---

Housing and Regeneration Bill

moved Amendment No. 110XA: 110XA: Clause 215, page 90, line 9, leave out ““consider”” and insert ““have regard when applying Objective 10 to”” The noble Baroness said: I move the amendment, but I shall not speak to it because it should have been withdrawn when Amendment No. 110XAA was tabled. It will probably be easier to speak to Amendments Nos. 110XAA, 110XB, 110XC and 111ZZA. The first of those amendments inserts into Clause 215, on the exercise of enforcement powers, a specific reference to Objective 10 in Clause 88 regarding the proportionality objective. We may be told—I am sure we will—that that applies throughout Part 2. If that is so, why was it necessary to include paragraphs (b) and (c) in subsection (2) of Clause 215? I would have thought that proportionality would have taken into account in paragraph (b) regarding whether a failure or a problem was serious or trivial and, in paragraph (c) whether the failure or problem was an isolated incident. I hope for assurances as to how Objective 10 will be applied when it comes to the making of hard decisions by the regulator. Amendment No. 110XB to Clause 217 provides, when the regulator issues an enforcement notice, that the case relates to mismanagement of affairs regarding social housing. I thought that this matter was dealt with somewhere else in the Bill. I could not find it and it is probably simply eluding me, rather than not being there. I seek to ensure that mismanagement is what this Bill is about, rather than anything wider, if I may put it that way. Amendment No. 110XC to Clause 226 on the imposition of fines is similar. The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, has tabled Amendment No. 110XD in this group. It relates to Clause 228, which will need amendment in any event as a result of something that happened in the Commons. Clearly, it is incorrect that that amendment relates to Clause 228(3) because it was intended to refer to subsection (2). Finally, Amendment No. 111ZZA is an amendment to the definition of mismanagement which, as it stands, includes affairs conducted ““improperly or inappropriately””. Mismanagement is a serious matter that can prompt serious actions by the regulator. I have no problem with conducting affairs ““improperly””, but what is ““inappropriately””? What I think is inappropriate may not be what other noble Lords think is inappropriate, or vice versa. It is too wide and subjective a term to have a place in the definition of a term whose application can have major consequences. I beg to move.