Housing and Building Control Bill

HL Deb 06 March 1984 vol 449 cc231-59

8.40 p.m.

House again in Committee.

Clause 29 [Meaning of "secure tenancy"]:

Lord Skelmersdale

I think I can help the Committee. Amendment No. 70 was spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, with Amendment No. 46, as was Amendment No. 71.

[Amendments Nos. 70 and 71 not moved.]

Clause 29 agreed to.

Clause 30 agreed to.

Clause 31 [Interpretation of Part I]:

Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 72.

[Printed earlier.]

The noble Lord said: This is a simple drafting, clarifying amendment. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 31, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 32 [Giving and acceptance of an initial notice]:

Baroness Nicol moved Amendment No. 73: Page 32, line 34, at end insert ("or if a notice has previously been given for the same work (or any part of it) and has been cancelled for the reason specified in section 37(1)(c) below").

The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 73 extends the local authorities reasons for refusal of an initial notice to include certain circumstances in which an original initial notice had been cancelled. I am also speaking to Amendment No. 92. Amendment No. 92: Page 40, line 43, after ("notice") insert ("(except where section 37(1)(c) applies) ").

Clause 37(1) will require an approved inspector to withdraw from this role, either if he feels that he is, or will become, incapable of fulfilling it or if, under paragraph (c) of that subsection, he is of the opinion that there has been a contravention of the building regulations and has given notice to the builder or developer to rectify that contravention and the builder or developer fails to do so.

In such a case the approved inspector must withdraw his involvement and notify the local authority. But there is nothing in the Bill to stop the builder or developer from shopping around to find another, perhaps less conscientious, inspector, to take over the work, so the builder or developer could continue to flout the building regulations.

Clause 37(1)(c) demonstrates an essential weakness of the new system, in that an approved inspector will lack the teeth to enforce the building regulations. These amendments seek to prevent a series of initial notices being issued where the first has been cancelled either because the approved inspector feels that he is incapable of fulfilling his functions or where there has been a breach of building regulations and the approved inspector has not been able to bring about compliance. In that case, the supervision should revert to the local authority for it to use its enforcement powers. It should not be left to the builder or developer to shop around for a more amiable approved inspector. I beg to move.

Lord Broxbourne

Unless I have failed to understand the amendment, it seems to involve an unnecessary duality. As I understand it, it would make mandatory under Clause 32 the rejection of an initial notice by the local authority when the notice has already been cancelled by the inspector under Clause 37(1)(c) on the grounds that a builder has failed to remedy defects within the three months' statutory period. That involves an unnecessary duality and, in a statute that will necessarily be as long and complex as this, we should be at pains to try to avoid that. I think that, on reflection, noble Lords opposite may feel it to be a case of overkill and may wish to withdraw the amendment.

Viscount Hanworth

In a way, this amendment is a paving amendment for Clause 37. I cannot help going back to the Second Reading debate. It seems to me doubtful whether all these provisions for outside inspectors are necessary or whether the system could not be left as it was. However, I do not think at this stage that this is very important except to say that it seems that the Government are pursuing a doctrinal policy. It is a doctrinal policy with utter disregard for the side effects. It is these side effects on which the Government have been defeated three times in this Bill. It is strange that they should be so purblind as not to look at the issues with common sense.

We are dealing here, and in subsequent amendments, with something which is quite as important as anything that we have had before. It appears that these inspectors can be sacked by the contractors, just like that. If they do not like the inspector, after a little backwards and forwards, they get another one.

I challenge the Government to say whether this is not an absolute charter for dishonesty and corruption. Without amendments in the Bill that is exactly what it will be. I cannot understand how a responsible Government can so ignore the side effects of their legislation as they seem to do in this area.

We might remember one other matter; that is that in trying to see whether something conforms to building regulations is on-going. Once it is covered up nobody knows until possibly the building gets damp or, in an extreme case, it falls down. But this is absolutely monstrous unless something is done to amend it. This is only one of the small amendments; the first, which may be unimportant on its own merits, but it is vital to see that we do not land in a similar situation which we know has happened before with Poulson and others. I cannot conceive how any responsible Government can imagine that this will not happen.

Lord Irving of Dartford

Like the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, I feel tempted to make a Second Reading speech, but I should declare an interest as a vice-president of the ADC, as a member of a local authority with 32 years' experience and as a member associated with NALGO which has 4,000 control officers in membership and a large number of ancillary workers who all feel under threat.

Lord Broxbourne

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his characteristic courtesy. Will he repeat, spelling it out fully, the organisation which has the advantage of his vice-presidency, I could not identify it?

Lord Irving of Dartford

Yes, indeed, vice-president of the ADC, the Association of District Councils. I am glad to join with the noble Lord in this as in many other enterprises. The Secretary of State for the Environment, Mr. Heseltine, at the beginning of this piece in 1979 talked about national standards nationally enforced. Everything the Government have done since then has sought to fragment the service and, in my view, to disrupt a well-trained, well-established and independent service, to threaten standards, and to weaken the protection for owner and public alike. It will establish, alongside the present local government system, a class of inspector known as an approved inspector who can be chosen by the builder, who, as has already been said, can shop around and find an accommodating inspector if he does not like the actions of his particular approved inspector. There are none of the safeguards which apply in local government. I should like to remind your Lordships how strict they are. Every local government building control officer is subject to conditions that he must have no conflict of interest; that he must have no pecuniary interest that he does not declare; that he must not get involved in any kind of politics—and all these are subject to disciplinary sanctions if he defaults in any way.

The approved inspector will be exposed to all the commercial pressures without any of the protections available to the owner and the public today. If the approved inspector does not please he will not be appointed again. This could be a threat to the whole system of protection for which and to which the service is devoted at the moment. If this protection fails, the Government's action in providing compensation to owners who are injured or killed will be of little consolation. I should like, and I hope perhaps even at another stage, to explore the implications of this whole wretched measure in greater detail—but not tonight.

8.52 p.m.

Lord Skelmersdale

I had hoped before the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, spoke that I should be able to respond to the amendment as briefly as the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, moved it. I am afraid that that is not to be. Clause 32 provides the essential legal framework for enabling an approved inspector to undertake the functions of inspecting plans and supervising building work in place of the local authority. The noble Lord, Lord Irving, with all his experience of local authorities—and I hesitate to be drawn into the argument of whether that matches that of my noble friend Lord Broxbourne or not; they can settle it out of court, so to speak—said that the local authority officers in this respect are well-trained, well-established and working well. Well-trained, I would agree with, well-established, I would agree with; working well—how does he know? He has nothing to compare it with. I think this is the point. The noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, talked about doctrinal measures of this kind, or words to that effect.

With respect I do not again want to engage in a semantic argument with the noble Viscount but where do ideas come from? Sometimes, on rare occasions, ideas get translated into primary legislation or, on occasions, secondary legislation evolves from a general consensus of opinion; but this is very rare. I would suggest to him that all measures of all Governments have most of their foundations in some degree of doctrinality—if that word serves the purpose.

I should point out, going back to the Bill in hand, that this proposal of the Government will be an optional alternative available to a developer. He and his approved inspector will be able to serve a notice on the local authority which it will only be able to reject on limited grounds which will be set out in regulations. On acceptance of the notice the local authority's duty to enforce the building regulations will be suspended.

The inspector will then be responsible for seeing that the work secures the standards of health and safety required by the building regulations and will in due course issue a final certificate when the work is completed to his satisfaction. We will come to this later. If however the inspector considers that the work contravenes the regulations—and I think this is the point of the amendment—Clause 37 provides that he must give the developer a notice specifying the contravention. Our draft regulations require that the notice also specifies the measures required to remedy it. The developer then has a prescribed period (three months) in which to remove or remedy the offending work. At the end of the three months, if the work has not been put right, the approved inspector must cancel the initial notice.

This gives the developer a reasonable time in which to remedy a contravention and advance warning that the approved inspector might cancel the initial notice. Even though inspectors will not have the criminal enforcement powers of local authorities, they have this powerful sanction against developers who disregard their opinion and refuse to remedy what their inspector believes to be a contravention of the regulations. Cancellation and withdrawal in such circumstances would put the developer at serious risk of expense and delay.

If nonetheless the developer refused to alter the work, the inspector would have to cancel the initial notice. The local authority would then take over responsibility for the work unless the developer had been able in the meantime to find a second inspector prepared to take it on and give a second initial notice.

I have painted the worse possible case—I hope it is to the advantage of the Committee—because these are the sort of things which have given grounds for suspicion to certain members of the Committee.

Lord Irving of Dartford

If, in the example that the noble Lord has given, the inspector virtually withdraws and the local authority is left with the job of controlling that development, is it not left with an impossible task, with no plans, with no supervision of the early work, of the foundations or of anything else? Then he has to deal with a situation which is quite intolerable and the local authority will have to do it with what could be in some respects an open-ended liability.

Lord Skelmersdale

No. This is untrue. The approved inspector is responsible for the work up to the point where the disagreement arises. If the disagreement has not been put right, then either the local authority or the first approved inspector or the second approved inspector would have the authority to get it put right for the development to continue beyond that point. I do not think it is an impossible situation. The original approved inspector would be totally liable in law for all the interim certificates given for the work up to that point.

Lord Irving of Dartford

What I am saying is that if, in fact, the inspector withdraws or has to withdraw) in the circumstances that the noble Lord indicates, how is he to know whether the early certificate was a valid one in the sense that the work was carried out effectively? They will have to proceed with the rest of the work without knowing about the foundations or other parts of the building and therefore could pile on to an original fault work that might then be at risk.

Lord Skelmersdale

No. The whole objective of the system is to break down into sections the building work on the development and a certificate must be issued at the end of the last section before the next section can be undertaken by the developer: so that we have this safeguard built into the scheme all the way along. If there is a row and a default on one side or the other, the inspector's certificates up to that point not only remain in force—because he will have been satisfied; otherwise he would not have signed the certificates—but, as I have said, he will be liable in law should his work subsequently prove to be defective or negligent.

However, perhaps I can now get on to the amendment. I am not sure whether the noble Lord, Lord Irving, is convinced; but perhaps he will read what I have said and then perhaps he can come back to it later on. As far as these two amendments are concerned—and I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for talking to both of them together—I am certain that my noble friend Lord Broxbourne is not correct about duality. I am advised that, on the contrary, these amendments would prevent a second certifier taking over supervision of the building where the first certifier had withdrawn because he considered that the work contravened the building regulations and the builder had not altered or taken down the work in the prescribed period. It would follow that the local authority would always take over responsibility in such cases. The Government do not believe that this would be right.

A difference of opinion about work on the site could arise between a builder and his certifier, and the view of one certifier might not always coincide with the view of another. It is possible for there to be honest differences of view about the interpretation or application of the building regulations. Indeed—I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Irving, would bear me out—such differences are not uncommon now between local authorities, and what is permitted in one local authority from time to time is not necessarily permitted in another.

It has been suggested—not yet here, but I am sure that the suggestion will arise sooner or later, so I may as well deal with it—that a developer will be able to shop around until he finds a second approved inspector, who is prepared to certify work where the first inspector alleges contravention. I think that, in practice, this ruse is most unlikely to succeed. If the second inspector whom he approaches agrees with the first that there is a contravention, the chances of a third or fourth disagreeing will be slight, to say the least. In any case, we must remember that the approved inspector who took over from the first would be taking over responsibility for the work supervised by his predecessor. He would not do this lightly and I do not see the justification for precluding take-over whenever this situation arises, given that there is scope for genuine differences of opinion.

Therefore, the Government's view is that we must continue to allow for the possiblity of such genuine differences in professional views, and that it would be unfair to deprive the builder of the chance to engage a second certifier who would be prepared to certify that, in his view, the work complied. I do not see any justification for obliging the local authority to take over responsibility in every case where this situation arises. I also doubt—again, I am prepared to take advice—whether many local authorities would welcome that obligation. I therefore invite the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.

Viscount Hanworth

Before the noble Lord sits down, I should like to make one or two points. First, I realise that when I used the word "doctrinal" I was being a little unkind to the Government. What I mean is carrying forward what may well be a perfectly good policy into areas where it is just not applicable. I used the word "doctrinal" to refer to that.

The noble Lord has done something over my real worries about dishonesty, which go right through these clauses. But he has not gone as far as we must go, because, if the contractor sacks his own inspector, he is still at liberty, without consulting anybody or the council, to take on another more pliable inspector—and such inspectors will undoubtedly exist.

Perhaps the noble Lord would take away the worries I have raised and see what the Government think can be done in this direction. If the inspector has been sacked, as opposed to retiring, the council could be consulted, or something of that sort. If the noble Lord would only go away and see the point I have been making—without any undertaking—and will consider whether he can do anything, while realising that there is a problem in this area, then I shall not go on harrying him with subsequent amendments. That is a very decent promise.

Baroness Nicol

Before the noble Lord replies, may I deal with two points in one go? First, this is the first occasion on which the Minister has even suggested that there was anything unsatisfactory in the application of building control up to this point. In fact, he is on record, on two occasions at least, as saying that building control has been carried out very satisfactorily by the local authority; that was on the Second Reading of this Bill and of the earlier one. I am sorry that I did not bring the Official Report with me, but I did not expect this point to be raised. But it has been generally agreed that the system of building control by local authorities has been satisfactory, and it was the Government's wish to bring an element of competition into it that gave rise to this set of clauses.

Secondly, I must reiterate what my noble friend has said. We are not really concerned with the honest developer and the honest inspector, of whom there are many, and we make no bones about that. The vast majority of the people concerned will be honest and wish to do their jobs properly, and they probably will do their jobs properly. But in building as in almost no other industry in this country, we have been plagued wih cowboy builders and cowboy operators of all kinds, and it is against that kind of operation that we wish to defend ourselves and the general public.

For this reason, when an inspector leaves, for any reason other than illness, or for some perfectly acceptable reason—perhaps because of a row with his employer—then there should be no shopping around for a second approved inspector. It should then become the responsibility of the local authority to see the job through. Perhaps the Minister could take those points on board.

Lord Broxbourne

Before my noble friend replies, he said that there would be no duality, but could he identify how this can be so, since the initial notice is clearly cancelled and the two forms referred to in his draft inspector's regulations do not make any reference to the subsequent position after that? Once the initial notice has been cancelled, I should have thought—I am open to correction and conviction on this point—that there would be no point in taking the action proposed in the amendment, because the matter is already dead, so to speak, by reason of the cancellation.

It may well be that there should be further provisions, providing for a right of challenge to the cancellation and the various circumstances that ought to be provided for in that regard. But I do not see them in the Bill and in these voluminous documents at present. Perhaps my noble friend could identify them—if not now, at any rate on some occasion—or I should be equally happy to have the information from the noble Baroness opposite.

Lord Irving of Dartford

Would the noble Lord allow me a few sentences before he replies? He outlined a series of dramatic situations in which withdrawal might be appropriate; the conflict then arises as to whether you get another inspector or go to a local authority. But even if he ties up all these loopholes, is he not aware that the pressure could be much more subtle? An inspector completes one job, but he is found to be too tough. So there is no question of conflict—it is just that the next time he is not appointed. Therefore, there is no way in which the protection which the Minister has talked about could apply. This is one of the points we are worried about in terms of the integrity of inspectors.

Lord Skelmersdale

I do not believe that the noble Lord, Lord Irving of Dartford, can possibly be right. The complaints that I have received are not that the inspector will he too tough but that in carrying out his duties he will be too lax.

Lord Irving of Dartford

He will be too tough in terms of the builder, which may be a different criterion from the one which the noble Lord or I would apply.

Lord Skelmersdale

It is surely in his own interests not to be too tough so far as the builder is concerned. As the noble Lord says, he will want to get another job on another development. It has been suggested to me that he will be too lax from the point of view of the local authority, in which case the local authority will get to know very quickly and the next time round will refuse him an initial notice.

While on the subject of initial notices, the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, asked me exactly where in the Bill it is stated that the local authority will be informed in the event of the sacking of the first approved inspector. The answer is on page 40, in subsection (7) of Clause 38: The fact that an initial notice has ceased to be in force shall not affect the right to give a new initial notice". In other words, if there is another inspector there is another initial notice. I hope that that explanation will satisfy the noble Viscount.

I must apologise to my noble friend Lord Broxbourne for the fact that he and I were talking at cross purposes. When I referred to duality I was talking about duality of the amendment, which does not exist. My noble friend was, I believe, talking about duality of the amendment with the Bill, which I accept would exist. Since we are not, I hope, going to agree this amendment, I hope that point will not arise.

Viscount Hanworth

The Minister said that if an inspector was too lenient the local authority would sack him. This could occur only in extreme cases. We are thinking about collusion between an inspector and a builder. If there is collusion it is very easy quite quickly to cover up shoddy work. What the noble Lord has said does not, therefore, cut very much ice. We still come back to the point that something must be done to ensure not only that there is no open invitation to collusion but also that there is no open invitation to all sorts of bribes for the inspector.

Lord Skelmersdale

I should have thought that collusion would result in negligence, which is an offence under a later clause of the Bill, to which I cannot turn at the moment. Since this is obviously a very complicated issue for the noble Viscount, perhaps we might with advantage discuss it outside in the near future.

Viscount Hanworth

I certainly agree to that proposal.

Baroness Nicol

The discussion has been fairly confusing for a number of noble Lords. The best course to adopt will be to read what has been said, to look again at the Bill and then to decide whether we wish to bring it back at a later stage. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

9.13 p.m.

Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 74: Page 33, line 35, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").

The noble Lord said: One of the aggravations we have to face is the pressure on time, because this is one of a handful of most crucial issues that we are now beginning to debate. The sparse attendance in the Committee does not reflect the importance of this issue, which is the kernel of the basis by means of which the Government intend, in Part II of the Bill, to change the present system of building control and inspection, which is designed to prevent difficulties, to one which is underwritten or underpinned by an insurance system which will provide compensation after a tragedy or event has taken place. I begin by quoting the words of the Secretary of State in another place. When these matters were being discussed, he said: If there is no satisfactory insurance there will be no approved inspectors".—[Official Report, Commons, 15/11/83; col. 664.] It is as simple as that. The kernel of the argument we shall deploy is that for more than five years the Government have sought agreement by consultation, by variation, among a range of people—not least those in the insurance industry. After five years, we stand here tonight, I will not say no further forward, because clearly some progress has been made, but with the insurance industry saying to the Government, "What we have seen is not an acceptable basis upon which we can say to the Government that a market can be created and the terms of the Bill can go forward". This is a lamentable situation. When one considers the time, the energy, the emotion, the disturbance and distress which has been caused in a range of fora by the Government's intentions, it is nothing short of scandalous.

Let us examine precisely what it is that the Government intend to do. The present situation is one whereby the public are protected from the event of dereliction by those who are charged with inspecting the footings, the buildings, the materials, the aspects and the range of qualities which need to he provided. The public are protected because at the moment there is a perfectly satisfactory system of inspection. It is a system of inspection carried out by approved inspectors. Those inspectors are the building control officers who have been approved by the system and by time. If the public, through the developer, pay a fee—and there are prescribed fees relating to the value of the development or the house—they then get a service. Up till now that service has satisfied the public. I do not wish to speak in complete unanimity because tragedies do occur and odd corruptions are revealed. But we are talking about the totality of the system, and the public are satisfied that the public inspector is able to give a satisfactory service.

The Government have indicated on page 33 of the Bill, line 35, in Clause 32(7): Building regulations may prescribe for the purposes of this section the insurance cover which is to be provided in relation to any work which is specified in an initial notice and is not work to which an approved scheme applies and may, in particular, prescribe the form and content of policies of insurance". Amendment Nos. 74 to 77, to which I speak, cover the totality of those arguments.

In preparation for these debates, my noble friend Lady Nicol and I have not merely relied on our experience of serving on committee upon this Bill in the past. In order to refresh our minds, we sought meetings with a range of people representing a number of bodies with whom certainly the civil servants, who served the Minister well in his department, have met and consulted. I say this with no disrespect to the Minister, but he himself may not have met the individuals we are talking about—although when consultations take place, the Minister may be there, too, Certainly I am well aware that consultations have taken place.

We have held discussions with the Association of Consulting Engineers, the Society of Architectural and Associated Technicians, NALGO, the National Federation of Building Trade Employers, the British Insurance Brokers Association, the British Insurance Association, the Institute of Building Control Officers, the District Planning Officers' Society, the unattached architects, the National House Building Council, the District Surveyors' Association and the Royal Institute of Structural Engineers.

We did not meet them all in the same morning, not all on the same day, not all in the same week. But as a credential, we simply say that we have relied neither on prejudice nor on a brief for our memory or for our reading. We said to all of those organisations, "Tell us what you think about how the Bill looks now in the light of your experience and in the light of consultation papers". When we have asked the Minister, he has been kind enough to let us have consultation papers; sometimes we have obtained copies without asking him for them. I refer to the consultation papers of August, September, November and February.

We are not arguing abut the endeavour of the Minister to satisfy his imperative. His imperative is simply to produce a scheme that will work. What they have told us—without wishing to put words into their mouths—is that the scheme as at present on the table will not work. They have told us that it will not work. But that does not mean to say that it is not capable of being made to work by further consultation and improvement. I simply want the committee to stand aghast at the fact that after five years of an idea which most people said had grave difficulties the Government have yet to produce a basis.

Looking at the reality of parliamentary arithmetic, in a matter of months the Bill will become an Act and will be on the statute book with a range of triggers as to when various things can or cannot happen. Frankly, the Committee should be appalled at the emotional energy—if I may use that term—that has been generated in a range of forums, and at the alarms and depressions, let alone the steps that local authorities have to take on what is to happen. That is nothing short of a disgrace.

I want to stick strictly to the insurance aspect and the current situation. I rely very heavily on an opportunity I had when I attended a conference. I know that there are others not a thousand miles away from where I stand now who have responsibilities in these matters, who attended the same conference and who heard an eminent member of the insurance broking profession speaking to perhaps 200 people who will carry some responsibility in the inspection field. I am referring to the public sector as well as the private sector. The conference took place last week. Those people and their association invited this man, from his knowledge and sense of what is happening, to tell them, as he saw it, his impression of the present situation. I simply want to ask the Committee to listen to the words that I heard. I paraphrase them because I did not have a tape recorder and do not possess a verbatim record of what was said. One of the first things he said was: In the case of the Bill the demand is as yet unknown". So we have the unusual situation of the importance, or even the success, of the Bill revolving around an insurance capacity which currently does not exist in the commercial insurance market. That was said by someone who, from his credentials, I respect although I have never met him. The Minister will be advised by his advisers that this person is an authority in that respect. I think it is a little disgraceful, in what I would say are the latter stages of the Bill, that that is the situation. He then went on: Whenever an insurance proposition is put to the market the response will depend heavily on the answers to two questions: one, full details of requirements; and, two, the likely demand". Both questions are at present unanswered.

If we have a situation where the whole underpinning of a piece of legislation—the words of the Minister—is without adequate insurance arrangements there will be no Bill. It is as simple as that. I invite the Minister to comment on that situation.

I know that the Minister will tell us that the insurance arrangements are not complicated but that they relate to different categories of housing. There are the low rise, residential developments where the National House Building Council is likely to be the body that will look after that situation. I am delighted to see my good friend the noble Lord, Lord Broxbourne, in his place. He is well equipped not only to defend, which is not the point, but to speak about the work and record of the National House Building Council.

We then have to consider the length of time, the amount, the certainty, the escalation and the protection that the insurance company needs to give in the light of what are, quite frankly, the very strict criteria which the Government are laying down. One problem is that the Government take very much on board the need for protection comparable to that which the public already enjoy. They are asking insurers to cover for a length and certainty similar to that which they presently enjoy, and the insurance industry is having grave doubts.

Another thing that this eminent person said last week was: How can one persuade an insurer to commit himself to a 15-year term on an escalating sum insured at a reasonable premium without a guaranteed flow of business and the spread of the risk? The backing of a substantial bulk of business would be essential".

I come now to what I think are that person's most damaging observations. He said: The Bill seeks consumer protection when inspection work is transferred to private authorised inspectors but only in respect of domestic buildings. It does nothing to protect the owners of other buildings, and from the insurance viewpoint it may as well be called the 'Housing Control Bill'. At this stage it is difficult to see why any authorised private inspector will wish to undertake this work, as the cost of insuring his liabilities would appear to be uneconomical when related to his fee income for his work".

We need to respect that opinion. When that person talks as frankly as that about what we consider to be a central point of the Bill, we should ask the Minister whether he is prepared to tell his colleagues that, as there is no certainty about the arrangements that can be made, we should not burden local authorities and the world of architects, engineers, surveyors, planners and others with a situation that may never come about. The Minister may respond by saving that they do not have to be involved in the business; the developer need not go the private route, as there is always the public route. What a scandal that five years of parliamentary time, all the energy of the department, and, I repeat, the emotional energy outside, may have been wasted simply to leave that as an option. When we are told by people who know their business that the cost of insurance will he two, three or sometimes even four times as high as it is now, quite frankly it is no wonder that the proposal for an approved inspector is not likely to get off the ground.

We want the approved inspector to carry a certificate of full insurance cover against any claim that may be made against him or his estate in respect of any works carried out under the initial notice. That is precisely the position at the moment. A developer is covered by the responsibility and insurance of the local authority. If the local authority insurance cover is insufficient to meet the amount that a court might lay down as being due to an aggrieved person because of the negligence of the council's building inspector, because the council is a body of substance and permanence, it will have to make up the difference through the rates. Although, as a ratepayer, one might wince, that is the present system, and what we are being invited to do is to produce a weaker system for the protection of the public. The amendment that we make is the only way in which we can say to the public whatever other reasons the Government have got, in future you will be protected as much as you have been in the past. I beg to move the amendment.

Lord Broxbourne

Before the noble Lord sits down, in the concluding part of his very interesting observations the noble Lord made reference to the local authority position, and quite correctly said that there was insurance against negligence. The insurance contemplated, as I understand it, by these draft insurance regulations, which I am sure the noble Lord has studied, is that there shall be two forms of insurance covering two different periods, the 10 year period, which is the so-called no fault period, and the 15 year period, the longer period, where negligence has to be established.

My understanding of the local authority position is that only the first type of insurance applies and that negligence has to be established. It will of course be a very substantial advantage to have the no fault period introduced. The noble Lord was good enough to refer to the National Housebuilding Council of which I am a quondam amateur chairman. I think the idea does in fact derive from the practice there where they do operate—and I see, from the nodding of his head, that the noble Lord knows—to have the no fault period as well. I do not know whether the noble Lord would like to comment on that before he sits down. I am sorry that my intervention has been a little long, but mercifully I think it will save the Committee from any further contribution from me on this particular matter.

Lord Graham of Edmonton

I do appreciate and want to respond helpfully. It is a fact that the understanding in the industry is that the first part of the insurance proposals, which relate substantially to what I would call the National Housebuilders' Council insurance building type, is likely to be the one that will get off the ground and the other one will not—not least because of the difficulty of matching up to providing the cover. One of our concerns, which we will express later, is that clearly, because the National Housebuilders' Council already in existence has been favoured—and this is not denied by the Government—as a proper body, in fact is likely be the only body that is going to be not just interested but benefit from and grow and expand as a result of these proposals. I am not arguing against their system. It is in writing; there is experience; one can look at it. I have seen cases of distress and grievance, but this happens in all occupations. What I am saying is that we are likely to go through the whole trauma of creating a system when in effect the Government ought to have done their homework, even if that took years and years. Our charge is that in order to get something on the statute book that looks good, the privatisation of building control, they are falling over themselves to try to make arrangements which will not work.

Lord Skelmersdale

Oh dear, my Lords, "the privatisation of building control"! I really cannot agree with that. It has got nothing to do with it. What it does is give an option which is not available at the moment to a developer and why on earth should he not have such an option? The noble Lord also talked about a scandal. May I remind him that the lead time for nuclear power stations is in the order of from 15 to 17 years. I equally cannot accept his definition of a scandal in this case. We are working concurrently on consultation papers with the production of a Bill and all governments have done it at all times and will continue to do it at all times in the future. There is nothing improper in that. But I would accept one thing that the noble Lord, Lord Graham, has said: this is a key issue. I feel sure that both sides of the Committee agree that some form of insurance is necessary to protect the owner of a certified building in the event of defects occurring at a later stage which result from an approved inspector's negligence. Let us remember that this is what we are talking about: we are talking about negligence, and not some other reason for a building falling down, a collapsed wall, a collapsed roof or whatever. It is the inspector's negligence that we are talking about. Such cases should be rare, just as they are under the present local authority system. Nevertheless provision must be made for them. A local authority is always there to be sued and has resources to meet claims for damages arising from their own negligence in inspecting a building possibly many years ago.

An approved inspector, on the other hand, who is found negligent many or may not be able to meet a claim for damages. If he has a professional indemnity insurance policy in effect at the time when a claim is made, there should be no problem, but there is no way of guaranteeing that his annual insurance premiums will continue to be paid indefinitely.

The purpose in approving insurance schemes under Clause 32(6) of the Bill is to ensure that a person suffering damage attributable to non-compliance with the building regulations will be able to obtain redress for a reasonably long period of time. In order to be certain that the cover will be available, we have suggested that it should be provided on payment of a single premium at the construction stage.

As the noble Lord well knows, we are currently consulting on draft guidelines for schemes, and it may help the Committee if I explain the kind of insurance requirements that we have in mind. In the case of domestic buildings we feel that owners should be assured of redress without themselves having to take out insurance. An approved scheme would, under the proposed guidelines, give a house buyer a 10-year warranty against defects, whether or not they resulted from the negligence of the approved inspector. In addition, it would give further cover for another five years; that is 15 years in all against any damage which could be shown to result from an inspector's negligence.

The National House Building Council has said that if approved as a certifier of low-rise housing, it would provide a scheme on these lines, incorporating an improved version of its existing warranty; and the Government are grateful for that. This scheme will have a number of significant advantages over the present position with local authority building control. Local authorities do not give any sort of warranty. If a defect occurs in the first 10 years in a local authority supervised house, therefore, the houseowner has to prove that the local authority has been negligent. Taking the council to court is not something that an ordinary householder can do lightly or easily, but it might be his only means of redress. If the local authority were not found negligent, the houseowner would have incurred considerable expenditure to no avail, and would still be faced with the problem of putting right a defective house. Under the insurance scheme that we are proposing the owner would not have to prove negligence in the first 10 years but would be protected by a warranty from an insurance company.

So much for the first 10 years. During years 11 to 15 the two houseowners will be in exactly the same position; we are back to negligence again. After 15 years the owner of the privately certified house will still be able to sue the approved inspector for negligence. At this point, however, there would be no guarantee that if negligence were established, damages should be forthcoming. Nevertheless, I think it very unlikely indeed that a body such as the NHBC would be unable to meet such a claim, Furthermore, the likelihood of a defect not coming to light within 15 years is itself fairly remote. I think, therefore, that an owner of a certified house who has the benefit of a scheme such as the NHBC has offered will be at least as well protected as one whose house was subject to local authority building control.

The noble Lord very properly asked about commercial property. It has been suggested to us that owners can be relied upon to look after their own interests in this respect. Consequently, in the present draft guidelines for insurance schemes, on which we are currently consulting, the only obligatory requirement is for insurance cover to meet claims from injured third parties. Our concern here is to protect members of the public from the consequences of negligence on the part of an approved inspector.

As the Committee is aware, the Law Reform Committee is currently considering the question of time limitation of liability in negligence cases involving latent damage and is expected to report in the near future. Its recommendations may well have considerable implications for these matters, but of course we cannot anticipate them.

Clause 32(7) provides for a possible alternative approach to the matter of insurance requirements. It enables the Secretary of State to prescribe by means of regulations the insurance cover which is to be provided in cases where work is not covered by an approved scheme.

For the time being at least we see the approval of schemes under subsection (6) as the more promising approach, and regulations under subsection (7) have not been drafted. Any system of regulations would have to be watertight in all situations, and this could be difficult to achieve in the short term.

I now come to the specific amendments, Nos. 74 and 76. Their intention, in altering the word "may" to "shall" in subsection (7) is evidently to make certain that regulations imposing requirements for insurance are made before certification is introduced. I can understand the concern of noble Lords on this very important point, but I think I can reassure them. Certification under Clause 32 will not and indeed cannot begin until either insurance regulations are made prescribing the cover to be required, or a specific scheme (or schemes) has been approved for the purpose by the Secretary of State.

This is because subsection (1) of this clause requires that an initial notice will have to be accompanied by prescribed evidence of insurance. Failure to provide such evidence will be one of the grounds on which the local authority will have to reject the notice, so there can be no chance of an inspector supervising work without the necessary insurance. So again, to that extent the noble Lord, Lord Graham, is quite correct. Amendments Nos. 74 and 76 are therefore unnecessary. They are also undesirable—they would force us to make insurance regulations and to prescribe the form and content of insurance policies at the outset.

I have already explained that for the present we propose to rely on approved schemes. When the market has developed we may be able to make regulations, but we are not at that stage yet.

The effect of Amendment No. 75 would not I think be helpful when we came to draft such regulations. It would actually limit the kind of insurance requirements which might be prescribed to cover for the approved inspector. The essential point in any insurance requirements or approved schemes is that the protection is primarily for the owner and subsequent owners of the building. There may be ways of achieving this which depend on cover for the approved inspector but there are problems in this approach. More direct protection for the building owner is the surer method. If the inspector personally is insured, satisfactory redress for the building owner would depend on his taking action against the inspector—probably by suing him; on the other hand, if the policy relates to the inspector's work—the building—the owner would then have direct access to the insurer and to the benefits of the policy. We do not wish to limit ourselves exclusively to one or other method. Both could work, but there is no merit in restricting choice unnecessarily.

Amendment No.77, which adds a new subsection to Clause 32, would require something which the insurance industry cannot provide; namely, insurance cover for a certifier covering his own negligence for an indefinite period, regardless of the fact that there is no way of ensuring that premiums will continue to be paid. It would be impossible for an inspector to produce a certificate of the kind envisaged in the amendment.

It is of course always open to an owner to sue an approved inspector for as long as the law permits; and, conversely, in the interests of an inspector, or any other professional person for that matter, to insure himself against such an eventuality, but we cannot require people to do the impossible.

The noble Lord, Lord Graham, in fact wandered very naturally away from the insurance point during the course of his speech, and he mentioned something which caught my ear, which was the shift from prevention to compensation in this respect. Not so. Emphasis remains on prevention of defects; hence the stress on inspector's qualifications and experience, which is another subject which I suspect we shall come on to later. Insurance for inspectors is only a fallback, as it is for local authorities, which also insure and pay out heavily every year.

The noble Lord also placed great reliance on his panel of experts. I note that I was not included in that panel of experts although I did have somewhat brief discussions with him prior to the Bill. The insurance expert is the one who concerns me now. I would say that the report of the noble Lord, Lord Graham, on last week's conference at the Incorporated Association of Architects and Surveyors is substantially correct. The burden of the insurance brokers' message was, as the noble Lord said, that the insurance industry would find it hard to respond because it is a new market, a new kind of insurance and because they do not know how much business there will be.

He also said that the insurance guidelines suggested for consultation would provide building owners with very much more protection than they get from local authorities. But the fact is that the one insurance body with experience in this field, the NHBC is ready to provide an insurance scheme of this sort. So it is erroneous for the noble Lord to suggest that all is already lost.

The Bill will enable inspectors to certify any type of building, but the draft insurance guidelines would require more extensive insurance for domestic buildings than for commercially-owned buildings. To quote, I hope, from our current set of discussion papers on this, the reason for the distinction is that the Government believe that owners of domestic buildings should be able to rely on the availability of redress in the event of defects occurring which are attributable to contraventions of the building regulations, without themselves having to take out insurance. Owners of other buildings can be expected to make their own commercial judgments as to how far they wish to insure them, but third party cover will be obligatory. For those reasons—which I accept are very complicated and perhaps we cannot go into them in much greater detail now—I would invite the noble Lord to withdraw the amendments to which he has spoken.

Lord Graham of Edmonton

I should like to respond by saying that I am grateful to the Minister and to his advisers for clearly anticipating the importance of this debate and for preparing themselves quite fully to respond to the very predictable points which have been around for a long time and which, I suspect, will be around for a great deal longer. I take from the Minister the point that has been made by myself and the noble Lord, Lord Broxbourne, that there is already something upon which can be grafted the Government's ambitions, and that is the operations of the NHBC. I am prepared to believe that provided it works and provided it is supported that particular kind of construction is likely to be taken care of.

But the Minister failed to respond—and quite rightly, because he would have been in difficulty—to some of the detailed worries of not just the insurance industry, but of those who will have to rely upon it. For example, the element of inflation needs to be taken into account. I am an amateur but a keen observer in these matters. I am bound to tell your Lordships that, besides reading the information which I receive—and the briefs clearly have a vested interest—last week I spoke to some of my own contacts in this field. They are very worried indeed.

I must repeat that the revolution in this particular field of local government responsibility is based upon a system of insurance. The insurance industry and the brokers are distinct and separate—and I understand the difference—from the insurance companies that will actually write the insurance. They are all saying that at the moment they cannot see it getting off the ground. But in the meantime the local authorities have to make their manpower decisions. They have to decide whether in 1985 or 1986 their existing complement of 40 or 50 building inspectors will be required. If they decide to keep them and a lot of their work goes away, then they will be charged by this Government and others for having been overstaffed, et cetera.

Lord Skelmersdale

Will the noble Lord give way? The noble Lord cannot have it both ways. He suggests, on the one hand, that the local authority panel of inspectors is doing so well that the developer would not take up the option, and then he suggests, on the other hand, that when the developer does take up the option there is the threat of—I was going to say "dismissals", but that is the wrong word—

Lord Graham of Edmonton

Redundancies?

Lord Skelmersdale

Yes, the threat of redundancies in the local authority team. Those two ideas are totally incompatible.

Lord Graham of Edmonton

Of course I can have it both ways, because either circumstance is possible. We just do not know. The local authority, the chief officer and the committee are charged with trying to manage their affairs in the best way they can. If in 12 or 18 months' time things begin to get off the ground, then they will need to tailor the number of building inspectors they will need. What concerns me is that all that I have heard from people in the business is that the approved inspector system is not likely to make very much progress, if any progress at all. But people just do not know. I am not prepared to weary the Committee any more at this time. There is some more business to be pursued.

Lord Irving of Dartford

Will the noble Lord give way? On a point that he is making, is he aware that already the uncertainty of the last five years has inhibited recruitment to this profession in a way that has made control of building sites and property that much more difficult?

Lord Graham of Edmonton

My noble friend has great experience and many contacts in this matter, and I can well imagine that that is true. It is the uncertainty that has been created that worries me. I believe that that will continue for a very long time. I am grateful for the opportunity that we have had to air the fears and worries of people outside this place who are looking to us to produce a satisfactory system. We intend to return with other opportunities at other stages of the Bill, but at this stage I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 75, 76 and 77 not moved.]

Clause 32 agreed to.

Clause 33 agreed to.

Clause 34 [Approved inspectors]:

9.52 p.m.

Baroness Nicol moved Amendment No. 78: Page 35, line 13, leave out paragraph (b), and insert ("(b) by the Council.")

The noble Baroness said: I rise to move Amendment No. 78 and to speak to Amendments Nos. 81, 84, 86, 94, 95, 108, 109 and 110. Amendment No. 81: Page 35, line 30, leave out paragraph (c). Amendment No. 84: Page 36, line 1. leave out paragraph (f). Amendment No. 86: Page 36, line 27, after ("person") insert ("provided that any person who carries out an inspection under this subsection is suitably qualified in accordance with the appropriate regulations of the Council"). Amendment No. 94: After Clause 38, insert the following new clause:

("Building Control Council

.—(1) There shall be established a body to be called the Building Control Council (in this Act referred to as the "Council") which shall be a body corporate with perpetual succession and a common seal.

(2) The Council shall consist of such persons as shall be appointed by the Secretary of State and shall have the functions conferred upon them in this Act and as shall be prescribed.

(3) The Council shall be established and maintain a register of approved inspectors containing the names, addresses and qualifications; and such other particulars as shall be prescribed, of all persons who are approved by the Secretary of State or by the Council under section 31(1) of this Act and any person may inspect that register during office hours without payment.

(4) All other matters relating to the conduct and proceedings of the Council shall be such as shall be prescribed."). Amendment No. 95: After Clause 38, insert the following new clause:

("Practising certificates

.—(1) The Council shall, as soon as reasonably practicable, issue a practising certificate to a person who applies for one, if they are satisfied that—

1. (a) he has been approved under section 34(1) of this Act;
2. (b) his name is on the register maintained by the Council; and
3. (c) he continues to be suitably qualified in such a manner as shall from time to time be prescribed.

(2) A practising certificate shall be valid for such period, not exceeding one year, as the Council may specify in that certificate and may be cancelled or suspended by the Council on such grounds as may be prescribed.").

Amendment No. 108: Clause 42. page 43, line 28 at end insert— ("() Any person who wilfully pretends that he is—

1. (a) an approved inspector, or
2. (b) the holder of a valid practising certificate issued by the Council under section (Practising Certificates) of this Act, shall be guilty of an offence.").

Amendment No. 109: Clause 42, page 43, line 29, after ("(1)") insert ("or (2)").

Amendment No. 110: Clause 43, page 44, line 10, at end insert—(" "Council" has the meaning assigned to it by section (Building Control Council) of this Act").

For good measure, I should like to include the new Amendment, No. 78A, which can conveniently be discussed with these others.

Amendment No. 78A: Clause 34, page 35, line 15, at end insert— ("() The body designated by the Secretary of State in accordance with subsection (1)(b) above for the architectural profession shall be the Architects Registration Council for the United Kingdom (ARCUK).")

All these amendments are aimed at the quality and the form of the body of approved inspectors who will operate the new system. To prevent sectional interests taking advantage of the new system, we think that a separate body corporate should be established, which, apart from the Secretary of State, would be the only body capable of approving building inspectors under paragraph (b) of Clause 34(1). A building control council would ensure a consistent level of expertise in all geographical areas and grades of inspector.

The amendments and new clauses would establish such a body, to be known as the Building Control Council, whose members would be appointed by the Secretary of State and which would, under the first of the above amendments, have the function of appointing building inspectors. The first new clause would require the new council to maintain a register of all approved inspectors which would be available for public inspection free of charge. The new clause would also enable the Secretary of State to confer by building regulations all other appropriate functions to enable the new council to take a major part in securing the proper operation of the new system.

We consider that provisions should be written into the Bill to require non-local authority building inspectors to be issued with practising certificates by the new council along the lines of those issued to solicitors. The practising cerificates would be issued only in cases where the council was satisfied that the applicant should be so certified. The new practising clause would provide for the system of certification, and amendments would make it a criminal offence for any unqualified person to pretend either that he was an approved inspector or that he had held such a practising certificate.

Clause 34(8) allows inspectors to appoint others to carry out inspections. It is accepted that an approved inspector would not need to carry out all inspections—not all would need the same level of expertise. But we are concerned that the clause as presently drafted would enable approved inspectors to send out inexperienced and untrained personnel. We think that anybody who carries out inspections must have the experience and training appropriate for that level of inspection.

The proposed council would provide arrangements and guidelines for training and qualifications of anybody involved in building control and would ensure all inspections are carried out by trained personnel. In response to these amendments and new clauses, the Government will no doubt use two arguments. We have been over this ground before, and I am sorry to put the Minister through it again. I expect the Minister to say that such a body will just be another quango, and secondly, that all the professions will get together and sort the matter out between them.

The reason why I am so confident of the Minister's response is that he was kind enough to write to me in May of last year, and I was careful enough to keep the letter. He says in fact: "there is really very little between us on this issue."

He goes on rather surprisingly We do not want to create another quango for this purpose, and we agree with you that it would he an excellent solution if all the relevant professional bodies were to co-operate in setting up and running some kind of joint committee…We see no point, however, in restricting ourselves at this stage to "a single body". Let us see first if the professions can agree". That was a truly intelligent letter from the Minister in May last year.

We have waited since May of last year, and the various organisations concerned have held many discussions since May of last year among themselves and with the Department of the Environment, with a certain Mr. Watson, who appears to have called conference after conference with very little success.

The result of all these consultations is that the bodies cannot agree, or at least a majority of them cannot. A number of them are quite willing to have a joint organisation and the others are not. We do not seem to be any nearer a solution approaching it from that point of view. Therefore, our feeling is that the organisations will not co-operate without a legal requirement to do so. We are asking the Minister to bring in that legal requirement.

In speaking particularly to the new Amendment No. 78A, I should like to mention the possible composition of that council. It obviously should have representatives from many of the professional bodies who have been taking part in the consultations with the Department of the Environment. I shall not weary the Committee with the list, which is quite a long one, but there is one particular aspect of the composition of the council which we need to think about.

It is being assumed, quite naturally, that architects would wish to be included on the list of bodies from whom approved inspectors would be appointed. This is quite right and proper, though there is indeed some question about whether the training as an architect will in itself qualify them for being building inspectors. It may well be that they will have to submit themselves to some further specialised training before they can be approved. However, to be an architect is to be well on the way to being an approved inspector.

However, it seems that the Government are confining themselves to discussions with the RIBA. The RIBA is an excellent body and all its members are highly qualified, but they are no more highly qualified than many other architects who are in fact members of the Registered Council of Architects known as "ARCUK". I have here a copy of the register, which contains many thousands of names, all of qualified architects. Something like one-third to a half of them have chosen to join the RIBA. The rest of them have not, but they are not any less qualified, or any less good, architects on that account. They have simply chosen not to pay the extra fee which is required to join the RIBA.

It is our contention that, if we are to say that some of the inspectors are to come from the architectural profession, then they should be capable of coming from among all registered architects and not simply from those who have joined the RIBA. For the benefit of your Lordships who do not necessarily know it, there is no examination qualification for joining the RIBA. It is simply a matter of paying your subscription and becoming a member. I do not wish in any way to belittle that particular exercise, but many well qualified architects have chosen not to do it. That accounts for Amendment No. 78A. We feel that when the Government are considering the inclusion of architects they should draw them from the whole registration council and not simply from the RIBA. I hope that the Minister will deal with that point.

In the same way as my noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton and I have had discussions with the insurance industry, so we have had many discussions with various other professional bodies who would be likely to wish to appoint approved inspectors. It is quite clear that a number of them who have attended the various conferences are well qualified to produce approved inspectors. But there was also some agreement from some members that it would be necessary to institute a separate training programme for approved inspectors and that there are certain levels of expertise, certain bits of nous, that need to be imparted to people before they set out on building control if they have not already done so. There are people who have done it in one way or another and are well qualified. We ask the Government to consider the setting up of this council and that the council should have some form of selection process through which all applicants would need to go before they could be considered as approved inspectors. I beg to move.

Lord Broxbourne

I wonder whether the noble Baroness would be good enough to give her attention to one point to which she did not refer. She told the Committee that my noble friend on the Front Bench told her some time ago that this body was likely to be a quango—a conclusion to which I had independently come myself. One of the characteristics of a quango and one of the things that involves it in criticism is expense. Nothing in the amendment nor in the speech of the noble Baroness referred to, analysed or defined the costs of setting up this council, administering it and operating it. Would the noble Baroness say a word about that before she finally resumes her seat?

Baroness Nicol

I do not know how to define a quango, but since last May we seem to have become quite good at setting up quangos for other purposes. Perhaps the resistance to it is not quite as great as it was. Where will the money come from? All the approved inspectors will be required to pay fees. I do not know what level of fees will be set, because they have yet to be "prescribed"—in the famous word which occurs throughout the Bill. But that is one source of income. One does not anticipate that the quango will be sitting permanently. One assumes that it would be a body which met at irregular intervals whenever the need to approve or disapprove of new inspectors arose.

I should enlarge a little on the disapproval element. One of the questions asked during Second Reading was who would inspect the inspectors. I seem to remember that the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, was eloquent on this subject. The establishment of a council such as this would answer that question because the council would give and it would also take away. I do not anticipate it sitting as a permanent quango. I would assume that its meetings would he irregular, not necessarily expensive and I would not expect any of the bodies concerned to want to charge heavily for their services because it would be in their interests to see that their members were able to enjoy this new career which was being opened up to them.

10.5 p.m.

Lord Skelmersdale

May we first dispose of my May 1983 letter? It surprised me that it was produced in evidence and waved before my face. However they have an expression of the west coast of Scotland, which I am sure the noble Baroness knows, which is "We think better later". I may have been intelligent then, but my thoughts and those of my respondents have clarified as a result of consultation. I should say that there is yet more to come before we achieve total purity.

This group of amendments would effectively remove the power of the Secretary of State to designate bodies for the purposes of approving inspectors and would instead empower a new statutory body or council to do so. It would also introduce a number of related constraints. The proposed council is defined in Amendment No. 94 as a building control council which would be a body corporate, consisting of persons approved by the Secretary of State with functions to be prescribed. It would be a quango, although that is not the total of our objection to it. We do not see the case for this system of achieving objectives. As the Committee are aware, we have been consulting the main professional institutions whose members have a claim to he approved inspectors. I will get on to those about whom the noble Baroness is doubtful in a minute.

Their response so far has been helpful and constructive, indicating a considerable measure of agreement on the main principles of approval; that is to say, professional qualifications, relevant practical experience coupled with some specific demonstration of knowledge of the building regulations. Many of the institutions have said that they wish to become designated bodies and they are continuing their discussions on these standards and possible grades of inspectors with a view to reaching agreement among themselves. Again, all is not yet lost. In particular, they agree the need for a common syllabus on which candidates for approval will be tested on their knowledge of the various regulations and approved document. Our consultation with these institutions will continue and we have no intention of doing away with the powers of the Secretary of State to designate those whom he considers appropriate.

There is always a danger with a long list of linked amendments that there will be a slip up. I can only assume that Amendment No. 81 was put in in a sense of exuberance. This would remove the Secretary of State's power to make regulations requiring the withdrawal of approval in certain circumstances. The latest draft regulations require that any inspector convicted of the offence of giving a false certificate should immediately have this approval withdrawn and I fail to see why the Opposition should object to this. Amendments Nos. 81 and 84 are I think largely consequential. Amendment No. 86 relates to a particular aspect of certification.

Clause 34(8) of the Bill provides that an approved inspector may delegate work to another person; for example, another member of his firm or a specialist in some aspect of construction work. But an inspector will not be able to delegate the giving of a plans certificate or a final certificate. Only the approved inspector will be able to give such certificates and he will be liable by statute for any negligence on the part of a person to whom he delegates the work. It follows that an inspector will only entrust such work to a person whose technical qualifications and experience he can completely rely on.

Another important consequence of this provision is that in the event of defect occurring there would be only one approved inspector who would be answerable to the building owner. Amendment No. 86 would prevent an inspector from delegating work to anyone other than a person approved by the council. The criteria for such approval are not apparent but if this means another approved inspector, it would he very restrictive and if it does not it implies the need for separate approvals in each discipline. Either way the case is not made. Given the responsibility which the approved inspector carries, he can be relied on to exercise it in delegating work to others.

Amendment No. 108 would create an apparently new offence; namely, that of wilfully pretending to be an approved inspector or the holder of a certificate given by the council. However, there is no need for such a provision because Clause 42(l) already makes it an offence knowingly or recklessly to make a false statement in a notice or certificate. That would include a false claim to be an approved inspector. Amendment No. 109 is consequential.

Finally, in this first group of amendments which we are considering, Amendment No. 95 aims to define the manner in which the proposed council would issue so-called practising certificates to inspectors who applied to them for approval. Such certificates would only be valid for one year. The council would have the power to cancel a certificate after a shorter period, but no power to extend it beyond a year. I really cannot, if I were to go along the noble Baroness's route—which I am not—see any justification for such complicated and bureaucratic procedure quite apart from my objection to the idea of the council itself. We doubt the need for approval to be subject to annual renewal. Inspectors will be responsible professional people, whose qualifications and probity do not need to be re-established every year. However, as a result of our discussions with the professional institutions, the Government have concluded that a period of five years would be appropriate for approvals, in order to ensure that inspectors did not become out of touch with developments in building and the building regulations. The Committee will shortly be considering the Government's amendment to Clause 34, to allow regulations to prescribe a period for approval, and our latest draft regulations anticipating this provision state that approvals will last for five years.

We now get to the thorny problem of unattached architects. As I have said, the department has been consulting, and is continuing to consult, professional institutions on the procedures and criteria for the approval of inspectors. The Architects Registration Council of the United Kingdom (ARCUK) indicated at an early stage that it did not feel that it would be possible to involve itself in this matter, which could better he dealt with by the professional bodies. We have continued to keep ARCUK informed by sending them copies of our consultation documents, but I understand that the council's view remains that it is not a job for it.

It is true that some of the functions of ARCUK in maintaining standards and keeping a register have something in common with those of a designated body under the proposals of the Bill. However, ARCUK's functions are set out in precise detail in the architects' registration Acts and the Government do not propose to amend this legislation to widen its role. In our consultation documents we have frequently pointed out the need for arrangements for the approval as inspectors of unattached architects, who prefer not to belong to professional institutions, inviting suggestions as to how this might be done.

It is not our intention that membership of an institution shall be a prerequisite for approval. Furthermore, there is no reason, in principle, why a designated body's power to approve applicants should be limited to its own members. I hope that this will provide quite a lot of comfort to those who have been advising the noble Baroness. I have much more that I could say, but I hope I have said enough to explain to the noble Baroness why, although there are some worries behind her amendments, I do not think they are justified and therefore I could not support them.

Viscount Hanworth

Before the noble Lord sits down, can he answer one or two questions? First, can he give some indication as to how many bodies are likely to be designated to approve the inspectors? If, as I imagine, there are a considerable number, does he suppose that they will co-ordinate what they are doing without somebody—maybe the Government themselves—co-ordinating or helping to co-ordinate? Secondly, who will deal with the discipline and the complaints, because throughout professional bodies we always have someone who takes complaints—possibly not effectively, as we consider, with the solicitors; but. at least, there is somebody. Who on earth will do it in this instance? I suggest that, unless they appoint a council or keep the designated bodies to a minimum, somebody—it may be the Government or perhaps they can persuade one of the bodies—will have to perform the co-ordinating function. Clearly, the system will not work with more than, say, four designated bodies, unless that is done.

Lord Skelmersdale

In answer to those two questions, 18 to 20 are being consulted at the moment, but not all of them will be approved. As regards discipline, which I think may be the more important of the noble Viscount's two points, the professional bodies will police the people whom they approve, because it will be in the professional bodies' interests so to do. Otherwise, by definition, they will lose the respect of everybody, which is to nobody's advantage.

Viscount Hanworth

The Minister must realise this. If there are 12 or even more bodies, Heaven help the consumer who has to find out which body to approach, all of which will have different arrangements, unless there is co-ordination. The Minister simply has not satisfied anybody that this is a sufficiently thought-out scheme which is sufficiently co-ordinated to work.

Baroness Nicol

The noble Viscount is quite right. This seems to me to be a very ill thought-out scheme. The Minister raised one or two points. First, we welcome the fact that the Government will look outside the professional institutions for other approved inspectors. I apologise for pressing the point about ARCUK, but can the Minister assure me that when they appoint representatives of the architectural profession they will not require members of ARCUK necessarily to make their application through the RIBA? Will they be able to go straight to the Secretary of State? Secondly, the council of ARCUK, which made the decision that they would not wish to be one of the bodies to be consulted because they do not possess the machinery, had a majority of members of the RIBA on the board and present at the meeting when the decision was made. And it was not a unanimous decision. I hope that the Minister will take that into account when he makes his further investigations.

The Minister said about our amendments that the Secretary of State's powers to appoint would be excluded. They are not. They are left in the Bill. The Secretary of State and the council will have the power to approve inspectors. We have no intention of curbing the power of the Secretary of State.

Lord Skelmersdale

At this stage this must be the last question that I answer on this amendment. I am not being unhelpful to the Committee but I feel we have given the amendment a pretty good run. I fully intend to write to every Member of the Committee who has spoken, because obviously there are many matters which continue to worry people. To answer the question of the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, theoretically the Bill would allow the unattached architects to be approved directly by the Secretary of State. But we do not intend this to happen. Nor do we intend to request architects to be approved by the RIBA, a point which I understood the noble Baroness to say worries some of them. There are two other possible designating bodies which would be able to approve architects. These go under the acronyms FAS and IAAS.

Baroness Nicol

I understand the Minister's wish to bring the proceedings to a close, but I really must protest—

Baroness Trumpington

Order! The Minister has given an assurance that he intends to write to those noble Lords who have spoken and that he understands the worries which have been expressed. We have spent 27 minutes on this amendment. If noble Lords wish to continue the discussion they may, but I hope that the noble Baroness will consider the Committee.

Baroness David

Could I remind the Minister that this is the Committee stage and that there is no limit to the discussion. Because it happens to be after 10 o'clock and noble Lords opposite perhaps want to go home to bed this does not prevent my noble friend from asking questions and expecting to receive positive and respectable answers. The interruption was not justified.

Baroness Nicol

It is not my intention to pursue the matter much further. However, our view is that three matters of great importance are to be found in this part of the Bill. This happens to be one of them. It is not our choosing that it is being considered at this time of night. Therefore, we shall return to it at Report stage. I hope that the answers which the Minister has promised will be received in good time before Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 78A not moved.]

10.20 p.m.

Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 79:

Page, 35, line 23, at end insert— ("() There shall be paid on an application for any such approval as is referred to in subsection (1) above—

1. (a) where the application is made to the Secretary of State, such fee as may be prescribed by building regulations;
2. (b) where the application is made to a body designated by him as mentioned in that subsection, such fee as that body may determine. ").

The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friend, I wish to move Amendment No. 79 and speak also to Amendments Nos. 80, 82 and 83.

Amendment No. 80: Page 35, line 25, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert— ("(a>) contain provision prescribing the period for which, subject to any provision made by virtue of paragraph (c) or (cc) below, any such approval as is referred to in subsection (1) above shall continue in force;").

Amendment No. 82: Page 35, line 31, leave out ("so referred to") and insert ("referred to in that subsection").

Amendment No. 83: Page 35, line 33, at end insert— ("(cc) contain provision authorising the withdrawal of any such approval or designation as is so referred to;").

These amendments make detailed changes to the procedure for improving inspectors and reflect the discussions we have been having with the professional institutions which are interested in becoming designated bodies. The effect of Amendment No. 79 will be that each designated body will be able to fix its own fee for considering applications for approval rather than having them prescribed by the Secretary of State. This of course was the statement in Command Paper 8179, paragraph 30, that approval arrangements will be expected to be self-financing. Where application for approval is made to the Secretary of State the fee will be prescribed in regulations.

The effect of Amendment No. 80 will be to enable approval to be limited to a prescribed period, renewable upon application. There was strong support for this proposal from professional institutions and the current draft of the approved inspectors, et cetera, regulations, in providing that approval shall cease to have effect for five years after it is given, anticipates this amendment to the Bill—I hope, correctly. Amendments Nos. 82 and 83 are consequential. I beg to move.

Lord Graham of Edmonton

Despite the possibility of incurring the wrath of the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, I have the temerity to believe that I ought to ask some questions even at this time of night. May I be clear that what is proposed is the possibility that if there are 15 designated bodies, there could be 15 different fees for the same kind of work? If I read the amendment correctly—and I have been known to misread an amendment—that will be so if every separate designated body is allowed to set its own fees.

For instance, one knows that if one wants to get a certain job done by the local council there is a scale of building fees to be paid. Whatever the quality of the work, the fee prescribed for one dwelling house is £32. The fee for 10 dwelling houses is £214. If it is a building having a value below £100,000, the fee is £411. If the value of the building is below £500,000, the fee is £1,458. If the building is valued at under £1 million, the fee is £2,169.

Is it being proposed that where a developer looks at the range and totality of his responsibilities and asks, "To whom shall I go regarding an approved inspector?", he will then look at the field and see that it includes the cost of going to one body or another. The register is kept at the local authority, and when he asks for the list he will see that, according to whether one is a member of one professional body or another the fee is different. Will this not lead to the possibility that when a profession sees that it is being consistently priced out of the market, it will then decide to lower its fees? That may lead to a lowering of efficiency. If I am wrong, I shall be grateful to be put right.

Lord Skelmersdale

The noble Lord has got it wrong and I am equally sure it is my fault for rather gabbling through my explanation. The fees in question are the fees a body would charge its members for approval. We are not talking about the fees that the inspector charges the developer for the certification work he is going to do.

Lord Graham of Edmonton

I did get it wrong, but one is left with this intriguing point: in order to be an approved inspector, if one is an architect the fee might be £100—because that is perhaps what the RIBA decides to charge its members. But if one is a structural engineer, that profession's designated body might be charging its members £200 or £25. In effect, to be an approved inspector one may be paying different rates according to one's profession. Will that not lead at least to the comment that in order to be an approved inspector one looks at how much it costs. One is then beginning to see a different scale and grade of the value and quality of the approved inspectors themselves.

Lord Skelmersdale

The noble Lord forgets about the magic word "competition". I have no doubt that fees in this respect will be broadly equal across the full range of designated bodies.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 80:

[Printed earlier.]

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 81 not moved.]

Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendments Nos. 82 and 83:

[Printed earlier.]

The noble Lord said: I beg to move these amendments en bloc.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

[Amendments Nos. 84 to 86 not moved.]

Clause 34, as amended, agreed to.

Baroness Trumpington

I beg to move that the House do now resume.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

House resumed.