Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Raynsford:
I agree with my hon. Friend, but such things take time and I would not expect to see an immediate reaction. Over time, the implementation of the reform will help to instil confidence in the system. The failure of the present system is attributable to the fact that it is inherently unsatisfactory. It requires buyers to make a commitment on what is probably the largest financial transaction of their lives without adequate information on the property that they
propose to acquire. That self-evidently absurd way of proceeding could not be justified in any other field of commerce. The hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) asked why we did not propose EPCs at the point of sale. If he thought about it, he would realise what an absurd proposition that was. It would be absurd to be given an assessment of a fridges performance only at the point at which one had agreed to buy it, instead of when considering competing models and deciding which is the most energy efficient. That encapsulates the nonsense of the present house buying and selling process and shows why reform is necessary.
Robert Neill: Is not the downside of that the real risk that requiring an EPCwhich is a good idea, and that has always been the view of Conservative Membersup front adds to the sellers risk of abortive costs? Those costs are likely to be passed on to the buyer, so it is not as simple as the right hon. Gentleman makes out.
Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. The seller puts the property on the market and commissions the EPC. If there are problems with the property, it may prompt the seller to carry out improvements, because he will know that they will give him a better chance of selling. That may help to achieve some cost-effective improvements in the property, but that is entirely in the sellers hands. Abortive costs will arise only if the seller chooses to withdraw the property from the market, whereas in the example I gave prospective buyers who have commissioned surveys, searches and other reports lose their money for reasons entirely out of their control.
Mr. Bailey: The hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) said that the bureaucratic burden on local authorities of the increased number of searches for house sellers would result in the housing market drying up. Given that buyers currently have to get a search on houses they wish to buy and if that purchase falls through other would-be buyers have to have the same search done, does my right hon. Friend agree that the hon. Gentlemans point is illogical?
Mr. Raynsford: My hon. Friend makes his point well. I notice that the hon. Member for Surrey Heath did not seem to understand the clear and impeccable logic of my hon. Friends argument.
Many of the professional bodies that oppose the introduction of HIPs do very well out of the present system. If searches are made repeatedly by different buyers, the solicitors benefit. When valuations are commissioned by mortgage lenders, they make money on the process each time. In many cases, they make rather a lot of money. If the valuation has to be done repeatedly on the same property, they are not out of pocket. No wonder they like the existing system. Every time a surveyor is commissioned to conduct a valuation or survey, their fees are paid, so they are not in a hurry to promote changes to the system, which involves waste to the consumer and the public. This is, therefore, an issue of public interest.
I regretted the Governments decision last summer to abandon one of the core elements of the schemethe
mandatory home condition reports. That is a fundamental element that will have to be reintroduced and I hope that the Government will recognise that in due course. But I do not believe that we should delay the introduction of HIPs in the hope of getting something better. That would allow the best to be the enemy of the good. We need to get the new arrangements up and running from 1 June and then seek to improve them in due course.
Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: Like me, my right hon. Friend is concerned about the quality of homes and the safety of individuals. Does he agree that this measure will do much to ensure that the homes that people purchase are safe and efficient, and will enable them to understand that before they make a significant commitment?
Mr. Raynsford: My hon. Friend has much experience in this area, and she is right to say that it is all about improving the information available to the public. I personally believe that mandatory home condition reports would have done even more than the present package, but I hope that we will reach that point in due course. I certainly do not want to see any backing away from the implementation of HIPs.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Raynsford: If I am to make progress as Mr. Deputy Speaker has asked, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that I cannot take any further interventions.
I do not share the apocalyptic visions of meltdown in the housing market that some of the opponents of HIPs have forecast. They rather remind me of the similar prophecies of doom preceding the introduction of the licensing arrangements in November 2005. On both occasions, the cheerleader was the Daily Mail, but that newspaper was entirely wrong about the licensing arrangements. The Government held their nerve at that time: I hope that they will do the same now and that they will not be persuaded to do anything other than proceed with a reform that is in the long-term interest of the consumer.
I want to highlight two specific items very briefly, and the first is the benefit that HIPs will bring to first-time buyers. The Opposition talk about them frequently, but now the House has an opportunity to do something that is unquestionably in their interest. My hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning has made it clear that they will get all the benefits of the HIP at no cost. The Opposition claim to be the friends of first-time buyers, so why are they not welcoming this measure?
Secondly, on the issue of energy performance certificates: we know that the Government have made real progress in driving up the standards of new homes. When I was a housing Minister, I was proud to be part of the process of ratcheting up part L of the building regulations. The Government have taken that process further, and I applaud that. However, new housing makes up only 0.8 per cent. of the total housing stock each year.
Michael Gove: That is not correct.
Mr. Raynsford: If the hon. Gentleman looks back over time, he will find that the rate of addition to the housing stock has been at about 1 per cent. every year for a very long time. If we are serious about taking quick action to improve energy efficiency, we have to tackle the problems in the existing housing stock. The measure that we are discussing is the most effective way to do that, as there is also a lot of evidence that investment to improve energy efficiency is most likely to be carried out when a property changes hands.
The HIP is the right measure to achieve an improvement that we all recognise as important. I sincerely hope that the House this afternoon will not support the Oppositions entirely opportunistic prayer, but that instead it will vote for a measure that is in the public interest, in both the short and the long term.
Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con): On occasions, this debate has been fairly rumbustious, largely due to the excellence of the opening speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove). However, in the few minutes remaining, I hope that I can take a slightly different approach to the matter. I think that all hon. Members agree that the energy performance certificates are good news. There does not seem to be any dispute about that, so can we take it as a given that everyone wants them, and wants the scheme, when it is implemented, to be a success?
Like the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford), I was a housing Minister. After four years in that job, I can sense when a project is not going to get off the ground. For a number of weeks, I have tabled questions to the Minister for Housing and Planning, asking for details of how many domestic energy assessors and home inspectors there are in each local authority, city and region. Week after week, the response that I got was that the question would be answered shortly. Eventually, I raised the matter with the Leader of the House at last weeks business questions, and at last got something of an answer.
However, I was still not given a number. The answer that I received did not disaggregate home inspectors and domestic energy assessors. Instead, it lumped both together, and it gave no breakdown of how many there were per district. The answer did not even disaggregate those who had qualified and those who were still in training. At the end of last week, the best that the Department could do was to say that the total number of inspectors and assessorsboth fully trained and still in trainingwas something approaching 2,000. The answer went on to say that there was no point in giving a breakdown in terms of local authority, city or region because domestic energy assessors will work on a regional basis. The fact that the assessors will have to drive all over a region, thus increasing carbon emissions, is apparently neither here nor there.
Not unreasonably, therefore, at the end of last week I tabled a named day question, asking whether the Secretary of State, pursuant to her answer of 8 May, could tell me how many practising domestic energy assessors and home inspectors there are in each region.
After all, we are only 15 days away from the implementation of the scheme, so one would have thought that the Department would at least know how many inspectors and assessors there are in each region. What answer did I get to my named day question? I was told that the Secretary of State would answer it shortly.
Only two reasonable inference can be drawn from the fact that Ministers cannot tell the House how many domestic energy assessors there are in each region. In fact, an extrapolation from the answer that I got last week shows that there may be only 57 qualified inspectors in the north-east, 76 in Wales and 152 in London. That is pretty pathetic, so either Ministers do know the numbers involved and are too embarrassed to tell the House, or they have no idea. In either case, I suggest that it would be in everyones interest to postpone the scheme for three months, until October.
I have no idea about the merits of the judicial review being sought by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, but I would be amazed if the single judge who has to make the decision does not give leave for that review to be heard. Moreover, it is fanciful to believe that the High Court could hold a full hearing before 1 June, so that is another layer of uncertainty.
Ministers must be able, with confidence, to tell the House, the country and everyone involved that there are enough inspectors and domestic energy assessors in every region. They will be doing themselvesand people who believe in energy conservation and going greenno favours if they sleepwalk into a disaster with this scheme. All they have to do is postpone it for three months until theyand the countryare confident that there are enough inspectors and assessors. If they do not do that, there is every prospect that the scheme will be a disaster.
Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab): It makes tremendous sense for the provision of information to be the responsibility of the seller. We all know of cases where houses remain on the market for ages while prospective buyer after prospective buyer pays for the same information, discovering features that make the property undesirable or unrealistically priced. The onus on the seller to provide a home information pack and an energy performance certificate will help to avoid much duplication.
Many people are both vendors and purchasers, so although they will have to provide information about the home that they sell, they will benefit from the information about the houses that they view. The earlier in the process such information is available, the less likely people are to want, or to be forced, to pull out of the purchase, which can often result in a chain reaction of lost sales, expensive bridging loans and immense stress. First-time buyers will particularly benefit from the fact that the seller must provide useful and valuable information that could save them from going a long way down the line only to discover a major problem.
For many of us in this place, who have experience of living in various homes and paying numerous bills, the features we need to look at to assess energy efficiency may be obvious. First-time buyers are the least likely to
have such experience, yet they are often among the most committed to tackling climate change and have the most need to budget carefully for future fuel bills.
We hear plenty of warm words about tackling climate change and reducing emissions, but it is no good talking about it if we are not prepared to introduce measures and incentives that actually encourage home owners to focus on energy efficiency. If people know that they will need to obtain an energy performance certificate when they sell their home it will encourage them to prioritise measures that make their home more energy efficient. They will benefit from lower energy bills, while the do-it-yourself market will respond by providing better information about the energy efficiency of materials and products.
There has been a tendency for opponents of the scheme to say that the pack may not tell the whole story; and of course, caveat emptorlet the buyer beware. None the less, the pack is a valid tool. We could compare the process to buying a second-hand car with a recent MOT certificate. Although the MOT does not tell the whole story, and the purchaser obviously checks the car, nevertheless it provides extremely valuable information about the legality and roadworthiness of the vehicle, as well as information about its emissionsall provided by an expert with the equipment to test features that the average driver cannot examine.
Just as no one now disputes the usefulness of MOTs, so the same will soon be true of home information packs and energy performance certificates.
It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, Mr. Deputy Speaker put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 16.
Next Section | Index | Home Page |