Housing and Regeneration Bill

I shall probably be the one who has to stop mid-sentence. I have a good deal of sympathy with the noble Earl’s Amendment No. 102ZD. I have read the assurances given throughout the debate in the Commons about the importance of objective 10. I do not think that anyone is quarrelling with that in itself but it just feels uncomfortable. I had difficulty articulating my problem with it but thought this morning that that is perhaps because objective 10 is how things are done, not what is done. That is why it is absolutely right that proportionality—I will use that word to encompass everything—should apply, but it is an overarching approach that applies to all the objectives. That is why it feels uncomfortable. When I first read the noble Earl’s amendment, I was not sure about paragraph (d), which seeks to achieve, "““the … objectives as far as possible””." I then realised that it is already in Clause 88(1), so I cannot take issue with it. We very much support the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins. I made that point when we discussed similar issues in the context of the HCA. I hope the answer will be that that is all wrapped up in objective 1, which deals with, "““housing, of appropriate quality, sufficient to meet reasonable demands””." I read ““demands”” as a range of demands for different types of housing. This is not simply a numbers matter. It may well be picked up. I am sure that that is intended. My amendments are minnows compared with those. Amendment No. 102B is the same amendment which the noble Earl moved in a different place, and is about information for tenants. I confess that I do not really know why I tabled Amendment No. 102C, as it is in objective 3. I do not know why I wanted it in objective 2. Perhaps that was the point at which I fell asleep. Amendment No. 103D is another way of probing whether objective 10 is overarching and applies to the whole package, as I understand it to be from what has been said.