Mr Nigel Waterson (Eastbourne, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 43, in page 5, line 19, leave out `may' and insert `shall'.

Mr Roger Gale (North Thanet, Conservative)

With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments:No. 5, in page 5, line 44, at end insert

`save that these shall not include local authority searches.'.

No. 19, in page 5, line 44, at end insert

`or—( ) a valuation of the property.'.

No. 6, in, page 6, line 2, at end insert

`save that these shall not include a survey report or home condition report.'.

No. 7, in page 6, line 2, at end insert

`and the term ``characteristics'' shall include information about risk of flooding.'.

No. 20, in page 6, line 2, at end insert—

`( ) an account of the suitability of the property for occupation by disabled persons.'.

No. 40, in page 6, line 3, after `the', insert

`physical structure of the property.'

Mr Nigel Waterson (Eastbourne, Conservative)

Amendment No. 43 is very simple. I am not entirely clear why ``shall'' has not been used: the Minister cannot be in any doubt that the regulations will be issued in due course. It could be a drafting point and I am willing to listen to reason on that.

Amendment No. 5 would take out of the seller's pack reference to the local authority searches and linked amendment would take out reference to the home condition report. I shall return to those matters later and speak first to some of the amendments that are easier to deal with.

The reasoning behind amendment No. 7 on flooding is self-evident. In recent months, few hon. Members can fail to have received letters in their postbag about flooding—some cases more serious than others—as a result of sustained rain over a long period. Some time ago, the Minister made it clear that the Government, as well as producing new planning guidance—currently in draft form, but likely to be finalised soon—were considering using the Bill to address the flooding problem. I cannot lay my hands on the reference, but it appears in Hansard. The Conservatives regard that suggestion with favour. It underlines the inadvisability of insisting that the seller's pack contain a home condition report. We shall debate the format in detail when we reach clause 8 and I do not want to stray too far, but to what extent will it deal with flooding? Will the information be reliable? If there has been severe flooding over several months, will information be provided about how badly the condition of a particular property could be affected?

I return to amendments Nos. 5 and 19. Several organisations, including the Law Society and the Council of Mortgage Lenders, are concerned about the requirements stipulated in the amendments. Although the National Association of Estate Agents is broadly supportive of the reforms, it would surely accept that not every estate agent is signed up to the proposals. Strong views are held on the subject. We need look no further than the Second Reading speech of the hon. Member for Upminster, who warned against

over-promoting the proposals as a panacea for the problems inherent in the system of moving home.

On the basis of his nearly 30 years of experience as a conveyancer and member of the Law Society, he believed that the problem was caused

not by the conveyancing process, but by the nature of our housing economy.

The hon. Gentleman was also critical of attempts, not least those of the Minister, to compare our system with that of other countries. In fairness, the Minister would accept that it is difficult to draw close parallels when markets, habits and occupation levels are different.

The hon. Member for Upminster made the telling point that:

As a result of the high proportion of home ownership—

as we know it is 69 per cent. in this country—

and the low proportion of private rented accommodation in England and Wales, few people who have to move home can consider moving into temporary accommodation.

That, of course, is a solution found in other countries, not least in Scotland, where I believe there is a tradition of people moving into rented accommodation rather than endure the tremendous climactic event whereby everyone in a chain moves house on the same day. I seem to recall a rather good film on the subject; it was made many years ago, but remains true today.

The hon. Gentleman made a fair point—no doubt doing so sank his chances of serving on the Committee. He that the proposal will help those moving home, but only marginally and at a cost—financially and otherwise. He says, for example that:

an unscrupulous seller might obtain a seller's pack and hawk it around.

He came up with other criticisms, pointing to the efforts of the Law Society and others over quite a long period to speed up the system.

It is important that we do not pretend that we are acting in a vacuum. Things are happening, things have been happening and things will continue to happen to speed up and make more efficient the system of conveyancing in this country. It is fair to say that the Law Society and estate agents have been at the forefront of that effort. Lots of things are changing, such as the development of the internet, and so on. It may be a while before the internet is fully effective, but searches and other activities will eventually become a matter of clicking a mouse.

The hon. Member for Upminster talked about the extension of communications technology, saying that

local and land registry searches will be available at the touch of a computer keyboard—

but adding—

I think we can ignore them as a factor leading to delay and uncertainty, although they are relevant to the question of cost and who is to bear it.—[Official Report, 8 January 2001; Vol. 360, c. 787-88.]

He pointed that it has always been possible to make a personal search, it just costs extra money. If there is a great hurry, it is always possible to pay for your solicitor to send someone down to the local council office and make a personal search, even in the age of the internet. The hon. Gentleman mentioned serious reservations about the front-loading of costs, extra costs, the need for further surveys, and so on. He also, rather interestingly, talked about the problems of criminal sanctions. What a shame the Committee does not have the benefit of his advice.

Mr Andrew Love (Edmonton, Labour/Co-operative)

We are getting it from you.

Mr Nigel Waterson (Eastbourne, Conservative)

The hon. Gentleman is certain getting good press from Opposition Members.

I have a letter from a Mr. Rendell, who works for a company called Convey Direct. The letter is sent from an address in Bristol and, of course, Mr. Rendell talked about the Bristol pilot scheme. Rather fascinatingly, he says of the scheme that:

The trial was in my view, carried out on a misconception i.e. that by the time the scheme was launched all Local Authorities would be on line. If that were the case i.e. so that searches could be obtained ``at the click of a mouse'' then frankly there seems little to be gained by making a search weeks, months, in advance of the sale. Besides, the Local Search is a highly technical document.

He says that

it is unrealistic to think that the searches will be on line before 2003—

the date by which the Minister hopes to implement the legislation. His letter continues:

What we will therefore have is a situation where the searches alone may take two to three weeks.

Then—this is a fascinating observation from one who was there—Mr. Rendell says

This was ``massaged'' in the Bristol Pilot because Bristol Council agreed to give priority to all Sellers Pack searches, returning them within 48 hours.

I was not aware of that until I saw that letter. If that is true—and I have no reason to believe that it is not—it puts another twist on the pilot results. Rather fetchingly, Mr. Rendell notes:

This is not the real world but it helped to contribute to the suggestion that Sellers Packs could be prepared in the space of 10 days.

He makes the further important point that

The pack will have no value unless the Condition Report is acceptable to Purchasers.

He goes on to say that, even in the pilot scheme, houses were

surveyed not once or twice but three times i.e. once for the Sellers pack, once for the Lender and once for the Purchaser.

Mr. Rendell also talks about speeding up conveyancing. We all know that electronic technology will speed up the process and make it more effective, but it is rather worrying, to say the least, that he does not believe that it will be possible to implement the scheme within the proposed time scale.

I have talked about local authority searches and the home condition report. Our position on those matters is clear and amendments Nos. 5 and 7 touch on that. The only other amendment to which I need to speak is amendment No. 40, a probing amendment that seeks to establish what warranties or guarantees on property are involved. We want it to be clear that only warranties or guarantees relating to the physical state of the property—structure, repairs, damp work and so on—are involved, not those relating to equipment.

Mr Don Foster (Bath, Liberal Democrat)

In the light of those comments, does the hon. Gentleman think that it would be helpful for the seller's pack to give information about documents that are not available—for example, damp guarantees, dry rot guarantees and so on? Might a checklist of the information deemed necessary be included so that it is clear whether such information is available in a particular pack?

Mr Nigel Waterson (Eastbourne, Conservative)

That is possible but we are again getting into the famous list argument. If the documentation included a long list of what one should expect to see, it could be worrying to see an ominous set of unticked boxes. That is a clause 8 issue.

The Bristol scheme involved specific reports about subsidence and so on, owing to former mining works. That obviously makes sense in certain parts of the country but would not be relevant in Eastbourne. We are by the sea, so information about flooding risk might be more relevant. Our cliffs are disappearing at a rate of knots—I blame the Government. On that note and in my usual desire to be constructive, pithy and concise, I commend the amendments to the Committee.

Mr Don Foster (Bath, Liberal Democrat)

I rise to speak briefly to amendments Nos. 19 and 20, even though members of the Committee can probably guess the Minister's arguments against both. I suspect that he will deploy the famous argument A—the list argument—against them, although he may have other arguments to advance against amendment No. 20.

We are debating an issue that goes wider than the specifics of the amendment: what sort of information should be included in the seller's pack and should that information be detailed in the regulations or in the Bill? The purpose of the amendments is to ensure a clear undertaking from the Minister that such matters will be covered in the regulations, if not the Bill. I hope that the Minister will accept the spirit in which the amendments have been tabled.

On Second Reading, the Minister, in responding to his hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley), who had raised the issue of the possible inclusion in the pack of information relating to subsidence in mining areas, said:

My hon. Friend makes a valid point. We are specifically considering whether the seller's pack should contain precisely the information about which he is concerned in areas of mining subsidence, but there are other issues. Obviously, vulnerability to flooding would be an important issue, about which many hon. Members will rightly be concerned in the light of the recent floods.—[Official Report, 8 January 2001; Vol. 360, c. 716.]

An amendment in relation to subsidence or flooding has not been moved, and I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity of commenting on both of those issues. While doing so, perhaps he could he comment on another issue that it would be appropriate for the regulations to refer to.

The Chartered Institute of Environmental Health has drawn my attention to the problem of radon gas. Much concern has been expressed in the newspapers about the threat to soldiers of inhaling depleted uranium but it is easy to forget that as many as 2,500 people each year die from the effects of inhaling radon gas and its decay products, which lead to lung cancer.

One of the problems is that the issue does not affect all parts of the country. It predominantly affects a swathe running from the west of the country through to the east midlands. It is important that reference is made to this problem, but I recognise that, were a test for it to be required in all parts of the country, that would create difficulties. For example, in London, were it to be a requirement to demonstrate that there had been a test for radon and what the test results had been, that might lead to anxiety and a great deal of delay, in an area where we know that there is no such problem. The difficulty, and I appreciate it entirely in raising this issue, and those of with mining subsidence and flooding, is that these are area-specific issues.

The Committee will note that the Minister has said that he is prepared to look at the issue of whether low-value properties should be excluded, and that too will generally be an area-based issue applying in some parts of the country and not others.

These variations add some additional complications, which need to be addressed, to the way in which the seller's packs are produced. What will not vary in different parts of the country is that enormous benefits will be gained in buying and selling houses—in particular doing what the Minster wants, and speeding up that process—if the seller's pack could have an additional purpose, that of assisting mortgage lenders in speeding up their part of the operation.

Amendment 19 suggests that, in addition to the other items included in the seller's pack and which are referred to specifically on the face of the Bill, there should also be a valuation of the property done in a way that would be acceptable to a mortgage lender. That addition would be beneficial in speeding matters up and would go a long way to addressing the problem of gazumping, which the Committee knows is not significantly addressed by the Bill.

Hon. Members who have read amendment No. 20 will agree that it would be useful to ensure that information about disabled access to the property was made available. However, I acknowledge the difficulty of doing this, since the particular needs of one disabled person could be very different from those of another. I acknowledge that the wording of my amendment does not recognise that, but I should be interested to hear the Minister's response to the problem that it highlights.

I realise that I am asking the Minister perhaps to go against his own determination to stick to argument A, the list argument. I hope that, if he looks at all the proposals in the group of amendments, he will note that there are nearly as many deletions as additions. That might persuade him that we will end up more or less where we started and he might be slightly more sympathetic than I suspect he is about to be.

Mr Nick Raynsford (Minister of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions; Greenwich & Woolwich, Labour)

We have had an interesting debate on the specific requirements of clause 7, which is a particularly important clause because it defines the contents of the seller's pack and sets the parameters for the detailed specification that will be carried through in regulations. I shall not weary the Committee by repeating the reasons for using regulations. The only restriction is that the documents must be relevant to the property being sold and concern matters that are of interest to a potential buyer. They are specific and common-sense restrictions on the exercise of the power and what is to be included in the seller's pack.

The clause states the sort of information that would go into the pack. It is essentially the information that is provided by or on behalf of buyers and sellers now. For reasons that I have explained, we want to prescribe the contents of the pack in secondary legislation. That will allow time for the components to be drawn up in consultation with consumer and professional representatives. It also provides important flexibility to make changes more speedily if changes in the housing market make some items redundant or if new sources of important information come to light. One need think only about the specification of the average house today compared with 30 or 40 years ago to know how important it is to have the flexibility to update. A whole series of electronic equipment in the house, not to mention central heating, would have been rare 40 years ago, yet is now commonplace.

Amendment No. 43 would substitute ``shall'' for ``may''. I am familiar with that, as I have myself moved similar amendments. I probably moved one on the Housing Act 1996 when the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon was in the place that I now occupy and I was where the hon. Member for Eastbourne sits. I fully understand the reason for tabling the amendment. Just as our best efforts were rebuffed by the then Minister, I shall disappoint the hon. Member for Eastbourne, although perhaps I will not as he is a realist and he knows that I will be offering him a clear explanation of why we need the wording.

Mr Don Foster (Bath, Liberal Democrat)

As a matter of interest, were the Minister at some future date to be transferred back to the position currently occupied by the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon, would he hold his current view, or those that he held when he was in opposition?

Mr Nick Raynsford (Minister of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions; Greenwich & Woolwich, Labour)

I am a great believer in progress. Labour Members believe in progress and it is fair to say that Liberal Democrat Members do, too. Unfortunately, the hon. Gentleman is on the side of the House that is associated with a party that does not believe in progress and has a more conservative approach towards the world. The belief in progress and the perfectibility of man, and woman, is such that I have learned from my experience in the past three and three quarter years in government. I would not now repeat the arguments that I made in good faith when I was in opposition and had not the expert advice that I now have available from people with razor-sharp minds who know exactly why legislation has to be drafted in certain ways. I hope that answers the hon. Gentleman's question.

The use of the word ``may'' should not be taken to imply that regulations will not be made. The rest of the provisions of the Bill cannot work unless the contents of the seller's pack are prescribed in regulations. If regulations were not made, the scheme would not be introduced. We are committed to introducing the seller's pack. We want it to work, and we will make regulations. We are satisfied that the current wording achieves our objectives. I am told that the substitution of the word ``shall'' for ``may'' could expose the Secretary of State to legal challenge for failure to produce regulations by a particular time when there might be good reason to ensure fuller consultation, which might mean that the regulations emerged slightly later. That is one illustration of the potential problem that could arise should the word ``shall'' be substituted for ``may''. I have questioned my advisers carefully on that point, because I have argued the case from the other point of view in the past, and I am satisfied that there are good and precedented reasons for keeping the phraseology that is in the Bill.

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

It is an important point, because professionals will be looking at the Hansard report of the debate. When does the Under-Secretary expect to be able to produce those draft regulations? Clearly, it is in everyone's interests that there should be proper consultation with all the relevant bodies. At the same time, it is in everyone's interests that those regulations are known about in good time before the Act is brought into force.

Mr Nick Raynsford (Minister of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions; Greenwich & Woolwich, Labour)

The hon. Gentleman is correct in saying that there is a balance to be achieved between scope for proper consultation—to allow all interested parties a full opportunity to express their views and enable the Government to learn from the experience of the wide range of bodies who have much to contribute to the debate—and the need to provide plenty of advance notice for those preparing for the implementation of the scheme. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a precise date at the moment for that reason, but I can assure him, however, that we are determined to complete both those processes. We have two years in which to do so, which gives us more than enough time to ensure full and extensive consultation, and to provide the regulations in good time for the House to consider and debate them. All those who will need to use them will have access to them, and will be able to prepare well in advance of the implementation of the scheme.

Amendment No. 5 would appear to be intended to provide that local authority searches cannot be specified in any regulations that prescribe the contents of the seller's pack. Local searches are important to home buyers and mortgage lenders. If problems are revealed by the search, they can lead to further investigations and delays, possible renegotiation over the price, or even transactions collapsing altogether. The whole point of the seller's pack is to introduce transparency into the system by exposing potential problems and information that might threaten the transaction right at the beginning of the process. The local authority search is an important component. It is a check against other components of the pack, including the home condition report, and the property information form. The search, therefore, needs to be available up front, and I believe that the effect of the amendment would be catastrophic to the good working of the scheme. I hope that the Committee will reject it.

I understand that anxieties have been expressed on these issues. The hon. Member for Eastbourne referred to various concerns. I shall not go into the detailed point. He quoted at length my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster. My hon. Friend was not alone in failing to secure a place on the Committee. Many Labour Members expressed a wish to serve on the Committee. It has proved a popular Cttee, and several hon. Members were disappointed not to be able to serve. I can assure the Committee that I have heard the views of my hon. Friend for Upminster and have considered them carefully. I do not agree with all of them.

My hon. Friend was quoted by the hon. Member for Eastbourne as saying that international comparisons were potentially misleading. I accept that some misleading comparisons can be made, but by whatever criteria one judges, we have one of the slowest systems in the world. Virtually everyone to whom I have spoken accepts that we must be able to speed up the process considerably and that applies equally to local authority searches. I will, therefore, pick up the point that the hon. Member for Eastbourne made, quoting Mr. Rendell. I hope that he is no relation to the Liberal Democrat hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel). Mr. Rendell wrote to say that the Bristol pilot was bogus because there was a fast-track procedure for the searches, and it would not be possible to obtain information by 2003 using the national land information service and the electronic system. I have to say that Mr. Rendell's first point is unfair and his second is quite simply wrong. Let me tell the Committee why.

The pilot was designed to replicate the circumstances that will apply as and when the new arrangements come into force. We expect NLIS to be available in the not-too-distant future, which is why we sought to ensure that local authority searches could be processed more quickly than under the existing manual arrangements. That is the reason why there was a strong emphasis on creating a quick procedure for accessing the information necessary for the local authority searches. It is in everyone's interest that we do that, to speed the process up, because the current arrangements are not satisfactory.

As for the claim that the endless and similar arrangements will not be available by 2003, I inform the Committee that a statement was issued today, prepared jointly by the local authority improvement and development agency, and by Teramedia Ltd., which is working with the agency on this. The statement makes the point that

there is already a modernisation programme under way, pioneered by the local government Improvement and Development Agency (IDeA) and the first local authority data providers are being selected. Roll out plans for modernisation indicate that a critical mass of data providers would be able to provide updates to questions direct from the source registers by 2003.

We are also looking at the feasibility of various private sector initiatives to keep this information constantly up to date, for example in the area of planning applications received in the interim. Indeed, the first NLIS Channel Licence is being signed tomorrow by Teramedia Ltd.

None of this would be possible using manual methods but I have confidence that NLIS will provide this capability through a choice of outlets, by the time sellers packs are mandated by 2003.

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

I am a member of the Public Accounts Committee, and time after time we have come across big government IT programmes that were delivered very late. One can think of NIRS2 and IT in the Ministry of Defence. Far too many big government IT programmes are delivered late, so it is highly possibly that the NLIS programme will be late. Under those circumstances, it will still be necessary to rely on manual searches. It is my experience that local authorities are very variable in the length of time that they take to provide local authority searches. Would it be a defence in such circumstances to provide a seller's pack, saying the date of application for a local authority search and the date on which it was expected to be provided.

Mr Nick Raynsford (Minister of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions; Greenwich & Woolwich, Labour)

Our intention is that there will be no need for it, because the system can be obtained electronically within a short time. I am pleased to say that Teramedia Ltd., a private sector company with considerable experience in the field, and the local authority improvement and development agency are both confident that that can be achieved.

However, to take the hon. Gentleman's point, in the event of gross inefficiency on the part of a local authority and a total failure to provide the information by the time that the agent felt it was reasonable to put a seller's pack on the market, it would certainly be possible for the agent to put the pack on the market with the note, as we have described, stating that the information will be provided as soon as it becomes available. I would hope, however, that the agent would notify, not just the local authority, but our Department, because such a failure would be wholly unsatisfactory. As I have said, we are seeking to improve and speed up processing and most local authorities are entirely sympathetic to the need for such processes to be carried out far more efficiently than they are now. We will continue to apply pressure to help ensure that that is achieved.

Amendment No. 19 would provide that a valuation of the property may be included in the contents of the seller's pack. We have deliberately chosen not to include a valuation in the pack for two main reasons: first, inclusion would unbalance and inhibit the usual bargaining process; and, secondly, a valuation is subjective and could become out of date very quickly in a fast-moving market. In our view, the home condition report would generally be reliable for six months or so without a valuation attached, but its reliability would be seriously compromised if it included a valuation that became out of date in a matter of weeks.

The home condition report will greatly assist buyers in making a sound judgement on whether the price of the property accurately reflects its condition. We also want lenders to be able to use the home condition report to assist their valuation purposes, although we do not intend, in any way, to inhibit the ability of lenders to carry out a separate valuation inspection if they feel that is necessary. We are quite confident that the condition report will greatly assist the current trend, in the industry, towards desktop valuations for mortgage purposes and it would be very wrong if buyers armed with a home condition report were asked to pay unnecessarily for a separate valuation inspection.

We recognise that there may be circumstances where lenders will wish to carry out their own valuation inspections, we will provide for that, but in the majority of cases we are quite confident that the availability of the condition report should make inspections the exception rather than the rule. That, of course, will be of huge benefit to the public who are currently paying, on average, approximately £180 for such a valuation. If we can remove it, it is another cost reduction in the system and so benefits the consumer. That is what the Bill is all about—making the system better and more cost effective for the public. We are discussing with the Council for Mortgage Lenders how that can be achieved. The CML is one of the stakeholders represented on the body governing the development of the home condition report and certification scheme and it is well placed to ensure that lenders needs are considered alongside those of other stakeholders.

Amendment No. 6 will provide that the seller's pack may include information on the physical condition of the property, but a survey report or home condition report may not be prescribed in regulations. Again, the amendment is wholly unsatisfactory and would be utterly destructive to the whole process. The inclusion of a mandatory, professional report on the condition of the property is central to the overall objective of our proposals. Research has shown that the cause of 43 per cent. of failed transactions are a result of problems identified by the valuation inspection or conditions survey where one is commissioned. That is why the information should be made available at the very start of the transaction process and should be included in the seller's pack. Furthermore, in the chain, the effective delays and aborted transactions can go well beyond those directly involved. That adds further weight to the argument for identifying condition problems at the start of the process.

The inclusion of a condition report also brings other major advantages, the largest for first-time buyers. They have the least experience in the market, and the least experience in owning property. They are probably those in the greatest need of reliable advice on condition. They are also often those who can least afford a survey. They have a real gain from these proposals. There can be few measures that would give more direct benefits to first-time buyers. When they first buy, often when people are most stretched and in greatest difficulty, they will not have to incur some of the costs they face now. This is a very sound basis for helping first-time buyers. It is one of its greatest advantages.

Specifying that information on the physical condition of a property should not be in the format of a survey or a home condition report, would considerably weaken the effectiveness of including this information. In order to be of benefit to consumers, the information needs to be prepared to consistent benchmark standards by a competent inspector, that is a member of an approved certification scheme.

Our proposals for a certification scheme will ensure that the condition reports are independent, objective and reliable. Any certification scheme approved by the Secretary of State will ensure that reports are produced to consistent benchmark standards by suitably qualified inspectors with professional indemnity insurance.

One of the major advantages of the home condition report is that it will be a standard form of report, produced to consistent standards. This will enable consumers to compare the condition of different properties. It is far preferable to using the homebuyer survey and valuation, where a wide variation of reporting occurs, due to a lack of benchmark standards. Many of us who have gone through the house buying process, and have commissioned surveys, will know that the caveats and safeguards put in by individual valuers often vary. It will be of huge benefit to have a standard set of procedures that will be understood, so there will be a lot less scope for valuers to use weasel words to conceal potential weaknesses or failures, or to safeguard themselves against action if their report is not a good one.

Amendment No. 7 to clause 7(5)(d) will provide that any information on the physical condition of the property contained in the seller's pack should also include information about the risk of flooding. Clause 7 (5)(d) signposts our intention to include a home condition report in the seller's pack. The precise contents of the home condition report are not yet finalised, but I can assure the Committee that it will contain information relating to flooding. If, for example, there was evidence of flood damage to the property, it is intended that that should be reported. Even if there was no physical evidence of flooding, the report might still point out any potential risks of which the inspector is aware.

In view of recent events, to which the hon. Member for Eastbourne referred, I can understand the calls for information relating to flood risks to be made available in the seller's pack. In this respect, potential buyers can go to the Environment Agency, which provides a search inquiry service on this and other environmental matters. Any such search would fall within the provisions of clause 7(5)(c)(ii), and we will consider this further in consultation with representatives of consumers and the professions.

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

On the subject of those further environmental searches, it will be necessary to establish the norm in relation to searches. Will those searches have to include the normally separate commons registration search? Will the local authority search have to include a search of the contaminated land register?

Mr Nick Raynsford (Minister of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions; Greenwich & Woolwich, Labour)

The hon. Gentleman raises two important but highly technical issues, and rather than give an unadvised answer immediately, I will take further advice and write to him on both those issues. I can assure him that it is our intention to ensure that the searches and the compilation of the condition report are carried out in as standard a format as possible, to ensure that the vast majority of eventualities that are relevant to the property are identified and that the evidence can be relied upon by prospective buyers and others.

Amendment No. 20 seeks to include the suitability of a property for occupation by disabled persons as an example of relevant information under clause 7 (5). Information on whether the property being sold is suitable for disabled people is clearly relevant information within the meaning of clause 7(3) and (4). However, it is not strictly necessary, and it could be counter-productive, to make it a specific requirement for the regulations. The information would fall within clause (7)(5)(d), which provides that the pack may include information on the physical condition of the property. I refer to my earlier comments on the reasons for not wishing to specify matters in the Bill where it is not necessary to do so—argument A.

As the hon. Member for Bath recognised, there is a considerable variation in the type of adaptation carried out for disabled people, and some adaptations would not be appropriate for certain needs, but not for others. I hope that he will recognise that, while we are quite clear about the importance of ensuring that relevant information, including information about suitability for disabled people, is included, his would not be an appropriate amendment to put on the face of the Bill.

While mining subsidence and radon are both potentially relevant issues, as the hon. Gentleman recognised, they are applicable only in certain areas. We are considering how we can best organise the home condition report to provide as much relevant and useful information as possible, without it becoming unduly complicated, inaccessible or expensive. Those issues are under consideration and we will certainly reflect on the views expressed in the Committee before we come to conclusions.

Mr David Curry (Skipton & Ripon, Conservative)

Exactly what does the Minister mean by the term ``risk'', which he has been using frequently over the last 15 minutes? We have all become used to the ``analysis of the risk'', for example, in food safety. We talk about the ``risk of flooding''. Yet the Environment Agency was talking about a one-in-500-year event, which has now turned out to be rather more frequent. There is a real danger that details about a risk that is in practice unlikely to occur may, by being included, be a serious deterrent to sale. We need a definition of what the order of evaluation of risk means, and to reassure people that when we say, ``You cannot discount something,'' that does not mean that it is not going to happen.

Mr Nick Raynsford (Minister of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions; Greenwich & Woolwich, Labour)

The right hon. Gentleman makes a point similar to the one that I made in my evidence to the inquiry into flooding conducted by the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Select Committee. I made the very point that the fact that the property is in a flood plain does not of itself necessarily indicate that there is a risk of flooding. We are all in a flood plain. The whole of central London is a flood plain. However, given the presence of the Thames barrier, the likelihood of a flood is very much reduced. Therefore, the information needs to be relevant and to take account of the remediation and safeguards that are present to try to counter those risks. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that we are very much alert to the point that he has raised, and we do not wish to raise undue fears by information being included that is only partially accurate and therefore could give a false impression. It is important that information should be available, but the information must be useful and give a true picture of the extent of the risks that exist.

Amendment No. 40 would amend clause 7(5)(e). That provides that the regulations may prescribe that ``any warranties or guarantees'' relating to the property should be included in the pack. The amendment would restrict this to ``warranties or guarantees'' that relate to the physical structure of the property. The intention here is to make sure that, where a new home is being sold, the NHBC or similar warranty is included in the pack. If it is not—for example, if the builder is not a member of the scheme—then a home condition report must be provided instead. This guarantee clearly concerns the physical structure of the property and therefore meets concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Eastbourne. In other cases, the pack may include guarantees that do not relate to the structure— for example, a guarantee for a new central heating boiler. However, such documents need be included only where they are available, and there will be no question of sanctions being brought against people who have mislaid them.

I apologise to the Committee for having taken such a long time to deal with these issues but, as hon. Members will accept, these are complex issues, right at the heart of this piece of legislation and I think it is right that all hon. Members should be aware of them.

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will now accept that his amendment should be withdrawn and that we can proceed to further matters.

Mr Nigel Waterson (Eastbourne, Conservative)

These are matters we are going to return to in further debate and so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Further consideration adjourned.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Adjourned accordingly at six minutes to Six o'clock till Tuesday 23 January at half-past Ten o'clock.