HL Deb 20 October 2004 vol 665 cc819-21

Part 5 shall cease to have effect five years after commencement."

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the last three amendments in this part are not ones that I want to spend time labouring over. On an earlier occasion when my noble friend and I gave the Government an indication that we were not intending to move an amendment we got a note back saying, "Please move it because we have got things to say". I should hate to miss that opportunity tonight. But they really are all points that we have already touched on in the debate.

Amendment No. 177A is in effect a sunset clause providing that Part 5 will die a natural death—mourned or unmourned, who knows? after—five years. The reason for that is that compulsory provisions which do not work will, as I say, die. If they do work, we shall have new legislation. I think that that would be right because we have heard so much about how the Government intend to learn from this experiment. I do not think that "experiment" is the wrong term. So it will be new legislation with the benefit of that experience. In our view this would be second best to a voluntary arrangement. As I say, the Minister may have something to add to what the Government have already said. I beg to move.

Lord Rooker

My Lords, I say at the outset that I fully appreciate the sentiments behind Amendment No. 177A, which I suppose indicates that we are not minded to accept it. I certainly hope that the House will not accept it.

If—and there is an if—as the Government believe to be the case, a few years after the introduction of statutory home information packs everyone loves each other, the system will work like Rolls-Royces used to work. Estate agents will be loved, which they are not, of course. In terms of level of esteem, they are lower than Ministers and Members of Parliament. They are bottom of the heap. The esteem of estate agents will be raised higher than government Ministers. They will be up there with the doctors and the nurses. I never mentioned the lawyers.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury

My Lords, the Minister must distinguish between gentlemen and ladies in the other place and this esteemed assembly, where we, surely, cannot have sunk that low.

6 p.m.

Lord Rooker

My Lords, I do not know; I just remember seeing the list with government Ministers on it and we were somewhat underneath Members of Parliament.

After a few years, it will be sweetness and light. Home buyers and sellers will be convinced of the advantages of the home information pack—I am now back to my notes. Home information packs will have delivered the benefits that we are suggesting will flow from them. There will be less emotional unhappiness from deals that fall through because, hopefully, they will be severely limited—I am not saying that 100 per cent will succeed; that will never happen. Home information packs will have become an established and valued part of the home buying and selling culture.

Then comes the amendment, which means that that wonderful system will be finished because five years ago those Liberal Democrats introduced an amendment to the Bill to say that it must finish after five years, and everyone will say, "No. Please keep the system". We believe—and this will be the proof of the pudding—that the vast majority of people will learn to use the system and see the benefits of it.

I shall miss out the second part of my notes, except that they say that, in the fullness of time"— but I cannot put a date on that— alternative ways will be found to minimise non-compliance to a point where the legislation can be removed". The ultimate test would be if estate agents, conveyancers and others in the industry simply said to people who wanted to sell property, "We will not sell or market your property unless there is a home information pack. So we will not take your instructions, because the system will not work otherwise". Only at that point could we say that we did not need the legislation. But we think that we will need to keep it in place to protect the interests of consumers so, at this early stage, while we are putting the scheme together, it is best not to forecast that it will last for only five years. It may take more than five years before everyone comes to love it so much that we can do without it.

Baroness Hamwee

My Lords, about 21 years ago, our political opponents in my local authority said that pigs might fly, but we won the by-election in question, so I do not use that term. Let us hope that we achieve the state of happiness that the Minister has forecast. I think that our insurance policy is perhaps the wiser course, but I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 177B:

After Clause 167, insert the following new clause—