星空传媒

I challenge Richard Kemp鈥檚 assertion that housing associations are public bodies that fail in their duty to be open and transparent (Comment, 10 October, page 15). 露

Housing associations are not public bodies. They are independent social businesses, with clear and long-established systems for governance, regulation and accountability. In each of these areas, the sector and its regulators have put substantial effort into securing year-on-year improvements. In Business for Neighbourhoods is the latest demonstration of the sector鈥檚 commitment to independence for a strong social purpose. The fact that housing association tenants receive housing benefit is neither here nor there, unless Kemp would like to redefine the majority of private landlords as public bodies too. 露

Kemp鈥檚 claim that housing association boards are crammed full of cronies is no more than a mischievous assertion without the benefit of evidence. It may have been true 25 years ago, but the Housing Corporation released findings in September that showed that an increasing number of board members are being recruited through advertising. In addition, there are nomination rights for tenants and local authority representatives on all stock transfer RSL boards. These days, a chief executive would need a broad range of cronies to pack a board. 露

In terms of open behaviour, housing associations are not, and should not pretend to be, local authorities. They are run by boards rather than by elected councillors, and have stakeholders rather than a democratic electorate. They operate in an environment of competition and risk, and it would be wrong for them to follow the same procedures as local authorities, which are indeed public bodies. 露

The editorial (鈥淐onduct unbecoming鈥�, 10 October, page 5) suggests that there should be a modern code of governance for associations. A code has been in operation since 1995, and we are currently updating it for the third time, to reflect the latest developments.