Examination of Witnesses (Questions 60-79)
MR PETER
HOUSDEN, MR
CHRIS WORMALD,
MS HUNADA
NOUSS, MS
CHRISTINA BIENKOWSKA
AND MR
RICHARD MCCARTHY
22 OCTOBER 2007
Q60 Anne Main: There were a load
of nervous assessors then.
Mr Housden: Yes, there were.
Q61 Anne Main: Is that the reality,
that they were actually all up to that point and then they would
not hand over their shilling to get their certificate so therefore
you did not have them. You did not know this until the last minute.
Mr Housden: I know that is the
case because we should have been closer to it, we should have
had more plugs into the system. Once that had happened in conjunction
with the judicial review and ministers could not proceed safely
on the first of June, we put in place a much more thorough process
to be in touch with this quite distributed network including,
for example, doing quite big telephone surveys of individual assessors.
That is how I know what I have told you is true because that is
what they told us, that they had held off. As we went forward
to the first of August we could be absolutely sure that both overall
and regionally there were enough assessors and that they were
ready and willing to work.
Q62 Anne Main: Given you got to the
59th minute of the 11th hour, could you not have asked them a
bit earlier? We were having Statements from the Minister that
it was all going ahead, but actually opposition or any other critics
in the media were saying "They're not going to be ready;
they won't have enough assessors; they won't be in the right place
and they won't be trained up", that was all held to be wrong.
Really the communication that you are referring to seems to be
as if you were not really wanting to make that communication and
you were buying into the vision that it was all going fine and
nobody was checking. That is what it sounds like.
Mr Housden: We had information
from accrediting bodies and from home information pack providers
that it would be fine.
Q63 Anne Main: Who was informing
the Minister then, because it sounds as if the Minister was hugely
uninformed? It was not her fault by the sound of it because nobody
was giving her the real facts?
Mr Housden: I accept responsibility
for this. We were not in a position to give ministers timely and
accurate information. That is the point I began at. We were getting
information about the global numbers and the regional split and
information from home information pack providers about their levels
of readiness which were very positive. Experience shows that we
should have checked those in the way that we subsequently have.
Mr McCarthy: It is worth remembering
that the energy assessors actually took a new qualification following
the decision to separate out the previous requirement for a home
condition report. Approval of that qualification was only achieved
in February so there was a very tight timescale—this is
not excusing what happened but it explains what did occur—to
which there was a huge response in people signing up to do the
exams. It was a question of a breakdown between exams being taken
and people being accredited which is where the errors were made.
Q64 Anne Main: So we have this problem
in the system with the exams and the nervous energy assessors
and all the rest of it, but how does that explain the sudden sort
of reining back from introducing it across the board if it has
so much going for it to suddenly only introducing it for four
bedroomed properties which again became a media nightmare for
you. Was that handled well, do you think?
Mr Housden: In my judgement it
was a prudent decision to take to be sure that, given that uncertainty
we have just been exploring, we would not be in a position of
ministers proceeding, for example, to roll out to all types of
properties and then finding that we had major operational problems.
As you know we have four bedroomed and three bedroomed; we are
seeing now that the system works, the energy performance certificates
and home information packs are being produced at the level of
cost we thought pretty quickly. The system is operating; ministers
are now considering the next phase of the roll-out.
Q65 Anne Main: Do you think that
ministers will have the information they need to consider correctly
this time round?
Mr Housden: I do. We have much
better systems on assessor availability. We have also got operational
experience from the four and three bedroomed work. We also did
energy performance certificates and social housing. There is quite
a body of evidence now around how the system works.
Q66 Chair: That is not what I am
getting back from energy assessors in my constituency who say
they are sitting around twiddling their thumbs because there is
not enough work to do and they would like the two bedroomed houses
to be authorised. Can you give us the information that you have
on the balance now between energy assessors and work and why you
have not yet advised ministers to roll out to all houses?
Mr Housden: It is certainly true
that we have had those representations too and it is clear that
the number of energy assessors is adequate—probably more
than adequate actually—to do all properties as they come
on the market.
Q67 Anne Main: Why then are you not
advising ministers to roll it out completely?
Mr Housden: They set three tests,
if you remember. The first was about the total number of assessors,
the second was about regional split and the third was about the
operation of home information packs and general conditions. I
think it is the third one that has held ministers back.
Q68 Anne Main: In what way?
Mr Housden: I think that the impact
on the housing market is something ministers need to look at carefully
so the conditions in the housing and mortgage market generally
in the last little while need to be examined. We have looked particularly
at the impact of home information packs on the number of properties
being listed. We have the data from four bedroomed properties
and now from the three and it is pretty well what you would expect.
Q69 Chair: Mr Housden, one of the
arguments that the Government is making is that listing properties
is not the same as really wanting to sell a property and, as I
understand it, the argument goes that it does not really matter
if the numbers for sale go down slightly because people were just
frivolously putting their houses on the market on the vague off
chance that somebody might turn up and pay an enormous sum of
money for it. What data do you have to demonstrate that it is
not just the frivolous "let's see what we can get for it"
routine but is actually discouraging people who genuinely want
to sell their house?
Mr Housden: I think the issue
really is about the length of the time series because we do not
have the data that would even answer your first question. What
we have seen is that in advance of the introduction of the requirement
for HIPs for four bedroomed houses (bear in mind we gave three
weeks' notice of this) there was a surge in listings as people
sought to anticipate that. What we have been watching is how quickly
that actually comes back because obviously there is a spike then
there is a decline because there are fewer people coming through.
What we have seen with four bedrooms is that it is starting to
grow back in terms of share of listings by bedroom size. It is
too early to tell whether that is happening in relation to three
bedroomed properties; we are a week or two away from having that
data.
Q70 Chair: How long will it take?
Mr Housden: The data comes fortnightly
so I think it is a few weeks yet before ministers will have a
clearer picture about that.
Q71 Chair: Do you know how many energy
assessors are sitting around not earning what they expected to
earn because there are not enough houses coming through?
Mr Housden: No, we have not monitored
their employment specifics in that way.
Q72 Anne Main: One of the things
you are now looking at is the effect on the market. Given we are
maybe entering a flat period of housing it could be that this
could be indefinitely postponed theoretically if you are not comfortable
with the fact that it may have a negative effect on the market.
I thought the purpose behind HIPs was actually that it was good
for house purchasing and house sales. Is there now a shift in
the way you are thinking, you are watching to see if it is bad
and then you will change your policy? Or are you just going for
it?
Mr Housden: I think we are in
the same position where we have been throughout the summer of
a phased roll-out and ministers considering when is the right
moment to go. My point about the data was that it was only on
10 September that we rolled out to three bedrooms so we have only
a small time series at the moment in terms of the way the number
of listings have reacted to that. That is the sort of thing that
people are looking at.
Q73 Anne Main: If the market reacts
badly, logically you will not roll it out to those other types
of houses. That is the logical conclusion from what you are saying.
Mr Housden: That is your interpretation.
I think ministers will want to weigh a range of factors in the
balance on that sort of thing. They have not done so as yet.
Q74 Mr Betts: Can I take up one of
the issues which has been put on the back burner: the home condition
report, the fact that they can be included on a voluntary basis
in the packs now. I understand it is a fairly small percentage
of people who are choosing to do so, but a few people are. Are
you actually monitoring that situation and looking particularly
at packs which do contain a condition report to see whether there
is any difference in the way that those properties proceed through
to sale as opposed to ones without the condition report?
Mr Housden: I would need to check
the specifics as to whether we are following that in the way that
you describe, but it certainly is an on-going programme of research
and evaluation about the full range of home information packs
that builds on the area trials work going forward. Part of the
discussion with the stakeholder group that Yvette Cooper is working
with us to feed that information in. As you know, a number of
consumer groups were very interested in the impact of home condition
reports.
Q75 Mr Betts: I want to ask you about
that specifically. If the possibility is still open that eventually
we will come back to mandatory home condition reports—some
of us who believe in the process of HIPs believe that they will
actually become most effective when we do—then surely we
all ought to be monitoring what is happening in those cases where
condition reports are included now to see if we do get fewer drop
outs because people have more information at the point when they
make the offer.
Mr Housden: Precisely.
Chair: I think it is highly likely we
will return to this topic with the Minister next week. Mr Horwood,
do you want to get going on flooding?
Q76 Martin Horwood: We realise that
Defra is the lead agency in many respects in response to the flooding
in June and July. Can you outline briefly what you saw as your
Department's role in any policy responses to the flooding?
Mr Housden: The response to the
actual floods themselves, the Fire and Rescue Service played,
as you acknowledged in your earlier questions, a really powerful
role in all the areas that were affected. The New Dimension equipment
that we have talked with you about in previous meetings really
came well to the fore in all of that. We were able to deploy those
high volume pumps in a very effective way across regions to make
a really strong impact. I think that vindicated both the Government's
investment and the operating system that is underpinning them.
Beyond that our role as a department was particularly to take
the lead through John Healey on recovery. I think that was a very
specific thing because the recovery has been led, in my view,
very effectively by the local authorities in the areas concerned.
I visited areas and heard on the ground about the way in which
authorities have combined together in two-tier areas and so on
and so forth. It has fundamentally been a local effort. I think
our job is to do two things really. The first thing was to be
sure that government departments who had a key role to play in
terms of recovery were focussed and coordinated. Obviously communities
were very worried about schools that were ruined or what was going
to be the replacement arrangement for this and that. We made sure,
I hope effectively, that there was a concerted operation from
government, and secondly particularly around financial assistance
so the Bellwin Scheme that we have responsibility for, as you
know, was extended to a hundred per cent coverage and 82 authorities
benefited from that. We put in place on top of that a financial
assistance scheme that we designed with the Local Government Association.
It was very straightforward, with entitlements being calculated
on the number of properties where water had entered the house
and there were no restrictions placed on how a local authority
used that money. It was entirely up to local discretion. It has
principally been on coordination of government efforts and funding
work that we have contributed to.
Q77 Martin Horwood: First of all,
can I agree with you about the response of the fire and rescue
services and also actually of local authorities. Certainly so
far as Gloucester is concerned I think the response was magnificent.
Also it would be churlish not to acknowledge thanks for the large
amounts of money that were provided by central government. I am
interested that you started by basing it on the Bellwin Scheme.
As you said, the Bellwin Scheme had to be changed immediately
from being 85 per cent cover to a hundred per cent. It then had
to be supplemented by central government funds and we even find
you are applying to the much maligned European Union for European
Union solidarity funding so in practice was the Bellwin Scheme
not found wanting when it really came to the test?
Mr Housden: Ministers took the
view that they wanted to do more and differently. The Bellwin
Scheme has stood the test of time but the judgment was that in
these circumstances we needed to provide something more flexible
and rapid. In the great scheme of things £20 million (£17
million of which has been claimed so far) is not a huge sum of
money but I think it made a difference.
Q78 Chair: When you say "in
the circumstances", what is specific about this lot of flooding
which made it different from previous flooding which meant that
you needed more money?
Mr Housden: I do not think I could
point to objective differences; I think ministers' perceptions
of the situation were such that they wanted to respond quickly
to community concerns. There were plenty of people on the end
of microphones and more broadly at local level who were looking
for additional financial support and flexibility. It was interesting
to see the way in which, for example, regional development agencies
were able to help small businesses particularly. The talk on the
ground was that this was an effective response coordinated at
a local level.
Q79 Martin Horwood: It is a rare
opportunity for me certainly to say that it is relatively good
judgment on behalf of ministers in realising the scheme was inadequate
but they did realise the scheme was inadequate and the scheme
was designed for an emergency and this was an emergency in which
it was found wanting. Are you going to now review whether or not
the scheme will be adequate for emergencies in general? There
was nothing absolutely exceptional about this; it was an emergency
situation and that is what the scheme is designed to cope with.
Mr Housden: We keep all those
types of schemes of financial support for local authorities under
review and will continue so to do.
| 
