Consumers, Estate Agents and Redress Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 5: 5: Clause 3 , page 2, line 37, leave out ““may”” and insert ““must”” The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in Committee we explored the meaning of ““designated consumers””. For the purposes of the Bill they are consumers who are losing their representative body, be it Postwatch or Energywatch. I was moved to table the amendment by the Minister’s comments on designated consumers in Grand Committee, as reported at col. 162 of Hansard. We must remember that they are losing their dedicated consumer body, which will be merged with the NCC. In debating whether that was wise, we argued in Committee that both the energy and postal markets were going through very volatile times. The Minister said that designated consumers, "““may or may not be a priority at any time, hence the description ‘designated’””.—[Official Report, 18/12/06; col. GC162.]" Clause 3 enables the Secretary of State to amend by order the description of which customers are designated consumers for the purpose of this part of the Bill, and he may also by order provide that some consumers will cease to be designated consumers for those purposes. If the consumers are to give up their dedicated bodies, we need to explore here on Report in exactly what circumstances the Secretary of State would decide that those consumers would no longer be designated consumers. They would not receive the same focus of attention, but would that be because the market had calmed down, as the Minister seemed to imply in Committee? Over what period would that have to be? What guarantee would there be that the market would stay calm and that consumers would not therefore be particularly liable to great fluctuations? In my remarks on the amendment, I have not included anything about vulnerable consumers, nor do I mean to, because they are an entirely separate group and are subject to later amendments. I am talking only about the whole group of consumers in each case who are to lose their specific body and then can lose the designation of being designated consumers because the Secretary of State decides to do exactly that. Why would that be? I beg to move.