When will Grant Shapps learn that to be a Minister in waiting one must begin to at least give the impression that he has some knowledge and understanding of the subject matter on which he purports to formulate his Party’ policy?
First we have him make some twisted (and factually incorrect) joke about Mr Brown not having to worry about a Home Information Pack when he leaves No 10, suggesting he would abolish the HIP within the first few days of taking office, and now it is reported that he has had a re-think and perhaps it would be safer for him to engage in some consultation before going ahead to ‘suspend’, and then pass legislation to abolish the HIP. Does this man have any idea of the consequences his ever changing message has on both his credibility and more importantly, the fragile state of the housing market?
In today’s Estate Agency Today it is reported:
‘Tory shadow housing minister Grant Shapps has now explained why it might take 100 days for HIPs to be abolished – because it would actually be the shortest route. However, the 100-day period would have to include a consultation.
The Conservatives have repeatedly said they will abolish HIPs, with Shapps maintaining that he would do it immediately or “within days”.
However, at the Home Sale Network conference last week, Shapps mentioned for the first time the 100-day time lag.
Last night, a spokesman in his office told Estate Agent Today: “I think our process will be a consultation, followed by a Statutory Instrument to suspend HIPs, and then legislation to abolish them.”
This latest message is confusing at best, and wholly misleading at worse. Though reference is made to a ‘statutory instrument’, he is, it seems to me, still referring to what some mistakenly label as an ‘emergency power’ within the Housing Act.
In fact this is Section 162 that was introduced back in 2004 to enable Government to temporarily suspend the HIP regulations for a set period if, according to the debate as recorded in Hansard, problems occurred during the HIPs trial period.
Some argue (wrongly) that this ‘power’ can be used as a mechanism to bring immediate relief to the housing market if Government takes the view this is needed.
I consider the section was not designed or introduced for this purpose and in any event the explanatory notes to the Housing Act clearly state suspension should only be used in exceptional circumstances. Given the housing market was in a far worse position back in 2009, and that all the current indicators show it is making a recovery, a Government may find it difficult to argue that there now needs to be a ‘suspension’, let alone speculating that this will be the case in Mat 2010!
Furthermore there would be no need for Government to suspend as it would be within the scope of the regulations to go back to the arrangement whereby a property could be marketed if a HIP was ordered. Interestingly similar to the arrangement proposed by Shapps for the delivery of the EPC. By allowing property to be marketed in this way it would have the same desired impact as a suspension and could be implemented that much sooner given no consultation would be necessary.
One must also question whether making use of this section for “suspension’’ when everyone including the dog knows that what Shapps is actually using it for is to ‘’scrap’’ ( as he seems to get some perverted delight in reminding us all of this every time he speaks in public) is a proper and legitimate application of the power.
The time is now for Shapps to clarify his intentions by making it clear that he will and can only abolish the HIP ( if indeed it remains his wish ) by passing primary legislation. By making this clear he will probably save face, prevent potential damage to his career, as well as helping Industry to ensure the recovery within the housing market remains firmly on track.
First we have him make some twisted (and factually incorrect) joke about Mr Brown not having to worry about a Home Information Pack when he leaves No 10, suggesting he would abolish the HIP within the first few days of taking office, and now it is reported that he has had a re-think and perhaps it would be safer for him to engage in some consultation before going ahead to ‘suspend’, and then pass legislation to abolish the HIP. Does this man have any idea of the consequences his ever changing message has on both his credibility and more importantly, the fragile state of the housing market?
In today’s Estate Agency Today it is reported:
‘Tory shadow housing minister Grant Shapps has now explained why it might take 100 days for HIPs to be abolished – because it would actually be the shortest route. However, the 100-day period would have to include a consultation.
The Conservatives have repeatedly said they will abolish HIPs, with Shapps maintaining that he would do it immediately or “within days”.
However, at the Home Sale Network conference last week, Shapps mentioned for the first time the 100-day time lag.
Last night, a spokesman in his office told Estate Agent Today: “I think our process will be a consultation, followed by a Statutory Instrument to suspend HIPs, and then legislation to abolish them.”
This latest message is confusing at best, and wholly misleading at worse. Though reference is made to a ‘statutory instrument’, he is, it seems to me, still referring to what some mistakenly label as an ‘emergency power’ within the Housing Act.
In fact this is Section 162 that was introduced back in 2004 to enable Government to temporarily suspend the HIP regulations for a set period if, according to the debate as recorded in Hansard, problems occurred during the HIPs trial period.
Some argue (wrongly) that this ‘power’ can be used as a mechanism to bring immediate relief to the housing market if Government takes the view this is needed.
I consider the section was not designed or introduced for this purpose and in any event the explanatory notes to the Housing Act clearly state suspension should only be used in exceptional circumstances. Given the housing market was in a far worse position back in 2009, and that all the current indicators show it is making a recovery, a Government may find it difficult to argue that there now needs to be a ‘suspension’, let alone speculating that this will be the case in Mat 2010!
Furthermore there would be no need for Government to suspend as it would be within the scope of the regulations to go back to the arrangement whereby a property could be marketed if a HIP was ordered. Interestingly similar to the arrangement proposed by Shapps for the delivery of the EPC. By allowing property to be marketed in this way it would have the same desired impact as a suspension and could be implemented that much sooner given no consultation would be necessary.
One must also question whether making use of this section for “suspension’’ when everyone including the dog knows that what Shapps is actually using it for is to ‘’scrap’’ ( as he seems to get some perverted delight in reminding us all of this every time he speaks in public) is a proper and legitimate application of the power.
The time is now for Shapps to clarify his intentions by making it clear that he will and can only abolish the HIP ( if indeed it remains his wish ) by passing primary legislation. By making this clear he will probably save face, prevent potential damage to his career, as well as helping Industry to ensure the recovery within the housing market remains firmly on track.
No comments:
Post a Comment