Asked by: Baroness Altmann (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask His Majesty's Government what discussions they have had with the Financial Conduct Authority on the regulation of investment consultants for pension fund investors, including the regulation of their net zero and sustainability strategies.
Answered by Baroness Penn - Minister on Leave (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State)
The principal finding of the Competition and Markets Authority’s (CMA) 2018 Investment Consultants Market Investigation report was that the investment consultancy and fiduciary management market was insufficiently competitive, leading to adverse impacts for their customers. One of the recommendations of that report was that investment consultants should be brought into Financial Conduct Authority’s (FCA) regulation.
In the March 2019 response to the recommendations of the CMA’s final report, HM Treasury committed to consulting on the CMA’s recommendation that the FCA’s regulatory perimeter be extended to cover the activities of investment consultants. A number of other priorities, including the urgent work required to respond to the Covid-19 pandemic, meant that the work to develop this consultation has been delayed.
However, a number of other recommendations made by the CMA to address competition in this market have been taken forward, such as the Department for Work and Pensions’ legislation requiring pension scheme trustees to carry out a competitive tender for fiduciary management services.
HM Treasury works closely with the FCA and has held regular discussions with them on this matter.
Asked by: Baroness Altmann (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the finding from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) that "Evusheld is not recommended for vulnerable adults who are at high risk of severe COVID-19 because there is not enough evidence of its effectiveness against current variants and those likely to be circulating in the next 6 months", what consideration they have given to using human-derived convalescent plasma for immune compromised individuals; and what trials they have undertaken, if any, to test its effectiveness.
Answered by Lord Markham - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)
For treatment of patients with COVID-19, the REMAP-CAP and RECOVERY trials both found convalescent plasma did not provide any benefit to the overall patient group. However, detailed analysis within subgroups of the REMAP-CAP data found there was a likelihood that people who are immunosuppressed may benefit from convalescent plasma with very high antibody levels - unfortunately there was insufficient data for a definite result. Consequently, REMAP-CAP has now decided to reopen the convalescent plasma arm to collect more data.
Further research is needed to determine the benefit of using human-derived convalescent plasma, or products derived from it, for immunocompromised individuals before this could be approved and available to patients. The Department commissions research through the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR). NIHR welcomes funding applications for research into any aspect of human health, including immunoglobulins and convalescent plasma.
Asked by: Baroness Altmann (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask His Majesty's Government, further to (1) the Written Answer by Lord Markham on 20 February (HL5171), and (2) the conclusion from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) that "Evusheld is not recommended for vulnerable adults who are at high risk of severe COVID-19 because there is not enough evidence of its effectiveness against current variants and those likely to be circulating in the next 6 months", what steps they will now take to ensure that immunocompromised individuals have access to passive immunisation via relevant human-derived antibody products from convalescent plasma, instead of through monoclonal antibody treatments.
Answered by Lord Markham - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)
For treatment of patients with COVID-19, the REMAP-CAP and RECOVERY trials both found convalescent plasma did not provide any benefit to the overall patient group. However, detailed analysis within subgroups of the REMAP-CAP data found there was a likelihood that people who are immunosuppressed may benefit from convalescent plasma with very high antibody levels - unfortunately there was insufficient data for a definite result. Consequently, REMAP-CAP has now decided to reopen the convalescent plasma arm to collect more data.
Further research is needed to determine the benefit of using human-derived convalescent plasma, or products derived from it, for immunocompromised individuals before this could be approved and available to patients. The Department commissions research through the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR). NIHR welcomes funding applications for research into any aspect of human health, including immunoglobulins and convalescent plasma.
Asked by: Baroness Altmann (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask His Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to ensure that immunocompromised people for whom vaccination is not suitable are protected against COVID-19.
Answered by Lord Markham - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)
Those who are at higher risk of serious outcomes from COVID-19, including the immunosuppressed and/or immunocompromised, remain a priority for the Government and as such are offered enhanced protections and interventions such as treatments, vaccines, and public health advice. The Government recently updated the online-only COVID-19: guidance for people whose immune system means they are at higher risk on 30 January 2023.
In rare cases where people may have a medical contraindication to currently available COVID-19 vaccines, individuals are able to access services such as a referral to an allergist or other appropriate specialist, to consider administration of the implicated mRNA vaccine under medical supervision in a suitable environment. When mRNA vaccines are not considered clinically suitable, the Novavax COVID-19 vaccine Nuvaxovid, a protein subunit vaccine, may be used as an alternative for people who are contraindicated against and cannot have any alternative clinically suitable United Kingdom-approved COVID-19 vaccine. The Government continues to be guided by the independent Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation on the COVID-19 vaccination programme.
Immunosuppressed individuals are also a priority cohort for research into therapeutic and prophylaxis treatments such as monoclonal antibody therapies, novel antivirals, and repurposed compounds.
The Government has made available a range of new treatment options within the community for National Health Service patients at greater risk from COVID-19. These treatments are licensed for use in non-hospitalised patients to reduce the risk of hospitalisation and death.
There are two ways for clinically eligible patients to access these new treatments. Those in the highest risk group from COVID-19 with a positive COVID-19 test result can access the treatments directly, following advice from a clinician at a COVID Medicines Delivery Unit. In addition, oral antiviral treatments are available through the national study, PANORAMIC, run by the University of Oxford. This study is open to clinically eligible individuals living anywhere in the UK. Further details about eligibility can be found on the PANORAMIC website in an online-only format.
Asked by: Baroness Altmann (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the decision by regulatory authorities in the United States of America to disallow further use of the Evusheld monoclonal antibody product; and what steps they will take to ensure appropriate prophylaxis and treatment against COVID-19 for vulnerable immunodeficient and immunocompromised patients.
Answered by Lord Markham - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)
The Antivirals and Therapeutics Taskforce engages with other nations to share learning on the use, deployment and evaluation of therapeutics and antivirals. Evusheld (tixagevimab and cilgavimab) has a conditional marketing authorisation in the United Kingdom for the pre-exposure prophylaxis of COVID-19 and has been referred to the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) to make recommendations for the National Health Service on whether it should be routinely funded by the NHS based on an assessment of clinical and cost effectiveness.
The final outcome of NICE’s evaluation on the use of Evusheld as a pre-exposure prophylactic treatment against COVID-19 is expected in April 2023.
Asked by: Baroness Altmann (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Energy Security & Net Zero:
To ask His Majesty's Government what steps they have taken to ensure that vulnerable customers fitted with a smart meter at home (1) understand how to use the meter, (2) have necessary training on how it operates, and (3) have the smart meter sited in a place that is accessible safely, should they need to press any buttons on it.
Answered by Lord Callanan - Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero)
Energy suppliers are obligated by the conditions of their licence to ensure vulnerable consumers know how to use, and benefit from, their smart metering system. Any information provided must be available in a variety of formats, tailored for groups with specific needs. The energy regulator Ofgem is responsible for ensuring energy suppliers comply with their regulatory obligations.
An In-Home Display can be located in a position of the customer’s choosing within the home, in range of the meter’s communications hub, from which it receives information on energy consumption and costs.
Asked by: Baroness Altmann (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy:
To ask His Majesty's Government what protections they have in place to prevent energy firms from leaving households without power in their homes; and what penalties are imposed on energy firms that do not take sufficient care of vulnerable customers or which wrongly disconnect customers.
Answered by Lord Callanan - Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero)
Ofgem rules include an Ability to Pay Principle that requires suppliers to provide appropriate support for those struggling to pay their bills. Support may include setting up appropriate repayment plans based on a customer’s ability to pay, and by directing the customer to further support services.
Ofgem is responsible for ensuring licensed energy suppliers are complying with their licence conditions. Ofgem publishes details of its compliance and enforcement action on its website.
Asked by: Baroness Altmann (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy:
To ask His Majesty's Government what consideration they have given to reforming the way in which Ofgem manages the energy price cap.
Answered by Lord Callanan - Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero)
There are no plans to do this.
As the expert independent regulator, Ofgem is responsible for operating the price cap. Ofgem remains the sole decision-maker over how it is calculated and has consulted extensively on its methodology for determining the cap level. The Government has confidence in Ofgem to set the cap at a level that reflects the underlying efficient costs of supplying energy.
The price cap was never intended to be a permanent feature of the market. As announced in the Autumn Statement, we are developing a new approach to protecting consumers’ energy prices from April 2024.
Asked by: Baroness Altmann (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy:
To ask His Majesty's Government what instructions they have given to Ofgem on ensuring that the costs of failed energy firms do not fall more heavily on vulnerable customers and single person households.
Answered by Lord Callanan - Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero)
The costs of failed energy firms have contributed to an increase in standing charges. The energy regulator, Ofgem, reviewed whether the existing fixed charge was appropriate or whether a usage-based (volumetric) alternative would be more suitable.
Ofgem concluded that while some low consuming users, some of whom may be vulnerable, might benefit from change, there are a number of higher consuming users including vulnerable users that would pay more.
Ofgem’s current methodology protects users with greater energy needs, such as disabled users and users with electric heating in areas off the gas grid.
Asked by: Baroness Altmann (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy:
To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the impact of increasing the retail customer energy standing charge; and what proportion of the increase in the standing charge is due to the need to compensate the customers of failed energy firms.
Answered by Lord Callanan - Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero)
The maximum standing charge is limited by the Ofgem price cap. Ofgem reviewed the components of the standing charge in the Summer of 2022 and concluded that maintaining the existing methodology would protect consumers with the greatest energy needs.
Standing charges vary by region, billing method and energy type and range from approximately £99 to £205. In figures published by Ofgem in November 2022, Supplier of Last Resort costs (for those customers whose provider ceases trading) accounts for £61 in the average customer’s energy bill.