---

Housing and Regeneration Bill

The fact that there are 717 amendments, as the Minister bragged before, means that there is more than one for every day between now and the next general election. We could therefore have a Homes and Communities Agency advent calendar with an amendment behind every door, and on the final day—the day of the election—we could have the jolly face of the Minister to lift our spirits as we go to vote. All kinds of possibilities reside there—[Interruption]—especially if one has a vivid imagination. If the legislation is based on principles, let me deal with a principle that concerns what we do in this Chamber, where we increasingly talk about principles, but insert detail. I realise that a number of amendments tabled by the Liberal Democrats—and, indeed, the Conservatives—have been quite detailed, so I make this admonition to us all: perhaps we should be a bit more courageous in approaching the sort of issues that these amendments are designed to clarify and reduce the body of legislation we put forward by increasing our reliance on guidelines rather than on specific edicts. If we did so, the legislative process would be more transparent and we could make the Bill more flexible and avoid unintended consequences, which, with the best will in the world, this extensive piece of legislation is likely to bring. I praise the obvious capabilities of the first chief executive, Bob Kerslake, but I also believe that it is a bit dangerous to rely entirely on the abilities of the first person appointed to a job. One should not plan legislation on the basis of the best person likely to do the job, but on the basis of the worst case scenario. That is not to be cynical; it is simply to protect the public from things going wrong as a result of human error. For that reason, although I have no doubt that we will have an excellent first chief executive, I am slightly worried that we have not thought sufficiently about the worst case scenarios, as we discussed them in Committee. Nevertheless, the amendments go a long way towards improving the situation. I modestly point out that no fewer than 24 Government amendments in this group are a direct result of the sage work of my Liberal Democrat colleagues in the other place, who were persuasive in convincing Ministers of the merit of our case—or, where that failed, fortunate in winning the vote. I want to make three main points. The first is about the permitted purposes and types of development in the HCA remit. Lords amendments Nos. 6, 7, 16 and 17 are relevant and help a great deal to resolve issues previously discussed as a matter of concern. I am also encouraged by amendment No. 47, which will help to create a level playing field. It will make it difficult for the HCA to alter the terms of reference in varying or revoking a determination; and it will not be able to override the provisions relating to the events and principles according to which the exercise of its powers should be predetermined. That is a really important change, because it puts to rest one of the criticisms often made of such legislation, allowing consistency from the point at which the determination is made right through to the point at which it is acted on. The most important issues in the group are raised by Lords amendments Nos. 39, 40, and 42 to 46, which clarify what the authority can do in terms of entering into agreements with providers of social housing, including arrangements for sharing equity uplift between the authority and the provider. Again, we discussed the matter at some length in Committee, and I recall being concerned that the phrasing did not necessarily mean that the authority's remit would be conducive to improving the attractiveness and accessibility of shared equity schemes. We all think that shared equity schemes provide a sensible way forward, offering a very important additional rung in the housing ladder. I believe that in this area, the Government have provided something that is genuinely helpful; I give great credit to the Minister for not seeking to revoke a provision that we put him under some pressure to agree to. Finally, I agree with the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps) that there is much in this group of amendments to debate, but that it is not plausible for us to detain the House unduly by examining every amendment in detail. I have been putting forward a brush-stroke analysis of the amendments, but the mood music is right. The Minister has taken into account a number of our concerns. Let us hope that we have not over-regulated in our efforts to make the authority a bit more receptive to the importance of a genuine partnership working environment with local authorities and other providers of housing.