Consumers, Estate Agents and Redress Bill [HL]

I support the Bill on this issue. I am always very dubious about people—it is usually Ministers—trailing the doctrine of unripe time as the justification for doing nothing. If we got anywhere near 2009 or 2010 there would be compelling arguments to take the matter on to 2014 or 2015 or beyond. We must recognise that the technical functions of our consumer body are limited. They are important, but they are not the only functions. By technical here, I mean matters related only to water. On issues related to the pricing round, Energywatch, Postwatch and the National Consumer Council will bring far more to the table than an individual consumer body. Given that, on the pricing issue, a stronger, broader, deeper consumer protection body would better be able to deal with this. It is certainly the case that until fairly recently the water watchdog has not been particularly effective at protecting consumers in England, and even with the powers it has had since 2005 there are still many problems. So in highlighting the difficulties of the water consumer, particularly in relation to price, I do not think it has all that strong a record, one worth protecting as we move into the next negotiating round. For example, the rigour with which Postwatch has dealt with the postal pricing issue will stand it in good stead. On the question of Euro consultation, Energywatch in particular has a very substantial relationship with its European counterparts. A lot of work has been done on issues related to the energy directives, so the idea that only water watchdogs can look after water matters in Europe is not valid. Half or perhaps even two-thirds of the issues related to working the European system are all about understanding that system, so what you are actually dealing with does not really matter in some respects because engaging with the Commission and the extended bureaucracy in Brussels is the important issue. It is not always a question of the issues themselves. On the issue of climate change, this is a kind of last-gasp excuse. We cannot tell ourselves that Energywatch has not been concerned with climate change. Indeed, on her own admission the noble Baroness has acknowledged that climate change as an issue has been written on the blackboard only relatively recently. Broader climate change concerns have certainly been included in the remit of the energy consumer watchdog. What I am trying to get at here is that the three fundamental points made by the noble Baroness do not really have much substance when we set the role of a single consumer protection body against a broader one that brings in a range of expertise which, while not water-specific, would nevertheless include within it the water element. That is because no one is suggesting that all those working for the consumer watchdogs are going to be thrown out into the street. A further point has not been addressed here—that of the monopoly character of the water industry and the need to have as broad and strong a range of expertise as possible to challenge the abuse of monopoly powers by the water companies. Again, a case can be made for a strong and effective national body to take on the water companies which for years have been running rings around Ofwat and the consumer protection body. Indeed, by the noble Earl’s own admission consumers are not happy with the water industry, one which has not greatly improved since 2005, although it has to be said that the consumer body has done good work in the intervening period. But an awful lot remains to be done and I am not sure if the resources of the existing consumer body are sufficient to meet the challenges ahead. A broader based and more effective organisation would, in my view, have a role to play. What I am saying comes down to this: I wish that water would be brought in sooner rather than later, not simply for bureaucratic tidiness but because the water consumer deserves better and could be better served by a water consumer body operating as part of a larger organisation. While the case that has been advanced may superficially appear to be compelling, I do not think it is a good one. As to the idea that we should simply wait until the existing challenges are out of the way when it will be okay to bring it into the larger body, there is never going to be an ideal time for any change in this area; there are always going to be other excuses. The case made by my noble friend Lord Whitty, the chair of the existing National Consumer Council, is the most compelling. We will have a concentration of expertise across a range of consumer protection disciplines that will be able to take on the particular challenges of the water industry. This is not about Europe or regulatory pricing but about a natural monopoly. It is one with which we have to live but which we have to challenge to ensure that it is continually harassed to ensure that consumers get a reasonable deal, or at least a better deal than they have had so far. The existing Water Consumer Council, although it has improved and has received additional powers, has not been able to protect people. Therefore, along with the other consumer bodies that will be subsumed by the new National Consumer Council, the English water consumers will get a better deal if, as soon as possible, they are brought under the umbrella of that new body.