§ Mr. John FraserI beg to move amendment No. 30, in page 31, line 44, leave out from 'State' to end of line 3 on page 32.
There are two ways of appointing an inspector in the Bill. He can be appointed by the Minister or by an approved body. It is quite wrong that the appointment of an inspector may he subcontracted to some other organisation. The Minister may well wish to follow the recommendation of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, the National House Building Council or some other professional body, but the buck ought to stop with the Minister. The duty of appointment and supervision should be a Government one, not a private one. Once another body is allowed to appoint a building inspector, State and parliamentary control will be lost, and that 519 would be wrong. I hope that the Government will accept our proposition, discussed in Committee, that the sole power of appointment should rest with central Government.
§ Sir George YoungThe argument advanced by the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) that there might be a weakening of state control is not likely to commend itself to the Government.
Amendment No. 30 would take away the power of the Secretary of State to designate bodies to approve inspectors so that he would have to consider every application himself. We strongly oppose such a proposal. We have recently held a meeting with the main professional institutions whose members have a claim to be approved as inspectors. Their response has been helpful and constructive, showing considerable agreement on the main principles of approval—that is to say, professional qualification and relevant practical experience, coupled with some specific demonstration of knowledge of the building regulations.
Discussions among the institutions and with my Department are continuing and we accept the need to establish agreed criteria. I am in no doubt that the institutions, which are highly respected professional bodies, are best placed to determine the competence of their members. They know what qualifications and experience their members have and thus what additional tests might be applied to assess the competence of those who wish to become approved as inspectors. It would make no sense at all for the Secretary of State to have to get involved in approving individual inspectors when others already have the necessary expertise to do that.
However, I can give the House my assurance that we shall not designate any body to approve inspectors unless we are satisfied that they will adopt proper procedures for vetting the competence of each candidate for approval.
On the basis of that assurance, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment.
§ Mr. John FraserOur judges, police constables and magistrates are not privately appointed. We have come pretty close to private enterprise appointing peers a couple of times, but there are some areas in which there should be exclusive state control, and quite properly so. I know that the House wants to make progress. I still believe strongly in the amendment that I have moved, but I shall press it no further. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment made: No. 32, in page 32, line 17 at end insert—
'(bb) contain provision precluding the giving of, or requiring the withdrawal of, any such approval as is so referred to in such circumstances as may be prescribed by the regulations;'.—[Sir George Young.]