Housing and Regeneration Bill

The noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, said that, under his amendment, people would know where they stood. They would be there for three years and then, whether they liked it or not, would be terminated or their services not renewed. Three years is a short time in the life of what I hope this body will evolve into. From a strategy point of view, we are looking at 10, 15 or 20 years at least. It is 20 years since such a major change as is envisaged in the Bill. We are looking for people to devote themselves, their lives, their careers and their prospects substantially, if not wholly, to the fulfilment of the strategic objectives of the Bill. People might argue that there are elections every three or four years and it is up to the electorate to take them off if they want to, but I am not looking at this as a resting place for politicians. The political complexion of individuals will probably be known and balanced, but we are looking for men and women who can devote themselves to the strategic objectives of the Bill for a period longer than three years. I know the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, and his supporters may say that if they have done a first-class job, they can be renewed. Of course they can, but uncertainty about whether they will be renewed after three years is a heavy burden. The Minister may have something to say on that. In the absence of these amendments, I remember that there is a body that recommends a finite limit to the useful life of a member of a body of this kind—I think it is 10 years. If we are looking at a 10-year membership, or two periods of 5 years, that is more acceptable and agreeable. Above all, the officers of this body need to rely not just on continuity but also longevity. I would not be surprised if some people who were originally appointed were there for many years, but under this amendment, some people who are appointed would possibly be for the chop after the first year because the three-year rotation system must take place. I do not look forward to members of the body that has these imperatives looking over their shoulders every year at a major change in the membership. I look forward to what the Minister has to say. I do not like the amendment and hope that it is not acceptable to her either.