Home Information Pack (Amendment) Regulations 2007

My Lords, listening to the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, and the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, it seems to me that there has been a continuous and sustained undermining by people with vested professional interests who see HIPs as an unwelcome intrusion in their hitherto unchallenged stranglehold over both buyers and sellers in the domestic housing market. They resent the fact that the consumer is getting a better deal via HIPs. This is a small part of the major drive by the Government both to improve the buying and selling of houses and to stimulate the housing market. I do not take kindly to people who are given evidence from the department and stand up here and ignore it in their debate. Last December, I wrote to the department and asked for an update on the HIPs saga. I was told by the department that an announcement which addressed the points was going to be made, and I got a copy of it. That information—which is public information and I cannot believe that the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, who is very good at his homework, is not in possession of it—answers a number of queries. When we have previously debated this subject, one of the main arguments has been the inaccessibility or unavailability of qualified people to carry out the surveys. I was told in December that 5,794 people are now accredited to provide energy performance certificates. When the figure was 2,000 it was derided, but at that time the figure of 2,000 was adequate. As the programme has been rolled out with more and more properties from four-bedroom down to one-bedroom properties, more and more people are required. But the evidence is that they have not only been found and trained but also accredited as worthy of carrying out these inspections. I cannot understand the point that is being made. Another point made was about cost. We were told that HIPs would cost the consumer £600. The figures I have from the department show that the cost has been between £300 and £350 over a period of six months. That was the figure that we were given nine months ago, and Members opposite should reflect on the cavalier way in which they are treating the information that is available to them. I am told that HIPs are taking on average seven to 10 days to prepare. Either I can take the shaking of his head by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, whose professionalism I respect, or I can take the evidence from the department, which must be based on the information that it has. I am told that for the majority of property, drainage and water searches are being delivered within five days. If that is the position, it knocks skew-whiff the evidence that this is somehow a drag on these matters. Energy performance certificates are being prepared on average within two to four days. Let us be reasonable. The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, said that this will not be a panacea. It was never expected to be a panacea; it is a genuine attempt to deal with something that has been more than a niggle, not only for first-time buyers but for others. What was a cosy relationship—one might call it a closed shop—has now been impinged on by this new arrangement. As far as I am concerned, the consumer—the person who is buying and selling—is king, not the professionals involved. The consumer is very important and needs to be taken into account. I therefore say to the Government that I look to the evidence from the Europe Economics report, to which the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, referred. The report finds no evidence of any impact on transactions or prices, although there is a predicted short-term impact on new listings. You either accept the professional integrity of people who supply the department with evidence of how this is working or you do not. I happen to accept it. I congratulate the Minister, who, as the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, has said, has invested a certain amount of personal endeavour in this matter from the very beginning, and her colleagues on sticking to their guns. The problem that they have sought to solve will not be solved overnight, or even for years, but the absence of their measure would have meant a continual nag and niggle for the buying public. I say all power to the Minister and her colleagues and I wish this well. To annul the regulations would not only do nothing at all; it would simply add to problems that exist.