Examination of Witness (Question Numbers
320-322)
PROFESSOR TONY
CROOK
23 NOVEMBER 2009
Q320 Chair: Indeed, yes, so you would
have fire safety where you could argue that the fact that people
do not mind living in a property where they might be burnt to
a crisp is not something one would go along with.
Professor Crook: No, and you might
say there is a clear public interest in that.
Q321 Chair: Indeed. The other one
could be to do with a commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions,
the need therefore to improve the housing stock. If those were
the two—fire safety and energy efficiency, then as regards
the private sector would there be any point in including the notion
of whether the tenant was vulnerable or not, or should it simply
relate to the property?
Professor Crook: Economists have
a word, "externalities", which gets trotted out from
time to time. In other words, there is a wider impact on other
people. Yes, in other words, there is a reason for requiring those
to be registered and licensed because there is a spin-off impact
on the rest of society. It is not just health and danger to the
inhabitants; it is health and danger to other people. If in principle
you had a register which dealt with that and you had well resourced
enforcement systems and you had grant action then it might work,
because I do not think the tenants will necessarily pay more in
the knowledge that their electricity bills are going to be lower.
Q322 Chair: Okay. That is probably
quite a useful positive point at which to stop. Thank you very
much, Professor Crook.
Professor Crook: Not at all.
| 
