Localism Bill

Debate between Lord Berkeley and Baroness Smith of Basildon

Monday 12th September 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, I rise to speak to our Amendment 112 and comment on the government amendments in this group.

I welcome the Government’s amendments and I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her comments. I appreciate that it caused some confusion when I first raised this. As the noble Baroness generously said, when she first wrote to me, her officials and government Ministers had understood that the legislation as drafted would not allow for charging. It was completely inadvertent, as she said, and they had not appreciated that a consequence of the Government’s proposals to expand and increase charges would lead to community fire safety being charged for. Indeed, she wrote to me to that effect. I thank her because, when it was recognised that our concerns on this were justified, she raised the matter in the House and immediately wrote to me as well to clarify the position and agreed to bring forward government amendments to correct the error. I am grateful to her for doing that.

I have to say to her that this is a fairly large Bill, about 500 pages long. It is very detailed and quite technical in parts, and some of the discussions we have had have sometimes seemed quite complex. We have concerns that some parts of this Bill may have been rushed through to the House before they were fully and properly drafted. It is to the great credit of the noble Baroness that she has been ready to engage and debate on these issues, and at times has been prepared to concede and bring forward amendments to try to improve this legislation. So I am grateful to her for the amendments she has brought forward today, in so far as they go.

I am sorry to raise the matter in this way, but I am looking at the difference between the amendment in my name and the amendment from the Government, which refers to Section 6(2)(b) of the 2004 Act. Our Amendment 112 would not allow charging for community safety or fire prevention work, whereas the government amendment refers to Section 6(2)(b) of the 2004 Act, which is purely about the fire safety work that a fire authority must undertake as part of its core functions. I entirely agree that that is right and proper in so far as it goes. The last Government recognised that fire safety should be a core function, and therefore placed a duty on fire authorities to undertake fire safety. No fire authority should be allowed to charge for that core function, as the noble Baroness rightly agrees. Where I think there is a grey area—and some clarification on this would be helpful, as this is another unintended consequence—is that many fire authorities have extended this work to the related, but slightly wider, community safety remit.

I have some particular examples of this work, which I am sure the noble Baroness would never want to see lost to the community. For example, my authority in Essex runs a number of courses for young people, such as one called “Firebreak” and another called “Young Firefighters”, and there are similar schemes in other authorities. They do promote fire safety—there are clearly benefits for fire safety—but there are much wider benefits to the individuals taking part and to the community. In Basildon, Essex fire service uses these projects, working with local authorities, councils and other bodies, as part of a team tackling crime and disorder. The fire service is part of the crime and disorder reduction partnerships, and it is very proud of this work. I looked at its website earlier today for examples. It seems to me—the noble Baroness can assure me on this—that from the wording that is taken from the 2006 Act this does not exactly fall under fire safety.

For example, there is a page on the Essex County Fire and Rescue Service website about Darren, 18, of Ashingdon Road in Hawkwell. He has just joined the crew of his local fire station as the newest recruit, and he said:

“It was Firebreak which really showed me what I wanted to do with life and how I could do it. I had got into the wrong crowd and was getting in trouble with the police and then bringing that trouble with me into school and getting into worse trouble”.

His head teacher referred Darren to the “Firebreak” course—it is a long quote but I will read it—and, as Darren says,

“When I got back to school I ditched my mates and really buckled down. Almost straight away I saw my grades improving and my predicted exam results shot up. Firebreak made me realise that there is more to life than getting in trouble and mucking about and gave me something to work towards”.

That is not technically fire safety, but the benefits to the community are enormous. Another person mentioned is Craig, who is 20 and attended this course in 2005. He says:

“I was taking drugs, drinking and stealing cars. Basically I was completely off the rails. Firebreak has changed my life, I no longer drink or take drugs and am now working to become a firefighter myself”.

The Cheshire fire service signs up to missdorothy.com. I do not know whether the noble Baroness is aware of missdorothy.com. When I was Fire Minister I went to see some of the work that it is doing, which is about community safety for younger children. Given the trust placed in firefighters, and their very respected position in the community, they were engaging very young children in community safety. Part of that was about fire safety and being safe, but also about being safe in their broader lives. The Cheshire fire service is also one of the employers involved with the Prince’s Trust programme. I certainly think that nobody in your Lordships’ House would want to lose the fire service’s involvement with the Prince’s Trust. There is a 12-week personal development course, and the fire service is one of the employers doing that.

Devon and Somerset is another authority that has a personal development scheme, also called “Firebreak”, for key stage 4 pupils from 14 to 16. Its website says that it provides a

“themed educational diet designed to complement and enhance the school curriculum. It aims to raise achievement, improve self motivation, increase educational engagement”,

and aims to develop,

“practical skills, life skills, communication skills, team work”.

Looking around the country, I see that Suffolk authority is another one to engage actively with children and young people. One of its objectives is to prevent and reduce fire crime and fire, but it also wants to engage young people, and has professional staff working with the authority, to identify good practice in working with children and young people. East Sussex has a “LIFE” project and Chester has a “Respect” project.

All of those have proven successes in deterring young people not only from a life of crime but from social disorder as well. My fear is, if it was the Government’s intention, which I suggest it probably was not, that these should be charged for—and I think that, under the Government’s amendments, they would be able to be charged for—then those very young people who can benefit most from these courses would not be able to do so.

Another issue is that, if these courses were chargeable, who would pay? In many cases it would be another public authority. What we would be doing is introducing a bureaucracy to move money around the system. So it would be helpful if the Minister, perhaps not today, could reflect on the advice she was initially given that this would not be covered by fire safety. Perhaps there may be some kind of guidance that could be issued. I think that this is the kind of work that so many people in the community benefit from.

In my own authority, at Basildon fire station, Martin Trevillion leads the community safety programme, and it is an exceptional programme. Having spoken to so many young people that have benefitted from it, I would be reluctant for us to lose that programme simply through inadvertent drafting of legislation.

Finally, I want to raise one other issue, which is that of carbon monoxide safety and awareness. I am also not clear that Section 6(2)(b) of the 2004 Act, which talks about advice on how to prevent fires and on means of escape from buildings, would cover carbon monoxide safety. This is a particular issue: there have been a number of deaths and serious injuries due to carbon monoxide, and it is something that fire authorities are able to take on and work with, and I know that some of them already do so. I would not think that the noble Baroness intended that that should be charged for as well.

When at Second Reading I first raised the issue of charging for community safety, it was clear that the Government had not thought about the implications, quite inadvertently, and this had slipped through. The Minister was able to respond to those concerns very positively. I hope she understands that my raising these tonight is in exactly the same tone, as this is a service provided by the fire authorities, working with their community, which we really would be very loath to lose, if they had to charge for it. I ask the Minister—I think she has had time to reflect, or to receive enlightenment on this issue quite soon—even if she cannot give me a full answer today, to reflect on that so some guidance can be issued, because this resource that is provided by our fire and rescue services is very valuable for the community.

[Lord Berkeley]

My Lords, I would like to support what my noble friend has said about the problem of charging for fire advice. When I read the second part of Amendment 113—proposed new subsection (5B)—I thought, “Well, any fire authority that is able to charge will probably do so”. Is it really the Government’s intention that small businesses, and particularly charities like the Scouts and others that are not for profit, should have to pay for such advice? My experience with such businesses is that it is very hard to start up anyway. I believe that you have to get fire advice in many cases. Having to pay will make life even more difficult. I can understand why the Government want to allow fire authorities to make such charges but to do that for non-profit organisations seems to be a little hard. Perhaps the Minister could reflect on that and consider whether it could be omitted for charities and non-profit organisations.

Energy Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Berkeley and Baroness Smith of Basildon

Wednesday 2nd March 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, the amendments in this group are again about consumer choice and consumer confidence. As we said previously, the main objective of the Green Deal is commendable, although it is possible to go beyond the Green Deal with what is before us. Again, the assessor could potentially also be an improver.

There is no problem in identifying measures over and above those which can be provided by the Green Deal which improve energy efficiency. We welcome that. However, there could be a problem with an assessor who is paid or contracted by an installer or a provider, as the noble Lord said previously, as there could be a conflict of interest. In that relationship, who would make the decision on what are the appropriate measures to be undertaken under the Green Deal?

Very helpfully, the Minister said in Committee that:

“We must allow the consumer to make the choice, but we must ensure that the choice that he makes is regulated with proper standards”.

That is appropriate. Our major concern is that if the assessor tells the customer that a number of measures can be undertaken under the Green Deal, a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, who decides what is appropriate? If the relationship between the assessor and the installer is a financial one, we are then concerned that the customer receives the correct information from the assessor. We have raised this issue before and we are trying to avoid any possible conflict of interest between an assessor and an installer. The Minister also said in Committee:

“In many cases, we envisage the Green Deal provider employing or contracting the assessor. The assessor would identify the potential for energy savings using the standardised methodology”.—[Official Report, 19/1/11; col. GC 66.]

I do not think we have got to the bottom of this difficult point about how the appropriate measures for a home are decided on. In Amendments 12 and 13 we are trying to ensure that any assessment clearly identifies everything that qualifies under the Green Deal. It has to include all energy improvement under the Green Deal; but there is nothing to stop an assessor identifying energy improvements in the early assessment outside the Green Deal or going over and above what the Green Deal includes. Any potential conflict of interest between an assessor’s functions and their connection with any installer or provider can be disclosed in writing. If the improver and the bill payer are aware of that relationship, they are able to make a choice in line with what the Minister said in Committee. That would ensure that at no stage is the improver, the householder, put under pressure, in any way, by an assessor to accept measures that an assessor could be putting forward because of the relationship with an installer. That is difficult and comes back to the independence of the assessor and how that can be achieved. It is similar to the point made by my noble friend Lord Whitty a moment ago.

The excellent amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, comes back to the points made at the beginning, which the noble Lord was happy to look into further as regards an annual report and having further information. This is the transparency issue. If the Secretary of State can do a cost-benefit assessment, to identify the benefits of the Green Deal, that would give confidence not just to the consumer but also to the energy industry. Much of it will be in terms of the Green Deal and the industry having the confidence to invest in undertaking the Green Deal.

I hope that the Minister understands why these measures have been brought forward today. We want to ensure that consumers have absolute confidence that they are not being given information that serves the commercial interests of others and to ensure that whatever measures are recommended to them, or that they choose, are in the best interests of energy efficiency for their homes. I beg to move.

[Lord Berkeley]

I shall speak to Amendment 160A which is in this group. It follows on from what my noble friend Lady Smith said about transparency, information and confidence in the field of energy conservation. As noble Lords will know, this is a rerun of Amendment 34 in Committee. I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, for her tireless work in supporting energy conservation and for moving the amendment eloquently in Committee. She emphasised the lack of interest of Governments over the years in the issue of saving energy rather than producing more to meet an often unnecessary demand. My noble friend Lord O’Neill of Clackmannan supported her and urged publication of the information.

I am trying again to see whether I can squeeze a little more out of Ministers at this stage. I pay tribute to the Association for the Conservation of Energy which has been tireless in promoting this part of the energy debate on conservation, which is often put into the “too difficult” category by government. The noble Baroness, Lady Northover, responded in Committee and said that the Government are already obliged to report annually to Parliament on the progress towards legally binding carbon budgets. She also said that,

“the principle of this amendment is sensible and laudable, although we feel that the case for specific reporting from Government may be stronger for the energy company obligation”.—[Official Report, 19/1/11; col. GC 107.]

Surely the information on conservation is as important as is the information on energy production.

I remind the House of a few facts given in Committee. The European Climate Foundation reports that emissions from buildings can be reduced by 95 per cent, which breaks down into 40 per cent from reduced demand and 45 per cent as a result of the electrification of heating. It is important to bring all these figures together at least in one report—we can debate whether or not it is annual—given the enormous challenges the Government have in meeting our carbon reduction targets.

It is also worth reminding the House that Chris Huhne, the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, said that the cheapest way of closing the gap between energy demand and supply is to cut energy use. Many other Ministers have said similar things. The Association for the Conservation of Energy has been calling for a cost benefit assessment of energy saving for many years and it asked the Government about six months ago whether they had carried out a long-term assessment of the costs and benefits of energy saving and efficiency as against those of energy generation. The answer was that there was nothing specific in the public domain. I suggest that there should be because consumers need that information. I hope that when the Minister responds he will accept the principle of the amendment and agree that the Government should publish a cost-benefit assessment. How can the Government have properly thought through their overall energy policy without that? If they do not have that information, they should have. If they do have it, perhaps they should publish it.

I refer noble Lords to the Long Title of the Bill, which refers in line 5 to,

“information relating to energy consumption, efficiency and tariffs”.

It would be a small step for the Government to produce a report and then we would know both sides of the equation: the production; and the consumption and conservation.