of regional assemblies in the South-east and east of England will perhaps recognise this flash of steel. But there鈥檚 more: 鈥淚 think that in the end the private sector has an interest in responding to rising demand. It is a problem, and I think a failure in the market, that we鈥檙e not seeing sufficient response to the rising demand for housing.

It is fair that a proportion of planning gain should be captured to support the infrastructure that is needed to make the homes possible in the first place

It is therefore important that both the private sector and the public sector actually respond to that challenge.鈥�

This recalls the bombast of her former boss John Prescott, but Cooper has a more astute grasp of the facts of economic life, particularly when she calls for foreign firms to build more homes in England. 鈥淚 think that would promote greater competition 鈥� we鈥檇 like to see more entry into housebuilding and development. If we can learn from the techniques used by companies working abroad and in other parts of Europe where they are currently further ahead of us on environmental standards, it will be good for housing in this country as well.鈥�

One area where the government has succeeded brilliantly in instilling a sense of unity and purpose into the housing industry is in opposition to its planning gain supplement (PGS). It is more than three years since economist Kate Barker suggested it as a means of extracting some of the 鈥渨indfall gains鈥� conferred by the granting of planning permission. Since then the government has investigated, consulted and is currently investigating some more. The industry is steadfast in its opposition, but Cooper is determined to press ahead if, as the green paper says, the industry does not bring forward alternative proposals.

鈥淲e are clear that we need to raise more resources from planning gain. We know that, although some councils do raise a lot of resources through the section 106 process, others don鈥檛. There are all sorts of limitations with the current process. Given the big increase in land value that takes place, it is fair that a proportion of that planning gain should be captured to support the infrastructure that is needed to make the homes possible in the first place.鈥�

When I mention the industry鈥檚 opinion of that argument, she responds: 鈥淎 lot of other approaches aren鈥檛 sensitive to the land value and the planning gain increase in the same way. That is why we think there are advantages to a planning gain supplement.鈥�

As our 15 minutes draws to a close, Cooper manages to squeeze in a quick pledge to press ahead with another controversial plan: home information packs. 鈥淲e鈥檙e expecting to roll it out as swiftly as we can.鈥� Then, ever the polite host, Cooper shows me to the door, saying that since Brown took over the 鈥減ace of things have just moved incredibly fast鈥�. She will be crossing her fingers that housebuilders can be persuaded to keep up.