Chamber and committees

I undertake to update you on the extent to which the datasets are up to date—they will be, but we will provide you with the detail.

The other thing to say on the housing portfolio is that we have not just taken a pure emissions model approach. Our approach is the culmination of the policies that are available to us to pursue and the scale at which we think they need to be deployed in order to reach the trajectory, and we have set them out in the chapter. Our judgment is that the 2045 target, the creation of heat networks, the PRS MEES, the social homes net zero standard, EPC reform and all those things coming together can meet the carbon budgets at certain points.

I come back to the elephant in the room, which is whether, as soon as the UK Government takes effective action to rebalance gas and electricity prices—something that we cannot currently factor in—that will make a significant improvement and change the picture. We will remain flexible and continue to keep the committee up to date.

I want us to provide the detail on policy, emissions reductions and cost that the legislation requires us to. My judgment is that what is in the draft chapter now does that, but that is why we are speaking to Parliament and to the public about it. I will take on board what is said on that, but I come back to the fact that we have committed to the strategy and the delivery plan at the end of the year. I understand that there is a call from you, convener, and from stakeholders for more information on who will do what and when. We have certainly captured a lot of that here. I am on the record about who will do what and when for energy performance certificate reform, so the information is available. I will make sure that that is being provided as much as it can be just now, and I give a commitment that more information will be made available via that plan at the end of the year.

I agree that we do not want disparity in how the regulations are observed or in the approaches that local authorities take. The changes that we are making now provide an opportune moment to pause and review how local authorities currently operate and to support them to get to the point of having a broad, shared understanding of their obligations and what they need to do.

That is mainly happening in two ways. First, we are considering, and seeking to draw upon, best practice in local authority areas across the UK that are managing the process well. Secondly, we are implementing the toolkit that I mentioned, which will ultimately provide authorities with guidance on how the obligations arise and how to discharge them.

Forgive me, convener, but I might turn straight to Ross Loveridge to answer that. We had a conversation about it this morning and he explained it to me very clearly, so it might be helpful for the committee to hear his explanation.

Yes. In my scribbled handwritten notes it says that, in June 2024, 76 per cent of all registrations were for one property. I will check the source of that and come back to you.

Yes, absolutely. Concisely, they are the foundation of the wider heat in buildings plans. The reform of the EPC has been lengthy and complicated work, and once it is done, it will be the basis on which we seek to drive different standards or legislate for changes.

The EPCs themselves are pretty neutral on all that. They will just reflect the situation as it stands, but they are an up-to-date, well-resourced and well-understood basis on which to do all that.

That is right, convener—our proposal is that the regulations will go live on 31 October 2026. That would be the beginning of a one-year transition, when both types of certificate would be valid for both sales and rents.

I add that regulation 25 provides that if all reasonable endeavours have been made to achieve or obtain a new certificate but it has not been possible to do so, that will not get in the way of the property transaction. There is a little bit of flexibility there to reflect people’s reasonable endeavours.

To come back to Ross Loveridge’s point about the substantial peak between 2008 and 2009—I think that about 194,000 more EPCs were required—because of the transitional arrangements that we have put in place, we are expecting only around 56,500 more per annum for the first two years. We have split the peak to make it more manageable. That is really important for consumers. I always have at the forefront of my mind how ordinary people who are just trying to go about their property transaction navigate all of this.

Equally, you are quite right that conveyancers and others who work in the property market need time as well. I think that the regulations provide that time for them, and we are engaged with them on that. Having done conveyancing, I know that conveyancers are completely on top of developments in the property market and are some of the best placed individuals to adapt to and to understand the changes. Nonetheless, we are taking our time to make sure that they have a transition period and that they are engaged on the changes.

My colleague Ross Loveridge has already mentioned that the assessment and the pool of assessors is a UK-wide matter, so it is another part of the process on which we are working closely with the UK Government to prepare for. The approved organisations that oversee the availability and the training standards have also been part of groups that officials have engaged with. Perhaps the officials can say a little bit more about that.

It is probably worth pointing out that the task for assessors is not materially different: it will still be a case of assessing and inputting data. Our approach to introducing the measure—the regulations will come into force one year from now, then there will be a further transitionary year—should allow for preparedness and readiness to be absolutely where they need to be.

I will come to Ross Loveridge, who can fill you in on what officials have been doing.

I will give my view on that, and then I will let my team come in with anything else that they would like to add. First, the whole thrust of our proposed changes is to empower consumers to understand more about the buildings that they are buying or renting. To do that, we need to have accurate and up-to-date information. There is a balance to be struck between ensuring that they have such information and understanding that, as you said, the frequency with which EPCs are required creates additional obligations for building owners. To our mind, the move from 10 to five years strikes that balance. Ultimately, we are asking that a property has only one more EPC in a decade, which, to me, feels like a proportionate way to ensure up-to-date and accurate information. When the committee heard evidence, bodies such as Which?, and others, were clear on that, too.

In both the social and private rented sectors, particularly when a landlord has a large portfolio, we are not just talking about them having to make one more certificate available. We have been considering how to work with the social rented sector on a framework for the procurement of EPCs for a large number of properties. We think that that could reduce costs by up to 20 per cent. The majority of PRS landlords have one property, but I am aware and conscious that some have more. We have been working with them on guidance for reusing data, for example, when updating an EPC.

I hope that, in all those ways, we can make what I think is a proportionate change all the less burdensome. I am also interested in and open minded to the idea that the validity period could move back to 10 years once a heat retention rating C has been achieved, but we will keep that under review.

Ross Loveridge will keep me right on this. Is it to go live on the 31st October next year?