Great British Energy Bill

Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Lord Whitty

Report stage
Tuesday 11th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I have already spoken to my Amendment 8 and I now turn to Amendment 9 from my noble friend Lord Whitty, which is an amendment to my amendment. I had an opportunity for a very useful discussion with him after Committee. On jobs—the skilled people in the industry—I make it clear to the House that in Great British Energy’s policy priorities its mission is to drive clean energy deployment, boost energy independence and create jobs, alongside the other important aims. The GBE founding statement is explicit that GBE will boost the number of skilled jobs in this essential industry.

The statement of strategic priorities will reiterate these points and provide some more detail, and I am confident that GBE will take strongly on board the point that my noble friend has raised. We have already said that we expect trade unions to have a role in GBE, and I think the appointment as a non-executive director of my noble friend Lady O’Grady, the former general secretary of the TUC, supports this. I would also very much like to arrange a meeting between my noble friends to discuss this further.

On Amendment 22, we expect the statement of strategic priorities to outline any areas or programmes of activity that the Government would like GBE to prioritise in pursuit of its objectives. The problem with the wording of this amendment is that it would distort the work of GBE by placing community energy above and beyond the company’s other strategic priorities.

On Amendment 25, to support community energy groups to access funding and establish themselves in all areas of the UK—a point I made earlier—GBE will provide commercial, technical and project planning assistance, increasing the capability and capacity to build a pipeline of successful projects in local areas. Our local power plan will ensure coherence with other public sector advisory functions, and funding and finance organisations operating in the local energy space.

On community funds, of course we recognise the important role that community groups play in our efforts to tackle climate change and the sector asks around future funding. Great British Energy will build on the community energy fund by partnering with and providing funding and support to community energy groups to roll out renewable energy projects and develop, as noble Lords have said, up to 8 gigawatts of power. Further details will be set out shortly, but that is as far as I can go tonight.

As far as Amendment 14 is concerned, I make it clear to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that there is no question about the importance of what he said about the challenge we face in relation to our building stock. That is therefore the challenge of our warm homes plan. We do not agree with the amendment because we do not think it should be the role of GBE to roll out the warm homes plan. I think he was talking about a wider principle than specifically the Bill and the role of GBE.

The warm homes plan has to be seen as a vital component of our ambition to become a clean energy superstar. As a first step we have committed an initial £3.4 billion in the next three years towards heat decarbonisation and household energy efficiency, and £1 billion of that has been allocated in the 2025-26 financial year. The intention is to upgrade up to 5 million homes across the country over this Parliament by accelerating the installation of efficient new technologies such as heat pumps, solar, batteries and insulation and to work and partner with combined authorities and local and devolved governments to roll this out. I accept that this is essentially a first step. It is a really challenging area, alongside our industrial processes. We will set out further details on the warm homes plan in due course, and we think that is the best way to proceed.

Finally, there are two responses to Amendment 53 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, with whom I had the opportunity of a very useful discussion. I do not think it necessary to constrain GBE. Any development in which it is involved and provides finance will be subject to the existing stringent planning regulations, although we hope to see reform of our planning system, and the environmental impact assessments in environmental legislation that is brought to bear when considering these applications. The noble Lord’s argument should be with the planning system and environmental protections. The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, is right—we do not think that this Bill is the appropriate place for these proposals.

[Lord Whitty (Lab)]

My Lords, I will withdraw this amendment to an amendment. I tabled it because Clause 3(2) restricts the objects without mentioning the workforce. If my noble friend has other ways of dealing with this, that is fine.

Heat Networks (Market Framework) (Great Britain) Regulations 2025

Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Lord Whitty

Monday 3rd February 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Whitty (Lab)]

My Lords, could I ask the Minister one question? I apologise to him: I realised this was being done today only about 20 minutes ago.

A significant number of existing heat networks are run by local authorities or hived-off organisations owned by local authorities. The aim of this legislation, as far as consumers are concerned, I have strongly supported for a long time, including during the proceedings of the Energy Act. I am very much in favour of consumer protection and consumer redress as spelled out in part of these regulations, but I have been told elsewhere that those protections and certainly those forms of redress are different if they are for consumers of heat networks run by local authorities, compared with a private sector or mixed ownership of the heat network. I would like to know whether that is true in principle. If it is at all true, perhaps the Minister could write to me and explain what the situation is.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I am most grateful to noble Lords who have taken part in this short but none the less interesting and, I think, important debate. As the noble Earl, Lord Russell, the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, and my noble friend Lord Whitty have suggested, the development of heat networks is a very important one, and we want to see considerable progress over the next few years.

I also think it is important that the sector itself has broadly supported the regulatory proposals. I believe, and I think it was explicit in what the noble Baroness said, that that confidence will allow them to invest in the future and develop the market, which is what we earnestly hope for and wish to see.

In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, I accept that this is another responsibility that is being placed on Ofgem. I have had quite considerable experience in dealing with regulators in my time in government. I think Ofgem discharges its responsibilities very seriously, and I have confidence in its ability to discharge this new responsibility. In a sense, it is simply extending the principles of the current regulation of gas and electricity to network heating, so it is something I am confident it will be able to do.

In response to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, I make it clear that from April this year, heat network consumers will also be able to seek redress from the Energy Ombudsman scheme and, through Citizens Advice and Consumer Scotland, will have access to advice and advocacy services afforded to the gas and electricity markets. In answer to the noble Baroness, we think this will be particularly helpful to the vulnerable customers she mentioned.

The noble Earl asked me about retrospection. The new arrangements will not be able to be applied retrospectively. The fact he raised this shows why it is so important that we get a move on in introducing these new regulations, and how customers were at risk under the previous arrangements.

As far as fair competition is concerned, again, I very much accept that point. Indeed, this work arose from the Competition and Markets Authority, and Ofgem is well used to intervening in areas where it feels that competition is not being fairly adopted. I am confident that it can deal with that. The data gathered by Ofgem—and, of course, it will have this ability to require data to be provided to it—will enable it to identify emerging issues and trends and adapt regulation as the heat sector develops and grows. As I see it, regulation will be proportionate and organic, marching in step with the way the market itself develops.

I inform the Committee that we will be introducing further regulations this year: first, to introduce protections against insolvency and debt management; and, secondly, to create an entity to implement mandatory technical standards. Putting those together will provide the foundation for this market to grow in future. Market growth seems to me to be a fundamental question, so we are working to expand the existing heat network market through capital funding via the green heat network fund, which will establish heat network zones in key locations. This will allow heat network developers to deploy large-scale district heat networks in dense urban locations, where, as I have said already, they are best suited to provide low-carbon heat.

On support for smaller heat networks, my understanding is that, first, Ofgem will take a proportionate and outcomes-based approach to regulation, providing guidance and supporting small operations.

To come back to the legacy issue and add a bit more information, on legacy issues with existing heat networks, we will take action to guide heat networks through legacy challenges that they face with existing heat networks, with remedial works implemented over time. One advantage of giving authorisation to current schemes is that, once they have been given an authorisation, they then come under these regulations. In one way, if there are pre-existing issues, at some point they will be authorised, and then they can be dealt with under these regulations. So, in fact, although strictly speaking it cannot be retrospectively applied, I hope that that can bring comfort to customers who are really concerned about the situation as it is.

I understand also, in relation to vulnerable customers, that a priority services register will enable vulnerable consumers to access additional support relating to their heat network, including receiving communications in an accessible format, assistance reading their meters and the ability to nominate another person to act on their behalf when dealing with their heat provider.

In relation to the point raised about regulation and customer prices, Ofgem will have direct powers to intervene on prices with a general authorisation condition, to set prices fairly, with data-driven interventions proceeding from January 2026.

On the point raised by my noble friend Lord Whitty, first, I acknowledge the work of local authorities of in some ways even pioneering district heating systems. My noble friend may know that in the heart of the city of Birmingham we had a district heating system that ran right through the city centre, and we can see the potential area. I have also been informed about the South Westminster Area Network, which is being established through close working between Westminster Council and Westminster business improvement districts. That is a new approach to procurement; it took four months to bring forward a partner, which is much quicker than for many of the schemes and developments.

The point that my noble friend raised is a new one to me, and I hope that he does not mind me just checking it out and coming back to him on it. On the face of it, it seems puzzling, but I think that I need to find out some more information about it. But I take his point that we want local authorities to continue to take a lead in developing some of these network heating schemes and, clearly, the public must have confidence in how that is done.

Finally, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, asked me about Great British Energy. He will know that we believe that, in the development of local plans and the role of GBE in doing that, there is clearly potential to give encouragement to community energy schemes and network schemes. I cannot really say any more about that, but I shall draw those remarks to the attention of the start-up chair of Great British Energy.

Public Bodies Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Lord Whitty

Monday 28th March 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Whitty]

My Lords, my comment this evening is basically: why is Passenger Focus still here in the Bill? As the noble Earl knows, Passenger Focus had the distinction of appearing in three schedules to start with, plus we had a generalised statement from BIS that it wished to bring all consumer bodies together as one body, probably Citizens Advice. Because the consultation on all that has been postponed, we do not yet know whether the Government are still so minded, although I suspect that the noble Earl’s department has seen off that proposal for the moment, so we are discussing Passenger Focus as a separate entity. In default of having a sensible rationalisation of consumer bodies, it is important that Passenger Focus remains.

When we removed Passenger Focus from Schedule 5, I received some assurances on the subject from the noble Earl, but this amendment relates to constitutional change in the body. As we have just heard from the noble Lord, Lord Henley, a lot of things could be done under the heading of constitutional change, so I would like some assurance from the noble Earl that the worst fears are unfounded. It was said that Passenger Focus would be reduced to its core role. I expressed concern at the time that that might mean that it would no longer be able to criticise the general conduct of the railway or bus companies, or indeed government policy, and would simply be reduced to a complaints organisation. I think that, on that occasion, the noble Earl said that that would not be the case, but the drastic reduction in its resources—by nearly 40 per cent—suggests that it will have to reduce substantially. If, in order to meet that very much reduced budget, it has to drop some functions, we should be told which functions the Government expect those will be.

If the inclusion of Passenger Focus in this schedule is simply aimed at its governance, I would need reassurance that that would not remove the regional base of its governance and its wide remit to go into the affairs and performance of individual train and bus companies. I hope that I can receive those assurances tonight, in which case we can have a very short debate on this item and welcome the fact that Passenger Focus will be affected by this Bill only to a minimum degree. However, I need those assurances. I beg to move.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, perhaps I may briefly support my noble friend in saying that I hope that the noble Earl will be able to give the assurance that he requires. The problem with Schedule 3 is that, on the face of it, it gives considerable power to Ministers to alter the constitutional arrangements of bodies and offices. I take that to mean that, if the Government were unhappy with the performance of the board of such an organisation, they could make drastic changes in its governance arrangements by bringing an order before Parliament. The problem is that that power could also be used to remove members of the board who may be causing some disagreeableness to the Government. That is a matter of concern. Clearly, if these public bodies are not able to exercise their functions in a robust and independent way, they are unlikely to do their job effectively. This relates to all the bodies listed but I think that the question that my noble friend has raised about Passenger Focus is a fair one to put to the noble Earl, Lord Attlee. I hope that, specifically in regard to this body, the noble Earl will say on the record from the Dispatch Box that the changes envisaged to governance et cetera will only be minor.

Public Bodies Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Lord Whitty

Wednesday 9th March 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I will move the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Whitty. Passenger Focus plays an important role in protecting the interests of Britain’s rail passengers, England’s bus passengers outside London, coach passengers on scheduled domestic services and tram passengers. It is important that this function is not undermined and it is not appropriate that Passenger Focus is included in the Bill. I am very happy that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, is joining me in support of this important amendment. I beg to move.

[Lord Whitty]

My Lords, my noble friend did not realise that I had arrived from the airport to move the amendment. I, too, am grateful to the Minister and I congratulate him. This is the first time that a Minister in this Government has added their name to an amendment of mine on any piece of legislation. What I am about to say should not undermine my gratitude. However, I have to ask two questions.

First, where does this leave Passenger Focus, because it achieved the distinction of appearing under three different schedules to the Bill and it remains in Schedule 3, which we agreed at an earlier stage? The piece of paper given to us for our debate on Monday, had we reached the amendment then, indicated that a much reduced role is envisaged for Passenger Focus. The document states that it would concentrate on its,

“core role of protecting consumers”,

that there was “scope for significant savings”, and that the body would be working under a “significantly reduced budget”. The reference to the core role is slightly sinister, because it implies that the organisation will focus on the complaints function and therefore act in processing and improving that function, but that it will not be allowed to be more critical of the train or bus companies and, more particularly, the department’s overall transport policy as regards the rail or bus network. If that is the intention, it will neuter Passenger Focus considerably. I should like the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, who I assume will reply, to provide reassurance on that front.

My second question is on a wider front. The various existing consumer bodies are being dealt with differentially under this legislation. Some are to be abolished, some are to be merged, some are to have their functions transferred and some, given the abolition of Schedule 7, will be retained—presumably in their present form. Passenger Focus will be retained in a modified form. The Government’s original intent, for which I had some regard, was to rationalise the whole structure of consumer representation. Instead of that, the danger is that they will leave a bigger hotchpotch than the aggregate of previous legislation on consumer matters and weaken the statutory base of a number of consumer bodies.

As the Committee knows, I have an interest as a past chair of Consumer Focus. On the one hand, it appears that that body will be abolished, while on the other hand the Government say that they will transfer the functions to Citizens Advice. It was BIS’s original view that other bodies, including Passenger Focus and the Consumer Council for Water, should also be transferred to Citizens Advice. Whether or not that was a good idea, at least it was coherent. It seems now that we will end up on the consumer front with greater incoherence than the Government inherited and were determined to do something about. Not only is regulation likely to be more incoherent, but it is also likely to be substantially weaker, with fewer resources. Therefore, although I very much appreciate the Government’s support for the amendment, I have serious misgivings about their specific and general intentions as regards consumer protection.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Whitty]

In this amendment, I move away from the detailed consideration of individual bodies and their future to a more general principle. This relates to what happens to the staff of those bodies whose functions are transferred or merged. There is a clear-cut situation where, if bodies are abolished, although some of the bodies are Schedule 1, there has also been commitment by the Government to transfer the functions, duties or powers elsewhere and, therefore, the question of what happens to the staff who are carrying out those functions under the current arrangements does arise.

This amendment would make it clear that, in normal circumstances, the TUPE arrangements would apply as they would apply to mergers in both the private and the public sector, and across the private and the public sector where functions and duties are transferred. Under normal procedure concerning people’s entitlement to terms and conditions, including redundancy terms, pensions and other aspects of their employment, if the functions are moved into a receiving body, it would be for that receiving body to maintain both the continuity of service and the terms and conditions unless and until, either by collective agreement or by individual contract agreement, those terms are changed.

Because of the complexity of the bodies involved and the contractual terms which appear and have grown up in many of these bodies over time, it may not be all that clear, even to eminent employment lawyers, whether a TUPE applies or not. Even in the more simple past, when we were only dealing with one or two mergers of bodies or transfers of functions, it sometimes was not at all clear. The form of words here is almost exactly that which was included in the legislation in 2006 which set up the present Consumer Focus body—the National Consumer Council in legal terms—when we had the merger of the old National Consumer Council, Energywatch and Postwatch. The terms and conditions were preserved, albeit in some situations it was not entirely clear whether TUPE would apply or not.

In 2006 the regulations on TUPE came in. When Consumer Focus was created they were quite new, but similar forms of words have appeared in other legislation where there has been a merger or transfer of functions from one state body—NDPB or equivalent—to another. This Bill has a wholesale raft of such transfers. It does not have quite as many as it started out with but there are still quite a few left, and a few where it is not quite clear whether the transfer is occurring or not, and whether it is a function which normally comes under the TUPE regulations.

This amendment would make it clear, however, that if the function transfers or the duty and power transfers, the staff would go with them unless and until the receiving body decided it might wish to dispense with their services as the new employer. It is not up to the previous employer to declare them redundant until such a rationalisation has taken place by the receiving employer, which can happen more or less instantaneously in certain circumstances. The important point is that up until that point, the terms and conditions of the staff employed under the pre-existing bodies would be preserved.

This important point relates to quite a lot of staff, and there is quite a lot of uncertainty among the trade unions and staff bodies representing them. We need clarity on this and if the Government are unable to accept this form of words then, clearly, I am happy to discuss it with them. The principle needs to be established for all the bodies which remain within this Bill. I beg to move.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I would very much like to support my noble friend on this. It is timely to remember that thousands of people who work for the public bodies listed in this Bill are likely to be affected by its provisions. Many will lose their livelihoods; some will find their careers seriously damaged; some, as my noble friend Lord Whitty has said, will find themselves transferred to other employers. It is important that we recognise and acknowledge that those people have given dedicated service, in some cases for many years. Where they are transferring to another body, we must make the transition process as smooth as possible. That is clearly the intent behind my noble friend's amendment. It would ensure that, where a person is transferred to another body, TUPE will apply, with the implications and protections as described by my noble friend. I hope that the Minister will be able to provide the necessary assurances on that. The Government also need to take on board the point that my noble friend made about the complexity of the issue and the need for clarity, which is why his amendment deserves serious consideration.

Academies Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Lord Whitty

Wednesday 7th July 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Whitty]

I should point out by way of clarification, and to save the Minister a little time and effort, that Amendment 49 in my name is in this group. In reality, it should not have been in this group; it should have been grouped with Amendment 51. I shall not therefore take any time in speaking to it now and the Minister need take no time in replying. I do not promise to be so helpful in my later interventions.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I associate myself with the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, on Amendment 6. Academies are subject to the same statutory framework in respect of temporary and permanent exclusions as all other state-funded schools, which is welcome. We know that academies have had higher rates of exclusion than other state-funded schools and it is clear that there would be an impact on neighbouring schools if academies in general excluded more pupils but then did not take excluded pupils from elsewhere in the education area.

There are reasons for this in the current academy scheme, where often highly challenging schools were converted into academies and discipline was frequently a top priority. Where there is a large number of academies, it is important that they take their fair share of excluded pupils.

In government, we established a requirement on all schools, including academies, to participate in behaviour and attendance partnerships that involve other schools and have access to support from other children’s services. This was based on a clear understanding of the potential benefits of collaboration between schools and local authorities in the promotion of good pupil behaviour. I can see nothing in the Bill that links the new academies with a requirement to participate in behaviour partnerships. I hope that the Minister can assure us that academies will continue to do so.

I was very much involved in the establishment of NHS foundation trusts and there are clear parallels with academies. Foundation trusts were set up in the context of a statutory duty of partnership. There was a clear recognition of that in the National Health Service, whatever role different organisations played. NHS foundation trusts had a membership and a governing body, so those institutions were standing on their own two feet more than other parts of the National Health Service. Nevertheless, they were still part of the NHS. A duty was laid on them to work with others. It is a pity in some ways that we do not have a similar understanding that there should be a duty of partnership here. The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, raises those issues in her group of amendments and we look forward to a constructive reply from the Minister.