I have imposed a 12-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches and have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

The Bill was published on 13 December alongside our policy statement, "Quality and Choice: A decent home for all—The way forward for housing." That statement sets out our strategy for ensuring that everyone has the opportunity of a decent home. It followed our housing Green Paper—the most comprehensive review of housing for more than 20 years, which was widely welcomed—and our spending review announcement in July, which confirmed our commitment to more than double the capital investment in housing that we inherited in 1997, improving the quality, affordability and supply of housing and the choices available to all.

Those measures are all fundamental to tackling the serious housing problems that we inherited. Capital investment in housing was halved between 1993 and 1997. By 1996, there was a £19 billion backlog of renovation and modernisation work in council housing.

Boom-and-bust policies had created a crisis of confidence in the housing market, with the highest ever levels of negative equity, mortgage arrears, home repossessions and homelessness in the early to mid-1990s. It is rich of the Conservative party, given its lamentable record, to criticise this Government for not doing more to tackle homelessness. In the 18 years that the Conservatives had to do the job, the number of households accepted as homeless more than doubled. Their record is a disgrace. They are wrong again to say that the number of homeless people has increased under Labour. [Interruption.] No, that is not right.

Let me remind Conservative Members of the figures, as they seem to be so keen to argue. I will be generous to them and use their last 12 months in office. In the 12 months to the end of the first quarter of 1997, 110,800 homeless households were accepted by local authorities. In the latest 12 months, 108,000 have been accepted. I accept that that figure is far too high. We know that it is far too high, but it is a lie for the Tories to say that there has been an increase in homelessness under Labour. It is typical of the way in which they peddle untruths to try to conceal their shabby record. They should be ashamed of themselves. They should be ashamed of their record.

Will the Minister confirm that priority homelessness is at its highest level since 1996 and that, since the election, 3,000 more people are homeless and in urgent need?

The hon. Gentleman has obviously not listened to the figures. I have just told him that, at the time of the last election, 110,000 households had been accepted by local authorities in the previous 12 months. I went on to give the current figure: in the past 12 months, 108,000 have been accepted. I said that it was too high. I accept that, but it is the product of the neglect and failure of housing policy under the previous Government. They should be ashamed. I am sorry that Conservative Members have not had the decency to apologise for their lamentable record.

I have never known a Minister, when introducing his own Bill, to launch an intemperate attack in the first three or four minutes, instead of describing the Bill. What is the Minister scared of?

As the hon. Gentleman knows only too well, I am reminding the House of the record that we inherited, which is the background to the policies that we are introducing to tackle problems in the housing market; it is the background to the Bill. I remind him that I am referring to items in the amendment that has been tabled in the name of the Leader of the Opposition, which is also before the House for debate.

It is all the more surprising to see Conservative Members putting their names to a reasoned amendment criticising the Government for not including measures to regulate houses in multiple occupation. I am very surprised by that criticism. In June 2000 my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) tabled early-day motion 876 on the subject, but not one Conservative Member backed it. That is an indication of Conservative Members' commitment to that cause.

The Government remain committed to licensing houses in multiple occupation; legislation to enable such licensing will be a priority for a future Session. We are not back-tracking. However, it now makes more sense to link our HMO licensing proposals to our other measures aimed at improving the quality of housing generally. The Bill forms an important part of our housing strategy, which aims to improve the home buying and selling process and to provide better help for people who face homelessness in England and Wales. I shall deal with those reforms in turn.

Every Member will have had direct experience of the failings of the current house buying and selling system, and probably all of us know someone—through our surgeries or through personal acquaintance—who has suffered frustration, heartache and, often, financial loss. There is rich anecdotal evidence of what is wrong. The delays and uncertainties in the current system put home buyers and sellers under enormous pressure. Planning with confidence is impossible, and too often the end is dejection as the deal fails. However, anecdotal evidence alone is not a sufficient basis for legislation.

Two years ago, therefore, we embarked on the most extensive research ever into the house buying and selling process. The results were shocking. Our research found that the home buying and selling process in England and Wales is one of the slowest and most inefficient in the world. Although the process might seem to be cheap compared with those of other countries, such a conclusion ignores the huge costs to buyers and sellers of the high failure rate among transactions.

Perhaps the most devastating of the findings was that 28 per cent. of transactions failed between acceptance of the offer and exchange of contracts. Therefore, each year, literally hundreds of thousands of people are experiencing the misery of broken dreams and abortive costs that can run into thousands of pounds. On top of the 28 per cent. of failed transactions are many more transactions that are delayed. It is a problem of huge proportions and, not surprisingly, the public are vocal in their criticisms. The fact is that 40 per cent. of those who go through the process are dissatisfied. That damning statistic confirms that existing arrangements do not adequately safeguard the interests of the public. We are determined to change things for the better.

In 1998, we launched a major consultation exercise to seek views on options for reform. The consultation produced an almost unanimous view on a very central issue—the need for greater transparency in the house buying and selling process. To achieve that objective, more information has to be made available from the very start of the process. That is the aim of the first part of the Bill.

The Bill will help to ensure that most of the information needed by both parties—buyers and sellers—is on the table when marketing begins. It also complements various non-legislative initiatives to improve the speed and efficiency of the process, such as encouraging greater use of information technology and "in principle" mortgage offers and speeding up local searches.

The Bill requires sellers to arrange for the key information about their homes, including searches and a mid-level survey, to be prepared up front, in the form of a seller's pack, before marketing starts. The pack will enable sellers and their agents to have the information that they need to set a realistic price, and buyers will be able to make a well-informed offer safe in the knowledge that they are unlikely later to encounter any nasty surprises.

In the Bristol pilot scheme, free packs were provided. Recently, however, it has been trailed in the press that it will cost between £500 and £700 to prepare a seller's pack. Although such a sum may not be much when dealing with a property that is worth £250,000, in some of the places that I represent houses go for as little as £15,000 or £18,000. Therefore, such a sum could be a very large percentage of the total outlay.

The hon. Gentleman makes a very fair point, which I shall deal with later. I hope that he will bear with me if I continue and undertake to address the issue later.

I do not want to delay my hon. Friend, who might deal with the point later, but, as he knows, the housing market has collapsed in some parts of the country. In those areas, some houses are not "cheap" at £18,000 but are being off-loaded because their owners can no longer tolerate living in them. When dealing with houses selling for £5,000, or even for £1,000, such a sum for a seller's pack would be an intolerable burden for people who are already suffering enormous loss.

My hon. Friend makes a fair point about issues relating to areas of very low demand, and areas in which confidence in the market has collapsed. He will be the first to admit—I want to stress this point—that changes to the house buying and selling process are not an adequate solution to those problems. We have to tackle the problems of deprivation and low demand in many areas of the country, such as those described by my hon. Friend, and we are doing so. I have visited his constituency, and others.

I shall come to the house buying and selling process later, because I intend to cover it in detail rather than give a piecemeal response now.

The Minister said a few moments ago that one of the purposes of the Bill was to help sellers to set realistic asking prices for their properties. Why is he proposing that no valuation will be included in the condition survey that is to be part of the seller's pack?

The hon. Gentleman is jumping the gun, because the details of what will be prescribed for the seller's pack will be the subject of regulations. As he will know, having read the Bill assiduously, there is provision for us to make such regulations under the relevant provisions of the Bill. That will be a matter for full discussion with all the interested parties over the next two years. We do not intend to introduce the provisions of the Bill until 2003, and in the intervening period there will be a lengthy process of negotiation to ensure that we produce the best possible pack to meet people's needs and give confidence to all interested parties. I shall return to this matter later.

Presumably, the regulations will prescribe that a seller's pack is to be time-limited, because surveys and local authority searches can become out of date. It is likely that areas that have low-value houses are precisely the areas in which it will be most difficult to sell a house. It is, therefore, likely that seller's packs will become out of date, and that additional seller's packs will have to be prepared, thereby increasing costs. Will the Minister say something about that?

I will, with great pleasure. The hon. Gentleman is jumping ahead. There will be no obligation to produce a new seller's pack. The obligation will be to produce a seller's pack at the time the property is put on the market.

What if it does not sell?

As I was saying, the obligation will be to make the seller's pack available when the property is put on the market. [interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I am trying to answer his question. I can see that he is a little over-excited about the issue.

Most of the information contained in the seller's pack will continue to be valid for a very long time. There will be no need for further updating. On certain issues, such as local authority searches, there might be a requirement for updating, and it will be open to the buyer to seek updated information on that point. However, the idea that there will be a need for a new, second seller's pack is entirely fanciful, as are the cost estimates for the production of the packs that we have heard from the Opposition.

Will the Minister give way?

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will bear with me. I have answered his question twice, and I now want to make some progress. I can tell that hon. Members want to raise many issues, but I shall cover them later in my speech. I ask the House to bear with me.

The Bill requires sellers to arrange for the key information about their homes to be prepared up front to provide information that should ensure that people know, before they make an offer, what they are making an offer for. Under the current system, problems are often uncovered well after a price has been agreed and after buyers have started paying solicitors' fees, mortgage fees and so on.

Last year, we commissioned a pilot scheme in Bristol, which the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) mentioned, run by independent consultants. It was designed to rest the mechanics of putting together a seller's pack, to find out how helpful the pack would be to buyers, sellers, agents and conveyancers and to identify whether any parts of the pack caused problems and how items could be improved. The pilot has shown that seller's packs can normally be assembled reasonably quickly—typically, within mine days—but we believe that there is scope to improve on that and we expect that time to reduce.

The pilot scheme showed a much higher satisfaction rate with the pack. Eighty per cent. of buyers were satisfied with the pilot scheme, compared with only 45 per cent. under the present system. The success rate was higher using the pack.

They were free.

Once again, we hear entirely bogus figures from Opposition Front Benchers. No, there were not three. There were many more: there were 189 seller's packs. [interruption.] The hon. Gentleman is showing a little hysteria over this issue. The packs in the survey in Bristol were designed to test the mechanics of putting together a seller's pack. They could not test how the system would work with a compulsory seller's pack, because only people acting voluntarily used them, and they were often part of chains involving many other sellers, which inevitably affected the speed of the process. The survey was not a test of the demand for packs.

Given the advantages of the seller's pack, there will be huge interest when the scheme comes in. [interruption.] The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) seems to think that the word "free" is especially interesting. The answer lies in the fact that the information required on every issue except the home condition report is exactly the same as that required under existing procedures. The idea that there is a huge additional cost is bogus and fanciful, as are all the Opposition's figures.

The Minister says that the Opposition's figures are bogus, but does he agree with the estimate of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors of £500 as an average cost for the condition survey? That was in a briefing that it issued last week.

As a matter of fact, I do, but the hon. Gentleman should recognise that it was talking about the cost, not the additional cost. Very similar costs are incurred under the existing process. I will take him through those, if he would like, but perhaps hon. Members would prefer to go to the Library, where I have placed copies of a table that we have produced showing the comparative costs for sales under the current and the new system. The overall costs are broadly comparable, and all the talk about large additional costs is simply scaremongering and not based on fact.

The pilot showed that 80 pet cent. of buyers were satisfied, compared with only 45 per cent. under the present system. The success rate was higher with the pack: 87 per cent. of accepted offers resulted in a completed transaction, compared with only 72 per cent. recorded in our earlier study. The indications on speed of transactions were also encouraging, even though we were not trying to test that, and the pilot could not achieve optimum performance, as many of the sales were part of chains involving transactions without seller's packs.

The Minister says that the costs under the old and new systems are comparable, but is not the problem with the new system that so many of the costs are front-loaded—payable in advance—so the old principle of no sale, no fee goes out of the window? That front-loading could put a terrific burden on some sellers.

There is a partial element of truth in saying that the costs are front-loaded, in the sense that they are the liability of the seller, but the implication that there will always be a requirement for the seller to pay at the outset is not correct. The evidence from Bristol, where several estate agents are using voluntary seller's packs, is that payment is sought only after the sale has been completed, so the individual seller does not incur expenditure at the outset. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that, although he is partially right, he came to an over-pessimistic conclusion about the impact of the process.

Since the results of the Bristol pilot were announced, a number of concerns have been expressed. Some are legitimate and will need to be addressed as we work up our proposals. Some arise from the natural reluctance of professional bodies and others to change things that they have done in a certain way for generations, but change must come, because the current system does not meet the needs of the consumer, who expects to be able to make well-informed decisions and choices quickly and efficiently.

Let me address the main concerns one by one. Most important is trust: how can the buyer rely on a pack prepared on behalf of the seller, and in particular how can the buyer depend on the home condition report? We intend that home condition reports should be prepared by professional inspectors who are certified by an independent body. The Bill makes provision for the Government to fund the development of a certification regime, and we will not bring the new arrangements into force until we are satisfied that there is a sufficient body of suitably qualified inspectors certified to do the job. The inspectors will be made liable not only to the seller but to the buyer.

We will work with the industry to develop a home condition report format that meets as many needs as possible. For instance, there is no reason why, in most circumstances, lenders should not be able to rely on the report as a key part of the valuation process, and thereby reduce their valuation charge, typically £180, to a fraction of that price.

Secondly, there is cost. A number of rather exaggerated claims have been made about additional costs. Most of the documentation required in a seller's pack needs to be assembled at some point in the transaction in any event. We know that the only additional cost in the transaction, for those who currently do not commission a survey, is the home condition report—a vital part of the information that should be available to people committing themselves to what is probably the biggest financial transaction in their lives. For those who currently commission a survey, overall transaction costs will be about the same—and that takes no account of a reduction in the huge abortive costs produced by the current system.

Thirdly, it has been suggested that the up-front costs of seller's packs would deter people from putting their homes on the market, especially in low-value areas. However, research undertaken last year by the United Kingdom's largest estate agency chain, Countrywide, demonstrated that that suggestion is unfounded, as does the experience of countries such as Denmark, which have introduced mandatory seller's packs—

That is not true.

Obviously the hon. Gentleman has not read the Countrywide survey. Although it anticipates a 13 per cent. reduction in the number of properties put on the market as a result of the introduction of the requirement, it goes on to say that currently, 15 per cent. of properties put on the market are eventually withdrawn. The conclusion, which is perfectly sensible to anyone who can read the figures, is that, broadly, there will be no change.

The evidence from Denmark, where a similar scheme has been in force for a couple of years, is that there has been no adverse effect on the market. Equally, in New South Wales, where seller's packs were first introduced, there was no adverse effect on the market. On the contrary, the market is working more efficiently, so the evidence is very much in favour of the seller's pack.

I am sure that the Minister will agree that we must always be slightly careful when making international comparisons. Is it not the case that in New South Wales the one thing that is not included in the seller's pack is a survey report?

I am happy to concede that; it is one of the weaknesses in the New South Wales arrangements. That is why more recent developments of the seller's pack, notably in Denmark, have incorporated a survey. We look at international comparisons, see what has happened and then try to build on the best and improve it. In Denmark, we have seen an improvement, whereby the home condition report is an integral part of the pack. The scheme is working successfully, with no adverse effect on the market.

There are concerns about areas of low demand. We carried out research in two areas of low value and low demand—Burnley and Bradford—because we genuinely wondered whether packs might prove unpopular with sellers at the cheaper end of the market. However, we discovered that the seller's pack was seen as a means of creating a better functioning market. The point was forcefully made that house condition reports are all the more vital in low-value areas, where the potential costs of unforeseen repairs could be disproportionate in relation to the value of properties. For example, someone buying a property for £15,000, who did not realise that it would have to be entirely reroofed, would be in a different position from someone who recognised that he would have to spend about £10,000 reroofing such a property. Such problems are particularly acute in low-value areas, and that is why the home condition report is important in such areas.

The Government recognise, however, the concerns that have been voiced by a number of my hon. Friends who represent areas where house prices are very low. We have considered the possibility of exemptions from the requirement to prepare a seller's pack in respect of low-value properties in certain areas, and the Bill gives us discretion to do that by regulation, if we feel that it is necessary. However, we are reluctant to adopt that course of action unless it is the only way of tackling the problem, because it would inevitably create scope for anomalies and definitional problems round the borderlines, and would deny the benefits of a seller's pack to buyers who may be particularly vulnerable in the absence of good information about the home that they propose to acquire.

I welcome what my hon. Friend is saying, but surely those areas could be designated as those with assisted area status that are having to undergo regeneration, with good plans for roads and jobs being dealt with by the regional development agencies, but where the housing is pitiful. Those areas could be clearly defined as needing some help.

My hon. Friend has been assiduous in raising that issue on behalf of his constituents. I am pleased to say that I have visited one of the areas in his constituency that suffers such problems, and I can testify to the fact that those problems are very real. He will recognise that his suggestion represents one option. I have told him that we are prepared to consider several options, but he and several of my right hon. and hon. Friends must recognise that there might be anomalies because areas with similar problems might not qualify under the assisted area status arrangements. It is precisely that sort of anomaly which has led to my reluctance to adopt the exception arrangement, unless it is proved that there is no alternative. We are happy to consider the matter, but it is only right to tell the House that this is not a problem-free solution.

Will my hon. Friend consider the related issue of an area that has suffered from coal mining subsidence in the past? I have had experience of mortgage lenders or insurers who, at a late stage in a transaction, have refused to offer a mortgage or provide insurance for a property simply because it is an area of historic mining subsidence. Thankfully, that subsidence has now disappeared but the reluctance remains. In areas such as mine, will the seller's pack have to contain a mining subsidence report or some reassurance about such matters? That would represent not an exemption but an addition to the pack.

My hon. Friend makes a valid point. We are specifically considering whether the seller's pack should contain precisely the information about which he is concerned in areas of mining subsidence, but there are other issues. Obviously, vulnerability to flooding would be an important issue, about which many hon. Members will rightly be concerned in the light of the recent floods. My hon. Friend will recognise that if that information had been available at the outset—as, of course, it will be with the seller's pack—people would not have had to incur expenditure and build up their hopes for a sale only to find those hopes dashed because a mortgage was refused. That is precisely why the seller's pack can be very helpful indeed in areas such as that represented by my hon. Friend.

There are many low-value properties in my constituency, and we must find a way around the problem. I put it to my hon. Friend that many of our problems would be solved if we were to use the council tax banding system.

My hon. Friend speaks from experience of a constituency that has problems with low-value properties. Although I have not visited it for several years, I know at first hand about those problems. The problem with using council tax band A is that it would be a broadbrush measure, which would take in certain properties that might be sold without difficulty under existing arrangements with a seller's pack. I am therefore reluctant to adopt such a broadbrush approach. My hon. Friend has heard me say that we are open to ideas and suggestions. We shall carefully consider such issues and we want to ensure that the scheme works for everyone, including those people in low-value areas, who are in many ways most vulnerable and will benefit most from the packs if they can be made available.

rose—

With that proviso, I shall give way to my hon. Friend again.

Is my hon. Friend prepared to say from the Dispatch Box that he would welcome representations from local authorities in support of the principle of band A exemption?

That is a good try, but I will welcome representations from n all interested parties—professionals in the field, local authorities and members of the public—on how that problem can best be cracked. We are more than happy to discuss the matter constructively in the two years before the scheme will be introduced. However, the principle must be to try to get the considerable benefits of the seller's pack to as wide a range of people as possible.

I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that for vulnerable buyers the cost of heating new homes is important. Is there any evidence from the Bristol pilot scheme that the seller's pack could include information not only on the energy audit—the standard assessment procedure rating—but on the grants that might be available in low-income areas?

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I confirm that the Bristol pilot showed the advantages, particularly for the public—they welcomed the idea—of having a proper energy appraisal in the seller's pack. My hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Efford) was particularly keen to pursue that point through the Bill that he promoted in the previous Parliament. He and I have been in discussion about the way this Bill can help to achieve the objectives that he tried to put into practice. Providing the SAP rating, and helpful advice on what changes would improve energy efficiency and on the pay-back period of those changes, is useful for members of the public. We believe that such information will be greatly welcomed.

The Bristol study told us that such information is important, and that the format in which it is accessible is important, too. The Bristol study might have been a little too technical and not user-friendly. We are working on the presentation to ensure that such information is as user-friendly as possible.

Can my hon. Friend confirm whether the Government are minded to provide for information tailored to a specific property rather than generic information about any measures that might be taken to improve the energy efficiency of a property?

I reassure my hon. Friend that the home condition report, which forms part of the seller's pack, is to be tailored to an individual property, and its purpose is to provide advice that will be useful. I hope that I have given him the answer that he seeks.

Will the Minister be careful not to create a class of stigmatised, economically excluded properties for which a seller's pack is not required? If he is not careful, a small group of properties at the bottom of the range will encourage transactions over a pint of beer in the local pub. They will be sold at very low cost with no guarantees for either the seller or the buyer.

The right hon. Gentleman will have heard me say carefully in response to several interventions from my hon. Friends that, although I understand their concerns about the problems in low-value areas, I do not want exemptions to exclude significant numbers of people who would benefit from the seller's pack. We want to tailor the measure carefully so that the benefits of the seller's pack are extended as widely as possible. At the same time, we recognise the real problems that have been voiced by those Members who represent constituencies that contain areas of great deprivation. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman is familiar with such areas—although his own constituency is a little more affluent, it is not far from areas of great deprivation. He will therefore understand the points that have been made.

Just before Christmas, I asked a parliamentary question about park homes and the answer suggested that they would be excluded from the benefits of the seller's pack. There can be few more discriminated against minorities in housing than the residents of park homes. Such homes constitute an important and affordable sector of housing for which we need complete transparency. Will my hon. Friend reconsider the provisions for park homes?

My hon. Friend has been a powerful advocate of the cause of people living in park homes. I met him and colleagues on the all-party group just before Christmas to discuss progress on our review and consultation on action to tackle the problems of park homes. The position of people living in park homes is different in many respects from that of people living in other properties. It would therefore be inappropriate to extend the provisions for the seller's pack to park home residents. However, I assure my hon. Friend that we are considering carefully, as part of a separate review, the needs of people in park homes.

I wish to make a final remark on the cost issue. Experience with existing seller's pack schemes suggests that most people will probably not have to pay for the seller's pack up front, just as many people do not pay their estate agency fees up front now. We will encourage the development of more of the voluntary schemes in the run-up to the compulsory implementation of our reforms. That will help us to obtain the benefit of the practical experience of those operating voluntary seller's pack schemes and to ensure that we get the content of the seller's pack absolutely right when we introduce it.

Fourthly, it is argued that the seller's pack will not outlaw gazumping. That it is true because it is not possible to do so without at the same time introducing undesirable consequences or additional costs. Making it unlawful to entertain any other offer after accepting the first one would leave sellers with no remedy against a buyer who deliberately drags his feet. However, the introduction of the seller's pack will dramatically reduce the time between accepting an offer and exchanging contracts—the window during which gazumping can occur. The seller's pack will also reduce the scope for confusion, argument and the breakdown of trust between the parties during that period, which so often prompts a seller to look for another offer, or a buyer to seek another property or reduce the price originally offered.

No one would argue that preparing for the sale of a property in the way that the hon. Gentleman describes is not desirable, as it would speed up the sale and put the proposition on the table. However, it would be better to impose the normal procedures of this country, whereby an agreement to buy a property at a price is enforceable in law. Although it is necessary with property and, indeed, any other product, to have the capacity to abort a sale when necessary, it would concentrate everyone's mind if a seller's pack were legally enforceable. That would avoid the bureaucratic nonsense that concerns the Minister's hon. Friends.

The hon. Gentleman must appreciate the difficulty of making an unconditional offer. If a buyer finds that it is impossible to proceed because his own sale will not take place, he is left in the impossible position of either having to take out expensive bridging loans, which he may not have the means of servicing, or breaking the contract. That is the basis on which, under current arrangements, offers are conditional until the exchange of contract.

We are seeking to reduce to a minimum the time between the initial offer and the exchange of contracts. In Denmark it has been shown that that can be reduced to as little as two to four weeks, compared with the 13 or so that it takes in this country. There is enormous scope for reducing that period, thereby reducing the likelihood of gazumping. That is the essence of the proposals, which make good sense. The seller's pack is a practical and effective response to the problems implicit in existing arrangements which allow gazumping and gazundering to thrive, and it will greatly reduce the opportunities for such behaviour.

Finally, there is the key consideration of whether marketing with a seller's pack should be made a statutory obligation with criminal sanctions. It has been suggested that we should let voluntary initiatives develop which, with developments in e-conveyancing, would achieve the improvements that we seek. I am wholly unpersuaded by those arguments, which sound like cover for those people who want the current system to continue. A seller might be tempted to attempt to save money by refusing to assemble a pack, while hoping that the person from whom he is buying has done so. Six weeks later, a problem might emerge with the condition of his property and the whole chain would be delayed, depriving several other people of the scheme's benefits. The scope for problems and sharp practice are so wide that such arrangements are undesirable and unrealistic. That is why we need a mandatory scheme, which means appropriate sanctions.

We have looked closely at the scope for relying on civil sanctions, but have concluded that they do not offer effective safeguards. We have therefore opted for criminal sanctions, but those must, of course, be proportionate and able to differentiate deliberate and wilful breaches of the law from minor or unintentional errors. The Bill allows for that. There is plenty of scope for a tough line to be taken with estate agents who deliberately flout the law. There is also scope for discretion to be applied by trading standards officers to give advice or to issue a warning in the case of a private seller who makes an honest mistake. There are precedents for using the criminal law to enforce what are, in effect, civil duties.

The Bill is designed to help the consumer. It is based on thorough research and experience from voluntary schemes. Our proposals have been developed in consultation with industry and consumer groups. They will remove much of the worry of moving home that is experienced by hundreds of thousands of people each year, and will bring enormous benefits to very many home buyers and sellers. First-time buyers will gain particular benefits from our reforms. They are the least experienced and most vulnerable house buyers, and the availability of a seller's pack, with a condition report, will provide a new layer of protection. In addition to measures such as our starter home initiative, it is one more example of the steps that the Government are taking to help people to realise their aspirations of home ownership.

Before the hon. Gentleman moves from this part of the Bill, may I ask a question? If he were buying a house that was, say, 20, 30 or more years old, would he rely on a home condition report or would he be tempted to commission a full structural survey?

At the very least, I would want a home condition report. It is one difficulty of the current arrangement that many people buy properties without that benefit and then find that they have taken on problems that they do not have the means to deal with. That is one purpose of a home condition report. For certain older properties that are likely to have serious structural problems, most professionals would also advise a full structural survey. However, that would be limited to cases where there was a real justification for the additional expenditure. In the meantime, the availability of a home condition report will enable the vast majority of people who currently purchase without the benefit of such knowledge and information to identify the likelihood of problems. It will do a great deal to underpin confidence in the market and help consumers get a bargain.

rose—

rose—

I intend to make progress. I have already given way to the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown).

Is the Minister aware that we in this country have the slowest demolition rate in the western world? That has been a unique problem, as we have very old housing stock. Therefore, the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) is very important and should not be dismissed lightly. Older properties will form the majority of housing transactions, and structural surveys will therefore be critical and an additional cost to that of the home condition report.

The hon. Gentleman should not misinterpret what I said. I made the point that for some older properties with a likelihood of a serious structural problem, most professionals will advise a full structural survey. However, I stressed that the availability of a home condition report will enable the provision of a great deal of additional information to most buyers who currently do not have it. In some cases, it will pinpoint a problem that could be resolved only by a full structural survey and will therefore inform people as to whether it would be appropriate to incur such additional expenditure. In all events, the public are to be provided with much more information on what is generally the biggest financial transaction in their lives, on which at present all too many do not have good information.

Will the Minister give way?

I intend to make progress. I must cover the second part of the Bill, which deals with the problem of homelessness.

Each year, more than 100,000 families and individuals are rehoused by local authorities because, through no fault of their own, they have become, or are about to become, homeless. No Government can eliminate entirely the fundamental causes of homelessness, but this Government's broad social agenda, which includes our housing and regeneration programmes, the work of the social exclusion unit and our welfare-to-work programme, is tackling the root problems.

The legislative framework for the relief of homelessness has been in place since 1977 but was significantly weakened by the previous Government in the Housing Act 1996. In our election manifesto, we promised to rectify that and to increase the protection available to homeless people. In 1997, we took early action to restore homeless households to the list of groups that should be given reasonable preference for housing by local authorities. It was a scandal that they should ever have been without some priority over households that are adequately housed. The change was effected by regulations, but the provisions in the Bill are necessary to remedy other weaknesses.

Under the provisions introduced by the 1996 Act, local authorities may fulfil their obligations simply by satisfying themselves that suitable accommodation is available in the private sector. Even where the authority provides accommodation, its legal responsibilities end after just two years. To make matters worse, authorities are restricted in how they can use their housing to accommodate homeless people temporarily while such people look for a settled home. The provisions add uncertainty, put homeless families and individuals under greater stress and discriminate against them at a time when they are most vulnerable and in need of support.

The Bill will require local authorities to ensure that everyone in priority need who is unintentionally homeless has somewhere suitable to live while they look for a settled home. That requirement will continue for as long as it takes to secure accommodation, and without the two-year restriction. The Bill will also allow local authorities discretion over how to use their homes to provide short-term accommodation for homeless people until settled accommodation becomes available. The measures are important, but more needs to be done to try to prevent homelessness occurring in the first place and to ensure that local services are up to the demands that are likely to be placed on them.

To this end, the Bill will require local authorities to review homelessness in their area at least every five years, and to put in place a multi-agency strategy for preventing homelessness, ensuring that adequate accommodation and support is available. The Bill will encourage a more co-ordinated approach by requiring both housing and social services authorities to take their homelessness strategy into account when carrying out their responsibilities. The Bill will also authorities greater flexibility to provide accommodation for homeless people who are not in priority need but where suitable housing is available.

We believe that homeless people should be offered the same opportunity of a decent home that most in this country are lucky enough to enjoy. That is why we are taking steps in the Bill to ensure that local authorities are able to offer homeless people and others in housing need greater choice when they apply for long-term tenancies in social housing.

Choice within the private sector is usually the preferred option in my constituency, and New Forest district council runs a scheme to assist with deposits. Under the Bill's provisions, accepting a private sector tenancy will be punished because the tenant will, in so doing, effectively sign away his rights to further protection by, and support from, the local authority. That will lead to an increase in bed-and-breakfast provision rather than a reduction, and to a reduction in choice.

No. On this issue, as on so many others, the hon. Gentleman has it completely wrong. The Bill will not reduce choice. Instead, it will extend choice and opportunities and contribute to reducing homelessness.

Is there not a need for a specific reference to older people who are homeless? Of those who are most disadvantaged, older people who find themselves homeless have to overcome many barriers. I am pleased to hear what my hon. Friend says about social care. However, unless there is provision—often specialised provision—people can fall at the first hurdle. Does not that need to be taken into account in the Bill?

My hon. Friend rightly raises concerns about older people. Under existing legislation, older people are defined as automatically in priority need if they become homeless. The question is what provision the local authority makes for them. Through our code of guidance, which we are revising, we shall be issuing good practice guidance on how local authorities should best discharge their responsibilities to the elderly and all other groups. Our aim is to ensure that the most appropriate and effective assistance is made available to people, depending on their particular needs. The elderly have special needs, which my hon. Friend highlights.

I support the principle of a multi-agency approach to dealing with homelessness. However, is my hon. Friend aware that one of the great problems in London is the massive increase in house prices? There has also been an explosion in private sector rents and a lack of ability on the part of local authorities and housing associations to build and provide new homes. In effect, homeless people will end up in private sector rented accommodation at extortionate cost while we are creating millionaires every week out of the housing benefit system. Would it not be better if we had a strategy of investing public money in good-quality housing that homeless people could move into permanently, rather than passing so much to private landlords?

My hon. Friend will have noted the spending review 2000, in which we have literally doubled the provision for investment in new social housing by registered social landlords. He will be aware that we have substantially increased investment through local authorities with our ambitious programme to tackle the entire backlog of substandard council housing within a 10-year time scale. It is a huge Government investment programme that is designed to ensure a proper supply of affordable housing to put right the terrible problems that we inherited as a result of years of neglect under the Conservative Government.

Does my hon. Friend agree that empty homes are an underused resource? Does he agree also that homelessness strategies, if they are to be respectable, should deal with putting empty homes back into use? Will he say that local authorities should adopt that approach?

My hon. Friend has been an assiduous campaigner for action to tackle the problem of empty homes. He will know of the work that we have undertaken, the action that we have taken and the measures that have already been put in place. He will be aware of the continuing work that we do, with the support of the Empty Homes Agency, to tackle the problem. As part of a comprehensive housing strategy for their area, local authorities should have in place a proper arrangement for reviewing and taking action on the problem of empty homes.

The Bill will remove the need for local authorities to maintain a housing register—a bureaucratic requirement introduced by the 1996 legislation, which can hamper approaches that offer flexibility and choice to potential and existing tenants. It will strengthen the rights and entitlements of existing tenants and new applicants for social housing. It will require local authorities to publish a clear policy that explains how they will let homes and offer choice. Finally, it will require them to provide help for those who need assistance when applying for housing, ensuring that vulnerable families and individuals who are least able to fend for themselves are not disadvantaged.

Will my hon. Friend give way?

In a moment.

Those measures are being backed by an £11 million fund for pilot lettings schemes under which local authorities and housing associations can test choice-based approaches that put applicants and existing tenants first as customers. We shall evaluate the pilot schemes and promote the most successful approaches. I now give way, for the final time, to my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson).

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. Will he clarify what his review of the regulations on priority need will mean to young people leaving care?

My hon. Friend is prescient because I am coming to precisely that issue.

We propose a further important change, on which we consulted in our housing Green Paper: extending the groups of people that local authorities should consider as having priority need for assistance under the homelessness legislation. The existing priority need groups exclude a number of particularly vulnerable people who should be better protected. We propose to add to the priority need groups, for the first time, two additional categories of young people: homeless 16 and 17-year-olds and 18 to 21-year-olds leaving care. I hope that my hon. Friend is pleased with that announcement.

We also propose to add people who are vulnerable as a result of their fleeing domestic violence or harassment or who come from an institutionalised background—for example, people leaving care, the armed forces or prison. Studies into the causes of homelessness and into the backgrounds of people who end up sleeping rough have consistently shown that a very high proportion come from an institutional background. Such people will be regarded as being in priority need where local authorities consider that they are vulnerable. We shall extend the priority need groups shortly by making an order under the existing legislation.

The Conservatives have attacked the measures on the grounds that they will allow prisoners to jump the housing queue, but they are wrong—the measures will not allow prisoners to jump the queue, but will provide an emergency safety net for vulnerable people who would otherwise be on the street. There can be few worse examples of the facile, unthinking, knee-jerk reaction that, along with bandwagon jumping, has become the trademark of the Conservatives. They complain in their amendment about the Government not doing enough to tackle the fundamental causes of homelessness, but also criticise measures specifically geared to prevent homelessness among those most at risk. The Conservative party complains about the Government not doing enough to tackle crime, but criticises measures designed to help those perhaps most at risk of being lured back to a life of crime to re-establish themselves as law-abiding citizens.

Those are the reactions of a party that has no understanding of the causes or consequences of homelessness and no integrity in respect of recognising the importance of pursuing policies that are right, even if they can be distorted and misinterpreted for cheap party political advantage. In contrast, the Government are committed to tackling the fundamental, underlying causes of homelessness and to ensuring that more effective help is given to the homeless.

We shall provide extra resources for local authorities to ensure that they can better meet their responsibilities and can implement effective policies to help homeless people. We shall revise our code of guidance on homelessness and allocations and produce best practice guidance to underpin reforms.

The Bill is an important measure that addresses two of the most important housing issues of our time: how to make it easier for people to buy and sell homes and how to tackle the evil of homelessness more effectively. The Government are committed to ensuring that every member of our society has the prospect of a decent home. The Bill is an important element in our strategy to achieve that objective, and I commend it to the House.

I beg to move, To leave out from "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:

"this House, whilst supporting the principle that everyone should be able to enjoy decent housing, declines to give a Second Reading to the Homes Bill because it fails to tackle the problem of gazumping whilst increasing the cost for potential vendors and seeking to impose onerous penalties upon those entering freely into contractual relationships; because it does not do enough to tackle the fundamental causes of homelessness at a time when there are 3,000 more people homeless and in priority need since the last General Election, with the number of people in bed and breakfast accommodation having risen by over 75 per cent.; and because it does not include measures to address other pressing priorities in housing, not least the Government's promise to regulate houses in multiple occupation."

I begin by wishing you, Mr. Speaker, an extremely happy new year and by passing on my good wishes to your secretary on his knighthood. I also offer my congratulations to the Minister on his forthcoming elevation to the Privy Council. He has come a long way since we were councillors together in Hammersmith and Fulham. I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members' Interests, although I make it clear that I have never practised in conveyancing matters.

It is a sad feature of this Parliament that we have spent endless hours debating gay rights and foxhunting, but much more serious matters affecting the daily lives of what Lord Falconer would grandly call ordinary people are relegated to the back of the queue. Instead, we have been obliged to follow the priorities of the liberal elite, who drive so much of the Government's agenda. [interruption.] Nowhere is that truer than on housing policy. Now, in the dying months of the Government, we finally have a Bill on housing.

The last Labour manifesto had a great deal to say on the subject of housing. In particular, it promised that

there will be a proper system of licensing by local authorities which will benefit tenants and responsible landlords alike.

That is the most significant omission from the Bill, and one which has disappointed people right across the housing sector. That is a manifesto promise that the Government have manifestly failed to keep. Why?

The Bill also promises to deal with the problems of homelessness. Why were the proposals not introduced earlier? As a Labour Member commented from a sedentary position, Labour had 18 years to think about the matter in opposition. At the serious risk of becoming typecast, the Minister has pursued the issue of housing for many years.

Some of the proposals in the Bill are welcome, which is why I shall not invite my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against Second Reading. Other proposals, we believe, are unnecessarily burdensome on local authorities, and much of the detail will need to be scrutinised carefully in Committee.

The Prime Minister promised in opposition that Labour would

do everything in our power to end the scandal of homelessness, to tackle the spectacle of people sleeping rough on the streets and to end the waste of families sleeping in bed and breakfast accommodation.

He added:

In today's Britain no one should have to sleep rough on the streets.

However, the Government have presided over a growth in homelessness. Despite the Minister's attempts to spin the statistics, that is the honest truth. Almost all the figures that I shall quote are from his own Department. The number of families in bed-and-breakfast and other temporary accommodation had risen to 66,030 a year in the second quarter of 2000, compared with 43,650 in 1997—an increase of 51 per cent. The increase in the number of those in bed-and-breakfast accommodation is more than 75 per cent.

Priority homelessness is at its highest level since 1996. The figure in 1997–98 was 102,650 for total priority acceptances, and in 1999–2000 the comparable figure was 105,520. In other words, under the present Government 3,000 more people were homeless and in urgent need.

As if that were not bad enough, in London the problem is particularly serious. We have the highest homelessness figures for 20 years, with 48,000 households in temporary accommodation, including 6,000 in bed-and-breakfast accommodation.

The problem is made worse by the chaos in dealing with asylum seekers. In 1999, there were 71,160 applications. By the end of November last year, that figure had already been exceeded. That has meant that less social accommodation is available for others.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Is he aware that the reason why the London housing situation is so precarious—I accept that it is—is not, as he is obliquely suggesting, the increased demand from asylum seekers, but the reduction in the supply of housing as a result of the severe problems of the London housing market? In fact, there were 10,000 fewer homeless acceptances last year in London than under the Conservative Government in 1990.

I am not suggesting any more than the hon. Lady that there is one single reason for the problems in London. Indeed, it is only fair to say that the Association of London Government made a point similar to that of the hon. Lady in its briefings. However, the ALG's housing panel has called the increase in asylum seekers "a significant contributory factor" in rising homelessness. The London Research Centre attributed a substantial part of the increased use of temporary accommodation in London to the need to accommodate asylum seekers.

Under the Bill, the Government propose to give priority for social housing to applicants with an institutionalised background. The Minister managed to whip himself up into a lather as he reached his peroration on that issue. However, the plain fact is that the Government want convicted criminals to jump the housing queue when they are released. What sort of message does that send to law-abiding people who wait patiently to be rehoused, often for years?

May I remind the hon. Gentleman that he is quoting from a comment that he made to Conservatives.com—presumably one of the dotcom companies about to go into receivership? The reality is that there is no change in the priorities determining the allocation of permanent council housing. It is untrue that prisoners are jumping the housing queue. Will the hon. Gentleman accept that and withdraw that remark?

As far as the first part of the Minister's intervention goes, I never knowingly quote myself. As for the second part, if he proposes to give priority to people with institutionalised backgrounds, including ex-prisoners, logic demands that that means giving them priority over somebody else. Perhaps that is so in the case of temporary accommodation alone, but that is still the message that he proposes to send. It should be said that we support giving priority to vulnerable groups such as ex-forces personnel and those fleeing domestic violence.

Another feature of the Government's policy is the dramatic fall in the provision of new social housing, which has fallen from 91,200 in 1994–96 to 59,000 in 1997–99. That is at a time when private sector building has been increasing. The number of empty council properties has risen by 3 per cent. under Labour. At times, it seemed as if Labour's flagship policy was the Conservative one of large-scale voluntary transfers, which have accelerated quite sharply in the past four years.

We hear a great deal from the rough sleepers' unit, which makes extravagant claims about its success. My right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) achieved considerable success in reducing the number of rough sleepers without the benefit of a £90,000 streets tsar. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to him and my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) for their excellent work on housing when in government. One leading homelessness charity recently accused the rough sleepers' unit of "beggar bashing". The highly respected Simon community has discounted the RSU's claims that it has cut street sleeping by one third.

One top of all that, the Government have made home ownership less accessible by scrapping mortgage tax relief, reducing right-to-buy discounts for council tenants and cutting support for shared ownership schemes. At the same time, the average home for a first-time buyer now costs 23 per cent. more than it did in 1997. In London, the average first-time buyer will need to find an extra £40,000 to buy his or her own home. To try to deal with that the Government have come up with their scheme for so-called key workers, who are to be given help in buying their own homes. In areas—especially London—where accommodation costs are high, they would receive help with discounted mortgages.

There are two major problems with that scheme, and we shall be looking closely at its details. First, on what basis will the Government draw lines on maps to mark the areas that will receive that help? Secondly, which key workers do they propose to help? The indications given so far suggest that they are talking about teachers, police officers, nurses and other fairly limited categories, but what about ancillary workers in the national health service, for example? They will be on even lower salaries than nurses and doctors. What about civilian workers in the police force, who form a far higher proportion of the police establishment than they did a number of years ago? What happens with regard to ancillary workers? What will happen if a nurse marries a police officer and their joint income can comfortably service a mortgage? Will the help suddenly be taken away from them? What happens when a police sergeant becomes an inspector or a nurse is promoted to a higher grade? There must be some way of removing the benefits or of ensuring that they are tapered off.

Perhaps I can put the hon. Gentleman out of his agony. We have made it clear that the scheme is designed to assist key workers and that we expect bids to be approved by local authorities in the light of their experience of their areas' needs. The question of priorities on categories of key worker will be determined locally. We will then reach our decision on how to allocate the funds.

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not find those comments terribly reassuring. The distinctions about which I speak, which concern us deeply, will still have to be made by somebody. Apparently, that person will ultimately be him.

We wish a fair wind to some of the measures contained in the Bill. The Local Government Association, among others, has welcomed the new duty to formulate a homelessness strategy, the new power to provide accommodation for persons who are not in priority need, the new framework for lettings policy and other flexibilities in applying local housing policies—not least the abolition of the requirement to maintain a housing register.

The Opposition will, however, be at some pains to ensure that local authorities are genuinely to be given the freedoms for which they ask and that central Government will not yet again impose new burdens and duties without providing commensurate resources. Various bodies have expressed concern at the extra resource implications inherent in extending the priority need categories and increasing the level of assistance available to homeless people who are not in priority need. It is worth remembering that the new power is unlikely to afford any great benefit in areas of high demand. For that matter, the same can be said of seeking to encourage choice in lettings.

In my constituency, people looking for council accommodation will, on average, wait a couple of years or more. In some parts of the north, however, people will be shown two or three perfectly nice properties on the same afternoon. That is an enormous difference between different parts of the country. No wonder the housing director of Hammersmith and Fulham has described the proposals as being

like re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

That is original, but also true.

As Members of Parliament, all hon. Members must deal with problems caused by so-called neighbours from hell. Such people can cause utter misery for those who are unfortunate enough to live around them and can sometimes affect the whole character of an estate. The Bill seeks to end blanket exclusions from access to social housing, but we welcome the provision in clause 27 that enables a local authority to take into account

any behaviour of a person … which affects his suitability to be a tenant.

That measure may need to be beefed up in Committee. We strongly believe that all social landlords should be empowered to deal firmly and summarily with neighbours from hell, and that there should be proper safeguards. We believe also that it should be open to fellow residents to initiate such action. Our tenants plus scheme would ensure that being a good neighbour is properly rewarded.

Part I of the Bill deals with proposals on seller's packs. Sixty-nine per cent. of householders in England now own their homes. That is a proud achievement of successive Conservative Governments. It would be interesting to know how many Labour Members do not own their homes. I wonder what the equivalent ownership proportion is in Denmark, the fig leaf to which the Minister clutched throughout his comments on the provisions about which I am speaking. I suspect that it is a great deal lower.

The Labour party has often been uneasy with owner-occupation, especially with the right-to-buy scheme. Nevertheless, it obviously felt it necessary to court the votes of owner-occupiers. In February 1997, in the policy document entitled "No to Gazumping", the then shadow Environment Secretary, the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), proposed a costs guarantee. He said:

We are now proposing a system on which a seller or a buyer who goes back on an agreement would be obliged to meet the costs the other party had incurred in progressing to exchange of contract.

That was in early 1997, but in the Labour party election manifesto it said:

The problems of gazumping have reappeared. Those who break their bargains should be liable to pay the costs inflicted on others, in particular legal and survey costs.

Despite all the pre-election promises and the hype since then, the Bill conspicuously fails to tackle the problem of gazumping. The Minister, in effect, accepted that in his speech.

May I immediately make it clear that I made no such statement? I said that it was impossible to outlaw gazumping, but I went on to stress that the measures in the Bill would do an enormuous amount to reduce the circumstances in which gazumping can thrive. I ask the hon. Gentleman to recognise that that is a priority. Does his party support measures to make gazumping far less likely? When the Conservatives were in government, gazumping thrived: it was their hallmark.

Dear me. I confess that my attention wandered once or twice during the 59 minutes of the hon. Gentleman's opening speech. I listened intently to the part of his statement that dealt with gazumping. I thought—I hope Hansard will show this—that he accepted that gazumping was not being tackled, certainly not in any direct fashion. I accept that he believes that by speeding up the process, gazumping will be less likely—he has just referred to that again. Surely it would not matter to the average seller whether he had six, four, three or 10 weeks for the transaction. If he discovered that he could get £10,000 or £20,000 more for his home than he originally thought, he would make the same decision, and gazumping would occur.

We do not accept for a moment that the Government's proposals will bring about a significant reduction in the time taken for these transactions. I hope that I have clarified the Minister's position and mine on the question of delay and gazumping. On the basis of a rather dodgy pilot scheme, the Government are setting out to increase costs for potential sellers, to bureaucratise the sale of private properties and to criminalise ordinary law-abiding citizens who are merely trying to enter freely into contractual relations. That is the sum of the Bill and its contents on this issue.

As my hon. Friend knows, this is not one of my specialist areas, but my experience over many years as a Member of Parliament and a buyer and seller of houses is that one of the big obstacles is the fragility of the chain. Five, six or seven people with transactions may be involved in a chain. As far as I could tell from what the Minister said, the magic pack will do nothing about that, or have I misunderstood?

I do not want to do the Minister's job for him, but I suspect that he would say that if it is to be compulsory to have a seller's pack, everyone in the chain will have one. If people can pick and choose, there will be no improvement. We do not believe that the seller's pack will help people, whether they are in a chain or not. I hope that I have read the Minister's briefing on that point fairly.

I am tempted to say that this measure is a large sledgehammer to crack a small nut, except that the nut is signally absent. The Bill does not—I repeat, does not—tackle gazumping.

I do not deny for a moment that gazumping—or indeed its ugly sister, gazundering—is a problem. It is distressing and costly for those involved. Some have advocated a move to the Scottish or the continental system, whereby acceptance of an offer immediately imposes contractual obligations. That was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells). Others have suggested a non-returnable deposit. The Labour party has flirted with the idea of the gazumper's being responsible for the gazumpee's costs, but has rejected that and other potential solutions.

We should, however, put the problem of gazumping into perspective. It is reckoned to affect fewer than 2 per cent. of all property transactions. Indeed, there must be parts of the country represented here today where the prospect of gazumping is about as remote as a landing on Mars—areas where it never happens, has never happened, and is unlikely ever to happen.

A seller may, of course, genuinely discover that he has put his property on the market at too low a price because it has been undervalued. Should that seller be obliged to accept a payment of less than the property is worth? What about those, such as trustees, who are under a legal obligation to obtain the best possible price?

Sometimes there are perfectly good reasons for delay during a property transaction, and people are entitled—even under this nanny state—to have second thoughts. As for delay in transactions after an offer has been accepted, a keen buyer and seller can move things along quite quickly if they are sufficiently motivated.

All this is academic, however, because the Government are not addressing the problem of gazumping in any direct way. What they are seeking to do is to impose onerous extra burdens on sellers. That is particularly bizarre because, in the majority of transactions, people are buyers and sellers at the same time.

The Minister based almost his entire case for the Bill on the flimsy foundation of the Bristol pilot scheme. Is his confidence justified? I do not think so, and neither do organisations such as the Law Society and the Council of Mortgage Lenders. Michael King, chairman of the Law Society's conveyancing and land law committee, concluded:

The take up of the sellers pack during the pilot was disappointing. The Law Society does not believe that on this information it should be made compulsory. The Law Society remains to be convinced as to the effectiveness of the proposed pack.

That is the view of a body that represents some 80,000 solicitors in England and Wales.

Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that the chairman of the Law Society in Bristol, who has practical experience, is one of the strongest supporters of the seller's pack? That suggests that head office should perhaps learn from local experience before announcing its views.

I am sure that—apart from the lucky recipients of the free packs—all the professionals involved in the Bristol property market were happy about the Government's injection of some £320,000 into that sector. If the Government would like to conduct a similar pilot scheme in Eastbourne, I am sure that it would be just as welcome to the president of my local Law Society branch.

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman does not have the same briefing as me. My briefing—from the Law Society nationally, not just in Bristol—states:

The Society has also supported the concept of sellers' packs.

We are becoming used to seeing the Liberal Democrats ride to the aid of their friends in the Labour Government—but I will deal with the hon. Gentleman's point, as he has chosen to wander in and give us the benefit of his views some time after the beginning of the debate.

Wander in?

The hon. Gentleman certainly was not present for a large part of the Minister's speech.

I was!

I am sorry. In that case, I take back what I said.

I do not think that the Law Society has ever had a problem with the "concept" of seller's packs.

There is a lot to be said for putting together a pack of available information before starting to market a property. Many people do it. More and more will, I suspect, whatever happens to the Bill.

The Law Society—I am sure that the Minister will happily concede the point—has been at the forefront in pushing forward electronic conveyancing, in simplifying things and in trying to make the process faster. That would be happening irrespective of today's debate or the Bill, but the Law Society is still fundamentally concerned and opposed to the concept of including matters such as local searches, which may have a three-month shelf life, or survey reports, which also may have a shelf life of only a few months. It has clearly formed its own judgment, as I am sure most people will, on the results of the Bristol pilot scheme. [interruption.] I shall ignore the ruderies about solicitors.

Unlike the Liberal Democrats, who have no one in the Chamber because they are in fear of being repossessed at the next election, I have read the Law Society briefing. It says:

Introducing criminal sanctions for non-compliance with the full sellers' pack requirement would be unnecessary if the Government believed that their version of the sellers' pack would be adopted on its own merits—resorting to coercion demonstrates the weakness of the proposal.

Does my hon. Friend agree?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. I do not think that the Law Society's position could be any clearer, but perhaps if hon. Members on both sides of the House had a copy of the crib sheet that the Minister's Parliamentary Private Secretary is currently handing out, we could save ourselves a lot of time.

Michael Coogan, director general of the Council of Mortgage Lenders, said:

the evidence in support of introducing sellers information packs is not robust and such packs could prove to be unpopular with consumers. The Bristol pilot has failed to demonstrate that SIPs significantly improve the process and that there is widespread support from the professionals in the process.

Trevor Kent of the National Association of Estate Agents has remarked that

the whole idea of a sellers' pack is a farce.

The Independent Association of Estate Agents and the Team organisation of estate agents have also attacked the proposals. Those experts have every right to be concerned.

The first question must be: why Bristol? It is hardly typical. It has a relatively buoyant property market, with relatively high property values. Many of the properties in the pilot were valued in the £150,000 range or above—not exactly Labour heartlands.

The pilot scheme originally aimed to have a sample of 250. In the event, only 189 participated. Only 90 properties were completed on under the scheme, of which a third—30—were new properties, which would not count for the purposes of the seller's pack proposals. I understand that those were Beazer homes. They were all new and did not require a home condition report in the pack in any event. They were all sales exchanging within a short period of 28 days, rather than properties sold and marketed in the usual way. One can only speculate on how those quick transactions managed to skew the findings of the pilot scheme on the speed of concluding transactions.

Would it not be right to say that those new properties would probably be subject to a national house buyer's or home builder's guarantee? The significance of the seller's pack is thereby reduced, as there is further recourse for a purchaser who feels that he has not bought on the basis of proper representation or standards. May I add that the standard applied when buying a property at auction, which I have personally just experienced, is already demonstrating good practice in the marketplace. The sledgehammer of this Bill is not needed to try to improve on that good practice.

I am grateful for the latter point. Perhaps my hon. Friend would like to develop it by volunteering to join the Standing Committee—[interruption.] It is possible to take a man out of the Whips Office, but it is not possible to take the Whips Office out of the man. My hon. Friend's first point was absolutely right: it really is staggering that the Government are trying to rely so heavily on the results of the Bristol pilot scheme.

It is fundamental to any serious analysis of the pilot scheme that the participants were given their packs, including surveys, by the Government. That may explain the substantial satisfaction of those involved in the scheme when asked about it. Perhaps it is even more significant that one third of those who were involved in the pilot still insisted on their own survey, quite separate from the home condition report.

There are other objections to the Government's proposals, which are supposed to cut delay in the process. The proposals themselves could add three weeks or more at the beginning of the process, before the property could be put on the market. Additionally, as I shall discuss in a moment, surveys and local searches will inevitably grow out of date. After three months or so, they will have to be done again. Although that is fine in a very buoyant property market, it is not so good in a quiet one.

How will those who simply cannot afford those front-loaded costs—those who are in financial trouble and may be forced to sell their homes, or the elderly who are financially crushed by the need to pay for long-term care—manage? Has the Minister given any thought to them? He blithely tells us that estate agents will pick up those front-loaded costs as it will be worth their while to do so. Perhaps they will pick them up, but perhaps they will not. I do not think that it should be assumed that all estate agents will be signing up to that idea. Why should they? Moreover, if they do, might we not see an inexorable rise in commission levels as a quid pro quo?

The Minister has made much of the assertion that there was a marginal increase—I think from 72 per cent. to 87 per cent—in the proportion of final sales to accepted offers, but can those and other figures be relied upon given such a small sample? Cannot the change be explained away by other factors? I really think that the attempts to massage the results of the Bristol pilot undermine the overall case for compulsory seller's packs.

As we have already heard from various Labour Members today, the real problems begin when we move from the leafy avenues of Bristol to low-demand and low-value areas. There are rumours of rebellion on the Labour Back Benches, and the Government are right to be worried. The Government clearly share the concern of those Back Benchers because, previously, they have examined potential difficulties in Bradford and Burnley. According to a survey by Countryside, 20 per cent. of sellers with properties worth less than £60,000 would defer or abandon plans to sell if they were forced to produce seller's packs.

The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful argument against the proposals, which I support in principle. If by any fluke of circumstance a Tory Government were to be elected, would they immediately rescind the legislation or remove its compulsory requirements?

We are here to discuss the Government's proposals. However, as the hon. Gentleman has asked me that question, I tell him that it is possible—even likely—that at least this place will finish consideration of the Bill before the likely date of the next general election and that it is even possible that the legislation will be enacted. However, the Minister has told us—so it must be true—that it will not be implemented until 2003. By that time, a Conservative Government who will already have a couple of years under their belt will be best able to take a view on whether the legislation should be implemented.

I was dealing with the results of the Countryside survey—I can only assume that it is a wholly different Countryside survey from the one relied on by the Minister—that talked about 20 per cent. of sellers with properties worth less than £60,000 abandoning plans to sell if they had to produce seller's packs. However, in some areas—many of which are of genuine concern to Labour Members—a value of £60,000 is unheard of. What will happen in areas where properties are worth only £10,000 or £20,000, or in which people have negative equity?

The issue was aired in advance of our debate—as such matters often are—on the "Today" programme this morning, on which the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) and the Minister went head to head on the matter. The Minister is clearly under pressure from some of his Back Benchers, and has hinted at the possibility of exemptions and discretion being used. Powers to achieve that have already been incorporated in the Bill. Would it not, however, be outrageous if Labour areas around the country were singled out to be deprived of the so-called benefits of seller's packs? The Minister was characteristically honest about this, saying that it would be very difficult to draw lines on maps or to work on council tax bands.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon referred to the problem that could arise if such exclusions were drawn too widely. People's worst nightmare could be brought about, with the value of properties that were already undervalued, or in low-demand areas and with very low values, collapsing completely as a result of the stigma of their being in an area where there was no obligation to use seller's packs.

Bearing in mind that the hon. Gentleman says that most people are both buyers and sellers, and that, presumably, during a transaction, at least one survey—or the equivalent of a buyer's or seller's pack—is taking place, will he explain how the dynamics of the exchange process that he describes would lead to the end of life as we know it? I cannot quite follow his argument.

I cannot quite follow the hon. Gentleman's intervention, so perhaps we can call it a draw.

Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a plausible argument for excluding properties at the top end of the market—for example, properties in central London—where it could be argued that buyers and sellers are perfectly capable of looking after themselves and do not need the intervention of the state?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. I shall not follow him too far down that road, but his point illustrates the absurdity of any attempt to exclude particular areas or types or values of property from the Bill or from the requirements for seller's packs.

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, in constituencies such as mine, which has more than 3,000 empty houses, the bottom end of the market has totally collapsed? I know that the Minister understands that, because he has been to Burnley and seen the problem at first hand.

The hon. Gentleman illustrates graphically the problem with which we shall have to wrestle, no doubt at greater length, in Committee.

To return to the intervention by the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead), there is a practical problem because a front-loaded cost is being transferred to the seller. I shall deal with some of the other implications of that in a moment.

One might be forgiven for thinking that the Bill has not a friend in the world apart from the Minister. Who will benefit from the Bill? Surveyors will benefit, because all seller's packs will be required to contain a home condition report, although these will be very limited in scope. I accept the Minister's statement that the provision has still to be subjected to some fine tuning, but my impression is that the reports will be limited in scope. They will be fairly basic documents, dealing with a few basic issues that affect all properties. Reference was made to the possibility of customising the reports to particular properties, but that is very unlikely to happen.

The Minister was forced to concede, in response to an intervention, that he might well think twice about relying solely on the home condition report when buying an older property.

How old is older?

It could be 20 or 30 years old, or older—I was not trying to pin the Minister down to a particular category. Some people live in properties that are 500 or 600 years old, but that was not my point.

Many buyers will still obtain a full structural survey in addition to the report—we should not call it a survey, because it is not one in any real sense—to be contained by law in the seller's pack. A third of those involved in the Bristol scheme—remembering always that many of the properties were brand new—still got their own survey carried out. Even if people are reluctant, the lender may insist, and will certainly still require a separate valuation.

My hon. Friend mentioned the lender's survey. We now have three surveys, all of which have to be paid for, eventually, by the buyer. Is it not absurd to leave us in that position? Surely at least one of the surveys should be valid for both buyer and seller?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to draw attention to the burgeoning number of potential surveys.

Survey reports also become out of date, of course. If there is not a rapid sale, the surveyor may have to update the report after six months or so. There must be many thousands of homes affected by the recent severe floods whose condition has altered significantly even in the past two to three months.

What is to happen about the legal concept of privity? If the seller's surveyor makes a mistake, can the buyer sue? We shall have to go into that in much more detail in Committee.

Under the pilot scheme, the Government bore the costs. Under the new system, more will have to be done, with at least two surveys, extended liability, higher premiums and more training. I understand that, in meetings with professionals, DETR officials have said that they expect costs to increase to European levels. In Europe, commission runs to between 6 and 8 per cent., so that is hardly a great step forward for the consumer. The Minister was right to say that we are slower on average than other countries, but we are also cheaper. If he is to put the pros and cons to the consumer with total fairness, he must accept that there will almost certainly be higher costs, not only to pay for the packs but in higher commissions.

Is it any wonder that so many surveyors support the legislation? The head of policy at the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, Mr. Michael Chambers, has estimated that an additional 2,000 to 3,000 surveyors will be needed simply to produce the packs, and some believe that to be an underestimate.

Although the Bill is of little if any benefit to most people buying or selling a house, the Government want to impose some massive changes. They clearly intend, in effect, to reverse the rule of caveat emptor, which has served the English legal system well for centuries—although, curiously, the Bill itself contains no such provision. They want to interfere in free contractual relations and to impose serious criminal penalties on ordinary people trying to buy and sell properties.

The president of the Law Society said:

It is unthinkable that the criminal law should be used in this way to interfere with ordinary transactions between citizens, such as selling a house.

The Government are trying to turn people into criminals.

The Bill would impose penalties up to a £5,000 fine for the failure to provide a pack within 14 days. If people in areas of low value and low demand have problems in finding the money for the seller's pack, how are they to be expected to pay fines if they are in breach of the regulations? Could they face a prison term instead?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way to me; he is being generous in taking interventions. I am puzzled, so may I put a simple question to him? He has been remorselessly negative about the proposals for the seller's pack, and has given not one indication that the Opposition have the least support for it. Yet if I heard correctly what he said at the beginning, the Opposition do not intend to vote against Second Reading, despite the fact that their reasoned amendment says that they decline to give the Bill a Second Reading. Why have they changed their minds?

The Minister has been in the House longer than me, and he knows the form: the reasoned amendment is des4ned to set out our specific objections to the Bill. None the less, there are some good things in it—I am talking about part II rather than part I—and we shall not throw the baby out with the bath water. That is why I invite my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote for the reasoned amendment.

I was talking about penalties. An estate agent is not allowed to start marketing a property unless he has a copy of the pack. Some of the possible defences in clause 6 are pretty strange, not least the idea that the seller can get out of the legal penalty by proving that the person involved was not "genuinely interested", or

was not a person to whom the seller was likely to be prepared to sell the property.

How bizarre. How might a court be satisfied that someone was not genuinely interested? Should the Commission for Racial Equality be concerned about the second leg of that defence?

What about the problems of enforcement? We all know that local authority trading standards officers are under great pressure. The Association of London Government and the Local Government Association have both expressed their concern about that.

The Minister has also tried to interfere by saying that people should have a prior mortgage offer before they start the process of buying a house. That may make sense in some circumstances, but not in all. Why would the Minister try to bully mortgage lenders in that fashion?

We are not all fortunate enough to have access to the sort of interest-free housing finance that was available to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. We ordinary folk have to go cap in hand to our bank or building society—at least, most of us do. It is up to us and our lenders to decide such matters; it is not for Ministers, who do not have to face the tedium of filling in forms and so on.

We should be in no doubt that the Bill will deter some potential sellers from putting their homes on the market in the first place. It could therefore have a serious effect on house price inflation, and I hope that the Minister has made that clear to his right hon. Friend the Chancellor.

Is it not ironic that, just as the "for-sale" signs will be coming down throughout the country, the "for sale" signs are going up outside Labour headquarters, as millionaires queue up to buy friends and influence the Government with their donations.

In short, the Bill ignores many of the underlying causes of homelessness, and it will not benefit people who are buying and selling houses either. Worse than that, it demonstrates two of the Government's least attractive features. First, it is all spin and no substance. After all this time, and all their empty promises, the Government have failed to tackle the problem of gazumping. Secondly, it shows their inability to resist interfering in people's lives. If seller's packs are such a good idea, why not leave it to individuals to choose to use them? Why seek to impose them on everybody?

The Government are an interfering, nannying, over-regulating, hectoring, bullying, lecturing, bossing, finger-wagging, patronising bunch of know-alls. I therefore invite my right hon. and hon. Friends to support the reasoned amendment.

I remind the House that Mr. Speaker has placed a time limit of 12 minutes on all Back-Bench speeches. That limit will apply from now on.

I will take 12 minutes, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I will be quick.

The Bill has 99 per cent, support in the House and throughout the country, but there are obviously anomalies in any wide spread of housing. There are two problems. First, ex-council houses were sold at great haste by the Conservative party and people were encouraged to buy homes, especially flats, that are now unsaleable. The second problem involves houses that were owned by the National Coal Board.

I shall deal with council houses first. I shall quote what The Star—a Sheffield newspaper—says about a council and a ward that, along with Roy Hattersley, I used to represent 30 years ago. The Liberal council is pulling down tower blocks because they are half empty; no one wants to live there. The newspaper says:

Out of 14 original tower blocks on the estate, nine have been demolished,

but the council has offered one gentleman £7,000 for his home because no one wants to live there. That is all that the council says his house is worth. The headline is "Home and away", but the poor old pensioner wonders where he will find anything for £7,000 if he is evicted.

There are places in all cities that have gone so far down market because of crime, drug peddling, vandalism and poor schools that no one will even rent a house from the council and half the houses stand empty; no one will buy them. That often happens where people have inherited council flats and other properties that the Conservative party sold irresponsibly. I know of a man who inherited a home from his pensioner mother, who paid £5,000 for it. She bought it with her life savings as security for herself. He has offered it back to the council for free, but the council does not want it and he is saddled with all the roof repair costs and so on. That is happening in many inner cities.

When the Tories decided to sell off British Coal in 1987, it owned 178,000 houses, in which miners had traditionally lived, in probably 60 or 70 villages. The word immediately went out to sell the houses; otherwise, British Coal could not be sold. The houses were sold in a disgraceful way. Some 158,000 of them were offered to miners at prices as low as £2,000 or £3,000, but about 20,000 could not be sold. Some of them were made from concrete slabs with rusting ironwork inside, and building societies would not give loans. Others were inhabited by elderly pensioners who did not want to buy their houses. So British Coal, pushed by the then Government, put those houses up for auction and spiv landlords bought them in job lots.

I have a cutting from January 1987, which states that my hon. Friends the Members for Mansfield (Mr. Meale), for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) and my friend Geoffrey Lofthouse, the then hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford, and I proved in an Adjournment debate that I initiated that houses in south Wales and Northumberland were being auctioned in job lots at the Savoy hotel for as little as £3,000 each. They were bought with sitting tenants, only to be put back on the market for £6,000 within three days. People came from Athens and around the world to buy them.

The cutting states that my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) alleged that

210 homes in Alton, Leeds, bought by Manchester Square Associates of London were resold

to another slum landlord, making a quick profit. Spivs—there is no other word for them—who paid an average of £2,000 to £4,000 for terraced houses, got their money back in a year. Sixteen years later, some of those houses are still being rented at £55 a week. About £40 of that money comes from housing benefit, paid to people in desperate circumstances who responded to local newspaper adverts. The landlords packed those pit houses with people who were perhaps homeless, who had been evicted from their homes, who had split from their families or whose cases involved social exclusion, but the landlords never did any repairs.

In the past few years, some pit houses have been done up and modernised. Couples live in them. The houses have central heating and double glazing and have attracted grants for improvements, but the people living in them cannot sell them for £22,000 or £19,000. They have been on the market for two or three years, but there are no buyers for them because slum landlords in such areas refuse to do any repairs.

When the problem families left, the councils said that the landlords should rewire their houses and make them safe, but they did not do that. The landlords would board up the houses and gangs would move in, smash the windows and take out all the radiators, sinks and taps within two days of the houses becoming empty. I would not be surprised to learn that some of those gangs had been organised by slum landlords, who instructed them to wreck the place and take all the stuff out. The landlords would then say, "I'm not putting another tenant in. If the council wants the house, it can have it, but it must pay me £17,000 for a house that is derelict."

When people drive down the streets in mining villages, they see lovely little terraced houses and then two that are wrecked and three that have "gas off" painted on the door. Four of the houses might have rats and others might have bedspreads chucked in the back garden. The council has to organise skips and the people who live there are in the pits of despair. They feel trapped. They say, "No one has even knocked on the door in three years. They drive down the street and see that it looks like Kosovo or Beirut."

I am talking about Warsop and Warsop Vale in my constituency, Pleasley in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield, villages in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and at least 25 other coal mining and textile areas near the M62, which runs from Hull to Bradford and then on to Leeds and Liverpool. As my hon. Friends know, that coal mining and textiles belt contains thousands of houses that nobody can sell. We do not blame my hon. Friend the Minister for that, because he has done a good job generally.

Parts of Wales and Scotland have been regenerated, and now areas of England are at long last being regenerated. New jobs are coming in and new roads are being built. English Partnerships is doing a first-class job, but housing is a total mess. Council houses that the Tories sold off and have ignored ever since stand empty. Tower blocks should not be half full, because they cost as much to maintain, to run the lifts and to heat as they do when they are full. Therefore, councils face the problem of people decanting and of elderly people not wanting to move.

We can almost draw a ring around places in the country that have assisted area status, where there are no buyers for houses in band A. Not even estate agents are interested in such properties. If the people in such houses asked an estate agent to provide a seller's pack, they would probably be told to go somewhere else. The houses cannot be sold, and there is no profit in it for an estate agent to advertise them and to keep them on his books for two or three years.

I remind my hon. Friend the Minister that, in 1998, the coalfields taskforce produced a report on places such as Warsop Vale. It said:

Leaving these worst affected estates to deteriorate further can only lead to a requirement for still greater expenditure in the future, not only to repair the housing infrastructure, but also to remedy the related social problem.

The report added that the Government intended to take action

to provide prioritised funding for 8 to 10 pathfinder Coalfield Neighbourhood Action Areas to address the worst affected former Coal Board Estates.

Although those issues appeared in the report, they were not covered by the Government's response to it.

The law has to change. The compulsory purchase system must return. Positive action must be taken against landlords who refuse to do anything with the property that they own, and prefer, instead, to leave it with smashed windows or boarded up, so that other people in the area cannot sell their property. If that does not happen, the seller's pack, even with the best will in the world, will be of no use to huge pockets of land.

My hon. Friend the Minister said that clause 7 allows him to make exemptions, but in the two weeks over the Christmas period we have been unable to discuss that with our colleagues in the coalfield communities and the House. I hope that in Committee—certainly before the Bill becomes law— we shall address the problem of owner-occupiers who cannot sell their houses.

I wish you a happy new year, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I join the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) in congratulating the Minister on his elevation to the Privy Council.

I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton), who painted a worrying picture of the housing market that, sadly, affects far too many people. If he will bear with me, I hope to pick up on a couple of his points. He is right to say that something needs to be done, but I do not believe that the Bill alone will provide the solution.

There are two ways in which the hon. Member for Bassetlaw could work with others to press the Government to help. First, the regeneration projects to which he referred contain too many overlaps and there is too much bureaucracy surrounding them. If we can find a way to put those different regeneration programmes into a single programme and create easier access to the fund, that will address some of the problems that he mentioned.

Secondly, there is no doubt that Housing Corporation money is increasingly being funnelled towards those areas of the country where there is a major shortage of all types of housing. That is understandable. However, as a result, that money is not readily available in parts of the country where there is no shortage of housing, but where the quality of housing reeds to be significantly improved. I have had private discussions with the Minister on that matter and perhaps the hon. Gentleman might want to join me in voicing such concerns.

Unlike the hon. Member for Eastbourne, I can say with some confidence what I expect my hon. Friends to do: I want them to support the Bill on Second Reading. It contains many measures that are worthy of support. We especially like the aim of speeding up and simplifying the arrangements for house sales and purchases, which are recognised as being as stressful as divorce. We are delighted that there are measures to repeal some of the worst aspects of the Housing Act 1996 in respect of homelessness. We are also delighted that there will be opportunities for increased flexibility in the way in which local authorities can determine their lettings policies to suit local circumstance and to respond to homelessness needs in their area, not least through the important requirement to draw up a homelessness strategy.

Like the hon. Member for Eastbourne, I am not entirely happy with all aspects of the Bill. Many hon. Members have revealed the large number of concerns about the proposals for a seller's pack, which have not been fully thought through. It was revealing to hear the Minister, in response to an intervention, say that the Government would address that point as they work up their proposals. It is clear that work is in progress, but I hope that by supporting the Bill on Second Reading and taking the issues into Committee, we will help him to work up the proposals, and I shall suggest how they can be improved.

It is one thing to draw up a homelessness strategy; it is another to put in place measures to ensure that it is properly implemented. It is vital that local authorities are given the tools to do that.

There is one ghost at the feast. I hope that all hon. Members recognise that the key issue to be resolved is the need to ensure that far more affordable housing is made available throughout the country. The Bill contains nothing that will improve that situation, although the Minister rightly pointed out that the Government are, somewhat belatedly, increasing the funds to build more social housing.

In this country there has long been a requirement that someone who is selling a product must ensure that it is defined as "merchantable", unless it is specifically defined as being otherwise. It is rather odd that the requirement does not apply to one of the biggest purchases that people make, and a measure to include houses in that category is vital. We can debate whether the seller's pack is the best way to do that, but at least it is a strategy for moving in that direction. Although the Bristol trial was not necessarily the fairest means of finding out how the scheme will work throughout the country, the Minister rightly pointed to the example of Denmark, where similar proposals appear to be working satisfactorily.

Concerns have been expressed about the need regularly to update the seller's pack. It is accepted that after three months local authority searches at least will be deemed no longer to be valid. In his response to the hon. Member for Eastbourne, the Minister seemed bizarrely to imply that even if that is the case—I believe it to be so—it does not mean that the seller's pack will have to be updated. Presumably, he is suggesting that after three months the information in the seller's pack can no longer be relied on, which would negate the value of the process. If I misunderstood the Minister, perhaps he will put me right.

Surely, in the hon. Gentleman's example, when the sale eventually takes place, the buyer will have to pay again for a further local authority search to complete the transaction. That contradicts what the Minister said about there being no additional costs.

The hon. Gentleman has followed the debate and participated in it well, but the situation is even more complicated than he suggests because a key point in making the seller's pack a success is that reliance can be placed on it in law. If we are now being told that information contained in the pack may be out of date, the whole issue of where legal liability will lie is called into question. Bearing in mind that three groups of people—sellers, purchasers and, very likely, mortgage providers—will have to rely on the strength of that legal underpinning, we must ask questions about the legal issues surrounding the seller's pack and whether it contains up-to-date information. Matters other than local authority searches might invalidate the information, including events such as the recent storms to which the Minister referred.

The hon. Member for Eastbourne devoted a great deal of his speech to the argument that the Government are doing nothing to deal with gazumping. I failed to hear him make a single suggestion about what his party would do, although, to be fair, he referred to a number of possible proposals. To put the Liberal Democrats' position on the record for the hon. Gentleman, I can say that we are attracted to the system in Scotland, where the requirement to ensure that a deal has been struck, and a commitment made, applies at a much earlier stage than in this country.

Another point that has not been mentioned is that the checking of such a procedure will be the responsibility of local authority trading standards officers. I have already asked the Minister whether he could assure me that any additional costs incurred by local authority trading standards officers would be covered in the local government finance settlement. He pointed out in a letter in response that it was his view, and that of those who advised him, that the total cost of the exercise would be less than £1 million—less than £5,000 per average authority.

I accept the Minister at his word—that that is the advice that he has been given—but very much hope that he will question the advice. I am amazed that he is telling us that an average local authority will spend only £5,000 checking whether the huge new procedure has been introduced, introduced correctly and so on. Perhaps he will come back to us if he receives different advice.

I should like to deal with the point made in an intervention by the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Efford). The Minister rightly referred to the hon. Gentleman's efforts in respect of energy efficiency. The Minister will recall that my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) also tried, under pressure from the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), to introduce legislation to require an energy efficiency audit of each house sold.

The Minister said that the energy studies conducted would form part of the seller's pack—currently that is not stipulated in the Bill—and that they would be, to use his word, tailor-made to each property. I hope that he can confirm that. In fact, I would be grateful if, in a second, he intervened specifically to confirm that that is the Government's intention.

The day before the Christmas recess, the Minister said in a written answer:

It is currently intended that Regulations prescribe the inclusion of an energy report in the seller's pack, and that this will include generic advice on measures to improve energy efficiency, and an indication of the cost and pay back period of each of those improvements.—[Official Report, 21 December 2000; Vol. 360, c. 313W]

Clearly, generic advice is always welcome, but for those whose house already has an insulated boiler, advice on insulating it is not needed. Will the Minister confirm that it is the Government's intention that there will be tailor-made energy efficiency reports as part of the seller's pack?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, even though he did so with the intention of getting an answer. I assure him that the intention is that the energy efficiency element of the home condition report will be specific to a property. However, the number of factors that can be taken into account are limited. That is the purpose of mentioning a generic approach, in which a number of indicators are likely to be covered.

I am most grateful for the Minister's response. When we see more detail of the regulations and guidance—in Committee, I hope—perhaps we will be able to push the point a little further.

I turn to part II, which deals with homelessness. As I have said, we are delighted that some of the worst aspects of the Housing Act 1996 will be repealed. That legislation was put on the statute book primarily as a result of the work of the late Liberal Member of Parliament, Stephen Ross, on the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977.

Like the Minister, I found the Conservatives' amendment somewhat ironic—I choose my words carefully—bearing in mind that their legislation removed from local authorities a responsibility to have permanent concern about the accommodation of homeless people. By removing the right of local authorities freely to use their accommodation, the Conservatives made homelessness even worse.

I do not know whether the Minister was slightly taken aback, as I was, by the many interventions when he was dealing with part I and the important issue of buying and selling houses, whereas only one intervention was made by a Conservative Member on homelessness.

The issue of homelessness is vital, and it is vital that the measures proposed in the Bill are agreed. However, we believe that other measures need to be addressed. If we are to provide the range of support that local authorities will need if they are to help homeless people, councils should be free to invest all their capital receipts from right-to-buy sales in developing new social housing. Local authorities should have more teeth if they are to insist on a much greater proportion of affordable housing in all new developments. We believe that the planning process, through PPG3, is inadequate. There should be other measures such as mortgage rescue packages to prevent homelessness initially.

Labour Members made a key point: a sensible empty homes strategy is vital, but it is missing from the Bill. The Government could do two things almost immediately to end the obscenity of having 150,000 homeless households while having 750,000 empty homes. They could equalise at a lower rate VAT on repairs and renovations. I know that privately the Minister would love to do that. Secondly—it has already been hinted at—they could introduce much stronger compulsory purchase powers for local authorities to bring back into use homes or houses that have been left empty deliberately by unscrupulous landlords.

Is there not a third strand, which is the way in which many council properties are under-occupied? We need policies that will encourage local authorities to get individuals to give up such properties in favour of families. However, before those individuals do so, they must be given a viable alternative, and that is not being offered by housing associations. Only local authorities will be able to deal with the situation. Once again, local authorities must be given the right to spend their own money on providing viable alternatives.

My hon. Friend draws me on neatly to another point, and something that is missing from the Bill. It ties in with what he is saying. Any Member who has read the Bill in any detail will perhaps be surprised that there is no reference to registered social landlords, yet they are to be one of the key providers of affordable accommodation.

I draw the Minister's attention to the part of the Bill that refers to the development of a local authority strategy, which we welcome. The only other body that is to be involved is the local authority's social services department. There is no requirement in the Bill or in the guidance notes for there to be consultation with the registered social landlord. Nothing in the Bill—this is crucial to the point of my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock)—will require a registered social landlord to have a duty to take into account the local authority's homelessness strategy. Only when RSLs and local authorities work in partnership will we begin to tackle some of the problems.

Subsections (3) and (8) of clause 18 refer specifically to local authorities working with voluntary organisations or other bodies that they consider to be capable of helping them. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that that includes registered social landlords.