United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Debate between Lord Teverson and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

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.

Common Fisheries Policy and Animals (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Debate between Lord Teverson and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Wednesday 30th October 2019 Grand Committee

[Lord Teverson]

I have a caveat. I fully welcome the extra resources that the MMO has and the fact that the Navy is doing that. The Navy has been largely absent from monitoring recently, because it has been dealing with other border security issues. However, the difficulty is that that budget is mainly financed from the Brexit process. Many of us do not have a lot of faith given the fact that, as the Minister will know, Defra is always on the front line regarding budget cuts, and once we get through Brexit—if indeed we do— frankly, those extra budgets will disappear and we will be back to where we are, with all the enforcement challenges that we had prior to that. I am not asking the Minister for a reply but warning him, in case he stays in office.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

I am not sure that I am allowed to comment, but I was rather reassured by the list that that my noble friend read out and the fact that the Navy will now be more involved—as indeed it used to be historically, before Defra experienced cuts. It feels as though fisheries, if we get Brexit, will become a more important national asset, which will therefore justify the expenditure. I hope that that will be respected by Ministers when they come to look at these budgets.

Brexit: Consumer Rights Policy

Debate between Lord Teverson and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Monday 12th December 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

In general, consumers enjoy strong protections in this country, and we want to seek to preserve those. But where markets fail—the noble Lord has given an example—and competition is not as strong as it needs to be, they may not get a good deal, and the Government will not hesitate to take steps where we need to. We are bringing forward a Green Paper in the spring of next year that will closely examine markets that are not working fairly for consumers. It will look at both specific markets and cross-cutting items, and I look forward to hearing more on those sorts of issues so we can ensure that they are properly looked at as part of that process.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, British holiday- makers have a history of being ripped off by mobile phone companies while on holiday abroad through communication and data charges. Europe has thankfully sorted this out over the past couple of years, and the charges will be the same. Will the Government insist that British communications and mobile telephone companies keep to that agreement in future so that the rip-off stops and the service remains equitable for British consumers?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

I am glad that the noble Lord mentioned roaming, because it is one of the key advances that general EU effort has achieved in recent times. When you go to Europe now, depending on your provider, you can sometimes get your calls within your contract, which I have been fortunate enough to experience. In general, consumer regulations in the area of telecoms will not be affected by EU exit—and, of course, as I have said, the market is changing. However, I assure the noble Lord that roaming, and the benefits of that, will be an important ingredient in influencing our thinking in our exit negotiations.

Green Investment Bank

Debate between Lord Teverson and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Tuesday 1st November 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Teverson]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what progress they have made in their sale of the Green Investment Bank.

[The Minister of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Baroness Neville-Rolfe) (Con)]

My Lords, on 3 March this year the Government launched the Green Investment Bank sale process and it is currently ongoing. I can inform the House that good progress is being made. In particular, yesterday the GIB announced the names of the special share trustees appointed to be the custodians of its green purposes, and I congratulate the noble Lord on his selection as a trustee. The Government will provide a full report to Parliament once the sale is completed.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

I thank the Minister for her reply and for the good work she has done in this area. Will the Government put additional conditions into the contract for sale to ensure not just that the green purposes are kept for the bank, but that it does not become a shell company with those investments placed elsewhere to avoid such constraints, and that the bank will continue to invest in the UK green economy so that it can continue to thrive?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

In addition to the special share, which will protect GIB’s green mission, the Government have asked potential investors to confirm their commitment to the GIB’s green values and its investment principles, and explain how they propose to protect them. Green investment is, of course, what the GIB does—it is in its DNA. Investors will buy into its reputation, its green business plan and forward pipeline of projects, all of which are focused on the UK, although there could be international potential as well.

Hinkley Point C

Debate between Lord Teverson and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Thursday 15th September 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister, but I have a different take on the pricing side. Some time ago, we had the resignation of the finance director of EDF. I have looked at the share price since the announcement was made, and it is going down. Does the Minister expect EDF to be solvent by the time this project is due to be delivered? That is a real risk, given the other problems at Flamanville and—I am not brave enough to pronounce the town in Finland—the Finnish nuclear station. Will EDF survive this? What are the contingency plans?

This decision was originally made some three years ago, and we have had this soap opera ever since, but time and technology have moved on. Given the assessments on smart grids, energy storage and the Government’s brave and correct interconnector plan, is this nuclear power station—and fleet of nuclear power stations—necessary? I for one am not against nuclear technology as such, but is this the right technology to go forward? The previous Minister in the House of Commons, the Secretary of State for DECC, Amber Rudd, was very keen on small nuclear reactors. I would be interested to know whether the Minister is still pursuing that area.

I accept and welcome the various measures put in place to protect taxpayers and the public sector against the future costs of decommissioning, but I am concerned about the nuclear waste issue. I cannot see that there has been any movement by the Government in terms of their nuclear waste strategy or where we are going to put even old nuclear waste, let alone new nuclear waste. How can we be sure that the funding that will be put in place for decommissioning will reflect such an undefined nuclear waste strategy for the future?

Now that we have got through this period of constipation on energy decision-making, when can we expect a decision on the Swansea tidal lagoon?

I want to take up another major element in the Statement that is really interesting and that I have debated with the Minister on previous occasions. The Government are saying that they will take a golden share in future nuclear and other critical energy projects. The Minister will not be surprised if I ask her whether the Government have consulted with the Office for National Statistics about this strategy. She is quite right to be sensitive about the issue and wanting to make sure that, in having even slight government control over a company or a project, it does not become part of the public sector and go on to the public sector balance sheet. However, this seems quite incautious in comparison with previous government policy, and it is quite likely that at some point this project, which is worth £18 billion, will be put on to the public balance sheet. If that is the case, surely we should have put our own public money into it, at a more or less zero long-term interest rate, rather than bother with Chinese and French investment because it is going to be on the public sector balance sheet anyway.

I shall leave my questions at that. Again, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, for his support. I agree that we do not want any further delays, although I take comfort from the fact that the costs are borne by the developer. Under the contract for difference, if the plant is not generating by 2029, the period in which the developer has increased price security will decrease and the Government have an option to cancel if it is not generating in good time.

I shall try to answer some of the noble Lord’s testing questions on the legalities. He asked about the legal basis of letters. Clearly, letters are not legally binding in the same way as the contract for difference, but they provide a clear political reassurance that we trust EDF will stick to. We have a mutual interest in this important project.

Perhaps I might go through the protections and thus respond both to the questions of the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, and to those of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson. We will have a special share which would allow the special shareholder to intervene in any transaction where there were national grounds for doing so. That will not apply to Hinkley, which is being dealt with by an exchange of letters, but it will apply to future reactors. We have the Office for Nuclear Regulation which is a world-class, independent regulator that has a range of existing powers to intervene in developments. Under our proposals, we will require notice from developers or operators of any change of ownership or part-ownership. Most significantly, we will make proposals to establish a legal regime that allows us to consider the national security implications of all significant investment into our critical infrastructure, including nuclear. That will be the subject of widespread consultation on the details and will require legislation, so there will be opportunities to consider the proposals as we go forward.

For the Hinkley arrangement, we have tried to reach an agreement with EDF which—subject to its agreement to the project going forward—puts us in an improved position compared with where we were in July. That is what the Government have now decided, in part also because of the benefits in terms of security and reliability of supply. With a nuclear baseload—this will provide 7% of the UK’s energy needs—the advantage is that the energy continues to be produced whether the sun is shining or the wind is blowing.

As has been said, 26,000 jobs is a lot. The £30 billion figure that was mentioned is an NAO construction which used a different discount rate of 0.7%, which is much lower than our own 3.5% and is equivalent to the top end of our projections, which of course I covered in the Statement.

The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, compared this proposal to the French situation. Perhaps he would like to know that the French figure is a regulated price for electricity generated by all the power stations; there is a mix of both new and old in the French nuclear fleet, so it is not just Flamanville. The British price is a CFD for a specific new-build project, and furthermore it reflects the fact that the construction risks in Hinkley are borne by the developer alone and not the British consumer. I very much agree that the ONR is well respected and we are lucky to have that body.

The noble Lord also asked why the Statement is being made today. I thought that noble Lords would welcome the fact that, having said that we would make an announcement in the early autumn and then that we would do so in September, we have been able to get to the line today, so that it is possible for us to have a short debate on this ahead of the Conference Recess.

The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, in his inimitable way, made a lot of interesting points. I can confirm that we are looking at the small nuclear reactors he mentioned. He will recall that we are looking at an innovation competition in that area, with funding having been earmarked.

The noble Lord was right to say that the decommissioning of nuclear waste is an important issue, but he is wrong in that we do have a good system in this country. One of my earliest visits was to Sellafield, and I was impressed by the progress that is being made there. We are making a large public commitment—£2 billion at Sellafield alone—and of course we have built decommissioning into Hinkley, and we will do the same with the new nuclear fleet so that we do not get landed with a large legacy of decommissioning for which the public sector has to pick up the tab. However, a lot of good work is going on at Sellafield on nuclear waste from 30, 40 and 50 years ago, including defence waste as well as civil waste.

Enterprise Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Teverson and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Monday 30th November 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Teverson]

While we are going into a sort of dialogue, and without drawing matters to a conclusion at this moment, the only way I can see of moving forward effectively is if Third Reading is postponed to get this matter right. It would be quite difficult to proceed if we did not postpone Third Reading, and I should be interested to know whether that is in the Minister’s remit as far as this discussion is concerned.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My Lords, I do not think I can go any further. Of course, I can assert that if we can find something on which we agree, we can bring that back, but I do not think I can commit to anything by Third Reading and, if there is an issue on this aspect, the noble Lord will have to test the opinion of the House.

Enterprise Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Teverson and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Wednesday 4th November 2015 Grand Committee

[Lord Teverson]

I will not interrupt the Minister regularly but should I understand it that this is a government interpretation of reading the ONS material and the European statistical material, or have the Government received any advice from the ONS? The way I read the Minister, it was the Government’s interpretation.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

The Government have been in discussion with the ONS but this is a serious matter involving a major transaction, and the Government have to take their own view of the rules as laid down. That is the view we have come to after very serious thought. As your Lordships can imagine, we would not lightly have added this provision to the Bill, enterprising though the GIB is. We are convinced of the need to do so, for the reasons that I set out because of our interpretation of the ESA rules.

[Lord Teverson]

Can I ask the Minister one follow-up question on that? If the Government found that it were possible to keep those five principles in legislation, would they wish to do so?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

The noble Lord makes a good point. It is clear to the Government that we cannot retain control over the Green Investment Bank if it is to be declassified from the public sector following a sale. I do not think that really answers the question about the five objectives, which I will reflect on and come back. I think the Committee can understand the basic point that we are making and obviously, as I will come on to explain, we want the Green Investment Bank to continue to be a Green Investment Bank and to operate effectively.

Perhaps I could therefore move on to the question of the remit and reiterate the point that I made in my opening remarks. It is the Government’s policy to move the bank into private ownership and we cannot retain control over its operations. That has to be interpreted in law and is the challenge that we are working with. However, I would like to give a bit more detail on how the bank will, as we see it, retain its mission.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

I think I made it clear that there are a number of options regarding the share, but I had also made it clear that we are looking to sell only a significant stake. The heart of the problem is that if we could keep the legislation without prejudicing the bank’s status we would, but the advice we are working on is that we cannot do that.

[Lord Teverson]

That is an excellent response and I welcome it. I hope that we can find a way of showing the Minister that it is indeed possible, and in that way help the Government to achieve their objectives. That would be an excellent solution to find.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

I am glad we are making progress. Green investment, which I am not an expert in, as all noble Lords know, is what the Green Investment Bank does. As I see it, that is the brand of the Green Investment Bank—after all, it is called the Green Investment Bank—so the parallel with 3i is not entirely fair. Because of that, the Government fully expect that potential investors will wish to maintain the bank’s green focus and values; they will know what they are buying into.