Homes Bill

House of Commons, 7 February 2001.

ENERGY EFFICIENCY REPORT (No. 1)

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Sylvia Heal (Deputy Speaker, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 14—Energy efficiency report (No. 2)— '. The Secretary of State may by regulations bring Schedule (Energy efficiency reports) into effect within twelve months of the passing of this Act if in his judgement it would assist, or provide information relevant to, the marketing of residential properties in England and Wales.'.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

At long last, we reach the part of the Bill that deals with the seller's pack. There has been great cross-party consensus on the matter, although not unanimity. Some progress has been made. The Committee as a whole—including the Minister for Housing and Planning—supported the proposals regarding energy efficiency. We discovered that the right hon. Gentleman had been a member of the Environment Select Committee and that, long before this Bill came along, he had endorsed the idea of energy efficiency ratings for buildings. It was all the more strange, therefore, that the Minister was unable to support the points made by Labour Members about energy efficiency on Second Reading and in Committee. However, at this late stage, two Government amendments have mysteriously appeared, and they are very welcome. There is room in the heaven that is the Homes Bill for every sinner who truly repenteth. We congratulate the Government on amendments Nos. 22 and 23, which we will support, but we want the Minister to go further. Conservative Members claim no small amount of credit for having cajoled, bullied and pushed the Minister to come up with these last-minute amendments. We are therefore reintroducing new schedule 1. To make it easy for the Government to accept that, we are also proposing the multiple options presented by new clauses 1 and 14. The subject of energy efficiency was the source of great debate in Committee, and it has a long pedigree in the House. The energy efficiency measures that we propose had their origins in the 1980s, when my noble Friend Lord Walker of Worcester was Secretary of State for Energy.

Michael Fallon (Conservative, Sevenoaks)

My hon. Friend referred to the multiple options presented by new clauses 1 and 14. However, new clause 1 deals with social security. Did my hon. Friend intend to refer to new clause 13? Will he later explain the consistency between new clauses 13 and 14?

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I am not sure whether I misspoke, or whether my hon. Friend misheard me. However, I am dealing with new clauses 13 and 14. New clause 1 does not feature in this group of amendments. I will explain why we are proposing two slightly similar new clauses contingent on new schedule 1. 7.45 pm The pedigree of energy efficiency goes back to a private Member's Bill first introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo). The subject was then taken up in this Parliament by the hon. Members for Eltham (Mr. Efford) and for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett). The subject has a cross-party pedigree, although there are one or two exceptions among hon. Members.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

Thank you.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

It is also slightly mysterious that, although Conservative Members were happy to put our names to new schedule 1 in Committee, when it was tabled by Liberal Democrat Members, Liberal Democrat Members have not seen fit to add theirs to the new schedule 1 under consideration today. New schedule 1 is supported by many people—by the Council of Mortgage Lenders, the Association for the Conservation of Energy and other groups concerned with energy efficiency, and by the many hon. Members who have signed early-day motions on the subject. In his written answer to the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mrs. Gilroy) on 21 December, the Minister made it clear that he supported the proposal. The proposal in new schedule 1 is also a hot favourite in Denmark, a country to which the Minister alluded several times on Second Reading. Denmark was held up time and again as the place where the seller's pack is an enormous success. I have been there with the Select Committee on Environmental Audit, and have seen that some success has been achieved with the energy rating of buildings. It has led to a reduction in carbon emissions as part of Denmark's Kyoto targets. In his written answer, the Minister told the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton: 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 pay back period of each of those improvements."—[Official Report, 21 December 2000; Vol. 360, c. 313W.] We have not quite got that, and such provisions did not exist in the Bill when we considered it in Committee. However, the two Government amendments in the group are a start in that direction.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

Will the hon. Gentleman accept that I gave a clear and categoric assurance, in the House and in Committee, that an energy efficiency report along the lines that he has set out—including indications of how energy efficiency could be improved and the pay-back period—would be part of the home condition report? That has always been the Government's intention. It was part of the trial in Bristol, and there has been no change. We are absolutely committed to the proposal, and the amendments simply give effect to a policy intention that has been clearly stated.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

There was no promise to include the proposal in the Bill. In Standing Committee, the Minister was asked to do so, and he replied that the matter was extremely complex, involving strong differences of opinion among technical experts, including those involved in house construction and renovation. He said that there was a potential conflict with other building regulations, not least those on noise transmission between properties. He added that those facts were matters of concern, and that it would be inappropriate to proceed over-hastily with measures that might have both desirable and undesirable consequences. The definition of "over-hastily" in the Minister's lexicon would appear to be "less than three weeks".

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that the comments that he has read out referred to a quite different debate. We were discussing the reasons for the delay in issuing part L of the building regulations, which are to do with energy efficiency, and I was explaining the interrelationship between those and the part that deals with the sound separation between buildings. The issuing of building regulations is very different from the provision of a home energy efficiency report in the seller's pack. There is a distinction between the two, and I hope that now that the hon. Gentleman has checked Hansard, he will recognise that he was wrong.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

My recollection of the debate is that the Minister was using that as an example of how he could not be rushed into producing energy efficiency measures. That said, we now have them—just under three weeks after the hon. Gentleman led us to believe that we would not have them—and we welcome that. We welcome the fact that the Bill refers to energy efficiency and that it will be a desirable part of a seller's pack, if we are to have such packs. Because of the Government's amendments, we did not wish to appear churlish by tabling again amendments that we originally tabled in Committee. They added greater detail to what was required of the energy efficiency part of the seller's pack. We hope that the Minister can assure us that these matters will be covered. For example, will the energy efficiency rating for buildings—be it a standard assessment procedure rating—have more detail about comparisons with other buildings? What will the energy saving advice entail? Will it simply be slight and generic advice? Those are key questions, bearing in mind the fact that most authorities have estimated that proper energy saving advice can save an average of £250 per annum for the sort of buildings at which it would be directed. What about advice on the costs and pay-back periods for the improvements? The Minister said that energy efficiency reports were included in the Bristol pilot, although we have received no details. We would like to know how meaningful the information gleaned was. We realise the problem with many old buildings in particular, but if the Government are determined to proceed with the seller's pack involving surveys, the best place and time to do it is at the point of sale where the cost would, we hope, be relatively minimal. After all, this is not rocket science. Energy ratings for white electrical appliances, which we discussed in Committee, have been used increasingly for some years. To achieve our Kyoto targets is a key commitment of the Government, and we support it. However, we take issue with the means by which they are seeking to do it and with measures such as the energy tax, which they seem to be using to achieve those targets. We are talking about cavity wall insulation, condensing boilers, loft insulation, the efficiency—or otherwise—of lights and heating, double glazing, damp, and so on. Previous Government schemes such as the energy efficiency standards of performance, run by the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets, have put the structures in place, obliging public suppliers to achieve energy savings. There is a wealth of expertise and advice on the subject. Therefore it is easy to put these measures into effect, and to do so relatively soon. It is also essential to the economic sustainability of people buying homes that they can afford to finance those homes, and one of the key components of expenditure each year is on energy. All that will take time. We are promised that it will take until 2003, at the very soonest, for the seller's packs to come in. There is no reason for not doing something in the interim—hence, new schedule 1 and the two new clauses that we have tabled. The mortgage companies can institute the proposals, which have the support of the Council of Mortgage Lenders, in fairly sharp order. I want to touch on some of the Government's previous arguments. They said that the scheme would not cover all house sales, only those with a mortgage where the lender required a survey. That is a ridiculous argument. It is a matter of fact, not argument, that before the seller's pack comes into force, hundreds of thousands of people will buy homes and pay for a mortgage survey or will be required to have a mortgage valuation on the property, yet they will receive no advice on how to save money on fuel bills. We have discussed how about 1.5 million properties a year are sold—more than 1 million with a mortgage to back them up. By 2003, more than 3 million properties will have changed hands. The savings on energy that could be encouraged in those properties from day one rather than day 700 is considerable. The Government also argue that it would be costly to implement the measures for a short period before the introduction of the seller's pack and that there would be training problems for the surveyors. We have taken issue with training with regard to the survey reports required in the seller's pack, although we agree that the energy efficiency requirements are relatively straightforward and that people can put them into effect sooner rather than later. The Government's arguments are mistaken. In Committee, the Minister described two separate training and accreditation schemes running in parallel as "a nightmare". However, it would be an unnecessary nightmare, as the energy efficiency advice given as part of the buyer's survey could be identical to that which would eventually be required in the seller's pack. The same surveyors would do both jobs and would not need training twice. The Government also argued that there would be implementation problems for mortgage companies, which would need to set up systems to check that their duties were being fulfilled. That is hardly onerous. Mortgage companies already have very sophisticated systems and there are many providers, thanks to the deregulation of the market for which the previous Government were responsible. Mortgage companies check the survey valuations or valuation on the mortgage and would merely have to ascertain that energy efficiency advice was included, as well as checking the value that the surveyor had placed on the property. So the Government's reasons for not accepting schedule 1 do not hold water and, as I have said, 1.5 million properties a year are involved. It is with great optimism and hope that we table new schedule 1 again. On the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon), we are giving the Government two options to make it easier for them, and are prepared to take whatever action the Government choose to facilitate the inclusion of new schedule 1 in the Bill. If the Minister is true to his principles about the desirability of energy efficiency reports, he will have no problem in accepting new clause 13. It facilitates new schedule 1 by stating that the Secretary of State shall by regulations bring the schedule into effect within 12 months of the passing of the Act. No ifs, no buts—let us go for it. I know that the Minister agrees with that. I know that, in principle, he has done things that would make it difficult for him not to accept new clause 13. However, just in case he is getting cold feet—in case the pressures from civil servants, other colleagues or Back Benchers are getting the better of him—we have provided a multiple choice, in the form of new clause 14, which makes it a little bit easier. It says: The Secretary of State may— not shall— by regulations bring Schedule (Energy efficiency reports) into effect within twelve months of the passing of this Act if in his judgement it would assist, or provide information relevant to, the marketing of residential properties in England and Wales. That fudges things a bit, but the Government like to do that on issues on which they have to forsake previous principles because this is the hard and fast aspect of Government and legislation. We are offering the Government an easy ride and a simple choice. Like the vast majority of Members on both sides of the House, we are keen to see energy efficiency moved up a speed. This is the obvious time to do it. We are keen that the Government should come fully on board. They have done so with two small amendments. I am glad that they have tabled them now. They could have done so earlier, but we realise that the Minister had one hand tied behind his back. Will he put his money where his mouth has been for many years by saying yes to new schedule 1 and adopting whichever new clause he feels more comfortable, or perhaps less uncomfortable, with in order to facilitate it? The vast majority of hon. Members, especially on the Labour Benches, will certainly congratulate him and praise him to the rafters for having had the courage to do so.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I rise to give full support to Government amendments Nos. 22 and 23. I suspect that there is no need to go into the detail of the amendments. I am sure that we will shortly hear a detailed exposition of them from the Minister. I hope that he will point out the remarkable similarities between amendments Nos. 22 and 23 and amendments that my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) and I tabled in Committee. I remind the Minister that in Committee he said not only that such amendments were unnecessary but that they could be positively dangerous because they could preclude information relating to other matters such as noise or disabled access. I am delighted that he has seen the light and is willing to change his views. He can be assured of our full support for the two amendments. The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) can be assured of our support for new schedule 1 and either new clause 13 or new clause 14—whichever the Minister chooses. He asked why we had not seen fit to put our names to the new clauses and the new schedule. They are rather like a baton in a relay race passed on from one group to another. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have the grace to admit that his new schedule is identical to the one that I tabled in Committee. However, even I am honest enough to admit that I was not its originator. The originator could be said to be the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Efford), but if he was honest he would admit that he was not the originator either. He got the idea from my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett). Even my hon. Friend would be willing to admit that he was not the originator—the new schedule went back as far as the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo). The ideas in the new schedule and new clauses are not new. They have been supported by hon. Members of all parties, and rightly so because they touch on important issues. I am sure that the Minister supports their principle. I suspect that his reason for not accepting them will be the same as the one that he gave in Committee—that he will include energy efficiency reports in the seller's packs, which will come into force relatively quickly, and that there is no need for an interim measure. I hope that the Minister will reflect again. All the evidence is that, however keen the Minister is to introduce seller's packs—if they are accepted by both Houses of Parliament—the chances are that it will be a long time before they are fully implemented. The evidence is clear to see. His attempt to introduce the energy efficiency aspect of building regulations has been agreed for only 18 months, yet we know that it has already slipped by a further 18 months. I suspect that the same fate will befall the seller's packs. That is why it is important not only to accept amendments Nos. 22 and 23 but to introduce an interim measure, as proposed in the new schedule. I hope that the Minister will be prepared to consider it. Even if new schedule 1 is defeated today, many Members of the other place are keenly interested in it and have tabled amendments in the same vein, and they will start all over again. The Minister could save a great deal of time and debate by simply accepting the new schedule.

Michael Fallon (Conservative, Sevenoaks)

I am puzzled by the new clauses and new schedule tabled in the name of the Opposition. I assumed that they were some means of lightening the burden of the proposed seller's packs, but after my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) had spoken I realised that they added to the seller's packs. As I said in my intervention, I am a little confused about the consistency between new clauses 13 and 14 and new schedule 1. I understand that new clause 13 requires the Secretary of State to bring the schedule into effect within twelve months of the passing of this Act. That seems a little odd. Either we believe in this energy efficiency gimmick, or we do not. Why we should wait 12 months to bring it into force, I am not clear. New clause 13 is not compatible with new clause 14. New clause 14 seems to suspend judgment on whether energy efficiency reports are necessary and simply suggests that we do not really know, but that we are prepared to trust the judgment of the Secretary of State. That is an extraordinary way in which to legislate. Either we as a party believe that energy efficiency reports are necessary, or we do not.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

indicated dissent.

Michael Fallon (Conservative, Sevenoaks)

My right hon. Friend indicates that he does not. I happen to share that view, but we cannot say credibly as an Opposition that we are not sure and that we will leave it all up to the Secretary of State to decide. Neither new clause 13 nor new clause 14, in the multiple choice that my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham is offering the Government, stands up.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I thought that I had made it clear that we are offering a multiple choice because there is a long history of frustration of the legislation; we want to make it easier for the Government to adopt something. Even in a weakened form, that is better than nothing. That is the view that we have taken. We are in favour of the Bill and, rather than reject the whole lot, we have tried to make it as easy as possible for the Government to accept something.

Michael Fallon (Conservative, Sevenoaks)

I am no clearer. Either we are in favour of energy efficiency reports or we are not. If we are, we should surely add them to the seller's packs. I am not in favour of doing so, because I am not in favour of seller's packs. My hon. Friends might disagree with me. They might have come round to the idea that seller's packs are a wonderful thing. I have never been convinced about seller's packs, and I certainly do not want to add to them, but even if I did want to add to them, I would like to think that I was clear whether I wanted to or not. It seems perverse simply to leave it to the judgment of the Secretary of State.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I am listening with interest to my hon. Friend's explanation of the position as he sees it. Is it his understanding that the regulations would be subject to the affirmative procedure or simply nodded through the House?

Michael Fallon (Conservative, Sevenoaks)

I am not clear any more about the difference between the negative and affirmative procedures. It seems to me that the House does not have a handle on either procedure any more. I deeply deplore that. If we are to table amendments, we ought to be clear whether we are in favour of them; simply to leave their implementation to a future Secretary of State seems to be fudging the issue. Three pages of legislation are proposed in new schedule 1. I have some difficulty with the proposals. First, there is the problem of definitions. The definition of energy efficiency is not clear; it is to be construed under paragraph 1. I have searched that paragraph high and low, but I can find no specific definition of the words "energy efficiency report". If we are to put three pages of legislation on to the statute book, thereby imposing a new burden on every seller of a house, we should be a little clearer about what an energy efficiency report is. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham can tell us. Perhaps he has news from Denmark about what an energy efficiency report comprises. He will have seen that his new schedule states, in paragraph 7, that 'energy efficiency report' shall be construed in accordance with paragraph 1". I cannot find any definition of those words in paragraph 1. When my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham winds up the debate, perhaps he will assist me. Perhaps there is some definition by reference to another statute, but I cannot find it. What I can find, however, is a series of definitions of matters that I had not previously realised related to energy efficiency. There are definitions of half-blood relationships, of the likely expected life of the qualifying measures and of relevant periods. I am not at all clear what the definition of half-blood relationships has to do with energy efficiency reports. If we must legislate on who should be bound to carry out energy efficiency reports, why must we define in paragraph 4(3)(c) that the stepchild of a person shall be treated as his child."? I am not clear what that has to do with the definition of energy efficiency or the improvement of the housing market. I have some difficulty with the way in which the new schedule has been constructed. I am at a loss to understand the definitions of various terms in it. My second difficulty is the catalogue of supporters of the proposal read out by my hon. Friend. In essence, they are lobby groups. There is nothing wrong with lobbying for particular measures, but we should ask why this measure has been frustrated for so long. It is an extremely specialist measure for which some highly specialist lobby groups have campaigned for a long time. I am not at all convinced that it is the role of Opposition Front Benchers to pander to such groups without considering the overall effect—the cost and the additional bureaucracy. After all, that is probably why, when we were in government, our Secretary of State did not introduce such provisions. The third of my hon. Friend's arguments with which I have some difficulty is his statement that such provisions have been implemented in Denmark. I am not sure that that offers a persuasive argument for any piece of legislation being presented to the House. Indeed, one might be tempted to ask why these provisions apply only in Denmark and why they have not been implemented in the major European states or in other European countries. I am not sure that we should adopt this proposal simply because it has been done in Denmark. Some things might be done in Denmark of which I do not particularly approve. On the other hand, some things might be done in Denmark whose introduction in this country I should welcome. However, it is not transparently obvious to me that we should support the new schedule simply because "it is done in Denmark". I hope that when my hon. Friend tries to sum up this somewhat miserable new schedule he can do better than that. Fourthly, I am not clear about my hon. Friend's central argument: that if we do not like seller's packs, we can somehow make them better by adding to them. Surely, if the Opposition do not like them, we should do our best to minimise the bureaucracy and cost involved and to make the packs as simple as possible, better to aid the functioning and transparency of the housing market.

Simon Thomas (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point on seller's packs. Does he agree, however, that if we are to have them in the mortgage and house-purchase business, they should at least be useful to property buyers? The amendments proposed by his hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) would at least provide useful information for property purchasers.

Michael Fallon (Conservative, Sevenoaks)

That is a perfectly reasonable point, although I am becoming more and more suspicious of an amendment advanced by my own Front-Bench team that seems to attract support from every party but my own. That does not necessarily distinguish the proposals. The hon. Gentleman's thesis is probably right. If seller's packs are to be foisted on us, let us make them as sensible as possible, but I am not convinced that we would do that by adding to the requirements. On the contrary, it would be perfectly possible to simplify some of the ideas for seller's packs. I am a bit surprised that my hon. Friends on the Front Bench have not proposed a series of amendments that would reduce the bureaucracy involved. I have made my position clear. I do not believe that the case for seller's packs has been established, but if we are to have them, I do not want them to be added to. I certainly do not want them to be added to by my hon. Friends on the Front Bench. Fifthly, I think that my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham said that the measure was supported by the Council of Mortgage Lenders. That raises the rather important point that if mortgage lenders think that a seller's pack is an essential feature of house buying, it is perfectly possible for them to require it. It is perfectly possible for the House to enable them to make that requirement by ensuring that, if they want to lay down various conditions for a mortgage, a seller's pack could be one of them. However, why that should involve any of the parties in the House making additions to the statute book simply escapes me. If mortgage lenders think that a seller's pack should be a key feature of the loan that they advance, they already have it in their power to make such a requirement or, indeed, the production of any other report, a condition of their lending—as I hope that the Minister for Housing and Planning will confirm. None of those arguments justifies the case for adding to legislation. I point out to my hon. Friend that there is a further consideration. Over the next few weeks, I understand that we shall argue that, as a party, we stand for the reduction of bureaucratic requirements—for making it easier for markets to function and for reducing compliance costs. We cannot have our cake and eat it. If we say that we stand for less interference, less government—for not fussing around, requiring people to produce reports—we cannot, in the same breath, produce three pages of laborious detail, including a definition of a half-blood child in the compilation of an energy efficiency report, and expect to be taken seriously as advocates of less government. I urge my hon. Friend to think again.

Simon Thomas (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)

Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to take part in the debate. I shall now destroy the career of my fellow member of the Select Committee on Environmental Audit, the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton), by speaking in support of his amendments, but I shall also welcome the Government amendments. As I said when I intervened on the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon), if we are to have seller's packs and go ahead with this somewhat cumbersome process, let us make them useful for the purchaser and the seller of property and for the mortgage lender, and let them contain information that can be useful to them in deciding what properties they will buy, what work needs to be done on the properties and how much to pay for them. That is a key question, which needs to be addressed here. As the hon. Member for Sevenoaks said, mortgage lenders could require energy efficiency reports now, just as they require surveys—I am not aware of any legislation that provides that people must have a survey on their home before taking out a mortgage on it, but lenders insist on that—but they have not done so. The requirement needs to be embodied in legislation, because there are wider Government objectives—energy efficiency, reaching our Kyoto targets and ensuring good housing stock—that could be addressed if the requirement was on the face of the Bill. Although I accept that it could be achieved by permissive legislation, it would be far better if we included provision in the Bill, so that mortgage lenders, purchasers and sellers would all work from the presumption that one should know the energy efficiency of the property that one is considering purchasing. I should like all properties—especially new homes, which are easy to assess for energy efficiency—to display something similar to the fridge sticker, enabling purchasers to know straight away how much energy they consume, how much it is likely to cost to run them and how much might need to spent to make them energy-efficient. Enacting such a requirement could be a huge step towards achieving some of the Kyoto targets and improved energy efficiency in this country. Most home energy-efficiency measures are relatively cheap. Cavity wall and loft insulation are quite cheap to install. Even condensing boilers are relatively cheap and grants are available for them. Vendors, knowing that their homes would be assessed for energy efficiency, might choose to spend £500 or £600 on home improvements and improved energy efficiency instead of buying a new item of white goods, which would enable them to tell prospective purchasers that the house would save money and energy in the long term. That would contribute to people's increasing awareness when they buy large items such as cars—and homes, these days—of the impact of their spending on the environment. The Minister should be congratulated on at least moving at this late stage and agreeing to include energy efficiency on the face of the Bill. Will he tell us what details emerged from the experiment in Bristol and what details can be included in such a report, because new schedule 1 has been criticised for not setting out what the energy efficiency report may cover? That might be a fair criticism at one level, but no one in this country, other than in the experiments in Bristol, has tried to compile an energy efficiency report, so we need at least an idea of what one might cover. If the Minister rejects new schedule 1, I should like him to tell us what else the Government are likely to propose. I take it that the Minister will produce regulations, so it is important that the House be given an inkling of what might be in them. As has been said, such regulations are likely to flow through the House and we shall not get an opportunity to view them or scrutinise them. What consultation will the Minister undertake with the National Assembly for Wales on the regulations? I am afraid that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) is incorrect. I believe that under part I the Minister will be forced to consult the National Assembly.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

We are already doing so.

Simon Thomas (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)

That is good. It is a well-known fact that housing conditions in Wales are worse than those in England, although there are regional disparities in England. Is there a way of using the energy efficiency reports from the purchase and sale of homes to supplement the information in home condition surveys? At the moment, home condition surveys are carried out all too irregularly. We have not had one in Wales for more than 10 years. Therefore, much of the housing expenditure in Wales is based on inaccurate statistics, so money might be wasted. Would the format of the energy efficiency reports under the regulations be useful in developing the statistical information on the condition of homes? We should either accept Government amendments Nos. 22 and 23—which represent the minimum—or consider the imperfect but considerable virtues of the Conservative party's proposals. The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham made it clear why we should go down this route. It would be hugely beneficial not only to those purchasing properties, but to the Government's thinking on how they will achieve their joined-up Kyoto and environmental improvement targets. I hope therefore that energy efficiency reports will be included in the seller's packs, irrespective of their final format.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

I share the bewilderment of my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon), because I am proud to be a member of a party that espouses the principles of non-interventionism, anti-regulation and opposition to the nanny state. I thought that that was my party's position on such matters. I thought that we were also opposed to old-style patronising paternalism, in which it was assumed that people were generally so cretinous that they required legislation to protect their interests. I thought that new schedule 1 contained a printing error—apparently, some of my hon. Friends were its authors. I thought that that could not be so because my party espouses the principles of deregulation and the free market and does not patronise individuals, but it seems to have produced three pages of garbage. I thought that that was a mistake until I heard Conservative Front Benchers say that they were the measure's authors and allege that the party supported it. I shall take new schedule 1 at face value and spend a little time examining it to find out whether it is deregulatory and non-interventionist, whether it measures up to the principles that we espouse and whether it will benefit our society.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

Perhaps I can shortcircuit this debate and make time available for the other amendments that hon. Members are keen to debate by making it clear that the Government have the greatest reservations about new schedule 1. We do not intend to support it and, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman need not fear that it will become part of the Bill. If that helps to overcome the slight difficulty in the Conservative party and allows us to move on to other matters, I hope that the House will have been done a service.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

I am pleased that my limited eloquence has already persuaded the Minister of the position to take on new schedule 1, but I want to carry some more of my hon. Friends with me if I can. So despite the Minister's blandishments, I shall take just a few more minutes to deal with some of the measures in new schedule 1, on which, happily, the Minister and I share a view. I welcome him to the world of deregulation and non-intervention, in which we honour the good common sense of the people of this country and assume that they know what is best for them, and do not need the nanny state to guide them. Under the proposals, we would interfere in the long-standing relationship between lenders and borrowers, and between the buyers and sellers of property. We would somehow attempt to tell people what it was in their interests to judge when considering a property transaction. The assumption is that something called a report on energy efficiency would add to that process. I am not sure how many people think about an amorphous concept such as energy efficiency when considering the sale or purchase of a house. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks said, the concept is defined nowhere in new schedule 1, and is therefore of only limited use, if any. I am not sure whether people should take much account of something called energy efficiency when considering the location of a property, or its accommodation, garden, garage, or whatever. They may choose to take account of that, but they may deliberately set it to one side. However, the new schedule would not only make it mandatory for the new process to be interposed in the normal transaction, but its inevitable additional cost would be added arbitrarily, without any choice, to what until now has been a freely undertaken transaction between buyers and sellers. 8.30 pm That disturbs me at a number of levels. It disturbs me because of the assumption that we in this place—and the lobby groups to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks referred—know better than the 1.5 million people who undertake such transactions in this country every year. That assumption is, at the very least, worth querying or challenging.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

For the avoidance of doubt, will my right hon. Friend confirm that, even if he were persuaded that energy efficiency reports were on the whole germane as a factor in the purchase price of properties, he would not think that they should be obligatory on that account?

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

That is right. We have been told that the Council of Mortgage Lenders is very keen on all this. I do not understand that because—following what my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks said—if mortgage lenders were as keen as is alleged, they would already make it a condition of loans that something called an energy efficiency report be carried out as part of the transactions that now take place. Why these excellent people do not do that now, yet say that they would like it to be imposed by statute or by regulation, is a question that only they can answer. I cannot answer it for them. I am puzzled by their approach, because it suggests a duality of attitude—I shall put it no more strongly—that requires an explanation. Paragraph 1(3) of the new schedule states: The lender may, in fixing the amount of any fee to be charged for a qualifying survey, take into account any additional costs reasonably incurred in preparing the energy efficiency report". The trouble is that it appears that even if the buyer and the seller were mutually to decide, for whatever reason, that they did not want an energy efficiency report, they would be obliged to meet the fee set by the lender in accordance with that sub-paragraph. That strikes me as unreasonable. Surely if adult citizens who wish to undertake a purchase or sale mutually agree that it is not in their interests, or not part of their requirement, to undertake this extra cost, they should be free to make that decision. I find the mandatory element of the provision—not to say the assumption that people cannot make their own judgment about how far something known as an energy efficiency report will be germane or relevant to the transaction—utterly offensive. The new schedule gets worse than that. In an attempt to answer the question that my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks so sensibly posed, I draw the House's attention to paragraph 1(4), which attempts to be helpful. It says: 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. That raises a question that runs all through the schedule. If the report is to be a cheap, cheerful and easy estimate of energy efficiency, I doubt its value. If it is to be of real value, I suspect that it should properly be detailed, comprehensive, lengthy and probably fairly costly. The whole concept falls at the very first hurdle. If those who support it argue that it would not cost anybody much more, and would not be long or burdensome, I suspect, as a layman, that it would probably not be of much value. Conversely, if an energy efficiency survey were to be of use to the buyer or seller of the property, I would have thought that, in all reason, it would have to be an expert, detailed, lengthy and necessarily fairly expensive business. That suggests a parallel with the surveys that are either for valuation purposes only or for structural purposes.

Steve Pound (Labour, Ealing North)

I am trying to grasp the contours of the anarchic landscape that the right hon. Gentleman portrays so eloquently. I am sure that he knows that gas safety and electricity safety certificates must be provided for properties. Does he believe that there is no room for assessing safety factors when selling or renting out a property?

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

That would be my starting point. I would have to be persuaded on a case-by-case basis. I enjoyed lunch with the hon. Gentleman today, and it is good to see him back in the Chamber, albeit not in his usual place. However, he tries to suggest a symmetry between safety and energy efficiency. The two factors are different. Safety is important, and we can legitimately argue, case by case, about whether regulations should try to guarantee it. We cannot make the same argument for alleged or real energy efficiency. I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's parallel. We are obliged to plough through the new schedule, because that is what Report stage is all about. It gets hopelessly bogged down. I make the point to illustrate the horror of what we are attempting to do, and of what my hon. Friends believe will add to the general joy of life. Paragraph 4(1) states: The duty in paragraph 1 that of undertaking a survey or assessment— does not arise where … the lender is a member of the borrower's family". I suppose that that shows some flexibility. We are relieved of the burdensome requirement if we make a transaction with someone else in the family. Paragraph 4(2) states: For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1) a person is a member of another's family if"— and it lists spouses and people living together as husband and wife. It does not refer to "partners"; at least we have not gone that far. I suppose that I should be grateful that the new schedule talks about good old husbands and wives. I am surprised that no one has tabled an amendment to try to make it more inclusive. My hon. Friends have fallen down badly on that; there are no gender or ethnicity points here. The new schedule goes on to list: parent, grandparent, child, grandchild, brother, sister, uncle, aunt, nephew or niece. It is becoming more inclusive. It continues: a relationship by marriage shall be treated as a relationship by blood". I shall not go into all that in detail; it is becoming gruesome. However, for the avoidance of all doubt, my hon. Friends, who are trying to help those who are buying and selling houses, state in the schedule: a relationship of the half-blood shall be treated as a relationship of the whole blood". This is becoming pretty bloody. It also states: the stepchild of a person shall be treated as his child. I assume that my hon. Friends were trying to be helpful. However, the new schedule shows the reasons for the Conservative party's opposition to regulation, intervention and patronising claptrap. We get bogged down in the sort of nonsense that the new schedule represents. We start by imagining that we will help people to buy and sell houses and end by saying that a relationship of the half-blood shall be treated as a relationship of the whole blood". That is desperate stuff. The new schedule is the essence of modernist nonsense.

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

By going through the detail of the new schedule, my right hon. Friend may have revealed a weakness, especially in paragraph 4(3)(c), which states: the stepchild of a person shall be treated as his child. If the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson) had adopted the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), he would have been able to escape the provisions of the schedule when he offered him the loan for the house in Notting Hill.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

How much those two were worried about energy efficiency, I shall leave to my hon. Friend's imagination. We had better pass over that fairly quickly. I do not want to be diverted, as I am determined to get through the new schedule in the time available, so as to do full justice to it; I would not want my hon. Friends to feel short-changed. It deserves the full attention of the House, and I am trying to be helpful. As a deregulatory, non-interventionist party—I note the identities of some of my hon. Friends in whose names the new schedule stands—we provide in paragraph 5 that the Secretary of State shall make regulations". It is in the open that the new schedule requires the making of regulations—no doubt all in the best possible spirit and with the best of motives, as such requirements usually are. However, let us be under no illusion about the purpose behind the schedule. The regulations will specify the requirements which must be met by the lender in relation to the preparation of an energy efficiency report. We still do not have the details that were asked for earlier, but at least we can understand the mandatory element. The requirement is there for all to see. Intriguingly, paragraph 5 adds that these regulations may … require a report to include … a statement recommending measures which could be taken for the purpose of improving energy efficiency". Some doubt arises. I shall make a few comments about energy efficiency, and ask whether it is as important as is claimed in respect of taxation measures, because I do not want to be completely negative. I want to try to be helpful. I shall make some suggestions about how things could be tackled better, in the spirit of seeking to improve the life of our fellow citizens. The provision before us simply requires a statement that recommends measures. Presumably we shall have a rather expensive analysis—if it is to be any good—of a quick, cheap and cheerful look around. It will say, "We really think that you should have cavity wall insulation or double glazing." The individual will not have to follow that advice, but he might think about it. We shall spend a great deal of money on stating why a building is not energy-efficient, only to say rather mildly, "We think that on balance it might be quite a good idea if you followed our advice." The provision falls between two stools. Either we insist on people becoming energy-efficient or we leave them to their own devices, which would be my preference. We are as near as we shall get to what my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks said that he would expect. Paragraph 5(4) states: 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". I suspect that that means that someone might not quite make it into the loft. He certainly will not squeeze himself into the cavities of the wall. He may not even get into the basement. What will be the use of the provision if the requirement is for someone, even if he is relatively expert, to stroll round the building to have a quick look at it, followed by a quick stroll inside, and then make an assessment of energy efficiency? I fail to see the point. Either the process should be undertaken properly or it should not be undertaken at all. The very words of this long and complicated schedule seem to undermine its purposes at almost every turn. The one piece of good news that I have found so far—I hope that this helps my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton)—is that sub-paragraph (7) states: In making regulations under this paragraph, the Secretary of State shall have regard to the cost of preparing an energy efficiency report. I suppose we should regard that as moderately good news, but what does it mean? Will the Secretary of State say, "If the report costs more than 25 quid to prepare, I would not do it", or will he say something else? That is the only way in which I can read the provision. If it means anything, it is that if the report is expert, comprehensive and very expensive, we probably should not have it, but if it is cheap and cheerful, that should be all right. Perhaps I am wrong. Perhaps we shall learn more about such matters in this little debate. The bad news returns, because paragraph 6(1) states: If the borrower suffers loss by reason of the failure of the lender to comply with his duty under paragraph 1"— that is the beloved bureaucratese— the borrower is entitled to compensation". Here we go. There is a serious problem developing in this country with the blame and compensation culture, and the fact that it is encouraged and written into a new schedule—and therefore, potentially, into statute—is to be deprecated and discouraged. I should not like to see much more of that sort of thing. 8.45 pm There is a better solution to the problem. However, I shall pose a question to those on the Government and Opposition Front Benches before giving it. The hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) mentioned the Kyoto protocol, which seems to absorb many people for many of their waking hours. Not that long ago—and I say this strictly in the context of energy efficiency—it was argued that the answer to wicked vehicle emissions was to increase tax on vehicle fuel, which would reduce those emissions. At the same time, in some people's book, another argument said that domestic fuel caused even more environmental pollution than vehicle emissions. There was therefore an argument, which the previous Government accepted, for increasing tax on domestic fuel for exactly the same reason as we increased tax on vehicle fuel. We did that, and were roundly criticised by the then Opposition, who are now the Government. The environmentalists did not quite know where to stand on the matter: some said yes and some said no. We are now in a curious position. Apparently, it is okay to tax vehicle fuel to reduce emissions—but as soon the Government got in, they reduced tax on domestic fuel. I never understood the logic behind that, and I still do not. If we are to be serious about domestic energy efficiency, there is a good old-fashioned market solution—to increase tax on domestic fuel. That approach is an alternative to the regulatory approach, and I propose it for exactly the same reasons as the environmentalists use when they argue that we should increase vehicle tax.

Brian Iddon (Labour, Bolton South East)

Tell the pensioners.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

Well, pensioners drive motor vehicles. The hon. Gentleman may not know, but pensioners have been hit hard by the "environmentally justified" swingeing tax on vehicle fuels. If he claims to be an environmentalist, how can he look the environment in the eye, having presumably supported a reduction in domestic fuel tax and, by implication, encouraged pollution by encouraging the wasteful use of domestic fuel? It goes around and it comes around in various intriguing ways. The new schedule vaguely attempts, by regulation, to intervene in a market process—a private transaction between freely choosing buyers and sellers. It contains no detail to guarantee that it will deliver the results that it seeks. I fear that my hon. Friends may have overlooked the market solution with which, I would have thought, we were instinctively in tune. All in all, my hon. Friends have a lot more work to do to persuade me that we should support the provision; my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks made a similar point. I am aware of the passage of time and the restrictions imposed by the Government's arbitrary and unnecessary time limits on these debates—so, as it appears that the Minister and I are in broad agreement on the proposal before us, I look forward to celebrating that by listening to what he has to say.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I hope that I will not disappoint the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). I shall come to the same conclusion as him, but for almost exactly opposite reasons. I hope at least to give him a little intellectual challenge. On Second Reading and in the debate on clause 7 in Committee, I made it clear that the Government fully support the inclusion of energy efficiency information in home survey reports, and that we intend to make that information part and parcel of the seller's pack. There is an overwhelming argument for making that information available. It is when people purchase a new property that they are most likely to consider improvements and changes, and it is right that they should have information. The measure does not require them to do anything, but the information will be available to enable them to reach an informed judgment about whether it is sensible to carry out improvements to the energy efficiency of the property. The hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) asked what was included in the Bristol pilot. The energy efficiency survey covered the SAP, or standard assessment procedure, rating for the property; the potential SAP rating—that is, the amount by which the energy efficiency could be improved; the annual heating costs associated with the current SAP rating; and the CO2 emissions, for the benefit of those rightly interested in environmental concerns. Crucially, the pilot also included advice on measures that would improve the energy efficiency of the property, including both the estimated installation cost and an indication of the energy saving, and therefore the cost saving, per year, thereby giving people information about the long-term pay-back period for investment in energy efficiency measures. That is a wholly sensible approach providing information to the public at the time when it is most useful to them in helping them reach decisions about whether to proceed to improve the energy efficiency of their home. That is the information that we intend to include as part of the proposed home condition report. Clause 7 deals with the seller's pack. The clause gives the Secretary of State power to prescribe the contents of the pack and gives an indication of the sort of information that we believe should be included. Information concerning energy efficiency could be covered by clause 7(4). That was the point that I made in Committee, where I expressed the view that the Bill already provided for that. Because we had shown, through the Bristol pilot, our intention of including energy efficiency information in the seller's pack, there was no need to be prescriptive in the Bill. However, to put the matter beyond doubt, we have taken note of the concerns that were expressed in the House and in Committee, not least by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster). I am delighted that he should take some of the credit. He can send another e-mail home on the subject. Having taken note of those concerns, we decided that there should be a mention of energy efficiency in the Bill. Government amendment No. 22 specifies that the energy efficiency of a property is relevant information for inclusion in the seller's pack. Government amendment No. 23 is consequential and ensures that information on energy efficiency can be included in the home condition report. That makes it clear beyond doubt that that is intended and will happen. Let me deal with new clauses 13 and 14. I am sorry to intrude on the private grief of the Conservative party in relation to their possible impact. New clauses 13 and 14 are modelled on the private Member's Bills tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Efford), which served an important purpose in raising these issues. However, time has moved on, and we have chosen to adopt a different, more comprehensive and more effective route to achieve the objective that my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham sought to achieve. New schedule 1 is designed to place an obligation on lenders to commission an energy report when they carry out a valuation inspection for mortgage purposes. In Committee, I acknowledged that the measure could in theory enable an interim partial system to be put in place on a slightly shorter time scale than that for the introduction of the seller's pack, but I pointed out the fundamental objections to that. We believe that the seller's pack, with its comprehensive package of proposals, will provide a more appropriate route to ensuring that energy efficiency information is made available to all home buyers. The proposed new schedule would apply only where an application for a mortgage was made and where, as a result, a survey was carried out on the property. However, we know that 25 per cent. of properties are bought without a mortgage. In those cases, the measure would bring no benefit at all. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) asks about the other 75 per cent. He will know, because we debated the matter in Committee, that there is a growing trend among mortgage lenders to move towards desk-top valuation. He will know, because he will have studied carefully the wording of the amendment, which he will shortly have to defend, that there is no provision for the requirement to apply if there has not been a personal inspection of the property. If a desk-top valuation had been carried out, the provision would not bite. Such valuations are a growing trend among lenders and the proportion of properties that would not be covered is likely to increase. For all those reasons, we do not believe that the measure would achieve what its promoters hope. We have no objection to energy reports being provided on a voluntary basis as part of the mortgage lending process. The hon. Members for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) and for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) made the point that lenders could provide such reports if they wanted to, and we agree with that and would be perfectly happy for such a proposal to proceed. However, we see no justification for making such provision compulsory, since to do so would be confusing, cumbersome and unduly complicated. It would require sufficient surveyors to be trained and certified to carry out the work, because not all surveyors and valuers currently have the necessary skills to do an energy rating assessment. As that training and certifying would be going on at the same time as the training for home condition report certification, there would inevitably be two separate training and certification processes going on in parallel. That would clearly be undesirable, unduly cumbersome and bureaucratic. We are satisfied that our proposals offer the best way to achieve the objectives that the proposed new schedule seeks to achieve. I assure the hon. Member for Sevenoaks that he is not alone in opposing the new schedule tabled by Conservative Front-Bench Members, because we shall not support it either, for the reasons that I have explained. I hope that, equally, I have assured those hon. Members concerned about energy efficiency that we are utterly committed to it and we shall achieve it by a more effective route. On the question of the time scale, the hon. Member for Bath expressed the view that the home seller's pack process might be delayed. The one proposal that would be more likely than any other to delay its introduction would be a requirement for an interim scheme, since all the training and certification involved would delay and obfuscate the process of putting in place the necessary certification scheme for the full home condition report. There could have been an interim of perhaps only six to nine months—the amendment that was tabled would leave it to the Secretary of State to decide the period—one year after implementation. The schedule itself allows different parts of the provision to come in at different times. No one can therefore tell exactly when it will come into effect. However, it is likely to be a matter of only a few months before the introduction of the seller's pack. Given the risk of a great deal of extra cost, confusion and bureaucracy, it would not make sense to introduce an interim scheme for that short period of time. The Government's proposal is the right way forward and I recommend it. I urge the House to reject the amendment.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

This is not an easy debate to which to respond. I am bitterly disappointed, because I have never seen such a volte face by a Minister executed by the use of the phrase, "Time has moved on." Many of the Minister's colleagues will also feel bitterly let down. The measure that he and other Labour Members supported in Committee—and which the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Efford) introduced in a private Member's Bill—was acceptable to him and to the majority of hon. Members. Under cover of the phrase, "Time has moved on," it has been completely cast aside. The Minister made no attempt to respond to the points that I made, because he was still trailing the nonsense, which I thought I had pre-empted, about parallel schemes running together. He merely read out the notes that had been prepared for him before the debate, not having listened to a line of the objections that I made. The Government's mind is utterly closed on this issue and I fear that we shall get no further. The great tragedy is that virtually none of part I has been debated on Report, yet we now have just one minute left. Bearing that in mind, I shall sit down so that we can move on to the next group of amendments. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

MEANING OF "RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY" AND OTHER EXPRESSIONS

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 4, in clause 3, in page 2, line 41, at end insert— 'unless the property is explicitly advertised as being sold "without seller's pack".'. Government amendments Nos. 29 to 40.

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

In the 30 seconds that remain, I wish to speak in favour of our eight amendments—

DUTIES OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON WHERE A PROPERTY IS ON THE MARKET

OTHER DUTIES OF PERSON ACTING AS ESTATE AGENT

DEFENCES

CONTENTS OF SELLERS' PACKS

HOME CONDITION REPORTS

GENERAL INTERPRETATION

APPLICATION OF PART VI OF 1996 ACT

APPLICATIONS FOR HOUSING ACCOMMODATION

FIXED PENALTIES AND ENFORCEMENT

REPEALS

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time. Unfortunately, our debate has been attenuated because of the divisions in the Conservative party over the issue of energy efficiency, but it has nevertheless covered a number of important issues. The Bill fulfils important Government commitments to improve the home buying and selling process, and to strengthen the protection available to homeless people. It is an important part of the Government's strategy to ensure that everyone has the opportunity and choice of a decent home, as has been set out in our housing Green Paper and widely welcomed. The Bill improves the housing market for the benefit of the public when they are selling or buying homes, when they seek help because they are at risk of homelessness or have become homeless, when they are in housing need and are applying for social housing, and when they are existing tenants of social housing seeking to move within the social housing sector. The proposals in part I form part of a wider package of reforms to help up to 2 million individuals and families who buy and sell their homes each year. We are introducing a modern, more streamlined system that is easier and faster for consumers, avoids unnecessary stress and disappointment and offers value for money. In Committee, it was suggested that sellers' packs would add to the cost of selling homes, that buyers and lenders would not trust home condition reports commissioned by sellers, and that it was unnecessary to impose criminal sanctions on those who market homes without sellers' packs. Those concerns are not well grounded. There will be a small additional cost for people who would not normally commission a survey, but we believe that that cost will be more than outweighed by the benefits of a speedier transaction process and reductions in the huge abortive costs of the current inefficient system, which are about £350 million a year. In developing the home condition report, we will set up a certification scheme to ensure consistent and high-standard inspections and reports. As we have made clear in recent amendments, inspectors will be liable to sellers, buyers and lenders. We believe that everyone will have confidence in the inspections, will rely on them, and will be able to take action in the event of any defect. Sanctions are necessary. Without them, the temptation would be too great for freeloaders to sell their homes without a seller's pack, while reaping the benefits of a pack for the homes that they bought. Just one weak link would break the chain, thus perpetuating the misery of the current system. We have looked carefully at the appropriateness of criminal sanctions. As we pointed out repeatedly in Committee, they are consistent with similar sanctions—for example, those in the Property Misdescriptions Act 1991, and others applying to landlord and tenant law. Currently, 95 per cent. of home sales are conducted through estate agents. Estate agents would be responsible for having sellers' packs when they were marketing a home, and in the vast majority of cases it would be estate agents who faced sanctions if they failed to comply with the law. Additionally, local trading standards officers will have clear discretion—I emphasised this point repeatedly in Committee—to take the action that they regard as appropriate where they find a person marketing a home without a seller's pack. They will have scope and discretion to offer advice, to give a warning, to issue a fixed-penalty notice or, ultimately, to prosecute. Only the option of prosecution would lead to a criminal record. We are absolutely clear that, in the overwhelming majority of cases, where an honest and simple mistake had been made, there would be no obligation for trading standards officers to do more than offer advice or give a warning. In the case of any individual householder, there would be little or no purpose, unless there were exceptional circumstances, in doing more than issuing a fixed penalty notice, so the concept of large numbers of innocent individuals being dragged before the courts to face criminal charges is an exaggeration and not properly founded. We must, however, have sanctions, including criminal sanctions, to cope with the risk of what I hope would be a very small number of unprincipled estate agents seeking to subvert the whole purpose of the scheme by marketing properties persistently without a seller's pack and paying no heed to initial warnings from trading standards officials. I hope that I have made it clear that we have provided a range of responses to allow a proportionate response depending on the circumstances, and that the fears that have been expressed about sanctions are misplaced. I have listened to the concerns voiced by a number of my hon. Friends about low-demand areas and low-value properties. I have made it clear that we are prepared to consider measures where seller's pack requirements would cause particular difficulties. The Bill provides us with a power to make such exemptions, but we must consider that issue carefully. Our research indicates that seller's packs would offer benefits in low-value areas and we must avoid further stigmatising properties in areas of declining demand and value. We are working up a number of options in a paper that I hope to issue for consultation shortly. That will allow us to have a thorough and considered debate about the best way in which to balance the conflicting pressures on that important issue. The proposals in part I are based on extensive research and piloting. We will continue to work with the key professionals and consumer representatives in developing the details of our proposals, especially the home condition report and the supporting certification scheme, so that seller's packs can be introduced as planned in 2003.

David Lepper (Labour/Co-operative, Brighton, Pavilion)

Does my hon. Friend agree that seller's packs could be of particular benefit to potential purchasers in the residential leasehold sector, who currently face service charge and insurance demands that they find baffling and by which they often feel cheated? When looking at the regulations on the content of seller's packs, will he consider, particularly in the light of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill, which we will examine soon, whether, for example, the last set of certified service charge accounts and information about agencies providing reliable advice to leaseholders and potential commonholders might form part of the packs?

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

My hon. Friend makes an important point. He has been assiduous over recent years in pursuing the interests of leaseholders, who form a significant proportion of the residents in his constituency. Like me, he will be pleased at the progress of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill, which has had its Second Reading in another place and will bring extensive benefits to leaseholders. It is certainly our intention that the seller's pack will contain detailed information that will be of real value and relevance to leaseholders, including information about service charges. I would like to consider the wider issue of the availability of advice because, clearly, there is a question about the appropriateness and reliability of advice offered by different agencies. It is our wish that seller's packs should be primarily factual information and should not be open to any possible misinterpretation. It is certainly our intention to provide detailed information on service charges and other relevant information relating to the management of the lease. I should be more than happy to consult my hon. Friend and other hon. Members as we work up the proposals. Part II will enable local authorities to provide better help in finding a settled home for those who each year face homelessness through no fault of their own. Our proposals require local authorities to adopt a more strategic approach to tackling the causes of homelessness and preventing its recurrence. The Bill will require local authorities to review homelessness in their area at least every five years and to put in place a multi-agency strategy for preventing homelessness, ensuring that adequate accommodation and support are available. The Bill will encourage a more co-ordinated approach by requiring housing and social services authorities to take the homelessness strategy into account when meeting their responsibilities. We are also removing unnecessary restrictions that can limit local authorities' abilities to find sustainable housing solutions and offer real choice to homeless people, to others in housing need and to existing tenants, thereby helping to create more sustainable communities and tackling social exclusion. Evidence demonstrates that a high proportion of homeless people who end up sleeping rough come from institutional backgrounds, and we are adding to the priority-needs groups some new categories of vulnerable people, including young children who have come out of care and others who have an institutional background and are homeless and vulnerable. That is a sensible and humane policy. I am glad that the Opposition did not pursue at great length today their unfounded claim that we are seeking to give ex-prisoners housing priority over other applicants. As has been well established, that was never our intention, and it is certainly not the implication of the Bill. Taken with the Government's sound economic policies, our substantial increases in capital investment in housing and the wider policies set out in the housing Green Paper, the Homes Bill will help us ensure that everyone has the opportunity of a decent home. It is important reforming legislation, and I commend it to the House.

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

There has been a surreal note to today's debates which graphically demonstrates the dangers inherent in the Government's regular use of guillotine motions. The House will readily understand why most of my remarks on Third Reading will deal with part I, on seller's packs. As I said at the start of the programme motion debate, to the public, part I is every bit as important as part II—I see the Minister nodding in agreement—and although part I may affect different categories of people from those affected by part II, it is just as important. Whether one uses the figure of 1.5 million people or that of 2 million, as the Minister did, every year a very great number of people are engaged in buying or selling their own homes. For some people—those who do not have to obtain mortgages or are close friend of the former Paymaster General—there is not much of a problem. For most people, however, it is a time of great anxiety and worry. That is why we find it inconceivable that the Government really wish to make that process even more worrisome. We have not had the opportunity to debate all the groups of amendments and new clauses dealing with seller's packs duties, seller's packs offences and home condition reports. Although we have had a lengthy—some might even say exhaustive—debate on energy efficiency reports as a part of seller's packs, the vast majority of seller's packs issues, on which we spent more than half our time in Committee, have not been addressed at all in our debates today. I think that I had about 20 seconds to speak to our amendments in the sixth group, and that was it. Of course Ministers do not care, but I think that those who send us to this place will care that an issue that is important to very many people has simply not been debated. On the subject of seller's packs, it is important to remember two preliminary issues. First, we must consider part I of the Bill against the background of the clear promises made by the Labour party in opposition. Labour Members do not like to be reminded of what the party said on this issue as on so many others, but it is clear that it promised people that it would tackle gazumping. Whether tackling gazumping is ever likely to be a practical proposition is a matter for argument, but that is not the issue. The issue is that the Labour party led people to believe that that was what would happen. It was a surprise to find, therefore, when we tore open our mint copies of the Bill before Christmas, that that was the one matter that was not addressed. I am sure that the Minister will say that the Government are trying to tackle gazumping by making the process of house buying quicker. However, we do not accept that the new system will make the process quicker. Moreover, if gazumpers are people who find that they can get more for their homes than they thought—to put it as neutrally as possible—why should the fact that the process is quicker make a difference? I have never received a satisfactory answer to that question. For what it is worth, I shall repeat what I said on Second Reading and in Committee: the one matter that the Bill does not address is gazumping.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

I did not have the pleasure of serving on the Standing Committee, although I spoke on Second Reading. Will my hon. Friend say whether the Minister gave any indication in Committee that he would consider rescinding this measure—in the event that he is still in a position to do so—if it does not reduce the average time that transactions take to complete?

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

We did not get that far. Most of the significant elements in the Bill will be implemented by regulation. We have not seen the draft regulations yet, although we have had some hints of what they might contain. However, the Government do not propose that the new rules will come into force until 2003. When we win the election, we will have a long and hard look at whether they will make any difference. The betting is that the measure will not be retained on the statute book. The Government's attempts to force the Bill through in a short time will therefore have been for nothing. When he was shadow Secretary of State for the Environment, the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) published a pamphlet on gazumping. He wrote that the Labour party was proposing a system under which a seller or buyer who went back on an agreement would be obliged to meet the costs that the other party had incurred in progressing to exchange of contracts. In its 1997 election manifesto, the Labour party said: The problems of gazumping have reappeared. Those who break their bargains should be liable to pay the costs inflicted on others, in particular legal and survey costs. People who decided to vote Labour on the basis of the party's policy to end gazumping would therefore have been gulled. As for the contents of the seller's pack, no one would contest the fact that it makes sense to put together, at the beginning of a transaction, a bundle of documents that one has to get together sooner or later, to try and shorten the process. Indeed, if one is buying a new property, the developer usually puts the basic documents together. Our concerns are threefold: first, criminal sanctions should not be imposed. Secondly, to require a home condition report to be included in the pack is unrealistic and unhelpful. Thirdly, to require local searches to be included is also unrealistic and unhelpful. Surveys, as we know, can be out of date. Some properties in the parts of the country worst affected by the recent flooding could have had a survey six months ago, but the condition of the property might be very different now. Local authority searches have a relatively short shelf life—a maximum of, say, three months—and it would be prudent to renew them. We have never fully understood why local searches should be an issue. It has always been possible to carry out what is called a personal search, which means effectively paying a bit extra for the articled clerk in one's solicitors to go to the local authority offices and carry out the search then and there. The basis for the entire structure set out in part I is the alleged success of the pilot scheme conducted in Bristol. We dispute that for a variety of reasons, all of which will be familiar to Ministers who were in Committee. The sample was supposed to consist of 250 people. The figure eventually was 180 or thereabouts, of whom 90 completed. As if that were not bad enough, of that 90, a third were brand new properties—Beazer Homes, although that company is probably called something else now, as it has been taken over since then. So we are looking at a terribly small sample in one city in England as the basis for this scheme. The Minister will no doubt say that in Bristol everyone thought that it worked fine. The president of the Law Society—the Minister's new best friend—thinks that it is wonderful, the best thing since sliced bread. I explained during the debate on the timetable motion why I thought, with the greatest respect to the president of the Law Society, that he might be enthusiastic. Even more so, no wonder that the level of satisfaction discovered among the participants of the pilot scheme in Bristol was pretty high. I suggest that it was because they were given their seller's packs, including their survey reports, courtesy of the taxpayer. More than £300,000 was pumped into the local property scene for the purposes of that pilot scheme. We question, as do people intimately involved in buying and selling property, how anyone can rely on the results of that scheme. It also came to light in Committee that the local authority was giving priority to searches connected with the pilot scheme over and above those that came before it in the usual way. I complained in the debate on the timetable motion that Ministers were unwilling to accept advice from those who ought to know. I spent some time describing the Minister's dismissal of these people. Let us remember what certain organisations have said. Mr. Michael King, chairman of the Law Society's conveyancing and land law committee, said: The take up of the sellers pack during the pilot was disappointing. The Law Society does not believe that on this information it should be made compulsory. The Law Society remains to be convinced as to the effectiveness of the proposed pack. Mr. Michael Coogan, director general of the Council of Mortgage Lenders, said: the evidence in support of introducing sellers information packs is not robust and such packs could prove to be unpopular with consumers. The Bristol pilot has failed to demonstrate that SIPs significantly improve the process and that there is widespread support from the professionals in the process.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

I should probably draw the attention of the House to my registered interests. One of the great flaws in the condition survey involved in the seller's pack is that it may not be acceptable to lenders, so buyers may have to commission a further report. Did the Minister tell the Committee whether any serious progress had been made on persuading lenders to agree always to accept the condition reports in the seller's packs?

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

I can tell my hon. Friend that the Minister had a fairly disastrous appearance early last December at the annual conference of the Council of Mortgage Lenders. One of the things that he tried to do was to bully its members into accepting that very principle. The CML takes the view rather robustly, although a little less robustly than it used to thanks to the Minister's pressure on it, that it is for lenders to decide what evidence they need in order to advance money for property transactions. My hon. Friend has brought me to the next major issue. Who will benefit from the proposals? We know already that many people do not have full structural surveys done. It is important to remember that the home condition report is nothing like a full structural survey; it is fairly limited in scope and detail. I appreciate that the final form is in a state of flux. We have seen at least two draft versions. It is far from being a structural survey. I was talking to people last night at the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors annual presidential dinner. Anyone in the business will say that unless a property is relatively new, one is advised to have a full structural survey. That is not to say that many people do not take a chance and do not have one done. So, as a matter of law, people will have a home condition report. They may well have a full structural survey as well. Even in the Bristol pilot scheme, a third of the people involved had their own report done, despite the fact that they were given a free home condition report courtesy of the Government. The lender may insist on a separate survey report and then still insist on the usual separate valuation, for the moment anyway. So, leaving aside the updating issue that I mentioned a moment ago, we have the potential for a series of surveys on a given property. Those in the business have estimated that up to £700 will be added to a transaction.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

Wrong.

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

The Minister argues that broadly those costs would be incurred anyway. I hope that I do not do his argument an injustice. Whether that is right or wrong, there is no doubt that front-loaded costs will, for the first time, be imposed on the seller, not the buyer. One of the main concerns of organisations such as the CML is that there will be a significant effect on the supply of property on the market. It is perfectly true that some people test the market by putting their property on it and seeing what happens. If they get no interest, they take it off and no one is any worse off and no harm is done. There is real concern that speculative would-be sellers will be deterred by the front-loaded costs of putting a property on the market. The Minister referred to the separate but related issue of what happens in low-demand, low-value areas. A significant number of Labour Back Benchers expressed concern about that on Second Reading. In fairness, I recognise that the Department has done some work in Bradford and Burnley on the problem. The Minister mentioned a moment ago today's Government press release, which says that the Government intend to consult on the options. Of course, that means that they have still not thought of the answer. They cannot take out a council tax band—during our debates in Committee, we eliminated that possibility. It is difficult simply to draw a line on a map. In his press release and indeed in his speech, the Minister for Housing and Planning has, with breathtaking cheek, adopted the word used on Second Reading by my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry)—"stigmatising". I make no complaint about that, because the word is the right one. My right hon. Friend pointed out that, in some parts of the country, one might produce the very result that one was trying to avoid by telling people that they did not need a seller's pack, thereby stigmatising the area—perhaps, for example, a former mining village. It is clear that Ministers still have no solution to that problem, so they are putting it out for consultation. In Committee, we suggested all the possible options—more than once. None of them seems to have commended itself to Ministers. Lest it be thought that those are merely scares thought up by the Opposition, or by the Law Society, estate agents or mortgage lenders, we should consider the excellent speech made by the hon. Member for Upminster (Mr. Darvill) on Second Reading. He was in the Chamber earlier, but some prescience has made him disappear. The hon. Gentleman has practised as a conveyancing solicitor for many years. Possibly, for that reason, he did not make it on to the Standing Committee. The hon. Gentleman thought that the proposals would make only a marginal difference. He suggested that there might be problems because unscrupulous sellers could hawk a seller's pack around. He made the point that I made earlier—many conveyancers and solicitors already use a type of seller's pack for some of the documentation. He referred to the point that the Law Society has been trying to make to the Minister for a long time: the Law Society and others are already working towards streamlining the system—with the use of e-conveyancing and the like. The hon. Gentleman referred to the extra cost—possibly £700—and the need for extra surveys. He expressed concerns about criminal sanctions.

Andrew Love (Labour/Co-operative, Edmonton)

My hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Mr. Darvill) is attending a legal dinner this evening. He wanted to contribute to the debate; he was in the Chamber earlier.

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

I am grateful for that intervention, but I thought that I had already pointed out that the hon. Member for Upminster was in the Chamber earlier. I am sure that the legal dinner is most interesting. I hope that when the hon. Gentleman reads Hansard tomorrow, he will be impressed. He can skip over some of the earlier passages, but when he reads my speech, he will be pleased that I took so seriously what he had to say—obviously, so did his own Whips. The hon. Gentleman knows what he is talking about. If the Minister will not even listen to him, we are in a serious state.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I have hesitated to intervene, but I really could not let that go on. He will know well, because I raised the matter in Committee and made it clear to him, that, following the Second Reading debate, I invited my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Mr. Darvill) to discuss the whole issue with me. We had a most useful and constructive discussion and I am sure that I put to rest many of the concerns that my hon. Friend voiced on Second Reading.

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

I hope that the Minister will not take it amiss when I point out that we have only his word for that—we do not have the hon. Member for Upminster, although I am sure that the bruises have started to go down. As we pointed out in Committee, when the Minister made that point, it would have been nice if the rest of us had been privy to what the hon. Member for Upminster had to say. When it comes to practical conveyancing, I prefer his comments to those of the Minister.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

My hon. Friend might be interested to know that the Minister seems to be a bit selective about which hon. Members who took part in the Second Reading debate he wants to discuss this matter with, because I wrote to the Minister after that debate, asking him whether he could clarify some unanswered questions, and I have not yet had a reply.

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

That is very worrying, because I know that my hon. Friend knows about these things. I do rather resent the Minister because, as a result of his systematic denigration in Committee of almost every organisation and lobbying group that has a connection with conveyancing, my mailbag has swollen to Gargantuan proportions as a result of people writing to ask who this chap is and how he dares to talk about them in that way. I should have said earlier that I do not have an interest to declare. As I said in previous debates, I am a solicitor but not one who has ever practised in conveyancing matters. We now come to the question of criminal sanctions. The Minister said that he was confident that sanctions were necessary. He then undermined his position by saying—it was an ever louder theme in Committee—that he did not think that essentially innocent people would find themselves in trouble with the weights and measures officers, hard pressed as they already are, who will have to try to enforce the legislation. We disagree with the Minister now, as we did in Committee. It is simply not open to Ministers, even in the Government, where they have an extremely exaggerated notion of their own importance, to say that people will not be pursued or prosecuted for breaches of the law. If we are creating a new law, the breach of which is in theory subject to criminal sanctions, Ministers cannot wave their hands and say that people will not be prosecuted except in extreme situations. One aspect is really worrying. Even if the Government really believe, against all the advice and evidence to the contrary, that seller's packs will make all the difference, why impose criminal sanctions? The Law Society has been outraged at that suggestion, and so are Conservative Members. We think that ordinary people, going about in their law-abiding fashion, entering, or not entering, into free contractual relations, should not be threatened with criminal sanctions—criminal sanctions which, as we discovered in Committee, are the equivalent of those for someone carrying an offensive weapon such as a flick-knife. We strongly believe that if the Government are having second thoughts about any aspect of part I, they should drop the idea of criminal sanctions. I shall deal more briefly, for reasons that I have explained, with part II, which deals with housing and homelessness. As Ministers know, we have consistently not voted against the principle of the Bill. We did not do so at Second Reading and I shall not invite my right hon. and hon. Friends to divide the House against the Bill on Third Reading, because there are some good things in part II, some of which we agree with, but some of which have not been thought through enough. The Bill arrives at the eleventh hour of the Government, after four years in government and 18 years in opposition. I suspect that during every month of that time, the current Minister for Housing and Planning had some sort of responsibility for housing policy. The Bill is missing things such as a licensing system for houses in multiple occupation, which has caused much comment in the housing press. The Bill must be viewed against the background of a general failure in housing policy. Every time that we discussed the homelessness figures in Committee, the Minister would rise to his feet to rubbish the very figures issued by his Department, so I am risking provoking him again. I believe, however, that we can at least agree that we established painfully in Committee that between 1997–98 and the last year for which figures are available, the figure for total priority homeless acceptances increased from 102,650 to 108,500 in round terms. That means, on my arithmetic, that the homeless figure has been rising under the stewardship of the Government and these Ministers. There has been an increase of 6,000 in those years. The figure for the total number of empty homes has fallen only marginally, to 762,700. All that, together with the massive extra pressures caused by the Government's comprehensive failure to tackle the problem of asylum seekers and the sharp fall in the supply of new social housing, shows that there is a crisis in housing and homelessness under the Government. I discovered the other day that the Labour administration in Basildon has had to impose a special service charge of between £7.50 and £17.50 on homeless people. That is referred to locally as the homeless tax. It is argued that, as most homeless tenants are on benefit, the tax will not be paid from their incomes. The housing chairman, Paul Kirkman—a Labour councillor—said that he felt heavy hearted at putting a charge on homeless people and that imposing the charge felt like sticking the knife in the homeless. This country's homeless and housing figures paint a very disturbing picture indeed, and the Bill must be judged against that background. We are mystified as to why the Government have taken so long to produce the Bill and why its scope is so limited, given that they have purported to give such a high priority to housing in the run-up to the election and thereafter. There are major problems with some of the proposals in part II. As I said earlier, supply and demand is the major issue. The Government have not addressed the fact that there is an excess of supply over demand in some parts of the country and vice versa in others, which undermines choice-based allocations. In a nutshell, part I will cause enormous problems; it will criminalise ordinary law-abiding folk and make the job of buying and selling houses more expensive and more difficult. Part II is riddled with contradictions. The Bill does not tackle some of the big issues in housing, which should have been tackled by now, but, as I have said, I shall not invite my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against its Third Reading.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I am still pondering the answer given by the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) when he was asked whether a Conservative Government, if there were ever to be another, would rescind the Bill. The answer was that the Conservative party would take a long, hard look at it. I recall that those were the words of either Eeyore or Winnie-the-Pooh. It is clear from the debates so far that we were absolutely right to question the programme motion. It is absolutely clear that there has been inadequate time to discuss the large number of very important issues before us tonight. However, we could have made more effective use of the time that was made available. Nevertheless, the debates in the Chamber and in Committee have provided an opportunity to discuss not only the issues dealt with in the Bill, but a wide range of other related issues. That has been helpful. We have had an opportunity to discuss the need to speed up the provision of affordable housing. We have discussed the need to tackle the absolutely disgraceful fact that there are 750,000 empty homes in this country. We have discussed the need to improve support for those who tragically often suffer from the neighbours from hell. We have even discussed the proposals to run trials to determine the ways in which different local authorities can develop greater choice for the various people in need of housing. I hope that the bid from my local authority—Bath and North East Somerset—will be considered very favourably by the Minister. We have also had an opportunity directly to consider important issues in the Bill, such as buying and selling housing and the development of homelessness reviews and strategies by local authorities. On Second Reading, the Minister accepted that the Bill was, at that stage, work in progress. I genuinely believe that our deliberations have resulted in significant progress. For example, I am delighted that Ministers have been prepared to accept Liberal Democrat proposals for improvements to the reintroduction of reviews of eligibility and of the priority given to homeless people. I am delighted that some of our proposals on energy efficiency have been accepted tonight. Hon. Members from both sides in Committee and in the House have backed our proposals to improve the advice and guidance that local authorities give to homeless people. Ministers have also been willing to reconsider certain aspects of new clauses 5 and 7. I am grateful for the improvements that have been made. The Bill contains many important and beneficial measures. Despite that, it continues to contain a number of weaknesses. They include the inadequately defined and certainly inadequately financially supported role that trading standards officers will have to play. As the hon. Member for Eastbourne rightly said, insufficient attention has been given to the issues of gazumping and gazundering. There is certainly not enough in the Bill to link the important work of registered social landlords and local authority housing departments. The Minister will be the first to acknowledge that we have still not found a solution to the question of whether a seller's pack should be required in areas of low-value properties. In addition, we have not yet done enough to link together at the local authority level the development of homelessness strategies and the housing strategy. The hon. Member for Eastbourne rightly referred to the Bill's biggest weakness, which is the sanctions that the Government propose to introduce against those who fail to meet the requirements of a seller's pack. We are fundamentally opposed to the introduction of criminal sanctions. It is wrong to make it a criminal offence to fail to meet the requirements of the seller's pack. That would mean that someone who had not met those requirements could find that their character had been diminished in the eyes of their neighbours and others. Their job might be put in jeopardy and their credit rating and their ability to obtain a mortgage could be put at risk. Some countries, such as the United States, will not accept people with criminal records, so the ability of those people to travel could also be put at risk. If there is to be a sanction, it should be a civil sanction, not a criminal one. The Bill is work in progress, and progress has been made during our deliberations. I do not want to do anything that will prevent further progress from being made in another place. For that reason, we shall not vote against the Bill's Third Reading.

Andrew Love (Labour/Co-operative, Edmonton)

I welcome the Bill, not least because it implements two of the Government's manifesto pledges. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning on taking the Bill smoothly through all its stages in the House, and the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth), on his appointment as a Minister. Funnily enough, I pay tribute to both sides for the measured and sensible debates that we had in Committee. They were in marked contrast to the Second Reading debate, which sounded very much to me like an election rally for the Opposition. As the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) suggested, we had a surreal debate tonight when two Liberal Democrat homelessness policies were on show. There was also the amazing spectacle of the Welsh Nationalists coming to the aid of those on the Opposition Front Bench when Opposition Back Benchers were chiding them about Conservative principles. The Bill will significantly improve the process of buying and selling a home. The need for the measure is clear: 1.5 million to 2 million sales are made a year. Although the process is among the cheapest, it is also the slowest. Twenty-eight per cent. of all sales fail, even after terms have been agreed, and dissatisfaction is high. Frankly, action was required. We cannot criticise the Government for lack of research. An enormous amount of consultation and research was carried out before the measure was introduced. A long study took place in 1998, followed by a consultation process. It showed strong support for the seller's pack and even for making it compulsory. The consultation was followed by a pilot study. We are considering trust and confidence in the survey form, which was discussed at length. The provisions should establish that confidence before the form is introduced in 2003. The Bill will achieve more stability and predictability in the process of buying a home. I have a direct constituency interest in homelessness. Almost one in three constituents who come to me have housing problems. Most of them are homeless or in the process of becoming homeless. That reflects the Tory legacy. The previous Government's neglect of social housing has led directly to such problems; indeed, their legacy is symbolised by rough sleepers. That will haunt the Conservative party for a long time. I welcome the Bill. It provides a settled housing solution for people who are in priority need, but it also does much more than that. It provides for local authorities to devise homelessness strategies, and establishes the need for them to put prevention at the top of their agenda. Although Opposition Members have criticised them, I welcome the provisions for strengthening advice and assistance. When we are unable to provide a settled housing solution, we should give homeless people advice and assistance. It is clear that that currently does not happen. I welcome the Minister's important reassurance that blanket exclusions, which have formed a large part of some local authorities' activities, will be outlawed. I join the hon. Member for Eastbourne—although I do not ask the Minister to select Eastbourne as one of the pilot authorities—in welcoming the extension of choice to social housing. That is long overdue and will lead to local authorities gaining a better reputation for their provision of housing for those in need. The Bill will make a difference. It will reduce not only homelessness, but social exclusion, which is perhaps even more important and at the centre of Government policy.

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

The Minister chooses to work on the basis of the number of clauses, which is rather like a "Never mind the quality, feel the width" approach to politics. Will he remind the House of the number of clauses in the Bill that led to ratification of the Maastricht treaty?

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

PREVENTION AND SUPPRESSION OF TERRORISM

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

On 31 January, I posed the question: what added value would we get from joint or concurrent meetings? That was at column 406 of Hansard. I went on to say that I wanted to challenge the basis on which the motion was predicated. It assumes that the Committees will produce better results by meeting concurrently. That is the point of the argument that I want to develop as it continues, as it will for some time. The question is whether the two Houses of Parliament, in the context of the Committee that we are now discussing, can make a better contribution separately or jointly—or, as the motion quaintly states, "concurrently". In other words, do they have distinctive roles and can they bring a distinctive or different perspective to matters?

SITTINGS IN WESTMINSTER HALL

SELECT COMMITTEES (JOINT MEETINGS)

LANGUAGE OF PARLIAMENTARY PROCEEDINGS

Depleted Uranium (Shelling)

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

I am very glad to have this opportunity, which has perhaps come rather earlier than I expected, to raise in an Adjournment debate a matter of increasing concern to many of my constituents. It relates mainly to the test firing of depleted uranium shells from the Ministry of Defence base at Dundrennan, which lies on the Solway estuary in Kirkcudbrightshire in my constituency and which is now run by the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency. My first foray into that area was in April 1998, when I asked a question about the firing of such shells at the range. The answer from Sir John Chisholm, chief executive of DERA, was that 6,255 shells had been fired at Dundrennan since 1982 and that four had been recovered—not 4,000 or 400, but four. To bring these figures up to date, 6,907 shells have now been fired at Dundrennan. Following national press stories, which sought to link depleted uranium to Gulf war syndrome, I wrote to Lord Robertson, who was then Secretary of State for Defence, on 1 December 1998, asking for action to be taken to recover the shells. I received a reply from the then Minister for the Armed Forces, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson), stating that DERA does not currently have a programme in place to recover DU projectiles from the Solway Firth, nor does it intend to initiate such a programme. I am interested in how many depleted uranium shells the MOD needs. In the Gulf war, 100 rounds were used against the Iraqis and some rounds were used during training in Saudi Arabia. Regardless of the argument about whether or not depleted uranium should be used, if we are going to use only approximately 100 rounds, do we really need to test 7,000 rounds? The United Kingdom has fired 70 times as much depleted uranium at Dundrennan as it did in the Gulf war. In asking those questions, I am well aware that a culture of secrecy seems to surround such matters, which only adds to the suspicion of many people about the actions of the MOD. One example in relation to Dundrennan will suffice. In January 2000, the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) asked a parliamentary question relating to meetings between DERA and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency. He was informed by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) that he was withholding details of such a meeting under Exception 2 … of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information."—[Official Report, 28 January 2000; Vol. 343, c. 382W.] I hope that the Minister for the Armed Forces will not hide behind such get-out-clauses in responding to further questions on this matter. However, I was pleased to note that, in his statement in the House on 9 January, he said: I absolutely agree that we should have as much information as possible in the public domain for there to be proper scientific peer review of that information"—[Official Report, 9 January 2001; Vol. 360, c. 888.] Having secured this debate, I should like to stress that I am not saying that there has been any health effect so far on the general public in Kircudbrightshire as a result of the Dundrennan tests. However, increasing international worries about depleted uranium lead me to be concerned that, if thousands of she]]s are left in the Solway Firth, we are storing up potential problems for the future. I am also concerned about any health implications for civilian and military staff who have worked at the base. I would now like to look at the W. S. Atkins report, which the Minister mentioned in his statement on 9 January. The MOD had agreed to implement an independent impact assessment in 1993, which was prepared by W. S. Atkins Consultants Ltd. and published by the MOD in January 1995. It is entitled "Environmental Assessment of the Firing of Depleted Uranium Projectiles at Eskmeals and Kirkcudbright Ranges". I am somewhat concerned that the MOD is still trying to use the report, which is now six years old, to claim that there are no problems associated with the firing of depleted uranium at Dundrennan. In the Minister's statement, he said A detailed review of the environmental impact of firing DU at these ranges. … concluded that the radiation doses to members of the public and the associated risks from DU released into the environment were extremely low."—[Official Report, 9 January 2001; Vol. 360, c. 878–79.] Although that is indeed part of the report, other sections of the document, far from putting to rest any worries about DU testing, raise many more worries. One concern is the effect on current and past workers, both military and civilian, who have been present when a test malfunctions. In relation to such malfunctions, which are shells that break up before they hit the target, W. S. Atkins identified several hazards as a result of the test firing programme, one of which is the release of DU material into the environment as a result of the malfunction. On that matter, the report states that the consequences will involve the release of DU material to the atmosphere. This material would most probably be in the form of very fine particulates or aerosols of either DU metal or DU oxides. That leads on to the question of how many malfunctions have occurred since the commencement of tests. The minutes of a presentation to the local council by Lieutenant Colonel David Brown for DERA on 22 September 1999 state: Some mishaps had occurred, notably at the Raeberry gun position where some years ago a projectile had broken up as it was fired from the gun. Also some projectiles had hit the ground at the targets instead of travelling through the target into the sea. The targets are usually hessian or plastic sheets, which are attached to a metal frame. The shells are supposed to be fired through the sheets and to land in the sea. In a letter that I received from the chief executive of DERA in February last year, I was informed that only one projectile had been recovered from the Solway Firth. The other three were recovered from the land. There are four separate testing ranges at Dundrennan. The W. S. Atkins report refers to the malfunction rate at three of the ranges between commencement of the trials in 1981 and January 1994, when the survey was conducted. The rates vary between 4 per cent. at Raeberry and 0.6 per cent. at Balig. Taking into account the fact that 4,595 shells were fired at Dundrennan during the period in question, and taking even the lowest malfunction range, as the figures are not split for the various ranges, that means that 27 firings were subject to malfunction in that period. If a similar malfunction rate had continued between 1981 and the present, that would mean that about 41 malfunctions had occurred to date, each potentially creating DU-contaminated dust, although I have anecdotal evidence from constituents working on the range who have seen as many as five malfunctions in one day. I would appreciate some clarification from the Minister about how many malfunctions have occurred since the testing started, and whether the malfunctions are included in the numbers provided in parliamentary answers relating to the number of shells fired. Does he agree that there is a good case for voluntary testing for depleted uranium poisoning to be made available to all staff involved in the tests at Dundrennan? That brings me to the matter of misfired shells—shells that have not hit their target. The W. S. Atkins report goes on to state: The point of contact of eight misfired DU penetrators is not known and they may have hit agricultural land. That is clearly unacceptable. Will the Minister inform the House how many misfires have occurred to date and whether any of those shells have been recovered? Some 6,907 shells have been fired into the Solway, and, even allowing for misfires and malfunctions, more than 6,000 are presumably now lying in the Solway. Many of us instinctively object to the Solway being used as a radioactive munitions dumping ground by the MOD. W. S. Atkins commented: For Kirkcudbright, a major unknown factor relates to the fate of projectiles once they enter the marine environment. Distribution of the projectiles within the area of the seabed is unknown, in spite of a monitoring that has been operational since commencement of DU firing. It goes on to say: The state of a projectile after it strikes the sea bed is not known. The projectile may hit the bottom at speed and become embedded in mud, silt or sand, or if it strikes a hard object fragmentation may occur. The degree of fragmentation and penetration beneath the surface cannot be predicted and it therefore follows that the concentration in bottom sediments cannot be estimated. It also states: Penetrators that impact at sea may corrode and release DU into sea water. My understanding from reading the report is that the expectation is that any such release of DU would be very diluted, and, therefore, apparently not a problem. That may or may not be the case at present, but my real concern is for the future. I understand that DU has a half-life of 4.5 billion years, so we could be sowing the seeds of environmental problems for some time in the future. It is obvious that little is known about the exact whereabouts of all those shells. However, I fail to see how it is beyond the Government's capability to remove them from the Solway and dispose of them more appropriately, or—if they do not wish to embark on that course straight away—to undertake a feasibility study into that option. That brings me to the legislation on radioactive disposal. On 15 January, in a parliamentary answer on the firing of DU, the Secretary of State for Defence stated: Statutory regulations govern the use of DU on ranges in the UK. These are the Radioactive Substances Act 1993, which controls radioactive waste discharges to the environment and the Ionising Radiations Regulations (IRR) 1999."—[Official Report, 15 January 2001; Vol. 361, c. 42W.] The 1993 Act lays down strict guidelines for the disposal of radioactive materials, including depleted uranium. In order to dispose of radioactive waste, authorisation must be sought from the appropriate environmental agency, which in this case is SEPA. Before granting such authorisation, the agency must consult the relevant local authority, among others. In relation to the Ionising Radiations Regulations, W. S. Atkins states: A requirement exists within the Ionising Radiation Regulations for an operator to be able to account for all radioactive material under his control. Up to the point of firing this is done. Beyond that point the material, unless recovered, is presently considered by HMIP (HM Inspectorate of Pollution) to be part of the Kirkcudbright facility 'procedure' and as such does not attract concern. However should the projectiles be recovered then they would be classified as waste and require appropriate dispersal with the relevant letters of approval obtained. I would like the Minister to inform the House, and my constituents, whether depleted uranium is subject to strict controls before it is fired and if it is recovered, but not if it is left lying in the Solway Firth. That would be unacceptable. If that is not the case, given that the MOD obviously considers the Solway Firth to be the final resting place of the depleted uranium shells, will the Minister confirm whether the MOD has the authorisation required to dispose of them in the Solway Firth, as the Secretary of State seems to have stated that the 1993 Act applies in this case. Dundrennan is not the only location in my constituency to play host to the leftovers of the activities of the MOD. In the sea between Galloway and Northern Ireland, in the deep trench of Beaufort's Dyke, lie many hundreds of tons of first and second world war explosives, phosphorous bombs and the like. Many of those are not even in the deep trench of the dyke, but in the shallower waters near the coastline, and the phosphorous flares are frequently washed up on the coast of Galloway and Ayrshire. Further to the east at Luce Bay, near the DERA establishment at West Freugh, live cluster bombs lie on the bottom of the bay as a result of pre-Kosovo trials. These are in the process of being covered over by blocks of concrete. Further east still, we come to Dundrennan, which I have been talking about tonight. The whole area is then gently washed by the tides of the Solway, which are themselves host to whatever radioactive discharges the plant at Sellafield chooses to release. Perhaps Galloway is getting more than its fair share of these man-made problems. I am not an alarmist. Any inspection of my statements since 1997 would make it clear that I have not sought cheap headlines at the expense of public confidence. However, there comes a stage at which any reasonable person must say that enough is enough. We have an obligation to leave this planet to our children in at least as good a state as we found it, if not better, and clearly in this case we are not doing so. A couple of years ago, the Government did the agriculture industry in my constituency and elsewhere no favours with their short-term ban on beef on the bone—a ban undertaken largely on the precautionary principle that although the risk of infection was infinitesimal and certainly no higher than that posed by many everyday activities, it was nevertheless a risk, and one that should be addressed. I submit that the same precautionary principle should apply to the test firing at Dundrennan, that as a result no more should be undertaken and that the debris of what has been undertaken should be removed as expeditiously as possible.

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

I congratulate the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Morgan) on securing the debate. It is understandable that there might be concern within his constituency about depleted uranium, following heavy media coverage of the subject in January, but I hope I can reassure him about its use at the Kirkcudbright range. The armour-piercing rounds for the British Army's Challenger 2 main battle tank are manufactured from depleted uranium, commonly known as DU. The rounds are built around a solid rod of DU metal, which has a density almost twice that of lead. DU also has the important property of self-sharpening on impact with armour. Those properties give it a unique capability as a penetrator, and at present no satisfactory alternative material exists that might provide the level of penetration needed to defeat the most modern battle tanks. For that reason DU will remain part of our arsenal for the foreseeable future. When this country commits our forces to conflict we fight to win, and our troops need the best available equipment to enable them to do that. Kirkcudbright is an MOD-owned site that is now run by the Army as a training area. It is also used for the proof and trials firing of DU rounds by the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency—DERA. DU firing began at Kirkcudbright in 1982, following an announcement in the House by the then Secretary of State for Defence. Since then, a total of 6,907 DU rounds have been fired at Kirkcudbright in order to assess the accuracy of the guns and ammunition, and more recently for in-service quality control or proofing. Usually 12 rounds are fired, in order to sample every production batch of 1,056 projectiles. The current programme of trials comprises production batch testing, and will be completed by the end of this year. Thereafter, further proof testing while the ammunition remains in service may be required, but that has yet to be confirmed. As the hon. Gentleman said, the DU rounds are fired from prepared positions within the range at soft targets mounted in gantries on the cliff top. They pass through the targets and then continue out to sea, where they enter the water—which is approximately 20 m deep—between 1 km and 3 km from the shoreline. Only one target area is currently in use, together with two firing points. As DU is a heavy metal with chemical toxicity, and also has low-activity radioactive qualities, precautions need to be taken when it is being handled and fired. The use of DU at Kirkcudbright is undertaken in accordance with statutory regulations, including the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and the Ionising Radiations Regulations 1999, which were made under the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 and are enforced by the Health and Safety Executive. The Ionising Radiations Regulations 1999 replaced similar regulations dating from 1968, 1969 and 1985. In addition, although formally exempt, the MOD voluntarily acts in accordance with the provisions of the Radioactive Substances Act 1993, which controls radioactive waste discharges into the environment. Periodic visits to the ranges are carried out by the Health and Safety Executive and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency. The last such visit took place in January 2001. The firing programme is undertaken by teams of DERA range staff. Effective steps have been and continue to be taken to protect those who have taken part in the testing of DU ammunition. All staff involved in the DU firing programme are fully briefed on the radiological safety aspects of working with DU before commencing work with the material. Moreover, they are designated "classified persons" under the terms of the Ionising Radiations Regulations. That means that they are subject to a pre-employment medical examination and are kept under surveillance by a medical practitioner approved by the Health and Safety Executive.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

I apologise to the Minister if he is coming to the point, but during their visits, do the Health and Safety Executive and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency look purely at the land area of the base, or do they also look at the area of sea into which the shells are meant to fall?

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

The hon. Gentleman is right. I will come to the sea later. In addition, checks on the effectiveness of the safety procedures are carried out by the use of dosimeters, personal air samplers, urine analysis and whole-body monitoring. In the whole history of DU firing, none of those personal monitoring measures has ever shown a result that has given any cause for concern. Indeed, in 1999, the latest year for which complete results are available, the average annual yearly dose for a worker at Kirkcudbright was 0.65 millisieverts. That is well below the statutory annual dose limit of 20 msv for an employee set by the regulations, and lower even than the statutory annual dose limit of 1 msv for a member of the public. Access to target areas, firing points and, if DU is present, storage areas, must be within the terms of the regulations and is strictly controlled. Routine monitoring of those areas is carried out in accordance with the regulations. Special local safety regulations are enforced, concerning magazines, vehicles, firing and target areas, and they cover the contingency of accidents. As I have said, the targets at Kirkcudbright are made of soft material through which the projectiles pass. In uncommon cases when projectiles have struck the target gantry, any subsequent risk of contamination from touching or disturbing DU material can be contained by means of relatively simple safety precautions. Personal protective equipment is issued when entering DU strike areas at Kirkcudbright, including protective overalls, gloves and boots. Access to areas known to be contaminated is strictly controlled. Work on the estate is controlled by risk assessments and range safety rules, made on behalf of the Secretary of State for Defence and administered by the local range commandant. There is public access to the estate outside firing hours, but there are warning signs along the range boundary. Furthermore, the out-of-bounds areas are fenced and signed, where appropriate, with radiation signs. Even if a member of the public or a soldier on training exercises were to ignore the warnings, enter the restricted areas, pick up and handle any DU fragments, or even picnic on top of one of them, the risk is minimal, according to an assessment undertaken by DERA radiation protection services. Such an individual might, on worst case assumptions, receive an additional radiation dose equivalent to less than 10 per cent. of the statutory annual dose limit for members of the general public. A long-term environmental monitoring programme on the effects of firing has taken place at Kirkcudbright since 1983, and to date it has shown only very low levels of DU contamination—well below any level that could be considered a health hazard. The monitoring involves taking samples of soil, grass, animal droppings, shellfish and sea-bed sediment from 13 separate points in the range each year—twice each year for grass. None of the samples has ever indicated any concentration of DU above background levels, except for some known contamination in soil at the firing and target sites, which, as I have explained, are fenced. That monitoring gives us confidence that DU firing does not have an adverse impact on the local environment or the food chain. I know that the hon. Gentleman is particularly concerned about the possibility of DU raising radiation levels in the Solway firth. Scientific modelling, again using pessimistic assumptions, concluded that corrosion of DU rounds would make a negligible difference to the level of uranium that already exists naturally in sea water. That conclusion is confirmed by the samples of sea-bed sediment and shellfish that we collect in the area where the projectiles land. No uranium is detected above naturally occurring background levels. We are still not complacent about safety or DU contamination at Kirkcudbright. Although the risks from DU fragments are, as I have said, minimal, we have decided to conduct a general survey to find any previously undetected DU fragments on the range and, if necessary, to take appropriate remedial measures. The survey will be conducted using a new, more sensitive device called the exploranium. That device detects, but does not measure, the X-rays and gamma rays associated with the radioactive decay of DU. It is about twice as sensitive as the monitor previously used for detecting DU fragments on the surface of the range, and about 200 times better at detecting fragments below the surface of the range. The survey will provide an overview of any radiologically significant DU surface contamination on areas of the range, believed to have been caused by a very small number of DU projectiles that failed to reach the sea. As the hon. Gentleman said, some of the early prototype rounds broke up just outside the gun barrel, leaving DU fragments in the soil. Additionally, a few rounds have struck the ground prior to reaching the target. The hon. Gentleman asked for figures, and I shall write to him. We shall also further investigate the areas of known DU contamination round the firing points and targets. The survey will be conducted by the DERA radiation protection services, with preliminary work commencing in March 2001—as soon as the weather, ground conditions and day length are suitable—and measurement starting in April and May. Allowing for contingencies, the report on the survey should be completed by the end of the year. The undertaking of the survey, in addition to the continuing environmental monitoring and range control measures, shows how seriously we take our responsibilities in connection with firing DU. We shall publish the results of the survey in due course, in line with the long-established openness that we have demonstrated on the subject.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

I thank the Minister for that. However, we do not know the rate at which the shells deteriorate. Although he turned up his nose at the idea of 4.5 billion years, the problem will be with us for centuries, at least. Governments cannot bind their successors. Do we not have to deal with that problem?

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

The hon. Gentleman should understand that a longer half-life for a radioactive substance indicates a lower level of radioactive dispersal. The dangerous stuff has a much shorter half-life, because it is dispersing radioactivity at a much higher rate. In fact, depleted uranium is 40 per cent. less radioactive than natural uranium, which, as I said, is found in the soil—on land and under the sea—throughout the world. This is a useful opportunity to bring that matter to the attention of the public and put it in an accurate context. Our activities at Kirkcudbright have been characterised by considerable transparency. As the hon. Gentleman said, in 1995, an independent environmental assessment by the consultants W S Atkins, commissioned by the MOD, was released into the public domain. It concluded that there were no significant risks from exposure to DU released into the environment. Subsequently, those conclusions have been sustained and, from 1983 to date, the routine environmental monitoring programme has shown only very low levels of DU contamination, which are well below any level that could be considered a health hazard. DERA has ensured that the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and Dumfries and Galloway council have both been informed of firing activities, and have also been provided with the annual environmental monitoring reports. DERA holds regular meetings with the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, and DERA representatives have attended public meetings arranged by Dumfries and Galloway council to discuss the findings of the annual environmental monitoring report. Copies are also circulated to hon. Members and given to the Library. On 15 January 2001, at a "community" meeting of Stewartry area committee, concern was apparently expressed in the public forum about recent press coverage of the firing of DU projectiles from the range at Kirkcudbright. A letter dated 23 January 2001 from the chief environmental officer to the Secretary of State requested a full report on the issue. We have had other representations from local residents. They will, of course, receive full replies. Meanwhile, however, I should like, through the hon. Gentleman, to provide that reassurance to the local population. The fact is that, despite the recent media furore, no new evidence has emerged in the past month or so to change our assessment of the risks of DU or its effects on health or the environment. It is far more important for local residents to focus on the reassurance of our precautions, our monitoring of range workers and our environmental analysis of the impact of DU on the range and its environs. That material has been shared with them publicly for many years. The material shows that the risks of firing DU at Kirkcudbright are understood, monitored and managed, and that local residents, farmers and visitors to the ranges can be confident that it has a minimal impact on the range. The risks, minimal as they are, have been acknowledged and handled throughout that period in accordance with the relevant statutory requirements, and our responsibilities to service and civilian personnel, as well as to the general public, are taken very seriously. That will continue, as our intention to conduct a new survey of the site clearly demonstrates.

COMPANIES