Housing and Regeneration Bill

moved Amendment No. 14: 14: Clause 2, page 1, line 10, leave out ““objects”” and insert ““objectives”” The noble Baroness said: This may seem to be a small point, but it may be an important one to make. I should give a name check to Tim Oliver, a researcher in our Whips’ Office because it was his point. When he asked the staff of the Public Bill Office why the term ““objects”” rather than ““objectives”” is used in Clause 2, they replied that they too were puzzled by it. I believe that the Minister’s office said something to the effect that it was the draftsman’s style. Perhaps there is more than one draftsman on the Bill because the part dealing with the Homes and Communities Agency uses different terminology from that employed for Oftenant. I do not know whether the terms ““objects”” and ““objectives”” are regarded as synonyms, but the primary meaning of ““object”” is that of something which is perceptible and the focus of attention; the secondary meaning is that it is a purpose or aim. I noticed last Tuesday that nearly every speaker who referred to the objects of the Homes and Communities Agency used the word ““objectives””, and the Hansards for proceedings in the Commons also show that ““objectives”” was used. What is important here is that a different term is used for the objectives of the regulator, Oftenant. If different terms are used to mean the same thing, there is clearly some scope for confusion because the reader will seek to make a distinction. When I am the reader it does not matter terribly, but when it is the court looking for a distinction, perhaps on a judicial review of the agency’s activities, that might matter. With apologies for appearing to be particularly picky, what would be most helpful would be to achieve consistency. However, if consistency is not intended, I should like to understand the distinction. I beg to move.