Energy Bill [HL]

Lord Faulkner of Worcester Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 16th January 2023 Grand Committee

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)]

Good afternoon, and welcome to the Grand Committee. I should remind the committee that if there is a Division in the Chamber while the committee is sitting it will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes.

Clause 203: “Core fuel sector activity” and other key concepts

Amendment 213

Moved by

Net-zero Emissions Target: Fossil Fuel Extraction Projects

Lord Faulkner of Worcester Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd November 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I am of course delighted to hear that the Prime Minister is dear to the noble Baroness. But, as I think she is aware, no decision has yet been taken on the proposed Cumbrian coal mine. The public inquiry began on 7 September. The formal part of the inquiry has now concluded. The planning inspector will write up his report by the end of the year and submit it to the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities. It is now part of a quasi-judicial process, so the noble Baroness will understand that I cannot commit the Government to any action.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)]

My Lords, that concludes Oral Questions for today.

Rating (Coronavirus) and Directors Disqualification (Dissolved Companies) Bill

Lord Faulkner of Worcester Excerpts

2nd reading
Thursday 21st October 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan]

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Debated in Grand Committee on 19 October.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)]

I remind the House that the debate before Second Reading on the Bill took place in Grand Committee on 19 October, and call the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Callanan) (Con)]

My Lords, I beg to move formally that the Bill now be read a second time.

European Union Touring Visas

Lord Faulkner of Worcester Excerpts

Tuesday 14th September 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a patron of the International Guild of Battlefield Guides. The guild’s UK members fall exactly within the description in the second part of the Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare. Will the Minister support the restoration of a level playing field so that guild members may continue to provide guiding services in EU and EEA countries on the same basis as that on which guides from those countries are able to operate in the United Kingdom? Will he also support the guild in achieving recognition by EU/EEA nations of UK tour guide qualifications in the way described by the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

We will certainly support the guild and its professional qualification associations in achieving mutual recognition. If battlefield guides come under the responsibility of tour guides, which we think they do, that is a regulated profession in 14 EU member states.

Professional Qualifications Bill [HL]

Lord Faulkner of Worcester Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 9th June 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have given their careful consideration to the amendments in this group. It was an unusual experience for me standing at the Dispatch Box almost to feel a warm glow as noble Lords welcomed my amendments. The lesson that I learn from that is that the quicker one can amend one’s own Bills, the better, probably, in your Lordships’ House.

As noble Lords will appreciate, the Government have not brought these amendments lightly. As we have heard, they have been informed rightly and properly by careful engagement with healthcare regulators. I thank a number of noble Lords; perhaps I can single out the noble Baroness, Lady Garden of Frognal, for her support and the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for his comments. Without reservation, of course, my door is open to other regulators who wish to speak to me as this Bill continues its passage.

We heard again from the noble Lord, Lord Fox, on his point about consultation with the HSC. I think that group 7, which is about consultation, will be a good place to return to that and I will try to address in detail the points the noble Lords, Lord Fox and Lord Purvis, have made.

My noble friend Lady McIntosh referred back to what, in her view, was clearly the golden age of mutual recognition with the European Union. As I said previously, we would have liked to have maintained that mutual recognition. The phrase I used at Second Reading was:

“We took the horse to water but it refused to drink.”—[Official Report, 25/5/21; col. 975.]


I hope that noble Lords will support my amendments. I believe that they protect the public interest, maintain standards and ensure that regulators have the necessary flexibility and autonomy to regulate appropriately. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Patel, for his comments, echoed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and I am happy to give a complete reassurance standing at the Dispatch Box on the important points that were made.

In relation to the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, about the use of the word “substantially”, we have a later group which is almost entirely devoted to discussing that word. If I may, I will leave comments on that until we get there and, again, I hope to assuage noble Lords’ fears when we reach that point.

On what happens if other regulators pop up in this field, the way the Bill is drafted and, frankly, one of the reasons why we have not included a list of professions—I am sure we will come back to that later as well—is because it is a moving target. Of course, any new profession that ends up being regulated by law will automatically fall within the purview of the Bill by being so regulated, and if it falls within the purview of the Bill, the standards of the Bill and the methods that we have been discussing today in relation to my amendments will also apply to those new professions.

I come to Amendment 11 in the name my noble friend Lord Lansley, who made some interesting points during the discussion which were reinforced by my noble friend Lady Noakes. I always admire my noble friend Lord Lansley’s forensic attention to the detail of the legislation before our House. I think all Front-Bench spokesmen from this side always listen carefully to the points that he makes. I will look at this again, but I hope that he appreciates that the wording of Amendment 10 is intended to provide more flexibility about how regulators make their determination. We believe that they need this flexibility and will find it helpful.

Some regulators—and this is, of course, completely a decision for the regulators—may consider it appropriate to look solely at what is demonstrated by a qualification obtained overseas, others may require an applicant to pass a separate test of knowledge and skills, while others may choose to combine the two. Regulators should have this broad discretion available to them. I believe, and I am advised, that the proposed removal of the word “only” from Amendment 10 could cast doubt on whether the first of those options is available. I will have another look at this to make sure that that is the right reading. Meanwhile, I ask my noble friend not to move his amendment.

I commend Amendments 3, 6 and 10 to the Committee and beg to move Amendment 2.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)]

I call the noble Lord, Lansley, and then I shall call the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, who has requested to speak after the Minister.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have kindly approved of the argument made in Amendment 11 and to my noble friend for saying that he and colleagues will look at it again. I think that what they suggest is not the case. As it stands, Amendment 10 allows regulators to make a determination based on overseas qualifications and experience alone, but it runs the risk, which is a different risk, of preventing them combining that with other factors and assessments and bringing them together in the determination. That is the point. The removal of the word “only” would not, in my view, prevent a regulator making a determination based solely on overseas qualifications and experience.

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter. If the Minister is willing not to move Amendment 10 today and to look at it again and bring it back on Report, I think that would be the best way to proceed. I think we all know what we want to achieve, which is to give the regulators flexibility. It is purely a drafting issue, and I am sure we will not need to be detained at length on Report if the draftsman, is, in the event, clear that the effect is as the Minister wishes it to be. He has not moved Amendment 10 yet, and I hope he will not move it when we reach it.

[Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)]

I think I have in fact moved Amendment 10. I commended amendments to the House and begged to move.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)]

May I explain to the Minister that we are debating Amendment 2, with which other amendments are grouped? The debate that is taking place currently is on Amendment 2 only.

[Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful for that clarification. May I consider that point and come back to the House shortly on it?

--- Later in debate ---

Amendment 3 agreed.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)]

We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 4. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division should make that clear in debate.

Amendment 4

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Garden of Frognal, for tabling Amendments 4, 5, 7, 8 and 33, which probe the use of the word “substantially” in Clauses 1 and 4, and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, for her comments. The point is that, in the end, it is the individual who must be fit to practise, and the assessments that we make must relate to the individual. It is here where the important matter of regulator autonomy comes in, and why it is that the only people who can safely work out what is the appropriate route for a particular profession and the right mix between the individual, the skills and the qualifications seems quite properly to be the regulator. That is the key safeguard that we want to achieve under the Bill.

I turn to the amendments. As we know, Clause 1 is the “Power to provide for individuals to be treated as having UK qualifications”. If amended as the Government suggest, under Clause 1 an individual would be treated as having UK qualifications if the regulator determined that the individual had substantially the same knowledge and skills to substantially the same standard as are demonstrated by the specified UK qualification or experience. The noble Baroness asked some interesting questions about this approach and whether it undermines the freedom of UK regulators. I reassure noble Lords that the issue has been very carefully considered.

If we removed the word “substantially” from Clause 1, that would change the requirement such that individuals would need the same knowledge and skills to the same standard as demonstrated by the specified UK qualification or experience. That suggests an assumption that it is often the case that skills and knowledge gained in one country for a profession exactly match those gained in another country for that profession. It also suggests an assumption that it is often the case that a profession in one country covers exactly the same set of activities as the equivalent profession in another country. Of course, these assumptions are not necessarily valid. So while it might make it easier for UK regulators to decline applications, removing “substantially” would remove regulators’ flexibility in considering how skills and knowledge developed overseas translate into the UK profession.

In the event that regulations were made under Clause 1 as drafted, regulators would have the discretion—and I believe that is where the discretion should sit—to make appropriate judgments about whether overseas skills and experiences meet their expectations to an acceptable degree. That drives us back to the consideration of whether the individual is fit to practise in substantially the same way as a UK individual would. This does not water down expectations and is not a compromise on quality, because if a regulator felt that the quality had not been maintained then they would not want to approve that person. The individual’s knowledge and skills must be substantially the same.

Lastly, including “substantially” does not restrict the freedom of regulators to make determinations of equivalence in ways that they deem fit. We come back to a point that we discuss regularly in this debate: the importance of regulators’ autonomy in deciding exactly the right approach to take.

On the question of English language proficiency, at Second Reading the noble Baroness raised the need in certain professions for demonstrable English language proficiency in order for an individual to deliver professional services to the standards required in the UK, and for regulators to be able to consider this. The Bill allows regulators to take into account language requirements as part of an assessment of knowledge and skills. Alternatively, under Amendments 2 and 10, regulations could provide that passing a language test was an additional condition in itself.

Amendment 33 examines the definition of “corresponding profession” in relation to authorisation that can be given by the appropriate national authority to enable regulators to enter into regulator recognition agreements. The amendment would change the permitted scope of regulator recognition agreements from those with overseas professions whose activities are

“the same as or substantially correspond to”

the UK profession to those with overseas professions that are “the same as or correspond to” the UK profession. As I have explained, there are differences between professions in different countries, and differences between how they are regulated between jurisdictions. Even under the EU’s prescriptive mutual recognition of professional qualifications directive, there were differences in the qualification requirements between different EU member states. The clause as drafted reflects the reality that professions do not exactly align across different countries’ regulatory systems and standards. Some countries do not make the same distinctions as us in how they define professions—for example, England and Wales distinguish between barristers and solicitors, but that is not the case in many other countries.

The amendment would narrow the circumstances in which a recognition agreement could be made, potentially preventing recognition agreements from being made at all if professions did not directly align with one another. The Government believe this would limit the autonomy of regulators to make decisions about how similar professions are in different countries. Regulators should be free to determine for themselves where it is appropriate to enter into regulator recognition agreements with their counterparts overseas.

Many noble Lords have spoken passionately about the need to ensure that regulators can make decisions that are appropriate to their professions. I hope I have explained why the word “substantially” is an important qualifier that allows for more regulatory autonomy in these clauses, and indeed in the other clauses where it is used, and that, on that basis, the noble Baroness is able to withdraw her amendment.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)]

I call the noble Lord, Lord Fox, who has asked to speak after the Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

Amendments 7 and 8 not moved.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)]

We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 9. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in the group to a Division must make that clear in the debate.

Amendment 9

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

Lastly, the noble Lord, Lord Bhatia, asked about the four nations, their abilities and their powers in relation to the regulation of professions. We will cover all matters to do with the devolved Administrations at a later stage in the Bill. With the reassurances that I hope that I have been able to provide, I hope that my noble friend will withdraw her amendment.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)]

I have received a request to speak after the Minister from the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

The Minister has not answered my question. She seems to have continued to say that a national authority—that is, the Government or one of the devolved Governments—can decide when a professional is charging high fees. Can she be absolutely clear that she is saying that? I would like to know on what basis that would be and whether they would go to the CMA for advice. Whether it is a farrier or anything else—or an accountant, although I think they are not covered—on what basis is a Minister going to decide that a professional is charging a high fee? Will that be challengeable in court or via the CMA? What would be the mechanism for that decision?

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

I am sorry that I gave that impression, but I do not believe that I did give the impression that the Government would set the fees. There would be a mechanism for oversight, which would be the impact assessment route that I mentioned in my speech.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)]

I have had a request to speak from the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

Could the Minister repeat what she said at the Dispatch Box? She said that the regulators do not have parliamentary oversight in setting their fees. The Health Department’s consultation at the moment says that four do not but the remaining ones do. They have to secure the approval of the Privy Council and, in some cases, the Scottish Parliament. So which is it, and will any of these regulations have any impact on the relationship with the Privy Council and the Scottish Parliament when it comes to the fact that they have to approve changes of fees?

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate for their contributions, an awful lot of which were on my amendment. Some important issues were raised by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, none of which have been very satisfactorily dealt with by the Minister.

I turn to my amendment. I thank my noble friend Lord Lansley for his support and accept his challenge to look at the positioning of my amendment if I decide to take it forward at a later stage. The Minister talked as if compensatory measures were just sitting in every regulator’s toolbox to deal with every situation that could possibly arise, but the truth is that compensatory measures will have been designed for the sort of applicants who have already been coming to the UK for assessment, and they are not going to cause any problem. We do not even need this Bill for those applicants.

We are most likely to encounter problems when other forms of overseas applicant arise, with less traditional professional qualifications and/or experience. It is that which is likely to cause the burdens on the individual regulated professions to cope with things that they are not already coping with. The question posed by my amendment was about how we avoid unreasonable burdens being placed on those regulators and, in particular, on existing members of those professional bodies who fund the regulators.

To be honest, I do not think that the Minister answered that question at all. There is a very real problem there. I can see that we are not going to progress it any further today, but I recommend to my Front Bench that all the issues raised in this debate are looked at again before we get to Report because there are some big unanswered questions arising from this debate.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)]

Before inviting the Committee to consider the withdrawal of the amendment, I call the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, who was attempting to come in after the Minister.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

I am grateful. I just wanted to make a point after the Minister because I think she made a fundamental error in suggesting that if we were to take out the words

“without unreasonable delays or charges”

from this subsection unreasonable delays or high charges would not be able to be considered as factors in determining whether demand is met. On the contrary, they will be considered with other factors. They would not be excluded.

We will clearly come back to this again on Report because the reply to the debate was not satisfactory, and we will have to write these things out in more detail. Will my noble friend at least just agree that removing those words does not mean that those factors are not taken into account?

Net-Zero Carbon Emissions

Lord Faulkner of Worcester Excerpts

Wednesday 21st April 2021 Grand Committee

[Lord Whitty (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I start with some congratulations. I first congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, on picking out this debate and on his masterly coverage of the issues in his opening statement. This is a vital point; we need to make sure that government not only is not prone to complacency—as has been the case hitherto—but is getting itself into a position where it is capable of delivering what it promises and its stated intentions. I also briefly congratulate the Government, who yesterday produced on paper a pretty coherent response to the Climate Change Committee’s latest carbon budget, increasing the ambition of the timescale for delivery of our pathway to net zero.

That was positive. It was also positive that, for the first time, they included figures for the UK’s contribution to the cost of shipping and aviation, which the British economy imposes on international transportation. As the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, asked, however, where are the means of delivery? We have already failed—or are likely to fail—to meet the previous CCC carbon budget, and there is no reason to think that the Government are in better shape to deliver on the subsequent stages. The work of the Climate Change Committee has been vital. It has spelled out across the board what we need to do nationally, locally and internationally. Everybody—apart from a few climate change deniers, whom we still have in this House—has agreed that this is a good and clear road map. In theory, so it is, but it is the practice to which the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, has drawn to our attention.

I draw the same conclusion as the noble Lord, Lord Teverson. We need in charge of this process a senior Minister at least equivalent in status to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The appointment of Alok Sharma, capable man though he is, is not what I mean. I mean someone who has command over other departments, whose name resounds around Whitehall, and who can give a lead to other parts of the public and private sector.

We also need to engage all departments in a high-level Cabinet committee, probably led by that same Minister, if not the Prime Minister himself. In different circumstances, I might have suggested the Prime Minister, but I am not entirely sure that, in the present circumstances, that would be wise. We need somebody specifically focused on this task. Again, as the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, says, the departments largely in charge of delivery at the moment are not particularly highly rated within Whitehall or, indeed, in the country as a whole. Moreover, their climate change commitments are only part of their responsibilities, so BEIS’s responsibility for climate change is often swamped by its industrial and energy responsibilities. Even Defra, which is still in charge of mitigation and various other aspects of climate change, is swamped by rural and agricultural requirements. They are not departments that can deliver. We need a new department for climate change.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)]

My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. There is a Division in the Chamber, so we shall adjourn for five minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)]

My Lords, the Grand Committee will now resume and I invite the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, to continue his speech.

[Lord Whitty (Lab) [V]]

I apologise for the interruption; I have slightly lost my place. My original intention in looking at this was to go through all 10 points of the Prime Minister’s commitment to creating a green industrial society and strategy. That was probably too much and, in any case, the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, has already covered a few of them.

However, under each point, it is clear that is not just central government and a particular department that is responsible for delivery, but a whole range of departments; that was pretty clear from what the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, said about transport, buildings and so forth. Even the things that appear to be the purview of one department are affected by the position of other departments. Take the first: quadrupling offshore wind power. This involves BEIS, obviously, as the sponsoring department in energy policy, but we are proposing quadrupling wind power, which means that we will have to bring more of that power ashore. It means that the current situation, where individual turbines in arrays have their own point of contact to the shoreline, will increase a hundredfold if we allow every single instance of a turbine in an array to have its own point of contact. That is ridiculous.

We need to ensure that there is a network at sea before we bring it on land so that we reduce those hundreds of points to a few score. That requires planning permission from the local authority; environmental controls from the Environment Agency; and Defra and the marine authorities to look at the effects on marine life and fisheries. And all that needs to be brought together to deliver what seems to be a simple quadrupling of what has been a very successful commitment to offshore wind.

The same will apply in other areas, even in nuclear power, which seems very much a central, single government interest. That will also require huge commitments on the environmental, planning and construction side. It will require an integration of the delivery of new nuclear power with other aspects of the delivery of greener energy and heating, such as the creation of hydrogen and, indeed, carbon capture and storage.

I have decided not to go through all 10 points so I will not do so. However, in addition to the changes in central government that the noble Lord referred to, as have I, we will need local government to become more coherent, we need relations between the central Administration and the devolved Administrations to work more effectively on this, and we will need to ensure that there is clarity in reporting to Parliament.

That is my last point. I was a member of the Joint Committee of the House of Commons which preceded the Climate Change Act 2008. I now seem to have gone full circle: as of last week, I have become a member of the Lords new Committee on Environment and Climate Change, and I am very grateful to your Lordships for putting me there. However, some things have not improved, and cohesion in government is one of them. If that is not achieved by government itself, perhaps parliamentary pressure through our committees and the Commons committees will ensure that the fine words and the very clear policy direction is delivered by an interlocking and clear commitment from government. The clear strategy, some of which was announced yesterday, the fine words, the individual commitments, and the fact that we have most of business and much of the public on side, will not deliver of itself. It would be a serious problem if we were to screw all this up due to institutional inflexibility and a lack of interlocking government.

I support this Motion and I hope the Government take serious notice of what has been said.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I welcome this debate and congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Teverson. Given that I will focus on education throughout much of my speech, I remind the Committee of my education interests in the register, particularly relating to my work with Purpose on climate education.

I also welcome yesterday’s government announcement of putting into law the target to cut emissions by 78% by 2035, as recommended by the Climate Change Committee. This morning I read with interest the news of the Mark Carney-led initiative to bring together 160 firms from the global finance sector—including Barclays, HSBC and Axa—with over $70 trillion in assets to meet new targets to cut the carbon content of those assets by 2030. It occurred to me: if the finance sector can come up with a plan, what is the plan for the public sector?

Clearly, we need leadership from central government and, as others have said, this year is a great opportunity. Tomorrow is Biden’s summit; the biodiversity COP is next month in China; the G7 is in Cornwall in June; there is the G20 meeting in Italy; and COP 26 is in November in Glasgow. This is the time to set an aggressive, ambitious course with such a focus on climate change to drive national momentum and public opinion.

The cynic in me, as with others, warns that this is a Government who love an announcement and a Prime Minister who craves the attention and will glory in the UK’s leadership role this year. But do they have a delivery plan to make this happen? Will the Chancellor change the Treasury’s long-standing hostility to green spending and fund a road map to carbon zero? Incidentally, rather than a separate Cabinet Minister for climate change, I would prefer to make the Chancellor accountable for the delivery of climate change plans, as part of a shift of emphasis in the Treasury from money to well-being.

Fundamental to that is investment in local government-led projects to enable place-based change. This is not just about the obvious local authority functions of housing, transport or waste. These are crucial, but we also need to see beyond a transactional approach of investment in X technology to achieve Y reduction in carbon emissions. That will not always deal with the ingrained political problem of there being parts of the population who are not ready for the change.

The importance of a place-based approach is that success is first and foremost about behaviour change in the whole population. We have seen how hard that is through the pandemic. Despite the best efforts of “hands, space, face” as a slogan, and billions in spending, plenty are still struggling to shift their behaviour to make our communities safe from the virus. How then will we get the whole population to change the food we eat, how we move around, how we dress and how we fuel our lives so that they are sustainable and affordable?

I believe that one of the biggest mistakes in the Government’s thinking in their handling of the virus is that they have not sufficiently engaged local government as an ally. Localities are different and need different solutions to create behaviour change. A national approach will always struggle to account for the rich diversity of our nation. Our impoverished councils urgently need more resources to invest in climate change mitigation projects that will effect the behaviour change we need.

The place I would start is in schools and colleges. Almost half of all households in this country contain school-age children. Children and young people are already engaged with this issue. We saw that with the Friday school strikes. According to the OECD, 78% of students in its member countries agree that the global environment is important to them and want to do something about it. The opportunity is to stand alongside those children and young people to shift our behaviour at a household and community level. The majority of schools in this country are still local authority schools, either directly or in partnership with faith groups. There is an urgent need to enable and empower local authorities to take a leadership role on this.

I commend to your Lordships the work of the Brookings Institution in Washington DC. It recently published a powerful analysis by Christina Kwauk and Rebecca Winthrop, which says:

“Recent research shows that if only 16 percent of high school students in high- and middle-income countries were to receive climate change education, we could see a nearly 19 gigaton reduction of carbon dioxide by 2050. When education helps students develop a strong personal connection to climate solutions, as well as a sense of personal agency and empowerment, it can have consequential impact on students’ daily behaviors and decisionmaking that reduces their overall lifetime carbon footprint. Imagine if 100 percent of students in the world received such an education. New evidence also shows that the combination of women’s empowerment and education that includes everyone—especially the 132 million out-of-school girls across the developing world—could result in an 85 gigaton reduction of carbon dioxide by 2050. By these estimates, leveraging the power of education is potentially more powerful than solely increasing investments in onshore wind turbines … or concentrated solar power”.


It goes on to say:

“Emerging research suggests the ‘sweet spot’ for climate action is at the scale of 10,000-100,000 people. This is not only because the collective ability to make meaningful action is rooted in local relevance, but also because we reach a certain degree of cost-benefit optimization when it comes to the global impact of our local actions. If we apply this to the education system, this is equivalent to focusing efforts at the school district level—or the equivalent school administrative cluster, depending on the population size of cities and counties. School districts are the perfect network of institutions that exist in every country in the world that has enough community connection potential to effectively scale green civic learning. Focusing efforts at the local level enables educational interventions to be community-driven, which is aligned to what we know about effective climate action and effective climate change education: that is, it needs to be locally-relevant, tied to local environmental justice issues, tied to local community challenges with climate change, and it needs to be tied to action and ownership at community level.”


Here I commend the work of Ashden’s Let’s Go Zero campaign, which a sixth of county councils are supporting, along with the Anglican Church. So far it has got more than 200 schools to pledge to be carbon zero by 2030. The smart thing about this campaign is not just the carbon impact but the educational one. It aims to get school and college leaders to stand alongside their students and pupils in making this pledge one institution at a time.

It is critical for the behaviour change for this to be owned by the school itself and to have the work to move to zero led by young people. That way, they learn about the consumption of energy and water on the site, the carbon impacts of the food they consume in school, the carbon capture of what they can grow on the estate, and the importance of the choices they make when they travel to and from the school or college. They can then apply that knowledge with the skills they need and, most importantly, develop the carbon-zero mindset we need in the whole population if we are serious about the 2050 net-zero target, let alone the new 2035 one.

This is because, of course, we want schools to reflect the future we want for our communities. That has to be a carbon-zero future. By starting with schools and colleges, we are nurturing the skills and mindsets needed in the labour force as we shift to the sustainable future we all want. Young people need a strong knowledge base in the causes of a warming climate, but also a strong set of skills that will allow them to apply their knowledge in the real world, including problem-solving, critical thinking, teamwork, coping with uncertainty, empathy and negotiation. Indeed, these very transferable skills are needed equally to thrive in the world of work and to be constructive citizens. There is such a win-win to be had here.

In this country, 77% of adults support teaching about climate change in schools and 69% of teachers agree that there should be more teaching on this subject than what is focused on in the non-compulsory subject of geography. My ask, therefore, is for central government to prioritise climate education in schools. Would the Minister like to join me in visiting a school to meet its school council, and to lobby it to make the Let’s Go Zero pledge? The Minister should be inspired by Italy, where every school-age child, by law, must have an hour each week of sustainable citizenship education. Here, we should mandate time, resources and training for teachers in this area, and then work closely with local authorities on the delivery of all our schools becoming carbon zero by 2030.

This is our chance to move on from children and climate strikes to children leading climate action. We can use our leadership position at COP to get others to do the same and, in doing so, drive the behaviour shift across the population that the world needs.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)]

My Lords, the next two speakers have withdrawn from the debate, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale.

[Lord Redesdale (LD)]

My Lords, I must first declare my interests on the register as a director of SECR Reporting Ltd and Climate Change Professionals, and as a board member of the Energy Managers Association. As part of the work I undertake I advise companies and local authorities on net-zero targets, the policies they would need to put in place to achieve that, and the strategies they would have to undertake. Unfortunately, it is very clear from this work that there is a massive difference between aspiration and reality. A lot of greenwash is going on as well. One local authority I spoke to came up with a 2038 target. I asked how it came up with that. It said, “Well, the authority next door made a 2040 target, so we thought we’d go with 2038.” On digging into the details, it had no idea how it was going to achieve that. As the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, set out, a large number of local authorities have made this pledge, but from the work that I have done very few know how they will achieve it.

I thank my noble friend Lord Teverson for bringing this debate forward. It is usually at this point that I go into a great deal of detail on what the Government are getting wrong. However, I have a solution that the Minister could take on board. He might be interested in it because—and I never thought I would say this—it would be based on the Conservative Government’s own policy and would be Brexit-friendly, but I will go into that a bit later. It could have a major effect on how companies understand their carbon targets.

I know from working with companies that there is a problem, because the net zero carbon targets are quite complicated. They are based on reducing emissions in scope 1, scope 2 and scope 3, based on the GHG protocol. I will run through them.

A lot of companies understand their scope 1 emissions to a degree—obviously, that is their electricity use—and if you have half-hourly data, that can be useful. However, I have been utterly amazed at how even large companies do not have a handle on how much energy they use. Gas is fairly simple, as it is based on therms. Transport fuel, however, is not simple to work out; most of the energy managers I work with have never had to deal with transport before. I was talking to a company—a call centre—which had 140 spaces in its car park and which was looking at the energy used in the building. I said, “The energy used in the building is actually a fraction of what is being used in your transport requirement to get everybody into the office at any time.” Of course, understanding how you calculate transport fuel is difficult, because you could do it on mileage, litres or cost of fuel, and a number of calculations need to take place. Many organisations have left transport out.

Scope 2 emissions are those that you have bought on behalf of another company or organisation, and some companies are getting that under way, especially with grey fleet. I have been amazed by how local authorities do not understand the emissions from grey fleet; that is, cars that are used as company cars. Of course, that is a very large emission factor that often does not get added to the emissions of the company itself.

On scope 3, which is the supply chain, very few apart from the largest companies have an understanding of the emissions from their supply chain, and of course that supply chain could dwarf any emissions they have taken out. When you work with companies it is often interesting to realise that we really do not understand our scope 3 emissions. One of the areas that is of particular interest is IT. I was talking to a company which was marketing and which had worked out how much electricity it was using on its computers, but it then proudly told me that it had sent 1 million emails that month, which of course has a massive effect on servers around the world. Gaming is horrendous for that, as is the mining of Bitcoin. However, many companies just do not understand the cost of computing, which is a real issue because it is very difficult to get that information. Amazon will give it to you, while Microsoft will not, so companies have a difficulty in understanding their emissions.

Once you have understood the emissions, that is not the problem; the problem is then building policies around them and understanding what those policies should be. A lot of companies and local authorities have made blank commitments to go to net zero by 2030, 2040 or 2050, but that policy is not linked to any deliverable outcomes. Obviously, the next step is to develop a strategy for going forward from that. We also talk to companies about responsibility: who in the company is responsible for delivering those directives? This seems to be a problem not only for companies and local authorities but for government. I echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, that perhaps we should have a Minister in charge of climate change, but we had that and then DECC was taken out, which was short-sighted. Perhaps we should look at reinstating a department on that basis.

Once you have a policy strategy and somebody responsible, companies need to understand that getting to net zero will have costs, so they will have to look at a CapEx solution. A lot of companies are just not prepared to spend money, even though they realise that in the longer term this could save them in energy savings. They also need to look at OpEx. Companies need to start understanding that what they are responsible for in managing their organisations has often been farmed out to third parties, especially in facilities management areas. Therefore, you might be running buildings, the contracts for which are based on a like- for-like replacement rather than replacing old equipment for more energy-efficient equipment.

We also look at transport, where there is of course the Government’s target to move to electrification. This is a major area of greenwash in a way, because there is, I think, a lack of understanding of how significant this will be for our electrical infrastructure. I talked to one company that had 100 car parking spaces and which said, “We’re going to electrify our fleet and we’re putting in three charging points.” I said, “That means you could probably charge nine cars during the working day—and you have 100 cars out there.” They then said that they would put in a lot of charging points. But, of course, if you put in more charging points you need a bigger transformer, and you need more electrical supply. At a lecture recently, I was interested to learn that those fast-charging points on motorways have an energy use equivalent to 250 houses. We realised that when we put them in, we were talking about a small village’s energy supply just for that.

The noble Lord, Lord Knight, talked about behaviour change. One area where we have been trying to work with companies is in getting people to realise that this is not just a policy. If we are to hit net zero, everybody in the company has to understand how they have to change their energy usage.

I have set out these small problems—slight mountains to climb—but I did say that I would suggest a solution to the Minister that could be helpful, which is to change the SECR reporting regime. In 2019, the Government brought forward a new GHG reporting regime: streamlined energy and carbon reporting, or SECR—it does not really roll off the tongue. It basically means that large companies—large as defined under the Companies Act—must report all their energy data, show which metric they have used and do an intensity metric. They also then have to list all their principal energy-efficiency measures and whether any are not undertaken. Each company has to do this by law and then report it to Companies House, with the information made available in its company report.

A very simple change that could be done very quickly through a statutory instrument—I know that PwC is doing some work for BEIS at the moment looking at whether this could be brought forward—would be to make it an obligation on companies to put their net zero plan into their company reports. It could be done in a way that was not very expensive. To make it Brexit-friendly, ESOS—the energy savings opportunity scheme—which was part of the European directive, could be scrapped, which would create a saving to companies. Some of the information that was needed for ESOS could then be incorporated into SECR, which is a second obligation on companies.

If companies were required to put their net zero plans into their company reports, it would allow stakeholders to understand where they are going forward. One area that we found most interesting is that companies are finding that their stakeholders are not just their shareholders any more but their employees, their customers and, interestingly, their banks, finance companies and insurers, which look very carefully at sustainability and climate change criteria when they are looking at investment opportunities.

Would the Minister be open to talking to his officials about whether SECR could be changed to include the net zero target and looking at whether we could introduce a statutory instrument to achieve this? If a statutory instrument were brought forward, it would mean that companies—before COP 26—would start having to set out their net zero plans. The cost would not be high, but it would mean that Britain would be a world leader in moving forward on how companies can adapt to climate change.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, is not on the call, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Stunell.

National Security and Investment Bill

Lord Faulkner of Worcester Excerpts

Report stage
Thursday 15th April 2021 Lords Chamber

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)]

We now come to the group consisting of Amendment 9. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division should make that clear in debate.

Amendment 9

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

Amendment 10 agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)]

We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 11. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division must make that clear in debate.

Amendment 11

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)]

The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, has withdrawn from the debate, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts.

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)]

My Lords, I have put my name to Amendments 11 and 12, tabled by my noble friend Lady Noakes, which concern mandatory notifications, as she made clear. However, I am equally enthusiastic about Amendment 13, tabled by my noble friend Lord Lansley—even though I have not put my name to it—which addresses voluntary issues as well.

I will add a couple of points in support of these two approaches. As my noble friend made clear on Amendments 11 and 12, the use of the phrase “practicable” or “reasonably practicable”—it is not clear why we have one in one place and one in another—has come in for some pretty widespread criticism. As we have discussed before and heard from various legal advisers, the word “possible” would be a big improvement on “practicable”.

Mandatory notifications will be at the sharp end of the Bill and can be expected in many cases to be controversial. There will be a temptation for a Secretary of State, faced with a controversial decision, to try to delay it. It is common ground that, while we need to take appropriate steps to protect our national security interests, it is also in our national economic interest to encourage as much investment as possible in the chosen 17 sectors which will collectively have a significant impact on our economic future.

With great respect, I understand what the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, is trying to say, but the reality is that this is a balance; if we are in a competitive market around the world for investment and are unable to balance it properly, people will go elsewhere. It is as simple as that. Her idea of having an open-ended arrangement for the Secretary of State to make up his or her mind is a recipe for an outflow of investment which might otherwise come here to support this country, with its worldwide reputation in tech and other sectors.

On my noble friend Lord Lansley’s amendment on voluntary notifications, we have been around this course many times before; there will be a substantial flow and the new unit at BEIS may find it difficult to cope. In Committee, we discussed a number of amendments to try to help the Government with this and focus the new regime on the really significant cases. Amendments by various Members of your Lordships’ House, including me, proposed inter alia to exclude intra-group investments, to require only one trigger event for each group of companies and to limit notifications to assets used in connection with activities carried on in the UK—in other words, to limit the extraterritoriality of this Bill’s provisions.

The Government declined to accept any of these, arguing that they needed the widest possible strategic view to prevent evasive tactics by unwelcome purchasers. I must accept the force of that argument, but it means the Government must live with the consequences of those decisions. To provide an appropriate level of certainty for investors, we simply cannot risk a situation where, if a flood of voluntary notifications occurs, the Government could decline to start the 30-day clock.

In his concluding remarks, my noble friend may refer to Amendment 27, which the Government have tabled, about the contents of the annual report. If it is accepted by the House, as I expect it will be, it will include details of the number of days taken to give a decision, or the time taken to reach a voluntary notification. I do not want to add to the points the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, made, but I have to say to my noble friend that it is really shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted to be told, a year later, that we have not been able to hit the targets or that they are being missed widely. There is nothing wrong with that, but we are trying to create a balanced regime that hits the ground running, and to learn, a year later, that “the system is overwhelmed”, which a number of us in this Chamber feel is likely to happen, is simply not an adequate answer.

Financial Reporting Council (Miscellaneous Provisions) Order 2021

Lord Faulkner of Worcester Excerpts

Thursday 18th March 2021 Grand Committee

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)]

My Lords, there is a Division in the Chamber. The Committee will adjourn for five minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

Motion agreed.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)]

That completes the business before the Grand Committee today. I remind Members to sanitise their desks and chairs before leaving the Room.

Committee adjourned at 6.17 pm.

Retail Sector: Unemployment

Lord Faulkner of Worcester Excerpts

Wednesday 27th January 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I enjoyed debating the moratorium with my noble friend—an area in which he has considerable expertise. The moratorium that was introduced is designed to help companies that are financially distressed, and I was very grateful for his recognition of and support for it during the passage of the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill. I assure him that the rules for the monitor of the moratorium, who must of course be a licensed insolvency practitioner, will not in any way impede the monitor seeking advice from other restructuring professionals and finding an alternative source of rescue.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)]

The noble Lord, Lord Field of Birkenhead, is not available, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Goudie.

[Baroness Goudie (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, high-street retailers, their customers and their staff should not be prejudiced by unfair online competition, which is contrary to the public interest. To an extent, the supply chains of online retailers rely on the victims of human trafficking, modern slavery, appalling working conditions and exploitation through low pay. These issues are notoriously prominent among a number of the bigger names in online shopping. This is a scandal that must be stopped.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My noble friend makes a very good point. I appreciate that these will be concerning times for members of these pension schemes, but there are measures in place for these situations. We will ensure that we do everything we can to provide support for those who potentially will be impacted. The Pensions Regulator is working closely with both the company and the scheme to ensure that all prior commitments entered into are fulfilled.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)]

My Lords, all supplementary questions from Members available to ask their questions have been asked.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Lord Faulkner of Worcester Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments & Ping Pong (Hansard) & Ping Pong (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 9th December 2020 Lords Chamber

I agree. The Government have failed to explain properly why their list of exceptions is so much more restrictive than that of the EU—well, we can probably work that one out—or, indeed, the World Trade Organization, which is their current go-to standard. While the justifications are unclear, the risks are anything but. Unless the Bill is amended, some of the ability to innovate, which is so valuable, would be lost. This would be a step back for the UK, not a maintaining of the status quo. I beg to move.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)]

Does any noble Lord in the Chamber wish to speak on this amendment? If not, I call the noble Lord, Lord Fox.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, I will take the amendments in the opposite order to the Minister, if the House is happy with that.

The delegated powers issue has almost become a ritual in your Lordships’ House. A Bill is published and in it are many very draconian powers, which seek to change almost everything the Bill can do at the will of the Minister. There is then a report from the DPRRC which condemns it, and then there is a debate and we start to move towards a more reasonable situation. I hope, perhaps, that we can learn from this and maybe cut out a few of the steps, so that we can get to the reasonable situation. The Government have given considerable ground on this, and for that we should all be accepting and reasonable and, I suppose, grateful, although perhaps gratitude is the wrong word.

With respect to Clause 12, I think we will all be watching quite closely to see how those powers are exercised, because advice can come in many forms and we will be seeking to observe that.

The characterisation that these delegated powers are required in order for the Government to react and act with speed has been absolutely confounded by the way in which the Covid crisis has been addressed by the Government. There has been very rapid legislation and very rapid reaction. Looking forward, we have got to a better place than we were in when we started. I still do not think that we would call it perfect, but we have taken a long time to get there.

My reading of the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, is that it is the return of Amendment 21, or at least most of it. Listening to his very reasonable presentation of the amendment and having listened to the debates on Report, I am somewhat surprised that the Government continue to dig their heels in. I can understand that the list in subsection (2) of the proposed new clause might have raised some concerns, and it can of course be subject to negotiation, but as the list now stands—with environmental standards and protection; animal welfare; consumer standards, including digital; employment rights and protections; the health and life of humans, animals or plants; the protection of public health; or equality entitlements—it seems that the Government could not possibly object to it, so I am surprised. The Minister has set out his concerns about an ordered market, but it is very clear that any market that did not observe these things would not be one that we wanted anyway.

With that response, I suggest that we will be supporting the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, when this Motion is put to a vote. We hope that the Government will be able to have discussions with the noble Lord and others, so that next time they can come back with something much closer to what we have seen today.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)]

I now call the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, to speak to, but not at this point move, Motion L2.

[Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB) [V]]

I am grateful to the Minister for the opportunity to discuss this clause with him. I hope that there is a basis on which we can move forward to agree this. I will explain the purpose of the amendment in five short reasons. First, it has always been the position that there must be a competition regime that must apply to the whole of the UK. The issue is how we get there in a way that preserves and strengthens the union.

The position at the moment is that there is no agreed new competition policy. We will be operating, subject to anything that may be agreed with the EU, under the WTO regime, which devolved Governments are bound to apply under the existing devolution settlements. There is therefore time to set about this constructively. It is clear that, in devising a competition regime for the control of subsidies, a lot of things need to be ironed out. What is the role of the CMA to be? Is it to be an independent adjudicator or merely advisory? If so, whom does it advise? What does control over subsidies mean? These issues need to be examined carefully.

There are two ways forward. Way one—what I would call the UK Government’s way—is, first, to change the devolution settlements. This is a change to the devolution settlements because they operate on the basis that, if a power is not reserved, it is devolved—and there is no reservation in respect of this matter. It is therefore plainly devolved, and the purpose of this amendment is to change the devolution settlement. Having changed the settlement for a policy that they have not yet devised, the Government then wish simply to consult—and I am grateful for the clauses that affirm that they will at least do that—and then announce their decision. That is what I would call “way one”—the UK Government way.

But there is a better way, which is to do it by agreement but with a backstop. I think that there are good prospects of agreement. The Welsh Government offered unequivocally, in a letter sent on 24 November—the day before the Report stage of the Bill—to try to agree a common framework, but what I do not think many have appreciated the significance of is that the Scottish Government committed themselves to joining in that. I am not sure the extent to which that might have been appreciated at the highest levels of government, but if we simply reject this offer by the Scottish Government, that will, in my view, have very serious consequences.

Therefore, the amendment seeks to build on the progress that we have been able to make and to provide that an attempt should be made to agree a common framework—which is a regime that can govern the control of subsidies. However, if one is not agreed in the specified period of time—I have suggested three years—this clause would then take effect. If there is a view that that period is too long, obviously that is a matter that can be discussed.

The vital question is that the amendment, I respectfully urge, would allow for a further strengthening of the union, with an agreed way forward and the UK Government and the devolved Governments working together to achieve a regime applicable across the UK under the mechanism of consensus through a common framework. This would achieve what the Government want by consensus, not simply consultation. To reject the amendment and restore Clause 50 would be to impose unilaterally a change in the devolution settlement by reserving a power that is not reserved. This would be a gratuitous present to those who say that the union does not work.

There is an offer to work together from the Scottish and Welsh Governments. This House should not allow the Government simply to reject a consensual solution, as there is a time limit for that consensual process. In due course, I will move my Motion and seek t test the opinion of the House.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)]

My Lords, the following noble Lords have indicated that they wish to speak: the noble Baronesses, Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted and Lady Neville-Rolfe, and the noble Lord, Lord Liddle. I call the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles.

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I speak in favour of Motion L2 in the context of having been the mover of the original Amendment 50, which was rejected as involving a charge on public funds, despite my budget reference endeavours.

I broadly welcome the Government’s Amendment 50B in lieu. It picks up the final point of my Amendment 50 regarding a review. The review also specifically includes the concern underlying the first part of Amendment 50 around the location of the OIM by requiring an assessment of the advantages and disadvantages of continuing with the provision of Part 4 functions via the CMA, compared with alternatives, including possible arrangements not involving the CMA.

I also welcome the fact that the relevant national authorities are to be specified as consultees at the stage of both review and draft report, but I hope that it will also be fulsome at the finalising stage as well as the draft stage.

Both in Committee and on Report, concerns about the CMA culture and the enforcement provisions were brought forward by myself and other noble Lords. It would be good for the OIM and the CMA to know that they will be watched and that these issues will be among those which are checked when it comes to the review and the report. I thank the Minister for the various amendments and assurances about the OIM, and in particular I note and thank him for the reassurances made regarding the penalties relating to information gathering, including proportionality, consultation with the devolved Administrations, and that

“these penalty powers in Part 4 will not be commenced unless there is a clear and credible need for them”—[Official Report, 25/11/20; col. 259.]

or unless

“there is evidence that they are called for, and even then they will not be used except as a last resort,.”—[Official Report, 25/11/20; col. 270.]

There are further quotations like these.

A review clause is often seen as a weak compromise, but here it serves an important function in the context of new regulatory powers and as a vehicle for monitoring and checking the concerns raised in Parliament and the assurances given.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

My Lords, I make a brief intervention in the hope that the Government will listen to the wise words of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, and the particularly wise words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd. We are at a delicate moment in our constitutional history. The future of the United Kingdom, with Brexit, is now in doubt. This will be the great issue of the next two years: can we keep the United Kingdom together? In that context, these are detailed matters, but the UK Government should go out of their way to ensure that those who want to break up the United Kingdom are not given just cause. I think that elements of the Bill and the Government’s position on it will be used in this way.

First, in the argumentation, I recognise that the Government have tried to strengthen consultation with the devolved Administrations in the amendments that they have put forward. So well done to the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, on that—we are to be thankful for that. But the line that state aid is a reserved UK matter and the devolved Administrations have never had any power over it will not go down well in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Wales and Scotland have had their development agencies. To tell the Welsh and Scottish people that these bodies have had no rights or independence to make decisions that promote economic development in their nations is very odd. To them, it looks as though the Government are taking away powers that they presently have. That is how it looks. The noble Lord shakes his head but, honestly, it is how it looks. Therefore, I think the Government should be bending over backwards to carry the nations of our United Kingdom with them.

I cannot understand the reasoning behind rejecting the proposal that has come from both Cardiff and Edinburgh to see if we can sort out, by consensus, a regime of state aid through a common framework. I do not understand how the Government can arrogantly say that this is something that we must control ourselves. It seems that the consensus for the future of the United Kingdom is much the best way forward.

The same applies to the argument about appointments to the body that is going to administer the new regime. The devolved nations should be treated as equals in this process. They should be able to nominate their own people to this body, not just be consulted. That is on the principle of equality between the nations and not appropriating to the UK Government, who, in my part of England, northern England, are seen as a London Government. That is how people look at it; it is not seen as a United Kingdom Government. I am sure that in Edinburgh and Cardiff it is not seen as a UK Government, particularly because of the Prime Minister we have. We have to bend over backwards to bring the nation together. Here is an opportunity, and I am very sorry that the Government appear to be wasting it.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)]

Does any other noble Lord in the Chamber wish to speak? No noble Lord does, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Fox.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, as the Minister set out, this group relates to state aid, the Competition and Markets Authority and the office for the internal market. At Report, your Lordships removed a clause that changed the devolution statutes to specify that state aid powers are a matter exclusively for the UK Government. This was overturned in the Commons. Notwithstanding that, the Government have come back with the proposals set out by the Minister, which are welcome. My noble friend Lady Bowles set out where they have come from and should be congratulated for her work on this Bill.

Notwithstanding that, the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, has tabled Motion L1, which would enable the devolved Administrations to appoint people to the CMA board. The Minister has stressed that the OIM, while being within the CMA, will be independently governed. One of the reasons for not allowing previous amendments was a financial rule. This indicates clearly that the CMA will be holding the OIM’s purse strings. In that respect, culture is one thing, but budget is something completely different. We have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and from my noble friend Lady Bowles, and as I have said, we remain extremely concerned about the culture and role of the OIM. The Minister again stressed the technical expertise in the CMA, but the OIM is being asked to do something that is essentially different from the CMA. Frankly, this technical expertise, if deployed in the way the Minister hopes, is the problem we are warning the Government about. That accepted, one of the small ways of dealing with this issue is to support the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and to make sure that there is at least some board-level representation from the devolved authorities.

Motion L2, from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, would insert a new provision relating to Clause 50, on state aid. As the Minister has acknowledged, it would create a common framework process whereby state aid is managed.

The noble Lord, Lord Liddle, and others have talked about the message all this sends to the devolved authorities, at a time of great fragility and change. To set this up in this way sends a bad and dangerous message to the devolved authorities. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, set out a reasonable response—a reasonable way of involving the devolved authorities centrally in the process of delivering the structures and frameworks for, and areas of, state aid. To simply consult with the devolved authorities on draft and not go back on the final decision is a little derisory, to say the least. The Government need to understand the message they are sending—a message clearly articulated in the Senedd vote today.

We are pleased that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, is going to test the mood of the House regarding his Motion, and we will support it when he does.