| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
18 Dec 2006 : Column GC139
Grand Committee
Monday, 18 December 2006.
The Committee met at half-past three.
[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Allenby of Megiddo) in the Chair.]
Consumers, Estate Agents and Redress Bill [HL]
(First Day)
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Allenby of Megiddo): Should there be a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, the Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and resume 10 minutes thereafter.
Clause 1 [The National Consumer Council and its territorial committees]:
Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 1:
The noble Lord said: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak to a rather large grouping. I think that all the amendments are in my name and basically cover the same issue.
Although I was unable to speak at length on Second Reading, I mentioned that I was concerned about the expression “territorial committee”. In Part 1, we are dealing with something that will be called the National Consumer Council, and territorial committees apparently to be set up in Wales and Scotland. I will speak only to those amendments that are substantive and not consequential in this long group. The point of my amendments is to reassert the principle of devolution.
The new Scottish Consumer Council and Welsh Consumer Council—the bodies that were—are defined in the Bill as territorial committees of the new National Consumer Council. The Bill defines the remit of those committees as being: the,
to the new NCC about “consumer matters” affecting Scotland or Wales respectively;
- “the provision of advice to the Council about the exercise of the Council’s functions in so far as they affect”,
Scotland or Wales respectively; and,
That is not in any measure satisfactory. At present, the Welsh Consumer Council and, as I understand it, the Scottish Consumer Council—my noble friend may wish to speak on that matter—respond directly to Welsh and Scottish Ministers. It seems an odd retreat of the Government from devolution that they now wish to make those bodies subservient to a National Consumer Council and only to offer advice.
The aim of Amendment No. 3 is to ensure that the core functions of the council—representation, information and research—are properly delegated to those bodies now called territorial committees,
18 Dec 2006 : Column GC140
Amendment No. 4 concerns the relationship between the National Consumer Council and its—regrettably, I use the term again—territorial committees. The point of the amendment is to ensure that, before the National Consumer Council exercises one of its functions in a way that may affect an area covered by a territorial committee, the matter must be discussed with the territorial committee in question. That seems absolutely essential. Again, the wording is taken from the Equality Act 2006, and I believe—
Baroness O'Cathain: Perhaps I may make a point. The sound system seems to have gone to hell. The noble Lord speaks softly and we are finding it extremely difficult to hear him.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: If the Committee agrees, I think that we should try to sort this out before we proceed; otherwise, the Hansard writers will find it very difficult to hear us.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: The microphones work better if we sit down.
Baroness O'Cathain: Can we sit down?
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: We did that the other day and they did work better. Shall we give it a try?
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am happy to sit down, although, in my 20 years of experience in this House, I am used to moving amendments on my feet. After spending a lot of money on the Moses Room, I do not see why we cannot get this right.
Baroness O'Cathain: It is ridiculous.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: The Clerk tells me that the microphones can be put into a higher position. It may be better if Members of the Committee do that when they are speaking standing. If, with that improvement, the sound is still not good enough, we will have to adjourn the Committee to resolve the problem.
Baroness O'Cathain: Everything in this House is going wrong at the moment.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Should I start again?
18 Dec 2006 : Column GC141
Lord Williams of Elvel: I do not want to start again. Can everyone hear me now? I apologise for being inaudible in the first place.
I move on to Amendment No. 13A, which is the substantive amendment in my name. The wording again tracks that of the Equality Act, and the aim of the amendment is to ensure that the functions of the new National Consumer Council are delegated to the territorial committees in respect of council activity in the areas that they cover. That seems to me to be a perfectly simple matter, but at the moment it is not in the Bill.
If the Committee will allow me and because I do not wish to try its patience, I shall move on quickly to Amendment No. 13B on funding. The Bill is silent on the proportion of funding that will flow to the new territorial committees in Scotland and in Wales. It gives no safeguard for the future and, in theory, it could mean that the new territorial committees could be starved of funding and thus unable to deliver their remit. The amendment would ensure that Scottish and Welsh consumers received a secure, sustainable and sufficient flow of funding to enable them to work effectively in their own territorial areas.
Amendment No. 36 addresses the question of who reports to whom. It would ensure that the Scottish territorial committee, whatever it is to be called, reports to the Scottish Parliament and that the Welsh territorial committee, whatever it may be called, responds to the National Assembly for Wales. That is really very simple, but Clause 4(7) requires the new National Consumer Council, rather than any new Scottish Consumer Council territorial committee, to send a copy of its forward work programme to Scottish and Welsh Ministers respectively. This provision represents a step back not just from devolution, but from what we have at the moment. The Scottish Consumer Council and Welsh Consumer Council produce their own forward work programmes and deal directly with Scottish and Welsh Ministers respectively. I understand that Clause 1(4)(c) allows the new NCC to delegate other functions to Scotland and Wales, but that is not a requirement and there is no safeguard.
I shall speak to one more amendment, Amendment No. 37—I am sorry to try the patience of the Committee—which would ensure that the Scottish and Welsh committees were required to produce for each financial year their own annual reports on the progress of the project described in their respective forward work programmes for that year, to do so separately from the formal annual report produced by the National Consumer Council, and to send a copy of that report to Scottish and Welsh Ministers respectively. Clause 6(3) requires the new NCC, rather than the new Scottish or Welsh councils or territorial committees, to send a copy of its annual report to Scottish and Welsh Ministers. I would like the Committee to pause on that thought for a moment and, again, to think about the nature of devolution. If something is to do with devolution, people operating in Wales should respond to Welsh Ministers directly on it, and people operating in Scotland, as I am sure my noble friend Lord O’Neill will say, should operate and report directly to Scottish Ministers on it. That is devolution.
18 Dec 2006 : Column GC142
I apologise for taking too much of the Committee’s time and for being inaudible at the outset, but these amendments are important. They go to the heart of devolution. I hope that the Minister will indicate that the Government are not resiling on devolution and that we can change the Bill accordingly. I beg to move.
3.45 pm
Lord O'Neill of Clackmannan: I inform my noble friend that one of the functions of Committees of this nature—it will be done in one of the other amendments with great concision—is that “may” should often be replaced by “shall”. While the amendments do not put it quite in that fashion, we have to take account of the rather narrow view of the nature of devolved responsibility that is being presented by the Government.
In many respects, what we see, as my noble friend Lord Williams has just pointed out, is a number of options opening up, but the soft option is always the one that is being accepted; that is, that the National Consumer Council will eventually, in its wisdom, be able to do certain things. That is very much the product of the metrocentrism of Victoria Street. We have the DTI muddling on, not actually appreciating that we have had a devolution settlement in the United Kingdom since 1999, when the Parliament and the Assembly were established, or indeed since the referenda of 1997. I stress that they are now part of the British political firmament; they are mature institutions. I have to say as a Scot that I am a wee bit less than satisfied with certain aspects of the performance of my colleagues in Holyrood, but I will be working very hard when it comes to the elections in May, and before that, to ensure that many of my Labour Party colleagues are able to form the majority of the Scottish Government.
The point I really want to get across is that we have in the United Kingdom, and we have always had—this was one of the arguments for devolution—a number of institutions that were quasi-Scottish, quasi-Welsh and quasi-Northern Irish, but they were answerable at the end of the day to no one. We would like to see a new balance being struck which takes account of the integrity of the Parliaments and the capacity of the Parliament and the Assembly to pass legislation that will impinge on and affect the working of the National Consumer Council, because the character will be Scottish and Welsh. It seems sensible to give the Scottish and Welsh representative bodies the opportunity to establish accountability with the Westminster Parliament and the National Consumer Council.
I do not wish to detain the Committee at length, because my noble friend has gone through this in some detail. We are trying to establish that the National Consumer Council has to have UK responsibility. Equally, it does not have to—grudgingly or otherwise, and I do not think it would be grudgingly—grant powers to Scotland and Wales. They are entitled to have them under the devolution settlement. Indeed, it is appropriate that they have them because in certain areas Wales, and probably to a greater degree Scotland, will have the opportunity through the Scottish Parliament
18 Dec 2006 : Column GC143
Secondly, it is important that they are properly funded and that this funding is appropriately ring-fenced. It will doubtless be the product of arm-wrestling between the comparative Administrations. Equally, however, there have to be areas in which it is appropriate to look at the UK as a whole. Therefore, it is appropriate that the National Consumer Council should be required to investigate on a United Kingdom basis issues that are appropriate to the United Kingdom, but have arisen from a regional or national concern. We have to establish in statute the responsibility of the National Consumer Council to follow up issues raised by the Welsh or Scottish councils.
It is equally important that appropriate reports are timeously presented because often people can dig deep, look hard and forget. We want accountability and want reports to be published. We must also ensure that we have appropriate funding for these committees. Therefore, it ought to be established in statute that there is no get-out clause. We are not legislating for Government A or Government B or in perpetuity, but it is important that when we talk about functions and capabilities, we also talk about resource. It may well be that it is the responsibility of the National Consumer Council to appoint appropriate people to sit on these committees, but after the committees are established in that way, they are entitled to have appropriate funding, subject to public scrutiny, whether by the Scottish and Welsh bodies or the Public Accounts Committee.
This group of amendments covers most of the appropriate areas. At this stage, the Government may not be inclined to accept them. I am a new boy in this House, but I am sufficiently realistic to know never to push matters too hard because that would deny us the opportunity of coming back to them at a later stage. There is always more rejoicing in heaven over a sinner that repenteth, and I would like to think that the Government will look afresh at this.
In discussions with the Minister and his officials, I got the impression that there is a lack of appreciation of, but not necessarily hostility to, the nature of the devolution settlement. There are Parliaments of the United Kingdom in Scotland and London and there is an Assembly in Wales. There are bodies with differing responsibilities that touch the lives of people who live in those places. They should be given appropriate consideration. At the moment, the DTI, in sponsoring this legislation, is guilty—I use that word without too much consideration—of a kind of metrocentrist insensitivity and believes that what operates in the interests of Victoria Street operates for the interests of the whole UK. That is not appropriate. We must recognise that we have moved on from that. I would
18 Dec 2006 : Column GC144
These may not be the best amendments, but, let us face it, the good should not be the enemy of the best. If it does not disagree and accepts the force of our argument, it is up to the department at a later stage to table amendments that can do this job. At the moment, there is a big gap which will cause a lot of difficulty for a lot of people, not least those candidates who, in May, will stand in elections in Wales and Scotland on behalf of the party that the Minister, my noble friend Lord Williams and I are proud to be members of.
Baroness Wilcox: For the benefit of Hansard, I should say that there is a deliberate mistake in my Amendment No. 5. Where it reads,
No doubt, that has been spotted already.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, has opened the batting on this discussion with an energetic set of amendments. The noble Lord, Lord O’Neill of Clackmannan, has given us a long and, perhaps I may say, a passionate intervention for this stage. I was interested to hear what they said—in particular, the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel. While I do not agree with the majority of his amendments, they highlight, as I hope does my Amendment No. 5, the lack of clarity in the Bill on the proposed functions of the regional committees of the National Consumer Council. The noble Lord’s earlier amendments would effectively split up the NCC into three bodies—one each for England, Scotland and Wales. I shall be interested to hear the Minister’s views on such a move. We on these Benches could not endorse such a move. While independence is a vital ingredient of the NCC, the interests of consumers must be addressed as holistically as possible. I believe that the NCC stands stronger united, especially given the vast volume of the new responsibilities it will be expected to undertake.
Amendment No. 5 seeks to clarify the Government’s vision for the role of the committee. The amendment would ensure that when a territorial committee was established and made representations to the new National Consumer Council, the NCC would have to take those representations into account. I do not wish to railroad the NCC’s research processes, yet I am concerned that under Clause 1(4)(c) the NCC has the power to delegate its functions to the Scottish and Welsh consumer councils, but there is no reciprocal function. If functions are to be delegated, it is in the interests of the consumer and the execution of thorough research into consumer
18 Dec 2006 : Column GC145
I shall speak later to amendments that I have tabled on cost and the extent to which the Secretary of State can influence the running and functions of the NCC, which are related matters. But it is so important to get the internal structure right. It is vital to retain the adaptability of the NCC to address the rapidly changing demands of our consumer world. My fear is that new powers to delegate functions to the regional committees could result in a one-way system. Previously, functions have been delegated, but on a project-by-project basis. It is important not to over-plan for the NCC. As the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, rightly illustrated at Second Reading, there is a healthy relationship between the regional branches of the NCC and the central base.
I am concerned that the independence of the NCC will be threatened by the new funding arrangements in which the Secretary of State will be recouping the costs of the NCC through regulation, according to paragraph 26 of the Explanatory Notes. I hope that the Minister will reassure me that the funding arrangement will not tie the NCC to the wishes of industry, nor to the wishes of government. I should also be interested to know how closely related the funding of the NCC will be to its functions. It is important to have separation in order to maintain the NCC’s invaluable impartiality. In the light of these concerns, I would be grateful if the Minister could inform Members of the Committee how he envisages the relationship between the NCC and the regional committees will develop under the provision in this Bill.
4 pm
Lord Borrie: Perhaps I may intervene and say a few words about these amendments. I am less fussed than my noble friends Lord Williams of Elvel and Lord O’Neill of Clackmannan about the phrase “territorial committees”. I can see that, if those words stood by themselves, they might appear somewhat insulting, particularly in the light of the devolution achievements of the earlier years of the present Government. But in Clause 1 the phrase is clearly linked and associated with, and defined as, the Welsh Consumer Council and the Scottish Consumer Council. Surely no one can feel insulted by those terms. That is what “territorial committees” means according to Clause 1, and so I am not worried about that.
On the substantive argument of my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel, in line with the devolution aspects of our constitution I fully agree that there should be a taken-for-granted delegation by the National Consumer Council where the matters at issue involve either Scotland or Wales. What functions is my noble friend Lord Williams talking about? He is talking about the core functions as set out in Clauses 7, 8 and 9, which we shall discuss more fully later.
18 Dec 2006 : Column GC146
My only quarrel with my noble friend is that his Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 refer to those functions as “decision-making” ones. As I see it, the function of advising Ministers and proposing policies to them, and certainly the function of research and so on, which the National Consumer Council is given under those clauses as core functions, are only decision-making in the very narrow sense that they are decisions on the policy of the National Consumer Council. However, they are not decision-making so far as concerns the populace because the NCC does not have any executive functions at all.
I am sorry if my noble friend regards this as pernickety. However, while I think that Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 are inappropriate and unnecessary, I agree with the substance of his amendments in this grouping—I shall not list them all—for the reasons that both he and my other noble friend Lord O’Neill enunciated.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: First, I apologise for not speaking at Second Reading, but my diary on that day was such that I could not be present for either the opening or closing speeches. Secondly, I pass on apologies from my noble friend Lord Razzall, who is unable to be here today.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, raised some very important points on devolution. As the noble Lord, Lord O’Neill, correctly said, the decision on whether the amendments in this group are necessary depends to some extent on the small words “may” and “shall”, which we will debate later.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |