Housing and Regeneration Bill

I thank the Minister for her reply and I thank noble Lords who took part. If I do a quick piece of arithmetic, my rotation of the board is very unlikely to leave anybody on the board for fewer than six years and is most likely to leave them on for nine years and in exceptional circumstances for 12 years, so I do not think that I am a long way away from 10, if you work out what my amendment means. I am not going to die in a ditch for two periods of five years as against three periods of three years. I am looking for certainty in the minds of members of the board about their circumstances because they talk to each other about their chances of being reappointed. They have those discussions. If they are to act as an independent and strong board, they need that certainty and to have as much doubt removed from their lives as possible. It is absolutely fine to talk about guidelines, but I would prefer that Parliament decides on these matters. Guidelines can be changed whereas Acts of Parliament are more difficult to change. These provisions give the Executive too much power and the Secretary of State too much discretion and too much flexibility, which it would be better to reduce. I may wish to come back to this matter. Just before concluding, there is another inconsistency. Sometimes the chief executive is a member of the board and sometimes not. No reason is ever given for why on this occasion we decided that the chief executive should be a member of the board and on that occasion we decided the reverse. One has a suspicion that the reasons lie in the terms of agreement with the individual, and Parliament is unsighted on that. That is not right. I happen to support the chief executive not being on the board because a fully independent set of directors on a non-departmental public body is better than mixing it up in a private sector mode with executive directors. I must choose my words carefully, but it is much easier for the Treasury to control the game if the board is unitary than if it is wholly non-executive. That comes from hard experience of having been both chairman and chief executive of more than one non-departmental public body. I thank the Minister for her answer about the question on the Treasury, but the point goes rather wider. For example, in relation to a housing corporation’s finances, the Housing Associations Act 1985, which is still relevant, states: "““The Treasury may issue to the Secretary of State out of the National Loans Fund such sums as are necessary””," and: "““The Secretary of State may act under this section only with the approval of the Treasury””." The Treasury comes into the whole question of borrowings, the terms on which the borrowings are made and on repayments in one or other of the Acts. It is not only a matter of the accounting directions, which is an administrative matter about which I have no problems. I can see that it is entirely sensible to be controlled by directions issued by the Secretary of State with the approval of the Treasury. The Minister said that it was not necessary to have that in the Bill. I think that it would be better to include it, but I would not die in a ditch about it. However, other aspects of the Treasury's involvement need to be reconsidered.