Examination of Witnesses (Questions 1-19)
WWF-UK
14 DECEMBER 2005
Q1 Joan Walley: Mr King, I would like
to welcome you and thank you for coming along and giving evidence
to what is in fact the first session of our inquiry. I think it
is very important to get on record how important this inquiry
is in relation to the whole issue of sustainability. Given the
work that you and WWF have been doing, would you like to make
a very brief statement by way of introduction? One of the issues
that we are really concerned about is your lack of membership
of the Government's Senior Steering Group on the Code for Sustainable
Homes.
Mr King: Thank you very much for
inviting me along to give evidence. I have been leading WWF's
One Million Sustainable Homes campaign which we launched at the
World Summit on Sustainable Development in the summer of 2002.
Although it is called One Million Sustainable Homes, we are less
transfixed by a particular number and the campaign is really all
about mainstreaming sustainable homes. To that end we spent quite
a lot of time at the outset trying to understand what people perceived
to be the barriers to mainstreaming sustainability in UK housing.
That led us to an understanding that I think is quite widely shared
of what the key barriers are perceived to be. These range from
perceptions that the current building regulations and planning
regulations sometimes hinder rather than help sustainability,
perceptions that there are insufficient fiscal incentives either
for developers or consumers, the perception that sustainable homes
cost too much to build, the idea that there was no common standard;
people would not necessarily agree on what a sustainable home
would be, the idea that financial institutions who made the investment
in housebuilding were not particularly interested in sustainability,
and finally, a view held by a number of house builders, that consumers
were not interested in sustainable homes and did not want them,
and if they did they would be building them. What we have been
doing over almost the last four years is working with a wide variety
of partners in various positions of power and influence over different
aspects of that debate to try and tackle these barriers and change
people's perceptions. In all of that our dialogue with Government
and ODPM in particular has been critical as the main regulating
department responsible for planning and building regulations and
we were invited to join the Sustainable Buildings Task Group that
was set up as a result of the Better Buildings Summit a couple
of years ago. Members of the Committee will know that the report
from the Sustainable Buildings Task Group recommended a number
of things but one of the key recommendations was the establishment
of a single national code for sustainable buildings. That recommendation
was welcomed by Government last summer and a Senior Steering Group
was established in December and WWF was invited in the form of
Robert Napier, my Chief Executive, to be represented on that group.
We have been a member of that group from that point up until 30
November when Robert decided to resign. There were essentially
two reasons for that resignation. One was to do with process and
one was to do with content of the draft code. Our feeling is that
the process of drafting the code and the way that the steering
group was managed and consulted and used left an awful lot to
be desired in basic logistical ways but also in more meaningful
ways in terms of the way that advice was being taken on board
or not. The final straw in the process aspect of our resignation
was that, despite assurances and promises to the contrary, we
learnt that we were not going to be given the opportunity to comment
on or review the draft before it was published. That was despite
explicit assurances to the contrary at earlier steering group
meetings. Furthermore, when we finally saw the draft code at the
point when it was too late for us to comment as members of the
Senior Steering Group, we realised that this was a draft code
that we could not possibly defend in the public domain.
Q2 Joan Walley: In terms of its content,
what could you not subscribe to?
Mr King: There was an awful lot
of rhetoric around what the code should be and we supported that.
We supported the idea of a very strong, single, national code.
The idea was that it should set a stretching standard, a realistic
and achievable but stretching standard nonetheless, that would
signpost the future direction of building regulations and the
future trend of sustainable building in the UK, and that it should
also be a requirement of the public sector, the agencies, such
as English Partnerships and the Housing Corporation, who effectively
use public money to fund housing in this country and indeed dispose
of public land and so on. What we ended up with was a draft code
for sustainable buildings which was less than existing Government
commitments.
Q3 Joan Walley: How was it less than
existing Government commitments?
Mr King: For some time public
agencies have been committed to the BRE EcoHomes standard for
housing. For some considerable time English Partnerships have
been committed to that standard at a minimum of EcoHomes "Very
Good" level. The EcoHomes standard has "Pass",
"Good", "Very Good" and "Excellent"
levels. They committed at the "Very Good" level on all
of their land and in fact, for the Millennium Communities Programme,
at the EcoHomes "Excellent" level. The Housing Corporation
has been committed to the EcoHomes standard for some time, and
publicly committed to move to the EcoHomes "Very Good"
level as at April 2006. In doing that the public sector was committed
to a standard that was significantly beyond building regulations
and the minimum requirements. EcoHomes as a standard is constitutionally
committed to being beyond regulation, so by signing up to that
standard Government was sending a very clear signal that it was
going to lead the way and that these kinds of standards were significantly
beyond the regulatory minimum. What we saw in the draft code was
five levels. Level three would be the entry point for the public
sector agencies and at that level, in perhaps the most critical
area of energy (although there are a number of important areas),
the requirement is no more than the statutory minimum building
regulations.
Q4 Joan Walley: Can I be quite clear
that what you are saying is that the content of the code is of
a lesser quality than the BRE EcoHomes standard? There is no doubt
about that?
Mr King: That is right. Obviously,
the EcoHomes has different standard levels but if we are comparing
the draft code to the EcoHomes "Very Good" standard
the draft code is less than that standard.
Q5 Joan Walley: Just so that I am
clear in my mind, did you put all of this to ODPM, this procedure
that you have qualms about, before the content of the draft code
was published? Was there an opportunity for ODPM to comment on
what you were saying to them? Did you raise this with them?
Mr King: The issue was raised
repeatedly throughout the life of the Senior Steering Group by
WWF and other members of the steering group.
Q6 Joan Walley: What was ODPM's response?
Mr King: The specific point that
was made throughout the process was that whatever it produced
had to be seen to be going further than existing commitments;
otherwise all the rhetoric surrounding the code would be pointless,
and the assurance was repeatedly given that, of course, it must
reach that level and in fact that we would be given the evidence
before any public consultation that would demonstrate very clearly
that the new draft code would be more than the previous commitment.
Q7 Joan Walley: And you say that
that is not the case?
Mr King: That is not the case.
Q8 Joan Walley: Who else on the steering
group shares your view on this? Do you know?
Mr King: I would say that that
discussion was had several times in the Senior Steering Group
meetings and numerous members of the committee endorsed that view.
Everybody felt that if we were to go out and be representatives
of the Senior Steering Group and ambassadors and advocates for
this new code, we had to have pretty clear evidence that what
we were promoting was better than what already existed.
Q9 Joan Walley: Can I ask whether
or not that message was conveyed to ministers or whether or not
it was dealt with at official or officer level?
Mr King: It was dealt with at
official level. There was one occasion where WWF wrote to the
Deputy Prime Minister expressing concern about the lack of progress
with the process of developing the draft code, but most of the
dialogue was at official level.
Q10 Joan Walley: Are you now completely
out of the loop on this or do you see yourselves going back into
the fold?
Mr King: Our aim is quite simply
that we want to see a strong code.
Q11 Joan Walley: Are you intending
to discuss this with ministers now that you have resigned?
Mr King: Yes. On the day that
we resigned from the group we had numerous conversations with
officials at ODPM. They expressed great disappointment that we
felt the need to leave the group and they expressed the hope that
we would rejoin the effort to establish a good code down the line
and we remain open to that. We want to engage constructively in
this process in whatever way we can, so we will respond to the
consultation publicly but we are also quite happy, obviously,
to re-enter discussions about how, during the consultation period,
this code can now be improved.
Q12 Joan Walley: Just before I bring
in Mr Pritchard can I ask if there is a very clear list that you
have of issues that you would want to be addressed by this code?
It would be very helpful if we could have a copy of that on the
committee, further to the evidence that you have already given
us.
Mr King: Absolutely.
Q13 Mark Pritchard: You say that
you have had conversations with ODPM and various meetings. Have
they written to you formally responding to the concerns that you
have raised and the reasons for your withdrawal from their committee?
Mr King: No, we have not had anything
in writing. One thing that I should emphasise is that a critical
part of the process was the stage at which ODPM would form a working
relationship with the BRE because, going back to the original
recommendation from the Sustainable Buildings Task Group, which
said that the new code should build clearly on the EcoHomes standard
because it would be nonsensical to re-invent the wheel in that
respect, everybody agreed that it was critical that an agreement
be reached with BRE. That agreement was only reached extremely
late in the day and that is why the final draft code was so radically
different from earlier drafts and the papers that the Senior Steering
Group had been able to discuss.
Q14 Mark Pritchard: What do you think
they need to do to attract you back into the process? What objective,
hard measures need to be put in place to bring you back on board?
Mr King: Quite simply a statement
that, whatever results from the consultation period, the final
code will be demonstrably stronger and go further than existing
Government commitments.
Q15 Joan Walley: And you will be
setting out what it would take for that to happen?
Mr King: Yes.
Q16 Colin Challen: I am wondering
if this episode with your departure from the steering committee
is just a one-off episode or would you say that it might be a
more systemic characterisation of the way that ODPM treats these
issues?
Mr King: What I would say is that
WWF thinks long and hard before taking a step like this. We prefer
to be at the negotiating table having a structured discussion
rather than throwing our toys out of the pram and we thought carefully
about our decision to resign and therefore it was really a case
of the final straw in this particular process.
Q17 Colin Challen: Only on this particular
occasion? In your general dealings with ODPM, which must be extensive
over a long period of time, have you found them to be more helpful
in other regards? Is this just a one-off?
Mr King: No, it is not just a
one-off. It has been frustrating on a number of points.
Q18 Colin Challen: Before I get to
the main meat of my questions I want to ask whether you think
a voluntary code is sufficient anyway or should it not all be
built into regulations on a statutory footing?
Mr King: The question of a voluntary
code versus regulation is one that goes back a very long way.
The Sustainable Buildings Task Group took the view that it was
the right approach to recommend a voluntary standard, albeit that
to make any kind of voluntary standard stick or have any kind
of impact it would need to be accompanied by some pretty powerful
incentives and also some considerable marketing so that this became
something that the end consumer would understand and recognise
that it was something that added value in the same way that perhaps
energy labelling of white goods has transformed that market, but
also, to kick-start the kind of change that we need to see with
the industry, we really needed to see from Government some fiscal
incentives to accompany the introduction of the code.
Q19 Colin Challen: We will come back
to that. Given its voluntary nature and the need for marketing
you seem to have suggested that it has not been promoted very
well, that many of the key stakeholding groups, the planning and
building sectors, for example, simply do not know about it. Is
that really the case?
Mr King: It is. A lot of stakeholders
within the housebuilding industry and outside it have been very
frustrated by what they have felt has been a rather opaque process
and they have found it difficult to engage in the process of developing
the draft code up until now. Obviously, they now have an opportunity
with the public consultation period to do so but I think a lot
of people do feel frustrated that there has not been more opportunity
to engage earlier.
| 
