I can see where the hon. Ladyis coming from, but she is misconstruing the Government’s intention. There is no point in having an advocacy body and yet giving it a bureaucratic obligation to deal with matters that should be dealt with by some other body that has the appropriate powers. Nor would it be right to create a body under the Clause which could opt out and say, “This has nothing to do with us.” The proposals must be seen practically. The NCC is an advocacy body, and we are trying to ensure certainty that, when complaints are made, an assessment will be made of the best body to deal with them—based on the statutory reasons, or reasons of skill, or a mixture of both—so that they are directed where they should go. That is important.

We see that type of process all the time in our capacity as MPs. Every day, people come to our offices as advocates, and our staff have to make an assessment. If we want to be friendly with everyone and give a good impression, we say, “Don’t worry, I will deal with this complaint”, and they leave feeling happy. But two days or two weeks later they come back and say, “What happened to my complaint?” Our staff system is not designed to deal with complaints in that way—our job is to be advocates on behalf of our constituents.

The same point applies in relation to the clause in a broad sense. We need the most appropriate person: first, to advocate; secondly to resolve; and thirdly to remedy. If a remedy cannot be found, there should be redress. That is why it is important to deal with things in the way that we are proposing.

If Ofgem can use its powers of determination over connection changes to the distribution network, it should do so, but when the matter is best dealt with by agreement between Postcomm and the council, it should be dealt with in that way. The most important consideration is to ensure that the arrangements provide greatest ease of use by consumers.

The hon. Member for Richmond Park agrees with that position, and her objective is the same as mine. She just does not believe that the clause goes far enough. However, ultimately, the question is not just one of the words on paper. I keep coming back to the point that the question is also one of organisational ethos, skills, structure, advocacy and the ability to give effective representation. When users come forward, they should be signposted to the appropriate people. That is why the provision is framed in the way it is.

I should not ask the hon. Lady to trust me—that would not be fair. She is acting as a legitimate advocate. However, I seek to reassure her on the basis thatthe legislation is not drafted on a minimalist but a maximalist approach.

Let me be controversial. An advocacy organisation can be effective only if part of its advocacy role includes telling people, “You ain’t got a case”, or telling people that their case should be dealt with somewhere else. That is fine, as long as the quality of the relationship between the advocacy organisation and the other body is made clear. There should be relationships to ensure that individuals who enter the complaints process and initially go to the wrong organisation are directed by that organisation to the right place. That is what the clause is about and I assure the hon. Lady that that is what we are trying to achieve.