Home Information Pack (Amendment) Regulations 2007

rose to move, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the regulations, laid before the House on 23 November 2007, be annulled (SI 2007/3301). The noble Lord said: My Lords, we take up again what was a fruitful source of debate and indeed a happy hunting ground for my predecessor in this job, the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham. We continue to debate a saga of unfortunate actions that have led to unfortunate consequences. In a sense, the Government are fortunate that the consequences of this series of regulations are now fairly well disguised behind a growing economic slow-down which is being followed by falling prices in the UK housing sector. All of that is exacerbated by the consequences of the sub-prime banking collapse in the United States which has caused a shortage of credit in the UK banking system and aggravated the general loss of confidence in the market. The collapse of Northern Rock, which is as yet unresolved, does nothing to help the situation. All these factors hinder the possibility of seeing a clear and precise picture of the impact caused by the introduction of home information packs. However, there are things that we know. We know that the Government have never dared to publish the results of the research, which cost £4 million, into the effects of the pilot schemes. This is most unfortunate. It inevitably leads suspicious minds like mine to the conclusion that there is perhaps something the Government wish to hide—or, at the very least, not to reveal. We know that in its fifth report of this session, the Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee undertook a very helpful and full review across what I will term the housing market industry. Its conclusions, which I will paraphrase, are as follows. The objectives of the home information packs regulations are to provide consumers with better information at the right time to reduce costs and carbon emissions from homes. It goes on to say that these amending regulations provide for a further reduction in the information required in home information packs. Views among stakeholders continued to be divided—both about the benefits of this change and about home information pack policy generally. I acknowledge that the Association of Home Information Pack Providers continues to be enthusiastic because of the transitional arrangement that the Government have put in place. It goes on to note that there are problems in obtaining even some of the reduced information required. I believe that I have interpreted its note correctly. The fact that there is less information than was originally intended means that the general purpose of the packs is not as strong as it might otherwise have been. However, its enthusiasm is not matched by others elsewhere. While noting a reduction of costs of searches by some local authorities, the Council for Mortgage Lenders also noted that delivering energy performance certificates through home information packs will take more than 13 years to cover the housing stock. Yet energy performance certificates are the main reason for pressing on with home information packs. It goes on to say that the Government should reflect on whether energy performance certificates could be more quickly, and more universally, delivered in a different way. As someone who is participating in the Committee stage on the Climate Change Bill, which is currently in this House, the matter of speeding up the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions from the domestic sector cannot be deferred for 13 years; the problem is more urgent than that. Those qualified to provide energy performance certificates will need to provide their services to any householder. We have a much greater urgency than is implied by having them tied to home information packs. A memorandum from Mr Michael Garson to the Statutory Instruments Committee lists 10 objectives which, he says, the home information packs fail to meet. I do not intend to list them all as it would take too long.