---

Housing and Regeneration Bill

Of course I agree. It is important that we move on after quite a tortuous process, but it is better to get the legislation right rather than doing things hurriedly and ending up with the wrong legislation. The Opposition laudably tabled the proposals in the first place, but the only problem was that they were in the wrong part of the Bill so they would not have done quite what we wanted. I am glad that the process has worked as it should and has teased out the facts, looked at the information in totality and applied it in the most sensible way possible so that we have a piece of legislation that is fit for purpose. I thank David Rodgers, the chief executive of CDS Co-operatives, who has done much work behind the scenes. He is not completely satisfied, as the Minister knows. We shall live to fight another day, because we want to look at some of the ways land trusts can apply to other aspects of community ownership as well as housing. The wonderful community empowerment Bill is coming up, and we hope to look at the issue then and make use of the wonderful opportunities that are being offered. I will not use the words ““social engineering””, which are dangerous in this day and age, but we can consider how communities can engineer opportunities to solve their problems. I make no bones about the fact that the issue is important in rural areas and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy) says, it is important in urban areas, too. The main thing, however, is that we see it as important in its own right and not as something that will sit on the shelf gathering dust. The provisions will actually make a difference. A form of ownership was beginning that had no statutory basis whatever. That could not be right; it could have led to all sorts of legal challenges in the future. Quite apart from the issue of finance, there is the simple fact that community governance could have been undermined if there was a legal challenge. It is absolutely right that the provisions are in place. I have two caveats, which we might consider in subsequent measures. My hon. Friend the Minister will no doubt have an overview of any legislation that may be introduced in the next Session. We need to consider both how we define communities and how they generate enthusiasm for ideas bottom-up. We need to be careful, because the current definition is a bit narrow and self-seeking. We need to ensure that it gives as much opportunity as possible. In addition, my friend David Rodgers would have words with me if I did not point out that we need to make it clear that in terms of forms of mutual home ownership, there is a particular co-operative way in which community land trusts can operate. If I did not make that point, it would also disappoint my three Co-operative friends on the Labour Benches—[Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Reed) has just glanced at me. I apologise for not including him. The mutual home ownership model is not the only form of community land trust and not necessarily the most preferred model at present, but in essence it is a genuinely co-operative form of ownership that some of us—especially at the Cashes Green scheme that the Minister will be visiting shortly—are keen should be pioneered. We think it has particular advantages where a community has really begun to address its problems and to propose solutions in which it has complete faith because it has ownership of them. I thank the Minister. This is a wonderful day because it is nice to see a bit of legislation on which I may have made an imprint, although I would in no way claim responsibility for it.