Housing and Regeneration Bill

I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this important debate. The noble Viscount is always rightly concerned with good governance. I am very grateful for the support of my noble friend because he brought up some important issues that would be likely to arise if we were to accept the noble Lord’s amendment, no matter that it is tabled with good intentions. I hope that I can reassure my noble friend that there are standards and guidelines to ensure that the recruitment of board members is open and fair. We rely on the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments, OCPA, which already has clear guidelines on the length of appointment terms for board members. A member’s term of appointment will not generally last for longer than 10 years and this period may include two terms of office—for example, two terms of five years. To be appointed for the second term of five years, the member would have to have received a satisfactory performance assessment, so I am sure that noble Lords will agree there is a measure of performance reporting. I have just checked with my noble friend Lady Ford who tells me that the average tenure on the board of English Partnerships was five years. It will be a matter for the Secretary of State to determine the length of appointments, but she is bound by these principles. I worry that the amendments proposed by my noble friend—my noble friend Lord Graham alluded to this—may not be sensible in terms of good and stable government. There would be built-in inconsistency and turbulence if you had to recruit a third of the board every year. That would disable strategic leadership. I hope that the noble Viscount in particular will accept that argument and be reassured by it. I turn to the noble Viscount’s Amendment No. 7. He is absolutely right. The accounting officer is indeed the chief executive—who will be Sir Bob Kerslake—which is the normal procedure. On his Amendment No. 12, it is charming to hear that the Treasury has so many friends around the Room and that noble Lords want it to be more, rather than less, visible. An explicit requirement for the Secretary of State to give HMT approval prior to issuing an accounts direction is not needed. The current financial requirements placed on public bodies stem from the Treasury’s guidance, Managing Public Money, and the financial reporting manual. Under the requirements of this guidance, all sponsoring departments must have a framework document that sets out what the specific responsibilities of the body will be. One part of that is the accounting arrangements. The Secretary of State of the sponsoring department must issue to the body an accounts direction that has the agreement of HM Treasury. Therefore, the Secretary of State is already under a duty to consult HMT before issuing any accounts direction. The Treasury’s involvement in the form of accounts that the HCA will issue is therefore implicit; it will be required before any directions issued by the Secretary of State under paragraph 12(5) of Schedule 1. I am fairly convinced, although I stand to be corrected, that this is fairly common practice in legislation, which is why we do not need the explicit approval of the Treasury to be mentioned in the Bill, but I shall be happy to hear what the noble Viscount has to say.