Consumers, Estate Agents and Redress Bill [HL]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord O’Neill of Clackmannan, and the noble Baroness, Lady O’Cathain, for their contributions to this debate. I am left wondering whether guidance is needed on the word ““vulnerable”” and whether the Government are going to define it in the Bill. I can understand why they might not want to do so but this matter could be subject to a requirement for the Minister to issue guidance. Perhaps I may leave that thought with him and we shall see whether he is minded to introduce such a provision on Report. If not, perhaps we will bring forward an amendment. On the other issue, the Minister made me feel slightly more worried. Consumers would fear that they would go to the NCC with an acute or ongoing problem and then, as the Minister said, they might be covered by Clause 13, which is headed ““Reference of matters to the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority””. But that is exactly what consumers do not want—they do not want to ring one number and be passed to another body. You explain your case and then they hum and haw over it and say, ““Well, actually, I think that’s for the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority””. The strength of Energywatch is that it takes the case and deals with it. If passing this legislation means that consumers will receive a lesser service in which there is more buck-passing, we shall definitely be doing them a disservice. However, I shall read carefully what the Minister said and, in the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. [Amendments Nos. 54 to 63 not moved.]