There was more debate in the Commons yesterday on Home Information Packs, and as sure as night follows day, Conservative MPS were at it again, raising the same old questions and quite amusingly relying on purported feedback from estate agents and the Law Society. Not the most reliable sources when it comes to looking for informed views!
The questions kicked off with a question that has featured before regarding the methodology to be used to evaluate the effectiveness of the HIP. As Government has explained on countless occasions in the past there is no up to date information on this though as the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Mr. Ian Austin explained, the Baseline Report published in 2007 is in the process of being updated.
Not content with this Mr Austin was then challenged on the effectiveness of the HIP given that estate agents in Southend claim rather bizarrely that the HIP has damaged the property market. I have to contain myself when I hear a claim of this type! I am no economist but really how can anyone claim with an air of credibility that the humble HIP costing little more than £200 has had such a major and catastrophic effect on the housing market. Utter rubbish!
At least with Mr Austin we have someone who understands the real world. In rebuttal MR Austin explained:
‘I do not accept that at all. Despite a difficult housing market, evidence shows that HIPs actually speed up sales. I am not sure whether there is a branch of Connells estate agency in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, but its survey of more than 37,000 transactions showed that sales with HIPs go through an average of seven days quicker.’
Not happy with raising a ridiculous claim the Conservative MP, Mr Mackay, decides to ask Mr Austin why Government continues to run with the HIP, presumably on the basis that the agents in Southend on which the whole country’s view is based think they are not working and should be scrapped!
Mr Austin then quite rightly responded by highlighting that irrespective of what the agents in Southend may think Mr Mackay needs to think beyond agents and take into account the thousand of jobs that would be lost if the Conservative Party is elected and goes ahead and ‘scraps’ the HIP. He told Mr Mackay:
‘ As always, I am very grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's advice, but I can tell him that thousands of jobs and hundreds of small businesses depend on the HIP process and 13,000 people have invested thousands of pounds in training as energy assessors. The Opposition need to explain why they want to put all those jobs and businesses at risk. He needs to tell all the people in his constituency whose livelihoods depend on the process why the Opposition want to put them out of work’.
From those lovely agents in Southend, attention then turned to the Law Society, the trade body that purports to look after the interests of solicitors. I say ‘purports’ as its my belief, and one shared by other solicitors, that it has little understanding of the needs and requirements of the high street solicitor and has done very little to protect those with interests that fall outside of the City.
Mr Jones, Conservative asked:
‘The interim results of the updated baseline research report are not due to be published until this summer at the earliest. Given that no empirical evidence is therefore available to the Government about the impact of HIPs on the current housing market, why do they not listen to bodies such as the Law Society, which has said clearly that HIPs "add a significant layer of costs for consumers but produce no discernable benefit"?
I am not sure which document this quote comes from but it is clear that as before the question is raised on wholly inaccurate information. There is no added cost. The HIP is part of the legal process and with or without it the consumer pays the same. In fact the cost of selling and buying has come down since the HIP was introduced. As for benefits Mr Austin covered this in his response:
‘As a result of HIPs, more than 2 million home owners now have an energy assessment and recommendations in their energy performance certificate that can help them cut their fuel bills by hundreds of pounds and reduce carbon emissions. That is just one of the many benefits of the HIP process that we have introduced. I thought that tackling climate change was one of the big priorities for the new, modern Conservative party. So much, I suppose, for voting blue to go green’.
He added:
‘The recent Office of Fair Trading consumer research on the HIP process showed that a third of buyers were influenced by the HIP and that they had found the new property information questionnaire the most useful component of it. As I said earlier, Connells estate agents surveyed 37,000 transactions and showed that HIPs sped up the process, which is good news’.
Mr Austin was then asked about the Baseline Survey and of how this according to the Conservative MP Mr. Stewart Jackson showed there ‘was minimal public knowledge of and interest in HIPs, that people considered them a waste of time, that buyers were not consulting them and that costs were being duplicated’.
In response Mr Austin made the valid point that it is still too early too make this type of claim and that in any event the research actually shows that the benefits are there to be seen:
‘As I said a short while ago, what the research actually shows is that in a short period, nine out of 10 buyers used the HIP. One in three said that it helped them decide which home to buy, which is a big improvement on the figures shortly after the introduction of HIPs, and shows that the system is becoming more helpful and useful all the time. The question that the hon. Gentleman and other Conservative Front Benchers must answer is why they want to sling out of work the thousands of people who have invested time and money in training to implement the process, and to cut the jobs of their constituents who depend on it’.
How refreshing to see Government sticking up for the industry it created and for highlighting the massive job loss that will follow if the HIP is scrapped. I personally believe that Grant Shapps is also concerned about this aspect – he is a businessman and must be aware of the sacrifices, hard work and personal investment in both time and money that goes into establishing and making a business a success. People in power and who ‘play’ politics must always keep in mind the personal tragedy that can happen when industries are dismantled for no reason other than political gain.
The questions kicked off with a question that has featured before regarding the methodology to be used to evaluate the effectiveness of the HIP. As Government has explained on countless occasions in the past there is no up to date information on this though as the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Mr. Ian Austin explained, the Baseline Report published in 2007 is in the process of being updated.
Not content with this Mr Austin was then challenged on the effectiveness of the HIP given that estate agents in Southend claim rather bizarrely that the HIP has damaged the property market. I have to contain myself when I hear a claim of this type! I am no economist but really how can anyone claim with an air of credibility that the humble HIP costing little more than £200 has had such a major and catastrophic effect on the housing market. Utter rubbish!
At least with Mr Austin we have someone who understands the real world. In rebuttal MR Austin explained:
‘I do not accept that at all. Despite a difficult housing market, evidence shows that HIPs actually speed up sales. I am not sure whether there is a branch of Connells estate agency in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, but its survey of more than 37,000 transactions showed that sales with HIPs go through an average of seven days quicker.’
Not happy with raising a ridiculous claim the Conservative MP, Mr Mackay, decides to ask Mr Austin why Government continues to run with the HIP, presumably on the basis that the agents in Southend on which the whole country’s view is based think they are not working and should be scrapped!
Mr Austin then quite rightly responded by highlighting that irrespective of what the agents in Southend may think Mr Mackay needs to think beyond agents and take into account the thousand of jobs that would be lost if the Conservative Party is elected and goes ahead and ‘scraps’ the HIP. He told Mr Mackay:
‘ As always, I am very grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's advice, but I can tell him that thousands of jobs and hundreds of small businesses depend on the HIP process and 13,000 people have invested thousands of pounds in training as energy assessors. The Opposition need to explain why they want to put all those jobs and businesses at risk. He needs to tell all the people in his constituency whose livelihoods depend on the process why the Opposition want to put them out of work’.
From those lovely agents in Southend, attention then turned to the Law Society, the trade body that purports to look after the interests of solicitors. I say ‘purports’ as its my belief, and one shared by other solicitors, that it has little understanding of the needs and requirements of the high street solicitor and has done very little to protect those with interests that fall outside of the City.
Mr Jones, Conservative asked:
‘The interim results of the updated baseline research report are not due to be published until this summer at the earliest. Given that no empirical evidence is therefore available to the Government about the impact of HIPs on the current housing market, why do they not listen to bodies such as the Law Society, which has said clearly that HIPs "add a significant layer of costs for consumers but produce no discernable benefit"?
I am not sure which document this quote comes from but it is clear that as before the question is raised on wholly inaccurate information. There is no added cost. The HIP is part of the legal process and with or without it the consumer pays the same. In fact the cost of selling and buying has come down since the HIP was introduced. As for benefits Mr Austin covered this in his response:
‘As a result of HIPs, more than 2 million home owners now have an energy assessment and recommendations in their energy performance certificate that can help them cut their fuel bills by hundreds of pounds and reduce carbon emissions. That is just one of the many benefits of the HIP process that we have introduced. I thought that tackling climate change was one of the big priorities for the new, modern Conservative party. So much, I suppose, for voting blue to go green’.
He added:
‘The recent Office of Fair Trading consumer research on the HIP process showed that a third of buyers were influenced by the HIP and that they had found the new property information questionnaire the most useful component of it. As I said earlier, Connells estate agents surveyed 37,000 transactions and showed that HIPs sped up the process, which is good news’.
Mr Austin was then asked about the Baseline Survey and of how this according to the Conservative MP Mr. Stewart Jackson showed there ‘was minimal public knowledge of and interest in HIPs, that people considered them a waste of time, that buyers were not consulting them and that costs were being duplicated’.
In response Mr Austin made the valid point that it is still too early too make this type of claim and that in any event the research actually shows that the benefits are there to be seen:
‘As I said a short while ago, what the research actually shows is that in a short period, nine out of 10 buyers used the HIP. One in three said that it helped them decide which home to buy, which is a big improvement on the figures shortly after the introduction of HIPs, and shows that the system is becoming more helpful and useful all the time. The question that the hon. Gentleman and other Conservative Front Benchers must answer is why they want to sling out of work the thousands of people who have invested time and money in training to implement the process, and to cut the jobs of their constituents who depend on it’.
How refreshing to see Government sticking up for the industry it created and for highlighting the massive job loss that will follow if the HIP is scrapped. I personally believe that Grant Shapps is also concerned about this aspect – he is a businessman and must be aware of the sacrifices, hard work and personal investment in both time and money that goes into establishing and making a business a success. People in power and who ‘play’ politics must always keep in mind the personal tragedy that can happen when industries are dismantled for no reason other than political gain.
No comments:
Post a Comment