Great British Energy Bill

Debate between Baroness McIntosh of Pickering and Lord Whitty

Committee stage
Tuesday 17th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Whitty (Lab)]

My Lords, I have a short but crucial amendment in this group—Amendment 51A—which deals with the key issue of employment. It rather shocked me when I checked the wording of the Bill that the words “employment”, “skills” “training”, “retraining”, “upgrading” or even “fair transition” are not mentioned in it. At one of his briefing meetings, I asked my noble friend the Minister for a clear chart of the various bodies we are now envisaging having influence on energy policy—NESO, Ofgem and now Great British Energy and Great British Nuclear. None of them have as a central mission to provide the new and upskilled workforce that will be needed to deliver both the grid and the new forms of energy which will take us to clean energy by 2030 or 2035.

I also looked through the previous Act of the last government—the Energy Act 2023—which is 473 pages long. It provides much of the body of approach to energy policy which the new Government have largely adopted. From a rough-and-ready word check, I do not think that the words “employment”, “skills” and “new skills” appear in that either.

If we are to deliver a clean energy system, from generation to delivery, and energy efficiency in our homes, offices and buildings, as well as a transformation of our industry and transport, we will need a much more skilled, or differently skilled, workforce than the one we have at the moment. That requires somebody to take responsibility for that. None of the bodies has that as one of its central tasks. That needs to be remedied before this Bill disappears from this House.

We need to ensure that those currently employed in sectors of energy which will reduce in gas and oil have a high level of skills which will be relatively easily transformed into skills delivering the new clean energy—or those further down the line delivering home efficiency and other forms. We do not have that in the energy policy. It is mentioned in passing in one of the White Papers, but it is nowhere in proposed legislation. This amendment would at least put it in the statement of priorities required to be issued by NESO early in the transition. It will need following up; it will need more than that. It will need substantial intervention, provision of retraining, apprenticeships and skills, and redefinition of jobs if we are to achieve the timescale and trajectory to net zero that we are envisaging.

This amendment, which is supported by the TUC, would put a marker down that we need to address this issue. Without a transformation and extension of the workforce, we will not deliver the full energy system in anything like the timescale currently envisaged. Can my noble friend the Minister ensure that the Government come back with some way of reflecting in this Bill that employment and the transformation of employment are an important priority, as is assigning responsibility for them to one of the many bodies now in this arena? It may not be regarded by many as central to this Bill, but it is central to the delivery of the outcome. I put down this simple amendment at this point, and I will return to it at a later stage.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, there are a number of interesting and thought-provoking amendments in this group. I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, in speaking to his. I will speak to my Amendment 55 and ask the Minister to respond on a number of issues when he winds up on this group.

I felt that this amendment was necessary to probe the thinking of the Government. Clause 5(7), on strategic priorities and plans, says:

“The duties to consult imposed by subsections (4) to (6) may be satisfied by consultation carried out before this Act comes into force”.


What is the timetable for those consultations? Can the Minister assure the Committee that they will be meaningful and last, as in the terms of my Amendment 55, for the usual 12 weeks—ideally not covering the summer or Christmas holidays, which is so often the case? Will they be meaningful and be over a 12-week period, and will they consult farmers, fishermen and local communities?

Why are those three groups important? With farmers, as the Minister knows because we debated this in Questions and earlier in Committee, the Government are minded to take over highly productive land—often grade 2 or 3 land—for solar farms. In preparing for today, I have been issued information from David Rogers, an emeritus professor of ecology at the Department of Zoology at the University of Oxford. He is not personally known to me, but he has some very good figures.

I think the Government are underestimating, as of today, the amount of agricultural land that will be taken out of useful production. Let us look at the five most affected constituencies. In Newark, it is a land take of 7.9%. In Rayleigh and Wickford—I declare that I represented Rayleigh many years ago in the European Parliament—4.9% would be taken out of production. Sleaford and North Hykeham will have a reduction of 4.62%. In Newport East, the figure will be 4.6%, and Bicester and Woodstock will see 3.96% out of production.

We have to have a very grown-up debate about what the land use framework will be. I do not think that it will be published before this Bill passes, but I pay tribute to the work of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, in this regard. She has put an inordinate amount of work into this. There will be other opportunities to discuss the impact on farming. I hope the Minister will give us an assurance today that farmers will be included in the consultation and say what form the consultation will take.

I turn now to fishers and the spatial squeeze they face. The National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations provided a briefing, at my request. It is the first to understand that fishers must share the sea, and if other industries expand so much that fishing is squeezed out of its traditional grounds, they obviously do not want to see the industry collapse. In the NFFO’s view, it is a mistake that when a new wind power station is built or protected areas are designated, the fishers who previously worked there are deemed simply to go and fish somewhere else; that is often not the case. Fish can be caught only in the places where they live and breed. They have been caught commercially in UK waters for centuries, and the areas where they feed, migrate and breed are well known, so expecting displaced fishing efforts to simply resume somewhere else entirely misses the point.

In the NFFO’s view, there is an absolute need for a strategic approach. The UK’s needs for food, energy, communication, transportation, waste disposal and recreation all intersect at sea, and the interests of fishers —and, in fact, of all users—can be met only with a strategic approach to using the marine space. How will the Government use the consultation to ensure that that is achieved, and that fishers’ voices will be heard when such a plan is developed, to ensure their future?

I turn to the work we did on the EU Environment Sub-Committee, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson. We took evidence on the environmental impacts of these developments, particularly offshore wind farms and their future replacements, on marine life and the future of the fishers. The NFFO views with increasing concern the environmental impacts of such vast industrial developments in the sea. It makes a plea that, as we go forward, any strategic overview will be consulted on. A ban on fishing is obviously not an option, in its view. We hope that fishing will not be automatically damaged through any development of the marine environment, but that common ground will be found, so to speak, in any consultations on developing strategic priorities and plans within the remit of Clause 5.

I turn finally to local communities. It is regrettable that in the past, planning permission has been granted separately for offshore and onshore wind farms, because then, a separate planning application takes place, particularly for offshore windfarms, wherever the energy reaches the shore. That poses all sorts of problems that really came to life during the general election. Perhaps it is no surprise that we have a Green Member of Parliament for part of the Suffolk coast, because if you are going to have a large substation created separately from the original planning application for the offshore windfarm, that poses problems for the Government—whichever Government it happens to be.

Also, there is alarm that the Government are planning to take back control, so to speak, of planning decisions. Under the proposals the Government envisage, we are taking the decision away from local communities— I pay tribute to all who have served and who continue to serve as local council representatives—and giving it to the Secretary of State. That is wrong, because local communities should be asked to decide where these electricity substation superstructures will be placed and, just as woefully, where the overhead pylons will be placed. I still bear the scars, as the then newly elected Member for the Vale of York, from when we were deemed to take an additional, second overhead line of pylons. This does not go down well with local communities.

I hope the Minister will look kindly on the points I have made and listen to the voices of the farmers, fishermen and local communities as the Government proceed to develop their strategic priorities and plans.

Electricity and Gas (Energy Company Obligation) Order 2022

Debate between Baroness McIntosh of Pickering and Lord Whitty

Tuesday 12th July 2022 Grand Committee

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for bringing forward the order. I understand that there has been quite a delay, as the legislation was due to have legal effect on 1 April. I wonder why there was a delay, but I am delighted to see the order before us this afternoon. I remind the Committee of my interest as president of National Energy Action, which briefed me in advance.

First, I welcome the fact that the spending envelope is going to be much greater than previously. I understand that it has been increased from £660 million to £1 billion a year, which is quite a sizeable increase and makes the scheme much more ambitious. As my noble friend said, it is a fabric-first, multi-measure approach to upgrading homes. The scheme is better targeted and allows local authority suppliers and others to qualify households into it. I regret that, as I understand it, during the delay from 1 April until when this finally comes into effect—my noble friend can tell us when exactly—25,000 households could have benefited, so it is important that we get the statute adopted as soon as possible.

I would like to raise a couple of concerns. The practice of allowing households to make financial contributions towards the measures continues but, if a household is in extreme fuel poverty, how is it expected to find the resources to contribute, given that we are soon to be living in the worst fuel poverty that I can remember? I pay tribute to Martin Lewis, who I think has done consumers and households a great service generally in guiding people towards the schemes and explaining how all of us can save money as October approaches. Perhaps this is not the best day to be discussing this, given the temperatures today.

I would like to clarify why the scheme does not set an adequate minimum of solid wall properties to be treated. I wonder if there was a particular reason for this. The figures that I have are that over 90% homes with solid walls still need to be insulated to meet fuel poverty commitments, at the same time as delivering net zero. We are probably talking about a million fuel- poor households living in solid wall properties with no insulation—some of the worst-insulated houses not just in Britain but probably in the northern hemisphere.

There is a gap in the provision of energy advice that perhaps has not been met by the scheme. How does my noble friend expect to reach the fuel poverty targets at the same time as delivering net zero if we do not have a more comprehensive network of advice provision? While the proposed defined roles of retrofit adviser, retrofit assessor and retrofit co-ordinator will ensure that households are advised initially of the options, we need to ensure that homes are assessed properly and that there is a proper plan for improvement and evaluation. Is there a case that the advice should go further and include information on other available energy schemes and support?

At the moment, it is not entirely clear whether advice is accessible. I seek assurances from my noble friend that any information comes in multiple formats, because not everyone has access to the internet, not everyone has English as a first language, and there are obviously a variety of disabilities to deal with.

With those few concerns, which I hope my noble friend will address, I give a warm welcome to the instrument before us.

[Lord Whitty (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, has anticipated me, which is completely understandable since I am a vice-president of the same organisation, but I would like to put this in a slightly broader context.

The other day, when we were having an exchange at Questions, the Minister admonished me for apparently disparaging the ECO scheme. My point is not that the scheme is not desirable. It is a means of delivery that has proved its worth in certain respects. Certainly, the energy companies have now developed systems that identify where they could intervene with their own customers. However, inevitably, by relying entirely on the ECO scheme to deliver energy efficiency provisions, people get missed out. I have always argued that putting the responsibility on the companies as the main means of delivery means that there will always be gaps, because the companies will prioritise in relation to their own consumers. What we really need, have needed for some time and, in the current circumstances, need even more is a scheme that helps absolutely everybody who is fuel poor or likely to be made fuel poor, of which there are now more because of the current energy crisis.

Energy efficiency measures meet a lot of the Government’s and the country’s objectives of saving energy, moving away from fossil fuels, working towards net-zero targets, and off-setting the energy dimension of the cost of living crisis. We therefore need to strengthen them. I assure the Minister that I approve of the direction in which these regulations move, because they broaden the way you can bring people in. They increase the schemes and the comprehensiveness by looking at multi-measures in a way that past interventions frequently have not. This means that schemes can be addressed that do not rely on mini-interventions but look at the total fabric of the house and the systems by which it is currently heated. The detailed measures on the upgrading of the ratings are also important, and the broadening of the people who can refer into the scheme, particularly via the health service dimension, is also much to be welcomed.

As the noble Baroness said, there are some gaps. The biggest, which is not a gap but an inadequacy, is the failure to set a really strong target for solid wall insulation. The danger is that we do not have the companies and contractors to do that, because the regulations do not imply sufficient jobs and there is not the training for installers that is needed to deliver the aspirations. In terms of where we are on home energy efficiency, that is probably the biggest single inadequacy of delivery so far and it needs to be addressed.

I echo the noble Baroness’s point about advice, because a lot of the fuel poor, or those who are increasingly in danger of becoming fuel poor, do not have adequate advice in this area. The kind of advice they need overlaps with the advice needed by people in the hitherto so-called “able to pay” category. The failure of the successive schemes to deliver effective support for the “able to pay” sector really underlines the need to upgrade the whole of the advice in this area. The information is still inadequate and difficult to access for both the fuel poor and those who perhaps can still make a contribution themselves, and in some cases pay for the whole lot themselves.

In general, I think this order is in the right direction for the delivery of the ECO scheme but needs to be put into a broader context. That broader context becomes more difficult, because in the next few years we are about to decide what the main form of home heating in this country will be. Individual householders and landlords have to face decisions on insultation, whatever the form of heating. It is not yet clear whether we will still have something approaching the gas network or whether gas will be replaced by a hydrogen blend or by hydrogen. The number of properties is not clear. Many properties do not qualify or are not appropriate for heat pumps in their present form. There will be some difficult decisions on how they address that. Most households would prefer to know what the totality of their movement is, whether they are fuel poor or in the “able to pay” sector. They would like to know that they can perhaps insulate up front and then change to a different form of heating, or at least that they will not have to change everything in their house twice and that, whether they go under the ECO or a scheme where they pay themselves, they will not then have to adapt all their appliances and network again in two, three, four or five years because we have changed the form of heating.

We need a more strategic approach to this, but I assure the Minister that, as far as it goes, I am in favour of what he is proposing to us today.

European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill

Debate between Baroness McIntosh of Pickering and Lord Whitty

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

[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?

[Lord Whitty (Lab)]

My Lords, I had not intended to speak on this amendment: indeed, I did not speak at Second Reading and have concentrated in my own amendments on some fairly technocratic issues. However, my noble friend Lord Teverson—or, rather, the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, who on occasion is my friend—has provoked me. One reason I did not speak at Second Reading is that I now recognise that Brexit is going to happen on 31 January and I am feeling emotionally negative about it. I shall not be joining any celebrations, even if they raise the money for Big Ben to bong.

Trade Bill

Debate between Baroness McIntosh of Pickering and Lord Whitty

Committee: 3rd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 30th January 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering]

I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester—on what I think might be his birthday—on moving the amendment. I repeat my concerns relating to the earlier group of amendments, not just for the hill farmers of Wales but for the hill farmers of the north of England, including North Yorkshire, County Durham and Northumbria, and Scotland, as well as other parts of the United Kingdom. The noble Lord raised his concerns in an interesting way but I have to echo my noble friend Lady Byford’s concerns, which she so ably addressed. It would be helpful for the Minister to explain whether our understanding is correct and what the relationship is between this amendment and the earlier tariffs we discussed, and whether, if we were to introduce the zero-rate tariff, this would equally be of concern with this amendment.

[Lord Whitty (Lab)]

My Lords, I would like to put in a brief word here. The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, will recall that, towards the end of the time when she and I were crossing swords on agricultural policy, the issue of agricultural trade multilaterally fell down in the Doha round precisely on this issue of tariff-rate quotas. The amendment of my noble friend Lord Grantchester—who was also present on those occasions—is a probing amendment to see how we are going to deal with the situation for imports.

Our exports, to which the noble Baronesses, Lady Byford and Lady McIntosh, referred, are also vitally important, but we need to have a line from the Government in relation to the existing tariff quotas for European imports with a number of our trading partners. It is not necessarily in the interests of those trading partners to preserve what is de facto the UK share of imports from them to the whole of the EU. Some of them are fly enough to actually notice that their bargaining position in relation to the UK on its own might be slightly greater than their bargaining position in relation to the EU as a whole. It is therefore not entirely surprising that, in these existing potential rollover treaties, there might be some attempt to change the amount of imports that the tariff quota allows into the UK. That itself, of course, is potentially a danger to our domestic production in many of these areas. However, assuming that it will be an easy task simply to roll over all of these existing EU-wide treaties is one of the features of the Government’s complacency.

Of course, the issue becomes even more important when rather bigger agricultural producers might actually be approached by us, or approach us, for a free trade agreement down the line, when their interests will undoubtedly be to press for very high import quotas— from Brazil, America or Australia—in any potential free trade agreement that we are seeking to make primarily on behalf of our manufacturing and service sectors. It might well be something on which we need to put down a marker now.

The Government might have some difficulty with the wording of my noble friend’s amendment, but we need to know what their position is on this. Otherwise, we will be presented with a whole series of treaties that incorporate the existing division, which might not be to our benefit and, more importantly, will set a precedent for how we are going to deal with future treaties and agricultural trade within that context.

Water Abstraction Regulations

Debate between Baroness McIntosh of Pickering and Lord Whitty

Monday 15th January 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

I am delighted to contribute to this debate. I welcome any opportunity to speak about the environment, in particular its relationship to agriculture. My most relevant interest to the debate is the work I do with the Water Industry Commission for Scotland and the fact that I am an honorary vice-president of the Association of Drainage Authorities.

I agree with everything that my noble friend Lady Byford said. I will make some additional points. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, said that this was a long time. Fourteen years is indeed a long time, but seven of those years were under the stewardship of a different Government, who had every opportunity from 2003 to 2010 to bring forward the regulations. It would be interesting to know for what reason they did not have the chance to do so. The noble Baroness also said that she felt that the Government were placing more importance on the business community than environment concerns. I disagree. The statutory instruments before us clearly show the extent to which business interests, the various uses of water and the environment are intrinsically linked.

I will follow up one of the questions the noble Baroness raised with my noble friend the Minister as to what the position is on abstraction policy, in the sense that the Government made a very clear commitment when I was in the other place. We need to set out our stall as to what the abstraction policy will be. As my noble friend Lady Byford said, there have been stresses. The number of licences that have already been issued in East Anglia show how they are more subject to water stress, as opposed to areas such as Yorkshire where we seem to go from lots of flooding one minute to near drought the next. It is incumbent on the Government to come forward with a revised abstraction policy.

I would also be interested to have confirmation that the 25-year environment plan also covers the farming and agricultural aspects. It was of real concern to farmers and agricultural industrialists that there would be two separate plans competing with each other. It would be very neat if all the farming issues could be addressed under the 25-year plan.

I particularly welcome the fact that the Government have stated that the regulations comply with the requirements of the water framework directive but without gold-plating. I do not know whether my noble friend is in a position to say this, but I am very exercised as to what the arrangements will be when the water framework directive and other daughter and sister directives that are currently being revised are approved before or just about the time we propose to leave the European Union. Is there any way the department can let the House know before the agriculture and environment Bills come through? That will be very helpful indeed. My take on this is that we will comply with the new commitments, but my concern is that Ofwat will agree a price review before that time that will apply for the next five years from 1 January 2019. If we are to sign up to these new commitments we ought to give the water companies the chance to put this in their five-year plans. I note that the cost of introducing and applying the regulations will be £89.6 million, with the benefits estimated at only £15.3 million. The costs are substantial.

I have a particular question on the impact assessment. With drainage boards being so prevalent across North Yorkshire, this is of particular interest to me. On page 34, paragraph 6.44 says that Defra is in,

“ongoing discussion with IDBs about their abstraction and none of these discussions has led us to believe that there will be curtailment”.

So it goes on, but it says that there is a certain degree of “uncertainty” owing to the “complexity”. At this late stage, it would be very helpful to know exactly how the regulations will impact internal drainage boards. If it is possible to know that today, that would be very helpful indeed. It would be helpful to know on what date the statutory instruments will come into effect. With those remarks and those questions to my noble friend the Minister, I would give swift passage to these statutory instruments.

[Lord Whitty (Lab)]

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on raising this issue and on the forensic way in which she approached the analysis of the regulations before us and the history of how we got to this position.

I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, who was my opposite number for a large number of years. I was responsible for taking the 2003 Act through this House, in the teeth of her forensic analysis, and we came to a compromise, in effect. I asked my officials at the time why on earth there were still licences which provided for unrestricted abstraction and why there were significant exemptions. Logically, neither of those should have existed if we were going to have a rational approach to the management of water, particularly in the upstream areas which have such a dramatic effect downstream, both in relation to agriculture and to droughts and floods.

The answer was that, as far as the exemptions were concerned, there were relatively small companies—farmers, miners and quarriers—who would be very severely affected by removing the exemption. We accepted that argument, and we also accepted at the time that there was the possibility of technological solutions, in particular in mines and quarrying but also in relation to farming, primarily if the Government could be somewhat more encouraging of storage of water for those parts of agriculture which were likely to be hit by shortage of water at particular times of year and where the intensity of water use, unfortunately, usually coincided with the least precipitation and the least access to water—namely, the summer months.

While the mines and quarries, I am informed, have actually restricted and reduced their use of water, and some farmers have restricted their use of water and some storage has existed, actually, government policy never, under any Government, came closer to encouraging, as part of an agri-environment scheme or whatever, that storage of water would be provided. This was particularly important for the horticulture sector, and it has not happened.

The reason we did not immediately move to consult on ending the exemptions after the passage of the Act was principally that we needed time for those changes to take place. The Labour Government did, of course, consult in 2009, and part of the result of that consultation was that not enough had changed for the industry to be prepared to accept the change.

Most of the House will have completely forgotten this, but for one very brief period during the coalition Government I sat on the Front Bench when water legislation was being introduced at that time. That was mainly about introducing competition within the water industry, which has not gone quite as smoothly as it might have done and as we all hoped it might at the time. At that time, we also received assurances from the Government that we would have a strategic approach to abstraction. Indeed, there was some hope of new measures at the upstream end of water, which might involve water trading and possible trading of licences, so that we could gain efficiency at that end in the same way that we are trying to gain efficiency by introducing a degree of competition at the retail end. None of that has happened either, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, has just said.

Effectively, the coherent approach to abstraction reform has been put well and truly on the back burner. All we have, therefore, is these regulations to do the easiest bit of it, albeit that it is a slightly painful bit for some abstractors—namely, to end exemptions. It seems to be sensible that we do that. It is, however, now 14 years on, as people have said, and we have also missed the deadline under the water framework directive.

Generally speaking, the water framework directive is regarded as a good exemplar of European legislation because effectively it is outcome related and is not overprescriptive, but it is a relatively good piece of European legislation, one which we would have thought we would be very happy to comply with. We have actually failed to comply with it in a number of important respects, some of which are being put right by these regulations tonight.