Consumers, Estate Agents and Redress Bill [Lords]

We very much support the concept behind the Bill. The debates on it have been a fascinating exercise in constructive cross-party exchange. As a result of the Bill, we can say that consumers will be better protected than they are today. I pay tribute to those who have supported us and helped us to understand aspects of the Bill and to try to find ways to improve it. Which? has been mentioned. I would like to mention the National Association of Estate Agents, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors and a number of others that have made particular efforts to make sure that we are well informed. Their information and proposals have always been constructive. Today we sound the death knell, in a sense, for Energywatch and Postwatch, but both organisations have played an extraordinary role in supporting and protecting consumers, thanks to the way they have handled complaints and investigated underlying issues. An excellent example was given by the right hon. Member for Coatbridge—he has given me leave not to attempt to pronounce the rest of his constituency name. [Interruption.] Others are more able to pronounce it than I am. The work that those organisations have done to try to expose the issues surrounding energy pricing has earned them the gratitude of a large number of consumers, especially those who are most vulnerable. In many ways, those organisations have set a standard for complaint handling against which the new National Consumer Council and the whole system that has been set up under the Bill will in effect be judged. This is an opportunity for us all to pay tribute to the many individuals who have been so dedicated and have been involved in that process. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt), who has supported me on the first piece of legislation that I have attempted to take through the House and who has brought so much wisdom and expertise to the issue. From the Lords, I would like to mention Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer and—perhaps this is slightly unusual—Lord Caithness, who sits on the Conservative Benches, but who has been quite an ally in working on the estate agent language, even if he was not necessarily supported by his own party. We value his contribution. I appreciated the positive and constructive approach taken by the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney). It was a pleasure to be able to raise an issue and get a straight answer and to feel that the issues that we raised were understood and taken seriously. The atmosphere that he created and the way in which he took the Bill forward have allowed this to be a constructive process and I greatly appreciate that. The Government gave way on a number of issues and made a number of improvements in the course of our debates. I will touch on a few of them. In the end, they strengthened the language on sustainable development as a principle of which the new council must take note in exercising its functions. We appreciate that, even though we wish the Government had gone further, given the importance of establishing that in this era. There were many occasions when instructions to the NCC were couched in the language of ““may”” rather than ““must””. We appreciate that there was at least one occasion when the shift from ““may”” was towards ““must””. I am talking about the measure to require the regulator to prescribe standards for complaint handling. There was clearly a switch in the presumption of what the activity and focus of the NCC should be and we appreciated that. We and others, including the Conservatives, were particularly concerned that the penalties that were initially to be levied on an estate agent who refused to join a redress scheme were so paltry as to be almost pitiful and ineffective. The penalty was set initially at £500. The Government moved that to £1,000, which is an improvement. The Conservatives called for £3,000. We wished to have scope for a penalty as high as £10,000 to be levied, particularly for multiple offenders who whenever they are challenged simply keep refusing to do as they are supposed to do and join a redress scheme. At least there was some movement in the right direction. As the Minister will be aware, the context is that the typical fee for an estate agent from the sale of a property is £3,000. We think that the penalty should at least bear some relation to the earnings from carrying out a transaction not covered by the redress scheme.