Clause
6
General
provision about functions
Mr.
Prisk:
I beg to move amendment No. 9, in
clause 6, page 4, line 42, at
end insert—
‘(1A) The
Council must, at all times, act independently of Government, regulators
and providers of goods and
services.’.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following amendments: No. 7, in clause 6, page 4, line 43, leave out
‘have regard to’ and insert
‘implement’.
No.
8, in
clause 6, page 5, line 9, leave
out ‘have regard to the need
to’.
No. 21,
in
clause 6, page 5, line 15, leave
out from ‘must’ to second ‘to’ in line 16
and insert
‘develop
policies and discharge its duties so that it
contributes’.
No.
14, in
clause 11, page 7, line 10, at
end insert
‘and provide
an account of how its resources were used in an efficient
way.’.
Mr.
Prisk:
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.
4.30
pm
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.
Susan
Kramer:
Before I speak to amendment No. 21, I want to make
a quick comment on the amendments tabled by the Conservative party. We
support
amendment No. 9, on the independence of the National Consumer Council,
which is absolutely crucial, and I see no reason not to support the
tightening proposed in amendment No. 7. However, we have problems with
amendment No. 8, which will become apparent as I speak to clause 6(8),
which refers to sustainable development. It might make the objective of
sustainable development difficult if we had a such a narrow benchmark
as is proposed in amendment No. 8, so I have concerns about
it.
As for amendment
No. 14, it seems to us to be a recipe for endless pieces of paper. We
assume that there should be good practice, imposed by the auditors on
the National Consumer Council, so that it will track the efficiency and
effectiveness of its projects, and, presumably, carry out various forms
of cost-benefit analysis. However, producing a piece of paper
discussing efficiency for everything it does strikes us as waste of
time and a recipe for inefficiency.
Our amendment No. 21 is one of
the more significant amendments in the group, and addresses sustainable
development. I am conscious that, as a consequence of the debate in the
other place, the Government strengthened the language on sustainable
development, because of which I do not intend to press the amendment.
However, it seems to me that this was an opportunity to express
concerns that sustainability should be at the very core of the National
Consumer Council’s work. We should have been very pleased if the
Government had seen their way to using the slightly stronger language
used in our amendment.
The National Consumer Council
as it is today has engaged very much with issues of sustainability, and
I know that the staff are very concerned that that should continue as a
central focus of what they do. In the other place, the case of
“Greening supermarkets”—the NCC report of
September 2006—was quoted. The NCC called on leading
supermarkets to green up their act; it put the top eight to the test on
four green indicators. Lo and behold, organisations that had previously
looked the other way on sustainability matters were suddenly in a race
to prove themselves the greenest, when it was known that that public
document was in the works. Before and after the launch, significantly,
they improved their performance and commitments.
There have since been two
other relevant NCC reports, which were not available to be covered in
the other place. “Information blackout: why electronics
consumers are in the dark” revealed that shoppers who want to
choose energy-efficient electronic household products such as TVs, DVDs
or laptops were, in effect, left in the dark. Of 350 items researched,
only one—a television—had an energy label sticker on it.
Now the NCC is calling for a colour-coded scheme for such goods. The
effectiveness of that work has yet to be proved in the marketplace, but
we expect it to be as effective as the earlier report.
Similarly, in the same month,
a report entitled “Energy shouldn’t cost the
Earth” brought together the issues of fuel poverty and energy
efficiency. It pointed out that many people in fuel poverty are also in
a very energy-inefficient environment. About 80 per cent. of people in
fuel poverty live in homes with below average energy efficiency. Once
again, that work leads towards a blueprint that may, hopefully, bring
change. The
report indeed calls for much more rapid smart metering technology, among
other things, to encourage energy efficiency, even for the least well
off. I raise those
matters as illustrations. I hope that we will get a strong commitment
from the Minister that sustainability will be at the core of the
NCC’s activities. If he can see his way to strengthening the
language further, that is extremely
desirable.
Mr.
Tom Clarke (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab):
Rather late in the day, I add my welcome to your chairmanship,
Mr. Weir, and I want to say how muchI have enjoyed
the proceedings. It is typical of the generosity of my right hon.
Friend the Minister that he did not discourage me from speaking to this
groupof amendments; perhaps, between us, and with the support
of the Committee, we may emerge with more clarity in the
Bill.
My attention
was drawn to clause 6 and the amendments, because when we take a
decision on those matters, we establish the ethos of the NCC as we
would like to see it. That is important, particularly in respect of
vulnerable groups.
My right hon. Friend the
Minister shares my interest in these matters. Indeed, I had the
opportunity some years ago to visit a group in his constituency who
were involved in learning disabilities. They presented me with a
wonderful set of carpet bowls, which remain in my cabinet to this day.
I regret to say that I have not yet used them; perhaps others will
regret it still more.
Mr.
McCartney:
Give us them back.
[
Laughter.
]
Mr.
Clarke:
I say that as an indication that I hope that I am
pushing an open door when I make the case, as I hope to do, for the
kind of ethos in the NCC that many people, particularly those with a
disability, would wish to see.
As it stands, I find clause 6
a little ambiguous. For example, clause 6(4)
states:
“The
Council must have regard to the interests of consumers that are one or
more of the
following—
(a)
disabled or chronically sick
individuals;
(b)
individuals of pensionable
age;
(c) individuals
with low incomes;
(d)
individuals residing in rural
areas.”
Yet clause 6(8)
says:
“The
Council must exercise its functions in the manner which it considers is
best calculated to contribute to the achievement of sustainable
development.”
To be
honest, I think that this matter really must be clarified.
As it happens, although I had
planned to say a word or two about this matter today if I caught your
eye, Mr. Weir, we were assisted this morning by the
memorandum that appeared almost out of the blue from BOC Gases. I
should like to quote BOC’s perception of what is going on. On
energy prices, which I mentioned on Second Reading, BOC
says:
“Generally
speaking the market is dominated by very large companies and customers
are at a commercial
disadvantage.”
That is
its view. My heavens, if that is the case, customers who happen to be
disabled, disadvantaged or on a low income surely have the right to ask
us,
“Well, aren’t you thinking about us as well?” I am
sure that the Minister would want to bear that in mind. BOC goes on to
say:
“While
BOC has great respect for Ofgem...whose duty to protect customers
is, while a primary one, only one of a number of duties, BOC believes
that a body such as the present Energywatch organisation with a
specific and focused purpose to look after customers is
required.”
I do not see
that that aim has been achieved in clause 6, which is why I am
interested in my right hon. Friend the Minister’s response to
the discussion on the amendments. Because he has an open mind, I know
that he will want to address this point genuinely and
honestly.
My
concern, particularly on energy prices, which impact on a huge number
of consumers, especially the disadvantaged ones whom I mention, is that
Ofgem is apparently planning in the upcoming supply license review to
regulate even less regarding disabled customers, arguing that that is
covered by the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.
On that subject, I say very
simply and briefly that I was heavily involved as that Act was going
through Parliament, doing the job that the hon. Member for Hertford and
Stortford is doing now, but I was then facing the right hon. Member for
Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), who had responsibility for the
issue. I do not think that he would ever have argued—I certainly
did not argue—that the DDA took on board the kind of advocacy
role for disadvantaged and disabled people, including people with
learning disabilities. There was an excellent debate about people with
mental illnesses in the Chamber yesterday. None of us would have argued
that we saw it as the role of the council, or of Ofgem, to take that on
board.
4.45
pm
In that
spirit, I say to my right hon. Friend the Minister that there is a
great deal of interest in his response. We want the council to be
proactive; we feel that it ought to deal not only with whether the
market is right and whether regulators ought to be focused almost
exclusively on that. We think that there is a role for advocacy and for
monitoring what happens to people with disabilities and others,
particularly whenit comes to the problems in respect of
pre-payment energy meters. We can all tell stories from our
constituencies of the traumas that arise from such issues.
My right hon. Friend is a
person of vision. We need give the NCC the real powers that are
important to enable the organisation to act in the way to which my
party was committed in its general election manifesto. I hope that my
right hon. Friend will give some regard to the points that I have made.
I am sure that many people, particularly organisations of and for
disabled people and pensioners on low pay, are looking forward to his
response.
Mr.
McCartney:
This has been a short debate, but it has
covered some fundamental issues. In my response, I shall attempt to be
empathetic and sympathetic to what has been said, both generally and
specifically. The hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford spoke to the
probing amendments effectively. I recognise what the
hon. Member for Richmond Park said, and I shall come to each amendment
in turn. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge,
Chryston and Bellshill for what seemed like a tour round the area in
which I was brought up. I was very misty-eyed. I shall respond to
him.
Before the end
of the Bill’s progress, there will be other debates about issues
concerning vulnerable customers, which will allow a more detailed
discussion. It is critically important that we establish the NCC and
that we follow the good practice that exists for current regulators and
those who represent vulnerable consumers. The term “vulnerable
consumers” covers a wide spectrum, which ranges from people with
physical and mental disabilities to people with impairments from
alcoholism, drug abuse and mental illness. Itis a huge
spectrum of individuals who require sustainability. They require a
specific relationshipto look after their needs, to provide
support and to advocate on their behalf, to ensure that the access to
the marketplace that we give to consumers generally is given to those
who are most vulnerable and difficult to reach. It is most difficult
for them to exercise the rights that we give to the community in
general. We therefore need to build capacity of the structure of
services and of the skill match and the nature of the skills with which
we provide our staff in the advocacy
process.
In some
areas, with Ofgem and other bodies, there is already a fundamental
change in the practices of companies and their internal workings with
consumers, particularly vulnerable consumers. We are all at one on the
establishment of the NCC. Its role in representing vulnerable consumers
is a moving feast; from the outset, the focus of that role must be
practical to enable it to deal with the needs not only of vulnerable
groups, but of individual consumers in their own right. That will
require us to take the best practice programmes of existing
organisations and build on them.
The skill match is important.
Those who will be on the front line looking after the interests of
people with a disability or other special needs should have an
understanding, rapport and empathy with such issues. I know that from
my former role at the Department for Work and Pensions. When we
established the Pension Service, we had to change the skill sets of
thousands of staff in an 18-month period. Under previous Governments of
all persuasions, their role had been that of gatekeeper on behalf of
the state, to prevent fraud—and rightly so. However, with the
Pension Service, their role is now more than that. It is an advocacy
service on behalf of people with special needs, and that requires
special skills and talent. There will be a challenge, but the relevant
people will be up to it. We have already seen the changes that are
taking place. When we get to other clauses, perhaps we shall be able to
debate more fully the issues around people with
vulnerabilities.
I
have a final point about vulnerabilities. Membersof Parliament
know about it; we have to ensure that our staff have the skills to deal
with vulnerable constituents. The first thing to establish with someone
who has a vulnerability is a sense of being able to trust people. The
hon. Members for Richmond Park and for Hertford and Stortford made an
important point about
the National Consumer Council and its reputation. It is vital, not only
in its advocacy role in respect of policy making but in its role of
representing people with vulnerabilities. The big thing about
vulnerability is a mistrust of the system and of authority. To be able
to advocate effectively, trust has to be built and that means having
staff on the front line with the capacity to do
that. I hope that
those general comments are helpful about the direction that I want the
new organisation to take and why the clause offers a wide remit for it
to work with the regulators and work on its role with various groups in
respect of the needs of vulnerable
people.
I shall deal
with the other amendments. I reassure the Committee that the new
council will be independent, exercising its statutory functions as it
sees fit for the benefit of consumers. Amendment No. 9 attempts to set
that out in the Bill and would require the new council to act
independently of the Government, regulators and providers of goods and
services. However, the amendment lacks clarity and causes uncertainty;
I do not say that as a criticism, but as a response.
Does the term
“Government” include local authorities, Government
agencies and other non-departmental public bodies? The list is not
exhaustive; the amendment does not target what it exactly means in its
wording. I also remind the Committee that the new council will be a
statutory body with statutory functions, which cannot be interceded
upon by the Secretary of State. It must prepare a forward work
programme annually and consult on it. The programme must contain a
general description of the main activities, including any projects;
that is what the hon. Gentleman wanted to know. It will be
project-specific. Frankly, if it was not, that would be a complete
waste of time. It is important that a work programme should mean
exactly that—after consultation, a clear, transparent set of
circumstances in which the organisation will task itself to
perform.
During the
year, the council will plan to undertake the programme, and the
activities that it proposes to undertake will be in the public domain.
It is also important that there should be clarity for the public and
the consumer in general about the activities of the council. If the
council proposes at any stage to act in response to representations
made to it, again, it will have the independence to do so. For example,
if the hon. Gentleman had an issue about something that had happened in
the marketplace, he might put down a parliamentary question. He might
even ask for a debate, or he might raise the issue in Parliament in
some other form—writing to and asking for a meeting with
Ministers, for example. However, because of the independence of the
council, he could directly ask it to investigate without any recourse
through the prism of a Department or a Minister and a Department. That
is important. How we see the independence of the organisation is very
important. If it were not independent, it would not be able to do the
job required of it—that of representing and advocating for
consumers in general and in particular.
The council should be
independent. It is important that legislators create an independent
body that can respond intellectually to issues that arise from changes
in the market place—I shall come back to the issue of sustainable
development. Legislators will have a body that will help fashion
priorities in terms of public need and public right. That is important.
The council must not only be independent in the sense that a Minister
has said that it is, but by the fact that it has statutory independence
and an absolute right to operate independently. I also question the logic of
requiring the new council to act independently of Government, the
regulators, and providers of goods and services at all times. I can
envisage instances in which significant consumer benefit can be derived
from joint working between the council and a regulator. For example,
they could work together on a particular project. Indeed, clause 20
requires the new council to enter into co-operation arrangements with
the Office of Fair Trading. We envisage that such arrangements will
cover, among other key areas, the issue of consumer education and how
the two bodies will work together to improve consumers’
knowledge of their rights and entitlements should things go
wrong.
In a sense,
the easy job is to establish the NCC. It might be difficult in itself
but, relatively speaking, it is an easy programme of work. It is not so
easy, however, as Governments of all persuasions know, to let people
know about their new rights or to give them the capacity to exercise
those rights. That goes back to the point made by my right hon. Friend
the Memberfor Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill and in the
amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Richmond Park about giving
people who cannot exercise their rights independently assistance to get
access to their rights. It is absolutely essential that we proceed
inthat way.
Concerns were also raised in
another place about the independence of the new council from
Government. The Bill does not contain a power of direction over the
council by the Secretary of State, which is significant. There is no
power of direction in the Bill. The legislation therefore contains a
clear signal that the council is an independent body and that will
informthe decisions that it makes. The fact that the council
will be required to report to the Secretary of State is critically
important because through that, the council is accountable to
Parliament. However, it is a reporting and not a controlling
mechanism—it will not curtail the council’s
independence.
James
Duddridge (Rochford and Southend, East) (Con): Forgive my
ignorance, but why does the reporting mechanism have to involve the
Secretary of State? Why is the council not required to report to
Parliament itself? If the report goes to the Secretary of State, it can
be delayed unnecessarily by a Government of whatever political
persuasion.
Mr.
McCartney:
When we discussed schedule 1 this morning, we
heard about the process by which the council will have a duty to report
to the Parliament. I do not know how long the hon. Gentleman has been a
Member, but the whole purpose of having Secretaries of State report to
Parliament is to make the Executive accountable. There are a range of
ways in which to make the Executive accountable: the discussion we are
having in this Public Bill Committee, for example, or
through parliamentary questions, or—my toes begin to
tingle—through the Select Committee process. We can argue about
whether those processes are as effective as they should be, but that is
another matter. The whole purpose of coming through the Secretary of
Stateis to ensure the accountability of the Executive to
Parliament.
On
amendment No. 7, I agree that it is important for the new council to
undertake a work programme that has been subject to public scrutiny and
consultation. However, the amendment would affect council’s
flexibility and ability to respond to unforeseen changes in priorities
that may only come to light after the forward work programme has been
published, by requiring it to stick rigidly to the programme. We
discussed that matter in more detail earlier and we need not add more
to it, or to the discussion on the issue of the council being required
to produce an annual forward work programme. The important thing is the
matter of unforeseen issues. Hon. Members have spoken about the
capacity of the NCC to intervene and to advocate and represent the
interests of consumers in a fast-changing market place.
Amendment No. 8 would
similarly place a duty on the new council to use its resources in the
most efficient and economic way. I reassure Committee members that we
expect the new council to use its resources as efficiently and as
economically as possible—the Government will be responsible for
a share of its funding. We went into the detail of how the process of
the forward work programme would work when we discussed amendment No.
6. The only thing that I would add is that there will be, as there
usually is, a chief accounting officer. Normally that would
bethe chief executive but that would be up to the organisation
to establish. The chief accounting officer will have clear
responsibilities to ensure that that is the case. The amendment places
an onerous burden on the council to demonstrate compliance as stated by
the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford. However, having worded the
amendment in the way that he did, he made a sensible and very fair
point. It is critical that anybody who is funded from the public purse
or receives funds in the way that this body will, from the public purse
and from industry sources, uses those funds transparently and
effectively.
5
pm
I will make an
assumption here if I may. Anyone who is appointed senior executive has
responsibility for those processes. Part of their contract will be to
ensure that they operate the organisation financially effectively and
evince the normal standards that one would expect of accountancy and
transparency of accountancy. I hope that that reassures the Committee
that the accounting officer will ensure that all funds are used
economically. Furthermore, the National Audit Office will be able to
review the efficiency with which the council uses its resources to
ensure that the requirements are being met. Of course, those reports
are made public and a Select Committee can call them into account along
with the organisations mentioned.
Amendment No. 21 would remove
the existing provision for the council to judge how best to contribute
to the achievement of sustainable development. The hon. Member for
Richmond Park
very kindly reminded the Committee that that issue was raised by our
colleagues in the other place. We brought forward an amendment that I
believe meets her
requirements. The
objective of the new council as drafted will ensure that it exercises
its functions in a manner thatit considers is best calculated
to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development. The term
“functions” is defined in clause 41 as including powers
and, importantly, duties. In developing policies and in discharging its
duties, the council is already required to act in a manner that it
considers is best calculated to contribute to the achievement of
sustainable development. That could be in relation to fuel policy,
energy efficiency, issues that come up in future energy White Papers
and subsequent legislation.
For example, DEFRA’s
proposal for legislation on sustainable development that is coming
before the House in the coming session. Those will all impact on the
work of the NCC. As the years go by, there will be other issues because
we are coming to a common approach across parties on sustainability and
sustainable development. There will be nuances and, in some areas,
there may even be a difference of opinion. However, there is one area
in which there is no difference of opinion. Policy makers, bodies that
are required to carry out decisions of Parliament, and bodies acting on
behalf of consumers or in conjunction with regulators will all have a
requirement and duty to ensure that the consumer interest is served
effectively.
The
hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford was absolutely right about the
NCC’s work. There is no intention of throwing away any work that
is going on now when the new body is created. There will be a transfer
of the ongoing work and activities that willbe incorporated
into its work programme. The work that is being done by the various
organisations on sustainability will go on, but in a more co-ordinated
and more effective fashion. Therefore, there is much more to be said
and done on the matter. Perhaps before the end of the session, we will
have a full debateagain on the issue. There is a common
agreement here that the NCC must be a significant major
playeron sustainable development when it comes to implementing
policies and programmes to help the consumer to make good choices and
decisions. The products consumers purchase for sustainability should be
effective, and the processes used by the various organisations to
provide goods and services to them should be taken into account when it
comes to making policies on sustainable development.
The objective as drafted
follows the precedent of section 35(1) of the Water Act 2003 which
inserted a new section 27A(12) into the Water Industry Act 1991, which
placed an equivalent sustainable development duty on the Consumer
Council for Water.
I
make that point not just about the change we madein the House
of Lords, but remembering that inthe future—in 2008,
after consultation—Ofwat will compact the process. We are
thinking ahead and pre-planning to ensure that any additional
activities that come into the NCC have got an ethos of
sustainability.
Amendment
No. 14 is not clear. It would appear to permit the new council to
include an account of how efficiently it has used its resources when
undertaking an
investigation into a consumer matter or into a problem affecting
consumers—generally or of a particular description—under
its power in clause 11(1)(b). Clause 6(6) already places the
duty on the new council to have regard for using its resources most
efficiently and effectively. We have now done all aspects of the
financial management almost to death. I do not say that in a critical
way, because it is important for sending out signals to anybody who
runs the new organisation about our expectations of value for money and
effectively utilising public
resources. Finally,
clause 7 provides for the preparation of an annual report on the
council’s activities for each financial year, which the council
must publish. In addition, it is routine practice for bodies such as
the new council to be set performance targets in the course of
discussions over the budget. Achievement against those targets is
monitored by the sponsoring Department. The accounts of the new council
willbe certified and reported, as in paragraph 32 of schedule
1, clarified by this morning’s
amendments.
I hope
that, with those explanations, the hon. Ladies and Gentlemen will now
be prepared, first, to withdraw their amendments and, second, to give
me the benefit of the doubt for the further discussions that we will
have on vulnerability and sustainability later in the
Bill.
Mr.
Prisk:
It has been a helpful and rounded debate. I
particularly commend the contribution of the hon. Member for
Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill—I always try to get that name
right—who as usual spoke with care and passion on the subject.
He secured a helpful and informed contribution—as we would
expect—from the Minister on an issue of which he has
considerable experience over many years, namely consumer affairs, and
also about which he rightly feels very passionately, as he so clearly
demonstrated this
afternoon.
Stephen
Pound (Ealing, North) (Lab): This is not germane to the
discussion, but as the hon. Gentleman took so much trouble to pronounce
my right hon. Friend’s constituency correctly, he may wish to
note that he is in fact a member of the Privy
Council.
Mr.
Prisk:
I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman. I was so
focused on making sure that I got my geography right that I got his
status incorrect. I apologise for that, but I am delighted that the
representative for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill has been so
elevated and congratulate
him.
Mr.
Clarke:
I am touched by the comments of both hon.
Gentlemen. I have the feeling that I will be remembered more as a
member of the Monklands district council, much as I am delighted to be
a member of Her Majesty’s Privy
Council.
Mr.
Prisk:
We are in danger of drifting slightly away from the
subject and I will do my best to return to the essence of the issue.
The debate has been useful. We have touched on questions of ethos and
on the new organisation’s independence, accountability and
indeed sustainability. I am encouraged by many of the points made by
the Minister in response to my probing
amendments, particularly on the issue of independence.
He very clearly set out the independent route that will be important
for the consumer council to adopt and to have at the heart of its
purpose.
On the other
amendments—on accountability and efficiency—I was
encouraged by the clear statement from the Minister on the wish to see
the work implemented. That is very important, and we have that on the
record. With reference to amendment No. 14, I entirely agree on the
issue of the National Audit Office being able to participate in
ensuring that the new organisation is efficient and uses its resources
effectively. His clear statement on that is most
encouraging.
Susan
Kramer:
I appreciate the time and effort that the Minister
put into picking up the issues we raised with amendment No. 21 and
making it clear that the intent is for the national consumer council
not to lose the focus that it has been building on sustainable
development, which will be an inherent part of where it goes in the
future. He spent a lot of time talking about the issues of
vulnerability and disadvantage, but we see that there are relevant
places further on in discussion of the Bill where they will need to be
raised again. We will look forward to hearing once again what really is
the best contribution on these issues from the right hon. Gentleman,
the former member of Monklands district
council.
Mr.
Prisk:
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
Clause
6
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause 7
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
| 
