|‘The Bonfield Review’ Newsletter
06th May 2016
The Review offers a real opportunity to shape the future delivery of energy efficiency and renewable energy installations. We have received some encouraging feedback from our industry and government colleagues on some of the emerging Review proposals. Your continued input will be valued as we proceed into implement phase of the Review.
|This week…. Next week…..|
|· The Review team and workstream leads held a cross cutting workshop on Wednesday 4th May to discuss quality assurance, enforcement, SMEs and customer journey (diving into the detail).
· The Bonfield Review Implementation Board meeting was held on Thursday 05th May to discuss and agree the Review report and its implementation.
· Sherif Kahky met with BIS and Trustmark to provide an update on the Review report.
|The fourth Implementation board meeting was held on Thursday 5th May, attended by the workstream leads. The meeting began with an update from Peter Bonfield on progress towards the finalisation of the report. He confirmed that the content has been drafted and the process of finalising the text, removing repeated sections, filling in gaps, and formatting is in full flow. There was unanimous agreement that the report should be published as soon as possible.
Peter Bonfield re-iterated the need for the Review as the sector is currently too complex and routes are often unclear and confusing for the consumer and for the participating organisations.
To address these problems some of the key proposals emerging from the Review include:
· A brand or quality mark is needed to unite the industry under a banner of quality and consumer protection, through which various sources of funding can flow, safe in the knowledge that the money is delivering the intended outcomes.
· The brand should be underpinned by a consumer charter, a code of conduct and codes of practice.
· There are three key aspects to the skills required in the sector:
o Health and safety requirements
o Consumer facing, good quality service
o High technical quality and competence
· There is a wealth of data, from Ofgem technical monitoring to EPCs, which can be better used to advise the consumer.
· The public:private sector balance of responsibility needs to be readdressed. The expertise lies in the private sector, and they should be empowered to take responsibility for quality.
The high level implementation plan was discussed and agreed that the first year will be spent creating and piloting the new framework, with a marketing campaign in the second year. The leads were keen to get started on implementing the recommendations and expressed their intentions to hold workstream meetings soon after the publication of the report.
Matt Webb provided a government perspective on the strengthening of the collaboration between DCLG, DECC and BIS on the topic of the Review.
|Cross Cutting Workstream Workshop|
|On 4th May the Review team and workstream leads met to discuss several cross cutting topics including quality assurance, technical monitoring and enforcement, consumer redress and how the Review recommendations may work for SMEs and micro businesses.
The discussion started by exploring the various options emerging for a new model and structure that pulls together these key elements, and a debate around what functions should be centralised and what could and should be dispersed across the industry. This was very much driven by looking at ways to ensure any new scheme is affordable for small businesses and achieves the simplification we are all striving for, while at the same time improving standards.
The discussion included looking at what we can learn from existing schemes such as TrustMark and started to clarify our recommendations on the technical monitoring regime, the consumer redress process, the disciplinary process (enforcement role) and the possible role of an oversight ‘board’.
Work is continuing on the details of how this will be implemented and the impacts on consumers and industry, but it already looks like we can deliver significant consumer benefits and any short-term additional costs to improved quality should be offset by reduced costs through streamlining processes and eliminating the current levels of duplication that exist.
|Review Team (The Bonfield 10 )|
|The team is:
Peter Bonfield, Kanta Nar, Ben Golding, Matt Webb, Pam Wynne, Diana Menville and;
|We welcome your interest in the work-streams, so please continue to send in your contributions, thoughts and comments to our joint email account, BonfieldReview@decc.gsi.gov.uk|
- Each Home Counts Newsletter 29 April 2016
- Each Home Counts Newsletter 13 May 2016