Local Authorities (England) (Charges for Property Searches) Regulations 2008

I, too, thank the Minister for her explanation of the regulations. On these Benches we believe that the criteria for judging them should be whether in the end a better service will be provided for the home-buyer. It really is not acceptable that anyone should be provided with incomplete search information, but it occurs to me that, if the local authority is able to charge the recovery cost of supplying information, it should certainly provide as much information as it has access to. I have received representations from lobbies on both sides of the argument: vested interests from local authorities and vested interests from commercial organisations which make their living by obtaining these data and selling them on to customers. I should like to put some questions to the noble Baroness. First, however, I want to make a point about the charges. I agree that it is best that charges should be set by local cost determination, but I wonder whether that will lead to postcode charging, as it were. Are local authorities likely to do this through the auspices of the Local Government Association? The order provides that local authorities have to predict the cost for the coming year, using as evidence the costs incurred during the preceding three years. The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, assumed that in a falling property market the charges are likely to be too high. However, I would point out to him—and I shall check with the Minister that I am correct—that, if this is genuine cost recovery and not the cost of funding the whole department which has been built up over preceding years in a booming property market, there may in fact be economies of scale when dealing with a lot of inquiries. Fewer inquiries may cost a little more to deal with but, according to these regulations, I understand that local authorities would not be justified in charging the whole cost of maintaining the data. Can the Minister confirm that, although a local authority may justify charging for modernising and updating the database and the quality of the information that it will supply, it cannot make a charge for the whole cost of maintaining the data; it can charge simply for searching for the data and supplying them to the inquirer? The Local Government Association has a few questions that I should like to put to the noble Baroness. Can she confirm that a charge for access can be applied to every individual property subject to the request rather than to a single request relating to a whole bunch of inquiries that have all been put in together? That relates to the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, about the Land Registry. Further, under these regulations will local authorities have the freedom to differentiate charges based on the level of service? For example, if an inquiry required an urgent response, would the local authority be justified in charging more for that? Finally, what steps will be taken to ensure that local authorities do not overcharge, especially given the current difficulties with the property market? There is bound to be a temptation, shall we say, to do so. The commercial organisations that have written to us have raised an important matter of principle and are threatening judicial review on the issue. I am sure the noble Baroness will have heard rumours about this. They say that the underlying feature of the regulations is the reversal of a long-standing legal presumption enshrined in case law that public information which was freely available is now to be restricted by cost. They wonder whether this will have a major impact on many small businesses and create a precedent that could be used elsewhere. They are most anxious that local authorities charge only the cost recovery and not the whole cost of maintaining the databases. These organisations are also asking about regulation and monitoring. Will this be carried out by the district auditor? In what way will local authorities be checked as to whether it is genuine cost recovery? To the man in the street, the information would be gobbledegook; no one would understand it. It will need someone who is knowledgeable and able to analyse the way in which local authorities publish and charge, and whether or not that is reasonable. How are we going to know that there is a level playing field and equal access to this information? It is right that there should be a level playing field and that taxpayers should not subsidise organisations which are making a profit out of their activities, but it needs to be fair. Some serious questions have been raised on both sides of the argument and I hope that the Minister will be able to answer them.