Clause
243
Meaning
of
sustainability
Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Lembit
Öpik:
The Minister may treat this as a rhetorical
point. In light of what he said and the potential confusion that I
think will persist, given the framing of the legislation, he might want
to revisit clause 243 and subsequent clauses between now and Report
stage, in order that he can be confident that the structure of the
clauses will not lead to the type of confusion that we have just
discussed. We do not need to have the same debate again, but I counsel
him to reconsider this group of clauses. I might even do some
research myself between now and Report stage to see whether his optimism
about people’s understanding of stars versus alphabetic
labelling is as straightforward and robust as he
claims.
Mr.
Wright:
I look forward to seeing a copy of the Liberal
Democrat Focus sheet about that. The hon. Gentleman makes a good
point. Although I was reluctant to discuss clause 243 because I thought
that an accusation might be levelled at me with regard to a list, I
think that it is important to have as clear a definition of
sustainability as possible to try to avoid uncertainty in the market. I
take on board the manner in which he asked the question, and I will
certainly go away and look at it
again.
Question put
and agreed
to.
Clause 243
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
244
Authorised
assessors
Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Alistair
Burt:
Is it the Minister’s assumption that those
currently charged with handling HIPs will also be the authorised
assessors? Have the Government an idea yet of the sort of fee that will
be charged for the services of those who will provide sustainability
certificates?
Mr.
Wright:
The assumption is that domestic energy assessors
could provide these certificates. That is perfectly possible. It could
be part of another package that the developer or the builder provides
in respect of the new buildings. I do not want to dodge the question
about costs, but the cost of a sustainability certificate would vary,
depending on the size of the development, the services provided and so
on. So I cannot provide a great deal of reassurance to the hon.
Gentleman in that respect. We expect the average cost of a certificate
to be about £210 or £220 per home, but we have forecast
that it could be as high as £1,600 for a single home on a single
site that was built in isolation. I imagine that, as the information
becomes clearer to the industry and there is greater awareness of what
needs to be taking place, costs will be driven downwards, but I hope
that what I have said provides a ballpark figure for the hon. Gentleman
to criticise me
with.
Question put
and agreed
to.
Clause 244
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
245
Register
of
certificates
Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Alistair
Burt:
Again, this may be more germane to the Minister
himself. I call his attention to subsection (4), which
states:
“The
regulations may require a person wishing to enter a document onto a
register to pay such fee as may be prescribed.”
Presumably, the fee will be within the
control of the agency or the Government. Does the Minister have an idea
of what sort of fee we might be talking about in these
circumstances?
Mr.
Wright:
No, I do not, but I can certainly look into the
matter on the hon. Gentleman’s behalf. I will ensure that I do
so.
Question put
and agreed
to.
Clause 245
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
246
Enforcement
authorities
Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Lembit
Öpik:
Do the enforcement authorities as
outlined in the clause already have the necessary skills and
competences to carry out their new responsibilities? If not, what
process does the Minister envisage to ensure that those authorities are
not left vulnerable to a failure to carry out the duties that they are
being charged with? I am particularly concerned that the authorities
themselves may say that this is yet another additional burden for which
they do not have sufficient
resources.
Mr.
Wright:
The hon. Gentleman raises a very good point. We
have provided additional resources to compensate local authorities for
the extra burdens that they may have, certainly in relation to
home information packs. We are consulting closely the Local Authorities
Co-ordinators of Regulatory Services—LACORS—about EPCs,
HIPs and so on. We keep the matter under constant review. If there is
any additional burden or any additional complexity with regard to
training or expertise in this respect, LACORS will highlight that to us
and we will amend resources funding
accordingly.
Lembit
Öpik:
That is a helpful response from the Minister.
I hope that he recognises the consequences of what he has said. As I
understand it, the certificates that we were previously discussing
incur a fee for the vendor, but the Minister has said that the
Government will resource the authorities for the extra burden. I
suspect that he may not have thought through entirely the relative
sharing of cost between the vendors, who require the enforcement
authorities to carry out the work, and the authorities. If he is honest
and says that he has not thought about it, that is fair enough, but we
need some clarity on the issue. This is important because it is
unquestionably at the cutting edge in the eyes of the public. The
answers to my questions will to a large extent define the cost of the
certificates to potential vendors. The more the Government pay, the
less the certificates will cost vendors, and vice versa. I highlight
this matter as being of strategic importance to vendors, if only of
tactical importance to the Government.
3.15
pm
Mr.
Wright:
I will check in Hansard, but I think that I
said that we would keep it under close review and would monitor it,
rather than providing a blank cheque to local authorities. I also said
that we have provided additional resources for the extra burdens on
local authorities from HIPs.
I understand
the hon. Gentleman’s point about this matter being at the
cutting edge. However, trading standards officers, who are named in the
Bill as the enforcement authority, will not need any technical
knowledge when looking into it. All that they will need to know is when
a code certificate should be given and what it looks like, and they
will need to be familiar with the provisions in this chapter on
disclosure and offences. I suggest that they will not have to go on
long courses to gain technical knowledge about sustainability. I
calculate that the burden will not be too onerous, but LACORS will keep
us informed on that.
Lembit
Öpik:
I understand, therefore, that this element of
the cost of certificates is a public burden, which makes a lot of
sense. Other burdens, such as getting someone to do an evaluation, may
be the vendor’s burden, but this element is a burden on the
public purse. If that is what the Minister is saying, it is a useful
clarification.
Mr.
Wright:
Yes, I confirm that.
Grant
Shapps:
Will the Minister reflect on the experience gained
from introducing legislation on houses in multiple occupation, which
required local authorities to provide the enforcement? I am aware that
many local authorities around the country have struggled to enforce HMO
legislation through a lack of resources in the town hall, and I am
concerned that the Bill should not end up creating yet more
requirements that cannot be enforced. Will the Minister consider that
experience in relation to how enforcement might be
applied?
Mr.
Wright:
I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s comments.
I shall take on board the notion of HMOs and the possible problems of
definition; I shall keep that on my desk and have a look at
it.
Question put
and agreed
to.
Clause 246
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
247
Power
to require production of certificates or
statements
Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Alistair
Burt:
I am slightly puzzled as to who, apart from a
potential purchaser, will want or need to see the certificates. The
clause is all about how to deal with someone who will not produce one.
If a certificate is not produced when required, surely the buyer will
not complete the sale, so I am puzzled as to why the
clause
is necessary, particularly as we shall go on to talk about enforcement
and penalties for people who do not produce certificates as required.
In what circumstances will the power be
needed?
Mr.
Wright:
As we are making it mandatory to provide
information on the sustainability of new homes, we need an arm to
enforce that.
Alistair
Burt:
But my point is that if I were a purchaser and I
knew that I needed a certificate, my lawyer would not let me complete
the sale unless I had received it. Why would anyone else need to be
involved? If the vendor did not produce one, I would not go ahead with
the sale, so it is in their interests to produce one. Who else needs to
be
involved?
Mr.
Wright:
I accept that it is in the vendor’s
interests to produce it, but not all information is always provided.
Given that it is mandatory to provide a certificate, we need to have an
enforcement element. It is similar to the situation with HIPs. I am
sure that the hon. Gentleman wants to lead me down that route, but I
shall go down it anyway. Home information packs are mandatory on all
properties now, but in some cases they are not provided and we need
enforcement. It is a natural part of business, and it seems
reasonable.
Alistair
Burt:
The Minister is doing well, but he is struggling on
this issue. If, when buying a property, I need to see the HIP or the
sustainability certificate before I complete the transaction, but it
does not happen, I will not go ahead, so it is at the vendor’s
expense if they do not comply.
However, the clause talks
about
“an authorised
officer of an enforcement
authority”.
Who
is the authorised officer, what is he authorised to do, and why? I am
not trying to harass the Minister or chase him down the HIPs route.
That job is usually done spectacularly well by my hon. Friend the
Member for Welwyn Hatfield—and has been for several months.
Genuinely, who will turn up on the doorstep of a new house, as an
authorised officer in a uniform, like Deryck Guyler in “Please
Sir!”, if the Minister remembers it from days gone by, and say,
“I am from”—whatever it is—“and I
demand to see your sustainability certificate, and if not I have these
powers”?
I am
intrigued as to how far the measure goes, because as the Minister
knows, there are national newspapers that are very concerned about the
increasing powers of people who would do just what I have described,
and it may be that a word will have to be had with those papers,
because they might be very interested. That is not a threat at all, but
I am genuinely puzzled about the circumstances in which the Minister
sees an authorised officer wanting to do what I have described. Who
would ask them to do it?
Mr.
Wright:
I do not want to labour the point, but enforcement
is a natural and necessary arm of such a mandatory measure. I shall use
the risk-based approach and suggest to the hon. Gentleman that if a
buyer complained to the trading standards officer, and said, “I
have not got a certificate,” the officer would
investigate.
Alistair
Burt:
I would not buy the
property.
Mr.
Wright:
That might be true. I do not remember
“Please Sir!”, as I am far too young for that, but I do
not foresee armies of people with peaked caps knocking on doors or
getting people out of bed at 3 o’clock in the morning to look at
their sustainability certificate. I do not anticipate
that—certainly not in such a liberal democracy as the one in
which we live.
The
approach will be risk-based and prompted by the buyer perhaps
complaining to trading standards. It will be based on the risk-based
weights and measures approach that trading standards takes. There
could be spot-checks, but I do not think that the hon.
Gentleman will be knocked out of bed at 3 o’clock in the morning
by somebody from “Please
Sir!”
Alistair
Burt:
I have listened intently, and the Minister has
reassured me about what will not happen; however, he has not yet given
me a concrete example of what might happen and why. If a buyer cannot
get hold of a certificate, he will not complete the purchase, so it is
the vendor’s problem, not the buyer’s. I should not go
rushing off to trading standards office in those circumstances. I
remain to be convinced that there is a purpose in an authorised officer
seeking the certificate in certain circumstances, but if the Minister
were to find, on reflection, one or two examples and he wanted to send
them to the Committee, I would be interested. However, I have no wish
to press the case any more.
Mr.
Syms:
My hon. Friend has got me interested. One is just
trying to think of circumstances in which a certificate would not be
given, and one can think only of a repossession, in which a house might
be sold, although the certificate still might be available; an estate;
or a situation in which somebody had died and the executors were
selling on something. It is difficult to think of circumstances,
different from those described, in which it is the interests of the
seller to provide a certificate.
Mr.
Wright:
The hon. Gentleman talked about two specific
situations: a repossession and somebody dying. However, they would
probably involve existing stock, and we are discussing new homes, so
the situation would be slightly different.
I return to my point about my
risk-based approach on trading standards. Somebody who is buying a
property may complain to trading standards, as happens on a daily basis
on a whole range of matters, such as the service provided in a shop or
by a door-to-door salesman. Such complaints can be initiated and will
not mean that we are living in a police state where people are knocked
out of bed at 3 o’clock in the
morning.
Question
put and agreed
to.
Clause 247
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
248 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Schedule
8 agreed
to.
Clauses 249
and 250 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
| 
