Examination of Witnesses (Questions 140-146)
MS SARAH
WEBB AND
MR RICHARD
BAINES
19 NOVEMBER 2007
Q140 Martin Horwood: No! Let us take
the working from home example.
Mr Baines: There are two aspects
to the fuel consumption in a house. There is what the building
machine requires. You could say, "We will not heat it and
we will redecorate every so often and get rid of the mould that
way"; or say, "We will keep it warm and will not let
mould in." The building has a particular requirement for
energy just to remain serviceable. There is a range of use of
energy, particularly with very energy-efficient buildings, which
has a relationship to the occupancy. The occupancy use is about
appliances, which we have just said were to be excluded from the
debate.
Q141 Martin Horwood: Most of the
carbon footprint of a house is to do with heating, is it not?
Mr Baines: At the moment it is,
but if you say we want to get to 60% reduction in carbon emissions
by 2050 the long-term goal is houses where the building does not
use much energy.
Q142 Martin Horwood: That is fine
for new-build, but it is very improbable, is it not, for existing
stock?
Mr Baines: You either knock the
houses down and build new ones, or you improve the existing ones
so they get to zero carbon—
Ms Webb: It is extremely difficult,
but just because it is very difficult does not mean it is not
a really big issue. The appliances are an important part of this
debate, but then if you took all the appliances out of all of
the houses, you would still have—
Q143 Martin Horwood: I was not really
talking about appliances. Can I ask you about cost? In your memorandum
at 2.7 you have quite a long list of possible incentives including
LibDem/Labour green mortgages but also equity release products
and, effectively, loans. Do you know of anybody who has done any
work on which of these might be the most cost-effective or practical
options, because you have listed a lot and not really into much
more detail.
Ms Webb: I think part of the problem
of the debate is that we are just at the beginning. Everybody
is just at the beginning stage and trying to work out the most
cost-effective interventions to make. Probably some of the best,
most effective value-for-money interventions are those that have
a high price up-front and payback over a longer period of time,
which is obviously a problem.
Q144 Martin Horwood: Is cracking
that problem more important than getting the right code or the
right certificate sorted out, because it seems to me crucial in
terms of making this happen?
Ms Webb: I do not think they are
mutually exclusive, to be honest with you.
Q145 Martin Horwood: I did not say
they were, but is this by far the most important part—-
Ms Webb: Yes, if you want to solve
most of these problems that involve spending money, then obviously
the money is the most important part. If I had a choice out of
somebody allocating a large amount of money in a spending review
to greening existing houses versus introducing a code, I would
go for money every time, but I repeat I do not think they are
mutually exclusive. I think one reinforces the other.
Q146 Martin Horwood: From this long
list, do you have any preferences?
Ms Webb: No, I think the answer
has to be a mixture of them, I really do. Because our housing
stock is so complex and the individuals living within the housing
stock are so varied, we are not going to have one solution. We
do not have one solution to most housing problems.
Chair: Thank you very much indeed.
| 
