Mr Edward Davey (Kingston & Surbiton, Liberal Democrat)

I beg to move amendment No. 220, in

clause 4, page 4, line 22, at end insert—

'or,

(c) the Member of Parliament for that district, or

(d) a further or higher education institution located in that district, or

(e) a Primary Care Trust serving that district.'.

The Government inserted subsection (2) into the Bill on the recommendation of the Select Committee. The subsection provides a mechanism for making official complaints to the housing authority that the housing authority must act upon in order to trigger an inspection. We debated the matter a little at a previous sitting, and we discussed the fact that the complaints procedure can be triggered without subsection (2). It can be triggered either through a housing authority review, undertaken under clause 3, or for any other reason. Such reasons could include ordinary complaints from a tenant or anyone else—perhaps a neighbour—who is concerned about the state of a dwelling. However, it is possible that complaints from tenants or neighbours may not be taken seriously and may not be investigated expeditiously.

I do not wish to malign local housing authorities—they take their duties seriously—but Liberal Democrat Members wonder whether the official complaint process should be strengthened a little. Amendment No. 220 seeks to add to the two mechanisms in subsection (2)—the option of going to a justice of the peace or a parish or community council—the option of going to a Member of Parliament, a further or higher education institution located in the relevant district, or a primary care trust.

In many ways, our proposals make more sense than the provisions of subsection (2), although I realise that that provision was recommended by the Select Committee. Seeking the help of a justice of the peace is normal procedure, going through due process, but I wonder what the JP will know of the property concerned. Obviously, photographic or other evidence could be produced, but it may take a lengthy period and the JP may not have the necessary knowledge. A parish or community council might be helpful in some areas, but I represent a part of a borough that does not have such councils, so that provision would not help my constituents. That is why we decided on the three

additions. They are not the only possible additions, and they may not be the best; indeed, the Government or other members of the Committee may suggest alternatives. However, we felt that they were best for three reasons.

I am sure that hon. Members will agree that Members of Parliament deal with an awful lot of housing matters. I do, and I am sure that the Minister does. We are occasionally called to visit constituents in their homes to deal with specific housing matters such as overcrowding and other conditions such as damp, and we often make judgments. We do not deal with all housing complaints that come to us—if we did, we would have time for nothing else—but it happens occasionally. I believe that we are well placed to do that.

Including further or higher education institutions is relevant because they have a duty of care to their students. They have welfare and housing officers, and an accommodation department, and they could undertake to investigate students' complaints. Primary care trusts are strategically linked to general practitioners and health visitors, so they would have a role if we were concerned about the impact of the poor state of a property on someone's health.

Given the rationale of the amendment, it might make sense to add those provisions to the official complaint process in subsection (2). I doubt whether the Minister will accept the amendment, but I hope that he will share his thoughts with the Committee and possibly give an assurance that he will consider the question further, just as the Government did with the Select Committee's recommendations.

Mr John Hayes (South Holland & The Deepings, Conservative)

It is good, Mr. Conway, to be back in the throes of our work, which we are beginning to enjoy immensely.

The amendment is a useful stimulant to discussion because it throws real light on one of the issues that we discussed at length on Tuesday. I have some sympathy with the comments of the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey), in that widening the opportunity for people to gain such a response from the relevant authority is good and healthy.

Indeed, we tabled an amendment—it was not selected, Mr. Conway, but I do not question the infinite wisdom of the Chair—that would have widened that opportunity still further. It would have widened it to people living in the parish who might come together to request action. My reasoning is that if a group of people in a street or neighbourhood are beginning to feel the effects of a house or houses that are faulty or causing difficulty in one form or another, then in addition to having the opportunity to make representations to their MP or parish council, as the Government favour, they should be able to do so directly. However, that is not the subject of this short debate, because that amendment was not selected.

Mr Edward Davey (Kingston & Surbiton, Liberal Democrat)

I thought that the hon. Gentleman's amendment was excellent. Perhaps he will have the chance to move it at a later stage. I should have thought that it could be referred to as a new localist amendment.

Mr John Hayes (South Holland & The Deepings, Conservative)

I notice that after my stinging criticisms of him during the previous sitting, the hon. Gentleman is going some way to make up ground with me. That is important and I note it. I shall be less unkind to him in future; it is not fair to shoot rats in a barrel.

It is important for the Government to take the hon. Gentleman's argument on board, as there are more than a few means of encouraging the sort of action that we all feel would be appropriate. The Government suggest a justice of the peace for the district, or the parish or community council for the area in which the house is situated. Opposition Members are staunch defenders of the roles of parish and community councils; they are extremely important representative bodies, and we associate ourselves with them entirely. Justices of the peace are important local figures; again, we do not suggest that they should not be asked to play such a role. However, it seems odd, as the hon. Gentleman said, that a Member of Parliament will not have this power but a JP will.

You, Mr. Conway, and other members of the Committee know that the issues and complaints dealt with by the Bill are already often brought to Members of Parliament. We all receive correspondence in our mailbags week by week of the sort that would be appropriate to pass on for action by local authorities, but it seems a little bizarre that a Member of Parliament should have to go to a justice of the peace or his parish council to ask them to do something. [Interruption.] The Minister is chuntering, and I have no doubt that he will speak with his usual eloquence in response to the debate, but the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton has merit in that regard.

We are all interested in delivering a system that enables the local authority to act appropriately whenever and wherever necessary. The more opportunity responsible people have to encourage the local authority to do so the better, although we do not want people ringing up on the off-chance to suggest that it should get involved unnecessarily. However, that is not the implication of the amendment.

The amendment is in keeping with the spirit of the Bill, it would improve the process and it would allow those with legitimate concerns to voice them to a range of local representatives, who could, in turn, pass them on to the relevant authority. In that sense, the hon. Gentleman made a persuasive case, which I hope the Minister will take on board. It could have been made better, as it was in amendment No. 182, with which the hon. Gentleman generously said that he agreed in large part. With equal generosity, therefore, let me say that I largely support his comments.

Sir Sydney Chapman (Chipping Barnet, Conservative)

I want to look at subsection (2) slightly differently. I was not on the Select Committee that examined the draft Bill, and I wonder why a JP or a parish council—as a

corporation, presumably—should have the right to make a complaint when no one else does. Can a JP, of their own volition, suddenly decide that a matter should be looked into, or will that depend on people coming to them? If so, and the JP has to satisfy himself or herself about the issue, we shall have a quasi-legal system, which I am not so sure should apply in this case.

Let me take another suggestion—MPs. I warn colleagues that if we accept the amendment—I do not oppose it, but I want to think it through—we may be flooded with applications to intercede to get properties inspected. If MPs are to have that responsibility—and it would be a responsibility—why not also local councillors? Indeed, they would be a better choice.

In one sense, this is a Christmas tree amendment, on which we can all hang the corporations and individuals that we think should have the right to trigger the mechanism in the Bill. I am not making a definitive statement but simply asking the Minister to explain why he chose justices of the peace and parish or community councils. As the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton said, we do not have such councils in the Greater London area. What was in the Government's mind in drafting subsection (2)?

Mr Keith Hill (Minister of State (Housing and Planning), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Streatham, Labour)

With your permission, Mr. Conway, before I respond to this short but interesting debate I want, in the spirit of practicality and constructiveness that has characterised our proceedings, to deal with two matters that arose during our first two sittings, on Tuesday. The Committee may recall that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) asked about compliance costs, while the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) asked about public access to inspections. This may not be the Committee's view, but I felt that I was unable to provide the full explanation that I would have liked. I therefore promised to return with a fuller explanation, and I want to fulfil that promise, although I shall not detain the Committee.

Let me deal first with the costs of complying with the health and safety rating system and with the housing fitness standard. During Tuesday afternoon's sitting we discussed the costs associated with implementing part 1, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East drew attention to the relative costs of the health and safety rating system and the fitness standard, as set out in the Library research document. I promised to say more about the estimates of compliance costs for property owners and the operational costs for local authorities, which the hon. Member for Poole wanted me to clarify.

The House of Commons document reports the estimates given in the regulatory impact assessment published with the Bill. I stress that all the figures are approximate, because there has been no full-scale survey based on the new health and safety rating system. From our work on the fitness data in the 2001 English housing conditions survey, we estimated the annual total costs of works carried out under the health and safety rating system to remove category 1 hazards to be approximately £260 million. My hon.

Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East quoted that figure accurately. It compares with the figure of £470 million to comply with notices under the housing fitness regime, and represents an annual cost saving of approximately £220 million. In other words, the estimate in the regulatory impact assessment is based on the costs likely to ensue from obligatory interventions—that is, those that relate to category 1 hazards—rather than costs arising from all possible interventions. In other words, we can be certain only about the interventions that will automatically follow from the requirements in the Act.

Many of the other interventions are discretionary, which is why we could give only the figure of £260 million with certainty. We can be certain about that, but cannot be certain about the overall costs of other interventions, although we would expect other interventions in relation to category 2 hazards to follow in any circumstances.

Mr John Hayes (South Holland & The Deepings, Conservative)

This is a most helpful additional explanation of the costs. As the Minister suggested, those costs caused the Committee concern when we last sat. It does, however, throw the business of defining hazards into very sharp focus. I fully understand his comment about this being the estimate of category 1 hazards. As he will recall, we were concerned about that definition. I am also worried that category 2 hazards do not seem to have been costed, given that the new system expands the competence of the authority to consider a range of hazards and conditions that had not been taken into account until now. The Minister may be about to tell us that he has a notional figure for the overall cost. If he is, I apologise for anticipating him. If he is not, I hope that we will be given a fuller explanation of the whole cost later in our proceedings, because the document becomes questionable without it. This may be a great new system, but it is less impressive if we do not know what it will cost.

Mr Keith Hill (Minister of State (Housing and Planning), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Streatham, Labour)

I understand the hon. Gentleman's point to a certain extent. In the best of all possible worlds, it would be desirable to provide that overall cost, but the Government are limited to making estimates on the basis of what we know will axiomatically follow from the Bill's provisions. The hon. Gentleman should remember that we are not venturing into completely new territory. A large body of experience and practice in relation to the fitness standard has been built up over a large number of years, and we have fairly clear theories about the overall consequence of those interventions; the figure of £470 million has already been quoted. Our assumption is that a similar number of interventions will occur.

I remind the hon. Gentleman that throughout our discussion of such matters we have emphasised the judgment-based and discretionary nature of the interventions. The consensus is that that is a strength of the new system. In a sense, it is more evidence-based and scientific, and offers clearer triggers to action than heretofore; nevertheless, it essentially relies on the experience and common sense of the inspectors. It is

not a fatal flaw in the argument that we cannot offer an overall figure for costs at this point. We will monitor the matter and make sure that the burdens are not excessive. At the same time, in the spirit of the intervention made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East, we are anxious to ensure that there is no decline in proper inspection and in taking action to deal with problems.

Mr John Hayes (South Holland & The Deepings, Conservative)

I accept what the Minister says. It is not easy to estimate the costs because the system involves a whole new culture and requires a different approach. However, the Minister needs to understand that if we are not comparing like with like, we may estimate for half a system in the new figure, and for the whole system in the old figure. The current whole cost of carrying out fitness standards is—

Mr Keith Hill (Minister of State (Housing and Planning), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Streatham, Labour)

Four hundred and seventy million pounds.

Mr John Hayes (South Holland & The Deepings, Conservative)

Yes, the figure that the Minister has quoted. However, his estimate of the saving refers to only part of the cost. We may not be comparing like with like. I am worried that when we expand the system to take category 2 hazards into account, we may end up with a greater figure for costs. I am not necessarily against that: it might be desirable to expect people to spend more money to comply with the expanded range of hazards that the new system will define.

No one should be under the illusion that we are definitely comparing like with like. The old fitness standards presented a total picture; category 1 hazards present a partial picture. I hope that during the course of our very long proceedings over the next several weeks the Minister will come up with some estimate, at least in notional terms, of the whole picture—the cost of category 2 hazards added to the cost of category 1 hazards. I appreciate that that will be difficult, but it does not seem impossible, given the enormous resources, skills and abilities available to him in his Department.

Mr Keith Hill (Minister of State (Housing and Planning), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Streatham, Labour)

I will consider the matter further and, if at all possible, I will respond again, but I offer absolutely no guarantee. I put it to the hon. Gentleman that the strength of our proposal and the associated compliance costs are matters of certainty, whereas it is possible to argue that the old fitness standard was not. We should remember that, in contrast with the old fitness standard arrangements, the new system triggers actions by authorities in a much more specific and definite fashion. There was no certainty about the actions that would ensue from the old fitness standard or about the costs associated with it. We can now be much clearer. Nevertheless, I undertake to return to this point if a rational estimate can be made.

We will continue to look into the matter of local authority costs, which was raised by the hon. Member for Poole, in collaboration with our colleagues in the Local Government Association. However, we have no evidence that operational costs under the new system will be higher than under the fitness standard. We accept that there will be some start-up costs and I have

said before that we estimate that they will be between £4 million to £5 million. I hope that that has assisted the Committee and has not unduly delayed proceedings.

Mr. Hayes rose—

Mr Keith Hill (Minister of State (Housing and Planning), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Streatham, Labour)

I see that I have not entirely satisfied the Committee.

Mr John Hayes (South Holland & The Deepings, Conservative)

May I deal briefly with the second part of the Minister's comments? Later amendments will allow us to expand on our concerns about the matter. We know that there will be start-up costs covering training, adaptation and reskilling, but the Minister needs to consider the matter more fully. Given the complexity of the issue and the culture change that we all acknowledge will be involved, there could be ongoing costs. We need further explanation and better notional estimates. There will be more time to debate the matter, but I flag it up now because I do not want the Minister to conclude his remarks without appreciating that the rest of the Committee and local authorities are concerned that the estimates are not as accurate as they might be.

Mr Keith Hill (Minister of State (Housing and Planning), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Streatham, Labour)

As the hon. Gentleman has said, we shall have the opportunity to debate issues relating to start-up and training in due course. I am sure that we shall do so thoroughly.

Let me turn now to public access to inspections. At our last sitting, the hon. Member for Poole referred to the reports of health and safety rating system inspections and asked what information would be in the public domain. When an environmental health officer goes into a property with score sheets and makes an assessment, will that be a public document? I have to confess my ignorance of the answer, but I will seek to shed light on it.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) noted, when part 1 of the Bill comes into force, the Freedom of Information Act 2000 will apply to local housing authorities. Information will be made public unless it falls within one of the exemptions. It will be for the local housing authority to determine in each case whether any information requested in relation to a part 1 inspection is exempt. I do not expect an inspection record to be exempt. There might be circumstances in which a record has to be modified to prevent the disclosure of personal data, but that will be a matter for the local housing authority acting in accordance with data protection rules. I hope that that is satisfactory to the Committee.

Mr Robert Syms (Poole, Conservative)

I thank the Minister for that clarification. I note that that might add a little to the local authority's costs. That might be a worthy thing to do, but as one with a local authority background who has recently discussed the costs to local authorities, I know that to make a document public in order to comply with freedom of information legislation—albeit totally appropriately—a system will have to be set up and an officer will have to exercise judgment, so there might be a cost implication.

Mr Keith Hill (Minister of State (Housing and Planning), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Streatham, Labour)

I understand the point, and it is possible that the hon. Gentleman is right. I imagine that systems exist for the disclosure of information, but this could add to such activities. We shall keep an eye on that. Although we are hesitant to trespass on any matter of local government finance, if the cost becomes a burden we will have to take that into consideration at the appropriate time when making allocations.

I am grateful to you, Mr. Conway, and to the Committee for allowing me to make those explanations. It is efficient to clarify such matters in that way because it gives colleagues the opportunity to ask questions.

Clause 4 replaces, with modifications, section 606 of the Housing Act 1985. Subsection (1) requires a proper officer of a local authority to inspect a property or area if he receives an official complaint that a category 1 or category 2 hazard exists on residential premises, or that an area should be dealt with as a clearance area. Subsection (2) defines an official complaint as one made in writing by a justice of the peace or by a parish or community council.

That issue has already been the subject of some discussion by the Committee. The right to have a complaint investigated is not restricted to a justice of the peace or to a parish or community council. The hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman) asks why the provisions have been included. The reason is that they were introduced in previous legislation and, as hon. Members have mentioned more than once, the Select Committee recommended that they be included in the Bill. We have acceded to that request. However, I assure the Committee that it would be quite wrong to imagine that the inclusion of magistrates and parish or community councils in the Bill means that local authorities are likely to be unresponsive to complaints about the condition of properties.

Subsection (3) imposes an additional duty on an authority to inspect residential premises if, either following a review under clause 3 or for some other reason, it considers that appropriate to determine whether a category 1 or category 2 hazard exists on the premises. Subsections (4) and (5) provide for regulations to prescribe the manner in which an inspection of premises under subsection (1) or (3) is to be carried out and how the hazards in the premises are to be assessed. The purpose of the provisions is to provide that the inspection and the hazard assessment are carried out in accordance with the proposed health and safety rating system.

Subsection (6) imposes a duty on the proper officer of the local authority to make a written report to the authority without delay if he believes that a category 1 hazard exists on the premises inspected, or that the area inspected should be dealt with as a clearance area. Subsection (7) requires the authority to consider such a report as soon as possible.

The amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton would extend subsection (2) to allow a complaint to a local authority by the local Member of Parliament, local higher education establishments and the local primary care trust. The

hon. Gentleman anticipated my response, which is that I am reluctant to yield on the amendment, because I do not want to add new burdens to local authorities. We need to be careful about requiring authorities to act on complaints rather than allowing them to use their discretion to do so. We should not divert authorities or have them investigate cases unnecessarily. That is not a pejorative observation about the quality of representations from Members of Parliament or worthy bodies. However, there must be an element of discretion regarding the complaints that local authorities pursue. The experience of the officers will be that some of those complaints are likely to be vexatious or frivolous, so there has to be a limit.

Mr. Hayes rose—

Mr Keith Hill (Minister of State (Housing and Planning), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Streatham, Labour)

If the hon. Gentleman will permit me, I should like to pursue the argument. Then we shall have the opportunity for discussion.

I remind the Committee what I said about subsection (3). That provision would have the effect of requiring authorities, in response to what might be somewhat pejoratively described as an unofficial complaint, to arrange for an inspection to be conducted if that was considered appropriate. As I have said, in my experience, authorities generally investigate complaints as a matter of policy, unless they have reason to think that a complaint is vexatious or unreasonable. I must say, in an unusual burst of modesty, that I am not sure whether I, as a Member of Parliament, have the special experience in these matters that would add weight to any complaint that I might make. Of course, other members of the Committee are more expert than I.

In response to an issue raised by the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet, let me make it absolutely clear that it is not necessary for a Member to refer a case through a magistrate, or a parish or community council. As he rightly said, in London we know not of such creatures in any circumstances. The same is true in most major urban areas. To impose on authorities a new statutory burden along the lines set out in the amendment would not be particularly helpful. We can trust them to exercise sensible discretion. To summarise the immortal words of Peel in the Tamworth Manifesto: if it ain't broke, don't mend it.

It is clear from our exchanges that there is little evidence that makes a case for the amendment. When producing legislation, Government must not act on theory or speculation, but on evidence. Without such evidence, I am reluctant to support the amendment, and I urge the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton to withdraw it.

Mr Matthew Green (Ludlow, Liberal Democrat)

As the Minister takes that view, will he reassure the Committee regarding the following hypothetical case, which may arise if the amendment is not passed? Suppose that a Member complained to his local authority about a dangerous property, but the local authority did nothing and someone was injured in the property, which turned out to contain a category 1 hazard. In

such a case, the council would almost certainly be liable on the grounds that it had been warned about the property but had failed to do anything about it.

Mr Keith Hill (Minister of State (Housing and Planning), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Streatham, Labour)

I turn to those with greater legal experience than I have in such matters, but I am pretty confident that the council would be liable in those circumstances—the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right in that respect. One would expect such neglect to have serious consequences, but one would expect the same in the event of a serious and earnest complaint from any source. It would be quite wrong to say that a complaint should be neglected if it is from a source other than a JP, a parish or community council, an MP, a primary care trust or a college. We expect all complaints to be taken seriously unless the local authority, judging by its experience, believes the complaint to be from a vexatious or frivolous source.

Mr John Hayes (South Holland & The Deepings, Conservative)

It is early, but this morning the Minister seems like a good racehorse having a bad run. In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet, on the one hand he tells us that of course an MP's complaint would be taken seriously and of course the local authority would ''as a matter of policy''—his words—investigate a serious complaint, but on the other hand he tells us that, as an MP himself, he doubts whether any MP would have the expertise to make a complaint. He tells us that the local authority would take seriously both unofficial and official complaints and that is why he rejects the amendment, yet he tells us also that we must not overburden local authorities because otherwise they will have too many complaints to handle.

We need some clarity. The truth is that it would have been better if the Minister had listed either everyone or no one in the Bill. If no one were listed, this debate would not have occurred. The Bill could have made some general remark about serious complaints being investigated, or about complaints being channelled through a local authority that would have discretionary powers. However, because the Bills refers to parish and community councils and JPs, the Minister—to paraphrase his hero, Ernest Bevin—has opened a Pandora's box from which a hornet's nest has emerged.

If the Minister cannot be clearer, I will be surprised if we do not return to this issue at a later stage to demand greater clarity. The right hon. Gentleman will, no doubt, have better runs and will win other races in the course of the day's proceedings.

Mr Keith Hill (Minister of State (Housing and Planning), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Streatham, Labour)

Well, we are in metaphorical mode. To pursue the equine analogy and the theme of horse racing, the hon. Gentleman is really champing at the bit this morning. He has obviously had something stimulating for breakfast. For the purposes of clarification, I did not say that Members of Parliament would not have expertise in the matters we are discussing; I said that I see no particular reason why Members of Parliament qua Members of Parliament should automatically have greater expertise in these issues, and therefore no reason why their representations should be given greater weight than those of other citizens.

I concede the point this far: characteristically, constituents come to MPs as a last resort, but that is not always the case. The more we become glorified councillors and local community figures, the more constituents are inclined to come to us for quite run-of-the-mill matters, if I may describe them thus. I represent a constituency only four miles from Westminster, so it is not costly for a constituent to pick up the phone and call me. I have picked up the phone in my office in the House of Commons to be informed that a constituent's window got broken that morning and to be asked what I was going to do about it.

We come across that sort of thing, but on the whole people come to us if they have had a bad experience. If there has been a failure to respond, we would make a forceful representation, and we would certainly expect the force of that representation to be responded to. I would expect complaints about the condition of a property and behaviour to be responded to in all circumstances. There has been no evidence adduced to the Committee to suggest that that is not so and that we need belt and braces in addition to JPs and parish and community councils. That, presumably, is what moved the Select Committee to call for their inclusion in the Bill, together with what already appears there. I say again: if it ain't broke, don't mend it.

Sir Sydney Chapman (Chipping Barnet, Conservative)

I shall be brief. As ever, I am grateful to the Minister for responding to my question as to why JPs and parish councils are mentioned. As I understand it, parts of the Bill replace parts of the Housing Act 1985. He said that subsection (2) is in the 1985 Act, and that the Select Committee, having looked at the draft Bill, recommended that it stay in legislation. For me, that is an entirely satisfactory explanation.

I do not expect the Minister to answer now, but it would be interesting to know to what degree that subsection has been activated in the past 18 years. It may be that nobody has gone to a JP, or that a JP has never applied that subsection. It may also be that neither a parish council nor a parish community have done so. If the Committee could be given some indication of how the subsection has been used—not now, but later in the proceedings—that would be helpful.

I say that for one good reason: we change legislation to add something to the statute book, but in so doing we have the opportunity also to cut out the extraneous elements of old legislation, especially in the case of complex and massive pieces of legislation such as this, which we want to make as short as possible—or at least not unnecessarily long.

Mr Keith Hill (Minister of State (Housing and Planning), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Streatham, Labour)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the tone of his response. We will consider the question of references from JPs and parish and community councils to establish whether there are any data. If there are, I will report back to the Committee. I agree with the hon. Gentleman's point about the need to

reduce regulation where possible, and I am delighted to say that towards the end of part 1 there are a number of deregulatory clauses.

Mr Edward Davey (Kingston & Surbiton, Liberal Democrat)

I am grateful for the comments made by the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet. That information would be useful. I suspect that the powers have been used in few cases, and I think that the same suspicion lay behind the hon. Gentleman's comments. If that is the case, it would strengthen the argument for the approach suggested in amendment No. 220. Such information is the evidence that the Minister was seeking. He said that it did not exist, but he does not know that, because he has not looked for it. He has not answered the question. When he finds the answer, he may want to return to that matter. To make that easier, I suggest that a way forward may be to require local authorities to give due consideration to representations from a Member of Parliament, a primary care trust or a JP, rather than using the official complaint processes.

Mr John Hayes (South Holland & The Deepings, Conservative)

The hon. Gentleman has hit on a valuable point. I wonder whether he agrees with me that the Minister was saying that, in effect, there is little difference between an official and an unofficial complaint, and that although an official complaint is defined in the Bill, an unofficial complaint from a responsible person—an MP or a local councillor, for example—would probably be treated in a similar manner. That adds weight to the hon. Gentleman's point, because the Minister has conceded that official complaints have little status.

Mr Edward Davey (Kingston & Surbiton, Liberal Democrat)

Indeed—I was coming to that point. Subsection (3)(b) explains what the local authority's thought process would be. It states

''If, in the case of any residential premises in the district of a local housing authority. . . as the result of a review under section 3 or for any other reason a local housing authority consider that it would be appropriate for an inspection of those premises to be carried out''

and so on. The key phrase is

''or for any other reason''.

That, I think, is what the Bill is referring to in respect of a representation from a Member of Parliament or a member of the public. However, the local authority has no duty to consider such a representation. It may be a small point, but if the local authority had lost something, or if it was not cutting the mustard, it might say that a representation was inappropriate without having considered it. The phrasing of subsection (3)(b) provides too easy a let-out.

My amendment is not about imposing extra regulations, duties or responsibilities, but about making sure that local authorities do what the Minister asks of them. Surely, he wants to ensure that local authorities consider representations from a Member of Parliament, or a justice of the peace, or anyone else. All we want is to ensure that the local housing authority gives proper weight to representations. That occurs elsewhere in legislation, particularly in relation to duties that fall to Secretaries of State. They are often asked to consider representations, reports and so forth. I wonder

whether that would strike a better balance between the official complaint procedure and what is in subsection (3).

Mr Keith Hill (Minister of State (Housing and Planning), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Streatham, Labour)

I shall be brief, because we have given the issue a good thrashing. We expect local authorities to respond to complaints from all sources and to take them seriously. The hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) asked about liability. He is right that the local authority must reasonably decide whether to inspect; if it unreasonably fails to do so, it could be liable. That adds further force to the local authority's need to be responsive to complaints.

My final observation is that if the Government had clear evidence that the system was failing, we would act. However, there is no evidence of widespread failure to respond on those issues. For that reason, we do not feel the need to go further than in the Bill.

Mr Edward Davey (Kingston & Surbiton, Liberal Democrat)

As the Minister said, we have given the issue a thrashing, but we may feel the need to return to it. However, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Robert Syms (Poole, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 183, in

clause 4, page 4, line 40, leave out

'the manner in which, and'.

There are still a few issues that we must thrash out. This is a probing amendment: we are mainly just messing about with the Minister's wording so that we can have a debate.

The amendment addresses two issues. First, a number of landlords and the Council of Mortgage Lenders have raised concerns about the fact that landlords who have properties in different local authority districts have to deal with different regimes. Therefore, they want clear guidance so that the systems are similar and they know how to operate them in different areas. If the regulations are drawn up in such a way that regimes are substantially different, that will cause problems.

The second issue concerns the need to tease out the difference between an official complaint and the local authority considering an inspection for any other reason. Presumably, when guidance is laid down, an official complaint would mean that the local authority would have to inspect, and the discretionary side of things would mean that it would consider whether to inspect if someone who was not a JP or in one of the other categories phoned up and said, ''There is a problem here.'' Once one has got past that, presumably the system would be the same for any inspection, whether or not it were as a result of an official complaint or just a normal inspection by the housing authority. Will the guidance specify a different procedure for those two types of complaints, or are they to be treated as one? Common sense would dictate that once a local authority decided to look at a property the system would be the same whether the complaint was official or discretionary.

When inspections take place, will they be comprehensive? If there is a specific complaint—about wiring, for instance—will the inspector go through all 29 elements on the score card, or will they go into the building for 15 minutes to examine the specific complaint, such as whether there is a wiring problem? The property might have been comprehensively inspected a month earlier, which would be a good reason for them not having to go through all 29 facets of the inspection. I am trying to tease out how much discretion authorities will have when they undertake inspections. If quite a lot of discretion is allowed, there might be a temptation when a fault is found to do a full inspection because there might be other faults.

There must be conformity and uniformity between the regimes of local authorities, but an official inspection by their environmental health officers could be anything from a 10-minute visit to a two-hour ''painting of the kerbs'' inspection in which they go from A to Z and do everything fully and comprehensively. The costs to a local authority, and the potential costs to the landlord, could be substantial: that would depend on how heavy-handed the inspection regime is. How can we have both conformity and a degree of flexibility so that inspectors can use their common sense? We do not want somebody to have to go into a property with all the forms and go through a set procedure for however many hours that may take to ensure that everything is properly done every time that a complaint is made.

The fact that a tenant might pull out some wiring if they have an issue with their landlord must be taken into account. There might be a disagreement over rent, or about attitude. It is not unknown for tenants occasionally to do something to a property if they are in conflict with the landlord. If we are not careful, we will end up with an inspection regime in which people regularly turn up to examine faulty wiring or something else that has been caused by criminal damage. How heavy-handed and how practical would it be to draw up guidance and regulations that make clear the responsibilities of landlords who have properties in different districts?

Mr Edward Davey (Kingston & Surbiton, Liberal Democrat)

The amendment is useful because it enables the Committee to think about the regulations that the Government are required to lay under subsection (5) on how inspections are to be made. To my knowledge—I hope that I have not missed papers sent to me by the Government—we have not seen those regulations yet. Will the Minister say when we will get sight of them, or refer me to the relevant published document that I have failed to read?

I have a specific point about what the regulations ought to cover. It relates to something that the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health brought to my attention. How will samples be gathered, and will an environmental health officer have the power to take samples? The samples might be of mould, to discover its potential to damage health, or of air samples, in order to examine ventilation—or of other things that I have not thought of or would not wish to consider this morning. Will the Minister make it clear

whether under the regulations EHOs will be given the power to take those samples, and that the landlord will not be able to prevent those samples being taken?

Sir Sydney Chapman (Chipping Barnet, Conservative)

As ever, my hon. Friend the Member for Poole has raised very specific points, and I am grateful to him for that. The amendment would remove the phrase ''the manner in which''. I fail to understand why that phrase is necessary given that it is immediately followed by

''the extent to which, premises are to be inspected under subsection (1) or (3)''.

Perhaps the Minister could explain what is covered by ''the manner in which'' but not covered by ''the extent'', particularly given paragraph (b), which states:

''the manner in which the assessment of hazards is to be carried out.''

I am not saying that the provision should read ''the extent to which the assessment of hazards should be carried out'', but I fail to see why the phrase is necessary in clause 4(5)(a). Beware the politician on a crusade, but I have crusaded over a number of years to keep legislation as simple as possible. This is an opportunity to remove at least one small phrase from this massive Bill.

Mr Keith Hill (Minister of State (Housing and Planning), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Streatham, Labour)

I shall respond first to the hon. Gentleman. I explained the purpose and effect of the clause when we debated the previous amendment.

The amendment would prevent regulations from prescribing the manner in which premises are to be inspected. The objection to prescribing the manner of inspections—the way in which they are carried out—is not clear to me. The regulations under clause 4(4) are those also referred to in clause 2. Regulations under clause 2 will prescribe the method and therefore the manner of the inspections. That is why that phraseology appears.

I shall deal with the other speeches in reverse order, turning first to that of the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton. He asked about regulations. I detected a slight note of complaint about the lack of availability. It is true that we have not circulated the draft regulations among Committee members. However, on 19 January we circulated a very hefty document, in which we spelled out the policy intent behind the regulations. As and when it is appropriate, we will make the draft regulations available.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the power to take samples and what would happen in the event of a landlord seeking to prevent the taking of those samples. There are powers later in the Bill to deal with failure on the part of various persons to co-operate with the inspector or to permit access, and specifically on the issue of samples, we have tabled an amendment to clause 177, which I am sure he will want to consider carefully. In broad terms, regulations will derive from version 2. That will be available in final form later this year, along with the draft enforcement guidance documents that are already available to the Committee in draft form.

I recognise that the amendment is a probing one. The hon. Member for Poole raised anxieties that there might be different regimes in different districts. It is very important that there should be uniformity in the application of the provisions. We will try to ensure uniformity of approach through guidance, in the regulatory framework set out in regulations, and by the process of training.

As I shall discuss later, if we have time to debate the relevant amendments, to which the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) referred, the draft versions of the health and safety rating system have been widely available for a long time now. We are confident that there is already a high level of awareness among environmental health inspectors. That awareness will be reinforced by a training system and various other forms of information aimed at bringing about uniformity. The hon. Gentleman raised an important question on behalf of various stakeholders. I am grateful, but I assure him that we are aware of its importance.

The hon. Gentleman asked about official complaints. I am beginning to regret the open-mindedness with which the Government approached the recommendations of the Select Committee, specifically on the issue of magistrates and parish and community councils. It has seemed to me to give rise to perhaps more heat than is justified by the provisions. However, let me say again that the procedure to be adopted by inspectors will be the same regardless of the source of the complaint.

Mr John Hayes (South Holland & The Deepings, Conservative)

Will the Minister allow me?

Mr Keith Hill (Minister of State (Housing and Planning), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Streatham, Labour)

The hon. Gentleman has made an intervention from, as they say, a sedentary position.

Mr John Hayes (South Holland & The Deepings, Conservative)

I do apologise, Mr. Conway.

To be absolutely clear, are we saying that, as I suggested, equal weight will be given to official and unofficial complaints?

Mr Keith Hill (Minister of State (Housing and Planning), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Streatham, Labour)

To adopt another sporting metaphor, that is a hole in one. The hon. Gentleman is correct.

The hon. Member for Poole asked whether the inspection would be restricted to the specific complaint. It could go beyond it if there were reasonable grounds. If an inspector went to premises in response to a complaint about live wires and found that a wall was in imminent danger of collapse, it would be absurd not to respond to that.

On the other hand, we attach importance to the idea that excessive impositions should not be placed on landlords. There will be no requirement for an environmental health officer to keep reinspecting premises. It is a matter for the environmental health officer's discretion. We shall deal with that in guidance, but we are eager to avoid any suspicion or suggestion that EHOs or surveyors should be in the habit of going on fishing expeditions. I hope that those undertakings will reassure the hon. Gentleman.

Mr Robert Syms (Poole, Conservative)

Yes; the Minister has gone a long way towards reassuring me on the concerns that I raised.

One other small point arises about official or other complaints. Presumably figures will have to be collected on official complaints. If a JP phoned a housing authority and said, ''I believe there's a problem with some housing in multiple occupation'', would the authority not be tempted to say, ''Don't make it official, Fred. We'll go and inspect it''? I raise the issue because it has just crossed my mind—[Laughter.] Would a housing authority want lots of official complaints? I gave the example of HMOs, which might be in the area that the authority was supposed to inspect, but the overall figures for official complaints might bear no relation to the state of housing in the area because of the way in which local people use the complaints procedure. Anyway, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.