---

Mr. Edward Davey: Will the Minister explain how the new clause will enable the seller or the seller's agent to identify a person who asks for a HIP?

Keith Hill: Again, the hon. Gentleman must forgive me, because I did not catch the entirety of his question. Will he repeat it?

Mr. Davey: By all means. How will the new clause enable a seller or a seller's agent to be certain of the identity of the person to whom the HIP is being given? Part of the concern is that people—possibly journalists—who want a scoop on, for example, Posh and Becks, might go round estate agents asking for particulars. How will the new clause deal with that aspect of the problem?

Keith Hill: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, we hope to come on to that exact point in later exchanges.
 
11 May 2004 : Column 218
 

Government amendment No. 86 removes clause 150. Government amendment No. 81 is a drafting amendment that ensures that clause 136 is consistent with the idea that the duties set out in clauses 137 to 139 continually apply while a person is the responsible person, and Government amendment No. 82 permits exceptions to that continual duty. For example, clause 138 only creates a legal duty in relation to a particular request, and the amendment ensures that clause 136 is consistent with that approach. Amendment No. 83 is needed to ensure that clause 138(2) is consistent with clause 149(5). As currently drafted, clause 138(2) requires a responsible person to supply copies of the documents that are in the HIP on the date that the request is made.

Clause 149 gives a right to bring legal action for costs against the responsible person if the information that is supplied in the pack is not what is in the home information pack on the date the pack is supplied. It is important that the two duties match up and vital that buyers get the most up-to-date version of the pack.

3.45 pm

Clause 138 sets out some circumstances in which the responsible person may turn down a request for copies without breaching any duty. Amendment No. 84 makes it clear that the responsible person has 14 days to establish whether, on reasonable grounds, they are entitled to turn down a request.

Amendment No. 85 is a drafting amendment that is consequential on new clause 13. Clause 138(8) provides that the period allowed to provide a copy of the pack is 14 days from the date on which the request is made. The amendment makes it clear that that is subject to any extension of that period arising where conditions have been imposed under new clause 13. Clause 138(8A) provides that the duty to provide a copy of the pack ceases when the property is taken off the market or sold before the end of the 14 days. Amendment No. 85 makes it clear that a person will not breach any duty if, for example, he fails to provide a copy of the pack when he has already agreed to sell his house to another person.

Mr. Syms : This important part of the Bill remains controversial among Conservative Members and others, so I suspect that it will lead to a vote. If we catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, we shall want to move amendment No. 88, which would make the provision of a home information pack voluntary, because, having listened to all the arguments in Committee, we are still unconvinced about the scheme's benefits. If it was such a good idea, the industry would adopt it anyway, but imposing it will add substantially to the costs faced by home buyers and may well slow the process down, not speed it up. We were told in Committee that the cost of a home information pack would be about £600, but the bodies to which I have spoken suggest that that would be a minimum amount and that the real cost would quickly move closer to £800 or £900—perhaps even £1,000. That would be a comparatively small cost for the owner of a £1 million property in Chelsea, but a substantial burden on the
 
11 May 2004 : Column 219
 
owner of a home worth £30,000 or £40,000 in the midlands or the north. The scheme will create real problems, especially in areas of low demand.

Mr. David Kidney (Stafford) (Lab): But does the hon. Gentleman agree that most of those costs are already incurred in today's market, the only difference being that the buyer pays them, not the seller?

Mr. Syms: I agree that many of the costs are already imposed, but they usually fall due only when the house is sold, whereas the costs involved in this pack will be incurred when the house goes on the market. Although there is of course no guarantee that it will eventually sell, somebody with a house worth, say, £40,000 in an area of low demand will have to meet the cost at some point—possibly up front, as suppliers of the packs may demand in areas where they have less confidence that the home will be sold. The danger is that those who can ill afford it will have to pay those who have provided the information without the guarantee that they will eventually sell their home. That may be a very material feature when people decide whether they want to put their house on the market—or, indeed, to test the market by putting their house with an estate agent, as many people do in the current conditions. Now, people will be able to test the market only by incurring costs of £600, £700 or £800.

Bob Spink (Castle Point) (Con): Does my hon. Friend agree that his analysis, which I believe to be correct, leads to the conclusion that fewer people will put their houses on the market, which means that supply will be restricted, thus driving up house price inflation?

Mr. Syms: There is a risk of that happening. Indeed, the Minister will need to reassure the House on a number of issues in regard to this project, including the shelf life of a home information pack. Most of the professional bodies to whom I have spoken believe that, following the process of producing the pack and the home condition report, its shelf life would probably be six months—certainly for the home condition report. If a house did not sell, there might therefore be further costs involved in updating aspects of the pack.

We also heard extensively in Committee about the problem of the severe shortage of surveyors, with perhaps 9,000 to 10,000 being needed. Between now and 2006–07, when the scheme will be introduced, substantial efforts will have to be made by all the relevant professional bodies and by the building industry to produce the number of people necessary to undertake the surveys involved. We all get frustrated by the fact that transactions in the housing market sometimes do not proceed as rapidly as they should. I suspect that the answer is more to do with technology than with change, and I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney), who raised these issues in Committee. We had some good debates about how non-paper-based information could be used to speed up the housing market. My colleagues and I are not convinced that a home information pack is the answer.

As I understand it, if someone goes into an estate agent, they will initially get the details of the property. If, having looked at them, they considered themselves a
 
11 May 2004 : Column 220
 
potential buyer, they would ask the estate agent if they could view the home information pack. Under new clause 13, which the Minister introduced, it would need to be supplied within 14 days, and would possibly be subject to a charge or to some kind of legal agreement or conditions, so that a degree of confidentiality could be obtained regarding the information.

I presume that, as the person would still be only a potential buyer at that point, the costs incurred under the new clause would be the costs of printing off and sending the information, and that the full cost of producing a home information pack would be charged only when someone had actually undertaken to buy a property and signed a contract. I presume that the full cost would be met only at that point. So, when new clause 13 states that the

"potential buyer may be required to pay a charge authorised by section 138(7)",

I presume that that refers only to an administrative charge for supplying the information to potential buyers.

Perhaps the Minister can tell the House what has been put down in the Bill as a reasonable charge. At the moment, estate agents provide a nice picture of the property and its details free. No doubt, if a prospective buyer were a little more serious and wanted to view the property, they would ask for the home information pack, and the issue of a charge would arise. Some estate agents might decide to accept that cost as part of their overheads because they wanted to sell the property. Indeed, some owners might decide to carry the cost of printing off and sending out the details because they were desperate to sell. However, under new clause 13, it looks as though an estate agent could levy a charge for the provision of this information.

My concern is that estate agents could charge rather more substantial sums than is envisaged by the Government. No figure has been discussed in relation to the provision of this information to potential buyers, as opposed to the actual buyer. Will the Minister give the House an indication of what such a charge might be? Estate agents have to run their offices, pay their staff, and hold and print the information, and I can envisage some of them providing the information on a paper-based system and having to charge a potential buyer £30 to £40 for it. How will that impact on the way in which the market works?

I would therefore like to hear more about new clause 13. In Committee, we did not really talk about the charge. We talked about the main buyer and the main overall costs. The Minister listed specific aspects of the home information pack and stated what he believed that the charge would be. As I said earlier, he also disputed that it would be more than £600. However, if estate agents or those selling homes are allowed to charge a fee purely for printing a document, putting it in a glossy brochure and sending it through the post—perhaps registered delivery if they do not want the information to be publicly available—the charge under new clause 13(2) could be substantial. How would that impact on the way in which the market works?

I am sorry to say that the Minister's most persuasive and articulate arguments in Committee did not persuade my hon. Friends or me that the new clause was
 
11 May 2004 : Column 221
 
the best way forward. At the appropriate point, we may seek your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, to put amendment No. 88 to the vote so that hon. Members can express how they feel. We believe in voluntary not compulsory procedures. If the market works and the pack is as big an asset as the Government believe, I am sure that the industry will pick it up as a voluntary option, which does not have to be imposed by central Government diktat.

---