EV Strategy: (ECC Committee Report)

Baroness Parminter Excerpts

Wednesday 16th October 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Parminter]

That this House takes note of the Report from the Environment and Climate Change Committee EV strategy: rapid recharge needed (1st Report, Session 2023-24, HL Paper 51).

[Baroness Parminter (LD)]

My Lords, it gives me great pleasure as the past chair of the Lords Select Committee on Environment and Climate Change to open this debate on electric vehicles. While recognising that the transition to EVs is only one part of the necessary broader transport transition that this country has to make, it is an incredibly important part. Passenger cars account for over half of our surface transport emissions and contribute to the almost 30,000 deaths from air pollution annually in the UK.

It is really important and, as the independent Climate Change Committee said, it is one of the most important actions if we are going to get to net zero. Given that electric vehicles account for only 3% of cars on British roads at the moment, it is an urgent priority. We know it is not going to be easy. ICEs—internal combustion engines—have dominated our roads and popular culture for over 100 years. Even though I am an EV driver and I know that they are clean, quiet and great to drive, it will be a big challenge to bring the British public away from petrol and diesel and into electric vehicles. It will require planning, co-ordination and an awful lot of leadership from the Government.

It was right for our committee to look into the record of the last Government in terms of their approach and success in getting people out of petrol and diesel cars and into electric vehicles. We identified that there had been some progress—certainly there has been an increase in charge point infrastructure, and legislation to ban new petrol and diesel cars from 2035. These were important steps, but overall our committee concluded that an urgent recharge was needed in the Government’s strategy for EVs.

That was, of course, when we reported in February, so it was under the previous Government. It has to be said that, since the new Labour Government have come in, they have hardly put their foot to the floor in terms of delivering on the EV agenda, despite the fact that there were some incredibly welcome proposals both in Labour’s automotive sector plan last year and in the general election manifesto. So it is timely to have this debate today, because the recommendations we made in February are still relevant and, with the upcoming Budget, now is the time to make those strides to bring people with us on the EV transition that is so necessary.

The first thing we identified as a committee is that we are not going to bring the British public with us unless they know where they will be able to charge their electric vehicles. As I said, we identified some progress—when the Minister came before our committee last November, there were 57,000 public charging points; that has now gone up to 70,000. So progress is being made. Indeed, when EVA England did a survey of electric vehicle drivers earlier this month, it identified that two-thirds of EV drivers think that in the last year there has been a big increase—a big improvement—in the public charging point infrastructure. But, as more cars come onto the road, we will need more charge points.

The Government set themselves an advisory target of 300,000 public charge points by 2030. When the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders came before the committee, it said that we needed over 2 million charge points by 2030—so we really have to motor on with getting more charge points installed. That is why we as a committee said that the Government needed to mandate local authorities where there are black holes—and there are black holes around our country—to prepare EV strategies to ensure that we are getting the EV infrastructure where we need it.

We also called on the Government to extend the LEVI fund—the local electric vehicle infrastructure fund—which is funding capacity building within councils and providing direct subsidies for charge points. Both those things were, we felt, critical. I hope that in summing up the Minister will say what his current thinking is, particularly on extending the LEVI fund. That is a particularly important part of where we need to be.

As I said, there were some incredibly welcome comments about the transition to EVs and the need to accelerate the rollout of charge points in Labour’s manifesto. Indeed, it picked up some of the recommendations in our committee report, including removing some of the planning barriers that are stopping charge points being introduced. I ask the Minister, when will we see the consultation on the permitted development rights for charge points? I think this is an issue that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, may wish to come back to in a moment. Also, are the Government minded to agree that renters need to be given a right to charge? It is quite clear that some landlords are blocking renters installing charge point infrastructure.

Finally in that area, the other thing that we were very clear on is the totemic issue of charge points in motorway service stations. We know that people will not buy an electric vehicle if they do not feel confident that there will be charge points at motorway service stations when they take the family away to see relatives at Christmas. The previous Government set and failed to meet their target for six high-powered charge points at all motorway service stations. This Government need to be very clear in saying when they will be able to meet that really iconic issue of charge points in motorway service stations.

Of course, it is not just where you are going to charge your EV that is an issue for the public. One of the other issues that we found was a real barrier for people was the upfront costs of electric vehicles. EVs are still not affordable enough for all people who need to have a car. They are more expensive than their petrol and diesel counterparts and there are not yet enough affordable models on the market. We looked at examples across other European countries that are starting to move away from early adopters into mass saturation markets. All of them have retained fiscal incentives, normally grants, to encourage people with the upfront costs of EVs. Sadly, the last Government got rid of those grants back in 2022 and we as a committee felt that that may be one of the reasons why EVs are still only 17% of new car sales in this country. We need to do better.

It is not just the upfront costs of cars that we found to be an issue; it is also the ongoing running costs. The biggest concern that I had—I say that, knowing I speak merely as a representative of the broader committee—is that, as someone with off-street parking, I can charge my EV and it costs me 5% in VAT. Anyone who does not have home charging has to pay 20%. The committee identified that up to 40% of the population does not have access to off-street parking and, therefore, the ability to get that cheaper rate of VAT for charging. That is not equitable and I would hope that a new Government—a new Labour Government—would see both the issue of equality as well as the impact on the ongoing running costs for cars.

Committee members will know that we conducted an inquiry a couple of years back on mobilising behaviour change for net zero and the environment. One of the things we found was that people really wanted to get towards net zero, but they wanted the decisions and the policy actions to get there to be fair. Having VAT at a differential rate if you do not have the advantage of owning your own home and your own parking space is not fair. Our committee made it very clear, following the almost unanimous evidence that we had from people, that the VAT rate should be equalised and that fiscal policy should follow net-zero policy. So I hope that the Government will look at that issue in the upcoming Budget. The Minister may also wish to comment on the need for fiscal incentives when buying EVs.

But it is not just charging and upfront costs. The third big barrier the committee identified was the need to give people clear information. This is a really big societal change, yet the information for people about EVs—the benefits to them and to society—just is not there. If you looked in the papers, you would not know that nine out of 10 EV owners would not go back to petrol or diesel, or that the lifetime costs of an EV are currently cheaper than for petrol and diesel. What the committee found was a blatant amount of misinformation. Very interestingly, we looked at a number of the broadsheets and other media outlets and found an awful lot of focus on the fire risks of electric vehicles, so we went away and looked into the evidence. They are no more of a fire risk than petrol and diesel cars—so we concluded that there was a blatant campaign of misinformation.

When we launched our campaign in February, a number of the newspapers, including the Daily Telegraph, again showed their fossil fuel-soaked colours. Anthony Browne, the then Minister, came before the committee. We asked him whether there was a concerted campaign of misinformation, and he agreed with us. He said that there was—it was just that the Government were not going to do anything about it. In fact, not only did they not do anything about it, when they pushed the date of the ban on new ICE cars back from 2030 to 2035, the message the public got was that going to EVs was not a priority and that we can afford to wait, whereas they should have been clear with people that this is an urgent priority. Indeed, the then Prime Minister Rishi Sunak went further: when he made that announcement, he said that going to net zero was going to be hard.

We cannot get to net zero without EVs, and we need our Government to face down people who do not believe in net zero. We may not have a Conservative Government, but we certainly have Reform UK down the other end who see this as a rallying cry, and there are siren voices in this House and beyond who need to be called out. The Government need to take every opportunity they have—they have one coming up in the Budget in a couple of weeks—to make it clear to the public that they are on this journey and they are going to support people on it and make some critical interventions, including the equalisation of VAT and a clear statement on not watering down the ZEV mandate, so that people know where they stand and the direction of travel. As our committee said, that should be allied with a 10-year road map which gives car companies policy certainty, investors the confidence to invest and people the information they need.

I am going to stop fairly shortly, but our report covers many other issues, including the need for better recycling facilities for batteries, battery health checks and, critically, decarbonising the grid so that the electricity cars use helps us move towards net zero. I am relying on the many of members of the committee I see in the Chamber today to pick up one or two of those issues. I thank them for their support today and, indeed, throughout the committee. It was a great privilege to chair it. I also thank the staff for producing the report.

I also thank the six schools and colleges which supported us in our youth engagement programme and gave us their wisdom, thoughts and reflections on this issue, which is going to be as much about their future as it is for some of us. I put on record my thanks to Boroughmuir High School in Edinburgh, Loreto Sixth Form College in Greater Manchester, Barnsley College, Langley College in Slough, the London School of Excellence and St Louise’s Comprehensive College in Belfast. They were a great support to us all.

Finally, I hope the Minister, who will be listening to all the comments noble Lords make this afternoon, will be able to make it clear that this Government are committed to a fast track to EVs. We cannot get to net zero without it. Our report was very clear: an urgent recharge of the EV strategy is needed, and we need to make sure that we go in the fast lane to net zero in electric vehicles.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Parminter (LD)]

My Lords, I will briefly thank the Minister for putting on record how important this policy area is to the Government, for confirming that they accept their responsibility to grow confidence in this market and for saying that they have heard the calls from around this House on the issues of the costs and subsidies that will be necessary if we are to grow this market. The Budget is coming very soon—we will see whether the warm words we have heard tonight will be translated into the necessary action. I beg to move.

Motion agreed.

King’s Speech

Baroness Parminter Excerpts

Thursday 18th July 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Parminter (LD)]

My Lords, at this late stage in the debate, I will merely add my voice to the cacophony of congratulations to the new Front Bench and Government at this important time in our country’s history for those of us who are concerned about the environment and nature.

We have heard from other noble Peers about the announcements today by the Climate Change Committee that we are off-track on net zero, which go alongside the announcements in the recent past by the Office for Environmental Protection that we are also off-track on our nature targets. Time is not on our side. We have a new Government, who are already showing commitment in this space, and therefore we welcome them to the job. Although I do not wish to sow dissent with my new partners on the Opposition Benches, I slightly took issue with the comments by the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, that he saw the previous Government as the greenest Government ever. I merely respond that he should have gone to Specsavers.

I welcome a number of Bills in the gracious Speech, the first of which is the new Great British Energy Bill, which has been mentioned by a number of colleagues. We need to move at pace to get the renewable energy our country so desperately needs. As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, mentioned, it is fantastic to see the appointment of Chris Stark. He is focused on delivery and has a good reputation in the business and political spheres. That can only be to the good, so we welcome that Bill and look forward to it coming before the House.

The other Bill that I particularly welcome, which will come as no surprise to colleagues around the House, is of course the water Bill. For those of us here and elsewhere who have focused for so long on the quality of our rivers, lakes and seas, it is important and good to see the Government picking up this issue. However, like the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, and the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, I think that the Bill might need to go a little further. I look forward to playing my part in ensuring that that job is done; we will be constructive in our role in opposition on that.

In the time I have here today—I do not want to take up my nine minutes because noble Lords are getting fed up—I will focus on three issues. The first is about building nature restoration into the Government’s welcome plans to build new homes and infrastructure. On these Benches, we know that we need new homes in this country and people need places to live. However, if we are to meet our nature targets, nature needs places to live, feed and breed—which means space. We can do that by clever building specifications—in the same way that we can have zero-carbon specifications to move towards our net-zero goals—and we can have swift boxes and hedgerow highways, but we also need space. So it is encouraging to see that the Government have committed to this new mechanism for developers to fund nature restoration.

Unlike some other noble Peers who have spoken today—including the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, with whom I rarely disagree—I was pleased that this House stood up so strongly to defend the nutrient neutrality position last year, in the face of the proposals that the previous Government were bringing forward to water it down. We were right to do that, and I am pleased to see that this Government are committed to the idea that developers need to look to paying towards nature restoration at the same time as building much-needed homes. I am pleased that they are also looking to consult with wildlife delivery groups as they look to possible alternatives. The old system is not perfect—we all said that when it came before us—and needs amending, but we must be careful that we do not throw the baby out with the bathwater and that, if we are to replace it, we really deliver for nature. As a party, we look forward to being part of that discussion.

In the spirit of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, who said that as a party in opposition we will be only too delighted for the Government to nick good ideas that we have, one of the good ideas we have is around biodiversity net gain, which was introduced by the last Government—and welcomed—but which had its ambitions viciously curbed in that major infrastructure projects were excluded from having to abide by the biodiversity net gain obligations. That is a missed opportunity. Equally, our party believes that the 10% requirements on biodiversity net gain need to be ratcheted up. Therefore, for larger housing developments, over 25 homes, there should be a sliding scale upwards with an increasing percentage of biodiversity net gain. I urge the new Government to look at our proposal around biodiversity net gain, which will help deliver the homes we need but also ensure that developers pay their rightful amount.

Secondly, there is plenty in the gracious Speech on improving public transport, which is extremely welcome both for economic growth and delivering on our net-zero targets. However, given the contribution of transport to our emissions, if we are going to meet our net-zero targets we must also look at passenger cars, which means speeding up fast now on EVs. Although the Government had some very welcome commitments in their manifesto around EVs, as we move from the early adopter phase to mass market there is a glaring omission around fairness.

I note with great pleasure that one of the three principles in the King’s Speech was that issue of fairness. However, I urge the Government, as they look to scale up the country, and as we have to move towards more electric vehicles, to look at the VAT disparity on the costs of charging your electric vehicle. If you live, as I do, in a home with a garage, you can charge your EV with a 5% VAT rate. People on a lower income are charged on the streets at a 20% rate. We know how individuals and political parties will stoke up these issues to create division, and I can see this as an issue coming down the track when more people are buying EVs and realising that they pay a higher rate for their EV charging compared with those people who have the luxury of doing it at home. This is a real issue of fairness and I hope that the Government, who I think are genuinely committed, will look at it and do it quickly before people in other places start using it as a means to create division on the whole net-zero agenda.

Thirdly and finally, on something that I hope this Government will do, it was fantastic to see the noble Lord, Lord Vallance, in his place a moment ago because this was an issue he raised when he came before the House of Lords Select Committee on Environment and Climate Change when we did an inquiry into mobilising behaviour change for net zero. We were looking at the whole issue of how we get people to change behaviour and do things that they are not used to doing, picking up new technologies, changing the way they live their lives and buying new products. Yes, you can do that through introducing new Bills, as the Government are doing here today, and through fiscal incentives, but you also have to tell people what they need to do. The words to the committee of the noble Lord, Lord Vallance, were, “We need to tell people what they need to do”.

This Government, at the start of their mandate, have a very clear vision about net zero—unlike the previous Government, I am sad to say. They are on one track and they are moving us forward in the right direction. However, we need to take the public with us. They need to be informed and there needs to be consensus. That requires a public engagement strategy by this Government now, at the start of their term, making it clear to people that we are all in this together, all government departments are singing from the same hymn sheet, and we will help people overcome the barriers, but we will get there. If we do not do that, we will miss a major opportunity and we risk not getting to where we need to be on net zero.

Climate Change Policies

Baroness Parminter Excerpts

Wednesday 20th September 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

We will not lose another 10 years on the path to net zero. I outlined our policies earlier. For the sake of repeating them again, we are still committed to net zero and to meeting the carbon budgets; we have an excellent record. We are committed to meeting the 2050 target. We will continue to advance on that path, but we will do so in a fair and proportionate manner that takes people with us rather than by imposing things on them.

[Baroness Parminter (LD)]

My Lords—

[Lord Framlingham (Con)]

My Lords—

[The Lord Privy Seal (Lord True) (Con)]

My Lords, I am sorry to disappoint my noble friends, but I think it is the turn of the Liberal Democrats.

[Baroness Parminter (LD)]

My Lords, a third of all emission reductions to get us to our net-zero target will need to be made by people adopting new technologies, choosing new products and services or going for less carbon-intensive consumption. As the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, said, all the evidence to our committee’s EV, boiler upgrade and behaviour change inquiries showed that what people and industry want is policy certainty, consistency and clear leadership from the Government. In the clear absence of those this afternoon —as I am sure we will see—how on the earth will the Government achieve their net-zero goals?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

The key phrase in the noble Baroness’s question was people choosing green alternatives. We want to help them to do that, and we want them to do it voluntarily. We want to make the choices attractive, which is why we provide incentives for insulation schemes. I refer once again to the Great British insulation scheme that I announced last week, which offers £1 billion over three years to help people in council tax bands A to D to upgrade their homes. If the noble Baroness has a little patience, in the next 20 minutes she will be able to listen to the Prime Minister and I think that she will find at least some announcements that she will like pertinent to some of her recent inquiries.

Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill

Baroness Parminter Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments
Tuesday 20th June 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Parminter (LD)]

I rise briefly to add our Benches’ support, if the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, pushes this to a vote. His amendment is a canary in a coal mine—perhaps a Cumbrian coal mine. You put a canary down a coal mine when you want to test whether essential resources that you rely on are about to be lost, to be snuffed out. This is what this is. It is about not just the essential protections for our much-depleted nature, but the essential protections that we as humans rely on: water, air quality and all the ecosystem services that nature provides.

I use that analogy for another purpose, as well. You do not see the canary in the coal mine, but if you talk to the general public about puffins and other wildlife, and all the things they care for when they see them on TV programmes, they know that they want them protected, and they want the Government to act. But we are here at the coalface, mining through the amendments, and we can see the damage that this will do to the protections for people and the animals and wildlife they care for. We are here to bring that canary to the surface. We should do that and press the matter again.

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

My Lords, Motion B1, in my name, raises an issue that has been of great concern to many in this House from the outset in our examination of the Bill: parliamentary sovereignty. The clause that causes particular concern, and to which my Motion is addressed, is Clause 15, headed “Powers to revoke or replace”. All the powers that it contains are exercisable by statutory instrument alone, with no provision for active or meaningful scrutiny by either House. That amounts to what the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, described when the issue was before us two weeks ago—without any exaggeration, I think—as a delegated superpower.

It is worth taking a moment to think about the key words that are used to describe the extent of the powers conferred on a relevant authority by this clause. For our purposes, the relevant authority is a Minister of the Crown. Clause 15(2) states that the Minister

“may by regulations revoke any secondary retained EU law and replace it with such provision as the relevant national authority considers to be appropriate and to achieve the same or similar objectives”.

Clause 15(3) states that the Minister

“may by regulations revoke any secondary retained EU law and make such alternative provision as the relevant national authority considers appropriate”.

The subsection (2) power extends not just to achieving the same objectives but to achieving objectives that the Minister considers to be similar. The decision as to whether they are similar or appropriate, about which there may reasonably be more than one view, is left entirely to the Minister.

Subsection (3) goes even further: it extends to the making of such alternative provision as the Minister considers appropriate. There is no limit here to the objectives that are to be achieved. They do not need to be similar—there is no limit to that extent—so they could be different from those of the secondary retained EU law that is being revoked. Again, there could reasonably be more than one view as to whether the alternative provision, whatever it may happen to be, was appropriate.

It is worth reflecting for a moment on the subject matter of what is open to revocation and replacement in the exercise of these powers. This is not simple, routine stuff for which delegated legislation is unquestionably appropriate. It extends to, among other things, major instruments of policy. It extends to fundamental rules relating to public health, trade and the environment, which were handed down to us by the EU and with which we have lived for several decades. It includes, for example, agricultural support, blood safety, fisheries management, food composition standards, nutrition, resources and waste, and the control of ozone-depleting and radioactive substances. Those are just some examples.

Your Lordships might consider it rather strange, given the nature and extent of what is involved, that neither House of Parliament can play any kind of active role in the scrutiny of these regulations. It really is a take-it-or-leave-it system dictated to Parliament by the Executive. The objections to this, which I need not repeat, have been set out many times, and that is what my amendment seeks to address.

I recognise that the previous amendments, which were moved first by me and later by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, proposed a system that the Minister was right to describe as novel and untested. What I am now proposing is based on a system, as the Minister has pointed out, known as the super-affirmative procedure, which was enacted by Section 18 of the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006. I shall explain briefly what this involves.

It applies only to regulations made under Clause 15. It proposes a Commons committee—not a Joint Committee, as previously suggested—to sift regulations made under the clause in the light of an explanation by the Minister as to why the regulation is considered appropriate. If, but only if, the committee reports that there are any regulations to which special attention should be drawn, the Minister must arrange for them to be debated on the Floor of each House. The Minister must then have regard to any resolution of either House and may, but is not required to, propose a revised proposal in the light of what has been resolved. The procedure for approval in both Houses thereafter is the affirmative procedure. Finally, the committee may recommend that the Minister’s proposal should not be proceeded with, but the House of Commons has the last word, as it can reject that recommendation. If it does that, the regulations may be laid.

This is a relatively light-touch procedure, which gives Parliament some measure of oversight of what has been proposed. I offer it as a compromise, in the hope that the Minister, despite the remarks he made at the outset of this debate, will feel able to give it serious consideration. At the heart of it all is an issue of principle, which is of basic concern to this House and the other on their entitlement to take an active part in the major exercise proposed. It is in that spirit that I propose to test the opinion of the House, if necessary, when the time comes.

Climate: Behaviour Change (Environment and Climate Change Committee Report)

Baroness Parminter Excerpts

Wednesday 7th June 2023 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Baroness Parminter]

That the Grand Committee takes note of the Report from the Environment and Climate Change Committee In our hands: Behaviour change for climate and environmental goals (1st Report, HL Paper 64).

[Baroness Parminter (LD)]

My Lords, if we are to achieve climate and environmental goals and wider benefits for society such as better health, greater energy security and sustainable prosperity, changing our behaviour is essential. Successive Governments have made welcome progress in reducing emissions through technological innovation and changes in energy supply, but far less attention has been paid to making it easier for people to switch to new products and services, and to reduce consumption.

Drawing on the Climate Change Committee’s assessment, our first Select Committee report identified that 32% of UK emission reductions by 2035 require decisions by individuals and households to adopt low-carbon technologies, choose low-carbon products and services and reduce carbon-intensive consumption. One-third of our emission reductions require us as individuals to act. Encouragingly, there is widespread public concern about climate change and a desire for action. We cite government polling showing that 85% of the public are “concerned” or “very concerned” about climate change, but the evidence is that the majority of people lack awareness of the most effective actions that they can take to reduce the impacts of climate change. It means that people need a clear vision now of what they can do about how we travel and heat our homes, and what we consume, including what we eat and waste. The barriers to making those changes—cost, convenience and availability—need to be addressed. This requires action and leadership from government. We found that the Government’s approach is inadequate to meet the scale and urgency of the challenge. Although they have refreshed their net-zero strategy since our report, their approach, Powering Up Britain, to enable behaviour change remains exactly the same. We outline that the Government need to do three things.

First, they should use every lever at their disposal, by which we mean regulation, fiscal incentives and disincentives, adapting the individual’s choice environment and providing powerful informational tools. The importance of using every lever echoed the findings of the 2011 Science and Technology Committee’s inquiry into behaviour change. To be clear, the Government have taken some important decisions, including phasing out the sale of new petrol and diesel vans by 2030, but not across all high-emission areas—including helping to cut waste from our homes. We have had government consultations on introducing consistent collections for household and business recycling, on an extended producer responsibility scheme for packaging and on a waste prevention programme. But there has been no government response, despite all three consultations closing more than two years ago.

I ask the Minister: when will the Government act to help cut the mountains of waste in our homes? Not enough has been done to tackle the high carbon emissions from our 27 million homes. Not enough is not nothing, and our committee has taken a keen interest in how the Government are seeking to pump-prime the market for heat pumps as a means of bringing costs down with stretching targets and the boiler upgrade scheme. However, while we welcome the Government’s intentions and that they listened to some of our recommendations to strengthen the boiler upgrade scheme, barriers around awareness, cost and finding trusted installers remain.

Secondly, we need to enlist the public. Sir Patrick Vallance told us that

“individuals need to know what is expected of them and what they can do”.

The Government have provided online energy advice to the public, which, since our report, has been supplemented by a welcome £18 million energy advice campaign, “It All Adds Up”. However, given the urgency of consumer action and the comparisons with personalised advice services available in other countries, we were left underwhelmed. We saw no evidence of delivery on two of the Government’s six net-zero principles, namely,

“to motivate and build public acceptability for major changes and to present a clear vision of how we will get to net zero and what the role of people and business will be”.

We called for a public engagement strategy to be developed —a call echoed by the right honourable Chris Skidmore MP in his subsequent independent review of net zero.

It is good that the Government have now said that they will set out further details on how they will increase public engagement on net zero. I ask the Minister: will they do so in a strategy, like the Scottish Government’s public engagement strategy for net zero, and consult on it, as the Welsh Government have just done on their draft strategy? As part of increasing that public engagement, will he commit to using climate citizen assemblies, given that the evidence from those forums, including the House of Commons in 2020, is that when the problems and solutions are exposed to members of the public, they are largely supportive of making the changes needed?

Thirdly, we need to help people cut high-carbon activities, such as flying, where technologies are currently insufficient or underdeveloped. The Government soundly rejected the approach we took, arguing that they will go

“with the grain of consumer choice”.

France’s then Minister for Ecological Transition, Barbara Pompili, told us of their approach to help people cut the number of flights with a ban on short-haul domestic flights under two and a half hours. In contrast, our Government, with their techno-optimism, are pinning all their hopes on new fuels, whereas we conclude that the Government should launch a call for evidence on introducing a frequent-flyer levy on long-haul flights. That could make a meaningful contribution to emission reductions as well as meeting public support for fair measures to address them.

Delivering this behavioural change requires working alongside other institutions and organisations in a more collaborative way than existing government structures and intentions support, especially local authorities, which, due to their proximity to households, active civil society and faith groups, and their ability to tailor place-based solutions, are in a key position to help deliver the green transition, yet the evidence we received identified that they lack the necessary powers and resources to do so. Our report welcomed the creation of the local net-zero forum to support partnership working between national and local government, although there have been reports in recent months that it has been hard to get Ministers to attend. How do the Government plan to enable the necessary net-zero and environmental behaviour changes that local authorities are best placed to deliver, while providing them with limited funding and support?

The Government’s approach to behaviour change, with their mantra of going with the grain of consumer choice, is out of step with science, which demands urgent action. It is also out of step with public support for government leadership, and with the opportunities to grow net-zero services, products and, critically, the jobs of the future. Clearly, it is driven by political imperatives. Part of that is the cost. Overcoming the upfront barriers requires subsidies, with the accompanying case for taxes, which for some is the ultimate in coercive intrusion into personal choice—never mind, as the noble Lord, Lord Stern, reminds us, that the cost of climate action is far outweighed by the cost of inaction.

Part of the problem is that behaviour change for the climate requires collective action and building community infrastructure, such as better public transport, which smacks to some of enlarging the state and shrinking the private space of individuals. Part of it, too, is the fear of it being pulled out of the nanny state, when in fact, choosing not to regulate markets means that you allow companies with no interest in societal roles to shape social norms and choices. It is the opposite of strong government, let alone delivering climate justice, given that going with the grain of consumer choice means consumers have the liberty to do what they want but the resulting impact of climate change will mean suffering for others.

Our report drew on behavioural science, the evidence of what works and the responses from over 150 individuals and organisations to our call for evidence. We thank them for that, the Government for their engagement and our staff, Connie Walsh, Laura Ayres and Oli Rix, with the support of POST fellow Jo Herschan and our specialist adviser, Professor Lorraine Whitmarsh. We are also thankful for the insights from our youth engagement programme, from the six schools: Stockton Riverside, Birkenhead School in Liverpool, Grove Academy in Dundee, Ulidia Integrated College in Northern Ireland and Ysgol Cwm Brombil in Port Talbot. We thank them all for the insights they gave us. I also thank the committee members, many of whom are here today, and look forward to hearing what they have to say. It is invidious to call out one person from whom one is particularly looking forward to hearing, but I must point to the noble Lord, Lord Rees, who speaks so knowledgeably on science, politics and ethics: the three things that intersect at the point of our report. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Parminter (LD)]

I thank all Members who have contributed to this excellent debate, including the noble Lord, Lord Lilley.

[Lord Lilley (Con)]

Especially.

[Baroness Parminter (LD)]

Including, not especially. The noble Lord is never a pain. The whole point and value of a House of Lords Select Committee is to bring together people with different perspectives and values and from different parties. We look at the evidence, hear people’s views and come to an agreed position, which in this case was a majority position. The noble Lord, Lord Lilley, was in a minority of one. As we heard from the Minister, even he agrees with our definition of behaviour change. As the noble Lord, Lord Browne, rightly articulated, we see behaviour change as not just about cutting consumption—the 10% referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Lilley—but about helping people adopt new technologies and services. The Minister’s definition of behaviour change was “enabling people to do the same thing greener”. The noble Lord, Lord Lilley, is in a minority of one. I am a Liberal Democrat; I am used to losing. It is time, as they say in “Frozen”, to let it go.

I thank the Minister for his response, although we could disagree about the pace of some of the things he mentioned. We have been calling for an extended producer responsibility scheme for many years. France had one about a decade ago, and the Government called their first consultation on an extended producer responsibility scheme in 2019, so the pace is pretty glacial when the challenge is so big.

However, we are pleased to hear that the Government are at last going to be getting together a net-zero strategy. This needs to be shared endeavour. People around the Room have talked about the need to bring on board local authorities, civic groups, faith groups and businesses, but the only people who can offer that leadership are the Government. We hope that they will accept that people out there are crying out for change. They want to do something about climate change, and they want the Government to lead. The Government have made some good baby steps but need to move much faster and with much greater depth if we are not going to continue having policies that are high-carbon and low-nature. As the noble Lord, Lord Birt, said, we need far greater co-ordination across government to achieve that. I thank the Minister for what he is trying to do in certain areas, but the Government need to do far more, and the evidence of our behaviour change inquiry shows that, unless the Government help people to change their behaviour, we are not going to meet the net-zero goals that the Government have set.

Motion agreed.

Heat and Buildings Strategy: Gas Boilers

Baroness Parminter Excerpts

Tuesday 28th February 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I am sorry to tell the noble Lord that it is nothing to do with the Labour Party’s policies. My responsibilities do not extend to predicting the business of this House. I am sure that the Chief Whip has taken careful note of the noble Lord’s comments.

[Baroness Parminter (LD)]

My Lords, permitted development rights are still insisting that heat pumps are sited a metre away from the boundary of properties. Given the Minister’s welcome commitment to heat pumps and to getting these new homes with low-carbon solutions, what plans do the Government have to update PDR to ensure that heat pumps can play the role that we need them to?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

One of the factors of the UK’s planning system is that different interpretations are given by different local authorities. I suspect that certain Members on the Opposition Benches would criticise us if we dictated to local authorities how they should implement their own planning policies. Clearly, we need to work with them. As I said earlier, there is a huge range of different areas and property types. Some local authorities are quite permissive in what they will allow and some are not, but we continue to work with them to make sure that they are abreast of all the latest guidance.

Domestic Heat Pumps: Budget Underspend

Baroness Parminter Excerpts

Tuesday 28th February 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

I gave way last time.

[Baroness Parminter (LD)]

My Lords, one of the reasons for the so far disappointing uptake of the welcome boiler upgrade scheme is the lack of consumer awareness. Even the Minister’s own figures from what was BEIS said that 80% of people have little or no awareness of heat pumps. He mentioned that there will be further marketing: my understanding is that this will be ads on search engines and social media. Does he really believe that £300,000 spent is sufficient for the scale of the challenge and to make this welcome scheme work?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

It is certainly a good start. I was talking to officials about it earlier today. It started only in the middle of January and has already driven about a 62% increase in traffic to the GOV.UK website that provides information about heat pump offers. As the scheme moves into its second year, we will move into what further marketing activity we can do.

I will go back to the question from my noble friend, who I believe was going to ask me about the Swaffham Prior scheme. For those in the House who are not aware, Swaffham Prior is a village in Cambridgeshire. I suspect that it was in his constituency—

Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill

Baroness Parminter Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 28th February 2023 Lords Chamber

The Government must categorically state to Parliament that the critical regulations listed in my Amendment 37 will be preserved in full and will not be sunsetted at the end of this year, and that any future reform will not be pursued through the powers of the REUL Bill because of its deregulatory intent. I look forward to the debate.

[Baroness Parminter (LD)]

My Lords, I added my name to a number of amendments in this group. I am sure we do not want to repeat the arguments from previous groups, but the reason why we have put these amendments down is that these regulations are the fundamental building blocks upon which our environmental protection is based, and has been based for the past 50 years. If this Government are serious, as I am sure we all hope they are, about meeting the stringent environmental targets they have set and which we need to restore our nature, then we need these protections in order to take that forward. We will not meet our environmental targets if we do not have these building blocks, which have been correctly identified by my noble friend Lady Bakewell and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman.

I do not want to repeat arguments already made and I am sure that others will want to flesh out why these particular environmental laws are so important. I just wish to make two points. First, I am sure that the Minister in his summing up will say that we do not need to worry—we do not need to have anything excluded and taken out of the sunset clause—because the intention, the default position, is to retain. We have heard him say that, and we have heard the Secretary of State on this. We have a number of members of the Environment and Climate Change Committee here. The Secretary of State for Defra came to our committee in November and made that very point: that the default position of the department is to retain. However, in her very next sentence she said that there was an opportunity to “do things differently.” She was talking about the water framework directive.

People in this Chamber, and environmentalists, are not against amending regulations. If the scientific evidence changes or the evidence from business shows they are not working or that consumers are not getting what they need, we are not against amending regulations. The trouble is that what was meant by “doing things differently” is what it is in this Bill: it is not a proper process of scientific evidence with the chance for Parliament to be consulted; it is just given to Ministers to do things on a whim.

What I particularly find offensive about that—this is my second point—is that we in this House spent weeks debating the then Environment Bill in 2021. We all agreed that three directives mentioned today—the habitats, REACH and water framework directives—might need amending. The evidence might change, and we all know there are some problems; developers are saying that there are some issues. Nothing is perfect and we are not against change. We signed up to clear processes in that Bill, which is now the Act, for those three pieces of legislation. It set out that there would be a consultative process—an open process with all stakeholders—which would look at how the legislation could be amended. That is completely ignored in this Bill’s process, which is a closed-door process in Defra.

More importantly, Section 112 of the Act says two things about what should happen were the Government to wish to amend the habitats regulations, which, as we all agree, were one of the foundation blocks for our environmental protection. Subsection (8) says:

“Before making regulations under this section the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament, and publish, a statement explaining why the Secretary of State is satisfied as mentioned in subsection (7).”


In other words, Parliament gets a chance to see why those regulations are needed and can have a say on them before they become regulations. I beg the forgiveness of the House; we are going back to a point we discussed in the previous group: that Parliament has absolutely no say before the regulations are laid.

The second, more important, thing in my mind, is with regard to amending the habitats directive, which, again, I think any of us would say is great but not perfect. Subsection (7) says:

“The Secretary of State may make regulations under this section only if satisfied that the regulations do not reduce the level of environmental protection provided by the Habitats Regulations.”


There is a non-regression clause in the Environment Act about the habitats directive.

This Bill is nothing like that; there is nothing about deregulation. My noble friend Lord Fox made the point so well previously in relation to the comment by the noble Lord, Lord True, on the very welcome Statement yesterday about Northern Ireland. If we get deregulation, we will diverge from Europe. With respect to all those people saying that their paints rely on the REACH regulations, and those using all the other directives and laws now being transposed—as the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, mentioned—if there is deregulation, there will be divergence. They will not be able to sell their products and that will be to their detriment.

This is not just about the environment. Unlike those of us who are passionate about the environment and want to save the red kite, the bittern and the otter—as the habitats directive has directly done for the last 50 years—if some noble Lords are not fussed about the environment, that is fine. But by not exempting these from the sunset clause, if there is divergence, we will stop British businesses being able to do what they need to do and export. This Bill does not have a clause that guarantees that there will not be a lower level of protection for the environment. That is why I oppose it so much and why it is absolutely right for the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, and my noble friend Lady Bakewell, to say that it should be exempted from the sunset clause.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

Well, not without going through an exhaustive amendment process. I want to see higher environmental standards in this country. I want us to be able to prove that we have higher environmental standards than the rest of Europe. I am ambitious that regulations should be in the right form, effective and pertaining to this country. Most of these regulations were designed for an environment that goes from the Arctic to the Mediterranean. As I shall come on to talk about, there are measures in it, including on animal welfare, for example—the point the noble Lord, Lord Trees, made. One of them relates to not putting ear tags in bulls that are used for “traditional purposes”—which turns out to be a regulation to exempt Spanish bullfighting bulls from the regulations that apply to other cattle. We do not have bullfighting in this country, so it is not a problem for that to sunset. I am sure my noble friend agrees with me.

[Baroness Parminter (LD)]

We accept that the Minister is ambitious, but the question I raised was specifically about the Environment Act, where we are clearly being ambitious about the future. We talked about looking to amend regulations in future, including, potentially, the habitats regulation. A specific clause was included in the Bill that there will be a non-regression for environmental standards. Why will he not put that on the face of this Bill?

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

I will of course reflect on the points made today, and we will consider them all in due course. I do want to make some progress, if possible.