National Policy Statement for Nuclear Energy Generation

Lord Browne of Ladyton Excerpts

Wednesday 21st May 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

My Lords, I draw your Lordships’ Committee’s attention to my entry in the register of interests, particularly that I am vice-chair of the Nuclear Threat Initiative, for which I do consultancy work. It is a not-for-profit organisation with a global reputation based in Washington DC, and its work is focused on nuclear security and safety. It is the publisher of the annual Nuclear Security Index. It was in partnership with the Obama Administration in the nuclear security summit that he held after he made his famous speech in Prague that everyone remembers. That will influence my contribution to this debate.

It is an enormous pleasure to follow my friend and fellow Celt, the noble Lord, Lord Wigley. I had no idea of his qualifications in this scientific area, but I commend his speech; I will take it, word for word, to the members of his sister party in Scotland, the SNP, to remind it that nuclear energy is not what it thinks it is. I intend to take this message to Glasgow in another form shortly, and I invite him to come to take part in explaining to the people of Scotland that there is such a thing as safe and secure nuclear energy.

It was an enormous privilege and delight to be present while the noble Baroness, Lady Maclean of Redditch, made her maiden speech in your Lordships’ Committee. She will be aware that her family name has its origins in Scotland. It is a Gaelic name that means, in one interpretation, “son of the servant of John”. It is derived from the name of the 13th-century warrior Gillean. I shudder to give his full title, but I will—it is Gillean of the Battle Axe. The noble Baroness gave a speech of great clarity and passion, and while I did not agree with all of the policy suggestions that she made, she eminently has the ear of your Lordships’ House, and I look forward to hearing her speak again many times. Maybe on those occasions I will be more direct on the areas on which I disagree with her, and I look forward to doing that.

It is a pleasure to have the opportunity to address this critically important issue and to commend my Government on the steps that they have already taken since coming into office. Mindful of the depth of expertise—which deepened when my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, spoke—among other noble Lords participating this afternoon, I will make just a few observations on the international context by which the success of the NPS will be measured and will ask a couple of more specific questions.

Over the last few years of the Conservative Government, we heard much talk of Britain leading the world in a multiplicity of areas—rhetoric often untethered, as far as I could see, from any specific policy aims or objectives. Given the international context, this national policy statement is timely. COP 28 made the international direction of travel clear, with nuclear energy recognised, for the first time in a major COP decision, as among the solutions needed to keep the 1.5-degree goal within reach. Six more countries have opted to become signatories to the Declaration to Triple Nuclear Energy by 2050, bringing the total to 31 and meaning that we will be faced with a swathe of countries bringing nuclear into their energy mix for the first time. That will generate potential non-proliferation challenges. If we do not make the same mistake that was made by what was called Atoms for Peace, by spreading material around the world which was for good purposes but became a potential source of challenge and recently had to be brought back very quickly, we will have done well—but there will be these challenges. The countries that have taken this on will need leadership and help and, in many cases, because of long-standing relationships, the UK will be called upon to give that leadership.

SMRs have begun to be deployed in China and Russia. The International Energy Agency—IEA—estimates that 80 SMR concepts are in development and two US SMR developers are currently in negotiations with their domestic nuclear regulator with a view to imminent deployment. However, this situation is fraught with risk as well as potential. Emerging nuclear energy countries will face the task of securing this critical national infrastructure as well as the potential political and logistical challenges inherent in the deployment of SMRs, which is an area in which the UK has the chance to assume—and maybe share—genuine global leadership.

This international context points to the necessity of an uptick in nuclear deployment and capacity in the UK. EN-7 explicitly identifies the importance of accelerating investment into SMRs and AMRs. The Prime Minister has publicly identified a goal of deployment in the early 2030s; planning regulations have already been eased with a view to swift approval for SMR deployment, and new nuclear technology has been cited as indispensable for the Government’s growth agenda.

In this context, and at a time when the issue of energy security is increasingly prominent, the new national policy statement gives us an opportunity to adopt a position of leadership, as well as enhancing our sovereign energy supply. With a national developer, a national insurer and a climate encouraging investment, the UK can ensure that it is well placed to assist other nations in risk mitigation and ensure that they do not become non-proliferation risks but are able adequately to ensure the security of SMRs and AMRs.

The noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, in an excellent speech, made reference to the need for proper regulation. We have in the United Kingdom, by international reputation, a first-class regulator. We have a very good history in relation to the regulation and safety of nuclear, being a nuclear-armed country, which is an additional challenge. I recognise the source of the Cumbrian problem that she identified, but that goes back a long way in history. Recently, we had—and, in the future, I predict that we will have—that strong regulation, and it will be the enemy of large parts of the world if this story that I am telling becomes a reality. Those countries will need help from us in that regard.

There are overt political challenges, including incentivising communities to accept local SMR deployment. The response to the first round of consultation on this national policy statement showed that around 40% of respondents remain concerned about the prospect of future SMR and AMR deployment, citing environmental concerns, concerns around the disposal of radioactive waste and opposition to nuclear energy in principle. Given that microreactors are likely to be ready for deployment by the late 2020s, they may have a critical role to play in assuaging the concerns of communities that would otherwise be cautious about the prospect of SMR deployment in their local area.

I live within about 20 minutes’ walk from two nuclear power stations, at Hunterston in the west coast of Scotland, which are being decommissioned at the moment. These nuclear power stations not only were partly built by local labour, although expertise was brought in, but have provided excellent long-term jobs to the people of the area, who would welcome more nuclear development at that site. The people of Scotland have welcomed the building of a disproportionate number of wind energy turbines: there are 11,000 wind energy turbines in this country, of which 4,000 or more are in Scotland; and Scotland, substantially through them, generates 25% of the renewable energy on these islands. This is welcomed by the people of Scotland, and I do not understand the opposition to this form of energy generation that seems to pop its head up everywhere I go in England. I quite often say to some of my English friends, “If the alternative is a coal-fired power station, I do not understand why you can’t live with these”.

I will share a story with noble Lords. When I was an MP in the west of Scotland, I had part of the largest onshore wind farm in Europe in my constituency. I had few problems. I had two people come to me, separately. One was concerned about the disturbance to planes landing at Glasgow Airport, because it was on the flight path. I brought somebody from Glasgow Airport to persuade him, very quickly, that it was not going to disturb the radar or the ability to land planes. Another was very worried about damage to birdlife, so I brought in an expert on birds from Glasgow University, who sat him down and said, “Birds are very interesting in the way they developed. It didn’t take them long, as they emerged, to be able to figure out how to avoid trees”. There are a series of explanations of that nature to people who are worried about this sort of thing.

As we have heard, SMRs have been explicitly identified as a critical component in the successful delivery of the Government’s AI Opportunities Action Plan. AI data centres are power intensive and will require a more resilient energy mix as well as an exponential increase in capacity. This challenge is one in which the Government are already engaging, but the scale of that challenge is clear, with an IEA report recently suggesting that the amount of electricity needed to power the world’s data centres will double in the next five years. The revised criteria for selection in EN-7 will open up far more capacity and diversity, taking into account emerging technologies such as SMRs and AMRs. Indeed, Energy UK’s response to the consultation’s second question makes clear its belief that EN-7 has been drafted in such a way as to future- proof for technological developments.

As Monday’s proceedings in your Lordships’ House made clear, time is very much of the essence for SMRs, especially if we are to ensure that they will be made in Britain with a UK supply chain. The Czech Government announced Rolls-Royce as their developer of choice, with a site already chosen for the first SMR deployment near the existing Temelín plant. As Great British Nuclear comes to the end of its evaluation process, I think that we would all be grateful for any information that my noble friend the Minister can give on the timescale within which an announcement will be made on the UK’s national supplier of SMRs. He engaged with us on this subject in your Lordships’ House earlier this week, but I would like to hear him do so again.

Finally, an update on the work of the Nuclear Regulatory Taskforce would be extremely welcome. EN-7 should prove a critical step in establishing a favourable regulatory framework to encourage the deployment of both on-grid and off-grid SMRs and AMRs. Assuming that this is achieved, it has the potential to unlock international investment, thereby addressing the skills shortage for nuclear infrastructure, enhancing the UK’s position on a global scale and enabling us to export our expertise to other countries. This is all in the service of increasing low-carbon baseload electricity at a lower price. For these reasons, my noble friend the Minister and the Government have my full support as this national policy statement is finalised and the associated legislation makes its way to your Lordships’ House.

Energy Grid Resilience

Lord Browne of Ladyton Excerpts

Tuesday 6th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Lord makes an important point. I certainly accept that pumped storage energy has a role to play. I shall make sure that Great British Energy is apprised of the views he has taken. He knows that we wish them to operate independently within the strategic framework, which we have debated extensively, but it is a very apposite point, which I will pass on to the chair.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

My Lords, as was recognised in the other place, reports suggest that Programme Yarrow and Exercise Mighty Oak yielded useful insights and made a valuable contribution to our preparedness in the event of a disruption to the UK’s power supply. However, as proven by the previous Government’s failure to act on the findings of Operation Alice, resulting in a lack of planning for track and trace, border security and lockdowns consequent on the arrival of a pandemic, such diagnostic exercises are only as useful as subsequent actions taken to recommend identified shortfalls in resilience. With this precedent in mind, is my noble friend able to reassure your Lordships’ House that the findings of Programme Yarrow and Exercise Mighty Oak are under constant review and, importantly, that we continue to account for advances in capabilities among those strategic adversaries who might seek to target our critical energy infrastructure?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, Mighty Oak was a successful programme to test plans for full electricity restoration in the event of a national power outage. It was very successful and generated a number of learning points, and we now have a strong governance framework for oversight of the implementation of those recommendations. That work will also feed into the resilience review that my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster announced in July 2024.

I assure my noble friend that there is absolutely no complacency whatever, and nor is there any in relation to the energy security system and cybersecurity threats he referred to. It is certainly a key priority for the Government. We work closely with the National Protective Security Authority and the National Cyber Security Centre and we are certainly not complacent on this.

COP 29

Lord Browne of Ladyton Excerpts

Thursday 28th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I readily acknowledge the noble Lord’s personal commitment and thank him for it. I do think a consensual approach to this is really important in giving long-term stability both to our country and to industry, in terms of the policies that we are taking forward.

On Article 6, at COP the parties agreed outstanding rules to fully operationalise it. This can enable higher global mitigation ambitions and facilitate flows of finance, particularly to emerging and developing economies. We obviously very much welcome this outcome. It delivers high-integrity rules to govern international carbon markets, which are underpinned by environmental integrity, as he said. Obviously, in terms of what we now do, we will be taking this forward. However, alongside some of the disappointments that have been expressed about the outcome, this is a very important one.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

My Lords, I draw attention to my entry in the register of interests, particularly as working vice-chair of the Nuclear Threat Initiative. According to the IAEA, nuclear power must significantly expand to new markets if climate rules are to be achieved. Currently, there are 31 countries using nuclear power. We learned from COP 28 and COP 29 that around 30 so-called newcomer countries are either embarking on or considering its introduction, and some are already building their first nuclear reactors.

As nuclear energy expands to new locations, it is critical that non-proliferation in nuclear security practices and standards keeps pace. This will require significant extension. Moving in the wrong direction could foster a world with more weapons-usable nuclear materials that are less secure, more countries with the ability to produce these materials and perhaps even more nuclear weapon states. Engaging with Governments who have established nuclear energy to promote key non-proliferation standards is essential. What steps are we taking in that regard? We need to make sure that Atoms4NetZero does not turn into “Atoms for Peace”, which left many dangerous materials lying about all over the world.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend. I understand that six more countries signed the nuclear agreement declaration at COP. These are the countries that have pledged to triple nuclear energy by 2050. It is quite clear that there is a global renaissance occurring in nuclear energy. I have attended a number of international conferences where there is a lot of interest in countries like ourselves, who have turned back to nuclear, in countries that have not had nuclear power stations. This has great potential for the UK. We have great potential for exporting technology and expertise and, in relation to what my noble friend said, efficient systems of regulation. I assure him that we are encouraging business and agencies here to do all that they can in an international setting. I have met a number of Ministers from countries who are going back to or starting nuclear on that. In relation to non-proliferation, the work of the IAEA is critical. I assure him that the United Kingdom plays a very strong role in it and contributes to it extensively.

Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [HL]

Lord Browne of Ladyton Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 20th November 2024 Grand Committee

[Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)]

My Lords, I rise with no emotion in my voice—because, as noble Lords will appreciate, to be a Government Whip under Margaret Thatcher and John Major one had to leave emotion aside—to support Amendments 17 and 127, which bear my name. In doing so, I first want to speak to Amendments 6, 9, 15, 36, 37, 39 and 42. Obviously, I am against those amendments because they would fundamentally alter the purpose and practical operation of the Bill. If the aim of these amendments is to damage British businesses and our competitiveness on the world stage, noble Lords promoting them should say so. They should also be open with this Committee. If these amendments are simply a product of opposition to the EU or anything associated with the word “Europe”, they should make that absolutely clear.

This raises a critical question: who benefits from this approach? It is not British businesses. Our industries require clarity, predictability and coherence to thrive in competitive global markets. These amendments risk creating a fragmented system where businesses face the burden of navigating multiple and potentially conflicting regulatory frameworks. The UK has a proud history of robust safety and environmental protections. These amendments focus on what are termed “foreign laws”, without any clear guiding principle, and risk creating uncertainty about the quality and safety of products in the UK market. The outcome would be confusion for manufacturers, exporters and regulators alike. These amendments also prohibit the use of some dynamic alignment, a valuable tool for ensuring that our regulations remain relevant and competitive in an ever-evolving global market.

The European Union remains our largest trading partner. Its product regulations set a widely recognised global benchmark. Dynamic alignment allows us to align with the EU when it is in our interest to do so, ensuring that our businesses can access those markets while reducing additional costs or barriers. Denying this flexibility would leave the UK with an outdated and rigid regulatory framework to the detriment of businesses, workers and consumers alike. This introduces a potential free-for-all of standards with little clarity on how decisions would be made or who would be consulted. It is not the framework we need to build confidence in our regulatory system at home or abroad. These amendments represent a step backwards. They prioritise an abstract notion of flexibility over the real-world needs of businesses, consumers and our economy. They threaten to create a chaotic, fragmented regulatory environment that would disadvantage British industry and weaken our position in global trade.

I support the amendments I referred to that bear my name. I believe they offer a practical and balanced approach to regulating products in the United Kingdom. They would provide clarity for businesses by establishing alignment with EU product standards as the default position while, of course, maintaining the flexibility to diverge where clear benefits can be demonstrated. The EU remains our largest trading partner, as I have said, and its regulatory standards often set the tone for international markets. Aligning with those standards simplifies trade not only within Europe but globally; many third countries recognise those rules, and British businesses benefit from this de facto international benchmark. Diverging from EU standards risks isolating our industries, as I have said, and placing UK businesses at a competitive disadvantage.

The financial case for these amendments is equally clear. Without regulatory alignment, businesses face the double burden of not only having to navigate two distinct sets of standards but it not being bureaucratic. It is expensive: the Government’s impact assessment has shown that duplicating conformity assessments alone could cost businesses up to £1.6 billion over the next decade. There are many small and medium-sized enterprises that we should be particularly concerned about. These costs are insurmountable and may even deter them from exporting altogether. Our amendments would mitigate those risks by creating a framework of consistency and certainty.

I welcome the decision by the previous Government— my Government—to extend the recognition of CE marking indefinitely. This amendment would build on that precedent, turning an ad hoc decision into clear, predictable policy.

It has already been referred to but I draw your Lordships’ attention to the situation in Northern Ireland, where alignment with EU product standards is already a reality under the Windsor Framework. This approach would complement the Windsor Framework, ensuring that businesses operating across Great Britain and Northern Ireland have a consistent regulatory environment; reducing friction and confusion; and avoiding separate rules governing different parts of our country. I am sure noble Lords agree that that is desirable.

Our amendments are pro-business, pro-trade and pro-consumer. They reflect the realities of our interconnected world and would ensure that the UK remains an attractive place to invest, trade and innovate.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope. Tempted as I am to follow his lead and comment on some of the other amendments in this group—other than the ones I put my name to, that is—I shall resist that temptation. My intention is to speak to Amendment 17 only and, even then, in a restricted way.

Before I do so, I join others in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, on his new appointment. He and I have debated consistently and for a period a number of issues; I will miss those opportunities because it is unlikely that I will be back in this space, in policy terms, in future.

I do not intend to rehearse in any detail the arguments that have already been made. I just want to emphasise why this amendment is squarely consonant with the aims of this Bill and will increase our agility in providing British businesses with a greater degree of certainty. As my noble friend the Minister outlined at Second Reading, the Bill aims to underpin the UK’s position at the forefront of international trade and enable the recognition of EU product requirements where it is in the UK’s interests to do so. It is precisely in that spirit that I added my name to Amendment 17; in the short time I will detain the Committee for, I shall attempt to explain why I believe that this provision will smooth our path to accomplishing these goals. Perhaps most importantly, the Bill in general—and Amendment 17 in particular—aims to move beyond the wrangling consequent upon Brexit and to provide our businesses and industrial sector with the certainty they need and crave.

I have had occasion in other contexts to make the case that regulatory certainty does not diminish our economic strength but is a prerequisite for those businesses on which our economic strength depends. The certainty that Amendment 17 would provide will not inhibit economic animal spirits but will allow businesses to plan and co-ordinate their commercial activity with the same confidence that their competitors in the EU and elsewhere currently enjoy. It is for that reason that the 50,000 businesses represented by the British Chambers of Commerce, and those businesses belonging to the Engineering and Machinery Alliance, support the policy of dynamic alignment, which would be instituted by the adoption of this amendment. We have tried the inverse of this approach and ought to have learned the lessons.

The brave new world of a UK-only system for the regulation of goods and products was widely disregarded by domestic businesses, who overwhelmingly chose to continue to conform with the CE mark because it allowed them access to an exponentially larger market. Indeed, the previous Government’s own regulatory impact assessment in this area showed that some overseas suppliers stated their intention to limit product supply to GB if CE was no longer recognised. Overall, the then Government’s best estimate was that around 18,500 UK manufacturers were involved in affected industries and that the average annual value of all manufactured goods imported into the UK subject to UKCA or CE requirements was £110 billion, with around half of these imports from the EU. In 2019, products that were subject to UK or CE requirements represented around a quarter of all UK-imported goods. As we have heard, the previous Government’s own impact assessments of duplicative conformity and labour time, to which the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, drew our attention, estimated total costs of up to £1.6 billion over the next decade. As your Lordships’ Committee is aware, in May 2024, after repeatedly extending the deadline to transition to the UKCA, the UK Government admitted defeat and indefinitely extended the recognition of CE goods in GB markets.

As I said at Second Reading, I have lost track of the number of Conservative Ministers I have seen in my 27 years in Parliament announcing their determination to kindle a bonfire of regulations, to take an axe to red tape, or some similarly strenuous deregulation measure. If that really is their desire, there are few things better calculated than this amendment to obviate the need for business to undertake rigorous conformity assessments and, consequently, smooth the path for frictionless trade. As such, this amendment preserves the intentions of the Bill to update our regulations according to a calculus of national self-interest, giving our businesses regulatory certainty while still allowing us to diverge from EU regulations when it is to our advantage.

At the risk of repeating an element of my remarks from Second Reading, we have seen a parallel scenario emerge in respect of our chemical regulations. The last Government decided to leave REACH, the EU’s body dictating the registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals regulations, to set up a parallel organisation. Since then, we have not adopted a single registered restriction on a harmful substance, compared with 10 new protections offered by EU regulation, including on harmful microplastics deliberately added to products. While REACH has regulated PFAS in the EU, not a single river or water body in England is in good chemical health. Since we left REACH, the EU has initiated 23 risk assessments related to harmful substances, while we have initiated just three. It may be that this is a function of a more vibrant, freebooting approach, or that we have superior data or a more effective methodology, but I fear it may just be that our duplicate body has simply proven less effective, which in turn imperils the safety of people in this country.

Paying Polluters: UN Report

Lord Browne of Ladyton Excerpts

Monday 22nd April 2024 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Browne of Ladyton]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the United Nations Special Rapporteur report on Paying polluters: the catastrophic consequences of investor-State dispute settlement for climate and environment action and human rights, published on 13 July 2023.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Callanan) (Con)]

My Lords, investor-state dispute settlement mechanisms offer investors an independent means of legal redress to seek compensation following a breach of international investment agreements. The report notes that, outside the UK, investors have brought ISDS claims against climate change measures; however, the UK has not faced a successful ISDS claim. On 22 February we announced withdrawal from the energy charter treaty, to avoid remaining in a treaty not aligned with our energy security and net-zero ambitions.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

My Lords, on 7 December we had a debate on a Motion moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, on Latin America. In the context of our trade deal with Colombia, my friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, raised the issue of the inherent manifold injustices of the ISDS. The Minister responding to the debate, the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, wrote in response:

“ISDS is an effective means of resolving … disputes”,


and the Government are

“content with the standard of protection”

provided. So it is surprising that none of the free trade deals concluded since Brexit contains an ISDS—and the absence of one is an explicit goal of our negotiations for a UK-Canada deal. What is the Government’s view of an ISDS as a means of resolving disputes? If they have shifted their view, what are they doing to ensure that their new approach is reflected in trade with Colombia?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

This is a complicated area. Of course, these treaties are bilateral, and they also help to protect the investments of UK companies investing in other overseas territories. However, the UK’s investment policy is designed to protect the UK’s right to regulate in the public interest, and so far we have been successful in that, in that we have not seen any successful claims against us.

Biomass: Power Generation

Lord Browne of Ladyton Excerpts

Wednesday 13th March 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My noble friend makes a good point. It is not just Drax; there are many commercial and domestic biomass boilers as well that I am sure would be happy to use sustainable British-produced biomass.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

My Lords, when biomass subsidies were initially awarded, was it envisaged that the Drax power station would receive more than £2 million a day in biomass subsidies, emit about 12 million tonnes of CO₂ a year, and, last year, take more than 40,000 tonnes of wood from old-growth forests in British Columbia—a practice, incidentally, which Drax previously decried in its own sustainability reports? If not, what criteria will the Minister’s department use when a decision is made about whether subsidies should be extended beyond 2027?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

The noble Lord posed a number of different questions. First, as I said, sustainability criteria are extremely strict. They are policed by Ofgem. I have spoken to the chief executive of Ofgem about this—it is investigating the allegations. It is Ofgem’s job to uphold the rules and it will not hesitate to take action if the rules are breached. We have some strict sustainability criteria, and it is important that Drax and every other producer abides by those rules. Drax is responsible for about 5% of the UK’s electricity generation, and noble Lords should be aware that this is important for keeping the lights on, and for British energy security.

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

Lord Browne of Ladyton Excerpts

Wednesday 7th June 2023 Grand Committee

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

My Lords, it was a pleasure to serve on the Environment and Climate Change Committee for close to two years, during which time the evidence was laid and this report was published. It was a distinct pleasure to serve under the excellent, able and inclusive chairmanship of the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter. It was also a pleasure to work with the excellent staff and advisers who we had in this inquiry—too many to name; I am conscious of my time.

I must say that, having looked at the list of possible speakers, I had hoped that I would not be in the position of having to follow the noble Lord, Lord Lilley. We had very good-natured and interesting debates between us in the course of this inquiry. I really wanted to make another speech, but I cannot resist the temptation. Over a lot of our time together on the committee, I tried to persuade the noble Lord that, for example, my family’s decision to change from a petrol-driven car to an electric vehicle was a lifestyle change, and one whose consequences caused us to make other lifestyle changes. Because of the limited range of the vehicle, we changed the way in which we drove it—indeed, whether we drove it at all. We made distinct changes to the way in which we travelled. I cannot guarantee that I will not make any more than two flights in a year, but I have not yet made two this year. I travel less by carbon-fuelled vehicles and more, happily, by public transport, which is electrified, including trains where I live. These changes, like those of many of my friends and colleagues, have encouraged other lifestyle changes. For example, because we have solar panels on our roof, we make hay while the sun shines. We change the time at which we do certain things and therefore try to use only carbon-free energy if we can.

I could never convince the noble Lord that that was lifestyle change, that the technology was driving lifestyle change and that people’s decision to adopt this technology was not so that they could continue to live as they had but to change and live a more carbon-free lifestyle. I do not think that I ever will convince him. That is, I think, why he was in a minority of one in relation to the point that he made. The last time that we debated this issue, the noble Lord made an almost-identical speech. I was pleased to see that it got quite good coverage in certain media the next day; I suspect they may have been briefed in anticipation and I hope that they have been again today, so that this can be published. The fact of the matter is that, in the committee, all but one of us agreed that the report was a reflection of the evidence that we had heard and that the statistics that we quoted—and shared by the Government—reflected the reality.

I am almost out of time, but I had hoped to make one point, which I will make by referring to another report. We have already heard of the Chris Skidmore independent review, which the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, referred to. There is an important conclusion in that report, which I came to in the course of listening to the evidence and being on this inquiry. The review by Chris Skidmore echoes a point that was made in the committee’s report about local action being the key to the delivery of net zero. His review highlighted:

“Taking a more locally led, place-based approach can deliver a net zero transition with more local support, better tailoring to local needs, and bring economic and social benefits”.


Having heard the overwhelming evidence that I did in this context, I have come to the conclusion that the future for net zero relies on activating our communities to work in that way to challenge these issues, that we should do this with the support of civic society and local government, and that the Government should enable that.

Heat and Buildings Strategy: Gas Boilers

Lord Browne of Ladyton Excerpts

Tuesday 28th February 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I partly agree with my noble friend. It is a good thing that the rectory was insulated anyway, whatever kind of heating was installed in it. Heat pumps obviously work best in well-insulated properties, but you can now get high-temperature heat pumps that work in all scenarios. I agree with my noble friend that, as I said earlier, there is a multiplicity of property types and different technologies will work in different properties.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

My Lords, from the evidence that it received, the Environment and Climate Change Committee, of which I was a member at the time, concluded in its inquiry on the boiler upgrade scheme that a shortage of relevant skills is a major barrier to the take-up of the boiler upgrade scheme and low-carbon heat. The microgeneration certification scheme, which certifies whether companies are capable of fitting renewable heat products, gave evidence to the committee that the three-year duration of the scheme and

“the delayed release of the market-based mechanism to support heat pump growth”

did not

“provide sufficient long-term certainty to grow the sector and encourage retraining.”

Despite this investment in training, does the Minister agree with the MCS that a long-term policy of decadal length is required to create a stable policy landscape to encourage investment in training? If he does, what do the Government intend to do about that?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

The noble Lord will be aware that the next Question is on the boiler upgrade scheme; his question might perhaps have been more appropriate there, but I agree with him. The Answer I gave earlier shows what we are doing to invest in upgrading existing skills. It is a long-term job over decades, as the MCS correctly said. I was at a reception with the MCS last week, talking to it about this very issue.