Consumers, Estate Agents and Redress Bill [HL]

Amendment No. 38 places a direct requirement on the council to adhere rigidly to the work set out in its forward work programme. I agree that it is important for the council to undertake a work programme that has been subject to public scrutiny and consultation. However, the amendment would require the council to implement the programme in full and could potentially affect the flexibility of the council to respond to unforeseen changes in priorities that may arise after the forward work programme is published, which could not therefore be captured in that programme, about which it would be necessary or highly beneficial for consumers for the council to make representations on their behalf. It is therefore feasible that, with finite time and resources, the council would legitimately be unable to implement the forward work programme in its entirety. Amendment No. 39 would create a duty on the council to use its resources in the most efficient and economic way. I am sorry to disappoint the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, but, in our view, it would place too onerous a burden on the council to demonstrate compliance with the duty. I am not convinced that it is required because the chief executive of the new council will be designated as the accounting officer and, as such, will be required to ensure that all funds are used economically, efficiently and effectively. Further, the National Audit Office will also be able to review the efficiency with which the new body uses its resources to ensure that those requirements are being met. Amendment No. 41 seeks to amend the new council’s objective in relation to sustainable development. As drafted, the clause clearly places a duty on the council without placing too onerous a burden on it. I am therefore not convinced that the duty as drafted needs to change to make it less onerous in this instance. For the reasons I have given I must resist all of these amendments.