---

Housing and Regeneration Bill

The Minister has kindly corrected me. That is an extraordinary number. Perhaps a couple of new ones have been added at the last minute, which I was unable to count. It is extraordinary that we should now be in the position of needing to approve 313 amendments—I invite the Minister to correct me if I am out by one or two—coming back from the Lords, many of which are included in this important first group dealing with the powers of the Homes and Communities Agency. Had there been more consensus on this matter at an earlier stage, we might have been able to avoid this late rush of 313 amendments from the other place. I am pleased, however, that the Minister has referred today to giving way on the so-called list principle. Those of us who served on the Committee will remember that the answer to almost any point put to the Minister—no matter how practical or real the problem involved—was met by the simple objection, ““We can't add that to the Bill because there will be a list principle that will be ruined by adding a list of items.”” Yet, as has already been mentioned, there is now a fourth objective for the Homes and Communities Agency, which further adds to the list. In fairness to the Minister, I am delighted that he has characteristically given way on that simple principle, and conceded that it is possible to improve a Bill by adding to a so-called list of items. It is a pity, however, that many of those changes could not be made until the Bill reached the other place. I wonder why the Government had their conversion on the road to Damascus in the other place, and not in Committee in this House. Perhaps the Minister will explain why. Good arguments were being put forward from both sides in Committee, from housing experts on the Back Benches. Their arguments seemed perfect erudite, yet they simply were not accepted by the Minister at the time. However, when they were put forward in the other place and by outside organisations, they suddenly became entirely acceptable. Had we listened to the convincing arguments put forward by hon. Members during the earlier stages of the Bill, we could have improved it much more quickly, but we are now having to consider an enormous number of amendments in a very short time. We should have debated them correctly in the right place and at the right time, and improved the Bill at an earlier stage. I ask the Minister to reflect on that experience.