Examination of Witnesses (Questions 132-139)
HOME BUILDERS
FEDERATION AND
BELLWAY PLC
18 JANUARY 2006
Q132 Chairman: Apologies for the fact
that we are running quite late now. It initially was not our fault,
we had a division unexpectedly at half past two. We have overrun
and I am grateful to you for waiting; I apologise for the discourtesy.
I know that you have been to this Committee before but not in
this immediate session, and you have changed your name from House
Builders to Home Builders in the intervening period.
Mr Slaughter: That is right, yes.
Q133 Chairman: We are delighted to
see you. I do not know what the exact implication of that change
is, but if we can start with the Code for Sustainable Homes; am
I right in saying that you were not actually part of the Government's
senior steering group for the Code, but some of your members may
have been involved.
Mr Slaughter: We were not as HBF,
no, but David Pretty, who is the chief executive of Barratt, was
one of the steering group members, so in that sense in a personal
capacity he represented the industry viewpoint.
Q134 Chairman: As the Federation
did you try to influence the development of the draft Code before
the consultation paper was published?
Mr Slaughter: No, we were not
in a position to do so, not being members of the steering group,
and we have expressed views in terms of what debate there was
in the public domain about it, but beyond that we, like other
organisations, had to wait to see what came out in the consultation
in December.
Q135 Chairman: It has been suggested
by some people, notably the WWF, that actually the draft Code
is a step back rather than forwards. What is your view about that?
Mr Slaughter: Rather surprised
by WWF's view, which we certainly would not agree with. Listening
to the previous session, very clearly the Code does point the
way forward to increasingly ambitious levels of building in terms
of environmental performance and the Government has been quite
clear that they want to add elements into the Code as it develops.
We certainly would not agree that it is lacking in ambition. The
point of it is that it is meant to be a voluntary initiative and,
therefore, effectively engage and provide a pathway for the industry
to develop commercially towards the objectives. Listening to what
has been said already, we would agree with those points and that
does imply that there are limits to how far you can go on day
one as opposed to whatever it may be, 15 or 20 years in the future.
If you go back to the thinking of the task group, Sustainable
Buildings, whose work underlay the proposal for the Code, part
of the objective here is to also improve the regulatory environment,
which is a point that I wanted to add into the discussion on this.
A positive element of the Code which we would certainly welcome
in terms of what really the Government is trying to do is that
it actually represents a less prescriptive approach to regulation,
if I can use that term in the general sense, in the sense that
the Code is based on certain performance objectives rather than
trying to specify how you achieve them. That is a very important
distinction, because we have certainly been concerned, to add
to the points that were made earlier about complexity of regulation,
that it is also very prescriptive, and in fact that prescription
is very arguably a barrier to innovation rather than a facilitator
of innovation. So we very much welcome the fact that the Government
is now starting to look at a different approach to encouraging
better performance, and that element of the Code is very welcome,
although there are other issues with it. We certainly do not feel
that that is lacking in ambition either; part of that mindset
is also to try and pre-signal what the future levels of building
regulations may be so that the different tiers of achievement,
the different star ratings under the Code, are as I understand
it meant to actually suggest that in five, 10, 15 years time we
might be looking at building regulations in that kind of area.
That also does not seem to me to be lacking in ambition, in fact
quite the opposite in the sense that by creating in a sense a
more level playing field, a more certain business environment
about what business might expect in terms of regulatory standards
going ahead, it will make it easier for business to plan and innovate
towards achieving them.
Q136 Chairman: Are there things that
actually cause concern to you or your colleagues?
Mr Slaughter: On the Code there
certainly are. There are specifics, and the big issue example
there is initially the issue of sustainable urban drainage systems.
It is quite an important element of the entry level of the Code—you
essentially have to have sustainable urban drainage systems in
place. That is not a problem for the industry, the industry is
quite happy to do that and is able to do it, but we have essentially
a major practical issue in that it is very difficult to get adoption
of sustainable urban drainage systems by the utilities. This is
a point that we have already made to the ODPM, that if we are
going to have an entry level of the Code that includes SUDS then
we need to sort out that issue with the utilities. That is one
area of concern; another area of concern is around what I might
call consumer behaviour. To add to the points that were made earlier,
I think there is another element in the picture when you look
at the market context of how you achieve better standards going
forward, which is not just about is there an immediate market
for something and what the cost of that is to the consumer, whether
they are willing to pay a price premium for it, it is also about
how consumers behave. A debate around the Code is essentially
about that. If you include things in the Code that do not accord
with consumers' way of living, the way they are likely to behave
in a home, then requiring it through either formal regulation
or through a voluntary code is not likely to work. There are examples
we can cite from contemporary experience that would go along with
that. I am not sure this is specifically an issue for the Code,
but it is an illustration of the point. Certainly, it is the experience
of developers that if they install low energy light bulbs, for
example, they are very often taken out by customers when they
move into the houses. You could specify through a code or regulation
that you should install low energy light bulbs, but if consumers
do not like them, for whatever reason, and take them out, the
builder cannot control that and there is no way that you can do
that.
Q137 Colin Challen: Can you tell
us why you think they do take them out?
Mr Slaughter: I am not entirely
sure.
Q138 Colin Challen: Has anybody researched
that issue?
Mr Slaughter: I do not know. Can
you add to that, Sue?
Ms Bridge: The BRE report, which
looked at these things, found that the biggest disincentive for
home owners to retain low energy light bulbs was that there were
not enough light fittings and light shades suitable—enough
variety of lampshades available to make your home bespoke. We
need to grasp that for more people to use low energy light bulbs
the lampshade makers need to make more variety of lampshades.
Mr Slaughter: Power showers are
another example. It is not entirely clear to us whether the entry
level of the Code would mean that you could no longer have a power
shower, but it is certainly very much the case in market terms
that if it did have that effect, there is no doubt that customers
want power showers at this stage. If you install non-power showers
in a new home they would probably take them out and replace them
with something even less effective than what the developer would
otherwise install. There are certain consumer behaviour issues,
therefore, that we always have to take into account in however
we approach these things. The third area of concern about the
Code is really about the planning system, which again was touched
on earlier. I think it is very unclear to us at this stage how
the Code as a voluntary entity will exist with the planning system,
but if it has the effect of encouraging local authorities to effectively
go off down their own track and say we will do X or Y in our area,
which may be different things in different cases, it would compound
a problem that already exists in the planning system where local
authorities are tending to adopt their own form of quality building
regulations on a local basis. The problem that that causes for
the industry is precisely that you do not have a level playing
field. You might want to comment on that, Sue.
Ms Bridge: It is a particular
problem in London where you have got the Mayor producing his draft
Code for Sustainable Buildings and then each of the local authorities,
the London boroughs, in turn are looking at that and then adapting
it for their own purposes, with their own sustainability checklists.
Again, it is an issue that we are lacking a common playing field
and you do not know where you are at any one point in time in
what is going to be required of you.
Q139 Chairman: I do not think your
memorandum, for which thank you, expanded on the urban drainage
problem which you just referred to, which presumably affects the
water industry. If you could write to us afterwards and just deal
with that in more detail, and indeed the other concerns you have
got with the Code, that would be very helpful.
Mr Slaughter: It was difficult
because we had very little time to put that together. I should
say that I have been as frank as I can be, but we are still in
the process as an organisation of consulting all our membership,
so we do not have a definitive view. I will happily write to you
and say whatever I can on these points.
Chairman: Put any qualifications that
you feel are necessary in that respect, yes. Celia.
|
