Consumers, Estate Agents and Redress Bill [HL]

On Amendment No. 100, in the name of the noble Baronesses, Lady Wilcox and Lady Byford, and the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley. I am most grateful to them for giving us the chanceto debate one of the most fundamental objectives of the Bill—the creation of a stronger cross-sectoral consumer advocacy body to address consumer issues that frequently arise across sectors of the economy. On the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, about business customers, there is no reason why they should receive an inferior service under the NCC. In fact, I think that they will receive a superior service. Of course, business customers have the opportunity to shop around these days if they are not satisfied with the service or the price that the Post Office is offering them. The whole point of the new structure of the NCC is that complaints will be dealt with just as they are dealt with currently. There will be no diminution of the representational functions of the postal sector or its role in dealing with complaints. The noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, mentioned access to post offices and asked whether the clauses refer to actual post offices or simply to outlets. I refer him to one of the consultation documents published around the time of the Statement, which stated categorically that 99 per cent of the population will be within three miles of an outlet, and that nine out of 10 people will be within one mile of an outlet. So they refer to outlets, not to a temporary service. We propose that the new body will have the critical mass to engage effectively with government, regulators and industry sectors on the basis of expert and informed analysis, and with the benefit of being able to draw on experience and expertise across several sectors. The responsibility and authority to speak for consumers would rest with a single organisation, thus providing a stronger and more effective policy voice in the UK and the EU, as I have already said. Initially, the new council will take over most of the functions and duties of Energywatch, Postwatch and the existing National Consumer Council. Other consumer bodies are not included initially in recognition of the recent reforms to consumer representation in some sectors, such as water and rail, or where there is no need, such as in financial services and electronic communications. These latter sectors already follow the model that we are proposing for energy and postal services, which have a single point for consumers to access help and advice in the form of Consumer Direct. I already made that point to my noble friend Lord O’Neill of Clackmannan, so I shall not repeat it. It is important to note that the new council will represent consumers across all markets; there are no caveats for any sectors. Amendment No. 100 would prevent the abolition of Postwatch and would therefore deny consumers in the postal services sector the benefit of having a stronger, more coherent consumer advocate to represent their interests. I understand that some noble Lords are particularly concerned that the postal services sector needs a stronger consumer advocacy body to represent consumer interests in relation to post office closures. I agree with my noble friend Lord Borrie that we have already covered most of these issues, but I should say that in recognition of the importance of this issue to consumers, the council will maintain the current function assigned to Postwatch to investigate any matter relating to the number and location of public post offices under Clause 15. Postal services consumers will also benefit from the introduction of redress schemes to ensure the resolution of complaints and to provide compensation or other forms of redress where warranted. Postwatch does not have the statutory functions to do that—and rightly so—so the Government are introducing a redress mechanism that must be independent from both parties involved in a complaint to ensure that the decisions reached on each case are fair and impartial. There is currently no such redress mechanism. If that proposal was voted down, we would be removing the option of redress that the Government propose and which consumers do not have under the existing set-up.