No regulatory role for the Nat Fed
Simon Randall is always entertaining and thought provoking. But his latest column, suggesting that the National Housing Federation should become a regulator, is not the answer, whatever the question (Inside Housing, 20 August).
SIGN IN TO ACCESS THIS CONTENT
You've reached your monthly limit for unrestricted access to Inside Housing content. To get free unrestricted access simply sign in below, or register your details.
Sign In
If you are already registered sign in for unrestricted access to alll the content on the site.
The National Housing Federation has been clear that we support the concept of co-regulation. Indeed, we have driven the agenda and have supported the separation of regulation from investment. We have a key role to play in advising on best practice, and as Mr Randall says, our code of governance is a market leader.
We couldn’t do any of these things so well if we were also the regulator. However strong the firewall, it would change our relationship with our members fundamentally. Any policy or lobby lines we took would be affected by our regulatory role and would lead to a confusion, or possibly even a conflict, of interests.
We are clear that our own governance needs to be exemplary if we are to be credible as the owner of our governance code. That’s why we carried out a fundamental review last year leading to some major changes.
And with more than a third of all our training now being devoted to board members and our leaders’ forum being an event for chairs as well as chief executives, I suspect Mr Randall is in a tiny minority in perceiving the federation as ‘a housing association chief executive’s club’.
David Orr, chief executive, National Housing Federation