|
Mr. Stunell: As the Minister said, this amendment has excited more interest than almost anything else, which is good.
I am extremely sympathetic to the view that we should not disrupt or damage our existing environment as we renew our building stock and develop and change our communities. The first part of the amendment, which sets out the general intention, is fine, but I have some concerns about what follows, which the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet drew to our attention. In our wide-ranging discussion, a number of loose ends have been identified that need to be secured before we go too far.
The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings said that as well as a hierarchy of risk we should have a hierarchy of beauty. For buildings, that is the nightmare scenario. I do not know exactly what His Royal Highness said when the Royal Festival hall was listed, but we are now listing buildings that are 30 years old and from the carbuncle class. We need to be careful when we start talking about a hierarchy of beauty. The hon. Gentleman rather gave himself away when he said that far too many buildings seem to be built on modernist principles. Now, such buildings are listed, so they will be specifically included in the safeguarded group that he is trying to establish. Without elaborating further, I hope that the Committee will take on board the fact that there are difficulties.
I might frame some of the quotations used by the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings to put on my wall. The prospect of the Conservative party believing that the hierarchy of beauty should be more important than the market in developing property and communities in the future is interesting and entertaining. I would like to see how that idea is worked out in further initiatives from his party.
In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North, if we can find a way of covering the broad principle of what she suggests, I would be open to that being included in my Bill. However, I hope that she considers that the widely sweeping inclusions in the second half of her amendment mean that it is not appropriate at this stage.
Ms Walley: I was not quite prepared for such a far-reaching debate. I can tell the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet that in the 17 years that I have been in the House I have never kept out a private Member's Bill. I have no intention of preventing the Bill of the hon. Member for Hazel Grove from reaching the statute book. It is important that we make progress, and I am conscious of time.
Our debate has ranged from Prince Charles to GM to CAMRA and so on. Our discussion has been not least about beauty, and I take the point that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. As the mover of the amendment, I have the final say on the subject, and Stoke-on-Trent, North with its wonderful
Column Number: 026
architectural and industrial heritage is the last word on the subject of beauty.
On the amendment, I have listened carefully to the Minister and the hon. Member for Hazel Grove. I do not see why we could not have further dialogue on the issue as the Bill makes its way through this place and the Lords. I hope that there will be an opportunity for dialogue that will include the hon. Gentleman and the Government, and possibly English Heritage and myself. As the hon. Member for Ceredigion suggested, we are moving towards a new definition of beauty, which is always in the eye of the beholder, in terms of how it relates to new technologies and concepts of sustainability. Certainly, when considering the future of the House and the changes needed in terms of building regulations, we have found that there the whole concept of sustainability is, as yet, unexplored by English Heritage. If my amendment takes that further forward, I will be content. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments made: No. 4, in
No. 5, in
Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 3
Continuing requirements of
building regulations
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr. Thomas: I hope that we approve clause 3. I wanted to note that we are, for the first time, extending duties to Crown buildings. That is a subject that interests the Environmental Audit Committee, on which I—and, indeed, several members of this Committee—sit. I am sure that they and the Minister will be aware that the Environmental Audit Committee has made some criticism in the past of the success or otherwise of Crown properties and buildings in achieving energy efficiency, buying renewable energy and improving environmental performance. I therefore welcome the opportunity provided by the clause to give greater scrutiny to what the Crown achieves in that regard.
To go back to what the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North said, perhaps this is an opportunity to review what the House can achieve in terms of sustainability, too—but we have one decent building, of course.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Column Number: 027
Clause 4
Removal of exemptions and repeals
Mr. Stunell: I beg to move amendment No. 6, in
clause 4, page 5, line 12, leave out subsection (2).
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Promoter's amendment No. 14.
Promoter's new clause 2—Registers of information and documents to be kept by local authorities.
Promoter's amendments Nos. 17 and 18.
Mr. Stunell: Amendments Nos. 6 and 14 are sort of Cox and Box amendments, taking something out of one place and putting it in another. The provision is in the Bill now, and will be there afterwards, but in a different place.
New clause 2 will require local authorities to keep hold of information that they already have and make it available for inspection. The benefit is that, over time, there will be an accessible record of what alterations have been made to a building to improve its sustainability. Those alterations may well not be visible. If one goes to a house built in, say, the 1960s, and asks whether it has cavity wall insulation, one has to take the answer on trust. In due course—not immediately, and the provision will not apply retrospectively—there will be a way of tracking how our building stock is changing and developing. The new clause provides the mechanism for that. It will make open and accessible the service record of buildings that come to the attention of the local authority. I could take the Committee through the details of the various subsections, but bearing in mind the time, I will simply respond to any questions.
11 am
Mr. Hayes: Given the time constraints, I shall ask my question straightforwardly.
This seems to be a good principle, but I am worried about the significant burden on local authorities. The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the fact that no comprehensive register of local authority housing stock exists. Indeed, no central analysis of land use in Britain exists, which is extraordinary when one considers that that is such an important consideration in all kinds of ways. I am worried that by placing this burden on local authorities, he will create an intolerable extra expense. If the job were done properly, it would be a significant task that would require resources and perhaps reskilling and the employment of extra staff. This is a good principle, but has he made any assessment of the burden?
Mr. Stunell: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's broad support for the proposal. He will see from the way in which it is drafted that there will be further consultation and detailed regulation, so it is not a done deal. My intention is that the clause should introduce a provision with modest implications for local authorities, which currently receive the information, although nothing else happens to it after work has been completed.
Column Number: 028
Dr. Iddon: I think that I am right in saying that in the discussions in the Housing Bill Standing Committee, the hon. Gentleman's party was against the principle of what I still call seller's packs, which are otherwise known as housing information packs. Would it not be simpler and less of a burden on local authorities for such information to be included in the HIPs? Has he considered that?
Mr. Stunell: I have considered all sorts of things, but I do not want to go beyond the scope of this debate and reopen the debate on seller's packs. I assure the hon. Gentleman that my party does not resist the principle of seller's packs. The current proposal provides something that goes beyond domestic properties and would be available for a whole range of properties. In the context of alterations to the Building Act 1984, it is a worthwhile mechanism to ensure that the information collected by local authorities in pursuance of that Act is available for public inspection.
Mr. Challen: Has the hon. Gentleman discussed this measure with the Local Government Association, and has the potential cost been assessed?
Mr. Stunell: I have not had discussions about this clause with the LGA, although I understand that it gives general assent to the proposals. The Minister may be able to respond to that, but I cannot do so, although I agree with the hon. Gentleman's underlying point. It is important that we do not impose uncosted burdens on local authorities. I feel that strongly with my own local authority background. I am a stern critic of Government unloading functions and expenses on to authorities and not providing the means to pay for them. Although I do not exactly ask him to take it on trust, I hope that he will understand that I am on his side with regard to not imposing burdens on local authorities.
| 
