Examination of Witnesses (Questions 360-368)
MR ELLIOT
MORLEY MP AND
DEPARTMENT FOR
ENVIRONMENT, FOOD
AND RURAL
AFFAIRS
31 JANUARY 2006
Q360 Colin Challen: Is that something
you will be looking at?
Mr Morley: I see; so I am being
invited to look into toilets! Less water use is something that
we want to encourage. I know Ken has some interesting ideas on
saving it which are not altogether ones that we might want to
propose.
Q361 Mr Caton: In its evidence to
us the RSPB argues that charging by volume through water metering
should become the accepted norm and that the Government should
be proactively promoting metering. Do you agree with that and,
if so, what is the Department doing?
Mr Morley: We should certainly
be encouraging people to go on to water meters, and we are. We
point out the benefits of going on to water meters. Water meters
are fitted free of charge, of course. That is a charge that is
borne by the water companies and is built into the periodic price
reviews. The problem is, of course, that we do not have water
shortages across the whole country and if you want to have a campaign
on water metering I think it is logical that you concentrate your
campaign in areas of the greatest water shortage and where you
are going to get the greatest benefits. There is therefore great
logic in terms of encouraging people to go on meters in the south
and the south east. There is a harder argument in Northumbria
where they have Kielder reservoir and there is no shortage of
water; there is not a problem, even though, of course, it is more
sustainable and we would still encourage it, but I think it is
an issue of priorities. The water companies themselves, of course,
do have powers under the Water Act to make an application to Defra
for water scarcity status whereby they can apply to fit meters
compulsorily. We have had the first one of those applications
into Defra, which is from the Folkestone Water Company, and we
will make a determination on that certainly by the end of March.
Q362 Chairman: Can I take you back
for a moment to this question of new homes? Even before the Government's
response to Barker had been published the Environment Agency told
us that their research showed that water companies had underestimated
by 20% the level of housing growth in their water resource plans.
Is that something you are aware of and concerned about?
Mr Morley: The Environment Agency
thinks the water companies have done it?
Q363 Chairman: Yes.
Mr Morley: Yes, I do understand
that. I think that if there is evidence that their plans are wrong
they can be directed by the Secretary of State to revise their
plans and make amendments in relation to longer term demands.
If the Environment Agency have concerns about this then, of course,
we will take that very seriously and we will look at the basis
of it.
Q364 Mr Stuart: The Pathfinder Scheme
has had something of a poor press in the last week and, regardless
of the money actually spent by ODPM on consultants, I wonder whether
Defra is entirely happy with the way that Pathfinder is proceeding.
Mr Morley: It is principally an
ODPM matter rather than a Defra matter. We obviously have an interest
in what ODPM are doing. There are a number of points. First, more
homes are being refurbished in Pathfinder than demolished, as
I understand it. Secondly, I do know some of these homes that
are coming down in Pathfinder and they are shockers, Chairman.
They are often presented as quite nice Victorian terraces and
I think you can refurbish Victorian terraces. In my own constituency
we have an area called Frodingham village which is old ironworkers'
cottages and they have been refurbished by a housing association.
They had to build extensions on the back for bathrooms and everything
else and it means that they are smallish two-bedroom houses, but
it is a very nice development and it is popular, particularly
with first-time buyers. There is a mix to buy and to rent and
I very much like that development, and I think you can have a
nice urban environment and decent homes with a refurbishment.
However, I do know that there are some other houses which are
due for demolition which are not nice terraced houses. You may
be aware of Orchard Park in north Hull. Some of those houses were
built in the sixties or seventies, they were built under what
was then called the "no fines" system. Some of them
suffered from chronic mould and damp. Some of these older houses
are single solid wall. Trying to insulate these houses and make
them warm and decent is really very hard, really very expensive.
On top of that there are some issues about why people want to
live in areas, which goes beyond the house. It is the whole issue
of the nature of an area and sometimes the best way of dealing
with it is a mix of refurbishment and demolition so you can build
some other homes. I think that some of the criticism levelled
at Pathfinder has been a bit unreasonable. I like to see older
houses refurbished but I think Pathfinder is a bit more than that.
Q365 Mr Stuart: So as far as you
are concerned Defra is happy with the demolitions that have gone
on? Obviously, we are aware that there are homes that are suitable
for demolition. That is not the point. The question directly to
you is: is Defra happy with all the demolitions that have gone
on with the homes that seemed to fit more the description of the
ones that you said could be refurbished?
Mr Morley: These are matters for
ODPM. Our interest is that when areas are refurbished they are
done on the basis of sustainable communities, that you have things
like adequate green space and that you take into account energy
use and insulation. Some of these refurbishments and rebuild projects
are a significant improvement on what was there before.
Q366 Joan Walley: Can I press you
a little further on that? The point about some of the criticism
there has been in the press is that there has been a huge amount
of money spent on consultants and I just wonder where you feel
consultants are going to have the remit on the sustainable development
aspect in the proposals that are coming forward because we are
not talking about public bodies in that sense, are we? We are
talking about consultants who are going to be drawing up plans,
looking at future housing alongside economic regeneration? From
where I sit the difficulty is how to make sure that they put sustainable
development at the heart of the proposals that they are coming
up with. It seems to me that that is not centre stage. This comes
back to the whole heart of the problem about the codes that we
want to see and how they apply this to consultants who are not
necessarily briefed on all of this.
Mr Morley: I cannot comment on
ODPM's policy on consultants. I think that is a question you need
to put to them. I can answer in general terms that all departments
do use some consultants. Obviously, we only want to use consultants
if they are bringing some skills or expertise or adding value
which is not available within the range of experience and skills
that you have within your own department, which in Defra's case
is considerable. However, we do bring in consultants from time
to time, and some of those who would be classed as consultants
are people like the Energy Saving Trust and the Carbon Trust which
are very important bodies that bring with them a great deal of
skill and expertise which we very much value in relation to our
own strategies.
Q367 Joan Walley: It would be very
interesting though, would it not, to see to what extent consultants
have embraced the remit of sustainable development in terms of
the work that they are doing? I suspect not as much as you would
like.
Mr Morley: The departments are
charged with promoting sustainable development and particularly
we are talking here in relation to sustainable homes and sustainable
communities which we have a very clear Government strategy on.
Q368 Joan Walley: So you would expect
there to be clear guidance from ODPM in relation to the remit?
Mr Morley: I am sure that ODPM
are addressing the issue of sustainable communities.
Chairman: Thank you very much. It has
been a very useful session and we look forward to seeing you again
in due course.
| 
