Consumers, Estate Agents and Redress Bill [HL]

I do not agree that it is sloppily worded. Perhaps I may comment on the amendments before us and deal with some of the issues which have been raised. If one was too prescriptive and established fixed staff numbers or objectives, one would not give any flexibility to the council to deal with changing circumstances or consumer patterns and other issues that may arise as the council evolves. That is the intention behind the Bill. Amendments Nos. 44, 45 and 49 would remove the flexibility of the council to concentrate on those functions and activities that it considers would be most effective and beneficial to consumers, given its priorities in the coming year. Clause 4 already places a duty on the council to produce a forward work programme, which will set out the proposed activities of the council over the coming year and must be published and consulted on. It will ensure that the council’s intended use of its core functions will be made public, and that parties are able to make representations about those intentions. Amendment No. 50 would require the council to investigate complaints made by consumers that appear to it to raise issues of general relevance, or any matter that appears to be related to a problem that affects consumers generally or consumers of a particular description. This is an important power for the council. However, the amendment would remove the discretion of the council to prioritise the cases that it investigates. Where there is a range of issues that could command its attention, the council needs to be able to set its own priorities according to its resources and its forward work programme. That was my earlier point: the council must have the ability to set its own priorities, to work according to the resources that it has and to devise its own forward work programme. We should not be too prescriptive. Amendments Nos. 67 and 68 relate to Clause 16, which concerns the council’s function to prepare and publish reports in relation to any matters that fall within its scope. These amendments would place a duty on the council to carry out this function. Amendments Nos. 72 and 73 to Clause 18, which covers the ““advice, information and guidance”” function, would place a duty on the council to issue and publish advice or guidance, and to prepare and publish reports that are along similar lines to those to which I referred earlier in Clause 16. Amendments Nos. 77 to 81 and Amendment No. 86 are along similar lines, as they all replace a power with a duty. These amendments would limit the discretion of the council in carrying out its functions and oblige it to observe these duties. This may not be an appropriate use of its resources in all circumstances. Amendments Nos. 82 and 84 would have no effect. I must resist them as no material differences result from them. Amendment No. 85 would require the Secretary of State to publish reasons for any approval of the acquisition of an interest in a body corporate. These steps are unnecessary and I do not accept the amendment. Amendment No. 87 would in effect place a dutyon the council to require a person specified inClause 23(3) to supply it with information. These persons are the Office of Fair Trading, the designated regulators, a person who supplies goods or services in the course of a business carried on by that person, and any other person specified or of a description specified by the Secretary of State. However, in the course of any period, it may not be appropriate for the council to request information from one of the people specified in subsection (3). The current drafting retains flexibility for the council to request information that it requires to carry out its statutory functions from a person specified in subsection (3). I am not therefore convinced that a duty is required in this instance. Amendment No. 90 would place a duty on the council to publish any notice received from the OFT or a designated regulator setting out their reasons for refusing to supply information to the council. I envisage that the council will generally prefer to publish any notice received to allow public scrutiny of a person’s refusal to supply the council with the information that it requires to carry out its statutory functions. However, the amendment would remove the flexibility of allowing the council to use its discretion if it considered that it was not in the public interest to publish the notice. Amendment No. 93 would place a duty on the council to apply to the court for a compliance order if a non-regulated supplier refused to provide the council with information. Again, this would remove the council’s discretion to determine whether such action was proportionate, given the content and extent of the information requested and the cost of applying to the court. Amendment No. 95 would change the word ““may”” to ““shall””—there have been a number of amendments along these lines—but it does not appear to effect a change to the original provision, as the Secretary of State would retain the discretion to make regulations to prescribe descriptions of persons from whom the council may not require information. For the reasons given, I must resist all these amendments.