Housing and Regeneration Bill

I shall think of Don Corleone in a slightly different light after that. I shall speak about this subject when I move Amendment No. 33 later, but the points are similar. My amendment seeks to extend the definition of ““quality”” to include, "““ensuring the suitability of housing for people with physical disabilities and sensory impairments””." When I drafted it, I had in mind temporary problems as well as the permanent ones to which the noble Lord has referred. The noble Lord talked about the problems of creating a list, and indeed the Minister in the Commons rejected similar amendments on that basis. I disagree with that analysis of what this or a similar amendment would do. They do not seek to introduce another type of housing, but to ensure that all housing is built or, if necessary, remodelled to allow for people who are growing older and whose physical and sensory abilities are somewhat reduced. I do not have to go through the arguments about the needs. However, this is not qualitatively the same as a ““type”” of housing because it is an overarching provision. It should apply to all housing. I should like to make a separate point. I acknowledge absolutely the Government’s aim to ensure that housing is built to lifetime home standards by 2013. That raises an issue not only about the timeframe but also about the existing housing stock and what might be done about it. I hope that the Minister can give us an assurance that budget allocations for renewal and regeneration will not be diverted in order to fulfil numerical targets for lifetime homes by the creation of new housing to the detriment of remodelling and adapting existing housing. For an individual, that is often the most attractive and desirable option, and probably the least expensive.