One Hundred Year Partnership Agreement between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and Ukraine
Lord Marland Excerpts(2 weeks, 2 days ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Marland (Con)
My Lords, I am disappointed that the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, has scratched because he is a valuable member of our committee and always has plenty to say on this subject. However, he has chosen to do that and the Floor is therefore mine. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Fox, and the members of the committee who are here for the valuable contributions they make and, in particular, the officials who spend hours slaving over and listening to our every word—if indeed they do; they are probably asleep most of the time, but I want to thank them.
I fully endorse the Government’s position and the previous Government’s position on Ukraine, which was brave and showed real leadership. The current Government have done the same. I will leave the geopolitical aspects to the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Houghton of Richmond, who understand these things far better than I do.
Let us face it: this is a poor treaty. The name gives it away: a 100-year agreement with Ukraine. Seriously? The evidence has found that there has been only a one-way agreement. There has been nothing for the benefit of British businesses in Ukraine. I found myself wondering why we were looking at this agreement at this time. Perhaps it was a trick carried out by civil servants before the Government got their feet under the desk properly. The very idea that it is a partnership when everything has been one way strikes me as utterly absurd and uncharacteristic. I am not going to repeat the various items in the tour de force by my noble friend Lady Lawlor, but will stick to a couple of points that she made and perhaps invite the Minister, who I hold in the highest regard, to respond to them.
The basic truth is, if this was about football teams, the score would be 12.8 billion to the Ukraine and nil to the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom taxpayer has suffered huge increases in energy prices as a result of this war. The UK has had to pay more for its grain and bread, and for its crops and harvests through the cost of fertiliser. We have to understand what the benefit is for the British taxpayer and the British citizen.
We read that, in return for their support, the Americans want a minerals deal, so perhaps the Minister could let us know what this Government’s policy is for creating a positive framework for British business, trade and involvement in the future of Ukraine. What practical steps will the Government take to ensure transparency and the reduction of bureaucracy so that there is a framework for British business? We all want the best for Ukraine but, at some point, we want the benefit for British business. We know that growth is at the heart of this new Government’s philosophy. Creating a framework where Britain can do business and trade with Ukraine properly can only be of benefit for that growth agenda.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
My Lords, I, too, thank the committee for its report and thank the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for his masterly introduction of it. I cannot live up to the advance billing that I was generously given by the noble Lord, Lord Marland, I am afraid.
I do not intend to say very much but I would like to comment on the slightly mechanistic, transactional view of UK interest that I derived from the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, and the noble Lord, Lord Marland. Fifty years ago, if you travelled in Spain and someone wanted to wish you good luck, they would wish you war in Crimea, because war in Crimea blocked the grain exports from the breadbasket of Europe—it is now called Ukraine—and raised the price of grain in rural Spain, thus making rural Spain prosperous. Ukraine is a phenomenally rich country, potentially. Its mineral wealth is largely concentrated in the Donbass. The President of the United States may not have noticed that, actually, it is in the bits he seems content to see given away, rather than in the north or the centre. Its agricultural land is the best in Europe for cereals—except, possibly, that of East Anglia and the San Juan Basin. So investment in Ukraine’s stability is investment in the future. It is a bit transactional to score it—12, was it?
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
It is an investment in both liberty and the values in which we believe. It is also, if you want to look at it transactionally, an investment in a potentially strong economic partner for the United Kingdom.
I strongly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Fox, that the title of this treaty is a little pretentious. I can think of only one precedent for as hubristic a title of a treaty signed by Brits. In 1809, the East India Company signed a treaty of perpetual friendship with Ranjit Singh, the then leader of the Sikh community in India. Neither the East India Company nor the separate Sikh state survived 100 years after their perpetual friendship treaty. I also agree with those who say that the content of the treaty is a little thin, but it is very important that, unlike the East India Company and the Sikh state in India, Ukraine should survive. It is important to both our security and the security of all of Europe.
I would like to make one macro point and one micro point. My macro point is that Putin says that Ukraine is not a legitimate state; that, therefore, its national sovereignty cannot exist; and that it is Moscow’s mission to obliterate it. We should take him at his word. He would not be satisfied with a settlement that gave him the Donbass. I think that the correct analogy for today is 1938. At Munich, Hitler got one-third; six months later, he was back for the other two-thirds. He was not satisfied then, and I do not believe Putin would be satisfied now. Hitler came back for Poland nine months later; the Poles, the Finns and the Baltic states are quite right to be worried now. So, despite the thinness of the content and the hubris of the title, I welcome the treaty as an additional confidence-building measure for the Ukrainians and a framework for future co-operation with us. All the detail still has to be filled in, but that is a job worth doing. It is strongly in our interest.
My micro point is about the preambular reference in the treaty to the
“United Kingdom being dedicated to supporting Ukraine’s irreversible path to NATO membership”.
“Irreversible” is quite a strong word. I was not altogether sure of the wisdom of NATO’s 2008 offer of membership to Ukraine and Georgia—nor, indeed, of the Vilnius 2023 or Washington 2024 language, which introduced the concept of irreversibility—but it is out there now and President Zelensky will no doubt want it repeated at the June NATO summit. Given President Trump’s clear scepticism—I use no stronger word—about Ukraine’s NATO membership, pressing for it at the NATO summit would be all too likely to lead him to denounce it, so disproving irreversibility at a stroke.
The drafting of the report’s paragraph 28 is a little obscure—particularly the last sentence—but paragraph 29 is judiciously silent on irreversibility. I hope that the Government are following its example and advising President Zelensky that the least said about irreversibility at the NATO summit, the better: no repetition, no denunciation. Let the summit instead concentrate on the immediate and manifest need for Europe to up its game, spending more on defence and spending it better; building up its support for Ukraine; and ensuring that the United States does not withdraw its support. If you want peace, prepare for war.
His Royal Highness The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh
Lord Marland Excerpts(4 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Marland (Con)
My Lords, I apologise that a technical glitch prevented me speaking much earlier today, and I am grateful that the Chamber should allow me to speak. However, I make no apologies for wearing this suit; at a grand reception at Buckingham Palace, His Royal Highness came up to me and looked this suit up and down and asked me what I wore for casual wear.
I speak as chair of the Commonwealth Enterprise and Investment Council and the Commonwealth Business Forum, and as a trustee of the Commonwealth Walkway Trust. It has been a privilege in the last few days to share memories with my chief executive, Samantha Cohen, who worked for the Royal Family for 17 years and particularly for His Royal Highness, and Marnie Gaffney, who was his press secretary for two or three years and is our director of communications. Both, it is fair to say, remember His Royal Highness with huge fondness and affection and as having total dedication to his work; they are deeply moved by his death.
I take the opportunity to pass on to Her Majesty the Queen and the family the many condolences that our organisation has received from across the Commonwealth. Messages speak of appreciation for his direct approach, often taken out of context, but much to the relief of Ministers and leaders tired of diplomatic innuendo and nuanced language. They speak of his charm, energy, sense of fun and thirst for knowledge—as has been referred to by other Members of the Lords.
His contribution to the Commonwealth, with that of Her Majesty the Queen, is incredible. When they married and she became the head of the Commonwealth, there were seven countries, which are now 54. In 1956 he founded the Commonwealth Study Conference, held at Oxford, to study human aspects of industrial issues across the Commonwealth. He made endless country visits and attended countless Commonwealth Heads of Government Meetings. Fittingly, his last was in Malta, in 2015, where I had the privilege of hearing his reminiscences. To the credit of the Maltese Government, they have purchased the house where His Royal Highness and Her Majesty the Queen first shared their early married life.
It is fair to say that Her Majesty the Queen and His Royal Highness were responsible for the dignified retreat from a colonial Britain, as the country determined that its future was with Europe and, as such, largely turned its back on its old Commonwealth allies. Surely in this post-Brexit Britain the Government owe it to his memory, and to the considerable effort of Her Majesty, to turbocharge their re-engagement with the Commonwealth. Without them, Britain’s relationship with the Commonwealth countries would be in an infinitely worse condition than it is now.
Energy: Nuclear Power
Lord Marland Excerpts(12 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Lord Marland)
My Lords, the Government have identified eight sites as potentially suitable for new nuclear power stations. The nuclear power industry has set out plans to develop up to 16 gigawatts of new nuclear power in the UK by 2025. Two consortia are committed to plans to build up to 10 gigawatts of new capacity. We believe that the UK is an attractive place to develop new nuclear.
Lord Davies of Stamford
My Lords, there has been a large measure of bipartisanship on this issue since the 2007 White Paper—which is a good thing, because long-term investment clearly requires a long-term investment framework. However, was not that Answer somewhat complacent? The Minister did not say that we are only 10 years away from the date when we were supposed to replace all the AGRs and that not a single firm commitment has been made to build a single station. He also never mentioned that two of the most promising investors—E.ON and RWE—have just pulled out. Is it not time for the Government, including the Prime Minister and the Chancellor, to display a greater degree of urgency on this matter? Do they not also need to take a slightly more pragmatic and flexible view of financial models and counterparty arrangements, including arrangements that might be necessary although they are contrary to the coalition agreement?
Lord Marland
My Lords, I should like first to thank all noble Lords for their support for the nuclear endeavour—it has been cross-party, as the noble Lord mentioned. I was not quite sure whether the noble Lord was not attacking his own party, because we have had 13 years of no activity in new nuclear. It has been 27 years since a new nuclear power station has been commissioned. We are on the cusp of commissioning a new station in this country, at Hinkley Point. By December 2012, despite all the difficulties that we have encountered with Fukushima and things like that, the planning process will be before the Secretary of State for him to opine on.
The Lord Bishop of Hereford
My Lords, will the Minister give a commitment from the Government to explore the alternative nuclear fuel of thorium over uranium, not least because of the timescale to which he referred, but also because many of us regard it as a far safer source of material? It is greatly greener and more secure, and it needs a commitment to explore it and to put research money into it. I would be grateful for the Minister’s response.
Lord Marland
My Lords, the subject of thorium comes up quite frequently when we consider nuclear, and of course it would be wrong of any Government not to explore all the potentially new ways of developing new nuclear. Indeed, the opposition Benches are always pressing on this subject. The Government are of course open to looking at thorium. At the moment, however, our priority is to get Hinkley Point going as quickly as possible.
Lord Peston
My Lords, listening to this exchange takes me back 50 years to when I wrote the original Treasury paper on choice of investment in generating stations. Let me add that I got the analysis perfectly right but the facts completely wrong. In particular, I spent my time emphasising the correct rate of interest to use when the main thing that none of us forecast was the rise in the price of oil—but that is another matter. One can moan on year in, year out, but what is vitally important now is that we build some stations. Do I take it that the Government at least agree that it is about time that we got started? The planning process is so long and complex that that in itself can get in the way and cause the whole country to black out.
Lord Marland
Obviously, my Lords, I was running round in shorts 50 years ago—and in fact even now I barely understand what the noble Lord is saying. However, he is absolutely right that the fundamental point is that we need to get on with this. As I said, we will have planning permission in front of the Secretary of State by the end of this year, by December, on which he will opine until March 2013 at the latest.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
My Lords, although the energy Bill quite rightly spells out the details of the electricity market reform, which the industry regards as an extremely important element in helping it to reach its decision, it does not yet contain what is called the strike price. What will be the figure, and when will the Government be prepared to announce it? The strike price is what the industry is waiting for.
Lord Marland
As my noble friend rightly says, electricity market reform is fundamental to the setting out of future investment criteria and investment possibilities and predictability. However, we do not want to put the cart before the horse, and we want to make sure that everyone understands electricity market reform. At that point we will have a process whereby the Secretary of State will opine, having received—
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Strathclyde)
Representations.
Lord Marland
Yes, representations. I thank my noble friend the Leader. It is marvellous to have so many educated people in the room. I have lost my way now, but my noble friend has the gist.
Baroness Worthington
My Lords, the Government’s daft—I am sorry, I mean draft—energy Bill has been described as a potential train wreck and a deterrent to investment. Can the Minister please explain why the Government have chosen to ignore the considerable expertise and experience on energy issues available in this House by giving noble Lords just two weeks, one of them in the recess, to submit written comments to the pre-legislative scrutiny process? Do the Government not wish noble Lords to help stave off another contribution to the omni-shambles?
Lord Marland
Yes—and welcome the noble Baroness to the Dispatch Box. I am not sure that those are the appropriate words, but those are the words that I shall use. Clearly I cannot agree with any of her comments so far—
Lord Marland
I am still trying to pick up the jokes in her contribution. Leader, do you want to do this one?
Lord Marland
The fact is that we have enormous expertise and knowledge in this House. On the last Bill I included everyone I possibly could in the debate and that will continue—that is a commitment from me. We cannot take this Bill forward without the enormous expertise in this room, which is hugely appreciated by the Government. Noble Lords have our commitment to that.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer
My Lords, leaving aside the estimated subsidy of about £8,000 per UK household to build new nuclear power stations, how confident is the Minister in the future of EDF as a nuclear power partner, given the fact that it is 83% state-owned and President Hollande has committed to cutting back France’s nuclear programme substantially?
Lord Marland
Naturally I have had many discussions with EDF and AREVA, two of the key French operators. We feel confident—and, much more to the point, they feel confident—that Britain offers them a very good future for new nuclear. At the moment there is nothing to shake my confidence.
Energy: Tariffs
Lord Marland Excerpts(13 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Basildon
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what estimate they have made of the costs they will incur by appealing the court rulings on solar panel tariff payments.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Lord Marland)
My Lords, we estimate that the Government have incurred costs of approximately £66,400 to date. This includes the cost of the recent Appeal Court hearing. However, if the Supreme Court agrees to hear our case, we will incur more costs.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, I am slightly thrown by that Answer from the Minister, because exactly the same Answer was given a week ago to my right honourable friend Caroline Flint in the other place. At that stage, the Government did not know that they had lost the appeal. They have now lost the appeal and have to pay the costs of the other side as well, and have incurred additional costs at the Supreme Court. My Question asked,
“what estimate they have made of the costs they will incur by appealing the court rulings”.
I think they will be significantly higher than the figure of £66,000 or so which the Minister has just given me.
Even at this late stage, does the Minister really think that it is good use of government money to keep chasing this merry-go-round of court decisions that the Government are losing? Would it not be better to sit down with the industry and negotiate a way forward? Everyone accepts that there need to be some cuts, everyone accepts that there need to be changes, but should we not try to do this in a way that does not cost jobs and that protects the industry?
Lord Marland
My Lords, I must admit that I was hoping that the noble Baroness would say well done on incurring only £66,400 of costs. It is a curious old world when we save the consumer £1.5 billion at a cost of £66,400 and are told that we should declare to the nearest penny. Let us look at what we are taking to court. This is one of the most ridiculous schemes that have ever been dreamt up. It is already going to cost the consumer £7 billion for £400 million of net present value.
Lord Marland
Exactly; it is ridiculous. That is on a product where you need electricity when the sun does not shine. It will produce 0.1 per cent of our electricity supply and it does not target the needy or consumers. This is one of the most ridiculous policies ever dreamt up. Guess who did it: yes, the dying embers of the Labour Government.
Lord Strasburger
My Lords, I should declare that I have recently sold some solar PV panels, but before the December deadline, so I have no financial interest in the current controversy. I have two questions for the Minister. Why did the Government show such contempt for the consultees by attempting to implement the tariff changes before the end of the consultation period, and then add insult to injury with this futile appeal? Secondly, why do the Government seem to be doing their very best to kill off the solar PV industry, an industry that generated 30,000 jobs over the past two years by first delaying and then botching the announcement of the new feed-in tariffs?
Lord Marland
My noble friend has a point. We are certainly not trying to kill off the solar PV industry. Only today, I received a letter with a cheque for £960 for the Government. That shows that it is alive and well. Perhaps I can help my noble friend by telling him that I received an e-mail on 18 January. I know I am not much good at anything, but—
Lord Marland
Addressed to me. Thank you very much; you are warming to the theme. It read:
“Start a lucrative NEW career as a Solar Panel (PV) Installer ... At present there is BIG DEMAND for skilled Solar Panel Installers in the UK, there is a great opportunity for you to re-train and have a rewarding new career”.
Lord Broers
My Lords, I congratulate the Government on this outbreak of numeracy in their energy policy, but can the Minister reassure us that this might spread to offshore wind?
Lord Marland
I am not sure what I should be reassuring the noble Lord about—whether we should or should not carry on with offshore wind. However, we are committed to offshore wind, if that is the answer that he or anyone else wants. Our numeracy is still very much intact, and I am very grateful for his compliment.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton
My Lords, I missed the noble Lord explaining who had sent him the cheque and what reason they gave for sending it. I am sure it was not from redundancy money given to people who have been thrown out of work by the Government’s policy.
Lord Marland
I think the noble Baroness is being a little trite. It comes from a firm called Solar Fusion. No one has yet been made redundant from the solar panel industry, which is alive and well. We have sought to reduce the amount that the consumer pays to help people in the solar industry. For a panel costing £4,000, you can still generate a £500 feed-in tariff benefit—which is more than 10 per cent and in the current market is very good—and a reduction of £190 on your bill. I do not think that there will be redundancies. I think that more of these things will be sold, and that that is good for jobs.
Lord Cormack
My Lords, before my noble friend pursues this attractive alternative career, could he follow the advice of the noble Lord opposite when he is thinking of numeracy and have regard to onshore wind, which produces unpredictable amounts of energy at enormous cost and where the Government can save a very great deal of money?
Lord Marland
The noble Lord is right. We are considering the renewables obligation certificate that we are providing for onshore wind. We have finished our consultation and will announce and publish the results of our thinking on it on or before 9 February. I therefore ask the noble Lord to hold his breath until that date.
Nuclear Reactors
Lord Marland Excerpts(13 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Basildon
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what research they have undertaken into, and what assessment they have made of, the use of thorium in nuclear reactors.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Lord Marland)
My Lords, the Government are in the process of assessing the benefits of next-generation reactor technologies, including thorium, for the longer term, and the Secretary of State has asked the National Nuclear Laboratory to prepare a report. A previous NNL assessment of a number of claims made by proponents of thorium fuel concluded that while the theoretical science is reasonably sound, the risks and resources involved in achieving commercial deployment are significant.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his response. It is helpful, and I certainly welcome the fact that the Government are taking this more seriously. He will understand that despite greater acceptance of nuclear power there remain concerns about nuclear waste, both because of its potential military or terrorist use and because of the costs and difficulties of long-term storage—as he and I have discussed on many occasions—as it cannot be disposed of. Liquid fluoride thorium reactors generate no high-level waste material, and can reduce existing stockpiles of waste. Given that, while I welcome the Government’s assessment and the expected report, is there more that the Government can do to test the technology? Also, on a wider basis, have the Minister and his department given any thought to whether this is a technology for nuclear power that could be safely developed in all parts of the world?
Lord Marland
I am grateful for the noble Baroness’s question. The reality is that we have waste, so it will not improve the situation with regard to nuclear waste. This Government are very concentrated at the moment on recovering from 25 years of no nuclear activity with what we have. We have to concentrate on the reactors that are available, which we have had approval for, in order to get our next-generation nuclear power off the ground. We know fully that thorium reactors will take 10 to 15 years to develop. There is a high cost in that development and, at the moment, I would not put it as a priority unless the research report that comes out at the end of this summer advises us otherwise.
Baroness Trumpington
My Lords, please forgive my ignorance, but what is thorium?
Lord Marland
If only my O-level science teacher could see me now. I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for that question because I have learnt a lot about thorium recently. For those who wish to know, it is named after the Norse god Thor. It comes out of monazite sands, which are largely found in India and Norway, and is generated by a sifting process. The noble Baroness will be pleased to know that it is dimorphic, which I am happy to explain means that it changes from face-centred to body-centred. However, other noble Lords are far more qualified than me to inform us about thorium. All I would say is that it requires two neutrons to process it rather than one. The noble Baroness can find all sorts of other facts in Wikipedia, as, indeed, did I.
Baroness Worthington
My Lords, does the Minister agree with me that this is a serious topic? We have just seen a disaster in Japan that has reminded us that existing nuclear technology has inherent problems. Thorium is much safer. As my noble friend said, it does not generate waste and cannot lead to the proliferation of weapons and to terrorism. It is a very abundant and available source of fuel, unlike uranium. Given those advantages, does the Minister agree that we should have a programme to develop proof of concept of this technology?
Lord Marland
I am very aware of the noble Baroness’s views and read about them in the Guardian a couple of weeks ago. By the way, that was an excellent and most thoughtful article on this subject. However, the reality is that the nuclear accident in Japan to which she referred did not cause loss of life and we have reacted calmly to it. We are committed to the course that I have just amplified. Government funds are not available at the moment to explore new technologies. However, as I said earlier, if the National Nuclear Laboratory comes up with other suggestions at the end of the summer, we will be very happy to listen to those and explore them further.
Lord Taverne
My Lords, while some very interesting work has been done in India and interesting developments have occurred on the thorium-based reactor systems, is it not true that even those who feel that the research is very useful admit that it will remain very much a second string for a long time? Is it not vital that the Government should not be diverted from the fastest possible programme for building nuclear power stations? Should it not be noted by the anti-nuclear lobbies that the German decision to close down nuclear power will make Germany much more dependent on fossil fuels and will greatly increase carbon emissions from Germany?
Lord Marland
My noble friend makes a valuable point. He is referring to the Kakrapar plant in India, which the Indians are trying to develop. Clearly, we must press on with our nuclear programme. We are disappointed that Germany has taken a different attitude. I pay tribute to all those involved in the nuclear industry and in this debate, particularly in this House, who have kept a steady nerve while all around us things are going pear shaped. As a result, we will come out with a very careful and committed process for new nuclear generation.
Lord Broers
Does the Minister agree with me that we must fully fund R&D in nuclear, including thorium, so that we develop a mature understanding of this, but, almost more importantly, that we should focus our R&D in such a way that we enable our industry to bid effectively for the contracts that will be put out to build our nuclear plants, as, indeed, the Germans have done in the supply of train carriages?
Lord Marland
I think the noble Lord was referring particularly to training. We have to show a very clear pathway, as we have done recently. Last week, we announced six new sites for nuclear reactors. Clearly, we have to develop a training programme for the 60,000 jobs that will be required in the nuclear industry. The Government remain very committed to it.
Climate Change: IPCC Leadership
Lord Marland Excerpts(14 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Noakes
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they support the leadership of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Lord Marland)
My Lords, yes. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is the primary authority on the science of climate change and the Government retain confidence in its leadership. We welcome the agreement reached by the IPCC to take forward some key recommendations of the recent independent review into its procedures, communications and management.
Baroness Noakes
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. He will be aware that the recent report by the InterAcademy Council laid bare the faulty processes in the IPCC which led, inter alia, to the ridiculous assertion about the melting of the Himalayan glacier. One clear recommendation was that the IPCC chairman should not serve for more than one term—that is to say, that the current incumbent should already have gone. Why have the Government reached the position in which they appear not to support that? What representations, if any, did the Government make at the recent IPCC meeting to that effect?
Lord Marland
Let me point this out to the noble Baroness and let us look at the facts: this organisation won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007, and that should be commended. Like many organisations it will have growing pains, management and communications issues, but it has 194 countries subscribing to it and we cannot just wave a magic wand and change things. An independent review of its activities was carried out—I am grateful to Sir Peter Williams, the treasurer of the Royal Society, for being on the review committee—which found that the management structure was weak and that communications were not adequate. However, the review found that the information the IPCC provides is highly relevant. Frankly, it is not for this Government to decide how the organisation should be run. Dr Pachauri, the chairman, has accepted the recommendations and is going to implement them. He has an excellent relationship with emerging markets, which is very important, and he is an eminent Yale professor who is working for free.
Lord Soley
Does the Minister accept that, although the science on climate change is incredibly complex, all of it points in the direction of climate change being profoundly dangerous? Therefore, is it not right that, even though an organisation such as the climate change body to which he refers may make mistakes from time to time, it is critically important that, although we might examine those mistakes, we do not lose sight of the overall need to stop the pollution in which we are engaged at the moment?
Lord Marland
My response can be very short this time: I completely agree with the noble Lord, who is right. The Stern review showed that we have got to invest now to stop climate change in the future. I do not disagree with one word that he has said.
Lord St John of Bletso
My Lords, does the Minister agree that, apart from the necessity of agreeing a road map for the avoidance of deforestation, it is also vitally important that the IPCC addresses the issue of education on environmental matters and the promotion of green professionals?
Lord Marland
Again, I totally agree. We have to show leadership on the subject of climate change. As we said in the discussion on deforestation the other day, we have committed £300 million towards that out of the £1.5 billion that has been ring-fenced. It is encouraging that there is cross-party agreement on that endeavour, and that should be continued.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch
My Lords, the Minister says that Dr Pachauri is working for free, but has he read Christopher Booker's column in the Sunday Telegraph? It suggests that Dr Pachauri has some side activities that might be worthy of the Government's attention.
Lord Marland
I have known Christopher Booker for a long time, but I am afraid that I do not agree with a lot of things he has to say. Doubtless, the noble Lord agrees with every word—it is probably a biblical thing.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, while clearly lessons are to be learnt from any errors in the assessment report, that does not alter the fact that there is overwhelming scientific evidence of significant man-made climate change and action must be taken. Does the Minister agree with the professor of physics and oceanography, Stefan Rahmstorf, that one of the great strengths of the IPCC is that it tends to be conservative and cautious and does not overstate any climate change risk? Indeed, it has since been proved by the July 2001 study that projections in temperature and sea level have risen higher than the top of the range predicted by the IPCC.
Lord Marland
I thank the noble Baroness for pointing that out. Again, the role that the Labour Government played in sorting out the problems that the IPCC had got into is to be commended. I totally endorse what the noble Baroness said.
Baroness Parminter
My Lords, should not the most important leadership on climate change be from the United States and China? Will my noble friend inform the House what the Government are doing to persuade those two giants of carbon emissions to exercise that leadership at Cancún later this year?
Lord Marland
I thank my noble friend for her second question in this House. Both of them have been excellent on this particular subject. The fact is that we have to show leadership. I am glad to say that the Prime Minister will visit China next month. He will lead a UK-China summit on low carbon development, which will be a central pillar of the visit. The Secretary of State, Chris Huhne, will join him.
The USA has made commitments. We may or may not consider them adequate, but it has made a commitment to improve carbon reduction by 17 per cent on 2005 levels by 2020.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick
My Lords, does the Minister not agree that practically all the criticism that has been levelled at the IPCC and other bodies supporting it has been about personalities and process but has not shaken the fundamental case? It would be much better if the critics concentrated on the fundamental case—if they can disprove it, which I do not believe they can—and laid off on the process and the personalities.
Lord Marland
The noble Lord makes a valid point, particularly as the previous chairman was hounded out by a similar approach. The fundamentals are what we are here to look at and I totally agree with him.
Climate Change
Lord Marland Excerpts(14 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Lord Marland)
We welcome the committee’s second annual report on the UK’s progress in meeting its carbon budgets. The Government believe that climate change is one of the most serious threats that the world faces and we are committed to playing our part in moving to a low-carbon economy. The Government will consider the report in detail and formally respond to it by 15 October 2010, as set out in the Climate Change Act.
Lord Haskel
I am glad that the Government welcome the report, which argues that the voluntary and light-touch regulation has not really worked. The committee’s strong and urgent recommendation is for much tougher and stronger regulation. How do the Government reconcile this with their free market policies and their promises of less regulation?
Lord Marland
I thank the noble Lord for his question but, as I said, we will look at the report in detail and respond in October. We will have a debate on that in the Lords, as we did last year. If I may say so, that debate held this House in very good shape. We had a strong debate of all the arguments from both side of the House. Obviously, I have read the report and, in fact, have it in front of me. We agree with many of the recommendations that the committee has made, particularly the main one that we must not rely on the recession to meet our targets. The report gives us a platform from which to accelerate and we clearly need to have a step change. All these things, including regulation, will be considered by us in greater detail as we take on board what the committee has said.
Lord Teverson
My Lords, one of the key areas for action in the report is road transport travel, which accounts for 25 per cent of emissions. How do the Government intend to fulfil the coalition agreement and set up a system of national charging networks for electric vehicles without putting undue pressure on public expenditure?
Lord Marland
I thank the noble Lord for that. The electric vehicle charging network is a very key and fundamental part of the coalition’s policy, but it cannot be done by magic. It needs detailed planning and a lot of work needs to be done, including assessing what it will cost the taxpayer and what incentives are needed to establish it. As I said, we shall look at that in the recess to establish what is required.
Lord Tomlinson
My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Government’s own adviser, Mr Bob Wigley, has added his recommendations to those of the Committee on Climate Change? Included in his recommendations are increased rates for companies that do not take energy conservation measures and penalising householders who fail to undertake insulation measures. Are the Government telling us that we will have to wait till October to hear their view on their own adviser’s supplementary recommendations?
Lord Marland
My Lords, I have to point out that Mr Bob Wigley is not a government adviser. He was set up to deliver—
Lord Marland
Yes, he was, absolutely. I thank noble Lords for listening to what I am saying. That is a great start. He was encouraged to set up a plan for the Green Investment Bank, which he has done. Therefore, he is not a government adviser. He has pointed us in a number of directions in terms of reforming the climate change market and we are grateful for his views.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
My Lords, in the debate on the Queen’s Speech, I drew the House’s attention to the recently published Hartwell paper, which argues that there needs to be a new approach to dealing with the huge problem of climate change, to which my noble friend has referred. Will he give me an undertaking that the Government will study the Hartwell paper, as it seems to me to have a good deal of wisdom in it?
Lord Marland
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for inviting me to comment on the Hartwell report as I have studied it, which gives me a few brownie points. It raises a number of points of interest, some of which we agree with and some of which we do not. Among other things, it draws attention to the need for energy efficiency, which is high on our list of priorities, and investment in non-carbon energy supplies, which again is high on our list of priorities and is hard to argue against. A lot of things in the report were agreeable but some were not. We shall consider them in the recess and bring them together in a debate in the autumn.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, in reading the report has the noble Lord looked at the section relating to the committee’s concern about the delays in the development of wind farms due to delays in the planning system? He will know that the previous Government established the Infrastructure Planning Commission as a way through this. Why are the Government now abolishing the IPC? Will that not bring about the very concerns about which the committee has complained; that is, insecurity and indecision inhibiting the development of wind energy in this country?
Lord Marland
I am very sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, was not present at yesterday’s Question Time—of course, we missed him—when that question was posed by noble Lords on his Benches. We disbanded the IPC because it was not making enough progress on planning. As the noble Lord rightly said, planning is critical. However, it has been slow and logjammed. We intend to change that.
Lord Marland
I do not know where my noble friend gets his information from, because temperatures have increased by more than 0.15 per cent per decade since the mid-1970s, and since 1997 we have had the hottest 10 years on record. So I am afraid that I cannot answer his question.
Energy: Renewables
Lord Marland Excerpts(14 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord James of Blackheath
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In so doing, I note my former interest as chairman of North Sea Assets plc and British Underwater Engineering plc.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Lord Marland)
My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord is referring to the European Union’s obligation under the renewable energy directive to source 20 per cent of its energy from renewable sources by 2020, of which the UK share is to achieve 15 per cent renewable energy consumption by 2020. We are committed to meeting the UK’s target for renewable energy by 2020, but we want to go further and have asked the Committee on Climate Change to provide independent advice on the level of ambition for renewables across the UK.
As part of the package of challenging energy and climate change measures, the UK has also signed up to the target of a reduction in new EU greenhouse emissions of at least 20 per cent below 1990 levels by 2020. Actual costs will depend on how the market responds to incentives, on barriers to deployment and on how technology costs evolve between now and 2020. We will continue to monitor and review the uptake of financial incentives and costs.
Lord James of Blackheath
I thank the Minister for that reply. Can he confirm whether his department is able to agree with the former estimates last provided to your Lordships by the previous Government to the effect that they would achieve the target for 2020 with a programme of extensive wind farm developments on Crown properties within a budget to be provided by the Prime Minister of the time—not from his own pocket, I think—of £75 billion? Does that hold good as an achievable forecast today, given that not a scrap of equipment can be contracted for wind farm development until 2020?
Lord Marland
Noble Lords may want brevity of answer over here, but it will not suit Members on those Benches too well if I give that, quite frankly.
Lord Marland
Because of lack of performance, I am afraid. However, I am avoiding any confrontation on this issue, so if I were the noble Lord, I would as well.
The most recent statistics for 2009 show that the level of renewable energy consumed in the UK has reached 3 per cent. This puts us on a trajectory to meet our first interim target under the renewable energy directive, which is 4 per cent by 2012.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch
My Lords, are the Government wise to have committed £18 billion per annum for the next 40 years to combat climate change when the science underpinning it has collapsed? How many British people will suffer fuel poverty as a result of this discredited initiative?
Lord Marland
I am not sure I thank the noble Lord for his question, but his party’s views are well known and, I am afraid, do not coincide with ours. We think that climate change is one of the biggest issues to confront the nation. We are putting green awareness on the front of our agenda. We are going to be the greenest Government who have existed and we intend to deliver policies to show so.
Lord Tomlinson
Does the noble Lord regard nuclear-generated electricity as being renewable?
Lord Marland
Nuclear-generated electricity is a fundamental part of our party’s coalition policy but I am not sure that it is relevant to the Question in hand.
Lord Teverson
My Lords, is not one of the ways in which we will meet this target much greater use of biogas? How will the UK catch up with other European countries, such as Germany, in terms of anaerobic digestion?
Lord Marland
I thank my noble coalition colleague for that question. For some people who may not have the noble Lord’s knowledge, anaerobic digestion needs to be encouraged. It is a recycling of waste—sewerage, animal waste and food waste—that creates biogas. It is a very important development. My honourable friend in the other place, Mr Greg Barker, has organised a stakeholder event in the Recess to discuss the development of this kind of renewable energy.
Lord Lawson of Blaby
I am grateful to the Leader of the House. Is my noble friend aware that only a couple of days ago, Mr Bob Wigley, the chairman of the previous Government’s Green Investment Bank Commission, stated that meeting the requirements of the absurd Climate Change Act will cost the United Kingdom £50 billion a year, every year, for the next 40 years. How—above all in this age of austerity—can this possibly be justified?
Lord Marland
I am very grateful to noble Lords for fighting over a question for me; it is quite rare in this job. However, I must correct my noble friend; the Green Investment Bank was an initiative set up by our own party and one must not rule out the phenomenal business opportunities that it offers for this country. We must have 2 million heat pumps by 2020. We must have bioenergy, which will create 100,000 jobs at a value of £116 million. Wind alone should create 130,000 jobs at a value of £36 billion. At a time when the country needs investment, these are heartening numbers.
Baroness Ford
At a time when the country needs this investment so badly, how does the Minister propose to meet those renewables targets without the benefit of an independent Infrastructure Planning Commission, which this Government are committed to abolishing?
Lord Marland
I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for her question. She is quite right; the planning process is fundamental to renewable energies and we have to put great emphasis on it, and I am afraid that we have to accelerate it because it had become stuck in a mire. I am not sure that the IPC is the right method for doing that. We shall put energy into reforming that area. I am grateful to the climate change committee for recommending it.
Lord Howarth of Newport
My Lords, in seeking to pursue their laudable aim of increasing the proportion of energy consumption supplied by renewables, how will the Government ensure that the landscape of this country is not disfigured by a rash of ill-planned wind turbines?
Lord Marland
I am grateful for that question. Under the previous Government, 14 gigawatts of onshore turbines were approved, 70 per cent of which is under way. It is our determination that there should be no dramatic increase in this and that the emphasis should be offshore, where the supply of wind is much more reliable. There are of course constraints in the environment, to which the noble Lord referred, and fishing and shipping communities need to be listened to, but offshore is the future for this country.