| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, I regret that my noble friend Lord Ezra is unable to be in his place. He has given me three succinct sentences of what he would have said. I suspect that the Government will appreciate these words. This is a measure which these Benches supported during the passage of the Utilities Bill. We are very much in favour of the energy efficiency obligation. We very much welcome that there will be an annual report on the progress achieved.
The House will not be surprised to learn that repeating three succinct sentences is not quite my style. Therefore I should like to raise a connected issue. Before doing so, I declare an interest in that I sell firewood on a very small scale. That said, I am very concerned about the practice of local authorities Xburying" fuel in the form of waste wood. I regard this practice as complete energy inefficiency.
I recognise that recently we have been removing—or not installing in homes—chimneys, flues, stoves and grates. The Minister mentioned the issue of fuel poverty. I have always felt that by having houses with only automatic systems—ones which consume the electricity and gas so clearly covered by the order—people enduring fuel poverty are unable to do anything about it. I hope that the Minister will be able to give some leadership towards enabling citizens to acquire some of the waste wood which is otherwise being buried. I feel like weeping buckets when I am at the skip site at Forth Bank, in Alloa, as I am frequently, to see so much fuel being buried.
I do not know whether waste is a devolved matter. I see it as energy, and energy is a reserved matter. At the risk of starting a turf war, I hope that the Minister can offer some leadership on the matter.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I thank the two noble Lords who have spoken from the Opposition Benches.
Perhaps I may reply to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, about costs. I should preface my remarks by pointing out that there have been lengthy and at times somewhat difficult discussions with suppliers, users and others during the various phases of consultation. The process began in March last year and went through its various stages until it reached the final stage of statutory consultation.
During that period some of the figures have changed to take account in part of the views of the Electricity Association and other suppliers. The figures that we
have now alighted on for the picture in 2005 are broadly achievable—as is accepted by most of those involved. It is true that some achievements in energy efficiency are not easy. They will be cumulative over the period up to 2005 and beyond.That said, we should expect the average gross benefit to households, having installed the energy efficient measures—or, alternatively, having heated their houses at the same cost but to better effect—to be over #15 a year for the low income groups, at whom the bulk of the measures will be targeted. The average for all groups will be approximately #11 a year by 2005. For those in the non-priority group, the saving will be between #8 and #8.50. That is the figure at the end of the process. In the interim, if the supplier companies pass on all the costs of meeting the targets, the maximum cost per customer should be no more than #3.60 per fuel per annum. The benefit beyond 2005, however, will be a net benefit, even to the non-priority groups, of nearly #5 in their fuel bills.
The cumulative effect of the measures over the three years in which they will operate will lead to a net saving for all groups of some significance, and to a very large net saving for those in the direst need, who are in the fuel poverty bracket and close to it. I hope that my remarks explain the noble Lord's point.
I turn to the comments of the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, in the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra—whose views on this matter are well-known and whose support for many of these measures we greatly appreciate. I recognise and appreciate the support from the Liberal Democrat Benches as enunciated by the noble Earl. The position on firewood, however, will not please the noble Earl quite so much.
In regard to the general issue of fuel poverty and renewable resources, the Government recognise that the by-products of forestry and other agricultural activities can be used to produce energy. The most effective use of that energy is probably in biomass, and possibly in the production of liquid fuels. Nice though a domestic wood fire is, it is not the most efficient way of producing heat and not necessarily the most cost-efficient. Therefore, wood is not one of the fuels specified under the order on which energy savings can be achieved.
I regret that, having declared his interest, the noble Earl may be caused some commercial disadvantage. However, there is a wider question as to how we use those by-products in a better way than in domestic grates and stoves to contribute towards greater energy efficiency. So far as concerns this process, wood will not play a role. Having answered those questions, I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until one minute past nine o'clock.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.15 to 9.1 p.m.]
Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill
House again in Committee on Clause 102.
The Earl of Northesk moved Amendment No. 171A:
- Page 62, line 26, at end insert—
The noble Earl said: The Chamber is somewhat emptier than it was before dinner. I hope that the purpose of the amendment is unambiguous and uncontroversial. It is merely to ensure that codes of practice and agreements define precisely the classes of data to be retained and the maximum periods for which they should be retained. No doubt the Minister will be tempted to say that that is stating the obvious and of course those elements will be included, but I can see no difficulty in putting them on the face of the Bill for the avoidance of doubt.
Moreover, there is some merit in ensuring that the distinction between retained data and obtained data—about which we have had a fair amount of debate—is made a little more obvious and transparent in the Bill. The amendment would assist in that with its explicit references to retained data. That has the beneficial effect of making it clear that obtained data continue to be subject to existing provisions in the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act. I beg to move.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I wholeheartedly endorse the amendment. I am not sure whether the wording makes it perfectly clear that the basis on which the data are retained shall be for ever labelled round the neck of that data. We want to avoid data being retained for one purpose and then being used under RIPA for another. However, we on these Benches support the broad purport of the amendment.
Lord Rooker: I apologise to the Committee for being a little late. The amendment would further define what provisions should be contained in the code of practice and agreements by stating explicitly that the code must give guidance on what types of data should be retained and for what period. I assure the noble Earl, as I have done previously, that the code of practice will contain a number of safeguards.
As I have already said, retention practices in line with the code will comply with Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights—the right to privacy—and with the data protection principles. To do so, retention must be on a clear legal basis that is foreseeable and accessible for a purpose permitted by the 1999 regulations and must strike a balance between the purpose for the retention and the rights of customers whose data are retained. There will be a clear maximum retention period.
On top of the safeguards suggested by the noble Earl, the code of practice will cover a number of other issues relative to the legal and practical aspects of retention but it would not be practical to put those on the face of the Bill. The code is intended to be
We will consider subdividing the generic definitions into broad classes of data, such as subscriber information, location data and traffic data. We shall have discussions on that in the course of consultation.
In the light of that, I hope that the noble Earl will not seek to press his amendment. I repeat my apology for being slightly late.
The Earl of Northesk: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, again for his support for the principle of the amendment and to the Minister for his explanation of the Government's position.
I was somewhat thrown by the Minister's observation that the intention is that the code of practice should be technologically neutral. That is a little odd. The voluntary code will be a by-product of this emergency legislation. That suggests that it should have an end-life. To require it to be technologically neutral for the period of the emergency seems to be stretching the point somewhat.
I heard the Minister's reassurance that the code would include a maximum period for which data are to be retained. However, his description of the classes of data appeared somewhat at variance with what he has previously said about the Government's intentions and the classes of data that they are interested in. Will the Minister clarify that point?
X( ) A code of practice or agreement under this section shall include clear guidance to communications providers as to—
(a) what classes of data shall be retained, and
(b) a maximum period for which data may be retained."
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page