Clause 1 - Meaning of ``residential property'' and other expressions
Homes Bill
4:30 pm
Mr Nick Raynsford (Minister of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions; Greenwich and Woolwich, Labour)
Welcome to the Committee, Mr. Stevenson. I look forward to our proceedings continuing under your chairmanship and that of Mr. Gale.
I explained before lunch why the proposal in the clause for an energy efficiency report to form part of the home condition report applying to all sales is preferable to new clause 4 and new schedule 1, whereby such reports would be limited to properties that are the subject of a mortgage valuation. I accept the argument advanced by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) that new clause 4 and new schedule 1 could provide an interim arrangement. He agreed that our proposal is more satisfactory in the long term, but said that he wanted some progress made in the interim. That is a valid point of view, but I hope that my explanation will convince him that the option that he proposes is not feasible.
It would be costly and complicated to introduce the measures in the schedule for a short period only and it might cause difficulties for the surveying profession. Many valuers working for lenders do not have the training or expertise to conduct energy efficiency surveys, so there would inevitably be a training need. It is likely, given the concerns that have rightly been voiced about the importance of people being able to rely on the competence of those carrying out the surveys, that a form of accreditation similar to the arrangements that we propose for home condition reports would be needed. It would be a nightmare to try to train a large number of surveyors and introduce and operate a separate accreditation system in parallel with the arrangements for training all the surveyors who will become inspectors for the purpose of the home condition report. There is real scope for problems to arise, for duplication and for cost overruns, which would be a wholly unwelcome distraction at a time when the focus should be on training the inspectors who will be fundamental to the operation of the main house condition report which, as the hon. Gentleman acknowledges, will provide a better, more fundamental and more lasting solution.
Introducing the interim arrangements for the sake of a year—or perhaps 18 months if the hon. Gentleman's pessimistic view is right and it takes as long as that to introduce home condition reports and seller's packs—cannot be justified financially or in terms of the upheaval, potential chaos and confusion. I therefore urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.