---

Housing and Regeneration Bill

I do agree. I helped to set up Home-Start, and I appreciate its value as an alternative to Sure Start in the voluntary sector. Bad housing is clearly a large part of the reason why some children are disadvantaged. Let me end by raising a matter to which my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby may have already referred. I apologise if he has, but reinforcement does no harm. My hon. Friend the Minister sent my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby a letter, dated 29 February this year. One of its final paragraphs deals with funding for stock-retention authorities that have either chosen not to hold a ballot or chosen not to accede to a decision to sell council stock. It states:"““You will know that we have been very clear that there would be no additional funding for those authorities””." A degree of unfairness is involved, as funding is provided by the private sector. In the next paragraph, my hon. Friend the Minister states:"““The vast majority of retention authorities are on target to meet the Decent Homes standard by 2010.””" That is absolutely true, which is why it seems unfair that we have been forced to accept the ballot route. The letter continues:"““Many of those who have homes that will not be made decent by 2010 are not 'struggling'””" —that is, in need of a sell-off to meet their losses in income—"““but are seeking to realise greater benefits by re-profiling their work (and meeting the target at a later date), possibly by integrating the work into wider regeneration ambitions.””" I ask my hon. Friend to explain to us how that can work. Authorities like mine, in rural or semi-rural areas, will not necessarily have easy access to major regeneration schemes, but may expect their stock to reach decent homes standards by 2010. Such authorities may be at their wits' end over how to deal with their potential losses, which were initially caused by housing benefit unfairness but which, nowadays, have more to do with the siphoning off of rent income. What future do they have? They want to hear from the Government, whom they have stuck with. They have not opted for alternative solutions, and they are keen to see new build which will replenish local authority stock. That seems to be where the Bill is taking us, but we want to hear some concrete facts from the Minister. If he tells us how what we want to happen can be made possible, we may not have to press new clause 8 to a vote, because our Government will have listened—following resolution after resolution. The new clause is linked to new clause 1, in that if it came to a ballot in the future, at least there would be a level playing field for tenants in respect of who they wanted their owners and managers to be.