Housing and Regeneration Bill

I, too, wish to speak to Amendment No. 110E. I agree wholeheartedly with the comments of my noble friend Lady Hamwee and indeed those of the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart. The fees issue is particularly pertinent. We talked on the previous day of Committee about the funding of the regulator. We are told that some £20 million will be provided by RSLs, some of which will be quite small, to pay for the regulator’s costs. Now, a monopoly provider will be providing a service that, in effect, will inspect the people who are paying in a rather circuitous way for it to be inspected. I have had concerns in relation to other clauses—notably Clauses 192 and 193—over the use of the word ““may””. I notice that in proposed new subsection (3)(a) of Amendment No. 110E, the regulator, "““shall invite the Audit Commission to carry out the inspection””." This is one bit of text where I should have preferred to see the words ““may invite””, and the amendment should be worded so as to build in the flexibility that we all want to see. On most occasions, the Audit Commission will be the right body to carry out the inspection. That will probably be the de facto position; nevertheless, the word ““may”” would provide for some leeway where the Audit Commission specifically did not have the expertise or where a more competitive bidder was able to do the work. I hope that the Minister will reflect on that point.