UK Parliament / Open data

Housing and Regeneration Bill

Often the most innocuous-looking amendments reveal the greatest issues in the Committee. I am grateful for the noble Baroness’s explanation. I was a bit puzzled by her amendments because Amendment No. 3, for example, seeks to remove the ability of a Secretary of State to make an informed decision on whether a potential board member’s interests, financial or otherwise, would impact prejudicially on their ability to undertake the functions of a board member. That would remove a very important part of the judgment that the Secretary of State needs to make. Obviously, before making an appointment it is important, for reasons that we have already rehearsed this afternoon, that the Secretary of State is in full receipt of all the information that she needs to make that judgment. If, for example, the person is a landowner or member or employee of another organisation, the Secretary of State will have to consider the potential implications of those interests balanced against the activities they would be expected to carry out as a board member. As we have said earlier, we are looking for people with relevant knowledge and experience. It may be that they will have financial or other interests that are relevant to the work of the agency, but it may also be that those interests will not affect its ability to do a very good and significant job on the board. Therefore, one needs that flexibility. The noble Baroness asked about the relationship with paragraph 9 of Schedule 1. We provided in that paragraph that should any particular interest held by a member impact on a particular committee or sub-committee’s considerations, he or she should declare that interest to the committee. The ability of the Secretary of State to exercise discretion over those interests when making an appointment is separate from the impact that those interests may have on the functions and activities of the HCA. That is how it ties up. To expand on ““other interests””, perhaps the noble Baroness would be interested to see the text taken from the application form for the chair of the HCA for the recommended wording in the Cabinet Office guidance on making and managing public appointments. It states that he or she is required to, "““give details of any business or other interests or any personal connections which, if you are appointed, could be misconstrued or cause embarrassment to the Homes and Communities Agency or communities or Communities and Local Government (CLG). These could include financial interests or share ownership, active connections with a field of expertise in which the Home and Communities Agency work, membership of societies, activities, associations or employment or a partner or friend in the particular field in which the public body operates. Any potential conflicts of interest … will not prevent you going forward to interview but may, if appropriate, be explored with you … to identify how you would address the issue(s).””" That is a fairly full account of what we interpret as being ““other interests”” as well as financial interests. On Clause 4, the noble Baroness asked why we need this in the Bill. The amendment would remove the ability of the Secretary of State to request information from a potential appointee who could help to explain the nature of any financial or other interests that people may hold, which would restrict the ability of the Secretary of State. As I have explained, it is a perfectly legitimate request. I seem to remember that when we debated the GLA Bill last year, we had a debate on the nature of information that would be requested under different circumstances. It might have been a different point, but I seem to remember that we had a not dissimilar debate. Amendment No. 5 is very closely related to Amendment No. 3. Again, it removes the ability of the Secretary of State to request information from a potential appointee that could help to explain the nature of any financial or other interests that a person may hold in relation to their ability to exercise the functions of an HCA board member. That, again, would restrict the ability of the Secretary of State to make informed decisions about the suitability of potential appointments. Schedule 1(1)(3)(b) requires the Secretary of State to be satisfied that an appointee has no financial or other interests. That is the correct test and we do not want to remove the responsibility from the Secretary of State for deciding the nature of the interest held and the impact that it could have. We have already spoken today about the importance and significance attached to the work of the board and its wide scope and its need to have very credible, powerful advocates and so on. This is obviously a decision that needs to rest with the Secretary of State as long as she is in full receipt of all the necessary information. When a public appointment is made, someone has to take responsibility for satisfying themselves that the appointee is suitable. We again are driven by Cabinet Office guidance, which suggests that in these circumstances it is the responsibility of the Secretary of State to exercise that discretion. In relation to Amendment No. 10, I accept what it seeks to achieve, which is to be commended. It is about securing openness and accountability in public bodies, which I appreciate—but, predictably, it is not necessary. Alongside this legislation there is guidance in place that sets out that all NDPBs must have a code of practice under which board members must operate. I understand that English Partnerships has such a requirement that places discretion in the hands of the chair of the committee about whether a member should remain on that committee if they have an interest. The Housing Corporation has a similar provision in its code of conduct. Therefore, it makes sense that the new agency has a similar requirement in the code of conduct that its own board members will have to adhere to. I also suggest that, should a board member consider it appropriate, they could themselves seek to leave the meeting. Clearly, legislation is not required to enable them to do that. It may not just be for reasons of any interest that may be held; there may be issues such as previous involvement or certain knowledge of the issues, so it encompasses a wider spread. I know that Members of the Committee will be aware that the Committee on Standards in Public Life has set out the seven principles by which public appointees should carry out their functions, often referred to as the Nolan principles. We would expect the HCA board, as with every other public appointee, to adhere to those principles. I hope that that helps to clarify concern on that particular amendment. Amendment No. 11 follows much the same procedures. It has made me think carefully about the actual proceedings in committees versus the theoretical proceedings. I understand the intent and it is to be applauded, because it would formally require any former member who has a declared interest to absent themselves from the meeting while the particular matter is under discussion. In practical terms, I believe that it is already standard procedure and we do not need to include it in the Bill for the reasons that I explained, particularly in relation to the code of conduct. With those caveats, I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to withdraw her amendment.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
701 c292-5GC 
Session
2007-08
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand Committee
Back to top