Consumers, Estate Agents and Redress Bill [HL]

For the benefit of Hansard, I should say that there is a deliberate mistake in my Amendment No. 5. Where it reads, "““the Committee must take it into account””," it should say, "““the Council must take into account””." No doubt, that has been spotted already. The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, has opened the batting on this discussion with an energetic set of amendments. The noble Lord, Lord O’Neill of Clackmannan, has given us a long and, perhaps I may say, a passionate intervention for this stage. I was interested to hear what they said—in particular, the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel. While I do not agree with the majority of his amendments, they highlight, as I hope does my Amendment No. 5, the lack of clarity in the Bill on the proposed functions of the regional committees of the National Consumer Council. The noble Lord’s earlier amendments would effectively split up the NCC into three bodies—one each for England, Scotland and Wales. I shall be interested to hear the Minister’s views on such a move. We on these Benches could not endorse such a move. While independence is a vital ingredient of the NCC, the interests of consumers must be addressed as holistically as possible. I believe that the NCC stands stronger united, especially given the vast volume of the new responsibilities it will be expected to undertake. Amendment No. 5 seeks to clarify the Government’s vision for the role of the committee. The amendment would ensure that when a territorial committee was established and made representations to the new National Consumer Council, the NCC would have to take those representations into account. I do not wish to railroad the NCC’s research processes, yet I am concerned that under Clause 1(4)(c) the NCC has the power to delegate its functions to the Scottish and Welsh consumer councils, but there is no reciprocal function. If functions are to be delegated, it is in the interests of the consumer and the execution of thorough research into consumer affairs that the very highest level of communication is maintained between the branches of the new NCC. From the outset, I must make it clear that I believe strongly in the continued independence of the National Consumer Council. I cannot emphasise enough how important it is to get this merger right. We will do everything that we can from this side to assist the Government in doing that. I shall speak later to amendments that I have tabled on cost and the extent to which the Secretary of State can influence the running and functions of the NCC, which are related matters. But it is so important to get the internal structure right. It is vital to retain the adaptability of the NCC to address the rapidly changing demands of our consumer world. My fear is that new powers to delegate functions to the regional committees could result in a one-way system. Previously, functions have been delegated, but on a project-by-project basis. It is important not to over-plan for the NCC. As the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, rightly illustrated at Second Reading, there is a healthy relationship between the regional branches of the NCC and the central base. I am concerned that the independence of the NCC will be threatened by the new funding arrangements in which the Secretary of State will be recouping the costs of the NCC through regulation, according to paragraph 26 of the Explanatory Notes. I hope that the Minister will reassure me that the funding arrangement will not tie the NCC to the wishes of industry, nor to the wishes of government. I should also be interested to know how closely related the funding of the NCC will be to its functions. It is important to have separation in order to maintain the NCC’s invaluable impartiality. In the light of these concerns, I would be grateful if the Minister could inform Members of the Committee how he envisages the relationship between the NCC and the regional committees will develop under the provision in this Bill.