Boiler Upgrade Scheme (Amendment to the Energy Act 2008 etc.) Regulations 2026
Baroness Curran Excerpts(3 days, 10 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Curran
That the Grand Committee do consider the Boiler Upgrade Scheme (Amendment to the Energy Act 2008 etc.) Regulations 2026.
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Baroness Curran) (Lab)
My Lords, these regulations were laid in draft before Parliament on 13 July 2026. The boiler upgrade scheme is the Government’s flagship scheme for supporting the decarbonisation of heat in homes and small non-domestic buildings across England and Wales. The scheme provides grants towards the installation of eligible low-carbon heating technologies, primarily heat pumps, helping households overcome the upfront costs associated with transitioning away from fossil fuel heating systems.
In 2025, the Government consulted on expanding the range of technologies supported through the scheme, including the potential introduction of heat batteries. Heat batteries are a type of thermal energy storage system that can use low-carbon electricity to generate and store heat, and release that energy when required. Following consideration of the consultation responses, the Government confirmed their intention to support heat batteries through the scheme once the appropriate standards are in place. The amendments made by these regulations are an important step towards implementing that decision. The Government are supporting the future inclusion of heat batteries in the boiler upgrade scheme to increase consumer choice, as they have the potential to provide an alternative low-carbon heating solution for consumers in homes where heat pump installation may not be appropriate.
These regulations amend the power of the Secretary of State to make regulations to establish schemes to facilitate and encourage the renewable generation of heat in England and Wales. These schemes can be established only in relation to the listed sources of energy and technologies. These regulations add thermal energy storage systems to the list of those sources of energy and technologies. This amendment provides the necessary statutory basis for thermal energy storage systems to be supported through government schemes that derive their powers from Section 100 of the Energy Act, such as the boiler upgrade scheme. Subject to Parliament approving these regulations, the Government intend to bring forward a statutory instrument to amend the Boiler Upgrade Scheme (England and Wales) Regulations 2022 and to enable support for eligible heat batteries through the scheme.
The regulations also amend Regulation 22 of the Boiler Upgrade Scheme (England and Wales) Regulations 2022. This is a technical amendment that clarifies the powers available to the scheme administrator where an installer has received an ineligible payment. The change will enable the scheme administrator, Ofgem, to recover any amount owed through a combination of repayment and offsetting against future grant payments to that installer, improving the administration of the scheme and the protection of public money.
The changes made by these regulations will ensure that the legislative powers underpinning the boiler upgrade scheme can accommodate heat batteries. In doing so, they deliver an important step towards the Government’s commitments to support heat batteries through the scheme, to increase consumer choice and to help more homeowners across England and Wales decarbonise their properties. I beg to move.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing this statutory instrument.
The passage of time points to the boiler upgrade scheme’s own record. Regrettably, there have been years of missed installation targets: the original goal was 600,000 a year by 2028, but barely a tenth of that figure has been met. It is now self-evident that expanding the scheme’s budget and eligibility in 2026 will escalate spend on a mechanism that has structurally underperformed without any intention to reform it coming from either the Government or the Liberal Democrat Benches. At this point, I should declare my interest as the chairman of Buckthorn, Acteon and Amey.
The clearest recent articulation of this comes from the shadow Business Secretary and former shadow Secretary of State for Energy, Claire Coutinho, fronting a report from the think tank Onward. It argued that UK electricity prices are too high and that cheap power itself, achieved partly by using more gas and cutting green levies, will do more to drive heat pump and EV uptake than continued subsidy and mandates.
It is compelling economic sense, and it is the belief on this side of the Committee that this approach would make electrification more attractive, while delivering prosperity and a better environment. In other words, no one is arguing that heat pumps are bad, but we believe that a BUS-style subsidy is now proven to be the wrong lever and that removing green levies from bills would achieve similar ends without state spending.
Moreover, my colleagues in another place have consistently pressed Ministers about the stronger evidence that costs associated with the wider agenda for the decarbonisation of heat, including mechanisms such as the clean heat market mechanism boiler tax on manufacturers, are being passed to consumers via higher gas boiler prices. In other words, the current approach taxes conventional boiler households to subsidise heat pump adopters, and this is regressive.
There are a number of specific points, and I am grateful to the Minister for having raised them. The first was a constitutional process concern. This SI amends primary legislation via secondary legislation. That is not unusual but, because it touches Section 100 of the Energy Act 2008, it requires the affirmative procedure. Regulation 2 modifies the list of sources of energy and technologies as set out in Section 100(4) of the 2008 Act to include “thermal energy storage systems” and, as stated:
“By virtue of section 105(3A) and (3B), these Regulations attract the affirmative procedure”.
Instruments that amend an Act of Parliament rather than just delegated regulations routinely draw scrutiny from committees such as the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee or the JCSI over the appropriateness of using a Henry VIII-style power for what is a fairly narrow technical expansion.
A related 2026 BUS amendment instrument, SI 2026/390, had to be reissued because the original published version did not reflect the version signed by the Minister and had to be removed and replaced. That is not this specific SI, but it illustrates the concerns about drafting quality that Members of Parliament in the other place and committees have been raising about the pace of legislation on the boiler upgrade scheme.
My second point—I am grateful again to the Minister for raising this—relates to the question of heat batteries or thermal storage. This came out clearly in the Government’s consultation on the eligibility of expanding the BUS, which took place in November last year and which underpins this SI. I would be grateful if the Minister, in responding, could update the Committee on whether any product standards yet exist. Currently, as I understand it—and things may have moved on since November—there are no product standards for the thermal energy storage performance of heat batteries. These technologies will become eligible for scheme funding only once the relevant standards have come into force, which means that the law will permit funding for a technology category that cannot actually be certified or verified yet.
On efficiency and running costs, some respondents raised concerns about direct electric heating’s lower efficiency relative to a heat pump, its running costs and a lack of evidence on the performance and suitability of the various technologies. Some respondents preferred excluding the heat battery category altogether, arguing that funding should stay focused on technologies with proven carbon savings rather than diluting the budget across less tested electric heating options.
The Minister rightly pointed out the importance of the Regulation 22 payment offset amendment, which is a much more mundane and fairly straightforward change clarifying that the administrator may take one or a combination of the actions available to recover payments, provided that the total does not exceed the sum of payments due. As I understand it, it has not attracted any public objections, but it is worth flagging and I am grateful the Minister did; it is a tidying-up clause that gives Ofgem a somewhat broader discretion to recover overpayments and clawbacks. A point that scrutiny committees sometimes probe is whether it expands administrative power beyond what was originally debated, but, as the Minister said in her opening remarks, that would not be the case on this occasion.
I believe that the Government should stop increasing the cost of gas boilers for families through their boiler tax and stop wasting money forcing people into buying heat pumps that they do not want to make marginal reductions to our already limited contribution to global emissions. The Government must, above all, make electricity cheaper and back consumer choice, if they truly want families to adopt electric heating technologies instead of simply forcing people into changing the way that they live their lives to meet their self-imposed, unachievable net-zero targets.
That is why we have called for the scraping of the boiler upgrade scheme along with the clean heat market mechanism that places an obligation on gas and oil boiler manufacturers to install a minimum number of heat pumps at an estimated cost of £340 million in the first year. This goes far further than the boiler upgrade scheme introduced in 2022 under the Energy Act 2008, which encouraged the use of renewable heat by providing financial support for families to install heat pumps to replace fossil fuel boilers. As the Minister said, this instrument amends that Act to extend financial support eligibility to heat batteries, electric heating tech and thermal energy storage systems.
Many of us on this side of the Committee who have studied this consider it to be a case of excessive government intervention and cost to ease the effects of other government interventions. Energy prices are currently high, not despite our transition to renewable sources and green policies but because of them. The Government have acknowledged the fact that policies are to blame by removing VAT from energy bills. Similarly, their focus on renewables, inextricably linked to firm power—oil and gas—has caused the cost of using gas-fired power plants to rise, as they are forced to operate on an ad hoc basis dependent on the weather and are thus far less efficient and very expensive.
Taxes and renewables are the two core policies that have led to the increase in energy bills, which are now the highest of any IEA member country, both including and excluding taxes, for industrial and domestic bills. The Government should not be subsidising the cost of renewables by promoting higher bills for some instead of bringing them down for all through more systemic changes, which will be a subject we will return to, no doubt, on the long overdue introduction of the supremely misnamed energy independence Bill, which will increase energy dependence on imports and not decrease them. That said, on a personal note, I welcome the Minister to the Dispatch Box for this SI and look forward to further debates and discussions with her.
Baroness Curran (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that contribution, and on that very note I welcome his remarks. We debated some of these issues on my very first outing at the Dispatch Box on the Floor of the House, and I think we will debate some of the fundamental points that he made about the direction of energy policy. He is right to contextualise this within that wider debate about energy policy. It is perhaps one of the great debates of our time and will dominate our thinking and discussions in the time ahead. I am tempted to go into a very long discussion about that; I am sure we will have lively debates going forward. He will know, as I said on the Floor of the House, that the Onward report faced some criticism and there were some arguments from the sector about the report’s premises, but I will leave that because I am sure that we will return to it. At the end of my contribution today, I will comment on the general policy of our approach.
I will now address the boiler upgrade scheme. I put on record that I recognise and respect the noble Lord’s detailed points about it and will pay great attention to the arguments that he is putting forward. It is an argument that this Government want to win, and we believe we can win it, but we will do that only by paying attention to the substance of what he said—and I recognise that substance. I will go through the points that he raised. I will not repeat that the boiler upgrade scheme remains the Government’s flagship scheme for supporting the decarbonisation of heat in homes and small non-domestic buildings across England and Wales, because we see decarbonisation as fundamental to the challenges facing the country and as offering solutions to some of the great issues around climate change and its consequences. I will return to that.
I shall focus on the points raised by the noble Lord and the detail of what he said. He acknowledged that the boiler upgrade scheme is directly funded by the Exchequer. It does not put any direct costs on consumers’ bills. Furthermore, our scheme evaluation data shows that people who have received grants from the boiler upgrade scheme most commonly find that their energy bills decrease as a result. Some 50% of boiler upgrade scheme grant recipients reported that their total energy bills decreased when replacing a gas boiler with a heat pump, compared with just 15% who reported an increase. As he acknowledged, eligible low-carbon heating installations currently benefit from 0% VAT, which further reduces costs for consumers.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
Can I return to a question that I raised, which the Minister has answered? She seems to be in agreement but it is a real concern. Without product standards for the thermal energy storage performance of heat batteries, these technologies will become eligible for the scheme but the law will permit funding for a technology category that has yet to be certified or verified. I know the Minister said in response that she hoped that it would be done in the near future. I know she would agree that there are significant safety risks associated with this, and consumers and the industry are very worried about it. Recent incidents have highlighted critical gaps in safety standards, indicating that certification alone does not guarantee safety under real-world conditions. That makes the importance of certification and having product standards all the more important for the safety. Can she write to me at the time when the Government are likely to approve these product standards, and therefore introduce into effect what we are considering in the SI today?
Baroness Curran (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for that, and of course I commit to write to him and always to keep him as informed as I possibly can. He raises an interesting point, which was exactly the point that I asked during my three or four briefings with the team to prepare myself for today’s statutory instrument. I asked specifically about where we were with safety regulations and product standards. I have to say that I was concerned about the timing of it, because I want to make sure we move forward in this, but we also talked in some depth about the safety measures around that. I cannot recall in detail offhand every single step they took me through at the moment, but they explained to me the rigorous process that it goes through, which sometimes means it takes that bit longer. One example they cited was that you have to ensure that, as with a driver’s test, the installer must be observed by a senior person to get their certification. I can assure the noble Lord that we have this in hand, but I will of course write to him and keep him appraised of our process in that regard.
Jackdaw and Rosebank Oil and Gas Fields
Baroness Curran Excerpts(1 week, 3 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests as chairman of Buckthorn, Amey and Acteon. I warmly welcome the Minister back to the Dispatch Box, and I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Whitehead, who was a highly knowledgeable and impressive Minister.
Given the Government’s outright opposition to new drilling in the North Sea, does the Minister nevertheless agree that there is no reason not to approve Jackdaw and Rosebank, which have already had drilling activity, with Jackdaw now ready for production? In contrast to the response of the noble Baroness, Lady Winterton, to the Private Notice Question just now, given that the Government themselves have the final sign-off on Falkland Islands production licences dating back to the early 1990s, when both Tim Eggar and I were ministerially involved, what is the Government’s position on the Falkland Islands Government’s pro-oil and gas position on the Sea Lion oilfield, which is at the centre of the diplomatic row with Argentina? Is it consistent with the department’s position on the North Sea—in other words, outright opposition to new drilling and new offshore oil and gas infrastructure? If not, what is the difference?
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Curran) (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his warm welcome. We know each other, and I know that we both welcome robust discussion—which is just as well because I think we will have a few disagreements along the way. He made reference to the enormous contribution of my noble friend Lord Whitehead to this portfolio and the work that he has done. I have learned a lot, and will continue to learn a lot, from my noble friend.
On the substance of the issue the noble Lord raises, he will know that the Jackdaw and Rosebank fields are each subject to a live regulatory process. The public notice period is closing on 10 and 17 August respectively. We are part of that regulatory process. The Secretary of State will consider the representations received and make separate decisions on each project in due course. It would be inappropriate to comment further on either project because it is important to maintain the robustness of the process and not pre-empt or predetermine the decisions.
I note the detail of what the noble Lord asked me in relation to the Falklands. I refer him back to the comments of my noble friend Lady Winterton, and it would be inappropriate for me to comment further on that.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Baroness on her appointment, and I look forward to working opposite her. I also pay tribute to the outgoing noble Lord, Lord Whitehead.
I know the Minister is unable to comment before the decision, so instead I ask if she agrees with me that the Onward report, through which the Conservative Party has argued that we should abandon our net zero targets and could save £320 billion, is not worth the paper it is written on, as it is based on an incorrect underlying assumption that future gas prices will be low and stable and would result in an extra 524 million tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions by 2050.
Baroness Curran (Lab)
I thank the noble Earl for that question and for his welcome, and I pay tribute to his work on this issue in the House. Again, I have learned a great deal and will continue to do so from listening to his speeches. I recognise and appreciate the point being made about the Rosebank and Jackdaw decisions. I recognise the interest in them, but I cannot be drawn on that.
On his wider point, the noble Earl is right about the Onward report, the general disappointment people feel at the breaking of the consensus we have seen from the Conservative Party over recent months, and how significant that is. He will know that climate scientists and energy industry bodies have overwhelmingly challenged the report’s methodology and logic as applied to grid and infrastructure costs, and how it has costed the high volatility of gas along with its political and economic costs.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I wonder whether my noble friend would confirm that under the Conservatives, production in the North Sea reduced by half between 2010 and 2024—which is no surprise because it is a super-mature basin—and that giving consent to these two oilfields, which I know my noble friend cannot comment on at the moment, would have a minimal effect either on achieving net zero targets or on prices. The reality is that what the Government need to do, whatever the decision on these oilfields, is stick to the policy of going as fast as possible towards clean energy.
Baroness Curran (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for that question. I pay tribute to the work he has done in this field and to the very significant contribution he made as a Minister, particularly within the nuclear field. I cannot be drawn on the points he raises but I can assure him that the North Sea and oil and gas will play a vital role in our energy mix for years to come. He noted that under the Conservatives, by the end of 2016 more than 120,000 UK oil and gas jobs had gone. It is a changing basin, but we see it as part of the mix. We understand that the North Sea not only has an oil and gas sector but can play a vital role in a clean energy economy. That will make an enormous contribution not only to the north-east of Scotland but to the wider UK economy.
Baroness Hayman (CB)
My Lords, I welcome the noble Baroness back to her position on the Front Bench. Does she agree that a major issue underlying the decisions—which I know she cannot talk about—is the widespread concern about the cost of energy in this country? Does she further agree that the important thing is to make some progress on decoupling the price of gas from the price of energy and electricity generally? When are the Government going to make some progress in separating off those two strands?
Baroness Curran (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for her welcome and for that question. I recognise the work that she does and, as a former member, I hope I can continue to engage with Peers for the Planet. She makes a central point underlying the work that we do. The cost of energy is central to the Prime Minister’s mission in tackling these issues, and he has said that affordability will be at the centre of what he tries to do. She is also right to emphasise the de-linking of electricity and gas, and that will remain a priority of our work. I look forward to meeting her to discuss that and to continuing these debates in the House. I can assure her that that is a priority for our work going forward, as is affordability.
Lord Redwood (Con)
Why do the Government wish to increase world CO2, and why do they wish to pay taxes to foreign companies and countries rather than to British ones by insisting on importing LNG rather than getting our own gas out of a pipe, which generates much less CO2?
Baroness Curran (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for the question, but I cannot be tempted to answer it directly, as I perhaps would wish to, because of the implications of what I might say. I ask noble Lords to really appreciate the significance of this decision; we cannot jeopardise it by any loose words. I obviously do not accept some of the assumptions behind his question. This Government are committed to ensuring that all companies pay due tax and regenerate the economy. We will work with businesses in the North Sea and across Scotland to make sure that they are thriving. I plead with him to understand that the work this Labour Government are doing is contributing to a thriving clean energy sector as well, and that that performs competitively in the economy. No doubt that will be something we will discuss in the future.
Lord Boyd of Duncansby (CB)
My Lords, I welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Curran, my erstwhile friend in the Scottish Cabinet, to her place on the Front Bench. Whatever decision is taken on Jackdaw and Rosebank, can she confirm that clean energy, whether developed by solar, wind or other means, will remain at the heart of British energy policy? It not only provides the scope for decarbonisation of our economy, but also for new jobs.
Baroness Curran (Lab)
I thank my noble friend and colleague for that question. He knows that I was a Member of the Scottish Parliament and a Minister in the Scottish Government. In that capacity, I met the oil and gas sector many times and worked very closely with them. I understand the contribution they have made and will continue to make, but there is no avoiding the fact that we live in challenging times in terms of climate change. Clean energy is not only necessary but is a huge opportunity for economic development. It will help us meet the challenge of our times through reducing carbon emissions, electrifying our economy and creating opportunities for people in the United Kingdom.
Climate Change: Government Action
Baroness Curran Excerpts(3 months, 4 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Curran
To ask His Majesty’s Government what action they are taking to tackle climate change.
The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Whitehead) (Lab)
Since coming to office, the Government have taken decisive action to tackle climate change by accelerating the transition from volatile fossil fuels to homegrown clean energy. Indeed, as we face the second fossil fuel shock in less than five years, every solar panel we have put up, every heat pump we have installed and every electric car on the road has made our country more secure and has helped us to tackle climate change while protecting bill payers and creating good jobs.
Baroness Curran (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Will he join me in sending warmest wishes to Sir David Attenborough on his 100th birthday? I am sure that all in this House would pay tribute to the extraordinary contribution of Sir David to our understanding of the natural world, but he also tells us what we stand to lose if we do not take urgent action to address the threat of climate change, and he is absolutely clear about the devastating consequences. Does my noble friend agree that the energy independence Bill in the King’s Speech is of critical and central importance, not only to the energy security that he references but to reducing our reliance on fossil fuels, which is essential in combating the consequences of climate change?
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
First, I am delighted to join my noble friend in paying tribute to Sir David Attenborough, not only for being 100 years old but for the increasing work he has done in recent years not only in talking about the natural world but in bringing public consciousness to bear on the costs of not doing anything about climate change and on how our natural world will change irrevocably if we do not. The energy Bill in the King’s Speech is a crucial part of the next stage of countering climate change in this country, and, in conjunction with the carbon budget and growth delivery plan, it will enable us to meet our next carbon budgets coming up.
King’s Speech
Baroness Curran Excerpts(3 months, 4 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Curran (Lab)
My Lords, I must admit that when I saw my name so far down the speakers’ list, I hesitated and thought, “I’ll have so many speeches I have to listen to”, but I am so glad that I have spent the afternoon and early evening here, because as an ordinary but avid consumer of the arts, I have a whole new level of motivation. My learning has increased, especially listening to the impressive maiden speeches of the noble Lords, Lord Hobby and Lord Blackwater, and the noble Baroness, Lady Leaman. I anticipate that my learning will continue further.
I want to focus my remarks this evening on energy policy. I would argue that the starting point for energy policy has to be the stark realities of climate change, as has been mentioned much earlier in this debate. The Climate Change Committee confirms that we are already experiencing more frequent heatwaves, heavier rainfall and conditions conducive to wildfires. These are not distant risks; they are happening now, and the UK, we have to be honest, is not adequately prepared. We see the consequences immediately, at first hand. As my noble friend Lord Harris said earlier at Questions, in 2022, extreme heat contributed to over 3,000 deaths and disrupted vital infrastructure. In 2024, the UK faced 50 consecutive days of rain and a number of named storms. Across the globe, extreme weather is intensifying, with enormous consequences. The evidence is all around us and the science is clear: we face not isolated incidents but cascading and compounding shocks across sectors, with threats to national infrastructure and global supply chains’ disruption and fragility. I do not have time to begin to list all the consequences that we face, but let us listen, as of course we should, to Sir David Attenborough, who reminds us that what happens over the next 50 years will determine the fate of all on the planet.
We know what we need to do, and what happens next is up to us. That is why the legislation in the King’s Speech is so important and makes it clear that it is time to get off the fossil fuel rollercoaster and accelerate our transition to clean energy. The energy independence Bill is central to the ambition of change. It will strengthen our energy security at a time of global instability. We have experienced two major energy shocks in just five years, and in fact we have been experiencing energy shocks since the 1970s, with increasing costs to families and businesses. It will help build national resilience—and I too sit on the National Resilience Committee. We need to reform markets, improve planning and produce better regulatory frameworks.
I also welcome the nuclear regulation Bill, because it will play a vital role in delivering reliable, low-carbon power. We must acknowledge the challenges in delivering nuclear power. Delivery is too slow and costs remain too high.
But all in all, we need absolutely to accept the need for urgent action. Energy policy has rightly been a central focus of government action and it must remain so. We stand at a defining moment. The Government must keep their nerve and focus with these measures in the King’s Speech. We must act to protect lives, livelihoods and the foundations of our economy. Inaction is the costliest choice. Now is the time for leadership, ambition and enduring commitment. We must not back off.
Low-carbon Heat Networks
Baroness Curran Excerpts(4 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Curran
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to support the rollout of low carbon heat networks.
Baroness Griffin of Princethorpe (Lab)
My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Curran, and with her permission, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in her name on the Order Paper.
Scotland: New Nuclear Power Generation
Baroness Curran Excerpts(1 year, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I do not think it is the case that we should reopen the devolution settlement, and the noble Lord would not really expect me from the Dispatch Box to say that we should. I think it is clear that, overall, new nuclear has a huge role to play, in the baseload that it can provide and in clean power. The move towards the final investment decision on Sizewell, progress on Hinkley Point C, the SMR programme and the potential of advanced modular reactors will give us a hugely important foundation for clean power for Great Britain as a whole.
Baroness Curran (Lab)
My Lords, I speak as a former planning Minister in the Scottish Government. Does the Minister agree that the best way to address this case is not more conflict with the Scottish Government but promoting the argument for nuclear power in a positive way—and, perhaps, working hard so that Anas Sarwar becomes First Minister of Scotland and we can resolve this problem?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, those are very wise words from my noble friend.