---

Estate Agents (Independent Redress Scheme) Bill [HL]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, who has brought an important Bill before the House. I shared his disappointment when I saw that the Government had not picked it up and run with it earlier when they were dealing with the Housing Bill. I shall not go over all the ground covered by the noble Lord, who has gone through it very clearly. I, too, have received a good briefing from Which? and the National Association of Estate Agents, for which I am grateful. I have a couple of specific questions for both the noble Lord and the Minister. The noble Lord said that the NAEA suggested that the Bill should cover lettings, which is probably sensible. Under proposed Section 27A(1):"““The Secretary of State may by order require an estate agent to be a member of an independent consumer redress scheme””." The provision only says ““may””. What happens if the estate agent does not wish to belong to such a scheme? I am not an expert in these matters by any means, but I cannot see what the counter-balance would be if the estate agent did not want to be involved. The noble Lord is proposing a scheme that he hopes will be desirable and to which people will feel that they should belong, but what will happen if they do not? The noble Lord mentioned home improvement packs, a subject that I have raised in the House on several occasions. I do not know whether the noble Lord or the Government—my dilemma is who to ask—have ever thought about how long those packs will be valid for? Will they be valid for six months or a year, or will certain parts have to be updated during that period? Might that have implications for what the Bill is trying to achieve? I am trying to be constructive, not destructive, because this is a very good Bill. I understand that at present if people consider there has been wrongdoing or they have not been dealt with properly by the estate agent, they appeal to a trading standards officer. Does the noble Lord view his scheme as taking a quicker and less expensive route or as having tighter controls and outcomes? I address that question to the Minister as well. In paragraph 7 of its briefing, the National Association of Estate Agents admitted that only 40 per cent of its members are members of the ombudsman scheme for estate agents. How realistic is the proposed scheme and how does the noble Lord anticipate getting full support for it? Having said that, I agree with the noble Lord that buying and selling a house is, apart from getting married, one of the most fraught times in one’s life. I am not suggesting that marriages go wrong although, sadly, some do. But buying a house involves an enormous amount of capital and is a long-term commitment for many people. It is in all our interests to come up with schemes which help people and make things simpler for them, particularly in cases where they are wrongly advised. The noble Lord was right to highlight the fact that sometimes they are not given the right information at the time, nor told of offers made. I suspect that it is difficult to prove but there are ways of doing it. Lastly, why did the Government not include the new scheme in the previous Bill? Have they conducted more research since then that ties in with what the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, is trying to do? I thank the noble Lord for explaining the measure fully. I am sorry that my comments are brief, but he covered the issue well. I hope that my few questions might help him in advancing his Bill.