Consumers, Estate Agents and Redress Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 30: Page 3, line 33, at end insert- ““( ) Expenditure incurred under subsection (3) must not exceed such amount as may be prescribed in regulations.”” The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 30 sets a cap on the spending of the new National Consumer Council. I have already noted my concern that the new funding arrangements for the NCC could diminish its independence, and running parallel to that point is my concern at the potential for spiralling costs of the NCC. I am grateful to the Minister for his correspondence following Second Reading. It was useful to receive such a well prepared summary of the points raised and to have some insight into Minister’s thinking in advance of today. Can the Minister indicate how costs will be kept under control, given that, in his words: "““What the Bill does not do is specify that there should be any particular number or location for any regional committees””?" I agree with the Minister that there needs to be flexibility within the NCC, but that should not come at the expense of sound structure and sensible spending. Indeed, I was surprised to read a few pages on in the Minister’s letter that costs savings are expected from, "““the reduction in the regional office network””." That seems to be at odds with the fact that there is nothing in the Bill to prevent the establishment of many offices. I will be grateful if the Minister will inform the Committee whether he envisages more regional offices and greater spending or fewer offices and cost-savings. Whatever answer the Minister gives, it is clear that funding forecasts on this merger cannot be as stable as the Government claim. My amendment ensures that the National Consumer Council would operate within a strict budget and maintain its current low-cost status. Has the Minister considered the likely cost implications of migrating complaints handling away from Energywatch and Postwatch to companies? While I believe strongly that complaints are one of the most effective consumer tests for companies, I am concerned that the sudden new burden of the complaints procedure will result in slower complaints handling and a worse deal for the consumer. What is more, tying the funding of the redress scheme to a per complaint basis, as suggested in paragraph 2.56 of the regulatory impact assessment, could lead to Catch-22 funding, where a slow complaints system reduces the value of a redress system dependent on complaints for revenue. I shall be grateful if the Minister can say, in figures and percentages, how much revenue he expects complaints to produce. I also hope that he can confirm the precise function of Clause 4(3)(b). Does he anticipate expenditure by the NCC on designated consumers and if so, what kind of expenditure does he envisage? There seems to be very little consistency in the Bill and the regulatory impact assessment. There are far too many loose ends for me to feel confident in the efficiency and sustainability of the merger of the NCC and the other bodies. My amendment ensures that there is a clear strategy for the merger and subsequent maintenance of the new NCC. I hope the Minister will agree that it is essential that there is a constant factor in this equation and that while the NCC needs to remain flexible, as will the level of charging by the regulator through licenses, it is important that that is not accompanied by a blank cheque of taxpayers’ money. I beg to move.