Consumers, Estate Agents and Redress Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 123: 123: Before Clause 52, insert the following new Clause— ““Standards of competence: commencement Section 22 of the Estate Agents Act 1979 (c. 38) shall come into force, and the first regulation under that section shall be made, within six months of the passing of this Act.”” The noble Earl said: We have moved on to Part 3, which deals with estate agents. At this stage I must declare my interest as a surveyor and a consultant to an estate agency firm, something which most noble Lords have known for some time. We are behaving rather strangely in that we are one of the few countries in the world to have no restrictions to becoming an estate agent. Pretty well anyone can set up an estate agency without qualifications, training, supervision or regulation, and yet that person could well be handling what is for the great majority of people the most important transaction they are ever likely to deal with: the buying and selling of their property. That is in marked contrast not only what other countries are doing, but also to every other professional sector in the United Kingdom. How can the Minister possibly justify this position? When one compares the situation with regard to estate agents with that of financial advisers, legal advisers, conveyancers or surveyors, there is a marked difference. All of the other professional bodies are subject to considerable regulation by which they have to abide. As I said, I am a consultant to an estate agent’s company and a surveyor. It took six years to become fully qualified as a surveyor with the appropriate initials. That is a lengthy training and there are very strict regulations associated with the profession. However, I needed none of that training to set up as an estate agent. To me, that is quite wrong. Noble Lords will recall that at Second Reading I also raised the question of someone in the City—I cited the example of my daughter—having to take a vast array of examinations to meet the regulations laid down by the Financial Services Authority in order to sell a few shares. In marked contrast, when dealing with something that is usually far more important to people—their property—a person may have absolutely no qualifications or training at all. This Bill provides us with a golden opportunity to set a standard of competence for estate agents that would lift them from being, along with politicians, the most disliked and disrespected group of workers up to something rather better, on a par with their financial counterparts. We are lucky in that we have the Estate AgentsAct 1979 because in Section 22 provision is made for the regulations. All the Minister has to do is enact those regulations, and that is the purport of my amendment. I understand that the Minister’s position is not an easy one. He has come into a department and is doing a good job, having been presented with a Bill into which he had no input. But, as we have been discussing it, it is clear that this is quite a peely-wally Bill—as we say north of the Border. We have all been nice about the legislation, but will it really help the consumer? In parts, yes, but as the noble Lord, Lord O’Neill of Clackmannan, made clear a few moments ago on Amendment No. 111, he is appalled by the modesty of the Government’s ambitions. Here is a chance for the Government to redeem themselves and try to help the consumer. The Minister stated clearly the Government’s position at Second Reading. He is against the regulation and licensing of estate agents, but is happy to have a redress scheme. However, I put it to him that that is far too late. The event has happened and all we are doing is trying to clear up the mess afterwards. I am trying to prevent the mess happening in the first place. I am not alone in thinking that regulation and licensing are certainly one way forward. Indeed, I know of no respectable estate agent anywhere in the country who does not want this. We are all fed up of cowboys, but the Government are supporting them because theyare the ones who can drive the cowboys off the street with this legislation but are making no attempt to do so. The Minister is also at odds with his Chief Whip and his Deputy Chief Whip. In 1977, Bryan Davies MP, now the noble Lord, Lord Davies, backed by Mr Bruce Grocott MP, now the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, put forward the Estate Agents Bill. If he happened to look at Clause 20 of that Bill, which the Government took up and which became the Estate AgentsAct 1979, he would find their desire for regulation. The section states: "““The Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument make provision for ensuring that persons engaged in estate agency work satisfy minimum standards of competence””." And so it goes on. The Minister has a problem on his own side. The Government are also at odds with themselves, because unfortunately, and most unusually for government civil servants, they do not seem to be talking to each other. Just as we are discussing a Bill that prevents estate agents being regulated, in the main Chamber they are discussing the Legal Services Bill, which provides exactly for the regulation of estate agents. The Minister might know about that Bill. I refer him to Part 5, which provides for alternative business structures to be set up that can include estate agents. Those estate agents will be regulated, because regulation is needed under that structure. Big estate agents increasingly want to amalgamate with lawyers. We discussed that quite a lot in debates on the home information packs. The Government wanted to make one-stop shops at which you could get your surveyor, your estate agent, your mortgage and your legal advice all in the same building. Those people will have to be regulated. I draw the Minister’s attention to the Explanatory Note to Clause 175 of the Legal Services Bill, which states: "““Prospective ABS firms””—" that is, alternative business structure firms— "““(referred to in the Bill as ““licensed bodies””) will have to be licensed by a ““licensing authority”” (either an approved regulator that has successfully applied to become a licensing authority, or the Board itself)””," where no appropriate licensing authority is in place. The Government set out in the Explanatory Notes to that Bill all the advantages that this will give people. One advantage that they rate so highly is increased consumer confidence. Is that not what we are talking about in relation to the Consumers, Estate Agents and Redress Bill? Is not increased consumer confidence and protection exactly why we are discussing the Bill at some length? The Government say that increased consumer confidence is a great thing with one Bill that is being discussed in the Chamber, but that it is not what they want at all with this Bill. My noble friend Lord Newton and the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, made a point about the multiple redress schemes when speaking to Amendment No. 111. The noble Lord, Lord Borrie, was the one who pointed out that those schemes also apply to estate agents. So where will the consumer be in the future? At the moment, he has a very low opinion of any estate agent. Politicians, estate agents and second-hand car salesmen are at the bottom of the list.