Housing and Regeneration Bill

No one would argue with the sentiments that have been expressed. I made a note of a couple of things that the noble Lord, Lord Best, said which made me think about the practicalities of all this. I agree with what has been said so far about not having representatives on the HCA board. Nevertheless, human nature means that individuals’ own backgrounds come into play perhaps more than features with us when we try to create neat legislation. The noble Lord talked about building six houses in the middle of nowhere. I use his words; I would not like it to be thought that we on these Benches regard the countryside as being nowhere. There are different financial and practical considerations in getting the numbers up in urban areas. The Cerne Abbas experience sounds very familiar to me from an urban background just as much as a rural one. There is interdependency between towns and countryside, and I do not want to forget that. Three terms in the amendment struck me. First, there is ““particular account””. It is a question of balance, but should the HCA be taking particular account of rural communities? I am not persuaded that that is the way to express it. It should take account, but I am not sure that that should outweigh other considerations. The ““viability”” of communities is important; that they are capable of independent existence. It should not just be about ““rural communities”” but all communities. I do not at all disagree with the concerns that have been expressed, but I have reservations about whether this is the way in which to achieve it, because the suggestion implicit and perhaps explicit here—I know that noble Lords who have different backgrounds to mine will inevitably see these things differently—is that other considerations should be secondary. I am sure that is not in the mind of the Government; it is certainly not in mine.