Energy Bill [HL]

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 7th September 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

I join the noble Lord in his support for my noble friend Lord Moylan’s Amendment 225. I have been minded to table something similar, so I was delighted when my noble friend was able to fill the gap. I believe that the amendment seeks to address not just resilience but security of supply, and I am delighted that it is in the form of a probing amendment and that we leave open the amount of storage that we seek.

My concern, which we touched on in Oral Questions, is the woeful shortage of gas storage at this time. I understand the reasons why Centrica closed its gas storage, which I understand was in Yorkshire, in 2017. But, as my noble friend Lord Callanan said in response to the Question today, the circumstances then were very different from today. I understand that, currently, the facility could possibly store between 10 and 12 days at full capacity. I understand that talks are ongoing in this regard; what status are they at? If they are successful and Centrica, or indeed another operator, was minded to open or reopen these facilities, what is the optimum number of days of storage? I prefer to talk about this in days of storage rather domestic consumption, but I will leave that to those more expert than me. What is the current capacity for gas storage? Back in March, I understood that Germany had something like 120 days’ storage and we had only a possible maximum of 30, which may even have been an overestimate of the capacity.

What percentage of gas is currently being supplied to this country by interconnectors from Norway and perhaps other suppliers? Also, what is the percentage being delivered by tankers? For the reasons of resilience and security of supply, and given that there are European countries that are more dependent on Russian sources of gas than we are, can we be absolutely sure about the threat that the current supplies to this country through interconnectors and tankers might be diverted to other European countries if the situation in Russia were to deteriorate further? I understand that this is a source of some concern. Germany is one of the countries most dependent on Russia for current gas supply. I understand that it reached its target for days of gas storage ahead of schedule. It has also stored underground just over a fifth of the gas used in the whole of last year, 2021.

Finally, the flip side of gas storage and the potential cap on spending, which we might learn of tomorrow, is trying to encourage all of us to use less of the finite resource of electricity and energy. Could my noble friend shed some light on that? Will we hear more tomorrow?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 225 in the names of my noble friend Lord Moylan and others. The noble Lord, Lord Oates, raised some good questions in this area. Gas storage is not only important; it can also be a thing of beauty, as I know from my days watching cricket at the Oval, with its famous gas-holder backdrop. Perhaps it can be revived—I say rather fancifully.

This year’s crisis has shown how vulnerable we are with gas. When I was Energy Minister, I often emphasised the importance of energy security, which was very unfashionable then, as energy was plentiful and prices were low. I used to say that, if I or anyone else in that role became the Minister of Blackouts, it would be terminal in career terms. I would like to understand how much of a risk there is with gas now, and indeed how quickly top-ups could be accessed from the North Sea, if that is another possibility. In any event, I urge my noble friend Lord Callanan to make our gas supply less volatile, increase physical storage if possible and/or encourage allies like the Norwegians to do so as well.

International Energy Agency Report

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

Tuesday 26th April 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

There are, of course, very few people in this country who benefit from air conditioning; rather, it is heating that is the issue. Nothing will drive people to turn down their heating at the moment more than the current high gas prices. I am not sure that we need much of a government information campaign to encourage people to save money where they can, but we do not want it to be at the expense of people living in cold homes.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I echo the tributes paid to the amazing career of Lord Plumb, whom I remember so well in a previous commodity crisis as an interlocutor with the then Agriculture Minister, John Silkin. He was very effective. Given the somewhat limited scope of the IEA-promoted self-help that we have seen in this report, can the Minister remind us of what the Government are doing to insulate consumers, the elderly and struggling small businesses from the mushrooming of energy prices that we have seen?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

Indeed, I would be happy to help my noble friend and build on the answer I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Oates, earlier. We are spending from £750 million up to £1 billion a year on ECO 4. We are spending £6.6 billion over this Parliament on all the different insulation and energy-efficiency schemes that I mentioned earlier, delivering practical measures in hundreds of thousands of homes up and down the country. These very successful schemes are driving up the energy efficiency of the poorest households in the country. They are excellent schemes and worthy of the House’s full support.

Nuclear Energy (Financing) Bill

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

Report stage
Thursday 24th March 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ravensdale (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 12 in my name. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, for highlighting this issue to me and for working with me to develop this amendment. I also declare my interest as a project director and engineer in the nuclear industry working for Atkins. I apologise to noble Lords for not being able to be present in Grand Committee and thank the noble Lord, Lord McNicol, for his support with the amendment too.

This is a probing amendment designed to highlight a key issue with the way that nuclear projects under the RAB model under the provisions of the Bill are to be financed. The RAB will change the dynamics of capital rates for new nuclear projects by allowing pension funds and other institutional investors to fund large nuclear projects. There are three aspects relating to financing of new nuclear that need to be highlighted here.

First, the focus of Amendment 12 is that investors are constrained by ESG criteria that apply to their funds, as the noble Lord, Lord Howell, referred to earlier. The Government are due to consult on a UK green taxonomy this year, with a target to legislate by the end of the year. Our concern is that nuclear will not be considered sustainable or taxonomy aligned under this scheme. This concern comes from previous positions on nuclear and similar EU schemes, and that the Treasury did not include nuclear within its recent green financing framework.

This all comes back to technology independence. Nuclear is a low-carbon technology, along with many other low-carbon technologies, and the Government should not be picking winners in the race to net zero but enabling a level playing field. If nuclear is not considered as taxonomy aligned under the UK green taxonomy, there is a real risk that Sizewell C will not be viable under the RAB model. ESG alignment is now a key factor in capital raises for pension funds and institutional investors. In this case, a large non-ESG technology simply may not be able to attract capital in a sufficient quantity. I would be most grateful if the Minister could provide some assurance that nuclear will be considered as taxonomy aligned under the UK green taxonomy.

Secondly, I referred earlier to the UK Government Green Financing Framework, which describes how the UK Government plan to finance expenditures through the issuance of green gilts and the retail green savings bond. Currently, this excludes investment in nuclear, but again I urge the Government to reconsider. The Government need to take the lead here in defining what counts as sustainable within their frameworks. This is so important in leading the markets in the right direction and in allowing these schemes to finance future government investment in nuclear.

Thirdly, Solvency II rules govern the amount of illiquid assets which can be held by pension funds and insurance companies. This is another factor which could limit the ability of these market participants to invest in nuclear projects under the RAB model. Given that I understand the EU is undertaking reform in this area, can the Minister say what plans there are to reform Solvency II for the UK to ensure that sufficient capital is available to invest in infrastructure such as nuclear projects under the RAB model?

I note that these proposals on finance for nuclear are one of the five steps needed to make nuclear happen outlined last week by the APPG on Nuclear Energy, of which I am a vice-chair. Having the RAB model in place will be a huge step forward for the industry and is the key that will unlock nuclear new builds. The Government need to consider some more enabling steps within this model to ensure the market is able to provide the required capital and move these critical projects for our future energy system forward.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, and Amendment 12, which is also in my name. It has been a pleasure to work with him again. I will be brief but, I hope, compelling.

One month has changed the world, and we have found ourselves in an unparalleled period of energy price volatility. The West has realised the dangers of relying on Russia for energy. Energy security is now an even greater priority. This is a sad but welcome change. Energy security has been a major concern of mine since I served as an Energy Minister in 2016 and appreciated the risks inherent in our energy policies of that time, both in terms of keeping the lights on and of inflation when things go wrong. I ploughed a lonely furrow at that time.

We need nuclear investment to replace our ageing fleet and to deal with the ups and downs of solar and wind power, as the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, mentioned in relation to Amendment 1. I was also delighted and amused to listen to the noble Lord, Lord McNicol of West Kilbride, on the Prime Minister —we often agree across the divide. We need this investment fast, and we need several investments in large reactors and in small modular reactors. Nuclear power stations are long-lasting and, like renewables, have very low carbon emissions, and are therefore helpful in reaching net zero.

This welcome Bill edges things forward, but there is a problem, as the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, has highlighted. We need to find investors in new British nuclear installations, to replace the Chinese investment planned at Sizewell, and to attract investment from elsewhere. However—and here is the rub—the conventions on ESG and climate-friendly investments do not allow nuclear to count as green. With so much investment from the City and elsewhere now being directed at green options, this is a real risk to our nuclear ambitions. The rules ought to be changed and we must change them today.

Amendment 12 is a modest but important one. I look forward to a firm promise on green taxonomy from my noble friend the Minister, who is doing so much to make the nuclear revival a reality.

Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Bill

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 14th March 2022 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

91: Clause 52, page 32, line 35, at end insert—
“(2A) In section 1, after subsection (10) insert—“(11) Before making any regulations under this section the Secretary of State must lay an impact assessment before Parliament.(12) The Secretary of State must specify a date on which regulations made under this section cease to have effect.””Member’s explanatory statement
This is a probing amendment and is intended to seek confirmation that an impact assessment will be prepared before such regulations are laid. It also provides for appropriate sunset Clauses.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, as we move on to the final group, I rise to move my Amendments 91 and 96. I was sorry that the short notice prevented me speaking at Second Reading, and as the Bill may have implications for trade and investment, I declare my interest as the chair of the UK-ASEAN Business Council.

Today we are rightly focused on Russia, and are full of sympathy and horror for all that is happening in Ukraine. This Bill has been accelerated and we all want to speed it on its way. I am well known for taking a contrarian view to try to tease out important issues as part of the vital role of scrutiny by the House of Lords. For example, on the Covid legislation, I emphasised the importance of perverse effects and cost benefit, and I think I was right to worry about the adverse impact on health problems other than Covid, such as cancer, and the harm to children’s education, and on the social agonies of the pandemic. Happily, that is behind us thanks to the Government’s brilliant record on vaccination.

As my noble friends the two Ministers said in their very helpful recent letter, the economic crime Bill is novel, particularly in relation to property rights, and largely unprecedented in other countries. In most respects, it will also apply very widely and way beyond Russia, as the Minister made clear. It is concern about that which is behind my amendments.

There are three aspects. First, while a good deal is on the face of the Bill, there are also wide-ranging regulation-making powers, so I propose that any such regulations should be subject to an impact assessment before being laid. The object of this is to ensure that they are properly thought through and to minimise red tape, bearing in mind that the Bill extends beyond the current crisis. I am very grateful for the three impact assessments that have been produced by BEIS, the Home Office and HM Treasury. Helpfully, the BEIS impact assessment discusses on page 36 a Malaysian investment—Battersea power station. Fortunately, it concludes—presumably with its knowledge and agreement—that the new rules would not have resulted in new information being made available or any substantive compliance costs relative to the value of the investment.

However, with my practical mien and business experience, I know how easy it is to get the detail wrong in legislation and regulation of the kind we are debating. The money laundering regulations are a good example. The compliance costs on the honest, including, but not confined to, the rules on politically exposed persons—such as affect some noble Lords—are often burdensome. The bureaucracy involved is also bad for the UK economy without, apparently as we have heard, actually catching the bad guys. So I believe we must stick to the discipline of impact assessments which requires us to balance these matters and do our best to get the rules right, simple and clear across the wide areas covered by this Bill. We also need proper enforcement, probably by investment in tough public sector experts, not external lawyers.

Secondly, I am seeking assurances on the use of sunset clauses. To those noble Lords who are remainers, I refer them to some good practise by the EU—the five-year reviews in single market legislation. These reviews were uncomfortable for incumbents, both the civil servants or the large or dominant external players, but they were good for new thinking and for new entrants. My amendment asks for a specific end date to regulations. But, of course, it is possible to vary the timescale and provide for extensions, as was done with the Covid regulations.

My final area of concern, articulated in Amendment 96, is that there should be a review of all the provisions we are putting so rapidly into law in this Bill and the regulations and guidance made under it. That would take place a year after its passage or at some other suitable period, allowing for the economic crime Bill part 2. It would cover, first, its effectiveness in achieving the objectives set out in the Explanatory Notes; secondly, its impact on parties involved, including small business, whose investments in the UK might dry up needlessly; and, finally, enforcement, especially enforcement by Companies House. I share the concerns expressed by others on the need for accuracy, resourcing and effective enforcement, and I look forward very much to hearing from the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, and my noble friend Lord Agnew of Oulton.

I have no wish to delay the Bill. Indeed, I am proud to have played a part as the Minister responsible for the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015, which contained the domestic provisions on beneficial ownership discussed here in this very House. I also worked on the groundwork for David Cameron’s commitment to a register for foreign companies which own or buy property in the UK. The importance of getting this on to the statute book quickly has been underlined today by Ukraine’s tragic circumstances. I beg to move.

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

My Lords, I recognise that we are on the home straight. On Amendment 91, the House needs to be clear whether we are having a sunset clause or not. My understanding from the outset from talking to Ministers is that we are not, and that this is going to be a permanent piece of legislation. In fact, throughout the two days we have debated this, we have been talking up having ECB 2—something I coined, which I am glad everyone has adopted—to fill in the gaps and be the unspecified bag at Christmas in which we are all going to find our favourite toys, but we shall see.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

Just for clarification, my proposal is for sunset regulation within the regulations, not within the Bill itself—which will, of course, be entirely permanent.

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

My mistake; I struggle with joined-up writing.

Since I get only bite of the cherry and have an amendment coming up in my name, I will tackle both Amendments 93 and 95 on resources. It is widely acknowledged and was highlighted emphatically by speakers at Second Reading that the resourcing of those responsible for the difficult work of identifying, investigating and prosecuting those covered by the Bill are currently inadequate. In the Minister’s letter of 11 March, which I referred to earlier, page 6 refers to an overall package of £400 million and the creation of a kleptocracy cell in the National Crime Agency and says that the NCA has “surged additional officers”. I am aware that the NCA has obtained fewer than five prosecutions for economic crime offences in the last five years and has seen its budget cut, despite calls for increases. The number of investigators at the proceeds of crime centre has declined, despite Parliament raising concerns. I simply do not know whether the resourcing now referred to is sufficient, but I am told that a figure of £1.7 billion is a more realistic amount to get this job done.

Amendment 95, to which I have added my name, calls for an annual review of the suitability of funding arrangements for enforcement agencies. A theme of our debates has been the need to revisit what we have discussed and agreed to here. It is pure vanity to pass legislation that cannot be enforced and resourced effectively. This amendment will be useful in making sure that a proper focus on resourcing is maintained. I therefore support Amendment 95 or, if it is preferred, Amendment 93, which has much the same effect.

Turning finally to Amendment 94 in my name, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, for adding his name to it. We have heard an awful lot about enablers during our debate, which draws a pantomime hiss that used to be reserved for lawyers, accountants and bankers—but, unfortunately, we all fall into that category of enablers now.

A number of speakers, myself included, raised the issue of SLAPPs, or lawfare, at Second Reading. As is appropriate at this stage, I do not propose to rehearse in detail what was said then. Nevertheless, it is a well-established fact that UK law firms and others—some, anyway—undertake deliberate intimidation tactics known as lawfare to prevent journalists and others bringing matters of public interest to light.

It is further well known that this has ensured that information in the public interest is regularly neutered or hidden. The rule of law requires equality before the law, but this behaviour goes well beyond any reasonable approach to a defence of reputation. It is the dark side of our legal system, where inequality of arms means that the wealthy can—at times, using ill-gotten gains—out-resource those on whom we as a society rely to find out the truth and shine a light into dark places.

The Defamation Act 2013 sought to introduce some protective measures, but this is a complex area of law that not only is costly but carries the risk of liability for the other party’s costs. It is this prospect of bankruptcy or insolvency that is primarily used to intimidate journalists and other organisations. Furthermore, such a defendant against a claim may be unable even to obtain a legal representative willing to take on the risk of cost recovery from the other side. Even what are known as “trials of preliminary issue” regularly run up costs of £25,000 or more, and a full trial will often cost well above £500,000. Even if successful, the defendant will be faced with the irrecoverable portion of their costs, which can also be very substantial—and we should remember that this does not take into account all the work, time, disturbance and anxiety before a court action even arises.

We must not allow the Bill’s purpose—tackling dirty money and illicit practices of the sort that it covers—to be undermined by allowing the wealthy to abuse our legal system in order to intimidate and muzzle the free press in this way. Amendment 94 would require the Government to assess how the Bill might be frustrated, have its impact blunted and its implementation thwarted by such conduct, and it would require the Government to share their findings with Parliament.

The Bill is operating in a very compressed timeline, and I am grateful to the Minister for his email exchange with me over the weekend on this issue. I note that the Deputy Prime Minister announced on Friday the launch of an urgent call for evidence in this area, and I have the Minister’s assurance that this call for evidence will not be just a listening exercise but that:

“Where action is needed, we will take it quickly and effectively”.


The origin of the Bill’s arrival here is the Russian invasion of Ukraine. An immediate step by the Putin regime has been to shut down the channels of free communication and free media within Russia. Surely we must ensure that we do not allow the same regime to do the same in the UK. I therefore invite the Minister to confirm on the record the Government’s commitment to this, not just as a one-off inquiry but on a regular basis, as foreseen in Amendment 94. I also ask him to confirm that the action he has referred to will include specific provision for it in ECB 2. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, I stray into the work of other departments—both the Home Office and the Treasury—but I can assure noble Lords that this is an all-of-government approach, ensuring that not only are we acting appropriately in whatever department we need to act, but of course that there is appropriate funding and support for the actions we are taking.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to all those who have taken part in this short debate. I thank my noble friend the Minister for his response. My probing amendment applied to Part 4 of the Bill, of course—so, to all regulations made under it—but I understand exactly where he was coming from on the sanctions provisions.

As we are short of time, I will dispense with the customary summary of the excellent points that have been made this evening, except to emphasise to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, that I am as keen as anyone else to avoid delay. I was glad that she also saw value in impact assessments appropriately tabled.

I think there is a measure of agreement across the Committee on the need for adequate enforcement of the provisions in the Bill and on the need to provide the necessary resources. I will return to this matter, to the idea of effectiveness reviews and indeed to the various regulations, in due course. I agree with my noble friend the Minister that the House has worked well on this Bill to get it through Committee in such a short time—but for now I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 91 withdrawn.

Nuclear Energy (Financing) Bill

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 8th March 2022 Grand Committee

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, I support the amendments and the principle of consultation, particularly with local authorities. I, too, declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

The point made a moment ago by the noble Lord, Lord Foster, with regard to the impact of the workforce is of significance; the proposed 50-mile radius is relevant to that. I draw the Minister’s attention to the construction scheme of the Dinorwig pumped storage scheme in Snowdonia. It started in 1973 and was built, remarkably, with hardly any industrial disputes at all. More than 2,000 people were in that workforce; it was believed that they could not be recruited locally but, in actual fact, some 86% of the hourly paid were recruited locally while more than 70% of the office staff were recruited from within a radius of about 50 miles, which is the definition used for that purpose.

The outcome—it is relevant for the Minister to consider this when any new nuclear programme goes forward—was that there were remarkably good labour relations on that site, with close co-operation between the then CEGB and the trade unions. At a time when the Ince B project, for example, which will be known to the Minister, was suffering from tremendous labour problems, with strikes all the time, these were overwhelmingly avoided on the Dinorwig scheme. In other words, consultation with the trade unions, local authorities and representatives in the area enabled those dangers to be avoided. I believe that it is in the interests of everybody—the local community and the Government themselves, as well as the company—that the maximum degree of consultation is built in.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, there has been a lot of consultation about Sizewell C and there is, of course, a nuclear power station next door to the proposed site. I remember visiting it many years ago when I was a director of John Laing which built it, so I went inside. The whole process of getting to this proposal for a new nuclear power station has taken forever, for reasons we will not go into this evening. As a result, we have an emerging energy crisis, which is obviously not helped by wider world events.

There will, I assume—and I am sure the Minister can confirm this—be a planning requirement for new nuclear power stations to be built under these new powers. Any good builder of nuclear power stations will consult and consider the needs of the employees because that is the way these things are done, otherwise you do not get them through planning, as I know well from experience.

I am against adding extra statutory consultees to the Bill. The proposal for a 50-mile radius suggests that the new nuclear power stations might actually be dangerous, which would make people more fearful, whereas we are planning to build safe nuclear power stations learning from things in the past, so I would be against that.

My main point is that we need to get on with this. We cannot go round and round in circles. There is real opportunity, not only in East Anglia but in places such as Wales and, potentially, even in the Lake District, for investments that would be good for local communities, the staff and employees who will work in the power stations.

[Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab)]

I am grateful to noble Lords for tabling their amendments on consultation. I declare that I too am a vice-president of the LGA and—for about another six weeks or so—a member of Newport City Council. I am curious yet not surprised to see the amendment from my noble friend Lord Foulkes, who has apologised that he has had to leave, seeking to disapply the requirement to consult the Scottish Government.

I am sympathetic to some of the arguments made. Any infrastructure project is easier to deliver when there is community consent for it. Communities and local representatives are likely to have very strong views on these matters, as I know of old. I hope that the Minister can outline existing requirements and any additional ones imposed by the Bill and say whether she thinks that the system is sufficient.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Oates (LD)]

My Lords, Amendment 33 and the subsequent amendments in this group seek to ensure that the Government cannot refuse to publish information that is in the public interest without compelling grounds. As it is currently written, Clause 13(2)(a) allows the Secretary of State to withhold any relevant material which he or she believes

“would … prejudice the commercial interests of any person”.

This is an enormously wide loophole which makes no attempt to qualify the degree of prejudice to the commercial interests of that person or to balance that with the public interest in the disclosure of such information.

Amendment 33 would establish a primary duty on the Secretary of State to publish all relevant material. Amendment 34 provides that material may be excluded only in exceptional circumstances. Amendment 35 would insert the word “seriously” so that the test is whether disclosure would seriously prejudice commercial interests, not the much weaker test currently in the Bill. Amendment 36 would require that, should the Secretary of State exclude material on the grounds of serious prejudice to commercial interests, he or she must make

“a statement to Parliament that the prejudice to commercial interests”

set out in subsection (2)(a)

“is of such seriousness that it outweighs the”

overwhelming

“public interest in … the publication of material relevant to any”

costs that may be incurred by the taxpayer

“arising from any provision of this Act … the determination of the regulated asset base charge that may be levied on consumers under the powers in this Act, and … the cost to consumers of electricity produced by the project.”

It is critical for proper public scrutiny that Ministers cannot decline to provide information behind claims of prejudice to commercial interests. These are projects being funded by consumers, and they have the right to know all relevant material except in the most exceptional of circumstances. We already know how reluctant government and its agencies are to provide information on costs which are overwhelmingly in the public interest. One such example is the apparent unwillingness of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority and GDF to provide information on the breakdown of costs for cleaning up Sellafield and how the costs of GDF are accounted for in the NDA’s figure for overall nuclear liabilities.

For example, the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority and the Radioactive Waste Management company, which is a subsidiary of the NDA, have been seemingly unwilling to provide a breakdown of how the estimated £96 billion clean-up costs at Sellafield were arrived at and what they account for. Likewise, there is no explanation of whether the nuclear liabilities costs include the additional figures of £20 billion to £51 billion for GDF that was announced in the NDA’s annual report. I noticed, when we debated the GDF issues, that the Minister did not respond to my question about how that is accounted for within the overall NDA liabilities. We already have a reluctance to share information that is overwhelmingly in the public interest.

The record of transparency in these matters is very poor. This amendment would prevent it getting even worse. It is particularly incumbent on the Government to respond and provide assurance to the public, given that they are going to have these costs imposed on their bills for new nuclear power generation, and share all relevant information unless exceptional circumstances prevent that being possible. I beg to move.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I should have started by apologising for not being able to speak at Second Reading. I have a problem in that I am following two or three Bills at present and there have been some unfortunate clashes. I want to speak on this amendment because I am well known as a supporter of proper and transparent costings. To that extent, I was pleased to see the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Oates.

However, I thought Clause 13 was quite narrow. It seemed to be concerned with matters that are commercially sensitive or need to be excluded on national security grounds. As a former businessperson, that seemed quite reasonable to me. Obviously, it would be good to know that we will have a proper understanding of costs, particularly to the consumer, which might occur as proposals are developed. I associate myself with the wish to understand the costings, although I am not convinced this amendment is appropriate or necessary.

[Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Oates, for tabling these amendments, which bring us back to transparency. We are sympathetic to the argument that, generally, information should be made public unless there is a compelling reason for that not to be the case. However, we understand that these are arrangements with commercial partners and that this reality needs to be reflected in the final transparency provisions.

Trade Union (Levy Payable to the Certification Officer) Regulations 2022

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

Monday 7th March 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Woodley (Lab)]

My Lords, this is the first opportunity I have had to speak since my near-death experience nine months ago. It would be wrong not to thank the Lord Speaker for all the support he has given me and my family and to thank the rest of the noble Lords here who know what has gone on. I also thank Dr Wong in Liverpool general hospital for somehow saving my life. It is a privilege to be back.

I declare an interest as the former leader of Unite. This levy is correctly being called a trade union tax. Indeed, it is nothing less, as we know, than an ideological attack on workers and their families. It is part of a pattern of anti-trade union legislation that also includes the Elections Bill. As the previous speaker just said, taxing trade unions to fund their own regulator makes as much sense as taxing charities to fund the Charity Commission. It could be up to 2.5% of annual income. How on earth can that be justified? How on earth can that be right? By taking this money from trade unions, the Government are restricting their ability to support members at work at a time when workers are facing a cost-of-living crisis and trade union help is needed more than ever.

The new regulations unfortunately also open the door to vexatious complaints—whether from vindictive employers, far-right organisations or even the Conservative Party itself—which threaten to consume the regulator’s time and resources, and therefore cost more money for the trade unions. Is that the aim? As has been said, last year, 34 complaints were made to the Certification Officer and no enforcement action was taken. Clearly, this is a solution to a problem that does not exist. Unions naturally fear that this number will dramatically rise when absolutely anybody, not just union members, has the power to make complaints. Of course, it will be the unions who foot the bill.

I will close on some straightforward questions for the Minister, one or two of which have already been mentioned. Why are the Government bringing forward these aspects of the Trade Union Act 2016, but not making any progress on the important issue of electronic balloting? Where are the pilot projects called for in the Knight review, which could be very helpful? We find ourselves in a situation where they are not being brought forward now. Is it the very fact that, democratically, people do not want trade unions to really be democratic? It is just an attack. Could the Minister also tell me when we can expect to see the much-promised employment Bill that will

“make the UK the best place in the world to work”—

a manifesto commitment no less, unlike so much of the government business we are currently dealing with—or was this just an empty pledge to fool the workers into voting for the bosses’ party at the last election? Actions speak louder than words, and this cynical and repressive trade union tax speaks for itself. We must stop or remove this vindictive legislation.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to see the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, back in his place. We all welcome him back, although I do not agree with everything he had to say.

I have three questions on these instruments. First, is this package too bureaucratic? This is something we spoke about wanting to avoid during the passage of the Trade Union Bill, but have red tape and vexatious claims been minimised? Contributions to the debate so far suggest not, but is that fair? I hope the Minister will be able to enlighten us.

My second question is about electronic balloting. What is the Minister’s latest assessment? So much of our world is now online and Covid has accelerated that extraordinarily—indeed, we are about to debate the online harms Bill. Can we safely move forward on electronic balloting in this area or others, or do the reservations I remember being raised during the passage of the Trade Union Bill remain?

Finally, noble Lords will recall my happy experiences with the union USDAW in my own career at Tesco. Did it respond to the consultation? If so, what did it say?

Revised Energy National Policy Statements

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd February 2022 Grand Committee

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, energy is a serious topic, as we have been forcefully reminded very recently. Indeed, my own house in Wiltshire was cut off from the electricity grid as a result of recent storms for two days. Since our village has no gas supply, that brought real discomfort to all, but especially of course to the very old and infirm. Luckily, the village has an emergency generator, started up by supportive volunteers who learnt who and how to help across our community during Covid.

My first point is a simple one. It is the responsibility of any Government to ensure that energy is supplied as required both to domestic customers and to enterprises of all kinds. Any Government who fail in that task will be judged harshly and might well not be a Government for very long. No amount of enthusiastic rhetoric on sustainability, climate change or habitat enrichment will serve as an effective excuse. I am not sure that the document before us is as unequivocal in recognising this reality as it could, and ought, to be. Keeping the lights on, literally and metaphorically, is the number one priority in energy policy. All other aspects are secondary to that.

Having said that, it is sensible to have documents of the kind before us today to help with planning and other decisions. Naturally, there will be a need for constant revision, since the world changes more quickly than we sometimes recognise. Twenty-five years ago—less than a third of the average lifetime—most countries, including this one, relied heavily on coal. Indeed, a recent UK Prime Minister was heavily criticised by some politicians for allegedly devastating the UK coalmining industry. Now the same people are critical of any attempt to retain any coal mining at all in the UK, even if the objective is to retain one or two heritage railway lines, as some may recall from our debates on the Environment Bill and my vain efforts to save the Thomas the Tank Engines. How the world changes! Coal was once the epitome of virtue to some; now it represents the devil to the same people.

Personally, I favour a more nuanced and balanced approach to energy policy. I would add that gas is a very important part of any transition to net zero, and that shale has played a major part in the transition in the US, and indeed in its growth. So we need to see regular textual revisions to these documents every few years, as policies change and innovations come through. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, has rightly just talked about the potential role of hydrogen and town heating systems, as well as of nuclear, where I think we are on more common ground. On this question of revisions, I very much hope my noble friend the Minister can indicate how often he envisages that changes might be made.

My other main point is to emphasise how much investment there will need to be in infrastructure if the presently expected move towards electrification, including electric vehicles, comes to pass. That has two major implications. First, we need to be clear how and where the investment will be made. We need to be assured that those concerned with the grid and other electrical infrastructure have a viable plan to achieve this investment. I am not clear that we can yet feel confident on that point. Secondly, we need to know from whence the very large sums needed are to come. I note that a main method of financing green investments so far has been to impose green levies on consumers. That is one approach, but I note that it has quickly come into question now that electricity prices have risen steeply and inflation has taken off sharply. Some argue, rightly I think, for moderation, but all this certainly needs more thought.

Finally, I return to the storms and what they have taught me. Despite the advent of the 105 number, which I remember launching a few years ago when I was fortunate enough to be in the Minister’s position, consumers are in serious trouble when their power lines go down. We also need more thought about how people might prepare. Perhaps retailers could start selling first-aid style kits, with candles, matches, gloves, woolly hats, primus stoves and an old-fashioned phone that plugs in when the wi-fi and cordless phones do not work. This of course is not an issue for the statements before us, but we always need to think about how to make life easier and bearable for the consumer. Throughout history, too much of the energy debate has been provider and government-led, and that concerns me. I was therefore glad to hear that our Economic Affairs Committee will be looking at some of these knotty issues. I hope it will be able to help tackle the problems, including those that hit the poorest in the country, old and young.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

During the planning process itself, community mitigations will be taken into account, providing the national framework to enable local planning decisions to be taken. Community mitigations of course play an important part in the planning process.

As I said earlier in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, improving the energy efficiency of homes is the most effective way to permanently reduce energy bills by reducing the amount of energy required to heat the home, and it can tackle fuel poverty in the long term. I covered all the schemes that we have, including ECO, home upgrade grants, the local authority delivery scheme, the public sector decarbonisation scheme and the social housing decarbonisation scheme—myriad different schemes, all contributing quietly and in the background to upping the energy performance of the homes that we all live in.

The noble Lord also mentioned the need for clarity in the approach to CCUS and hydrogen. The NPS establishes the need for CCUS and hydrogen infrastructure, but we do not want prematurely to introduce detailed guidance before we know more about the impact of such projects. We will consider whether to develop a technology-specific NPS for CCUS and hydrogen infrastructure as the technology and the project landscape evolves.

The noble Lord, Lord Lennie, asked how many consent decisions have been made under the current regime. The answer is that 65 decisions on energy projects have been made under the existing suite of energy NPSs. We are, of course, expecting a significant increase in the number of applications as the transition to net zero continues. He also asked about onshore wind. It was removed from the NSIP regime in 2016 through amendments to the Planning Act 2008. This means that all planning applications for onshore wind turbines in England are made to the local planning authority, or to the Welsh Government in Wales. As national policy statements are statutory guidance, and as onshore wind is now not included in the 2008 Act, it was no longer appropriate for the national policy statements to provide specific policies in relation to onshore wind.

Finally, to reply to my noble friend Lady Foster’s point about fracking, it is important to realise that Lancashire is not Texas. The UK is a relatively densely populated island compared to most parts of the US. Although we are not in principle against the idea of fracking, it must be done with the consent of local communities and we need to be aware of its environmental impact. Also, as we discussed during Questions in the House a few weeks ago, it is not the short-term answer that many people think it is. Even if we managed to overcome all the environmental objections, and even if we managed to progress the scheme, it would be many years, if not a decade, before we got meaningful quantities of shale gas out of the ground. Even then, the quantities that we would be able to produce in this country would have no meaningful impact on the overall gas price level. We continue to keep these matters under review, but it does not represent the easy solution that we might like to think it would in this circumstance.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I am grateful to my noble friend for answering all our points so clearly and fully. I asked a question about coal for heritage railways. He may not be aware of it, but in the debates on the Environment Act we were told that it would be fine because we could get coal from Russia. He may want to take the point away. Perhaps he could update us, because I assume that we will not now be getting coal from Russia. Also, I wanted clarification on an issue to do with planning. I think he said that some kind of planning for renewable infrastructure would take three years, but somebody—maybe it was the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, or the noble Lord, Lord Oates—said that it took one year to build an offshore wind turbine and eight years to get planning. Clearly, we have to speed planning up for necessary infrastructure; that has come through very strongly in the work that I have been doing in the Built Environment Committee. To have an answer on what we can now expect—how long planning applications of different types will take—either today or on another occasion would be very helpful.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

The whole purpose of these national policy statements is to try to speed up the planning process in the first place by setting a national framework within which the local decisions can be taken. As with all these things, it is a question of getting the balance right. Of course we want to try to speed up the process, but the problem with energy policy is that it takes many years, if not decades, to put the infrastructure in place.

We are announcing, we hope, some progress on new nuclear and passing new legislation in the next few months to enable it but we will not see the fruits of that until the early 2030s. The process for the infrastructure which we see in place now was put in place 10 or 12 years ago. The reason that we have a problem with nuclear now—I am sorry to bring it back to party politics—was because when Labour came into office in 1997, that Government ruled out new nuclear. Tony Blair said in the manifesto “We see no case for new nuclear”. Now, that is a party-political point and I think many Labour Members now think that was a mistake—maybe it was right in the context of the time but it was probably a mistake. Correcting these mistakes takes many decades in order to get the infrastructure in place.

Postmasters with Overturned Convictions: Settlement Funds

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

Wednesday 15th December 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

That is not an entirely fair comment. We as a ministerial team and a Government inherited this scandal. We are making endeavours within the powers and legal procedures that we have. We cannot ignore the fact that a civil court case has taken place and there was a full and final settlement. We have to negotiate within government for additional funding to be made available. I can assure the noble Baroness that the Minister for Postal Affairs is attempting to do so and is trying to work with the parties to bring this to a resolution. There is clearly moral equivalence between the different categories, even if there is not necessarily a legal equivalent at this stage. I am not a lawyer but, to be fair, there are differences in the cases. It would be right for the Government to try to compensate them all to the greatest degree possible within existing legal procedures, and my honourable friend is attempting to do that.

The noble Baroness referred to the culture of the Post Office. Again, her comment was a little unfair. The Post Office is under new leadership and it has committed to changing its ways. I can assure her that Ministers regularly discuss this matter with the Post Office. It has a programme of change, including the appointment of two recent postmaster non-executive directors to try to get some say in the senior leadership team from those working on the ground. I know that the new chief executive is committed to doing his best to overcome this scandal, right the wrongs and put the business on a sound footing in the future.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, having had previous responsibility for the Post Office, I am very well aware that Ministers are advised to stand firm on seemingly solid grounds, only for it to become clear in the long term that that is not defensible. This issue was probably the most disturbing thing that I had to deal with. Will the Minister take a deep breath and accept that the litigation involving 555 former postmasters who, as he said, performed a massive public service, was not conducted on a fair basis, and act accordingly?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I can certainly confirm what my noble friend has said in terms of briefings that I have given to Ministers. Indeed, similar briefings were given to me when I first started in the department. I went back and started to ask more questions. Paul Scully was new in his job at the time and I discussed the issue with him. We both agreed that we needed to do more. Since then, although it was not purely due to our actions, lots more information has come about, there have been various court cases and so on. It is certainly true that the culture of government is always to put up a firewall and try to stand firm. However, there are occasions when we just need to accept that things have gone terribly wrong and do what one can to put them right, which is what we are doing. I cannot go any further than the answers that I have already given in terms of compensation to the 555, but I have great faith in the Minister for Postal Affairs, who is responsible for this matter, and he will do whatever he can within the system.

Construction Sector: Roadmap to Zero Retentions

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

Wednesday 15th December 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I can answer that question by saying what we have done in central government in my department: we have substantially abolished them. Most government departments have now got rid of them and only the Department for Education is a laggard. We would be better to do without them, but that is not the same as moving towards a statutory ban.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, as somebody who initiated a review of retentions when on the Front Bench over five years ago, I have one simple question: does the Minister accept that the delay in dealing with retentions in the construction industry is injurious to the industry and hence to the national interest? Will it be possible to now have more rapid action?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

As I said in response to a previous question, I agree with my noble friend that we need to try to drive some action in this area. But a statutory ban is a very blunt instrument, and it would be difficult without some alternative form of surety being put in place, so we are working with the industry to try to develop those models. My noble friend will know the issue very well from the work that she did.

Advanced Research and Invention Agency Bill

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 14th December 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Morse (CB)]

I too will speak to support the amendment advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Browne, who has explained it very clearly. It is worth getting back to basics on it—if I may use that expression—for a second. The ARIA scheme is about driving our national research frontiers forward by publicly funded risk taking, if I can summarise it as simply as that. It is a good idea that is widely supported.

But this is the reverse of what will happen if foreign-owned companies are allowed to acquire companies that own intellectual property derived from ARIA or to take that intellectual property offshore. If this happens, the reverse of the objective of the scheme will be achieved. This possibility is not far-fetched. I spent 10 years as Comptroller and Auditor-General at the National Audit Office, and, during that time, I saw cases relating to a series of companies where exchange of control provisions in the hands of government were not exercised properly or the scheme was administered rather feebly. As a result, these things became faits accomplis and the property went offshore. Sometimes, you would be told, “Well, we believe in the market operations, so we really don’t like to interfere with this sort of thing”.

Actually, we need strong, clear decision-making about this now. We need to make it clear in this amendment that we are not prepared to see intellectual property that has been paid for by British taxpayers go offshore. It makes mugs of British taxpayers.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to cast some doubt on Amendment 1. It is very well intentioned, but I fear that it may be mistaken. The background to my concern is my regret that ARIA is modest: some £200 million a year is being provided, which is a pinprick compared with the vast sums spent on other things, such as Covid and bailing out the banks.

The Bill is meant to set up an agency that can take risks free from bureaucracy and the day-to-day constraint of politics—a latter-day Manhattan Project, if you like. Bureaucratic and other constraints are being applied to the R&D budgets of many billions in the hands of UKRI. That is fine, but I do not think that they have a place in ARIA, which should be run leanly and efficiently and not encumbered by expensive experts—on IP, for example—and large legal departments. It should be able to think and act outside the box.

So I object to the provision in paragraph (bb)(ii) in Amendment 1, and I am slightly surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, has signed the amendment, because we generally agree on these IP issues. However, I agree with my noble friend Lord Lansley that we need to know whether ARIA can keep the income that it receives from IP and rights. To answer his question, I see IP and rights as being in the same box—but no doubt the Minister will clarify that when he speaks.

--- Later in debate ---

Personally, I would have liked that to have been ARIA’s explicit purpose; nonetheless, I am heartened by indications that the Government might be prepared to move on this issue. I am very pleased to support this amendment because I think it would represent important advances to some degree on this issue. I very much commend the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, for—hopefully—his persuasive powers in getting the Government to the right place. I will listen carefully to what the Minister has to say, but I still suspect that future generations will look back with a degree of surprise that at this time, and in the knowledge of the climate and ecological threat we face, our advanced research agency was not more clearly harnessed to this, the gravest and most important task at hand.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, it is a great delight to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, who brings his business acumen and passion for both innovation and climate change to the feast. We have discussed these together often in Peers for the Planet.

We have the climate change Acts, and a huge amount of attention is paid to climate change in every part of government life and in their multi-billion-pound R&D budget. ARIA is a small, independent body and should be left to decide what is most important to our future and to the inventive opportunities that it is set up to create. That might include climate change, health, poverty or the quality of life. Technology, for example, improves our lives, but it also brings risks. ARIA should be left to decide what is most important. It should be able to think completely outside the box and make its own choices, and not be bound by precedent. I am afraid that I am therefore sceptical about these amendments.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and my noble friend have made a compelling case for supporting this amendment, based on the climate and ecological emergency that we face. Tackling those challenges will require massive innovation and ingenuity and the development of practical applications from that. If ARIA has the bold, independent, innovative culture that the Minister emphasised throughout Committee, then it must be the ideal vehicle for this research, and we should spell it out. We should make ARIA an essential component of the net-zero strategy.