Examination of Witnesses (Questions 60-79)
CONSTRUCTION CONFEDERATION,
CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY
COUNCIL, CONSTRUCTION
PRODUCTS ASSOC.
23 OCTOBER 2007
Q60 Mr Clapham: We saw from April
of this year the Construction Design Management Regulations. Do
you feel they are going to have an impact in bringing all aspects
of the industry together and that, in effect, is going to help
with health and safety?
Mr Colley: Yes. It is perhaps
just worth giving my perspective. On an earlier question you had
about migrant workers, certainly my experience is that they are
more compliant with safety standards than probably our own indigenous
workers, which means more likely to be properly working a PPE
and complying with the standards; so I do not personally think
there are any issues there. What I would say though is I think,
certainly in the manufacturing area, I travel the world and see
plants the world over and the responsibilities are quite wide
in that regard. The highest regulatory regime is the UK, beyond
a shadow of doubt, in terms of guarding, in terms of all sorts
of standards in the plant, and my own feeling is that the statistics
in that area are probably amongst the best in the world as well.
It is difficult, because other countries have different ways of
measuring things, to get true comparatives and certainly to Construction
Products many companies have presented a record of vast improvement
in accident performance over these last few years—my own,
we have cut ours by 70% in the last two or three years—and
it is a matter of leadership, its standards, its auditing, its
compliance and, above all else, it is usually site supervision
which are the critical issues in this.
Q61 Mr Clapham: Coming to site supervision,
would you think that we need stronger sanctions, for example,
in the Health and Safety Executive to be seen or to have a higher
profile with regards to construction?
Mr Colley: They do have very strong
sanctions—there is no problem with them closing a site—and
they will exercise those sanctions as well. Certainly they give
final warnings. So, I actually think they are reasonably well,
shall we say, equipped to do the job properly. Whether there needs
to be more of them, one can certainly argue that companies should
be more self-policing in terms of their own training and standards
internally, but, I have to say, I am not sure, I think there being
more of them probably would be helpful.
Mr Fison: We certainly feel that.
Q62 Mr Clapham: May I finally ask,
in relation to migrant labour and some of the arguments that do
arise around the agencies providing workers, do you feel that
there is a need perhaps for the Gangmasters Licencing Regulations
to apply in construction?
Mr Fison: I do not personally.
We do not use gangmasters directly, and there are many regulations
already in place to ensure we pay people properly. I was chatting
to colleagues about this very question yesterday, and what we
were not absolutely certain of is whether there is an issue at
the bottom end of the industry. At the top end we think there
is a regulatory burden which would add no great benefit and no
greater protection. That was what we strongly felt. I must say,
talking about the CDM, I happen to believe that is a great piece
of regulation. The original regulations were not so good and were
not so effective, but there has been great consultation and it
is a good piece of work where all the parties were consulted,
they have worked it through and it is very much how, I guess,
the industry would like regulation brought into place. It is obviously
early days but certainly it feels right.
Chairman: This Committee recently recommended
an expansion of the powers of the Gangmasters Licensing Authority.
I think we probably had in mind the hospitality sector as the
principal target there, but it is where agency workers are being
used in significant number in an industry there is always scope
for exploitation, and certainly in my constituency the growers
in the Vale of Evesham have welcomed the GLA because it has actually
enabled them to prove that they are using legitimate labour and
to drive out the cowboys. So, if you do on reflection think there
are issues you wish us to address at the bottom end, the tail
end, of the sector, I would like to hear from you about that,
but that is a very helpful set of questions. Thank you very much.
We change gear. Mike Weir.
Q63 Mr Weir: I was interested in
some of the comments you make in your memorandum about sustainability
in construction, particularly the distinction you make between
the construction process itself and the finished product. Can
you tell us, first of all, what progress has the industry made
in recent years towards achieving sustainability in the construction
process, as opposed to the product, and what have been the drivers
behind this?
Mr Colley: When you say "process",
do you mean the manufacturing process?
Q64 Mr Weir: The building rather
than looking at the sustainability of the finished building.
Mr Colley: I see what you mean;
the process of actual construction as opposed to what happens
at the end of it. Certainly there has been some quite significant
progress which I can give you few examples of. The cement industry
have cut their energy use 25%; my industry has cut theirs by 16%
in the last two or three years. A lot of R&D goes into these,
of course, and the driver of that, I have to say, is actually
very high energy prices, so people clearly do focus on those as
well as green credentials, but I think probably the big issue
is waste: waste in the production process, waste on the building
site. I think, again, the driver probably there of a lot of work
and effort is the Landfill Tax, which does have an impact, and
to my mind it is a successful tax. For instance, in my own industry,
I would say two or three years ago the industry as a whole was
probably land filling 100,000 tonnes of production waste. Now
it is down to almost nothing. We have certainly shut down all
our landfill sites by putting in recycling facilities, and it
is quite a major investment to be able to do that, to avoid landfill,
and then, of course, we extended this to the construction sites
where we take away our waste plasterboard from those sites and
recycle it ourselves; and we have gone out with some quite clear
commitments (there is the Ashdown Agreement) that will halve construction
site plasterboard waste to landfill by 2010 and there will be
no production waste to landfill by then, although we are very
nearly there already. So there are some quite major initiatives,
they are just ones in industries I am very familiar with, but
I think there are plenty of others going on as well.
Q65 Mr Weir: What about the finished
product and the sustainability of the buildings themselves? What
are the barriers to achieving greater sustainability in new buildings?
Mr Colley: Are you talking finished
construction or are you talking new construction?
Q66 Mr Weir: Yes, new construction.
There seems to be a difference. You have talked about the process,
how you are trying to reduce waste, and it seems to me cost driven,
you want to reduce costs, and I quite understand that, but the
other side of it is the building itself and the pressures that
are on there both from your point of view and presumably from
the ultimate client's point of view, whether it is public or private
procurement of the building. What pressures are they putting on
in this respect?
Mr Colley: The predominant determinant
is building regulation. That generally drives the performance
of a building, and builders normally build to it, whatever it
is.
Q67 Mr Weir: But most large companies
now tell us that they are looking to be more sustainable, to be
greener, or whatever. What I am really asking you is: is this
coming through in construction? Is the client coming to you and
saying, "We want to make this building more energy-efficient,
more sustainable in the long run", or is the cost of the
building still the determining factor above all in how a new building
is built?
Mr Raynsford: Could I come in
on this one, because I think the critical issue here is in relation
to the product rather that process, and it is right to look at
those two separate elements of sustainability. The critical thing
is to get the best, most well-informed and co-ordinated approach
to sustainability in construction. BERR, the department, is currently
consulting on its sustainable construction strategy, and that
is all about trying to ensure that there is the pulling together
of best practice and an understanding of how you avoid a lot of
fragmentation: because there is a huge ferment going on at the
moment of people devising new approaches, new ideas, whether it
is individual products, or process, or standards, and making sure
that we end up with something that is really workable and is the
best possible way forward to enable incredibly demanding standards
to be reached. The CLG is responsible for the Code for Sustainable
Homes, which is seeking to ensure that every new home is zero
carbon by 2016, level six—that will involve a huge increase
compared with where we are at the moment—and getting there
in a way that everyone understands how to do it is vital. So the
industry is working rather closely with BERR to try and ensure
that that sustainable construction strategy is both effective—
Q68 Mr Weir: I understand that. I
was interested in what John was saying. It seemed to me that from
the constructor's point of view regulation, taxation, energy prices
were the driving factors. From what you are also saying it does
seem to me that regulations again are the driving factor for the
ultimate building, it is what the building regulation are or the
strategies for a sustainable building. What I am trying to get
it is: is there any pressure from the end client themselves for
better standards of sustainable building or are they all sitting
waiting for the Government to come up with better building regulations
and better standards?
Mr Fison: No, no. Very definitely.
It is government clients as well as private clients. There are
some very clear requirements coming out in the Building Schools
for the Future Programme; so there is pressure coming definitely
from clients for more sustainable construction. Sometimes that,
of course, leads to cost increase, which people do not like, and
there, I think, one of the big issues that needs to be looked
at is the initial cost versus the whole-life costs, and I think
there needs to be more work done. We had great difficulty putting
biomass boilers into Bristol schools because of the initial costs
going up versus our whole-life saving.
Q69 Mr Weir: That is something I
have come across with local government as well, trying to do more
sustainable building, because when the initial capital cost is
much greater it works against them going down that route. Is that
something you are finding quite prevalent?
Mr Fison: If anything I am finding
people solving it more. A year ago, or 18 months ago when we put
it in there, it was our proposal. Subsequently we are seeing people
put that proposal to us, clients leading the way, but I think
the point that was made about the need for government to set,
to avoid it becoming everybody having their own opinion of what
is required, and to keep a tight framework so that the industry
moves forward together is an important one, because otherwise
you can go off in all directions and, whilst there might be individually
brilliant solutions, will it move the country as a whole forward?
Q70 Mr Weir: Nick, you mentioned
new build and refurbishment. I quite understand that. Do you think
the Government is right to focus its attention on new build given
that there are millions of homes in this country which are not
energy efficient and that would have to be rectified if we were
going forward in that way?
Mr Colley: Yes, I think the question
is a good one. It is perhaps worth looking at new housing. We
build something in the region of 190,000 a year, which is point
eight of the housing stock—point eight of 1% we are building
each year—so it is actually a tiny amount. If you think
that we are going to go to zero carbon in 2016, which is quite
a way off, and from then on you are looking at perhaps point eight
of a per cent addition each year of carbon-efficient housing,
you get a feel for actually the scale of the problem: because
our existing housing stock is not carbon efficient in any way,
shape or form. Indeed, if we take the 2010 Building Regulations,
I think for every pound spent achieving performance above that
and energy efficiency, it would save 50 times more carbon if it
was spent on the existing housing stock. It gives you an idea
of true efficiency of money and spend between new and existing
build—. I think the existing housing stock produces 27%
of the country's carbon; so it is an enormous amount of it. There
is a huge opportunity there to do a lot more in terms of improving
the energy efficiency of the housing stock.
Q71 Chairman: The general principle
I have got no problem at all; the very specific figures you quoted,
are they a guesstimate or are they based on a meta-analysis?
Mr Colley: No, they are accurate
figures, shall we say. Some effort has gone in. I have not just
conjured them up out of thin air. They are, if you like, our estimates
as an association of these figures, so I think they are reasonable.
Q72 Mr Weir: So basically from that
you feel there has to be more effort in the older stock as well
as the new build?
Mr Colley: Absolutely.
Q73 Mr Weir: Moving on from that
to something Nick was saying about BERR's Draft Strategy for Sustainable
Construction, do you think you will be able to bring together
a wide range of a government initiatives under a single sustainable
framework and move that forward both in new build and the older
housing stock in particular?
Mr Raynsford: That is the objective,
and the sustainable construction strategy has to obviously apply
not just to new build but to refurbishment work as well.
Q74 Mr Weir: Are you happy that the
draft is going to achieve that?
Mr Raynsford: We think the draft
is a very good statement and a very well prepared statement of
where we are at the moment, which is not to say that there is
not scope for considerable further improvement. We ourselves within
the CIC recently benefited from a secondment from Atkins to help
us in the professional services side to co-ordinate our response;
and, as I said earlier, the industry is working very closely with
BERR to try and make sure that this document, which we think has
huge potential, really does encapsulate what is necessary to meet
those very demanding targets, but it has got to be for the whole
range of construction, not just new build.
Q75 Chairman: Before we move on to
the last few areas of questioning, can I pick up one or two details
from that exchange particularly with Mr Colley I think. First
of all, zero carbon: is it a realistic target? Ultra low carbon:
possibly. Can we actually get to zero carbon? Are you confident
it can be achieved?
Mr Colley: I think you can, whether
it will be an appropriate solution to the problem is another matter.
Q76 Chairman: The amount of money
you will spend on achieving it could have been spent better elsewhere.
Mr Colley: Absolutely. It is an
enormous sum of money on achieving it when there is so much which
could be done in so many other ways. Having said that, it has
been set as a target quite a long time ahead, so it does give
the industry every opportunity to try and develop technology,
methods, materials which will allow that to be achieved; so I
think as an appropriate target it is not an unreasonable thing
to do.
Q77 Chairman: But the opportunity
costs of it may be—
Mr Colley: May be quite steep
for actually getting there, yes.
Q78 Chairman: On Landfill Tax, you
said the benefit it had was encouraging recycling in your industry
particularly.
Mr Colley: Yes.
Q79 Chairman: Of course other parts
of the industry have responded by dumping their waste at random
in farmyards and in country lanes. I hope you are not calling
for a further increase in the Landfill Tax.
Mr Colley: To my mind I think
the Government has made it clear that they wanted to go up by
eight pounds a year until it reaches about £50. I have to
say, I think it will have beneficial results. I appreciate the
point you make and that you do get more fly-tipping with it.
| 
