Housing and Regeneration Bill

It has been a useful and enjoyable debate, if only because I have my noble friend Lord Brooke advising us not to penetrate too far into the murky mind of a Secretary of State. That seems to be very sound advice. The Minister began with some fairly good capitalist principles, but then wrapped them up in so many layers of obfuscation than we all finished up more confused, rather than having our minds cleared. There were two issues. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, raised one, which the Minister has not really satisfied us on: whether Clause 10, particularly subsection (1), is in a sense contradictory to, or overrides, Clause 2(1)(c) dealing with the purposes of the Homes and Communities Agency. We will have to look at that difficulty very carefully. The noble Baroness, Lady Ford, said that the way in which the Bill was drafted appeared to be a step back from what is already actual practice. If that is the case, we must be very concerned about that. With the greatest respect to the Minister, we did not get a satisfactory answer on that. We will need to return to this issue, if only because we must have clarification. There is not a great deal of division between us, but I do not think that any of us are quite clear on either what the Bill means or what the Government intend. However, for now I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. [Amendments Nos. 55A to 57 not moved.] Clause 10 agreed to.