UK Parliament / Open data

Consumers, Estate Agents and Redress Bill [HL]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 90 and 91 to Schedule 6. The Government have already spelt out in the Bill the important requirements that they feel estate agents’ redress schemes must make provision for in order to gain approval. Beyond this, it is left to the OFT to assess what the more detailed criteria and the procedures for approval should be. The minimum requirements for approval are set out in paragraphs 2, 4 and 5 of new Schedule 3. In addition, taking into account Amendment No. 92, to which I have just spoken, paragraph 3 of new Schedule 3 specifies that the OFT must have regard to whether the scheme will be in the interests both of scheme members and of potential complainants, and to whether the scheme follows generally accepted principles of best practice in the OFT’s opinion. Paragraph 4 requires the OFT to ensure that a scheme makes satisfactory provision for sharing information with other relevant bodies. Apart from the requirements set out in the Bill, the OFT can issue any further guidance that it wishes on what it would regard as ““satisfactory provision”” and what it regards as applicable best practice. It is not clear to us what benefit would be gained from requiring redress schemes to comply with a code of practice in addition to the criteria set by the Government in this Bill and any additional criteria set by the OFT. We are confident that, at this Report stage, the Bill contains all the safeguards that are needed to ensure that only high-quality redress schemes are approved. Although I am sympathetic to the noble Baroness’s amendment, I am not inclined to support it.

About this proceeding contribution

Reference

689 c200-1 

Session

2006-07

Chamber / Committee

House of Lords chamber
Back to top