Who needs social housing?

He seemed to come from nowhere in June 1996 with his particular brand of non-nonsense Thatcherism in his dramatic bid to oust former prime minister John Major.

The bid for Tory party leadership failed of course, but it did the upwardly-mobile MP for leafy Wokingham in Surrey little harm in the aftermath of Major's disastrous electoral campaign a year later.

And now, with the party taking a rightward tack following its success in the recent European elections, Redwood and his passionately-held belief in independence and initiative are once more moving centre stage.

Last month, he was moved to the prestigious environment, transport and regional affairs portfolio opposite deputy prime minister and Labour heavyweight John Prescott.

Like Thatcher before him, Redwood is passionate about the virtues of hard work, free enterprise and private property.

So it should come as little surprise that in the arena of housing policy home ownership and right-to-buy should come at the top of his agenda.

But it is striking, and for two reasons. Firstly the whole idea of right-to-buy, seems at first sight at least, rooted in the politics of the past. Secondly, and more importantly, while Redwood seems to have clear ideas on how to take the idea forward, the rest of his party is busily embroiled in the early stages of its policy-forming 'Listening to Britain' campaign. Only last month at the Chartered Institute of Housing conference housing spokesman Nigel Waterson emphasised that the forthcoming Tory housing policy was an open book, and that housing professionals could play a crucial role in working it out.

First time around, in the 1980s, right-to-buy was a runaway success. Between 1981 and 1991, the social housing sector declined by some one million homes, mainly due to the programme which laid the foundation stone for the Thatcherite vision of 'property-owning democracy'.

Now Redwood has big plans for a second wave of right-to-buy in the new decade, and is keen to spell them out his ideas - many of which do not make pretty reading for the social housing world.

"We are looking at expanding right-to-buy and are certainly looking at good schemes to encourage people without so much money to get onto the ladder of home ownership, particularly through self-build schemes and low cost ownership," he says.

But hang on, this is 1999, not 1979. Right-to-buy purchases have fallen steeply in recent years isn't it something that has had its day?

Not so, apparently. Although he is aware that much of the stock left in council and housing association ownership is low value, he is convinced that a combination of tax breaks and financial incentives would make home ownership attractive for perhaps hundreds of thousands of tenants.

"One of the fashionable theories is that right-to-buy has declined because all the worthwhile properties have now been purchased. Well, we have to look at the state of the remaining stock and what liabilities they would bring with them and what kind of financial arrangement would be reasonable, but there are arrangements that would increase the rate of purchase," he says.

But how far can it go?

Redwood claims that half the six million people currently renting want to own their home and he wants to help them realise that dream.

Considering that four million of those tenants are in the social sector any policy to achieve this would have massive implications for social housing, going well beyond anything attempted at the height of right-to-buy in the mid 1980s. It even brings into question the existence of social housing sector as a mass provider of subsidised housing.

Redwood remains unfazed. He says: "In my own constituency home ownership is over 90 per cent and I would say we are rather well housed so we know that you can operate like that. Now, some would say that is because I've got higher average earnings than some parts of the country - but that is where we want to get to."

And neither is he bothered about whether tenants transfer from council or housing association ownership - both would be fully encouraged. Redwood maintains ownership is irrelevant. "I don't have an ideological view on whether they should be public, private or this sort of mezzanine sector - the housing associations - who are not truly private. They are very dependent on public money and many of them are just the old council housing department in a new guise."

Redwood argues that home ownership is superior to social ownership because it is, he suggests, cheaper for both residents and taxpayers in the long run.

Unlike homeowners, many tenants are - cruelly - forced to pay rent into their old age, he points out, and the taxpayer has to foot the bill for hundreds of thousands of other tenant pensioners for years on end.

"As a general rule, what I will want to do is give a big boost to schemes for home ownership. I do believe that home ownership is the best form of social housing," he declares.

He is also very keen on self-build and will be looking at ways it can be boosted. "It's quite an attractive option. If you are 25, able-bodied and a bit down on your luck but you know how to lay a brick or two and you've got a few chums, it might be a good way to make yourself a very nice asset and improve your skills at the same time," he says.

On the previous Tory housing policies, Redwood has few regrets. Significant increases in housing benefit in the late 1980s - letting housing benefit "take the strain" - was a carefully calculated policy, he says.

As for withholding of capital receipts from council house sales - it never happened. The belief it was going on was little more than a successful PR campaign by Labour to mislead people, he maintains.

He certainly has scant praise for the current government's record. On the Urban Task Force he says: "It is little or nothing too late. I'm deeply worried about migration from some of our towns and cities in the north and we should take action this day, not wait two years for a report from an eminent gentleman and then spend another year thinking about what he said. What they should be doing is having an industrial policy that gives manufacturing a chance."

But weren't the Tories responsible for it in the first place? Didn't they oversee the decline of the north's traditional industries in the 1980s and early 1990s and then urge people to "get on their bikes" and look for work?

"I do concede that there were too many industrial closures in the early 1990s because of mistaken policy but this government is taking £25 billion out of industry in higher taxes - they are de-industrialising the country quite quickly," he says.

As for the future, Redwood emphasises that these early thoughts have yet to go through the machinations of the Tory party's policy group and that some firmer statements can be expected at the party's conference in the autumn.

But it does seem that the days of cosy cross-party agreement on broad housing issues we have seen over the past few years could be numbered.

In a parting shot to housing professionals, Redwood argues they should listen more to tenants, especially ones who want to buy their own home. "Get to know your tenant's wishes rather better. There are two things that a lot of tenants want - they want to be an owner and/or they want more responsible service from the landlord, and I think in both areas we can do better."