Net Zero Test

Lord Teverson Excerpts

Thursday 22nd July 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I understand the point the noble Lord is making, but I would refer him to the independent Committee on Climate Change, which does many of the things he is suggesting. It was established by the Climate Change Act 2008 and provides expert advice to the Government on climate change mitigation and adaptation. As he will have seen in its written reports, it is not afraid to point out what it sees as any deficiencies.

[Lord Teverson (LD) [V]]

My Lords, could the Minister explain how the Government’s proposed planning Bill will help lead towards his department’s goal of net zero?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

Planning of course is extremely important, particularly in terms of delivering net-zero buildings. The noble Lord will be aware of the proposals we have to modify building regulations to reduce the impact of new buildings.

Climate Change

Lord Teverson Excerpts

Tuesday 29th June 2021 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Teverson]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they intend to take in response to the Climate Change Committee’s 2021 Progress Report to Parliament, published on 24 June.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Callanan) (Con)]

Over the past three decades, we have driven down emissions by 44%, the fastest reduction of any G7 country, and set some of the most ambitious targets in the world for the future. Our forthcoming strategies on heat and buildings, hydrogen, transport and comprehensive net zero will address many of the changes in policy that the Climate Change Committee is calling for, and we will respond formally to the CCC report by 15 October.

[Lord Teverson (LD) [V]]

My Lords, the Climate Change Committee report rightly praised the climate progress in the past that the Minister has referred to—but the past is the past and the committee was scathing about the Government’s plans to meet future targets. So how will the Government practically now save our nation’s previously good and hard-won reputation and retain our credibility as president of COP 26? A destination is useless without a route to get there.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

The noble Lord is of course quite right, and we do have a route to get there. We will be publishing a number of sector strategies, as I mentioned in my opening Answer, including the transport decarbonisation plan and the heat and buildings strategy, which will illustrate to the noble Lord exactly how we will get to the destination that he refers to.

Net-Zero Carbon Emissions

Lord Teverson Excerpts

Wednesday 21st April 2021 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Teverson]

That the Grand Committee takes note of the case for the integration of policy-making in (1) national, and (2) local, government to achieve net zero carbon emissions in the United Kingdom.

[Lord Teverson (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I declare my interests as a director of Aldustria Ltd, a trustee of the Green Purposes Company that holds the green share in the Green Investment Bank, and an honorary president of the Major Energy Users’ Council.

Beyond the pandemic, two emergencies confront us: climate change and biodiversity loss. Both are real and, like Covid, both can be fatal to our economy and society. Members and Ministers in this House are all good at fine words when it comes to these crises, and I am sure there will be many admirable ones in this debate, but what counts is action. This debate should focus on how we deliver our climate goals most effectively and certainly. To do that, almost before anything else, we have to closely co-ordinate work between government departments and between Whitehall and our devolved nations, combined authorities and local authorities. With climate change, there is no room for silos in decision-making or inaction—if there is, we lose.

I will concentrate on the word “action”. The Government have just accepted the Climate Change Committee’s recommended sixth carbon budget—I think that legislation is being laid before Parliament today. I welcome that, as I am sure we all do. I also welcomed the Prime Minister’s 10-point plan, but without a route map—I have not seen one yet—it is a 10-pointless plan. We are still waiting for a net zero road map, the Treasury’s review of the costs of decarbonisation and the strategy for heat in homes and buildings, and whatever happened to the task force net zero? Perhaps the Minister can tell us. Did the Cabinet committee on climate change that the Prime Minister announced at the beginning of his premiership ever get past its first meeting?

Despite our strong past performance on carbon reductions in the UK—we are all proud of that—we were on track to miss our fourth and fifth carbon budgets even when our 2050 target was still only an 80% emission reduction. We have become complacent. No wonder the reception of these new targets was muted. It is easy to set targets into the future—in this case 2035, 14 years away—making it happen now is the test of our sincerity.

To quote Alok Sharma, COP 26 president and Cabinet member, on the announcement of the sixth carbon budget decision:

“Long term targets must be backed up with credible delivery plans”—


how much I agree with Mr Sharma. Chris Stark, chief executive of the Climate Change Committee, stated:

“This target means every choice we make from now must be the right one for our climate.”


That means the choices made by the Treasury, the Cabinet Office, the Department of Health and Social Care, the Foreign Office and all the rest, not just BEIS and Defra.

How successful are we at Whitehall co-ordination? Back in ancient history, under Gordon Brown as Chancellor, the Treasury produced the Stern report and acted on it. The result was the Climate Change Act. But this year’s Budget was judged “climate-lite”. There were some good announcements, including green bonds—though late and long resisted by the Treasury—and the UK Infrastructure Bank, but no mechanism to ensure net zero- compliant investments and no big push of retrofit; in fact, there was a retreat on this. The Government backed away from green taxation, despite having previously trailed it in the press.

Let us be clear: if we are to win the climate change challenge, two departments have to be at the centre of it, and they are not BEIS and Defra but the Treasury and the Cabinet Office. There has to be a senior Minister in the Treasury whose sole focus is the climate change agenda. In the Cabinet Office there should be created a Minister for the climate emergency, who is a full member of Cabinet. That is the practical demand of the Government’s rhetoric and our desire to succeed.

There is one other department that I want to put in the spotlight when it comes to silos, yet it also is at the heart of climate change policy. That is the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. It scrapped the 2016 zero-carbon homes deadline and did the same for the 2019 commercial buildings target. It rules the roost on building regulations, but I get no impression from it of a desperation to urgently uprate standards, let alone inspection rates. The Conservative manifesto pledged over £9 billion for retrofitting buildings, which I welcomed, but, a quarter of the way into this term of office, very little has been committed. I shall come on to the green homes grant later.

Then we had the Cumbria coal mine. It somehow did not seem to occur to the department or the Secretary of State that a brand spanking new coal mine being approved in the year of our COP 26 presidency, when the UK was internationally the co-founder of the Powering Past Coal Alliance, might just be seen as a little off-message by the rest of the world. It is amazing—and amazing too, apparently, to COP president Alok Sharma.

Whitehall silos are a challenge to all Governments—I understand that—but when it comes to climate change, we just cannot afford that luxury, or that inefficiency. As part of removing the climate silo, investment appraisal in all departments must be subject to a “route to net zero” test. That financial rigour is really important in all departmental investment.

I turn to local authorities. The great news is that more than 300 local authorities have declared a climate change emergency. That is brilliant. They are of all political persuasions, and for most it is not just a declaration but a genuine call to action. Two-thirds intend to be carbon neutral by 2030. One reason that this is good news is that some 50% of the carbon reductions we will need in the future are strongly influenced by local policy-making. But when it comes to achieving net zero as a nation, central and local government are like two ships passing in the night.

The next stage of decarbonisation will be far more difficult than what we have experienced so far. Unlike when coal was removed from power generation, our fellow citizens will notice the differences in the way they live. Local authorities are trusted by 80% of their citizens—a far higher percentage than trust, say, the electricity suppliers or even central government—so local authorities are essential to the delivery of the net zero route map. This is the case especially in such areas as the energy efficiency of homes and buildings, transport, waste, planning and the often neglected area of enforcement.

What better example is there of local doing it better than retrofit and home insulation? The fiasco of the green homes grant illustrates all too well that in this area top-down does not work. Local or combined authorities should spearhead retrofit, preferably on a street-by-street basis. To me, that is utterly obvious. Frankly, they should also be delivering the ECO—energy company obligation—programme rather than the energy supply companies. But of course, dumb Treasury definitions of public expenditure get in the way of serious delivery.

Transport is the one growing area of emissions in the UK and, with the rise of white vans and SUVs, it is not just air travel and shipping. Again, local authorities are clearly the best at delivering co-ordinated low-carbon transport plans. Only they can ensure that all citizens have access to charging points for EVs at or by their homes, not least when they do not have a parking space except on the road. Only in that way can we ensure a just transition, which we all want. Moving from landfill and energy from waste to recycling and reuse is a core local activity as well. The enforcement of planning conditions, building regulations and trading standards on energy efficiency is local but hugely underfunded, making prosecution unlikely. That under- funding of enforcement really must change.

Among all their other strategies and route maps, the Government must publish a specific plan or concordat for how they will engage fully with local authorities in the delivery of climate change goals. As part of that, there must also be a grown-up fiscal settlement between the two—difficult, I know, but it has to be done.

As part of my preparations for this debate, I decided to speak to a number of local government officers on the ground in the climate change area to understand their experience of working with Whitehall. I will give five short quotes, which all relate specifically to climate change. Here we go—in their words rather than mine. First, when it comes to climate change, government is divided on the issues at departmental level, and there is no core ethos that drives conversations down a clear pathway. Secondly, we still get pushed towards a more traditional economic justification for projects and initiatives by many departments, and the climate change agenda is too big for that. Thirdly, we have to deal with a multitude of funding streams that are complex, short-term and never allow for strategic-level planning and, equally importantly, do not allow for supply chain development, market confidence and skills development —a reflection of those short-term government policies that change so quickly, so that once you have built up the skills and the organisation, the programme ends and everything stops. Fourthly, there needs to be much greater co-ordination between the climate and ecological emergency agendas within government, as talking to Defra and BEIS is like speaking to completely different organisations. Lastly, we need some form of concordat where there is an honest discussion of what local areas can and cannot do, charting a strategic pathway linked to long-term funding. Those are their words and their experiences, not mine.

Whether it is co-ordination and unity of purpose between Whitehall departments, or central and local government, this has to work. I have made many recommendations, but I ask the Minister specifically: will he ensure that a route map is published, in full consultation with local authorities, that paves the way for close and mandatory co-operation and co-ordination between central and local government? If so, we can achieve so much more, better and at greater speed. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Teverson (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I thank everybody for their excellent contributions. We did not manage to stretch the debate out to five hours—perhaps thankfully—but we have had some really excellent subjects covered, from international comparisons to fossil fuels, education, housing, bitcoin, transport and others.

I also thank the Minister for his reply and for mainly looking to the future, rather than the usual thing that happens, when Ministers say how good we have been in the past. I am glad to hear that there will be—what I specifically wanted to see—further thought and action on co-ordination with local government in the road map to net zero. I would like something that was substantial in itself, but that is clearly not going to be the case. I just hope that it is a whole chapter rather than a page or a paragraph.

There are still lots of things to be done to get rid of those silos that we have talked about. Only by closing those gaps—whether they are between government departments and devolved Parliaments and Assemblies or between central government and local authorities—will we have any chance of meeting those targets, which we all welcome but feel slightly sceptical about at this time. I will feel secure only when I see the Prime Minister driving an electric forklift truck through a wall that says, “Getting Decarbonisation Done”. At that point, I will know that we have got it in the bag. Until then, however, we are going to keep the pressure on the Government. We will applaud their good intentions, but we will much more strongly applaud their plan to actually achieve what we all want to achieve.

Motion agreed.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Kyoto Protocol Registry) Regulations 2021

Lord Teverson Excerpts

Tuesday 13th April 2021 Grand Committee

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, I must admit that when I first looked at this instrument, I was severely disappointed with it. I can normally find in any secondary legislation at least 25 points of criticism to talk about for six minutes. Looking through these regulations, I could see nothing contentious at all.

That was until I started reading the explanation for them, which raised a number of concerns. One of them, which has been talked about a number of times, is the gap in trading. Given that we knew there was going to be a notice in this area, how come we have a gap in trading, even though only 112 organisations deal with it? I suppose that having to send our registrations on carbon abroad is one interpretation of global Britain, but that concerns me. I noted that the Minister said that the system was due in May, I think. He did not say that it would actually happen in May. I would be very interested if he would confirm that the system will be operational next month, so that we can all, let alone the users, have confidence in it.

I was also rather concerned by the last bullet point in paragraph 7.6 in the Explanatory Memorandum, which says:

“Amendments include … ensuring that provisions regarding the operation of KP registries are compatible with the software for the UK KP registry.”


That seems the wrong way round to me. Surely we design the software to meet the needs, rather than the needs to fit the software. I am interested to understand why it is that way around. Can the Minister assure me that we are not just buying an app from the Apple shop, or whatever? It seems very strange that we are not designing something that is right for this, but, rather, are having to change our systems to meet the software. I tried to look up the value of one of these traded units but could not find it, so perhaps the Minister could tell us, without conferring, the current-day price of these units. That would be very interesting to know.

I move on to an area of potential confusion for us all here between the Kyoto trading system and the new UK ETS. I realise that that is not the direct subject today, given the very important role of this new UK ETS, but it would be useful if the Minister could help us to understand this. Its first trading day is due in May, so it would be very useful to have clear understanding and to be certain that it will happen at that point. I know there is a wish, which I applaud—it may be a hope—that there might be a connection between the EU ETS and the UK ETS in future, giving greater liquidity for the UK market. I would be interested to understand from the Minister whether those conversations have started and already take place, or even whether that is still the Government’s wish or objective.

Lastly, in that area, consumption figures were mentioned, as was offshoring, which is one of the problems of having high prices on national emissions. Are the Government considering or investigating further a carbon border tax, which has been mentioned more broadly in the western world?

I agree absolutely with my noble friend Lord Redesdale about methane. One of the areas of climate change concern is that methane emissions have increased quite substantially, and what is perhaps even more worrying is that most authorities do not understand why that is the case. Any insight the Minister can give us on that would be very useful. The consumption figures are extremely important. I congratulate Defra, which looks after consumption, rather than BEIS, which looks after production, for that time series, and I encourage government to give it more publicity and more time.

I will not go into the broader issues of climate change and COP 26, which has been covered very adequately indeed by the noble Lords, Lord Whitty and Lord Howell, and by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, in particular, but even on these smaller issues, not least the UK ETS, it would be very good to have confirmation from the Minister about those important areas.

Offshore Gas Rigs

Lord Teverson Excerpts

Thursday 11th March 2021 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Teverson]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to prohibit the flaring of gas on offshore gas rigs within the United Kingdom’s exclusive economic zone.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Callanan) (Con)]

My Lords, as set out in our recently published energy White Paper, the UK has committed to the World Bank’s “Zero Routine Flaring by 2030” initiative. We are working with regulators towards eliminating routine flaring as soon as possible in advance of this date. Furthermore, we are working with the sector to transform the UK continental shelf into a net-zero basin by 2050.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, I welcome the intent, but could we please have a timetable for this? The Netherlands, Denmark and Norway not only signed up to that initiative but actually practise it at the moment. At the moment, we are the dirty man of the North Sea; when will that end?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

Of course, the circumstances and timescale of those other countries are, depending on their operations, different from ours. However, I assure the noble Lord that we will continue to work with the industry, through the North Sea transition deal, and regulators, drawing on their range of powers to drive down this practice as soon as possible.

Fossil Fuels: Business

Lord Teverson Excerpts

Thursday 19th November 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

They will contribute to that challenge, but we need a number of different technologies and methods to meet our legally binding commitment to net zero. The noble Lord is right in that respect, and the 10-point plan is a useful contribution towards that objective.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, energy-intensive industries can only go so far in getting energy efficiency right. There is therefore a risk of carbon leakage from these organisations offshoring elsewhere in the world, which does nothing for global climate change. Are the Government considering a carbon border tax, as some of our European friends are, to make sure that that offshoring does not happen?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

The noble Lord is right to highlight the difficulties of potential carbon leakage. There are many problems with a carbon border tax, of which the noble Lord will be aware—difficulties with the WTO, et cetera—but I leave announcements on taxes to the Chancellor.

COP 26

Lord Teverson Excerpts

Wednesday 18th November 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

That is the purpose of the campaign that we discussed earlier, and the Department for Education is fully on board with all of these campaigns.

[Lord Teverson (LD) [V]]

My Lords, the success of COP 26 is absolutely vital for the reputation of this country. One of the ways in which we could, perhaps, reinforce those efforts is by using parliamentarians to help get the message out, abroad and at home, of how important this conference is, and to help make it a success. We have almost 1,500 parliamentarians, but I do not see the Government trying to involve us. The majority of us believe that climate change is a crisis and that we need to solve it. How are parliamentarians going to be involved in the process of making COP 26 a success?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I am sorry if the noble Lord does not feel involved in the campaign, but parliamentarians, alongside members of the public, are all very welcome to get involved in all of these campaigns, because they require all of us to work together to achieve our aims.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Lord Teverson Excerpts

Report stage & Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords & Report: 1st sitting & Report: 1st sitting: House of Lords
Wednesday 18th November 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I must say that I am uneasy about this group of amendments because I am not sure that they achieve what many noble Lords want. This Bill is designed to provide a UK single market—like the EU’s and, indeed, that of the USA—to ensure a properly functioning market that creates prosperity and economic security for our four great nations coming together in the United Kingdom under Her Majesty the Queen.

We want trade to flourish, and we want to support business interchange and the free flow of information. This helps the devolved nations, as 60% of exports from Scotland and Wales and nearly 50% from Northern Ireland go elsewhere in the UK and they all benefit greatly from a transfer of resources, mainly from London. We want trade to increase as we see more import substitution following exit from the European Union.

Public policy can be decided within that internal market framework with some variations; we have talked about that before. I support local variations, such as minimum alcohol pricing in Scotland and plastic bag regulation in Wales, which I encouraged. However, they must be limited or the single market will be undermined. Adding consumers, the environment, labour standards, public and animal health, cultural expression, regional characteristics and equality in various ways, as these amendments do—even with an opt-out where the relevant aim is already achieved, as in the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson—changes the whole character of the legislation on non-discrimination and market access. I note the contribution of my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham but I do not see how different rules on smoking, minimum pricing or the use of the Welsh language, which I very much support, would be ruled out by this Bill.

As for differential labelling, whether on crisp packets or anything else, I know from experience that having different labels adds costs and introduces logistics issues, which puts prices up for consumers. It would be much better to introduce labelling for health reasons and significant climate change reform for the United Kingdom in the way it used to be agreed in Brussels. I fear that these undoubtedly well-meaning amendments would provide a plethora of excuses to impose protectionist and other barriers between our four nations.

A source of dispute, not collaboration and harmony, across our land and a field day for the legal profession would not help us to achieve the leaps forward that we all want on the environment, standards or anything else that has been the subject of this debate.

[Lord Teverson (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 11 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, although I am very much in favour of the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, as well.

Devolution has not been a disaster in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland or, indeed, London. It has strengthened the United Kingdom, our economy and our society. My great fear is that the overwhelming application of the market access principle—with those few exceptions: life or health of humans, animals and pets or public safety and security—is far too restrictive and will mean that important parts of devolution erode and disappear over time.

As with Amendment 11 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, I am particularly concerned about the environment, including climate change. I will be brief on this. We heard arguments in Committee that the most important thing was maintaining strong competition in the United Kingdom. I agree with that, but, like all things in market economies, that needs to be constrained in certain ways. While we need market competition to remain strong, it is equally important in a modern economy that innovation can take place. Competition in environmental regulation and some of these other areas is equally important to stimulate innovations in the nations of the United Kingdom that others can follow when they are successful. I see that as a key part of this process: being able to keep at the same time the different ways in which the nations of the United Kingdom can interpret environmental and climate change needs.

I am delighted that the Minister responding is the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, who is the Government’s Minister for Climate Change. I am sure he will be absolutely persuaded by these arguments that we need these environmental innovations to help with climate change as we move forward—as the Prime Minister wants us to, as he showed in his 10-point plan today—and to make sure we keep that progress and do it in the many ways the nations of the United Kingdom wish.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I am most grateful for this opportunity to follow the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, who chairs our EU Environment Sub-Committee so expertly and courteously.

I take this opportunity in supporting Amendments 10 and 11—I would marginally prefer Amendment 10, but presumably they are for debating purposes—briefly to ask my noble friend Lord Callanan whether our understanding of the Bill as currently drafted is correct, in that it appears to be very tightly and prescriptively drawn, as so expertly indicated by the noble Lords, Lord Stevenson and Lord Anderson. Would protection of the environment or the labelling provisions proposed by my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham be permitted? Is my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe correct that, for example, the labelling provisions set out by my noble friend Lord Young would already be allowed?

My understanding is that member states such as Denmark can already provide additional information for consumers, such as the calorie content of beers and other foods, and that we have not gone that far yet. Would that be permitted under the Bill as currently drafted, or do we need the amendments in this group to be moved? That would greatly assist me understand how exactly the provisions in the Bill as drafted are to be interpreted.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Lord Teverson Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 28th October 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, who, along with many other noble Lords in this group, focused on public health. Covid-19 has reminded us how unhealthy our society is and how inadequate current arrangements are.

Given that my noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb has spoken with great power and eloquence in this group, I will be brief and address only Amendment 51 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, to which I attached my name. That amendment would provide public interest defences on trade restrictions; environmental standards and protection; animal welfare; consumer standards; employment rights; the health and life of humans, animals or plants; cultural expression; regional sociocultural characteristics; and equality entitlements, rights and protections. These describe what should be the goals of a decent Government aiming to deliver a healthy life for all their citizens and the sustainable development goals that they are signed up to.

The term “public interest” makes me think of public money for public goods. I am aware that “public goods” has a technical definition but the parallels with “public interest” in this amendment are obvious. I cannot, therefore, see how the Government can oppose it, given that they want to spend significant sums of public money for some of the same goals through the mechanisms of the Agriculture Bill and the Environment Bill, whereas here we are simply applying standards to deliver public goods. I am aware that some Members of your Lordships’ House believe that trade, and the greater volume of it, is a good in itself and should be our primary or sole aim, but we come back to the question: do we work for the economic system, or does it work for us?

Many of these discussions have a distinctly Groundhog Day feeling and the Government may respond by saying, “Our intentions are good and we are trying to deliver all these things”. I come back to the word “dictatorship”, my use of which the noble Lord, Lord True, objected to. I reserve my own right to judgment on that. In fact, I do not have to go that far for the purpose of arguing for this or other amendments. We know that Prime Ministers and Governments have not had a long shelf life in recent times, and who knows how long this one will last? We are creating a legal framework and the possibility for action by any future Government, whatever they might look like. Giving the right to all devolved Governments to act on behalf of their citizens to defend them against chlorinated chicken or fruits laced with dangerous pesticides can be the only basis for continuing in a democratic manner.

[Lord Teverson (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I declare my interest as chair of the Cornwall and Isles of Scilly Local Nature Partnership. I wish to speak to Amendment 52, although I support a number of other amendments in this group. That amendment has been tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, who, in a topsy-turvy way, will follow me.

We have naturally and correctly been obsessed by the Covid-19 crisis, yet we still very much have the climate change issues—the loss of nature, the biodiversity challenge and a raft of other environmental issues of great importance, such as plastics, marine pollution and so on. Those challenges are not just global; they are national, as well as being regional and subnational. In the United Kingdom devolution is a fact of life and something that I certainly welcome. Those devolution principles allow the nations that make up the United Kingdom to be able to set their own standards in a number of areas. One key area where those standards can be different and which I believe has been particularly successful is the environmental area, and there is potential in climate change as well.

The history of devolution and different decision-making within the UK in the environmental area has been very positive. There has been almost a competition, if you like, to get ahead of other nations within the UK, and that way the bar has been raised in terms of environmental legislation and what we are trying to do. In fact, the word “experimentation” has been used previously. It is important to see what works in one part of the UK, as this is sometimes copied by others. The plastic bag policy in supermarkets, cotton buds, plastic straws—all are examples of one leading and others following. Indeed, as we have heard many times, even within the EU single market, member states have been allowed to have enhanced standards and have not been challenged.

The challenge is: how do we meet the environmental and climate crises that we have and still keep our internal market? To do that, we cannot rest on the status quo. We have to move forward on all those agendas, as indeed the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, will know well, being the Government’s climate change Minister. We cannot stay where we are and have business as usual.

We therefore need to keep these positive, competitive aspects of environmental and climate change legislation within our devolution in the United Kingdom while keeping that important single market. As has been said before in this debate, no one in this Chamber is looking to restrict that single market in any way in principle. But I believe that this Bill undermines our ability to meet our environmental objectives easily and quickly.

What does the blanket—as I see it—market access principle risk here? One thing we have is offshoring. We have been very good performers in the United Kingdom on our carbon footprint, but that is because a lot of manufacturing has perhaps gone to Asia. That is not the whole story, but it is some of it.

As the Bill stands, if we have stringent rules within one part of the UK, manufacturers would just move to another part of it and effectively import into those other regions or nations. That would be extremely negative. But one key thing would happen: rather than having a “raising the bar” competition between national authorities within the UK, we would risk moving the power to the corporate sector, which is more likely to look for efficiencies or the lowest standards in order to make sure that they can remain strong within the market. That would be a very undesirable outcome of this legislation, which is not the Government’s intention. We risk, potentially, more of a commercial race to the bottom. I have nothing against industry whatever—indeed, I wish to see it promoted—but this would change the power structure within the supply chain. It is as if the legislation were applying the harshest WTO rules internally to our own internal market.

We need to have sensible derogations that can avoid these downsides and outcomes. Amendment 52, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, is exactly what we need for the environment and climate change agenda and for the United Kingdom to stay ahead in this area, not just globally but nationally and regionally as well. Without such derogations, other environmental legislation at a devolved level becomes almost redundant, as it cannot be enforced because goods will come from elsewhere in the United Kingdom—or else devolution will become redundant in this area because, since England is the largest part of the market, Westminster will effectively decide the rules. That is why this amendment is vital.

World Energy Outlook 2020

Lord Teverson Excerpts

Tuesday 20th October 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

Well, the Government’s policies towards clean energy investment have been a resounding success. We are seeing record levels of deployment and the costs of clean energy are falling dramatically—we will see that during the next contracts for difference round next year—but, of course, we keep all these things under review.

[Lord Teverson (LD) [V]]

My Lords, a strong theme in this report in relation to Covid and energy is that, to quote from the report:

“The worst effects … are felt among the most vulnerable.”


In the UK context, how will the Government protect our vulnerable people as we transition to a clean energy economy?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

The noble Lord makes a good point. We are investing record sums in helping vulnerable consumers. He will be aware of the new green homes grant that will provide grants of £5,000, and indeed £10,000 for those on low incomes, to help them insulate their home and make it more energy efficient and, more importantly, get their bills down.