House of Commons |
Session 2006 - 07 Publications on the internet General Committee Debates Consumers, Estate Agents and Redress Bill |
Consumers, Estate Agents and Redress Bill |
The Committee consisted of the following Members:Mr C.
Shaw, Committee
Clerk
attended the Committee
Public Bill CommitteeTuesday 17 April 2007(Afternoon)[Mr. Mike Weir in the Chair]Consumers, Estate Agents and Redress Bill
Clause 4
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause 5Forward
work
programmes
4
pm
Mr.
Mark Prisk (Hertford and Stortford) (Con):
I beg
to move amendment No. 1, in clause 5, page 3, line 36, leave out
before each financial year publish and insert
publish
triennially.
Good
afternoon, Mr. Weir. I am delighted that we are moving on to
clause 5. I presume that I should deal with amendment No. 1 on its own
and that we will then consider other matters
thereafter.
The
purpose of the amendment is simple but important; namely, to remove the
phrase
before each
financial year
publish
and insert
publish trienniallyI said that word carefully.
Triennially involved a challenge, and we made sure that
we spelled it correctly. Otherwise, three documents might have been
published each year. However, I am reliably told by my Oxford
English Dictionary that our wording is
correct.
The purpose
of the amendment is simple. The forward work programme should provide a
strategic framework within which the new National Consumer Council will
operate, so it is logical to suggest that it be published every three
years rather than every year. The forward work programme, as its very
name suggests, should deal with a period or more than a year. Indeed,
the council will separately publish an annual report, so there will be
an annual process of reporting on what has been
achieved.
This is a
probing amendment whose purpose isto establish the reasoning
behind an annual work programme. There are examples of organisations
and functions that operate on the basis of a three-year programme. A
good number of police authorities have a three-year forward work
programme, which seemsto work perfectly well. Similarly, local
planning authorities have local development schemes that cover a
three-year
period.
The period
can be adjusted, of course. It can be altered, it is not set in stone
or completely immutable. The purpose is to provide the organisation
with a perspective beyond the 12-month cycle. I suspect that with
triennial publication of the forward work programme, the council would
be able better to plan and use its resources. That is one reason why
wewould like to explore with the Minister whether the
Government have considered that approach. It would
sit well with the other publications, documents and reporting that the
Government anticipate. I look forward to hearing the Ministers
remarks.
Susan
Kramer (Richmond Park) (LD): I waited for an explanation
of the amendment before coming to any conclusion about it. However, I
am unconvinced by the hon. Gentlemans argument.
The NCCs work will
cover a wide range of different businesses, all on different
timetables, and there will be opportunities for issues to arise at any
time. Who could have said three years ago that we would be considering
a proposal to close 2,500 post offices in the next two years? If that
had not been included in a forward plan, the NCC would not have had a
position on dealing with the consequences of it. Could we have known
three years in advance that we would go through a phase in which,
instead of steadily declining energy prices and a consequently fairly
predictable pattern of consumer pricing, there would suddenly be a
volatile period of rapid rises and declines, with some very poor
industry responses to that
pattern?
Unpredictability
characterises the issues with which consumers must deal daily, and it
is inappropriate to lock into a programme for three years
andmore importantlyto lock into the funding which, as
we have said earlier, essentially follows the forward programme on a
three-year basis.
Mr.
McCartney:
Mr. Weir, I am glad that you so
enjoyed the events of this morning that you have come back for the
afternoon sitting. I hope that we can make progress this
afternoon.
I
recognise that the amendment is a probing one. Howeveralthough
I do not say it to influence the views of hon. Membersit was
moved in another place, where it was opposed by Conservative, Liberal
Democrat and Labour Members, for good reason. It might assist if I
explain why the proposals as they stand are consistent with good
practice and maximum transparency.
We should not confuse the
purpose of the proposals with the purpose of an annual report. An
annual report sets out the achievements of the previous financial year
in the work programme, along with what is coming up. The clause deals
with something different. The hon. Member for Richmond Park hit the
nail on the head, and I shall return to her helpful comments in due
course.
The
amendment would cause the new council great difficulties. We believe in
maximum transparency, and consumers have a right to expect not only an
annual report but a forward work programme, in line with good practice.
The publication of an annual forward work programme
strikes a balance with the requirement to prepare an annual report in
line with financial years. The forward work programme represents the
means whereby the new council sets out a programme for consumer
advocacy, together with its aims and priorities and the funding
requirement for carrying out those aims and
priorities.
The
issues to be addressed in the regulated sectors may be
fast-movingthe hon. Lady alluded to the fast-moving nature of
some of the markets in which the NCC will workand if the
council were required to produce a forward work programme only once
every
three years, there could be difficulty. In the end,
the bottom line must be the capacity of the council to intervene on
consumers behalf, to take action, to consider research and to
make proposals for the resolution of problems, including both those
that have arisen or that could arise because of marketplace changes.
Publication of an annual forward work programme, on which the council
must consult, will ensure that the proposed activities of the council
will indeed be transparent, and that it can be held to account for
those activities, not only through the work programme process but
through the printed responses delivered in connection with the annual
report.
Consultation
will allow the new council to obtain the views of key stakeholders in
determining its priorities and the activities that it will undertake to
achieve them. In many cases, organisations want and need to take a
longer-term view for planning purposes. The hon. Member for Hertford
and Stortford mentioned local authority district plans. Local
authorities work on a 10-year statutory cycle, which ensures that once
agreement is reached about land uses and other planning law matters,
the local authoritys planning department and its elected
planning committee members can make decisions over the 10-year period
that are consistent with planning law and with the decisions made
through public consultation and decision makingincluding
potential public
inquiries.
The
process in the Bill is different, in the sense that there is a
fast-moving marketplace, a need to represent consumers
interests and a need to accommodate the possibility of intervention by
an independent body on consumers behalf. The process must
include the possibility of discussion with the regulator, with the
relevant organisations, including bodies in Scotland, Wales, Northern
Ireland and the regions, and with other stakeholders. It is therefore
critical that there is scope for such decisions to be made on the basis
of flexibility and proper priorities.
We need to be able to update
and renew that vision each year. Although the speech made by the hon.
Member for Richmond Park was short, I am referring to it a lot. A short
contribution can contain some important fundamentals.
[Interruption.] I shall give way to the hon. Member for
Bournemouth, East, who has been enjoying interrupting me from a
sedentary
position.
Mr.
Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth, East) (Con): I am grateful to
the Minister for giving wayI believe that we are developing a
bit of rapport, which allows me to make the occasional sedentary
intervention. If he feels slightly hurt by that, I shall certainly take
guidance from you, Mr. Weir, and curtail my remarks.
However, as I am standing here, let me say that this probing amendment
tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford was
designed to elicit a little more information on what the forward work
programmes would be, not only in a curtailed 12-month programme, but
looking ahead to the second and third years beyond that. Although it
may be appropriate to have such programmes for a 12-month focus, does
the Minister concede that a compromise solution would be for the
programmes also to include what might be on the horizon in a second and
third year, and to include those things that might be coming up. We
spoke at the beginning about the
Mr.
McCartney:
I say to the hon. Gentleman that I do not mind
whether his interventions are sitting or standing, as long as they are
sensible. The hon. Gentleman started off by saying that this was a
probing amendment, but then said that he was trying to negotiate a
compromise. However, even the blue bloodthe raw tooth and
clawof the Conservative party in the House of Lords would not
support the Front Bench proposal. There was good reason for that: it is
one of those probing amendments that has been badly drafted. However,
at least it provides the opportunity for discussion of a legitimate
issue.
The balance
already exists. The hon. Gentleman makes my point for me: he is asking
for flexibility, and that is precisely what the clause brings. The
amendment does not provide that flexibility. We cannot use one snapshot
in timing, such as January next year, for example, to make a decision
that cannot be amended until
2011.
a
statement of any priorities of the Council for the year in relation to
designated
consumers.
However,
what we are asking is for those projects that will extend beyond that
year to be taken into consideration. If the Minister is able to put it
on the record that the document will include those projects and work
programmes that go beyond the year and that that can be highlighted for
the record, I think that this side of the House would be willing to
support that.
Mr.
McCartney:
I do not question that, but I am resisting the
amendment because our proposals provide an effective approach. What the
hon. Gentleman is saying is that once the independent NCC establishes
its work programme, it will reflect the priorities for the coming
period. Thereafter, as the hon. Member for Richmond Park rightly said,
if circumstances arise where a marketplace intervention by the council
is needed, it will do that. It has the right to adjust its programme
accordingly, and that is what we are trying to do. The amendment does
not allow for that, and that is why the Committee ought to resist
it.
Mr.
Prisk:
It is a shame that the Minister is so negative this
afternoon; I am not sure whether he had a little raw liver at lunch, or
something to make him a little more testy than this morning. The
purpose ofthe amendment is to try to elicit from him
whetherthe Minister and the Department, and therefore the
council, would plan for a degree of flexibility in its forward work
programme. I do not accept the argument that having a three-year work
programme would somehow prevent the NCC from being able even to
contemplate a change of circumstances in the marketplace, any more than
the existing clause does within a 12-year programme. I am glad the
Minister has at least been able to set out what he regards as the
importance of flexibility, with which we certainly concur. On that
note, having fulfilled my purpose, which was to get a proper debate
going, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave, withdrawn.
4.15
pm
Mr.
Prisk:
I beg to move amendment No. 5, inclause 5,
page 4, line 5, after second the, insert
measurable.
It
is fair to say that the Government love targets. If the Treasury had
had its way, there would be more targets than one could shake a stick
at. However, all too often some of them are vague. All that the
amendment would do is establish that the objectives should be
measurable. I suspect that the Minister will say that they will be, in
which case I shall be more than happy not to press the amendment to a
Division. I hope that he will clarify that they will be
measurable.
Susan
Kramer:
My short intervention concerns a particular
bug-a-boo of mine. These days, objectives are nearly always treated as
though they have to be measurable. That means that we end up with
distorted objectives because they are shaped in such a way that we can
get a measurement. That is sometimes desirable, and I assume that those
sort of objectives are within the scope of the measure. However, at
other times, for example, in relation to including more women in
decision making or engaging disabled people in a particular project,
specific quotas and targets bring us into the realm of something that
becomes so driven by the number that it loses all sight of common
sense. I am in favour of measurable being included in
the clause, as long as scope is retained for worthwhile objectives that
are not necessarily
measurable.
Mr.
McCartney:
I congratulate the hon. Member for Hertford and
Stortford on one of the most elegant climbdowns on an amendment that I
have witnessed in my 10 years as a Minister in Committee.
[Hon. Members: He has not been doing it
for 10 years.] I have been watching the hon. Gentlemans
progress very closely. From where I am standing, my comment was very
flattering and, if I were him, I would take it as such.
I hope that what I am about to
say balances both what the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for
Richmond Park have said. The hon. Lady spoke some common sense. I shall
assess what the hon. Gentleman said, although I am not sure whether he
meant thata measurable objective was equivalent to a target or
whether a target was equivalent to a measurable objective. It all
depends on the basis of his
argument.
The
amendment requires the new council in describing projects to be
undertaken in the forward work programme to include measurable
objectives. It is another attempt to reduce flexibility for the new
council without offering anything positive in return. Some projects
simply do not lend themselves to measurable objectives. For example, if
more consumers switched suppliers owing to an energy supplier and the
new council running awareness campaigns at the same time, how would the
new council measure how much of the success was down to it and how much
to the advertising by the supplier in the market? An element of
subjective assessment, including assessment by the new council, will be
necessary in some cases, as the hon. Lady pointed out.
In any event, measurable
objectives will usually be set out for the new council as part of its
budget-setting exercise in conjunction with the Department. That is
established practice and the correct process for setting measurable
objectives, which genuinely meets the aim that the hon. Member for
Hertford and Stortford seeks. That issue is also covered elsewhere in
the Bill. Clause 7 requires the council to include in its annual report
a statement on the progress of projects in the forward work programme.
The provision is doubly locked in respect of the budget-setting
process, the reporting process and the forward work programme. The
amendment calls for rigidity where flexibility is needed and, for that
reason, I hope that I have given the hon. Gentleman an acceptable
explanation.
Mr.
Prisk:
I am genuinely encouraged by what the Minister
said. As he knows, one our critical tasks is to put on the record the
matters based on which those who will have to implement the legislation
can work. His remarks have been constructive and, on that basis, I beg
to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave, withdrawn.
(3A)
Expenditure incurred under subsection (3) must not exceed such amount
as may be prescribed in
regulations..
This
is a probing amendment, which deals with the relationship between the
Government and the new consumer council. It would allow Ministers to
set a cap on the councils spending. It is important that there
be a clear limit on such spending, although within that it would
clearly be for the council to decide what it regards as a priority. The
essence of the amendment is to gain an understanding of whether the
Minister, and therefore the Department, believes that controls are in
place to ensure that the new organisations remit focuses on
efficiency and the right priorities. The amendment would simply give
Ministers the power to set a cap, should they wish to do so, and I
shall be interested to hear the Ministers
response.
Mr.
McCartney:
Again, I accept that the hon. Gentleman has
moved a probing amendment, and I hope that my explanation will reassure
him and other members of the Committee about the intentions behind the
clause.
The
amendment takes a particularly bureaucratic approach to what we want to
do. A statutory limitation on the new councils spending is not
the best way to ensure that consumer interests are met. Expenditure by
the new council will be subject to a budget agreed with my Department
each year, as is usual practice for non-departmental public bodies. As
with similar bodies, it is likely that rolling three-year budgets will
be reviewed annually to provide for as much planning certainty as
possible. At the outset, therefore, there will be an understanding of
the overall budget for the three years, but that will be reviewed each
year to ensure that things are working effectively. To take up a point
that hon. Members raised earlier, that will allow certainty about the
planning process and outcomes, as resources will be dealt with in a
transparent way to meet requirements.
Another important point is
that the budget will be subject to close consultationthe hon.
Gentleman did not raise this in his amendment, but I am sure that it
relates to the intentions behind itbetween the Department, the
gas, electricity and postal services companies and, later, the water
companies regarding their respective contributions. It is particularly
important that those sectors are involved, since they are being asked
to contribute significant resources to secure the NCCs work,
albeit for public interest reasons, to which we are all
committed.
When, in
a previous life, I introduced the national minimum wage, I always
argued that we would need a Low Pay Commission. If we impose a wage
settlement on employers and ask them to put their hands in their
pockets, there is a requirement for them to be involved in discussions
and decision making about the level of the settlement. For a different
reason, the process before us is very similar: we are trying to ensure
that industries are engaged at every level as regards their respective
contributions.
Mr.
Prisk:
The Minister is absolutely right that I wanted to
understand the relationship not only between the council and Ministers,
but between the council and its contributory organisations. At what
point will those organisations and their industries first be informed?
I was not quite clear about that from what he
said.
Mr.
McCartney:
The minute the process of establishing the
budget and the financial resources commences, there will be engagement
with the partners, including the organisations that I mentioned, the
Department, the new NCC and its executive officers. It is incredibly
important that we proceed on that basis. At the end of the
decision-making process, we will come to an holistic figure for the
three-year programme, which will be reviewed annually on a specific
basis.
Mr.
Prisk:
In those circumstances, how is it envisaged that a
dispute between, for example, the Secretary of State and the other
contributory organisations will be
resolved?
Mr.
McCartney:
The best way to describe it is to say that it
would be resolved by the Secretary of State, in the sense that there is
an absolute necessity in those situations to establish a budget
reflecting the agreed programme of work. That has a consultation
process in its own right too, and it is important that that is
so.
To answer a
point that I think was also alluded to, the budget-setting process
inevitably includes efficiency and value-for-money criteria, which will
be worked up and are not for discussion here. A limit could have the
effect of preventing the new council from addressing urgent and
unforeseen issues that could arise during the year, and we should not
inhibit the council in that way. In the light of my explanation, I hope
that the hon. Gentleman will accept my efforts to reassure him and his
colleagues.
Mr.
Prisk:
I entirely agree with the Minister that the form of
the amendment for which I am responsible is very crude. Naturally, it
is a device that we are using, and I fully accept that it would not be
something that, were I in his seat
Mr.
Prisk:
Well, if I can delicately put it this way: if we
had the opportunity to swap places, then, like him, I would take the
view that the amendment is crude in form. However, its purpose was
simple. Rightly, the Minister has taken us through the relationships
that will prevail between the council and the Secretary of State and
other contributors. The financial services industry makes a significant
contribution to funding the Financial Services Authority, and the
processes set out in the Bill are similar. I certainly found the
Ministers remarks helpful. I hope that the industry will have
done so too, and on that basis I beg leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment, by leave,
withdrawn.
Clause 5 ordered to stand
part of the
Bill.
|
| |
©Parliamentary copyright 2007 | Prepared 18 April 2007 |