Consumers, Estate Agents and Redress Bill [HL]

These amendments relate to the council’s functions outlined in Clauses 17 and 19 and to the actions that fall to the Secretary of State and the council in that respect. Following the points made by my noble friends Lord O’Neill and Lord Borrie, the Government agree that it could have been left unsaid and that we did not need to publish these reports, but we considered that it would be more transparent to show that reports under Clauses 16 and 17 may be published, although there is not a duty to publish, either. That was the Government’s view. Clause 17 gives the Secretary of State the power to require the council to prepare and submit reports on any matter. This is seen as complementary to the council’s other functions; in particular, the requirement for it to prepare, publish and consult on a draft forward work programme for each financial year and to consider any representations made in response to that consultation. We envisage that this process would ensure that the council captures all known issues of key importance to consumers. However—and this is a central point—from time to time other consumer issues may arise that are judged important enough to the consumer interest to warrant further attention. In those circumstances the Secretary of State would be able to call on the expertise of the council to prepare and submit a report. That is the basic thinking behind these clauses. Such a report could then be used to assist all concerned with making an informed decision regarding what further action, if any, is needed on the issue. The effect of Amendment No. 70 would be to place a duty on the Secretary of State to publish all reports submitted by the council under this clause irrespective of whether they are of wider interest or relevance. In practice, the Secretary of State will work closely with the council and others in coming to decisions about what would be appropriate in each circumstance. The current drafting allows for the discretion needed to consider when publication is necessary or desirable. Unnecessary publication costs which might otherwise have been avoided could be incurred, which addresses the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Cathain. If the word ““shall”” is used, there would be an obligation to publish which might not be appropriate in all circumstances and certainly could be very costly. In the light of my explanation, I hope that noble Lords will understand why the Government do not feel inclined to support the amendment. Amendments Nos. 75 and 76 relate to Clause 19 which requires the council and the designated bodies referred to in this clause to enter into co-operation arrangements and includes provisions relating to such arrangements. These co-operation arrangements are intended to encourage effective communication channels and collaborative working, and to provide an effective interface between the council and others where functions and responsibilities coincide or overlap. Over time it may be necessary to consider whether to widen the co-operation agreements to include other bodies. In such circumstances, the Secretary of State may designate other persons to be subject to these provisions. Amendment No. 75 would in effect require the Secretary of State to consult on a decision to require the council to enter into co-operation arrangements with new designated persons. After careful consideration of the amendment, I am not convinced that such a formal duty is necessary. In practice, the Secretary of State will work closely with the council and others prior to making an order adding a person to the list of designated bodies for the purposes of this clause. The imposition of a formal duty to consult could cause delays and such an intention would in any event most likely be included in the council’s forward work programme. Amendment No. 76 addresses Clause 19(4) which requires the council and a designated body to prepare a memorandum setting out the co-operation arrangements as soon as practicable after agreement is reached on these arrangements. The amendment restricts this to a period of no more than six months after agreement is reached. After careful consideration, we are not aware of any reasons why in practice the council and the designated bodies would not prepare the memorandum of agreement as soon as practicable, and there may be instances where there are good reasons why that could not be achieved within a six-month period. The imposition of a time limit could therefore result in a breach being incurred, but one that had been incurred for a good reason.