Housing and Regeneration Bill

I am grateful to everyone who has taken part and to the Minister for setting out government policy. I did not expect her to do other than that, but she rightly reminded us that a major review is taking place, which is precisely why I used the phrase ““in the next couple of years””, during which there may well be changes in policy. There is an increasingly major debate taking place on this matter and, as the Minister said, it is taking place very much within the Labour Party, as it is everywhere else. There is hope that perhaps minds are being changed a little and my reason for tabling the amendment was partly to contribute to that process and to the debate. I accept that for technical reasons the amendment cannot be accepted in its present form; it is a means of facilitating our debate. I deliberately moved it in a fairly low-key and non-political way. In other forums, we might have had a bit more of a go at one another—I would certainly have had a go at the Government and the Labour Party—but this is not the place to do it. Nevertheless, expectations have been raised by what senior politicians have said, particularly the Prime Minister, and there is considerable dismay among people who are finding out that it perhaps does not mean what they thought—I shall put it no more strongly than that. The fundamental question is: will it be possible for local authorities that still have traditional council housing to build new council housing to contribute to the 3 million target? At the moment, the answer appears to be, ““No, it will not, except in very special circumstances in a very few places””. The Minister spoke about additionality that comes from building by RSLs and housing associations, and there is no doubt that there are schemes where that is the case. There is no doubt also that finding it is more difficult for them and that, in many cases, housing associations cannot build without social housing grant as part of the package. It is therefore quite clear that local authorities, too, will not be able to build without social housing grant. The Minister raised a much wider debate about local authorities and what she called place-making—it is not a word that I would use, but I recognise that it is part of the new Labour jargon. I think that I understand what it means; that is: ““rather than being providers””. This is a much wider debate about the role of local authorities, which some of us think that Nicholas Ridley started off a long time ago when he thought that local authorities should have just one meeting a year to enable everybody else to do things. I am not suggesting that the Government are in any way going as far as that, because in many areas they are giving local authorities more powers and resources. Enabling and providing are not alternatives; it is possible to do both. The mix should depend on what the people in each area—that is, the electors, the residents and the elected councillors—want. That would differ, which is fine. However, that is part of a much wider debate into which I shall not go any further. The Minister touched on the important issue of where the extra resources would come from. If the social housing sector is going to make a significant contribution to the 3 million houses, and perhaps an increasing proportion given the state of the private housing market, extra resources will be needed. That is a question to which the Government will simply have to face up. If they do not provide the extra resources, they will not get the extra houses and many of us think that they will not hit the 3 million target. I am grateful to the Minister for what she said. We look forward to her detailed explanation of how the system and the financing will work. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.