Housing and Regeneration Bill

Obviously we welcome the competitive sentiment behind the noble Earl’s amendment, but ultimately we disagree and part company with him in what it seeks to achieve. For the benefit of noble Lords who are not familiar with the area, I ought to begin by explaining what an accreditation scheme is. It provides for assessor certification by the training and licensing of people who will carry out assessments. We currently have schemes in place through contractual arrangements but in due course we will replace them with schemes set up under the powers conferred by the Bill. We are committed to ensuring that there are transparent and open processes for the selection of any accreditation scheme or schemes and for the establishment of a competitive market for accreditation schemes and assessor services. However, as I am sure the noble Earl will agree, it would be highly unusual to have this level of detail set out in primary legislation. It could fetter the Secretary of State in acting in the best interests of the public. More pragmatically, we are also considering a number of different models for setting up accreditation schemes and may want to adopt the approach used in energy assessor schemes for issuing energy performance certificates. The approach adopted in this instance does not limit the number of such schemes and therefore there is no competition between organisations to set up accreditation schemes. Such competition as there is will be in the marketplace for accreditation services, to the ultimate benefit of the consumer. Accordingly, we believe that the amendment, well intentioned as it is, would not have the desired effect of ensuring that the Secretary of State’s discretion is exercised in the public interest. Moreover, it would be undesirable to stipulate how the Secretary of State is to exercise discretion in this matter. I can assure the Committee that the principles of transparency and openness, and the harnessing of competition for the public good will remain the basis for any selection process when it is taken forward. As a result, the amendment is not the right way to proceed. Having accepted our commitment to introducing transparent and open selection processes, and to promoting competition, I hope the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw his amendment. He asked for some precise information. With regard to the publication of the contract, it is in the public domain and I shall send him a copy. The contract expires in 2013. I apologise for getting the institution name wrong but these things do happen, as I am sure they did when the noble Earl was in government. As to the value of the contract, I am more than happy to write to the noble Earl about that.