Consumers, Estate Agents and Redress Bill [HL]

I thank the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, for his support. His committee produced a very interesting report into water management, so he has recently been exposed to a particularly large amount of evidence on this issue. I was quite surprised by the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord O’Neill, in one respect. He accused me of saying that we should wait for ever, and he said that there would never be an ideal time. I accept that there will never be an ideal time, but I suggested a specific time related to the pricing round and the timing of the water framework directive. Far from saying that it should be delayed for ever, I suggested to the Government that that would be the most ideal time if this move was going to be made. So I am not at all guilty of the accusation that he levelled at me. I think that the DTI has slightly missed the point here. One of the reasons the Consumer Council for Water was set up under the Water Act, which of course was a Defra Act so I do not think that many of the officials will have been party to these discussions, was to balance the interests of the environment and the users of water that used a tap as opposed to swimming in it as fishes or anything else. When we talk of consumers, it is assumed that we mean human consumers, but a whole other part of creation uses water. That is why the balance is so important. The noble Lord, Lord O'Neill, says that CCW has not batted particularly hard on behalf of the consumer. However, those consumers concerned with the environment feel that part of CCW’s job, as defined under the Water Act, was to bat for the environment as well and to be part of weighing up the balance. It is not all about the price. Of course that is important, but that is part of the regulator's job, which is why it is important that there is a knowledgeable consumer voice on the water framework directive which will ask people to manage their water environment in an entirely different way. In summary, I am not convinced that the Government have yet got the message but I am very heartened that the Minister’s colleague, Mr McCartney, will be meeting the regulator. I wonder whether that meeting is likely to take place before Report so that, should we feel moved to ask the opinion of the House on the matter, the Government will be able to tell us about its outcome. We will then see whether that will be necessary. I hope that the Minister is nodding, so I hope that it will be before Report. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 30 agreed to. Clauses 31 and 32 agreed to. Clause 33 [Compensation for loss of office]: [Amendment No. 102 not moved.] Clause 33 agreed to. Clause 34 [Transfer of property etc]: [Amendment No. 103 not moved.] Clause 34 agreed to. Schedule 4 agreed to. Clause 35 agreed to. Clause 36 [Extension of the Council's functions: Great Britain]: