Housing and Regeneration Bill

I have Amendment No. 55A in this group, which seeks to define ““best consideration””, in that it should be, "““assessed having equal regard to social, economic and environmental benefits””." The issue of best consideration was debated at some length in the Commons, and I want to pick up some of the points from that debate. The Minister said that the restriction on the disposal of land was needed to safeguard the public purse. It seems to me that the thinking has moved on so that the public purse is regarded as being more than just a matter of immediate cash. Looking not very far into the future, ““sustainability”” covers far more than just cash, but if that is how the Government are thinking, it will achieve cash savings. I am sure that the Government are not as old-fashioned in their thinking as that seems to indicate. I did not want to put into the collective mind of the Government that even if one is looking only in monetary terms at what is best consideration, the criteria and the factors are more than society accepted in the relatively recent past. Secondly, the issue of general consent was raised. The Secretary of State has the power to give a general consent. Like the noble Lord, I want to know what factors might be in the Secretary of State’s mind, and what comfort the Government could give on the basis of examples since 2003 of when a general consent has been, or could have been, given to local authorities. What is the current thinking on this? My amendment is perhaps a little tougher than the noble Lord’s, and tougher than I am allowing for in these remarks. I am conscious of the time and the need to make progress, and it may be appropriate to come back to the issue of principle on Report, when Members of the Committee have better understood the Government’s thinking on this. Reading Hansards, I am not thus far persuaded that the Government’s thinking is where I would want to see it.