- (1) A person shall only be appointed as an Approved Inspector if he satisfies the Secretary of State or the body referred to in subsection (1)(b) of section 32 of this Act that he is a fit person to be so appointed.
- (2) In determining whether a person is fit to be appointed an Approved Inspector the Secretary of State or the body referred to in subsection (1)(b) of section 32 of this Act shall have regard to section (Independence of approved inspectors) of this Act and to any circumstances appearing to him or that body to be relevant, and in particular any evidence tending to show that the applicant has
- (a) committed any offence involving fraud or other dishonesty;
- (b) contravened any provision under this or under any Act with regard to compliance with building regulations.".
§ Government amendments Nos. 32, 33 and 42.
§ Mr. John FraserWe come now to the private control provisions of the Bill and yet another measure of privatisation. I believe that the Government would privatise the Queen as constitutional monarch if they 495 thought that it would have a beneficial effect on the money supply. These provisions, however, deal with the lesser matter of privatisation of building inspectors.
We oppose in principle the Government's proposals for privatisation of building control. They have the support of virtually no one. They are not supported by the professional organisations, the public at large or even the builders. So far as I know, virtually the only support for them comes from the National House Building Council.
It is a great pity to eat away at a system of building control which has worked well and in which there is public confidence. It is consistent, it is local and there are no serious complaints about the way in which it operates, about its effectiveness, its honesty or its integrity.
Privatising such a system is bad enough, but the Bill —incredibly—contains no guarantees as to the financial independence and integrity of private approved inspectors. That is absolutely wrong. We may agree to differ about whether there should be private inspectors, but we should surely all agree that such inspectors should have no personal financial interest in the building contracts that they supervise. Yet the Government envisage that under their new regulations in the case of small conversions and rear additions to dwellings the same person could have an interest in the contract as both surveyor and building inspector. The hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) looks puzzled.
§ Mr. Teddy Taylor (Southend, East)I am never puzzled.
§ Mr. FraserThe hon. Gentleman will no doubt have constituency problems of this kind. If neighbour A complains about neighbour B's house extension, under the present system the hon. Gentleman can refer neighbour A to the local authority and suggest that he speak to the district surveyor and the local private building inspector to see whether the extension really interferes with rights to light and air, footings and so on. In future, however, neighbour B will be able to employ the same person to design the extension and to act as the building inspector. If the hon. Member for Southend, East is not puzzled, I hope that he is concerned. It is utterly wrong that a private inspector should have a financial interest in the contract.
The purpose of new clause 7 is self-evident. It provides that
an Approved Inspector shall not have had, until final notice is given, any direct or indirect financial or professional interest in the work specifiedand makes it an offence for him to do so. It is absolutely right thus to preserve the integrity of and public confidence in the building inspection system.
New clause 8 provides that any person convicted of an offence involving fraud or dishonesty is disqualified from being a building inspector. We have also tabled proposals that approval of a private building inspector should be for a limited period such as three years.
We oppose this privatisation in principle, but at the very least safeguards should be written into the Bill to ensure integrity and lack of financial interest on the part of the building inspector. That is not provided in the Bill. I believe, as I am sure that Conservative Members also believe, that a guarantee of that level of probity must be written into the primary legislation.
§ Mr. Teddy TaylorI wish to ask the Minister four brief questions about this new clause, but otherwise it is a blameless and worthy Bill.
496 One is always reluctant to change what appears to be working relatively well, but will the Minister give the House some guidance about what standards will he required of building inspectors or approved persons? At present those standards are high and the public have confidence in the inspectorate.
What will the position be of an individual who at present is free to make a complaint to the building inspectorate that approved plans are not being adhered to? All hon. Members know of cases in their constituencies, in which planning permission has been given and building control approved for an extension or a garage, for example, and neighbours become outraged if it appears to them that the building is not being carried out in accordance with the approved plans—if something is moved a foot, thereby depriving them of sunlight, or if the wrong materials are used.
We must remember that all planning permission affects both the individual who is having a job done and those who live nearby. Under clause 31(1)(a) and (b), if building is going ahead and has been considered by an approved person, there is no locus or standing for the local authority to step in to ensure that the job is being done as originally approved. If a job is covered by an approved person, has the local authority no right to investigate an inquiry from a member of the public or a neighbour about whether the job is being done as it should be?
Does the Minister not think that there is a danger of what might loosely be called a cosy relationship developing between the builders, the surveyors and the approved persons? We have no idea of the professions, standing or interests of the approved persons. Obviously, if a cosy or business relationship were established between an approved inspector and the person making the development, the general public would be disadvantaged. At present, the public official concerned has no interest in such matters as surveying, architecture, building or the supply of building materials.
I am sorry to raise those questions, because I wish to make it abundantly clear that the Bill is splendid. However, there are grounds for disquiet. I am worried that, in putting forward those proposals, the Government are endangering the security of the public, and introduc:ing fewer professional standards and less general protection for building and control.
§ Mr. Peter Hardy (Wentworth):I share the anxieties expressed by the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor), although I do not share his approval of the Bill.
Recently I met representatives of the building control staff who serve my area. I am aware of the considerable respect they command and of the dedicated integrity they manifest. They are beyond reproach and are widely experienced, so they can comment generally about the Bill. In the Rotherham area there are 21 building control officers, 19 of whom are qualified—the qualification is a substantial one—and two of whom are training. To qualify they must have three years' satisfactory experience, and therefore they have considerable knowledge of the building industry. Given that knowledge, and their searching consideration of the Bill., they are entitled to express their reservations about it.
The staff were also anxious about the professional changes introduced by the Bill. They said that their principal role is seeking to prevent difficulty. but unfortunately the Bill seems to be less concerned with 497 preventing difficulty than with responding to difficulties which its conditions might create, as the hon. Member for Southend, East said. Any diminution of their role would be deplorable.
8.15 pm
They were also anxious about the independence of surveyors. As the Bill is drafted, there is insufficient evidence that independence will be regarded as important and will be emphasised, and that any weaknesses will be detected before the Bill becomes law.
I suppose that it is too much to ask the Government to accept the Opposition's amendments, but we are entitled to ask the Minister to reconsider this matter, which has caused serious anxiety to professional men of great integrity. The matter is important, and I hope that the Minister will give the House the assurance that society is justified in seeking.
It is important to note that building control staff usually have considerable local knowledge. That may not be the case if the changes envisaged by the Government are introduced. As building control officers are based locally and know their area, they may notice whether a building is being erected without planning permission, or whether it is not being erected in accordance with the permission, and can act swiftly. However, if the Bill becomes law, people may get away with a contemptuous disregard of planning permission. I hope that the Minister would not wish to see that happen. Building control staff also have ready and established access to public records and services, and the Bill may attenuate that link.
The building control officers to whom I spoke told me that in December 1979 the then Secretary of State for the Environment promised that this legislation would be introduced, and that it would be justified by creating efficiency and cost-effectiveness. There is no evidence in this part of the Bill that efficiency will be achieved or cost-effectiveness established. The experienced building control officers, with whom I spent a long time last week discussing their anxieties, do not believe that this part of the Bill, and other parts, would serve the public interest.
As it seems clear that public life would be enhanced if the Minister accepted the Opposition amendments, I urge him to do so. If he does not, I trust that he will reconsider the matter and will ensure that before the Bill becomes law, or as soon as possible thereafter, it is amended to ensure that efficiency is achieved and cost-effectiveness established, and that the decent and proper contribution of building control officers is not thrown away in favour of a system that might be conducive to corruption and that is hardly likely to serve the public interest.
§ Mr. GowI understand the reasons why the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) moved the new clause, and I understand the anxieties of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) and of the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy). I hope that I can reassure them now.
It is important that, as a general rule, approved inspectors should not be subject to a conflict of interest in respect of work which they are supervising. I gave an undertaking in Committee to consider whether the Government should introduce an amendment on this matter on Report, and I have considered it carefully. I do not think that there is any difference between the two sides
498 of the House on the principle involved. However, having looked into the matter again, I am satisfied that the provisions on independence, which need to be spelt out in detail in two important respects, should remain in the regulations.
First, if we consider the requirement for independence, it is not sufficient to say that an approved inspector must not have any direct or indirect financial or professional interest in the work specified. We need to define what we mean by that and to be able to tighten up that definition at a later stage if we find that it is too loose. The House knows the difficulty of amending primary legislation if it is found to be unsatisfactory. For that reason, we think it better to put the detailed requirement in the regulations. I believe that the House will find that its wishes in the matter and its desire to have those wishes enshrined in legislation will be satisfied by what we include in the regulations.
Secondly, we do not intend that the requirement for independence should apply in all cases. As I said in Committee, we think it reasonable to allow for exceptions when only minor works are involved. That is not a new suggestion. It was spelt out in the White Paper of February 1982 that set out the proposals on which the Bill is based. Again, details of the exceptions need to be set out in regulations and we wish to consult further on what those details should be. I shall, of course, take into account fully what has been said in the debate.
Subsection (2) of new clause 7 seeks to ensure that an inspector who concealed an interest and pretended to be independent when he was not would be committing an offence. I accept that intention and, under the Bill and our proposed regulations, that will be the case. Indeed, the House will see that Government amendments Nos. 32, 33 and 42 go further than the new clause and establish the machinery for ensuring that, as well as committing an offence, such people would be disqualified from acting as inspectors. Therefore, I believe, subsection (2) is not necessary.
If an approved inspector makes a declaration that he has no direct or indirect financial or professional interest in the work when that is not the case, he will be committing an offence under clause 40 by giving notice knowing that it contains a false statement. There is no issue of principle between the two sides of the House, but, given the detailed considerations that follow from the simple concept of independence, we believe that it is right that those matters should be dealt with in the regulations.
When we were considering clause 40 in Committee, I said that where an approved inspector is convicted of an offence relating to the professional work on which he is engaged, a period of disqualification ought to follow. I undertook to consider bringing forward on Report an amendment on those lines. We have done that in Government amendments Nos. 32, 33 and 42.
New clause 8 is, to some extent, directed at the same point. I agree with the intention of subsection (1), which states that a person should be appointed as an approved inspector only if he is considered to be a fit person. That brings me to the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor). It is the Secretary of State's intention that the appointment of approved inspectors and the concept of taking away the monopoly from local authorities and giving the private sector an opportunity to do the work should be matched by an absolute determination to maintain the highest 499 possible standards. My right hon. Friend, in designating approved inspectors or authorising other bodies to do so, will have that determination uppermost in his mind at all times.
It is one thing to provide for what must happen if a person is convicted of an offence in relation to his professional conduct, but quite another to have to have regard to
"any evidence tending to show that the applicant has … committed any offence involving fraud or other dishonesty"
as subsection (2) of new clause 8 would require. Either a person is convicted or he is not. Furthermore, it is not clear what is meant by subsection (2)(b):
"contravened any provision under this or under any Act with regard to compliance with building regulations."
The Government amendments fulfil the undertaking that I gave in Committee. Amendment No. 33 requires the court to notify the person who gave approval—either the Secretary of State or a designated body — of a conviction. It is essential that that should be the first consequence, since it will be for the approving body to notify local authorities when it withdraws any approval.
It is likely that, when informed of a conviction, the approving body would always wish to withdraw its approval and might even wish to expel a convicted person from membership. Nevertheless, I propose to make regulations to require a designated body to withdraw approval and prevent it from giving further approval for five years after the date of conviction.
The purpose of amendments Nos. 32 and 42 is to provide the necessary powers to make those regulations. The disqualification process will apply not only to approved inspectors under part II, but to approved persons under clause 46.
I hope that, in view of what I have said, the hon. Member for Norwood will seek leave to withdraw the motion.
§ Question put and negatived.