(2 years ago)
Lords ChamberI am happy to give the noble Lord the commitment he seeks. Nuclear power will be an important component of our energy infrastructure and it is also important that we continue to invest in the SMR programme.
My Lords, is the message that the Government seek to convey to the City and to commerce that a Conservative Government are best equipped to clear up the mess that only a Conservative Government could make?
I thank the noble Lord for his helpful question. The message we seek to convey is that the City of London is an important component of the UK financial infrastructure. It makes an important contribution to the UK economy. Proportionate regulation is vital to this sector, but we continue to encourage and support it.
(2 years ago)
Lords ChamberI think my noble friend is wrong. If he looked at the pages on GOV.UK, he would find tailored advice for his property linked to its EPC, if one exists. Perhaps he needs to spruce up his computer usage.
My Lords, one of the effects of climate change will be a moderation in the pace of the population increase of the world, which leads to desertification, deforestation and increased migration. How can we encourage that?
The effects of climate change are of course different in different parts of the world. We need to work with developing countries, which we are doing through our extensive programme of international climate change work, to help them to both mitigate and adapt to the effects of climate change.
(2 years ago)
Lords ChamberIn his excellent way, the noble Lord makes a good point. I am sure it will give all of us, including the Prime Minister, cause for reflection.
In the proposed code of practice, what sanctions do the Government propose?
The noble Lord will have to await the details in the code of practice. One option will be to allow employment tribunals to take into account if the statutory code has not been followed and award uplifts in compensation as a result.
(2 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberMy noble friend makes a good point, as he often does. I am not sure that the Eurovision Song Contest is a sufficient precursor to Horizon Europe, but, to be serious, his point is very valid: other non-EU countries are associate members. We want to join; that was the agreement that we entered into, and I hope that the EU will see sense and abide by the agreement that it signed.
My Lords, surely the Government’s default programme is a second best. The Minister has said that it will deliver “many of the benefits” of the current programme. Where are the gaps, and what will not be delivered?
I am not sure that it is second best; it is an alternative. We have many scientific co-operation programmes with many other parts of the world; the EU is not the be-all and end-all of scientific co-operation. However, we think that there is a lot of value in Horizon Europe, which is why we agreed that we should join up. Of course, we are prepared to pay all the associated costs. That was the agreement that we entered into and we want to try to join, but we have a plan B if that proves impossible.
(2 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberI agree with a number of the points my noble friend made. Of course we should put the maximum pressure on Putin because of his appalling actions, and continue to invest in the North Sea for our domestic production. We should also continue to invest in nuclear power and renewables. One point I differ with him on slightly is fracking, which I am afraid does not offer the silver bullet many people think it does.
My Lords, is it the Government’s view that the current and proposed increases in energy prices fundamentally alter the economic and security case for tidal barrages, such as that proposed for Swansea Bay?
Not directly. The cheapest and most effective renewable source in the UK is offshore wind, which is why we are continuing to develop that at pace. We already have one of the largest offshore wind sectors in the world. We have a target of considerable extra capacity, moving up to 30 gigawatts by 2030.
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberI totally agree with the noble Lord on the first part of his question. The correct answer to that is to wait for the outcome of the inquiry. As we have discussed before, this went on for decades, and exactly who was responsible at the time, and who knew what and when, is a hugely complicated issue. Of course, many of the people responsible at those times are no longer in government, in the department or in the Post Office. It will be important to find out who exactly who was responsible over a long period of time, and then we can pin the appropriate blame.
My Lords, to accelerate things and bring an end to the scandal, would the Government consider a scheme similar to that which applies to personal injury cases, to agree guidelines or bands within which a settlement could be reached so that legal advisers can properly give advice to those who have suffered as a result of the Post Office injustice?
As I outlined in my earlier answer to my noble friend Lord Arbuthnot, we will of course take all the circumstances into account, but necessarily it is important to look at the individual circumstances of each of the postmasters who were wrongly convicted and had their conviction overturned. We want to ensure that everybody is appropriately and fairly compensated within the appropriate bands and will do so.