Housing and Regeneration Bill

The more I listen to noble Lords the more I believe there are curious things in this clause that I did not understand when I tabled my amendment. There are some curiosities in it which need bottoming. There is no fundamental difference between the Minister and other Members of Committee on the need for the HCA to do some of these things or, preferably, to facilitate and support other people to do them. Although there are questions about the religious side of it, I do not believe there is a problem about cremation or burial services. If the agency is going to be involved in building a new town, it may need a burial ground, a cemetery and a crematorium. These are expensive to produce and, left to its own devices, the private sector will not provide them. Local authorities are usually shocked by the cost of providing crematoria nowadays. There is no argument about the basic need for a clause which allows the HCA to provide or support a broad range of services. Whether the list is correct—or whether putting ““community services”” down as a catch-all is more minimalist—I do not know, but there are some curiosities in relation to religion and social services. The wording has a meaning. It is okay for the Minister say, ““It does not mean social services; it means social provision””—but it says ““social services””. Returning to paragraphs (e) and (f), I am not sure whether the Minister picked up the point I was trying to make. Some of the activities on the list are practical things to do which also provide outcomes. For example, if you provide employment you are doing something actual and practical and you have the outcome of more people in jobs. But with health services—if that is not a statutory service I do not know what is—you are providing something that is not the outcome. If you were putting the outcome in the Bill you would not write ““health services””; you would say, ““The HCA may improve the health of people in an area””. The point I am making about anti-social behaviour or crime is that what is written down is just the outcome and not the process or the practical action which has to be taken. That is why it is a nonsense to put those two paragraphs into legislation. I am not arguing about the need to tackle these problems or about some of the things that work that the Minister mentioned—although if anyone knew how to do this perfectly we would be a much better society than we are—but huge and increasing work on the ground is going on to prevent and reduce anti-social behaviour and crime and to reduce the fear of them. There is no doubt about that. In some places it is extremely successful; in other places it is not so successful. The point I am trying to make with the amendment is that the clause should be rewritten to refer to the process and practical action rather than the predicted outcome. If you state that the outcome will be achieved it will be nonsense legislation because, in the words of my granny, it might or it might not. I do not think we will need a long discussion on this clause on Report. That would be a complete waste of everyone’s time when we may want to debate more fundamental matters. However, if we can get a meeting of minds in the mean time about a more sensible wording of the clause, we will probably reach a consensus. I hope the Minister will think in those terms. With that hope, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. [Amendment No. 77B not moved.] Clause 33 agreed to.