My Lords, I largely agree with my noble friend Lord O’Neill and the noble Baroness, Lady O’Cathain, but there is another dimension to this. I do not think that the new NCC, any more than its three predecessor organisations, would have any difficulty in preparing annual work plans. Those organisations do them now and they have a corporate plan along the lines set out just now by the noble Baroness. So I do not think that planning is the issue, but the finances could be.
In particular, we have to bear in mind that this is not simply a question of a grant in aid from the DTI in the normal sense of general taxation, but of levies on designated consumers, which a large part of Clause 4 deals with. It is important not only that the new NCC knows that it has more than a year ahead, barring accidents, but also that the regulated industries know what they are expected to pay for those three years ahead. So it is sensible to deal with the finances on a three-year basis from that point of view, as well as from the point of view of general security of outlook. But, so far as concerns the planning, the wording of the Bill is perfectly okay.
Consumers, Estate Agents and Redress Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Whitty
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 30 January 2007.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Consumers Estate Agents and Redress Bill [HL].
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
689 c143-4 Session
2006-07Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 11:50:49 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_374453
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_374453
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_374453