Consumers, Estate Agents and Redress Bill [HL]

My Lords, I support the amendment. As the noble Lord, Lord Lee, says, a fine of £500 is nothing like the detriment that someone would incur were an estate agent to foul up the transaction. If the Minister and the Government are not prepared to accept the amendments of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, on compulsory licensing, it is important that the leverage that they are prepared to accept via the redress scheme has teeth and is enforceable. This is a general point of consumer law. In case I have not said this before, although a lot of noble Lords have pointed it out, I declare my interest as chair of the National Consumer Council as is. Across consumer law, the penalties are very low. It is important when we are enhancing consumer law that we set penalties that mean something and which ensure that the system works. I therefore ask the Government to give further consideration to the maximum fine leviable in these circumstances, so that the redress system can achieve what some of us would prefer to have been achieved via a licensing system. But if the redress system is the Government’s preferred mechanism, it has to be made to work. I think that £3,000 is a reasonable stab at a maximum level and will make most estate agents ensure that they are part of a reputable redress scheme.