Housing Bill

Public Bill Committee, 10 February 2004.

Standing Committee E

Housing Bill

Derek Conway (Conservative, Old Bexley and Sidcup)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 444, in

clause 127, page 86, line 22, at end insert—

'( ) The seller, when marketing the property, is obliged to specify whether or not a home information pack is to be provided'.

No. 445, in

clause 127, page 86, line 23, leave out subsection (2).

No. 446, in

clause 128, page 86, line 32, after 'which', insert ', where available,'.

The Committee will recall that the principle of the voluntary scheme was debated extensively last Thursday. I hope that that debate will not be repeated today.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

It would indeed be inappropriate to extend our deliberations on this group of amendments into last Thursday's debate to any great degree. However, I wish to put the amendments in context. We had a long debate last week on an amendment tabled by the Liberal Democrats that would have changed the

nature of the home information pack scheme from mandatory to discretionary. The amendments that we are now discussing would do precisely the same thing, but amendments Nos. 444, 445 and 446 deal with the repercussions of such a change. In other words, they explicitly acknowledge that packs may be desirable and that they may have a use, but that there are circumstances in which their use is questionable.

We talked at length about duplication and houses that are covered by a warranty having to have a pack, too. Under considerable pressure, the Minister conceded on what he described as brand-new homes. He was not minded to do so until he heard the arguments advanced by Conservative Members and, to some degree, by Liberal Democrat Members. He made something of a U-turn on that issue, but he did not clarify the position regarding other types of property that are not new, but are still covered by warranty.

Matters such as the first, or even the second, resale of a property that is still covered by warranty remain of concern. Properties in their early life sometimes change hands quickly—perhaps several times in the first year after they are built—and it seems curious that such properties must have a further inspection and a pack when their warranty already provides a large measure of legal protection. I shall not go into the details of the other arguments advanced last week, because that that would not give you any pleasure or satisfaction, Mr. Conway, and I wish to deny you neither of those things. However, the circumstances of several categories of property militate in favour of a scheme that can be applied more flexibly—essentially, a voluntary scheme.

Although the Minister is not generally prone to repetition, he will probably repeat the argument that previous efforts at voluntary schemes have not been altogether successful. He was dismissive of the Law Society scheme. I shall not defend it—I leave that to the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) whose every move, as we heard last week, is based on the society's advice. However, in the right circumstances, with the right Government support and guidance, it would be possible to inject life into voluntary schemes—perhaps the Law Society's scheme or a variant of it—and, by giving impetus, to make such schemes workable and successful.

The amendments are straightforward; they call for discretion and for a voluntary scheme. Amendment No. 444 provides that

''The seller, when marketing the property, is obliged to specify whether . . . a . . . pack is to be provided''.

Certainty about how a voluntary scheme would operate is important. It is fine to have a scheme built around a partnership between the various agencies involved in selling homes, as long as, from the purchaser's perspective, there is the clarity—the Minister called it ''transparency''—that motivates the Government. That has consequential effects dealt with in amendments Nos. 445 and 446.

Without more ado, I should say that we previously have had a long argument about part 5. I know that the Minister will be brief but powerful in his response. I

think that there has been a gradual acceptance by the Government that the measure is a bit of a dog's dinner. Perhaps hastily, in the excitement that sometimes comes with being in opposition, Labour went a little too far and made the commitment to have home information packs in its manifestos in 1997 and subsequently. I do not get excited very often, but I know that when he was in opposition, the Minister became excited on occasion. However, the realities of government have obliged him to reconsider to some degree.

We have heard about phasing, about packs that contain some of, but not all, the information, and about the difficulties of implementation. There is a grudging and gradual acceptance that there will not be a smooth transition to mandatory packs, and that there might be a hostile reaction. For that reason we offer the Government a chance to get off the hook. They do not need to say that they proposed a voluntary scheme: they can say that the Tories championed it, that the Liberal Democrats made their peculiar contribution—I use ''peculiar'' to mean specific or particular—to the debate, and that finally the Government were persuaded by the power of the arguments. That is the chance we offer the Minister. I hope that he will take it, because I think that that would be welcomed by the industry and by home buyers everywhere. All who have studied the matter realise that a voluntary scheme would be better, so I am pleased and proud to move the amendments.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

Good morning, Mr. Conway. I hope that you had as a good a breakfast as the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) clearly had. He has come here bouncing—perhaps he has been wearing his bow tie.

The amendments appeared late in the day. The Conservatives realised that they had missed a trick and said, ''We had better table some amendments that reveal that we, too, are in favour of a voluntary rather than a compulsory scheme.'' Better late than never, I suppose—we welcome converts. However, the amendments follow broadly the same thrust as ours. You will be relieved to hear, Mr. Conway, that I will not go over the same ground as on Thursday, although we had an entertaining discussion that afternoon.

I will comment specifically on a couple of the amendments, because the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings did not go into detail. If the scheme is to be voluntary, there must be absolute clarity about whether a pack is available. That was addressed in an earlier group of amendments, but it is worth commenting on in this discussion. If the scheme is to be made voluntary and is to have some success, one consideration the buyer might take into account is whether the property has a seller's pack. Such a pack might increase the likelihood of somebody making a higher offer, so it might be in the seller's interest to have a pack. We might see the market working, which the Minister appears to be so afraid of. Many sellers would consider it in their interest to produce a pack

because it would stick a few thousand on the valuation of the property and of likely bids. That idea is important.

Under amendment No. 444, the seller marketing a property is obliged to specify whether a home information pack is to be provided. That would be a step forward. The amendment would help the Minister to accept something that he might eventually have to accept—he may have the big battalions in this Room, but he does not have them everywhere. Others, too, will want to question him about this part of the Bill, and with some validity.

I hope that the Minister had a nice, relaxing weekend and had time to think about what he said on Thursday, that he has realised that he was a little over-strong in his defence of the indefensible and that he will concede that a voluntary scheme should be considered. He could gracefully pledge to introduce amendments on Report to achieve that.

Andrew Selous (Conservative, South West Bedfordshire)

I rise to ask the Minister to tell the Committee whether, in any of the pilot schemes that he has quoted in support of his wish to make home information packs compulsory, any of the buyers or sellers had to pay for the packs. The House of Commons Library brief on the Bristol pilot tells us that free packs were offered. If the Minister is going to oppose amendments that would make the scheme voluntary, he should tell us whether there is any evidence of support for packs when consumers have to pay for them and may suffer a delay in being able to market their property.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

Before addressing the amendments, I shall respond to at least some of the points raised by Opposition Members. However, I do not propose to respond the point about the early availability of packs raised by the hon. Member for Ludlow, as we shall move on to that subject in the next group of amendments.

The hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) asked about payment for packs and whether they were freely available. My understanding is that they were. However, we have ample survey evidence, both from research that the Government have carried out and from Yorkshire bank, which demonstrates that no less than 70 per cent. of respondents who had recently been involved in home purchase and sale indicated their support for the introduction of a home information pack with a payment. We are confident that given the work done by the Consumers Association and others, our proposed scheme will be regarded favourably, although it may come at a price.

Clive Betts (Labour, Sheffield, Attercliffe)

My recollection of the evidence given to the Select Committee is that Maria Coleman's scheme in Bristol was voluntary; therefore, although there were payments to surveyors, lawyers and others, those were deferred until the end of the process when the sale took place. In the small minority of cases in which there no transaction ultimately took place, those costs were

passed on to the other schemes where sales did take place. There was eventually a cost in the Bristol scheme.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I am, as ever, grateful to my hon. Friend. He is right about the Bristol case. We anticipate that when the packs come into operation, the costs involved will be deferred until the end of the process.

Let me anticipate, but not encourage, further exchanges on the time scale of the viability and validity of the home information packs by saying that the saintly Maria Coleman from Bristol, to whom I will refer again in later debates, said that the home condition reports were renewed at a cost of only £10. We do not anticipate that the cost of the home information packs—specifically the home condition report—will be a major factor. As we always say, it evens out. Buyers will have to pay most of those costs in any circumstances, and what is a cost to a seller will be a benefit to the seller as buyer—most sellers are buyers as well. I do not want to get drawn into that matter now, because I was, as the Committee may recall, seeking to respond to some of the issues raised by Opposition Members before I came to the substance of the amendments.

If I may be permitted, I will respond to one or two of the issues raised by the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings, who, in his seductive fashion, sought to draw me into further concessions. He said that he felt that I had made a concession on phasing. Perhaps I ought to clarify that. We are entirely clear that the industry wants the packs to be introduced throughout England and Wales from day one. However, in our last exchanges on Thursday I referred to a trialling or lead-in period. Packs will be in place voluntarily for the six months leading up to statutory introduction, which, as I have said, we expect to be in January 2007. That is, of course, a form of trial, but there is to be no statutory trialling per se.

It has been freely admitted that the amendments have the same aim as Liberal Democrat amendments Nos. 344 and 346, which we debated at the end of the previous sitting. They would replace the proposals for a compulsory home information pack system backed by sanctions with a rather strange hybrid that I shall describe, albeit briefly, in a moment. We have no doubt that home information packs need to be compulsory to ensure that everyone benefits from them. Voluntary arrangements would not work.

I listened carefully to your words, Mr. Conway, and I do not propose to be sucked into a lengthy debate about voluntary versus compulsory arrangements. However, since the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings referred to the Law Society's TransAction scheme, let me say a word of clarification. The Committee may recall that, in a rodomontade at the end of our last sitting, I said that that scheme had been in place for years but had been a failure. Let me confess, here and now, that my remarks, made in the heat and dust of combat, were perhaps a little too forceful.

Allow me to clarify. TransAction involves the use of standardised forms and conditions of sale written in plain English. That is obviously a very good thing, and I am delighted that most conveyances now use it. I also accept that TransAction has helped to make the conveyancing system less baffling for consumers. Despite that, the plain fact is that TransAction has not eliminated the problems with delays and the transaction failures that the home information pack is designed to tackle. Our proposals will supplement and build on TransAction by adding to it other key information needed by buyers, including the home condition report and local searches.

It is telling that when the TransAction scheme was introduced, it was recommended that the seller should provide local searches. That recommendation was later withdrawn because it was realised that sellers would not pay for that on a voluntary basis. That supports our contention that a voluntary home information pack simply would not work.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

That is a most revealing description of the Law Society scheme. The Minister is saying that people will not voluntarily pay for the pack, but that they will have to have it. He constantly tells us that people desperately want the pack, and that it is marvellous because there is a real pressure for it—but not so much pressure, it seems, that they will pay for it without compulsion. Is that what he is saying?

The Minister has suggested that there will be no payment until the end of the process, but what if the process does not end? What if a property does not sell? Can we take it, from his remarks, that no money will change hands in those circumstances?

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

After two full sittings spent on the matter, the hon. Gentleman seems taken aback by the fact that we intend to make the scheme compulsory. We intend to do so because all the evidence—as I have exhaustively demonstrated—shows that, if it were voluntary, this excellent proposal to the benefit of the consumer would not be implemented. Historically, significant parties with interests have been opposed to change. It is the nature of institutions and of human beings to be opposed to change, and I myself often have cause to say that there is nothing as conservative as a socialist—quite an admission! However, we probably ought not to go down that path.

Of course the scheme is to be compulsory, but we are confident that the up-front certainty that it offers will be of immense benefit to the consumer. The hon. Gentleman talks about costs that will be incurred, but let me remind him that 30 per cent. of transactions fail already, and every time a transaction fails it is at a cost of £1,000. That is £350 million cost to the national economy each year. Where does he think that that money goes? It does not go into the pockets of the consumer. We can speculate about where it goes—

Andrew Selous (Conservative, South West Bedfordshire)

Will the Minister give way?

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

No, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I will continue and apply myself to the amendments. That is, after all, our duty as a Committee.

The amendments would introduce a voluntary home information pack system, and would mean that the present flawed system continued. They would remove the duty to have a pack and replace it with a duty to say whether a pack was being provided. The duty to provide a copy of the pack on request would remain, but the duty would extend only to providing a copy of whatever it is that the seller has decided to provide, which in many cases might be nothing at all.

It would make little sense to impose a duty backed by sanctions where there is in essence no duty whatever. For example, what should the penalty be for saying that one has a pack when that is not so—or saying that one does not when one does? I realise that the amendments were designed to prompt a debate on general issues about compulsion, however, as you have already indicated, Mr. Conway, that is a debate that we have already had. In the circumstances, and in the light of my responses, I invite the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings to withdraw the amendment.

Andrew Selous (Conservative, South West Bedfordshire)

The Minister was not able to give way to me when he was talking about the reasons why transactions fail. He will be aware that the vast majority of transactions fail because buyers do not have their finances in order or their circumstances change—perhaps they change job. Only in a minority of cases is there a defective survey, which is perhaps the only part of the transaction process that seller's packs will help.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

One of the most illuminating aspects of this debate and last Thursday's is that the Minister, who is normally only too keen to take interventions and is friendly in doing so, has been remarkably reluctant to do so. On Thursday he did not take a single one, and today he has resisted several attempts by hon. Members to intervene. That is very revealing: the Minister knows that he is on weak ground.

The Minister has completely failed to answer the question that the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings asked today and I asked on Thursday: if the packs are so wonderful, why does he have to force people to have them? If they are so popular—if the public are crying out for them—why does it take legislation and sanctions to make people have them? He has conspicuously failed to answer the essential point: why, if they are so wanted, are they to be compulsory? The reality is that if they were so popular, the market would be dictating the measure—people would be demanding packs from sellers now. The Government could easily enable that process and encourage it, rather than take the compulsory route. The longer the Minister speaks, the more unanswered questions about the process there are. Perhaps, that is why he is not taking interventions.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

Perhaps, I can respond—

Andrew Selous (Conservative, South West Bedfordshire)

He has been goaded into action.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I was naively seeking to move our discussions along. We have allowed a whole extra sitting, but there are many amendments before us and I am sure that the Committee is eager to get on to exchanges on those issues.

The hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire challenges the significance of home condition as an aspect of transaction failure. I have to tell him that estimates vary as to the proportion of transactions that fail on the basis of a problem with the condition of the property. Of course, I acknowledge that there are many reasons for transaction failure. However, I have to say to him that the evidence that we have is that something between 40 and 70 per cent.—by any standards a significant number— of transactions fail because a problem is found in the condition of the property.

The hon. Gentleman said that people withdraw from transactions because they have financial problems. Discovering that there is a serious problem with the condition of the house or one that is thrown up by the searches that are done—both of which will be obviated by having the information up front—is itself a cause of financial difficulties in terms of the acquisition of the property.

To the hon. Member for Ludlow, who says, ''If packs are so great why haven't the people demanded them?'' I say: get real! How does a member of the public demand a home information pack or a home condition report? The demand is there—the Consumers Association and all of our researches suggest that the public want them. Somebody has to ensure that the great variety of institutions involved in the house buying and selling process respond by coming together and providing home information packs and home condition reports. That is what we are doing in the legislation: this new Labour Government are acting as the enabling state.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I think that that was an intervention. [Laughter.] I am glad that the Minister has finally seen fit to try to respond to the point. However, he could achieve what he wants by enabling those bodies to work together rather than by forcing the packs on sellers, who are frequently also buyers. When we talk about consumers, it is as though the purchasers of houses are different from the people who are selling houses, but in the vast majority of cases, the people who are buying houses are also selling houses. The cost of the measure will be imposed on all those people. The Minister has yet to be convincing on this matter, but I am glad that we have finally got him to begin to address the key points.

Robert Syms (Conservative, Poole)

I am provoked to make a contribution. The Minister states that home information packs will increase the number of completions, but inevitably there will still be property transactions that fall through. Therefore, instead of his figure of £1,000 for that, the cost will be £1,000 plus the cost of the home information pack. There may be a saving for some people, but there may also be a cost for a large number of people who do not sell their homes. There may be bills of £1,500 or £1,700.

What is the Government's latest estimate of what the pack will cost? Will there be any restriction on the charge, or does the Minister think that the market will end up providing a cost for the HIP? When one writes to an estate agent asking what percentage fee they will charge, will one also have to ask them how much they will charge for the HIP, or will that be part of the service? If a sale takes several months to complete and more copies of the pack have to be provided, will the additional costs be paid by the seller? In addition to the cost of the compilation of the original pack, there will be the extra cost of providing copies for potential buyers.

I want the Minister to provide more detail about the cost of the pack and the financial burden that will fall on the seller of the property because of the scheme. A number of my hon. Friends have pointed out that in the Bristol scheme the packs were not paid for. There has not been a scheme where people have had to pay. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings stated, if a property does not sell, the cost of trying to sell it has to be paid at some point. When does the Minister think it would be reasonable to pay for that—after one month, three months or six months? The Minister said that a voluntary scheme would not work, but we will have a voluntary scheme for six months, so he must think that that will not be successful. I want the Minister to fill in a few of the blanks that Committee members are interested in.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

We will come on to some of the issues that the hon. Gentleman raises in the natural course of events—if we ever reach our later debates. The £1,000 to which I have alluded is likely to include the cost of carrying out a medium or high-level survey on the property. The hon. Gentleman asks whether the cost will be £1,000 plus the cost of the home condition report. The answer to that is no, because the packs can be used to continue marketing the property. He asked in particular what we believe the cost of the home condition report will be. I am pleased to answer that question. I have it in my mind, but with the aid of this aide-memoire I shall be a little more precise.

We have estimated the costs of buying, selling and moving home with the home information pack system at current prices, based on a three-bedroomed semi-detached house in a provincial town with a selling price of £125,000. That could be out of date, because the buoyancy of our economy has increased house prices so extensively in what we metropolitan types refer to as the provinces. We reckon that the costs to other parties—estate agent's fees, removal fees and legal fees—would be around £4,100. The home information costs would be as follows. We estimate that the local authority search would cost £160, the water and drainage search £40 including VAT, the home condition report £363 including VAT, and the office copy entries £10. The total cost of the home information pack would be £550. Therefore the total cost for the seller would be some £4,673. Of course, the truth is that many of those costs would occur inevitably in any normal circumstances. A proportion

of sellers, as well as buyers, already carry out surveys themselves at a certain cost. The home condition report is likely to cost about £350, which is a small part of the overall costs that are already incurred in any transaction.

I shall allow the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) to reply after I complete my response to the original set of questions. It is good to be orderly in such matters. I have responded to his question on the compilation costs. He also asked about the cost of copies. As an ongoing proposition that would be an additional cost, although I cannot imagine that it would be colossal. Increasingly, we expect these matters to be dealt with electronically, which should further reduce the cost of such transactions. I look forward to debating that with my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney).

Robert Syms (Conservative, Poole)

Most costs in the housing market tend to be linked to the price of a property. For example, the estate agent's percentage fee tends to be based on the selling price, so it would be rather more for a £1 million property on the sea-front in Poole. Presumably, in terms of the home-seller pack, we are talking about a fixed cost that is not dependent on the price of a property, and the Minister would not expect someone to produce a more expensive pack for a more expensive property, or a cheaper pack for a cheaper property, because he is saying that the costs will be the same, irrespective of the value of the property.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

Yes, I think that that is right. The exercise carried out by the home condition inspector would be similar, irrespective of the size of the property. Therefore we expect that there will be a standard price. In the course of our exchanges, I hope to say more about how we expect various institutions to update and, indeed, market the home condition report. However, if the hon. Gentleman forgives me, I shall save that very good news until later.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I note a remarkable change in tone from the Minister this morning. He has changed from an agreeable and temperate figure to an intemperate and slightly prickly figure. He is unwilling to answer questions and even unhappy about taking interventions, which is out of character given the mood that has prevailed in the Committee thus far. He has changed from Max Bygraves to Mack the Knife. The reason is that the Minister is sensitive to the points that have been raised by a variety of Committee members about the effectiveness and wisdom of the compulsion that lies behind the Government's proposals.

Four or five points that have emerged from the debate need amplifying. The Minister has failed to give a credible answer to any of them. What are the specifics of searches? He talks about survey information based on Bristol, but there was concern about those properties that require specific searches that do not lie within the purview of the packs as proposed.

In earlier sittings, we heard from the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) about the complexities that are associated with particular properties in certain areas. He spoke about properties that have a variety of land ownership, but equally

there could be issues about subsidence, or other local topological factors, that will not be covered by a standard search and will necessitate a further survey. The Minister will remember that coal mining searches, planning and flooding searches and Cornish tin mining searches were dealt with in the Government's consultation, and that mixed feelings were expressed in the survey data about whether such information should be excluded from or included in the standard searches.

In addition, the Minister has been unclear about payment. I am not happy with his suggestion that payment will be left until the end of the process, although he seems unsure about what will happen if the house does not sell. We should bear it in mind that the basis of his argument for the packs is that transactions fail—he claims between 40 per cent. and 70 per cent. of the time—largely due to unreliable or unhappy information provided by surveys, whether they are building society or private surveys. However, that is not borne out by the facts.

As the National Association of Estate Agents points out:

''The Government's own research has revealed that only 13 per cent. of aborted transactions are caused by a bad survey.''

I hear hilarity from the Labour Benches on quoting that figure, as if estate agents cannot be trusted—[Laughter.] In fact, to give the hon. Member for Stafford chapter and verse, it was the Government's document, ''Key research on easier home buying and selling'', published in 1998, that first said that only 13 per cent. of aborted purchases were caused by a bad survey. That figure was merely repeated by the estate agents and made available to the Committee. It seems that some Committee members may not have spotted that that was a Government figure. We have therefore moved from Government research suggesting that 13 per cent. of purchases fail because of a bad survey, to a claim with an unconvincing lack of precision that something between 40 per cent. and 70 per cent. of purchases fail because of survey information.

The truth is that the Government's own research suggests that failed sales result from the following: in 11 per cent. of cases, a change of financial circumstances; in 8 per cent. of cases, the inability to get a mortgage; in 8 per cent. of cases, the inability to sell another house in the chain; and in 14 per cent. of cases, a buyer deciding that a new home was too large or too small. There is not a proposal from Ministers that there should be compulsion about the size of homes and the nature of people's choices, but we are told that there must be compulsion about these unwanted and unneeded packs.

The truth is that we not know who will pay in the event of a sale that does not complete through no fault of the seller despite the fact that they have had to buy one of these packs, nor do we know what the final price of the pack will be. We have received useful information from the Minister about an estimated cost of £550, but we have not received any assurances about a cap or exemptions for low demand areas. I am mindful of the Government's own research on that.

Again there was mixed opinion and some local authorities representing low demand areas expressed profound concern about the effect that these packs might have as their price possibly—or probably—escalates.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

One of the most illuminating things that the Minister said was that he expected the price of the pack to be about the same regardless of the value of the house and the income of the people involved. It is strange that a Labour Government are imposing a flat charge on people regardless of their financial circumstances.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

Revealingly, in a desperate bid to appeal to the consensus that is beginning to emerge in the Committee, the Minister said that he had conservative tendencies. On the basis of that bold claim, he was trying to persuade Conservative Members to join him in supporting the packs.

However, as the hon. Member for Ludlow said, the Minister did not say that the packs would affect some areas more significantly than others. He did not say that there would be flexibility in their introduction to take account of the views of local authorities and many people who believe that they will have a disproportionate impact in low demand areas. When he described the trial period, he did not say precisely where and how that trial would be conducted. There is phasing by another name: under my prodding and poking, the Minister finally admitted that there will be a degree of phasing in the trial. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire said, we do not know whether it will be a free-of-charge trial, like the Bristol experiment, or a full price trial. We also do not know whether it will apply in a particular part of the country, or whether any account will be taken of the value of properties—whether it will cover a range of types of property or whether it will be limited. We are uncertain about the trial and the phasing—and I suspect that the Minister is also uncertain about that, as he is about so much of what he said today.

We do not know when people will pay. There will be no cap on charges, no exclusions for particular areas of the country, and there are no specifics about which searches will be included and which will not in respect of properties about which additional information is needed. There are also no details about the basis on which this scheme is propounded. The idea behind it is flawed, because the argument that most transactions fail because of the survey is baseless according to the Government's own facts and figures. For all those reasons, it would be much better if the scheme were introduced on a voluntary basis.

I acknowledge that a voluntary scheme would require Government support and encouragement; all the ability and majesty of this Minister and this Administration would be required to bring together the partners who would be needed to make the scheme as effective as it could be. Ultimately, however, it would rely on the demand of ordinary people who believe that this kind of measure would be useful for them. The Government do not have confidence that

that demand exists. The Minister made that as plain as one could ever want when he said that the Law Society scheme failed because, when push came to shove, people did not want to pay. That was the most revealing of all of this morning's revelations about the Government's lack of faith in people's desire for these packs. Their desire is plentiful when they do not have to pay, as in Bristol; but as soon as they have to stump up, they seem to become less keen on the packs. That happens as soon as they start to realise that there is real commitment. In the Minister's eyes, the only way to make them understand that is to force them to have one.

That is not a tenable policy, and the argument has not been persuasive. The Minister knows that, which is why, like a cornered creature, he is striking out with uncharacteristic—and, although it really pains me to say it, slightly unappealing—intemperance. I know that the Minister will quickly return to being the kindly, wise and generous figure that we all know he is, but I suspect that he will not do so until we have made the amendment. So, in his personal interests, it is the duty of every member of the Committee to allow him to return to his natural character and step out of the unconvincing role that he has been playing. That role was forced upon him by the obligation to propose a policy that he knows to be deeply flawed.

I believe that it is absolutely necessary to press the matter to a Division.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes 10.

Robert Syms (Conservative, Poole)

I beg to move amendment No. 405, in

clause 127, page 86, line 21, after 'control', insert

', seven working days after the property was first put on the market'.

Derek Conway (Conservative, Old Bexley and Sidcup)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:

No. 406, in

clause 127, page 86, line 22, at end insert

'within a permitted period of 14 days of the property being placed on the market'.

No. 408, in

clause 130, page 88, line 19, after 'behalf,', insert

'within a permitted period of 14 days of the property being placed on the market'.

No. 409, in

clause 133, page 89, line 19, at end insert—

'(c) the core elements of the pack which must be made available before any marketing of a residential property may take place'.

Robert Syms (Conservative, Poole)

We have to some extent debated the principle of the pack, and the amendments are about our concerns on its operation. A number of issues have been raised by the Council of Mortgage Lenders and by estate agents about the fact that the pack needs to be produced on day one of the marketing of a property. Through our imperfectly phrased amendments, which refer both to seven days and to 14 days, we want to engender a debate on whether that is necessary, or whether the property could be marketed for at least a week or two while the pack is being compiled.

It is fairly unusual for someone to walk into an estate agent's and make an offer on a property in a day; most people would ask for the estate agent's details and then arrange to visit the property. That could take perhaps a week. If they were serious about a property, they might look at it again. The seller's pack or home information pack could well be produced at that point, when the buyer could look at it in more detail while considering whether the property was for them, whether they could raise the finance, and all the pros and cons.

It would be sensible, and it would make the process flexible, if there were a little leeway about the period between the marketing of the property and the producing of the pack. If the pack were produced within seven or 14 days of marketing, it is still likely that someone who was serious about a property would have sight of the pack before they made a firm offer. I do not think that what we are proposing is inconsistent with the Government's aims and objectives; they want a pack to be produced. The amendments would allow a little flexibility in the operation, and would allow the property to get on the market a little quicker and be there a little longer. There have been a number of consultations on home information packs. Many people have made it clear to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister that there should be a little leeway so that a property can be marketed earlier, avoiding the wait.

There has been constant reference to the shortage of surveyors. It is thought that we need several thousand more surveyors, depending on whether one takes the figures from the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors or from the Government. Some courses last 12 months; even if there were a six-month running-in period, there is doubt as to whether there would be sufficient surveyors to provide the home condition reports by the time that we start the scheme. We may find that estate agents and people marketing properties will be desperate for surveyors and that there will be a backlog. To allow a little bit of leeway into the process would make it work a lot better. If the Government are determined that properties should not go on the market without a home information pack from day one, they might find that there will be a backlog of properties without home information packs waiting to

go on the market for a week or two, or even longer, because of the shortage of surveyors and the problems of compiling packs that quickly.

Derek Conway (Conservative, Old Bexley and Sidcup)

Before I call another Committee member, I should say that the debate on the first group of amendments was pretty wide ranging on the principle of the clause. Therefore I intend to ensure that the Committee sticks strictly to the terms of the amendments that it considers.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

In a sense, the amendments highlight one of the difficulties that the Government have got themselves into: many people, as the hon. Member for Poole has said, have asked for a degree of leeway, and that would appear to be common sense. However, allowing leeway, of seven days or 14, would slow some sales down. The Minister looked askance when I referred to my house purchase of 18 months ago. I was telephoned by the estate agent before the property had been advertised, because the person had approached them. I phoned my sister, who is an architect. I went to see the property that afternoon. My sister gave it the once-over and told me that it was not going to fall down. The property was more than 250 years old. A home condition report could have said that the building was old and had a few cracks—such buildings do have cracks, but they have stayed up for 250 years. I offered the asking price there and then, and the solicitors exchanged letters the next day. There was only any delay because of searches, and that was only for a couple of weeks.

That sale would have been slowed down had the seller been allowed a couple of weeks to produce the pack. There would have been unnecessary cost, although we will not go over that again. The Minister will say that that is a really rare example of a quick sale, but the fact is that the packs will have a slowing effect. Such packs would either have to be produced before a property was put on the market, or—under the pragmatic Conservative amendments—some discretionary time would have to be allowed to produce them. Either way, some sales—I will not start quoting percentages; I just have my own personal experience—would be slowed down by the Government's approach.

David Kidney (Labour, Stafford)

The hon. Member for Poole used the word ''leeway''. I want to probe the Minister on the issue of leeway. I was not on the Standing Committee on the Homes Bill in the last Parliament, but a helpful briefing from the Library states that the Minister—on that occasion, my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford)—told that Committee that it would be possible to market a property with a pack explaining that the searches would be included as soon as they were available. That suggests that the pack would not be complete but that the property would nevertheless be marketed by the estate agent. That was quite an interesting concession. That was 18 January 2001 during the debate on clause 156. I just wonder what that means. A number of pieces of paper

may be missing and yet the pack may still be called a pack and the property can be advertised for sale. Some guidance on that would be useful for estate agents, who are nervous about losing impulse buyers such as the hon. Member for Ludlow. Perhaps the Minister could help a little—now or at a later stage—by clarifying that point.

Sir Sydney Chapman (Conservative, Chipping Barnet)

You will have noted, Mr. Conway, that my name is not attached to any of the amendments in the group, which were tabled by my hon. Friends. That is an oversight on my part. Therefore, I rise to support my hon. Friends in those amendments. I do so for one principal reason: if this newfangled scheme comes into operation, flexibility is one of the most important aspects that we must seek to include.

Earlier, in a comment on an amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Ludlow, I said that I resisted it because I felt that it was important that if someone had decided to put their home on the market, before doing so they should be allowed to draw up a home information pack. His amendment might have ruled that out.

I want to look at the other end of the telescope. There is a need for the amendment under discussion and I will give one specific example why. It might be that for financial reasons, someone has to put his home on the market hurriedly—he might have had to change job immediately and move from one part of the country to another. It is common sense that that person should be able to put his home on the market as soon as possible and have time to draw up the home information pack. If I disagreed with the amendments tabled by my hon. Friends in any aspect, it would be in order to introduce even greater flexibility and to say that before the seller agreed to a sale the home information pack should be produced, rather than just allowing seven or 14 days, as suggested in those amendments.

A range of conditions comes into play when a property is put on the market. I am fascinated by the statistics that have been quoted about how many transactions fall through. I think that many more fall through than the Minister suggested, in the sense that if it is a seller's market, sometimes that awful word ''gazumping'' can come into play. Gazumping can cause a transaction to fail. If it is a buyer's market, it is even more likely that there will be false cases, because the buyer will try to drive down the price—if one puts a property on the market for £150,000 in a buyer's market, an offer will probably be made for £130,000 or £140,000. That is the sort of technicolour spectrum that operates when properties are put on the market. I earnestly implore the Minister to ensure that if this scheme is enacted, flexibility is the watchword, and that he understands—I know that with his vast experience of these matters, he does—that he should leave the provisions as flexible as possible in order to cater for a very expansive market.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

My hon. Friends have both made convincing arguments for those amendments, and I do not want to repeat what they have said. The hon.

Member for Stafford made an interesting observation about earlier comments made by the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich about flexibility. I should have thought—but I will stand corrected if the Minister can give me chapter and verse as to why not—that the Bill makes that impossible. The Bill is very specific about the requirement for the packs when a house comes to market. We had a long debate about that issue in an earlier sitting—specifically about how one defined ''marketing'', and at what stage and in what circumstances it could be deemed to be taking place.

Given that the Minister resisted amendments that were designed to provide the flexibility that the hon. Member for Stafford properly brought to our attention, I would be amazed if the Minister could persuade me that any such flexibility were consistent with the other provisions in the Bill.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

Fine. Let me go into extra nice mode, given that for whatever reason my style seems to be jarring with the Opposition this morning. I have been extraordinarily reasonable and self-restrained. Neither this morning nor at any stage in our proceedings have I attacked estate agents. I have heard mutterings. They are a tempting target. After all, all the surveys show that they are even less popular than we are, so if there were one group of people that it is tempting to put the boot into, it might be estate agents, but that is absolutely not my intention.

Opposition Members have made their points in a reasonable fashion. It seems that the core of our exchanges has been whether there is flexibility for a delay in the provision of the home information pack. The answer is yes, there is flexibility. We shall debate that when we deal with clause 133(9), which allows time when a component needs to be in the home information pack on reasonable grounds. However, we have also had exchanges on the subject of quick sales. The hon. Member for Ludlow waxed lyrical in his usual fascinating, anecdotal fashion about life in Ludlow and his experiences there, but the penalty of anecdote is self-revelation. We have now discovered that the hon. Gentleman's sister is an architect. I was delighted to hear that, but it was interesting to discover that his experience of a quick sale seems to have been based on the availability of an architect to do a quick once-over. That is not a privilege of which others—some of us from less modest backgrounds—can avail ourselves, so it is potentially a weakness in his argument. Nevertheless, quick sales are an important issue and they are often mentioned in such debates.

Our starting point for debating amendments Nos. 405, 406 and 408 should be a clear acknowledgment of the deficiencies of the current system. The amendments would perpetuate those deficiencies by allowing marketing to start without a home information pack. That is diametrically opposed to the Bill's purpose. We have had a lot of to-ing and fro-ing on consumer attitudes. Our research shows that 40 per cent. of consumers are dissatisfied with the current system. Two more recent surveys conducted by the

Consumers Association and the Yorkshire bank show a dissatisfaction rate of 80 per cent. The Government are entirely clear that, on the basis of those levels of consumer dissatisfaction, action must be taken to improve the situation.

One of the principal causes for dissatisfaction is the lack of up-front information that is available to sellers and buyers. The lack of transparency at the start of the process is a primary cause of uncertainty, failed transactions and wasted costs. It is our intention under clauses 127, 128 and 133 to put that right.

Edward Davey (Liberal Democrat, Kingston and Surbiton)

Will the Minister give way?

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I am delighted to see the hon. Gentleman in the Room. I know that he has many commitments. We forgive him for his late arrival and, to celebrate his appearance in Committee, of course I will give way.

Edward Davey (Liberal Democrat, Kingston and Surbiton)

I am so grateful to the Minister for giving way in his usual courteous and generous manner. He is talking about people's dissatisfaction with the current system. Will he pledge to review this policy if after, let us say, two years with the new system he asks his officials to undertake a survey and they find similar or greater levels of dissatisfaction?

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

Of course we monitor the effects of our policy; any sensible Government would do that. We will be looking at the market carefully. If we have clear evidence that this policy has failed we would expect in due course to rescind the legislation. Every Government must take that commitment on board. I take it on board in this case, because I have every confidence that this will prove to be a highly successful policy.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

There are some points that require clarification. The Minister is now talking about 40 to 80 per cent. of people who are not satisfied with how the current system works. First, is that the same group that he claimed earlier withdrew from sales because of a bad survey? He provided no authoritative source for that claim. Secondly, given that he has acknowledged that there is going to be a lead-in, trial or phased approach—I defer to his terminology—can we assume that there will be some analysis of the effect of these packs during or after the trial, so that the full implementation can be adjusted accordingly? If, as the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) suggests, there is no significant change in the level of satisfaction, or no change in the pattern of failure in terms of sales after the six-month period, the Government might want to rethink.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

Let me be extremely nice and say that I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman has got the wrong end of the stick with regard to my remarks about the lead-in period. I reiterate what I said. I have the words in front of me—I put it on the record. We know that packs will be in place voluntarily for the six months leading up to statutory introduction. That is a form of trial, but it is not statutory. As the hon. Gentleman well knows from reading the Bill, the Government are not bringing in a statutory trialling period. Where that

form of trial is implemented voluntarily, there will be a useful period during which those responsible for operating the system will see how it works. The Government have no intention whatsoever of withdrawing their proposals on the basis of a voluntary experience in the six months leading up to the implementation of the system.

Mr. Hayes rose—

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, although I have been generous throughout the Committee in taking a number of interventions, we all have to be a trifle restrained about interventions; otherwise, the thread of the broader argument, which was introduced at the behest of the Opposition in their amendments, will be lost.

Let me return to amendments Nos. 405, 406 and 408, which assume that the time taken to compile a home investment pack would result in long delays in putting a property on the market. The evidence suggests otherwise. The Bristol pilot in 2000 demonstrated that, on average, the pack took less than 10 days to compile. With information technology, and other improvements in IT applications, the time scale is getting shorter.

It will probably benefit the Committee if I provide a couple of examples of the direct experience of the time taken to prepare the home information pack. Phil Irving, the managing director of TEAM Conveyancing, a company providing home information pack services to independent estate agencies, tells us that his business can already prepare and collate home information packs online with a service standard of just five working days. Ed Chamberlain of Chamberlains in Newton Abbot—an inveterate e-mailer of mine—runs a firm of estate agents and surveyors offering home information packs. He tells us that packs are prepared at the same time as the property particulars are prepared. The packs are then ready around the same time as the sales particulars are approved—that is around five working days.

I make no apology for once again referring to the saintly Maria Coleman of Bristol. She has written to the National Association of Estate Agents saying that it takes her business a minimum of three days and a maximum of five to compile a pack. She points out that during that time the sales details and photographs are prepared and submitted for the seller's approval. We are told that that is a standard practice prior to marketing, and is recommended by the NAEA. I should add that by 2007 the HIP compilation process will be faster still, thanks to the development of e-technology.

I ask the Committee, where is the evidence that HIPs will significantly delay marketing? In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and the call for flexibility from the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman), if, for some reason, items in the pack cannot be obtained within 14 days, we want to allow marketing to commence with an incomplete

pack. The missing item or items would be added as they became available. That issue arises later in clause 133, and I dare say that we shall look at that in more detail in due course.

Edward Davey (Liberal Democrat, Kingston and Surbiton)

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman. Once he has arrived, there is no stopping him.

Edward Davey (Liberal Democrat, Kingston and Surbiton)

I am mystified by what the Minister has said. I know that we will talk about this later, but perhaps he can share with us some initial thoughts. If the home information pack is incomplete but the property can still be marketed, can he explain how the trading standards officers will decide to enforce the law? What guidance will they have if two or three elements of the HIP are missing?

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

The hon. Gentleman raises a perfectly reasonable question. There will of course be guidance as well as training. Broadly speaking, we expect trading standards officers to enforce the provisions with a light touch. We expect them to exercise common sense, and we do not expect them to leap in where there is a reasonable and non-systematic example of failure. Common sense and reasonableness are likely to be the hallmark of the performance of trading standards inspectors.

Chris Mole (Labour, Ipswich)

Does the Minister agree that it would be good for trading standards departments around the country to go into partnership with estate agents in developing training, in the same way as those operating best practice did when the last round of legal changes affecting estate agents came into force? That experience proved that it was better that there was a common understanding between trading standards officers and estate agents about what they would be enforcing before the regulatory regime was fully implemented.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I think, if I may say so, that my hon. Friend makes an extremely reasonable point, and I take it seriously. In these, as in all matters, I am a great proponent of partnership working, and I would certainly expect that kind of partnership to be implemented in the lead-in to the new regime.

I am genuinely encouraged by the degree of coming together of all elements of the industry, including LACORS—Local Authorities Co-ordinators of Regulatory Services—which is already heavily involved in the process. My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I give him an assurance that we intend to pursue that line. We have firmly registered his point.

Somewhat predictably, we have had an exchange on the issues of speed, single-day sales and speculative transactions. Let me respond to the assertion that the new system may deter speculative sellers, and that they would be put off by the up-front cost of the pack. There is no hard evidence for that. Indeed, the experience of other areas and countries that have introduced home information packs—the two closest comparisons are New South Wales in Australia, and Denmark—show

that when similar schemes were introduced there is a negligible effect on the supply of property to the market.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

Will the Minister give way?

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I will not, because I need to develop that point first.

I see nothing to suggest that the situation would be any different for HIPs in England and Wales. Research carried out nationally by the country's largest estate agency chain, the Countrywide Assured Group plc, found that only 13 per cent. of sellers would not put their property on the market if they had to pay up-front costs for a pack. Countrywide observed a noticeable similarity between those people and timewasters—people who were not serious about selling. It is also worth pointing out that the industry does not expect sellers to have to pay up front. More expect all or some of the cost to be deferred until completion—a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts). We believe that that would remove any impediment to bringing homes on to the market.

The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings wanted to intervene.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I did indeed. The Minister will remember that New South Wales has about 100,000 sales a year, compared with the 1.5 million a year in the United Kingdom. New South Wales is the only state or territory in Australia to have introduced the packs, and in America and Canada, for example, they have been specifically excluded from consideration.

Closer to home, the Minister might want to comment on the Scottish Executive's view on the matter. I understand that they have concluded that a voluntary scheme of the type that we discussed under earlier amendments—I will not return to the subject for that reason—would be an altogether more appropriate way of moving forward. International research is at best questionable ground for the Minister to stand on.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

Would the hon. Gentleman enlighten the Committee as to why Canada and America have excluded the schemes, and what does ''excluded'' mean in this context?

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

Well, I am intervening on the Minister. I would be more than happy to brief him on the subject outside the Committee, but there are legal issues in America associated with the inability to introduce home information packs. Indeed, if the Minister wants me to give him chapter and verse on America and Canada, I have the information to hand. I will be more than happy to let him have it at the end of the sitting.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I am very grateful for that enlightenment. We have all learned a good deal from that exchange. New South Wales is only a part of Australia, but it is a significant part. It may be of interest to the Committee that Australia, notwithstanding its huge terrain, is the most urbanised society in the world: 95 per cent. of its population live in urban areas. To that extent, the experiences of home sales are highly

comparable—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman was not very good on Canada and America, and I will not easily give him the opportunity to wax on about another part of the world. The nature of the property market in our two countries is not very different. In the UK, most chains in home selling and buying are of a regional nature. Therefore, New South Wales provides a reasonable comparison. I do not suppose that the hon. Gentleman will want to dispute that although Denmark is a smaller country its essential demographic aspects are very similar to those of the UK.

Given the nature of amendments Nos. 405, 406 and 408, it appears that the hon. Member for Ludlow does not see the benefit of bringing together all the relevant information at the start of the process before marketing commences. I impress on him that compiling the pack need not take long and it is time well spent. I do not doubt that under the current system properties can be put on the market quickly and that in some cases a buyer can be found the very next day—especially if your sister happens to be an architect. However, that apparent speed can be illusory, as it is often followed by protracted negotiations while the legal aspects are sorted out, local searches are commissioned and the property is surveyed. Each of those can reveal problems that add to the delay, or lead to the collapse of the sale. The whole process is further complicated by chains.

Having the relevant information at the start of the process creates a number of benefits. The seller and agent can use the home information pack to assist in setting the asking price. For the first time, agents will be able to reflect the true condition of the property in their advice on the selling price. The pack will help the seller and their professional advisers to identify problems—for example, with the title—which can then be addressed swiftly before they become a risk to a successful sale.

Other benefits include more transparency, as buyers can make offers knowing the true condition of what they are buying. I do not think that the Committee will mind me mentioning again that savings will be evident; the £350 million wasted each year in aborted transactions will be reduced. Finally, streamlined conveyancing will be possible because the bulk of legal preparatory work will be carried out in the days before marketing rather than in the weeks—and sometimes months—after the offer has been accepted.

The benefits in terms of shortening the period from offer acceptance to exchange of contracts and of making the process more transparent should more than outweigh any slight delay to marketing while the packs are being put together. If we were to allow marketing even for a limited period without a pack, that would be similar to the current system in which buyers and sellers negotiate and make decisions without the benefit of knowing all the facts. As I have frequently had cause to observe, that is at the root of consumers' dissatisfaction with the current system.

I do not accept that a person who sees the home of their dreams and wants to market their own house immediately in order to buy that home will be worse

off under our proposals. That person's chances of getting the property would depend on the price that he offers and his ability to proceed. If other people are after the same property and are more ready to proceed—for example, cash buyers and people who are well advanced with the sale of their own home—the chances are not good. Instant marketing without a pack will not improve matters. Even if the person receives an acceptable offer on day one, the seller and agent of the home that he wants to buy will not rely on that offer. Why should they? The buyer will not have all the information needed about the property to commit himself. There will be a nearly 30 per cent. chance that the offer will not proceed to completion.

The reality is that our would-be buyer, as now, will need to make a realistic judgment of his ability to buy the home. His chances will be better if he markets his own home with full information up front, thereby significantly reducing the chances of a deal falling through later when information about title, searches and conditions comes to light.

I turn finally to amendment No. 409. As the Committee will doubtless recall, it seeks to create an obligation for the core elements of the pack to be available when marketing first takes place. Similar powers are already contained under clause 133. As I explained in the notes of policy intent, which I have made available to the Committee, our aim with the pack's contents is to strike a reasonable balance between comprehensiveness and cost. We propose to include in the pack only those documents that are relevant to the property for sale, that are of interest to potential buyers and that will help them to make important decisions. The proposed contents set out in our consultation paper provide information that, if not disclosed up front, could later threaten or delay the transaction. Our intention therefore is that all documents prescribed for inclusion in the pack will be core documents. In the light of those eminently reasonable explanations, I urge the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings to withdraw his amendment.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

It is important to nail down the issue of international comparisons. The Minister chided me about my reference to America. He will know that it is illegal in America for financial institutions to own estate agents. Indeed, it is illegal for estate agents to have a direct commercial relationship with surveyors. Neither of those points are true in this country. The reason why the American system effectively prohibits the process that is necessary to deliver the packs is therefore clear. There are 80,000 sales per year in Denmark and up to 90 per cent. of properties in that country were built in the 20th century, whereas this country has the oldest housing stock in the European Union.

Edward Davey (Liberal Democrat, Kingston and Surbiton)

The hon. Gentleman made a very important point when he described the system in the United States of America. It gives a real warning to this country about our regulations. The vertical

integration with the lenders, the estate agents and the surveyors is dangerous to consumer interests. Does he not think that major conflicts of interest will cause huge problems down the line?

Mr. Hayes rose—

Derek Conway (Conservative, Old Bexley and Sidcup)

Order. Before the hon. Gentleman is tempted down that route, I am sure that he will be sticking to the group of amendments.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

And that is one of the many reasons why the amendments are so pertinent. The delay that they would bring—the pause for thought—was admirably advocated by the hon. Member for Stafford, who made his argument crisply and with real passion. I should be surprised if he did not vote in favour of the amendment because that would be a piece of hypocrisy of which he would never be guilty. We know that we have at least one vote from the Labour Benches. [Interruption.] Far be it from me to be unkind to the hon. Gentleman.

The Government's resistance to the amendments is based, as the Minister described, on international data, relying on one trip to Denmark and a desktop analysis. That is the truth of it. I do not believe that the Minister or his officials went to the United States and made extensive studies of the issues that the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton mentioned. I do not believe that the Minister has been—much as he might have liked to—to New South Wales and discussed those issues in great detail.

Therefore, we have Denmark cast before us in this Committee in an unconvincing effort to persuade us that the amendments are not wise. Yet Denmark, by comparison with the United Kingdom, is a tiny market, in which the nature and condition of housing are very unlike our own. New South Wales—a far-off place, the people of which we know little—is offered as the other prime example. Yet we also know that the Minister and his team have not been there to examine the implications of adopting its system in this country. Bluntly, the international comparisons—[interruption.] The Minister is, perhaps, learning that some of his officials have been there. We do not know whether they have or not. Frankly, Denmark and New South Wales are not impressive references for this kind of policy.

The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton is right about the United States. The amendment would at least provide some opportunity for those obliged to produce the packs to have the necessary time to do so in a way that is professional and conducive to the Government's intentions. Despite the Minister's bold claims that the packs will all be produced in double-quick time—he draws on the Bristol experience, which he speaks about rather as one might speak about Mother Theresa—the truth of the matter is that many in the industry doubt its ability to produce the packs on a universal basis with anything like the speed that he suggests. Such a delay will damage the market, as

sales of properties are held up, the market is stalled and fewer properties are available for potential purchasers. The whole picture is one of potential chaos.

The trial period—which we now hear is not a trial—will not help us to inform the process at all. As the Minister said, it will be a six-month run-in, but at the end of that period the Government will not make any adjustments or changes to the proposals because they will already be on the statute book. Therefore, the trial is not a trial of any reasonable kind that will help to inform the policy; it is simply a desperate bid by the Minister to try to introduce the policy with some degree of coherence. I suspect that it will be incoherent and unworkable, as many in the industry are telling us and I am sure are also telling him.

Before the Minister tries me about America and Canada, he ought to examine their experience more closely. I think that the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton made a point that the Minister should listen to very carefully. There are real dangers in the proposals, and it would be advisable for him to support our amendments so that the dangers can, to some degree, be averted.

Robert Syms (Conservative, Poole)

I think that we have made a little progress today. The Minister's comment that he would expect trading standards officers to use a light touch is welcome, as is the suggestion that if not every item in the pack were compiled from day one there would have to be some degree of flexibility. I suspect that the one item in the pack that will take some time to compile will be the home condition report. That requires someone to get in their car, drive to a property, get access to it, look at the roof and all the other bits and pieces, compile the report and send it in. Having spent a lifetime in the building industry before politics, I know that trying to get hold of people to do things when one wants to do them is not necessarily an easy thing. Therefore, the amendments that we tabled were framed, in the most helpful fashion, to leave a small degree of leeway. I do not see any great problem in having a week or two weeks to get to the point where a pack must be finalised.

The Minister generously set out his example of the cost of a pack, which came to £573. Today he has been praying in aid all the saintly estate agents who have been telling him that they could provide a pack in three or five days, but nowhere in his figures or comments has there been any assessment of estate agents' administrative costs. Someone will have to chase several documents and sit in the office putting the packs together. It is unrealistic to assume that that will be a loss-leader for estate agents and that they will not charge anything for doing it. There will be a lot of people sitting in estate agents' offices producing that information.

There is bound to be some administrative cost. The Minister has not mentioned that. When he prays in aid various saintly people in Downend or Bristol, it might also be appropriate to make some assumption about what it would cost an estate agent.

Sir Sydney Chapman (Conservative, Chipping Barnet)

We are coming to an amendment relating to energy efficiency. Am I not right in saying that the home information pack will, under a EU directive, have to contain an energy efficiency report?

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

Yes.

Sir Sydney Chapman (Conservative, Chipping Barnet)

Does that obtain now? I think not. I do not think that there is a requirement to have an energy efficiency report before a house is sold. Additional obligations will be put on the person who provides the home information pack.

Robert Syms (Conservative, Poole)

My hon. Friend raises a good point. We are talking about implementation in 2007, which is the latest date that the Minister gave. Of course we have to comply with the European directive that we have signed up to.

As the Minister has regained a rather more congenial faccade and has been not unreasonable in responding to our group of amendments, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Edward Davey (Liberal Democrat, Kingston and Surbiton)

I beg to move amendment No. 345, in

clause 127, page 86, line 21, leave out 'home information pack,' insert 'energy efficiency report'.

The amendment is a classic. It would remove the duty to have a home information pack and replace it with a duty for energy efficiency. The energy efficiency report would be needed to comply with the directive that the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet mentioned. This is also a probing amendment. Although we shall deal with this point in more detail in discussing clause 133 when we debate the contents of the home information pack, the amendment is relevant because it gives the Government the chance to get out of the mess that they have got themselves into and still comply with the directive.

There is probably cross-party agreement that the general policy on energy efficiency is the way to go. We have our Kyoto obligations on limiting CO2 emissions and in the House there is cross-party commitment to tackling fuel poverty. It is a good thing to try to ensure that the energy efficiency of homes is improved as they are bought and sold. There are a number of tools that we can use to do that, whether through building regulations or tax incentives. It is a good idea to ensure that the energy efficiency performance of homes is assessed on sale.

The EU directive 2002/91/EC on the energy performance of buildings is welcome, but its relationship to this part of the Bill, and to home information packs generally, is very interesting. Those people who have been engaged with the Government at ministerial and official levels over the past few months and years have defeated all the Government's arguments in this area one by one and explained the Government's shoddy thinking, but they have been left with the impression that the Government are going to go ahead with this measure simply to comply with the EU directive on energy efficiency. Their arguments on gazumping and speeding up the process have been

dealt with and all the arguments for introducing home information packs have been completely defeated, but it is impossible to defeat the argument that the directive must be transposed into national law—it does and there is no dispute about that. Therefore we shall try to help the Government. They can get rid of all the nonsense stuff that has no justification, and keep to the hidden purpose of part 5, namely complying with the EU directive.

There are two ways in which we could comply with the directive. We could follow the route of the amendment, so that the energy performance certificate would have to be obtained prior to marketing. That is the second-best way but it follows Government thinking, which is why, in the spirit of compromise, I am probing in that direction. The best way would be to put this duty on the seller prior to sale, as opposed to prior to marketing. Such an obligation prior to sale would comply with article 7 of the 2002 directive, meet the environmental tests and objectives that we are trying to pursue, and meet the Government's international obligations. I therefore tabled the amendment not because it is the perfect solution but because it is something that the Government could take on board as they try to meet their obligations without damaging the wider housing market.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I understand the spirit in which the hon. Gentleman has moved his amendment, although I dispute his generalised assertion that as discussion with operators has gone on, they have succeeded in dispelling all the Government's arguments in favour of HIPs. His party appears to have reluctantly decided on the voluntary arrangement now that the HIP is on the table, but I did not hear his party calling for its voluntary introduction before the Government made their proposals. Can he explain how the industry has proposed to resolve the problem of the rather lengthy time it takes to buy and sell a house in the UK?

As part and parcel of our international research, we looked at seven reasonably comparable countries, and we found that the average time from offer to completion was seven weeks, compared with an average of 12 weeks in England and Wales. Only France was slower, where it took between six and 16 weeks. The truth is that in England and Wales we have a slow process. On behalf of the consumer, it seems a not unreasonable intention to speed up that process.

Matthew Green rose—

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I suppose since I have set this hare running, even though it was in response to a point raised by the hon. Gentleman, I had better give way.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

The only times that constituents have come to my surgery to complain about the speed of buying a house is when the problem has been with the slowness of certain firms of solicitors. There has never been a problem with other areas; it has been the practice of solicitors' firms of not getting on with the job, and there is nothing in the Bill that would speed that up.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

Well, there is. The searches, which solicitors engage in, will be available up front by means of the home information pack. That information will not be subject to delays in the process after offers have been made; it will be available to the buyer from the word go. Much as I love the hon. Gentleman's constituency—it is beautiful, and Ludlow is an exquisite town—he cannot always generalise from the Ludlow experience. Ludlow, ce n'est pas le monde, although of course we always enjoy his anecdotal references.

Let us be entirely clear about the purposes of the amendment. It would replace the requirement to provide a home information pack with a duty to provide an energy report only. I am certain that the Committee will be aware of the effect of EU directive 2002/91/EC of 16 December 2002 on the energy performance of buildings, which came into force on 4 January 2002. I have the document in front of me; it makes a fascinating read. I am most grateful to the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton for encouraging me to go through it. Its purposes are excellent, and member states have three years to implement its provisions, although the period can be extended if, for example, there are not enough trained people to carry out inspections.

Article 7 of the directive requires that

''Member States shall ensure that, when buildings are constructed, sold or rented out, an energy performance certificate is made available to the owner or by the owner to the prospective buyer or tenant, as the case might be.''

The article provides that

''The energy performance certificate for buildings shall include reference values such as current legal standards and benchmarks in order to make it possible for consumers to compare and assess the energy performance of the building. The certificate shall be accompanied by recommendations for the cost-effective improvement of the energy performance.''

So far, so good. Where homes are marketed for sale with a home information pack, the directive will be implemented in relation to most residential property sales by including in the pack an energy report that complies with those requirements.

Edward Davey (Liberal Democrat, Kingston and Surbiton)

Will the Minister give way?

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

Just let me pursue my thought. It is our contention that there will be considerable cost benefits, too. The energy report will be considerably cheaper if it is provided as part of the home condition report. Potential buyers will have the added bonus of a valuable and useful report on the condition of the home that they are considering buying, as well as important information on its energy efficiency. We are all in favour of incorporating another excellent initiative by the European Community. I share the hon. Gentleman's passion for the measure, but the measure is not in itself sufficient to meet the assurances that consumers demand with regard to the home buying process.

Edward Davey (Liberal Democrat, Kingston and Surbiton)

I have just a gentle question. The Minister has read out article 7.1. How do the Government intend to implement the energy performance certificate requirements with respect to the rented sector?

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

That, of course, is not germane to our debate. I suspect that responsibility for the implementation of those measures does not even lie with my Department, although I am of course perfectly willing to answer on the issue. [Interruption.] Of course I read from the directive. The measures are in the directive. That does not mean that we are debating the application of the measures to the rented sector at this stage. Let me recall the hon. Gentleman to the purposes of our debate. We are discussing the implementation of the home information packs, of which the energy certificate will be an essential part. We welcome that, but my point is that it is not enough in its own right.

Edward Davey (Liberal Democrat, Kingston and Surbiton)

I am trying to be helpful, because by the time I have finished a message will have reached the Minister. He says that the matter may not be his responsibility, but the Bill lays quite heavy regulation on the rental sector. Do the Government think that, in order to comply with that part article 7.1, additions to parts 1, 2, 3 or whatever are needed?

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I am not sure that we are necessarily making provisions along those lines, but we might be. However, the Committee will be delighted to learn that inspiration has now winged its way to me. The application of the directive to the rental sector is under consideration and options are being considered. That might be implemented through secondary legislation.

The hon. Gentleman cannot distract us from the inadequacies of the amendment. There is no doubt that the provision of energy efficiency information in the home information pack will bring the benefit of raising public awareness of this subject, and that it has the potential to make a major contribution to improving the nation's housing stock. However, it cannot on its own solve the problems of the home buying and selling process. They will only be tackled if there is a full pack with all the information required for buyers to take informed decisions. An energy efficiency report is not a substitute for the home information pack. I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman really thinks that it would provide the range of information that a buyer reasonably requires to make a judgment about the condition of a property and, in the light of my explanations, I trust that he will withdraw the amendment.

Edward Davey (Liberal Democrat, Kingston and Surbiton)

That was a more interesting debate than I had expected. I look forward to the Minister telling me later where to find the consultation paper on the application of the relevant part of paragraph 1 of article 7 of the 2002 directive. If the matter is under such active consideration, something must have been published for private landlords to be consulted about and for this House to contribute to.

I turn to the meat of the amendment. The Minister tried to knock it aside by saying that it did not deal with the problems in the house purchasing market. I am afraid he misses the point. We believe that his solution to those problems is not the right one. As he knows, things are happening, particularly in the application of information technology and to home purchase—for local authority searches and in e-conveyancing, for example. Such a use of technology is the best way to speed up the process, as are schemes such as the Law Society's TransAction scheme. Those schemes are working.

When the Minister complains about the British system, he always forgets to use one adjective. The British system is cheap—the cheapest in the world. However, it will rocket up the table after the measure is introduced. Costs will escalate, and ours will no longer be the cheapest system in the world by the time that the Government have got their way.

Chris Ruane (Labour, Vale of Clwyd)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Edward Davey (Liberal Democrat, Kingston and Surbiton)

I will do so in a moment. If the Government had at least waited to see whether the new applications of information technology dealt with the timing issues, they might have had the best of both worlds—a cheaper and a quicker system. Their approach will end up with us having one of the more expensive systems.

Chris Ruane (Labour, Vale of Clwyd)

Is the hon. Gentleman equating the cheapest with the best?

Edward Davey (Liberal Democrat, Kingston and Surbiton)

No. I was just trying to give a broader picture than the one that the Minister provided. The Minister always looks at the bad side and never at the good side. In the interest of balance, I wanted to make sure that the Committee had the full facts, and not just a very partial rendition of them.

I do not wish to press the amendment to a Division now, because I think that we will return to the issue in greater depth and we may get more answers from Ministers then. I am grateful to the Minister for at least having a go at defending his position. It will be for others to judge whether he did so well. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

David Kidney (Labour, Stafford)

I beg to move amendment No. 373, in

clause 127, page 86, line 29, at end insert—

'(3) A person has a home information pack under his control for the purposes of subsection (1) of this section if he has the ability to access an electronic version of the information required to be assembled in a home information pack, whether on the internet or otherwise, which shall hereafter be referred to as an ''electronic home information pack''.

(4) References in this Act to a ''document'' shall include reference to an electronic document unless the contrary is required by the Act and references in this Act to providing information shall include the making available of information in an electronic form unless the contrary is required.'.

Derek Conway (Conservative, Old Bexley and Sidcup)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 374, in

clause 128, page 87, line 1, after 'document' add

'or makes such a document available electronically'.

No. 375, in

clause 128, page 87, line 26, at the beginning insert

'Save where the seller makes available an electronic home information pack,'.

No. 376, in

clause 128, page 87, line 34, leave out subsection 9 and insert—

'(9) A person shall be entitled to comply with the duty under subsection (1) by providing access to an electronic home information pack unless he reasonably believes that the prospective buyer is unable to access information in that form.'.

David Kidney (Labour, Stafford)

It is evident that the Minister has been looking forward to the debate on these amendments all morning. They are about an electronic home information pack, about which the Minister is enthusiastic because the Government are very supportive of developments in new technology—in e-governance and e-commerce, for example. The Government are also trying to improve access to e-technology, such as broadband, across the country. My right hon. Friend has mentioned many times before this debate specific advances in elements of home buying and selling that will benefit from electronic advances, such as online local government searches and mortgage lenders dealing with applications online. Most recently, the Land Registration Act 2002 dealt with Land Registry transactions online. Naturally, my right hon. Friend is enthusiastic about such matters.

We must ask whether a specific amendment is needed to make it clear that a home information pack can be entirely in electronic form. I suspect that my right hon. Friend will say that enough has been done under the Bill for that not to be needed, but I do not think that he has done quite enough. Under clause 128(9), a document may not be given to a buyer electronically without the buyer's consent. Clause 144 sets out the interpretations of part 5 and subsection (3) of the clause refers to a document that is not in electronic form, while subsection (4) refers to a

''document held in electronic form is to be regarded for the purposes of this Part as being in a person's possession or under his control''

in the circumstances set out in the subsection.

There are references in the Bill to the facility to use documents electronically, but it is definitely not clear that there may be an electronic home information pack. My right hon. Friend the Minister appreciates why that would be a good thing: less paper would be used, the system would be easier to update as more information comes in, and it would be less of a burden and therefore cheaper. There would be no need to charge for copies of documents, and it would be easier for the buyer to share the information with the mortgage lender, the solicitor and the surveyor. When the Select Committee considered the draft Bill, it commented at paragraphs 156 and 159 about electronic advances, the form of which was about how good it would be if sellers and buyers could view the transaction's progress online. Paragraph 159 asked the Government to consider financial incentives to local authorities to improve their ability to give search results online.

Sir Sydney Chapman (Conservative, Chipping Barnet)

I confess that what I have to say is born from complete ignorance. I may not be of prehistoric age, but I am certainly of pre-electronic age. I do not understand how the system works. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that, providing the information electronically would mean that the seller need not physically give a home information pack to a prospective buyer? If so, is there no obligation on the many people who are not as skilled at using this internet—or whatever it is called—as the hon. Gentleman is, to be given a copy if one can be printed off from the electronic device? The majority of people do not understand how to use the internet. There may not be the case by 2007—God knows where I will be then—but I am making a serious point.

David Kidney (Labour, Stafford)

It certainly is a serious point. Amendment No. 376 touches on that precise issue. I shall explain how the system works. Before I was elected to Parliament, I was a solicitor. To make a search, I had to fill in a form, send it to the local authority, and wait as it passed around various departments; I received it back about two weeks later. I have been told that it is now possible to send a search electronically to an authority in Northamptonshire and to receive the result 12 minutes later. That is an incredible improvement in performance. The same information is provided through electronic means as would have been on the pieces of paper that were returned to me after two weeks.

Edward Davey (Liberal Democrat, Kingston and Surbiton)

That is an interesting example. Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that that process was carried out without a home information pack?

David Kidney (Labour, Stafford)

I find odd the Liberal Democrat idea that everything but the process of buying and selling houses should improve. The faster everything comes in, the more important it is that such information is available to the buyer before the process starts. The ridiculous arguments that occur when someone discovers halfway through the transaction that something is wrong with the property and wants the price adjusted will become completely ''dinosauric''. The fact that everything can be assembled very quickly completes the argument for home information packs. We do not need to talk about seven and 14 days before a property needs to have a pack available.

Edward Davey (Liberal Democrat, Kingston and Surbiton)

The hon. Gentleman is making a very different argument from that of Ministers. They argued that the aim of the legislation was to speed up the process, but he now tells us that the process has already been speeded up. Ministers cannot have it both ways.

David Kidney (Labour, Stafford)

I invite the hon. Gentleman to read the Second Reading debate. The Government's argument was not about speed, but about transparency and consumer protection. They said, as a side issue, that a transaction would be speedier if people got their case into order at the beginning of the transaction and did

not let it dribble and drabble during the process. The hon. Gentleman can read that in the Hansard report of 12 January.

Amendment No. 373 is a proposal to add to the end of clause 127 the clear statement that the person responsible for marketing the property would be compliant with the duty in subsection (1) to have a home information pack under their control if they can access and supply the required information electronically. Amendment No. 374 would make clear that a ''document'' would include something supplied electronically. Amendment No. 375 would make clear that there would be no need to charge for supplying copies electronically—the Bill currently allows for charges to be made for copies provided in paper form.

Finally, amendment No. 376 relates to the point raised by the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet about the digital divide. It would not be reasonable to say that providing the document electronically would comply with the duty if the person who is to get the document has no means of receiving the information electronically. I propose that there should be wording to say so. In fairness, the Bill already tackles the matter from a different direction in clause 128(9), which states that the seller cannot provide the information electronically unless he has the consent of the buyer. I suppose that a buyer without the means of receiving the information would not give consent, so the Minister can say that amendment No. 376 is not necessary.

I do hope that my right hon. Friend will confront head-on the point about clearly stating that a home information pack can be entirely in electronic form. That would benefit to the process.

Robert Syms (Conservative, Poole)

This is one of the most important debates that this Committee will have. Many estate agents and mortgage lenders are concerned that what may be done should be made entirely clear. Their concern is that, as technology moves on, home information packs could slow the process down because of the way in which information can be moved rapidly, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out.

It is important that the Minister state what is necessary. Under clause 130, there is a duty for a home information pack to be provided or inspectable, which I take to mean that if somebody goes into an estate agency, they can sit down at the back of the office and have a look at the details of such a pack, even if there is no copy available to give out. If a document can be provided in electronic form, I should have thought that it could be printed off in such an office. That would be an excellent and efficient way of providing the material and would obviate the need for piles of documents at the back of offices. After all, one would not know how many hard copies to produce, so making electronic copies would seem to be a much better way of doing things. It is important that the Minister states the Government's thinking on the matter.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

Amendments Nos. 373 to 375 would make it clear that the contents of the home information pack may be provided in electronic form.

I assure my hon. Friend and guru the Member for Stafford that the amendments may not be necessary. However, it is not our intention to stand in the way of progress. Although the current home buying and selling process still involves the exchange of lots of paper documents, things are changing rapidly. Perhaps, broadband has not hit Battersea, but things are definitely on the move elsewhere. For example, some local authority and other searches can be generated electronically and sent over the internet to conveyancers rather than in paper form through the post. That is increasingly becoming the standard way in which information is exchanged, and the housing market is no exception.

Let me put on record that I fully expect that by the time electronic conveyancing becomes standard practice and initiatives such as the national land information service are fully in place, packs will be entirely electronic. The Government have no intention of standing in the way of that. On the contrary, the Bill as drafted makes allowance for it, and the amendments are not necessary.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

The Minister has just said a very interesting thing, which is that he expects the packs to be wholly electronic by a date that he has not given. Perhaps, he will say when he thinks that might be. Furthermore, can he give a commitment to my constituents—and to residents of large parts of Shropshire, Herefordshire and the Welsh borders—that they will all be able to access broadband by that date?

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I cannot believe that the hon. Gentleman seriously expects me to give such a commitment, so I shall move on—although, for the sake of his admirable constituents, I express my hope in that respect.

Amendment No. 376 would change the responsible person's duty to provide a copy of the pack to a potential buyer on request. Under clause 128(9) as it stands now, the copy provided could be an electronic one if the potential buyer agrees to have it in that form. The amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford would change that to allow an electronic copy to be provided without seeking the potential buyer's consent, unless it was believed that he could not access the document in that form.

The fact is that although many people have access to the internet, there are many who do not. In that context, it is evident that the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet is on the wrong side of the digital divide. There could be many cases—and I have to say that the hon. Gentleman may be one—in which the responsible person could not reasonably take a view on whether the potential buyer had the necessary equipment. Bearing in mind—and I say this to my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford as a former solicitor—that failure to deliver a copy on time could lead to a breach of the duty, which could have serious consequences.

The formula proposed in the Bill is therefore the simplest and the best: electronic copies can be provided, but only where the potential buyer is asked whether that is acceptable and has given his consent.

What could be more reasonable? We expect the pack to be available in fully electronic form, and we encourage that development. However, we think that for the sake of those whose access to the internet is not to be assumed, the minor qualifications in the clause are necessary. I hope that in the light of that explanation, my hon. Friend will agree to withdraw the amendment.

David Kidney (Labour, Stafford)

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. He made some statements that make it clear that he and I are entirely on the same wavelength and have the

same intentions. My only query is whether the Bill does what he claims. As long as he continues to keep that under consideration, as he said he would, I am content to beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 127 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

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

[Part I]

Housing Bill

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

Before we start, I must inform the Committee that we are expecting a Division in the House at 4 o'clock. Our proceedings are due to end at 6.55 pm and, judging by our rate of progress, I assume that we will go on until that time. I do not want to call an extra break, so I shall extend the break for the Division at 4 o'clock and make it a half-hour break, and if there are two Divisions, I shall make it a break of 40 minutes. I am assuming, however, that there will only be one Division. I hope that that is clear and acceptable to members of the Committee. I would prefer to do that than have to suspend the Committee twice.

Secondly, as Chairman, I have to bear in mind the business that we must complete at 6.55 pm. Will members of the Committee who want to debate certain items be mindful of the fact that we must make sensible progress? I am not saying that we have not been doing that, but it is in their hands.

Clause 128 - Duty to provide copy of home information pack on request

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I beg to move amendment No. 347, in

clause 128, page 86, line 31, after first 'a', insert 'registered'.

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 394, in

clause 128, page 87, line 36, at end add—

'(10) The meaning of ''registered potential buyer'' shall be provided in regulations made by the Secretary of State'.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I am mindful of the fact that we need to make progress. I should especially like to reach clause 131and deal with areas of low demand before our sitting ends, and others may share that view. I should apologise to the Committee for the fact that, from 4 o'clock today, I shall not here. My hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Richard Younger-Ross) will deputise for me. He is currently leading for our party on the Fire and Rescue Services Bill. I have to go the House for the second debate. That would not have happened had the Hutton report not knocked the Opposition day out until today—as, to be fair, it should have done.

I do not think that the Conservatives would want me to talk too much about the Hutton report in the light of today's poll in The Times, so I shall turn to the amendments. To some extent, tabling amendment No.

347 was like taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut. In many ways, I am not seriously proposing that it should be made because it is a vastly bureaucratic provision. I have used it to highlight a potential problem with the packs relating to security of information and who has access to the information.

When the pack is put together, it will contain more information than we usually see in the particulars that we pick up from an estate agent. It will contain details about the property and, in some cases, it will cover a lot of matters. We are worried that people other than genuine buyers might find such information useful: for example, the pack may contain as part of the home condition report information about whether there is an alarm in the property, which would be of great interest to someone who wanted to break into it. We must also bear in mind that the pack may become a snooper's charter. If some members of the Committee put their house on the market, the media could wander along and pick up the seller's pack. Could they then publish its contents?

Issues relating to the information relate to the protection of the home owner as well as of the buyer. Before the Minister becomes too excited, I do not seriously mean that buyers should have to register as buyers, although that is what the amendment states. However, I have a genuine concern. If the Government want to force through such an unpopular idea as packs, they must show that the new system will not be abused. The amendment is simply designed to tease out the Government's thinking on the issue.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I had intended to proceed with absolute brevity in responding to the amendment. However, since the hon. Gentleman has specifically raised issues of privacy, and even secrecy, let me anticipate what I would have said in response to our debate on amendment No. 426—just in case he is not with us by the time that we reach it, although I very much hope that he will be. I do so on the understanding that I need not cover these issues when we get to that point.

Let us recall that clause 128 provides that while a property is on the market, the person responsible for its marketing must provide a copy of the home information pack to a potential buyer who requests it within 14 days of receiving a request as well as payment to cover postage and copying costs. Amendment No. 347 proposes that the person responsible for marketing the property will only have to provide a copy of the pack to someone who is a registered potential buyer. Amendment No. 394 provides that the definition of a ''registered potential buyer'' will be prescribed in regulations made by the Secretary of State.

I understand and, if I might say so, commend the intention behind the amendment, which is to protect the seller or his agent from being obliged to provide a pack to someone who cannot reasonably be regarded as a bona fide inquirer—or, to use a word that I used in earlier exchanges, someone who might be a timewaster and has no intention of buying the property. I agree with the hon. Gentleman's sentiment, which is why we included—if I might draw his attention forward—

subsection (4). That provides that a responsible person can refuse to comply with a request for a home information pack if he has reasonable grounds to believe

''that the person making the request—

(a) is unlikely to have sufficient means to buy the property in question;

(b) is not genuinely interested in buying a property of a general description which applies to the property; or

(c) is not a person to whom the seller is likely to be prepared to sell the property.''

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I have seen subsection (4). One of my concerns is that it is difficult to envisage how an estate agent might distinguish snooping members of the media or potential burglars from potential buyers. If somebody walks in from the street and says, ''I am interested in that property, I want to go and visit it and I want the sellers' pack,'' how will estate agents be able to establish such a person's means, whether such a person is not someone to whom the seller is likely to be prepared to sell or whether they are genuinely interested? Cases in which someone is out to deceive the estate agent do not seem to be covered by subsection (4).

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

In many respects, the hon. Gentleman's question is almost impossible to answer. Obviously, a determined deceit will, almost by definition, succeed in some circumstances. I do not think that there is any foolproof method—certainly not on the face of a piece of legislation—to ensure that the seller or the responsible person will be able to see through that deceit.

However, let me at least try to set out the thinking behind the provisions. The first provision that supplies grounds to refuse a request is when it is deemed that a person

''is unlikely to have sufficient means to buy the property in question''.

That condition applies when a seller or his agent believes on reasonable grounds—one cannot really ask for more—that the person could not afford the property. For example, the agent might know the financial circumstances of the person in question.

The second circumstance in which the agent would be justified in not responding a request for a home information pack is when he believes that the person expressing the interest

''is not genuinely interested in buying a property of a general description which applies to the property''.

That would apply if it were believed that the person making the request was not really interested in buying the property or one like it. An example of that might be precisely the case given by the hon. Gentleman, which is that of a journalist posing as a buyer to gain access to the home information pack relating to a celebrity's home. Another example is a serial timewaster who is known to the estate agent. Obviously cases of that sort occur, and we would expect the agent to be on the alert for them. If a

celebrity's property were on the market, one would absolutely expect the agent to be aware of prurient interest in the property.

The third circumstance is that an agent can decline on the grounds that the person

''is not a person to whom the seller is likely to be prepared to sell the property.''

That allows someone to not provide a copy of the pack if they believe that the potential buyer is not a person to whom the seller would wish to sell the property. There can be all sorts of caveats that a seller might want to attach to a sale. For example, a seller with a prize-winning garden might instruct the agent not to market it to anyone who is not a keen gardener or who might neglect the garden. That example is plucked from the firmament, but it is not implausible.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

Can the Minister assure me that that provision could not be used if the seller had said that they did not want to sell to someone from an ethnic minority? I was listening to a report last night about housing in Burnley, and this provision strikes alarm bells. Someone could say to an estate agent, ''Sorry I'm not going to sell to anyone of Asian origin.'' That would be disgraceful.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

The hon. Gentleman is right. I was coming to that point. The short answer is that anti-discrimination legislation supravenes in that circumstance. He is right that there are human rights implications with regard to the right to privacy. The subsection reflects the current position whereby somebody can simply refuse to sell his home to a particular person for no good reason, if he wishes to. Having said that, the provision does not affect anyone's rights under the legislation governing discrimination on the grounds of race, sex or disability. In no way can the provision be used to contravene that legislation. Subsection (5) provides:

''Subsection (4) does not apply if the responsible person knows or suspects that the person making the request is an officer of an enforcement authority.''

That is also important.

The provisions strike a reasonable balance between the need for genuine buyers to get copies of important documents and for sellers or their agents to refuse where they believe that there are good grounds to do so. I hope that the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) will agree that the provisions offer sufficient protection to the seller and his agent to avoid not only the cost but the emotional and administrative burden of dealing with timewasters and other inappropriate inquiries. I hope that I have met his concerns, and I urge him to withdraw his amendment.

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

Before I call the next speaker, I am probably totally out of order, but when I was selling my house in Burnley last year, one buyer asked whether a Conservative could buy it because I have 18 red roses in every window in stained glass at the front of the house—[Laughter.]—I sold it.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

What more can I add? I thank the Minister for the spirit in which he has responded to the amendments. There are a couple more issues, but they

will probably be covered in later amendments. We have covered the initial ground well enough, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I beg to move amendment No. 348, in

clause 128, page 86, line 37, leave out 'as it stands'.

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 349, in

clause 128, page 86, line 38, leave out 'at the time'.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

These two small amendments are intended to get the Government to explain why two phrases are included in the Bill.

It is not at all clear what the phrase ''as it stands'' adds to the requirement to provide a home information pack. It is unlikely that the seller would alter the contents of the pack unless there had been a mistake in its compilation, in which case alteration would be appropriate. Therefore, we are a bit baffled why those words are included. There might be a very good explanation, but we cannot spot it and—in the absence of the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes), who gets excited about such things—the Law Society cannot either. It brought this to our attention.

Amendment No. 349 leaves out ''at the time'' because it is unclear why the Government have used that phrase. I am sure that the Minister has a cogent and rational explanation of its purpose, and I am dying to hear it.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

Let me begin by again expressing my gratitude to the hon. Gentleman for tabling the amendments. They raise an issue that might have been the source of some confusion. I shall do my best to provide an explanation of our purposes that matches up to his expectations.

It is not our intention to place on the responsible person the unnecessary burden of having periodically to update the pack. The Bill essentially places two obligations on the person or persons responsible for marketing a property. The first duty, set out in clause 127, is to have in their possession, while the property is on the market, a home information pack that conforms with regulations made under clause 133—which we may come to one day. The second obligation, set out in clause 128, is to make available to a potential buyer, on request and subject to payment of any fee required to cover the cost, a copy of the home information pack or any document from it.

Clause 128(8) allows up to 14 days to comply with a request for a copy of the seller's pack. That is necessary in order to allow reasonable time for a copy to be obtained, and to allow for sickness and holidays, and so on. The duty is to provide a copy of the pack

''as it stands at the time when the request is made''.

That phrase, which amendments Nos. 348 and 349 seek to remove, is necessary to ensure that the clause does not impose an unreasonable burden on the responsible person by placing on him an implied requirement to constantly update the pack.

We envisage that the contents of a home information pack might change over time. Clause 133(9) provides that the Secretary of State may provide in regulations for the time at which any document is to be included in the home information pack. We have in mind to use this power to allow properties to be marketed with an incomplete pack where, through no fault of the seller or the seller's agent, a prescribed document is not available or cannot be obtained within a reasonable period. In such cases, we would require that the absence of the document is noted and inserted in the pack when and if it becomes available.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I have a what-if point—I know that the Minister likes them. A house might have been put on the market and the seller's pack might be being prepared. What if someone asks for it but before it is handed over the local council produces its first draft deposit plan in the current system or a local government document in the new system? That would be germane if a field adjacent to the house had been marked out for housing. The seller might know that that had happened, but if they had been asked for the pack the day before and they had not yet provided it, they might hand over a pack that did not contain that information, and they do not seem to be under any obligation to provide that information.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

The hon. Gentleman raises a very good point. Although the law will require local searches to be included in the home information pack, he sets out what sounds like a potential risk to a would-be purchaser.

However, the hon. Gentleman alludes to local planning decisions, and such decisions rarely, if ever—I suspect never—emerge suddenly and without warning. In other words, as the hon. Gentleman knows, all local planning processes—even under our speedier, more flexible and more participative local planning structures, which he and I debated at length in another Committee—will be well known and in the public domain. We would expect the possibility of such planning changes to be included in the home information pack. If I can express that in a more succinct and authoritative fashion, I will endeavour to do so, either later in our deliberations or in writing. I think that the drift of my answer is correct, but it is worth being a little more precise about the hon. Gentleman's point. I undertake to respond in writing to the Committee.

The contents of the pack might also change if the seller chose to update the information. In such circumstances, the person responsible could be expected to make every effort to ensure that the copy documents were fully up to date—that goes without saying—but that should not be made a formal obligation subject to civil sanctions. I hope that for

those reasons the hon. Gentleman will express his satisfaction, and that he will agree to withdraw the amendment.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I thank the Minister for giving a reasonable explanation for the words' appearance. I do not wish to detain the Committee; we have other issues to discuss. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir Sydney Chapman (Conservative, Chipping Barnet)

I beg to move amendment No. 426, in

clause 128, page 87, line 5, leave out subsections (4) and (5).

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:

No. 352, in

clause 128, page 87, line 10, leave out paragraph (c) and insert—

'(c) is a person to whom the seller has indicated that he is not prepared to sell the property.'.

No. 392, in

clause 128, page 87, line 11, at end insert—

'(d) presents a threat to the security or privacy of the seller.'.

Sir Sydney Chapman (Conservative, Chipping Barnet)

The eagle-eyed will realise that amendment No. 426 is so far the only one to which I have appended my name. The Minister has already anticipated the amendment, and has therefore shot my fox. This is the first time in my parliamentary career that I have been answered before I have put the question.

I shall not hope for my Warholian 15 minutes of fame, but cut my contribution down to about one and a half minutes. However, there are one or two points still to be made. I draw the Minister's attention to Clause 128(4)(a): the duty does not apply if the responsible person believes that the person making the request

''is unlikely to have sufficient means to buy the property in question''.

I have been told that I am not the best dressed man in Parliament. [Hon. Members: ''No!''] Most hon. Members dress up to be noticed; my policy is to dress down to conceal my wealth. That raises the question of how on earth someone can judge that a person calling at his door is unlikely to have sufficient means to buy the property in question. It is at best a subjective judgment. It is a dangerous one to make.

Paragraph (b) states that the person

''is not genuinely interested in buying a property''.

I do not understand how a person selling a property can make such a judgment. The hon. Member for Ludlow referred to a member of the press or the media calling at a property to publicise its details. I would recognise Mr. Andrew Marr if he knocked at my door, but I would not necessarily recognise a person from the local or national press.

Paragraph (c) states:

''not a person to whom the seller is likely to be prepared to sell the property.''

Again, I honestly do not know what that means. I accept that subsection (4) then states:

''Nothing in this subsection authorises the doing of anything which constitutes an unlawful act of discrimination.''

We have legislation on the statute book that deals with sex, race—that includes colour—age and disability discrimination. Surely those matters would cover most issues in any case, although perhaps not sartorial discrimination. The more I consider the subsection, the more I believe that either it would be impossible to use to any effect or it is meaningless. I have included in the amendment the deletion of subsection (5), because if I were successful in deleting subsection (4) there would be no reason for it. The Minister has alluded to such matters and I want him to give me other information to justify subsection (4).

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

The amendment, so ably moved by the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman) as always, has grouped with it our amendments Nos. 352 and 392. Amendment No. 352 would replace the words

''is not a person to whom the seller is likely to be prepared to sell the property''

with

''is a person to whom the seller has indicated that he is not prepared to sell the property.''

Clause 128(4) gives the agent defences for not handing over a pack. The current wording of subsection (4)(c) is vague, whereas our amendment would make it a clear requirement that the seller must have said that he would not sell to someone before that person could be refused a home information pack. The current words make enforcement of that requirement virtually impossible. Our form of words is tighter than that and I hope that it finds some favour with the Minister.

In a sense, our amendment is intended to clarify exactly what is intended. It would not leave the estate agent, who would often be the person involved, in the difficult position of trying to guess whether the person was someone to whom the seller would be prepared to sell the property. That is a little like trying to find a needle in a haystack. The provision would allow the estate agent to refer to the seller and ask him whom it was he was not willing to sell to. The seller might say that he did not want his brother to buy the property because he had been trying to buy it for a long time. We can imagine that set of internal family circumstances. Our amendment would present a tighter form of wording.

Amendment No. 392 is an attempt to do what I have touched on earlier in a previous group of amendments. It would add a paragraph (d), which would state:

''presents a threat to the security or privacy of the seller.''

It would give another level of assessment, and make it clearer in the Bill that we are seeking to protect a celebrity, or an MP, from press intrusion. There might be cases in which an estate agent had a suspicion that the person wanted the pack for an illegal activity, such as breaking into the house. If we are going to have this awful piece of legislation, we might as well try to ensure that it works properly. I hope that one or both of our amendments will find favour with the Minister.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I commend the admirably democratic spirit that now seems to prevail among the official Opposition. A Back Bencher has moved an amendment. That is a splendid development, although I caution my own colleagues—[Laughter.] It is interesting that the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet said that, by some strange development, I had answered his questions before he posed them. I had supposed that he and I were on the same side of the famous digital divide, but we have demonstrated that neither of us needs e-communication because we have ESP in full flow between us.

Before discussing the amendments, I will focus again on the intentions of the clause. We want potential buyers to be entitled to have a copy of the pack, or part of the pack, if they want it and are prepared to pay any reasonable fee for the copying cost. That is the purpose of the clause. The fact is that potential buyers will often want to show a copy to their legal representative or look at the contents at their leisure. That is fair enough, but we can foresee situations in which the seller or his agent should be able to turn down such requests for copies without breaching the home information pack obligations. Subsection (4) sets out the three possible circumstances in which the duty to supply a pack may not apply. I have gone over those circumstances in a good deal of detail already, and I do not propose to go over them again.

Let me turn to amendment No. 426, which was moved by the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet. I have to say at the outset that the rights that are set out in subsection (4) are rights that already exist in the law. Nothing is added to those rights, subject to the anti-discrimination legislation that supervenes in such cases.

The hon. Gentleman poses a perfectly reasonable question when he asks how the judgment will be made. All that we can say is that we expect an alert and experienced agent to be in a position to make that kind of judgment. It is perfectly clear that, on occasions, the judgment will be wrong, and I dare say that on individual occasions it will be subject to perfectly reasonable representations on the part of the person who has been denied the seller's pack. If failure to supply a pack were to involve a major offence, or reflect a systematic approach on the part of the agent, there are sanctions that could be introduced. Sanctions could be introduced if an agent were responsible for a failure in his duty to provide a pack. A penalty charge notice could be issued or the buyer's cost could be recovered. If there were a major, flagrant abuse, or a pattern of systematic failure, it is possible that the Office of Fair Trading could ultimately require the agent to cease trading. The deployment of such sanctions is unlikely to occur with any frequency, but the backdrop of those sanctions and the knowledge that they can apply create an encouragement for the seller or the agent to behave in a reasonable fashion.

Amendment No. 426 would remove subsections (4) and (5). The effect of that would be that the responsible person would have a duty to provide a pack to any potential buyer, even if they believed on reasonable

grounds that they could not afford the property, were not generally interested in buying it, or were not someone to whom the seller would be prepared to sell.

I am pleased that I had the opportunity to explain the inclusion of those subsections, and let me add a further word on that matter. The Bill is not a charter for discrimination. We would fall foul of human rights legislation if we did not include the clause, or something similar, which allows the seller to withhold a pack from other people to whom they have good reasons to deny access. I would point out that we are providing for rather special circumstances, which I do not expect to arise in the great majority of cases.

Amendment No. 352, to which the hon. Member for Ludlow spoke, would remove the right of a seller or their agent not to supply a pack if they believed that the person asking for copies was someone to whom the seller was not prepared to sell the property. It substitutes for that right one that puts a positive requirement on sellers to decide whether to refuse to provide copies of the pack in each individual case. I appreciate—this is becoming a bit of a refrain—the intention behind the amendment, but placing the requirement on the individual seller seems excessive, which is why I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that it is sufficient for the agent to act on more general instructions in most cases.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

Is there not a great danger with the current wording that estate agents will never refuse a sale because it will be very difficult for them to judge who is likely to be refused by the seller? The seller may give specific instructions. I gave the example of where someone says that they do not want a property sold to their brother; we have all probably had people sitting in our surgeries telling stories of how they have fallen out with someone else in the family, which can be quite painful. One can imagine a situation where the matter would be quite clear.

If the clause is left as it is, estate agents will never refuse a sale because they are trying to make a judgment—to imagine what the seller might think if a person came in front of them. That seems almost impossible to me. It would be the judgment of Solomon for an estate agent.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I put it to the hon. Gentleman that in the initial discussions about the estate agent taking on the seller's responsibility, it would be entirely natural for the seller—the individual owner—to explain the conditions on which the sale was to be made. It seems a little bureaucratic to require this constant referencing to and fro. After all, in such circumstances, one does have to rely on the experience of the estate agent in making judgments. I presume that it is not merely the administrative ease or the marketing facility that the estate agent affords the seller but the judgment of the estate agent that is of benefit to the seller. To include the provision suggested by the hon. Gentleman would be a little bureaucratic and excessive in all the circumstances. It cuts me to the quick, but I fear that I must reject that amendment.

Amendment No. 392 would include a new paragraph under subsection (4), allowing the responsible person to refuse to comply with the request for a home information pack if he has reasonable grounds to believe that the person making the request

''presents a threat to the security or privacy of the seller.''

The Bill includes provisions to protect the seller's privacy. I ask the hon. Gentleman to cast his eyes torwards clause 140, which allows the Secretary of State to make regulations

''restricting the disclosure, and use which may be made, of''

information in the pack. I assure the Committee that we fully intend to use that provision. Nothing in the home condition report or the pack gives explicit or implicit details of the security of the property. For example, there will be no details of the burglar alarm—if there is one—or of any other security measure taken in the property. I hope that the hon. Member for Ludlow feels that I have given a reasonable response to his probing amendments and that he will not press them.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

Obviously, it is for the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet to speak to the lead amendment, but I find the Minister's words reassuring, particularly on amendment No. 392, which is about security and privacy. Looking at clause 140, which should be retitled the Beckingham palace clause, I am happy as long as what the Minister has said is true. It is probably more suitable for the Government to bring forward regulations covering such issues. Having extracted from the Minister what he intends to do, I am more than happy for things to progress.

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

Order. Only one amendment has been moved, and that is No. 426. Amendments Nos. 352 and 392 have been debated, but have not been moved.

Sir Sydney Chapman (Conservative, Chipping Barnet)

I have listened carefully to the Minister, and as usual I am partially but not completely reassured. We all like to use French phrases; subsection (4) gives carte blanche to the responsible person. It would still be better if subsections (4) and (5) were removed, but I accept that we have very important things to discuss, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I beg to move amendment No. 353, in

clause 128, page 87, line 36, at end add—

'(10) All the documents and information contained in the home information pack shall be confidential to the seller, the person acting on his behalf as an estate agent, a person acting on his behalf as a solicitor or conveyancer, and any bona fide buyer or potential buyer.'.

The amendment would add a new subsection (10). I know what the Minister will say: he will say that clause 140, the Beckingham palace clause, will protect against the need for the amendment. However, I would like the Minister to touch on why the Bill is worded differently

from the Land Registration Act 2002, which I understand contains provisions that enable a landowner to keep information confidential. I wonder why, in the space of two years, there has been a difference in the approach taken in legislation. If there is a good reason for the difference, I am sure that the Committee will be only too happy to hear it from the Minister. I should like some clarification. I shall spin my words out while inspiration wends its way to the Minister, if that is necessary.

Sir Sydney Chapman (Conservative, Chipping Barnet)

The amendment is eminently sensible. It tries to restrict the information, which is sensitive, to the limited number of proper and fit people who should know it.

Since this morning, I have been desperately trying to inform myself about the internet and—I have forgotten what ''e'' stands for—electronic communication. I make a point in all seriousness. From my learning over lunch, I understand that if something goes on the internet, it goes out to everyone. I wonder whether it is a good thing to have a home information pack on an electronic system that broadcasts to the whole world and his dog information that, surely, should be confined to the relevant people.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I believe that I can allay the concerns of the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet. It is perfectly true, of course, that some information that appears on the internet is for public consumption. However, let me reassure him—I am no expert on these matters myself and am more on his side of the famous divide than on the other—that the circumstances that we are discussing are essentially those in which pieces of information are e-mailed across the ether to individual recipients and, to that extent, normally do not become available to the general public.

It is necessary to dispel any possible concerns about these important issues. One senses that the wrong message could be taken up and register in the public consciousness. To avoid that, I shall endeavour to provide an answer to the hon. Member for Ludlow on the Land Registration Act 2002.

Amendment No. 353 raises the important matter of confidentiality. We recognise that there are circumstances in which a seller would not want information about their property to be disclosed to people outside the home buying and selling process. Generally, there is unlikely to be anything in the home information pack that would cause problems if disclosed. One wonders sometimes what the point is of having a Parliamentary Private Secretary, especially one with a smoking habit. However, the job has been done. The Ipswich cavalry hoves into view over the horizon to come to the rescue—excellent.

Clause 133 restricts the content of the pack to information about the property. Information of a personal nature about the seller cannot be prescribed for inclusion in the pack. Also, the information contained in the home condition report will relate specifically to the condition of the property and its energy efficiency. It will not contain sensitive information—for example, about security or even

about the way in which the property is furnished. Even so, as the reasoning behind the amendment illustrates, information in the pack could be obtained and used for purposes that have nothing to do with the sale or purchase of the property and that offend the seller.

Two possible examples spring to mind. One is that of double glazing salesmen getting hold of a home condition report for the purpose of identifying potential business opportunities, and then bombarding those properties with sales literature. Even more intrusive would be the situation that we have already debated in which, for example, a journalist might seek to use the pack to obtain information for publication about the home of a public figure. We must ensure that the Bill addresses those serious issues and that it complies with human rights legislation. I believe that it does.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

There is a great deal of sense in what the Minister has said, but there seems to be a third element as well—a rather less direct and obvious security aspect. The Minister said that burglar alarms would not be detailed, but double glazing is a security issue, as is the layout of the property, including the points of exit and entry. No burglar will ever have to case a joint again if he has one of these home information packs.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I know that the hon. Gentleman arrived late for understandable reasons, but he was here during our last exchanges on the provisions that empower the seller or his agent to make a judgment about withholding home information packs and home condition reports. One would not expect to see much of the information about the layout of the property, which might provide the opportunity to case a joint, included in those details. However, there is a risk that a home condition report could fall into the wrong hands, just as under the present arrangements there is ample risk that the same situation could prevail. I do not think that we are addressing an issue that is a special consequence of the provisions of the home information pack. Let me explain briefly why I believe that the Bill addresses the concerns that have been expressed and complies with human rights legislation.

Clause 128(4) ensures that sellers and their agents do not have to give copies of the pack, or any document in it, to anyone who is not genuinely interested in buying the property, or someone to whom the seller would be prepared to sell it. We have discussed that. Furthermore, as I have already said, clause 140 provides a power for the Secretary of State to make regulations restricting the disclosure and use of pack information.

I thank the hon. Member for Ludlow again for the amendment, which is helpful in identifying key people who need access to the home information pack. I reassure him that we will certainly bear that in mind in considering how regulations under clause 140 might best be framed. However, there are all sorts of scenarios in which other people will want legitimate access to that information. For example, a potential buyer might want to show the home condition report to a builder or, in the case of the hon. Member for

Ludlow, an architect who is a member of the family. Enforcement authorities will need to have access to that information in the course of their investigation of any case.

Clauses 128 and 140 provide strong safeguards that will give sellers the protection that they need. In the light of those reassurances, plus my final announcement on the Land Registration Act 2002—that we need to think about it and write to the hon. Gentleman in due course—I conclude my response to this short but important debate.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I suspect that we may have covered this area sufficiently. The Minister has given several reassurances about what may be contained in regulations that may be made under clause 140. Those reassurances are enough. I await with interest his response to the hand-grenade that I tossed him on the 2002 Act. I will not hold back from withdrawing it while I wait, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Andrew Selous (Conservative, South West Bedfordshire)

Will the Minister give us a little more explanation on the shelf-life of the home information packs under clause 128, because we have not had much from him so far? The excellent House of Commons Library guide to the Bill states:

''It is proposed to require that the HCR in the home information pack should not be more than three months old at the time the property is first marketed.''

Indeed, several professionals, lawyers, surveyors, estate agents and others have said that it would be irresponsible to recommend a purchaser to rely on an outdated report. Local authority search information is date sensitive and might have to be renewed, too. The hon. Member for Ludlow mentioned the earlier instance when major development or planning changes could fundamentally change the nature of the property that is up for sale.

We have heard a few personal anecdotes. Not so long ago, I took more than a year to sell a property. That was not because there was anything wrong with it or any defects were found, but because it was just a flat time in the market. Does that mean that I would have had to provide three or four home condition reports, which would have had to be updated, giving rise to additional costs and administrative activity throughout the year that I was trying to sell the property?

It is a serious issue. Let us consider the position of someone who has to leave an area because of his work and who has to put his house on the market and move to another part of the country. If that person has been unable to sell his property, he may have a bridging loan, which costs a lot of money. The expenses that that person would have to undergo during that year would be extremely significant. As a Committee, we are owed a serious explanation from the Minister about shelf-life.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

May I express my gratitude to the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) for referring to the shelf-life of the HIPs and, I suppose, the home condition report in particular? Frankly, I am surprised that the matter has not emerged in our proceedings before now. It is vital that we discuss it. I put on the record the Government's understanding of such matters.

Common sense suggests that the home condition report should be up to date. Let me put it to the hon. Gentleman that, in most cases, the key aspects of the physical condition of a property are not likely to change rapidly. I am glad that I have his sedentary and unspoken assent to that matter. I am sure that we can all think of exceptional circumstances in which that would not be the case. For example, let us suppose that the property was subject to a lightning strike or a flood. We would expect that to affect its condition. It is precisely because the central elements of the condition of the property are unlikely to change with great rapidity that we are not putting in the Bill a requirement for a periodic updating of the home condition report. The hon. Gentleman has graphically described the disadvantages of a requirement that it should be changed quarterly.

I want to say something further about the matter. I hope that it will be of assurance and of interest to the hon. Gentleman, to the Committee at large and to those outside the House who so avidly follow our deliberations. Sellers will not be required to update the home information pack when the property has been on the market for some time. The truth is that the only items that are likely to be time sensitive are the search results and the home condition report. We are not requiring sellers to renew them.

What about local searches? Search results are usually accepted for up to six months. Online search information—as ever, I turn to my e-guru, my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney), at this moment—will allow anyone to update these quickly and economically if they wish. The National Land Information Service will provide that facility. We understand that private search companies will offer a similar service for personal searches.

As with any survey, the home condition report will provide a snapshot of the property on the day that it was inspected. However, as it will not contain a valuation, it should generally be valid for quite some time, unless circumstances such as those that I have described—lightning impact or flooding—arise after the inspection.

I turn again for reassurance on these matters to the saintly Maria Coleman of Bristol—[Interruption.] In her evidence to the Select Committee she said that the survey provided as part of her scheme can be updated. I draw that to the attention of the Committee, as it is an important observation. I am surprised that there was banter or chat when that saintly name was being invoked.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

Will the Minister give way?

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman because I cannot speak his name in the same breath as that of Maria Coleman. In her evidence to the Select Committee, she said that the survey provided as part of her scheme can be updated at no extra cost, and I believe that the market is likely to respond in a similar way when a compulsory scheme is introduced. She said:

''If you are a buyer and you pay to have a survey done today, if there are storms tomorrow it is out-of-date within a week. The way we have tackled it is we have said to our surveyor, 'Will you please give us a scale of fees of how much you are going to charge us and on every single fee add £10 or £15 because you may have to reinspect one in four or one in five and we do not want to have to go back either to our vendor or the purchaser. So would you please add that to your fees and understand that you will have to go back and reinspect and update your report.' The report stays the same but an addendum is put on the back. The report is never changed, it is just updated. There is a company at the moment called One Search Direct and they do searches throughout the whole country for £100 including VAT and they are saying that they will update searches for £10.''

Let me add a further word that may be of interest and offer reassurance. We know that there is already significant interest from lenders and other organisations in the opportunities presented by home information packs. It is an open secret that many of them are considering providing packs as a service for their borrowers. Those organisations have a large existing client base. In much the same way as lenders already offer discounted mortgages and cash-backs, they could in future offer free or heavily discounted packs as an incentive to attract and retain business. Therefore, it might not be too long before we receive with our annual mortgage statement an offer to provide a pack should we want to move home, and an offer to attach to the pack a guaranteed mortgage for any interested buyer subject to status. It is not difficult to see how that sort of initiative could remove any fears about financial impediments to marketing homes with a pack.

I have sought to deal with two concerns, which the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire properly raised: the time period in which the pack will remain valid, and cost. I hope that in my concluding remarks I have given him food for thought and reassurance.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

Will the Minister give way?

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

How can I possibly resist giving way to the hon. Gentleman now?

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I think I heard the Minister almost encourage mortgage lenders to be providers of the packs. That is exactly the form of vertical integration of the provision of these services that the Americans have taken great care to avoid. One of the great concerns is that, rather than being protected, the consumer will be taken advantage of, with lawyers, mortgage lenders, surveyors and estate agents joining together in a vertically integrated group. They might then offer so-called discounts, which would keep all matters in-house, so the ability to keep down prices through competition would just not be there. The Minister has just made a very revealing comment.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

The Minister may have made a very revealing comment, but he will certainly not follow the hon. Gentleman down his path of fantasies and speculation on vertical integration, which, to be frank, is likely to induce a feeling of horizontal disintegration in the Committee. I hear what he says but I hope that he will have the common sense to withdraw his amendment.

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

There is no amendment. We are discussing clause stand part. I have allowed the debate to proceed even though the clause makes no reference to the subject under discussion. I have been fairly lenient because I could not see anywhere else in the Bill where the issue could have been raised, but I do not want it to go on too long.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I noticed your leniency, Mr. Pike, and it confirmed all the best things that I already knew about you. The Minister and you have rightly said that the matter is important and that there is no convenient place to debate it other than at this juncture.

I do not understand all that the Minister has said. He seemed to suggest in his earlier response to the quite proper inquiries of my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire that the packs will not be time-limited. If they are not to be time-limited at all, one wonders what value they would ultimately have. He added that they can be updated with a small additional charge, but he did not say that there was any obligation to do so. We remain to see whether he corrects that statement.

We are left with the feeling that packs will initially be obligatory, but that they will last for ever, to be updated only at the behest of the individual according to local circumstances of cost and quality. That is a less than convincing argument in response to my hon. Friend. Like him, I am concerned that if they were too tightly time-limited, a seller who took a long time to sell their property might, through no fault of their own, be faced with the cost of several packs. I am equally concerned that a seller who did not have any obligation to update their pack might offer their property on the basis of information that was compiled perhaps nine or 12 months previously, so, the use of the pack would be somewhat limited.

That is particularly true in circumstances of rapid change. The Minister highlighted some of the problems, but there are others. If a property were in an area that had previously been mined for either coal or tin, it is quite possible, given that mining searches are unlikely to form a fundamental part of the pack, that there will be significant changes. Perhaps the Minister will tell us that searches for coal and tin mining will form a key part of the pack. There may be gaseous emissions from landfill sites and all sorts of other circumstances in which changes could occur rapidly. Therefore a pack's life is likely to be rather shorter than the Minister implies. I am unclear about his intentions, but I happily give way to the hon. Member for Ludlow, who will no doubt tell us what they are doing in Ludlow.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I was not planning to. The hon. Gentleman is on to a good point when he notes the circumstances in which the sale goes through nine or 12 months after the pack's compilation. Two possibilities come to mind. If the seller does not have to update the pack and the buyer buys the property on the basis of that pack, but something has happened in the intervening time, where is the legal redress and who carries the indemnity? Alternatively, will buyers faced with a pack that is 12 months old pay for the searches to be done again because the pack is not up to date, thus giving rise to the problem that we highlighted earlier of buyers paying for work to be done because they do not trust the information in the pack?

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

Once the buyer has overcome the hurdle of being adequately suited and booted to obtain a pack in the first place—the Minister made it clear that riff-raff will not have access to the packs—they may become suspicious about its contents if it is old. A buyer may say that it is not good enough and that they want a new pack. We do not understand from what the Minister told us where the legal obligation will lie. Will the seller and their agent be obliged to provide an up-to-date pack? We have not been told that today and the Minister must be much clearer in his response to the proper questions asked by my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire. I am even more sceptical about the packs now than I was before the Minister rose.

Andrew Selous (Conservative, South West Bedfordshire)

I wonder whether my hon. Friend could pick up on the comments made by the hon. Member for Ludlow about the possible scope for conflict of interest if the inspectors are employees of the selling agents or associated companies. I am worried about that. At the moment, buyers rely on professionals who have a duty of care towards them. It strikes me that there is cause for concern if reports are produced by employees of the estate agent who is selling the property. Does my hon. Friend agree?

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

The Minister was dismissive of that point. We know that new Labour, of which the Minister is the very personification, is attracted by the glitz and glamour of big money. The commercial bright lights may be blinding the Minister to the danger of the American experience, which I highlighted and to which the hon. Member for Ludlow and his hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) referred. There are real issues about estate agents who are also valuers and mortgage companies that are also inspectors—issues on which the industry itself is anxious to have clarification. We are not accusing the various sectors of the industry: they want absolute clarity from the Government about how it should properly operate in the new circumstances.

Matthew Green rose—

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

Before I call the hon. Member for Ludlow, I ask the Committee to speak to the clause that we are debating. I have allowed a lot of flexibility

because we did not discuss at length the amendment relating to a point that hon. Members now view as one of great importance.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

The issue arose in connection with the duty to provide a copy of the information pack on request because it relates to vertically integrated companies and their duty to provide a pack. My concern is that, if we have vertical integration, a couple of years after the new system comes into operation, Members of Parliament will be jumping up and down in the House and demanding Office of Fair Trading reports on the way in which the business is being conducted. That would have a knock-on effect on the clause and the duty to provide the copy.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I am ever mindful of the undesirability of being diverted up a tributary when you want us to stay on the main course, Mr. Pike, but there is considerable concern about some of the commercial aspects. More significant even than that is the lack of clarity about the precise life of the packs, their usefulness, the legal obligation to update them, the responsibility of the seller and the rights of the buyer in that regard, and the role of the companies that have emerged from the ether this afternoon and will have a crucial role in updating packs. We hear from the St. Theresa of Bristol that all sorts of exciting and, presumably, equally saintly organisations will update the packs for a snippet. Well, that is the first that we have heard of them, and, as I see it, they have no defined role in the Bill.

We would like to hear a little more from the Minister about the role of updaters, what their legal constraints will be and what the relationship between them and the other parties to the process will be. The Minister has served up a dreadful dog's dinner to the Committee. The least he will have to give us before we are prepared to accept the clause is a more palatable desert.

Chris Mole (Labour, Ipswich)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I give way to the hon. Gentleman, who is, perhaps, going to give us some coffee and cheese afterwards.

Chris Mole (Labour, Ipswich)

The hon. Gentleman suggests that this is the first time that these issues have been raised, but if he had read the Select Committee report and the Government's response to it, he would be aware of the view that setting the framework in legislation will allow the market to respond. I have no idea why he expects the Minister to be able to tell him what the nature and future of businesses will be. It will be up to the market to develop the best, most effective and cheapest responses.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

The hon. Gentleman is right that the Select Committee highlighted that point and that the Government responded. However, as I said, this is the first time that it has come up in the deliberations on the

Bill in this Committee. The constraints that will operate in relation to those activities are important. I know that he, like many in his party, is starry-eyed about the power and value of the market, but if he is suggesting that there should be no constraints, control or accountability for the process and that anyone should be allowed to set up a business and update packs for a fee that they think is appropriate, his view is rather different from mine, and his is certainly not a view that is supported by the rest of the proposed legislation, which provides parameters in which the new system should operate.

Those parameters seem to be changing constantly, because when challenged by astute members of the Committee, such as my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire, the Minister is at a loss to explain precisely how the system will work in practice. Unless we hear that at the end of this short debate—I can see from your face, Mr. Pike, that you wish that it had been even shorter—it will be difficult for the Committee to agree to the clause.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 128 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 129 - Duty to ensure authenticity of documents in other situations

Robert Syms (Conservative, Poole)

I beg to move amendment No. 407, in

clause 129, page 87, line 41, after 'duty', insert

'to take all reasonable care'.

We are still on home information packs—[Laughter.] That amendment is designed to insert the phrase ''all reasonable care'' rather than to have ''a duty'' as the Bill states. Duty is quite a strong word, and a number of people are concerned that holding the responsible person to a duty might constrain the operation of the market. At the moment, it is not unusual to have two, or sometimes more, estate agents marketing a single property. Presumably, if that continues to be the practice, they will not all produce their own home information packs. Only one pack would need to be produced—although it would not necessarily be used by more than one company. Otherwise, there would be a duplication of the packs. If different estate agents were marketing a single property it would be sensible to use the same pack, because it would be about the same property. Therefore, if one responsible person, for example, estate agent A, commissioned the home information pack—[Interruption.]

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

Order. Do we know what the noise is outside? I am sorry to interrupt, but it is pretty distracting, and I am sure that Hansard finds it distracting.

Robert Syms (Conservative, Poole)

Thank you, Mr. Pike.

Inevitably, if estate agent A commissioned a home information pack, it would be sensible for estate agents B and C, who are also marketing a property, to use the

same pack. To some extent, estate agents B and C would have to trust estate agent A that the HIP that A produced was a proper and fair reflection of the property. In order to fulfil their ''duty'' must each estate agent go through the HIP checking each document, or can they ''take all reasonable care'' and trust the individual who assembled the pack, and thus enable business to proceed swiftly?

There may be people who set up in business to prepare home information packs and market their service as efficient purveyors of packs to estate agents. A lot of business is done based on a degree of trust, and an estate agent might wish to trust a concern that produced the documents because it has been accurate in the past. However, as the Bill is phrased—using the word ''duty''—the responsible person is the one who gets prosecuted when something goes wrong. Is that a sensible way of doing things, and does it constrain the provision of packs by people other than the responsible person? What duties does the responsible person have to check information with which they have been provided?

In addition, a seller might pull a pack together to save money because he does not want to be charged for it, and provide that information to an estate agent, who then becomes the responsible person. What position is the estate agent in at that point? Must the agent double check what the client has provided, and are there any means of checking?

In the previous debate, we talked about the difficulty of information being time-sensitive. The one thing in the pack that is time-sensitive is the home condition report section. Will there be an imprint on a HIP so we know who put it together? Will there be a system of dating or numbering so that from where the information has been drawn and who has provided it can be traced? The Bill puts the emphasis on the responsible person who has the ''duty'', yet for the market to work—a phrase used by the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Mole)—it is quite possible that there will have to be a degree of subcontracting to produce the documents.

Is ''duty'' too strong a word, and is ''all reasonable care'' a better phrase for the way in which the business will operate? What will happen in some of the circumstances that I have outlined, where there are multiple estate agents, or the seller has produced the information, or companies are set up to subcontract and they are producing documentation? Should there be some system of imprinting, dating or numbering so that there can be a paper trail back to the person who has provided the information? If there were such a system, when cases come to the courts, as at some point they will, the full weight would not fall on an estate agents who may reasonably have trusted what they thought were reputable organisations to provide information.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I rise to support the amendment, which is reasonable in that it is designed to clarify with whom exactly the buck stops. The hon. Gentleman has done the Committee, and possibly the Government, a favour in trying to clarify that.

Two sets of circumstances make the comments made by the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) pertinent. One is, as he has said, the situation in which an estate agent takes on a company to make the pack and it does so badly. The liability appears to rest with the estate agent. If a court case was brought, would the estate agent have to pursue that company for recompense? What if the company had gone bust? Does the buck stop at the estate agent?

I am horrified that I had not thought of the second set of circumstances, and the hon. Gentleman has done a good job of explaining it to the Committee. It relates to what happens if there are multiple estate agents. Many people choose to market their property with more than one estate agent. I can see a situation where there is vertical integration, to use that horrible phrase again. The estate agent says ''We will give you a discount on the pack as long as we are the sole estate agent, and it will cost you 10 per cent. less,'' or something like that. I can see the market closing down as a result of the introduction of seller's packs. If someone goes to more than one estate agent, do they have to pay for more than one seller's pack? If not, does one estate agent take responsibility for the accuracy of the pack, while the others simply piggyback on it?

The hon. Member for Poole has opened up a Pandora's box of possibilities for where the liability stops. The words of the amendment could make it difficult for a person to seek recompense, because the agent could say, ''I took all reasonable care,'' when the home owner suddenly discovers that he has bought a pig in a poke and cannot recover his money. That is a concern too.

The hon. Gentleman has highlighted a huge grey area that the Government need to clarify. If the Minister cannot do so today, perhaps he will do so in writing. A few circumstances have been mentioned, but there could be a number of others in which the question of with whom the buck stops could be debateable. I ask the Minister to go away and consider the question of liability and the situation where there is more than one estate agent. I hope that he can shed a little light on what seems to be very gloomy.

Sir Sydney Chapman (Conservative, Chipping Barnet)

Rather than try to speak to clause stand part, I rise to make a point that is tangential to the amendment. I have read the clause carefully and I do not see the point of it or why it is necessary. It is entitled, ''Duty to ensure authenticity of documents in other situations''. I should like to know what ''other situations'' are.

Secondly, I query the word ''authentic'' and wonder whether the word ''accurate'' should have been used. I am not an etymologist, but my understanding of the word ''authentic'' is that it must be the actual document: only that can be the authentic document. Therefore, whatever the purpose of the clause—I fail to understand what it is—to be helpful to the seller and the buyer, the document, documents or home information pack should be accurate. That is the more important word to use than ''authentic''.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

The three points of concern are compilation, verification and advice. In the case of a private survey commissioned by a buyer under the existing regime, all three are provided by a single, authoritative source. The problem with the new regime is that they may not be available from a single source—indeed, that may not even be desirable. One group of people will compile information, but may be competent neither to verify it, nor to advise on it, yet I suspect that that demand will naturally be placed on them. Therefore, we need absolute clarity about those three responsibilities and the way in which they interact with the Bill and the home information pack regime.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

The Committee has made painfully slow progress in its consideration of part 5, but I believe that we have now dealt with all the major issues relating to home information packs, with one exception—the treatment of low-value, low-demand properties, on which, as I explicitly said in my introduction to part 5, I am looking forward to hearing the opinions of members of the Committee. I hope that we shall come to that in due course. I am delighted that, notwithstanding our desperately slow progress through the clauses, we have been able to debate all the major issues, as I am sure will be acknowledged in this and other places.

The Committee has already dealt at considerable length with legal redress. It has touched on indemnity on more than one occasion, but I hope that it will be possible to deal with it in a little more detail on later amendments.

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

On resuming—

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

Let me endeavour to answer two or three of the questions raised.

Yes, we expect the dates and sources of documents to be included in the home information pack. If two agents were marketing the same property, each would need to have a pack, but the packs would not have to be commissioned separately. Each agent would have to ensure that the pack complied with the requirements of the regulations made under clause 133, but checking would not extend to the accuracy of the information provided, for example, by the local authority in its searches, or by the home inspector in the home condition report. However, each document in the pack will be the responsibility of its provider; for example, the local authority will be responsible for searches. If there are problems with a document, recourse would be to its provider and not to the estate agent.

I thank the hon. Member for Poole for his amendment, to which he alluded in passing. I think that I understand why it was tabled. If we want the packs to have any value, the information they contain must be authentic. The hon. Member for Chipping Barnet asked what an authentic document is and why the word ''authentic'' rather than ''accurate'' is used.

The answer is that the duty is to ensure that authentic documents are in the pack, that the local search in the pack really is a local search and that the home condition report is indeed a home condition report. However, the responsibility for the accuracy of the document lies with its provider.

The hon. Member for Poole moved that the words

''to take all reasonable care''

should be inserted into the clause. We do not believe it necessary to import those words. A trading standards officer will not serve a penalty charge notice on someone who has taken care to ensure the authenticity of a pack's contents; it would be most unreasonable to do so, and there is already provision in the Bill making that clear. Paragraph 8(3) of schedule 7 provides that there is a ground of appeal against the service of a penalty charge notice if

''in the circumstances of the case it was inappropriate for the notice to be given to the recipient.''

In light of all those explanations, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree to withdraw the amendment.

Robert Syms (Conservative, Poole)

I thank the Minister for his explanation, which helps a little. We may have to return to the matter a little later, perhaps on Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 129 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 130 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 131 - Residential properties not available with vacant possession

Richard Younger-Ross (Liberal Democrat, Teignbridge)

I beg to move amendment No. 354, in

clause 131, page 89, line 4, after 'possession' insert

'or to properties in areas of low housing demand'.

Some hon. Members may be surprised to see me here; I am slightly surprised to see myself here. I was at the Standing Committee on the Fire and Rescue Services Bill earlier, so I have come out of the fire and into the frying pan.

Chris Ruane (Labour, Vale of Clwyd)

I thought it was good.

Richard Younger-Ross (Liberal Democrat, Teignbridge)

I will not give up the day job.

Chris Ruane (Labour, Vale of Clwyd)

I thought you already had.

Richard Younger-Ross (Liberal Democrat, Teignbridge)

Amendment No. 354 deals with houses in an area of low demand. There are already provisions for special stamp duty exemptions, which apply to some disadvantaged areas. The aim of the amendment is to allow the Secretary of State through regulations to take account of properties of low value in those areas of low demand. The area in which I reside in South Devon has the reverse problem—high demand and high prices— but I am aware of parts of the country, particularly Newcastle

where my in-laws live, where there are properties of low value in low-demand areas and it is difficult to get a turnout.

I know that the cost of a pack is meant to be £600, but it could be more; we do not know exactly how the costings will work out. The best estimate lowest cost on a low-value property will be a substantial investment to people on low incomes in low-value properties.

Sally Keeble (Labour, Northampton North)

Will the hon. Gentleman say what his sense is about people on low incomes whose properties may have profound hidden defects? For example, the front hall might not be tied in to the rest of the building. How are they going to receive the type of protection that the home information packs should afford them? I appreciate the point about costs.

Richard Younger-Ross (Liberal Democrat, Teignbridge)

The hon. Lady makes a good point about the pack as it is proposed, but if property were supplied in a low-cost area now, it would be a case of let the buyer beware. We may have to have an exemption whereby people have to go back to the old system of surveying the property for defects. The properties of which we are speaking are often not properties with walls that are bowing or falling out, but perfectly sound properties on new estates that are in need of some repair. They may be in need of insulation or there may be ventilation problems causing condensation and damp. Those are not problems that could not be dealt with by a conventional survey. The problems can be circumvented, but if the hon. Lady insists that we go down the road of having packs I fear that we will be locking people into an area of deprivation and we will stop them from being able to get out.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about the disproportionate impact the packs will have on low-demand areas and, as a consequence, on the rest of the country, because there will be a concentration of demand in certain areas. Three points occur to me that he needs to clarify. First, how much would the amendment exacerbate the problem by stigmatising certain properties? In other words, a property without a pack will be seen automatically as ''disadvantaged'' and is unlikely to be attractive to purchasers. Secondly, will the hon. Gentleman say whether he thinks, as the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) said, that the people who most need the packs would not receive one under such an arrangement—although, as I said, I am not unsympathetic to the principle? Thirdly, what about the definition of disadvantage? Will it be defined simply in terms of low demand, or are there other ways in which one would define it? It is not clear from the amendment.

Richard Younger-Ross (Liberal Democrat, Teignbridge)

The hon. Gentleman makes three good points. I am not saying that our proposal is without problems. I hope that from this debate we may be able to explore them and see where we may be able to go forward. Any suggestions from either Conservative or Government Members would be

appreciated. Perhaps we will find that when the Minister responds there are ways in which we will be able to go further forward.

The hon. Gentleman raised three points in one intervention, so I must have been very generous. He mentioned stigmatising certain areas, which is a danger, albeit one that might be exaggerated and that depends on the size of the area affected. The advantage, however, is that we would allow people to get out of the area in which they live, so that they could perhaps sell their properties a little faster. That might bring a little more money into the area, allowing people to do up those properties and move forwards.

Mr. Syms rose—

Richard Younger-Ross (Liberal Democrat, Teignbridge)

May I finish my point? The hon. Gentleman has made three points; when I have finished, I will happily give way to him.

The question is how we move those people living in low-cost, deprived areas forward. That is what we are trying to do through the amendment. In the case of a person who senses a stigma about an area being low value, I would expect that that stigma exists because of the nature of the estate that they live on. In Newcastle, people know the areas where the deprived streets—those with the problems—are. People do not need to pay for a home information pack to know that those are the low-value streets where there are difficulties. To be honest, if the properties were popular, people would be moving into them. The fact that people are not moving into them is part of the problem, for other reasons that might have to do with that estate.

Clearly, there are other things that have to be done by local authorities to raise the standard of estates and deal with deprivation, particularly in inner cities, and those are not matters for the amendment. I think that one helps to create demand by making it easier for people to sell a property. I would argue that the amendment would go some way towards ensuring that. The hon. Gentleman made a point about disadvantage that I did not quite get. I do not know whether he wants to remind me about that point.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

The amendment speaks about identifying areas of disadvantage; I wondered how the hon. Gentleman defined that. Did he do so simply in terms of low demand, or did he have other things in mind?

Richard Younger-Ross (Liberal Democrat, Teignbridge)

We have not specified the exact definition; that would be a matter for the Under-Secretary in the infinite wisdom that I am sure she will show. Obviously, there are ways of dealing with the issue: one way to measure disadvantage in housing terms would be to look at the value of the property as a multiplier of the average income for an area; another would be to consider the percentage of people on benefits in relation to the value of property. We could also look at turnover, as we are talking about areas of low demand, or we could consider the number of empty properties on an estate. The last is probably a better indicator than any of the others I mentioned.

Robert Syms (Conservative, Poole)

There is one practical difficulty with areas of low demand. In the case of a £1 million property in London, it is probably inevitable that the money for the pack will be collected at the completion of the sale, when there are sufficient moneys to do that. For an estate agent marketing a property in a part of Newcastle such as one of those that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, there would be a tremendous temptation to ask for the £600, £700 or £800 up front. The sort of person who wanted to sell their property there might not be able to afford to put up that kind of money. The pack might then become a barrier to selling, rather than an aid.

Richard Younger-Ross (Liberal Democrat, Teignbridge)

The hon. Gentleman emphasises a point that I made earlier. Putting the emphasis on money up front is a way of preventing people from putting their property on the market, because they cannot afford the £600 for the pack. That is a serious problem. If people are locked into an estate, it creates a spiral of decline, rather than the growing affluence that we hope for. I hope that the Under-Secretary will look at the amendment kindly.

Clive Betts (Labour, Sheffield, Attercliffe)

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, although he says that Ministers will decide the matter by regulation, he has in effect already determined that they will have to come up with a definition that applies to low housing demand? In fact, clause 132 already gives effective powers to the Minister to make exemptions by regulations, according to low housing demand, or according to price, as the Select Committee suggested. There is still a bit more work to be done on that. We should consider the issue and not be as prescriptive as he has been in his amendment.

Richard Younger-Ross (Liberal Democrat, Teignbridge)

I take the hon. Gentleman's points, which are valid. I will wait for the Minister's response before deciding whether we wish to pursue the matter further. I wait to be enlightened.

Brian Iddon (Labour, Bolton South East)

It is pretty obvious that the term ''low demand'' is relative and means different things in different parts of the country. At one time there were areas of relatively low demand in London, but they became fashionable as film stars moved in, or for other reasons, and the market took off. The meaning of low demand is different in the north of England, as you know, Mr. Pike—and as I know, because I represent a Bolton constituency. There are 22,000 unfit properties in Bolton. The only way to bring the demand back into such areas is to bring them up to fitness standard. The Bill will help us to do that when it is enacted, and I welcome it in that respect. I spoke about that on Second Reading.

It would be unfair to charge people £500 or £600 for selling a house worth £5,000 or £6,000 when other people are selling properties worth millions, or even hundreds of thousands. I have thought about that matter a bit more seriously since Second Reading. This

is a tricky debate, and it is not easy to make a decision. I am sat on the fence, marginally in favour of letting HIPs go forward and seeing what happens.

I am, however, concerned about the amount of research that we have done. Since Second Reading a report containing research by SPARK Research Ltd. for the Government has winged its way to me. I notice that the report's summary shows that there were only 42 respondents to that consultation, which is an extremely low number. Only 13 of those responses were from local authorities. Fortunately, one of those responses came from my authority, Bolton metropolitan borough council—although I did not realise it had responded and I had not read what it said until this document winged its way into my hands. However, few of the responses address the problem. The research that the Government have done so far is not a good pointer to the direction in which the Committee should proceed.

Andrew Selous (Conservative, South West Bedfordshire)

The Minister told us earlier today that the price of the home information pack would not vary according to the costs of the property. We were talking about £1 million seafront houses in Poole, which would be subject to the same charge as other properties in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Poole. I wonder whether a solution might be for the costs of the pack to be related in some way to the price, but with a cap at either end—I say that hurriedly to reassure my hon. Friend with the £1-million waterfront houses in his constituency. There should be an upper limit, because it would be unfair to charge thousands of pounds for a piece of work that has not taken much time, just because a property is valuable. If we could introduce a range with an upper and lower limit, that might go some way towards addressing the issue that the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) is raising. That would be fairer for people in much cheaper properties—the houses worth £5,000 or £6,000 about which he is talking—and would not cause undue concern to my hon. Friend's constituents.

Brian Iddon (Labour, Bolton South East)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. There are all kinds of ways to get round the problem: five of them are quoted in the report I mentioned earlier. However, the one that is ruled out by the consultation document has to do with abandoning the need for the HIP requirement on low-demand properties, for some of the reasons that have already been stated. I have seen red-lining work in my local authority, and it is devastating. When building societies, or other lenders stop lending in an area, they never admit that they red-line it, but it is pretty obvious, because when people go to different building societies to try to get a mortgage in those areas they cannot get one. It is clear that the area is red-lined, although it is not accepted by any authority that it has been red-lined as such. Once an area is red-lined, people vote with their feet; they get out as fast as possible. I have seen that happen in Bolton, and it is one of the main causes of market collapse. Pathfinder areas are beginning to address that problem. I am marginally of the view that we should let the system

proceed and see what happens in practice, because it is difficult to project what will happen in low-demand areas when HIPs are launched on the market.

The next clause gives power to provide for further exceptions. I ask the Under-Secretary whether we can allow the system to progress now, closely monitor it, review it after not too long a period, and come back to the issue in future. If the HIP possibility causes difficulties in low-demand areas, the Minister might make an exception along the lines that have been proposed. That is my conclusion at present.

Sir Sydney Chapman (Conservative, Chipping Barnet)

I want to put a point to the hon. Member for Teignbridge on amendment No. 354. It arose from listening to his remarks and those of the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East. Should the hon. Member for Teignbridge not be talking about low housing value rather than ''low housing demand''? There can be low housing demand in high-value areas.

Richard Younger-Ross (Liberal Democrat, Teignbridge)

The words I used were low-value properties in areas of low demand.

Sir Sydney Chapman (Conservative, Chipping Barnet)

I stand to be corrected, but the hon. Gentleman's amendment only refers to ''low housing demand''. I am saying that it would be better if it referred to low housing value.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

A number of concerns have been highlighted in this short debate, and it is worth highlighting one or two particular issues to do with low-demand areas, so the Minister can better reply.

The hon. Member for Bolton, South-East properly drew attention to the research on the subject, and he is right that it is slight; I think that the Minister would be the first to acknowledge that. In as much as the research tells us anything, it has interesting things to say about the impact of the measure in low-demand areas. That is drawn from the particularly profound understanding of the matter among local authorities. The issue of low demand and low value is highlighted in the research by one of the local authorities that gave evidence, Redcar and Cleveland borough council—I am disappointed that the hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) is not present to hear what her local authority said. It stated that some low values might be a reflection of poor condition as opposed to low demand. Therefore, there may be not just an overlap but a distinction between them, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet suggested. It was also argued, particularly by the Bank of Scotland, that it would be useful if the prices of low-value, low-demand properties were expressed as a percentage of the regional average. Those qualifications of the points that the hon. Member for Teignbridge made are important.

There were real concerns about that research. The hon. Member for Bolton, South-East understated the case a little. It is clear that there were worries on the part of some of the people associated with it about its terms of reference, its scale, and therefore its significance. Stockton-on-Tees borough council, which I do not imagine is the most Tory authority in

the universe, voiced surprise at the finding that the pack would lead to a better-functioning market in low-demand areas. It said of the pack:

''They would not assist the market as they would create an onerous obligation on sellers who are already struggling to sell their properties. Sellers would incur higher legal fees from the outset and additional fees to top up the information.''

The Law Society has been quoted several times. It expressed concerns, but there are other worries, too, including a worry that the research

''did not appear to take into account the views of lenders and financial institutions . . . Other possible avenues for improving the conveyancing process were not central to the research''.

On Second Reading, my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) drew particular attention to conveyancing. She argued that, in many ways, improving the conveyancing process might be a more useful exercise than focusing our attention and skills on the production of the packs.

It was also suggested that the

''idea of a voluntary pack rather than a compulsory pack was not explored by the research''.

Finally, it was said that

''the conclusions could be seen to be potentially flawed because of incorrect assumptions used throughout the research process. For example the assumptions by estate agents that the cost of the pack could be covered by lenders''.

All those proper question marks hang over the research that has been conducted into the impact of the measures in low-demand areas. Those making such comments were not people with a partisan interest, but people who had a real concern about the importance of reinvigorating the housing market in such places.

I do not have a particularly strong view about such matters. I have no prejudice about such an argument. As I started to tease out in my interventions on the speech of the hon. Member for Teignbridge, it is difficult to know how we can start to distinguish with a reasonable degree of accuracy. There are worries about what that might lead to in respect of stigmatising or stereotyping a particular part of an area or a whole area. I have some worries about the way through such matters, but there are very real worries about the scale of the charge and its impact on the bottom end of the market. The sum of £550 is not much to someone who is buying a house for £1 million, but it is a lot of money when a person is buying a house or, more especially, selling one that is valued at £50,000, which a number of properties in parts of the country are, strange though that might sound to the high flyers in Westminster and its environs. If people did not sell their property and were saddled with such a bill, it would be a significant amount of money to many people who are selling properties in difficult circumstances.

I have real worries about the matter. The Under-Secretary will understand them because they are shared throughout the Committee and more widely. I hope that she will give us a reasoned and thorough account of the Government's perspective and advance a persuasive series of arguments about why there should not be an exception for low-demand areas. Perhaps she will say something about whether there are other ways in which to finance the packs. I make

no judgment and the Government may have a view about it, but it has been suggested that the pathfinder project might contribute to that. It has been said that local authorities might take special responsibility in some designated areas for compiling and providing support in making up the packs and distributing them. I have no fixed views about that, but it is important that we think about it and reflect seriously on such suggestions. I hope that the Under-Secretary will give us the benefit of her wisdom in such matters.

Brian Iddon (Labour, Bolton South East)

I have seen the suggestion in the document that local authorities should perhaps provide grants to help people to sell houses in the areas under discussion. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that that would also aid in red-lining areas if local authorities were giving them grants? It would send out the wrong signals, a point that was made in the report.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

Yes, that is exactly one of the paradoxes that lie at the heart of this small but important debate about packs in low-demand areas. I do not say that there are simple solutions. I have tried to put a balanced case because I understand the arguments on both sides, which is why I am not dogmatic about my conclusions or the solutions.

The hon. Gentleman will know that it was suggested in the consultation that local authorities and their partners provide the full service to consumers directly or through a specified agent as a means of supporting what they are doing in the housing marketplace more generally. They typically have a great deal of knowledge of their own locale and might well be able to use it to support this process and deliver it in a more effective way. There may be an enhanced role for local government. I wait to hear what the Under-Secretary says about that.

Richard Younger-Ross (Liberal Democrat, Teignbridge)

Part of the difficulty is how tightly one defines the area. There is no reason why it should not be far broader than the narrow confines of the area of deprivation. One does not often find that a whole estate is deprived. It is usually a street or some streets in a community or in a city. If the area is defined broadly and the compensation or grant is given on the basis of the cost of the property as sold, red-lining problems would not necessarily apply, as the defined area is far larger than the area of deprivation.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

That is a fair argument, except that if one were to marry this proposal with, for example, the market renewal pathfinder initiative, there would have to be some consistency in the measures that were applied. If there is to be a universal obligation that packs should be in place, one would have to be mindful of practicality when defining the exceptions. For example, it would not be acceptable to exempt individual properties or a few properties or parts of streets. That would make it very difficult to manage a process that already will create an ocean of paperwork and that is already an extraordinarily bureaucratic and complex exercise. I understand the hon. Gentleman's

point, but I am personally concerned, although the responsibility belongs not to me but to the Ministers, that targeting properties in that way might be impractical.

Incidentally, that is why I tested the hon. Gentleman. With good grace and some style, he failed to answer my questions on his definition of disadvantage and on the confusion between low demand and low value. He was even kinder when questioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet. After all, this is his amendment, not mine.

Clive Betts (Labour, Sheffield, Attercliffe)

Looking back to the discussions of the Select Committee, this was one issue on which we had conflicting evidence. Some people felt that the packs would be a major disincentive to people who were selling homes in areas of low housing demand and others felt that any attempt to define that and draw a circle on a map would lead to red lining and stigmatising. The Select Committee weighed up the evidence and in the end decided that something based on house price rather than a definition of low housing demand might be better. Even then, we said that the Government should monitor carefully whatever they chose to do, because we were not absolutely certain that we got it right. The Government's response was that they would think about the matter and that we should reflect on it and consult further. There are no absolute or definite views on it.

I hope that the amendment is a probing amendment, because it would lock the Government into coming up with a definition of low housing demand, which might not be the right approach. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East said, clause 132 allows the Government to do something in the future if they feel that it is appropriate, whether with price or low housing demand. It leaves the option open. Also, as I understand it, the option is not only to exempt completely but to exempt to a degree. The wording, ''to such extent'' gives greater flexibility.

I probably thought initially that I was in favour of an exemption, but I understand the opposing arguments. I can imagine a situation where the argument would be that the cost would put people off selling. I am not sure that it would. If people are going to move up from a property of £25,000 and they are looking to buy somewhere worth £40,000 or £45,000 I am not sure that having to pay the additional cost of a condition survey—what we are really talking about—will put them off. People will have conveyancing and searches to do anyway; that element will be paid for.

I wonder whether we might end up with a reverse situation where the condition survey might create a greater degree of certainty that people would not otherwise get. I am thinking of the people who occasionally come to my surgery—I am sure we have all met them—who have bought property in a low-demand area and have paid what was a low price in conventional terms, but quite a high price for people on their income. They suddenly find, having bought the property, that the place starts to fall apart, and they cannot afford the structural repair bills to put it right.

Brian Iddon (Labour, Bolton South East)

Would my hon. Friend consider the scenario where an elderly person has to give up their home to proceed into residential care, or a person, for whatever reason, is moving from one town to another and knows that their house is going to sell for a fairly low price for that area? In such cases, they may take the view that it is better to rent out the property than lose the £500 or £600. Would that not increase the number of rented properties in low-demand areas, when it is rented properties that sometimes cause the problems?

Clive Betts (Labour, Sheffield, Attercliffe)

It might, and we are speculating how things might work out. I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. What he says is a possibility, but there is another. For example, someone may go along to consider purchasing such a property. An elderly person may have lived in that property for a long time, but in the past few years they might not have had the wherewithal to maintain it to the highest standards. When the person looks at that property, they might see pretty old kitchen units, a bathroom that has not been modernised for years and windows that have not been painted regularly. They might start to think, ''I'm not quite sure about this. The property looks a bit run down, dilapidated and out of date. Do I really want to purchase it?''

However, if they had a condition survey that confirmed that, despite the old bathroom and the need to replace the kitchen units, the roof, the walls and the floors were okay structurally, a young couple looking to buy might think, ''We'll look at the property. The price is relatively low. The structures, which we might have worried about, are fine according to the survey. We'll work for the next two or three years to put the other issues right, which are not superficial, but we can manage them ourselves with the budget that we have.''

I wonder whether having a survey, which will be required in the home information pack, might provide a greater degree of certainty in the case of properties that often look poor and run down, but might be sound structurally. On the other hand, the packs might protect people from getting themselves in an awful hole, where they buy a property because they can just about afford it, and find that the repair bills come in after a couple of years as the walls begin to sag, the damp-proof course proves ineffective and the roof leaks, and they are unable to pay for its upkeep.

There are two sides to the issue. There is certainly the question of the cost of the pack in relation to the value of the property, and there are other questions to which I am not sure I have the answers, but it is at least worth reflecting on them.

[Part II]

[Continuation from column 558]

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

The clause provides that the home information pack duties do not apply where the property being sold is not available for sale with vacant possession.

Under the amendment, the clause would provide that the home information pack duties would not apply to sales of properties in disadvantaged areas. We have said that we are keen to debate this issue, and take the views of the Committee on it. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning made it clear on Second Reading that we wanted to consider the issue carefully and take further views on it. That is why we have distributed to all Committee members the consultation and research documents that we have issued. This debate has been very helpful.

It has always been our intention to ensure that it is possible to make special arrangements for sales of low-value properties, and sales in low-demand areas, in regulations. That could be done in regulations made under clause 132, which enables the Secretary of State to provide for other exceptions from the home information pack duties. Alternatively, the regulation-making power in clause 133 enables the Secretary of State to tailor the contents of the home information pack, and that power could be used to make different provision for different areas and different descriptions of property.

The Bill already contains powers to address the kind of problems that hon. Members have raised, and it already provides some flexibility. For that reason, the amendment would not be the right way to proceed. Nevertheless, it has raised important issues that I want to respond to as part of the discussion.

Brian Iddon (Labour, Bolton South East)

Would my hon. Friend accept the proposal that, where a local authority has declared a housing renewal area, for the period of that renewal area people selling properties there should not be expected to provide seller's packs? That might be one way round the problem.

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

That is certainly one option. A range of possibilities have been proposed, including identifying specific arrangements for housing renewal pathfinder areas, different arrangements for local authorities, and so on. I want to come on to some of those different options, and respond to some of the arguments that have been advanced this afternoon. Interestingly, this was also an issue during the original debates on the Homes Bill.

The consultation paper has set out some of the options for Committee members. The core issue is that, for the rest of the market, the home information packs are a way of improving the information that is available and the transparency of the market, and therefore of reducing the overall cost of transactions by reducing the number of failed transactions across the market. However, the problem is that in low-demand areas the market may simply not function effectively, so there are concerns that sellers of low-value properties could be affected disproportionately, that they could be deterred from putting a house on the market in the first place, and that the cost of the pack in proportion to the value of the house could be a problem.

Equally, there are other issues surrounding the potential for stigmatising properties if areas are identified and red-lined, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East said. There are also concerns about creating anomalies and denying the benefits of packs to buyers.

Some interesting issues arise, because as hon. Members have said, it is not quite clear exactly what the impact will be on sellers and buyers in the low-value areas. There are already transaction costs for people selling and buying in low-demand areas. There are lawyers' fees, search fees and other transaction costs. By removing the home information pack, we effectively transfer many of those transaction costs back from the seller to the buyer. Given that the buyer will often be a low-income family as well, the transaction costs are just as likely to be a deterrent or a problem for the buyer as they are for the seller. It is not clear that shifting from the home information pack to the existing system will make sales any more likely.

Richard Younger-Ross (Liberal Democrat, Teignbridge)

If the responsibility were suddenly put back on the buyer rather than the seller, the costs would often be borne when the mortgage on the property came through, and therefore the deterrent would not be the same as it is for someone who has to put the money up front for the seller's pack.

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

That is an important point, and I want to come on to it. In terms of the overall costs, it is not clear that there will be a greater deterrent to the transaction through the introduction of the information packs. One of the most powerful points is the fear that in low-demand areas, surveyors, lawyers and other agents may be less likely to defer their costs, relative to the rest of the market—the point made by the hon. Member for Poole. Those costs may have to be paid upfront because of a failure in the market provided by the different agents involved in the transactions. That is a significant issue and we must recognise that.

We must also recognise the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts): the home condition report may be a benefit to sales in low-demand areas. Buyers in low-demand areas will be in just as much need of protection as those in higher-demand areas and possibly in greater need. The introduction of the home condition report may

increase confidence in areas where the property seems to be deteriorating. There is a series of factors that will affect this, and in quite a complex way.

The majority view of respondents to the consultation was that identifying areas to exempt from home information packs would be damaging. Respondents were predominantly inclined to favour the approach of leaving it to the market, at least for the time being. They were also clear that if the Government were to amend the provisions for home information packs for low-demand areas, the best option was a cash limit so that sales below the prescribed amount would be exempted from some or all of the home information duties rather than simply those that were in a particular area.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

Presumably, the argument runs that the advantage of that is that it could single out individual properties without stigmatising an area and would reflect the fact that there are some low-value properties in most areas or streets. Is it something that the Government considered adding to the Bill, or are they still considering it?

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

I think the hon. Gentleman is right that the respondents felt that to be the advantage of doing this on the basis of price, rather than of particular areas. Certainly, there are much stronger arguments in favour of using cash rather than location to try to address the problem. Again, different views were expressed in the consultation. We are keen to consider further both the responses to the consultation and the points that hon. Members have made today.

Richard Younger-Ross (Liberal Democrat, Teignbridge)

Before the Under-Secretary reaches her final conclusion, could she tell us whether, if the Government do not exempt properties from housing information pacts, they will consider providing grants for properties below a certain value to aid the process? That would overcome some of the problems that other hon. Members have quite rightly highlighted.

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

As I said, we set out a series of options when we consulted. They included relying on local authority powers to provide financial assistance to sellers in the preparation of their pack in particular areas. Interestingly, many of the consultation respondents were a bit reluctant about that, too, on the basis that local authorities would need to identify the type of area. It raises the issues of areas versus cash limits for local authorities, too. The other approach that we suggested in the consultation was exempting the home condition report from the pack, so limiting the pack in some areas, but again that comes up against the difficulties raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe.

We are happy to consider further some of the points made by respondents to the consultation about identifying market renewal areas, pathfinder project areas, and other areas in which to try different approaches, and we could perhaps consider experimenting with other schemes. However, we do

not believe that there is sufficient evidence to justify putting anything in the Bill. We have taken powers to respond to the problem in low-demand areas, which we believe is right. We shall consider further the points made in the consultation, but there is no strong case for committing ourselves to taking particular action in the low-demand areas: we shall have to do further work on the issue, to ensure that we get it right and do not cause more problems than we solve. Instead of making matters worse for those buying and selling in low-demand areas, the Bill attempts to tackle the problems, to regenerate those areas. For that reason, I ask the hon. Member for Teignbridge to seek to withdraw the amendment. I assure the Committee that we continue to give the matter considerable thought.

Richard Younger-Ross (Liberal Democrat, Teignbridge)

I am grateful for the Under-Secretary's helpful and positive response. I hope that, if she allows the provision to go into operation, it is allowed to work for only a short time. I believe that there are ways of dealing with what will almost certainly be a problem. I believe not that there is likely to be a problem but that there almost certainly will be.

On the basis of the Under-Secretary's positive response and her recognition that there is a problem that she will continue to work at, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 131 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 132 - Power to provide for further exceptions

David Kidney (Labour, Stafford)

I think that I am right in saying that the clause contains the first reference to the Secretary of State as the maker of regulations in part 5, which marks part 5 out from every other part of the Bill, in which the regulator is the appropriate authority, which is the Secretary of State in England, but the National Assembly in Wales. Officials have explained to me that the reason for the difference is that we now are dealing with a conveyancing process across all of England and Wales, and because conveyancing transactions form chains that go across country boundaries, transactions could affect both England and Wales, so it is appropriate to have a single maker of regulations. The officials stressed that the Secretary of State will be under a duty to consult the National Assembly for Wales when making regulations. It would be helpful if the Minister would confirm that that understanding is correct.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I so confirm.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 132 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Column Number: 563

Contents of home information packs

Richard Younger-Ross (Liberal Democrat, Teignbridge)

I beg to move amendment No. 356, in

clause 133, page 89, line 19, at end insert—

'(d) that a property may be marketed with an incomplete pack in circumstances where reasonable efforts have been made to get the missing information'.

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 358, in

clause 133, page 89, line 27, at end insert 'and their professional advisers'.

No. 359, in

clause 133, page 89, line 31, after 'the terms', insert

'(but not a form of contract)'.

No. 410, in

clause 133, page 89, line 34, leave out 'relating to or affecting' and insert 'relevant to'.

No. 360, in

clause 133, page 89, line 37, after 'person', insert

'company or partnership who or which'.

No. 361, in

clause 133, page 90, line 6, at end add

'or to a property information form giving similar information'.

No. 362, in

clause 133, page 90, line 12, after 'person', insert

'company, partnership, association or local authority'.

No. 411, in

clause 133, page 90, line 27, at end insert—

'(d) power to be granted to the Secretary of State to enable local authorities to set and maintain fees for those searches and functions as required under the Local Land Charges Act 1975, The Local Land Charges Rules 1997 and the Commons Registration Act 1965'.

The rest of the debate is in Hansard.