Stephen
Pound: I shall remind myself of my
injunction not to trespass on your patience, Mr. Bayley. On
HIP inspectors, does the hon. Gentleman not accept that access to this
specialist training, although the training is specific in a certain
sense, widens the opportunities available to such people, and that
there are a number of roles that will still be available to them which
would not have been available had they not completed the training? It
is not an ideal situation, but such people are now vastly better
qualified, and jobs analogous to that of a paralegal are now available
to them.
Andrew
Stunell: I take that intervention as
being a note of desperation. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman
was present, but the hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs.
Curtis-Thomas) told the House yesterday that she was taking up the
training, and the more training there is, the more job opportunities
there areperhaps the hon. Member for Crosby had that in mind
when she undertook the training. Yes, trained is better than untrained,
but employed is better than unemployed. That brings me to the most
important factor, which is that many of
the people who have undertaken the training have done so at their own
expense. Yesterday I drew the attention of the House to a report that I
had received from one of the participants in the course provided by
Reading university. Four hundred and eighty people are undertaking
training in courses that are supervised by that university and they
have put £8,500 on the table to do so. In a specific case, there
were travelling costs from quite a distance away to attend that course.
All of that has been invested by people who thought they were training
to take up a franchise that was on offer from what we might call not so
much a major multinational as a major nationalthe
Government.
The
Government had a scheme and those people could buy into the franchise
by putting some money on the table, getting the training and
accreditation and then doing it. Much as I weep for Rightmoves
loss of share value, what is far more important, as the hon. Member for
Surrey Heath said, is the impact on the individuals who have been drawn
into this and are now
stranded. I offered
the Minister a way out yesterday. It may be that the hon. Lady will say
that the number of people who have been trained or are on training
courses is so small that they will be just the right number to deal
with those buyers and sellers who go with the voluntary
scheme. We know that
the voluntary scheme will be about10 per cent. except that we
know that that figure is overly optimistic. If she is going to tell us
that only about 5 per cent. of the necessary number for a compulsory
scheme have been trained and that they will be employed, that is
finethey will fill the gaps. It is another matter whether there
may be a high density of people around the area of Reading and a
serious deficit in the north-east of Britain. Let us assume that people
are in the right place.
If those figures stack up, the
Minister may be able to say, no problem; do not worry; everyone
has got a job. However, if she cannot say that, what is she
going to say to those people who have invested their savingsin
some cases, people who have borrowed against a business proposition in
order to qualify and find themselves with that proposition kicked away
from underneath them? We need to know the answer to
that. I would like to
deal with the overall costs and savings predicted under this scheme. As
I say, we do have a difficulty in that we cannot tell what is going to
happen now because it was not one of the options evaluated by the
impact assessment. I shall not go down the route of saying that we
should not make any changes until we have an impact assessment, but
might the Minister undertake that a similarly rigorous examination of
the current option will be done and made available to Committee Members
at some future date? I would not want to stand in the way of taking a
decision today at all.
However, if
one looks at the figures that appear on page 53 of the regulatory
impact assessment, under the existing system, described as option
Athe existing scheme plus the energy certificatethe
cost per successful transaction is said to be £1,696. Option
Cthe home information pack excluding the home condition report,
but on a compulsory basisis £1,642. That is to say, it
is £54 cheaper than the existing system.
The voluntary system is not
dealt with here at all. It is difficult to see what it might produce.
Let us take the figure of a £35 million saving for a 10 per
cent. take-up, which appears in the paper as being a valid figure. It
seems possible that the new scheme might save, at the national level,
about £100 million out of an overall cost of £2 billion
for house buying and selling over a year. Whether or not the Minister
is in a position to say yes, no or
maybe, that figure should be before the
Committeeif not now, then certainly by way of
follow-up. We are in
an unusual situation. We have a 54-page explanation and impact
assessment about a set of regulations and it is none of the
above, as they say in electoral circles. We have a wonderful
exposition in great detail of a scheme that we are not approving
today. I appreciate
that the Minister has taken a sensible and pragmatic view. It has
inevitably been at short notice. However, it means that we are at
something of a disadvantage in trying to bring critical thought to bear
on the current scheme. Anything that the Minister can do to satisfy us
on those points will be welcome.
I said
yesterday that I believe that, in the circumstances, the Minister has
made the right choice. I am extremely pleased that energy certification
has not been lost. It is important not to lose sight of the underlying
objective of the process, which was supposed to be to make the buying
and selling of houses faster, cheaper and less stressful. I hope that
the Minister can give us at least a clue as to how her thinking has
advanced since Tuesday towards what she sees as being the next steps in
that
process. 3.11
pm
The
Minister for Housing and Planning (Yvette Cooper):
It is a pleasure to serve on a Committee under your chairmanship,
Mr. Bayley.
I shall try to respond to some
of the points that have been made this afternoon. Clearly, the
regulations must be amended in light of the statement that was made
earlier this week. They stand, but will need to be amended. Many of
them concern things that need to be taken forward, but othersin
particular, regulations 8 and 11will need to be adapted. There
will also be a series of consequential changes, some minor and some
significant. I can
inform the Committee that the RIA that was produced with the
regulations is not accurate and will need to be revised. In revising
the RIA and developing revised regulations, we will take account of
some of the baseline research into the state of the market and the home
buying and selling process that is being done at the moment. We hope
that it will be completed over the next few months, but it could not be
incorporated into the previous RIA process. We need the regulations to
stand to be able to set out the other contents of the HIP, to
facilitate full testing as part of the dry run and to allow
certification schemes to be considered and developed. Given that we
intend to proceed with HIPs from 1 June, we need to be able to deliver
them. We
made clear in the written statement our intention to phase in the
introduction of home condition reports on the basis of testing. There
is still a clear difference of principle between us and Opposition
Members, who
have always opposed all aspects of HIPs. We still believe that they have
a powerful role to play in improving energy efficiency information, the
environment and the situation for consumers who are buying and selling
their homes, so HIPS should include searches, energy information and
surveys. We are clear about the need to promote HCRs and to encourage
their take-up. Their impact will be valuable for consumers, given their
potential to cut failed transactions, to speed up the time taken on
sales and to give people information about their prospective homes that
they would not otherwise have.
Mr.
Hands: Conservative Members also welcome support for
consumers. In the Westminster Hall debate on HIPs that I initiated on
24 May, the Minister quoted at length to show her support from
Which?, the leading consumer body in favour of HIPs. Can she
tell us about any conversation that she had with Which? either
just before or just after this weeks
announcement?
Yvette
Cooper: I have spoken to people at Which? and they
are very disappointed that we are not able to go ahead with the full
roll-out from 1 June next year. I understand that. We still agree with
Which? that HIPs that include searches, surveys and energy
information will be valuable for consumers, but we had to take
decisions based on the readiness of the market, the information pulled
together and the plans for testing.
We concluded that a big bang
implementation on1 June of next year would not be in the best
interests of consumers. I understand that people have different views
on that, but that was our pragmatic judgment. As a result, we want to
proceed with HIPs including the energy information aspect, which we
think is critical, and the searches, but we will promote a phased and
voluntary take-up of the HCRs. We have said that the mandatory approach
remains on the
table. There is a
difference between that approach and the voluntary one set out in the
RIA, which was referred to by the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Andrew
Stunell). We are not talking about the voluntary take-up of the whole
of an HIP, but the introduction of HIPs with searches and energy
performance certificates. The question is whether we can promote
voluntary top-ups for a full HCR and HIP. Clearly, that needs to be
tested as part of the trial.
The dry-run trials will test
concerns such as the workability of the systems, the attitudes of
people towards energy performance certificates and HCRs and the
consequences and impact that they might havethings that we
always intended to test. We will also look at further options for
promoting take-up, incentives that might be needed, possible barriers
to a marketplace roll-out of full HCRs and any other measures that
could be
taken
Andrew
Stunell: I think that I have understood correctly.
Is the Minister saying that there will be a roll-out of a full pack in
some areas and a half-pack in others and that we shall see what works
in different areas? Or will we have a mixture so that, in one street,
someone might be on the half-pack, someone else on the full pack and
another person on the no pack? Will she describe how
she envisages that working?
Yvette
Cooper: Obviously, the hon. Gentleman
will appreciate that we are still discussing that in some detail with
stakeholders and the industry. I hope that hon. Members will understand
that there was a limit to how far we could discuss the next steps
before the written statement this week. We felt that it was important
to inform Parliament of our position. Obviously, the statement included
market-sensitive information, and although we held detailed
consultations with stakeholders, a lot remains to be worked through in
the light of the written
statement. The first
phase of the analysis that we propose to carry out over the summer will
include customer attitude testing and an analysis of about 15,000 HIPs
so far producedthat might be the wrong number, but I think that
I used the correct one yesterday. I was asked how many of those had
been included in the surveysvery few of them; most were simply
the HIPs with the searches. Nevertheless, important work needs to be
done to analyse those and the impact of customer
attitudes. We will
also be looking at the appropriate design of the next phase of the dry
run and the area trials. We have always been clear that the industry
will want to conduct roll-outs themselves and that there will be value
in monitoring the industry-led roll-out across the countrynot
in specific areas, but in work separate to ours. We are interested in
having proper independent monitoring that would report back publicly on
its conclusions. We
are also exploring the appropriateness and workability of area-based
trials. There are many ways that they could work. As I said in the
House yesterday, the Government are keen to consider different
approaches. As part of the dry runs design, we will be
considering different approaches to both voluntary and mandatory
take-up. We will not simply consider HIPs with energy performance
certificates, although clearly we need to ensure that the mechanisms
for them work effectively in time for 1 June. We must ensure that we
have tested them effectively and that we test the home condition
reports as
well. I
will give the House and the public more information about the details
of the dry runs as further work gets under way. I am happy to share
that information. It is important that the dry run and area-based
trials work
effectively.
Andrew
Stunell: I appreciate it that the Minister is trying to
help us. Could she give us some indication of when she expects the
area-based trials to start? How long must they last to produce viable
results? What will be the evaluation period beyond the
trials?
Yvette
Cooper: We originally envisaged that the area-based trials
might start in early autumn and therefore that it might be possible to
make results available in the new year and early spring. Any late
changes could be based on those results and made in time for
implementation on 1
June. We
concluded that to test the HCR properly, it would take longer to get
the detailed trials up and running, and that four or five months would
not be long enough. Therefore, the risk of having to make late changes,
particularly involving the HCR, was significantly higher than we had
thought. To make late changes or delay the programme would be costly
and undesirable for consumers
and the industry. We recognise that there are concerns about this
weeks decision, but we feel nevertheless that it is the right
and pragmatic thing to do, rather than increasing the risk of having to
make late changes. I
cannot yet confirm how long we think the dry run trials will take. We
are evaluating them to ensure that they work effectively, but we think
that there will be appropriate time. Given that so many HIPs have been
introduced already without surveys, we think that there will be time to
trial them with energy performance certificates before 1 June. We are
working to ensure that the details are under
way. The hon. Member
for Surrey Heath asked aboutthe approach being taken to energy
performance certificates. The advantage of including energy performance
certificates in HIPs is that it allows a survey on the houses
overall condition to be combined with a visit to assess its energy
efficiency and carbon emissions. There are significant benefits to
combining the two, because many of the things that the surveys evaluate
are similar. We think that introducing energy performance certificates
as part of HIPs will have significant benefits to consumers.
We are among the first European
countries to introduce energy performance certificates. Some are ahead
of usDenmark, for exampleso we do not pretend to be the
first. Nevertheless, we are ahead of many other European countries in
doing so. We are also going further than the European directive in a
number of important ways.
The hon. Member for Surrey
Heath is right: according to the EU directive, energy performance
certificates must be completed for homes being sold or rented afresh.
Someone who has been living in their home for 10 years and expects to
be there for another 20 will not need an energy performance certificate
under the EU
directive. The
energy performance certificates only have to be updated every 10 years
under the EU directive. As I understand itI am sure that wisdom
will wing its way to me if I have misunderstoodif someone sells
on their home within two years, they will still be compliant under the
EU directive if they use the energy performance certificate from two
years ago, or from three years ago if that was the last time the home
was sold and the certificate was prepared at that point.
Clearly, at a
time when we want to promote changes and improvements in energy
efficiency in our homesit is particularly important that 27 per
cent. of carbon emissions come from our homesit is essential
that the information is updated. To have updated information at the
point at which a home is sold again seems to have considerably more
value than simply complying with the letter of the EU directive, which
would allow people to use an outdated energy performance
certificate.
|