Lord Deben, better known in the industry as former environment secretary John Gummer, is among the 11 peers to be appointed to the new House of Lords Built Environment Select Committee.
Lord Deben, who is also chair of the UK’s Commission on Climate Change, has retained an interest in the built environment, recently speaking at the launch of the Edge Commission’s report on professionalism in the sector, Collaboration for Change.
In his speech at the time, he linked professional ethics with the construction of low-energy buildings that don’t suffer from “performance gap” issues, saying: “If you build a building which does not properly meet energy efficiency expectations in today’s world, then you have an ethical problem.
Lord Deben: climate change role
“Government shouldn’t have to do a lot of the basic [regulatory] stuff, because the professionals should say ‘we’re not going to build that building’. Is it proper to use one’s professionalism to contribute to buildings that should not be built in 2015?”
He added: “I want to frame climate change as a moral question and an ethical one.”
The make-up of the committee was formally published earlier this week, alongside its plans to take evidence, call witnesses and publish its reports.
The idea for the new committee apparently originated with Baroness Kay Andrews, who has been chair of English Heritage since 2009, and Baroness Janet Whittaker, vice-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Design and Innovation Group.
Because the built environment cuts across the work of so many departments – including the DCLG, DECC, BIS, Department for Transport and DEFRA – the two peers saw the need for a committee that could take a wide-ranging view of interconnected issues.
Eddie Tuttle, senior public affairs and policy manager at the CIOB, said: “Built environment policy cuts across a number of government departments, often making it fragmented and disjointed.
“We hope that the formation of a Select committee on the issue will bring greater coherence and enable a more holistics approach to be taken about the wider built environment, and we look forward to contributing to the committee’s future work.
“Though we still await further details on what exactly the Commitee will look to examine, we do encourage the Committee’s members to review the sector in its entirety and recognise the full socio-economic contribution that the built environment, including its sub-sectors, provides.”
It’s understood that the committee might have a focus on architecture and placemaking, but the presence of both Lord Deben and Baroness Whitaker at the launch of the Collaboration for Change report could also suggest that professionalism and professional ethics might be on the agenda for future committee inquiries.
The CIOB has been in contact with the Clerk of the Committee and a number of its members to advise them of its work. The committee will be chaired by Baroness O’Cathain and its other members are: Baroness Finlay of Llandaff; Lord Freeman; Lord Haskel; Lord Lingfield; The Earl of Lytton; Lord Macdonald of Tradeston; and Baroness Parminter.
According to Designing Buildings, the committee is likely to examine:
- the ways in which national built environment policy is developed and implemented, including inter-relationships between the different government departments;
- the effects of national policy in this area; the ways in which national policy affects local authorities, planners, developers, employers, infrastructure providers and others;
- the impact of the built environment on economic growth, wellbeing, social cohesion and sustainability;
- elements that help to determine the national significance and importance of the built environment, including, for example, the education and training of planners.
Architects have been aware of the multitude of factors affecting socio-economics, cultural context and the environmental impact of design, we do try to educate our clients but we are a reactive entity and even then our guidance is constantly ignored. Although we try to educate, we are a business and I have a living to make, during the hard-times, as we have just experienced, I don’t have the luxury of turning work down if I want to eat, pay the bills and the staff, simple as that, you can’t eat your morals.
During the good times, where we are (hopefully) heading, I can afford to turn work down and take a more “moral” stance. To suggest Architects as professionals are doing something immoral by accepting work and a brief as defined by an Employer that meets the required standards laid out by government is absurd and offensive. Legislation remains the best way to enforce minimum standards of energy efficiency, it establishes a baseline to which we can all work to (personally I’d like to see the baseline standards improved but we’ve already seen government is weak-willed on this in 2014 and I expect a similar poor response in 2016 as well.)
If architects had been morally responsible for ensuring that buildings were not only light, firm and commodious but structurally sound, fire-resistant and safe to occupy, building regulations and performance codes would not have needed to have been legislated. Those architects that insist that well-insulated and energy-efficient buildings to be their moral high ground, will do so from the comfortable grounds of discretion. The rest will have to rely on legal persuasion to enforce what they already know, but have never been able to convince their dubious clientele…
No doubt more pointless waffle from their highly-paid Lordships. As if there isn’t enough to deal with in this business, witness the latest CDM regulations. Do these people really understand the industry?