Energy Bill Relief Scheme and Energy Bills Discount Scheme (Amendment) Regulations 2024

Debate between Baroness McIntosh of Pickering and Lord Hunt of Kings Heath

Wednesday 12th February 2025 Grand Committee

[The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath) (Lab)]

My Lords, these regulations, which were laid before the House on 16 December 2024, amend two schemes created by the previous Government in response to the energy crisis.

The amendments address an issue that was not considered in the rush to get the schemes into operation but which has now come to the fore as the schemes have been brought to an end. The issue is technical: both the energy bill relief scheme and the energy bills discount scheme, which I shall refer to as EBRS and EBDS respectively, supported non-domestic energy users, including businesses and heat networks. EBRS supported energy bills from October 2022 to March 2023, while EBDS supported bills from April 2023 to March 2024. Both schemes operated on a “claim back” model, meaning that suppliers paid out the discount to their customers before recouping those costs from the department.

Scheme funds were paid out on estimated and actual meter readings. As actual meter readings are received by energy suppliers, they rebill their customers, replacing earlier estimated bills, and the discount paid out by the department becomes settled. The department calls this process “actualisation”. Suppliers then come back to government to recover additional discount they have paid out or to pay back any excess discount resulting from an initial overestimation of the energy. This is right: the intention behind the schemes has always been for government to fund the discount to the consumer and not the energy suppliers.

The regulations require the Secretary of State to determine when a supplier should leave the scheme, based on an assessment that there will be no further material amount owed from the department to a supplier or vice versa. One of the supporting criteria to make that assessment is that a supplier has billed customers on actual meter readings to a threshold of 95% of gas supplied and 97% of electricity supported under the scheme, wherever possible. Once a supplier has left the scheme, it is unable to claim back any further money from the department for discounts that it has paid out on behalf of the schemes.

However, as the regulations currently stand, suppliers are still required to pay out discounts on any newly billed energy supplied during the periods of either scheme, when this situation could arise through no fault of their own; for example, when customers have moved premises and failed to notify the supplier or have been tardy in allowing access to meter readers. This could result in suppliers funding government support without the ability to recoup these costs from the department. This is contrary to the intention of the schemes. As a result, suppliers have been reluctant to leave the schemes, which must come to an end in a timely manner.

The amendments in this statutory instrument remove the obligation on suppliers to provide the discounts to customers, except in instances where the consumer has lost out due to poor practices by their energy supplier. In these instances, we have provided carve-outs to balance the interests of suppliers with the support and protection of consumers.

The first consumer protection is, when a supplier is rebilling a customer, it must still apply the discount for energy which was previously billed before the discount duties, even if the newly calculated additional consumption is exempt. The second protection relates to unbilled customers. When a customer receives a bill that falls within the scheme period, a supplier would be required to pass on the appropriate discount if it has not previously provided that customer with a bill. This is to ensure that the original policy intent of providing consumer support is realised. The third and final consumer protection is when unreasonable delay, or another failure on the part of the energy supplier, has led to the energy not being billed accurately or at all when the discount duties applied. An example might be if the bill was sent unreasonably late after exit from the scheme, rather than before. In those circumstances, the customer should not and will not lose their entitlement to the discount.

There is still an obligation on suppliers to repay the Government any discount they have recovered; for example, if actual consumption was lower than the estimated consumption and a discount is clawed back. Should any dispute arise between suppliers and customers in relation to these carve-outs, the resolution mechanisms would be those normally used in the industry: via a complaint to the Energy Ombudsman, where available; investigation and potential sanction by the regulator; or court action.

The amendment applies to energy suppliers in Great Britain. Separately, the regulations also amend the Energy Prices Act 2022 to allow the devolved Administration in Northern Ireland to make amendments to address this issue in the Northern Ireland scheme. This is because their power to amend their equivalent legislation has expired.

In very limited circumstances, it is possible that a customer could lose out on some entitlement to discount. If a supplier had already exited the schemes and had underestimated a customer’s energy consumption, the customer would not receive the discount on the additional newly billed energy unless the supplier was at fault, as I have just described. Given that the vast majority of energy supported by the schemes is based on actual meter readings, we do not expect many customers to be in this position.

Furthermore, our analysis shows that suppliers tend to slightly overestimate and that customers reduced consumption during the energy crisis, switching off non- critical operations to reduce costs. None of the suppliers that have left the scheme to date, nor any of their customers, has reported this risk materialising. We expect and hope that this amendment will give suppliers confidence to exit the scheme without the risk of ongoing financial liability through no fault of their own.

Energy prices for non-domestic consumers have dropped following record peaks, but of course we recognise that they remain high and pose issues for some businesses. We believe that our mission to deliver clean power by 2030 is the best way to break our dependence on global fossil fuel markets and permanently protect bill payers, including non-domestic consumers. In the short term, the Government are taking action to better protect businesses from being locked into unfair and expensive energy contracts. Last year, the Government launched a consultation on introducing regulation of third-party intermediaries such as energy brokers. This is aimed at enhancing consumer protection, particularly for non-domestic consumers. The consultation has now closed, and a government response will follow in due course.

The Government are also empowering businesses to challenge unfair and poor service from their suppliers. Since December last year, SMEs with fewer than 50 employees or that meet energy consumption or financial thresholds can now access free support to resolve issues with their energy supplier through the Energy Ombudsman service. This expands the service to 99% of British businesses, allowing them to access up to £20,000 in financial awards.

I propose to the Committee that this is a very sensible statutory instrument dealing with some issues that have arisen. It follows on from the previous Government’s decision and is consistent with what they sought to do. I beg to move.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate the Minister on the stamina he has shown over the last 48 hours. I welcome these regulations; had we remained in Government, I am sure that we would have done exactly the same—as was also said in the debate in the House of Commons.

The Minister alluded to the fact that energy prices are still quite high. I understand that within one of these regulations there is provision for an off-grid payment of £150. If that is the case, will his department look favourably on charities, public sector bodies such as schools and hospitals and, as he rightly mentioned, micro-businesses of under 15 employees—or even 50—so that they might remain eligible for that?

The noble Lord referred to unfair, and what I would call sharp, practices that are perhaps still going on. This is only anecdotal, and I cannot prove it, but there was a restaurant not too far from this building which I think partly closed and changed hands because they had an unbelievably high electricity bill in January last year, so I am delighted to hear that the Government have launched this consultation with a third party. It would be interesting to hear more about how those brokers might operate. What provision will be made to ensure that the brokers are reliable and able to operate within this sphere?

With that, I pay tribute to the previous Government for their work and the protection that was given to non-domestic customers, which was very welcome at the time. I recognise that we are still in a period of high energy prices and, with those few questions, I wish the SI a safe passage.

Great British Energy Bill

Debate between Baroness McIntosh of Pickering and Lord Hunt of Kings Heath

Report stage
Tuesday 11th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak to my Amendment 40. I am rather disappointed that the Minister did not refer to the other amendments in this group.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

With great respect, my Lords, I think the form is that I move my own amendment and then respond to other amendments in the group when I wind up.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

I am grateful for that clarification.

I welcome the government amendment in this group. However, I seek a specific assurance from the Minister as to exactly how and when the Government will ensure that the impact of GB Energy’s activities will not harm sustainable development in the United Kingdom. Why I prefer the wording of my amendment to the Minister’s, and why I regret the fact that the framework document will not be available before the passage of the Bill through Parliament, is because the Environment Act 2021 set out very clear environmental standards that have to be followed in subsequent legislation.

Amendment 40 addresses the issue of Great British Energy operating in such a way as to meet the criteria and environmental standards in the Environment Act 2021, which set out clear standards for environment and animal welfare that any project approved by GB Energy should meet. The projects we have discussed during the passage of the Bill potentially risk criss-crossing the countryside, covering the landscape with intrusive miles of pylons and overhead transmission lines, as well as massive solar farms and battery storage plants, the latter also posing a fire risk. Up to 10% of land currently farmed could be taken out of production, with a consequential effect on farming and food security to create a strand of energy which will bring no local benefits whatever but feed energy into the already well-fed National Grid.

I call on the Government to address offshore wind farms in a clear and pragmatic way, with one planning application for any future offshore wind farm taken at the same time as permission to build an onshore substation, to take the electricity generated and, at the same time, any proposal for onward transmission of the energy through overhead power lines and pylons.

Other damaging aspects of offshore wind farms at severe odds with sustainable development are their impact on fishers and fisheries. Wind farms damage marine life and sea mammals, and interfere with fishers going about their business. I am grateful to the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations for its briefing, which clearly highlights the threat from offshore renewables, primarily winds but also wave and tidal.

Ten per cent of UK seas will be designated as highly protected marine areas, where fishing will be banned. The worst-case scenario could result in the loss of half of the UK’s fishing waters, some 375,000 square kilometres: Scotland would lose 56% of its fishing waters and England and Wales 36% of theirs. Even if the worst-case assumptions are not realised, 38% of UK waters are likely to be lost, threatening the very existence of UK fishing businesses and causing severe harm to coastal communities.

I feel that the sentiments expressed in Amendment 40 sum up those also expressed in Amendments 47 and 48, in the name of my noble friend Lord Offord, and Amendment 51, in the name of my noble friend Lord Fuller. All I seek this evening is an assurance that farmland and residential properties will be protected from massive solar farms, battery storage plants and the like, and the impact of major substations bringing electricity onshore from these offshore wind farms. The long lines of unwelcome, intrusive overhead lines transmitting the energy to the National Grid should be removed or reduced and spatial rights for fishers should be recognised. I hope that the Minister will look kindly on the assurance that I seek.

Great British Energy Bill

Debate between Baroness McIntosh of Pickering and Lord Hunt of Kings Heath

Committee stage
Tuesday 17th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

May I have a reply, if possible, on having joined-up planning applications for offshore oilfields and substations or pylons, so there is one planning application for the whole project?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

I am sorry, I should have responded. Clearly, the noble Baroness will know from the Clean Power 2030 Action Plan the Government’s intent with regard to planning generally. She will have seen what we said in it about seeking to reform the whole planning process. I will ensure that the point she makes is embraced within that. I see the force of her arguments.

Private Low-carbon Investment: Green Finance Institute Report

Debate between Baroness McIntosh of Pickering and Lord Hunt of Kings Heath

Monday 9th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely right that this is an important area of policy. We reckon that buildings account for 31% of total UK emissions, and heating is 75% of that proportion of emissions, so I very much take his point that there is an urgent need to make progress. I cannot give him an exact time. Looking at international experience of these kinds of schemes, it is not altogether positive. In the US experience, for instance, it may have worked for multi-occupational commercial properties but, for individuals, it does not seem to have made much progress.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, does the Minister not share my disappointment that his Government have no plans to review the level of the warm homes discount? Given that there does not seem to be any urgency in renovating existing homes, will he use his good offices to put pressure on the Government to review the level of the warm homes discount? I refer to my interest as president of National Energy Action.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, this is the third time the noble Baroness has asked me this question in the last two weeks. I am afraid that we have not moved on from that position. On the warm homes plan, as she will know, we made it clear in the Budget that we will see a total investment of £3.2 billion in warmer homes across 2025-26. She is right that making progress in relation to energy-efficient homes is very important indeed.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2024

Debate between Baroness McIntosh of Pickering and Lord Hunt of Kings Heath

Monday 2nd December 2024 Grand Committee

[The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath) (Lab)]

My Lords, the draft order was laid before Parliament on 22 October. The UK Emissions Trading Scheme, the UK ETS, was established under the Climate Change Act 2008 by the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme Order 2020, otherwise known as the 2020 order, as a UK-wide greenhouse gas emissions trading scheme contributing to the UK’s emissions reduction targets and net-zero goal. The scheme is run by the UK ETS authority, a joint body comprising the UK Government and the devolved Governments. Our aim is to be predictable and responsible guardians of the scheme and its markets.

We have brought forward this SI to enable several important changes and improvements to the scheme. It resets the UK ETS cap to be in line with the top of the net-zero consistent range. The cap sets a limit on how many allowances can be created over the trading period, which runs from 2021 to 2030, and in each year. That level reduces over time to drive down total emissions. When this scheme was established, the cap for the legislated period of the UK ETS, from 2021 to 2030, was set at 5% below the UK’s expected notional share of the EU ETS cap for the same period. However, this was not consistent with the UK’s net-zero trajectory for the traded sector. This instrument brings the overall UK ETS cap in line with our net-zero target and carbon budgets under the Climate Change Act.

This statutory instrument also reduces the industry cap, which is the total number of allowances which can be made available to existing installations for free, if no cross-sectoral correction factor mitigation is applied. This SI reduces the absolute level of the industry cap while increasing its proportion of the overall cap. While the share of allowances set aside for this purpose will increase from 37% to 40%, the reduction in the overall UK ETS cap means that the industry cap will fall. That will help to mitigate the risk of carbon leakage across participating sectors while maintaining an effective incentive to decarbonise.

The statutory instrument creates a flexible reserve of allowances for maintaining market stability and sufficient carbon leakage mitigation. In addition to allowances specifically created for this reserve, unallocated free allowances from the industry cap and designated free allowances that are returned by operators due to changes in participant eligibility or activity level reductions will also stock the flexible reserve. The flexible reserve can be used to increase allowance supply for market stability purposes, if the cost containment mechanism is triggered. The flexible reserve can also mitigate application of the CSCF through a uniform reduction to all eligible existing participants’ free allocation if the eligibility for free allocation exceeds the industry cap.

Under current legislation, carbon dioxide released through flaring in the upstream oil and gas sector is included in the UK ETS, as it is within the scope of the regulated activity of combustion. This SI introduces CO₂ released through venting in the upstream oil and gas sector into the scope of the UK ETS for installations already covered by the scheme. That means that such emissions will also be subject to a carbon price.

The controlled processes of venting and flaring can sometimes be essential for safety purposes. They are also used in more routine situations where the oil and gas hydrocarbons are unable to be used, exported or reinjected without the CO₂ being removed. The removed CO₂ can then be released in the process of flaring, when waste gas—including the stripped-out CO₂, as well as combustible elements—is ignited, or venting, where unignited gas is released through a vent. The legislation will remove a perverse incentive whereby operators could routinely vent gas that contains carbon dioxide without it being subject to a carbon price, even though it would, if flared, constitute reportable emissions for the purpose of the scheme.

In line with the original policy intent, the instrument extends legislative amendments made by the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2023 to Northern Ireland. The amendments include capping aviation free allocation at 100% of emissions, clarifying the treatment of carbon capture and storage plants, and amendments to free allocation rules for electricity generation.

In 2022, a memorandum of understanding between the UK Government and the Swiss Government was signed, setting out the intention to include flights from the UK to Switzerland in the UK ETS. Flights from Great Britain to Switzerland were brought into the scope of the UK ETS on 1 January 2023 by the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) (No. 3) Order 2022. The statutory instrument before us extends the scope to cover flights that depart from an aerodrome in Northern Ireland and arrive at an aerodrome in Switzerland.

On enforcement and penalties, scheme regulators are responsible for enforcing compliance, including operational functions such as issuing penalties. The statutory instrument makes a number of amendments to the levels of scheme penalties to ensure consistency and proportionality of enforcement for all operators. It also introduces a new deficit notice, with an associated penalty, to strengthen enforcement of the fundamental scheme obligation to surrender allowances equal to an operator’s annual emissions.

Finally, this instrument makes several corrections and clarifications to existing legislation. The changes follow appropriate and comprehensive consultation with stakeholders. In the Developing the UK Emissions Trading Scheme (UK ETS) consultation in 2022, the UK ETS Authority considered proposals on changes to the rules for sectors covered by the UK ETS to ensure that more greenhouse gas emissions were covered by the scheme, along with changes to the cap.

The authority’s response to this consultation was published in two parts: in August 2023 and July 2023. A majority of respondents agreed with the UK ETS Authority’s proposals on creating a flexible share reserve of allowances; on bringing venting in the upstream oil and gas sector into the scope of the ETS; and on the addition of a new penalty and deficit notice. Several respondents expressed concern regarding the reduction of the cap and the changes to the industry cap.

An assessment of these responses informed the decision to set the cap at the top of the net-zero consistent range. Between 23 February 2024 and 8 March 2024, the UK ETS Authority ran a targeted consultation on the minor penalty amendments. The responses to this consultation were in broad agreement with the proposals or noted that they were not affected by them. The authority’s response to this targeted consultation has been published in advance of the laying of this statutory instrument.

In conclusion, the changes in the draft order will deliver on commitments made by the UK ETS Authority and improve the operation of the scheme. The alterations to the UK Emissions Trading Scheme will support its role as a key pillar of the UK’s climate policy. They show that we will take action to extend and improve the scheme where necessary. I beg to move.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for setting out the contents of the instrument so concisely but comprehensively. I support it but have a number of questions. Obviously, the issue of flaring would arise if the Government were to introduce a policy of fracking—hydraulic fracturing. Can the Minister confirm that the Government have a moratorium on fracking? It was a very real issue in North Yorkshire when I was still a Member of Parliament there; it caused real concern among the locals. It would be interesting to know the answer because flaring would be an issue there.

Secondly, I see that an impact assessment has not been prepared on this occasion because it is not a regulatory provision, but in fact one was done already in 2023, and before that in 2020. Can the Minister confirm that the costs in light of the change to the cap will not be deemed wildly different from the results of those impact assessments in 2020 and 2023, which I understand were different in nature in each case?

It is interesting that the Minister, the instrument and the Explanatory Memorandum refer to the amendment to include flights from Great Britain to Switzerland within the scope. Why was this excluded in the first instance? Were there no flights from that airport? Have they suddenly increased in capacity? Out of interest, which flights are included? In the normal scheme of things, would all major airports and flights to the European Union and Switzerland be included? I imagine they would be, but it would be helpful if the Minister could confirm that.

COP 29

Debate between Baroness McIntosh of Pickering and Lord Hunt of Kings Heath

Thursday 28th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, it is clearly an interesting question. The noble Lord will have seen that some of the country participants in Baku were very unhappy with parts of the process. Some felt excluded from some of the key corridor discussions, if I can put it that way. The problem is that it is the only forum that we have for discussing and negotiating these important matters. Whatever fora you have, if you have over 190 countries involved, it is going to be very complex. Notwithstanding that I understand the frustrations of many countries and the difficulties, the fact that agreement was reached and we can now see clear a line to Brazil next year means that we need to continue to work with the process and encourage it to be run as effectively as possible. I do not see any option but to go with the COP process.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

The noble Earl, Lord Russell, raised the warm homes discount. I am the honorary president of National Energy Action. I see that the discount rate is still £150. Given the current level of electricity bills, this seems quite low and not to have been reviewed for some time. Will the Minister review this and look at the level of the warm homes discount?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I have to say to the noble Baroness that at the moment we do not have any plans to review it.

Professional Qualifications Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness McIntosh of Pickering and Lord Hunt of Kings Heath

Committee stage
Monday 14th June 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I am saying that Clause 4 should not stand part of the Bill. We have now discussed Clause 4 extensively in the last three debates. I do not intend to go over the ground because that would be unnecessary. Coming to the crunch, the Minister has said that Clause 4 would be used by national authorities to encourage regulators to make mutual recognition agreements, but that they will be under no obligation to do so. Today, the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, said that he was not quite sure what “encourage” means. In a sense, one Government’s encouragement may become another’s diktat, particularly when Clause 3 is part of their armoury.

Something else the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, said, on the first day in Committee, was about the interrelationship between the Bill and what is happening with health regulators. At the moment, there is an extensive consultation on the use of Section 60 orders in relation to a whole host of health regulators. What is interesting is that in that consultation no reference is made by the Government to them upholding the independence of those regulators—something the GMC noted, I think, in its response. Put that alongside the Government’s intention to bring an NHS Bill to Parliament very shortly—it was mentioned in the Queen’s Speech, but has not yet been published, I suspect because extra clauses are being added day after day. Part of that intention is to add clauses on regulations that will give the Government the power to abolish a regulator through an order-making power and set up new regulators through an order-making power. Regrettably, that came out of a Law Commission recommendation quite some years ago. When you put this together, you have to worry about the future independence of the health regulators. It is pretty clear that, with the legislative changes, they would potentially come under more direct control from the Department of Health. One has to say, many of those regulators enjoy considerable oversight by the department already—hence, a little scepticism about the Minister saying that it is entirely up to the regulators what they do.

My principal reason for raising Clause 4 was to refer to the Delegated Powers Committee, which refers to this being a Henry VIII clause. It refers to the memorandum and accepts that it says that it is a narrow power and cannot be used to change regulators’ abilities to recognise overseas qualifications, but, as the committee says, the memorandum fails to explain this or say what effect regulations under Clause 4 should have. I wanted to raise this because the report of the Delegated Powers Committee is critical throughout of the Minister’s department, the Explanatory Memorandum it has produced and its failure to provide sufficient explanation. I put it to the Minister that when I was a Minister, we worried about the Delegated Powers Committee and, frankly, always accepted its recommendations. We seem to be developing a new convention, where Minister think this is just any old committee and can be ignored. It cannot be; it has to be taken seriously. I urge the Minister to recognise that when the Delegated Powers Committee says that there is not enough explanation, something needs to be done about it. When it says that Clause 3 will not do, it is not something you can simply ignore; you have to come back with some proposals to deal with it. That is how legislation works in your Lordships’ House. I do not really expect the Minister now to go through what Clause 4 says, because he has done it; I just wanted to draw attention to the Delegated Powers Committee’s report.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

I have two brief points. I would like to speak in support of Clause 4 standing part of the Bill, but I welcome my noble friend explaining, in response to earlier amendments, that this will be regulator-led and is permissive, not prescriptive.

First, I am slightly concerned by subsection (1), as explained in paragraph 39 of the Explanatory Notes, which then go on to say that it seems quite prescriptive. I do not know if that takes away from the permissive nature of the rest of the clause.

Secondly—and, to be honest with my noble friend and the Committee, I could not think of where else to raise this—I accept that they are not regulated bodies, but I understand that the professional drivers and attendants of pig farmers, chicken producers and livestock transporters are covered by the remit of the Bill. It is interesting to see, but I cannot understand why beef and lamb producers are not covered, because it strikes me that they might like the opportunity to make common ground with countries with which we are seeking to do deals. It may be that they are allowed to do so, but if they are, I wonder why they are excluded from the remit of the Bill.

Finally, I assume that the costs will be minor. I would like to place on record the fact that most of the bodies that have contacted me welcome the powers set out in Clause 4. I do not know whether paragraph 66 on page 18 of the impact assessment is relevant here. That refers to frameworks but I presume that also covers regulator recognition agreements. It comes up with a figure, giving a mean of £350,000 as a best estimate. On what basis has that figure been reached?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I put my name to Amendment 60, to which my noble friend will refer in the wind-up, and will also speak in favour of Amendment 37.

Amendment 37, as we have heard, makes it explicit that qualifications recognised before the EU regulations were revoked are not affected. My noble friend Lady Blake’s Amendment 60 seeks to ensure that existing qualifications in the UK are not affected by the Bill. Rather like the noble Baroness, Lady Fraser, I assume that that is guaranteed or assuaged somewhere in the Bill, but it would be helpful to have the noble Lord’s reference point on that.

The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, made some interesting points about grandparenting, which is obviously a long and sensible tradition when making changes to a regulatory body or regulating a profession for the first time which is already in some form of voluntary accreditation. I think the HCPC will be well used to doing that. Provided that we can be assured that the people being transferred over are, in the words of noble Lords, fit to practice, it should be a fairly straightforward process.

I was struck by the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, that we as Members of this House would be particularly favourable towards grandparenting—I suppose that means that in any reform of the second Chamber, existing Members would transfer over. It is probably about the only way to get this place to agree to reform—but in your dreams, my Lords.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

I support the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, in moving his Amendment 37 and echo many of the remarks made previously on this.

My starting point is this: we now face a potential shortage in many professions, particularly among veterinary surgeons and many categories of medical staff, including doctors, nurses and other clinicians. It therefore seems odd that we have two amendments in this small group on the need for this to be in the Bill. Can my noble friend explain, as he has said many times during the passage of this Bill, at Second Reading and in earlier debates, that the Bill is deemed to be a tool to address potential shortages in the professions, such as veterinary surgeons and medical staff at every level? If that is the case, is it his view—bearing in mind the two probing amendments in this group—that it should perhaps be explicitly stated in the Bill, for the avoidance of doubt?

Professional Qualifications Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness McIntosh of Pickering and Lord Hunt of Kings Heath

Committee stage
Wednesday 9th June 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble and learned Lord. I put my name to these amendments because I regard full and transparent consultation as very important. At its heart, the integrity and independence of our regulators is at stake. The problem is that the Bill gives far too many powers to Ministers. In the previous debate the Minister said that future trade agreements will not compromise standards. I wonder what our farmers and fishers think of that. We know that the Government are desperate for trade deals and that they have a track record of carelessness about their details. Clause 3 gives Ministers a completely free hand when it comes to trade agreements.

This debate is also set in the context of the independence of health regulators and fears that it may be compromised. Earlier, the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, made a cogent analysis of the interrelationship, or lack of it, between this Bill and the current extensive consultation by the Department of Health and Social Care on the reform of the health regulatory bodies. Those proposals are extensive and, as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, give extensive powers to each regulator to streamline its own processes. I support that, because the public will benefit from more streamlined approaches to fitness to practise, which will deal with issues more quickly.

However, alongside this, it is widely expected that the forthcoming NHS Bill announced in the Queen’s Speech will contain extensive provisions on the very same regulatory bodies in health that we are talking about today. One provision will be to allow Ministers, by regulation, to abolish a regulator and establish others. I have huge reservations about this, because surely it puts their independence at risk if, on a whim, a Minister can get rid of a regulator that they do not like. When you put that prospect together with this Bill, alarm bells start to ring. Consultation is not everything, but it is a safeguard. My noble friend’s amendment would provide one such safeguard that I believe we need.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I am delighted to speak in the right place in the right order on these two amendments and I apologise for what happened earlier. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, on bringing forward these two amendments. I echo the concerns expressed by my noble friend Lady Noakes as to why they are limited to certain professions and not others. I am not entirely sure that all medical professions are represented here—the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, can confirm whether this is the case.

The noble Baroness will know that I am wedded to statutory consultation, and she has clearly set out what the specific forms of the consultation would be. With that support, I look forward to hearing my noble friend the Minister say whether he can see merit in these or whether they should be extended to other professions as well.

Medicines and Medical Devices Bill

Debate between Baroness McIntosh of Pickering and Lord Hunt of Kings Heath

Committee stage & Committee: 6th sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 6th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 17th November 2020 Grand Committee

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble and learned Lord. I have added my name to that of my noble friend Lady Thornton to Amendment 128, which was introduced by my noble friend Lady Wheeler. This regards the organisations to be consulted—other noble Lords have already referred to this—and concerns the provisions of Clause 41 for consultation on Parts 1, 2 and 3 of the Bill. As noble Lords have said, at the moment, it is entirely up to the Secretary of State who is consulted, other than the clarification the Government have brought in relation to the devolved Administrations.

The context of this amendment is the extensive power given to Ministers under the Bill. We have debated this before, but it is worth reminding the Committee that the Delegated Powers Committee in its report on the Bill was highly critical of Ministers for failing to provide sufficient justification for parts of the Bill adopting a skeletal approach. As the committee said, the Bill gives Ministers wide powers to almost completely rewrite the existing regulatory regime for medicines and medical devices.

It is also worth reminding the Committee that the Constitution Committee described the Bill as

“a skeleton bill containing extensive delegated powers, covering a range of significant policy matters, with few constraints on the extent of the regulatory changes that could be made using the powers.”

It went on to say:

“The Government has not provided the exceptional justification required for this skeleton approach.”


The case for a sunset clause is readily apparent, but in its absence, the way in which consultations are done assumes more importance than normal. It is very surprising that the duty to consult is open-ended and simply leaves it to Ministers to decide who to consult. The Minister may say that he does not like lists of organisations to be consulted, but legislation is littered with lists of organisations because it is important to reflect the range of bodies that ought to be consulted. Discretion is always given to Ministers to add to those lists of organisations.

I hope that the Minister will be prepared to take this back because in the end, certainly in the absence of a sunset clause, we have to beef up the provisions on consultation.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I support in particular Amendments 105 and 127 in this group, but I shall speak briefly to Amendment 105 and thank the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, for introducing this short debate on it. In the context of the proposal for a requirement to consult the devolved Assemblies, I share the concern expressed by my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern: it is essential that we keep all the devolved Assemblies in tune with Westminster thinking as the Bill and the regulations under it progress.

Business and Planning Bill

Debate between Baroness McIntosh of Pickering and Lord Hunt of Kings Heath

Report stage & Report stage (Hansard) & Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 20th July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I very much welcome the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Northover. I stress its cross-party nature and the support that it has from all around the House. Even this late stage, I ask the Minister to take this back and consider it further between Report and Third Reading. I was very proud of the actions of the Labour Government which led to the banning of smoking in public places. I worked with my noble friend Lord Faulkner and other noble Lords across the House in getting through the Lords the amendment that banned smoking in cars when children are present; we have a great history of working together in relation to measures against smoking. I do not see why, even at this late stage, we cannot do this again. With Covid-19, we know that many of the worst-affected have been those with cardiovascular or lung disease. Equally, Covid-19 has had a powerful impact on people taking up exercise programmes, fighting obesity and giving up smoking as a result; some 1 million people have done this during lockdown and there could be more.

This amendment, in whatever guise, could be helpful to many people. Far from having an adverse impact on business, smoke-free areas would be welcomed by most customers and would therefore bring in more trade; the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, surely had his finger right on the pulse in that. The measure is proportionate; the regime will apply only to licences on highways so not to pub, café or restaurant garden areas or pavement seating, where smoking is allowed. It also has support from local government. In addition, we need to think about the workers. The noble Lord, Lord Young, reminded us in Committee of the health risks to employees of passive smoking. Given the risks that those staff already carry, a duty of care is surely owed to them in respect of the risk from passive smoking.

My noble friend Lady Wilcox made a powerful speech, arguing that the decision should be left to the discretion of local authorities. I welcome the progress that my Front Bench has made on this. She also pointed to some technical deficiencies with the Bill. We have a way of clearing up technical deficiencies: either through a government amendment at Third Reading or, if the Government agree, by holding this over until a discussion can take place between all of us before we reach Third Reading. I hope that, even at this late stage, we can attempt to reach some form of consensus; I urge everybody concerned to do all they can to do so.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering]

My Lords, possibly the most surprising thing about Amendment 15 as drafted is that the signatories are predominantly Liberal Democrats; it is not a particularly libertarian policy that they have come up with. Also, it seeks to unravel the compromise reached when the smoking ban was introduced. What I regret most about Amendment 15 is that it does not recognise the heavy investment that pubs, bars and restaurants have made in the outdoor facilities that they hope to open more of. For that reason, I regret that I shall be unable to support Amendment 15.

I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Howe, who, through my chairmanship of PASS, I know has spent a great deal of time with the hospitality industry; obviously, I have had dealings with the hospitality industry as well. It is keen to recognise—and I welcome—the compromise offered by the government Amendment 13: there will be a smoke-free seating element. Had Amendment 15 not been tabled, perhaps we would not have got to the position we are now in. I note that a number of noble Lords have expressed the wish that the Government should go further, but the beauty of Amendment 13 is that it has regard to the heavy challenges currently facing the hospitality and leisure sectors during the ongoing Covid crisis and the way they are seeking to reopen. I very much welcome the work that has gone into Amendment 13; I will be delighted to support it if we have to later this evening.

Recognition of Professional Qualifications (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018

Debate between Baroness McIntosh of Pickering and Lord Hunt of Kings Heath

Monday 11th February 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome the regulations but I will ask a number of questions. The first is, obviously, what are the reciprocal arrangements for the rights of British professionals affected by the terms of these regulations in other EEA countries and Switzerland? Is that matter currently ongoing in the Minister’s department and the other relevant departments for those professions to which he has referred?

There is a reference on page 4 of the Explanatory Memorandum to the situation of lawyers. I must declare an interest because I practised in two separate firms in Brussels as an EU lawyer, as I would call it, with the qualification that I had then as a member of the Scottish Bar—I am now a non-practising lawyer. Could the Minister confirm that the Explanatory Memorandum refers on, I think, page 4 to the statutory instrument relating to lawyers that has already been adopted? What is the exact relationship between the SI that we have already adopted and the regulations before us? What is the position overall of European lawyers from EEA countries and Switzerland wishing to practise here and of British lawyers wishing to practise post Brexit in other EEA countries and Switzerland?

The position of teachers has long posed a particular problem in countries such as Germany. In the consultation that I am sure my noble friend and his department will have done, were any issues raised about reciprocal rights for teachers, and have any issues been raised by existing EEA-national or Swiss-national teachers currently practising their profession in this country? I think my noble friend has answered this question, but the Explanatory Memorandum says that such issues will be the duty of others—for example, paragraph 17.9 says that the Department of Health will look at EEA and Swiss doctors, nurses, midwives and dental practitioners who wish to come and work here. If I have understood that correctly, what will the position be regarding the recognition of EEA and Swiss professionals in Northern Ireland, with there currently being no devolved government there? Is that something his department will look at? For example, the Explanatory Memorandum says specifically that farriers in Northern Ireland will not be covered. I would be very grateful if he would help me to understand particularly how farriers will be dealt with in that regard.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I remind the House of my membership of the board of the General Medical Council. I want to follow the noble Baroness by focusing on doctors in discussing this SI. As far as the GMC is concerned, the SI provides welcome legal clarification and certainty on the supporting framework governing how EEA-qualified doctors will enter the UK medical register if the UK leaves the EU on these terms—in other words, under a no-deal Brexit. We hope it will help to manage any potential disruption to the NHS medical workforce in those circumstances.

However, can the Minister confirm—I think he did so by implication in his opening remarks—that the regulations will be of only limited application to the medical profession? They will apply only in so far as they make transitional provisions for applications made or actions taken before exit day and which have not been fully determined by then.

The Minister will be aware that there is continuing anxiety in the health service about the uncertainties caused by the current state of negotiations. Given the reaction of many EU nationals working in the NHS to the climate of opinion in this country, I think we have to be really concerned about future staffing and the workforce pressures that will come around the corner very quickly.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, before going into detail, I acknowledge that the General Medical Council, the Law Society, the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales and the Engineering Council have welcomed these proposals. I suspect this is more in sorrow than anything else, since this is better than the uncertainty that would exist without them.

My understanding of secondary legislation and its role—I fear I am treading into Adonis country here—is that it should be about technical, non-controversial issues. When you consider that the 2005 directive paves the way for free movement, you realise that this is actually quite a controversial instrument. In essence, it is here to make up for the fact that, outside the EU, we can no longer treat the European Union as a most favoured nation under WTO rules and will have to strike out the movement opportunities of EU 27 citizens. I understand that; that is why I tabled Amendment 66 to the Trade Bill. I know the Minister was not the beneficiary of that debate or speech but, for the sake of completeness, I am sure he would like to consult Hansard from about this time last week. He will see that free movement has important benefits and this SI tries to mitigate their removal. For that reason, I would say that this is not non-controversial and it is not, strictly speaking, just a technical piece of legislation. Therefore, we should probably not be using this instrument to discuss it, but here we are again.

I am sure the Minister has had a chance to look through Hansard for the other place; his colleague Richard Harrington, the Under-Secretary of State, piloted the debate through that House. A number of issues came up, which have already been touched on. One of these was about the Internal Market Information System, or IMI, of which we will no longer be members after exit. This is an important registry of skills and the way they relate to each other. It is not clear what we will replace it with—an Excel spreadsheet, perhaps—or who will hold it and be accountable for its veracity. I suspect it will be the Minister’s department, but this is not clear.

Reciprocity was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh. The debate in the other place seems to indicate that there is no guarantee of reciprocity or process by which it is being sought or managed. If that is the case—it seemed to be the view of the Under-Secretary of State—why not? What are the Government doing to protect the interests of British citizens?

The Long-term Sustainability of the NHS and Adult Social Care

Debate between Baroness McIntosh of Pickering and Lord Hunt of Kings Heath

Thursday 26th April 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

It came from a paper from the Office for Budgetary Responsibility. I believe that it is to be a general rise of around 1% across the board, but I will check that out and place a copy of any letter that I send to the noble Lord in the Library.

The point is this: clearly considerations would need to be given if there were to be a rise in national insurance, such as to its impact on employees and employers. Would it be a tax on jobs? Would it be an increase in taxes on working people, when the main beneficiaries of the NHS are older people who do not pay national insurance? Although national insurance contributions are mostly progressive, they become much less so when you hit the upper earnings limit, where employee contributions decrease from 12% to 2% on incomes over £805 per week. I know some noble Lords believe passionately that this is the way forward, and it is an idea worth exploring, but we have to be realistic about some of the drawbacks.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

If 1% were added to national insurance contributions, what would the cost be to the health service, being the largest employer in the land?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

I do not know the answer to that but clearly it is another point that has to be factored in, as it would in the care sector more generally. We have already seen this: clearly, it is welcome that the living wage has been introduced, but it has had a knock-on impact when the funding for those services has not gone up at the same time.

I also caution about the desire to create a cross-party approach, as the noble Lord, Lord Patel, asked. Last month, Dr Sarah Wollaston, chair of the Health Select Committee, wrote to the Prime Minister asking for a parliamentary commission on health and care to be established to report on the long-term future funding of the NHS. Today, my noble friend Lord Darzi announced his independent review.

All this is welcome. The more we can debate the pressing need to fund health and social care properly, the more likely it is that the public will support a rise in taxes, which is what I believe this debate is essentially about. But the decision cannot be offshored. In the end, you need a Government with the political will to make the investment necessary, put in place a plan to fix staffing and properly support people to manage their own health care and conditions for the long term. Labour did it. We increased the amount of money going into the health service, reduced waiting times dramatically and invested in the infrastructure. It can be done, but it takes a Government with the political will to do it.

Alongside the issue of funding, we surely have to get on with redesigning the current regulatory and structural mess that the Government have got the NHS into. As the Select Committee report said:

“A culture of short termism seems to prevail in the NHS and … social care”,


with the department,

“unable or unwilling to think beyond the next few years”,

so there is no long-term funding plan and no national long-term strategy on workforce planning. The NHS is seemingly incapable of driving up productivity, using data effectively or adopting new technology quickly, as the Select Committee concluded.

The Health and Social Care Act 2012 has much to answer for. Its conflicting threads have led to fragmentation, friction and confusion. The Act is dominated by obeisance to a competitive market, with economic regulation to the fore. It established lighter touch oversight from the Government, with NHS England created as an arms-length organisation, subject only to an annual mandate, and GPs were supposedly put at the heart of decision-making through their dominance of clinical commissioning groups.

What has been the reality? Competition has proved a very expensive foible. It reached its ultimate folly with the competition authorities intervening in a sensible reconfiguration of service proposals at a cost of millions of pounds. Large parts of the competition regime have now been ditched but, as the Act has not been repealed, NHS bodies are endlessly at risk of legal challenge. As for light-touch oversight, the reality is that NHS England behaves in the way of all state bureaucracies: heavy-handed and highly interventionist. As for GPs being in control, so frustrated have CCG leaders become at their impotence and unwanted role as rationers of services that many have gone back to their surgeries or even retired.

Ministers preside over this with glorious ambiguity, consistently washing their hands of the shambles and performance failures that they and their colleagues created. The Secretary of State humiliatingly calls in the bosses of the so-called independent NHS Improvement, NHS England and CQC for a weekly berating and demand that ever more chief executives be sacked.

When the Sainsbury chief, Roy Griffiths, was asked to look into NHS management in 1983, he said that if Florence Nightingale were to come back to inspect NHS hospitals, she would find no one in charge. I wonder, if that great man were asked to come back to do a report, what he would say about the current arrangement. Actually, I think we have a pretty good idea. The noble Lord, Lord Rose, was asked by the Secretary of State in 2014 to recommend how leadership in NHS trusts could be transformed. By the time he finished, I think the Secretary of State regretted asking the question, because in his report he talked about the level and pace of change being unsustainably high, with the administrative, bureaucratic and regulatory burden fast becoming unstoppable. He talked about a lack of stability and a deep-rooted concern over the many and varied messages sent from the centre of government. Indeed, not surprisingly, the report died the death. We continue with a huge system that is under huge pressure, underfunded, under-resourced with people, and yet it is having to cope with one of the most complex, conflicting administrative systems ever seen.

One thing I particularly welcome in the report of the noble Lord, Lord Patel, is that he did not confine himself just to funding. He talked about the culture and some of the other issues that need to be tackled. The report is excellent, and we have an excellent debate ahead of us. I hope that the Government will listen. It is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Patel, who has shown such leadership in chairing the Select Committee and presenting his report so well this morning.