Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill

Lord Callanan Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 15th May 2023 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Callanan]

1: Clause 1, page 1, line 4, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
“(1) Legislation listed in Schedule (Sunset of subordinate legislation and retained direct EU legislation) is revoked at the end of 2023, to the extent specified there.(1A) In that Schedule—(a) Part 1 lists subordinate legislation;(b) Part 2 lists retained direct EU legislation.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment provides that the legislation to be revoked by Clause 1 is the legislation listed in the Minister’s new Schedule.

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

My Lords, we have listened to the concerns of this House and today we are tabling a number of amendments to modify the first three clauses of the Bill.

Amendment 1 provides that the sunset in Clause 1 will be updated with a revocation schedule. This schedule will list retained EU law that will be revoked on 31 December this year. The revocation schedule includes around 600 pieces of legislation provided from departments across government and spans a huge number of policy areas. This will provide the legal clarity and certainty that many Members called for in Committee. The revocation schedule will provide certainty by listing exactly which pieces of REUL will be revoked at the end of the year. One of the main advantages of the schedule is the ability to efficiently and cleanly remove superfluous legislation without taking up disproportionate amounts of parliamentary time. It will thus allow us to remove legislation inherited from the EU that the UK no longer requires in an efficient and transparent way by the end of the year.

Retained EU law not included in the schedule will still be stripped of EU interpretive effects after 31 December 2023 and therefore assimilated into domestic legislation as per Clauses 4 to 7. This means we will still be removing the effects of general principles of EU law as an aid to interpretation, ceasing the application of supremacy and repealing directly effective EU rights so that they no longer have any effect in relation to these provisions. Consequently, nothing on our domestic statute book will be considered as retained EU law and the special status of retained EU law in the UK will come to an end.

Amendment 5 serves to remove subsections (3) and (4) of Clause 1 and insert a power for a relevant national authority to exclude legislation from revocation. This amendment ensures that we retain a limited preservation power in the Bill to enable Ministers and devolved authorities to preserve specific retained EU law so far as it would otherwise be revoked under Clause 1. The devolved authorities will therefore be able to exercise this power to preserve legislation so far as it is within their devolved competence. This power will be time-limited; it cannot be used beyond 31 October this year. These amendments set out the operation and principle of the schedule’s approach. I look forward to discussing the content of the schedule in our debates on Wednesday.

Amendment 68 provides that the preservation power inserted by Amendment 5 will be subject to the draft affirmative procedure. In effect, this means that any preservation SI laid would need to be actively supported by both Houses of Parliament. This will ensure that, should a piece of legislation need to be preserved from the schedule list, this could be done only if there was broad approval across both Houses, avoiding the risk that this power is overused or not properly scrutinised if enacted.

Amendment 13 removes Clause 3, which contains the sunset extension power. Following the removal of the sunset in Clause 1 and the introduction of a revocation schedule, an extension power to the sunset is no longer needed and, by extension, neither is the clause as a whole.

I turn to the other amendment that I am supporting, which was tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman. I had every intention of laying this very amendment given Amendment 1, but the noble Baroness beat me to the punch on this occasion with her Amendment 9, which removes Clause 2 from the Bill. This clause contains all exceptions to the sunset. Much like Amendment 13, this is a consequential amendment; Clause 2 will no longer be needed given the introduction of a revocation schedule. Removing redundant clauses to enable the effective operation of the Government’s schedule makes sense. As such, I agree with this amendment and will support it. I beg to move.

Amendment 2 (to Amendment 1)

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

We welcome the Government’s amendments, but this Bill really ought to serve as a lesson to lawmakers—now and in the future—that legislating in a factional interest, rather than the national interest, is always a mistake.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. I find myself standing here bathed in sunlight; I am not sure whether that is a sign.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords—

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I do not require the noble Lord’s advice on this.

I will start with Amendment 2 from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, which requires that legislation listed in the revocation schedule be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses and be considered by the committee for a period of at least 30 sitting days. Should the Joint Committee consider that the revocation of the legislation listed would substantially alter UK law, a Minister of the Crown must ensure that the revocation be debated and voted on by both Houses prior to 31 December.

I start by reassuring noble Lords that it is the Government’s view that this amendment is unnecessary. Every piece of retained EU law in the schedule has been thoroughly reviewed, and will be reviewed and debated alongside Amendment 64, which has been tabled. I am confident that the changes to Clause 1 that we have introduced have alleviated the substantial concerns raised by Members across this House during the passage of the Bill and provided the legal clarity and certainty that has been called for.

Although I know that a number of noble Lords have not yet had the chance to see it, today we have published an extensive schedule explainer—again, responding to the concerns that many Members have raised; officials have been working hard on this all weekend—which explains, line by line, why each of the, in total, 587 pieces of legislation has been deemed suitable for inclusion on the schedule. That has been sent to every Member in advance of the debate on Wednesday. I hope that this will alleviate the concerns raised in this debate, including by my noble friend Lord Hodgson and the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, and other noble Lords, about the amount of information that has now been made publicly available.

In addition, the preservation power in Clause 1 will enable relevant national authorities to preserve legislation on the revocation schedule where they deem it necessary and where the relevant procedures and timescales have been adhered to. This provides a proportionate safeguard against unforeseen consequences of legislation listed on the schedule being revoked. The purpose of our amendment is to provide that legal certainty and clarity as efficiently as possible. To require yet further referrals and debates, and approvals to the list which can be scrutinised during the Bill’s passage, is unnecessary.

On Amendment 4, I have introduced changes to the Bill that I hope will reassure the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead—I think they have done—that his proposed changes to the functioning of the Bill are not necessary. Indeed, the revocation schedule I have laid guarantees that only a set amount of retained EU law will be revoked, which is clearly set out in the Bill. This is very similar to the mechanism proposed in this amendment that would see instruments or provisions expressly listed in a ministerial Statement. However, for a number of reasons, I believe that my proposed revocation schedule is better equipped to deliver this amendment’s desired outcome.

For similar reasons I am opposed to Amendment 6. This amendment would introduce changes to Clause 1 that are reflective of those already introduced by the Government. Indeed, the revocation schedule in Amendments 1 and 5 seeks to accomplish similar goals to Amendment 6 but in a more comprehensive way. This amendment would require a list to be compiled in order to be revoked and would open the door for multiple such lists being laid over the coming months. Again, the proposed revocation schedule is already drafted, has been vetted and is ready, and I believe it is a more appropriate solution. Finally, the amendment has unclear timelines and does not offer as much certainty as the revocation schedule, which is clear about when the revocation of pieces of retained EU law would occur and works in step with other timings in the Bill, such as the expiry of the powers on 23 June 2026.

I was going to refer to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, but he said that he will not press it.

Amendment 8 attempts to exempt any pieces of legislation from the sunset should they be identified after the end of 2023. As I already outlined, this amendment is now unnecessary.

Amendments 10, 11 and 12 all concern the devolved Administrations and their preservation power in what was Clause 3. However, given that under my proposal Clauses 1 and 2 have been removed from the Bill and a revocation schedule has replaced the sunset, these three amendments are defunct and we ask that they are not pressed.

Amendment 16 seeks to oblige the Secretary of State to publish a health and safety impact assessment for any retained EU law which is to be revoked, at least 90 days before the revocation. All legislation listed on the revocation schedule has been considered by the relevant departments and checked by the relevant teams. As such, a health and safety impact assessment is not needed, given the depth of the work that has already been carried out.

We have introduced this Bill to help us realise the opportunities of Brexit. I reassure my noble friend Lord Jackson and other noble Lords that the Government remain committed to a reform programme. Legislation that has been identified on this schedule had already been identified and would have been allowed to sunset anyway. We are still committed to making the opportunities of the reform programme, and we retain the ambition and fundamental purpose behind this work.

I hope that the noble and learned Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment and that other noble Lords will not press theirs and will support the government amendments.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

Before my noble friend sits down, will he respond to my question about sufficient consultation time being allowed? The Food Standards Agency has accepted all the legislation that relates to it which falls in the revocation schedule to which my noble friend referred, subject to sufficient time for consultation. Can my noble friend say, hand on heart, that, by the time the Bill is concluded, there will be enough time for consultation before the schedule applies?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I have seen the letter from the Food Standards Agency to which my noble friend refers. The schedule is published and we have now published the explainer, so people can see what is on it. The vast majority of legislation published on the schedule is unnecessary and redundant, and can be safely revoked.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

Before the Minister sits down, I listened very carefully but I did not hear what he had to say about Amendment 14 and the reassurances I was seeking.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

Can the noble Baroness remind me what her Amendment 14 is about, please?

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

Water directives.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

The directives she seeks an explanation on are not listed on the revocation schedule. Therefore, they continue to be in operation. They will be subject to a reform programme, but that is a question she will need to direct towards the Secretary of State at Defra.

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

My Lords, I have listened very carefully to what the Minister said. I have not seen the additional information which has apparently been circulated to some Members of this House, and I think many Members have no idea what it contains. That makes my point for me: proper parliamentary scrutiny is essential. That is what my amendment is all about and, with great respect to the Minister, I do not think he has really answered that point of principle. Having moved Amendment 2, I wish to test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fox (LD)]

It is the Minister’s turn.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

Thank you; I did not get up because I thought the Opposition Front Bench was going to speak. I reject Amendments 3, 36, 38 and 42 to 44, tabled by my noble friend Lady McIntosh.

I will deal with the point raised by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and give an explanation to my noble friend Lord Hamilton. A notion seems to be springing up that the Government and departments somehow did not know what legislation they actually had responsibility for. They knew very well what legislation they had; what was sometimes unclear was whether that legislation was as a result of an EU obligation and therefore was retained EU law. This was because, over the 40-odd years of our membership, different Governments had different policies. Only a small part of EU legislation was introduced through the so-called Section 2(2) pipeline of the European Communities Act. If it is those regulations, that is very obvious—people know where that has come from—but Governments often did not want to say that legislation was introduced as a result of an EU obligation. It was therefore introduced under various instruments, under either domestic legislation or normal domestic secondary legislation. Therefore, the difficulty that departments faced was identifying what was an EU obligation. It is not that they did not know what legislation they were responsible for, were somehow finding legislation down the back of the sofa or anything else. That has been the issue: the definition of what was retained EU law. I hope that explanation is helpful.

Amendment 3 seeks to change the sunset date, pushing it back to the end of 2028. Given the amendments to the Bill that we have already discussed and the significant changes to the operation of the sunset, I hope my noble friend recognises that it is therefore not necessary to also change the sunset date. The current scope of the sunset in Clause 1 will no longer be relevant, as it will be replaced with a schedule to the Bill. The schedule will list retained EU law that departments have identified for removal. This is the only legislation that will be revoked on 31 December 2023.

Similarly, Amendments 36 and 38 seek to change the date of the powers to restate under Clauses 13 and 14. Amendment 36 would mean that Clause 13 was capable of acting on retained EU law until 31 December 2028. Pieces of retained EU law that are not included in the revocation schedule will, of course, not be revoked on 31 December 2023, but they will be stripped of their EU interpretative effects and assimilated in domestic legislation.

Consequently, those pieces of legislation will no longer be retained EU law. They will be assimilated law as part of the normal law of the United Kingdom, and the status of retained EU law on the UK statute book will come to an end. There will be no more REUL after 31 December. As retained EU law will end as a legal category at the end of this year, it is right that this power, which is capable of acting only on REUL, expires then. I am not clear why my noble friend wants to extend the sunset date of a power that will no longer be required.

Amendment 38 seeks to change the date on which the power to restate assimilated law under Clause 14 will expire from 23 June 2026 to 31 December 2028. It is in my view entirely right and appropriate that this power should be available for a time-limited window up to 23 June 2026. This is consistent with the powers to revoke or replace in Clause 16. I am confident that the time window currently set out in Clause 14 will provide sufficient time for the power to be exercised on all the necessary legislation.

Amendment 42 changes the date on which the powers to revoke or replace within Clause 16 are capable of acting on REUL from 23 June 2026 to 31 December 2028. Similarly, Amendment 43 changes the date that the powers to revoke or replace can act on assimilated law to 31 December 2028. Amendment 44 changes the date in Clause 16(11) from the end of 2023 to the end of 2028 so that the references to retained EU law in Clause 16(8) can be read as a reference to assimilated law until 31 December 2028. Again, this group of amendments is no longer necessary due to the revocation schedule. There is more than adequate time for the use of the powers on assimilated law within the timescales provided for in the Bill. The powers to revoke or replace will enable UK and devolved Ministers to remove those regulations that are no longer fit for purpose and replace them with regulations that are more tailored to the UK within a timely manner, and the Government are committed to achieving these much-needed reforms by 2026. That is why the powers are restricted in their use and available only for a time-limited window, up to 23 June 2026. I hope that, with the explanations I have been able to provide, my noble friend will withdraw her amendment.

[Lord Hacking (Lab)]

Before the Minister sits down, can he explain assimilated law? The present position—it is clearly shown in the schedule—is that either the European provision turns up as a statutory instrument or it is referred to precisely by the regulation number of the EEC or EU regulations. How are we going to find this assimilated law?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

The noble Lord is confusing two things. The schedule is the retained EU law that we are proposing to allow to be revoked on 31 December this year. Assimilated law will be that retained EU law, stripped of its interpretive effects, that will remain on the statute book. We will end the special category of retained EU law that has existed because of our membership of the European Union. The noble Lord is confusing two things. The items listed in the schedule will disappear, and the rest, which is not revoked, will become assimilated law. The powers that remain can act on that law to change or modify it. That will be subject to approval by Parliament through the normal process.

[Lord Hacking (Lab)]

How do we identify the assimilated law on our statute book?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

The dashboard lists all the pieces of retained EU law that have been identified; the schedule lists those that are being revoked.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, while I am extremely grateful to my noble friend, I think he has made a bit of an own goal because I think it is still the case that the dashboard is simply not comprehensive. My concern, and I think that of the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and others, is that there are a number of items of EU law that are simply not on the dashboard. As we speak today, I am unclear about what the legal status of the dashboard is.

What I do take comfort from, based on what I understand my noble friend to have said, is that, if, for example, there is a piece of Defra retained EU law that does not appear in the revocation schedule on which we are going to vote, it will remain on the statute book and, even more importantly, it cannot be amended. So it can neither be revoked nor amended. If that is not the case, I would ask my noble friend to rise to the Dispatch Box and explain where I am wrong.

As he has not risen, I am taking it that any Defra or other retained EU law that is currently on the statute book and not in the schedule will remain part of retained EU law and, furthermore, cannot be amended. I am grateful to my noble friend for his clarification in that regard. I shall beg leave to withdraw my amendment on the understanding that what I have said is correct. If I am wrong, I believe that my noble friend must stand at the Dispatch Box and say that it is possible to amend retained EU law that is not on the revocation schedule before us today. That is an extremely important legal point.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I have explained this, but I will do so again. The powers to modify, change or update the assimilated law remain in the proposals. Obviously, the measures that are in the schedule will be revoked, but there are powers to modify, or restate. To take an example, interpretive effects are being abolished and, in some pieces of legislation, that will require minor changes to that legislation, to update it, because of the removal of interpretive effects. The policy intent will stay the same, but it is possible that some minor changes will be required, which is why the Government need this power. So the noble Baroness is partially correct to say that existing measures that are not being revoked will become part of assimilated law; but the Government do have the power to modify or change them.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I am not sure that that is entirely clear, but I have pressed the point as much as I can at this stage. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Callanan]

5: Clause 1, page 1, line 10, leave out subsections (3) and (4) and insert—
“(3) Subsection (1) does not apply to anything specified in regulations made by a relevant national authority.(4) No regulations may be made under subsection (3) after 31 October 2023.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment leaves out subsections (3) and (4), in consequence of the Minister’s amendment at page 1, line 4, and inserts a power for a relevant national authority to exclude legislation listed in the Schedule from revocation under this Clause.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Callanan]

13: Leave out Clause 3
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment leaves out clause 3 (extension of sunset under clause 1).

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, to pick up that point, we have heard in every debate a recognition that the Government have moved, which has been very important and welcome.

Some people want to continue a debate about Brexit. These amendments are not about that. That is why I totally support the noble Lords, Lord Hamilton and Lord Hodgson, who have previously participated in debates in this House on the nature of secondary legislation and how it has increased, and how it empowers the Executive. This is a unique situation; we have established the principle in the first group but, if we are to make changes—revise, reform and revoke—how will we ensure that the people with the responsibility to legislate have the responsibility properly to scrutinise and amend if necessary? People jump up and down and ask whether this is the right place to have a debate about secondary legislation. I am not too bothered about that. I am concerned about outcomes. Parliament should have the opportunity properly to scrutinise the changes and powers in this legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, have offered us a process in this Bill for those changes to be made.

The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, has pushed me on numerous occasions, particularly when we debated his committee’s report, on whether a future Government would adopt this for statutory instruments. I cannot make that commitment, but I know that, if we adopt Amendment 76, it will establish a practice that people might see is beneficial for future arrangements. We can have a win-win situation. This debate is not about Brexit. It is about who has responsibility to legislate in this country. It is not the Government; it is our duty. That is why we should support Amendments 76 and 15.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 15 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, and moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, effectively seeks to delay a vital part of the Government’s retained EU law reform programme whereby EU rights, obligations and remedies saved by Section 4 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 will cease to apply in the UK after 31 December 2023. The matters saved by Section 4 consist largely of rights, obligations and remedies developed in the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union. Many of these overlap with rights already well established by domestic law in this country, and those overlaps can cause confusion.

Where the UK and devolved Governments consider that there is a need to codify any specific rights that may otherwise cease to apply, this can be done under the Bill’s powers. These codified rights will be placed on a sustainable UK footing, providing certainty and therefore safeguarding and enhancing them in domestic statute. The Bill is ending the current situation whereby citizens must rely in some cases on an unclear category of law and complex legal glosses to enforce their rights. Sadly, the proposed amendment seeks to perpetuate this situation, which the Government consider unacceptable. I hope the noble and learned Lord will withdraw his amendment.

Amendments 69, 76, 73 and 74 relate to Schedule 4 and parliamentary scrutiny. Amendments 73 and 74, tabled by my noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, relate to the sifting procedure and seek to extend the period during which committees of this House and the House of Commons can make a recommendation about the relevant scrutiny procedure for regulations made under Clauses 13, 14 and 16. Specifically, these amendments seek to change the time limit under which both Houses can make recommendations on the appropriate procedure to be used when an instrument is laid and subject to the sifting procedure.

As the provision is drafted, relevant committees of this House and the Commons have a period of 10 sitting days to make recommendations on the appropriate scrutiny procedures. This starts on the first day on which both Houses are sitting after the instrument has been laid. If the period of 10 sitting days does not cover the same dates for both Houses, the end date of the relevant period will be the later of the two dates. Amendment 73 extends the number of sitting days in the period from 10 to 15 for the House of Commons, while Amendment 74 does the same for this House.

As I have been reminded by a number of noble Lords, particularly my noble friends Lord Hodgson and Lord Hunt, I committed in Committee to review the 10-day scrutiny period for sifting. I engaged in extensive discussions not just in the department but with the business managers about whether a 10-day sifting period was sufficient. As my noble friend Lord Hodgson intimated, I was not successful in persuading them. The Government’s position remains that a 10-day sifting procedure is sufficient for SIs laid under the powers in the Bill.

It is also worth pointing out that we had that debate under the old provisions of the Bill. Under the new schedule approach, the total volume of statutory instruments to be delivered via the reform programme has been significantly reduced. My noble friend’s concern that there was not enough time to consider them properly will have been to some extent allayed, given the previously very large volume of SIs.

From previous experience, the 10-day period worked quite well during the programme of SIs for EU exit and is in line with the sifting procedures and legislation introduced under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act. I have some confidence that it will continue to work well in this scenario. Therefore, I am afraid the Government do not consider it necessary to extend the time limit within which an instrument is scrutinised as part of the sifting procedure.

I turn now to Amendments 69 and 76 from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope. These amendments put a somewhat novel scrutiny procedure in place for the powers under Clauses 13, 14 and 16. Specifically, Amendment 69 removes the requirement for certain regulations made under those clauses to be subject to the affirmative procedure. In consequence of this, Ministers would be left with a choice between the negative or affirmative procedures, with the former subject to the sifting procedure.

Amendment 76 imposes this novel and untested scrutiny requirement on regulations made. This takes the form of an enhanced sifting procedure—not dissimilar to the super-affirmative procedure—under which Parliament may make amendments to a proposed instrument. The Government believe that the purpose of this Bill is to ensure that we have the right regulations in place which are right for the whole of the UK. The House can be assured that the Government will ensure that any significant retained EU law reforms will receive the appropriate level of scrutiny by the relevant legislatures and will be subject to all of the usual processes for consultation and impact assessment. However, we also believe that we have to ensure that the limited amount of parliamentary time that is available is used most appropriately and most effectively. Requiring that the powers be subject to additional scrutiny is neither appropriate nor necessary in this case.

The sifting procedure that we suggested was purposely drafted as a safeguarding measure for these powers. The sifting procedure will give the UK Parliament the opportunity to take an active role in the development of this legislation. It is a tried and tested method of parliamentary scrutiny which delivers—in my view—good results for everyone and does draw on the expertise of our various parliamentary committees. Requiring that legislation to be subject to novel, untried, untested and onerous scrutiny, such as this enhanced sifting mechanism would—in my view—not be an effective use of parliamentary time. It would result in delaying departments delivering their REUL reform programmes and would delay the Bill in delivering its objective of bringing about much-needed REUL reform. For all those reasons, the Government cannot support Amendments 69, 76, 73 and 74.

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in the course of this debate. I do not want to go over the arguments again. On the criticisms the Minister has made about my two amendments, I have only two points to make.

First, I think he said that the purpose of Amendment 15 was to delay the process that Clause 4 is talking about. That is simply not true. We have kept within the timetable that Clause 4 itself lays down. As I made clear, the aim throughout our amendments is to try to achieve what is required as quickly as possible. The sunset date in Clause 4 remains, according to our amendment. So, to say that we are delaying anything is, with great respect, not the case.

Secondly, to describe Amendment 76 as novel and untested is not a criticism that meets the situation. We are dealing with an entirely new situation where we are having to redesign an enormous quantity of EU law which we have inherited. Of course, the system we have devised is new because we are dealing with something we have never encountered before. That itself is no answer to the point that we were making throughout: parliamentary scrutiny is essential. The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, drew attention to provisions in Clause 16 which absolutely emphasise the essential nature of that. So I move Amendment 15 and, if it is not agreed to, I wish to test the opinion of the House.

Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill

Lord Callanan Excerpts

3rd reading
Tuesday 9th May 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, I will not detain the House for too long. I am very grateful to the Public Bill Office and the clerks for advising me on these consequential amendments which arise from the amendments carried by the House on Report. I am grateful for these technical amendments to be approved by the House. It does not particularly change my view on the overall impact of the Bill, but I am hopeful that the Government will focus on achieving settlements, particularly in the health service, where we have seen some progress. I do not see that the Bill, even as amended, will improve the situation but I hope noble Lords will consider these technical amendments and send the Bill back as speedily as possible. I beg to move.

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

My Lords, these amendments are intended to tidy the Bill, following the votes to amend the Bill on Report. They intend to remove from the Bill references to Section 234E, which was removed due to the passing of Amendment 5.

By convention, the Government do not oppose these amendments as we have a duty to send to the other place Bills that are internally consistent. However, I make it clear that the Government fully expect these topics to be revisited following the consideration of these amendments in the other place, which would result ultimately in them being reconsidered here also.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I note the Minister’s comments. I hope that when they return here, we will have the same level of scrutiny, because this is a bad Bill with certain consequences which will not improve industrial relations in this country—in fact, it will make them worse. It will not achieve the objectives the Government set out; it will have the completely opposite effect. Bearing those comments in mind, I welcome the Minister’s commitment to agree to these amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Callanan]

That the Bill do now pass.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to the scrutiny of the Bill. We had an extremely thorough and, perhaps at times, slightly repetitive debate, but that is the nature of the parliamentary process. I am grateful to everyone who engaged in that process. In particular, I thank my Whip, my noble friend Lady Bloomfield, who, as usual, has kept us all in order. Thankfully, nobody fell asleep during this one, so we were all spared her wrath on this occasion.

Climate Change: Net Zero Strategy

Lord Callanan Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd May 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to ensure the effectiveness of their Net Zero Strategy in meeting the goals under the Climate Change Act 2008.

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

My Lords, the path outlined in the net zero strategy is the right one and we are delivering against it; for example, by announcing an unprecedented £20 billion investment in the early development of CCUS. The net zero growth plan reinforces this and the details set out in the carbon budget delivery plan sets out the package of proposals and policies that will enable us to meet those carbon budgets.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

I thank the noble Lord for his Answer, which does not quite match the picture generally, I am afraid. I had intended to find one area where I thought I could suggest improvements, but actually the whole gamut of policies we have are failing. The Government are failing on energy, on housing, on transport—everything. So will the Minister please explain to his department just how bad it is at doing what it is meant to be doing? Perhaps it could bring in people such as the UK Climate Change Committee, or even our House of Lords Climate Change Committee, and actually take their advice. Failing that, will the Government please look at the Green Party manifesto, which has superb, sensible policies? They could really use them.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

Of course, as always, I am immensely grateful to the noble Baroness for her constructive advice, but I am afraid that, yet again, she is wrong. We are on track to meet our budgets; the evidence is there. We met the second and third carbon budgets; in fact, we exceeded our targets. We are on track to meet carbon budgets 4 and 5 and we recently announced our plans to meet carbon budget 6, which goes through to 2037—so all the policies are in train. I know the noble Baroness always wants to go further, and she is right to keep pressing us, but we are making progress. It is a long transition, but we are making faster progress than any other country in the G7. Our decarbonisation since 1990 is almost 50%, which is far in excess of every other G7 country, including the likes of Germany—where, of course, the Greens are in government.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

Does my noble friend accept that the chances of reaching global net zero are almost nil as long as the Chinese and Indians go on building coal-fired power stations?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I understand the point my noble friend is making. Of course, we continue to engage with China and India about the folly of building new coal-fired power stations. Incidentally, picking up my last example, because the German Government accepted the advice of the Greens and phased out their nuclear power programme, last year 30% of German electricity was met by coal-fired generation. In the UK, it was less than 2% and next year it will be zero.

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, here is an area for improvement: I was very disappointed that there have been no further announcements on support for tidal and wave power, even though the predictability of this technology could provide baseload and save on the cost of battery storage and hydrogen storage. So far, only 40 megawatts of this technology has been supported by the Government, equivalent to a medium-sized onshore wind farm. The Government’s contracts for difference mean that they have the opportunity to provide more support for this cutting-edge technology, which really needs support in order for it to scale up and make its contribution to renewable energy. So why are the Government leaving the profits to other countries? This is an opportunity for energy security and for British industry.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

Again, I am afraid I do not agree with the noble Baroness. There are some exciting prospects and we are supporting early-stage tidal projects. It depends whether she means wave-powered projects or the various barrage schemes, which are extremely expensive and have a lot of environmental implications. The approach that we take through the CfD system is to pick the most effective, cheapest means of decarbonisation, because of course it all feeds back into consumer bills. If we adopted the approach she is suggesting, these technologies are relatively unproven and would add to consumer bills.

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister claims that we are making more progress than other European countries, but is it not because we started at such a low point? Let me give an example: we have the worst-insulated homes in Europe. Is it not the case that it is a very low level of improvement?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

No, it is not. The figures I quoted started from a baseline of 1990, so it actually includes some of the progress made under previous Labour Governments. There is no question that of course we have a challenge: we have the oldest housing stock in Europe, a consequence of the Industrial Revolution. Six million homes were built before the First World War, so it is a challenge, but the figures still stand: we are making faster progress than any other G7 country.

[Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)]

My Lords, have the Government really taken on board, in pursuing this admirable goal of NZ, the absolutely colossal increase in electricity from renewable sources—presumably wind and nuclear are the main ones—which will be required to get anywhere near replacing all the other energy we use in the economy, which is, of course, full of fossil fuels? This is a vast task, requiring immense investment and enormous planning and, although I am encouraged by what my noble friend says, have we really begun on making the 10-times expansion of wind in the North Sea and the six new nuclear power stations if they are big, or the 30 or 40 if they are small? These are vast tasks; we do not yet hear enough about how we are going to meet them.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My noble friend makes an important point. I know he has a lot of experience in this area and he is right to point out the scale of the task. It is an immense challenge to be done over many years; none of this happens overnight. Some of the wind farms that are coming on stream this year were planned a decade ago; it all takes time to do, but over the next 20 or 30 years we need to make progress towards those goals. They are legally binding, so we need to meet them and we are on track to do so.

[Lord Lennie (Lab)]

My Lords, following the Minister’s answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, the Government are currently way off track to meet their sixth carbon budget for 2033 to 2037. This is a crucial period once the low-hanging fruit has all been picked. What additional measures are the Government considering to ensure that the harder to abate sectors deliver the necessary reductions in large-scale emissions in order to ensure we meet our net-zero targets?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

The sixth carbon budget goes through to 2038. We have set out policies to meet— I think—about 97% of the targets under that and we have a number of other policies that are so far unquantified. In essence, the noble Lord is right, of course. As we make faster progress—and we are making very swift progress—the targets become more difficult to meet: but I am confident that we can do so.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, is the Minister aware that, in order to get the maximum benefit at the right time from wind power and other power supplies that come at inappropriate times, there is a real case for additional pumped-storage capacity? Will he do what he can to speed up the establishment of a clear financial base? At present that is holding back some very valuable projects.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

The noble Lord makes an important point. As we have more and more intermittent renewables coming on to the grid, we will need to balance that out with increased storage capacity, which may be pumped storage: of course, there is an excellent example in Wales in the Dinorwig plant, but there are examples in Scotland as well. As well as storage mechanisms such as pumped storage and battery storage, the potential of long-term hydrogen storage in salt caverns is extremely exciting.

[The Lord Bishop of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich]

My Lords, as I understand it, one of the barriers to installing new low-carbon technology is the shortage of skilled labour to carry out this work. Can the Minister tell us what plans there are to invest in and expand training and skills programmes for the installation of low-carbon technology such as heat pumps, EV chargers and solar panels?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

Indeed, that will be a vital component. We need to train people for the new technologies. Many of them are already coming on stream. Of course, we work very closely with the Department for Education to expand our skills programme in the green jobs area, but we also have a number of directly funded schemes from the department which are funding tens of thousands of new training places.

[Baroness Hayman (CB)]

My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register. In order to achieve the ambitious programme the Minister has set out, Ofgem, the regulator, will need to play an important role. This House voted to give Ofgem a net-zero duty, in line with the recommendations of numerous bodies, most recently the BEIS Committee in another place. Will the Government rethink their opposition to this sensible, much-supported measure when the Bill goes to the other place?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

Of course, we will continue to keep these matters under review. I am not going to predict what might happen to the Bill in the House of Commons, but we will certainly reflect on what the House voted for.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

My Lords, will my noble friend resist the blandishments from the Green Party about planning and organisation, given the shambles it has created in Scotland for the coalition there on the bottle return scheme?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

Of course, I accept my noble friend’s advice about Green policies. I pointed out the example of Germany. The Green Party’s opposition to an electric railway line—HS2—is another example of a hypocritical policy, but there are many others that we could choose from.

Climate Change Committee: Discussions

Lord Callanan Excerpts

Thursday 27th April 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Sheehan]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what discussions they have had with the Climate Change Committee about (1) the impact newly licensed oil and gas infrastructure will have on domestic and global emissions, and (2) the design of their ‘Climate Compatibility Checkpoint’.

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

My Lords, the Government work closely with the Climate Change Committee and are grateful for its expert independent advice. The committee provided advice on 24 February 2022 in relation to both new licensing and the climate compatibility checkpoint; the advice was published on the committee’s website. Officials also had several discussions with the committee throughout the design process for the checkpoint. Its advice was considered in the final design, which has now been published on the GOV.UK website.

[Baroness Sheehan (LD)]

My Lords, the climate compatibility checkpoint, in reference to new oil and gas fields, is, quite frankly, doublethink in Orwellian proportions. Can the Minister confirm that the IEA, the IPCC, the vast bulk of UK scientists and the Government’s own net zero tsar, Chris Skidmore, have all stated that the opening of new fields is incompatible with keeping global warming within the 1.5 degree scenario necessary to protect us and the natural world from catastrophic climate breakdown?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I do not agree with the noble Baroness. She is dead wrong about these matters. The reality is, whether the Liberal Democrats like it or not, that we get about 75% of our energy from oil and gas. That is declining, and the North Sea is a declining field. Unless she is proposing to tell voters that they should disconnect their gas boilers or not drive their cars anywhere, we have a requirement for oil and gas in the future, albeit for a declining amount. Therefore, the only question is whether we get them from our own fields and employ British workers, paying British taxes, or whether we import them from abroad, which usually has a higher carbon footprint. That is the choice that faces us.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

Is my noble friend aware that the Government asked for the Climate Change Committee’s advice and then ignored it? First, the Climate Change Committee said that it was perfectly possibly to do this if there were a proper checkpoint. The checkpoint is not what we asked for. Secondly, the committee said that the Government should make sure that all extraction from the North Sea should be of the highest environmental level. We have not insisted on that. Norway has a much higher level. Thirdly, the committee said that the Government should accept that they should not increase the amount of oil being produced on the excuse of the war in Ukraine. Why have the Government not accepted the CCC’s advice?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

Let me give my noble friend some other quotes from the letter from the Climate Change Committee, with which he is of course closely associated:

“UK extraction has a relatively low carbon footprint (more clearly for gas than for oil) and the UK will continue to be a net importer of fossil fuels for the foreseeable future, implying there may be emissions advantages to UK production replacing imports”.


I think he should read the letter that he sent.

[Baroness Blackstone (Lab)]

My Lords, what steps are the Government taking to reduce the impact of flaring? I am sure the Minister is aware that routine flaring, which incidentally has been banned in Norway since 1970, has a very bad effect on the environment, as it releases methane 80 times more potent than CO₂ over a 20-year period. As a result, if Rosebank goes ahead, we will exceed our carbon budget.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

As the noble Baroness is aware, we have a plan to reduce our flaring. We had a Question on that a few weeks ago. We have committed, along with many other countries, to eliminate flaring by 2030. The amount of flaring is declining rapidly across the North Sea and action is being taken.

[Baroness Boycott (CB)]

My Lords, can I follow up on the last question? The Rosebank oilfield, which has just been licensed, is the largest undeveloped field in the North Sea. It is going to create 200 million tonnes of CO₂, which is more than the combined annual emissions of all 28 low-income countries in the world. Most of the oil is going to be exported; it is not going to lower our domestic bills. Can the Government tell me what the benefits from this are? How on earth is this showing global leadership, at a time when all the institutions are saying that we have to stop extracting oil and gas to defeat climate change and temperature rise?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I refer the noble Baroness to the answer I gave to the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan. We still have in this country a requirement for oil and gas. Some 80% of our space heating comes from gas. We need to phase that out in a transition. Over the years, we need to electrify more, but in the short term we have a requirement for oil and gas. The question is whether we want to get it from Qatar or Saudi Arabia and pay taxes abroad, or employ our own people in the North Sea to extract those same reserves?

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

My Lords, the Dasgupta review commissioned by the Treasury warned against the continued use of subsidies towards fossil fuels because they are driving biodiversity loss. Before the Minister says that they do not subsidise them, there are tax breaks, investment allowances and decommissioning loopholes—all of which are subsidies. What can the Minister say today about dealing with biodiversity loss and ending those subsidies towards fossil fuels?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I am sorry to disappoint the noble Baroness but the Minister is going to say that we do not subsidise fossil fuels, because that is the case. In fact, the opposite is true. We gain billions of pounds per year in tax revenues from fossil fuels.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, would the Minister agree with the right honourable Member in the other place Chris Skidmore, the chair of the independent review of net zero, who has come out in opposition to the new Rosebank field development? He recently said:

“We must not let the industries of the past dictate our future”.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I actually agree with him on that particular statement. Of course we need to move towards phasing out fossil fuel use; nobody disagrees with that. We have a legal commitment to do that and we are doing so through a transition. As I said in response to previous questions, the question is where we get those reserves from in future. Even with new licensing, UK production in the North Sea will continue to decline at a rate of about 7% per year. At the moment we are importing LNG to satisfy our domestic demand, which has about twice the carbon footprint of that produced in the North Sea. I really do not understand the point the noble Baroness is making.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

My Lords, as we have heard, the CCC’s report last month emphasised the need for decarbonising and expanding the electricity system to rapidly reduce the UK’s demand for fossil fuels. As mentioned in the report, the Government still have not provided a coherent strategy or essential details on how they will achieve their goal of decarbonisation by 2035. When will these be provided? When will the Government accept that the quickest and cheapest way to offer the required supply of variable renewables to do so will involve onshore wind and solar?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

Decarbonising our electricity system, which we are doing at the fastest rate of all G7 countries, will require much more electrification. Renewable generation capacity is currently six times greater than in 2010. We are expanding to deliver up to 50 gigawatts of offshore wind capacity by 2030. We have said that we will also consider onshore wind in future CfD rounds. We have one of the highest solar capacities in Europe as well—in fact, we have more solar capacity than even countries such as France.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister’s defence of new exploration and production in the North Sea is that the carbon footprint of the oil and gas produced will be less because it will be consumed here. This goes against all the evidence. Can the Minister therefore give the House an assurance that all future production of oil and gas in the North Sea will be consumed in the UK in order to reap the benefits which he so repeatedly announces?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

The reason I said it was lower carbon intensity is that that is a fact. There are lots of studies being done on it. Imported LNG has about twice the carbon footprint of domestic production. Of course I cannot give him a guarantee that it will all be consumed within the UK, because it is an international market. We have pipelines, for instance, interlinking our gas supply with the continent, as the noble Lord well knows. If the Liberal Democrats really believe that we should stop our production tomorrow, I look forward to all the focus leaflets—which are being distributed at the moment—telling people that they have to stop using their gas boilers or driving their cars. Lots of leaflets are being produced but I have not noticed the Liberals saying that in public.

[Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister did answer the question on the impact on biodiversity of fossil fuel extraction. Could he have another go now?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

Of course it has an impact on biodiversity, but we have very strict climate and environmental studies that need to be done before any fields are licensed. This is the subject of court action at the moment, as the noble Baroness probably realises, so I cannot comment on it in detail. We follow all the required biodiversity protocols.

Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill

Lord Callanan Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 26th April 2023 Lords Chamber

As the noble Lord said, this amendment seeks not to prolong, delay or frustrate but to ensure that Parliament has proper oversight and that there is proper consultation with all those involved before the statutory legislation and the statutory instruments are laid. I support the amendment.

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

My Lords, I apologise for keeping the House waiting for the start of the debate; the previous business finished much earlier than everyone expected.

I am grateful to those who have contributed to this debate, although clearly we have repeated a lot of what was discussed in previous debates. The House will be unsurprised to hear that my position is similar to what it was in Committee. As I did then, I resist this amendment relating to consultation requirements, parliamentary scrutiny and assessment of impacts of the legislation.

As I made clear in Committee, it is my firm view that sufficient checks and balances are already built into the legislation before regulations can be made. This includes the need to carry out consultations—indeed, we are undergoing consultations at the moment on some draft regulations—which, of course, relevant parliamentary committees are able to and almost certainly will contribute to, as well as the requirement that regulations must be approved by both Houses before they can be made. Impact assessments will also be published for all subsequent regulations on minimum service levels.

Key stakeholders, including employers, employees, members of the public, trade unions and their members are all encouraged to participate in the consultations—some of which, as I said, are live even now—and have their say in the setting of the appropriate minimum service levels, and all that will happen before the minimum service levels come into effect, and only then if they have been approved by Parliament.

I am therefore of the view that this approach is both appropriate and in line with the normal way in which secondary legislation is made. As such, the Government believe that the amendment adds unnecessary duplication into the process, and therefore I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for their support for this amendment. The Minister is right that much of this debate has been had before in Committee. He is also right when he describes this as the normal way. I am afraid it has become the normal way that this Government operate to shunt as much power as possible to the Secretary of State and marginalise Parliament as often and as broadly as they can. This is a highly skeletal Bill—it is almost impossible to get one that is smaller. For that reason, I would like to test the will of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Callanan]

2: The Schedule, page 4, line 23, leave out from “to” to end of line 24 and insert—
“(a) whether the person is or is not a member of a trade union,(b) whether the person has or has not—(i) taken part in the activities of a trade union, or(ii) made use of services made available to the person by a trade union by virtue of the person’s membership of the union, or(c) whether or not—(i) a matter has been raised on the person’s behalf (with or without the person’s consent), or(ii) the person has consented to the raising of a matter on the person’s behalf,by a trade union of which the person is a member.(6A) In subsection (6) “a trade union” includes—(a) a particular trade union, and(b) a particular branch or section of a particular trade union.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides for additional matters that an employer must not have regard to in deciding whether to identify a person in a work notice.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, I beg to move Amendment 2 in my name. The House will know that the Government were clear at the introduction of the Bill that employers must not have regard to a person’s trade union status when producing a work notice. Employers should identify the workers who are best placed and most appropriate for each role, so that that minimum service level can be achieved. In our view, a person’s trade union status has no place in this process.

I thank the Joint Committee on Human Rights for its report on the Bill and for its feedback, as well as feedback from the debates in Committee on protections from trade union discrimination in relation to work notices—including from the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, who was particularly vocal on this point. I hope the noble Lord will agree that this amendment addresses his concerns in full.

Through this amendment, employers must not have regard to whether a person has or has not taken part in trade union activities, made use of their services or had issues raised by a trade union on their behalf. Employers must also not have regard to whether a person is part of a particular trade union or a particular branch or section of a trade union. This also ensures a greater level of consistency with existing sections within the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, such as Sections 146 and 152.

As I said in Committee, the activity or services that a trade union member may have been involved in are connected to whether they are a trade union member, and therefore, even under the clause as it stood, an employer must not have regard to such matters when producing a work notice. While I still believe this to be true, I hope that the amendment provides further reassurance to the House, in addition to trade unions and workers, putting the issue of trade union discrimination in relation to work notices beyond doubt. I beg to move.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, very briefly, it is appreciated that the Minister has done this and that the Government have understood that there was ambiguity. In a sense, it is a shame that the Minister has not taken all our advice, but we thank the Government for taking this particular piece.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hendy (Lab)]

My Lords, it would be churlish not to acknowledge that we appreciate what this amendment will do.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, noble Lords have broadly welcomed this and clearly want to move on to another section, so I do not think I have any points to raise in response.

Amendment 2 agreed.

--- Later in debate ---

I ask the Minister to think very carefully about the long-term consequences of this way of approaching industrial relations. It is not sound.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, for his constructive engagement on this matter. He wrote to us about it and has had a reply, so he knows the Government’s position. We believe that the current drafting of the legislation strikes the right balance so that, while employers have the statutory discretion to issue a work notice, they also have to consider any other existing legal duties that they may have—for instance, contractual, tort or public law duties. My concern is that the amendment would enable employers to act without due consideration to such duties, as it effectively seeks to remove any legal consequences for not issuing a work notice.

The decision to issue a work notice should be objective but, despite what the noble Lord, Lord Allan, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, have said, the amendment would then enable subjective, and potentially political, factors to influence that decision.

It would be likely—and I suspect this is the intention of the movers—to lead to many fewer work notices being given where they were needed, leading to minimum service levels not being met in more cases, but the reason for this legislation is that the Government do not believe that is in the best interests of service users or the public. I therefore maintain the position that I took in Committee and resist the amendment on that basis. I hope the noble and learned Lord will withdraw it.

[Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)]

It is disappointing that the Government will not put in the Bill what the position is. The word “may” is too ambiguous. I am afraid we may be back to the kind of thing that happened 50 years ago, as we are seeing a large number of disputes go to a successor—the ordinary courts, this time—to the National Industrial Relations Court, and that was not a happy outcome for anyone. But the Government have taken their stand. I do not wish to press this to a Division and I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

If the union is found not to have taken a reasonable step, as my noble friend Lord Collins spelled out, the consequences are that the strike will be unlawful and anybody participating in it will have no protection at all against unfair dismissal. The union will be exposed to a claim for damages; if it does not comply with the injunction or payment of damages, it will be at risk of proceedings for contempt of court. New Section 234E is wholly objectionable and I hope that all Members of the House will join me in opposing it.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. Before I address the terms of the amendments, I will first address the frankly ridiculous exaggerations from the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, and the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, that the UK is some kind of international parasite or outlier in considering this legislation—

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

They said “pariah”.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My apologies—I thank the noble Baroness. I meant “pariah”. In terms of being an international outlier, many other countries have minimum service levels. I will give the House some examples. In the USA, ambulance workers are in most circumstances prohibited from taking any action; it is the same in Australia; in Canada, there is variation by province; Spain and France have statutory minimum service levels in ambulance services; Belgium has statutory MSLs. All these requirements are laid down in law.

In the USA, Australia and Canada, for fire services action is prohibited completely by law. Nobody in the UK is suggesting that we go that far. I accept that noble Lords opposite will not mind the example of the USA, but, last time I looked, Australia and Canada both had centre-left Governments. Yet they ban strike action completely in fire services. So the UK is not an international outlier in considering these MSLs. Spain, France and Belgium have statutory MSLs in fire services. I have no idea who is in government in Belgium at the moment—there is normally some sort of 20-party coalition—but nevertheless these are not hard-right Governments with complete freedom of action against workers. It is not unusual in international terms to consider MSLs.

[Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for answering an allegation that was not made by my noble friend. His point was that we were an outlier or pariah not because we had minimum service levels but because we were the only country with minimum service levels that was applying the sorts of terms and conditions that are objected to in the proposed amendments. That is quite a different thing from the argument about minimum service levels.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I do not think it is a different thing at all. If action is prohibited completely, as it is in the three countries I mentioned—let us take, for example, fire services—there is no provision for workers to take any strike action at all. If they do so, they are in breach of their contracts—presumably they can be dismissed, in those countries. I think the comparison is completely valid.

I turn to the amendments. To achieve a minimum service level, employers, employees and trade unions all have a part to play, in our view, and the Bill makes it clear what those respective roles are. The amendments in this group would remove key parts of the legislation, which we believe are necessary to make it effective, and I suspect that is the aim of those who tabled them. As such, I take the same position as I did in Committee and resist these amendments.

Amendment 4 seeks to remove the consequences for an employee who participates in strike action while being identified in a work notice. The approach taken is both fair and proportionate. It enables employers to manage instances of non-compliance with a work notice in exactly the same way that they would manage any other unauthorised absence. I repeat the point for the benefit of the noble Lord, Lord Collins: this is not about sacking workers, nurses or anyone else. An employee loses their automatic protection from unfair dismissal for industrial action if they participated in a strike contrary to a work notice, as indeed they would lose their unfair dismissal rights if they participated in any other form of strike action that was not in accordance with the law, just as failing to attend work without a valid reason does not necessarily mean that they will be dismissed. It simply enables employers to pursue disciplinary action if they believe it is appropriate, but it is ultimately at their discretion whether or not to do so.

Amendment 4 also provides that individuals identified in a work notice are not subject to the work notice unless they have been given a copy of it, and the employer must prove that the individual has received it. However, under the current drafting, employees lose their automatic unfair dismissal protection for going on strike in contravention of a work notice only if the employer notifies them that they are required to work under a work notice and of the work that they must carry out. I believe that this additional requirement is both unnecessary and duplicative; it could also be inappropriate as workers could be given a work notice which identifies thousands of other workers.

Amendment 5 seeks to ensure that unions have no responsibility for ensuring that their members do not participate in strike action and attend work instead if they have been named on a work notice. It also ensures that there are no consequences for failing to meet that responsibility. I suspect this is an attempt to disrupt the balance between the ability to strike and the rights and freedoms of others to go about their lawful business, which is ultimately at the heart of the Bill.

If employees are not incentivised to attend work on a strike day when they have been identified on work notice, or if a trade union has no responsibility to ensure that its members comply, the effectiveness of this legislation will be severely undermined. I suspect noble Lords opposite know that their amendments will do exactly that, and I am sure it is therefore no surprise to them that I cannot support them on this occasion. Given the direct disruption that these amendments will have on the ability of the public to go about their normal, lawful business, I ask noble Lords—without too much optimism—to feel free to not press their amendments.

[Baroness O’Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for that response, but Amendment 4 is about the individual freedoms, dignity and livelihoods of workers. I therefore wish to test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, I want to make a few brief points. Of course, the noble and learned Lord is absolutely right that defining and managing service levels is a devolved matter. It is how you manage and define them. So when it comes to defining minimum service levels, who has responsibility? It is not the Government. It is actually going to be the responsibility of the devolved institutions and devolved Governments. Let me say this: this is not about devolving employment rights. Employment rights are in a single market and they are clearly defined. This is about service levels. We had debates in Committee about how to define service levels on non-strike days. The devolved Governments are going to be responsible for that, and that is the democratic accountability. That is why it is really important that we support these amendments.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, Amendments 6 and 7 relate, as has been said, to the devolved Governments. Amendment 6 seeks to remove the power for the Secretary of State to make consequential amendments to primary legislation made by the Scottish Parliament or the Senedd Cymru. This amendment was previously tabled in Committee, and no one will be surprised to know that the Government’s position remains unchanged.

As I have previously stated, the powers in Clause 3 can be exercised only to make amendments that are necessary to give effect to the Bill; they are therefore truly consequential. Employment rights and duties and industrial relations are reserved in respect of Scotland and Wales. It is therefore right that the Secretary of State has the power to make consequential amendments to primary legislation made by the Scottish Parliament or Senedd Cymru, if required, to ensure that the new legal framework operates in a coherent way across the whole of Great Britain. As always, the Government will engage with the devolved Governments as appropriate should consequential amendments be required to Acts of the Scottish Parliament or the Senedd Cymru.

Amendment 7, meanwhile, seeks to limit the territorial application of this Act to England. The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, tabled a similar amendment in Committee, and the Government continue to resist this change for the same reasons that I set out then.

As has been said numerous times in this debate, once regulations for minimum service levels are in force for a specified service, if a trade union gives notice of strike action, it is then the employer’s decision whether to issue a work notice ahead of the strike, specifying the workforce required to achieve the minimum service level for that strike period. If the employer is the Scottish Government or the Welsh Senedd, it is their decision whether or not they use this legislation. Of course, we hope that all employers will want to do so where needed —as was said in relation to the amendments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, employers must consider any contractual, public law or other legal duties that they have—but the Bill does not contain a statutory requirement to do so. No one is forcing them to use this legislation.

We will, as we have done throughout this legislation, continue to engage with the devolved Governments as part of the development of minimum service levels in those areas and the consultations that would be required that are informing these decisions. The Government have a duty to protect the lives and livelihoods of citizens across Great Britain. The disproportionate impacts that strikes can have on the public are no less severe in Scotland or Wales, and the people there have every right to expect the Government to act to ensure that they can continue to access vital public services, which they pay for, during strike action.

I hope—again, perhaps without too much optimism—that noble Lords will therefore feel able not to press their amendments.

[Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)]

My Lords, I considered whether to press both amendments to a Division, but it seems to me that the critical one is Amendment 7. If the Act is not applicable to England, Amendment 6 is, in effect, consequential and falls away. I therefore intend to withdraw Amendment 6 but will ask to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 7.

There are two fundamental reasons for that. First, it is essential that we do not undermine devolution. The devolution Acts give the responsibility for services to the devolved Governments. If the devolved Governments fail to deliver those services, they can be booted out at the next election. That is democracy, which I had hoped this Government believed in.

Secondly, the argument that the Minister has put forward—that the Governments in Wales and Scotland are the employers and can themselves determine whether the notices should or should not be given—is misconceived. As I sought to say, they are not the employers. The employers are the trusts and the local authorities. Probably wrongly, I did not press Amendment 5, but the Government now have to bear the consequence.

If they had agreed to my amendment, the point the Minister made might be a good one—but they did not. The consequence is that it is not up to the Governments of Scotland and Wales. They will have interests and points to make, just as no doubt the UK Government will have to the English authorities. But, ultimately, it will be for the employers. Therefore, this is an outright interference in the running of services in Wales and Scotland. They are at the heart of devolution. This, if anything, proves that what this Government want to do is undermine devolution and thus weaken the union. I will therefore press Amendment 7 in due course, and in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 6.

Energy Bill [HL]

Lord Callanan Excerpts

3rd reading
Monday 24th April 2023 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Callanan]

That the Bill do now pass.

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

My Lords, I will update the House on the legislative consent Motion process for the Energy Bill. The UK Government are seeking legislative consent Motions from the devolved legislatures for the Bill, in line with the Sewel convention. My officials are working with devolved government officials and will continue to do so throughout the Bill’s passage.

The Scottish Government have requested amendments to the Bill and are currently withholding support for legislative consent. We will of course continue to work with them regarding their concerns. The Welsh Government have not yet laid a legislative consent memorandum. It is not possible at present to obtain a legislative consent Motion from the Northern Ireland Assembly, but the UK Government are engaging with officials in the Northern Ireland Civil Service. The UK Government welcome the interest that the devolved Governments have shown in the Energy Bill and will continue to work closely with them on proposed changes in order to progress legislative consent Motions for the Bill.

[Lord Lennie (Lab)]

My Lords, this huge Bill leaves the House in far better shape than when it arrived. A combination of Labour, the Liberal Democrats, other parties, individuals and, most importantly, Cross-Benchers have secured measures that should see ISOP’s independence assured, community energy export markets develop, warmer homes and an efficiency plan to achieve that, the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority strengthened, and the ceasing of any further coal mining in this country—thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson. It is to be hoped that the Government will support these changes in the other place and will not bring this Bill back for ping-pong. The range of supporters across the House should be sufficient to convince the Minister to back the changes to the Bill made by this House.

In the meantime, my thanks go to the Minister—remarkably, he has stayed the course while his Government have changed leadership three times and his Secretary of State twice since we began in September 2022—and his advisers from BEIS, and subsequently DESNZ, who have continually briefed and been available to answer questions and clarify intentions as we wended our way through this tome of a Bill.

My appreciation goes to my noble friend Lady Blake for her continuing support and to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, on the Liberal Democrat Benches, with whom it has been a pleasure to work on the Bill. My thanks are also due to a number of Back-Benchers and Cross-Benchers, mainly drawn from the Peers for the Planet group, particularly including the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayman, Lady Boycott, Lady Bennett and Lady Worthington—sadly temporarily departed from this House—and my noble friend Lord Whitty. Thanks also go to the House staff and the doorkeepers for arrangements during delays in advancement of the progress of the Bill, which were not of their making, and for keeping the quick-quick-slow dance rhythm to the Energy Bill.

My biggest thanks go to the remarkable Milton Brown in Labour’s legislative team of advisers for always being up to date with the progress of the Bill, for his liaison with the other place and for his political briefings and judgment, which allowed my noble friend Lady Blake and me to keep focused on this Bill over a long period. We wish it well on the next stage of its journey.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, let me add my thanks to all noble Lords who contributed to a very detailed and proper scrutiny of the Bill. We received lots of helpful suggestions—some unhelpful suggestions as well, but that is in the nature of the debate. Everybody engaged positively in the process and has been very thoughtful in their contributions. The Bill leaves this House in good shape.

Let me formally thank the Opposition Members, who have co-operated well. It is fair to say that they had no grief with the fundamental structure and idea of the Bill, but, as is the nature of opposition, wanted to make some improvements and push the Government to go a bit further. The Liberal Democrats—particularly the noble Lord, Lord Teverson—along with the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, and the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, have engaged really positively in the process and have been constructive. I thank them.

Let me also thank the many Back-Benchers who took part, including the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington—who has sadly departed these shores for somewhere sunnier and nicer—and the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayman and Lady Liddell. I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Liddell, that I share her passion for CCUS. She will have seen in the announcement just before the Easter Recess that the Government are moving on with the track 1 negotiations. I am sure she will welcome that. Many across the House have contributed very much to the Bill and I am extremely grateful for all their contributions.

She is sadly not with us today, but let me also thank my Whip, my noble friend Lady Bloomfield, who has kept us all to order and taken a number of groups through herself. We are all immensely grateful that none of us managed to fall asleep during the proceedings and were therefore spared some of her acerbic interventions in such circumstances.

The Bill comes at a critical time for our country. Record high gas prices, Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine and the challenge of climate change all highlight why we need to work to boost Britain’s energy independence and security through the development of low-carbon technologies. Secure, clean, affordable energy for the long term depends on a transformation of our energy system.

That, fundamentally, is why we brought forward the Bill—the most extensive piece of primary legislation in a decade. The Bill delivers on our key commitments from the British energy security strategy, the Powering Up Britain paper, which brings together the energy security plan, the net-zero growth plan and the net-zero strategy. All have come together in this legislation. The Bill will help to drive an unprecedented £100 billion of private sector investment by 2030 into new British industries and support around 480,000 jobs by the end of the decade.

I must also thank the House of Lords Public Bill Office, the House clerks, and the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel—Richard Spitz, Lucy Baines and Ben Zurawel—for their extremely hard work drafting the Bill. It is a very long piece of legislation.

My thanks also go to all the policy, analytical and legal officials in the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Department for Transport, for their expert advice and resilience.

I also thank my Private Secretary, Angus Robson, the senior responsible officer for the Bill, Jeremy Allen, and the expert Bill Team: Jessica Lee, Safia Miyanji, Nicholas Vail, Salisa Kaur, Amanda Marsh, Abi Gambel, James Banfield, Matthew Pugh, Laura Jackson, Anthony Egan and Phaedra Hartley. They are extremely talented public servants. They worked long, hard and tirelessly on this important legislation and we owe them all our thanks.

Let me also thank the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero’s departmental lawyers, in particular the lead lawyers Mike Ostheimer and Martin Charnley for keeping me legally correct. It is a tough job; somebody has to try and do it. They do it nicely, well and tirelessly. That is the end of the debate so far in this House. It is my extreme pleasure to hand it to my ministerial colleague Andrew Bowie, who will commence the debate in the House of Commons.

Bill passed and sent to the Commons.

Powering Up Britain

Lord Callanan Excerpts

Wednesday 19th April 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, I do not in any way disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, but I have tried to be positive about these reports; a whole suite of reports has come out with this. I spent a little more time on the report entitled Powering up Britain: Energy Security Plan, which I thought may be the document that would get more to the heart of this. I also found the 2030 Strategic Framework for International Climate and Nature Action particularly interesting. These are a long read but have a list of really good stuff. They mention areas that we have debated here such as gas storage, grid connections, carbon capture, energy efficiency and demand management. A few are missing, but it is a very impressive list of subjects that this House has considered during the passage of the Energy Bill, whose Third Reading we await next week. It is a great list, but it is five years too late—something like that.

I have a number of questions for the Minister. Small modular reactors are listed in the energy security plan. When do we expect them to come online? Going back to something we discussed on the Energy Bill, the energy security plan mentions the core responsibility of the future systems operator, or ISOP as we know it. When is it actually going to be established so that it can get on with its work? Those I have spoken to in National Grid ESO are really champing at the bit, because they need to get on with it, as this report says, but it is still not there because of the slowness of the Energy Bill through Parliament.

On Sizewell C, which the report mentions, what lessons have we learned from Hinkley C? There are all sorts of lessons to be learned from budget increases and other issues relating to the building of that. On planning, I am pleased to say that it talks about trying to reduce planning periods, but in the debate on the levelling-up Bill yesterday we discussed how the planning system is core to delivering net zero. In fact, as both the Climate Change Committee and the Chris Skidmore report asked, are the Government going to embed net zero properly into the planning system? As the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, asked, will we really meet not just the COP 26 obligations but the fourth carbon budget, whose period just started, let alone the fifth? I do not believe that these plans really do that.

What impressed me at the end of the energy security plan was a whole long list of timetables. I hope that at DESNZ all the senior officials and the Ministers sit around the table every week and are driven by that plan. I suspect they might not be.

Finally, I am very pleased that the 2030 Strategic Framework for International Climate and Nature Action was published, but this comes back to something the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, said. In the introduction, I read something that really quite excited me, and I thought, “Here we get to the nub of it”. It says:

“Since the publication of the British Energy Security Strategy, our Environmental Improvement Plan and our Net Zero Strategy, the US has taken decisive action in allocating $370 billion for clean energy and manufacturing in its Inflation Reduction Act. And the EU has set out its ambitious plans to grow its green industries through the Green Deal Industrial Plan”.


I then looked on to the next paragraph to find out what we were doing. It went off completely on a different subject. When are we going to understand what our reaction is going to be to those two pieces of legislation in the United States and the EU—our major investment competitors?

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

I thank the noble Lords, Lord Lennie and Lord Teverson, for their comments. I want to thank the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, slightly more than I want to thank the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, because he was slightly more positive, but I thank them both for their comments anyway.

For too long this country has taken cheap, plentiful energy for granted. If the war in Ukraine has shown us anything, it is our decades-long overreliance on fossil fuels. Of course, we have all seen their record prices, but the Government have stepped in to help: we have been paying around half of a typical household’s energy bills this winter, and that support has been extended. Our longer-term challenge now is to bolster our energy resilience as a nation so that never again can we be held hostage by tyrants such as Putin, putting his hand into the pockets of every family and business in this country.

This plan is about setting out a clear path and why we have to diversify our sources of supply. We have to decarbonise them and we have to move toward greater energy independence to secure the cheap, clean energy that Britain needs to prosper in the future. We are making considerable progress along that path, but we all know that we have to do a lot more.

I will move to the specific questions I was asked. The noble Lord, Lord Lennie, asked me about onshore wind. I have a funny feeling that the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, is going to ask me a similar question, so let me try to pre-empt her. We have included onshore wind in our latest world-leading contracts for difference scheme. We are currently consulting on amending the National Planning Policy Framework so that local authorities can better respond to communities when they wish to host offshore wind infrastructure. A government response will be issued in due course.

The noble Lord, Lord Lennie, also mentioned the US Inflation Reduction Act. Of course, we are well aware of the action taken by international partners to accelerate their own uptake of green technologies. They are getting to the party a bit late, but I am pleased to see that they are finally going in the same direction. We continue to engage with them on this. Although the Act is significant, the race for green tech started decades ago here in the UK, with the rest of the world now playing catch-up, adopting many of the same mechanisms, such as contracts for difference, that we came up with seven or eight years ago.

We will not go toe to toe with our partners in a subsidy race; I have not noticed any commitments from the Labour Party to do this either. Instead, we will double down on our global leadership in clean technologies to tackle climate change, using a range of levers from smart regulation to market frameworks and targeted investments. Noble Lords will also have seen, in the green finance strategy published at the same time as the plan, a lot more information on our very ambitious plans to mobilise considerable amounts of the private investment we will need.

The noble Lord, Lord Lennie, also asked me about our 2030 NDC. We remain firmly committed to delivering our international commitments under the Paris Agreement, including the 2030 NDC. While countries are not due to start reporting to the UNFCCC on progress towards meeting the NDC until 2024, we have already quantified proposals and policies to deliver by 2030 a reduction in emissions of 67% compared to 1990 levels, providing a great majority of the savings required for our NDC target of a 68% reduction by 2030.

The noble Lord asked me about energy efficiency and referred to some vague Labour plan. I would be delighted to see what Labour’s plan in this area actually is. I did see a half-baked press release last week, which was presaging a great announcement, but I do not think that that announcement ever happened. If it did, I certainly did not notice it. What I saw was not a plan at all; it was a wish list, without any numbers attached to it. I will tell the noble Lord exactly what this Government are doing.

When Labour left office in 2010, 14% of UK homes were at EPC level C or above. It is now 47%, and it will be over 50% by the end of next year. The Government are committed to improving the energy performance of homes across the country. I refer again to the new Energy Efficiency Taskforce that we have established to drive improvement. The Chancellor set a target of 15% energy reduction improvements by 2030, for which £6 billion of new funding will be made available from 2025 to 2028, in addition to the £6.6 billion already allocated in this Parliament. This is a key ask from many in the industry, providing long-term funding certainty, supporting the growth of supply chains and ensuring that we scale up delivery over time. In addition, we are still committed to the four-year, £4 billion ECO expansion, and noble Lords will have seen the announcement of the Great British Insulation Scheme and its additional £1 billion of funding.

Moving on, the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, asked me about nuclear and SMRs. I hope that presages that the Liberal Democrats might support us on nuclear in the future. This is well-established technology. We have invested £210 million with Rolls-Royce to develop SMRs in the UK. They are well established and we want to be world leaders in this. Realistically, it will be at least the end of the decade before they are rolled out. This is another world-leading green technology from which the UK can prosper.

[Baroness Hayman (CB)]

My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register. The Minister presaged a question about onshore wind, which was one of the things left out of the Powering Up Britain document. He half-answered the question in anticipation, but he said that the consultation results will come “in due course”. Could I tempt him to be a little more specific than that, because we have been making progress very slowly on this issue? It feels rather like a can being kicked down the road and a wasted opportunity.

This document contains aspirations, intentions and objectives that are widely supported around the House. The concerns are about the pace, scale, impetus and coherence of delivery. I want to talk particularly about the issues that we debated in your Lordships’ House on Monday, when amendments to the Energy Bill were passed. None of those amendments in any way ran counter to the objectives set out by the Government. In ending emissions from coal, in making sure that we have a comprehensive energy efficiency policy, in building and encouraging community energy schemes, and in giving Ofgem, the regulator of this sector, a responsibility for implementing net zero, none of them was revolutionary or counter to government policy. All will help with this issue of scale, pace and delivery. My plea to the Minister is that he and colleagues think very carefully, after Third Reading in this House and before the Bill goes to another place, about whether those amendments could assist, rather than in any way impede, the Government in what they are trying to do.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

As I suspect the noble Baroness knows, I am afraid that I cannot give her a direct answer on the date of the consultation response. That is just the way that government works: the consultation response will come when it comes. Even if it were happening tomorrow, I would not be able to presage it, because it has to go into the Downing Street grid and through all those processes. I will endeavour to let her know as soon as it becomes available.

The amendments to the Energy Bill were of course disappointing. I noticed that there were no big majorities in favour of any of them, but we will look at them closely and respond in due course.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, we face a difficult situation, with recess intervening and us now having a short period to interrogate 44 documents, which, as Carbon Brief calculated, comprise 2,840 pages. The timing was unfortunate, although it was forced by the 2022 High Court ruling that the net-zero strategy is unlawful—the deadline was at that point.

I will pick on one specific point. The energy security plan notes that the Government opened in October 2022 a new licensing round for oil and gas projects, and that 115 projects have bid, with the first licences expected to be awarded in the next quarter of this year. There is no mention in the energy security plan of the climate compatibility checkpoint, which was devised and announced by the Government in 2021. This was meant to ensure that any new oil and gas licences would be awarded only if they were in line with the UK’s net-zero goals. Can the Minister tell me if the climate compatibility checkpoint still applies and is being used by the Government?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

On the two questions from the noble Baroness, first, as usual, she is dead wrong in her statement about the High Court action. It did not rule that the Government’s plans are unlawful; in fact, the High Court clearly made no criticism whatever about the substance of our plans, which are well on track. During the proceedings, the claimants themselves described them as “laudable”. The independent Climate Change Committee described the net-zero strategy as

“an ambitious and comprehensive strategy that marks a significant step forward for UK climate policy”.

The court simply wished to see more detail on our plans. I am pleased to say that the Carbon Budget Delivery Plan, which we published alongside Powering Up Britain, provides that detail and sets out a package of proposals and policies that will enable carbon budgets to be met, ensuring that Britain remains the leader and among the fastest-decarbonising nations in the world.

The answer to the noble Baroness’s question about oil and gas licences is that the climate compatibility checkpoint remains, but I make no apologies about this whatever. During the transition, we still have a requirement for oil and gas in the UK; the only question is whether we get it from British resources or from Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the US or somewhere else. Do we want to be paying British tax and employing British workers or for that money to be exported? That is the question that faces us.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, if no one else is going to stand up, I will come back to the Minister on a different, broader and more conceptual point. I am very tempted to respond to the previous answer, but I will not.

The Committee on Climate Change said that we should be shifting from looking at territorial emissions to consumption emissions. The fact is that a great deal of manufacturing has been offshored in recent decades and emissions are currently being counted against other countries on a territorial basis, while we are consuming the goods made from them. Are the Government planning to follow the recommendations of the Committee on Climate Change and move from measuring territorial emissions to consumption emissions?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

It is a complicated question. We have no plans to. We will measure our emissions on the same basis that everybody else does. Nevertheless, I concede to the noble Baroness that she makes a valid point about carbon leakage and the extent to which we have driven many energy-intensive industries out of the UK and Europe, but we still use the products that many of them produce. These are produced not in Europe and the UK any more but in other parts of the world, often in more carbon-intensive manners.

There is a difficult policy question facing us and the EU: how do you address that if other countries do not have ambitious plans like ours to decarbonise but you still need the products? Do you look at mechanisms such as carbon border adjustment mechanisms, which the EU is looking at? Intrinsically, we are in favour of free trade, so we do not want to go down that avenue. A far better strategy is to try to persuade other countries to adopt similarly ambitious plans to ours.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, given the fact that this is a really important issue and I do not see anyone else rising, I will rise once again. The Government have committed to a fully decarbonised electricity power system by 2035. The Committee on Climate Change has said that their plans need urgent reform to achieve that goal. Can the Minister assure me that he is highly confident that we are on track for that 2035 goal for electricity?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

Yes, we believe that we are on track. There is a diversity of sources of supply, including our world-leading offshore wind procedures—we have the first, second, third and fourth largest offshore wind farms in the world—and the rollout of new nuclear and solar. All of that will contribute to our ambitious plans to decarbonise our electricity sector by 2035.

Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill

Lord Callanan Excerpts

Wednesday 19th April 2023 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist]

That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order:

Clause 1, Schedule, Clauses 2 to 6, Title.

Motion agreed.

Energy Bill [HL]

Lord Callanan Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 17th April 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lennie (Lab)]

My Lords, my understanding is that the Minister will confirm the Government’s support for an independent ISOP, as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and this being the case, we know no longer need to divide the House on our amendments. So, rather than listening to me putting forward the argument in favour of achieving this, I think we would be better served to listen to the Minister in his reasoning for an independent ISOP: I thank him for his time over the weekend, when we reached this position.

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

Let me first thank all noble Lords for their amendments, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, for the time he gave to discussing this matter. As always, there were valuable contributions from all parts of the House.

On the details of the amendments, Amendment 60, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, and the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, seeks to establish an industry-led advisory board for the ISOP. In the original consultation, the respondents strongly indicated that the body should be independent of energy sector interests, and I think that is a view shared by the Opposition. The Government therefore remain concerned that inserting in legislation a formal oversight role, as is being suggested, will place decision-making back in the hands of the energy sector and go against the reasons and mechanism for creating an independent ISOP in the first place. This could make the ISOP risk-averse or unwilling to take action that is potentially challenging to market participants but could be on the side of consumers, even if that action might be beneficial to the system itself.

We are therefore concerned that, rather than enhancing independence, members of such an advisory board would likely hold various energy sector conflicts. There are many ways this could crystallise, including resistance to systemic reform, more strident advice in favour of compensation for energy sector participants, or incumbent bias, for instance seeking to frustrate new market entrants which could stifle the innovation that I think everyone, in all parts of the House, is agreed that we need to reach net zero.

Establishing an industry-led advisory board for the ISOP would be similar to establishing one for, for instance, the Climate Change Committee—an organisation which, in our view, also needs to remain independent of industry interests. I hope noble Lords would agree that we need genuine, independent, expert thinking, rather than vested interests. Thankfully, this amendment is not required to ensure board independence; the Government intend to require that a number of sufficiently independent directors—or SIDs, to use the acronym—sit on the ISOP’s board. A SID is a board member who meets certain criteria to ensure that, as well as being skilled, knowledgeable and experienced, they are impartial, with restrictions including on certain shareholdings in the energy industry. Requirements in the ISOP’s licence will set a minimum number of SIDs to ensure that the ISOP’s board has strong representation from those outside the ISOP and is unconflicted by the interests of the energy industry.

To ensure effective scrutiny of the appointment of the ISOP’s chair, we are also asking the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments and the new departmental Select Committee, once established, to conduct pre-appointment scrutiny. Energy sector experts will have opportunities to input to the ISOP’s work, of course. For instance, the system operator’s business plan submissions, assessed by Ofgem, will continue to be open to consultation with market participants, including members of the specific industry forums mentioned in this amendment. Finally, through its price control process, Ofgem will ensure that the FSO is fully resourced to fulfil its objectives and obligations, including the funding of its statutory duties towards consumers, energy security and net zero.

Turning to Amendments 59 and 62, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, again we agree with the sentiment of the noble Lord’s amendments, and the Government remain resolute that the ISOP shall be an independent public body. We continue to act to make this so. However, it is critical that the ISOP remains a dynamic organisation capable of adapting and evolving to the future conditions of the energy sector. I therefore hope the noble Lord will agree with me that it is preferable not to constrain the ISOP pre-emptively in legislation at this fairly early stage but to maintain some flexibility. With the rapid deployment expected in the energy sector, reasonable circumstances may arise in which the ISOP is well placed to take on some future energy sector role or interest.

Regarding the specifics of Amendment 62, I believe there are already significant controls and limits upon the Secretary of State in acting as the sole shareholder. These will include limits in the framework agreement, which we will of course make public. These controls will ensure that the ISOP’s operational independence is protected.

Legislating for the ISOP to “be independent” does not, in my view, appear to offer a material benefit beyond the controls already established in Part 4 of the Bill and the framework documents, but it risks preventing the intended corporate composition of the ISOP, thereby undermining its effectiveness.

Finally, on Amendment 61, also tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, the Government agree that it will be important to ensure that the ISOP is fully resourced to fulfil the objectives and obligations set out in its licence. In our view, the most effective funding mechanism to achieve this and realise our vision for an independent ISOP is for it to be funded by consumers through price control arrangements, much like the current gas and electricity system operators are today.

Levies placed on licensed bodies can be expected to filter through to consumers. However, we are concerned that the requirement to establish an audit board risks duplication with the current well-understood and transparent regulatory model established under Ofgem. Without a price control process run by the regulator, there is also a risk of poor consumer value for money. As with other regulated bodies in this sector, the ISOP will have the operational freedom it needs to manage and organise itself to effectively deliver its roles and objectives. We also intend the ISOP to sit outside the regime of Cabinet Office controls on spending, which bodies funded by taxes and levies are required to operate under.

With the explanations and reassurances that I have been able to provide, I hope that noble Lords will agree not to press their amendments.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, I am very encouraged by the Minister’s response on the control of the board and the ISOP. I am disappointed about the funding flows, but I guess that it will work out as it works out. I think that is unfortunate, but I have no intention of pressing the matter. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Callanan]

63: Schedule 9, page 278, line 28, leave out from “after” to end of line and insert ““Part 1 of the Energy Act 2023” (inserted by paragraph 5(a) of Schedule 5 to this Act) insert “or Part 4 of that Act”.”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that the amendment made by paragraph 8 of Schedule 9, in relation to section 105(1)(a) of the Utilities Act 2000, dovetails correctly with the amendment to that provision made by paragraph 5 of Schedule 5 to the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Callanan]

64: Schedule 13, page 297, line 16, at end insert—
“(7) Where by virtue of subsection (6)(c) tender regulations provide for the imposition of a financial penalty, they must also include provision for a right of appeal against the imposition of the penalty.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires regulations under section 6CA of the Electricity Act 1989 (tender regulations: power to require information) (inserted by Schedule 13) that provide for the imposition of civil penalties to include provision for a right of appeal.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly to the amendments in this second group, starting with Amendment 65 from the noble Lord, Lord Teverson. All I can do is echo his clear requests for confirmation that the Government will be more flexible and for clarity around multipurpose interconnectors, particularly with regard to the relationships between Great Britain and other jurisdictions. Will the interconnectors operate in a similar way to the offshore electricity transmission regime? I hope that the Minister will be able to give the reassurance and clarification that the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, ask for.

I thank my noble friend Lord Whitty for tabling Amendment 68, on an issue that he feels passionately about and comments on whenever the opportunity arises. We know that, as the electricity network develops new facilities and new renewable sources of generation, there will be a need for more storage capacity. As we have said, there is a non-exhaustive list of technologies, and new ones coming on stream that we might not have considered so far, and so comments must extend beyond batteries. The important part of this amendment to consider is a commitment from the Government to give support to assist with developing the storage capacity that we need.

The further amendments, led by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, look to remove legislative barriers to the electrification and decarbonisation of oil and gas facilities, and to work towards a green financing framework. We must be mindful of the uncertainty of costs, going forward. When considering these amendments, it is important to consider decarbonisation, which is critical to the Bill, but also affordability and ensuring that energy is within the reach of every person in the country.

We know that the zero-carbon electricity system is possibly 19% cheaper than gas-based facilities, and that UK gas power is currently estimated to be nine times the amount of renewable power. Driving down energy costs means that we need cheap, clean power. We must take this rare opportunity presented by the Bill to ensure that we use the legislative framework to drive measures that will, in the short-term, reach towards action to decarbonise the electricity system and bring down costs.

The passage of the Bill through the House has been quite lengthy, but we really must take the opportunity presented to us to ensure that we make the progress that is required.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all Members who have contributed to the debate.

I completely agree with the last point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Blake. It is very important that we use the powers to do exactly what she suggested: to drive the decarbonisation agenda. Despite some of the criticisms, we are making excellent progress in this country—much better than most other G7 countries. However, we must be very conscious of the cost to consumers.

Amendments 125 to 129 were tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson. I was amused to see that he has incurred the wrath of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, in trying to come up with pragmatic, sensible solutions for the energy system of this country. All I can say is, “Welcome to the club”.

I will start with his comments on the North Sea Transition Authority. We are engaging with industry to ensure the delivery of the North Sea transition deal emissions reduction targets and the successful rollout of electrification, which we all want to see. We are also considering how to utilise the Secretary of State’s existing powers, if needed, to support electrification. We are confident that, in this area, additional primary legislation is not required. As the noble Lord mentioned, the North Sea transition deal commits the offshore oil and gas sector to reducing emissions from operations to 50% of 2018 levels by 2030. As I have said repeatedly in this House, during the transition there will be an ongoing need for existing oil and gas resources, but it makes sense to extract them with the minimum possible carbon emissions.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Callanan]

73: Clause 167, page 139, line 34, leave out “negative” and insert “affirmative”
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment makes regulations under Clause 167 (which contains a power to amend certain definitions relating to heat networks) subject to the affirmative procedure.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Callanan]

75: Schedule 16, page 337, line 32, leave out “or Scotland”
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment removes a reference to Scotland in connection with installation and maintenance licences (which do not apply in relation to Scotland).

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Callanan]

80: Clause 171, page 141, line 38, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
“(1) The first regulations to be made by the Secretary of State under section 170 are subject to the affirmative procedure.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies that the first regulations made by the Secretary of State under Clause 170 are subject to the affirmative procedure.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Callanan]

89: Clause 173, page 143, line 35, leave out “negative” and insert “affirmative”
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment provides that regulations under Clause 173(1) (which confers power to designate the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority as the licensing authority for the purposes of the Heat Networks (Scotland) Act 2021) are subject to the affirmative procedure.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. It will come as no surprise to Members of the House that I support all these amendments, particularly Amendment 94 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale. Going by my personal experience, not giving a broader role to local authorities is such a missed opportunity and I cannot understand why these amendments would not be supported, particularly since it is, in all honesty, such a mild request: better definition of local authorities’ role; and asking for guidance, which is a perpetual demand from local authorities, I have to say, in trying to move things forward. As we know, other key reports and reviews have recognised just how important it is to get local buy-in and to get local stakeholders involved.

I turn to the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, and signed by others. It is essential that we bring these elements together. What we are talking about, without repeating the technical issues that have been raised so powerfully today, is that we need to aim to have a framework that will support the growth of community and smaller-scale energy schemes and also provide regular reporting so that everyone knows how things are progressing. I have to say that all we are asking for is the following of an evidence-based approach. We can look at the success of other, related schemes in these areas that have been successfully led by local authorities. These include the rollout of electric vehicles, with local authorities leading by example in changing their fleets to electricity. District heating is another example where, when you have very strong local buy-in, the success moves forward. What we are asking for here is the ability to inform, shape and enable key aspects to deliver energy decarbonisation.

I believe very firmly in involving local stakeholders from the beginning; they are far more likely to come on board with schemes that might have aspects that they find work against their interests if they understand and are included in the bigger picture. Many people will make compromises when they understand the greater good, and the opportunity has been highlighted over the past year by the dramatic increase in energy prices and the risk of energy scarcity. I think the landscape has changed in this regard. Let us give confidence to local people and communities by developing the framework for the growth of communities and smaller-scale energy schemes. It is regrettable that more progress has not been made so far. The role of Ofgem in this, giving clear methodology and quality standards, is essential and will give the credibility that is needed, as the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, so eloquently pointed out.

Through the involvement of local communities, we are asking for a more effective and better targeted delivery of national priorities; and we all know that we need more determination to deliver on the ground. I hope we will see some movement in this area and can only echo other comments: if we fail to make progress, this is such wasted potential, and I hope we will hear some positive comments with regard to these amendments.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I thank all Members who have contributed, particularly the noble Baronesses, Lady Boycott and Lady Bennett, for Amendments 134 and 135—the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, proposed them but sadly is not in his place. I am grateful to noble Lords who met me and officials recently to discuss this matter and give us a chance to talk through the departmental thinking.

As I said when we met, the Government recognise the role that community and local renewable energy schemes can play in supporting our net-zero targets. But we continue to believe that small-scale, low-carbon electricity generation should be brought forward through competitive, market-based solutions. A key feature of the smart export guarantee regime is to allow suppliers to set both the tariff level and the structure and for suppliers themselves to determine the value of the exported electricity alongside all the associated administrative costs. Any move to introduce a regulated price for exported electricity has the potential to limit the overall scope for innovation and export tariff packages. This would fundamentally undermine the principles of the supported export guarantee policy objective, which looks to encourage a market-driven approach.

Furthermore, the amendments as drafted are unlikely to result in better outcomes for consumers compared with other tariffs that would be available from suppliers. First, there would be initial set-up and ongoing delivery costs associated with the scheme for both Ofgem and the suppliers, which we expect would be material. These costs would be recovered via the service fee charged by suppliers and therefore probably reflected in the local tariff price.

Secondly, small-scale, low-carbon generation will, by its nature, be intermittent and unable to supply local consumers at all times. Suppliers would therefore need to buy additional wholesale energy from other sources—for example, during periods of peak demand—and incur all the associated network and system costs. The local tariff would also be required to have regard to the export price paid to the local generator. This would create a somewhat perverse outcome where higher export prices would benefit the generator but also increase the tariff price.

As a result, there is no guarantee that the local tariff would be lower than the current regulated standard variable tariff. In fact, there is some reason to believe that it would actually be higher.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

Before the Minister sits down, I would like to apologise to the House; I should perhaps have declared my position as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. The Minister referred to the costs of local schemes, but would he acknowledge that there has been historically—and certainly will be in the future—a great deal of voluntary effort and contributions in the administration and running of such schemes, and that that is a net input into communities that does not have a financial cost, which can affect the price?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

If organisations take advantage of community-minded individuals prepared to contribute work to their local community, that is something that we welcome. However, what will be critical to those communities is the ultimate tariff that they pay, irrespective of how much voluntary effort goes in. Our concern is that these amendments are being slightly oversold to many communities; they may think that they are somehow going to get a favourable tariff compared to what they would get in the wider market. As currently structured, we do not believe that the amendments would produce that.

[Baroness Boycott (CB)]

Before the Minister sits down, I think that that is slightly unfair on local communities. A lot of people enjoy being involved in local community schemes and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, just said, a lot of volunteering work goes into this. It is not just about getting lower prices; it is also about reducing our carbon emissions and being part of the campaign to get to net zero. You cannot just quantify everything in pounds, shillings and pence.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I agree with the noble Baroness, and we are supporting a number of community energy partnerships at the moment. As I say, we are not against the idea in principle, but we need to work through the proper policy implications and ensure that some of these very worthwhile schemes are not piggybacking on to the costs that everybody else pays into the system.

[Lord Ravensdale (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for providing that detail on the department’s approach to local area energy planning and for recognising the ongoing work. With the reassurance that has been provided by the Minister, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Callanan]

95: Clause 191, page 159, line 17, at end insert “in respect of that act or omission”
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that the acceptance by an enforcement authority (under energy smart regulations) of an enforcement undertaking in respect of a person’s act or omission does not prevent the authority imposing a penalty on that person in respect of a different act or omission.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Callanan]

96: Clause 194, page 161, line 15, at end insert—
“(5A) Energy smart regulations that are not within subsection (5) are subject to the made affirmative procedure if they—(a) are the first energy smart regulations to make provision about a particular description of energy smart appliance,(b) make provision by virtue of section 189(4)(b) imposing requirements of a kind not previously imposed by energy smart regulations,(c) make provision by virtue of section 190(1)(a) or (b) by reference or in relation to a published document, standard or list (as the case may be) in respect of which such provision has not previously been made,(d) confer new powers for the enforcement of energy smart regulations, or(e) make provision by virtue of section 192(2) for the imposition of new civil penalties.(5B) A revised version of a published document, standard or list is to be disregarded for the purposes of subsection (5A)(c) if provision has previously been made in respect of the document, standard or list by virtue of section 190(1)(a) or (b) (as the case may be).”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment provides that energy smart regulations that are not the first energy smart regulations but that include certain kinds of provision for the first time are subject to the made affirmative procedure.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, this group covers the two amendments concerning the energy performance of existing premises and of new builds.

I will start with Amendment 97, from the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, and the noble Lords, Lord Foster and Lord Whitty, which would require the Secretary of State to publish a national warmer homes and businesses action plan six months after Royal Assent. That proposed plan looks very similar to and would duplicate the Government’s existing Net Zero Strategy and the Heat and Buildings Strategy—added to, of course, by the Powering Up Britain publications. Therefore, we feel that it is unnecessary.

On minimum energy-efficiency standards for domestic buildings, the Government agree with the ambition of reaching EPC band C by 2035 for as many homes as possible where that is cost effective, and for commercial properties below EPC band B where that is cost effective. On minimum energy-efficiency standards, these ambitions have already been published in various publications, including the Net Zero Growth Plan. The Government have already set out their timeline to deliver the future homes standard by 2025 and we have accelerated work on its full technical specification. We will consult further on that later this year. Regarding the proposal on heat networks, the Bill already outlines our heat network zoning proposals for England, which details where buildings should be connected to heat networks and gives local authorities the power to implement heat network zones.

On top of all those major commitments, as has been referenced in the debate, we recently launched the Energy Efficiency Taskforce, of which I have the honour to be co-chairman, to deliver our ambition to reduce the UK’s final energy consumption from buildings and industry by 15% by 2030. So there is no difference in ambition from the Government on energy efficiency. I agree with many of the points made on how important energy efficiency is, and we are progressing work to increase it across a whole range of sectors, as I have outlined.

In addition to all that, in the Statement on powering up Britain, which was made just before the Easter Recess and will be repeated here on Wednesday evening, we announced a further insulation scheme—the Great British insulation scheme—to deliver £1 billion in additional investment by March 2026 in energy-efficiency upgrades in some of the least efficient homes, including those in the so-called able-to-pay sector. Furthermore, we announced that we will extend the boiler upgrade scheme until 2028, supporting both domestic and small non-domestic buildings, building on the existing £450 million-worth of funding already committed between 2022 and 2025 to provide the signal that people have been asking for that the scheme will last in the longer term. All of that will help us to reach our ambition of phasing out all new installations of natural gas boilers by 2035, but before we can proceed to legislate for that we must provide effective cheap alternatives; otherwise, the population will, in my view, react badly to being compelled to do that.

I turn next to Amendment 98, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Foster, Lord Lennie and Lord Whitty, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, with contributions from my noble friend Lady Altmann. I would also like to thank the noble Lord for his important work as chairman of the committee. This amendment would require all privately rented homes to have a minimum energy performance certificate—EPC—rating of band C by December 2028, subject to specified exemptions. The amendments would also require non-domestic privately rented properties to meet EPC B by December 2028.

Again, the Government agree with the principle of increasing the ambition for minimum energy-efficiency standards to help reduce energy bills for tenants and to deliver carbon savings to meet our net-zero and achieve our fuel poverty targets. That was reflected in the Government’s consultation, which has been referred to, on proposals to raise the minimum energy-efficiency standard for privately rented homes to EPC C for new tenancies from 1 April 2025 and for all tenancies by 1 April 2028. We are currently considering the results of that consultation, but, as I have said in the House before, it is not an easy policy to progress. There are already shortages of rented accommodation in many parts of the country, and it is certainly not my ambition to further increase those shortages, so we will have to be careful how we proceed in that legislation. The Government also consulted on a minimum energy-efficiency standard for non-domestic privately rented buildings of EPC C by 2027, and EPC B by 2030.

Under the Energy Act 2011, the Secretary of State already has the necessary powers to amend the PRS regulations to raise the minimum energy-efficiency standards and set the dates by which landlords must comply with the new energy standards. As I explained in Committee, the amendment would not allow us to reflect the immense amount of valuable feedback that we received from the consultation in the final policy design that we are currently working on. This will be essential to ensure that it is fair and proportionate for tenants, of course, but also for landlords themselves. As I said at the time, we intend to publish the summary of responses to this consultation later in the year, as confirmed in the powering up Britain Statement.

I hope that I have been able to reassure noble Lords as to our ambitions in this area. We want to see the same policy outcomes as do many in this House and we are already working on many of these areas. I hope that my reassurances will enable the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Hayman (CB)]

My Lords, I am grateful to everyone who has spoken on this important issue. The Minister said, in essence, that there is no difference between the Government and my amendment. If that is so, it will not be such a big deal for them to accept it. However, the truth of the matter is that this amendment would mandate action in this area, and in a specific timeframe. I am sad to say that the Government have a credibility problem in this area with their own ambitions, objectives and restatements of policy. I have been very much supported from all Benches—I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Deben—and I wish to test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Callanan]

99: Clause 212, page 177, line 13, at end insert—
“(A1) ESOS regulations that provide for the imposition of a financial penalty must also provide for a right of appeal to a court or tribunal against the imposition of the penalty.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires ESOS regulations that provide for the imposition of financial penalties to include provision for a right of appeal.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their very important contributions on the amendments in this group. It is an enormous privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Deben, with his experience and expertise in the subject matter before us today. I want to keep my comments brief as we have had a lot of opportunity in different discussions and debates, particularly during the passage of this Bill, to try to get across just how strong the feelings are around the House on these matters.

I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, for her amendment on the burning of methane and other hydrocarbons produced during oil extraction. As we have heard, very distinguished bodies have come out against this. In particular, there is a real concern that not taking notice of the need to address this issue undermines the UK’s commitments made at COP 26 and COP 27 under the global methane pledge. We need to take this seriously. We have heard how important the contribution of methane is towards the UK’s net greenhouse gas emissions. Just to add to the statistics around this, during the last decade the UK has wasted £2.6 billion in lost gas sales due to flaring and venting, and released 45 million tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. When you put that into the context—as the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, did—of what could have been done with that fuel, it is a lesson that needs to be learned.

I concentrate my comments this afternoon on Amendment 131 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and supported by the noble Baronesses, Lady Sheehan and Lady Boycott, and my noble friend Lord Lennie. As we have heard, this amendment is specifically to prevent the opening of new coal mines in England and is a response to the proposed opening of a new coal mine in Cumbria. I have said before that I am really concerned about the message this coal mine sends out. It undermines totally our claim to be an international leader on climate. One only had to look at the press reports from around the world after the announcement was made to understand just how damaging this is.

I fully support the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Deben, on the planning system. I hope that we can move forward on this, so that local authorities and anyone who has a role in making decisions through the planning system have the necessary tools to stand up and not be concerned about the extortionate costs that would come their way if, after having turned down an application, it was turned over on appeal.

The other area that we have not emphasised enough is this: we cannot even claim that the coal mine in Cumbria would provide secure, long-term jobs. That just is not part of the equation here. As we have heard, it will not benefit British Steel. We are already seeing a significant decline in the coal used by the UK steel industry, including a 19% drop in demand for coking coal to run UK blast furnaces. As the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, said, the future is not coking coal.

I am not sure if anyone has mentioned the rather fanciful claim that this mine would be the first carbon-neutral operation of its kind. How can we stand here and say this seriously and honestly, and with particular regard to the fact that, as we have heard, a high percentage of the coal would be exported and so we would have no control over its use.

I am very disappointed that part of the debate around opposing the mine has ignored the far greater opportunities of investing in new green technologies for the local area. It is a perfect area for so many of the possibilities that are coming our way with real, sustainable jobs.

I repeat that Alok Sharma, a former president of COP, said last December that opening

“a new coalmine would send completely the wrong message and be an own goal”.

Surely we should be doubling onshore wind capacity, tripling solar capacity and quadrupling offshore wind capacity. I hope I have made it clear that on our Benches we support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I thank all noble Lords for their amendments and contributions.

I will just make an observation first, having listened with great interest to the noble Baroness, Lady Blake. I was actually hoping that the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, would reply to this debate, as a fellow politician from the north-east of England. He will know very well that, in virtually every election that I fought in the region, the Labour Party campaigned against the closing of coal mines. I will be gracious and accept that time moves on, but it was only fairly recently that some of their parliamentary colleagues in the other place were campaigning for the opening of new coal mines and against the closing of old ones. Time moves on in politics but, had you said to me 10 or 15 years ago that I would be standing up in the House of Lords opposite a Labour Party telling me it does not want to see the opening of any coal mines, I would not have believed you.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Sheehan (LD)]

Flaring and venting is something that I am keen on eliminating, and I will use every opportunity in the House to progress the issue further. Therefore, would it be sensible for the Minister to agree to meet with me and other noble Lords who have expressed an interest in this issue, so that we can talk sensibly about it, going forwards?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I did organise a recent meeting with officials to discuss the issue, at the request of the noble Baroness’s Front-Bench colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Teverson. The noble Baroness had the opportunity to attend if she had wished to.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the discussion that we have had on the various amendments in this group, and that my noble friend the Minister referred to the use of coal on heritage railways. I am delighted to say that I am president of the North Yorkshire Moors Railway and hope that we can continue to enjoy the spectacular scenery and days out that heritage railways offer.

I am disappointed that my noble friend missed an opportunity to explain to the House specifically which areas the amendments to the levelling up Bill will cover. Rather than detain the House further at this stage, I will pursue that through Written Questions, where I will have to get an Answer. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Callanan]

105: Clause 246, page 208, line 16, at end insert—
“(8A) Where regulations under subsection (1) or (5) provide for the imposition of a civil penalty, they must also include provision for a right of appeal against the imposition of the penalty.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment requires regulations under Clause 246 (arrangements for responding to marine oil pollution) that provide for the imposition of civil penalties to include provision for a right of appeal.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Callanan]

106: Clause 247, page 210, line 7, at end insert—
“(8A) Where regulations under this section provide for the imposition of a civil penalty, they must also include provision for a right of appeal against the imposition of the penalty.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment requires regulations under Clause 247 (habitats: reducing effects of offshore oil or gas activities etc) that provide for the imposition of civil penalties to include provision for a right of appeal.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Callanan]

108: Clause 248, page 210, line 22, leave out “Charging schemes” and insert “Charges in connection with exercise of functions under Part 4”
Member's explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for the amendment in Lord Callanan’s name at page 210, line 23.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Callanan]

139: Clause 266, page 230, line 18, at end insert—
“(4A) Where regulations under this Act are subject to the made affirmative procedure, the statutory instrument containing them must be laid before Parliament after being made. (4B) Regulations under this Act contained in a statutory instrument laid before Parliament under subsection (4A) cease to have effect at the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which the instrument is made unless, during that period, the instrument is approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.(4C) In calculating the period of 28 days, no account is to be taken of any whole days that fall within a period during which—(a) Parliament is dissolved or prorogued, or(b) either House of Parliament is adjourned for more than four days.(4D) If regulations cease to have effect as a result of subsection (4B), that does not—(a) affect the validity of anything previously done under the regulations, or(b) prevent the making of new regulations.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes provision about the “made affirmative” procedure for the purposes of the amendment in the name of Lord Callanan at page 161, line 15.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Callanan]

142: Clause 267, page 230, line 27, at end insert “and “the made affirmative procedure” is to be construed in accordance with section 266(4A)”
Member’s explanatory statement
See the amendment in the name of Lord Callanan at page 230, line 18.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Callanan]

143: Clause 269, page 231, line 38, at end insert—
“(ca) section (Treatment of recycled carbon fuel and nuclear-derived fuel as renewable transport fuel);”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that the new Clause inserted after Clause 113 by the amendment in Lord Callanan’s name comes into force two months after Royal Assent.

Energy Bill [HL]

Lord Callanan Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 28th March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lennie (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and all other noble Lords and Baronesses who have spoken. While I may agree with the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, that these trials are not a good thing, they are upon us and therefore we have to deal with what we face rather than what we might not have faced had we stopped the trials in the first place. I do not think the Government are about to abandon the plan, and therefore we have some concerns about the plan as it goes ahead.

Clause 111 makes certain modifications to the Gas Act 1986 so that the person running the trial has clear grounds to enter property. That causes me concern that they can carry out essential works and safety checks and disconnect gas supply. Can the Minister deal with some questions? He may not be able to deal with them tonight and may want to write to me later. When can property be entered? What safeguards will be in place? What burden of proof will be applied on entry? When can a property not be entered? Will future guidance be published and, if so, when can we expect it to be with us? The Labour amendment

“requires the Secretary of State to take a number of steps with regard to the areas and people affected by hydrogen grid conversion trials and to make arrangements for Ofgem to provide information, alternative heat sources and offer the right of opt out (which would disapply the right of gas transporters to enter premises to disconnect). It would also require the Environment Agency to monitor and report on hydrogen escape, and the Health and Safety Executive to monitor safety implications.”

Subsection (1) provides the Secretary of State with a power to make regulations by statutory instrument to require a person conducting the trial to follow specified steps to ensure consumers are appropriately informed about the trial and the need for them to be disconnected from their gas supply before it happens. This clause also provides the Secretary of State with a power to make regulations to introduce consumer protections for people who are, or are likely to be, affected by the trial, and a list of examples is provided.

Our amendment sets out a number of reasonable steps, ensures that people are not disadvantaged, whether they participate or take an alternative, and ensures an alternative is offered and they can opt out. The trials are much more popular in Redcar, I am led to believe, than they are in Whitby. An exchange of correspondence took place between Graham Stuart, the Minister at DESNZ, and Justin Madders MP and Louise Gittens, who is the leader of Cheshire West and Chester Council. To quote from the letter from Graham Stuart, he said:

“I fully agree that local support for the trial is essential … However, we will only go ahead with a trial in an area where there is strong local support … I do agree it is very important this context is set out clearly, particularly for the communities in the areas across the country served by the gas networks which the networks are assessing.”


If that is true, certainly in Whitby, I do not think a trial will proceed, but I may be wrong. I would welcome the Minister’s assessment of the correspondence and what he makes of it in relation to the trial. It is not so much about cost, although there is a cost, and it is not so much about safety, although there is a safety issue; it is about local democracy and whether they want the thing to go ahead in the first place.

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

I thank all noble Lords who have contributed. I start by addressing the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lennie. This is a matter for which I have ministerial responsibility, so I am familiar with all the issues. I too am getting, not a massive stream of correspondence, but a lot of correspondence from the people in the two trial areas. I have met Justin Madders, the MP for the Whitby trial area, Ellesmere Port, and of course I know Jacob Young very well from Redcar. The point that Graham Stuart made in that letter is still absolutely valid. We are waiting for the submissions of the two rival networks, which we should receive later this month. A lot is happening this week; it is a busy week. One of the factors that we will carefully take into consideration is precisely the point that Graham Stuart set out in his letter: the degree to which there is local support. Clearly, one way to measure that is to talk to the local Members of Parliament and the local authorities; that will be critical in any decision-making.

Let me also address the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, on the costs of the trial. I cannot give the noble Baroness an overall cost yet because we have not received the final submissions from the networks, but I can say that consumers in the trial location will not be expected to pay more for their heating than they would have if they had remained on natural gas. They will also not be expected to pay for the installation and maintenance of either any hydrogen-capable appliances or any alternative heating option that they wish to go for.

Let me now address Amendments 53, 54 and 57, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson and the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan. As noble Lords will know, decarbonising heat in buildings and industry is essential if we are to deliver net zero. One of the great things about this country, but also one of our problems, is the massive diversity and age of buildings in the UK, as a product mainly of the industrial revolution, and the diverse consumer needs. I think most reasonable people would accept that no single solution can provide the best option for everyone. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, that the majority of the solution will probably be electrification, but there will be some properties for which it is not suitable.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Worthington (CB)]

I want to press on the question of what is being trialled. The Minister mentioned feasibility, benefits and costs, but what about the environmental impacts of this trial? We are talking here about a global warming gas, and a very slippery gas because it is the smallest element—it escapes everywhere. Will the regulations contain measures to monitor the environmental impact of both the NO_x emissions in the home and the greenhouse gas impact of the hydrogen, which will leak when it is distributed that widely? Can that be included in the trial so we can also assess those disbenefits?

Finally, it is true that the only reason really that some houses might not qualify for a heat pump is if they are not very efficient. It is ironic that, for safety reasons, the leakier the house, the more likely it is to then be able to take hydrogen. This precious commodity, which is very expensive to produce and will be very inefficient, is being used in houses which are leaky and being made leakier to be made safer. It seems just so counter to everything we want to achieve on efficiency, resilience and climate change. I hope there will be a trial of the environmental impacts on air quality, climate change and energy efficiency, not just the benefits to the gas industry.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I know the noble Baroness has strong views on electrification but let me reassure her that this is precisely the purpose of the trial. We need to use an existing network to find out what happens to hydrogen in an existing network. Clearly, environmental monitoring and checking for leaks and so on is a crucial part of it. It is one of the reasons we need to do it on an existing network in an existing community, to find out what happens outside of theoretical lab experiments where it is very easy to set up a trial with new pipework, new valves and new equipment. I have visited hydrogen demonstration houses up in Gateshead, my home area. It works very well but these are brand new properties, constructed with hydrogen appliances and new pipework. That is not a very good trial as to how it would work in the real world in existing communities. That is why we need to do the trial. The things that the noble Baroness asked about are exactly what we need to be checking and monitoring to judge the effectiveness of any hydrogen experiments in the real world.

I turn to Amendment 56, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Lennie and Lord Teverson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan. This amendment covers several aspects which I fully agree are important for the safe and effective delivery of the village trial. However, I assure noble Lords that the evidence that this amendment seeks to gather through a statutory consultation is already being gathered and will be reviewed by the department as part of our assessment process, following the submission of final proposals at the end of this month. As I said, in May 2022, we sent a joint letter with Ofgem to the gas networks setting out an extensive list of requirements that proposals for the trial should meet. This included requirements mentioned in the amendment, such as local support, costs, environmental impact and consumer protections, as well as many other important areas.

After the gas networks submit their proposals for the trial—later this week, as I said—the department will undertake a thorough assessment against the full list of requirements set out in the letter. That process will involve expert input from the various statutory bodies involved, including the Health and Safety Executive and Ofgem. We will publish the result of that assessment later this year, including the relevant evidence to explain our decision, and that will be available to all noble Lords. I reassure the House that we fully understand the importance of conducting the trial properly.

I touched on this earlier but the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, raised the point about local support for the trial. I reiterate that we will go ahead with a trial only in an area where there is strong local support. The gas networks are working closely with local authorities, communities and Members of Parliament as they develop their trial proposals. My officials also meet regularly with the relevant local authorities. Final proposals for the trial will need to contain evidence of strong support from the local community, validated by an independent external source, such as a local council. Again, I am happy to meet the local Members of Parliament.

The networks are extensively consulting local residents to develop an attractive consumer offer tailored to the community. They have opened drop-in centres in both Whitby and Redcar where anyone can engage directly with them and ask questions about what the project means for them, and have held a number of public events.

Safety is of course fundamental, which is the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan. Before any community trial can go ahead, the Health and Safety Executive will need to be satisfied that the trial will be run safely. No trial will go ahead until all necessary safety assessments have been successfully carried out. I hope noble Lords will accept my reassurances on that.

If it goes ahead, the trial will start in 2025 and provide vital evidence that will be required to enable the Government to make decisions in 2026 on any potential future role for hydrogen in decarbonising heat. I hope noble Lords will accept that undertaking another formal consultation would duplicate the work that the department and the gas networks are already doing, and could delay important milestones for ultimately meeting net zero.

I agree that the trial must be conducted properly, and I have already spoken about the additional consumer protections that will be in place for the trial. Those protections, which must be met by the gas networks, also mean that the trial must be delivered with minimal disruption to consumers.

I hope I have been able to reassure noble Lords that the department will carefully consider all these factors in coming to a decision on the trial. Importantly, we will be closely examining the evidence and outcomes of the gas networks’ engagement with local authorities and consumers in the trial areas. I hope that, with the reassurances that I have been able to provide, the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, will consider withdrawing his amendment.

[Lord Lennie (Lab)]

Could the Minister please write to me about the questions I asked about entering properties and whether further guidance will be published and available?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

As I said, the powers that we propose to provide are essentially similar to those that the networks already have on the basis of essential safety works. Still, I am happy to provide the noble Lord with further information and details.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, when the IPCC report on the global warming challenge came out last week, and it gave a pretty dire view, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, António Guterres, who I think had just been watching the Oscars, said it was

“everything, everywhere, all at once”—

but I do not think he would have included the village hydrogen trials within that broad definition. I understand what the Minister has said, and I welcome all his assurances to local citizens about how the trials will work, but, frankly, the science clearly says that hydrogen sent through the gas pipe network to a range of residential properties does not work, does not make sense and is not going to happen in the future.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Callanan]

55: Clause 112, page 100, line 26, leave out “may” and insert “must”
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment requires regulations under Clause 112 (regulations for the protection of consumers: hydrogen grid conversion trials) that make provision for the imposition of financial penalties to include provision for a right of appeal.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Callanan]

58: After Clause 113, insert the following new Clause—
“Treatment of recycled carbon fuel and nuclear-derived fuel as renewable transport fuelAfter section 131C of the Energy Act 2004 insert—“131D Recycled carbon fuel and nuclear-derived fuel(1) An RTF order may—(a) designate as recycled carbon fuel a description of liquid or gaseous fuel which is produced wholly from waste derived from a fossil source of energy;(b) designate as nuclear-derived fuel a description of liquid or gaseous fuel which is produced wholly using, or by a process powered wholly by, nuclear fuel.(2) Where a designation under subsection (1) is in force, the recycled carbon fuel or nuclear-derived fuel is to be treated for the purposes of this Chapter and any RTF order as renewable transport fuel.””Member's explanatory statement
This amendment, which inserts a new clause in Chapter 3 of Part 3 of the Bill, provides for recycled carbon fuel and fuel derived from nuclear energy to be treated as a renewable transport fuel for the purposes of renewable transport fuel obligations under Chapter 5 of Part 2 of the Energy Act 2004.