The Conservatives say they would scrap Home Information Packs... if they won a general election.
Shadow housing minister Grant Shapps told the Tory conference that ministers had ignored warnings about home packs.
He said: "The experts ridiculed them. The industry doesn't want them... and I can announce that the next Conservative government will scrap them."
Good move, guys. There's just one teensy little problem. And you know what? It's the usual one.
You can't scrap HIPs, or not entirely, because they are partly based on an EU Directive: the EU Directive on the Energy Performance of Buildings.
How many times... are they ignorant or are they lying?
UPDATE: more from England Expects.
How is it that the Tories think that they can get away with abolishing the much reviled Home Information Packs (HIPs)?
After all as was pointed out by their own pet think tank, Open Europe,"an EU directive agreed in 2002, “The Energy Performance of Buildings Directive” required that homes and other buildings should have an energy efficiency survey when they are bought, sold or rented. This would then be used to produce the Energy Performance Certificate (EPC), which would give homes an efficiency grade from “A” to “G” (with A as the most efficient). This was supposed to encourage people to adopt more energy efficiency measures. The Government decided to bundle in the new EU energy certificate with the old idea for a Home Information Pack. However, the legislation has been revised several times, and in practice when the “pack” comes into force on 1 June this year it will contain little other than the EU Energy Performance Certificate".
So how is it that Grant Shapps, the Shadow Housing Minister can today claim at the Tory conference,"The experts ridiculed them. The industry doesn't want them... and I can announce that the next Conservative government will scrap them".
After all it isn't up to him or indeed a Tory Government, they would need to get the unanimous agreement of the EU 27 at Council. Which, as I have pointed out before would be rather unlikely.