Fire and Rehire

Lord Whitty Excerpts

Wednesday 15th June 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, we always do the right thing. I realise that it is an easy soundbite for the noble Lord to say “ban fire and rehire”, but even he would accept that you cannot ban redundancies, for instance if a company is going bust. You would end up banning the rehiring part of the equation.

[Lord Whitty (Lab)]

My Lords, legislation is useful, and I hope the Minister pursues that course, but in the meantime will the Government look very carefully at giving any new contracts to a firm which engages in such atrocious behaviour?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

We want to see all companies engaging in responsible employment practice. The UK has an employment record to be proud of. We have one of the lowest unemployment rates in the western world, one of our lowest post-war records—down again yesterday. If you contrast that to many countries in the EU or on the continent, with much less flexible labour markets, the best employment right of all is a job.

Subsidy Control Bill

Lord Whitty Excerpts

Lords Hansard - Part 1 & Report stage
Tuesday 22nd March 2022 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Whitty]

3: Schedule 1, page 53, line 6, at end insert—
“(c) progress towards targets under section 1 of the Climate Change Act 2008 (UK net zeroe emissions target), and section 5 of the Environment Act 2021 (environmental targets).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires public authorities to consider whether proposed subsidies would have any negative effects on progress towards the UK’s legally binding net zero and environmental targets.

[Lord Whitty (Lab)]

My Lords, I shall also say a few words about Amendments 51 and 61 in this group. I do so in lieu of the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, who, unfortunately, has to be at a funeral this afternoon. I declare my interests as set out in the register but in particular a very new one, which is that I have become a director of Peers for the Planet.

This amendment is pretty straightforward. It says that our climate change strategy, our net-zero strategy, about which the Government have been very clear, should be taken into account in their subsidy policy. It is odd that it is not in the Bill, either in Schedule 1, which we are discussing, or virtually anywhere. However, we are lucky tonight because the Minister is of course also Minister for many aspects of net zero. I therefore assume that my amendment will be received with acclaim by the Government Benches. They might think they have a better form of words that they want to bring forward later, but I think my form of words is fairly clear.

We are on Schedule 1 to the Bill, which is headed “The Subsidy Control Principles”. That a flagship policy of the Government which has been said by Ministers time and again should apply across all government policy is not included in that schedule is very odd indeed, and it must surely be an oversight. Even more surprising, it is not referred to in Schedule 2, which relates to energy and efficiency principles, because that is mainly about energy policy. There is a reference which could be said to be relevant, which is to subsidies directed towards the reduction of carbon use and to help decarbonisation, but those are specific subsidies. What my amendment is concerned about is that all subsidy schemes should take into account their implications for our target zero policy and climate change objectives.

I would find it difficult to think the Government could reject that. Ministers have said on many occasions that it is one of our most important policies and strategic commitments. The Public Accounts Committee has recently said that all government departments must take it into account, and that includes new legislation. This is substantial new legislation which may not obviously directly affect climate change, but everything indirectly affects it. Subsidies after all, whatever their form, are about interfering with the market to get a different outcome. It would be odd indeed if the Government did not accept that, if the market was moving in the direction which was more or less in line with our climate change agenda, we should not intervene with a subsidy which reversed it or at least offset it. We are not saying that every subsidy has to be directed at climate change, but the implications have to be taken into account when considering the validity of that subject.

I am expecting a positive response from the Government. I do not think it would cost them a lot in terms of the overall nature of the Bill, but it would give credibility to the overall policy that our net-zero targets should be followed through across the whole of government and all public authorities. If the Government reject it, I will find that very difficult to accept, and I think we would wish to test the opinion of the House. I hope that the Government will be reasonable and either come up with their own wording or just accept the wording which the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, and I are proposing. I beg to move.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I rise with great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, who has powerfully and clearly introduced this group of amendments. I will offer the Green group’s support for Amendments 3, 51 and 61. Were we not in a state of continual juggling of different Bills, I am sure that we would have attached one of our names to them.

Amendment 3, on which the noble Lord indicated he is likely to test the opinion of the House, is particularly important in considering the negative effects. I am influenced in that view by a visit I made yesterday to a village called North Ferriby and a site threatened with the development of an enormous Amazon warehouse, with significant environmental effects. From those environmental effects flow effects to people’s lives and well-being. It is the absolute reverse of levelling up in that it is making people’s lives much worse. It is clear that, when talking about economic development, there is inadequate consideration of local environmental effects and the broader effects on the state of our world.

However, I rise chiefly to speak to Amendment 5 in my name. Rather than trying to stop damage, this amendment is trying to lead the Government in a positive direction, which could help them deal with some of the issues facing them today and will be tackled by the Chancellor tomorrow.

Amendment 5 is all about helping small-scale community energy projects to make a big impact in the energy system. In Committee, the Minister suggested that community energy is not within the scope of the Bill, but I hope we might see a broader response today, and at least a positive response and acknowledgement from the Minister that this is a huge lacuna in government policy that desperately needs to be filled.

This amendment adds community energy to the list of circumstances that may be used to determine a subsidy, where the generator is a community energy project. What we see is that the rural community energy fund is soon winding down, despite its success. The Minister and I have, in another context, discussed the lack of any other community energy schemes, despite the Government’s promises to deliver them.

You might ask, “Why would subsidies be needed?” The fact is that community schemes often need early-stage seed funding to get them to the stage where they can seek investment. Without that, many communities, desperately keen to set up their own scheme, are never able to get one off the ground. What we are talking about is perhaps something like an electric car club, where a community can generate its own energy. I saw this in Stroud a few years ago: solar panels on the roof of a doctor’s surgery powered an electric car club car. This had all been supported by community investment and was run by the community, with the nature of the project being chosen by the community.

It is clear that this can unlock more than £64 million in private capital investment. It is an incredible opportunity for public money to kick-start a community-led green revolution. Importantly, thinking about the levelling-up agenda, this means that communities with money can put it into their local community and get the money circulating around that community. This is a cost-effective way of unleashing the possibility of many new green jobs.

I am not expecting the amendment to pass today, but there is a huge opportunity here. The crisis the Government are facing is clear: the cost of living crisis and concern, particularly in the context of the tragic situation in Ukraine, about energy self-sufficiency. But there is energy all around us: energy from the sun, the wind and people within communities desperate to help tackle the climate crisis and meet the needs of their own communities. Let us make sure that we have a subsidy scheme that can support all that physical and human energy and put it to good purposes to improve the lives of us all and our environment.

--- Later in debate ---

I stress to noble Lords that the UK’s existing commitments and practices in relation to this critical priority are extensive and world leading, including, for instance, the various principles set out in the Environment Act which Ministers must give regard to when making policy. I believe, therefore, that we already have the right framework in place. For the reasons that I have set out, I hope that the amendment can be withdrawn.

[Lord Whitty (Lab)]

My Lords, I cannot really hide that I am deeply disappointed by the Minister’s response. One modicum of comfort, if that is the phrase, is that he did say that guidance to public authorities would include a reference to the climate change objectives. I therefore can see no possible reason for him rejecting Amendment 61 on that basis.

On the central issue, the Minister referred to all the existing mechanisms, and there are important existing mechanisms and commitments, but the Climate Change Committee has said to the Government time and again that every new policy ought to include a cross-reference to climate change targets. This is an enormous area of new policy that, rightly or wrongly, we have taken back from the European Union so that we control the levers of power for a new era. Yet the Government stumble at the first hurdle and do not put it in this very important legislation. I do not understand the logic.

To be fair to the Minister, he wants all these things delivered, as the Government appear to do. This is not to say that they override all other policies and objectives, but they should be part of the balance when these things are being considered. There is a danger, in rejecting such amendments to this important legislation, that the interpretation out there—which in a sense has been fed by the media over the last few days—will be of a backing off from commitments to climate change within government circles.

The Government are missing the point and missing a trick here. If they want to reassert that they are still on schedule to deliver the government commitments and the net-zero strategy to which the Minister is committed, that should be in this important legislation. I hope I am wrong, but in order to ensure that this House at least has a chance to give its view on these matters, I am prepared to put this issue to the vote tonight. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

It is a little surprising to me that this amendment was not grouped with Amendment 2, in the name of my noble friend the Minister, which has been so warmly received on all sides. It is likely to achieve exactly what the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, would like to see, so I do not support this amendment.

[Lord Whitty (Lab)]

My Lords, I will say a couple of words in support of the amendment and widen it slightly. In Committee, we argued that agriculture had to be dealt with somewhat differently. Clearly, the most acute issue is those on the uplands and other disadvantaged areas. It is right that this amendment addresses that and that the Government—at least in words, if not in the Bill—accept that this will have to be the case.

There is another aspect to it. If we drive those farmers out of business and there is no farming on the uplands and other disadvantaged areas, relatively well-heeled organisations will buy that land, claim they are reforesting it or engaging in some other form of environmentally desirable activity and receive a government grant for it—but in the meantime they will destroy the communities, the culture and the whole nature of our upland areas.

I add the proviso that, as the new schemes come in, the subsidy policy will have to be reconciled with other aspects of agricultural policy. It will not be a simple area. As the noble Duke just referred to, the SIs we have seen so far do not give us any clear indication of the way that policy will develop. This will be an ongoing issue between the subsidy regime and the agricultural support scheme.

[Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, for tabling Amendment 4 and wish her well in her recovery from Covid—it seems that working on BEIS Bills is a Covid-risky business for us all. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, for introducing the amendment.

On our Benches, we have been puzzled by the Government’s decision to include agriculture and fisheries in the new subsidy control framework. These are complicated sectors already governed by their respective post-Brexit Acts of Parliament. Given the complex nature of agriculture, I imagine it will be high up on the list of streamlined subsidy schemes created by the Secretary of State or by devolved authorities with approval.

There are genuine concerns around the Government’s approach to the withdrawal of CAP funding and the seven-year transition to environmental land management schemes, ELMS. We support ELMS and the UK Government and devolved Administrations having far greater flexibility than that afforded under the CAP. Nevertheless, as the NFU president Minette Batters has made clear in recent comments, these are challenging times for UK food producers. There has been a worrying long-term trend in the agricultural sector, as my noble friend Lord Whitty just stated, with smallholdings being snapped up by ever-growing larger conglomerates. We take no issue with the bigger producers being present in the UK, but we are concerned about the ever-increasing squeeze on family farms and hill farmers, who struggle to make a living without stable subsidy support.

I am sure the Minister will tell us that this amendment would raise all sorts of unintended consequences, not least that it would fundamentally undermine the ability of the Welsh Government to support their farming sector. However, due to Her Majesty’s Government’s treatment of subsidy control as an entirely reserved matter, there is not a common framework on this topic. This was already touched on in detail in Grand Committee. Specific nations and regions of the UK may have very different interests from those of their neighbours.

Public authorities will of course be able to do what they deem appropriate in the context of overarching subsidy control principles, but this is one area where we may end up seeing subsidy battles and/or legal appeals. Ultimately, this is an opportunity for us to say that, where agricultural subsidies are given, public authorities should have particular regard to issues around the hardship and profitability concerns of smaller producers. As with Amendment 3, we do not believe this text in Amendment 4 precludes any public authority from awarding any particular subsidy; it merely adds an additional consideration to the decision-making process.

Amendment 4 may not instantly solve the problems faced by Welsh farmers, for example, but let us remember that in terms of the Welsh sheep industry something like 90% of the breeding stock fall within upland areas and 70% are in what are known as severely disadvantaged areas. These farms are a crucial part of the British landscape and, while they may not be as profitable as others, there is a public interest in preserving them. We will listen very carefully to the noble Baroness’s arguments, but at this time we are minded to support Amendment 4.

Revised Energy National Policy Statements

Lord Whitty Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd February 2022 Grand Committee

[Lord Whitty (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister, particularly for explaining the relationship of these documents to planning decisions at both national and local level. Last night, I took home all the documents that are piled up over there, together with the energy policy White Paper and hydrogen White Paper, and tried to make sense of them. I failed utterly, although the Minister’s explanation has made it slightly clearer. Nevertheless, I shall bore the Committee with my reflections, looking at the totality of the papers before us.

I note in the present draft that the Government frequently use nuanced forms of modal verbs—namely, could or can rather than should or will. That is perhaps too loose a form of words for the immense task that we have before us in meeting our net-zero targets in particular. As the Minister said, those net-zero targets have a direct impact on not only what are traditionally regarded as nationally significant developments but the local effects that those developments will have on their areas and populations.

Therefore, the final version needs to be a little more definitive than the one before us. The key target here is clearly that for 2035. Decisions taken in planning now will not see fruition for at least three or four years and, in many cases, much longer. The 10-year run-up to 2035—meeting the 78% reduction, I think in emissions by that date— therefore depends on crucial decisions to be made in the next two or three years. That requires clearer guidance in the overriding policy statement, less freedom of manoeuvre and less nuance in the guidance given, otherwise we will have inconsistent decisions.

I take just four examples of where we need a clearer decision on the basis for any national or local decisions before they can be taken. The Minister will be familiar with the arguments in many areas—we debated nuclear yesterday and have debated other aspects—but I shall go through them quickly.

The first is obviously the replacement of natural gas heating for homes and buildings. On that, we need clear decisions on whether a hydrogen-based system can meet most of our gas needs, whether we will have enough hydrogen and how it will be produced—presumably, it will be green hydrogen. The hydrogen strategy itself, although very useful, leaves a lot of questions unanswered. We need to know whether there will be differential impacts in different parts of the country. If we are to have large-scale hydrogen for industrial and domestic purposes, heating may well extend only to the area within a few miles and everybody else will have to rely on transferring on to the national grid for direct electrification of their heating or, in the more rural and suburban areas, probably heat pumps. So there will be different impacts of that decision but if what is currently natural gas heating, which heats 80% of our homes and buildings, is to be replaced, we must be clear how it will be, and in what parts of the country it may be replaced by different forms of lower-carbon heating.

My second example is related, because one of the replacements for our gas grid proposed for our domestic heating has been district heating—effectively, local networks. If we are to have local networks on a major scale, we cannot rely on a planning process which takes propositions for development, retrofitting or individual buildings on a one-by-one basis. You have to designate substantial domestic or industrial building areas to be obliged to take the form of district heating that is given planning permission on the grounds that it is nationally significant. If we are to see district heating—I am in principle in favour of it, as long as its consumers are protected, because clearly there is no competition in those circumstances—we need to ensure that we have powers to designate the whole area, otherwise, by and large, it will not work. That includes not only new developments but the retrofitting of existing buildings and factories.

Thirdly, there is the issue of offshore wind. It has been a huge success and, in the period between now and 2035, will continue to be one of the major contributors to reducing our total carbon emissions. However, the development of offshore wind has been somewhat haphazard. By and large, a single array has a single landing point onshore and each is owned by different companies or consortia. There are planning considerations, usually addressed locally to start with, of how you bring offshore wind onshore and what the connections look like, because they will also be mostly in areas of natural beauty or other rural areas which do not like the disturbance. If every array has an individual landing point, that is a huge number of planning decisions if we are to meet the objectives in the energy White Paper.

If, however, there were to be an offshore network so that several arrays could be connected, some engineers argue that we could reduce the number of landing points by something above two-thirds. That requires a government intervention to ensure that we have an onshore and offshore network that limits the number of onshore connection points. That is a key strategic decision and, if decisions on new or enhanced offshore arrays are taken on a one-off basis, we will never reach the decision to amalgamate them into an offshore grid.

My second-to-last point relates to nuclear, which we discussed at some length yesterday. It is also important that we have early government decisions on a number of nuclear aspects, particularly the designation of nuclear reactor sites—a project that successive Governments have utterly failed at over the past 20 or 30 years. Any sizeable nuclear reactor will create significant planning effects on the surrounding area and there will be strong political pressures as well. That means that, if we are to go for a new generation of nuclear power—by and large, I am in favour of that, whether on the size of Sizewell or on a smaller size facilitated by the Rolls-Royce developments on small modular reactors, et cetera—we need to know where it will go and all the planning hurdles have to be overcome. That will again require a much clearer government decision on where those sites will be.

Of course, the most acute and difficult decision for the Government, and for all of us, is the issue of the storage of waste and waste disposal. We already have a historic legacy of waste from now-closed reactor. If we are to have a new generation of nuclear, while it will be much more efficient, there will be high-radioactivity waste to be disposed of. We need a decision on that urgently.

I hope that the final version of the statement indicates that there are key decisions that the Government have already taken, or are about to take, which will define the parameters of any subsequent decisions, even on relatively large-scale projects. I hope that those will be addressed.

My final point is that as far as I could see, certainly in the overriding document, there is a major omission on carbon reduction. As I understood it, the National Infrastructure Commission indicated that the energy efficiency project, to insulate and otherwise improve the energy efficiency of our homes, should be regarded as a nationally significant project. That is operated street by street, at best, but it is still in totality a major contribution towards meeting our net-zero targets. It should really be dealt with in the same way as these other single-site projects. I hope that the Minister, and the final version, will take that into account and that it will be somewhat shorter and more to the point than the present document, so that all protagonists can understand where we stand on that and where their own projects stand.

Nuclear Energy (Financing) Bill

Lord Whitty Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 21st February 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Whitty (Lab)]

My Lords, I broadly support the principle of this Bill and the mechanism proposed, but with some reservations and with the need to put this decision and decisions on nuclear policy in general in a wider context. I have long been a supporter of nuclear power, ever since, as a very young man, I worked at Harwell and was infected by the evangelical commitment of scientists to that alternative energy source. I did not entirely buy it, even then. I never really thought we were going to get completely free electricity; nor did I believe our colleagues down the road at Culham that fusion technology was only five years around the corner. Nevertheless, I think—much more so now than all that time ago, because we now need rapidly to move to a carbon-free energy system—that we do need nuclear power.

The problem has been that despite the investment in research and in earlier generations of nuclear power, for 30 years successive Governments have shied away from key decisions. The noble Lord, Lord Howell, mentioned examples during his time. There was a piece of evidence produced for us in a briefing for this debate that rather chilled me because it said the best time for nuclear investment is 20 years ago. That shook me, because 20 years ago, the Labour Government decided not to proceed with a new nuclear plant, just as their predecessors had. I was a junior Minister at Defra at the time and was party to that decision. It was taken largely because of the cost, which was then envisaged as being entirely on the taxpayer—whereas this puts the cost on the consumer and on business—but also because the enormous success of North Sea gas meant that we were going to have relatively cheap power for a long time and we did not need to take a decision at that time. The position of that Government was that we did not absolutely oppose nuclear power and that there would be new stations. We did not completely adopt the more extreme green agenda, although we did take it into account. We left it on the table, as it were.

We also made a number of provisos. I remember saying in the course of making that decision that while we may have not needed nuclear power at that time, we might eventually, and that even if the UK did not need nuclear power, the world would. So, we had to ensure that we retained the UK’s capability in industry and research, which was at that point—to use a phrase that is current now—still world leading. It had already been run down fairly substantially but we had a strong nuclear capability. The other provisos were that we needed to continue to identify potential nuclear sites, which we have started to do, continue to find options for dealing with nuclear waste, which the noble Lord, Lord Teverson referred to, and reduce the eventual cost of decommissioning, which has distorted our energy cost programme and the Government’s contribution to it over the last few years. These were important caveats but regrettably successive Governments ignored those caveats.

The research and operational expertise have been run down and dispersed, and we are almost entirely dependent on overseas technology, whether it is French, Japanese, Korean or, indeed, Chinese. Not enough new sites have been identified, and the public in those areas have not been fully consulted. Decommissioning costs of the AGRs, and now the Magnox, have soared, and we are still not clear on waste disposal. Instead of cost considerations reducing the upfront cost of nuclear projects, which is now met entirely by private capital, those costs have continued to escalate with the delays in the various schemes here and elsewhere in the world. Some of this is a worldwide issue, and some of it reflects non-decisions by previous Governments, as I say. But whatever form of finance that we adopt now has to be accompanied by addressing those other dimensions.

The Bill does not sufficiently protect consumers or small businesses. Interestingly, the impact assessment says that there will be no cost to small business. That is not true; there will be costs, and, particularly in the current climate, we will have to explain the fact that we are asking consumers and businesses to meet costs the benefits of which they will not see for many years.

So I am in favour of the Bill, but it needs to be extended and the Government need to surround it with some broader commitments. For example, if we are to have big nuclear sites such as Sizewell, we ought to require them to meet other objectives, such as attaching to such sites major provision for the production of hydrogen. There are other possibilities: CCS and storage. Some equivalent of Section 106, as was, needs to be applied to any nuclear projects, because other aspects of energy provision need to be addressed as we approve the provisions within the Bill.

Subsidy Control Bill

Lord Whitty Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 9th February 2022 Grand Committee

[Baroness Sheehan (LD)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 63 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, to which I and the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, have added our names.

Before doing so, I want quickly to speak about Amendment 62, which I support. I recognise the less than complete nature of the assessment it advocates, namely the

“assessment by the CMA, on the basis of the reports it has prepared”.

However, those reports are limited to the voluntary or mandatory referrals referred to in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c). I also have some reservations about the reference to the legislation meeting its stated objectives; that is living in hope that a stated objective might actually appear in the Bill at some point.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, for her comprehensive introduction to Amendment 63; it leaves me with little to say. These subsidies will be used by hundreds of public authorities. According to figures I have seen, some 550 public authorities will be able to give out subsidies under this regime. Can the Minister confirm that figure? It is important that many of them fully grasp the importance of their decisions. The Government have said that meeting the net-zero target and levelling up will be policy objectives, but words are not enough. We need to be able to demonstrate that that is the case. This amendment would ensure that it is the case with respect to the net-zero target and other environmental targets. The amendment will be especially necessary if the Government resist that tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, which would include a new principle to consider net-zero goals.

Clear and detailed monitoring and reporting of climate change risks and opportunities has been successfully implemented in other parts of our economic system—for example, by the FCA and the PRA through amendments to last year’s Financial Services Act, and by the Pensions Regulator through the pensions Act, also of last year. For the first time, the Pensions Regulator has published guidance on governance and the reporting of climate-related risks and opportunities. Such inclusions in those Acts really help to drive climate alignment across these sectors.

This Bill is an opportunity to do the same in relation to our subsidy control regime. Amendment 63 would allow the Government to continue to claim that they are a global leader on climate change.

[Lord Whitty (Lab)]

My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 63 but I want to say a couple of things about Amendment 62 because, as we proceed through this Committee, it is clear that there is a bit of fuzziness about what exactly the role of the CMA is. Historically, the CMA and its predecessors have reported effectively on the nature of competition across the British economy but, of course, the issue of state intervention has been left to the European level. Some of us were slightly concerned that the CMA would take over that function after Brexit; in the end, I was sort of convinced that it should, rather than creating a whole new body, but it has to do a number of different things. It has to look after our trade obligations not only to the EU but in all the other trade agreements we have reached, in which we agreed that we will not unreasonably subsidise goods that are traded so as to undercut our trading partners. So, we have a big international obligation—one that can lead to retaliation and all sorts of problems arising with the WTO and other international bodies.

We have all that, but we also have the area of subsidies in the UK. This includes the delicate relationship between the UK Government and the Secretary of State acting for England, the devolved authorities and local authorities. It is a very complex area, and all this is to be landed on a new body within the CMA: the SAU. It is not yet clear whether it will have the resources, expertise and personnel to do that. We have gone along with this, but we need to be clearer on, for example, whether it is a regulator or an overseer and reporter on the activities of the public authorities that are giving subsidies and quasi-subsidies. As we debated earlier in the Bill, this involves a range of things—for example, preferential procurement. At the end of my contribution at Second Reading, I asked the Minister whether my county would be able to give preferential treatment to a local firm because it provided local employment, or whether it had to make sure that the neighbouring county of Wiltshire was not thereby being undercut.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

Could my noble colleague clarify his thinking with regard to subsidies to the steel industry? Clearly, such subsidies could have far-reaching effects on the environment. To make a judgment on that would require people with an intricate knowledge of the steel industry and the background and significance of subsidies in that sector. At what level should that decision be taken?

[Lord Whitty (Lab)]

My Lords, that is probably a question for the Minister rather than for me, but, clearly, the decision on, for example, the Cumbrian coal mine, which is to feed into the steel industry, is an incredibly complex issue which will not be resolved by the narrow criteria of whether it enhances or undermines competition. The noble Lord is correct in that respect, because it would also have a considerable effect on carbon emissions.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 62 and 63. Amendment 62 seems pretty basic post-legislative scrutiny, so I am not quite sure why it is not in the Bill already. The Government are bringing in this legislation and it makes sense for the Competition and Markets Authority to report on whether the legislation works in practice. That is fairly fundamental, is it not? If it does not, then, obviously, we can improve the legislation; if it does, then the Government can pat themselves on the back. The amendment should have been in the Bill. I am expecting the Minister to say, “Yes, of course, we’ll write it in now.”

On Amendment 63—I wish I had added my name to it; I agree with everything that we have heard so far from noble Lords—I have said before that we should have a provision such as this in every single piece of legislation. As the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, just said, it is basic to what the Government claim to care about. The principle should underpin everything that they do. We know that the scale and size of the net-zero problem is huge, and the Government will need a lot of help. They will need a lot of private and public investment, and it will involve a lot of changes to government taxation and spending.

Any aspect of government that thinks that the climate emergency is not part of its remit is not thinking hard enough about it. We need both the whole of government and the whole of society to address the work on the climate and ecological emergencies. Every Bill that comes through here, every tax levied and every pound of government spending should move us towards net zero. There is an environmental saying: doing nothing risks everything. The Minister will say that the Government are doing a lot. I would argue that they are doing bits and pieces, so the saying could be: doing bits and pieces risks everything as well. We need a coherent approach.

I was asked whether I would still like a meeting with the Minister. Yes, I would, and I would like to throw down a little challenge. If the Minister or his team can come up with any issue that is not relevant to our climate emergency, I will be happy to argue how it is relevant. I look forward to that meeting, and I might bring some heavyweights with me.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

It is the Government’s position that five-yearly reports are sufficiently frequent to take a view of how successful this is. They are the appropriate tool to conduct a review of the environment and energy principles. Clause 65 provides an achievable timescale for delivering complex and substantive analysis of this sort. To ask that we prepare something every year would be an unnecessary burden on the whole subsidy control regime and the structures we have put in place to support this.

The CMA will have the ability to gather all the information needed to conduct such an analysis for these five-yearly reports, through Clause 67. These are powers that the CMA will not have in relation to its annual reports. I therefore humbly request that the noble Baroness withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Whitty (Lab)]

The other day, we discussed the inclusion of agriculture in the Bill, but the Government have made it clear that, basically, the future of all agriculture subsidy will be environmental objectives. The Minister’s reply to my noble friend’s amendment suggests that she agrees that agriculture should not really be covered by this approach, or that it should at least be treated substantially differently. What she has said, effectively, is that we cannot judge the environmental side; we have to approach it in the same way as every other sector.

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

On the specific point about agriculture, I do not know whether the letter addressing those points has been issued yet. I can say that 99.5% of subsidies given to the agriculture industry in the UK would not fall within the remit of the subsidy; they are lower. We do not have the data for Scotland or Wales, but it captures only the very largest subsidy given to the very largest farms. That may include some in Scotland with that sort of acreage—

Subsidy Control Bill

Lord Whitty Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 7th February 2022 Grand Committee

It is for that reason that I am delighted to support these amendments and I hope that we will have a substantive answer from the noble Baroness the Minister, who knows the circumstances in Wales well. I hope that she will concede that there are issues here that need to be addressed in the context of Wales or Scotland or other parts of the United Kingdom and that, if this question cannot be resolved at this point, it is certainly one to which we should return in a substantive manner on Report.

[Lord Whitty (Lab)]

My Lords, I add my voice to the concern about how agriculture is being treated under this Bill. Of course, under the old European system, agriculture was excluded because all agriculture subsidy had to be consistent with the common agricultural policy. We are now moving into a situation where all four nations of the United Kingdom are considering how to change their agricultural policy from one being primarily to produce food on a competitive and effective basis to one that, while food production will still be important, also makes its contribution to the environmental demands, in particular in carbon reduction and management of water and soil.

That is very different from many of the other industries that will operate under this regime. We have a multiple problem here with agriculture. We have no previous history of consistency—well, the consistency was at the European level—and all other aspects were always devolved. We are going to have four different approaches to the new era in agriculture and all of them in their different ways will have a very heavy environmental dimension, so that the way in which the land is managed provides nature-based solutions to reducing carbon and to producing a food balance within the population that is more conducive to reducing carbon and for water and soil management.

Agriculture’s total exclusion from the regime—as this amendment appears to suggest—may not be necessary, but special treatment will be necessary. Before this Bill passes this House, I hope that the Government will respond by indicating that there will be different treatment for agriculture and respect for the four different nations and their different approaches.

[Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Whitty. I agree with all his comments. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, for tabling this amendment to enable further and deeper discussion on another of the many concerns that were raised by colleagues across the House at Second Reading.

As we have already debated, although relatively briefly, the new subsidy regime will operate alongside certain legacy schemes, including, but not limited to, basic payments given under the EU’s common agricultural policy. As we have heard, the Government’s decision to include agriculture and fisheries in the scope of the new subsidy regime is an interesting one. BEIS asserts that there is logic in applying the same rules across the board. While that might make sense in some areas, doing so raises other significant issues. As we have heard from my noble friend Lord Whitty, agriculture is fundamentally different and therefore so are the issues relating to the subsidies and the subsidy control systems. That is before we even touch on the issue of devolved responsibilities.

As we know from many hours following debates on the Agriculture, Fisheries and Environment Bills, these are areas of devolved competence. Some of those matters have been addressed in discussions on the UK-wide common framework arising from the Brexit process. However, due to Her Majesty’s Government’s treatment of subsidy control as an entirely reserved matter, there is no common framework on this topic, something that we have already touched on in Grand Committee and will be returning to in later groups.

Specific nations and regions of the UK have very different interests from those of their neighbours. Public authorities will of course be able to do what they deem appropriate in the context of overarching subsidy control principles, but this is one of the areas where we may end up seeing subsidy battles and/or legal appeals. If we can reach agreement in your Lordships’ House, then we may be able to reduce the chances of some of that happening. One potential solution to some of these issues may be for the Secretary of State to establish one or more streamlined subsidy schemes covering agriculture. I ask the Minister: is that one of the department’s intentions?

I want to ask a couple of practical questions that have been subject to initial exchanges between my advisers and the Minister’s office. I thank her office for that information, but it raises some questions. Is it the case that schemes already made under the Agriculture Act, for example, will be treated as legacy schemes for the purposes of this legislation? If the environmental land management scheme, which has already been rolled out, is treated as a legacy scheme but the Defra Secretary of State later introduces a separate agricultural scheme using powers under either Act, will that new scheme be subject to the subsidy controls? If the answer is yes, will that not make it harder for everyone involved to keep track of which requirements apply and when? If so, how exactly does the decision to include agriculture in the new subsidy control regime meet the target of making the new process more straightforward and less burdensome?

A number of other issues arise around devolved authorities, many of which have been touched on. We will come on to them when we look at the CMA but, if we do not make changes to the Bill as it is currently written, we could end up with a situation in which the devolved authorities have responsibility for these delegated areas but no oversight in the Bill—no engagement with the CMA or the subsidy advice unit—and will not be at the heart of the decision-making. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

Cost of Living

Lord Whitty Excerpts

Thursday 3rd February 2022 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Whitty]

That the Grand Committee takes note of the cost of living, and in particular (1) the rising cost of household energy, and (2) the role of the consumer protection regulatory regime in energy markets.

[Lord Whitty (Lab)]

My Lords, I obviously had great prescience in going for this debate on this day. Unfortunately, it means that Ofgem and the Chancellor have stolen some of my thunder and limelight. I actually had my coat on to come here when the Chancellor was speaking, but I heard most of what he said.

I propose to focus largely on the energy market failure, but let us start by putting it into broader context. Higher gas prices are coming, while shop price inflation rates doubled in the last month, rents are at their highest level for more than a dozen years in real terms, house prices for first-time buyers are at their highest level ever, food prices are rising in the post-Brexit situation and general price inflation is at its highest for about 30 years. That means unprecedented numbers of people are taking out loans, and incomes are not keeping pace. Wages, benefits and pensions are all falling in real terms in the face of this inflation, and all taxpayers are about to be hit by the surcharge on national insurance. As a result of these costs and pressures, according to Which?, more than 2.5 million households in the month of January alone defaulted on at least one regular payment—rent, mortgage, energy, loans or credit cards—placing those families in financial difficulty and often under serious mental stress.

That is the background, but the energy price rises are the most spectacular feature. Another enormous hike in the energy price cap of nearly £700 was announced today. This is before we all have to face up to the very substantial cost of transitioning away from gas heating entirely, and the need for a just transition to a non-fossil-fuel-based home heating system.

I will return to that longer-term issue in a minute, if I have time, but the Government and Parliament need to recognise the stress and hardship that all of this is causing to vulnerable individuals and households, particularly to low-income families. As I understand it from the Chancellor’s Statement an hour or so ago, the Government recognise that the hike in the energy cap is a problem. The Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but the Chancellor intends to offer an offset to the potential £700 rise in household energy bills by giving all bill payers an undifferentiated £200 each, unrelated to household income, energy bills or property conditions. This is to be delivered via a sort of indirect loan to suppliers, which then have to repay the Government. The costs of this will eventually be passed back to consumers, thus adding to potential household cost pressures and indebtedness down the line. In addition, over and above what was rumoured, the Chancellor is announcing a rebate to lower council tax bills.

There are aspects of what the Chancellor said that I welcome. I do not think he has done it in the best way, but he has recognised some of the problems. However, it still deals with only half of the potential impact on households. The £200 is not much of an offset on £700, and, frankly, using council tax is an incredibly bureaucratic and inefficient way of getting help to the most desperate families.

Yet the Government did not need to invent new mechanisms. Fuel poverty groups and, indeed, the Labour Party have proposed a number of immediately available interventions that the Chancellor could have used—for example, post-Brexit freedoms to remove VAT, temporarily at least, from domestic energy prices. He rejected that and I can in part understand the reasons; nevertheless, that was an immediate and beneficial option. He could have expanded the warm home discount to lower-income families. There is a reference to that in the Chancellor’s Statement, and I should be grateful if the Minister could spell out exactly what it means. The Chancellor could have extended winter fuel payments to a further 2.4 million vulnerable households. He did not do that. He could have offered a one-off rebate for low-income households this winter, which could have helped at least 4 million of those households. He could have given more help on rapid repayments of utility arrears; I am not whether his Statement covers that. Of course, he could have moved on the reintroduction by energy suppliers of a social tariff for the long-term benefit of the most vulnerable households—a move I strongly advocate.

In addition, we and campaigners have called for a return to an England-wide programme of effective household insulation and energy-efficiency measures. Over the medium term, that would reduce energy consumption and hence costs to households. There was some reference in the Chancellor’s Statement to that, but it looks pretty miniscule to me, at first sight.

We need also to look at the underlying reasons for and effects of the price rise, and the role of the Government and the regulator in consumer energy prices. Of course, the immediate cause of the increases has been the indirect effects of the dramatic rise in world gas prices. But, frankly, the British economy of all economies ought to have been more resilient and insulated from the effects of Russians playing politics and the Qataris controlling the shipment of LNG. Storage and flexibility measures have not been adopted or invested in. That is partly due to a failure by Ofgem to provide suppliers and the system with the means to do so, but Ofgem has also failed in its role as regulator on behalf of consumers, particularly vulnerable consumers.

About three years ago, I chaired a group convened by Energy UK, the industry’s trade body, to identify means through which to provide a better service and more appropriate pricing structures for vulnerable consumers. To be fair, a lot of larger energy companies have adopted some of those recommendations but there is much more to be done. That has been at the behest of the companies themselves, not Ofgem. Over the past decade, Ofgem has regarded the main means of improving service to consumers as being an increase in competition. That helps significantly in most circumstances, but the way in which it has been done has actually caused more problems than it resolved for consumers, the Government and the regulator.

Obviously, the old oligopoly of the big six was rightly challenged but the number and variety of challenger companies that were nodded through and licensed by Ofgem, thereby relieving some of the obligations regarding poorer consumers, meant that, over a period of about five or six years, the oligopoly moved to becoming a cut-throat market of some 70-plus companies, many of which were new and untested. The sustainability of many of the rest was also suspect. It is clear that in this vital part of its obligations, Ofgem just allowed the establishment of dozens of novice companies through the licensing system, with totally inadequate financial resilience tests, superficial checks—if any—of the management structure and investment sources, and no stipulations on customer service in general or in particular in relation to vulnerable and low-income groups.

Citizens Advice has provided us with a litany of those failures and Ofgem’s failure to meet even the basic requirements. Yet in recent years, there has been only one Ofgem formal customer service investigation. It made no use of its powers to stop a supplier taking on customers when there were customer service concerns about the company. In the four years before the gas price crisis, the number of people working at Ofgem on consumer service had fallen by a quarter.

As Citizens Advice says:

“Regulatory failings led to a culture of non-compliance”


among many of these new companies and the rush of company failures has duly followed, with dire consequences and uncertainties for consumers and messy transfers of customers to the larger companies, increasing the pressure on consumers and the recipient companies.

It is true that early last year Ofgem introduced a new supplier monitoring and checking system, yet only one of the 20-plus companies that failed last year had any sort of customer continuity plan in place to protect their consumers in the event of financial collapse. That is a serious failure by the regulator and one which the Government and the regulator need to address to decide the size of the market we can cope with. The big six was clearly wrong but a market of 70 or 80 small companies, poorly based, is also not the right answer.

The other thing is that, if we have not been able to cope with a traditional gas price rise and preserve and increase customer service during that period without hitting consumers and without the Government having now to bail them out through the interventions the Chancellor announced today, then there is something seriously wrong in the regulatory system. I have it in mind that we will have to cope shortly with a much bigger issue—the transition of the 80% plus of our households which are on gas supply at the moment to as-yet-unknown forms of alternative low-carbon or no-carbon fuels. That is a massive operation, and it needs planning now. Yet, we still need key decisions from the Government and industry, and key questions are likely to be asked of the regulator.

That is going to be a massive transformation. The last time we did it, when we replaced town gas with North Sea gas, it was organised in every household that used gas by employees of a nationalised corporation —most of whom were members of my union—who went into every household. That took time and it needed planning, but it was a simple structure. We no longer have those simple structures. We no longer have the clear strategic decisions, and yet we are going to place on top of this system, rightly, in order to meet our carbon obligations, a whole new system of heating for pretty well four out of five households in the land, and many businesses and offices as well.

Ofgem and the department are going to face a much bigger problem than a global gas price rise. They are right to face it because we need to change our whole heating system, but we need to know how we are going to do it. We need to know that consumers’ interests will be protected in doing it. We need to know who is going to deliver it. We need to know some basics, such as what kind of fuel we are going to use and whether there be one system in different parts of the country. The Minister will know that I have asked questions on this before, but we still have no clear answers. If we postpone decisions on how we will heat our buildings in future, the chaos we are facing in relation to one big world problem is going to be compounded as we try to implement a change to meet our carbon objectives.

I am very worried about the immediate situation, and thousands of households are extremely worried and unable to meet the costs implied, even allowing for the Chancellor’s claim that he is going to cover half of the system—in a way that I do not regard as optimal. But even if he does that, there will be cost increases which thousands of households will be unable to meet.

The Government face a serious economic crisis in the form of the energy price, and a serious social crisis in terms of the impact on families and households. There is also a serious strategic and political crisis, in that we have to change the system of regulating this market and make clear to the industry and consumers the way we are going. I hope the Minister can give a few answers today, and that the Government as a whole can address these problems in the coming weeks.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Whitty (Lab)]

My Lords, I genuinely thank the Minister for that comprehensive reply, in which he gave some additional information about the Chancellor’s announcement, which I shall look forward to reading in detail, and made some other points that we need to take on board in this context. It is an extraordinarily complex issue that we have been addressing today but, at the end of the day, the immediate problem, as well described by my noble friend Lord Jones, is that of families living in cold and in debt. We have an opportunity, if we can get this right, of making sure that what has happened today does not make their situation worse but begins to ameliorate it.

The bigger point that I am making—big and emotive though that is—is that there are three different things that we need to address. We need to address the immediate impact of the gas price rise on the poorest families and on all families, in many respects, and on our economy. I hope that the Chancellor has gone a little way towards that, although I do not think that he has gone far enough and I think that some of the means that he is proposing are very odd. It is very odd to use council tax as a way in which to give back money; it is similar to using national insurance in the way that the Government have done to raise money for the health service and social care. There is a tax system that we should be using for these purposes, which would be much more progressive than what he proposes and much better targeted. However, he has done something and I appreciate that.

The second crisis, of course, is the one that the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and others clearly outlined: the present regime with Ofgem is not effective in creating a market where competition really works, as distinct from one that is very vulnerable, or one that protects the more vulnerable consumers. I am glad to hear that we are having an assessment of consumer regulation under Ofgem, but we need to make that serious and effective. I look forward to seeing progress on that as rapidly as possible. The Minister made a pointed remark that Ofgem is independent; it is sort of independent, in the sense that it is at arm’s length, but it works within a framework defined by government and by legislation. I am looking forward to the next White Paper and energy Bill—I am not sure that the Minister is, but I am.

The third issue is that we need to ensure that our energy system and its interrelationship with consumers and industry prepares now for the transition away from fossil fuels. Given the failures that we have had recently on the relatively easy part of protecting consumers, the way in which we take the economy and consumers through a massive change in energy supply, in every house and flat in the land that uses gas, will have to change. We do not at this point know how it will change or what it will cost. The immediate answer put on the table by the Government is to have air pumps, which is putting people off because of the current cost of air pumps, and particularly putting off those who may have to adopt them early, such as the rural consumers that the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, mentioned.

Energy efficiency is a vital part of this, as the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and others emphasised, and as the Minister accepts, but the intervention to change how we heat our homes and provide basic warmth for our children and elderly people will have to be much more substantial than the inadequate response from the industry and regulator to the gas price hike. It is a much bigger issue and we need to make sure that we have a regulatory system that is capable of taking it on and taking consumers with it. The Minister has a big task to resolve all those issues, but at least he has given us some indication of how the Government are thinking today and I thank him and everybody who has contributed to this debate.

Motion agreed.

Net-zero Emissions

Lord Whitty Excerpts

Tuesday 7th December 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

The noble Lord links together two important facets of this work: the importance of getting on with building new nuclear capacity, which I think is widely recognised, and the importance of developing heat networks. We do not have such a tradition of heat networks in this country, but they are rapidly expanding and we are investing hundreds of millions of pounds in future heat networks.

[Lord Whitty (Lab)]

My Lords, can the Minister confirm that after the publication of this strategy, he indicated that the decision on hydrogen-based heating for homes would not be taken until 2025? If so, what advice does he give now to householders whose boilers are running out of time? Should they buy a heat pump or a hydrogen-ready boiler, or wait until the price of air pumps comes down and a decision is taken in at least four years?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

The noble Lord is correct about the timescale for taking a decision on hydrogen. It is not yet a mature technology in terms of whether it would be available in sufficient quantities on a wide enough scale to be used for home heating. We are funding a large series of trials, moving towards a hydrogen neighbourhood, a hydrogen village and then a hydrogen town-level trial before we can advise people to take that forward. In the meantime, we have set our ambition to phase out the sale of gas boilers by 2035.

Onshore Wind Bill [HL]

Lord Whitty Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 19th November 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Whitty (Lab)]

My Lords, I join everyone else in congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, on introducing the Bill and her wider work for Peers for the Planet. It has been pretty clear that the Government have to think again. This is an anomaly in our planning system that needs to be addressed, because it threatens to inhibit our ability to reach net zero on the path we have already determined.

The Government need to recognise that there have been serious changes over the past decade or so in the economics of renewable energy, political attitudes and public attitudes, and they need to take them on board. By 2010, at least, we were clear that onshore wind was the cheapest and most convenient form of renewable energy. At the time, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, said, David Cameron was in his “hug a husky” mood and the coalition Government saw a large number of turbines approved in their period of office.

Regrettably, there was a bit of a backlash. I am the first to recognise that not every site that has been suggested for wind turbines should necessarily be agreed, but the fact is that the 2015 Tory manifesto and the subsequent change in planning rules has led to a presumption against onshore wind, and that presumption needs to be changed. By 2015 David Cameron had, I assume, not only forgotten about the huskies; he also wanted to get rid of the Liberal Democrats and was prepared to adopt a rather hard-line view on onshore wind. That was a mistake, and the Government need to recognise it as such.

Of course, there have been other changes. As the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, said, Boris Johnson came in with a bit of a reputation as being not very sensitive to climate change issues, but that has changed dramatically with the responsibility thrust on the Prime Minister because of COP 26 and the process that goes with it. He has declared that, effectively, he wants all our homes heated by wind energy. Onshore wind must be a very significant part of in order to meet that objective by 2030 or 2035. The renewables industry has suggested that by 2030, the aim should be 30 gigawatts. That seems about right, but only provided that there is more of a level playing field in the planning process and the whole process of auctions and contracts for difference, which were the subject of a previous Bill from the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, that, regrettably, did not see the light of day.

The presumption against planning permission for onshore wind needs to change. It does not exist for any other form of infrastructure development. Ideally, I hope that today the Government will signal that they will take over the Bill. Failing that, I hope that the Prime Minister’s office will instruct the Minister today that we must signal our support for the Bill or get the Government Whips in this House to give time, so that its subsequent stages can be seen through and it can be part of our energy policy.

I think that chimes with the policy the Prime Minister has now enunciated. It chimes with what is necessary to stay on the path—or get on the path—to net zero and it chimes with public opinion. Fewer than 50% of people supported onshore wind 10 or 12 years ago, but well over 70% of people now support it, including those in rural areas. It has the additional advantage over offshore wind of having short supply lines and of being able to develop an industry and support in this country, rather than being almost totally dependent on the manufacture of parts abroad. It would help with the levelling-up agenda and our industrial strategy.

If the Prime Minister is to deliver his green agenda and the commitments that were made in Glasgow, the Government need to make this relatively straightforward adjustment in our planning process and allow it to happen. I therefore hope that the Minister can signal today that that is precisely what the Government intend to do.

Climate Change: Trade Policy

Lord Whitty Excerpts

Thursday 28th October 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)]

My Lords, I think the noble Baroness is uncharacteristically rather unfair on this matter. I am prepared to repeat again that we are committed to upholding the UK’s high environmental standards. I do not agree with her about the Budget given in the other place by my right honourable friend yesterday. I repeat again: we will continue to pursue the whole range of mechanisms available to us to achieve our ambitions for net zero.

[Lord Whitty (Lab)]

My Lords, I really must return to the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and the noble Lord, Lord Deben. As a former Defra Minister, I know that it is quite easy to offend both the agricultural interests and the environmental lobby—but not usually at the same time. The Australia and New Zealand agreements are both adamantly concerned with the future path of trade with those countries. I am more concerned that the process that was promised to this House during the passage of the then Agriculture Bill was not operated during the negotiations of the agreements in principle with Australia and New Zealand—and that, I think, is a dereliction of duty by Ministers.

[Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)]

My Lords, if the noble Lord is referring to the establishment of the Trade and Agriculture Commission, that commission has now been set up in shadow form. It will fulfil the statutory duties which it would fulfil if it were on a statutory basis. As I have explained to the House previously, it is a technical matter that it is on a non-statutory basis. This is to allow some allowances to be paid to its members, which was not allowed for in the Trade Act. As soon as we are able to put it on to a statutory footing, we will of course do so. In the meantime, as I have said previously from this Dispatch Box, we will engage with that commission to make sure that its views, advice and recommendations feed fully into our trade policy considerations.