Net Zero Test

Baroness Altmann Excerpts

Thursday 22nd July 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

The heat and buildings strategy will be published in due course. I do not agree with the noble Lord that we are not doing anything. I refer him to action we have taken recently: the energy White Paper, the revised emissions trading system, all of the announcements and investment to do with offshore wind, the pledge to phase out new petrol and diesel vehicles, the transport decarbonisation plan, and so on. Of course, there is always more to do, but I do not accept the noble Lord’s premise.

[Baroness Altmann (Con)]

My Lords, I would like to congratulate the Government on their achievements so far, with the fastest reduction in the G7. We have two Ministers—one in the Lords and one in the Commons, my noble and honourable friends—who are determined to help reduce our emissions and achieve success for the environment. I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, that an independent assessment of the net-zero impact of policy is important and I commend the work of the Climate Change Committee. However, I hope the Government will continue to focus, for example, on direct action, by encouraging institutional and pension fund investors to invest in climate change mitigation, and promoting a net-zero approach to investment portfolios rather than asking officials to continue with a net-zero test in a way that the family test has been more of a tick-box exercise.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I thank my noble friend for her comments and certainly agree with her. As she is well aware, the trustees of occupational pension schemes are independent of government; they are not bound by the commitments we have signed up to. However, given the significance of the financial risks posed by climate change, we expect all investment decisions made by pension scheme trustees to take climate change into account. As of 2019, trustees of pension schemes with 100 or more members have been required to set out in their statement of investment principles policies on stewardship on an ESG, including climate change.

Office of the Whistleblower Bill [HL]

Baroness Altmann Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 25th June 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Altmann (Con)]

My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, for her persistence in pursuing this important issue and for introducing this Bill. Offering guidance, protection and support for whistleblowers, with a central body that can co-ordinate across sectors—from care homes, to hospitals, to furlough fraud, to financial firms—is clearly an important aim.

The Employment Rights Act 1996 and the amendments in the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 are way out of date and leave significant lacunae. For example, they do not even cover entire groups, such as trustees, non-executive directors or the self-employed. There is no joined-up approach to protecting whistleblowers, and the Bill proposes establishing an umbrella body to co-ordinate across sectors, which clearly seems to be needed. Working internally, the whistleblowers are best placed to uncover wrongdoing, yet face monumental hurdles when they try to report issues that are clearly in the public interest.

The noble Baroness’s Bill proposes this new body to, for example, create a panel of accredited legal firms or advisers and a fund to support whistleblowers, as well as to ensure proper financial redress for those who are victimised for trying to do the right thing.

Whistleblowing is too often viewed negatively—some kind of betrayal of your employer, who is a potential wrongdoer—unlike compliance functions, which are accepted as necessary to protect the public. Unfortunately, as the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, explained, the reforms in 2017 require bodies such as the Bank of England or the General Medical Council merely to produce a report on whistleblowers. That is clearly not sufficient to protect the whistleblowers themselves, who are battling through the courts to try to protect their own employment position, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, described.

The USA has much stronger protections, and we are falling behind internationally. It recognises that whistleblowers are often important parts of stopping wrongdoing, but our regulators do not seem to be equipped, or take too long, to react to whistleblowing. They end up being years behind the wrongdoing. Meanwhile, the offences continue and the whistleblower is still fighting through the courts for redress.

Who might fund this office? That is an important issue, but I would be grateful if my noble friend could indicate any support for the Bill.

Pollution Prevention and Control (Fees) (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2021

Baroness Altmann Excerpts

Tuesday 8th June 2021 Grand Committee

[Baroness Altmann (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for his clear explanation of this SI, which, on the face of it, seems pretty uncontroversial. Given that his department is responsible for the environmental regulator—OPRED—and aims to recoup the costs of its regulatory activity from the industry rather than from taxpayers, which I wholly support, it seems as if the increases in cost that we are being asked to approve today fit with that aim.

Protecting the environment and controlling our emissions and discharges into the sea are hugely important for the future of the planet, the future of our country, the future of our children and future generations. However, I wonder whether I could follow on from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and ask one or two questions about the rationale for the pricing structure that is being applied to what are, in effect, qualified technical specialists in environmental matters. Rather low fee rates seem to be being applied here. Even with the increases, we are talking about something like £1,400 a day. Daily rates for lawyers or specialist consultants are more like double that, or even more. Even for the non-specialists, we are talking about perhaps £700 to £750 a day.

I understand that we do not want to destroy or damage an industry that literally keeps the lights on in our country, but I want to ask my noble friend the Minister something particular; I do not expect him to have the answer to hand, but I would be grateful if he could write to me. To what extent are the employees—I assume they are public employees—who are doing this very important work members of public sector pension schemes? Have the true costs to the taxpayer of those pension contributions and ultimate pension payments been factored in to the costs being charged to these oil and gas companies?

Clearly, we must control air and sea pollution. The industry itself has accepted this regime. Again, I understand that the department may not wish to rock the boat—if noble Lords will excuse the expression—but it is important that taxpayers do not subsidise the cost of regulation for this industry in any way. In the current environment, the costs of a public sector pension scheme are more like 40% to 50% of salary on top of actual earnings. I would be interested to know whether this has been reflected in the new charges or the old charges.

I have one final question. I believe that the Government are doing marvellous work, and I commend my noble friend the Minister, his department and Defra for what they are aiming to do to control environmental damage. However, it is important, and I would be grateful if my noble friend could give the Committee some idea of the measures being taken to encourage the offshore oil and gas industry to rapidly diversify away from fossil fuels, abandon new developments because there is risk of stranded assets down the line and invest in alternative energies, such as offshore wind and solar power. That could replace some of the activity and jobs that are otherwise potentially at risk in areas that have become so dependent on our very successful oil and gas industry.

I support the measures but have some further questions and concerns, and I would be grateful to hear my noble friend’s response.

Climate Change: Targets

Baroness Altmann Excerpts

Thursday 27th May 2021 Grand Committee

[Baroness Altmann (Con)]

My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, on calling this debate and on her excellent introduction. In my brief time today, I would like to urge the Government to consider the use of pension scheme assets in our battle against climate change. They are the ideal long-term capital source to mitigate risks and prepare for both the known and unknown unknowns that we are facing. Climate change is potential catastrophe, both for us and for countries globally, and for future generations. We perhaps have an opportunity, if my noble friend agrees, to use our huge sums—more than £1 trillion—in pension assets, which are significantly larger than those in most other countries, to build back better; to ensure that traditional investments in global industries do not become worthless in the transition to low-carbon economies; and to address some of the inconsistencies in our policy stance, outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan. Pension assets could support a hydrogen strategy; they could encourage fossil fuel reduction and encourage traditional energy companies to diversify and build alternative sources of energy before their assets become stranded. The noble Lord, Lord Oates, has been working on some of this for a while and talking about capital requirements and risk-weighting for such assets. I would be grateful if my noble friend could give the Committee his thoughts on those.

I have two further quick points. Do the Government have targets for building new, eco-friendly homes, especially for older people to downsize to, while ensuring that existing housing stocks can be retrofitted and upgraded to be more energy efficient? Do the Government have plans to ban cryptocurrencies from all regulated activities, given the measure of carbon emissions entailed in this socially worthless exercise?

Post Office Update

Baroness Altmann Excerpts

Monday 24th May 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Altmann (Con)]

My Lords, I echo the welcoming of the extension of the inquiry. I also echo the tributes to my noble friend Lord Arbuthnot for his work on this issue. This was an affront to justice and compensation is urgent. There is a clear feeling across the House that the sense of urgency perhaps needs to be increased by a level or two. More than £100 million of taxpayers’ money was spent on criminal prosecutions of innocent people that were investigated, managed and conducted by the Post Office itself—marking its own homework. Can my noble friend assure the House—I believe that he may have just done so in answer to the previous question—that private prosecutions will not be used as a fast-pass ticket to jump the queue to the criminal courts by companies with deep pockets? This would mean that we could learn lessons in this case so that, generally speaking, wealthy private companies would not be able to bring private prosecutions or we could review their ability to do so.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I have given the noble Baroness an answer about the Post Office pursuing private prosecutions. I reiterate that it has no special powers in this regard: the power to bring private prosecutions exists across the piece and is used by a number of other organisations. The Post Office has assured us that it has no plans to pursue any further private prosecutions. The issue of private prosecutions generally has been studied extensively; indeed, a committee of this House looked at the issue and recommended—I will correct this for the noble Baroness if it is not right—that the power should remain. However, I repeat that the Post Office will not be pursuing any more private prosecutions.

Net-Zero Carbon Emissions

Baroness Altmann Excerpts

Wednesday 21st April 2021 Grand Committee

[Baroness Altmann (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I declare my interests as a member of Peers for the Planet and the Conservative Environment Network. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, on securing this debate and on his powerful and persuasive introduction.

I also congratulate the Government on the work that they have already done to help us achieve net zero: their 10-point plan for a green industrial revolution, their determination to be a leader in the global transition to net zero, their pledge to use the Covid recovery to build green infrastructure and jobs and the £12 billion infrastructure bank project to support private sector and local authority schemes. How are plans progressing for publishing the Government’s net-zero strategy implementation proposals? I was delighted to hear the commitment to bring forward our goals to 2035. However, that brings it into what I consider the short term rather than the longer term, and we do not yet have a road map for reaching that goal.

The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and all other noble Lords who have spoken mentioned the need for a cross-government approach and for integration across all parts of government. I fully support that. I understand that the Government are already working with the devolved authorities on issues such as carbon pricing and industrial decarbonisation strategies. Could my noble friend the Minister comment on further plans to work with regional and local government on these issues?

The Climate Change Committee points out that local authorities can impact more than one-third of all our emissions, and the devolved Administrations of Scotland and Wales account for one-fifth, so a national and local strategy to integrate policies is clearly needed to avoid conflicts between different parts of policy-making. For example, reducing traffic congestion could conflict with expanding cycle lanes, and a desire to build new homes or expand conductivity could undermine emission reductions. As other noble Lords have said, integrated policy-making on transport, electric vehicle charging networks, home heating efficiency and even carbon trading are urgently required. I therefore support the idea of a Cabinet Minister responsible for integrating all these policies and bringing in expertise across government who understands the impact of policies on emissions, and indeed on biodiversity, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, stressed, to align policy objectives.

Another clear area where there seems to be a disconnect between one arm of government and the aims of net zero relates to cryptocurrency trading, which has been alluded to by others, and the mining and increasing expansion of bitcoin, for example, into regulated firms. I was delighted that the Government listened to the concerns of this House expressed in the Financial Services Bill and overcame their initial reluctance to agree that the FCA, the PRA and the Pensions Regulator should have regard to net-zero aims when making their rules. That is something this House can be proud of. Financial institutions at the Bank of England now have an expanded remit to reflect environmental sustainability and the net-zero transition.

But how does that fit with increasing penetration of cryptocurrency trading and use in transactions by regulated firms? The carbon emissions involved in mining bitcoin, for example, exceed the entire emissions of a country such as the Netherlands and it adds no discernible benefit to society. Indeed, it might encourage fraudulent trading and facilitate money laundering, as well as enticing people into speculative gambling on something that does not exist. This seems rather like the tulip bulb mania, but without any tulips.

The higher the price of bitcoin, the greater the energy emissions involved in the whole market. If our financial regulators want to control the risks and help to meet net-zero targets this would seem to be relatively low-hanging fruit, but the longer it takes to wake up to these risks, the more embedded and financially risky it becomes to remove trading in currencies such as bitcoin from regulated activities, and the greater the danger to the Paris climate change ambitions. If the Government really aim to make the UK the number one centre for green tech and finance, should they now consider a ban on this type of activity?

It feels to me like the debate on climate change is still classified as a long-term problem, but the climate emergency is already with us and requires short-term action, not just intentions. One of the challenges, of course, is to develop clear data and metrics to measure progress on reducing emissions, and to institute regular reporting and correction mechanisms. However, there are still opportunities for the Government to join up and embed a process into policy-making across departments in the shorter term.

On a related subject, what consideration is being given to devising a cross-government, cross-industry taxation strategy which supports net zero and increases the incentives for emission reduction while subsidising investments that will achieve, or help to achieve, climate goals? For example, finance will be essential for decarbonising the UK’s energy sector, as it is for most economic activities. But as a major global financial centre and with one of the biggest oil and gas sectors in Europe, the UK could play a leading role in attracting private finance into renewables projects and other net- zero technologies.

We also need plans to encourage large companies with assets under threat from climate change or climate policies to plan now for the net-zero transition so that they can protect not just their investors but their workers and other businesses in their supply chain. Again, that is where taxation policy could drive positive change.

The production gap already exists, yet our major oil and gas companies and those in other countries have policies that are not compatible with the Paris Agreement objective of limiting global warming to an increase of 1.5 degrees or 2 degrees. Fossil fuel production is still increasing, which means that either we will miss the carbon budgets or the financing of oil and gas infrastructure in the North Sea will become increasingly risky as those assets are more likely to become stranded, risking the financial stability and viability of companies involved and consequent job losses.

As the host of COP 26 and a country with relatively low economic dependency on fossil fuel production, I hope that the UK will address our own production gap, as well as rethinking the new proposed coal mine. As an example of the disjointed policy which this debate is all about, this is clearly incompatible with the Government’s foreign policy priority, expressed in their integrated review, to lead the world on climate change, and their aims of achieving net zero more rapidly.

I congratulate the Chancellor on announcing the UK’s intention to be the first G20 country to mandate climate disclosures by large companies and financial institutions across our economy by 2025, with many coming into force by 2023 and going beyond the recommendations of the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures. All of the UK’s principal financial regulators have explicit mandates to consider climate risks. These trail-blazing measures may set an example for other countries to follow, and we can be proud of them, but they are just the first steps. For example, mandatory climate risk disclosure improves the information available to investors and shareholders but does not deliver the investment required for net-zero projects on the ground. It will be important to move rapidly from climate risk disclosure to mandatory climate transition plans, explaining clearly how these will align businesses’ activities with the goals of the Paris Agreement.

What plans are there to utilise the hundreds of billions of pounds of pension assets to support the aims of net-zero infrastructure, housing and other investments across government? Long-term investors are most at risk from climate change. There is a huge amount of money waiting but, so far, the Pensions Regulator seems to have focused on asking defined contribution pension funds to aim to use those assets and all pension schemes to disclose their plans. Once again, that does not deliver on the ground.

Defined benefit pensions have more money than defined contribution and do not have the constraints of daily pricing and rapid access, so I hope that there will be increased joined-up thinking that draws together, for example, the funding for local authority pensions and other long-term investments into net-zero investing, rather than just focusing on the new defined contribution schemes. That would be popular; the Make My Money Matter campaign caught people’s attention because the public increasingly care about how their savings are invested and their environmental impact. I declare an interest as an adviser to Cushon, a pension provider that has introduced pension investment funds that are net zero now, with carbon off-sets designed to deliver a net-zero impact straightaway, rather than waiting more years, as other firms have proposed.

I hope that my noble friend will take the sentiments expressed by noble Lords in this debate, which seek to ensure that policy-making is integrated across government, and is consistent and not constantly changing, and reflect on the support from this Committee for the measures introduced so far and on the proposals for a Cabinet Minister responsible for integrating policy in national, regional and local government.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Kyoto Protocol Registry) Regulations 2021

Baroness Altmann Excerpts

Tuesday 13th April 2021 Grand Committee

[Baroness Altmann (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his clear exposition of this SI. I am delighted that the Government have been showing strong commitment to addressing climate change, and of course I support the aims of the regulations and the amendment of EU law as it now applies to UK—which is, sadly, required following our departure from the EU. I also support our work to comply with our assignment amount units and targets under the Kyoto Protocol in order to reduce emissions.

In my brief time today, I shall ask my noble friend a few questions. What are the advantages from the extra costs incurred in setting up our own domestic registry, independent of the EU-wide CSEUR software platform, and how much is it expected to cost? Was there any opportunity to remain part of the EU system? Will my noble friend also provide an update on the progress so far and the Government’s confidence level in meeting the May deadline for transferring accounts over to the new UK system and for verifying the information from those accounts when they are transferred from the CSEUR?

This SI also removes obligations from the Environment Agency to comply with EU law. Now it only has to comply with our international climate law obligations. Will this departure from EU rules have any impact on the trade in certain sectors or products? I wonder whether my noble friend could comment on any assessment that may have been made of the implications of departing from the presumably higher EU standards.

Finally, following on from the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, could my noble friend comment on the possibility of bringing together the various different schemes? We have already established our own emissions trading scheme for greenhouse gases, and we are now setting up our own registry for the Kyoto Protocol. Are there plans under consideration to bring together all our climate change obligations so we can monitor them in a comprehensive fashion?

Offshore Gas Rigs

Baroness Altmann Excerpts

Thursday 11th March 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I have set out that, where it continues for operational reasons, we want to reduce it as much as possible, and we are committed to the World Bank initiative to eliminate it completely by 2030.

[Baroness Altmann (Con)]

My Lords, with UK oil rigs being the most polluting in Europe and North Sea oil producing 21 kilograms of CO₂ per barrel, compared with 8 kilograms for Norway, could my noble friend tell the House what further measures the Government might consider introducing to ensure that oil companies phase out this flaring much faster than planned—and well before 2030?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

Transforming the UK continental shelf into a net zero basin will be achieved through a combination of energy efficiency, electrification from alternative, decarbonised energy, and the use of carbon-capture technology. There are a range of policies that we can bring into play to try and bring these practices to an end.

Vauxhall at Ellesmere Port and Battery Manufacturing Strategy

Baroness Altmann Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd March 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

Ultimately, of course, these are commercial decisions for the companies involved, but we are working closely with a number of people interested in establishing gigafactories. We have announced £500 million as part of our wider commitment of up to £1 billion to support the electrification of vehicles and their supply chains, including developing gigafactories in the UK.

[Baroness Altmann (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I congratulate the Government on their aim to ban sales of new internal combustion engine cars from 2030. What specific plans do they have to invest in the production of electric vehicles and batteries to ensure that the UK remains competitive globally in manufacturing? Does my noble friend see a role in this for regions such as the north-west, where Vauxhall is sited?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I agree with my noble friend that it is very important that we see a future for these industries. As I have said, we are doing all that we can to help—I outlined our financial commitment in my answer to the noble Lord, Lord Fox. I come from the north-east, so I want to see it do well along with the north-west, and I repeat my earlier answer that we are doing all that we can to secure the future of the Ellesmere Port facility.

Trade Bill

Baroness Altmann Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments & Ping Pong (Hansard) & Ping Pong (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 2nd February 2021 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Waverley (CB)]

My Lords, these matters must not be allowed to die this evening and, I hope, will allow for variations that the Government will introduce in a concession amendment. It is my sincere wish that the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone, in his response factors that in as a possibility.

Before I turn to the genocide amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, said that he does not support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Collins, because it complements the Alton amendment. Coming to the defence of the noble Lord, Lord Collins, my understanding is that his amendment is not a substitute but underlines the position that, when evidence on human rights does not pass the high bar of the definition of genocide, his amendment serves as a safety net.

I address my remarks on genocide globally—I am not being country specific—and support unequivocally the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Collins. He and the noble Lord, Lord Alton, strike a chord of British values and stand for what the United Kingdom is recognised for around the world—decency. The genocide amendment strikes at the heart of our constitutional process, however, and magnifies the call for Parliament to make more meaningful contributions to foreign policy objectives. The motives of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, are undeniably valid but the harsh realities and complexities of our constitutional and legal systems mean that compromise must necessarily be found.

The detail can be endlessly discussed. However, the key principles and norms held by the High Court, the United Kingdom Parliament and the international judicial processes somehow need to be reconciled and merged, rather than remain in potential conflict in future deliberations. This is a quandary, with the devil being in the detail and definitions. I am taken by the suggestion that a Select Committee be chaired, or at least advised, by a former judge.

An endgame that ticks the boxes of being nimble and well-informed, but not disruptive of judicial domestic or international processes, is highly desirable—where the United Kingdom is deemed in lockstep so as not to trespass on constitutional territory or infringe on the royal prerogative. However, democratic oversight should be contained within this mix to instil our values; that is what I am looking for today. That will ensure democratic oversight in a manner that addresses the heart of the points made both by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and by Mr Tugendhat from another place —whom I had the privilege to listen to while he made his remarks—and, ideally, the Government, mindful that the UK, or any other country, is not in a position to solve issues before us in isolation.

I understand that the Government are—or at least were—minded to bring forward a concession amendment, which would certainly be my preference, but for technical reasons, as we have heard already this evening, it is not before us at this time. That in itself is sufficient to send this process back to the other place, to allow that possibility to occur. I urge all noble Lords to support the noble Lords, Lord Alton and Lord Collins of Highbury, to hopefully then allow a concession to be included for consideration.

[Baroness Altmann (Con)]

My Lords, I speak in support of Amendment C1, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and the very similar Amendments C2 and C3, in the names of my noble friends Lord Forsyth and Lord Cormack. I echo the tributes paid to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for his dedicated work on this issue and his powerful and moving speech.

As the child of two parents who fled the Holocaust, and most of whose family was wiped out by the Nazi regime, I feel duty-bound to do my best to ensure that the repeated promises of “never again” are more than mere words. Just a few days after Holocaust Memorial Day, there are lessons that we should have learned from the genocides of the 20th century, but too often we turn a blind eye, as this is so much easier.

I recognise my noble friend the Minister’s words, that our courts can find individuals guilty of genocide, but this will not cover Governments which engage in such behaviour. It is all too easy to appease and to look for ways to avoid confrontation. Of course, there is a place for diplomacy, but if there are no consequences, in trade and other areas, for a country whose Government engage in such behaviour, then they can continue with impunity. Such impunity will lead to further crimes against humanity.

We are living in an increasingly authoritarian world, as powerful countries are crushing domestic dissent and those who oppose the ruling power. The lessons of World War II are being forgotten, but they must not be. I mention just one of the horrific concentration camps, Ravensbrück, which began as a labour camp that was, uniquely, exclusively for women opponents of Nazism in the 1930s. It ended up as a forced labour camp producing goods for powerful German companies and then also as a camp for the industrialised death of innocent victims.

There are clearly parallels today in Xinjiang, where what is happening to Uighur Muslims should provide a reason for our Government to support an opportunity to ask our courts to investigate this. As others have said, clearly China would just veto an ICC inquiry. This cannot just be left to the Executive. There is no excuse for inaction in the face of such evil in the 21st century. I echo the words of Chief Rabbi Mirvis that we must not be silent, and I believe that these amendments also uphold the Government’s stated aim of putting victims first. The Government now have the chance to do so.

As it prioritises trade, this amendment has a specific focus. It aims to ensure that in the tiny number of cases—thankfully, today—where our trading partner or prospective partner is committing genocide and this determination is made by our courts, the Government will have the reason, and the power, not to continue to negotiate or co-operate on trade. No matter how important trade and economic prosperity are to us in the short term, it cannot be worth being complicit in genocide and, in the long run, it will damage us all. This country increasingly favours ethical trade and, as other nobles have said, this is a matter of morality and values. Trade cannot be prioritised over genocide.

A parliamentary Select Committee is not enough on its own; it would still need to have the power to refer this to a court. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, has confirmed that there are no practical difficulties in courts evaluating evidence of genocide. This has been echoed by the powerful words of so many other noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay, Supreme Court judges and former Attorney-Generals. They are all united in the view that this issue can and should be determined by the courts. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister himself has said that

“genocide is a strict legal term, and we hesitate to deploy it without a proper judicial decision.”—[Official Report, Commons, 21/11/17; col. 839.]

Precisely, my Lords, which is why it is important for us to support Amendment C1.

The concession made by the Government this afternoon—I have huge sympathy for my noble friend the Minister in the position in which he finds himself today—does not provide for a court ruling on this issue and would therefore not trigger the UK’s obligations under Article 2 of the 1948 genocide convention. I believe this country has never recognised genocide while it was taking place. This amendment would take the pressure away from politicians and place it with the courts, of which we are rightly so proud; they are world-leading authorities in legal matters.

These are complex problems, but I urge noble Lords to support this amendment and remember that, as Edmund Burke said, all it takes for evil to triumph is for good people to be silent.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, it is always good to follow my noble friend Lady Altmann, who speaks on these issues with such eloquence. As noble Lords will know, I have supported this Bill, and its promotion by Department for International Trade Ministers since its first outing in 2017. It is vital to have a proper framework for trade in global Britain. I refer to my interests as in the register, and perhaps I could remind noble Lords that the purpose of the Bill is a sensible one: to ensure continuity for UK businesses and consumers. It allows us to join the GPA to implement 63 agreements and establish the Trade and Agriculture Commission on a statutory basis, as well as our own independent Trade Remedies Authority. There is a wide measure of agreement on all this, and this is the only time I will speak on the Bill today.