---

Housing

My hon. Friend makes his point well. I notice that the hon. Member for Surrey Heath did not seem to understand the clear and impeccable logic of my hon. Friend’s argument. Many of the professional bodies that oppose the introduction of HIPs do very well out of the present system. If searches are made repeatedly by different buyers, the solicitors benefit. When valuations are commissioned by mortgage lenders, they make money on the process each time. In many cases, they make rather a lot of money. If the valuation has to be done repeatedly on the same property, they are not out of pocket. No wonder they like the existing system. Every time a surveyor is commissioned to conduct a valuation or survey, their fees are paid, so they are not in a hurry to promote changes to the system, which involves waste to the consumer and the public. This is, therefore, an issue of public interest. I regretted the Government’s decision last summer to abandon one of the core elements of the scheme—the mandatory home condition reports. That is a fundamental element that will have to be reintroduced and I hope that the Government will recognise that in due course. But I do not believe that we should delay the introduction of HIPs in the hope of getting something better. That would allow the best to be the enemy of the good. We need to get the new arrangements up and running from 1 June and then seek to improve them in due course.