Consumers, Estate Agents and Redress Bill [HL]

For probably the first time in Grand Committee, I am sorry that we cannot vote. I have included some ““shalls”” here where I would have put ““mays””, and the Minister has replied to a few of those, but, on the whole, I am enormously disappointed by his reply. A public body is being established with public money and with clear duties to the public, and I believe that those duties should be spelt out in the Bill. I have missed enormously the expertise from the Conservative Front Bench—in particular, that of the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, who I am sure has strong views on this matter. I hope that between now and Report she will give us the benefit of her thoughts. The Minister said that it is necessary to be flexible—for example, with regard to whether the council appoints staff. But, as the noble Baroness, Lady O’Cathain, pointed out—I am grateful to her for her comments—that is clearly ridiculous. The council can be flexible about numbers, with any number between one and 1,000, but surely it cannot be flexible about whether it appoints any staff at all. In his reply, the Minister failed to spell out the difference between what it is essential that the council does, what it is desirable that it does and what it may do if it has the capacity after doing the essential and the desirable. I am very disappointed that the Minister and his department have not been able to define the difference between ““essential””, ““desirable”” and ““possible””. Whatever words they choose, and whether it is the difference between ““may””, ““must”” or ““shall””, by Report we shall table amendments specifically along these lines. I am disappointed with the Minister’s reply but I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. [Amendments Nos. 9 to 13B not moved.]