In a lively Commons’ debate that took place yesterday it was refreshing to see the Government respond to the recent Grant Shapps led anti-home information pack campaign. It was even more refreshing to see the Conservative spokesman struggle to support to sustain credibility.
The debate began with Mr. Andrew Robathan, a Conservative, asking the question:
‘What assessment he has made of the effect of home information packs on the housing market since their introduction?’
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, Mr. Ian Austin, responded by saying:
‘We are currently working up proposals to evaluate the effectiveness of the HIPs programme, and we expect the results to be available in 2010. However, early independent research undertaken by Europe Economics and published in November 2007 concluded that the introduction of HIPs would not have a negative impact on the housing market.’
Not happy with this Robathan then resorted to Party line language by inquiring:
‘Those constituents who raised the matter with me tell me that they find HIPs to be untimely, expensive, and bureaucratic and, really, a waste of time. They quite like the energy performance certificates, so will the Government realise the error of their ways, realise what a waste of time-time, effort and money-the process has been, and scrap it?’
It’s questionable whether his constituents were consulted and if they were whether anybody within his Party took the time out to explain the purpose of the HIP and the benefits they present. Fortunately Mr Austin took the opportunity to inform Robathan of this as well as belittling his intelligence in the process!
Mr Austin adopting his usual direct approach responded by saying:
‘The hon. Gentleman does not need to ask ludicrous questions like that to confirm to the House that he is not exactly the sharpest tool in the box. However, thousands of jobs and hundreds of small businesses depend on the HIP process. Some 13,000 people have invested thousands in training as energy assessors, so the Opposition need to explain why they would put all those jobs and all those businesses at risk, and the hon. Gentleman needs to explain to all the people in his constituency whose livelihoods depend on that process why he wants to put them out of work’.
He added:
The debate began with Mr. Andrew Robathan, a Conservative, asking the question:
‘What assessment he has made of the effect of home information packs on the housing market since their introduction?’
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, Mr. Ian Austin, responded by saying:
‘We are currently working up proposals to evaluate the effectiveness of the HIPs programme, and we expect the results to be available in 2010. However, early independent research undertaken by Europe Economics and published in November 2007 concluded that the introduction of HIPs would not have a negative impact on the housing market.’
Not happy with this Robathan then resorted to Party line language by inquiring:
‘Those constituents who raised the matter with me tell me that they find HIPs to be untimely, expensive, and bureaucratic and, really, a waste of time. They quite like the energy performance certificates, so will the Government realise the error of their ways, realise what a waste of time-time, effort and money-the process has been, and scrap it?’
It’s questionable whether his constituents were consulted and if they were whether anybody within his Party took the time out to explain the purpose of the HIP and the benefits they present. Fortunately Mr Austin took the opportunity to inform Robathan of this as well as belittling his intelligence in the process!
Mr Austin adopting his usual direct approach responded by saying:
‘The hon. Gentleman does not need to ask ludicrous questions like that to confirm to the House that he is not exactly the sharpest tool in the box. However, thousands of jobs and hundreds of small businesses depend on the HIP process. Some 13,000 people have invested thousands in training as energy assessors, so the Opposition need to explain why they would put all those jobs and all those businesses at risk, and the hon. Gentleman needs to explain to all the people in his constituency whose livelihoods depend on that process why he wants to put them out of work’.
He added:
‘The Leader of the Opposition swans off to the Arctic to hang around with huskies, but the hon. Gentleman and the Opposition are showing today why nobody will take seriously anything they say about climate change. As a result of HIPs, 2 million home owners now have an energy assessment and energy recommendations that can help them to cut their fuel bills by up to £300 and reduce carbon emissions. Is it not extraordinary that even today, as the world gathers in Copenhagen, the Opposition are still committed to abolishing the HIP, which is one of the main ways of helping home owners to cut carbon emissions and tackle climate change?’
How refreshing to see the Government stand up for an industry that has worked hard to implement well intentioned policy that despite a rocky start is beginning to deliver real benefits to the consumer as well as making a major and important contribution towards carbon reduction. Grant Shapps should pause, take note and decide whether obsessively pursuing the HIP is really worth the risk of his policy backfiring and causing damage to his career aspirations.
How refreshing to see the Government stand up for an industry that has worked hard to implement well intentioned policy that despite a rocky start is beginning to deliver real benefits to the consumer as well as making a major and important contribution towards carbon reduction. Grant Shapps should pause, take note and decide whether obsessively pursuing the HIP is really worth the risk of his policy backfiring and causing damage to his career aspirations.
No comments:
Post a Comment