---

Climate Change and Sustainable Energy Bill

That is a bit of a non sequitur, is it not? As a result of such privatisation, house builders are entitled to ask a range of different people to carry out building inspections. If a builder fails to employ a building inspector or to produce certificates, they fail to comply with the building regulations. However, under the new clause, instead of the onus being placed on the building inspector, it is the constructor who will be subject to prosecution, and long after the event. The extent of the powers being taken in the new clause is absolutely unconscionable. The normal principle in a magistrates court is that someone has to receive a summons or similar information within six months of committing an offence, and we know how that process operates with speeding or other motoring offences, for example. Unless someone is charged within a maximum of six months of committing such an offence, it is, in a sense, time-expired. The thinking behind that principle is that such a person cannot possibly recall exactly what they were doing more than six months after laying such information before a court. That is the background to section 127(1) of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980, which provides an important safeguard against the abuse of arbitrary power. In essence, it says that anyone who is going to charge somebody with an offence had better get on with it. There is no reason why building inspectors should be unable to have the relevant information at the time when the building in question is being constructed. Six months is obviously a reasonable period within which they or the owner of the building can be prosecuted if there has been a failure to comply with the regulations. Why should the period be extended beyond that? Implicit in the new clause is the belief that there is a problem with identifying whether there has been a breach of the building regulations, but surely such matters should be the responsibility of the building inspector, who has a statutory duty in this regard. If there is collusion between a building inspector and a developer—it seems that the hon. Member for Hazel Grove thinks that that has been happening—that is a separate issue. That would be a conspiracy to break the law. There is no time limit for the initiation of prosecution. Conspiracy is a serious criminal allegation and a serious criminal charge. If there is a conspiracy between a developer or the builder of a house and a building inspector to try to mislead on whether the building regulations have been complied with, that is not covered by the time limit, because that would be a conspiracy. In a situation short of a conspiracy, why do we need to make an exception to the general principle that is set out in section 127(1) that for such an offence any information should be laid within the period of six months? In the new clause, the Government are saying that such information can be laid within two years rather than six months. That is subject only to the qualification that information is laid within six months beginning with what is described as ““the relevant date””. That is the date"““on which evidence sufficient to justify the proceedings comes to the knowledge of the person commencing the proceedings.””" An incredibly wide power is being taken by the Government. Subsection (5) says that if the person bringing the proceedings is a local authority—it does not matter if it is anybody else—"““evidence is to be regarded . . . as sufficient to justify the proceedings if in the opinion of the proper officer . . . it is sufficient to justify the proceedings.””" In other words, there is no objective assessment. There is no scope for this to be justiciable in the court. Why not? Why is the power of the court being ousted in terms of whether or not the person, in bringing the proceedings, should have known, could have known or did know that the offence had been committed prior to the period of six months beginning with knowledge of the information? Why should that power be contained in the subsection? Surely the test of whether the relevant date has been satisfied should be an objective one that the court can investigate as to when the knowledge of the person commencing the proceedings was such that he or she felt that there was sufficient information to enable the proceedings to be brought. Paragraph (b) is a further affront to those of us who believe that evidence should be assessed by courts rather than on the basis that the evidence is as it is if some official says it is. That is no way in which to bring people to conviction following a prosecution. Why is it that this issue is not to be allowed to be justiciable? That is outrageous and entirely over the top. Of course, that is typical of so many things that the Government are doing at the moment. They are playing fast and loose with our civil liberties. This is a little measure to be brought in under the umbrella of a Bill that people may think is of no great issue. The result could be that people, long after the event, are being accused of offences, and at that stage no longer having the material available to enable them to defend themselves. That is the essence of the proposal before us. I am extremely concerned that the Government should want to introduce such a measure. Like much regulation we see in this House, the provisions we are considering are based on a failure to ensure that the existing system operates properly. We have a system of building regulations and a requirement, which is separate from planning permission, for a building inspector’s approval of new houses and alterations. Now we are saying that, notwithstanding that approval and even in cases in which there is no conspiracy, if it comes to light within two years that there has been an alleged breach of building regulations, it will result in a prosecution. In my submission, that could end up—as my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle suggested—being counterproductive. Only time will tell, but the provision is in any case oppressive and should not be included in the Bill. I shall oppose it.