Clause 120 - Meaning of ''residential property'' and ''home information pack''

Housing Bill – in a Public Bill Committee at 2:30 pm on 5 February 2004.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Mr Peter Pike Mr Peter Pike Labour, Burnley

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 337, in

clause 121, page 84, line 23, leave out 'first'.

No. 404, in

clause 121, page 84, line 24, at end insert—

'( ) The Secretary of State may make regulations defining the meaning of marketing for this purpose'.

No. 338, in

clause 121, page 84, line 26, leave out

'it is taken off the market or'

and insert

'the agent's instructions are terminated in writing or it is.'.

No. 339, in

clause 121, page 84, line 28, leave out

'or to a section of the public.'.

No. 391, in

clause 125, page 86, line 11, at end insert—

'(5) The seller does not become responsible under subsection (1) by marketing the property to an individual who is known to him, by virtue of any informal conversation with that individual.'.

Photo of Mr Matthew Green Mr Matthew Green Shadow Minister, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Local Government & the Regions, Young People, Non-Departmental & Cross-Departmental Responsibilities

When I told my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) that, as he had to attend the Chamber to debate the forthcoming local finance settlement, I would happily take over from wherever he had got to, I had no idea that we would be discussing only the second group of amendments to this part of the Bill.

The amendments are designed to discover the precise meaning of the wide-ranging and unclear set of definitions that the Government are using. Amendment No. 336 would remove the words ''or may become''. Subsection (2) states that the seller's pack is

''a collection of documents relating to the property or the terms on which it is or may become available for sale.''

With reference to becoming available for sale, at what point must a seller's pack be produced?

Photo of Sir Sydney Chapman Sir Sydney Chapman Conservative, Chipping Barnet

I think that the phrase is needed. If it is removed, a home information pack could not be assembled until the property was put on the market. Common sense dictates that it is much better if people draw up their information pack after they have decided to sell their property. That would cut down on unnecessary wastes of time.

Photo of Mr Matthew Green Mr Matthew Green Shadow Minister, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Local Government & the Regions, Young People, Non-Departmental & Cross-Departmental Responsibilities

I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that point. The problem with his view is that it will appear to be almost a requirement for householders to draw up such a pack when they are only thinking about making a property available for sale. It costs money to produce the packs, and it seems odd to force people to draw one up when they are merely deciding whether to sell their house. People often wonder about whether to sell their home without subsequently deciding to put it on the market. However, subsection (2) refers to homes that

''may become available for sale.''

This is a probing amendment: we want to discover what the Minister understands that term to mean. He may be able to reassure me on the point.

Photo of Andrew Selous Andrew Selous Conservative, South West Bedfordshire

Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern, which I think the amendment might address, about people who are approached to sell their property out of the blue? What if a person is not seeking to sell their house, but somebody comes up to them one day and says, ''I would like to make an offer for your house''? We do not seem to have any answers for that situation.

Photo of John Hayes John Hayes Shadow Minister (Communities and Local Government) (Housing and Planning)

I want to follow up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman). We can go two ways: either we say that the pack should not be prepared until the house is on the market—later amendments suggest that periods such as seven or 14 days should be allowed for the preparation of plans—or we say that pack must be available when the house becomes available for sale. It seems that the hon. Gentleman is somewhere between the two, as my hon. Friend suggested. If the amendment was accepted, he could not have the rest of the provision. There is an argument for getting rid of the whole provision and starting again, but the amendment is not well drawn in that respect. If the hon. Gentleman explains amendment No. 338, I can tell him where that is flawed, too. I can see his point, but the wording of the amendment is not helpful.

Photo of Mr Matthew Green Mr Matthew Green Shadow Minister, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Local Government & the Regions, Young People, Non-Departmental & Cross-Departmental Responsibilities

Well, it is nice to listen to interventions about amendments that I have not reached yet. The hon. Gentleman knows our position full well: we would not introduce seller's packs at all.

The second amendment would establish exactly what the Government mean by the clause

Photo of Richard Younger-Ross Richard Younger-Ross Shadow Minister, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Local Government & the Regions

I wish to clarify matters. There is a fear about the definition of something being put on the market. If I announce to my friends in the pub that I am thinking of selling my house, am I in breach of the law because I have not assembled the home buyer's pack? That is my hon. Friend's question.

Photo of Mr Matthew Green Mr Matthew Green Shadow Minister, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Local Government & the Regions, Young People, Non-Departmental & Cross-Departmental Responsibilities

Amendment No. 337 deals with that point. It is a probing amendment to find out the definition of ''first made public''. For example, if someone mentions to his friend in the pub after a few pints of beer that he plans to sell his house, is that the point at which such information is ''first made public''? We are supported by the Law Society, which is concerned about the meaning of that statement. The explanatory notes make a distinction in respect of stating among family and friends that a property is or may come up for sale, but if a prospective seller speaks to his family and friends too loudly in public, will he be caught by the definition? We want clarification.

Amendment No. 338 is an attempt to clarify the definition of

''is taken off the market''

by requiring written instructions to the agent. It would make clear what the Government mean by the phrase. The explanatory notes state that it is

''an ordinary expression that should be given its usual meaning'',

but that is a semi-meaningless explanation.

Photo of John Hayes John Hayes Shadow Minister (Communities and Local Government) (Housing and Planning)

I do not want to be too unkind to the hon. Gentleman, which is why I warned him that I might make known my doubts about the amendment. It is grouped with an amendment that relates to a situation in which someone might inadvertently or deliberately advertise that he is selling his house down the pub—a sort of public sale. I remind the Committee that the phrase

''agent's instructions are terminated in writing''

rules out anyone selling his house privately. The amendment states specifically that an agent ends the arrangement, not an individual. We have lurched from the man down the pub to someone who is obliged to involve an agent if he wants to take the house off the market.

Photo of Mr Matthew Green Mr Matthew Green Shadow Minister, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Local Government & the Regions, Young People, Non-Departmental & Cross-Departmental Responsibilities

I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. I remind him that we come from the starting point of not wanting the packs at all. We want to probe the Government about their definitions. The fact that the amendments are grouped together is not a choice of mine; it is the result of the Chairmen's judgment. I would not begin to question that—nor, I hope, would the hon. Gentleman. There is a contradiction, but I do not see that as a particular problem. One of our jobs in Committee is to probe the Government on what they mean, for the benefit of the public and practitioners. We should do so in case this part of the Bill becomes law. I do not think that what the hon. Gentleman is attempting to do is fair.

Photo of John Hayes John Hayes Shadow Minister (Communities and Local Government) (Housing and Planning)

It does seem like ganging up, but just to kill off this pitiful moment once and for all, the

Council of Mortgage Lenders, to which I defer in this matter, says:

''The amendment does seem flawed in that it assumes that an agent will be employed in each and every sale, not taking account of the circumstances''

created when an individual attempts to sell his or her own home. It would be better for the hon. Gentleman to acknowledge that he has made an error, so we can move on quickly.

Photo of Mr Matthew Green Mr Matthew Green Shadow Minister, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Local Government & the Regions, Young People, Non-Departmental & Cross-Departmental Responsibilities

I am delighted that the Council of Mortgage Lenders takes such a close interest in amendments tabled by the Liberal Democrats. We do not want to prevent people from selling their houses privately. I hope that that is sufficient clarification for the hon. Gentleman.

As is often the case, the wording of our amendments—and, indeed, many Conservative ones—is not technically perfect. My colleagues and I are not parliamentary draftsmen. Getting provisions technically perfect is the job of the Government. The point of the amendments is to raise an issue. I am sure that the Minister can do a perfectly good job of rubbishing the amendments from a technical point of view if he wants to, but much of the Committee has been taken up much more constructively than in rubbishing the technical aspects of amendments. I hope that that will continue, not least because it will speed up our proceedings. We have spent a long time talking about such aspects already.

Amendment No. 339 is an attempt to get an explanation from the Government of what

''a section of the public''

means. Clause 121(3) says:

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

Are we back to the friend in the pub? Can the phrase refer to one person? I hope that the Government will explain. In a sense, the words are superfluous, because what is the difference between ''the public'' and a ''section of the public''? If we removed the words,

''or to a section of the public'',

would it alter the meaning of the paragraph? I suspect that there is not that much difference between the phrases. The term ''the public'' is, I believe, used regularly in Bills and is not meant to refer to every single person, so presumably it always refers to just ''a section of the public'', but I would like the Minister to justify including those words. Perhaps they are simply some of those superfluous words that the Under-Secretary of State made it clear that the Government quite like.

Amendment No. 391 relates to the conversation with the person in the pub. It would amend not the provisions relating to an agent, but those relating to the individual acting for him or herself. It would insert:

''The seller does not become responsible under subsection (1) by marketing the property to an individual who is known to him, by virtue of any informal conversation with that individual.''

That is just a means of making the Government's intentions clear; I am sure that they want that, too. I am sure that the amendment is worded badly and all

that nonsense, but we do at least need clarification from the Minister that such a case is not intended to be caught. The right hon. Gentleman does not mean that a person who says over a pint, ''I'm going to sell my house'', but who does not have a seller's pack, has broken the law.

Photo of John Hayes John Hayes Shadow Minister (Communities and Local Government) (Housing and Planning)

I think that we have spoken enough about the amendments, and, like the hon. Gentleman, I do not want to delay the Committee unduly. However, I need to say a word about our amendment No. 404.

The hon. Gentleman made an important point in terms of defining what ''marketing'' could reasonably be said to be. He is right that in a private sale, putting a note in the newsagent's window, for example, might reasonably be regarded as a kind of marketing. On the other hand, would standing on a chair in the proverbial pub in Ludlow and saying, ''I'm thinking of sellin' me 'ouse, mate. What d'you think? Are you interested?'' constitute a marketing initiative? One might argue that it would. It might not be terribly sophisticated, and it might be ineffective, but it could be deemed to be marketing. The Bill is unclear.

As the hon. Gentleman rightly said, the measure applies to private sales. A significant number of transactions in the housing market are private sales. We tend to think of selling houses as exclusively about selling a house through an estate agent, but that is not always the case. Therefore, because of the importance of marketing to this clause—it triggers all sorts of other concerns—the Government need to be crystal clear about what constitutes marketing. Clarification is the purpose of amendment No. 404. It is generous in that it suggests that the Secretary of State define marketing in regulations. It is not something that can necessarily be defined straightforwardly in the Bill. There is an argument for that, but it is more appropriate—because it might be quite complex and might need to illustrated by examples—to define it in regulations.

By way of support—not that I am so nervous about my own interpretation that I need to draw on third parties continually; I only draw on them because they show how apposite, well worded and thought through our amendments are—The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors argues:

''As a person will not be able to market a property without a pack, there needs to be a sharper definition of what constitutes marketing''.

The RICS has commissioned a paper defining the marketing of residential property in England and Wales. When that paper is published, it might go some way to assisting Ministers in framing the regulations referred to in our amendment. Thus, I propose our amendment, which is part of the group—

Photo of John Hayes John Hayes Shadow Minister (Communities and Local Government) (Housing and Planning)

Thus, I speak to our amendment, which is part of the group. Of course, I will not be able to propose it separately, Mr. Pike. I might ask that it be taken separately, but that will depend on your

discretion and on the Minister's response to my brief words.

Photo of Mr Peter Pike Mr Peter Pike Labour, Burnley

I will try to be of help. If you give me notice that you wish to move an amendment formally at the appropriate stage, I am always prepared to accept that.

Photo of John Hayes John Hayes Shadow Minister (Communities and Local Government) (Housing and Planning)

That is a further illustration of your wisdom and generosity, Mr. Pike, for which I am very grateful.

Photo of Sir Sydney Chapman Sir Sydney Chapman Conservative, Chipping Barnet

I made a comment on the first amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) and I need not come back to that. Obviously the Minister will tell us about amendment No. 404. I have always wanted to be a Minister, but I have never been successful except as the wrong sort of Minister—I was a Government Whip for six and half years.

I take into consideration the fair point that if the word ''public'' is used, we have to show that the house is advertised universally to the public. Strangely, the correct definition of the public is that if something is in the London Gazette—which I have never seen—it is supposed to be for public consumption. I presume that the reason why the Government or the parliamentary draftsmen have put in

''or . . . a section of the public''

is because, in all likelihood, the property for sale will be advertised by the estate agent or in a select periodical. However, that is for the Minister to answer.

I want to row heavily behind amendment No. 391, tabled by the hon. Member for Ludlow, and indeed amendment No. 404 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes). It is essential that the Bill contain a clearer definition of where the provisions will operate. I have it written down, but it is not clear to me whether a property is for sale, or put on the market, if it is transferred privately to another person for an agreed sum. I will give a brief example. The Minister has excited us with his many tours d'horizon, which always settle back in St. Reatham. I want to take him a bit further downmarket and down the road from his constituency, to Batterséa, where I have a very modest pied-à-terre. When my time here is fulfilled—and that time is coming closer and closer—[Hon. Members: ''Oh no!'']—I fully intend to put that little property on the market. At that time I will take the precaution of calling it south Chelsea, not Batterséa, because that might give it a better chance.

It is a very small, ground-floor property with one-and-a-half floors above it—a loft extension—owned by someone whom I have got to know well. We have an understanding that I will give him first refusal if, and when, I need to dispose of the property. That seems an eminently sensible thing to do. If that happened, he would probably go to a friend or and estate agent and quietly ask: ''How much do you think the property below mine is worth?'' I would ask an estate agent the same thing. If we were sensible, we would not go back to either of those estate agents to sell the property. Instead, if we agreed on a figure, then there would be a mutual exchange of contracts. That is just an example.

I would like to have it confirmed that that could take place without triggering the provisions of part 5 of this Bill. It ought to be written into the record. I have found many instances in which we could disregard the minutes of our debates if the Government made certain situations clearer. That would be very helpful. I assume that if someone uses the internet to try to sell their property, that is within the provisions of part 5. We need a more defined position from the Minister concerning these two instances.

Photo of Keith Hill Keith Hill Minister of State (Housing and Planning), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister

The Committee will be aware that the amendments range across clauses 120 and 121, so we are making some progress.

Clause 121 defines the circumstances in which a property is regarded as having been put on the market, and the period during which it is regarded as remaining on the market. Property is considered to be put on the market when the fact that it is, or may become available, for sale is first made public.

Notwithstanding the generosity of the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings—I am sure this will come as no surprise to him—I do accept that we need to offer further definition of marketing. However, I hope to clarify the Government's understanding of the expression in the course of my remarks.

I may be able to assist the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet—my old jousting partner—who is also, it appears, a resident of Batterséa. He said that he was thinking of describing the area as south Chelsea. That would be somewhat more plausible than the case of a certain educational institution in my constituency. It is called the South Chelsea School of English, although stands opposite Brixton tube station. Those who arrive at the South Chelsea School of English for the first time must get a shock when they discover its location—however, I must not get distracted.

The hon. Gentleman was unnecessarily humble when he said that a Whip, as he has been, was the wrong sort of Minister. Nothing could be further from the truth. He will undoubtedly have graced the Dispatch Box, and being a Whip is the most honourable of ministerial undertakings. As a former deputy Chief Whip, I recall that great motto with which he, too, will be familiar: once a Whip, always a Whip.

Let me immediately allay the hon. Gentleman's concerns by providing two explanations. A private transaction between two individuals in the proverbial pub does not constitute being put on the market. I do not think that I could be clearer than that. Equally, use of the internet certainly would be interpreted as a marketing exercise.

I shall turn in rather more detail to the generous amendment, No. 404. That would provide a power for the Secretary of State to define by regulation what marketing entails. I fully acknowledge that sellers and their agents should be clear about when the home information pack obligations begin and end. Clause

121 does that by defining ''on the market''. A property is put on the market when

''the fact that it is or may become available for sale is, with a view to marketing the property, first made public . . . by or on behalf of the seller.''

A property remains on the market until it is taken off or sold. Further on in part 5, clauses 123 to 125 build on that and set out the circumstances in which the seller and the person acting as estate agent are responsible for marketing the property, and when that responsibility arises and ceases. That is important because the person or persons responsible for marketing the property are the persons to whom the home information pack duties apply.

We are satisfied that the definitions in clause 121 are sufficient for the purposes of this part of the Bill. However, I am grateful for the opportunity to clarify further the difference between marketing activity, which triggers the home information pack duties, and pre-marketing activity, which does not. That is particularly important to persons acting as estate agents.

Under clause 130, the home information pack duties in relation to people acting as estate agent are triggered by any action taken with a view to marketing the property, which

''communicates to any person in England and Wales . . . that the property is or may become available for sale''.

That is necessary to ensure that agents do not seek to evade their duties by, for example, contacting a few individuals on their books who they know might be interested in the property, and not putting the property on the market by advertising its availability to the public at large or to a section of the public.

Photo of Mr Matthew Green Mr Matthew Green Shadow Minister, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Local Government & the Regions, Young People, Non-Departmental & Cross-Departmental Responsibilities

The Minister has just said that that applies if estates agents do that to any person in England or Wales. Let us say an estate agent in Berwick-upon-Tweed—

Photo of Mr Matthew Green Mr Matthew Green Shadow Minister, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Local Government & the Regions, Young People, Non-Departmental & Cross-Departmental Responsibilities 3:00, 5 February 2004

In Jedburgh, for example, they could say, ''I've got a property coming on to the market.'' Alternatively, an estate agent in Dover could ring up someone in France—after all, buying properties across the European Union is becoming increasingly popular. Would that be outside the remit of the clause? Can the Minister clarify whether we are talking about just England and Wales?

Photo of Keith Hill Keith Hill Minister of State (Housing and Planning), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister

The hon. Gentleman represents a marcher constituency and is therefore alert to such boundary issues. However, the possible cases that he described are not caught by the Bill's provisions, which will apply to transactions in England and Wales. Therefore, I suppose that there could be a transaction between two parties in which the same obligation was not laid on both—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman should not get too excited. He is frequently tempted

along legislative byways rather than highways, and this is a byway.

I am thinking this through, and it is my clear understanding that where a seller is operating in England the requirements of the law would apply to them. In other words, a seller in England who is in the process of marketing a property would be required to make available a home information pack. For a buyer in Scotland, that would be a matter of choice. I suspect that such buyers would want to avail themselves of it.

I now see where we are going. A seller in Scotland who is selling to a buyer in England would not be caught. Across the border between Jedburgh and Berwick, there might not be the same requirements. However, I feel that I can live with that.

Photo of Mr Matthew Green Mr Matthew Green Shadow Minister, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Local Government & the Regions, Young People, Non-Departmental & Cross-Departmental Responsibilities

The Minister was passing down some byways of his own there. That was not what I was rising to say. I wanted clarification about, for example, where an estate agent in France is marketing a property in England, in much the same way as English estate agents market French properties for English buyers. Is the Minister saying that a French company marketing English properties would not need to produce seller's packs?

Photo of Keith Hill Keith Hill Minister of State (Housing and Planning), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister

I might not have caught the end of the hon. Gentleman's question, so if I do not answer it he will have to forgive me and perhaps come back to me on it.

If a property is marketed in England and Wales, the estate agent will be responsible if he is in England and Wales. If a property is marketed in England and Wales and the estate agent is located abroad, the seller is responsible and must have a pack. I hope that that is helpful, and that it takes us a little further forward.

Photo of Keith Hill Keith Hill Minister of State (Housing and Planning), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister

How can I resist the hon. Gentleman, who can hardly resist himself?

Photo of John Hayes John Hayes Shadow Minister (Communities and Local Government) (Housing and Planning)

To paraphrase Oscar Wilde, I can resist anything but myself.

The Minister has confused the Committee a little—I hope that that is not unkind. We now seem to have a situation where if an estate agent is situated in England and markets properties in France, those properties would have to have—[Interruption.] Okay, an estate agent in France who is marketing properties in England would have to have a pack—[Hon. Members: ''The seller would.''] So the seller in France does not need a pack, regardless of the fact that the property is in England, so properties in England will be sold without packs: is that right?

Photo of Mr Peter Pike Mr Peter Pike Labour, Burnley

Order. I must ensure that this debate is conducted properly, because Hansard will not be able to record some of these exchanges.

Photo of John Hayes John Hayes Shadow Minister (Communities and Local Government) (Housing and Planning)

Well, let me put my question formally. Am I right in assuming that, depending on where the seller and estate agent are located, there will be a number of properties in England that do not have packs associated with them?

Photo of Keith Hill Keith Hill Minister of State (Housing and Planning), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister

I do not propose to pursue this matter much further, but let me try to clarify it. Where a

property is marketed in England and Wales the seller or the agent operating on behalf of the seller is responsible for providing a home information pack. I hope that that is reasonably straightforward and clear.

At first sight the provision in clause 130 might appear draconian and might appear to mean that agents would be caught, even if they just mentioned to employees, spouses or friends that a property were coming on the market, but that is not so. To trigger the pack duties, any action has to be

''taken with a view to marketing the property''—

in other words, the actions are a direct attempt to market the property. None of this is playing with words.

I am also conscious that there is concern among some estate agents that responding to an inquiry about a property, for example, could trigger the pack duties. A common example would be where someone saw the agent's car outside a property and phoned him to find out whether it was for sale. In such circumstances, if the agent replied that he had received instructions but could not market the property or arrange viewings until the pack was ready, he would not be doing something with a view to marketing the property. He could take the inquirer's details and get back to them when the pack was available. Obviously, the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) does not want to come in at this point.

I turn to the group of amendments introduced, a trifle uncomfortably, by the hon. Member for Ludlow, who began with an apology for the fact that they were not his and said that he inherited them from one of his mobile friends. I got the feeling that the hon. Gentleman would rather be somewhere else, judging from the frequent allusions to the pub.

Richard Younger-Ross rose—

Photo of Keith Hill Keith Hill Minister of State (Housing and Planning), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister

Teignbridge wants to come in. How could I resist Teignbridge?

Photo of Richard Younger-Ross Richard Younger-Ross Shadow Minister, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Local Government & the Regions

I have to say that my mobile friends will think even less of me, because although I do not have the ability of bi-location, I have to be on the Front Bench next week and sit in the Fire and Rescue Services Bill Committee at the same time.

I know that the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings will deeply regret that I will not be here—[Hon. Members: ''He is not here.''] I am so sad that he has missed that.

Photo of Mr Peter Pike Mr Peter Pike Labour, Burnley

Order. Let us keep to the amendments.

Photo of Richard Younger-Ross Richard Younger-Ross Shadow Minister, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Local Government & the Regions

But the point of concern is this: if an elderly person is looking to sell and move to where they originated from, or retire to the south coast, it is likely that they will cogitate for a long period before deciding to actively sell their property. During that process they could on several occasions talk to their friends in the proverbial pub in Ludlow, down at the Darby and Joan, or in the Royal Air Forces Association club, about selling their property. They could, during that time, talk to agents about selling. Given what the Minister has said, I am concerned that that person could be caught

attempting to sell their property. Can he confirm on the record that that would be deemed pre-marketing?

Photo of Keith Hill Keith Hill Minister of State (Housing and Planning), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister

By the way, may I say that we cherish the hon. Gentleman while he is here and regret the threat of his absence next week. We wish him all the best on that visit.

I should like to allay the hon. Gentleman's concerns. In the event that a senior citizen, such as the one he described, were cogitating in the way he described—although possibly not in the situation of bi-location to which he has alluded—and were to have a conversation with friends about the sale of the property, that would not be construed as marketing, nor would an inquiry about whether an estate agent would be willing to market the property be deemed to be an act of marketing.

Photo of Robert Syms Robert Syms Shadow Minister (Office of the Deputy Prime Minister)

With a new build project there is often advertising, such as appears in the Evening Standard, saying, ''Gracious living, 50 saunas, tennis courts'', and the rest of it. Perhaps the plans have gone in, but they are not talking about specific properties. Is that covered by marketing? Or will we be in a situation where, rather like a warning on a packet of cigarettes, we will have a beautiful picture of a desirable residence along with the words, ''This is not for sale''? I am just going through the process. At what point do the trigger arrangements start?

Photo of Keith Hill Keith Hill Minister of State (Housing and Planning), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister

As ever, the hon. Gentleman has raised a reasonable point, which I expect to come to immediately or in due course. As for whether advertising an estate in general terms, plans to develop an estate and lovely pictures of it constitutes marketing—no, that would not. It is at the point when specific details and invitations to purchase kick in that marketing may be deemed to occur.

As for amendment No. 336 tabled by the hon. Member for Ludlow, in light of the trenchant intervention by the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet, which was right, it may be unnecessary for me to do so, but I shall say a few words about the amendment. Its effect would be that, for the purposes of the Bill, a property would not be regarded as being put on the market until the point at which it was available for sale. In other words, if I have interpreted the amendment correctly, any earlier marketing activity by the seller would not constitute putting the property on the market and would not therefore be subject to the obligation to have a home information pack.

Even after listening to the hon. Gentleman, I am not sure why he would want to introduce such a provision. It would open up a potentially serious loophole which sellers could seek to exploit. If it were applied, a seller hoping to avoid the home information pack obligations could advertise that his property was likely to be available shortly and provide the address and other details. He would hope that a potential buyer would take note of that and seek to gain an advantage over other potential buyers by making a quick visit and putting in an offer.

As the property would not have been ''put on the market'', there would be no obligation on the seller to have a home information pack. For the sake of the consumer, we must not allow such a loophole to develop. The buyer could discover several weeks and several hundreds of pounds later that there were problems with the condition or searches that he would have known about immediately from the pack. As ever, the purpose of the home information pack is to provide up-front certainty and to protect the consumer.

In response to the hon. Member for Poole, clause 121, as it stands, would not mean that a house builder would have to have home information packs if it advertised that it was planning to build a new estate of houses and provided some general information about the types of home that would be available. The home information pack obligation would not kick in until the advertising identified the specific homes and their location. By that stage, marketing in earnest would usually be under way.

Photo of Keith Hill Keith Hill Minister of State (Housing and Planning), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister

Ooh! I have obviously sparked off another chain of thought for the hon. Gentleman.

Photo of Mr Matthew Green Mr Matthew Green Shadow Minister, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Local Government & the Regions, Young People, Non-Departmental & Cross-Departmental Responsibilities

What about the common situation in which a new estate is being built, there is a show home and people put down deposits on specific houses that are not yet completed? How can there be a full seller's pack on a house that has not finished being built?

Photo of Keith Hill Keith Hill Minister of State (Housing and Planning), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister 3:15, 5 February 2004

Aha. What a pity the hon. Gentleman was not in Committee for the two and a half hours this morning during which we dealt with that issue to our common enjoyment. I have no intention whatever to return to it.

Photo of Mr Peter Pike Mr Peter Pike Labour, Burnley

The Chairman would not let you even if you did want to return to it.

Photo of Keith Hill Keith Hill Minister of State (Housing and Planning), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister

But it was a good idea.

Amendment No. 337 would remove the word ''first'' from clause 121. That would not have a major effect. It would just make it slightly less clear when the home information pack duties apply. The clause already states that if the fact that a property is for sale is made public, and it has not been made public before, the property will be on the market—and it states that more simply.

Clause 121 seeks to make it clear that a property that has been put on the market is regarded as remaining on the market, and therefore still subject to the home information pack obligations, until it is either taken off the market or sold. The hon. Member for Chipping Barnet asked about that. The phrase ''taken off the market'' is not defined in the Bill, but it carries its common meaning. Essentially, a property is not off the market if marketing activity is still taking place.

Amendment No. 338 would change that. A property being marketed on behalf of the seller by an estate agent would be regarded as having been taken off the market as soon as the agent received a

letter from the seller withdrawing instructions. The property would be off the market even if the agent carried on marketing it, without instructions, in the hope of still achieving a sale. In other words, the amendment would terminate the estate agent's obligations to supply a HIP to a would-be buyer even though he was still marketing the property. That would result in a loss of protection to the buyer. I am slightly mystified as to why the hon. Member for Ludlow should want that. I am also mystified about the circumstances in which it is envisaged that that would occur. However, I am certain that this runs contrary to public understanding of when a property is taken off the market; it is completely at odds with clauses 124 and 125, and it would be a recipe for confusion.

As I said to the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet, the HIP obligations do not apply to private sales. I hope that that, and what I have to say about amendment No. 391, will allay the concerns of the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous). Sales within the family or to friends or acquaintances would not be caught where the property is not marketed publicly. Where a property is marketed publicly, the pack obligations apply. Clause 121 provides that a property is put on the market when it is communicated publicly

''to the public or to a section of the public.''

Amendment No. 391 is unnecessary because an informal or even a formal conversation between a seller and another individual is not a communication to a section of the public. It would not trigger the home information pack obligations. I say again to the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire that if there is an entirely private transaction the home information pack is not required. In those circumstances, the old principle of caveat emptor prevails.

Photo of Andrew Selous Andrew Selous Conservative, South West Bedfordshire

I am grateful to the Minister for that clarification. Will private sales' not being covered lead to any distortion in the market or to lack of transparency? As sales through estate agents will cost sellers more and involve delay, has his Department examined what the effects will be? Does he think that there will be a large increase in private sales? Will the market be distorted and less transparent, and will it function less well than it otherwise would?

Photo of Keith Hill Keith Hill Minister of State (Housing and Planning), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister

The hon. Gentleman should have a distinction in his mind between a private sale and a sale by a private person. At present, about 5 per cent. of sales are by a private person and 95 per cent. are through estate agents and similar bodies. The key point is the means of communication adopted by the private person. Since it is reasonable to expect that most transactions occur on the basis of some form of advertising, and since in practice it is difficult for a person to go round identifying potential buyers, we can expect the existing situation to continue. As both the private seller engaging in a marketing exercise and the estate agent engaging in a marketing exercise will have to have a home information pack, the provisions need not make very much difference to the existing situation—and we do not expect them to.

Photo of Keith Hill Keith Hill Minister of State (Housing and Planning), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister

No; I want to make some progress. I need to deal with further amendments and other issues that have been raised.

We could spend all day debating what is, and what is not, a section of the public for the purposes of the Bill. It might give the Committee a better idea if I mentioned a few scenarios; that might help to clarify the issue. If a person mentions to his friends that he is thinking of selling his home, with or without the benefit of a few pints in a Ludlow pub, he is not marketing to a section of the public. The same is true if he has the same conversation with work colleagues. However—this is the point made by the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet—if he sent an e-mail to everyone in his company, including people he did not know, that could well be marketing to a section of a public, in which case the home information pack obligations would apply.

We have to allow a little common sense to prevail on such matters. I am absolutely certain that trading standards officers, who are the enforcers on this issue, will want to behave with common sense and moderation in dealing with the issue, tempted though they might be by some of the imaginings to which we have been treated in the past few minutes.

Finally, let me turn to amendment No. 339. It would restrict the home information pack obligations to sellers who market their homes to the public at large. Excluding marketing to a section of the public from the pack obligations would, again, open the door to abuse. Sellers wishing to avoid the pack obligations could do so by ensuring that their marketing activities were in some way restricted. Even so, they could market to a large section of the public, perhaps by advertising in a trade journal—that would be a section of the public, but it could be a large section of the public—a trade union journal, or perhaps even, let us say for the sake of argument, in Liberal Democrat News. I imagine that the readership of that journal is so restricted as to make advertising in it tantamount to a private conversation, but we would nevertheless regard that as marketing to a section of the public. I jest, of course.

More seriously, such advertising would extend far beyond the sort of private arrangements to which I have referred, and would result in a large number of sales being conducted without packs. That would have the wholly undesirable effect of bringing about a two-track transactions process in which, in a chain, sales without packs would be made, and would endanger transactions with packs. Preventing that is the purpose of the provisions.

Photo of John Hayes John Hayes Shadow Minister (Communities and Local Government) (Housing and Planning)

I shall be brief, because I know that the Minister is keen to make progress. Of course, the circumstances that the Minister mentions will occur in a case in which some sales follow the process through an agent—or indeed through individual marketing—which attracts the need for a pack, and other sales are made on an entirely private basis, from one person to another. Would not that have the same impact on the chain?

My hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire has a point; there may be a growth in a kind of informal selling that does not constitute marketing in any sense that would legally oblige people to obtain a pack, and that may have an effect on the market. That is simply an observation for comment, rather than anything stronger.

Photo of Keith Hill Keith Hill Minister of State (Housing and Planning), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister

No, I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is right. A private transaction between two chaps in a pub is not part of a chain; it is a one-on-one transaction. It does not invite the provisions of the legislation. In light of my comprehensive and extremely reasonably explanations, I trust that Opposition Members will choose not to press their amendments.

Photo of Sir Sydney Chapman Sir Sydney Chapman Conservative, Chipping Barnet

I am extremely grateful to the Minister once again, because he has cleared the mist from parts of this clause. However, I am left with one horrible nightmare. In giving an example downwind of the Minister's patch, when I stand down at the next election I would not fall within the part 5 provisions if I dealt privately with my upstairs neighbour. I wonder, however, if it were possible that I might now fall within those provisions because I have mentioned my case in this Committee.

Photo of John Hayes John Hayes Shadow Minister (Communities and Local Government) (Housing and Planning)

I simply wanted to say a further word about amendment No. 404. The Minister has defined marketing by giving us a broad indication of those properties and kinds of transactions that will be affected by the Bill's provisions. However, he has opened up other concerns.

There is marketing of a private nature: an advert in a newsagent or, if one wanted to appeal to a smaller number of people, an advert in Liberal Democrat News. However, the Minister has not been clear about the impact on a chain of an arrangement of the type to which my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet referred. It is entirely possible that my hon. Friend might be selling his house in south Chelsea on a basis that meant that he was not legally obliged to have a seller's pack, but others involved in the transaction—those at the other end of the chain—might be in need of a seller's pack, and they could be held up because of some personal failing on the part of my hon. Friend, hard though that is to believe. I am not sure that the Minister's objective of an entirely transparent process is assisted by the fact that there will be, in whatever number, such exceptions. There will be houses that do not have seller's packs or home condition reports attached to them, and there will be transactions that are not affected by the legislation. Inevitably, there will be inconsistencies. We may be talking about only 1 or 2 per cent. of transactions, but the effect of that will be bigger because, as the Minister says, buyer and sellers are often in chains. The net effect may be considerably greater than he anticipates.

Are we not looking at another illustration, following our long discussion this morning, of why this part of the Bill is ill considered? All kinds of anomalies are beginning to emerge, notwithstanding the smooth veneer that the Minister is attempting to put on these imperfect provisions. Earlier, he was very

open-minded in saying that he was thinking of canning several of his ideas about the earlier aspects of the clause, and I wonder whether he is thinking again about marketing. If he is not, he should be.

To that end, I am not entirely satisfied with the Minister's views on amendment No. 404, but because he is thoughtful and open-minded, and because there are many other things that we want to press on with this afternoon, I am comfortable about withdrawing my amendment.

Photo of Mr Peter Pike Mr Peter Pike Labour, Burnley 3:30, 5 February 2004

Mr. Hayes, you cannot withdraw your amendment, but I understand that you are saying that you will not be moving it; I would have called it after taking amendment No. 403.

Photo of John Hayes John Hayes Shadow Minister (Communities and Local Government) (Housing and Planning)

Which is what you said you would do, Mr. Pike, so I am asking you not to call my amendment.

Photo of Mr Peter Pike Mr Peter Pike Labour, Burnley

I have taken note of that.

Photo of Mr Matthew Green Mr Matthew Green Shadow Minister, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Local Government & the Regions, Young People, Non-Departmental & Cross-Departmental Responsibilities

The Minister is rather full of himself today, unlike on Tuesday when he read the wrong speech. The difference is that we did not ungraciously point that out. However, he has not held back from commenting on the fact that I have had to come in to take over from my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton midway through the clause.

As the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings said, although the Minister's answers have clarified many of the questions, and the reasons why the amendments were tabled, they have opened up some more anomalies. The hon. Gentleman has revealed one of those, but others spring to mind. If a person living on the Scottish borders in England wanted to avoid the cost of a seller's pack, they could go to a Scottish estate agent in Edinburgh, get them to market the property just in Scotland—not in England and Wales—where they would not have to pay for a seller's pack. It is as simple as that. There is an anomaly over the border between Scotland and England. There would be another anomaly if I bumped into my neighbour who said, ''I am thinking of selling my house'' and we did a private deal, because they would not have to produce a seller's pack. If, however, I did not bump into my neighbour by chance, and they went to an estate agent, after which I saw a sign go up, they would have borne the cost of producing a seller's pack even if I negotiated a private deal with them. In those circumstances, by chance and fate they would have incurred several hundred pounds of costs that they would not have incurred if we had happened to bump into each other in the street before my neighbour had gone to the estate agent.

I suspect that the deeper we go into part 5, the more anomalies we will find. The longer people look at this part, the more certain they are that it should not be introduced. The Minister may, by the time we reach the end of part 5, convince himself that home information packs should not be included. Even if he is not convinced about that, I am sure that members of the House of Lords will be convinced when they read our Hansard, as many of them do before considering Bills in the other place.

Photo of Andrew Selous Andrew Selous Conservative, South West Bedfordshire

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the current provisions will undoubtedly lead to a reduction in the choice and number of properties available to the general house-buying public? There will be more private deals and transactions, so properties will not be generally marketed to the public due to the strong incentive to avoid costs and delay.

Photo of Mr Matthew Green Mr Matthew Green Shadow Minister, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Local Government & the Regions, Young People, Non-Departmental & Cross-Departmental Responsibilities

The hon. Gentleman has a good point. I purchased my first house some 18 months ago. We moved about 400 yd down the road from where we were renting. The sign never went up. The estate agent rang us up because they knew that we were looking for a property and it was all agreed quickly. The sale would have been slowed down if there had been a seller's pack. The estate agent was approached and phoned me the next day, when I visited them and agreed the price there and then. The sale went through within a month. The seller's pack would have slowed down my transaction. It will not speed up every transaction.

Photo of Mr Matthew Green Mr Matthew Green Shadow Minister, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Local Government & the Regions, Young People, Non-Departmental & Cross-Departmental Responsibilities

The Minister says that, but it has an effect on people. If he thinks that the proposed legislation will not affect some transactions and slow them down—if he wants to say that he believes that every transaction will be quicker as a result of seller's packs—he is wrong. They would have slowed down the transaction that I mentioned.

The hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire has a good point. More people will seek to negotiate private sales to avoid the cost of seller's packs. That will have a distorting effect on the market; it would be difficult for anyone to argue that it will not have that effect. However, we have teased out of the Minister some explanations, which are helpful and clarify some of the points that needed clarification. He has gone further than the explanatory notes, for which I am grateful. I do not intend to press the amendment to a vote, but if the Minister carries on like this he may convince himself that this provision should not be included in the Bill. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Photo of John Hayes John Hayes Shadow Minister (Communities and Local Government) (Housing and Planning)

I beg to move amendment No. 403, in

clause 120, page 84, line 20, at end insert—

'(3)(a) The Secretary of State may by regulations prescribe the operational date of all or part of the introduction of Part 5 with regard to the capacity to effectively implement;

(b) the Secretary of State may not make any regulations under this section unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before, and approved by a Resolution of each House of Parliament.'.

[R] Relevant registered interest declared.

I hope that we can deal with the amendment with more speed than its predecessors—as I am sure that you do, Mr. Pike—partly because the ground for it is now well known, thanks to our earlier discussions.

The amendment essentially suggests that the Secretary of State prescribe the operational date for the introduction of part 5. The reason for that is the widespread concern—no doubt shared by you and by members of the Committee, Mr. Pike—that the

necessary expertise, the number of people required to do the job, and the need to produce seller's packs make the Minister's target date of early 2007 questionable at the very least.

As the Minister and the Committee know, between 1.3 and 1.4 million house transactions take place every year in the United Kingdom. The Government have estimated that we will require 7,000 inspectors to carry out the surveys necessary as part of the home information pack. Others have said 8,000, but let us settle on the Government's estimate. The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors estimates that, of its 4,500 residential surveyors, there are about 2,000 with the relevant qualifications who have already expressed an interest in being involved in the business. That leaves a shortfall of at least 5,000 inspectors. The need to train those people, and the level of desire among people to become skilled in the relevant way, makes it at least questionable that the Minister will be able to introduce the measure in 2007, even if the House accepts it in its current form.

In truth—I think that the Minister knows this—there is some doubt about whether, in practical terms, the job can be done in the time scale given. I know that the Government have considered phasing in the implementation for precisely that kind of reason. Others too have suggested that part of the pack could be launched—the part that deals with the searches, which is arguably the more straightforward element of it—as a first initiative, to be followed later by the full pack, which would include the home condition report.

We know that there is uncertainty and doubt about not just the principle of the pack, but the practical business of implementing the measures. The Minister knows that, too. Should the Committee and the House, in a desire to be as helpful as possible to the Minister and the Government, be so unwise as to pass this part of the Bill? It is essential that the amendment be made. Let me remind the Committee of what it says:

''The Secretary of State may by regulations prescribe the operational date of all or part of the introduction of Part 5 with regard to the capacity to effectively implement''.

The ''capacity to effectively implement'' would be the make-or-break of the provisions. The amendment goes on:

''the Secretary of State may not make any regulations under this section unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before, and approved by a Resolution of each House of Parliament.''

That reason for that part of the amendment is that by 2007 circumstances may well have changed. The idea that we should now pass enabling legislation that would facilitate the provision of far-reaching measures that might not come into effect until 2007, 2008 or even 2009 without further reference to Parliament is unacceptable. We are asking for a recourse for Parliament, so that we can look at the matter again if the delay that I think might occur becomes a reality.

This is a simple amendment that gives the Secretary of State the necessary flexibility, should my worst fears about the availability of experts to do the job be realised. In truth, I do not know whether those fears will be realised; it may be that the Minister's confidence is well founded, and that people will rush

forward to become inspectors in numbers that one can scarcely imagine; however, it may not be so. At the very least, the amendment would be a safety valve. It is a desire to be helpful by providing a get-out clause for the Minister. I know that the right hon. Gentleman will deal with it seriously before he accepts it with relish.

Photo of Keith Hill Keith Hill Minister of State (Housing and Planning), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister

The hon. Gentleman has described the purposes of the amendment admirably. He has asked whether we will attain our target date. He is entitled to ask that question, but it is unclear to me why we would benefit from setting a date for the measure to be implemented under regulation. He may want to come back to me on that issue in due course.

The Committee has, and will continue to have, the opportunity to discuss the principle whether there should be a home information pack and so will the other place. If Parliament agrees to the proposals, which I sincerely hope that it will, there is little need for a full debate in both Houses about the detail of regulations that will give effect to the decision. I understand why the hon. Gentleman is calling for such a debate. When we were in opposition, I tabled plenty of amendments calling for the affirmative resolution procedure. If Parliament had accepted such amendments, we would be doing nothing but discussing affirmative resolutions, so such a proposition is not always practical, nor is it necessary in this case.

I assure the Committee, as I have before, that we have no intention whatever of introducing the home information pack requirement until we are satisfied that all the pieces of the jigsaw fit together. We will not introduce the home condition report until we are satisfied that adequate numbers of appropriately qualified and insured home inspectors are available. Since the hon. Gentleman referred particularly to that, I shall say a word about it in due course.

Photo of Chris Mole Chris Mole Labour, Ipswich

Given the potential number of individuals who may be qualified to carry out inspection functions, has the Minister considered encouraging local authority environmental health officers, who may have the appropriate qualifications to operate under new training powers that the Government have given them, to make a contribution towards the pool of individuals who could carry out such functions?

Photo of Keith Hill Keith Hill Minister of State (Housing and Planning), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister

My hon. Friend's suggestion is reasonable, especially about the pooling of expertise in the training processes. However, if we consider the earlier provisions under the Bill on the health and safety rating system and its implications, environmental health officers will have big new challenges on their hands in the foreseeable future. We shall seriously consider my hon. Friend's proposal.

When we reach the great day of the home information pack, we want to ensure that there is the capacity in the industry to implement part 5 of the Bill. We will therefore continue to consult widely with the bodies that will be affected as we develop regulations and prepare for implementation of home information

packs. The Committee will recall that, on Second Reading, I said about the pack:

''We are continuing to work closely with industry and consumer stakeholders on the detailed components''—[Official Report, 12 January 2004; Vol. 416, c. 542.]

Many members of the home buying and selling advisory group have helped to steer our research and to prepare for the implementation of home information packs. For the record, this will be helpful to the Committee.

I should like to allude to the organisations represented on the advisory group. They include the Consumers Association, the Law Society, the Council of Mortgage Lenders, the National Association of Estate Agents, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, the Council for Licensed Conveyancers, the Local Government Association, HM Land Registry, the Department of Trade and Industry, the Department for Constitutional Affairs and the National Assembly for Wales. The entire home buying and selling industry—the community—is represented in our advisory group.

I should like to say a word about whether a sufficient number of home inspectors will be found for training—an issue raised by the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings. I will also speak, very briefly, about indemnity insurance, which is absolutely fundamental if they are to discharge their duties properly.

I can assure the hon. Gentleman and the Committee that these points are being addressed and resolved with full industry involvement. We estimate that approximately 7,500 home inspectors will be needed to prepare home condition reports, assuming that one-third will work full-time and the remainder up to half-time. Independent research has been carried out by the former Property Services National Training Organisation, now the Sector Skills Council for Property, Housing, Cleaning and Facilities Management. That research has been made available to the Committee. It shows a potential labour force of between 10,000 and 18,000 people with relevant knowledge, understanding and experience who would become home inspectors.

Discussions with a limited number of interested professional bodies, such as the RICS, the Institute of Maintenance and Building Management, the Association of Building Engineers and the Chartered Institute of Building indicate that 90 per cent. of the numbers required have already been identified within those bodies. The required skills and knowledge have already been established in the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority-approved national occupational standards for home inspectors. Universities and colleges are already preparing courses for home inspectors. They include: the College of Estate Management, London South Bank university, the university of Central England, and the Liverpool John Moores university. Other establishments are also planning courses, although not as advanced. Research has confirmed that it is practical at reasonable cost to establish an

independent, self-insured, self-managed indemnity insurance scheme for home inspectors to overcome current gaps in the insurance market.

Photo of John Hayes John Hayes Shadow Minister (Communities and Local Government) (Housing and Planning) 3:45, 5 February 2004

I should like to raise two points about the research that the right hon. Gentleman mentions. Has research suggested that there will be any kind of geographical concentration of inspectors? It seems likely that there will be a shortage of inspectors in the peripheral regions of the United Kingdom—rural districts, and so on.

I am concerned about the impact of surveys that currently take place—and may continue to do so—on the time that can be devoted to the production of home condition reports. The Minister will have made a notional estimate of how many additional surveys he expects to take place once the Bill's provisions are in place. The Minister is grimacing; let me explain.

If someone receives a home condition report that looks slightly suspect, it will provide a baseline of information. It may well be that people who can afford to commission a further survey—I certainly would, and I am sure the Minister would, too—will create a demand within the industry. Currently, approximately 20 per cent. of buyers commission private surveys. Does the right hon. Gentleman expect that number to fall to, say, 5 per cent., 1 per cent. or 18 per cent., or might the home condition report stimulate such additional interest that the number of surveys will increase? People who do not have any sort of survey now may acquire a taste for having more information about a house before they buy one. That will have a big impact on the number of inspectors available to do the proposed work. Knowing how diligent the Minister is, he will have those figures to hand, will have made the notional estimate, and he will bring the research to the Committee so that we can make a judgment about it.

Photo of Keith Hill Keith Hill Minister of State (Housing and Planning), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister

I have to say ''tut, tut'' in response the hon. Gentleman's question about the geographical spread of people who are available to act as home inspectors. I have circulated copies of the PSNTO research. If he was a diligent Committee member—as I am sure most other hon. Members are—he would have read it and learned that there is no problem with the geographical spread.

Photo of Keith Hill Keith Hill Minister of State (Housing and Planning), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister

No, because we need to speed on. The hon. Gentleman must understand that that was a tease and that he need not defend himself on this occasion. However, I assure him that there is no problem in that regard.

On how many extra surveys will be carried out, for the first time—but by no means the last—in our proceedings I introduce the name of the saintly Maria Coleman, an independent and independent-minded estate agent from Bristol who gave superb and persuasive evidence to the inquiry conducted the Select Committee on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister: Housing, Planning, Local Government and the Regions. Our Standing Committee is graced by the presence of two distinguished members of that Select Committee. I do not have to hand the figure supplied by Maria Coleman in answer to a question about the

proportion of her clients who, when in receipt of a home condition report, had chosen to go on to have their own survey. I think that I am right in summarising her answer to that as ''a minuscule number'', but I will endeavour to give the actual statistic to the Committee.

Research and soundings from the industry show that we will be able to have all the elements of the certification scheme, including the required number of home inspectors, in place to enable implementation in 2007. That will also allow for a run-in period ahead of implementation of about six months, when the key elements of the scheme will be in place to facilitate voluntary industry initiatives before they become compulsory. A powerful wind is blowing in favour of this proposal. The industry is now heavily engaged. We are working together to iron out the remaining problems, but I am convinced that, with the support of Parliament, the scheme will succeed and we will be able to implement it on the target date.

I hope that I have given ample reassurance to the hon. Gentleman that a commencement order is sufficient to introduce the operational date of the home information pack duties.

Photo of John Hayes John Hayes Shadow Minister (Communities and Local Government) (Housing and Planning)

The Minister has, as ever, been helpful but I do not think that he has done himself any favours. The amendment would enable him to phase implementation if that becomes necessary because of changes the anticipated availability of inspectors. It also suggests that the House might give further scrutiny to any changes of that sort, and it includes in the Bill a provision on

''regard to the capacity to effectively implement.''

They are all good things.

When we have more time, I will talk about my close study of the document that the Minister circulated, so that I can pay him back for his spiteful little tease, which I think was unbecoming. I have decided to press the amendment to a Division.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes 11.

Division number 5 Adults Abused in Childhood — Clause 120 - Meaning of ''residential property'' and ''home information pack''

Aye: 6 MPs

No: 11 MPs

Aye: A-Z by last name

No: A-Z by last name

Question accordingly negatived.

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

On resuming—

The Chairman, being of the opinion that the principle of the clause and any matters arising thereon had been adequately discussed in the course of debate on

the amendments proposed thereto, forthwith put the Question, pursuant to Standing Orders Nos. 68 and 89, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 7, Noes 5.

Division number 6 Adults Abused in Childhood — Clause 120 - Meaning of ''residential property'' and ''home information pack''

Aye: 7 MPs

No: 5 MPs

Aye: A-Z by last name

No: A-Z by last name

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 120 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Photo of Sir Sydney Chapman Sir Sydney Chapman Conservative, Chipping Barnet

On a point of order, Mr. Pike. Be it known that had my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) and the two Liberal Democrat colleagues of the hon. Member for Ludlow been here, there might have been a different result.

Photo of Mr Peter Pike Mr Peter Pike Labour, Burnley

And if other people had been present, too, there might have been quite a different figure. However, I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman is making.

Photo of Chris Ruane Chris Ruane Labour, Vale of Clwyd

Further to that point of order, Mr. Pike, had we all been here, there definitely would have been.

Photo of Mr Peter Pike Mr Peter Pike Labour, Burnley

Fortunately, I do not have to respond to that.Clause 121 Meaning of ''on the market'' and related expressions