Consumers, Estate Agents and Redress Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 129: 129: Schedule 6 , page 62, line 13, after ““in”” insert— ““(a)”” The noble Lord said: In speaking to Amendment No. 129, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 130, 131, 132 and 137. Amendments Nos. 131, 132 and 137 are the key amendments. We believe that a penalty of £500 for operating outside the scheme is ridiculously small, and I agree with the remarks made in Committee yesterday by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and other noble Lords. The sum of £500 is almost derisory and almost a joke. After all, the average commission for selling just one property in the United Kingdom today is more than £3,000, according to the Estate Agency News of September 2006. We on these Benches believe that a far more appropriate penalty for an estate agent who fails to join a recognised redress scheme should be a direct referral to the OFT. It should then be its responsibility to identify the appropriate penalty, be it financial or a limitation on trading activity. Amendments Nos. 129 and 130 are linked to our earlier amendments relating to direct selling by developers and the leasing market. They ensure that the referral mechanism applies to those who fail to join a redress scheme in those sectors. How does the Minister propose to ensure that the redress scheme will work effectively when the penalty for non-participation is so insignificant and is thus unlikely to deter rogue elements in the property world? I beg to move.