Homes Bill

Public Bill Committee, 16 January 2001.

Standing Committee D

Homes Bill

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

Before we begin, I have two announcements. Hon. Members may remove their jackets if they wish. Under my chairmanship, that is blanket consent for the duration of the Committee. If Mr. Stevenson has a different view, he will no doubt express it.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) has telephoned me to say that he cannot be with us for the first hour this morning as he is speaking in Westminster Hall.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I beg to move,

That—

(1) during proceedings on the Homes Bill, the Standing Committee do meet on Tuesdays at half-past Ten o'clock and at half-past Four o'clock and on Thursdays at a quarter to Ten o'clock and at half-past Two o'clock.

(2) 12 sittings shall be allotted to the consideration of the Bill by the Standing Committee;

(3) the proceedings on the Bill shall be taken in the following order, namely, Clauses 1 to 9, Schedule 1, Clauses 10 to 15, new Clauses and new Schedules relating to Part I, Clauses 16 to 29, Schedules 2 and 3, Clauses 30 to 34, remaining new Clauses and new Schedules;

(4) the proceedings on the Bill shall be brought to a conclusion at the 12th sitting at Five o'clock.

I begin by welcoming you to the Chair, Mr. Gale. I am pleased that you will be chairing our proceedings. Last year, I had the privilege of taking a larger Bill through a Committee under your chairmanship, and Committee members on both sides—some relics of that experience are with us today—agreed that although some of the Bill was controversial, the Committee's proceedings were conducted in a constructive, courteous and amicable way, which owed much to your wise chairmanship. I look forward to seeing the same qualities in our forthcoming sittings.

The resolution of the Programming Sub-Committee sets out the times and dates for our discussions. It is proposed that we meet twice on Tuesdays and Thursdays for a total of 12 sittings. I believe that that time will be more than adequate to allow proper scrutiny of the Bill's 34 clauses and three schedules. Two years ago, I was responsible for the Greater London Authority Bill. Although it was almost 10 times the length of this Bill, it had just two and a half times the number of sittings. That comparison shows that the usual channels have, in their discussions, made every effort to ensure that we have more than adequate time to consider all the provisions that need scrutiny.

I believe that the time is sufficient to allow for adequate discussion of amendments and of new clauses, which the resolution proposes should be taken at the end of the discussion of each part of the Bill. With the exception of the final sitting on 1 February, we are not proposing an end time to either Tuesday or Thursday proceedings. The proposed order of consideration is a straightforward means of allowing our proceedings to be orderly and thorough. I hope that it finds favour with the Committee.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

I remind the Committee that the debate is limited to half an hour. I also remind hon. Members, as I asked the usual channels to tell them earlier, that we will be sitting this afternoon, which is unusual on the first day of a Committee. Any hon. Members who have other plans may wish to make alternative arrangements.

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

I do not think that you are a relic, Mr. Gale, but I also welcome you to the Chair. I am sure that our proceedings will be good natured, and that we will be able to disagree without being disagreeable. This debate is the third bite of this particular cherry. We debated the programme resolution after the Second Reading debate, and I endorse the comments and criticisms that I made there. Last night, there was a meeting of the Programming Sub-Committee, and here we are again for half an hour this morning.

It is not good enough for the Minister to say that he believes that the time allowed is adequate to deal with the Bill, the amendments that we know about, the amendments that we do not yet know about, new clauses and Government amendments. How can he be sure? That is the basic criticism of any attempt to give a definite end date to our consideration.

It is not remotely relevant for the Minister to cite the number of clauses. There are 34 clauses and three schedules, but some are complex and worthy of considerable debate. The Maastricht ratification Bill had only a couple of clauses, and that took up a lot of time, as hon. Members will remember.

We hear much from the Government about open government but the opposite of that is happening in the House of Commons. There is a policy of suppressing debate as far as possible, which renders the House an irrelevance in the Chamber and in Committee.

It is important to remember the history. The original proposal for programming debate—or guillotining, to give its proper description—predated Second Reading, let alone any amendments tabled since. The proposal from the usual channels has always been the same: six days and 12 sittings. That has not altered since the beginning of the so-called programming process. There has been no real flexibility. It is rather like Henry Ford saying that people can have any colour they like as long as it is black. It seems that we can have any period that we like as long as it is six days and 12 sittings.

Yesterday evening, under your chairmanship, Mr. Gale, I had the pleasure and privilege of sitting for the first time on a Programming Sub-Committee, which is the new constitutional device that the Government have introduced to deal with such matters. No record is kept of its proceedings, it is closed to the public and other hon. Members are barred from participating in its debates. In effect, it is held in secret. At that meeting, a decision was made to programme the Standing Committee along the lines of the resolution.

At the Programming Sub-Committee—a new Government device to guillotine the discussion of legislation—the Minister let slip that the Liberal Democrats had agreed to Government proposals to limit discussion of part I, which deals with seller's packs, to three sitting days. As my comments will be the only record that the public will get on the proceedings, I note that the Liberal Democrats voted with the Government to limit the entire Standing Committee duration to six days.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

Will the hon. Gentleman confirm whether he had exactly the same discussions on the issue with the Government Whip as I did, and that he agreed to the same proposals as I did on behalf of the Liberal Democrats?

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

I understand the hon. Gentleman's embarrassment and I am afraid that it is only just beginning. I cannot confirm whether we had the same discussions through the usual channels because I do not know what discussions they had. I would have thought that it was blindingly obvious that he reached a secret deal with the Government business managers and we did not.

Not only did the Liberals Democrats cook up that secret deal—[Interruption.]

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

Stop digging.

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

The hon. Gentleman is the one who is in a hole, and a deep one. Given that there is no record of last night's proceedings, a fact that we would probably all agree is unfortunate, the task falls to me to explain to the rest of the Committee and to the general public what has been going on.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

I shall clarify what went on. The discussions in which I might, or might not, have been involved were held under duress and I opposed the Government's procedure for timetabling the Committee in this way. However, the Liberal Democrats, acting under their Lib-Lab pact, were only too keen to acquiesce.

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

There we have it: a rare shaft of light on the deliberations of the usual channels. As someone cleverer than me once said, Whips are as important to Parliament as sewers are to civilisation.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

Sometimes the Whips say that about their own Front Bench.

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

Let us not allow this seasonal hilarity to detract from the fact that the proposals were made on a take-it-or-leave-it basis, and whereas we declined to accept them, the Liberal Democrats signed up with their customary alacrity. Perhaps the Minister slipped up when he revealed what he did last night, but he has revealed it. Is it not typical of the Liberal Democrats to do a secret deal with the Government to limit debate on this crucial part of the Bill?

Millions of people will be affected by the proposals to change the rules on house purchase, and they deserve a proper and wide-ranging debate. This latest example of Lib-Labbery will deny them that. I strongly wish to place on record the role of the Liberal Democrats in denying it to them, and my comments are the only way in which to do that.

Mr. Gale, I know that you said last night that you would deal with this point but, as it is pointless to go over the past any more, I want to consider the future and especially the issue of flexibility. Our plea is simple. How can the Government claim to be taking due account of the democratic process when they are putting the cart before the horse, by deciding before Second Reading, and even before they have seen any new amendments or clauses, precisely how long the Committee stage should take? That period has not altered one iota since proceedings on the Bill began.

We plead only for some flexibility. Whether that would amount to an extra day or two days we cannot yet say, for a number of good reasons. For instance, new issues might arise, such as the serious concern that was expressed by Labour Back Benchers about the effect of the seller's pack in low-demand, low-value areas. That important issue dominated part of the Second Reading debate, and we shall return to it frequently.

There is also the prospect of more amendments, new clauses and new schedules: some have already been tabled, and no doubt others will be. Unless they are to be dealt with in an unseemly flurry at the end of our proceedings, it is difficult to see how they can all be debated properly.

I have already commented on Government amendments, and I think that the Minister and I are ad idem about the matter. Every Bill involves consequential and drafting amendments that are tabled by the Government, and we have no difficulty about that. Most of them will probably go through on the nod. However, we are concerned about the habit, which has developed during the current Parliament in particular, of large rafts of Government amendments appearing late in Committee or during later stages that make substantive changes to legislation.

It is perhaps churlish of me to complain about that now, because we hope that on some of the big, highly technical and complex issues, the Government will see the sense of making changes. For example, on enforcement, alternatives to the criminal sanctions that they are pursuing might be proposed. We would welcome such Government amendments, or at least a detailed indication of amendments that they might table at a later stage. We cannot make advance provision for such amendments. So far, the Government have tabled only the programme resolution. Again, I put down a marker about that.

We are pleased that there are to be no time limits on sittings on given days but, in my experience and possibly in yours, Mr. Gale, merely sitting longer in the evening does not necessarily speed matters up. The option of sitting on other days between now and 1 February has been left open. We may have to reconvene a meeting of the Programming Sub-Committee if progress on the Bill slips behind that which the Government's business managers had in mind.

Taking those considerations into account, we need a further indication of potential flexibility from the Minister. You have expressed a desire to put other related matters on the record, Mr. Gale, because of the slightly unsatisfactory fact that Programming Sub-Committee proceedings are not public. That is all we want. We will do our best to meet the timetable, but issues will arise. Just this morning, I had a flurry of new briefings from a variety of organisations that are intimately involved with part I. Even doing the best we can, I cannot see how we can commit to finishing part I in three sitting days. The Liberal Democrats may believe that that does not matter, because they are concerned more with part II. We are concerned with part II as well, but wish to see the whole Bill subject to proper scrutiny and debate in Committee and thereafter.

Hon. Members will agree that part I contains far more technical and legal complexities than part II. We want to go through part I carefully, as it will affect an average of 1.5 million transactions a year. Millions of people will be affected when dealing with the most important financial transaction that they will ever have to carry out: the purchase or sale of the family home.

It is a great shame that the Government are being so cavalier about the time that we have to debate the Bill, particularly part I. It is also unfortunate that the Liberal Democrats are happy to go along with the time limit for part I. We are determined to see that the points are debated properly with or without their co-operation, because we are, of course, the true party of opposition—[Interruption.] I leave out any opposition from Government members to some parts of the Bill. Therefore, I urge hon. Members to vote against the programme resolution.

Mr. Don Foster rose—

Mr. Clifton-Brown rose—

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

Order. Before I allow the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) his riposte, it might be helpful if I place some matters on record. As the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) indicated, I had intended to make a statement at the end of this short debate. As certain matters have been raised, it is appropriate to do it now. If necessary, I propose to add the injury time that I take now on to the end of the debate, so that nobody should feel short-changed.

At the Programming Sub-Committee last night, certain decisions were made and votes, which are a matter of record, were taken. I should make it plain that Mr. Speaker has ruled that Programming Sub-Committees are to be treated as Select Committees sitting in private. When Select Committees sit in public and take evidence, their hearings are recorded verbatim. When they sit in private, no such record is taken. Mr. Speaker made that ruling and it is not for me or for members of the Committee to challenge it. However, if hon. Members have a different view, they are entitled to make their points to the Modernisation Committee, and through the Committee, to the whole House. It may be that, as the new ways of working become clearer, the House may wish to take an alternative view.

I believe that decisions taken should be minuted. Committee members who were not present last night do not have access to how decisions were taken. That is unsatisfactory, and it is why I am intervening now. I indicated to the Sub-Committee last night—the Chairman of Ways and Means having told me that which has already been made plain by both Government and Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen—that while the final sitting day is time-limited to 5 o'clock, no other sittings are so limited. Hence, so far as the Chair is concerned, there is flexibility within the sitting days.

I have expressed through the usual channels my willingness to serve the Committee for as long as is necessary. I cannot commit my co-Chairman, but I am certain that Mr. Stevenson will take a similar view, given the guidance of the Chairman of Ways and Means.

I also told the Programming Sub-Committee last night, and now make it clear to all Committee members, that I shall reconvene the Sub-Committee if I deem it necessary in the light of amendments and new clauses tabled either by the Opposition or by the Government. I believe that that offer has the broad consent of all hon. Members.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I, too, am delighted to serve under your chairmanship on this Committee, Mr. Gale. As I have said before, your chairmanship is both fair and firm and you always extend enormous courtesy to hon. Members, with a great deal of good humour. You have even been known—occasionally—to smile at one or two of my remarks. I was therefore interested by the way that you smiled at the Minister's reference to me as a relic. I should like to remind you that the Minister and I are not alone; we have with us another relic, the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry). I am greatly looking forward his contributions to the Committee, as I suspect that their style will be very different from that which we can expect from the hon. Member for Eastbourne, judging by his opening remarks.

I am also delighted to be joined today by my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake). As his wife was due to give birth to their second child yesterday, I hope that the Committee will understand if my hon. Friend is not at our next sitting; I am sure that his absence will be brief, as he believes that this is an important Bill.

Given the comments made about Liberal Democrats by the hon. Member for Eastbourne, anyone who reads the Official Report of today's proceedings will be forgiven for believing that there is an election in the air. You will not be misled, Mr. Gale, because your many years of experience will tell you that such comments are made regularly, whether or not an election is imminent. The hon. Member for Eastbourne began by saying how much he looked forward to the Committee's debates, in which he hoped for a great deal of good will. I am delighted to join him in hoping that that is the case, but am surprised at the way in which he has gone about attempting to ensure as much.

As you rightly pointed out, Mr. Gale, many Committee members were not involved in our deliberations in the Sub-Committee last night. I should therefore like to place on record the observation that I made then, that—as it was the first time that many of us had sat on such a Committee, there having been very few such Sub-Committees in the many hundreds of years of our Parliament—we were fortunate to be there and to witness some firsts. One of them was a real first: the first-ever filibuster in a Programming Sub-Committee, by the hon. Member for Eastbourne. Therefore, I was pleased when he said today—it still took him 13 minutes—that he would not repeat all those remarks, although he did endorse them. I am delighted that he has not changed his mind between yesterday and today. His comments were reminiscent of those of former American Vice-President Dan Quayle, who said, ``I agree with all the mis-statements that I have made''.

We had an opportunity in the Programming Sub-Committee to discuss whether we have sufficient time to debate all the important issues before us. I made it clear then that I believe that our current procedures are wrong, in that we expect the House to decide the end date of a Committee on the same day as the Second Reading debate. It seems odd that we have to make such a rapid decision, because it is only during that debate that we are able to determine the range of issues and concerns. It would be better to have a gap between the Second Reading debate and the programme resolution.

However, an end date has been set. The Government have presented us with an inordinately flexible way of approaching the legislation. We can sit for as long as we want, and we are grateful to you, Mr. Gale, for agreeing to continue in the Chair for all hours of the night should it prove necessary. However, I hope that that will not be the case.

In the Programming Sub-Committee, I supported a motion tabled by the hon. Member for Eastbourne that we should have the flexibility to go on to midnight on the last day of the Committee, should that prove necessary. Sadly, that motion was defeated but, with that exception, the programme resolution before us is very flexible.

Finally, although much has been made of the informal discussions among all the parties concerned, whether under duress or not, we have agreed on a sensible way of allocating our time up to the finish date. Although it is not part of the programme resolution and is not binding, I urge all Committee members to uphold that informal agreement. Only by doing that can we ensure that all parts of the Bill receive reasonable consideration.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

I am pleased to have literally three minutes in which to put on record some of the issues that I raised on a point of order in the Programming Sub-Committee yesterday. I would like to make it clear that the main Opposition party wholly deprecates this timetable procedure. I was involved in discussions on the timetabling of the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill, which was far more complex than this Bill. The debate lasted six weeks, and the out day was exactly that which was originally agreed informally at the beginning of the Committee. Such sledgehammer guillotine procedures are totally unnecessary.

I raised seven points last night regarding the Programming Sub-Committee. First, although I do not wish to challenge the Speaker's ruling, as time goes on it will increasingly seem a good idea to make the Sub-Committee's proceedings public. In this age of enlightenment, with the Government's Freedom of Information legislation, there is no good reason why those deliberations should not be made public because there is nothing secret or sensitive about them. The United States' House of Representatives Committee on Rules sits in public.

Secondly, if the Sub-Committee's proceedings are not to be in public, all Members of Parliament should at least be allowed to attend, particularly those who will sit on the Standing Committee. After all, they will be most affected by its decisions.

Thirdly, there should be a verbatim note of the Sub-Committee's procedures, as important matters will be decided there. Courtesy of the usual channels, to whom I am grateful, the programme resolution is relatively flexible. However, the Government have it in their power to make such resolutions far more complex, with individual clauses having to be finished at a particular sitting. I have no doubt that when that happens discussions will be held about what precisely has been agreed by the Sub-Committee, so it seems sensible that a verbatim note should be taken of its proceedings.

Fourthly, if a verbatim note is not taken, some way should be found to make each Sub-Committee's rulings public, not least because those rulings will form a precedent for future Sub-Committee proceedings. I hope that that will be considered.

Fifthly, the resolution should be made available at least one day before the programming sub-Committee meets. It is a matter of courtesy to the members of that Committee; it also means that proper consideration can be given to the resolution and that amendments can be tabled in an orderly and timely manner.

Sixthly, we need some general guidance on the circumstances under which you, Mr. Gale, would consider recalling the programming Sub-Committee. If the Opposition make a request through the usual channels, I believe that we should normally expect the Sub-Committee to be recalled. After all, the Government may table substantial new clauses and a large number of amendments, as has happened with Bills in previous Sessions. Indeed, some Bills were almost rewritten by the Government because they were so badly drafted, and a third of the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill was not considered by Committee in the House of Commons but only by the other place. In such circumstances, the Opposition would ask for the Programming Sub-Committee to be recalled.

Finally, we should have some idea of when and how the Sub-Committee might ask the House for an extension of the Committee's end date. I realise that the Government would be exceedingly reluctant to do that, because it would involve another 45-minute debate on the Floor of the House. But we are Members of Parliament, and it is our duty and our job to discuss measures brought to the House by the Executive, and to debate whether they should be amended for the good of the people. If we cannot do that as a result of measures tabled by this overbearing Government, then Parliament is being set aside and the wishes of the British people are thereby being disregarded.

Question put:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 10, Noes 4.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

Before we proceed, one observation arises out of the remarks of the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown). He asked under what circumstances I would consider reconvening the Programming Sub-Committee. Such representations—from both sides, and made through the usual channels—will be considered courteously and a decision will be reached. I am happy to tell the Committee that those decisions will be final and may not be debated.

Bob Ainsworth (Labour, Coventry North East)

On a point of order, Mr. Gale. May I ask you to check the result of the Division?

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

I announced that the Ayes were nine and the Noes were four. However, on checking, it seems that the Ayes were 10. The Clerks' Department is on its way to the Tower of London.

I remind the Committee that there is a financial resolution in connection with the Bill. Copies are available in the Room. I also remind hon. Members that adequate notice must be given of amendments. As a general rule, which pretty much means always, my co-chairman and I will not call starred amendments.

David Curry (Conservative, Skipton and Ripon)

On a point of order, Mr. Gale. At this stage, I will make my habitual intervention. On a sunny day, when the Minister sits in that position, his face dissolves into a blur. That may have advantages, but it makes it difficult to hold a sensible conversation. The alternatives are to bring down the blinds, which would be ridiculous when there is precious little sunshine around, or for the Minister to move one seat along, which would not remove him irremediably from the succour of his civil servants and would help us all. [Interruption.] I am grateful that my tangible suggestion has been adopted.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

The right hon. Gentleman knows that that is not strictly a point of order for me, but the Minister has complied. Clause 1 Meaning of ``residential property''and other expressions

Clause 1 - Meaning of ``residential property''and other expressions

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

I beg to move amendment No. 31, in page 1, line 15, leave out `or intended to be occupied'.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 32, in page 1, line 16, leave out

`(and includes one that is being or is to be constructed)'.

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

I hope that I will have similar success in persuading the Minister to do my bidding as the Committee stage progresses, but something tells me that will not be the case. We are grateful to our right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) for making our deliberations more comfortable.

I assume, Mr. Gale, that you wish to follow previous practice and that, if you allow a wide-ranging debate on amendments to a clause, we may do without a clause stand part debate at the end. I also assume that it will be helpful if I flag up the approach that I propose to adopt as we come to such amendments and clauses rather than have anyone—least of all yourself—taken by surprise when we reach the end of a group of amendments.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

I should have pointed out that that is what I normally do. Those Members who have served under my chairmanship will know that I am perfectly prepared to accept what is, in effect, a stand part debate at either the start of the debate or at the end, but not both.

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

I am grateful, Mr. Gale. I will remind myself to indicate the way in which my remarks will develop.

I begin with amendments Nos. 31 and 32. Unusually, clause 1 contains a raft of definitions. We will have to look at some of those in some detail because they underpin much of what follows in the Bill and its schedules. Amendment No. 31 would exempt unoccupied homes, which would include derelict homes, from the requirement to have a seller's pack. That would not exclude new homes, to which I will return in the context of the next amendment. The Minister may wish to intervene to confirm that that is the Government's intention.

Clause 5(1) states that the Bill will not apply to properties that, at the time of sale, are not available with vacant possession. That is taken up in paragraph 26 of the explanatory notes. Clause 5(2) states that the manner in which the property is being marketed will indicate whether there is vacant possession. That could imply that derelict property or property in need of renovation is to be exempt, but the Bill is not entirely clear.

The amendment is the first of several designed to establish what the Government have in mind. Perhaps they intend such properties to be exempt. If the straightforward answer is that that is their intention, perhaps the Minister will assure me that it will be made more clear than it is now. If so, I shall be happy to give way.

We do not want to do anything that has unintended consequences. I have in mind the fact that imposing the ludicrously inappropriate requirement of seller's packs on derelict property will only add a wholly unnecessary expense; in addition, attempts at regeneration might be hampered. We cannot see how anyone could be interested in a home condition report that merely reported faithfully the fact that the property was derelict, perhaps lacking a roof, windows or walls. Clearly, in such cases, the requirement for a seller's pack should not apply. Again, that may be the Government's intention, but they have not made it clear, so I hope that the Minister will deal with it.

Amendment No. 32 would entirely exempt new homes from the requirement to have a seller's pack. We see no benefit in producing home condition reports on a new property or one that has yet to be constructed, as that would be superfluous and a waste of money. More importantly, there would be a danger of duplicating the National House Building Council certificate issued to new properties. That certificate is valid for 10 years and deals with all the obvious main concerns of a buyer of a new property. I commend the NHBC scheme, which has operated effectively for many years. It gives considerable reassurance to people buying brand new properties, given all the problems that they might expect to encounter.

I might be knocking on an open door, given that paragraph 27 of the explanatory notes states that new homes sold ``off-plan'', to use the jargon, are included. Paragraph 51 suggests that they could be the subject of an exemption authorised by the Secretary of State using regulations made under clause 7. I hope that I am not the only person who finds that a little confusing and contradictory. Should new homes be within the provisions of the Bill or outside them?

We shall, no doubt, have further discussions on the subject. At an appropriate moment that is convenient for the Committee, I intend to raise a point of order about draft regulations made under the Bill, but it would be extremely helpful if the Minister would give us some indication of his thinking. In due course, might he want to make regulations under clause 7 to exempt new homes altogether? Is that being actively considered in his Department? If that is his intention, such an exclusion from the Bill is too important to be left to mere regulations, to be made in due course.

Although we intend to ensure that they do not have the opportunity to do so, the Government do not intend to introduce the new system until 2003, so there is plenty of time to get things right. However, if they have decided or are on the brink of deciding to exempt new homes in principle, why not make that clear now? It would dispel many concerns and doubts in the surveying, estate agency and legal professions and throughout the housebuilding industry.

One has only to consider the Bristol pilot scheme, about which you will probably hear a great deal more than you ever wanted, Mr. Gale. One reason why it is unreliable is that 30 of the 90 homes on which sales were completed during the pilot were brand new Beazer homes. They were all sold by exchange sale within the short period of 28 days, not sold and marketed in the same way as other houses in the scheme, which suggests that, in the context of the pilot, they were hardly typical sales and that they really had no need of seller's packs.

I think that I am right in saying that those 30 homes did not have seller's packs, although I am open to correction by the Minister. He nods, indicating that they did. I am happy to accept that, but even if they did, what knowledge could the purchasers have obtained from the packs beyond that which they would already have gathered from the NHBC certificate? It might be useful to compare the two documents.

If buyers of brand new properties are seeking reassurance about physical condition, there is nothing better than an NHBC certificate. It should give buyers all the reassurance that they need—indeed, it has been developed over the years for precisely that purpose. Buyers of such properties do not have to deal with the legal complexities, such as problems with rights of way or other delays to the conveyancing process, which might arise in connection with an older house. The sales of the new Beazer homes involved in the Bristol pilot went through very quickly, which, presumably, skewed the average speed of the transactions in the scheme.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

Does my hon. Friend accept that one of the essential differences between new and older houses is that new houses are usually built by developers? Developers differ from private individuals in that they have an incentive to sell the houses quickly, whereas private individuals face all sorts of problems, such as being part of a chain—trying to sell their house while trying to buy another house. Because developers want to sell their houses quickly, it is unnecessary to require them to produce a full seller's pack that includes information on the condition of the house, as that should be covered by an NHBC certificate.

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing that out. He is absolutely right: any developer will want to improve cash flow by disposing of properties as quickly as he can. That is why show houses and so on are set up. Not only will developers have glossy sets of drawings to aid the process, but they will put together their own version of a seller's pack. Why on earth a developer should be interested in any delay is a mystery to me. Whatever the differences between the official Opposition and the Government on the benefits of seller's packs, one thing on which we can agree is that they have no role in the selling of brand new homes.

Mr. Raynsford indicated dissent.

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

I am sure that we shall hear from the Minister in a minute.

I would have thought that my point is obvious. No one on this side of the Committee is saying that seller's packs are a bad thing or that the packs will not inexorably be used more and more. Whether the seller is the developer of new housing described by my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold or a private individual, it is in the seller's interest to effect a sale sooner rather than later.

People already produce a form of seller's pack. Our objections are that it should not have the force of law, that it should not be subject to criminal sanctions and that it is misleading and unhelpful to impose a requirement that the pack should include what is called a survey report, but what is, in fact, a home condition report—which is much less thorough—and a local authority search. I shall not pursue that point now, because the Committee will discuss the contents of seller's packs later. Boldly eliminating brand new homes from the provisions would have a major effect. We remain to be persuaded of any benefits that would result from including brand new homes in the requirements.

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

I am pleased that you are in the Chair, Mr. Gale. I am sure that your presence will help the Bill to pass smoothly through Committee.

It is clear from the comments of the hon. Member for Eastbourne that we are in general-election mode. He focused at length on the so-called secret deal between the Liberal Democrats and Labour, which exists only in his over-heated imagination.

I understand the purpose of the amendments. It is right to ask the Minister to clarify whether derelict and new properties are included in the provisions. However, I do not agree with the hon. Member for Eastbourne. There are many reasons to include new properties, as those who purchase a property, whether it is already constructed or still under construction, are entitled to information about title, warranty, service charges and all the other elements that might be in included the seller's pack.

The amendments focus on the definition of the term ``dwelling-house''. As far as I can tell, it appears nowhere in part I except at the very end, when a wonderfully circular reference is made to the definition in clause 1(3). Was it intended that part I should contain more about dwelling-houses? Can we expect more provisions to be tabled? Is the explanation simply that, during drafting, someone thought the definition would be useful, but no one ever got around to putting anything about dwelling-houses in the Bill? The Minister is smiling, which suggests that my second suggestion is accurate. If so, it pulls the plug on the Conservative amendments, which would amend a definition of a term that is not used in part I except in the circular way that I described.

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

First, may I take this opportunity to wish the hon. Gentleman's wife well in her confinement? Secondly, will he at least agree that it would be superfluous for a brand new property's seller's pack to include a home condition report, given that an NHBC certificate will be provided?

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

I agree entirely and thank the hon. Gentleman for reminding me that my notes include a comment that a home condition report could well be superfluous for new properties.

Will the Minister explain the purpose of the definition of ``dwelling-house'' in part I? Is not the fact that the amendments focus on that definition, which has no application in part I, symptomatic of the Tory approach to entire areas of policy and campaigning?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

I begin by declaring an interest as one of only two chartered surveyors in the House.

I shall speak principally to amendment No. 32. One of the central features of the seller's pack is that it is bound to increase the cost of selling and buying a home. The argument thus centres on whether the benefit outweighs the increase in cost; only time will tell. We should ask which way that balance tips in respect of new houses—after all, most new houses are built by builders or developers, who usually have severe cash flow problems. Some major housebuilders have announced that they are to merge, which reflects the financial pressures on the major firms of housebuilders in this country. Minor firms that do not have the considerable land banks of the major companies must be under even greater pressure.

I strongly believe that, where possible, one should leave matters to the market and that the nanny state should not intervene. It is much better that a willing buyer and a willing seller agree everything by themselves, with the old principle of caveat emptor applying, than it is to set down a prescription in legislation.

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

My hon. Friend speaks with great authority on such issues. Caveat emptor is a principle of English law that has stood for centuries. Does he not find it curious that although the Bill subverts caveat emptor, it contains no provision specifically to reverse it?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that important point and I shall diverge slightly from my argument to answer him. He is a solicitor with great experience in conveyancing. The principle of caveat emptor will still apply: however much the nanny state provides seller's packs and everything else, it will ultimately be up to the purchaser to satisfy himself that the contents of the seller's pack are truthful and meaningful.

I shall return to the amendment, which is about the balance between cost and benefit. As developers and builders have a huge incentive to ensure that a sale proceeds as quickly as possible—not least given their cash-flow problems—they will bend over backwards to ensure that the purchaser has every piece of information that he could require as quickly as possible. In my experience of house buying and selling, the developers have in many cases produced the type of seller's pack envisaged in the Bill for years, simply because they want to ensure that such transactions take place as quickly as possible.

I hope that the Minister will reassure the Committee that there will be benefit, especially in the case of new homes. As I mentioned in my intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne, most new homes have a National House Building Council certificate, an especially valuable tool for new houses. For members of the Committee not familiar with the procedure, I should explain that the NHBC produces a guarantee scheme under which, if any defect is found, usually within 10 years, it will supervise the original builder, if he is still in business, to put it right. If he is not in business, the NHBC will step in, find another builder and pay him to do whatever is necessary.

I know of a recent case in which that has happened, as a result of a serious defect in the damp-proof course around a house's windows. I got on to the council, which surveyed the situation and agreed that there was a serious problem and that every window in the house would have to be removed. That involved removing not only the window, but the brickwork on the outside, and all the decoration around every window had to be refurbished after the windows were put back. It was a very extensive and expensive job. The original builder, needless to say, had ceased to trade, so the council had to find another builder. The job was done satisfactorily and the guarantee continues for the remainder of the 10-year period.

A scheme of that kind—and I am not aware of them anywhere else in Europe—is a very positive benefit to anyone who buys a new house. In fact, anyone who buys a new house would be well advised to insist on the scheme before going ahead. There is an overwhelming case for not imposing the seller's pack provisions to purchases to which the scheme applies. I hope that the Minister will pay serious attention to that problem.

I hope, too, that the Minister's departmental resources will enable him to tell us, with reference to these or later amendments, the total compliance cost of part I. After all, that will ultimately fall on the purchasers. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne has mentioned 1.5 million transactions and people should have an idea of how much the Bill will increase the cost of buying and selling a house. There has already been a considerable increase in cost by way of stamp duty under the present Government—one of their many stealth taxes. I hope that there will not be more increases in stamp duty.

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

Perhaps my hon. Friend could add to his shopping list of inquiries for the Minister whether the Department has held discussions with the NHBC to ascertain whether some of the benefits that the Government anticipate from seller's packs could be incorporated in the NHBC documentation for brand new homes, thus eliminating the duplication of cost and effort to which my hon. Friend has eloquently referred.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

My hon. Friend has raised an eminently sensible point, with which the Minister will need to deal. What discussions have taken place with the NHBC to ensure that the seller's pack and other information provided by the NHBC are compatible? In most circumstances, the developer will need to provide the same home condition information to the NHBC to enable it to certify that the houses are covered by the scheme.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

We have had an interesting opening debate. It got off to a curious start with the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon asking me to move seats. As soon as I had done so, of course, the sun went in, removing the cause of his request. However, I feel slightly nervous, because from where I stand, the sun, having passed to the south-west of this Room, came to a position which might have given the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington reason to complain that, in the terms used by the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon, I had dissolved into a blur. I want to place on the record the fact that I have no intention of dissolving into a blur. If at any stage my position in relation to the sun causes difficulty, I shall be more than happy to move for any right hon. or hon. Member.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

Does the Minister recall the fact that the last time the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon raised the matter, his complaint was that the Minister appeared to have a halo?

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I hope that the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon will have cause to see that same phenomenon during the passage of this Bill.

Amendment No. 31 is intended to exclude derelict properties from the definition of a dwelling-house, but would not do so, as I shall explain. Amendment No. 32 is intended to omit new homes, or those that are due to be constructed. Our intention is that the marketing of single dwellings for sale with vacant possession should be subject to the seller's pack obligations. There are good reasons for that, which I will come to in a moment.

The definition of a dwelling-house is crucial, and I will jump ahead to deal with the points raised by the almost perspicacious hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington, who said that he could see only one reference to ``dwelling-house''—in its definition—and wondered, therefore, why it was included in the definitions. Had he looked back to clause 1(2) he would have seen, under the definition of residential property, that a residential property consists of a ``single dwelling-house''—so there is another reference. The term ``residential property'' occurs frequently in part I, and the term ``dwelling-house'' is fundamental to the definition of ``residential property''. I give him full marks for observation and hope that he is satisfied that the one appearance of the phrase that he had not spotted is crucial to that definition.

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

I spotted the look of relief on the Minister's face when the appropriate note was passed.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I try to be frank on such matters. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that there was an exchange of notes between myself and the officials to check that my interpretation was correct, and they confirmed that it was. I always ensure that my understanding is correct before I give advice to a Committee on such an important matter.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

Will the Minister clarify what is considered to be a dwelling-house in relation to shared use with commercial accommodation? There can be dwelling-houses with common stairwells, common passages, a shop or an office. How, under such circumstances, is the dwelling-house defined, and are the passage and the stairwell and so on defined with it?

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

That is a fair point. There are two different sets of circumstances. One he did not mention, but of which he will be well aware, is where residential properties such as mansion flats have some shared facilities. The definition covers the single dwelling within that, but there will be arrangements for leasehold properties. We will discuss those when we deal with the contents of the seller's pack for leasehold properties, for which specific documentation relating to the management of the common parts will be required.

The hon. Gentleman raised the issue of mixed commercial and residential properties. I will have more to say about that in terms of some of the exemptions from the provisions of the seller's pack, because we accept that in some cases involving mixed properties, it may be appropriate for there to be an exemption. That is a complex and difficult subject, which is not germane to the amendments, so I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that I will deal with that when we reach the relevant point in the Bill.

The hon. Member for Eastbourne explained that the amendment was intended to exclude derelict properties. However, leaving out

or intended to be occupied

from clause 1(3) would exempt from the seller's pack obligations the marketing of homes that at the time of marketing are unoccupied, which is a far wider category than that of derelict properties. For example, the category would include properties where the previous occupant had died and his or her executors were disposing of the property. It would also include properties where the owner had moved or was temporarily abroad. I cannot see why any distinction should be made between a property that is currently empty, and being marketed, and one that is currently occupied by the vendor. I do not believe that the amendment is sensible in that respect.

There is a parallel with low-value properties. I understand the concern that in some cases the requirement of a seller's pack might inhibit the sale of a derelict property. However, just as with low-value properties, it is precisely where there is a worry about the structural condition of the property, where there may be serious costs involved in bringing a derelict property back into use, that a seller's pack becomes particularly useful, and we would be reluctant to exempt derelict properties from the requirement to have one.

Mr. Waterson rose—

Mr. Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) rose—

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I hope that hon. Members can decide which of them is seeking to intervene. I shall then happily give way.

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

I hear what the Minister says, but does he not accept that the seller's pack is no more than a report on the home's condition, which is a different kettle of fish from a proper survey? We shall come to the detail later, but it is simply a matter of ticking boxes and setting out in skeletal form the condition of the property. I cannot see—I am open to persuasion—what a home condition report will add that a potential buyer of a derelict property cannot see with his own eyes.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I am sure that, in his research, the hon. Gentleman has read the format for the home condition report that was proposed by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. He will know, therefore, that it is extensive and that it covers a large range of issues. He will also be aware that the term ``derelict property'' covers a range of circumstances. I accept that, at one extreme, a property with no roof would be completely open to the elements and totally uninhabitable, that bringing it back into use would involve massive costs, and that a home condition report would be superfluous. That is why I was cautious in what I said about low-value properties.

On Second Reading, I gave a clear undertaking that we would look at the case for making exemptions if they could be justified, but, as the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon knows, I was guarded about giving that undertaking because of the importance of the information in the home condition report to people buying low-value properties where the cost of unforeseen repairs could be disproportionate, given the low value of the property.

Mr. Loughton rose—

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman when I have finished answering the hon. Member for Eastbourne.

Although I do not rule out the possibility of the exemptions that we have already undertaken to make for certain low-value properties applying also to some derelict properties in certain circumstances, I would be reluctant to extend them more widely. For instance, a derelict property may have suffered a certain amount of superficial damage, but the bulk of the property may otherwise be in good order. Information, for example, about the condition of the electrics or of other elements in its fabric could be important to a potential buyer seeking to decide whether it was appropriate to make an offer and, if so what offer to make, given the potential repair costs.

Mr. Curry rose—

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I shall give way in a moment—first to the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham and then to the right hon. Gentleman.

It is precisely because of the need to be cautious and the wish not to deny the benefits of the seller's pack to people buying properties, especially those properties where the information could be particularly useful, that I am wary of making blanket exemptions. That is why I invite the Committee to reject the amendment should it be pressed to a Division.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

The Minister appears to have started making concessions that were not clear. One of the major reasons why three quarters of a million empty homes, which are mostly privately owned, are not brought back into occupation is the cost of the repairs. Ideally, we would like those houses brought back into use to help put people on the housing ladder. It would be a specific disincentive to add yet another cost to selling those properties. It would help his affordable homes policy, with which we all agree, to bring those derelict homes back into circulation by exempting them from that additional stealth tax. It would help bring derelict property back into circulation by acting as a specific incentive.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

The hon. Gentleman is completely wrong. The Government have taken action on a number of fronts to try to reduce the cost of bringing empty property back into use. He will be aware of the VAT exemption announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor and of the capital allowances for bringing flats above shops back into use. Those important measures will act as a real financial incentive. As I stressed in response to the hon. Member for Eastbourne, I believe that the availability of a seller's pack will, in many cases, make purchase a more realistic option to those thinking of buying an empty property as it will give them a greater handle on the condition of the property and the potential costs that they may have to incur.

It seems entirely fallacious to suggest that the seller's pack could be an impediment to bringing such properties back into use. In many cases, it could make it easier to attract buyers, to secure successful sales and to reassure buyers who, without the information, would be nervous about buying empty property.

David Curry (Conservative, Skipton and Ripon)

We may end up imposing seller's packs on houses worth £500,000, for which the purchasers ought to be competent enough to know what they are doing. However, the Minister is contemplating exemptions on low-value property, which may be subject to first-time purchase. Perhaps it is purchasers of such property who need assistance. Does he agree that there is a real danger that those houses will be labelled as being unable to get a licence, and that they will therefore be described as ghetto properties? Is it not precisely the low-value end of the market—the grotty end, to put it colloquially—that needs help? The idea of imposing the packs on people who are perfectly capable of spending £750,000 on a house seems dotty. A lot of pressure is from those in his party.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

The right hon. Gentleman made exactly that point on Second Reading, and I agreed. I stressed that we did not want to give blanket exemptions at the bottom of the market, and I stress it again. He will recognise that there may be limited circumstances in which exemption might help property of a low value in some of the most depressed areas, about which we heard on Second Reading. Some of those properties might be derelict. It was for precisely that reason that I made it clear, in my response to the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Eastbourne, that although we did not rule out the possibility of a limited exemption in some cases, we did not support the proposal for a blanket exemption that was the purpose of the amendment. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman; his view is much more in line with ours than with that of his Front Bench.

David Curry (Conservative, Skipton and Ripon)

Further to that, I have no doubt that the question of exemptions will drift in and out of our conversations. Is the Minister talking about individual exceptions, or ones on enumeration districts or council wards? After all, there are socio-economic indicators of levels of deprivation in wards. So that we can focus ourselves as we go into the debate, we should know whether we are talking about a certificate to exempt a property, or exemptions that apply to a zone.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

As I made clear on Second Reading, we have not reached firm conclusions on the matter, but I am not attracted to widespread exemptions such as ones using a specific band for council tax purposes, or ones involving assisted areas. That would not seem a sensible way forward.

I do not want to leave the Committee with the impression that firm decisions have been taken, because they have not. However, if there is a case for exemptions—I have been guarded in my comments on the matter—it would probably be easiest to apply them to properties that have a defined low value. The actual value of the property would be the easiest way to do that, so a property—please do not treat this example as a suggestion of the Government's intentions—with a value of less than £10,000 might be exempt in certain cases. That is only a possibility. The price distinction is an easier and more credible way to define exemptions, if one chooses to do so, than the alternatives about which the right hon. Gentleman spoke.

David Curry (Conservative, Skipton and Ripon)

That will inevitably have a geographic implication. The Minister would agree that if one plotted a map of properties worth £10,000 or less, it would probably peak in Newcastle or other parts of the north-east. Precious little of it would relate to London properties, no matter how grotty, so there will inevitably be zonal implications.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

The right hon. Gentleman is correct, but he will recognise that the concerns voiced on Second Reading came from the northern regions. I do not believe that there would be a case for any exemptions in London, as there is no evidence whatever that there is difficulty in selling property in the London area. In fact, there is a considerable demand for it. A regional dimension would probably follow from a definition based on price. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept that there is logic in that distinction.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

I want to follow on from the sensible points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon. We should be careful because if properties below £10,000, for example, are exempted, they will be stigmatised. I should be grateful if the Minister would address the point I made in an intervention on the Second Reading which he failed to answer properly, as several of his hon. Friends pointed out to me. The point is that the seller's packs will have to be time-limited because local authority searches are time-limited to 28 days. Any reputable surveyor will want his survey time-limited because conditions can change. The Minister will have to address that necessity.

The low-value properties, to which my right hon. Friend referred, tend to remain on the market longer as they are more difficult to sell. If the seller's pack were time-limited, it would have to be redone; therefore, low-value properties may have more than one seller's pack and more than one set of costs. We have the anomaly that a low-value property will be saddled with higher costs than in a normal transaction.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

No, the hon. Gentleman has it wrong. I thought that I made it clear on Second Reading that there is no obligation. As he will recall, it was the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), who summed up the debate for the Government. There will be no obligation to produce a new seller's pack, only an obligation to produce a pack.

On the issue of updating the information, a prospective buyer may feel if a property has been on the market for some time that it is appropriate to obtain more up-to-date information. Local authority searches are the one area where there is general agreement that after—perhaps—three months there is a need for a new check. The Government hope that, with the introduction of the national land information service, such information will be available at a tiny price. That would be one benefit of the modernisation of the processes of obtaining information for conveyancing. The NLIS will make that kind of update possible. The majority of the information in the seller's pack will continue to be viable and valid for several months beyond that period. In some cases, it will still be valid a year or more after the seller's pack was produced. The Bill does not create an obligation on the seller to produce another pack, so the suggestion that it will load on additional costs is wrong.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

I do not want to be a nuisance, but what the Minister said is leading us into a more anomalous situation. The purchaser will have a seller's pack that is out of date, although he may not realise it. Also, the hon. Gentleman did not allude to the problem of surveys. As a chartered surveyor, I would not wish to produce a survey unless it were time-limited because things change within buildings. The Minister must address the problem, which particularly applies to low-value housing.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I have addressed the problem, as have a large number of professionals, who contributed to the development of the proposals, including the RICS, which is the hon. Gentleman's professional body.

I shall now move on to new homes. I partly agree with the hon. Member for Eastbourne—although with one element of his comments, and not with his amendment. There is no need for a home condition report on a new property that is covered by an appropriate warranty. That is an important safeguard. If all new properties were excluded, that would include some built by builders who do not belong to the National House Building Council or to the Zurich Insurance Company, which also offer warranties. Where there is in place a warranty provided by the NHBC, the Zurich Insurance Company or any other firm in the market that provides the cover that the hon. Gentleman discussed in his speech, there is no need for a home condition report on the first sale. On that point I agree with the hon. Gentleman. The Government are minded to make that specific exemption as we define the details in regulations.

The remainder of the seller's pack should be available in the case of new properties. The case is perhaps best made by the company that the hon. Gentleman quoted, Beazer Homes. It participated in the Bristol survey and 30 of its homes were sold with the benefit of a seller's pack. Beazer told us that the homes that were sold with a seller's pack reached exchange 31 days after offer, compared with an average of 69 days for other new homes on the same site without a seller's pack. That is pretty convincing evidence that the seller's pack helps the process of marketing.

The point was well made by the hon. Member for Cotswold—I know that he is rather excited about the matter, but perhaps he can contain himself and listen to what I am saying—that many builders put together packs for the marketing of homes. The provision is not the imposition of an onerous burden, as the Opposition have tried to present it, but a sensible arrangement to ensure that the information that people need will be available. The seller's pack will also include copy title deeds. Is the hon. Member for Cotswold seriously suggesting that title deeds should not be made available to someone who is buying a property? It will include a property information form containing the seller's replies to standard pre-contract inquiries; the consents relating to planning and listed building matters and building regulations—all important matters—and warranties and guarantees, which we have mentioned as crucial. There would clearly not be a case for exemption from a home condition report if no warranty existed. How could one tell if the warranty were not available? For a leasehold property, the pack would include a copy of the lease, the memorandum and articles of the landlord or management company and all other such essential documentation.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

On a point of order, Mr. Gale. The Minister appears to be quoting from a document that has not been circulated to the Committee. May I ask you to ask him to identify it and, if necessary, circulate it to the Committee?

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

That is not strictly a matter for the Chair, but the Minister has heard the hon. Gentleman's remarks.

Bob Ainsworth (Labour, Coventry North East)

We have not got one, either.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

Order. If the Minister wants to enlighten the Committee, I am sure that he will do so.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I am very happy to enlighten the Committee, Mr. Gale.

I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Member for Cotswold, who thinks that he has spotted a secret document that has not been made available to the Committee. I am referring to the consultation document used by the Government for consultation about the proposals before the Bill was introduced. It is a public document and was widely circulated. I am sure that all the assiduous members of the Committee who have done their homework have referred to it. However, if there is any doubt, I shall ensure that copies of the consultation document are circulated to all members of the Committee.

We have had a thorough debate. I have made it clear that there is no case for accepting amendments Nos. 31 and 32. I have said that the Government intend to give further thought to the issue of very low-value properties, perhaps including some derelict properties. We shall return to that matter. I have also made it clear that we do not intend to prescribe a home condition report as part of seller's packs for new homes for which an appropriate warranty exists as a guarantee to the buyer. With those assurances, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree to withdraw the amendment.

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

We have had a constructive, detailed and helpful debate, which I hope will be characteristic of the Committee's deliberations. The Minister's replies have mostly been positive and constructive and have justified the tabling of the probing amendments. I do not intend to divide the Committee on the amendment.

I was grateful for the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold, who, as a qualified surveyor, speaks with great authority on the practicalities of the matter. I take issue with him on one point. He spoke of my great experience in conveyancing. You will recall, Mr. Gale, that on Second Reading I referred to the entry in the Register of Members' Interests, as I am a solicitor. However, I can honestly say that I have never carried out a conveyance in my life. I happily practised in the sphere of shipping law, which could not be much more removed from conveyancing. However, I did pass an exam in it once, and I suppose I should refer to that entry in the register before proceeding further.

I was happy to accept from the Minister his view that amendment No. 31 goes slightly wide of merely derelict properties. However, we must grapple with one further matter. The Minister has said that an attempt will be made to allow some exemptions. Our discussion will probably be academic for the most part because a canny and sensible would-be purchaser would have a full survey report made of any property that was derelict, or anything like it. I should have thought that was axiomatic, which shows how circular many of our debates are likely to be. If the property had a missing roof or whatever, a potential purchaser would be barmy not to have a proper survey done to see what he was letting himself in for.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon said, we are beginning to accumulate a tally of potential exemptions. I have made the point—I shall make it again in more detail at a convenient moment—that we need a clear idea of what will be in the draft regulations. However, the Minister has already referred to the possible exemption of derelict properties. We hope to have bulletins later in Committee on how the Minister or his officials are getting on with that.

We also have the issue of new homes. I am delighted that the Minister has accepted my point that it is absurd and wasteful to have a home condition report as well as a relevant warranty. The Minister is right to remind us that, as well as the NHBC warranty, Zurich Insurance provides a scheme on which we have all had presentations. There will be another specific exemption in that case, too.

We are beginning to see some cracks in the edifice of the legislation. I have a nasty feeling—as, I suspect, does my right hon. Friend—that, by the end of the Committee stage, we will have a raft of potential exemptions. That is leaving aside the overall question of how much benefit or point there is in imposing seller's packs on consumers. The Minister made the point himself. He talked with some delight and triumph in response to points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold and said that the fact that developers often produce seller's packs showed the wisdom and importance of the proposals.

We take the opposite view. Many people, as I said in the earlier debate, sensibly produce a pack of relevant documents, which are readily available at that stage in proceedings. Who would not do that, especially if that person were the developer of new housing, if it helped to speed up the process? But there are other matters, and the home condition report is the best, or worst, example, depending on one's point of view, which should not be imposed as a requirement. Nor do we think that the law, particularly the criminal law, has any place in the requirements. If people think seller's packs are helpful and practical, they will offer them anyway, just as some people already are. The one sliver of common ground between the two sides of the Committee is that seller's packs in one form or another are already operating in the real world without the benefit of legislation or criminal sanctions.

I am delighted that the Minister has taken our point seriously and is addressing it and we look forward to hearing more. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I beg to move amendment No. 51, in page 1, line 17, at end insert—

`( ) ``Energy efficiency'' means the extent to which the sources of heating and lighting in domestic premises are used without unnecessary waste, as measured by an approved assessment procedure.'.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

With this it will be convenient to take the following: Amendment No. 27, in clause 7, page 5, line 44, at end insert—

`(ca) the energy efficiency of the building, identifying the presence of existing measures for improving energy efficiency and those which may reasonably be expected to be added;'.

Amendment No. 23, in clause 7, page 6, line 2, at end insert—

`(da) the energy efficiency of the property, including

(i) the presence or absence in the dwelling of specified measures for improving energy efficiency, and

(ii) measures which could be taken for the purpose of improving energy efficiency.'.

Amendment No. 28, in clause 7, page 6, line 8, at end insert—

`(aa) a report on the energy efficiency of the property, identifying energy efficient aspects of the structure, ranked with comparable properties, and including advice on improvement measures which it is feasible to make;'.

Amendment No. 24, in clause 7, page 6, line 10, at end insert—

`(ba) an energy efficiency report containing advice on measures to improve the energy efficiency of the property, and an indication of the cost and pay-back period of each of these measures.'.

Amendment No. 25, in clause 8, page 6, line 26, after `section 7(5)(d)', add `and (da)'.

New clause 4—Energy efficiency report: transitional provision—

`. The Secretary of State may by regulations bring Schedule (Energy Efficiency reports) into effect for a period of time set by those regulations if in his judgement this would assist or provide information relevant to the marketing of residential properties in England or Wales.'.

New schedule 1—Energy Efficiency Reports—

`1.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this Schedule, it shall be the duty of any person in whose favour a mortgage of any legal estate in a dwelling is granted (in this Schedule referred to as ``the lender'') to ensure that, if any qualifying survey of the dwelling has been undertaken by him or on his behalf in connection with that mortgage—

(a) a report on the energy efficiency of the dwelling (in this Schedule referred to as ``an energy efficiency report'') has been prepared by or on behalf of the lender in accordance with regulations under paragraph 5 on the basis of the physical inspection undertaken for the purpose of the qualifying survey, and

(b) the person granting the mortgage (in this Schedule referred to as ``the borrower'') has been provided, before the grant of the mortgage, with a copy of the energy efficiency report.

(2) No duty arises under sub-paragraph (1) unless—

(a) the mortgage relates only

(i) to a single dwelling, or

(ii) to a single dwelling together with premises occupied or intended to be occupied for business purposes,

(b) the loan to which the mortgage relates was made in pursuance of an application made to the lender by the borrower, and

(c) the dwelling is occupied by, or is intended for occupation by, the borrower as his residence.

(3) The lender may, in fixing the amount of any fee to be charged for a qualifying survey, taken into account any additional costs reasonably incurred in preparing the energy efficiency report, but the duty in sub-paragraph (1) arises whether or not the borrower has paid, or agreed to pay, any such additional costs.

(4) In sub-paragraph (1) a ``qualifying survey'', in relation to a dwelling, means any survey or valuation which includes a physical inspection of both the exterior and the interior of the dwelling.

2. The duty in paragraph 1 does not arise in relation to any dwelling which was provided (by construction or conversion) less than three years before the date on which the borrower applied for the loan to which the mortgage relates.

3. The duty in paragraph 1 does not arise where, before the grant of the mortgage, the borrower has obtained, or been given a copy of, a report which—

(a) relates to the dwelling,

(b) complies with regulations under paragraph 5, and

(c) was prepared less than twelve months before the date on which the borrower applied for the loan to which the mortgage relates.

4.—(1) The duty in paragraph 1 does not arise where—

(a) the lender is a member of the borrower's family and is not lending in the course of a business carried on by the lender, or

(b) the lenders are the trustees of a trust created by an individual for the benefit of members of his family and their descendants.

(2) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1) a person is a member of another's family if—

(a) he is the spouse of that person, or he and that person live together as husband and wife, or

(b) he is that person's parent, grandparent, child, grandchild, brother, sister, uncle, aunt, nephew or niece.

(3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2)(b)—

(a) a relationship by marriage shall be treated as a relationship by blood,

(b) a relationship of the half-blood shall be treated as a relationship of the whole blood, and

(c) the stepchild of a person shall be treated as his child.

5.—(1) The Secretary of State shall make regulations specifying the requirements which must be met by the lender in relation to the preparation of an energy efficiency report.

(2) The regulations may, in particular, require a report to include—

(a) information as to the presence or absence in the dwelling of specified measures for improving energy efficiency, and

(b) a statement recommending measures which could be taken for the purpose of improving energy efficiency.

(3) Regulations under this paragraph may make different provision for different cases and different areas.

(4) Regulations under this paragraph may not require an energy efficiency report to contain any information in respect of the dwelling which is not readily ascertainable on a visual inspection of so much of the exterior and interior of the dwelling as is accessible without undue difficulty to the person undertaking the inspection.

(5) Regulations under this paragraph may not require an energy efficiency report in respect of a flat to contain information about the common parts of the building in which the flat is situated.

(6) Before making regulations under this paragraph, the Secretary of State shall consult—

(a) such mortgage lenders or persons appearing to him to represent mortgage lenders as he considers appropriate, and

(b) such other persons as he considers appropriate.

(7) In making regulations under this paragraph, the Secretary of State shall have regard to the cost of preparing an energy efficiency report.

(8) Regulations under this paragraph shall be made by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.

(9) In this paragraph—

``common parts'', in relation to a building, includes the structure and exterior of the building and common facilities provided, whether in the building or elsewhere, for persons who include the occupiers of one or more flats in the building;

``flat'' means a dwelling which is a separate set of premises, whether or not on the same floor, divided horizontally from some other part of the building;

``mortgage lender'' means a person who, in the course of a business, lends money secured by mortgages of dwellings.

6.—(1) If the borrower suffers loss by reason of the failure of the lender to comply with his duty under paragraph 1, the borrower is entitled to compensation for that loss from the lender.

(2) In determining for the purposes of this paragraph whether the borrower has suffered loss as mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) and, if so, the amount of that loss, a court—

(a) shall assume that the borrower would have taken every measure that would have been recommended in a report complying with paragraph 5,

(b) shall have regard to the cost that would be likely to have been incurred in taking those measures if they had been taken immediately after the grant of the mortgage,

(c) shall determine the likely expected life of each measure and apportion that cost rateably over that life, and

(d) shall calculate the savings that would have been made during the relevant period if the measures had been taken.

(3) In sub-paragraph (2) ``the relevant period'' means the period beginning with the day on which the mortgage was granted and ending immediately before the sixth anniversary of that day or, if earlier—

(a) in relation to any measure falling within sub-paragraph (2)(a) which has in fact been taken by the borrower, with the day on which the taking of the measure is completed,

(b) in a case where the lender provides the borrower with, or with a copy of, an energy efficiency report complying with paragraph 5 prepared not less than 12 months before the day on which it is provided, that day,

(c) the day on which the borrower ceases to own any interest in the dwelling,

(d) the death of the borrower, or

(e) the day on which any proceedings under this paragraph are first determined by a court or by the award of an arbitrator.

7. In this Schedule—

``the borrower'' and ``the lender'' shall be construed in accordance with paragraph 1;

``dwelling'' means a building or part of a building occupied or intended to be occupied as a separate dwelling, together with any yard, garden, outhouses or appurtenances belonging to it or usually enjoyed with it, but does not include a mobile home;

``energy efficiency report'' shall be construed in accordance with paragraph 1;

``mobile home'' means a caravan within the meaning of Part I of the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 (disregarding the amendment made by section 13(2) of the Caravan Sites Act 1968);

``mortgage'' means any mortgage or other charge on property for securing money or money's worth which is made by deed.

8.—(1) Paragraph 5 and this paragraph shall come into force on the day on which regulations made under section 7( ) take effect.

(2) The remaining provisions of this Schedule shall come into force on such day or days as the Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument appoint, and different days may be appointed for different purposes or different areas.

(3) The power to make an order under sub-paragraph (2) includes power to make such transitional provisions and savings as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.

(4) The Secretary of State shall consult the National Assembly for Wales before making any regulations under this schedule which relate to Wales.

(5) This schedule extends to England and Wales only.'.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

We come to the important issue of energy efficiency. In addition to speaking to my amendments, I shall comment on amendments Nos. 27 and 28, tabled by the Conservative Party. I shall attempt to be brief, but the issue is important, so I hope that the Committee will not mind if I detain it long enough to cover some of the complex matters that arising from the amendments.

Amendment No. 51 provides a definition of energy efficiency, which fits in with the other definitions of the terms in the legislation. Amendment No. 23 would add a requirement to include an energy efficiency report in the list of items included in the seller's pack. Amendment No. 24 would add the energy efficiency report to those items that may be specified by regulation; it would also require that a potential buyer should be told what needs to be done to improve the energy efficiency of the property and why it would be financially advantageous to carry out such work. We hope that it will be possible to show individuals that they can make enormous financial gains by acting on the energy efficiency proposals contained in such a report. We also hope to persuade them that not only will they benefit, but everyone else will as well.

The sort of home energy efficiency report that I propose is a relatively simple matter. I have an example that shows the current energy rating and estimated running costs of a typical home. The report would list energy efficiency measures currently installed, such as double glazing or good heating control; it would then make a series of recommendations tailor-made for the property and detail the cost to its prospective owner of such measures being installed, the annual savings and, crucially, the estimated payback time. From that information, it would be possible for the prospective home buyer to have a clear idea of the annual financial benefits and the initial outlay. Amendment No. 25 is a technical amendment required to alter numbering and lettering.

New clause 4 and new schedule 1 are different from the other amendments, which would amend the contents of the seller's pack. There will be a period before the introduction of the seller's pack and because 1.5 million transactions involving homes being bought and sold take place each year, it would clearly be sensible to have in place measures to ensure that energy audits took place in the interim. New clause 4 empowers the Secretary of State to bring into effect new schedule 1, which would comprise the interim measure.

In Committee, such matters are often highly controversial, but on this occasion, I am delighted to say that there should be no controversy, given that the measures I propose have, in one form or another, been supported by bodies as diverse as the Council of Mortgage Lenders, Friends of the Earth, the Association for the Conservation of Energy, the Conservative party, the Government and the Liberal Democrats. The vast majority of Members of Parliament have supported similar measures, with the notable and sad exception of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth).

Such proposals have a long history. In May 1984, Lord Walker of Worcester—then Peter Walker, Secretary of State for Energy—proposed that mortgage companies should include energy efficiency advice in their required surveys. The Select Committee on Energy concluded in 1989 that it

believed that a standard, uniform and mandatory labelling system for appliances and domestic buildings should be introduced.

That statement was made in paragraph 115 of its report ``Energy Policy Implications of the Greenhouse Effect''. In 1993, in paragraph 102 of its report on energy efficiency in buildings, the Environment Select Committee recommended that

the Government consider a mandatory scheme for home energy labels, to be introduced at the point of sale.

I am delighted to see the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), in his place and I look forward to our deliberations over the coming weeks. He, too, has indicated his views on this subject. In 1997-98, before the strictures of being a Minister were placed upon him, he signalled his support for such measures when he signed early-day motion 165, in which he stated his belief that

houses should be rated for energy efficiency

and that

an excellent time to achieve this desirable end is at the point of sale.

We clearly have his support.

In 1997, when she was Energy Minister, the current Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle), spoke to the fifth annual national homes energy rating conference. Her words were particularly apposite, as I shall show. She said:

I support energy rating...the question from where I stand is: Is there is a viable voluntary which would ensure that all mortgage lenders provided tailored, reliable energy efficiency advice along with a rating and estimates of energy costs savings and the likely cost of improvement measures. Or having worked on this for several years to no significant effect, is legislation the only option?

Shortly thereafter, the hon. Lady made clear which of those options to go for. The Government of which she is a member supported the Energy Efficiency Bill proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett), from which many of these measures are taken.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I am following the hon. Gentleman's remarks carefully and I agree with much of what he says. Do his remarks refer to the entire group of amendments, or does he exclude new schedule 1? He will be aware that the latter would not require mandatory information to be provided at the point of sale.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I am grateful to the Minister and I shall return to that point later.

I hope to have shown that there is broad support for such measures. Indeed, I would say that there is considerable support, even among Labour Members. We should examine the early-day motions that have been raised on this and related subjects; excluding the Government Whip, the Minister for Housing and Planning and the hon. Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Thomas), all the Labour members of the Committee have supported more than one early-day motion that directly relates to the matters referred to in the amendments. I should add one more exception—the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Turner), who was not elected until 23 September 1999 and would therefore not have been able to sign any early-day motions save the last, and he would have needed to be remarkably quick to sign that, as it closed fairly soon after his election.

There is clear support for the broad principle and I hope that all members of the Committee will acknowledge that the benefits would be significant. It would take but a few additional pounds to carry out the sort of survey that I propose—between £5 and £15—yet the expected savings are thought to be significant. The Energy Saving Trust estimates an average saving of about £250 a year per property. Every year, 1.5 million mortgages are taken out and 1.5 million homes are transferred. If those 1.5 million homes were to benefit from such a survey we were to assume an average saving of £250, the total saving would be roughly £250 million. That calculation involves an additional assumption, which is that not everybody who received such an energy efficiency report would act on it.

A 1991 Which? survey found that at least 60 per cent. of people were keen to have such information provided. If we assume that the other 40 per cent., despite having been given advice on how they can save money, choose to ignore it, we arrive at the figure of £250 million. Were everybody to take the recommendations on board, the savings would be even greater.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

The hon. Gentleman is making some constructive remarks, with which I broadly agree. However, in fairness to the purchasing public involved in those 1.5 million transactions, may I ask whether he has considered the compliance costs of the amendments? He has said that the benefit will be £250 per house, but what does he think the average cost of producing such a survey would be, and how many extra consultants would have to be employed to produce those 1.5 million surveys?

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I am grateful for that intervention. The hon. Gentleman said that he was listening carefully, but perhaps he missed my earlier point—[Interruption.]

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

Order. There are too many private conversations taking place in the Room. Would hon. Members please conduct such conversations outside?

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

Thank you, Mr. Gale. I said earlier that the estimated additional cost of such a survey, assuming that it was carried out by the same person who carried out the survey that was already required, would be between £5 and £15. The cost of the work that the home buyer may want to have done in the light of the advice will vary according to the kind of advice. For example, if it is advised that a cylinder jacket is installed, the cost would be roughly £20. The annual saving would be an estimated £16 a year, so within less than a year and a half there would already be a payback, and from then on there would be real benefits. With a more expensive item such as cavity wall insulation, the installation is estimated to cost, on average, £360, and the annual saving is estimated at £110 a year. That would mean a longer payback time but, in less than three and a half years, real benefit would accrue to the house buyer. We should not forget that the nation as a whole also benefits from reduced energy consumption. The scale of the problems that are associated with our high level of energy consumption would be reduced.

Amendment No. 23 would help to bring about such a reduction. I hope that the wording of the amendment will find favour with the Government, because it follows closely that of the Energy Efficiency Bill that was presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon but, in effect, was drafted by the Government. We have also been careful to ensure that amendment No. 24 is likely to be supported by the Government. Its wording is taken directly from a parliamentary answer provided by the Minister to the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mrs. Gilroy) on 21 December 2000. Hon. Members can check the wording of the amendment against what he said, which was:

It is currently intended that Regulations prescribe the inclusion of an energy report in the seller's pack, and that this will include generic advice on measures to improve energy efficiency, and an indication of the cost and payback period of each of those improvements.—[Official Report, 21 December 2000; Vol. 360, c. 313W.]

I hope that the Minister acknowledges that we have carefully drafted the amendments to tie in closely with commitments and undertakings already given by the Government.

I have already outlined the need for interim provisions with reference to new clause 4 and new schedule 1. An interim measure is clearly needed to bring about the benefits more quickly than would be permitted by waiting for the introduction of the seller's pack. I can imagine the Government responding along the following lines: they will argue that, even if the new schedule is passed, it will be about a year before it is in force, whereas the Government's measures will be in force by 2003, so that only a relatively short period will elapse between the two. Why go to all the fuss and bother to deal with such a short time?

My first response is that, even if I had confidence that the Government's regulations for the seller's pack could be passed in time, something in the region of 1.5 million transactions would be made in the relevant period. That could produce a saving of at least £250 million in energy consumption. That is well worth aiming for. In addition, during the introductory period, many lessons could be learned, which would prove enormously beneficial with respect to the final arrangements for energy surveys to be carried out as part of the seller's pack. Practical experience would have been gained.

What I have said is based on a generous view and the assumption that the Minister will really be able to realise the proposals by 2003. However, I am not that optimistic about his chances of success. I hope that the Minister will not take my remarks in the wrong way, because we understand the difficulty that he and the Department face in establishing complex regulations, but perhaps we should examine what they have said about other, similarly complex, regulations, in particular the updating of part L of the building regulations, relating to energy efficiency, in which respect, as the Minister has often pointed out, we are light years behind other countries. There is an urgent need to update those regulations. When the Minister has consulted on the issue, he has received wide-ranging support from all political parties and all the bodies that he has consulted. However, the Minister's suggested date for bringing in the regulations failed to bear fruit.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I hesitate to move into territory that I consider it only peripherally relevant to the amendments, but as the hon. Member for Bath has implied that we are dragging our feet, I put it to him that the issues are, as he has acknowledged, extremely complex, involving strong differences of opinion among technical experts, including those involved in house construction and renovation, and potential conflicts with other building regulations, not least those on noise transmission between properties. Those facts are matters of concern and it would be inappropriate to proceed over-hastily with measures that might have both desirable and undesirable consequences.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I am grateful to the Minister for making that point, in the way he did. I hope that he will acknowledge that my point was that I fully understood the complexity of the issue, and in no way was being critical of the delay. I merely sought to point out that, around the time that we first attempted to discuss the matter in the House, the Minister said in a press release:

We then aim to consult on a first package in the latter half of 1999 to enable significant improvements to come into effect in the first half of 2000. Other packages will then follow.

The Minister said that he has not been able to deliver on that timetable, for the good reasons of the significant technical difficulties and the conflicts that have begun to appear between the proposals and other pieces of regulation.

I am a little sceptical of the Minister's ability to bring the seller's pack in by 2003 because, as our deliberations have already demonstrated, there is not the necessary level of agreement about the proposals for it. That is also the case among the public and among professional bodies. Introducing it is likely to give rise to more complications than arose in relation to the building regulations. I have made strong arguments as to why it is worth accepting the new schedule, even if the seller's pack proposals are introduced by 2003, as it would provide an interim measure. I nevertheless believe it likely that that measure would have to operate for a longer period.

The Minister said that the seller's pack would provide information to all house buyers, whereas new schedule 1 would apply only to those with mortgage surveys. He is correct, as I have told him. I genuinely believe that the seller's pack is a better long-term solution. However, I hope that he will agree that the new schedule was intended as an interim set of proposals that could be rapidly introduced, so I based it on the very legislative proposals that he and his Government had already brought before the House, through my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon. The assumption must surely be that they have worked out all the technical difficulties associated with it, and that it could be brought in quickly, so that at least 1.5 million homes could benefit from its provisions.

I apologise for my remarks having been rather lengthy, but the issue is important. I look forward to the debate, and to the Minister's response. If he finds himself unable in any way to accept any of the amendments, I ask him to explain what has changed his mind since the measures were proposed and supported by him, the Government or many of his hon. Friends.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

We agreed with much of what the hon. Member for Bath said, which is why we were happy to add our names to the new schedule. I shall not go into detail about the points that he made.

The issue should be cut and dried. There is no dispute among the vast majority of members of the Committee about the facts that energy efficiency is desirable and that it can be brought about by measures such as are proposed in our and the Liberal Democrats' amendments, new clause and new schedule. Our amendments, Nos. 27 and 28, would make it clear in the Bill that energy efficiency information should be classed as relevant information required by the Secretary of State, and that regulations should require energy efficiency information to be included in the seller's pack.

The track records of the majority of members of the Committee, including the Minister, should show that there would be no objection to that. I too tripped with great interest through the 1993 report of the Environment Committee, of which the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold were members. I am sure that they could swap distant but affectionate recollections of their discussions.

I acquainted myself with paragraph 102 of the report, which urges a mandatory scheme for home energy labelling. At that time, the energy labelling system was in its infancy and very confused. There were three different energy labelling systems: the national home energy rating system, the star point scheme, and the standard assessment procedures, or SAPs. The report made a useful contribution. The Minister must have supported mandatory labelling, because nowhere in the report can I find any record of division or dissension among the Committee's members. Will he explain why he now seems reluctant to include a mandatory energy efficiency report in the legislation?

The hon. Member for Bath discussed in detail the ancient history of energy efficiency. He paid tribute to a former Conservative Member, now Lord Walker, who was one of the initiators of the subject. The origins of the private Member's Bill that forms the basis for new schedule 1 lie beyond the proposals of the hon. Members for Torridge and West Devon and for Eltham (Mr. Efford); they go back to my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo), who was the first of that triumvirate to introduce a private Member's energy efficiency Bill. The previous Environment Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), has a great deal of form on energy efficiency measures, going back to the Energy Saving Trust, requirements being placed on suppliers, the home energy efficiency scheme, and so on. All the parties—and the previous Government in particular—have demonstrated interest in and support for energy efficiency.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

If the previous Government had such a commitment, will the hon. Gentleman explain why they did not introduce mandatory labelling at the point of sale to which he is now committed?

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

That is a bit cheeky of the Minister. He is about to tell us that mandatory labelling is so complex that the Government could not possibly introduce it within six years of taking office.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

The Minister's remark would be worthy if he were to say that he will support such a measure shortly. If he does not, would he not be adopting the same position as the previous Government?

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

That is why I said that the Minister was cheeky. Since the 1993 report, energy labelling and other measures have become much more widespread, and technology has advanced at a great pace. It would be easier to introduce mandatory labelling now than in 1993, when the Environment Committee, of which he was a fully paid up member, produced the recommendation contained in the amendments and new schedule.

The hon. Member for Bath said that 1.5 million private residential property transactions took place last year. The sooner an element of energy efficiency can be added to those transactions, the better. Fuel poverty has not been alleviated under the present Government, despite all their warm words, to coin a pun.

As our discussion of clause 1 has shown, the Bill contains a series of measures that give the Secretary of State a great deal of power and latitude to prescribe what should be in the seller's packs and how the regulations should be determined. The wording of the Bill is vague—necessarily and increasingly so with Government legislation these days. Are we to believe, although we do not see it in the Bill, that the Secretary of State supports the concept of energy efficiency? He certainly makes great play of having signed up in Kyoto to the ambitious target of a 20 per cent. reduction. However, when the opportunity arose to co-operate with other nations in furthering that aim, his response, as we saw recently, was to insult the French Environment Minister.

This is bizarre because it is likely that, as we have discussed, sellers will be required to include in their seller's packs guarantees of damp-proofing and of other such work that has been done on their properties. We shall discuss later how detailed and extensive that list of requirements should be and what should happen if one of the documents goes astray or—as my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold has mentioned, and as so often happens—the damp-proofing company has gone out of business. Will the absence of a single document hold up the whole pack? That is a separate issue, but if we are to debate such relatively minor details as the inclusion of damp-proof guarantees, in the context of the wider good, should not information about energy efficiency come higher on the list of relevant information required by the Secretary of State as part of the seller's pack?

The availability of energy efficiency information has a serious impact on households' ability to manage themselves financially. It can also influence whether a prospective buyer decides that he can afford to finance the mortgage to make his purchase. It is often the failure of buyers, particularly first-time buyers, to take into account the running costs of a house that leads to problems such as mortgage payments falling into arrears, perhaps ultimately resulting in repossessions. In 1999, there were 30,000 repossessions in this country, despite the fact that the Government claim to have solved that problem. [Interruption.] That is a great deal more than in the 1980s, but I shall not go down that path now.

As a thoroughly modern man, I recently went to purchase a new fridge-freezer. I also had to buy a new washing machine, such is the wear to which white goods in my household have been subjected.

David Curry (Conservative, Skipton and Ripon)

I am not sure to what modernity my hon. Friend is referring. Is it the modernity of the machines or the fact that he, a man, went to purchase them? Is my hon. Friend a new man?

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I was specifically illustrating my credentials as a modern man, as it is the duty of every good husband to ensure that the equipment with which he supplies his wife performs as efficiently and as helpfully as possible—[Laughter.] My serious point is that my first question to the shop assistant was about the energy efficiency rating of the equipment. Increasingly, we automatically ask that question when buying expensive white goods. Rather than worrying about the colour of an appliance, how fast it goes, how many ice cubes it makes or even what it costs, people, rightly, look for A, B, C, or D on the front of it. Why can the Government not acknowledge that the same consideration should be given in the Bill to the most expensive purchase that the majority of people ever make—their home?

The hon. Member for Bath also mentioned the answer that the Minister gave just before Christmas to the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton, in which he said that only generic advice will be given on measures to improve energy efficiency and payback times. However, every house is unique—they have been built at different times and different building regulations and requirements apply to them—and more detailed information is needed.

Denmark must be a country that is close to the Minister's heart because he cited it many times on Second Reading. Last year, the Environmental Audit Select Committee, of which I am a member, produced a report on energy efficiency. Our researches included a trip to Denmark where we had an entertaining meeting with Mr. Svend Auken, the Minister for the country's combined Environment and Energy Ministry and also its Deputy Prime Minister. Indeed, he is similar to our Deputy Prime Minister in many respects, and certainly in respect of size. The major difference between them is that Mr. Auken rides a bicycle and does not own two Jaguars.

In Denmark, the energy labelling of houses is standard practice. The issue of energy efficiency is an integral part of the house-buying process. More significantly, in Denmark, houses, particularly new houses, are given energy ratings, which affect the amount of council tax equivalent that is charged.

Before the Minister intervenes to say, yet again, that Denmark is a marvellous country, I should like to point out that stamp duty is considerably lower there than it is in the United Kingdom. It is 0.6 per cent. for houses of first residence in Denmark. That compares very favourably with the enormous increases in stamp duty that have been introduced here and which have increased the Chancellor of the Exchequer's revenue by £1.5 billion in the past three years.

Until the 1970s oil crisis, 95 per cent. of Denmark's energy needs were met by imported oil. At that time, Denmark realised that it had to change its entire energy policy. As a contribution to that change, energy efficiency considerations were made an integral part of house construction. In Denmark, therefore, home energy labelling came about as a matter of course. The statistics show that that leads to new homeowners undertaking a considerable amount of work during the first three years of ownership to improve the energy efficiency of their homes.

Despite campaigns such as the ``Do your bit'' campaign and my earlier comments concerning white goods, we have a problem about getting environmental messages across to the British public. Last summer, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds commissioned an interesting survey into the purchase of second-hand cars. When people were asked to rate the importance of the criteria that influenced their decisions about which second-hand car to buy, only 3 per cent. of respondents rated fuel efficiency as a significant criterion, as opposed to 9 per cent. who rated the colour of the car as more important. That is an amusing but worrying finding and shows why it is so important to make the energy efficiency and energy ratings of houses as transparent as possible. That would make a significant contribution to the UK meeting its carbon dioxide emission targets, but the Bill fails to do that.

The energy efficiency standards of performance scheme—EESOP—introduced by the previous Government and run by the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets, has a structure in place that obliges public suppliers to achieve set levels of energy savings for their customers. That structure is overseen by the Energy Saving Trust. We have a structure in place in which electricity suppliers offer advice on energy efficiency and reducing energy expenditure, mostly as it applies to lights and electrical household appliances. There is already a wealth of experience and expertise that could easily be applied to rating the fabric of the whole house as part of the seller's packs.

I see no reason why energy efficiency should not be included in the Bill. It should be a basic requirement of the seller's packs, if we are to have them, because the payback would be enormous. If the energy reductions were achieved, there would be a payback to the environment and house buyers could judge whether houses would be more viable to run.

As detailed in our amendments, there should be advice on how energy efficiency improvements should be made. There are two sides of the coin for buyers. First, they must consider how affordable a house is, with its energy consumption added to the cost of buying it. Secondly, they should consider the advice available at the point of sale about what measures they could feasibly and easily take to improve energy efficiency. Such improvements would often pay them back quickly, as the hon. Member for Bath said.

Those changes are simple and would not require complex legislation, because some proposals are already on the table. The 1998 Energy Efficiency Bill forms the basis of the amendments and the proposed new schedule. I do not understand why the Minister is holding back, or why he thinks that he may have problems getting it through. Most of his Back Benchers have supported such measures in the past and he supported the principle in 1993. My colleagues and Government Back Benchers alike should gladly support the amendment for the greater good of buyers and the environment.

Gareth Thomas (Labour, Clwyd West)

I rise because my name was mentioned by the hon. Member for Bath. To avoid doubt, I share the view of the majority of hon. Members that energy efficiency should be central. He should not read too much into the fact that I did not sign the early-day motion that he mentioned.

I would be interested to learn what the Government think and, in particular, why it is not possible to put an energy efficiency requirement in the Bill. I understand that there could be technical reasons that mean it is not appropriate to overburden the Bill, but I want to know how the Government envisage the ambit and shape of the regulations that they will have the power to make.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

We have had a good and full debate and I am delighted by the large measure of all-party agreement. It is our clear intention to ensure that energy information should be fully available in surveys and to make such information part and parcel of the seller's pack. It will be included as part of the proposed home condition reports. That will give full effect to the 1993 Environment Committee report's recommendation, to which the hon. Members for East Worthing and Shoreham and for Bath referred, that energy efficiency information should be available at the point of sale in all cases. The proposals before the Committee give effect to that commitment.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I was delighted to hear what the Minister said, but will he go further and say whether he intends to make matters clear in the Bill? If he is not prepared to do that, the problem is that the matter may be determined by regulations at a later date. That may be after the next election, when he may not be in a position to ensure that the regulations have the strength that he has described.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that commitments given by Ministers are made on behalf of the Government, not individuals. The Government have made a clear commitment to achieve the objective that I have described. The way in which that is done is a more interesting and complex process.

Clause 7 deals with the seller's pack. It gives the Secretary of State power to prescribe the contents of the pack and sets out the sort of information that should be included. We are satisfied that information concerning the energy efficiency of a property is covered by subsection (4) and, more particularly, that the energy efficiency aspects of its current condition are covered by subsection (5)(d). That provides that information on

the physical condition of the property, including any particular characteristics or features of the property

is relevant information for such purposes.

We will discuss later the wider issues surrounding the inclusion of a home condition report in the seller's pack, so I shall confine my comments now to the energy efficiency element of the home condition report. Last year, a trial of the seller's pack was conducted in Bristol to assess how it worked in practice, and to seek consumers' views about its contents.

In Bristol, the pack included a home energy report that gave an assessment of the energy efficiency of the property being sold, improvements that could be made, the likely cost of such improvements, the potential annual savings and the payback time. There was also general advice on energy saving measures. That was of great interest to potential buyers, although there were concerns that the presentation of the information was not as user-friendly as possible. That is why pilots are conducted: they show us how to do things better.

The message has been taken to heart and all the main stakeholders involved in the scheme's development are considering the format of a new report, which will provide consumers with the same information in a more accessible and user-friendly way. Such stakeholders include the Consumers Association, the Law Society, the Council of Mortgage Lenders, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors and the National Association of Estate Agents.

We intend that the energy efficiency report will form an integral part of the home condition report. That can be done by ensuring that it forms part of a certification scheme that is approved by the Secretary of State under powers given by clause 8. The inclusion of the energy efficiency report in the home condition report has obvious benefits. It will be more economic because only one inspector will be involved and the information and advice in the report will be tailored to the specific property. I know that the hon. Member for Bath was concerned about that. I assured him of our intention on Second Reading, and I repeat our commitment so that he is well aware of it. Protections and safeguards that will be available to inspections carried out under the certification scheme will back up the report. These are all important considerations.

The question will be asked—and not just by Opposition Members, as my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, West has already asked it—why that measure is not in the Bill. The answer is quite simple, and I suspect that it will become known as argument A, to use a format that has appeared on previous occasions.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

As the Minister knows only too well, my response is argument B, and I assure him that we will continue to deploy it with vigour.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I shall outline argument A for the benefit of hon. Members who have not had the good fortune of attending such debates in Committees on which the hon. Gentleman, you, Mr. Gale, and I have served. It is always a mistake to try to put too many specific details in a Bill, because, unless the list is exhaustive, inferences could be drawn from what is excluded. It is far better to give general rather than highly detailed commitments, unless there are overriding reasons why only those commitments are to be implemented.

I will expand the argument with relation to home condition reports. Many other issues are of real concern to certain groups, who will press us for commitments on them. For example, I will give some examples. Noise insulation is a growing concern that worries many people. Disabled persons' access is also an important issue, and the Government have changed building regulations to provide better access for disabled people in new buildings. To give a topical example, there are strong arguments for including information on the risk of flooding.

The danger of specifying one such issue—or group of issues—in the Bill, is that in any future litigation or argument about the extent of a home condition report, it could be inferred that Parliament, by specifying a limited number of matters that must be included, did not intend other issues to be covered, or intended identified issues to be viewed as more important than unidentified ones.

There is always a risk that a good intention—in this case, the desire to list an issue that the whole Committee accepts as important—could result in an unfortunate by-product later, when someone who has not been a party to our discussions has to interpret the Bill and its language.

Gareth Thomas (Labour, Clwyd West)

I well understand why my hon. Friend does not wish to over-prescribe the contents of the seller's pack. Clause 7(5)(d) refers to

the physical condition of the property (including any particular characteristics or features of the property).

Would regulations made under that provision cover matters such as energy efficiency or susceptibility to flooding? If so, Parliament would be being prescriptive.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

As my hon. Friend knows, it is easier to amend or adapt regulations should it emerge later that something has not been included that should have been, or vice versa. That is why we prefer to use regulations when specific listings are needed. I have already given a commitment to the Committee that we intend to include the energy efficiency report, with all the characteristics that I have described, in the regulations. That commitment will be clear to anyone who reads the relevant Hansard. We do not, therefore, accept the amendment although we support its purpose.

On new clause 4 and new schedule 1, we are committed to ensuring that information about energy efficiency is available at the point of sale in all cases. The hon. Member for Bath has conceded that that would not be achieved by new clause 4 and new schedule 1, because they place the obligation on the lender, and so apply only to properties sold with the aid of a mortgage. Approximately one quarter of all sales do not involve a mortgage. The figures that he gave to the Committee are probably slightly optimistic, because in a sale that did not involve a mortgage, the property would not be subject to the information requirements to which he referred. The measure is therefore not as satisfactory as he would have liked, and he has admitted that. The Government's commitment to including a full energy efficiency statement in the seller's pack is a better way to achieve his aim.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

Order. Hon. Members may leave papers in the Room. It will be locked between now and 4.30 pm, when the Committee will sit again. I suspect that Mr. Stevenson will chair that sitting, although that has yet to be determined.

It being One o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned till this day at half-past Four o'clock.

Standing Committee D

Clause 1 - Meaning of ``residential property'' and other expressions

George Stevenson (Labour, Stoke-on-Trent South)

I remind the Committee that with this we are taking the following: amendment No. 27, in clause 7, page 5, line 44, at end insert—

`(ca) the energy efficiency of the building, identifying the presence of existing measures for improving energy efficiency and those which may reasonably be expected to be added;'.

Amendment No. 23, in clause 7, page 6, line 2, at end insert—

`(da) the energy efficiency of the property, including

(i) the presence or absence in the dwelling of specified measures for improving energy efficiency, and

(ii) measures which could be taken for the purpose of improving energy efficiency.'.

Amendment No. 28, in clause 7, page 6, line 8, at end insert—

`(aa) a report on the energy efficiency of the property, identifying energy efficient aspects of the structure, ranked with comparable properties, and including advice on improvement measures which it is feasible to make;'.

Amendment No. 24, in clause 7, page 6, line 10, at end insert—

`(ba) an energy efficiency report containing advice on measures to improve the energy efficiency of the property, and an indication of the cost and pay-back period of each of these measures.'.

Amendment No. 25, in clause 8, page 6, line 26, after `section 7(5)(d)', add `and (da)'.

New clause 4—Energy efficiency report: transitional provision—

`.The Secretary of State may by regulations bring Schedule (Energy Efficiency reports) into effect for a period of time set by those regulations if in his judgement this would assist or provide information relevant to the marketing of residential properties in England or Wales.'.

New schedule 1—Energy Efficiency Reports—

`1.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this Schedule, it shall be the duty of any person in whose favour a mortgage of any legal estate in a dwelling is granted (in this Schedule referred to as ``the lender'') to ensure that, if any qualifying survey of the dwelling has been undertaken by him or on his behalf in connection with that mortgage—

(a) a report on the energy efficiency of the dwelling (in this Schedule referred to as ``an energy efficiency report'') has been prepared by or on behalf of the lender in accordance with regulations under paragraph 5 on the basis of the physical inspection undertaken for the purpose of the qualifying survey, and

(b) the person granting the mortgage (in this Schedule referred to as ``the borrower'') has been provided, before the grant of the mortgage, with a copy of the energy efficiency report.

(2) No duty arises under sub-paragraph (1) unless—

(a) the mortgage relates only

(i) to a single dwelling, or

(ii) to a single dwelling together with premises occupied or intended to be occupied for business purposes,

(b) the loan to which the mortgage relates was made in pursuance of an application made to the lender by the borrower, and

(c) the dwelling is occupied by, or is intended for occupation by, the borrower as his residence.

(3) The lender may, in fixing the amount of any fee to be charged for a qualifying survey, taken into account any additional costs reasonably incurred in preparing the energy efficiency report, but the duty in sub-paragraph (1) arises whether or not the borrower has paid, or agreed to pay, any such additional costs.

(4) In sub-paragraph (1) a ``qualifying survey'', in relation to a dwelling, means any survey or valuation which includes a physical inspection of both the exterior and the interior of the dwelling.

2. The duty in paragraph 1 does not arise in relation to any dwelling which was provided (by construction or conversion) less than three years before the date on which the borrower applied for the loan to which the mortgage relates.

3. The duty in paragraph 1 does not arise where, before the grant of the mortgage, the borrower has obtained, or been given a copy of, a report which—

(a) relates to the dwelling,

(b) complies with regulations under paragraph 5, and

(c) was prepared less than twelve months before the date on which the borrower applied for the loan to which the mortgage relates.

4.—(1) The duty in paragraph 1 does not arise where—

(a) the lender is a member of the borrower's family and is not lending in the course of a business carried on by the lender, or

(b) the lenders are the trustees of a trust created by an individual for the benefit of members of his family and their descendants.

(2) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1) a person is a member of another's family if—

(a) he is the spouse of that person, or he and that person live together as husband and wife, or

(b) he is that person's parent, grandparent, child, grandchild, brother, sister, uncle, aunt, nephew or niece.

(3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2)(b)—

(a) a relationship by marriage shall be treated as a relationship by blood,

(b) a relationship of the half-blood shall be treated as a relationship of the whole blood, and

(c) the stepchild of a person shall be treated as his child.

5.—(1) The Secretary of State shall make regulations specifying the requirements which must be met by the lender in relation to the preparation of an energy efficiency report.

(2) The regulations may, in particular, require a report to include—

(a) information as to the presence or absence in the dwelling of specified measures for improving energy efficiency, and

(b) a statement recommending measures which could be taken for the purpose of improving energy efficiency.

(3) Regulations under this paragraph may make different provision for different cases and different areas.

(4) Regulations under this paragraph may not require an energy efficiency report to contain any information in respect of the dwelling which is not readily ascertainable on a visual inspection of so much of the exterior and interior of the dwelling as is accessible without undue difficulty to the person undertaking the inspection.

(5) Regulations under this paragraph may not require an energy efficiency report in respect of a flat to contain information about the common parts of the building in which the flat is situated.

(6) Before making regulations under this paragraph, the Secretary of State shall consult—

(a) such mortgage lenders or persons appearing to him to represent mortgage lenders as he considers appropriate, and

(b) such other persons as he considers appropriate.

(7) In making regulations under this paragraph, the Secretary of State shall have regard to the cost of preparing an energy efficiency report.

(8) Regulations under this paragraph shall be made by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.

(9) In this paragraph—

``common parts'', in relation to a building, includes the structure and exterior of the building and common facilities provided, whether in the building or elsewhere, for persons who include the occupiers of one or more flats in the building;

``flat'' means a dwelling which is a separate set of premises, whether or not on the same floor, divided horizontally from some other part of the building;

``mortgage lender'' means a person who, in the course of a business, lends money secured by mortgages of dwellings.

6.—(1) If the borrower suffers loss by reason of the failure of the lender to comply with his duty under paragraph 1, the borrower is entitled to compensation for that loss from the lender.

(2) In determining for the purposes of this paragraph whether the borrower has suffered loss as mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) and, if so, the amount of that loss, a court—

(a) shall assume that the borrower would have taken every measure that would have been recommended in a report complying with paragraph 5,

(b) shall have regard to the cost that would be likely to have been incurred in taking those measures if they had been taken immediately after the grant of the mortgage,

(c) shall determine the likely expected life of each measure and apportion that cost rateably over that life, and

(d) shall calculate the savings that would have been made during the relevant period if the measures had been taken.

(3) In sub-paragraph (2) ``the relevant period'' means the period beginning with the day on which the mortgage was granted and ending immediately before the sixth anniversary of that day or, if earlier—

(a) in relation to any measure falling within sub-paragraph (2)(a) which has in fact been taken by the borrower, with the day on which the taking of the measure is completed,

(b) in a case where the lender provides the borrower with, or with a copy of, an energy efficiency report complying with paragraph 5 prepared not less than 12 months before the day on which it is provided, that day,

(c) the day on which the borrower ceases to own any interest in the dwelling,

(d) the death of the borrower, or

(e) the day on which any proceedings under this paragraph are first determined by a court or by the award of an arbitrator.

7. In this Schedule—

``the borrower'' and ``the lender'' shall be construed in accordance with paragraph 1;

``dwelling'' means a building or part of a building occupied or intended to be occupied as a separate dwelling, together with any yard, garden, outhouses or appurtenances belonging to it or usually enjoyed with it, but does not include a mobile home;

``energy efficiency report'' shall be construed in accordance with paragraph 1;

``mobile home'' means a caravan within the meaning of Part I of the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 (disregarding the amendment made by section 13(2) of the Caravan Sites Act 1968);

``mortgage'' means any mortgage or other charge on property for securing money or money's worth which is made by deed.

8.—(1) Paragraph 5 and this paragraph shall come into force on the day on which regulations made under section 7( ) take effect.

(2) The remaining provisions of this Schedule shall come into force on such day or days as the Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument appoint, and different days may be appointed for different purposes or different areas.

(3) The power to make an order under sub-paragraph (2) includes power to make such transitional provisions and savings as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.

(4) The Secretary of State shall consult the National Assembly for Wales before making any regulations under this schedule which relate to Wales.

(5) This schedule extends to England and Wales only.'.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

Welcome to the Committee, Mr. Stevenson. I look forward to our proceedings continuing under your chairmanship and that of Mr. Gale.

I explained before lunch why the proposal in the clause for an energy efficiency report to form part of the home condition report applying to all sales is preferable to new clause 4 and new schedule 1, whereby such reports would be limited to properties that are the subject of a mortgage valuation. I accept the argument advanced by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) that new clause 4 and new schedule 1 could provide an interim arrangement. He agreed that our proposal is more satisfactory in the long term, but said that he wanted some progress made in the interim. That is a valid point of view, but I hope that my explanation will convince him that the option that he proposes is not feasible.

It would be costly and complicated to introduce the measures in the schedule for a short period only and it might cause difficulties for the surveying profession. Many valuers working for lenders do not have the training or expertise to conduct energy efficiency surveys, so there would inevitably be a training need. It is likely, given the concerns that have rightly been voiced about the importance of people being able to rely on the competence of those carrying out the surveys, that a form of accreditation similar to the arrangements that we propose for home condition reports would be needed. It would be a nightmare to try to train a large number of surveyors and introduce and operate a separate accreditation system in parallel with the arrangements for training all the surveyors who will become inspectors for the purpose of the home condition report. There is real scope for problems to arise, for duplication and for cost overruns, which would be a wholly unwelcome distraction at a time when the focus should be on training the inspectors who will be fundamental to the operation of the main house condition report which, as the hon. Gentleman acknowledges, will provide a better, more fundamental and more lasting solution.

Introducing the interim arrangements for the sake of a year—or perhaps 18 months if the hon. Gentleman's pessimistic view is right and it takes as long as that to introduce home condition reports and seller's packs—cannot be justified financially or in terms of the upheaval, potential chaos and confusion. I therefore urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I should like to the Minister to clarify his remarks, which are contrary to those which he offered on Second Reading. He said that to satisfy the conditions of the home seller's packs would require a raft of new surveyors whose training would cost money, which cost would fall on the home seller's pack business. Yet he claimed the other day that there would be no extra costs. Is he suggesting that those surveyors will do the job for free out of good will, or does he admit that a large cost will be involved?

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

The hon. Gentleman is confusing different issues, the first of which is the adequacy of the number of surveyors. There was a question on Second Reading about whether there would be enough surveyors. There are about 9,000 surveyors with general qualifications and it is estimated that approximately that number will be required to carry out the inspections.

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

I hesitate to interrupt the Minister when he has just got back into gear, but does he not accept the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors' estimate of another 2,000 to 3,000 surveyors being needed? If the top end of that estimate is anything like accurate, the number of surveyors will have to increase by one third.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

Other professionals could well become inspectors—indeed, the members of a number of other professions are interested in becoming qualified inspectors; there will certainly be more than the 9,000 who are currently available. My point is that is no shortage.

The second issue is training. Of course there will be a training need if inspectors are to perform the functions according to the regulations that we will publish—that is essential to provide a scheme that commands public confidence. However, the estimate of additional costs given by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) is somewhat wide of the mark. The RICS estimates that the approximate cost per inspection carried out for the introduction of the accreditation arrangement will be 50p. I accept that that is additional expenditure, but it is not of the order of magnitude that the hon. Gentleman suggests. To suggest that huge additional costs will result from the introduction of the accreditation system is wide of the mark.

However, there will obviously be a need for training, both initial and on-going, as professionals need to keep in touch with changes in software, for example. The hon. Gentleman acknowledged that there have been changes in the technology since the introduction of home energy ratings in the late 1980s. I was a member of the National Energy Foundation, which was responsible for one of the ratings, and I am well aware that there has been progress in technology since that time. Obviously there will be a need for continuing training, but that is a normal part of the process of providing a professional service.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Government's record on reducing emissions. He made a gratuitous and unwarranted attack on my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, who has done substantial service on that issue—for example, by agreeing the Kyoto agreement, which gave a real boost to the reduction of emissions and showed that Britain was in the lead in terms of reaching international agreements to reduce unwanted emissions. In addition, this country has made enormous progress internally. We expect to achieve a 15 per cent. reduction in UK emissions between 1990 and 2000, which puts us well on track to achieve our domestic goal of a 20 per cent. reduction by 2010.

Further measures are being introduced from April with the climate change levy and the new home energy efficiency scheme. That scheme is particularly important to low-income households, which are especially vulnerable to the problems of high energy costs resulting from inefficiently insulated housing and inefficient heating systems. The Committee will be aware of all the measures that we have taken to tackle the scandal in this country of far too many old people suffering and dying from the cold in winter, because of a combination of low incomes and houses that are difficult or expensive to keep warm.

The winter heating supplement, which the Conservatives are pledged to abolish, shows the Government's commitment to tackle the scandal. We will take no lessons from the Conservatives on energy efficiency measures. We have the right policies to help people, to improve the condition of the housing stock and to establish a proper system for giving information at the point of sale of a property, so that new home owners know what can be done to improve their home's energy efficiency, the costs and the payback period. That is all part of a key strategy to tackle the problem of energy inefficiency, and I warmly commend the Government's position. I urge Opposition Members to withdraw their amendment. If they do not, I urge my hon. Friends to vote against it.

Andrew Love (Labour/Co-operative, Edmonton)

On a point of order, Mr. Stevenson. I seek your guidance. This morning, Mr. Gale allowed Committee Members to remove their jackets. Unlike Conservatives, we seek your guidance before removing ours.

George Stevenson (Labour, Stoke-on-Trent South)

In the interests of accuracy, I point out that Conservative Members did seek my guidance privately. They have my permission and so have other hon. Members.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Stevenson. You may already be in some confusion about what is going on in Committee, with talk of secret deals. Conservative Members alleged earlier that the Liberal Democrats had done a secret deal with Labour Members on the timetable motion. It is now being alleged that there is a secret deal on the removal of jackets. No such deal was made, Mr. Stevenson, so I apologise for failing to seek your permission to remove my jacket, notwithstanding the fact that you had already given it to Conservative Members.

In responding to some of my amendments in our earlier deliberations, the Minister said that he would use argument A in his defence as to why he would not persuade his hon. Friends to support them. He was good enough to explain that argument A is the now infamous list argument: it is bad to have a list of items in the Bill, because some people would argue that anything not in that list would not be considered a significant issue. When the Minister raised that argument, I am afraid that I rose to my feet rather rapidly and said that I intended to use argument B to refute it. Perhaps I will have the opportunity to unveil argument B later. However, I want to apologise to the Committee, because I was a little hasty in my earlier reflections and now wish, perhaps strangely, to use argument A to persuade the Minister that he has misused argument A rather badly. I hope that, on reflection, he will see that argument A is, in fact, a good reason why he should accept our amendment.

The Committee will be aware that the Minister said—I repeat what I said a minute ago—that argument A was simple and that, if a list was provided, an item not on that list would be deemed insignificant and not something that the Government had thought it important to include. I draw the attention of the Minister and all Committee Members to clause 7(5), which we seek to amend. Rather surprisingly, it already contains a list of a number of items that the seller's pack must contain, including details of the interest for sale, title, the items kept on a register or records kept by certain classes of people, warranties, guarantees and details of taxes or service charges. There is already a list of seven items. According to the Minister's own argument A, if we do not include energy efficiency among the items on the list, it will be deemed insignificant. I hope that he will accept that a large number of people may deem some of the items on the list to be less significant than energy efficiency.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that, while he may regard some of the items on the list as being less significant, they are of a different nature to issues relating to the physical condition of the property. The physical condition of the property is covered by clause 7(5)(d) and we are satisfied that it covers energy efficiency. The hon. Gentleman will also accept that, if we were to identify energy efficiency as one characteristic of the physical condition of the property, it would be difficult to resist arguments that we should also include other physical conditions such as noise, insulation, adaptability for disabled people and so on. That was the nub of the argument.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

We could trade lists of things of differing significance, but my point is that it has been accepted by the Committee, and, more importantly, more widely in the House, that energy efficiency and energy efficiency surveys are important and significant. Notwithstanding the importance of some of the other measures that the Minister has referred to, some of which are in the Bill and some of which are not, many members of the Committee consider that energy efficiency and energy efficiency surveys are so significant as to warrant inclusion in the Bill.

It is clear from his earlier remarks and from that intervention that I have not yet persuaded the Minister of the importance of putting this issue in the Bill. I will come to the seller's pack in a second, but it may be sensible for me to agree not to press my amendment so that the Minister has time to reflect on whether he might wish to change his mind and accept it, and to allow him the time to reflect on whether he can have his cake and eat it by making modest changes to clause 7(5)(d). He may find a form of words—perhaps I might give him suggestions later on—to tie in energy efficiency within the wording of a home condition report, which might solve everybody's problem.

Although, I think that that is important, and an issue to which I hope to return at a later stage, I will not press the amendment. However, I assure the Minister that, if we cannot find a way forward by agreement, I will seek to bring the matter back on Report.

My second proposal is to have an interim set of procedures between the time when the seller's pack is introduced and now. I said when I began that I was aware of the response that the Minister would make. Long before he gave that response, I had outlined what his response would be: that there would be a relatively short time between the two and that my proposal would not be as effective as his own. In addition, some training costs would be involved and some people would argue that it was not worth it. I hope that the Minister will acknowledge that, long before he made those comments, I had made them for him. On the point that I sought to make earlier—not with enough force—those arguments were invalid because of the large number of people who would benefit, at relatively small cost, from the introduction of the interim measures.

The Minister pointed out that not all home transactions happened through mortgages. The 1.5 million homes to which I referred had been transferred with mortgages, which would be affected. I understand that those are the latest figures. The Minister may correct me if he has different figures, but 75 per cent. of house purchases, as he rightly pointed out, do involve mortgages. Whatever the figure, a large number of properties would profit from my proposal, even if we are dealing with just one year. The Minister has already acknowledged that I may be right, and that the period would be longer than a year. He suggested 18 months. I would argue, based on the example that I gave of the building regulations, that it might be longer than 18 months because of the complexity of these proposals. Either way, the large number of people who would benefit are worth more serious consideration than the Minister is giving. He said that my proposal would be a nightmare to introduce and that it would be difficult to train all these people. If that were so, why, such a short time after my hon. Friend the Member for West Devon and Torridge (Mr. Burnett) introduced his Energy Efficiency Bill and the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Efford) introduced his version of that Bill, did the Minister say that it would be possible to introduce legislation within 12 months? Presumably, he was acknowledging that all the necessary training could be done within that period. I hope that he will acknowledge that that is what he is saying. If he has different information, perhaps he will tell us?

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

What I referred to as a nightmare was not the training requirement for the seller's pack scheme with the energy efficient report as part of that, but two separate training and accreditation schemes running in parallel. The new scheme for the seller's pack will be integrated with the energy efficiency report while the other scheme, which is the subject of the hon. Gentleman's new clause, would not and would have to involve a separate commissioning body, notably the lender. That duplication of effort would create the nightmare.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I am surprised that the Minister uses that argument, which I suspect should be consigned to the bottom end of arguments as argument Z. His argument has been about the bureaucracy applying to the scheme, not the issue of the training of people. I make no bones about the fact that there would be two different approaches. However, the key issue is the fact that the people who would carry out those surveys would be the same as those who, under my proposal, would be trained perhaps 18 months earlier than they would under the Minister's scheme. The great problem that the Minister claims training all those people would cause simply would not occur—as is demonstrated by his acceptance of the proposals of the hon. Member for Eltham.

The Minister is shaking his head; again, I have not convinced him on the issue. That is a pity because more than 250 Labour Members of Parliament have indicated their desire to see the measure introduced. Not pushing the matter to a vote would at least allow not only the Minister to reflect but those 250 Labour Members of Parliament—and no doubt many Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members—to talk to him about the issue. Maybe, with a bit of time on our side, we may persuade him to change his mind.

I will, with deep regret, withdraw the amendments, but I hope that it is understood that if we do not receive satisfaction from the Minister at a later stage we will bring similar amendments back on Report.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

On behalf of the Opposition, I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Stevenson. I am that sure we will find the Committee as enjoyable as we did this morning.

I am not convinced by what the Minister said. The hon. Member for Bath said that he would withdraw the amendment reluctantly, but the logic of what the Minister said this morning is that such matters have to be left to regulation and that the Committee and the House have to rely on the good will and the good sense of the Secretary of State of the time to ensure that the energy efficiency requirements, of which the Committee apparently unanimously approves, will be included in the seller's packs at some stage after 2003, by which time a further 3 million properties will have changed hands without an energy efficiency requirement as part of the sale. As I said, that is an enormous lost opportunity.

The logic of the argument is that nothing can be made an exception, even though, as the hon. Member for Bath has said, certain specifications are, notwithstanding, listed. The two examples of other lobbies that might ask why they were not represented in the specifications for seller's packs in the Bill—the disability lobby and those with an interest in flooding—are both important. As the chairman of the Conservative disability group I agree on the importance of disability considerations in housebuilding and related matters. Nevertheless, surely other aspects of the law—certainly with respect to disability—cover the building or adaptation of homes, or making them available for public access. Those matters are already covered—although some might say inadequately—and can be improved within existing legislative frameworks.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I confirm the hon. Gentleman's point that part M of the building regulations sets the regulatory framework for standards of disability access. Of course, he will know that part L covers energy efficiency, so an exactly comparable set of building regulations exists for each area of concern. We are considering not the building regulations but the obligations with respect to the contents of the home condition report in the seller's pack. It would be inconsistent to refer to an obligation relating to one set of building regulations but not another.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

Indeed, but building regulations apply to new buildings, rather than to existing ones. The vast majority of the properties affected by the Bill will be existing properties changing hands, not new or recently-built properties that have been subject to the regulations.

My point is that disability considerations can and should be dealt with in other measures. As to flooding, the Minister knows—these developments have been debated in the House—that the Environment Agency has, since December, had a computerised flood map so that any prospective buyer can tap a postcode into the website and see the area's susceptibility to flooding. I agree that the specifics—whether No. 3 Acacia avenue may be more susceptible to flooding than No. 7 or No. 9—may not appear, but a general idea will be available. Indeed, there is a question whether greater duties of disclosure should be included in the Bill, in preference to the rather more prescribed surveyor's report, requiring sellers to make clear what damage might have been caused by flooding in the past.

Of course, the damage that might have been caused by flooding would not be revealed in a survey if, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) made clear this morning, that survey was conducted for a seller's pack before the serious flooding. Without any duty to establish the shelf life of a survey, or to conduct a refresher survey, the Minister is condoning the purchase of a house on a seller's pack that could contain an out-of-date surveyor's report. That is the logic of what he said this morning.

I am glad that the Minister mentioned the many energy efficiency promotional schemes that have been continued under this Government, but which originated and were much promoted under the previous Government. It was a shame that, yet again, the Minister resorted to a distortion of the truth, by repeating the oft-quoted, but rather misleading fact about the pension that the next Conservative Government will pay to all pensioners. It will include the winter fuel allowance, which will be available to all pensioners, and for which the tax allowances will be raised, so that nobody will suffer any additional tax liability. Pensioners will receive it as cash in hand on a week-by-week basis.

It will be up to those individuals to spend the money as they wish. They will have dignity, and Government's trust. Conservative Members trust pensioners to spend money as they see fit, and pensioners will receive more money than the sum of all the component parts that they currently receive on an annualised basis. They will receive that, and more, on a week-by-week basis and spend it as they wish. The Minister knows that those are the details of the policy and it does him, and the Committee, no service to repeat that distortion time and again. The fact that he tried sneakily to insert it into the debate on the amendments relating to energy efficiency smacks of desperation.

We are induced by the Minister to trust the Secretary of State. We are to trust a future Secretary of State, after 2003, whoever it may be, although it is highly unlikely that it will be the present incumbent, whether or not the Labour Government are still in power. We are to trust that that Secretary of State will include in the regulations the energy efficiency requirements that we want. Energy efficiency is probably the most relevant of all the considerations that the Minister has listed in terms of disabilities and flooding potential, and it applies to the fabric, running costs, affordability and sustainability of a building. It should be placed right at the top of the list for inclusion in the seller's packs, if we are to have them at the point of sale. The failure to do so strikes me as the most enormous lost opportunity.

The Minister, and so many of his colleagues, has supported similar measures in various Bills, and now, at the last post, he has decided that such measures are not to be included in the Bill. However, we will not give up, because there is pressure from Labour Back Benchers and from the Opposition, who want the measures. We have already made workable proposals, which would not require much effort to implement.

Reluctantly, like the hon. Member for Bath, we shall not press our amendments. In not doing so, we hope that the Minister will think the matter through, and return on Report agreeing to a multi-party approach to place the energy efficiency considerations at the heart of the Bill. In his heart he knows that he supports the measures. Let us see his actions reflect the words he used while in opposition.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

On a point of order, Mr. Stevenson. I have noticed that

the hon. Member for Corby (Mr. Hope), the Minister's Parliamentary Private Secretary, has been making signs to a lady on the Press Bench who is wearing a red sequinned dress. I have noticed also that he has been giving her in-depth briefings outside the Room. I may be wrong, Mr. Stevenson, but I do not recognise the lady—[Laughter.]

George Stevenson (Labour, Stoke-on-Trent South)

Order. I hesitate to speak while the hon. Gentleman while is making a point of order, but he should not be interrupted.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

I am grateful, Mr. Stevenson. I shall start that point of order again because it is important.

I have noticed that, throughout the Committee's sittings, the hon. Member for Corby has been making signs to the lady on the Press Bench wearing a red sequinned dress. He has also been giving her in-depth briefings outside. That would be fair enough if she were a bona-fide member of the press, but I do not recognise her as such. I ask you, Mr. Stevenson, to confirm who she is and what organisation she represents and, if you do not know, I would ask you to cause inquiries to be made. If it turns out that she is not a genuine member of the press, would you confirm that she is not entitled to sit on the Benches reserved for the press?

George Stevenson (Labour, Stoke-on-Trent South)

I am not clear what the rules of the House say on the matter. I take note of the hon. Gentleman's point of order, and I shall have the matter checked. Once I have clarification, I shall make a ruling.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Stevenson. It may help the Committee if I clarify the precise status of the first—

George Stevenson (Labour, Stoke-on-Trent South)

Order. I have responded to that point of order. If the Minister can help the Clerk in his investigations, I ask him to do so without taking up the Committee's time. Once the matter has been clarified to my satisfaction, I shall make a ruling. I wish to leave it at that, but anyone who wants to offer assistance to the Clerk should do so as quickly as possible.

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

I beg to move amendment No. 49, in page 1, line 18, leave out `or may become'.

George Stevenson (Labour, Stoke-on-Trent South)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 33, in page 1, line 22, leave out

`it is taken off the market'

and insert

`the agent's instructions shall be terminated in writing'.

No. 52, in page 1, line 22, after `or', insert `it is'.

No. 50, in page 1, line 24, leave out

`or to a section of the public'.

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

While the Minister is assisting you with your inquiries, Mr. Stevenson, I shall move this group of amendments to clause 1. We are beginning to strip away the hype and salesmanship.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

On a point of order, Mr. Stevenson. For the record, I notice that the lady has left the Room rather quickly. I notice also that the Minister's Parliamentary Private Secretary and the Government Whip have left. I am now even more concerned that my suspicions are right and that she may be the Minister's special adviser.

George Stevenson (Labour, Stoke-on-Trent South)

Order. I have responded to that legitimate point of order. I do not wish the Committee's time to be taken up by pursuing the matter on the Floor. Once I have clarification, I shall rule accordingly—and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be satisfied with that response. However, I take his point that we need to deliberate the issues before us with due seriousness, and I am sure that the Committee will want to do just that.

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

Thank you, Mr. Stevenson. I hope that, before any more Committee members leave the Room, I can impress upon them the advantages of the amendments. We are now coming to the detail of the Bill, and, like a bad play, it is falling apart in the first act. The Government, who are never knowingly undersold, are selling the Bill as a marvellous consumer protection measure and are trying to persuade the people, whom they assume will be gullible enough to fall for it, that it will improve their lot when it comes to buying and selling houses. However, as we know from even the most cursory examination, the Bill will add to the cost of moving home, bureaucratise the system of buying and selling homes and criminalise those perfectly law-abiding, decent citizens who are trying to go about the simple business of entering freely into contractual relations.

Amendment No. 49 would remove from the definition of

to put on the market

the fact that the property

may become available for sale.

We cannot understand what those words add to the definition and we believe that it would be impossible to enforce. It would be interesting to hear the thought processes behind that. What exactly are the Government driving at?

Many people suggest that they might intend to sell their property at some time in the future, but do not do so. The Government are masters of the law of unintended consequences, and one of the side effects of the Bill is that many properties that might have been placed on the market will not be. We will deal with that in a little more detail later. The sad truth is that many people will think twice before putting properties on the market and incurring the sort of front-loaded costs that the Government are trying to impose on them.

The phraseology is incredibly vague and ambiguous. Would clause 1(4) be triggered if David Frost or some other interviewer were to ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he was selling his flat, and he replied that it ``may become available'' at some time in future? Are not the words ``fact'' and ``may become'' contradictory in the context of clause 1(4)?

We were encouraged to table amendment No. 33 by the National Association of Estate Agents, which was clearly worried at the implications of the current wording. We are attempting to clarify the definition of the phrase,

is taken off the market.

One of the strange aspects of this part of clause 1 is that it is vague about what constitutes putting something on the market, and almost equally vague, if not more so, about what constitutes taking it off the market. It seems a perfectly sensible precaution to add to the Bill a proposal that, when estate agents are involved, there should be written instructions to the agents formally requesting them to take a property off the market.

Let me be the first to accept the suggestion that the amendment is not necessarily watertight. If the parliamentary draftsmen can do better, they are welcome to try, but it is a useful probing amendment.

What is the definition of taking a property off the market? I am sure that we have all come across situations—we may have even had to endure them—in which a property is put on the market and languishes there for weeks or months with no great interest, no one coming to see it and certainly no one making an offer. At some point during that period, the would-be sellers might tacitly decide not to proceed any further, but they might leave the advert for the property in the estate agent's window.

It is not unheard of for adverts for properties that have been sold or on which an offer has been accepted to remain in an estate agent's window. Similarly, it is not unheard of for agents to keep their ``For Sale'' and ``Sold'' boards outside properties long after it can be justified. I recall that, during our time in government, we had to legislate simply to deal with the nuisance of far too many such boards being up in a certain locality. From memory, I think that we changed the law to say that only one board could be outside a property at any one time.

When people instruct an agent to take a property off the market, it should be a requirement in law that they give notice in writing of that intention, to avoid uncertainty. It also seems that competent estate agents should probably already require notice as a matter of good practice. My amendment does not even try to deal with the problem of someone not using an estate agent and trying to sell a property privately, which also needs tackling. It would be interesting to hear what the Minister or those advising him have to say on that issue.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

It might save the Committee time and me having to make a speech if I say that, as well as the question of selling privately, we must also consider the issue of private individuals doing swaps, which is not unknown. If a private individual swaps a house with another private individual, would they both have to prepare seller's packs?

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

My hon. Friend raises a separate issue, but it is related and important. I do not think that the Bill, from my reading of it, even begins to deal with that situation, which is not uncommon these days. The Minister clearly has the answer, judging from his expression, so I shall await his comments.

I was about to say that one might look to the explanatory notes for guidance, but paragraph 39 states somewhat unhelpfully—I mean no disrespect to the officials who drafted it—that ``taken off the market'' is

an ordinary expression which should be given its usual meaning.

That is the sort of phraseology that lawyers love to see. I do not know what its ordinary meaning is. Lawyers could and no doubt will spend a long time arguing about it. On my cursory attempts, I have been unable to find any examples of parallel legislation in which such expressions are use. I am not saying that are no such examples, and if there are, it would be important to try to make the Bill consistent with them.

Some examples are given in the explanatory notes, such as

putting up a sign which says...``sold''.

As I suggested, in the real world rather than that inhabited by the drafters of the Bill it sometimes takes a while for a ``For Sale'' sign to be replaced with a ``Sold'' sign, let alone for a ``Sold'' sign to be taken down. The Bill does not even contain a definition of the word ``sold''. Does it mean sold subject to contract, or where contracts have been exchanged?

Other examples have come up in discussions among our team on the Committee. Some estate agents publish a monthly magazine containing properties on their books, but sometimes, in a fast-moving market, one might ring up and find that almost before the magazine has gone to print, and certainly before the end of the month, some of those properties will have been sold or are under offer. The basis on which properties are taken off the market is something that must be made much more apparent in the Bill, and we hope that the Minister will have something constructive to say about it.

The third main amendment—amendment No. 52 is a drafting amendment—is amendment No. 50, which would take out the concept of

a section of the public

when advertising a property for sale. If I may make a general point, subsection (6) is a most curious piece of draftsmanship. In its entirety, it states:

A fact is made public when it is advertised or otherwise communicated (in whatever form and by whatever means) to the public or to a section of the public.

I do not understand why there has to be a reference to a section of the public, which is why we tabled the probing amendment. The expression seems redundant, but it raises some interesting issues in the general law.

The issue came up in a different field of law, in the case of the Race Relations Board v. Dockers' Labour Club and Institute Ltd, which went to the House of Lords in 1974. It is perhaps an example of old Labour rather than new Labour. I see that one of the Ministers is familiar with the case. Working men's clubs belonged to a scheme enabling their million ``associate members'' to visit other clubs. A gentlemen called Mr. Sherrington was an associate member who received what their Lordships called the ``deplorable affront'' of being asked to leave the dockers' club because he was ``coloured''. A county court action ensued under race relations legislation and, quite properly, their Lordships took a dim view of the matter.

The significant point for our purposes is that their Lordships held that associate members—some 1 million individuals—were not a ``section of the public'' under the Race Relations Act 1968. Could this Bill cause a similar situation to develop, whereby large numbers of people are made aware of something under clause 1, but they do not amount to a ``section of the public''? That is worrying. We shall never know whether the parliamentary draftsmen examined the case of Race Relations Board v. Dockers' Labour Club and Institute Ltd., but if a significant phrase used in other legislation is adopted, it is important to assess the read-across to the present Bill.

Someone shouting ``I'm selling my house'' in a pub could, on the face of it, trigger the requirement for a pack—but the same words shouted in a working men's club would not. That curious problem must be resolved. The amendment is probing, but it raises an important point that the Minister must address.

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

I take this opportunity to welcome you to the Chair, Mr Stevenson.

I am disappointed that no suggestion was made—I was expecting it—about a secret deal between the Liberal Democrats and the lady in the red sequinned dress. To move quickly away from that subject, I rise to support the Conservative amendments.

George Stevenson (Labour, Stoke-on-Trent South)

Order. It is a difficult matter, but further reference to people in the Public Gallery would be out of order. We should move on.

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

Thank you, Mr. Stevenson. I shall try not to re-offend.

The Liberal Democrats support amendment No. 49. It is absurd to claim that a residential property is on the market when the fact that it may become available for sale is first made public. As the hon. Member for Eastbourne said—[Interruption.]

George Stevenson (Labour, Stoke-on-Trent South)

Order. I am becoming increasingly worried about conversations taking place in the Room.

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

Thank you, Mr. Stevenson.

As the hon. Member for Eastbourne said, there are many circumstances in which a casual conversation could give rise to the impression that a property might become available. My hon. Friend the Member for Bath will refer to that later. We want the vague phrase ``or may become'' removed from the Bill.

On amendment No. 33, there are many cases in which a property will not be marketed by an estate agent. Specifically applying the provisions to an estate agent may be too tight a definition, although the amendment is more precise than the clause's reference to property being ``taken off the market''. The amendment is an improvement, but it could be extended to a wider range of possible scenarios.

Amendment No. 50 would remove the words

or to a section of the public.

It is designed to elicit further information about the Minister's intentions. If I were to put an advertisement in the local Conservative ``In Touch'' newsletter, it would reach only a small section of the public in my constituency, whereas if I placed it in ``Focus''—

Mr. Raynsford rose—

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

I happily give way to the Minister.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

The hon. Gentleman might reflect that, by the use of those two terms, he has just contradicted himself and so provided a poor example.

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

I have reflected at great length. I tend to put ``In'' and ``touch'' without a space, as it illustrates better what that newsletter seeks to achieve. To finish my point, if I placed the advertisement in ``Focus'' which is delivered to every household in my constituency, it would reach the public as a whole.

The phrase

in whatever form and by whatever means

suggests that allowance is being made for electronic communications and the use of websites to advertise properties. We want to encourage such flexibility and to allow people to advertise on the internet without having to rely on the existence of a seller's pack for the property. If someone has chosen to advertise a property through an estate agent, it is clearly appropriate to have a seller's pack, but when an advert has been placed in a local newspaper or on a website, it is not. For those reasons we support amendment No. 50 and the others in the group.

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

Another possibility has occurred to me. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has had a chance to reflect on the fact that, in some areas, particularly where desirable properties are involved, one hears of individuals, as well as estate agents, going around putting notes through doors inquiring about possible sales. A couple of relations by marriage were constantly receiving notes asking whether they wanted to sell because their home happened to be regarded as a jewel that comes up only once in a generation. How would that be affected by clause 1?

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

I must admit that I had not considered that possibility. It could be that the mere acceptance of that leaflet, if it did not go straight into the bin, could indicate that the property might become available for sale in the future. I hope that the Minister will be far more precise about what he means by ``may become available'', because it could become the subject of much protracted argument if it remains in the Bill.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

We have had an interesting debate on some technically complex issues. I hope that it will help the Committee if I try to explain the purpose of the current wording, why it was chosen and, in particular, the significance of the phrase

to the public or to a section of the public

which has preoccupied the Opposition.

Clause 1(4) and (5) define the circumstances in which a property is regarded as having been put on the market and the period during which it is regarded as remaining on the market. A property is put on the market when the fact that it is or may become available for sale is first made public. The effect of amendment No. 49 would be that a property was not regarded for the purposes of the Bill as being put on the market until the point at which it was available for sale. Any earlier marketing activity by the seller would not constitute putting the property on the market and would therefore not be subject to the obligation to have a seller's pack. That would open a potentially large and serious loophole, which sellers who were keen to evade the obligations of the production of the seller's pack could easily exploit.

If the amendment were made, a seller hoping to avoid the seller's pack obligation, could advertise that his property was likely to be available shortly and provide the address and other details in the hope that the potential buyer would take note and try to gain an advantage over other potential buyers by making a quick visit and putting in an offer. As the property would not have been put on the market, there would be no obligation on the seller to have the seller's pack. Several weeks and several hundred pounds later, the buyer could discover problems that he had not known anything about, but that he would have known about had the seller's pack been available.

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

I do not want derail the Minister's train of thought, but those are quite complex points. He talks about some buyer coming along and making a quick offer. Does that not suggest that the buyer might also want to achieve a quick transaction and is therefore the sort of person who probably does not need a seller's pack in the first place?

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

We have covered that ground before. Often, someone making a quick transaction is precisely the sort of person who would be best advised to have information available. We have talked about the problem that can arise when people make offers without full knowledge of a property's condition—it might be in poor condition or derelict—and are therefore at a disadvantage. It is in precisely those circumstances that we think the benefits of the seller's packs will be most applicable.

The point that I was trying to make was that the amendment would provide a loophole, through which people could drive a coach and horses by saying that their property is likely to be available in order to evade the obligation of having a seller's pack. That is why we do not feel that the amendment is helpful.

Clause 1(4) does not mean that a housebuilder would have to have a seller's pack if he advertised that he was planning to build a new estate of houses and provided some general information about the types of houses and their attractiveness. We have all seen the sort of publicity material that is provided when new developments are being envisaged and, provided there was no detail about the number of the property itself, it would constitute general material that did not have the effect of putting an individual property on the market. The provision would not compromise the ability of housebuilders to produce advance publicity about the development of a particular new group of houses. The objection is not valid—the seller's pack obligation would not apply.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

The Minister will be aware that it is common practice among developers to pre-sell a house—to sell it before it is built. In such circumstances, at what point would the seller's pack have to be prepared?

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

In the earlier debate, I made it clear that there should be a seller's pack for all sales, including new properties sold off-plan. There would be no obligation for a home condition report, provided there was a warranty or building guarantee of the sort provided by the National House Building Council or Zurich Municipal. However, there would be an obligation to prepare a seller's pack. As we discussed, housebuilders would want to produce material containing fundamental and necessary information, including the title deeds, other documentation and the contract. All those items are prescribed in the seller's pack, which the house builder would have to make available to process the sale. The seller's pack requirement would apply where a property was being sold off-plan, but there would not be a requirement for a house condition report.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

It is very important to clarify that point. Will the Minister state at precisely what point in the negotiations the pre-seller's pack would have to be prepared? He says that a home condition report would not have to be available. Given that in many estates each house is different, what information would have to be provided?

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

The point I was making is that the seller's pack obligation would not kick in until the advertising identified the specific houses and the specific location of those houses. By that stage, the marketing operation would have begun. That would be the point at which marketing begins and the property is put on the market. That important concept is fundamental to clause 1, as it defines the point at which the obligation arises.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

This is an important point. It is common, especially in more desirable areas, for word get around that a developer is developing an estate. Someone interested in that estate can arrange a pre-sale with the developer. At what point in that type of arrangement would the pre-seller's pack have to be prepared?

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

Let me try to help the hon. Gentleman by amplifying my previous remarks in which I talked about general publicity for the existence of a new development and what triggers the obligation to produce a seller's pack. Publicity from a housebuilder saying that he expects to have a highly desirable development of exclusive five-bedroomed executive homes in an area would not trigger the obligation. However, when the developer states that he has six properties for sale, each with a name and number identifying which one is available, the property is regarded as having been put on the market, and that is the point at which the seller's pack obligation would arise.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I do not think that we are getting to the bottom of the issue. Is the Minister saying that the seller's pack has to be made available when a property is advertised, even if the property has not been built and, as is often the case, only an artist's impression is available? Although we have agreed that there would not be a home condition report, there would still have to be things like damp-proof guarantees and a form of energy efficiency survey, as the Minister promised earlier. How can an energy efficiency survey be performed on a house that has not even been built?

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

The hon. Gentleman is obviously unaware of the existing obligation on all builders of new properties both to survey and to advertise the energy efficiency rating when they make properties available.

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

Will a slightly different timetable apply to the requirement for a seller's pack in relation to a development of a single property, given that there would be no need to notify that it was No. 1 such and such road, because it would be the only property on the site and clearly the one that was being advertised?

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. In such circumstances there would be a borderline between the point at which the developers were thinking of building on the plot, which would not be at a point at which the seller's pack requirement would apply because there would be no indication of the character, size or nature of the property, and the point where the builder says that he is building a five-bedroomed property with specific characteristics on a particular location and that the property is to be available for sale at a given time. At that point, because there specific reference had been made to a paraticular property, the concept of being put on the market would apply. The notion of the single dwelling-house was discussed in this morning's debate. The hon. Gentleman asked a question about the reference to dwelling-houses, and that is the reference that would bite.

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

On a related point, would planning permission have to have been granted for a development before a seller's pack had to be provided?

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

Any potential buyer would be extremely ill-advised to enter into any negotiations about a property for which no planning permission had been obtained, because there would no guarantee that it would become available for sale. That is one of the good reasons to have a seller's pack, in which the necessary planning permission has to be identified. In practice, it would not be possible for a property to be sold under the seller's pack arrangement if there was a clear gap where the necessary planning consent ought to be, because it would be identified by the buyer's solicitor who would prevent the buyer from getting into deep water. That is one more strong argument in favour of the seller's pack.

Brian Iddon (Labour, Bolton South East)

For the record, will my hon. Friend make clear the position of a registered social landlord selling a house with shared ownership. Would it be covered by the Bill?

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

The obligations apply where properties are being sold. There is an equity element when such a property is sold and it is my understanding that the provisions would bite. I will take further advice, because shared ownership can take several different forms and I do not want to mislead the Committee by giving a blanket response. Subject to considering the issue more thoroughly, I think that, in principle, the answer that I have given is correct and that the provisions will cover the circumstances my hon. Friend describes.

David Curry (Conservative, Skipton and Ripon)

In the event of the sale of a council house to a sitting tenant, who presumably knows all there is to know about the house, will a seller's pack be required?

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

This morning, we debated whether vacant properties should be covered by a seller's pack; the issue raised by the right hon. Gentleman is the obverse of that coin. If the sitting tenant is a council tenant, he will usually purchase the property under the right to buy, whereas a private tenant may agree by private treaty to purchase from the landlord. In all normal circumstances, the seller's pack will apply to such transactions. The local authority will provide the seller's pack as part of its response to the right-to-buy notice, and the private landlord will be obliged to prepare a seller's pack.

I have given a slightly cautious answer, as the right hon. Gentleman will have noticed, because I intend later to deal with private sales between private individuals or family members in which there is no wider public involvement. Such sales will not be covered by a seller's pack. There is potential for a landlord and tenant to have such a private relationship, whereas, obviously, the provision will not apply to a local authority selling under right-to-buy legislation. A seller's pack will not necessarily be required if a private landlord has a close personal relationship with a private tenant and they agree a private transaction that does not involve any other party.

David Curry (Conservative, Skipton and Ripon)

I seek clarification. Because there is inheritance of tenure, it is entirely possible that someone who has lived in a council property for 20 years, or someone whose parents lived in the property, will buy it. Is the Minister saying that a seller's pack is needed even when people have lived in a house for a long time, have urged the council to make constant improvements and therefore know a great deal more about the house than the landlord does? Would an exemption not make sense in cases involving those who have been tenants for a long time?

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I am surprised by that question, because the right hon. Gentleman held the office that I hold and will be well aware of the number of council tenants who come to us as Members of Parliament with complaints about problems with or defects in their property of which they were unaware when they bought it. We are concerned to ensure that individuals do not acquire properties with defects or problems that carry potential cost implications on which they have not been properly advised. That is why it is all the more necessary for people in the position he describes to have access to a seller's pack.

On the question of how long a property remains on the market, clause 1(5) makes it clear that a property that has been put on the market—

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

It might be better for the Minister to deal with my point before moving on. I thought that he intended to go into a little more detail on the private sale exception.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I do.

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

In that case, I shall subside and intervene later.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I hope that the hon. Gentleman recognises that, when I give an undertaking to cover an issue, I do my best to so. As I mentioned at the outset and as our discussion has made clear, these are complex matters. I want to cover them in a logical sequence, which will, I hope, resolve some of the grey areas.

Clause 1(5) makes it clear that a property

which has been put on the market is...regarded as remaining on the market—

and is therefore still subject to the seller's pack obligations—

until it is taken off the market or sold.

Being ``taken off the market'' is not defined in the Bill; it carries its common meaning. Essentially, a property is not ``off the market'' if there is still marketing activity. Amendment No. 33 would change that.

A property being marketed by an estate agent would be regarded as having been taken off the market as soon as the agent received a letter from the seller withdrawing instructions. The property would be off the market even if the agent carried on marketing the property, without instructions, in the hope of achieving a sale and persuading the vendor to change his or her mind. That runs contrary to the public understanding of when a property is taken off the market, and it is completely at odds with clause 2 subsections (4) and (8), which the Opposition have not sought to amend. That would be a clear recipe for confusion. Clause 2(4) provides that

The responsibility of a person action as estate agent cease when both of the following conditions are satisfied, namely—

(a) his contract with the seller is terminated...and

(b) he has ceased to take any action which makes public the fact that the property is on the market.

I hope that the hon. Gentleman realises that it is important that both tests should apply.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

For want of being picky, it is fairly common that a seller's board would still be standing outside a property—on my understanding of the Minister's definition, that would amount to marketing—even once the agent had received an offer that had been accepted subject to contract. The agent would still be legally obliged to pass on to the vendor any further offers that he might receive, but he may not get round to taking down the board immediately, especially if the offer was made on a Friday. In such circumstances, and if nothing else happened during the weekend, the board would still be in place on Monday or Tuesday. That surely constitutes marketing. It is the other side of the two terms that the Minister has defined. It does not get round the problem.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that the property would still be on the market, because the advertisement seeking to attract potential buyers would still be in place. Two points should be made. First, there will be no problem if the marketing is being conducted properly with a seller's pack, because the seller's pack would continue to be available to cover that period. Secondly, we are obviously interested in getting expeditious responses to instructions to cease marketing, and we want estate agents to act as quickly as possible in order to avoid confusing the public. It is far more sensible to link the two, rather than to say that no obligation exists once the seller has sent instructions cancelling the sale. In the latter case, there would be no incentive for the estate agent to remove the sign because there would be no liability. Although I accept that it will happen, it is a good thing to have an incentive for the agent to remove the sign expeditiously after instructions have been withdrawn.

Amendment No. 50 would restrict the seller's pack obligations.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I am confused by that answer. What is the incentive for the agent to take down his board? Surely the incentive is for him to continue to market the property for as long as possible in the hope of getting a higher offer, on which he would gain higher commission. I do not understand why those two requirements—receiving written instructions from the vendor and stopping marketing—should act as an incentive for the agent to fulfil his side of those two criteria.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

The incentive is that the agent would still have the obligation to maintain and have available a seller's pack, because the board would still be on site advertising that the property was for sale and individuals could respond to it. Clearly, one wants a framework under which estate agents would respond expeditiously to an instruction that the property be taken off the market by taking the property off the books and removing signs advertising that the property is for sale.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

First, how does one guarantee that? Secondly, is the Minister saying that it is a real deterrent to an estate agent to have to continue to maintain a seller's pack—that is, to have a quantity of them in his office? Surely, the estate agent would like to get rid of as many of those seller's packs as possible on the basis that they cost money to produce and because he would be remunerated for the cost by those who ask to see them. That is no disincentive whatever.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

We are getting into extremely esoteric territory. Regardless of whether that would be a disincentive to the estate agent, it cannot be part of an efficient operation for such an agent to seek to shift packs by keeping a notice board up when a property has been withdrawn from the market. We have set out a clear framework in clause 2(4). It states:

The responsibility of the person acting as the estate agent ceases when both conditions are satisfied.

The first of the conditions is that the contract is terminated, and the second is that the agent has ceased to take action that makes public the fact that the property is on the market. That is a common-sense response to real-world situations.

Amendment No. 50 would have the effect of restricting the seller's pack obligations to sellers who market their homes to the public at large. To exclude marketing to a section of the public from those obligations would open the door to abuse. Sellers wishing to avoid the seller's pack obligations could do so by ensuring that their marketing activities were restricted in some way. They could market to a wide range of people, but providing that their marketing was restricted to a section of the public rather than the public at large, they could claim that they were not marketing their property. That would be a major loophole in the Bill.

It is not our intention to catch private transactions where, for example, a home is offered to a family member, a friend or to another individual. That is the reason for the wording of (1)(6), which states:

A fact is made public when it is advertised or otherwise communicated...to the public or to a section of the public.

That phrase has precedents. The hon. Member for Eastbourne has done his homework, and has identified the precedent contained in the Race Relations Act 1968. However, there are others. The phrase is used in the Food Standards Act 1999, the Data Protection Act 1998, the Confiscation of Alcohol (Young Persons) Act 1997, the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and elsewhere. The purpose of the phrase is to separate a transaction that involves the public or a section of the public from a purely private transaction.

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

I assume that the Minister will say that that is all to be subject to draft regulations. However, he set out three categories: family member, friend and individual. I can already discern a host of definitional problems with those categories. Leaving them aside, what about the man in the pub who is not a friend or a family member? Let us imagine a group of individuals in a pub, one of whom responds to the chance remark, ``I may be making my property available for sale,'' by saying, ``Come outside, I'd like to have a word with you''—not for the purposes of resolving any animosity between the parties, but because he wants to make a quick cash offer, without having to pay for seller's packs or estate agent's commission. What about that?

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I will not pursue that example, which seems unlikely to prove a satisfactory basis for a sale. There is a clear distinction to be made. If the individual in that example stands on a stool in a pub and shouts, ``My house at No. 74 Acacia Avenue is, or may be, available for sale,'' there is no question that that constitutes marketing the property, because the individual is advertising that a specific property is for sale to a section of the public. If, however, the individual meets another individual in a purely personal contact—

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

Not in a pub.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

It could be in a pub, it could be anywhere. It could even be in the Conservative club, if people still go there. Any such contact, providing that it involves only one other individual, and providing also that the property is not made more widely available, is, effectively, a private transaction. The same would apply to the swaps example given by the hon. Member for Cotswold, in which a swap was arranged between two parties who negotiated freely with each other and had no involvement with other parties. The crucial distinction is between a private transaction—one between family, friends or two individuals in which there is no other party involved—and a marketing operation that seeks to make information available to the public or a section of the public.

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

I do not want to pursue the example too far, because that way madness lies for the Minister and me. Let us assume that the owner of 74 Acacia Avenue goes to the pub and, instead of standing on a stool to announce to a section of the public that his house may be available for sale, he is astute enough to have read the report of our proceedings and sidles up to a succession of individuals at the bar during the course of an evening. He engages them in idle conversation about the property market, but slips in the fact that 74 Acacia avenue, his home, might be available for sale in the foreseeable future and—bingo!—one of them says, ``Well, funnily enough, I've always wanted to live at 74 Acacia Avenue,'' and so a transaction ensues.

I say that not because it is absurd—I am not sure that it is that absurd—but as an example of how difficult the Minister will find it to provide a definition.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

The hon. Gentleman is performing a perfectly proper activity, especially for the Opposition, which is to explore every possible circumstance to test the Bill. In the event of an individual doing what he described—approaching several different people—the individual is clearly seeking to market the property. One of them might happen to be a trading standards officer or to know the local authority trading standards officer, which would clearly lead to a reminder that the individual should have a seller's pack, as he is putting the property on the market.

The hon. Gentleman will know, as we all do, that although distinctions of such a nature are extremely important, there will always be fuzzy edges. It is impossible to have a precise borderline between one set of circumstances and another. The purpose of the law is that it should take account of normal circumstances, be practicable and comply with what people sense is the right distinction.

Mr. Brake rose—

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment; I have noted his waving hand. The law should ensure that people can act in a way that they recognise as sensible. A distinction is to be drawn between a private transaction and the marketing of a property. There will always be questions around the borderline, but the distinction between the two is sensible, and most people will recognise it as a proper base.

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

I simply want to clarify whether the following is one of the fuzzy areas to which the Minister referred. Would it constitute a private sale or a public transaction if a parent offered a property to one or other of his or her two children?

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I said earlier that the seller's pack would not be required when a home was offered to a family member, a friend or an individual. In that case, the family definition would apply, and because it was entirely within the family it would not be a public transaction.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

The more that we debate the subject, the more that reasonable instances arise, and I want the Minister to consider another. It is quite common for parents to put a property in trust for, say, their son and daughter. The trustees of that trust fund would typically be a financial adviser, a solicitor, an accountant or whatever. The trustees, who are technically the owners of the property, are not family members connected with the son and daughter who are the beneficiaries of the trust, and are not friends either, in the normal sense of the word. Would that constitute a private sale exempt from normal considerations?

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

Because the trustee would be acting in a professional capacity, my understanding is that that would not be a private transaction, but one by an agent. It is absolutely clear from the legislation that such trustees, although perhaps not technically estate agents, are acting as agents for the people for whom their trust applies.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I am not a lawyer, but I do not think that that is right. Trustees are effectively owners of the assets of a trust. They are not acting as agents, but as the owners of the trust. Theirs is the decision as to the disposal of the trust, acting within the terms of the trust deed. They are entirely different from and cannot be compared with estate agents or any other agents.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

The distinction that we are making is that a sale by an individual to another individual or within the family may be exempt, as it is a private transaction. A sale through an agent—``agent'' is not defined as ``estate agent''—will in all circumstances require a seller's pack. In individual cases, facts about the roles of the trustees will need to be considered, such as whether they are acting on behalf of the beneficiary.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

They would be trustees.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

Well, the trustee could be acting on behalf of the beneficiary, and could be seen to be an agent acting for that person. I am not a lawyer either, and the facts of the case would clearly need to be considered. The principle that I have tried to clarify is that there is a distinction to be made about someone acting as an agent for the owner of the property or the beneficiary. For example, executors acting for someone who is deceased are clearly acting as professionals on behalf of the individual who owned the property.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I shall try one last time. It might be useful for the Minister to come back to the subject later, as the occurrence that I describe is not rare. The two ends of the transaction are that a mother and a father are, say, handing on property assets to a son or daughter. There is a clear family connection. The only people involved in that equation are mother, father, son and daughter. The transaction could be carried out through the conduit of a trust for tax reasons or perhaps because the children have not reached maturity. In the spirit of the terms that the Minister sets down, the transaction is surely a family one, yet he is clearly saying—and I think that he is wrong in his definition of the agency role—that it would not count as a family transaction. Will he return to us with a more considered reply?

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

In that specific case, it is likely that my earlier example would apply and that the sale would be seen as one within the family. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman described a situation that involved four family members—a mother, a father, a son and a daughter. As only those members of the family are involved, that seems to be a transaction within the family.

The hon. Gentleman raised the subject of trusts in his earlier question. I may not have heard him clearly, but I thought that there was a wider application, as trusts exist for a variety of purposes. I was simply explaining that, when a trust was selling an asset on behalf of its beneficiary, I would see it as being likely to qualify as the agent. I stressed that much depended on the facts of each case. I accept that the subject is highly complex, and I am more than happy to take further advice and to write to all members of the Committee, and to you, Mr. Stevenson, clarifying that point. It is complex territory, but we are trying to establish the distinction between a purely private transaction and something that involves the wider public.

Amendment No. 50 would extend far beyond the sort of private arrangements to which I have referred. It would result in a large number of sales being conducted without seller's packs, which would have the wholly undesirable effect of bringing about a two-track transaction process where, in a chain, sales without seller's packs would delay and endanger transactions with them.

The hon. Member for Eastbourne was right to say that amendment No. 52 was significant. It would correct a drafting error in amendment No. 33, so we can pass over that.

Other issues were raised. I have dealt with the question of swaps raised by the hon. Member for Cotswold. I have dealt with the lack of a definition of ``taken off the market''. The hon. Member for Eastbourne asked about the definition of ``sold''. Clause 1(7) includes a definition of ``sale''. It is normal practice to construe the past tense accordingly. I hope that hon. Members will accept that the word ``sold'' is defined by inference from the word ``sale''.

These are complex and important areas. Given the information that I have outlined to the Committee, I hope that hon. Members recognise that the amendments are not appropriate and that the hon. Member for Eastbourne will withdraw them.

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

We have a virtual smorgasbord of legal points to cover, and I apologise if I miss some. Even the Minister was struggling at the end, but we shall all read Hansard.

I shall deal first with the last point—not in a gratuitous attempt to confuse the Committee but simply to ensure that I do not forget it. It was reasonable for the Minister to say that ``sold'' is the past tense of ``sale'', but subsection (7) provides that

``sale'' means a disposal, or agreement to dispose, by way of sale of a freehold interest.

Do I take it that it does not necessarily mean a concluded sale, but the acceptance of an offer, and whether that might also include an agreement to accept an offer subject to contract or survey? The Minister might want to write to the Committee about that, or we might become bogged down in detail. He is not a lawyer and I am not a conveyancer, and it would be wrong to answer such points on the hoof.

That brings me naturally to the next point, which is the question of trustees. My hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham has stumbled across an important point. I commend him, a non-lawyer, for that.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I did not stumble on it.

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

I withdraw my reference to stumbling. In his usual fashion, he incisively cut to the heart of the clause. It is first-year law student stuff, but we do not have a first-year law student here. The point of putting property in the hands of a trustee is to ensure that the property is effectively invested in the trustee for the beneficiary and possibly subject to the terms of the trust. People make trusts for tax purposes—to remove money from the immediate control of the beneficiary so that the beneficiary does not have to stump up a lot of tax unnecessarily.

I would not presume to provide the answer to such complex issues, but they should be dealt with. I appreciate that this is complex, but Opposition Members are all doing their best to improve the legislation and the regulations that will be made under it. I hope that the Minister is suitably appreciative.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

Does my hon. Friend accept that some of those trusts are set up specifically for sale to a beneficiary under certain circumstances—for example, when that beneficiary attains the age of 21 or 30? Under such circumstances, there is every expectation at the inception of the trust that the property will be sold to a beneficiary who might be related to the trustees. That would seem to fall within the Minister's definition of close family.

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

It may well do. My hon. Friend makes an important point. We are all in the business of trying to produce legislation that will withstand the test, not only of time, but of litigation. Clause 1 is fraught with potential problems. If law is certain, the potential for lawyers to wax rich and successful on advising people is reduced, as is the prospect of litigation.

Andrew Love (Labour/Co-operative, Edmonton)

I approach the matter with some trepidation, not being a lawyer. However, my understanding of a trustee's role is that he or she is impelled to maximise the benefit to the beneficiary. When the beneficiary is not a close family member, is the trustee obliged to advertise the sale rather than keep it between two parties?

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

Not necessarily—as was being said, sotto voce, during that intervention. However, that is often the case, and the issue is related to that of gazumping, a word that, curiously, has not crossed anyone's lips so far. You will forgive me a small digression, Mr. Stevenson, I know. It is extraordinary, given that the Bill was hyped on the basis that it would solve the problem of gazumping, that I am the first member of the Committee to utter that word. It has certainly not passed the Minister's lips. It is interesting that under the sort of circumstances described by the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) trustees are sometimes under a legal obligation to get the best possible price, and are therefore under a legal obligation to gazump. That is one of the practical difficulties that have, presumably, made the Government back off from the whole idea of tackling gazumping in any radical way.

The Minister talked about the use of the phrase ``available for sale'', saying that it was a loophole, a coach and horses and so on. That may be right, and I would never claim that my draftsmanship is better than anybody else's—far from it. However, if one leaves vague phraseology in the Bill, one is asking for trouble. There may be other ways of approaching the issue, and I hope that the Minister will not have a wholly closed mind about that, even if I am minded to accept his point about a loophole.

I am still far from happy about the example of new developments, and ``off- plan'' being used to describe sales. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold has said, it is very common for developers to acquire the land and put the whole deal together even before they have laid a brick or dug a foundation, because cash flow is king. They put together the famous artist's impression, which, as we all know, sometimes bears little resemblance to what actually happens. On that basis, an office is opened and a publicity and sales campaign is launched. I think that I am right in saying that that is one of the issues touched on in one of the Minister's most recent letters to the Committee about the potential contents of draft regulations. We shall return to it later, but I wanted to foreshadow the fact—as I did this morning, Mr. Stevenson—that when we reach clause 5, I shall want to debate draft regulations in greater detail. It verges on the pointless to debate draft regulations when we have no such regulations before us.

On the question of taking a property off the market, I see the force of the Minister's two-tests approach. Many examples have been tossed around the Committee of where it is unclear whether properties are being taken off the market. My hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham rightly said that there is often no incentive for agents to take down boards rapidly or to remove adverts about properties from their shop windows. Their reasons are commercial: we may not think them right or proper, but such action is likely when the market is slack and agents do not want to have gaps in the shop windows or because it amounts to free advertising. Few property sale boards fail to blazon the names of the agent in large letters across them. Taking property off the market is an important issue.

On private sales and sections of the public, the Minister has made it clear that private sales will not be covered by a seller's pack and that there will be no requirement to do so. It will be a matter for regulation, but once again we are in no position to examine the draft regulations. I repeat that we have reservations about how the regulations could be drafted in a watertight fashion.

The Minister referred to three broad categories: family members, friends or individuals. I see the force of arguing that family members should not be encouraged to squabble about sellers' packs or become embroiled in litigation. We believe that compulsory packs with the contents envisaged by the Government are not beneficial, but if we are going to have them, why should friends or individuals be excluded from the presumed benefits. Some friends are likely to become ex-friends as a result of the problems they encounter in the process.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

The hon. Gentleman might care to reflect on the odd circumstances resulting from the Minister's earlier reassurance. A family living in a council house for 20 or more years would, even though it knew the property intimately, as described by the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), still have to work through the system of sellers' packs because of the possibility that faults might be discovered. However, there would be no requirement for a seller's pack when a home is sold to a family member or friend who may not have lived in the property for any time at all and may have significantly less knowledge of it than the council house tenant.

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

The hon. Gentleman makes a telling point, which I cannot answer. Fortunately, I do not need to because I am not the Minister, whose response would be good to hear. It is one of the contradictions that could be created in English law if we go down this route. I can quite understand why the Minister has felt pushed inexorably towards excluding people. Exclusions will be one of the big problems in the Bill, whether of areas, bands of properties, types of transactions and so on. It is rather like the A and B list argument, which we will all learn to dread in due course. It is an almost totally circular argument. Whenever one excludes someone, by definition there is a problem about who is in and who is out.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

We are in the business of producing good law that has as few defects as possible. Would it not make sense therefore to ask the Minister to have as few exemptions and exceptions as possible? In that connection, would it not make sense that if a seller's pack has to be provided under the terms of the Bill, it should be provided up to the point at which a legal contract becomes binding?

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

That is one solution to the problem. My hon. Friend has come up with quite a good way around many of these problems. The better way out of it is simply not to make seller's packs compulsory. That is something to which we shall return in more detail. They should be optional. We shall shortly come to amendments that suggest that that might be possible and make it abundantly clear that sales are proceeding without seller's packs.

Consider the man in the pub, the fabled resident of 74 Acacia avenue. Even a brief and superficial canter down that line of debate produces some strange anomalies. Yes, in the unlikely event that this gentleman stood on a stool and announced to everyone in the bar that his property was for sale or might be for sale, he would be caught. But presumably he would not be caught if he did so in the bar when there was only one other customer. My example of him sidling up to individuals as the evening wore on, giving them his sales patter and finally doing a deal might or might not be caught. Would it count if he were having an idle conversation with a friend who had no intention of buying his property, but someone else overheard? What if that conversation were overheard by someone else who informed on him to the conveyancing gestapo who came around to arrest him for breaking the law?

This is nonsense in the context of ordinary people going about their ordinary lives, trying to enter into contracts freely under English law. It is nonsense that criminal sanctions will be enforced by hard-pressed trading standards officers across the country. It is nonsense that someone might be caught simply because of the slightly different circumstances in which the conversation took place in the pub and which could lead to all sorts of difficulties, not to mention a criminal sanction. On all those grounds, subject to any other comments, we are not minded to withdraw the amendment. I am minded to press it to a vote.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I endorse everything that my hon. Friend has said. I should like to elaborate a few points that I made in interventions that the Minister did not answer satisfactorily. He said that there were a lot of fuzzy edges. That was to understate it enormously. The more we debate clause 1, the more of a black hole it turns out to be. When the Minister used the example of the property being offered to a family member, a friend or another individual as he put it, it opened the most enormous can of worms. I was expecting the Minister to use the precedent of the definition of the associate, as laid out in the Estate Agents Act 1979 and I gather from professional bodies that it may repay some revisiting. The definition of friend or another individual is certainly fraught with problems.

We talked about the problems of trust funds holding property. I genuinely think that the Minister misunderstood the nature of the trust funds that I was trying to describe. It is a complex area and we are not experts on it. I have acted as a professional trustee in my previous life. I am still a trustee of both family funds and non-connected funds. I act as a trustee, jointly with other professional trustees—a solicitor, for example—of a trust fund that was endowed by a deceased grandmother for her three grandchildren. It is up to us how we administer that trust fund within the terms of the trust deed, but it is clear that the two connecting parts of that trust were the grandmother and the three grandchildren, who constitute family in any definition of the word. It was envisaged, as part of that trust deed, that the trustees would own property or make grants in order to buy property. My understanding of what the Minister said is that we would not gain an exemption under the definition of family because the trustees are not family members and would not, in the strict term, constitute friends of the beneficiaries.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

On my first understanding of the hon. Gentleman's example, when I understood the hon. Gentleman to be talking about a trustee acting on behalf of another party, I thought that that person would be fulfilling the role of an agent and would therefore probably be required to have a seller's pack. On further clarification, the hon. Gentleman made it clear that he was referring to an entirely internal arrangement within the family. I then expressed a different view and said that it was not our intention to catch family transactions within the obligation of the seller's pack, and that such an example would be unlikely to be caught. I did say that I would look into it further and write to Committee members and the Chairman, and I will.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I am grateful and apologise if I have been unintentionally misleading. I am talking about normal trust funds and the relationships I have described. Notwithstanding what constitutes an individual or individuals in a pub for the owner of 74 Acacia avenue, the Minister has not dealt with the feasible situation where an individual acts through an intermediary—a friend and third party—who secures a buyer. An individual may tell someone in a pub that his property is on the market. That person, in a goodwill gesture, may put the individual in touch with a friend of his who wants to buy that property. It is not a person going around the pub hawking, it is simply a property being mentioned to a third party, who takes no commission, but who connects the vendor with a buyer. What is the situation there?

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I hesitate to ask the hon. Gentleman to look forward, but in clause 14, he will see the definition of the person acting as an agent. He will see that it is defined as someone effecting an introduction on behalf of the vendor. In the circumstances described, if an individual seeks to effect introductions in that way, he would come within the definition of acting as an agent.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I am sure, Mr. Stevenson, that you would not wish us to start looking at clause 14, which we will reach in the dim and distant future. In no way would Nobby in the pub, who meets the owner of 74 Acacia avenue, be constituted as acting as an estate agent, certainly if he is not taking commission. We will return to that later.

There is another instance, which I think is more easily dismissed, but I would like confirmation. Let us take the example of Conservative clubs, of which I am glad to say that there are many and a growing number. Conservative clubs tend to be owned by trustees, as is the flourishing one in my constituency. If the trustees were to sell that club because it was doing exceedingly well and needed larger premises—a highly likely situation—and they were to make an announcement or issue a notice that could be seen only by other members of a private member club, does that fall foul of this? I am not talking about family members. It is a private club with private members. There are many types of private member clubs, some more salacious than the ordinary Conservative club, but perhaps the Minister would say whether private member clubs be caught.

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

The question might be more piercing if the example involved not the club itself but a flat attached to the club. I assume that it would have to be a private dwelling, but I think that the same consideration applies.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

Absolutely, that is yet another twist in the torturous argument that we are enduring.

On the other issue of the definition of when the sale ends, would it not be sensible, as a way of getting round the two-pronged definition of when the marketing ends—in terms of the written confirmation from the vendor and the active ending of marketing by the agent—to have a time criteria? Then, on written instructions from the vendor that the house was no longer to be marketed, and that within three days or 48 hours or whatever, the agent should be required to have ceased marketing. That would include dismantling boards and would be an enormous incentive to take the boards down.

The previous Government, not the present Administration, had already legislated on the use of more than one board per property, as my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne has mentioned. I am merely offering a suggestion of how to get around what is a rather open ended two-prong attack. The definition, or the inclusion, of the word ``friend'' as an exemption, is very open-ended. It may be that vendors and prospective purchasers become the most gregarious people out socialising, because they will suddenly become great friends in order to avoid the expensive and confusing requirement for a full-blown sellers pack.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes 9.

The rest of the debate is in Hansard.