APPROVED INSPECTORS (Hansard, 12 April 1984)

§ Mr. John Fraser

I beg to move, amendment (a) to the Lords amendment, in line 6, leave out paragraph (b) I understand that with this amendment we can discuss Lords amendments Nos. 92 to 94, 101, with amendment (a), Lords amendments Nos. 102 to 105, 108 to 110 and 213.

There are three sets of amendments, and they all relate to fees charged in relation to building control. Under these amendments, the Government are proposing that the fees for the appointment of a building inspector may be fixed not by the Government or the local authority but by the body that appoints the inspector. That is to say, the power to insist on a charge for the performance of a public duty is being privatised as well as the duty itself. That is an unusual provision and one to which we object.

Our second objection is that the fees to be fixed for charges to be made by the building inspector will again be fixed by a private body and not by central Government. The third amendment, which has not been selected, opposes the provision that a local authority will be able to fix its own scale of charges for building approval work.

It is right that, on such matters as building approval, which require public integrity, single scale charges should operate across the country. It would be wrong to introduce competition as between one local authority and another as to the level of fees that are to be charged for building inspection work. That has never been the case in the past, and it should never be the case in the future. This is even worse because it could introduce an element of undesirable competition as between the local authority and the private competitor who has been given the powers to exercise building control powers and to fix his own level of charges.

I am not against competition, and I spent a great deal of time as a Minister trying to encourage it, but there are times when competition is undesirable, and this is one of them. The combination of these proposals that we seek to amend is that local authorities will have to obtain expensive skilled staff to deal with potentially complex problems in circumstances where work reverts to them, and will have to recoup the cost of doing so with a reduced throughput of work. That will create a vicious circle for local authorities, of having to provide a service for supervising large-scale and complex developments, with a decline in work loads, and having to charge fees in excess of those bargain basement fees charged by private inspectors for doing the more simple and less costly low rise developments.

The fees will be modest. I do not think that anybody has suggested that the fees charged for building approval are excessive. In the public advantage, it is right that the Department of the Environment should be answerable in the House for the level of fees charged for this public duty—it is not a private service or duty. Secondly, it is wrong that there should be any undercutting of fees as between a local authority and a private inspector. If the House is to confer powers on private inspectors, which we object to, it should stop there and the Minister should control the level of fees that are charged whether in the private or in the public sector.

§ Mr. Wyn Roberts

I invite the House to reject the hon. Gentleman's amendments to the Lords amendments 91 and 101 and to agree with the Lords in the amendments as proposed. I also wish to discuss Lords amendments 91 to 94, 101 to 105, 108 to 110 and 213.

The hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) has, of course, described the three sub-groups of amendments here, all about fees, but different kinds of fees.

The amendments in the first sub-group make detailed changes to the procedures for approving private inspectors, to reflect the discussions we have been having with the professional institutions that are interested in becoming designated bodies. The effect of amendment 91 would be that each designated body would be able to fix its own fee for considering applications for approval, rather than having the fee prescribed by the Secretary of State. This accords with the statement in Cmnd 8179 that approval arrangements will be expected to be self-financing.

It seems to us entirely reasonable to allow the designated bodies to set their own fees, because they are, after all, in the best position to know how much it costs them to provide the service. This is the provision which the Opposition amendment seeks to remove. It would give the responsibility for setting these fees to the Secretary of State. We take the contrary view, of course, and ask why the Government should interfere in the matter between a professional body and its own members. The Secretary of State's control will be exercised through the process of designating the body and through the power that he has to withdraw the designation. The Secretary of State will, however, charge fees, prescribed in regulations, in relation to any application for approval which is made directly to him. This provision remains unchanged.

The amendments in the second sub-group are closely parallel. They make virtually identical provision for the arrangements for the approval of persons to give certificates, under clause 48, that plans show compliance with prescribed provisions of building regulations.

Turning to the third sub-group of amendments, we find ourselves in fresh territory. The new clause at amendment 105 is not about private certification at all, but about the established and continuing system of local authority control. At the moment, local authorities have a monopoly of building control services and the fees that they charge for providing these are therefore precisely specified in regulations.

The introduction of private sector competition to the building control system will create a completely new situation. We mean the alternatives to be genuine options affording the developer a choice between two systems, each of which is paid for by the people who use it, without subsidy from the generality of taxpayers and ratepayers.

Under the present system, the Secretary of State prescribes fees in relation to the total costs of building control in all the local authorities in England and Wales. As the volume of work and the mix of buildings vary from one authority to another, the fees produce for each authority a different proportion of its costs.

The new clause at amendment 105 will enable building regulations to authorise local authorities to set their own fees. This will not only be more equitable and present a truer picture of the costs of services in different districts, but will also be a valuable spur, we believe, to efficiency within local authorities. They will not be able to assume, as they do now, that any shortfall in income can be thrown 625 into the balance for the calculation of the RSG settlement. There are other advantages that we can foresee coming from this new system.

None of this will affect the costs of providing the building control service at all. It will simply ensure that the costs at present incurred by local authorities are for the first time clearly identified and accounted for and that they are met by those who use the service rather than by the ratepayer.

Amendments 108, 109 and 213 provide that the new clause shall be brought into effect by commencement order. Amendment No. 109 also incorporates another technical correction. Clause 50 repeals a number of unwanted provisions in the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974; in consequence of one of these, part of section 69 of the 1974 Act is repealed.

10 pm

Amendment No. 110 will enable those provisions of the Bill which require commencement orders for their coming into effect those, that is, in clause 56(2)(a) (b) and (c)—to be brought into effect on different dates.