---

Housing and Regeneration Bill

We have had much discussion of the Cave review—rightly so—and, as the Minister pointed out, much of the Bill derives from its recommendations. Therefore, this clause comes as a surprise. I think that it drives a coach and horses through Cave’s intentions. Perhaps I may remind noble Lords what Cave said about concerns over policy passporting. He said that the, "““inadequate separation of policy and regulation (leading to the unacknowledged implementation of policy by regulation)””," is not of itself necessarily detrimental in respect of certain regulated items so long as it is done—these are the key words—in a ““structured”” and ““transparent”” way. My problem with this clause is that, having tried to build up the structure and to build in the transparency, it now takes all that away through these directions. Cave goes on to say at paragraph 2.60: "““It is right that regulation should be used to achieve policy objectives. But current and future social housing providers need to have more regulatory certainty about the extent and cost of policy burdens. The process for introducing and adapting policy requirements needs to be more structured, transparent and equitable. Achieving this will significantly reduce both the policy costs and the administrative costs which regulation imposes on social housing providers””." In Clause 195, the powers are so broad that they go against these intentions. I argue that subsection (1) allows the Secretary of State to give direction in relation to any standard whatever. In subsection (2), the Secretary of State needs only to form an opinion that his direction relates to core standards—and we have already observed that core standards are extensive and broad. I recognise that the Secretary of State has a duty to consult several interested parties, and subsection (4) goes so far as to detail a list of those parties, but I hope that the Committee will note that it omits a duty to consult representatives of secured creditors. So far as I am aware, I have no interest here, but I thought that that was rather curious, given the interest that secured creditors may well have in the directions. Finally, subsection (6) allows for the Secretary of State to disapply the requirement to consult in relation to specified matters. In other words, basically the subsection says that there is no need to go beyond the direction that in the Secretary of State’s opinion was the right one. The noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, reminded us that directions can take the form of secondary legislation. I rather liked his use of the words ““untrammelled flexibility””. That well describes this clause, and I have great sympathy with the view that Clause 195 should stand part of the Bill.