16. What the timetable is for the introduction of home information packs. (74893)

18. What the timetable is for the introduction of home information packs. (74896)

The timetable for the introduction of home information packs has been set out. It will be introduced from June 2007.

I am grateful for that answer. In November 2004, the Government promised to road-test home information packs in a specific geographical area in England and Wales to see how effective they were. Can the Minister let us know when that road test will take place and in which geographical area?

What we said during the passage of the Housing Act 2004, when the packs were extensively discussed both in this and the other place, was that we would properly test the components of the home information pack. We shall do so. Already, many providers are starting to supply home information packs and will do so on a more extensive basis from the autumn, when the certification schemes are in place. We will set in place detailed testing and research arrangements to monitor progress. The industry was clear with us that it did not want a geographically isolated pilot, but wanted a scheme that tested the programme more widely across the country.

Surely not enough testing has taken place. What was promised as a dry run has really been just a sham. Which independent body will audit the testing? How will it be judged whether the packs are a success or a failure? It seems to me that the Government just wanted to railroad this ahead without serious consideration of how it would operate.

The hon. Gentleman is wrong. One hundred and fifty organisations keen to be involved in the dry run have now approached the Department. They wish to work with us on testing the various elements of home information packs. We will set out an independent testing and research process to ensure that we properly monitor the dry run as it unfolds. It is important to remember that we are introducing reforms that are strongly backed by the Consumers Association, and it is right that we should introduce them to make big improvements for people buying and selling their homes.

There appears to be some discrepancy between estimates of the cost of HIPs. They range from £1,000 recently cited in an early-day motion to £700 cited by HIP providers. Will my hon. Friend assure the House, especially the sceptics, that the cost is more likely to be at the £700 end, and that the cost will not be duplicated further up the chain? Does she agree that encouragement of those fears is irresponsible?

My hon. Friend is right. The cost and price of the home information packs will be set by the market. There is huge potential for considerable competition to bring down costs in various areas of home buying and selling. She may be interested to know that some providers have already said that they intend to reduce the price of home information packs. One has even said that it would offer them to consumers for free. We assess that the current average costs of the component parts of the home information pack under the current process amount to somewhere between £600 and £700—most of those are costs that are already paid in the current process. We will transfer the cost from buyers to sellers. Most of us are sellers and buyers so it will not make any odds to us, but it will make a really big difference to first-time buyers, because they will get home information packs for free.

Does my hon. Friend agree that mixed messages are coming from the Conservative party? The Conservatives say that they support first-time buyers, but they will not support a measure that will reduce the cost to first-time buyers—[Interruption.]

Order. I am sorry I was distracted—those matters have nothing to do with the Secretary of State.

There is a significant mismatch in Upminster between relatively low local income levels and very high property prices. Does the Minister share my concern that sellers are likely to add the cost of the home information pack to the asking price, making the cost of properties even higher and less affordable for local people?

No, but the hon. Lady is right to say that there are pressures on affordability. In particular, there are pressures on first-time buyers in terms of getting into the housing market. That is why there are strong benefits from transferring the costs from buyer to sellers because that gives first-time buyers the chance to get into the housing market in the first place. Many of the providers have said that they would not charge for the home information packs up front. We think that this is a huge opportunity to improve the efficiency of the market and cut waste—something that the Consumers Association has long argued for.

As the Minister will know, there are large numbers of last-ditch opponents to home information packs—and not just on the Conservative Benches. Two of the points that lawyers and estate agents who are trying to protect their privileged position make is that there will not be enough home inspectors and that HIPs will have a negative effect on the housing market. Will she reassure us that neither criticism is valid?

On home inspectors, more than 4,000 people are already in training to become home inspectors. Their work will begin in the autumn and we expect that, therefore, the process of people completing their training will accelerate around that time. My hon. Friend spoke about the impact on the market. In Denmark, where a version of home information packs has been introduced, the Danish chief executive of the estate agents organisation believes that home information packs did not have any negative impact on the market at all and that they have been extremely good for buyers and sellers in Denmark.

The Minister is all too well aware that every industry expert insists on the need for an appropriate dry run before we press ahead with this intervention in the marketplace. However, so far only 200 of the 4,000 promised home inspectors have actually qualified; no specific geographical areas have yet been earmarked for dry runs, despite what her predecessor as the Minister for Housing and Planning promised in 2004; and we have no clear, unambiguous and independently audited criteria for judging the success of those dry runs. Can the Minister tell us what the benchmark for success in the dry runs will be, or will Ministers simply award themselves a pass mark irrespective of the results?

The hon. Gentleman has long been an advocate for those in the property industry who are opposed to the introduction of home information packs because, frankly, they make money out of the existing system. The advocate on behalf of buyers and sellers, the Consumers Association, is strongly in favour of home information packs. I caution the hon. Gentleman against becoming the parliamentary spokesperson for the National Association of Estate Agents, which might have its own interests in the process.

The hon. Gentleman asks about the dry run. We have made it clear for many months that we will have a dry run throughout the country so that we can test the component parts of home information packs. It is important that buyers and sellers are able to see improvements being made to the existing system and more efficiency. Conservative Members can hide as much as they like behind the questions that they ask, but we know that they have opposed the scheme from the beginning. We will set out proper research, as I said in an earlier reply to which the hon. Gentleman was clearly not listening. I caution him that he, like the Consumers Association and buyers and sellers throughout the country, should recognise the importance of home information packs. The scheme is all about buyers and sellers throughout the country because they are wasting loads of money due to the existing system, and I do not think that that is fair.

17. What future reform she is proposing regarding planning gain in respect of retail development. (74894)

At the pre-Budget report 2005, the Government published a consultation document setting out their proposals for a planning gain supplement, which was designed to capture a proportion of the increase in land value that arises when planning permission is granted. The proposed planning gain supplement, which would not be introduced before 2008, would apply to all types of development, including retail.

Although I welcome the proposals, big developers will be able to use the planning system until 2008 to maximise their profits without putting anything back into local communities. Tesco obtained planning permission for a huge superstore in the northern part of my constituency, but has put nothing back into the local community by way of planning gain and has forced several small retailers out of business. What steps does my hon. Friend propose to take to ensure that that situation is not repeated in other areas?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his courtesy in informing me of the subject. I have indeed looked into the proposed store in Hamilton. As well as introducing the planning gain supplement in 2008—the Government will be responding to the consultation on that in due course—we will shortly be issuing guidance on good practice to try to improve the way in which negotiations take place under the existing system and thus create more consistency across local authorities.

The hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) has set the framework for me. The Minister will be well aware that major retail developments often create difficulties for local communities because they lose their diversity of shopping and sometimes jobs as well, not to mention experiencing problems due to congestion. Will he undertake to talk to the Chancellor to ensure that when the planning gain supplement comes along, the money will not simply fill the Treasury’s pockets, but will be sent back directly to local authorities so that they can spend it on saving their communities from the congestion and economic and environmental damage with which such major developments leave them?

The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point and, indeed, I can give him such an assurance. There was a joint consultation between my Department and the Treasury—indeed, Revenue and Customs. We intend that the bulk of the money should be beneficial—[Interruption.] Let me just clarify the situation before the cynics in the Chamber get too suspicious. The bulk of the money will go to the local authority concerned. The intention in the consultation—we are yet to respond to it—is that there will be a top slice to allow infrastructure investment that does not fall specifically in the local authority area that is directly involved, but from which it will benefit. However, the bulk of the money will go to the council, as the hon. Gentleman suggests.

Will my hon. Friend explain to me and the House how the proposal will vary from the existing section 106 agreements?

I am grateful for the opportunity to do exactly that. Under existing practice involving section 106, more than 79 per cent. of all retail developments make no contribution through planning obligations. Again, with the proviso that the consultation response is yet to be published, the proposal in the consultation is that the planning gain supplement should be universal to all types of development, including those of one or more dwellings.

The Minister can propose whatever adjustments he likes to the process for delivering infrastructure through taxation and paying for it that way, but even he cannot invent the basic raw material that is needed for some parts of our infrastructure if it does not already exist. Why should the public have any confidence in the planning and decision-making processes of the Government if it they cannot find out the adequate water supply that is needed to sustain their development programme in the south-east of England? Is it not the case, to paraphrase the old Sunday school song, that the wise Minister builds his house not only upon the rock, but one with an adequate water table, given that the rains no longer come a-tumbling down as they did?

We hear yet again a perpetuation of a myth. The last time that I looked into this matter it was people who used water, not bricks and mortar. Housing improvements and increases in housing numbers are driven not by population increases but by changes in demography—more single people, people living longer and changes in family life. That is why the accusation made by the hon. Gentleman and by others on the Opposition Benches is based on a false premise. Independent studies have shown that the amount of extra water required for the additional homes will account for an increase in demand of less than 1 per cent., and its supply is not related to the point that the hon. Gentleman is making.

19. When she will announce the decision on funding for the Rushenden link road. (74897)

I am pleased to announce today that £12 million of Thames Gateway programme funding will be made available for the Rushenden link road in Kent. This will unlock new development sites by linking those to the new Swale crossing, which has had more than £100 million of Government investment to upgrade the local transport infrastructure.

The full scheme will provide over 2,000 new homes and more than 500 new jobs, and will be a milestone in the regeneration of the local area, as part of the Thames Gateway programme.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. It is not every day that I get a question answered in the House that gives me a big smile on my face, but the £12 million for Rushenden and Queenborough citizens has been wanted since 1945. On top of the new hospital in 2001 and the new bridge that opens next month, costing £100 million, that £12 million will be the most welcome news for those two communities, so I thank the Minister very much.

I am delighted to put a smile on my hon. Friend’s face. [Interruption.] There are some things that always get the House excited.

My hon. Friend has always been a tireless and persistent campaigner on this issue. Had he not consistently raised the matter and pushed for the project, he may not have received that news today. He has constantly highlighted the value of the project, and he should take some pride in his achievement.

rose—

Order. The link road is far too far away from the hon. Gentleman’s constituency.

20. How much funding has been allocated to improving social housing in Halifax since 2000. (74898)

Halifax homes have seen major refurbishment as part of the Government’s decent homes programme. Since 2000-01, Calderdale metropolitan borough council has invested £4.3 million on improving its council homes, the majority of which has come from Government. Since the stock transfer, it has had an annual average investment of more than £14 million.

I am grateful for that reply. I draw my right hon. Friend’s attention to a recent editorial in the Halifax Evening Courier, which praised Pennine Housing 2000 for the way that it managed social housing in Halifax. Will she join me in congratulating Trans-Pennine on completing a £150 million five-year investment programme, which has helped to improve the lives of many tenants in my constituency?

I certainly will congratulate Trans-Pennine Housing, which has done a fantastic job. As I am sure that many hon. Members are aware, Trans-Pennine Housing has recently received top inspection marks for doing a superb job, so I would be grateful if my hon. Friend takes back to it my wholehearted congratulations.

First, may I welcome the right hon. Lady to her new post. What a legacy! I am sure that the voters of Halifax will be as surprised as I was that in the open letter from the Prime Minister to the right hon. Lady upon her appointment there was no mention of social housing or homelessness. Does that mean that in addition to the loss of Dorneywood, the Department has also lost its social conscience?

I very much welcome the hon. Lady’s thanks. I have a fantastic, wide-ranging brief. The Deputy Prime Minister and, indeed, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (David Miliband) left a superb legacy, particularly the number of social homes that have been refurbished since 1997. I remind the hon. Lady that her Government left a £19 billion backlog of repairs, which the Government have started to put right. That is quite right—we need to build more houses.

Like we did.

The hon. Gentleman says that that is what the Tories did, but anyone who casts their mind back to the 1990s will remember the days when land values were low, when houses—

Order.

21. If she will make a statement on the effects of the Equality Act 2006 on lesbian and gay rights. (74899)

We published a consultation paper in March setting out proposals for regulations that will prohibit discrimination on the grounds of sexual discrimination in the provision of goods and services. The consultation period ended yesterday, and the proposed regulations will be made using the power in part 3 of the Equality Act 2006.

I thank the Minister for her answer. Does she believe that the principles and membership of an organisation such as Opus Dei can be reconciled with the delivery of lesbian and gay rights in the Act?

The whole of this Government have a proud record on gay and lesbian rights; the equalisation of the age of consent; the repeal of the abhorrent section 28, which was introduced by the Opposition when they were in power; the introduction of civil partnerships; and the introduction in 2003 of regulations that make sexual orientation discrimination unlawful in the workplace. That is what I am answering for—this Government and nothing else.

What a delight it is to see my hon. Friend in her new job, as she holds those issues close to her heart. Does she accept that it is as important to oppose the prejudice of some people against Catholicism as it is to oppose prejudice against homosexual people? Will she make sure that when the regulations are finally laid before the House they do not include wide-ranging exemptions for faith-based organisations, as many Labour Members would find that difficult to stomach?

My hon. Friend has raised an important issue. He will know that the Equality Act introduced regulations to outlaw discrimination on the grounds of religion and belief, as the Government believe that that discrimination should be outlawed too. The two sets of regulations will be introduced together, as requested by many Government Members in our debate on the issue. As for exemptions, the consultation paper proposes that activities closely linked to religious observance or practices arising from the basic doctrine of a faith should be exempted from the regulations, but we do not propose to exempt activities provided by an organisation relating to religion or belief where the sole or the main purpose of the organisation offering the service is commercial.

I call Mr. Loughton.

Not here.

I believe that Mr. Loughton’s question was withdrawn.

24. How many copies of council tax bills were sent to her Department and its predecessor in the last 12 months. (74904)

The Department for Communities and Local Government and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister have received approximately 4,600 copies of council tax bills in the past 12 months as part of the campaign correspondence.

What response has the Minister made to the 4,000 people who have written to him? Now that the croquet team has gone, what plans does he have to abandon its proposed rebanding exercise?

A rebanding exercise was never proposed. [Hon. Members: “Oh!”] A rebanding exercise was never proposed, despite the myths and speculation. As for the hon. Gentleman’s question about what has been done to reply to correspondence, obviously if an individual name and address is supplied, we reply directly, but some of the postcards in the campaign did not include an address, so we could not respond directly.

25. If she will make a statement on industrial relations in the Hertfordshire fire service. (74905)

Industrial relations in the Hertfordshire fire and rescue service are primarily a subject for the attention of Hertfordshire county council, acting in its capacity as the designated fire and rescue authority for the county. It is not the direct responsibility of the Department, but during the current dispute I have been in contact with Hertfordshire’s chief fire officer, the county council and the Fire Brigades Union.

Will my hon. Friend have a discussion with the chief fire officer for Hertfordshire to ask him to look again at his integrated risk management plan, which proposes the closure of two fire stations, Bovingdon and Radlett, and the loss of 39 firefighter posts? Many of the firefighters in Hertfordshire who voted for industrial action played an important role in dealing with the emergency at Buncefield last year, as well as the rail tragedies at Potters Bar and Hatfield and the frequent crashes on the M1. Hertfordshire makes great demands on the fire service. Will my hon. Friend talk to the chief fire officer to get him to review his IRMP, and will she meet a delegation from the FBU parliamentary group to discuss the matter further?

That was rather a long question, but I shall do my best to answer the points that my hon. Friend made. I can assure him that I have been in regular contact with the chief fire officer and have spoken to the Fire Brigades Union as well. The chief fire officer’s assessment of the plan that he has made is a professional assessment, and I would not try to second-guess or change that assessment. It takes account of the risks today and tomorrow in Hertfordshire and the response that the fire and rescue services should make. In response to my hon. Friend’s comment about Buncefield, I can assure him that in major incidents gold command kicks in, and the Fire Brigades Union and others ensure that there is proper and adequate cover. We all want to ensure that the industrial action ends as soon as possible. A key role that I have played is ensuring that talks can take place. I have encouraged the FBU, the chief fire officer and Hertfordshire county council consistently to talk in order to find a way through the current difficulties.

26. What plans she has to review the definition of brownfield land. (74906)

The brownfield definition has not changed for 20 years. We have not proposed any changes in the new draft planning guidance, but we are considering the responses to the consultation on draft planning policy statement 3 on planning for housing.

In the past few years in areas like mine, Solihull, lovely old houses have been knocked down. Because of the planning rules, blocks of flats and other unsuitable properties can then be built on people’s back gardens. Conservative Members and I have tabled early-day motions on the subject and I have tabled a ten-minute Bill. Will the Minister please urgently consider the implications of this development, which is ruining our leafy suburbs in England?

As I said, we are considering the responses to the consultation. The hon. Lady should raise the matter with her local council if she thinks inappropriate planning permissions are being granted. Local authorities have considerable powers to resist inappropriate development. They have powers to resist on the basis of design, and they can consider a wide range of issues if they think the development is inappropriate. We think it is right to promote new development on brownfield land. Such development has increased from 57 per cent. in 1997 to 72 per cent. now. That is important because it allows us to build more homes for the next generation, which we desperately need, while also protecting greenfield land and green belt land so that we can safeguard the countryside for the next generation.

May I invite the Minister to amplify her reference to draft planning guidance 3, and what she said in reply to the hon. Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt), by stating that the Government presume and intend that in the Thames Gateway there will be building on derelict or brownfield land, not on green belt land? The scaremongering by the Conservative party in and around Essex to the effect that there will be wholesale development and building on the green belt is false and unnecessary—

But there will.

The shrill voice from the Conservatives is the reason why I am inviting the Minister to set the record straight by saying that the Government are proud of the green belt that they created, that they intend to protect it, and that there will be building on land that requires it—brownfield and derelict land.

My hon. Friend is right. The opportunity in the Thames Gateway is not only to regenerate an area that has suffered significant deprivation over a long period and to bring new jobs to the area, but to build on brownfield land—derelict industrial land—to provide new homes for the next generation. Conservative Members need to face up to what may for them be a difficult truth—that their party’s policy is now apparently to support the building of new homes for the next generation. They also have to face up to where those homes are going to be built. They do not want them on the green belt, they do not want them on brownfield land, they do not want them anywhere in the south—in fact, it is not clear that they want them anywhere. We need new homes for the next generation, and this Government are committed to delivering them.