It does exactly what it says on the packet

Written by Andrew Stunnell MP, Shadow Energy Spokesman and published in Parliamentary Energy Group on Mon 8th Mar 2004

Top of the Private Members Ballot, Andrew Stunell's Sustainable and Secure Building Bill is making steady progress through the labyrinthine procedures of the Commons. Here Andrew gives a blow by blow account of the why, what, and when of his Bill - and asks readers to keep their fingers crossed until it gets Royal Assent.

I certainly was not short of advice on what to do when I won first place in the ballot for private members bills last November. Scores of letters from lobby groups, quiet words in corridors from MPs, and hundreds and hundreds of e-mails from the public all aimed to provide me with the one unique topic that would save the world and guarantee me fame and fortune.

It must be rather like that if you have a big lottery win. For a fortnight I was the most sought-after person in Westminster. Then it all stopped! I'd made my choice, disappointed hundreds, and now had to get down to the hard graft of getting something on the Statute Book.

Gold Dust

The central aim of my Bill is built into its title. Actually that was one of the first problems - there is a whole set of Parliamentary rules about what is 'proper' when it comes to the naming of Bills. According to those it should have been called the Buildings (Amendment) Bill, and anything more descriptive of the contents was frowned on. However, when I pointed out that the Government had got away with an Anti Social Behaviour Bill rather than having to call it the Youth Offences Bill, it was agreed that I could have mine called the Sustainable and Secure Buildings Bill after all. Believe me, small victories like that are gold dust in Westminster!

The Bill is needed because at present there is no legal basis for requiring building standards to take account of either sustainability or crime reduction. Both are serious problems, although at rather different scales.

Dodgy Windows

As I set out during the Bill's Second Reading debate in January, when the Police give advice on how to design in crime-resistance there is no need for a developer to take any notice. In Greater Manchester one particular new housing estate has been plagued by break-ins through dodgy patio windows. The police got fed up with attending crime scenes there week after week, and asked the developer to make simple design changes. He not only refused, but is now building a second estate with the same faulty windows, and already the break-ins have started there, too. If my Bill is passed there can be Regulations to set standards for locks and frames that will give residents the security they probably think they already have.

That is a tangible benefit of my Bill that everyone can understand. Rather harder to grasp are the long-term results of putting sustainability into Building Regulations. But a few simple facts help make the point. For instance our homes put more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than our cars each year, yet huge political effort goes into cutting car use, and not much into making our homes more efficient. About 27% of the UK's carbon emissions come from our houses, and as WWF have pointed out, we live in Britain as though we had three planets, not just one, to use.

Strong Support

WWF have been keen sponsors of my Bill, which provides a framework for their ambitious 'One Million Sustainable Homes' campaign, designed to give the UK homes that achieve high standards of efficiency in use, and which are constructed - and ultimately demolished - in a sustainable way, using sustainable materials and technologies, with good potential for recycling and reuse, too.

I have had enthusiastic all-party support, including from other MPs who have previously piloted Bills with a strong environmental and energy focus through the perilous Private Members Bill procedure, and also the Chairman of the Environmental Audit Select Committee. Many of the environmental NGOs and some of the construction industry trade associations have come forward, too, and I can also honestly say that I have even had some useful help from the ODPM, even when they didn't agree with how far and how fast I plan to go!

The Second Reading debate on Jan 30th was nerve-wracking, though ultimately successful. Importantly it provided a good test for some of the proposals, and the amendments I tabled for Committee Stage aimed to respond to the issues raised. Whilst it is disappointing to report that not all that I wanted to achieve will be in the finished product, I am pleased that, so far, we have made steady progress on the core issues of sustainability and security.

Two Way Meters

So what does it actually do? First it extends the reach of the Building Act 1984, allowing new building regulations to be brought in that further the prevention or detection of crime, protect or enhance the environment, or facilitate sustainable development. It also allows building regulations to cover demolition as well - important if reuse and recycling is to taken seriously. It came as a surprise to me that up to now that just hasn't been possible.

By way of example my Bill cites two-way electricity meters and 'facilities for composting' as suitable topics for future regulation.

Second, it gives more scope to require the installation of higher standards of energy efficiency when repairs to existing buildings are carried out, or the occupants change, for instance when leases change or property is sold. The existing rules only apply to the 1% of buildings that are built each year, so accelerating improvements to the 99% that are already in use is very important, and my Bill makes that easier to do in future.

Third, it brings Crown buildings, schools, and public utilities into the scope of regulations. For various historic reasons they have so far escaped!

Fourth, it introduces the idea of regular testing of equipment, such as air conditioning for instance, where performance can fall over time, leading to waste and inefficiency.

Get With It

Even with my Bill these things would only happen if there was positive action by the Government to make regulations, and see them properly enforced. That is why I have also included a requirement for the Government to report to Parliament every two years on the progress they have made. I think this is one of the first times a Bill has had built into it such a clear monitoring process and I would like to think it might be a model for other legislation, too. And bearing in mind that there are some doubts about whether testing and inspection of work done under the Building Regulations is all that thorough or effective, my Bill sets out a scheme to make a named person on each building site responsible for vouching that the work has been done properly.

I have also tried to pin the Government down in three other areas where their performance on sustainability needs to improve drastically. Judging by their response so far, these are likely to be casualties, though I hope in each case to get some clear assurances of better behaviour in future even if I cannot get any legally binding words.

These include the need for a regular and thorough audit of progress made on achieving the aims of the Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Act 2000; making licensing of homes in multiple occupation (HMOs) conditional on energy efficiency measures; and opening the door for local authorities to include sustainability targets in their planning guidance. This last has been highly contentious, with some pioneering work by the London Borough of Merton almost wrecked by the ODPM. I am pleased to report that, faced by a queue of other councils and the prospect of an awkward debate on my Bill, the ODPM is now ready to concede that this is fully in order, and will be given a fair wind in future.

Fingers Crossed

Whilst this certainly isn't the 'answer to everything bill', and there are many pitfalls ahead, I believe my Bill will be another useful piece of the sustainability jigsaw when it comes into force later this year. Please keep your fingers crossed!