| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Thirdly, I come to the point about home inspectors. We were confident about the numbers and in the summer we gave the figure of 7,500. But as the training went through, it became clear from the pace of qualification that we could not predict with certainty that we would have that number of qualified home inspectors in place by next June. People were coming into the scheme either from the surveying profession or, as was the case of the brother of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, from scratch. They were progressing at their own pace and were therefore qualifying at different rates. Taking all those concerns together, to have pushed ahead with all aspects of the home information packs as well as home condition reports in one big bang on a single day next June would have been irresponsible. We could not take that risk on behalf of the consumer.
I shall turn briefly to where we are now. We understand the impact on the industry, although I was interested to note that membership of the Association of Home Information Providers has seen a net gain, while the number of early adopters has increased. But the most important element concerns the serious personal consequences this has had for individuals, and we do not minimise that. The Secretary of State was quick to apologise, and that apology was very sincerely meant. We do not believe that it is appropriate to offer compensation for reasons I will explain. The trials and testing involved in the voluntary rollout will absorb people in training. Some 470 home inspectors have completed their training and 177 have been issued with their diploma. The first of those qualified inspectors will be involved in the trials we are about to start and
11 Oct 2006 : Column 337
We are now investing in a very serious process of trials and testing. It involves only six areas, but they are very different and discrete, and so we think we can achieve a real result. The first of the recruitment evenings took place last night. Some 200 organisations have shown an interest in these preparations, and 75 are already involved in the dry run. Moreover, the private sector will be very firmly encouraged to take part. Government office staff and time have been committed to support the trials and regional publicity campaigns will be run. The trials will examine the take-up and use of both the HIP and the home condition report. Certificated home inspectors will be involved, as well as estate agents and so forth. We need to understand the impact and how useful the pack is not just on the process but also on the quality of the experience in order to maximise its benefits. Will we need to change some of the emphases? Will it need to be fine-tuned in some ways? How can we accelerate the benefits and maximise the impact of energy performance certificates? Money will be used for communication and advertising, and we will be offering incentives in the form of a limited number of free packs as well as packs in which the mandatory element will be provided to the seller free of charge, leaving them free to pay for the HCR, and packs provided on a no-sale, no-fee basis. This is a trial and it will be empirical.
What is most important—and here I respond to the noble Earl, Lord Caithness—is that the trials will be evaluated by independent researchers who will monitor them in order to provide an objective understanding of what is happening. The results will feed back into the process and will be published in order to inform our decisions. So in essence our policy is to make a success of the rollout by evaluating the trials as comprehensively as possible. We will keep Members of this House as well informed as we can, along with lenders and all those who go along with us.
In response to questions put by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, we will look to see whether people genuinely feel better informed and more confident as a result of the pack. We expect these trials to confirm the benefits which have been found in Denmark, for example, where recent research found overwhelming support for the positive benefits. I can make that research available to noble Lords. We will also look at how long transactions take to complete without packs and whether they prevent transaction failures. While
11 Oct 2006 : Column 338
As for first-day marketing, we cannot prescribe in relation to that, as these are trials, but we hope to look at various factors including the impact of allowing marketing to commence once a home information pack has been commissioned. I will write further to noble Lords on that point.
Finally, we have also made real progress in the certification process. The first certification scheme is now going through the approval process. It will be run by the Surveyors and Valuers Accreditation, which will manage the registration. It will ensure that each inspector has PI insurance. As regards registration, a preferred bidder has been found in Landmark Solutions and that will provide us with the database. The DTI has also announced the criteria that the Secretary of State will use to assess the suitability of applicants to run the redress scheme that will be available to anyone who has a complaint. This will offer protection against unscrupulous agents.
The regulations will be amended and we will come forward with them early next year. The home condition report will be an authorised document—that is one change that will be made in the regulations—and the energy performance certificate will be a mandatory document. We will publish detailed information on the website. I am very sorry that the noble Baroness did not have a reply and I will look into it.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, if the regulations are being revised, what is the status of the regulations issued in July? Are they being withdrawn or are they being allowed? They have had a great hole blown in them. What is their status?
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, my understanding is that, having been laid and passed in the other House, they stand. They will be reintroduced to be amended. If I am wrong about that I shall write to the noble Baroness.
I have probably not answered to the full satisfaction of noble Lords some of the personal issues that have been raised. However, I shall read Hansard very carefully tomorrow and reply in more detail as and when I can. Again, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for the opportunity to have this debate. I will keep the House informed as we go through this process.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure for one minute.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.51 to 8.52 pm.]
11 Oct 2006 : Column 339
Armed Forces Bill
Clause 122 [Powers of CO after charge]:
[Amendments Nos. 92 and 93 not moved.]
Clause 124 [Powers of DSP in respect of charge allocated for Court Martial trial]:
Lord Drayson moved Amendment No. 93A:
The noble Lord said: In moving AmendmentNo. 93A, I will also speak to Amendments Nos. 93B, 94, 94A, 94B and 139A. Let me set these amendments in context. Up to now, we have been dealing with the way in which the military criminal justice system deals with the most serious offences, including those committed on operations. The integrity of the system is essential to the confidence in which it is held. At one extreme, as we have already discussed, a soldier who acts within the rules of engagement and whose actions are reasonable can be confident that he will be found to have acted within the law. So if he kills somebody in those circumstances, he will not be guilty of murder.
It is just as important that a soldier has confidence in the summary discipline system, which, of course, will continue to deal with some 95 per cent of all service offences. Part of that confidence comes from knowing that he can exercise his right to elect trial by the court martial and that there will be no disincentive to do so.
These are minor amendments that ensure that there is no ambiguity in the provisions that relate to where an accused elects trial by the court martial. I have written to noble Lords about these amendments and trust that, given the reassurance that they will further protect the accused’s position, the Committee will accept them. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Drayson moved Amendment No. 93B:
(c) where the charge is in respect of an offence which would be a relevant offence for the purposes of section (Sentencing powers of Court Martial where election for trial by that court instead of CO) (election for trial by Court Martial) if the accused were convicted or acquitted of it.( ) Subsection (3)(c) does not apply in relation to powers under subsection (2)(e) (which are restricted by section 129).”
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 124, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 128 [Right to elect Court Martial trial]:
Lord Drayson moved Amendment No. 94:
Page 62, line 15, leave out from “accused” to “an” in line 16 and insert “are to be heard summarily together,”
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 128, as amended, agreed to.
11 Oct 2006 : Column 340
Clause 129 [Further consequences of election for Court Martial trial]:
Lord Drayson moved Amendments Nos. 94A to 94B:
“(2) The Director of Service Prosecutions (“the Director”) may not without the written consent of the accused refer to a commanding officer, under section 124(2)(e)-
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 129, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 130 and 131 agreed to.
Clause 132 [Detention: limits on powers]:
Earl Attlee moved Amendment No. 95:
The noble Earl said: In moving AmendmentNo. 95, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 96 and 162 but not to Amendments Nos. 97, 160 and 161.
Everyone in the Armed Forces dreads the term “military detention”. But the Committee will be aware that it is very effective not just as a punishment but for personal development. Military detention is a good thing; it is not like prison.
Sixty days’ military detention is quite sufficient. I agree that the Royal Navy has in the past enjoyed90 days as a maximum, with extended powers from superior authority, but if the Army could survive for so long with a detention period of only 60 days, why does it now need a 50 per cent increase?
9 pm
Clause 294, to which Amendment No. 162 relates, sensibly provides that a person sentenced to service detention may not be detained in a prison, because detention is not imprisonment—it is much better and much more effective. However, there is no provision for flexibility, so what happens in the event of a vehicle breakdown or perhaps a fire in the intended accommodation or some other emergency? The servicemen need to be kept in detention. The obvious solution would be to put them in a prison overnight, but to tell the prison authorities to look after them and perhaps treat them as remand prisoners. I do not understand why there is no flexibility in the sensible provision prohibiting servicemen who are in detention from being kept in a prison. I beg to move.
Lord Garden: I support Amendments Nos. 95 and 96 of the noble Earl, Lord Attlee. In our discussions with the Bill team, we have spoken on occasions about the difficulty of harmonising the various traditional punishments available to the three services, which have differed over the years. I agree with the noble Earl that it seems unnecessary in this case to harmonise upwards from 60 days to 90 days to accommodate the Royal Navy, detention being different from imprisonment.
11 Oct 2006 : Column 341
However, I disagree with the noble Earl on his Amendment No. 162. Given that the offences for which detention is imposed are, by their nature, less severe than those that would bring imprisonment, we do not need to include circumstances in which people may be put in prison when they have been sentenced to detention.
Viscount Slim: I have wondered about this matter. I hope that the Minister will give a good explanation. Detention is not imprisonment. Sixty days has always been sufficient as a maximum in my experience. I do not see why we have to go up the hill.
Lord Drayson: The powers of punishment that a commanding officer should be able to impose have been very carefully considered by the Ministry of Defence. In determining that 90 days should be the maximum period of detention that a commanding officer can impose, we sought to balance the needs of each of the services, to avoid any unnecessary increase in the numbers of courts martial and to ensure fairness to individuals who face charges. Summary justice has the distinct advantage of providing a speedy but fair outcome for an accused person.
However, we have also included significant protections in the exercise of these powers. In particular, the power to impose any period of detention that is greater than 28 days will require a commanding officer to get agreement from higher authority. The accused will know before a hearing whether the commanding officer has been given such authority. There will also be a universal right to elect; there will be an automatic right to appeal; and sentences of detention will not begin until the time for an appeal has elapsed or an appeal has been heard, unless the accused agrees to the detention starting before then.
Under Clause 294, those sentenced to service detention may be held in service custody, but not detained in prison. Modern transportation and the availability of service custody facilities for temporary accommodation mean that it would never be necessary to accommodate someone in a civil prison—and there are no longer any military prisons. Amendment No. 162, which provides for this, is therefore unnecessary. I hope that the noble Earl feels able not to press his amendments following my explanations.
Earl Attlee: I am grateful for the Minister’s response. First, he said that to impose a sentence in excess of 28 days should need a higher authority’s permission, but that has always been the case. It is not a new provision, certainly as far as the Army is concerned. How often has the Royal Navy used a period of detention in excess of 60 days? Does the Minister have any evidence on that? If he does not have it to hand, perhaps he could write to me and let me know how often that has happened.
I am grateful for the Minister’s response to Amendment No. 162, although I can understand noble Lords’ lack of enthusiasm for it. I am grateful for his assertion that it will never be necessary to resort to putting servicemen in a prison. If that is his assessment of the situation, that is fine. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
11 Oct 2006 : Column 342
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 134 [Reduction in rank: limits on powers]:
Clause 136 [Service compensation orders: maximum amount]:
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (The Countess of Mar): I remind noble Lords that if Amendment No. 98 is agreed to, Amendments Nos. 99 and 100 cannot be moved.
Lord Drayson moved Amendment No. 98:
“(3) If it appears to the Secretary of State that there has been a change in the value of money since the relevant date, he may by order substitute for the sum for the time being specified in subsections (1) and (2) such other sum as appears to him justified by the change.
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 98 meets the points addressed in Amendments Nos. 99 and 100 on the power to increase the maximum level of compensation, and I urge noble Lords to accept it. I beg to move.
Earl Attlee: I cannot say whether I tabled my amendment before the Minister tabled his, but I am grateful to him for accepting the principle that there should be some limitation on the ability to change the figures concerned.
Lord Garden: There are three amendments all aiming to achieve the same thing, and I add my support for this one. I am very happy with the Government’s amendment.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |