---

Housing and Regeneration Bill

May I, too, say that we feel some frustration that we cannot really consider the amendments in the group in detail, given the timetable? However, it would be churlish of us not to say that, with this group, the Government have, albeit under duress, taken on board the recommendations made in another place, which were also the subject of extensive conversation in Committee. The Minister has again demonstrated his genuine commitment to trying to make improvements, even when that means humbly taking on board recommendations that originated in opposition parties and organisations outside Parliament. On this specific group of amendments, we support the improvement in tenants' rights during stock transfer. On the question of ballots, I have said before that anything can be achieved if one uses the financial incentives and disincentives that are abundantly obvious to anyone who looks at the Government's approach to stock transfer. To be blunt, it is obvious that this Government—for some dogmatic reason—think that transferring stock out of local authority control is something actively to be promoted. It hardly comes as a surprise, therefore, that colleagues in my party—and in the Minister's party—are unhappy about the fact that there is such a financial disincentive not to transfer stock. Having said that, there have been improvements in the process. While the structural improvements are welcome, we will have to return on another occasion to the policy obstacles that local authorities regularly meet when facing the unenviable dilemma between unwillingly encouraging the transfer of stock or accepting the economic hit of keeping it under local government control. Family intervention tenancies are overdue, and will become even more important in the difficult economic times ahead. Tightening up the definition of behavioural support services is useful, but those services must be properly resourced, and simply putting them into a Bill will not be enough to ensure that the money is available to make them work. Tolerated trespass was a subject that occupied a lot of our time in Committee, and it is good to see some improvements in regard to the restoration of certain rights. This should now work better, but we might have to return to the issue if, in practice, the application of the tolerated trespass legislation is not achieving its goals. People are very inventive, and if they find ways to achieve their goals that go against the spirit of the legislation, this might be a useful subject for a statutory instrument. Let us hope for the best, however. We have inevitably discussed the impact of migration on housing. I still hold the view that immigration provides a net financial benefit to this country. We have almost full employment, and many jobs would not be done if those migrants were not here. There are of course consequences for housing. Notwithstanding this legislation, we still have something of a schizophrenic approach towards the economic benefits of allowing migration into this country, which I support, and the pressures on housing and other social services that unquestionably cause varying levels of strain in local communities. It is beyond our remit to discuss that matter today, but I hope that the Government are cognisant of the fact that the HCA on its own will not be able to resolve some of these issues, as they have profound social consequences that even an effective HCA with an excellent chief executive cannot resolve. Lords amendments Nos. 169 to 171 relate to transfer proposals, in which I am particularly interested. We have already discussed them, and the eminently sensible improvements that have been made reflect the actions of a listening Minister, following an extensive dialogue in this House and another place. Finally, I want to make a policy observation. The right-to-buy proposals that form a substantial part of this legislation—as well as existing legislation—do nothing to help to maintain a social housing stock. They obviously help individuals to move up the housing ladder, but that on its own is not enough to ensure that the 1.67 million people—