UK Infrastructure Bank Bill [HL]

Lord Teverson Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments
Tuesday 14th March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, I have to admit, although I should not, that when I saw the Bill appear on Forthcoming Business I thought that it had received Royal Assent about a year ago, that it had gone and that everyone was happy. Clearly, the other place was not quite happy, so we are debating the Bill today. I am delighted to see the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, here because this morning I was at a meeting of the Green Investment Group—the privatised Green Investment Bank—as a watchdog on its purposes after privatisation. I hope that this infrastructure bank will not also be privatised in the next couple of years and we have to do the same for it.

I welcome the House of Commons amendment around water companies, moved by my honourable friend Richard Foord MP. Although the noble Baroness the Minister has circumscribed the effect of that amendment, I am delighted that the Government have accepted it. We all understand that water companies are under extreme scrutiny, mainly for their lack of investment and focus on environmental concerns under their custody. Equally, I welcome the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, and I too join the congratulations on her tenacity in getting it accepted by the Government.

However, I also thank the Minister for her persuasive powers. I have said to her in the past that I should prefer her to be in another portfolio that I deal with even more, on which this House seems to be less persuasive on occasions. Yet she manages to persuade the Treasury, which is probably an even harder task, that sometimes this House can make some useful changes to the legislation before it.

I will not detain the House further, except to welcome these amendments, and hope that we can put the Bill to bed and that the UK Infrastructure Bank can get on and do what we all want it to do—invest in the future infrastructure of this economy in the wider sense, including the circular economy. I am grateful for the mention from the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, and I understand from the Minister that most of the circular economy will indeed be accessible by the bank. I look forward to that as well.

Financial Services (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2022

Lord Teverson Excerpts

Tuesday 15th November 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, I apologise for speaking slightly out of order. As part of the European Union Committee, I took a great interest in the Gibraltarian situation. As the Minister will know, Gibraltar was not covered by the trade and co-operation agreement. At the moment, negotiations are still going on between the UK and the EU on Gibraltar’s status—I think we are on round nine. Can the Minister be clear on whether financial services are included in trying to reach a final agreement between the EU and the UK on Gibraltar and its relationship with the EU? If that is the case, will these SIs become redundant and be replaced by another regime completely? I would be interested to understand that from a strategic point of view.

Queen’s Speech

Lord Teverson Excerpts

Thursday 4th June 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Lords, Lord O’Neill and Lord King, on their speeches. I am going to talk primarily about transport but I want to take up one point from the excellent speech of the noble Lord, Lord King. He talked about the “euro ins” and the “euro outs”. That is sometimes a bit of a dangerous argument. One forgets that a lot of those euro outs are trying to get in: they are the future ins of the euro. As he mentioned, the Greek crisis has gone on for some five years now. We all thought that the euro was going to melt down, and it may be a surprise to people out there on the streets of the United Kingdom to hear that the number of members of the euro has gone up over that period rather than going down, with the addition of two member states. So we have to look at the analysis in terms of the aspiration of the outs, rather than just seeing them as permanent outs, as perhaps we ourselves will be.

Transport is the plumbing of the nation. There is no doubt about that, and I congratulate my noble friend Lady Kramer on the work that she did on transport in government. A lot of good things came out of that. Broadband and transport are absolutely key to productivity and to the way that the economy works.

I was pleased to see two Bills mentioned in the Queen’s Speech and in the Government’s programme. The Liberal Democrats, along with many other Members of this House, have strongly supported HS2. I understand that it is contentious but it is clear to me that in terms of capacity and investment in infrastructure that will last for more than 100 years, this is something that has to happen in some way. Getting that increased capacity through changes in the existing west coast, east coast or even central railway would be utterly disruptive to the nation in terms of the economy, commuters, long-distance travellers, business, leisure and freight. It would be a disaster to enter into that investment other than by trying to find a new way of adding capacity—and why add capacity that is old-fashioned rather than new technology?

There is one thing that we often forget. We think of HS1 primarily as an intercontinental railway into Europe. One of its great successes recently has been fast transport into areas that have been hard-pressed economically, in particular east Kent. Those services have been hugely popular, with local authorities demanding that they be increased rather than trying to push them away. That is an example of how that can work. On the other hand, when it comes to connecting up the northern powerhouse, the nomenclature of HS3 is perhaps rather dangerous given the brand image of HS2 in so many areas. We should be quite clear how important it is and that it will be about making a much more conventional railway work properly and to the advantage of those communities.

The other programme is the buses Bill. I suspect that we will not have a full Chamber for that and that it will not be discussed in Committee on the Floor of the House. However, I very much welcome the Bill, in that it transfers to other combined authorities some of the advantages that Transport for London has over controlling buses. My question to the Minister is whether there would be an option—as in the devolution Bill that is coming to the House for Second Reading on Monday—for unitary counties to bring in that power as well.

Transport is very important in terms of sustainability and is responsible for about a quarter of our national CO₂ emissions. Therefore, we need to look to sustainable transport systems. I congratulate the Conservatives on having in their manifesto a target of 2050—that may be slightly late—for zero-carbon vehicles. I also congratulate them for effectively saying that they will continue their £38 billion programme for other improvements through railway capital expenditure over the next five years. Sometimes we forget that a huge investment programme is taking place outside HS2. We should shout about that much more loudly. It is policy that is, I think, agreed widely round the House, but we sometimes forget that.

In the Infrastructure Act, which we passed towards the end of the last Parliament, a commitment was brought in—it was rather resisted by the coalition Government to begin with, although I am sure many of us put pressure on to get the change—for a cycle and walking strategy. I would be very interested to hear from the Minister when an investment strategy for those areas of sustainable transport, which is so increasingly important, will be published so that we can start to look at and implement that important programme.

As someone who lives in the far south-west of Cornwall, when I talk about sustainable transport I am also going to talk about the resilience of rail links into our regions, not least Devon and Cornwall and the still outstanding matter of a decision on how to secure the resilience of the line into the far south-west, while still protecting and providing transport for cities such as Torbay. I look forward to understanding how that might move forward.

On airports, we look forward to Sir Howard Davies’s report and to finding out how sustainable that proposal might or might not be.

In the last minute that I have, I want to talk about access to transport. One of the great contrasts that I see, as a rural dweller, is that “poor” regions such as London have £3 billion of subsidy for Transport for London for people who travel in this area. The buses for the poor people of London have some £450 million-worth of subsidy. The rich “rollercoasters” of Cornwall, however, have a subsidy of £5 million, and in Devon, £7 million. It is a complete contrast in terms of public investment and subsidy of services. I would not argue against the subsidy in London; it is clearly important due to all the externalities there would be if we did not have those systems. However, there is an imbalance there that, along with reduced local government expenditure, has caused those services to decrease over the years. It is vital to the economy that people are able to get to work, go to college and go to training courses on public transport. This is one area that we have to tackle to make sure that there is greater equality of opportunity economically in the regions.

I am going to leave it at that and make one small point outside transport. One business model that we so often look at and praise in this Chamber, and in Parliament generally, is that of small businesses. Clearly, they are exceptionally important—I have been involved in a number over time. I believe very strongly that we so often forget about middle-sized businesses and their importance. In the United Kingdom economy we have a shortage of those important middle-sized businesses. They are able to invest, offer careers to their employees, export, and offer wealth and income that is spread across all regions rather than being concentrated in a few areas. An important part of the German economy and of the very alive economy of northern Italy is based around that type of business model. I hope that the Government will find a way to make sure not just that small businesses thrive but that the middle sector of business becomes an important and hugely contributing part of our British economy.

National Infrastructure

Lord Teverson Excerpts

Thursday 22nd January 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, when I left university in the 1970s, I did not take a gap year; I got in a Morris 1100 with two of my friends and we did something slightly unusual for those days: we drove around eastern Europe. Of course, those were the days of the Soviet empire and central economies, and one thing that particularly struck me was that there was no lack of infrastructure; in fact, plenty of infrastructure got built. The problem was that, first, it was not maintained, and, secondly, when they had failed to maintain it, they failed to repair it. That is one of the issues that I would like to pursue in my few minutes today. There are similar problems in the developing world.

Fast-forward to the United Kingdom in 2015: we have a major area of infrastructure that, when we go home and walk around, we see most often—our homes, our housing stock. One area that we have a problem with is upgrading our housing stock. There are 22 million homes in the United Kingdom, of which 82% do not meet even an energy performance certificate standard of C. That standard is not fantastic, it is merely okay, but the other 82% fall well below that. The previous Government and this one have had a number of schemes—Warm Front, CERT, ECO and the Green Deal—that have tried to tackle this issue. They have been successful to a degree and have been better than a drop in the ocean, but they have far from solved the problem of energy efficiency, fuel poverty and the cost of fuel to the economy and to families trying to keep themselves warm.

I will refer to a report produced by Cambridge Econometrics, among others, called Building the Future: The Economic and Fiscal Impacts of Making Homes Energy Efficient. It has set what would be a very reasonable target for any Government—the next Government, I hope—to bring all poor households up to energy performance certificate standard C level and to provide free loans of 0%, as is done in fiscally conservative Germany, for other households that can afford to pay for those changes in order to bring them up to those standards as well. The report estimates the cost of that over the lifetime of a Parliament as something in the order of £13 billion, which is a lot of money. Compare that with what the overall infrastructure spend might be for those five years in the next Parliament, which is estimated to be hundreds of billions. So it is something like 10% of the total infrastructure cost over a five-year term Parliament.

What are the benefits that come out of that? The estimate, which I see as being reasonable and reasonably conservative, is some £8 billion of energy savings, and that is taking into account what is called, shall we say, “comfort take”—people who are already too cold increasing their energy consumption or bringing up their temperatures after that. It reduces carbon emissions, of course, and increases energy security. The other area, which people like myself who deal with energy and climate change do not always take into account, is the huge benefit that there would also be to the National Health Service. In this country we have some 30,000 excess winter deaths, of which 30% to 50% occur because of cold homes. That is something that we can solve, something that is really important to us.

The cost of all that would be something like £13 billion, but every year we pay £2 billion worth of winter fuel payments to everyone universally. Over the same parliamentary period, that would be £10 billion. I suggest to my noble friend the Minister that this is an area where we could move on from Soviet and developing-world models, invest in our housing infrastructure and be of real benefit and cost benefit for our country in the future.

Income Tax

Lord Teverson Excerpts

Wednesday 19th November 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, the Government support the principle of paying the minimum wage. A number of government departments are already doing it and others are considering introducing it.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, what progress are the Government making on multinational corporate taxation to ensure that UK-domiciled companies are not discriminated against in terms of international and UK markets?

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, as noble Lords will be aware, at the G20 last year the Prime Minister had this issue at the top of the agenda, since when the OECD has produced a whole raft of measures aimed at ensuring that companies pay their fair share of tax. Noble Lords will have seen the end of what was called the “double Irish” tax avoidance scheme in Ireland, and there are currently European Commission probes against tax avoidance in the Netherlands and Luxembourg. There has been a real tightening-up in this area, which was reinforced at the recent G20 summit.

Infrastructure Bill [HL]

Lord Teverson Excerpts

Monday 10th November 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, I am content to support Amendment 113G as far as it goes but, to my mind, it does not go anything like far enough. I regret that I will be introducing rather a disconsonant note to the debate. I will outline my opposition to hydraulic fracking, lock, stock and two poisoned barrels, in the debate on a later amendment in my name—here’s to knocking these diabolical fracking provisions out of the Bill. These amendments give a modicum of increased environmental protection, and I welcome the reference to the levels of methane in underground water, to which I shall certainly be returning in a later bank of amendments. I seek some clarification from the mover of the amendment on whether either the Scottish Parliament or the National Assembly for Wales has any role in the consideration of these draft instruments.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, when one reads the amendment, one is clearly very favourable to it because it tries to do certain things and convey a message, which the noble Baroness is quite right about, in terms of public confidence in the fracking industry. However, sometimes in this debate we forget the amount of regulation and control that is already there. For a start, we must have the permission of the surface land owner. We need planning permission from local authorities. We need a licence from DECC from a series of auctions or allocations of those licences and areas for that. We need the Environment Agency to approve and we need health and safety to give the go-ahead as well. That is quite substantial. When I look through the amendment a little more, I certainly agree with independent inspections and disclosure of chemicals. I am far from sure about a 12-month period for a previous record of monitoring. From discussions on this in Committee, this is not particularly seasonal and 12 months is a long time—certainly, in terms of fugitive gases, methane in particular, that is extremely important.

However, I am not sure that the Bill is the right place to ask the Committee on Climate Change to do something. In fact, I am sure the Minister could speak to the chairman of the Committee on Climate Change quite easily—maybe even after the debate—and come to an agreement on whether that was needed. I agree that maybe a report is required. It could, of course, really look only at foreign experience, while perhaps UK experience becomes far more important. We clearly cannot do that until after at least some of the exploration stage, and maybe some of the production stage, has happened. However, I agree that we need the regulation of this technology to be comprehensive, and we have a good track record in general in this area. Perhaps we need that regulation to be in one place comprehensively so that not only the industry but we as parliamentarians can understand it and, more importantly, the public can see how this all works.

So while I do not really support this amendment in its current form, I hope that the Government are working on this anyway and will bring forward, perhaps later in the Bill or in secondary legislation, a comprehensive summary and description of exactly how all these levels of regulation will work within the industry.

--- Later in debate ---

My preferred outcome of this debate would be for the Government to withdraw or the House to vote these appalling clauses out of the Bill. In the event of failure to do this, I implore the Government to either accept my Amendment 114 to allow the National Assembly to determine these matters in Wales or undertake to bring forward their own clause in another place for the same purpose. Whichever way they proceed, this issue will not go away. I beg to move.

[Lord Teverson]

My Lords, I do not want in any way to suggest that Wales should not have its own authority over this area. As a citizen of Cornwall, I absolutely agree with the noble Lord—though I do not know enough about what the relationship is here.

On the attack on fracking, down in Cornwall our geology does not support shale gas but it does support deep geothermal, in which fracking plays an important part. I think that the noble Lord spoke on the whole about fracking in relation to shale gas, but there are issues around fracking for whatever purpose, and seismic events are one of those. In one of the early EU-funded geothermal tests in Alsace, there were seismic events and a lot has been learnt from that. There were also events in Blackpool, but as I understand it the industry is able in the right locations to make sure that such matters are very well controlled.

I make the point that fracking can be good. It can be good for renewables. I hope that in the longer term fracking will be available for deep geothermal in terms of power generation. At the moment, it looks like we will go through a heat revolution with not quite so deep geothermal, but in the long term we may get to generate baseload electricity through deep geothermal. I wanted to make that point, because fracking is not just around shale gas; it has those other benefits as well.

However, Wales should be able to steer its own course.

[Baroness Worthington]

My Lords, I rise briefly to ask the Minister for her comments on the issue of devolution and fracking. I am particularly interested in the Scottish question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley. As I understand it, Holyrood already controls planning permission and the permitting regime, so it would not be a huge step to devolve this aspect of the control of fracking and rights of access. I just ask that question.

I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for drawing the attention of the House to the fact that, when we talk about these provisions and rights of access, they apply to more than just the extraction of petroleum. Indeed, they apply to deep geothermal, which arguably needs the loophole to be changed more urgently than in the case of fracking for oil and gas. It may change the view of the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, on this that you can frack for coal as well. Fracking of deep-mine coal might bring a degree of economic development back to Wales. I am not saying that that is the only way that Wales should develop; I am much more interested in some of the marine technologies, biomass and wind in a Welsh context—those seem to have huge potential. However, I would never rule out the idea that deep coal mining could come back as an economic activity if done in combination with carbon capture and storage.

In summary, these clauses potentially relate to more than just oil and gas extraction, and I am interested in the noble Baroness’s response on the Scottish question.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Verma]

My Lords, as noble Lords know, this Government are committed to ambitious action to reduce carbon emissions and increase renewable energy generation in the UK. To this end, the non-domestic renewable heat incentive was introduced in November 2011 and followed with a domestic scheme in April this year. These schemes are the world’s first long-term financial support programmes for renewable heat. Switching to renewable heat can in some circumstances bring significant bill savings to businesses and households and helps the Government meet their challenging targets on climate change.

The government amendment before the House responds to one tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, in Grand Committee, on which I undertook to return to noble Lords on Report. The new clause proposes three changes to Section 100 of the Energy Act 2008, which provided for the creation of the schemes. I shall take each of the changes in turn. As noble Lords will be aware, administration of the schemes is currently limited to either Ofgem or the Secretary of State. While Ofgem is successfully administering both schemes, our inability to run a competitive process is a constraint on achieving best value for money. The Government, therefore, signalled their intention to seek the necessary legal powers to enable an alternative administrator to be appointed in their consultation on the domestic scheme in 2012.

Ofgem will continue to administer the scheme for the time being and in making this change the Government will retain the power to appoint Ofgem to administer the scheme in the future. The ability to appoint a new administrator means that the Government will require the flexibility to adapt the appeals processes to any new administrator and to ensure that these remain robust. The amendment therefore also allows the Government to make regulations covering dispute resolution through appeals processes.

The second change deals with payments. Payments under the scheme must currently be made to the owner of the renewable heat installation or to the producers of biomethane, biogas and biofuels for heating. The amendment will allow the schemes to be redesigned to mean that these parties can have the option to assign their payments to a third party. For the domestic scheme, this would mean that the upfront cost of renewable heating systems could be funded by third parties for households unable to afford them, with scheme payments then made directly to the third party, making this an attractive opportunity for investors. For the non-domestic scheme, assigning rights to payments may allow for simpler financial arrangements between parties, reducing the costs of, and barriers to, the installation of renewable heating. By incentivising new funding arrangements, this change could lead to an increase in both demand for and supply of renewable heat technologies and a mix of higher deployment and lower costs.

Implementing changes would require secondary legislation, on which we intend to engage with stakeholders. In making any changes, we will also work with the scheme administrator and other parties to ensure appropriate design of the consumer protection framework and to integrate the assignment of rights into the scheme’s existing cost control mechanism.

The amendment would also allow some changes to the schemes to be made by the negative resolution procedure. At present, all changes must be made by the affirmative procedure, regardless of their complexity or materiality. In practice this is much slower than the negative procedure. The Government have found that their inability to make changes to the schemes quickly, in response to market changes and other factors, may risk undermining confidence in them. For example, we cannot update regulations quickly to allow them to reference updated technical industry standards.

The amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, proposed that all secondary legislation in relation to the schemes be made by the negative procedure. I have considered the comments made in Grand Committee in response to that proposal. The amendment now before us aims to achieve greater flexibility while still ensuring appropriate parliamentary scrutiny. It stipulates that some uses of the powers in important areas remain subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. For example, this would include making provision covering sanctions, enforcement and appeals, establishing requirements on fossil fuel suppliers to fund the renewable heat incentive, or amending Section 100 of the Energy Act to change the general type of heat-generating methods that can be funded through the scheme.

For other powers, the amendment stipulates that the first use of the power should be via the affirmative procedure, but allows for use of the negative resolution procedure for subsequent uses of the power in relation to the same scheme. This will allow for appropriate scrutiny where powers are first used, such as to provide for assignment of payments in the schemes, but means that minor subsequent changes can be made by negative resolution.

The Government expect that future changes to the existing schemes are likely to be straightforward and uncontroversial—for example, measures to reduce red tape, or technical changes to allow the schemes to keep pace with market innovation. I do not consider use of the affirmative procedure necessary in these circumstances. The negative procedure, while still allowing for adequate parliamentary scrutiny, provides flexibility to address issues as they arise, rather than delaying matters while suitable legislative opportunities are sought.

Together, these changes will allow significant improvement in the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of renewable heat incentive schemes, allowing the UK to meet its carbon reduction and renewables targets, while also making efficient use of taxpayers’ money. I beg to move.

[Lord Teverson]

My Lords, I welcome these moves, which will make financing much more flexible, and mean that money really can flow into the RHI. I therefore congratulate the Minister on the amendments, and on moving this matter forward.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Whitty]

My Lords, I have also added my name to this amendment. This is for two reasons—partly, I was swept away by the rhetoric from the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, in Committee; it is such an obvious strategic decision that I thought I must support it. The second reason is purely historic. Somewhere in the archives of the TUC, from about 1973, there is a paper with the initials “LW” on it. In that paper I argued that we should set up a fund to invest in upgrading into the new technologies of the manufacturing industry and acquire assets at home and abroad to meet the interests of the state and of the British economy out of the tax revenues which we anticipated would come from the North Sea. We had no idea how much revenue would be coming in from North Sea oil at that time but it would clearly be substantial. I do not think anybody thought at that point it would be as substantial as it turned out, altering the terms of trade of the UK, with the level of sterling rising to the detriment of the competitiveness of the British manufacturing sector which was, of course, already a bit deadbeat and uncompetitive.

If only they had listened to me then. I am afraid that I never got my paper to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, while he was still in office but the next Government took no notice of it nor, indeed, the one after that. It stayed through all that period of North Sea oil revenue the Government received—I would not use “squandered”. I disagree with a lot of the priorities of the Government of the 1980s as noble Lords know, but that revenue was not used for the long-term benefit of the British economy when at least a fraction of it should have been. I thought the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, had an important point here. If this industry develops to the extent that many of its proponents are saying, although none of us knows that yet, there will be a serious tax revenue that is in a strict sense a windfall for future Governments and a windfall for the British economy. We should not make the same mistake and we should take a lesson from our Norwegian cousins by investing in a fund that can provide some degree of security and improvement of the British economic situation for future generations. I am very happy to support in principle the noble Lord’s amendment.

[Lord Teverson]

My Lords, I welcome this amendment and I was pleased to add my name to it both in Committee and now on Report. The important point to make is that my noble friend Lord Hodgson is absolutely right: if we do not put this on to the statute book as something that can happen, the temptation will pass and it will be as if it never happened. That is why I am keen that it should be done now.

I should say just as an observer, if you like, that it is very easy to expand government expenditure and very difficult to pull it back. It is easy to find uses for income if it is there, but perhaps those uses are not always the best for our long-term future. It is easy when there are financial and fiscal constraints of the kind the country is confronting at the moment, but that is not always the case. It is hoped that we will get over the current deficit at some point in the not too distant future. That is why it is important to prepare for a sovereign wealth fund so that we can build it up in an intergenerational way, as has been advocated already.

The other aspect is completely different and not at all the most important. In the last parliamentary Session this House set up a Select Committee to investigate the nature of soft power. I was not a member of the committee, but it seems to me that countries with sovereign wealth funds exercise considerably more soft power in global affairs. That is not surprising because money talks—not just within the family or in business, but across nations as well. Why does Norway enjoy its stature? It is in part because of its sovereign wealth fund. The same can be said for a number of Gulf states and for China. In terms of Britain’s status in the future, we would gain quite considerably if we were seen to be a country that is able to save, invest and exert influence financially beyond our borders in this way rather than one that just keeps its current account going through non-renewable resources that cannot be brought back. That is why I feel strongly that we should at least take the step of this enabling legislation and then let future Governments decide how it should be used.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

My Lords, I did serve on the soft power committee and I have to say that the countries with sovereign wealth funds are not exercising soft power; they are exercising hard power because they are lending us money to keep going. Every year we are spending roughly £100 billion more than we have income. The leader of the Opposition forgot about the deficit in his speech at his party’s conference. I have to say that I have very considerable respect for my noble friend, but he seems to have forgotten about it too. He did mention at the end of his speech that there is the issue of debt, which might be a reason why people would oppose this policy. It is certainly why I would oppose it.

The national debt will have doubled during this Parliament. The coalition Government are absolutely determined to reduce it, but it is still growing. We are not meeting our targets in terms of bringing the deficit under control. The idea that we should pre-empt resources that may or may not come from shale gas is like going along to the bank manager and saying, “I would like to borrow £1.4 trillion and, by the way, I would also like to open a savings account into which I shall put the proceeds from shale gas”. This is a noble thought. It would be great to have a sovereign wealth fund, but it would perhaps be a first step to live within our means and pay back the debt that we have accumulated.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Teverson]

My Lords, I very much agree with the amendment. I have backed similar amendments to other Bills. Unfortunately, we did not manage to get any further on it. It is Liberal Democrat policy that we should get unabated coal out of the energy generation system by 2025—to me that seems an eternity. One of the key things that would do, as this amendment would do, would be to stop long-term investment of any size in unabated coal generation and facilities. That seems to me an absolutely fundamental prerequisite, not only of meeting our carbon budgets, but of ensuring we meet our international obligations, such as on air quality. It will be very difficult to continue to lead on climate change—as we do and as we want to continue to do into the future—if we have a continued electricity generation industry based on coal for the long term.

There are all sorts of other ways to do stop that reinvestment. We have rehearsed these arguments many times before. It is the Chancellor’s and the Treasury’s wish that we should have gas investment at a reasonable level in this country over the next few years. Of course, the more we take the risk of encouraging coal to reinvest into the future—we do not know how much of that will happen but some of it already has—the more we will crowd out investment in other technologies. I suspect that the Minister will not accept the amendment, unfortunately, but I know that a number of Ministers and people in DECC understand the importance of taking coal out of generation. I hope that the Government will one day come to a single view that this needs to be done.

[The Earl of Caithness]

My Lords, we were treated yet again to an exposition by the noble Baroness on a matter that we debated at length and voted on last year on the Energy Bill. Here we are doing it again. If the noble Baroness and her party had really wanted to meet some of the targets then they should not have flapped around like wet hens in a thunderstorm when they were in power and got on with doing something about nuclear. As a result of this Government, the energy programme is taking off in a way that it should have done a long time ago. We all agree that we want to get coal out of the system. It is about getting the timing right for that, without creating extra costs for the consumer and without switching the lights off. The coal power stations have to meet the new directive on, I think, 1 January 2016. This subject has been debated long and often and we have voted often. We will obviously continue to do so, but thankfully we are now heading in the right direction. I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will not accept the amendment.

Barnett Formula

Lord Teverson Excerpts

Tuesday 17th December 2013 Grand Committee

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, I note that the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, asked that political parties include a needs-based formula in their manifestos. I somehow suspect that they will not be on the front pages or among the first six pledges—or three or however many pledges we choose—because this is one of those subjects that has become all too difficult, which is why this temporary situation has lasted for three decades. It certainly needs to be changed but, having said that, what is the difference that such a change would make in England? It would be an extra 4%, which I am sure would be very much welcomed by local authorities but is not a big difference. It is rather an obscure issue for the electorate, which does not make it any less important, but most people would probably interpret it as something to do with the financing of one of the more obscure London boroughs, rather than attribute it to one of our noble colleagues here.

I should like to move on and ask: what should really be done if the situation gets a little more difficult? A needs-based formula would certainly be better. I am slightly sceptical about an independent commission but the European Union manages rather objectively to distribute structural funds, so it may be that this sort of thing can happen even within a political environment. Two areas are even more important than this, one of which is the rural/urban divide that, unfortunately, my Government have so far not been able to mend much, if at all, during their period in office. I remind noble Lords that rural areas pay higher tax bills, get some 52% less in government grants, and have fewer public services because they are more difficult to deliver there. That is one of the fundamental areas, which, if we keep a similar form of local government finance to what we have now, needs to be fixed very quickly and thoroughly.

The other area that has been mentioned by other noble Lords, which is equally if not more important, is that we need to do something far more basic than changing the Barnett formula: we need to increase substantially the taxation that is raised locally. Rather than mess around with the Barnett formula, we need to start to implement a much greater degree of localism. Clearly, we have got rid of a lot of ring-fencing over the past few years. We have got rid of capping, although we have replaced that with other ways of restraining local expenditure. We have taken away barriers stopping local authorities from raising revenues in all sorts of ways. I welcome that, which came from one of the Government’s early initiatives under localism. However, over the medium term we need to move financing from 5% towards 20%, and hopefully in the longer term far higher, so that we have much more local accountability and democracy, and better local decision-making. Within Europe we are the most centralised state as far as taxation is concerned, certainly among the major states. That needs to change. We need to change the rural/urban divide. If we can do all that, then I would support my noble friend Lord Shipley in changing the Barnett formula as well.

Taxation: Tax Collection

Lord Teverson Excerpts

Thursday 4th July 2013 Lords Chamber

Asked By

[Lord Teverson]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they intend to take to increase the collection of tax revenue following Apple’s zero return for United Kingdom corporation tax.

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, I am unable to comment on the tax affairs of individual companies, as doing so would be a breach of taxpayer confidentiality. Tax avoidance by multinational enterprises is an issue that requires co-ordinated global action. The UK is committed to supporting multilateral action through the G20 and the OECD. The OECD will present an action plan for tackling these issues to the G20 later this month.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Teverson]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that reply. What conversations are the Government having with the Republic of Ireland to prevent footloose and stateless subsidiaries paying derisory levels of corporation tax in its domain? I come back to my fundamental question. Is it right that my wife’s small printing business last year paid its full dues of £22,000 of corporation tax, when Apple, with a turnover in the UK of £1 billion, paid absolutely nothing?

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, the noble Lord raises an important point. Eighty-four per cent of Apple’s non-US operating income was booked by an Irish subsidiary that was not tax-resident anywhere and paid tax at a rate of 0.05%. That is clearly unacceptable and is why the G20 will look at the issue later this month. It will be presented with a report from the OECD that suggests not only what action is needed but sets deadlines for taking it and makes proposals on the resources that are going to be needed to implement the new rules.

Economy: Sustainable Jobs

Lord Teverson Excerpts

Thursday 27th June 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Teverson]

My Lords, I was at the final two debates last night, one of which was about small and medium-sized enterprises and exports. Many noble Lords commented that language was one of the challenges for small and medium-sized businesses in exporting. One of the most difficult areas of language, with which Google Translate would never deal, is sayings or colloquialisms. One of the first I ever learnt was, “To every cloud there is a silver lining”. I want to talk about the cloud, and then I will talk about the silver lining.

The cloud is literal: it is carbon emissions. It causes global warming and is a real issue. Now that we have passed 400 parts per million in carbon emissions and are moving towards higher temperatures, we have, as noble Lords know, the retreating polar ice caps and sea levels going up some 3 millimetres every year. It is carrying on. I was obviously delighted by my noble friend’s pronouncement about investment this morning, but I was even more ecstatic about President Obama’s recent pronouncement about the United States restarting its global and national engagement on climate change and global warming, particularly on restricting American coal emissions and making a major contribution to the reduction in global carbon emissions.

I say that because that agenda is being restated globally. Although we think of China as one of the world’s greatest polluters, it is a major agenda item there. I hope, particularly with the involvement of the United States, that the world will move forward on that. However, there is still a cloud up there that threatens our planet, our lifestyle and our economy into the long term.

What is the silver lining? It is clearly that this offers opportunities to us as a nation, uniquely, to take advantage of the technologies and how the way in which we live needs to change. As someone who often speaks on energy and climate change, that is why I supported the coalition so strongly when it was formed and the coalition agreement was authored: we were to be the greenest Government ever. I agree that we have struggled with that. We are still there and are still moving forward, but that aim and the policies arising from it—I will go through some of those—are the major reasons why we can look forward to growth beyond our recent track record and that of other European nations. Over the past couple of years, growth in green industries has been at around 2.5% per annum, while we have had relatively difficult economic performance elsewhere. Jobs have gone up in that area as well.

Green jobs and growth will really help us in three main areas, and they are not always the ones that we think about; we sometimes think about investment in wind farms and that sort of area, but I will come back to that. One of the key areas is competitiveness. We often hear about how shale gas has reduced energy costs in the United States and about how, because of that, US industry has become more competitive. However, that is an economy that thrives on energy inefficiency. That is the background to the power of the United States: wasteful carbon emissions and energy use making it the great manufacturing and industrial nation that it was.

In this country we have a very different model for potential energy efficiency. For the long term, we can perhaps reduce energy costs for business through the lower gas prices that we are yet to see from any shale gas development, but clearly we can ensure that we can do so through energy efficiency. That is why the programmes that the Government have brought forward, particularly the Green Deal, are important for our future not just for our homes but for businesses as well.

That initiative has only just started. The Government have been absolutely right to make sure that the programme has had a fairly soft start so that we learn, as that process goes forward, that it does not rely on public expenditure, making it future-proof against budgets and Chancellors of whatever colour taking decisions. Once that investment programme works, it has the benefit not only of relieving fuel poverty and reducing fuel bills but of making our industry more competitive and producing a large number of real jobs in the semi-skilled area, which are so important, as well as the skilled areas as we move through the long term to the future.

I think that we have made the right decision on energy-intensive industries, although I was somewhat iffy about this at the time. I have to admit that we risk increasing carbon and energy costs and offshoring energy-intensive industries. By doing that, we just shift those emissions geographically from the UK, where there is relatively better environmental regulation, to other economies where perhaps that is not the case. Therefore I welcome a transition for those industries, and it has to be a transition until we have a much more level playing field across the rest of the world.

Moving on from competitiveness, we come to investment. In the green economy, we have, as my noble friend the Minister has already announced, a huge programme of potentially £100 billion for energy investment. Much of that will be very highly skilled work, which will be local and will produce local jobs and local skills. We have to make sure that we get the current Energy Bill on to the statute book and make some of the detail better than it is at the moment, but we have a real focus on making sure that that happens.

In Sunderland in the north-east—I will probably defer to my noble friend Lord Shipley on this, as he knows that area better—Nissan has been producing Leaf electric cars since April this year. It is the only plant in Europe to do so, and provides some £450 million of investment and 500 extra jobs. In addition, we have a number of potential wind farm sites. In Scotland we have AREVA, where we hope to have another 750 jobs. We will see if those arrive. This is all about making sure that the industry has confidence in the green economy.

Apart from investment and competitiveness, we will make this business work only if we have the skills in the economy to drive it forward. This requires two things. The first is certainty about government policy. The Government have not always been hugely successful in that between the Department of Energy and Climate Change and the Treasury. It is much better now, given the deals that have been done and the road map that we have before us. In addition, we require investment and skills. That is why the Government’s target, particularly in BIS, to increase investment in apprenticeships is really the right way forward. We have a great opportunity there.

I conclude by quoting John Cridland, who I think has already been mentioned once this morning. He said:

“it is easy to understand why some people are fearful that ‘going green’ might further dent the economic recovery. For me, this is a false debate”.

He goes on to say:

“tackling head-on the critical challenges of energy security, affordability and climate change … isn’t a lofty ideal to aspire to—there is a hard-nosed economic argument that moving to a low-carbon economy can drive significant business investment and create many new jobs across the country”.

I think that is the fundamental view of this Government in their growth and economic strategy, and they must keep to it. We will have in the end not only the greenest economy but one of the most successful economies, not just in Europe but in the world.

Financial Services Bill

Lord Teverson Excerpts

Monday 15th October 2012 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Teverson]

187C: Schedule 10, page 240, line 12, at end insert—
“(5A) In making any provision of the scheme under subsection (3), the relevant regulator must so far as practicable establish classes of authorised person on which levies may be imposed such that the claims that are likely to be made in respect of that class of person share a close affinity.
(5B) For these purposes, a claim shares a close affinity with another claim if both the nature of the services or activities and the type of financial instruments in relation to which the claims arise exhibit a high degree of similarity.”

[Lord Teverson]

I can see that everybody wants to discuss the Statements on Europe and the potential independence of Scotland, so I will try to be brief. However, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that I have heard of the deposit guarantee schemes directive as well as the investor compensation schemes directive, both of which the Commission published in 2010 but neither of which has got anywhere very much since last year. The two directives have held up much thought around the financial services compensation service.

In this amendment I am trying to put into primary legislation a key principle regarding the close affinity of organisations which must help to compensate when other organisations have gone into liquidation or cannot meet their obligations to their customers. I am also putting down two tests: the first concerns the similarity of the service and the second the similarity of the financial instrument. Many Members will be aware of the history of this in that the Financial Services Compensation Scheme does make levies. In fact, in the fund management area it can ask for up to £270 million with 30 days’ notice, and indeed last year £233 million was called up, which is estimated to be 4% of the turnover of the total sector. Those of us who have worked in business will know that if you suddenly take 4% of your turnover out of the business, through a statutory note or the equivalent of a tax or a notice, it can hugely affect your business. The largest problem was Keydata resulting in a quarter of a billion pounds’ compensation having to be found, and it was a major problem. There have been a dozen smaller cases, and in the past five years there has been £600 million compensation involving investment intermediaries. In those cases of failure the overwhelming burden fell on the fund managers and independent financial advisers, who paid for the damage of what often were issues from spread betting, unquoted shares and life settlement portfolios. In practice there was a lack of affinity. There is also a question of what happens when regulators themselves have not been as good as they should be in ensuring regulated and authorised persons have worked responsibly in the past.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, this amendment seeks to remove the possibility of any element of cross-subsidy between different classes of authorised firms. We do not feel that it is either necessary or helpful. We do not consider that the practice of allowing some cross-subsidies between classes is inherently wrong, and nor should it be prohibited in every case. Not only does the potential for cross-subsidy help ensure a sustainable scheme with lower levy thresholds, but it helps to ensure that the compensation supports consumer confidence in the financial services sector as a whole, by limiting the risk that compensation claims cannot be met. If the scheme has insufficient funds to pay out claims to policyholders of a failed insurer, bank customers are unlikely to have confidence that the scheme will be able to pay out if their bank fails.

As I have already stated, the decision on how the FSCS is funded is best made by the regulators and implemented through their rules. In particular, it is the regulators who understand what is appropriate and affordable by different classes of firms and so are best placed to determine when, or indeed if, cross-subsidisation is appropriate. I equally accept, however, that there is a need for proportionality in the different classes of firms that are expected to contribute. I am well aware, for example, that in the past the building society sector has felt that it has had to pay a disproportionate burden.

However, as I have mentioned, the FSA is consulting on how the FSCS will be funded, although in broad terms, as the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, said, both the PRA and the FCA will have rule-making responsibility for the scheme. The PRA will make rules for deposit takers and insurance providers and the FCA will make compensation rules for all other types of financial activity covered by the scheme.

The best way to deal with the specific issue raised by my noble friend is via the FSA’s consultation on the draft scheme, which I mentioned earlier. It is ongoing—it has several weeks left to go—and it is the best way now of ensuring that the scheme we end up with is the best possible scheme for all the different classes of firms which will be covered by it. On that basis, I ask my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Teverson]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. Obviously I am somewhat disappointed. Clearly the consultation is an area in which the sector and I will participate but there is a real issue around justice and equity in this sector and how the scheme will work. I shall perhaps take the opportunity to speak to him further between now and Report, but, in the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 187C withdrawn.