It seems rather perverse, right at the very end, to talk about a clause that we have been debating for nearly a whole day and then to
propose that it should be struck out and replaced with something else. Also, I wonder whether the clerks understand what we are trying to do here. We have already amended Clause 2 as it currently stands and they have not raised a single eyebrow. Actually, two eyebrows are being raised at the moment but they were not raised earlier when we seemed to stray into the territory of constitutional confusion, although I do not wish to raise that again today.
Let us be quite clear about this. The amendment was meant to be an attempt to aid wider public understanding of what the body is about. When we went through Committee, and certainly when we talked about some of the issues relating to the Bill in meetings, it was felt that we had the wording in the Bill as published before this stage—starting as it did with functions and moving on to objectives—the wrong way round. It was felt that there would be better clarity and a better understanding of what we were about if we could rejig it in a way that focused on the long-term vision of this body, how its constitution and powers supported that long-term vision, and what functions it needed to achieve that objective in the medium term. Amendment 21, in my name, is an attempt to do that. It borrows heavily on discussions with the Bill team, for which I am very grateful, and indeed some of the wording may be rather familiar to the team. It is not far from what appears in the Bill as currently printed, except that it is in a different order. I argue that the way it now reads—and I hope that there will be support for this around the Chamber—provides a much more logical approach to what we are going to do.
In a nutshell, the problem is that if you start with the functions of the body as it may be in the future, you tend to think of those in terms of where we are at the moment with the existing constituent bodies—the MAS, Pension Wise and TPAS. If you detach that from your initial thinking and think only about what will happen to the consumer and the journey the consumer takes in trying to get the information, advice or guidance that they seek, in the appropriate way, it clears up a lot of the confusion that we ran into and the terminological difficulties that we had. They were helpful in that they brought out the problems that we faced, but unhelpful in that they brought us back to confusion about what this body was about.
In Amendment 21, the objectives, coming before functions, are listed in paragraph 1. In paragraph 2 they are now objectives, whereas before they were functions, and then the functions follow. The related powers come after that. It has a clarity of overall shape that commends it, but I doubt that the wording is now sufficient to cope not only with where we might want to see changes coming forward but also in light of what has happened.
I have anticipated an amendment already in the Bill, as of this afternoon, by including within the phrasing of my current amendment the “free and impartial” amendment, which we have accepted. I took a bit of a chance on that but I am delighted that we have agreed that that should go forward, as it should do. There may be others that a little bit of time and work by parliamentary draftsmen could polish up by the time we get to Third Reading. I hope that, when the Minister
responds, she might feel it worth taking away this amendment and bringing back something that would substitute for the existing Clause 2 in a way that fulfils some of the objectives that I have set out here today. I beg to move.