---

Housing and Regeneration Bill

moved Amendment No. 112ZC: 112ZC: Before Clause 278, insert the following new Clause— ““Abolition of Home Information Packs (1) Sections 148 to 170 of the Housing Act 2004 (c. 34) are repealed. (2) A person who is selling a residential property must supply the purchaser with information about the energy efficiency of the property. (3) The Secretary of State may make regulations prescribing the particular information which is required or authorised to be included in, or which is to be excluded from, such energy efficiency information and all other incidental matters relating to it.”” The noble Lord said: Home information packs were introduced under the Government’s Housing Act 2004 and came into operation last autumn. The Government had run pilot schemes, but they were somewhat reluctant to publish the results. We finally got those results published in March this year. The main findings of that research, undertaken by Ipsos MORI, on the area trials was not very encouraging on the effect of the information packs. After sales, eight out of 10 sellers did not think that the HIP had helped to sell the property; more than 70 per cent of sellers did not think that HIPs made the selling process more efficient; 55 per cent of buyers did not think that the HIP had speeded up the homebuying process; and one-third of the sellers said that it was taking too long—more than three weeks—to get their home information pack. That is hardly an enviable record and I suspect that if that information had been published before the information packs were introduced, there might have been considerably more hesitation about the introduction. Following the introduction of HIPs, the National Association of Estate Agents conducted a survey of its members in August 2007 to see what was happening. Interestingly, but perhaps unsurprisingly, the number of four-bedroom properties, which was the first category of home to be affected, on the market was dramatically reduced: 63 per cent of agents reported decreases in the number of larger properties on the books. That was greater than the normal reduction at that time of year. On average, agents reported drops of 37 per cent. Homeowners staying out of the market to avoid home information packs was cited as the main reason for the decrease.That survey revealed that the average price being paid for a home information pack was around the £350 mark. Although the information in the pack is somewhat circumscribed compared to what was originally intended, the cost has not dropped commensurately. The killer blow has occurred with the report published only a couple of days ago by Sir Bryan Carsberg who, in July last year, was commissioned by the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors, the National Association of Estate Agents and the Association of Residential Letting Agents to carry out a review of the residential property sector. His specific comments on the home information pack were that it has been watered down and now appears to consist of very little information, yet there has been no commensurate reduction in the price of the document. He concluded that the usefulness of the pack is demonstrated by the fact that few buyers have shown any interest in it, and a substantial number of conveyancers ignore its existence and recommission searches on reading instructions from their buying clients. That suggests that the home information pack is not fulfilling the role for which it was intended. In Sir Bryan’s opinion, the cost of the home information pack seems to be greater than its benefit. He summarised the position by saying that, "““the HIP provides the worst of all worlds—it omits much of the most useful information but still imposes significant costs on the property transaction””." He raised a more fundamental objection, saying that consumer well-being, in matters like property transactions, is best secured by operation of the market. The imposition of constraints by central decision makers is not likely to serve consumers while because it cannot take account of consumers’ wishes in the way that the market does. The market is better at producing customer satisfaction than legislation can be. His recommendation was that the Government should amend legislation and make home information packs voluntary. That would be the end of home information packs and a clean kill is perhaps better than a slow death by starvation. The Bill gives us an opportunity to make a clean kill. We recognise that we will have to keep the energy performance certificate, which has a useful function. Given that the ultimate requirement is that all homes will require an energy performance certificate, tying it to the home information pack is the slowest possible way of getting it round the housing circuit. Moving home is expensive and stressful—I am in the process of doing so and I declare an interest—but this particular red tape makes it worse, not better; it increases costs without producing a commensurate benefit. We would not wish to prevent home sellers from paying for a home condition report if they genuinely believe it would help, but that should be a matter for them and not for legislation and compulsion. That is the gist of what Sir Bryan Carsberg has been saying. The present regime is unwanted by most people and is unproductive in the market. This is an appropriate time to say goodbye to it. I beg to move.