Non-Domestic Alternative Fuel Payment Application Scheme Pass-through Requirement Regulations 2023

Debate between Baroness McIntosh of Pickering and Lord Teverson

Tuesday 16th May 2023 Grand Committee

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend and the department for bringing this measure forward—it is deeply appreciated among businesses. Do we know what the duration of the support will be in this regard?

I take this opportunity to thank the department for bringing forward the impact assessment as part of this, because we are very quick to criticise departments when they do not include such assessments. On this occasion, however, it is very thorough and greatly appreciated. I have learned a new term—counterfactual. I am not quite sure what it means, but we are told that the option of this support is being considered against a “counterfactual of doing nothing”. I do not know whether this is yet another Americanism that has crept into the English language.

I shall just press my noble friend on one point. He has been quite clear about how the intermediaries are responsible for identifying the end-user, yet on page 4 of the 36th report, printed on 10 May by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, it is clearly stated that the committee wishes to report defective drafting in Regulation 5. This refers to the fact, stated in paragraph 3.2 of the report, that there is

“no mechanism in the Regulations for enforcing these requirements. This reflects an approach adopted in previous instruments dealing with the pass-through of scheme benefits by intermediaries”.

How does my noble friend and the department respond to that charge against them?

That is the only question that I have. I wholeheartedly welcome the regulations before us this afternoon. It is extremely important that the support is given, particularly in areas such as rural areas which are off grid.

I know I said that that was the only comment that I had, but I have one last question. On the £150 going to the smaller users, does that mean that the civil action can be pursued through the small claims court, which obviously would not significantly add to their costs, if they had to bring such a claim to which my noble friend referred? I thank my noble friend and the department for bringing forward the statutory instrument before us today.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

I thank the Minister for a very familiar speech. Obviously, in principle, we very much support the statutory instrument. What struck me about it, if I am honest, is that when it arrived in my inbox I thought, “I thought we’d done all this”. If you look at the graph on the impact assessment—like the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, I welcome it—the big heist in energy prices was in June last year, so we are a long way through from that, by almost one year. Maybe I have misunderstood something, but it seems to have taken a huge amount of time. I realise that the statutory instrument came into effect in April, but it seems an awfully long time has been taken in managing to get this amount of money. It may not be large, but it is important to non-domestic users.

I would be interested to understand from the Minister how well the pass-through mechanism has worked to date on the other scheme. Have there been complaints and have there been any court procedures for people to claim their 2% on their proportion of the original amount of money? Have there been complaints to the department, or has the Minister found that the scheme has worked fairly well so far, as I would hope?

I would also be interested to understand the number of businesses that the department expects should benefit from this scheme. That may be in the impact assessment— I tried to find it there, but I could not, and my apologies if that is so.

I want to come back to the area of enforcement. The Joint Committee was strong on this and rightly so. Big amounts of money may not be involved here but whoever wrote this statutory instrument, as with the previous one on pass-through, must have had their tongue well in their cheek when they said that people could go through a civil claim and get 2% on the money outstanding, given that, at most, it is a fraction of £150. This is still an invitation for people to say, “What the heck? I’m not going to bother with this bureaucracy and I’m not going to do it”. For a country that takes the rule of law seriously, it is a principle that when one has a statutory obligation, there is a method of enforcement if that is ignored. It may not be used but it should be there.

I therefore should be interested to hear from the Minister on those areas, particularly on how successful the existing pass-through arrangements have been to date.

Energy Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness McIntosh of Pickering and Lord Teverson

3rd reading
Monday 24th April 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, one of the things that strikes me most about the passage of the Bill through this House is that it is has been the opposition parties saying to the Government, “Get on with it. We actually need this Bill through to give the powers that we need to meet decarbonisation and modernise the energy production system in this country”. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, that the amendments that have been made by this House are absolutely in line with the Government’s decarbonisation objectives. I hope that the Commons, as well as the Government themselves, will consider them as positive rather than negative.

I will not go through the long list of other Peers named by the noble Lord, Lord Lennie. What I will do is to say a great deal of thanks to Peers for the Planet for its work in the House, to the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, whom I have enjoyed working with very much indeed. From our own offices, I thank Sarah Pughe and Sarah Dobson.

We look forward very much to not having to play ping-pong on this Bill. Maybe that is too much to hope for but I thank the Ministers, the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, for their co-operation during the passage of the Bill. I also thank their teams. I look forward most of all to the Bill being implemented, so that the country as a whole can move ahead in its aims and objectives.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on steering such a major Bill through. I am mindful of the fact that it was originally going to be an energy security Bill. I know that I and a number of noble Lords focused on the environmental aspects, particularly the mitigation hierarchy. I welcome the fact that this is to be enshrined in the levelling-up Bill, and look forward to pursuing it further on that Bill with my noble friend on the Front Bench.

I ask my noble friend to be mindful of the fact that the Scandinavian countries, led by Denmark, have raised a flag about Russian vessels masquerading as fisheries vessels. These are, it is assumed, purposefully undertaking spying operations, particularly to look at the underground cables and the major offshore wind farm operations, notably operated by Denmark. I understand that we are to have a major operation where a lot of this work will co-ordinate around the Dogger Bank, so I urge him to be mindful of the security risk associated with such a major area of the North Sea, where we are extremely vulnerable to such operations by Russian and other forces which may not be so conducive to our energy security as we might wish.

Energy Bill Relief Scheme Regulations 2022

Debate between Baroness McIntosh of Pickering and Lord Teverson

Wednesday 16th November 2022 Grand Committee

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I take this opportunity to congratulate the Government and my noble friend the Minister on bringing through the enabling Act and in particular the regulations before us this afternoon. I commend the support the Government are giving both to non-domestic and domestic customers. If my noble friend will permit, I have a number of questions I would like to press him on, but that does not detract from my overall support for the scheme.

The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee prepared a very helpful brief, which states that the instruments are made to delegate powers to enable the Secretary of State to make technical rules for the effective operation of the EBRS, including rules for the calculation and recovery of accounts. Paragraph 7.1 of the helpful Explanatory Memorandum appended to the regulations states that the Secretary of State

“can reimburse licensed non-domestic energy suppliers applying price reductions on customers’ bills representing the wholesale energy price element of the bill. This will allow non-domestic customers to receive the benefit of such a discount.”

I welcome what my noble friend said about landlords passing this on to those who operate the businesses; that will be very welcome indeed.

Paragraph 7.2 of the Explanatory Memorandum say that the Secretary of State is required,

“within 14 days of the schemes’ introduction date, to make rules about further reductions”.

The rules will apply to the supply of gas and electricity for the period referred to by my noble friend. Will there be an opportunity for the Committee or the House to see them in advance and to scrutinise them? Will they be laid before the House? I realise they are technical rules, but it would be helpful for us to see them.

Paragraph 11.1 refers to stakeholders, individual organisations and so forth. I would like to make plea for the plight of publicans in pubs, restaurants, bars and cafés, who will benefit from this scheme until the end of March. It is particularly welcome in the run-up to Christmas, and in January and February, which tend to be slow months, as it recognises their need to incur high energy and electricity costs to make a welcoming atmosphere. My noble friend is probably not in a position to tell us today—we will have to wait until tomorrow or even the March Budget—what will happen after this scheme expires. I do not want to be like Oliver Twist and ask for more, but it would be helpful for businesses to know what the future will be. My noble friend has rightly identified that the regulations and the enabling legislation under which they fall are intended to prevent closures and job losses resulting from high wholesale energy costs, which we know are largely global in nature.

I also make a plea for non-domestic customers and businesses that operate in rural areas. The Minister and I are from the north-east of England. I grew up there and represented part of North Yorkshire for 18 years in the other place. In about a week’s time, we will have the first anniversary of Storm Arwen, when a number of businesses closed. Those who were not fortunate enough to have generators were heavily penalised. As part of learning from that, I met our local director of the NFU, which is keen to work with the Government and other bodies to see how we can enhance infrastructure and the grid in rural areas where we are heavily dependent on off-grid fuels such as oil, solid fuel and LPG, and to look at what prospect there might be for developing those off-grid resources. It is basically about lessons learned from Storm Arwen, in what was a very difficult time.

These regulations were debated in the other place by the Delegated Legislation Committee on Monday 14 November. It was asked then why there had not been a greater assessment of the impact of administration and resource costs on Ofgem, which will be heavily involved in monitoring compliance. Has BEIS looked at that? Will it have time to do so in the next few weeks? Secondly, if a company has outstanding debt on bills of greater than 28 days, it effectively does not qualify. For what reason has that benchmark been chosen? With those few questions, I wish Godspeed to the regulations and congratulate my noble friend and his department on the work they have done in this regard, for both non-domestic and domestic customers.

I have one further question, which relates more to domestic customers. What I would identify as sharp practices are being developed by electricity providers on the back of the Government’s generosity in this regard. When a customer is in credit, their direct debit payments are going up, which I can see no rhyme or reason for. If a customer is in credit, why on earth would you seek to increase their direct debit, particularly when the Government have lent the generous help that they have? Another such practice happens when, no matter how many meter readings they may give, the customer ends up with an estimated bill. Again, that seems to be a way of bumping up the price. I would welcome any response that my noble friend has to what seem to be developing sharp practices.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, we on our side very much welcome this relief for businesses and commercial operations with regard to energy prices. Again, I very much echo the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, on the fact that the evaluation does not take place until three months. I understand the issue of how you would evaluate it before that, but there is no obligation to put forward further plans until the end of the scheme, after six months. I would be interested to hear an answer on that.

Contracts for Difference (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2022

Debate between Baroness McIntosh of Pickering and Lord Teverson

Tuesday 17th May 2022 Grand Committee

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend and congratulate him on presenting the regulations to us this afternoon. He will be aware that there were great hopes, particularly off the Yorkshire and Humber coast, that facilities had been identified which would be appropriate for exactly the type of venture that is set out in the regulations before us today. So I welcome the regulations, but is my noble friend able to confirm that he believes that the take-up on the proposals for carbon capture and storage will increase and multiply because of the content of the regulations before us this afternoon?

Separately—he might think I am going off-piste here, and I probably am—can my noble friend explain something? If I understood it correctly, one of the difficulties we have with wholesale gas prices impacting the UK as they have—though perhaps not as badly as in other European countries, which rely heavily on Russia—is that we have gas storage of only 60 days, which is about two months. That strikes me as being terribly low. I do not suppose that that would benefit from these proposals, but I would like to understand why, historically, we seem to have a lower storage capacity than other European countries. Is that something that the Government might be minded to look at that?

The only other point I wish to make, which I am sure my noble friend is very familiar with, is the point raised in the 37th report of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, which I find myself in some sympathy with. Even though I am a lawyer by training and spent about nine months of my training going through all the scientific evidence—produced mostly by scientists rather than lawyers—on whether fluoride was a carcinogen, I find that even these small regulations before us this afternoon are full of jargon. There is a request in paragraphs 22 and 23 of the 37th report that the Explanatory Memorandum perhaps be revised to enable us humble Members of the House to understand better its contents. Can my noble friend simply confirm that that is the case? If that could happen in advance next time so that, when we see the Explanatory Memorandum we are better able to follow it, it would be very welcome indeed.

I thank my noble friend and his department for all they are doing at this particularly difficult time, and I give a warm welcome to the regulations this afternoon.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, in fact we should congratulate the Minister, because the officials have rewritten the Explanatory Memorandum. There are two versions of it on the website, and one of them explains all the acronyms in a footnote. Strangely enough, I knew all the ones they listed, but I was unclear about a couple in the rest of the report. It is not there—it is on the website.

First, although the Climate Change Committee and the Government are right that carbon capture and storage technology is needed, exactly as the Minister said, we also need a slightly cautionary note about it. In a way, certainly in terms of power generation, it is a far less efficient way of producing power; it takes energy to produce it, as we are all aware. An opportunity to produce power without CCS is obviously better, although I entirely understand that industrial processes are different.

The other thing I am always cautious about—I know that most of the basis is putting it back under the sea or wherever—is the element of putting pollution back under the carpet to a degree. I am not saying that it is unsafe or anything, but it is always better if we can avoid that.

On the propositions here, having read the Explanatory Memorandum, I understand that the fact that this can include retrofitted power stations is unclear. Clearly, it is much better in all sorts of ways to have retrofitted ones than have to build new ones, although I suspect whether that is economically possible or right depends on whether the particular gas facility—I presume it would be gas; I suppose it could technically be coal—has been future-proofed in terms of utilisation. That is good.

What really concerns me is that the SI says you do not have to use a pipeline. The amount of carbon dioxide coming out of a power generation station of any size will be quite substantial; the thought of trucks in urban areas moving carbon dioxide, maybe over many miles, across the surface outside a pipeline seems quite a challenge in terms of noise, congestion and carbon footprint—depending on how that transport works. I would be very interested to understand the logic behind that from the Minister. As I understand it, this will primarily be in clusters, which it seems to me will always need to be pipeline-based to get the carbon dioxide out to a storage facility, whether it is undersea or wherever. I would be very interested in the Government’s view of why this is necessary, what they expect and whether there will be any limits on how this transportation takes place. Clearly, pipelines must be absolutely right for this rather than some sort of other surface transport.

The SI also goes through the payment mechanisms. I am interested in the Explanatory Memorandum here, particularly on the availability payment. Paragraph 7.13 says that this is a payment for availability to dispatch electricity, and performance. I thought we had a thing called the capacity market to do that. Why do we need this? Does it not compete with the capacity market? I do not understand what the difference is or why we are inventing another load of systems for this. On the variable payment, again, would a strike price not work better? I understand that those options are still available, despite these amendments.

Then we come to the merit order, which says “We will compensate the price to make sure that we have non-carbon intensive gas stations producing electricity ahead of conventional ones”, which is clearly absolutely right for decarbonisation, but it has a cost. The economic analysis in the paper says there is no cost to the private sector, which I guess is right, but I would like to understand what the size of the cost to the taxpayer of all this is expected to be.

Lastly, I would be interested in the government estimate of the extra cost of producing CCS electricity through a gas station compared to conventional generation. The department must have done this to work out roughly what the public expenditure requirements might be.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Debate between Baroness McIntosh of Pickering and Lord Teverson

Report stage & Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords & Report: 1st sitting & Report: 1st sitting: House of Lords
Wednesday 18th November 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Teverson (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 11 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, although I am very much in favour of the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, as well.

Devolution has not been a disaster in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland or, indeed, London. It has strengthened the United Kingdom, our economy and our society. My great fear is that the overwhelming application of the market access principle—with those few exceptions: life or health of humans, animals and pets or public safety and security—is far too restrictive and will mean that important parts of devolution erode and disappear over time.

As with Amendment 11 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, I am particularly concerned about the environment, including climate change. I will be brief on this. We heard arguments in Committee that the most important thing was maintaining strong competition in the United Kingdom. I agree with that, but, like all things in market economies, that needs to be constrained in certain ways. While we need market competition to remain strong, it is equally important in a modern economy that innovation can take place. Competition in environmental regulation and some of these other areas is equally important to stimulate innovations in the nations of the United Kingdom that others can follow when they are successful. I see that as a key part of this process: being able to keep at the same time the different ways in which the nations of the United Kingdom can interpret environmental and climate change needs.

I am delighted that the Minister responding is the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, who is the Government’s Minister for Climate Change. I am sure he will be absolutely persuaded by these arguments that we need these environmental innovations to help with climate change as we move forward—as the Prime Minister wants us to, as he showed in his 10-point plan today—and to make sure we keep that progress and do it in the many ways the nations of the United Kingdom wish.

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

My Lords, I am most grateful for this opportunity to follow the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, who chairs our EU Environment Sub-Committee so expertly and courteously.

I take this opportunity in supporting Amendments 10 and 11—I would marginally prefer Amendment 10, but presumably they are for debating purposes—briefly to ask my noble friend Lord Callanan whether our understanding of the Bill as currently drafted is correct, in that it appears to be very tightly and prescriptively drawn, as so expertly indicated by the noble Lords, Lord Stevenson and Lord Anderson. Would protection of the environment or the labelling provisions proposed by my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham be permitted? Is my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe correct that, for example, the labelling provisions set out by my noble friend Lord Young would already be allowed?

My understanding is that member states such as Denmark can already provide additional information for consumers, such as the calorie content of beers and other foods, and that we have not gone that far yet. Would that be permitted under the Bill as currently drafted, or do we need the amendments in this group to be moved? That would greatly assist me understand how exactly the provisions in the Bill as drafted are to be interpreted.

Agriculture Bill

Debate between Baroness McIntosh of Pickering and Lord Teverson

Committee stage & Committee: 5th sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 5th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 21st July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as co-chair of the Cornwall and Isles of Scilly Local Nature Partnership. I shall speak also to Amendment 142. Both these amendments relate to reducing the transition period for the introduction of ELMS from seven years to five years. I suspect that Members are probably not that keen on the idea at the moment, so for the next couple of minutes I intend to try to persuade them otherwise, because it is important that we reduce the transition period.

Members and indeed the country as a whole are aware of COP 26 this year which was supposed to take place in Glasgow concerning the climate change agreement and getting the Paris agreement carried forward in a positive way to meet our planetary carbon emissions targets, but many people are not so aware of a second major conference, COP 15, about the diversity convention. It was supposed to take place this year in Kunming, China but it has also been postponed until next year.

Biodiversity is a global crisis equal to climate change. Biodiversity is not just a problem of equatorial rainforests; it is a problem in Europe and here in the United Kingdom as well. The 2019 State of Nature report states that

“15% of species in the UK are now threatened by extinction,”

41% are in decline and a third remain effectively static, with only a small proportion gaining in number. Biodiversity is not just about bird spotters or twitchers and a comfortable feeling about nature, important though it is for our mental health and the energy of our countryside. It is also about supporting natural systems and allowing them to operate—ecosystem services such as pollination, soil formation, clean water, atmospheric oxygen, disease control and many more. All these are essential not only to the natural world around us but to our economic performance and indeed to our continued existence on this planet.

One of the great things that I have always praised in the Agriculture Bill is the idea not just of public money for public goods but that it should be concentrated on building up and improving biodiversity and nature in our countryside. That is important because about 70% of the land in England and across the UK is used in agriculture. However, I regret to say that it is because of agricultural management that biodiversity in this country has declined so significantly. I do not blame the farming industry and individual farmers for that, but I do blame the financial incentive system within which they have had to operate.

Why am I asking for the transition period to be reduced from seven to five years? It is because the biodiversity issue is a global crisis as well as one here in the United Kingdom. If we take no action and carry on with business as usual, economic systems will fail. At the end of seven years, we will be almost half way through the period of the 25-year environment plan, which I also welcome, although it must be properly financed and delivered.

It may sound trite, but I remind noble Lords that the Second World War lasted for a mere six years and we managed to overcome all the problems and challenges that affected us globally within that time. At the moment we are in a transition period, moving from being a member of the EU to our global position in just 11 months, with all the challenges that that poses, so surely we can manage to implement ELMS over five years rather than seven. I also remind noble Lords that, on nature depletion, the United Kingdom is not in a good position. We ranked 29th from the bottom out of 218 countries. That is why this issue is so important. I beg to move.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, who is the illustrious chairman of our EU sub-committee. For the record, however, I would like the transition period to remain as it is.

I want to speak to Amendment 143, and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, my noble friend Lord Caithness and the noble Earl, Lord Devon, for lending their support. It is a simple amendment, which would delay the start of the seven-year transition period away from direct payments coming into effect from 2021 to 2022. I should like to pause here to explain why this is necessary.

In seeking to delay the start of the transition period to the new policy framework to 2022, I accept that there is wide support across the House for the government objectives in the Bill to move towards a new framework of support for agriculture that focuses on public payments for public goods and increasing productivity. Much of the detail will be set out in supporting regulations and in the Environment Bill, of which we in this House have not yet had sight. However, the changes being envisaged will be the biggest in a generation and look set to be in place for many years to come.

I accept that we are leaving the European Union but note with regret that, in the four years since the vote in June 2016 signalled the beginning of a process of change, particularly in leaving the CAP, we have made very little progress in developing the necessary mechanisms, policies and schemes that would be worthy of the major changes that we are expecting in this Bill. I accept that much of this is down to the political impasse leading up to the last general election and, more recently, to the pressing issues around controlling Covid-19, which I am sure have affected Defra as they have many other departments.

It is essential that we take the time to introduce new schemes and measures that will stand the test of time, rather than simply bringing them in quickly for the sake of it. I fear that there is an overarching desire through the Bill to show that things have changed as a result of our departure from the European Union, rather than to ensure that we put in place good, made-for-purpose, fit-for-purpose, resilient schemes. Let us face it: our track record in delivering new schemes and new IT to support them is not that great.

Following the environmental land management scheme tests and trials, which themselves have been impacted by the issues surrounding Covid-19 and are ultimately delayed, the Government intend to conduct a pilot in England of a new ELM scheme in 2021, with a view to it being fully operational by 2024. However, if it is true that the Rural Payments Agency will be in charge of running these pilots—I hope that my noble friend can put my mind at rest on that—we have to question its capacity to run such a pilot when it is already struggling to deliver business as usual. Once again this year, the RPA has had to ask the Treasury for funding to bridge payments to environmental stewardship and countryside stewardship applicants before being penalised for failing to meet the required payment targets by 30 June this year. What reassurance can the Government provide that there is adequate capacity within the RPA to deliver the pilot, or does my noble friend think that another body would be more appropriate?

I also place a question mark on the extent to which the Government would be able to spend any money saved through the reductions in direct payments starting in 2021. I understand that Defra has identified this as a potential problem and is therefore looking to make an announcement in September about enhanced options for countryside stewardship and productivity schemes. However, we have none of the detail available to us today. In my view, the sensible thing is to delay the start of the transition period until 2022. That is not kicking the can down the road but giving the Government and Defra the time and space to deliver the good schemes that we know they are capable of, rather than producing half-baked schemes.

The reasons for this delay are these: we are being asked to take a lot on trust; we have not had sight of the Dimbleby food strategy, which I understand will not reach us before Report; we have not had the results of the trials of the ELM schemes; the OEP has yet to be set up; and we do not know what its relationship to the Environment Agency, Natural England and the RPA will be. We owe it to Defra to give it time, because of the Covid pandemic, to reach a proper conclusion to these schemes. I therefore ask the House to commit to supporting Amendment 143.

Fisheries Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness McIntosh of Pickering and Lord Teverson

Report stage & Report: 2nd sitting (Hansard) & Report: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 24th June 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering [V]]

My Lords, I am grateful to have this opportunity to speak to Amendment 35A to Clause 27. This is a neat amendment which encapsulates three important points. Paragraph (a) states that quota

“may not be sold … to other persons following the original purchase”.

It should specifically not be sold to non-active fishers and should be

“prioritised for sale to vessels under 10 metres.”

Paragraph (c) has been debated to a large extent under the previous amendment, and the fact that that amendment was carried negates my having to speak to that part of my amendment.

My main concern lies with a practice that has become widespread. I do not think it was ever intended that quotas should be tradable, but it is a bit like the milk quotas. If you give something an economic value, it suddenly becomes of great interest. The noble Lord, Lord Mann, spoke about hedge funds. I was surprised to learn that football clubs had chosen to invest in fish quotas. I cannot think of anything that could possibly be further removed from an active fisherman. I would like to return to active fishermen benefiting. We have discussed how boats under 10 metres do not have access to anything other than shellfish, for which no quota is set, but they would like to have further access. As I say, that point has now been addressed, but I would prefer to see that quotas are not sold under any circumstances to non-active fishers. I should be interested to know the Government’s position—whether they would look favourably in that regard.

More especially, I should like to concentrate my remarks on the fact that this practice of quotas becoming tradable is regrettable. We should revert to the original practice, where those who bought the quotas kept them and did not sell them on. I do not think it is good practice to sell the quotas on and, if we can couple ownership to the use of quota, we will develop more responsible behaviour as to how the quota is exercised. It would be my fervent wish that quota is, in both the shorter and longer term, owned and used by fishermen directly, which gives everyone the opportunity to behave better, not being able to cut and run and sell quota off as surplus to their requirements purely as an economic commodity.

With those few remarks, I hope to gain the support of the Government in this regard for ceasing the practice of tradable quotas and to revert to practices where the quotas are sold to those who use them and, ideally, active fishermen. I do not intend to press this to a vote, but at this stage, I beg to move.

[Lord Teverson]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, for tabling this amendment; I will be interested to hear the Government’s response to it. As the noble Baroness said, milk quotas became purely financial instruments, and it is absolutely right that we should not be in that position. They should not appear on the London futures market or whatever it may be because that is not what this is about, especially in the area of fisheries.

However, in Cornwall there is an organisation called the Duchy Fish Quota Company. While it is not itself a fishing concern, it attempts to use money from donors to buy quota in order to keep it for Cornish fishers. It does so because we have the exact problem that has been set out so well by the noble Baroness: these quotas are traded and there tends to be a concentration of them with the risk that they can be owned outside the United Kingdom. The nice thing is that if this problem could be solved through such an amendment or a similar policy, an organisation like the Duchy Fish Quota Company would no longer be necessary. I am strongly in favour of this amendment in principle and I look forward to hearing the Government’s response in terms of its policy for the future in this area.

Fisheries Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness McIntosh of Pickering and Lord Teverson

Committee stage & Committee: 4th sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 4th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 11th March 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, I very much support the amendment. I admit that there is, perhaps uncharacteristically, a smidgen of innovation in this part of the Bill. The noble Baroness is absolutely right, and I will listen to the Minister’s reply very carefully because, as we know from Northern Ireland and “cash for ash”, these schemes can have unintended consequences. While, as always, I commend the Government on being determined to keep the discard ban active and well managed, we need to understand how this will operate practically and make sure that those unintended consequences do not arise.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I seek clarification as I raised a number of points earlier in the Bill relating to this issue. The amendment is useful in that regard to tweak information out of my noble friend. I wondered what the background was to the move away from eliminating discards to this discard prevention charging scheme. Is it from the model developed in New Zealand, and are the Government satisfied that that model is working better now than when there were initial teething problems?

I would be grateful if the Minister would clarify, but I understand that this provision is not deemed to apply in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Has he had any discussions with the devolved Administrations to see if they are proposing to go down this path at a future stage? I understand that the Scottish Government may bring forward their own Scottish fisheries Bill in this regard; I simply do not know the answer to that.

In Clause 28, how does my noble friend imagine the discard prevention charges being monitored? The way that subsection (4)(a) and (b) is drafted could indicate that this is a voluntary scheme. Are the Government minded to link the scheme to the REM that we discussed earlier, and would that involve cameras on boats as well as other equipment?

Fisheries Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness McIntosh of Pickering and Lord Teverson

Committee stage & Committee: 3rd sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 3rd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 9th March 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 77A, I will speak also to Amendment 80A. I also have a few comments on Amendment 124 from the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, which seems very sensible.

The Minister will recall my concerns on earlier clauses as to how policies such as discard charging schemes and other items will be policed. I have tabled these two amendments as a way of allowing me to debate these issues. In particular, I understand that it is quite possible—this was not news to my noble friend and other noble Lords—that a Scottish fisheries Bill may be introduced. While I understand that Clauses 15 and 17 will apply to the whole of the United Kingdom, is the discard charging scheme intended to apply only to English boats or also to foreign boats operating in UK waters? In that case, Scottish boats would be included as well. How will REM—the remote electronic monitoring—work? Is it envisaged that cameras will be included in all cases? Will it be a mandatory scheme? Will it be a statutory provision of the licence that British fishing boats under Clause 15 or foreign boats under Clause 17 require as to how it will apply? I do not see how the scheme will work if it is not mandatory and does not include cameras.

As my noble friend is aware, I am particularly exercised about the discard charging scheme. I would have preferred the original government policy, which clearly pointed to complete elimination. The purpose of these amendments is to allow my noble friend to explain how it will operate in practice. Will it apply to all British boats or only to English boats? What will the relationship be if the Scottish Parliament passes a separate fisheries Bill, and what will our relationship be with foreign fishing vessels? Will they be put on exactly the same footing and will it be a mandatory scheme? Which clauses will it apply to?

In Amendment 124, the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, is doing something not dissimilar to what I am doing. He too refers to remote electronic monitoring with cameras, which, unless my noble friend can put my mind at rest about how any remote electronic scheme could work without cameras, I am keen on. Can the noble Lord tell me why he seeks to phase this in? I am much more at one with the Government, unless I have misunderstood the drafting of his amendment, which talks about this being phased in. I hope my noble friend insists that this is brought in immediately as a provision of the licencing regulatory regime.

[Lord Teverson]

My Lords, we come now to one of the most important groups of amendments. I was interested in the reply given by the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, to the fourth Oral Question earlier, which was about what the Government are doing to make this country an environmental leader. He went through a number of Bills which are going through at the moment, including the Agriculture Bill and the Environment Bill, before mentioning the Fisheries Bill. He is right on the first two. Under the Agriculture Bill, there is ELMS, a very radical policy to ensure that farmers who are paid a subsidy produce public goods. A lot of those are going to be focused on the environment. As the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, said, as part of the Environment Bill we have net gain and nature recovery networks, both of which I applaud. They will add greatly to the environmental growth of the United Kingdom.

What does the Fisheries Bill do to enhance the UK’s environment? The withdrawal Act gave us control over the EEZ, but all the Fisheries Bill does is change one set of administrators to another, replacing a lot of objectives in the common fisheries policy with similar ones. There is nothing in this Bill that enhances the marine environment. I cannot think of anything in it, as it stands, that does that.

Fisheries Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness McIntosh of Pickering and Lord Teverson

Committee stage & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 4th March 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering]

My Lords, I support the amendment in the name of the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, and have added my name to it. I know that my noble friend the Minister will say that the amendment is not needed, but I would argue that it is. If there were no changes to the joint fisheries statement, we should be able to understand why that was the case and why everyone had agreed. It would be helpful to have more openness and transparency in that regard.

[Lord Teverson]

My Lords, I have a number of amendments in this group which I am sure the Minister will be able to bat away quickly and easily. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, on his amendment: it is a problem that I thought we would never have, but he suggests a way to resolve it and I am sure that he would make an excellent independent adviser if it should ever arise.

Clause 3(1) states:

“The fisheries policy authorities may at any time prepare and publish a replacement JFS.”


It comes back to trying to make the rules clearer. Can one of the authorities trigger this, or does there have to be a consensus? I look to the Minister for guidance on what precisely that mechanism is.

I always like simplification in life. While I understand what the Bill is trying to do in requiring two fisheries statements, it would be great to have a combined document so that everybody could understand how the policy looks as a whole. That would be terribly useful to the consumers of the legislation; that is, the industry and all the stakeholders.

I would be interested to hear from the Minister how the department came to six years as a review period. We have American presidential elections every four years, the World Cup is every four years, the Olympics are every four years, and fixed-term Parliaments are every five. Why six? It would be better if it was five. Six years seems a long time in terms of marine ecology and fisheries statements. It should be looked at just a little more regularly.

Fisheries Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness McIntosh of Pickering and Lord Teverson

Committee stage
Monday 2nd March 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering]

My Lords, this is another probing amendment, following on from the discussion I had with my noble friend the Minister in preparing for Committee. Its aim is to tease out from the Government which international fisheries policy authorities they intend to co-operate with.

The back narrative of this is that in paragraph 71 of the political declaration published in October, it is stated, in respect of fishing opportunities, that:

“The parties should cooperate bilaterally and internationally to ensure fishing at sustainable levels, promote resource conservation, and foster a clean, healthy and productive marine environment, noting that the United Kingdom will be an independent coastal state.”


This will be extremely important when, as we see later in the Bill, a fisheries policy authority, when publishing a fisheries management plan, has to have regard to changes in circumstances, one of which could be changes in the UK’s international obligations.

My noble friend has expressed very clearly our desire to maintain our role in UNCLOS—the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Presumably we were an independent member of UNCLOS before we joined the European Union. I would like confirmation that our status in that regard has not changed. I know that there is a verbal commitment to our continuing engagement with ICES—the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea—but will we maintain the same level of spending as in the past? I am not clear, either, about which budget this will come from—the Defra budget or another departmental budget. It would be helpful to know that. We took evidence from ICES in connection with our work on the energy and environment sub-committee, and I have visited the ICES headquarters in Copenhagen twice. It is important for us to continue to rely on the excellent research work that it does.

I am not aware whether there will be any change in our status in relation to the Food and Agriculture Organization—particularly the fisheries and agricultural aspects of its work—or what our dependence on it will be, but that is also extremely important. One non-governmental organisation that I presume we have left, now that we are an independent sovereign state, is the European Environment Agency. It is of particular historic interest—I want to place this on record—that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister’s father, Stanley Johnson, is a great expert in this field and was a leading environmentalist in the European Commission for a number of years before he was elected to the European Parliament. He is still a highly regarded and internationally respected environmentalist in his own right. Will the Government commit to continuing to work very closely with, and rely on the work of, the European Environment Agency with regard to fisheries but also on other environmental work—particularly agriculture, when the Agriculture Bill comes up? I hope that we can keep the door open to the work of the European Environment Agency.

I would be interested to learn about the nature of our new relationships with international parties such as Norway, Iceland and the Faroes that the Bill sets out, particularly—dare I say—if a fisheries dispute arises. The Government have clearly stated that we will not be subject to any jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice, but I argue that there is a degree of urgency about fisheries policy—and other policies—since we are now an independent coastal state. Who will arbitrate in the event of any fisheries dispute in our new relationships with Norway, Iceland and the Faroes? More importantly, what will the dispute resolution mechanisms be with regard to any dispute with the other 27 European Union countries? If, for example, France was to follow through with its threat to blockade the continental ports, despite a fisheries agreement being in place, thereby preventing our fisheries products accessing the market—a very real prospect—what would the dispute mechanism be? We need to know. I am not aware what it would be and I seek reassurance on that.

International relations are particularly important because—I place this on record—the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea requires the UK to participate in management based on an agreement on straddling stocks, which means that we would need to negotiate almost everything. With those few introductory remarks, I look forward to clarification on the issues that I have raised this afternoon. I beg to move.

[Lord Teverson]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, for introducing at last the other people who deal with our fish stocks—other national authorities. The fundamental flaw of this Bill is that it seems to ignore the rest of the world, while our fish stocks—most of them, including their spawning grounds—are outside our exclusive economic zone. Later in the Bill we come to amendments where, I hope, we can strengthen it so that it notes and acts on the real world, where this resource is not exclusive to us.

I welcome the Bill in relation to the scientific side, which, to give the Government their due, is well advanced in terms of using ICES and stock assessments, for example, and I hope that the Minister will tell us about a lot of other things that they are doing with regard to keeping within those international areas. However, we are a member of all sorts of regional fisheries organisations, such as the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization, the North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission and various tuna organisations, as well as UNCLOS, as the noble Baroness mentioned. These are basic, fundamental aspirations that we need to exceed to make sure that we have the sustainability that we need.

European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill

Debate between Baroness McIntosh of Pickering and Lord Teverson

Committee: 3rd sitting (Hansard) & Committee stage & Committee: 3rd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 16th January 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Teverson]

No, it just stays as it is.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, on shining a light on this particular difficult policy area. I follow on from the remarks made by my noble friend Lady Altmann, but on a slightly different question, regarding a case study with which I am all too familiar because it concerns my own pension, so I hope that noble Lords will forgive me for raising this.

One area of EU law that has long concerned me is the free movement of pensions and that the pension to which one contributes while living and earning money in another EU member state should be recognised when one returns to the UK. In my case, I remember only too well that I contributed on two occasions, once as an employee and once as a self-employed independent lawyer. On one of those occasions, my contribution was taken and has simply not been recognised. I am sure that this is a common problem; I cannot believe that it applies only to me.

I am in a privileged position as regards my pension, other than the fact that I am told I cannot take my state pension until a slightly later year than I was expecting. When summing up on this small group of amendments, can my noble friend give the House assurance that, where an individual of whatever nationality —British, in my particular case—has contributed to a pension scheme in, for example, Belgium, France, Germany or Denmark and at some future date wishes to return to the United Kingdom, there is a guarantee that their pension will be recognised and will be paid as part of either a private or occupational or state pension at the time of retirement?