Examination of Witnesses (Questions 40-48)
RT HON
DAVID MILIBAND,
DR SIMON
HARDING AND
MR ANDREW
LAWRENCE
12 JULY 2006
Q40 Sir Peter Soulsby: I suspect,
Chairman, that will probably cause considerable concern to many
agencies and bodies that are funded by Defra, because I understand
you to be saying that there is a real prospect that some of them
may lose some of their current year's funding as a result of this?
David Miliband: No, that is not
right. It is not right to say that is what I have said. What I
have said is that every one of Defra's agencies, including Defra
itself, operate in a tight fiscal environment. We are determined
to balance our books. Obviously, you have got to plan in an appropriate
way. This was not planned for, but we are obviously going to seek
to mitigate any effect, especially given that we want to move
towards longer-term budget planning for ourselves and for everyone
else who works with us and is funded by us.
Q41 Sir Peter Soulsby: Finally, I
am wondering whether you are able to give an assurance to those
agencies and bodies that are funded by Defra that they will not
suffer reductions in their current year's budget as a result of
the RPA fiasco?
David Miliband: I do not think
it is right to pick the RPA issue out of the context of the overall
fiscal environment in which we are working, because there are
swings and roundabouts in every departmental budget. We have to
manage those swings and roundabouts. In some ways they are more
complicated in our budget because of the EU dimension to them.
What I can assure you and what I would want to say to every agency
that we are working with is that we have been very transparent
and very clear with them about the long-term nature of the fiscal
framework under which we are operating, under which they are operating.
We have been clear with them about the medium-term contribution
they need to make to the efficiency agenda, and what I would say
is that it is important that they pursue that with us in a clear
way. My meeting so far with those agencies suggests that that
is what they are determined to do.
Q42 Patrick Hall: Secretary of State,
I would like to return to your letter to the Prime Minister on
the subject of collective efforts across government before tackling
climate change, improving energy efficiency and reducing energy
consumption. There is a section in the letter headed "Energy",
and I would like to ask you what role do you see Defra playing,
or hoping to play, in addressing "the under-performing existing
housing stock" and also how Defra is contributing to assessing
the new Planning Policy Statement and also assessing the effectiveness,
or otherwise, of the newly introduced revised Building Regulations
and how those things could help to push for greater water and
energy efficiency in New Build, perhaps in particular the growth
areas? This is a sphere that was formerly seen as ODPM, or whatever
it is now called, but in terms of the role of Defra, which is
highlighted in your letter, how do you see Defra contributing
to that across the board series of discussions and assessments?
David Miliband: That is a huge
question, covering about a third of the economy! To rattle through
it, we have to work very closely with the DCLG on the review of
existing homes, and we are determined to do so. Just in that context,
Ruth Kelly is publishing later this month her reviews on water
use as well as on energy efficiency. People forget that water
treatment is itself a major contribution to carbon emissions—one
reason why the whole leaks agenda is quite important. We will
be working very closely with her. Secondly, I remember I was looking
at this from the other point of view until 10-11 weeks ago, from
the ODPM point of view. You can either say, "Let's look at
the 10 million cavity walls that have not got cavity walls, let's
look at the X hundred thousand conservatories which are built
every year, let's look at Y and Z inputs and how do we tackle
them" or you can say, "Let's look at it from the other
end of the telescope: how much energy are we using?" What
the energy review puts out, which I think is very exciting, is
that it says "Let's change the regulatory system for the
energy supply industry. Instead of them being rewarded for how
much energy they produce, let's reward them for the amount of
energy efficiency they introduce." So in the end you change
the burden of choice from being all of the choices being made
by government to being choices made much further down the line,
either by individuals or by communities. In a way, you are regulating
the outcome rather than regulating each and every process within
it. It is, I think, pretty striking that, as a result of yesterday's
announcements, you have the EU Emissions Trading Scheme covering
the big companies, you have what is called the Energy Performance
Commitment covering 5,000 major public and private sector organisations
from local authorities to the BBC to Tesco's, and then you have
27 million households which are going to be governed by a version
of the Cap and Trade scheme as well, because essentially the energy
supply industry will be told "Your regulatory incentives
are to reduce demand rather than to increase it." At the
moment they make more profit the more energy they sell but, by
the way, they have an energy efficiency commitment. I think that
is quite a radical vision that sweeps up quite a lot of what you
have said. The final thing you referred to was the planning policy
statement on climate change, and that is very important. We will
be having full input into that.
Q43 Patrick Hall: I can see that
much of what you said may well address the under-performing existing
housing stock, but we have an opportunity with the growth areas,
thousands of new houses, to set standards that act as a flagship
of where we want to go.
David Miliband: I fully agree
with you. I tried to keep my answer short because you asked about
the existing housing stock, but in respect of the new housing,
you are absolutely right.
Q44 Patrick Hall: Can I complete
the question about the growth areas? I think you have handled
the existing housing stock quite well through the existing energy
companies but is this not an opportunity—I wonder whether
you agree with that—in which case, whether Defra would have
a role in arguing for maybe higher standards in the growth areas,
beyond what the current building regs would necessarily require
from a statutory point of view.
David Miliband: A thousand per
cent, I agree with you. There is a massive opportunity in the
Thames Gateway and the other areas. That is why the Government
has said two things: one, we want to move towards zero carbon
new development and the building regulations are going to go up
what they call the staircase of the Code for Sustainable Homes
from level 0 to level 5. Level 3 is the commitment on social housing
already. We are determined to make sure, or Yvette Cooper has
announced that we are determined to make sure that the building
regulations follow that Code for Sustainable Homes up to level
5, which is low or zero carbon new developments. Point one. Point
two: we are absolutely determined to make sure that in places
like the Thames Gateway, where you have mass development, we use
that as an absolute exemplar of what procurement can deliver.
Just in parenthesis, that is a way of driving down some of the
costs that are associated with some of the energy saving devices.
So I am completely on board with that. Final point: do not forget
the Olympics, which is also a big opportunity to demonstrate the
power of sustainable procurement. We are very much involved with
that and certainly, from when I was sitting in my previous post,
there was plenty of DCLG pressure for us to deliver on it, and
I will certainly be keeping that going.
Q45 Mr Williams: In your response
to the Prime Minister you say, "We need to start a serious
debate about the use of land in England." I think probably
we have a planning system that is tighter than most European countries,
and one of its priorities has been the protection of the countryside.
You actually say in your response that we may have to make trade-offs
and that we have in place protecting the right land for the right
reasons. But I sense that when you have discussions with Kate
Barker, there may be a way to perhaps relax the planning issues
a bit. The complaint often is that we have a countryside that
is in aspic and that it really hinders the provision of rural
housing, affordable housing, and developing the economy. When
you say possible ways forward, what did you have in mind?
David Miliband: The first thing
to say is the planning system gets a lot of flak but actually,
the planning system has delivered a huge boom to this country
in many ways over the last 50 or 60 years. The fact that we have
not endured sprawl in the way that some other countries have should
not be neglected. Equally, there are aspects of the planning system
that are a source of frustration, both to those who are developers
and to those who are protesters, because the planning system is
in many ways one of the more democratic aspects of our political
system and one of the more decentralised aspects that allows a
voice.
Q46 Lynne Jones: Apart from the appeals.
David Miliband: Apart from the
appeals. You cannot always win. The perspective I will be bringing
is that we have to get the right environmental and economic balance.
I do not think there is an easy answer to it and one of the things
that comes out of my being an MP in the North East is that there
are different issues there than there are in the South East. You
are a Welsh MP, representing a Welsh constituency, and obviously
there are different issues in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
I think it is about clarity, speed, efficiency and balance, and
I think those things can be got together. One of the things that
has always struck me is that you have a planning system that historically
has not recognised local housing market conditions. As it happens,
the South Shields housing market is pretty hot but the regional
North East housing market is not especially hot, although it has
heated up. Recognising those very local issues seems to me to
be important in the way in which the system works. That is just
one example of it. There are a different set of issues in respect
of commercial and business premises.
Q47 Mr Williams: When you are talking
about possible ways forward, are you looking specifically at housing,
specifically at the local economy? What are the issues?
David Miliband: I think certainly
one has to think about housing and housing need. One has to think
about commercial and business development. One of the challenges
for us is to make sure that when one thinks about commercial and
business development, one is thinking about the whole carbon footprint,
the transport infrastructure, and the water and sewerage infrastructure.
I think the development or planning gain supplement model gives
us a chance to address those infrastructural issues in a way that
they have not been properly addressed up to now.
Q48 Mr Williams: Do you have any
magic solution to the affordable housing problem?
David Miliband: I have a magic
solution but I am not telling anyone what it is! If there were
a magic solution, I think someone would have found it by now.
|
