Clause 6
Consumers, Estate Agents and Redress Bill
4:15 pm
Mark Prisk (Shadow Minister (Small Businesses and Enterprise), Trade & Industry; Hertford and Stortford, Conservative)
Thank you, Mr. Weir. Amendment no. 9 is at the very beginning of the clause and its purpose, like that of several other amendments, is to try to establish on the record the clear independence of the council. The Minister alluded to that in some earlier remarks, and we are keen to ensure that that is explored properly as we debate these probing amendments.
Members will be aware that if the new NCC is to maintain the well regarded reputation of the existing council, it is important that its independence and that of its work force are clear for all to see. Let us take, for example, the obvious controversy surrounding post office closures. In that context, if the NCC were not seen to be clearly independent, there would be a danger of its reputation—and, from a Minister’s point of view, its effectiveness and authority—being diminished. It is therefore important to establish the independence of the NCC.
The essence of the argument also relates to research. This is a most important area where the NCC must be seen to have an independent character if is to work effectively, as envisaged in the Bill. In relation to amendment No. 9, I want the Minister to give us a clear and unequivocal statement not only on the organisation’s independence in principle, but on how that will work in practice.
In amendment No. 7, we seek to address what I would describe as rather woolly language, which could mean that the forward work programme is just a generalised framework and therefore does not provide sufficient direction. That is parallel to a discussion that we have already had.
I have been careful to seek in the amendment a requirement not that the end elements of the programme be implemented, because that will clearly be a matter for the council, but rather that the programme that includes those elements be implemented. The underlying concern is that the danger that a large effort might go into producing constantly updated and, as we now know, annual forward work programmes that are not actually implemented. That is a problem, and I will welcome the Minister’s reply to that point.
In amendment No. 8, we seek to leave out the words
“have regard to the need to”.
The purpose is to tighten up the language of subsection (6), to be confident that the most efficient use is made of resources, rather than the council merely having regard to the need for the possibility of efficiency, which is language that clearly leaves a lot of leeway.
The problem is that the NCC’s powers of investigation are widely drawn, yet the Bill is somewhat lacking in detail on the prudent expenditure of resources. We heard from the Minister in a previous debate a comforting setting out of the procedures by which the overall budgeting will be guided, but it would be helpful if he were a little clearer on the use of resources. The purpose of the amendment is to seek to put in place a specific duty, and I hope that the Minister will respond to that point.
The final amendment to which I shall speak in this group—amendment No. 14—would amend clause 11(1) by inserting the words
“and provide an account of how its resources were used in an efficient way.”
It has clearly been grouped with the other amendments because it relates to a similar principle: to try to place a clear obligation in the Bill. Some may say that such an obligation would be unnecessary and bureaucratic, but that a simple, standard measurement of manpower and money used would suffice. That would focus minds on providing value for money, which is the essence of the matter.
The purpose of each of these probing amendments is to draw from the Minister a clear set of principles on how resources will be used and to clarify the council’s role. In particular, to return to amendment No. 9, we seek the independence of the council. I hope that the Minister will respond positively to the debate.