Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [HL]

Lord Frost Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 8th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Frost (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, and a particular pleasure to hear the maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Winterton. She has a distinguished career in government and in the service of her party. I am sure we all look forward to hearing her future contributions to your Lordships’ House.

I read the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill with great interest when it was published earlier this summer, and with not a little surprise because it was not foreshadowed in the manifesto of the party opposite. The Minister sought to present the Bill as a technical one, to downplay concerns and to suggest that there is nothing to see here. I agree, of course, that there are technical elements in the Bill, but the technical in this area is often highly political and there is a long history, I am afraid, from those involved in managing the relationship with the EU of obfuscation and lack of clarity about the obligations that are really being undertaken, so it is right that we look under the surface of what the Bill implies.

My basic concern is that the Bill goes further than a purely technical Bill really needs to. It goes further because part of the motivation behind it is indeed to revive a process of alignment of goods with EU single market laws. That is not just my interpretation; it is said in the quite frank briefing prepared for the King’s Speech before the summer break. I will refer to that from time to time. The core of the case for the Bill is that the Government need to be able to regulate new products and continue to give status to the CE marking in the UK. I agree with that in principle, but I do not think that aim requires this Bill in this form. I want to explain why and what my concerns are.

I accept that the Government need a power to regulate in this area. Of course, the Government always have that power. I think the Minister said that the UK simply did not have the powers. With the greatest respect, that is not correct. This Parliament has the powers to do anything it wishes. Of course, it has to do it by primary legislation if there is no other route, and in some areas it will probably be better so done, especially for genuinely new products breaking genuinely new ground. But let us accept that a regulatory power is needed.

The current power to update regulations and recognise the CE marking is the retained EU law Act, which we debated with such pain about a year ago. In fact, that power has been used very recently in the Product Safety and Metrology (Amendment) Regulations 2024, which came into force just a few days ago. Therefore, my first question to the Minister is: can he explain why it is not possible simply to extend the deadlines that do expire for those powers in the retained EU law Act? Why can they simply not be extended, and we proceed as we have done in the last year or so?

I think I know the answer to that: the Government want to do more than that. Specifically, I suspect they want a new set of provisions enabling dynamic alignment with EU law. As the briefing for the King’s Speech said, it will

“enable us to make the sovereign choice to mirror or diverge from updated EU rules”—

that is, to create a power to make sure that our law can automatically follow changes in EU law. Indeed, that is what we find in Clause 2(7):

“Product regulations may provide that a product requirement is to be treated as met if … a requirement of relevant EU law specified in product regulations is met”.


In other words, this is a power to reimport EU law concepts back into our system. It allows UK product standards to be described not in UK law terms but simply by a cross-reference to EU law. When that EU law changes, so ours will change. So my second question to the Minister is: can he confirm or deny that the intention is indeed to make simple cross-references to EU law in that way? Does he agree that such cross-references amount to dynamic alignment with EU law?

Similarly, Clause 1(2) enables the Secretary of State, by regulations, to make provision

“which corresponds, or is similar, to a provision of relevant EU law for the purpose of reducing or mitigating the environmental impact of products”.

Again, it is not clear exactly why this separate provision is needed, but EU rules on traceability are certainly increasingly complex and intrusive.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

Is it the noble Lord’s case that the Government should be prevented in any case from having the same regulations as the EU?

[Lord Frost (Con)]

I will come on to that. I am trying to get clarity about the purpose of this Bill and why it needs to go further than the powers we already have.

My third question is: can the Minister explain the purpose of the separate provision in Clause 1(2) and the situation it is designed to deal with? I will table amendments to this and other clauses.

Why are any of these provisions necessary beyond simple administrative convenience? The answer is that this Bill is entirely in tune with the lack of clarity that so often surrounded the detail of our relationship with the EU. It is simply the beginning of a path on which, without voters noticing—this is my point: we need clarity—we slip back, closer to single market-like trade arrangements.

Obviously, it is already true that, if a British company wants to export to the EU, its products must comply with EU law. What these provisions would do over time is require producers covered by them to produce in the UK, for the UK, to those EU standards, and make those EU standards the only legal standards on the British market, even when they are not good standards, or are complex or costly. This set-up is a core element of the way the single market works.

Simply mirroring those EU laws does not itself improve trade with the EU. There will still be customs and regulatory paperwork in those circumstances. The only way of eliminating that is to satisfy the EU authorities that our laws are in fact the same as theirs, and I suggest that they are very unlikely to be satisfied without the usual panoply of Commission and court enforcement—subordination once again to the EU authorities. After all, what other way is there for the EU to decide whether our laws genuinely mirror its laws, or to settle any disputes arising?

My further question to the Minister is this. Can he explain how he sees these clauses working in practice? What actual trade frictions does he see being removed as a result of using them? Will he give a commitment that, in conformity with Labour’s policy not to rejoin the single market, the Government will not agree to subordination to EU law or EU-style enforcement?

The Bill also constitutes another step—and this is rather unfortunate—in using the Northern Ireland arrangements to keep this whole country in line with EU rules in certain areas, as we had always feared. Once the previous Government had given up trying to dismantle or override the Northern Ireland protocol and instead agreed to support and enshrine it as the Windsor Framework, something like this Bill became extremely probable. The previous Government were at least discreet in discouraging officials from proposing reforms to goods standards for fear of complicating the Windsor Framework arrangements. The new Government are quite open about it. Their own briefing prepared for the King’s Speech says:

“EU changes to product regulation only apply in Northern Ireland, resulting in divergence within the UK internal market as EU laws are updated. This Bill gives the Government specific powers to make changes to GB legislation to manage divergence and take a UK-wide approach”.


The aim is absolutely explicit. So as we always feared, the Windsor Framework is being used as a tool to inhibit reform and change within GB—not that I think this Government plan to do much of that anyway—and to keep this country in the tractor beam pull of EU laws and rules without having any say in them. Does the Minister agree with his own briefing?

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

Would the noble Lord, Lord Frost, not accept that the Windsor Framework was a necessary instrument to ensure that trade could flow easily on the island of Ireland and to prevent a border being recreated there that would have been an encumbrance to trade, society, the economy and business development?

[Lord Frost (Con)]

The noble Baroness is probably familiar with my view on the subject: I do not agree with that. I think that it would have been much preferable to proceed with the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill that was then proceeded with in 2022, but that is really not to the point now. We have the situation that we have, and the effect of the Windsor Framework, whatever view one takes of it, is to create a massive incentive to push for GB rules to be kept in sync with those of the EU and in Northern Ireland. That is one of the effects that I think this Bill will create.

To finish up, I have a couple of technical questions. The internal market Act has already been raised.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

Will the noble Lord give way?

[Lord Frost (Con)]

Nobody else has given way, but go on.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

The noble Lord led me to believe by the way he answered my question that he would tell us whether he took the view that the Bill should positively prevent alignment in any area. Is he willing to answer the question now?

[Lord Frost (Con)]

I have not finished my remarks yet. Under the internal market Act, goods that are legally on sale in Northern Ireland—those meeting EU standards—may be sold anywhere in the UK already. That is one of the provisions of that Act. One might wonder about the point of this panoply of rules when we already have the internal market Act. It would seem unnecessary, unless perhaps the Government are concerned that the Windsor Framework might require them to bring in elements of Northern Ireland to Great Britain’s border at some point. Again, I wonder whether the Minister could answer that question.

The Government clearly want to go down this road because, whatever they say now, they want to make eventually rejoining the single market and customs union easier. I know from reactions to what I have been saying that many noble Lords regard this direction of travel as a good thing; they doubt this country’s ability to prosper as an independent country with its own rules and laws. I am afraid there is nothing to be done about those who have that opinion. To others who want this country to be a global trader, but without necessarily having our own rules for every single area, I say there is an alternative. It is one more consistent with our global aspirations and membership of the CPTPP, which the Government want to support.

The alternative is to make this country open to the best standards globally—that is my answer to the question that has been raised a couple of times—and to recognise that any goods produced in high-standard, well-regulated economies, such as the US, Canada, Australia, Japan and the EU, would be safe to put on our market. I accept not just the CE standard but similar conformity and standards from other developed economies, and where necessary we can develop our own. This is not just a fantasy; it is what the MHRA is already doing with its new international recognition procedure for medical products. Can the Minister explain why it is not possible to proceed in this way instead?

My speech has been quite long and I will wind up now, but there are important points about the purpose of this Bill that will shape the statutory instruments that will come before us at some point that need to be properly understood. We will put forward amendments in Committee to test the thinking behind some of these provisions and their purpose, and to perhaps reshape some of the more unsatisfactory elements of this Bill. To conclude, I have deep concern about the direction of travel and the direction in which this will take our regulatory framework. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s answers to my questions.

Conversion Therapy Prohibition (Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity) Bill [HL]

Lord Frost Excerpts

Friday 9th February 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Frost (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to speak at the end of such a fascinating, interesting and important debate. I imagine we have all heard things—personal experiences, reflections, arguments—that have made us think harder about our own assumptions in this complex area. I certainly have, but I am afraid nothing has shaken my basic view that this is a bad, poorly written Bill, which, if it ever became law, would have a number of rather damaging consequences.

I have certainly not been persuaded by anything I have heard that there is a genuine problem with violent or coercive conversion therapy in this country. These things are, after all, already illegal. What worries me is that the effect of the Bill would be—as we have heard from many noble Lords—to criminalise a much broader range of actions and interactions. The consequence of that—and maybe this is one of the underlying purposes of the Bill—would be to reinforce a tendency towards control and conformity that is already very evident in our society. That is what worries me. The Bill does it in three particular ways.

First, it begins the process of giving legislative force to the controversial view that simply hearing opinions that you do not agree with can in itself cause harm and should therefore be made illegal. This is a damaging proposition anywhere, but it is particularly harmful in this area, where individuals differ and where, as we have heard, there is far from societal or expert consensus—thus, free debate and discussion is vital if we are going to find the right solutions.

Free society works on the opposite principle to that. It works on the principle that everyone has the right to reach their own judgments and opinions, and equally, that every adult has the right to ignore such judgment and opinions and do what they want within the law. Once we question that principle, as the Bill begins to do, we are changing the nature of society. We are asking the state to be our parent, to protect us from uncomfortable concepts and challenging ideas. The only way the state can do that, effectively, is to define which opinions are acceptable and which are not.

That leads to the second problem: that the Bill is another step towards creating in practice a state ideology of approved and unapproved ideas. After all, without such an ideology, how do you know which opinions can be safely expressed and which cannot? In fact, we have already gone some way down that road. It is not possible to hold certain jobs in the public sector without signing up to—or at least not publicly dissenting from—a set of controversial beliefs about diversity and inclusion. The Bill would take it further into wider society. It would make it illegal for religious leaders with their flock, parents with their children, psychologists or psychiatrists with their patients, to express some of their profound disbeliefs, or even to broach certain ideas. Indeed, in some cases, such people would seemingly be required by the Bill to actively say things they do not believe in order to avoid prosecution.

That is obviously a problem in itself, but it is also a problem because in modern conditions, such a state ideology will inevitably be aggressively secular—not just neutral, as between different belief systems, which is what many of us think of as secular, but rather one that requires conformity to a particular set of propositions. This is the third way the Bill shapes society more broadly. These are not propositions shaped by traditional values, beliefs or an established philosophical code, but propositions defined by opposition to those things, in which there is no room for such beliefs. That is what the Bill represents, and it is why it is another step towards pushing religious beliefs out of mainstream debate. If it is not slowed, before long we will find that religious beliefs may be held in private, may occasionally be referred to in public—like a dark and shameful secret—but may never be actively brought into the public or professional square. When we reach that point, which is perhaps not far off, if you believe God created men and women in male and female bodies, you had better keep it to yourself, because the state may think differently.

To conclude, I am sure some noble Lords will listen to my remarks and think I am simply exaggerating. They may be saying to themselves, “How do you get from a Bill that purports to be about treating everybody decently and fairly to this nightmare vision of state-controlled speech?” In answer to that, it is precisely in these liminal, border areas, these marginal cases, that new directions get set. Of course, every human being needs to be treated decently and fairly, because everybody has intrinsic value. However, the catch comes when we go on to identify that fair and decent treatment as necessitating that no one should ever hear anything challenging to the beliefs they hold, even if they have chosen to hear that. We cannot ensure that in a free society, and trying to do it takes us down a very difficult road. The only thing we can reliably ensure is the right to disagree, to stop listening and to walk away. However, we have that right already. Do not let us start taking it away. Let us reject this Bill.

Gaza: Humanitarian Situation

Lord Frost Excerpts

Thursday 8th February 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Frost (Con)]

My Lords, I will make one simple suggestion—that everyone should read the excellent article by Stephen Daisley in the Spectator yesterday, in which he wrote:

“Time and again, Israel was urged to make concessions … In each case, the promise from foreign capitals was the same: do this and, if the Palestinians exploit these concessions to attack you, we will back your right to self-defence. Well, Israel made the concessions, the Palestinians exploited them, and, with some honourable exceptions, the international community went wobbly whenever Israel mounted a military operation”.


That is why Israelis feel as they do now.

After 7 October, Israel has an absolute right to act to remove the threat of terrorism from its borders and topple Hamas. In doing so, it goes out of its way to prevent civilian casualties and takes precautions that no other military in the world takes. Can my noble friend the Minister confirm that this country will continue to support Israel in finishing that job?

Industrial Strategy

Lord Frost Excerpts

Thursday 1st February 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Frost (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate my former Downing Street colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Rosenfield, on an excellent maiden speech. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Watson, for securing this debate today.

Perhaps not for the first time, I am a bit out of sync with the thrust of the debate in the Chamber so far. I am a little sceptical of industrial strategy. The case for it is that decision-making by Governments and officials produces a pattern of economic activity of industries that would be better than that which would otherwise develop in the market. Perhaps even less plausibly, it is that the industries that we must support for strategic reasons are also, by total coincidence, those that are better for growth too, even though we still cannot rely on the market to provide them. My simple question to all this is: says who? How do you know? Where does the Government get the information they need to shape the economy through tax, subsidy and—apparently soon—tariffs in the form of CBAMs?

Proponents of industrial strategy say that they know better than the market, but you cannot just say that; it has to be proved. That is literally impossible. The only reliable source of economic information in a market economy is prices, yet the proponents of industrial strategy say that market prices are wrong because the allocation of resources that the prices create is inferior to the one that their industrial policy would create. They cannot then use market prices of the future to justify the claim that their new industrial structure is better than the unknown alternative. You cannot have it both ways.

The second problem with industrial strategy is regulatory capture. We all know about that: it is the tendency for economic decision-making to be captured by Governments, who find it hard to admit failure, or firms that benefit from incumbent positions.

The final problem with industrial strategy is epistemological. Nobody knows the future. No one knows that “the industries of the future” actually are the industries of the future. Of course, if you spend enough money on them, they become the industries of the future—at least, if any competition can be squeezed out—but that does not mean that they were the best use of our resources. It is especially unlikely that they were if the outcomes are shaped by Governments spending other people’s money, rather than firms and entrepreneurs risking their own.

Of course, it is possible to make a case for industrial strategy on different grounds, such as by saying that we need, for example, a windmill industry for climate change reasons or a steel industry for national security reasons, and that although doing that is not the best use of resources and will harm growth, we must do it anyway. It would still fall foul of the inability to know the future, but at least we would be honest in debate.

To conclude, I commend the Government for their at least partial reluctance to go down the money-wasting road of industrial strategy. My policy proposal to the Minister is to end all the subsidies, use a bit of the money to buy for every Minister and official a copy of Hayek’s essay The Use of Knowledge in Society, and then sit back and let the market work.

Elgin Marbles

Lord Frost Excerpts

Thursday 14th December 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Frost (Con)]

My Lords, I join others in thanking my noble friend Lord Lexden for securing this debate. It is right that we should debate this subject because it cannot be left just to museums. There is obviously room to debate the legal case. I think Lord Elgin’s actions were possibly a little murky; nevertheless, our legal case is good. I also think that is not the point. The point is what we do now, rather than what happened in the past.

Personally, I have never been so convinced by the moral, artistic and cultural arguments for the position we take. The Parthenon marbles are a special situation and we should try to find a special solution. They are one of the supreme expressions of ancient Greek, hence western, art. They were created for a specific building and a specific cultural context. In contrast to much ancient sculpture, we know exactly what that context was and what the work of art was intended to signify. These are not just random museum exhibits and, for as long as they are not seen as a whole, they are less than the sum of their parts.

I was lucky enough to learn Greek in Greece, when the Foreign Office still invested in such things, and I have lived in Cyprus. I have no doubt been influenced by that experience, but it has also enabled me to see the argument from the Greek perspective. For us, the marbles are just one exhibit—albeit a very important one—in our national museums, but for Greece they are part of the national identity and a national cultural cause. As we saw from what was, I am afraid, the slightly dismissive treatment of Prime Minister Mitsotakis the other week, they have the capacity to disrupt a relationship that really ought to be a lot better than it is.

We should try to find a solution, but I also wonder whether a loan is the right way forward. I admit that I am slightly unconvinced by it. It seems like a solution that has been shaped by the existence of the 1963 Act, which rightly prohibits the museum from alienating its collections. I am afraid that is a very necessary protection nowadays against the tendencies of too many museum curators. The problem with a loan is that it keeps the issue and the arguments alive when we should try to settle this for good.

My personal view is that it is a time for a grand gesture, and only the Government can make it. It is to offer to return the marbles as a one-off gift to Greece from this country, but as part of and on condition of a new, wider Anglo-Greek cultural partnership. That partnership could have three elements, but many others. First, a museum partnership, high-quality reproductions of the marbles in London plus an agreement by Greece to loan some of its most famous works of art, temporarily, in return—perhaps beyond London as well. Secondly, a wider cultural partnership, perhaps a bilateral foundation, largely financed by the, I am sure, many wealthy private individuals with an interest in this question, to try to take academic and scholarly collaboration to a new level, and an agreement to relax or eliminate restrictions—because the barriers are much stronger on the Greek side than ours—on language teaching, cultural work, artistic performance by each other’s citizens and so on. Thirdly, and finally, a joint campaign to return to Greece those parts of the marbles that are in other museums globally, for it should not be forgotten that, although the British Museum has most of those that are not in Athens, it does not have them all.

Such a partnership would have to definitively set aside for good the rights and wrongs of the original acquisition. It would also have to be clear that it was not a precedent for restitution demands for any other museum exhibit. But it would show that we actually mean it when we see the marbles as part of our common inheritance, and that we can move beyond the “What we have, we hold” approach we take on so many occasions. Perhaps we could rise to the occasion this time and make a deal.

Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland: Follow-up Report (European Affairs Committee)

Lord Frost Excerpts

Monday 11th September 2023 Grand Committee

[Lord Frost (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Jay, and his sub-committee for this excellent and important report. It rightly highlights many of the uncertainties around the Windsor Framework and the lack of clarity about its operation. I too look forward to digesting the Government’s response when I have time.

I understand why the Prime Minister wanted to put an end to the tensions of recent years over Northern Ireland, but I am sorry to say that I regret the way in which it has been done. The Windsor Framework is said to be proof that good faith and a softer approach can pay dividends with the EU; I am afraid that I disagree. For me, it is proof that you never get a good result in a negotiation if the other side can tell that you just want a deal. As a result, I fear that its benefits have been oversold and the temporary reduction in friction over Northern Ireland has been bought only by conceding many of the points at issue. I will briefly explain why and highlight four problems.

First, I do not honestly think the Government have been totally clear about the nature of this agreement. The name may have changed, but we are still dealing with, essentially, the old protocol. The EU is still the goods and customs regulatory authority in Northern Ireland; its provisions are implemented by EU laws, not ours. In my view, the Stormont brake is a trivial and probably unusable add-on to something that was already in the protocol. The committee said and the noble Lord, Lord Jay, noted:

“There has been no substantive change to the role of the CJEU”.


It is not a new solution. Fundamentally, it is the old one and can be expected to generate the same problems.

Secondly, the workability of the framework’s limited new elements looks increasingly questionable. I wrote in February that the red and green lanes and the more relaxed rules on food standards and so on would probably improve the situation. I am no longer quite so sure. We are seeing operators setting out the practical difficulties with the green lane; on food standards, we seem to have agreed that people in Northern Ireland can consume GB-standard foods only if they are imported—they are not allowed to make them themselves. The Government claimed six months ago that there would be “no sense” of an Irish Sea border. We cannot really say that that is the case at the moment.

The third difficulty, which is crucial, is that the Government’s stance has changed. They have now committed to defending and supporting the framework. This is fundamental. The Johnson Government, of which I was part, always took the view—many criticised us for taking it—that the protocol was unsatisfactory and temporary. We always hoped that, ultimately, divergence by GB would produce the collapse of the protocol arrangements, whether consensually through a vote, a further negotiation or otherwise. We always wanted something better. Now, though, the Government are committed to the view that the Windsor Framework is better and should be defended. The consequence is that, as problems emerge—as they will—the Government must ally themselves with the EU, defend these new arrangements and impose them on a deeply divided Northern Ireland. They must actively support rules that destroy long-standing trade arrangements in this country and impose laws without consent in Northern Ireland. When problems emerge, as they do, for example over horticultural trade in Northern Ireland, they deny that they exist. I am afraid the Government will not find that comfortable. I fear the long-term consequences.

The final difficulty is that the Government’s commitment to the framework will shape their broader policy. That is why I cannot entirely share the view of those on my side of the argument who say, “Yes it’s imperfect, but it’s time to move on”. The framework creates a huge incentive to avoid diverging from the EU in relevant areas, because doing so will make its arrangements less and less workable, more vulnerable to EU interdiction and harder to defend as a success. Perhaps we have already seen the first consequences in the watered-down retained EU law Act.

The Windsor Framework exists. It seems that we will have to live with it for some years yet, but it is a sticking plaster and not a real solution to the underlying problems. If the Government had said something such as, “This deal softens the protocol but it does not remove it; it is the best we can get for now because we did not want to use the NI Protocol Bill and the EU knew it, but that cannot be the end of the story”, that would have been a fair statement of their position and much easier for people on my side of the argument to get behind. As it is, we are supposed to believe that the problems have been solved, but they have not. It leaves us where we started, with the British Government only partly sovereign over their territory. That is still a bitter pill to swallow, and in the long run I do not see how it can stand.

Climate Change

Lord Frost Excerpts

Monday 24th July 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Frost (Con)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as an unpaid trustee of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, an educational charity in this area.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, for securing this debate. We have all too little debate on climate change and it is all the more important we have it now, since critics of any aspect of this policy find it increasingly difficult to get a hearing in the media. Here in this House, at least, we cannot be censored—though it seems that we run some risk of losing our bank accounts if we dare to speak up.

It is crucial, as we debate this, that we do so in a measured and rational fashion. I welcome the fact that the Prime Minister’s comments today suggest that that might be beginning to happen in government. We must put aside the current mood of hysteria and try to assess the choices logically.

When people like me argue about the costs of mitigating climate change, we are often told: “There is no choice. Not acting costs even more”. I question that. Of course temperatures are increasing, slowly, and that will have consequences, but there is another choice, and that is what we are debating today—adaptation.

Let us look at the relative costs and benefits of the two routes. Let us look at the macro level first. The Skidmore net-zero review earlier this year asserted that the costs of mitigation would be 1% to 2% of GDP per year—that is £25 billion to £50 billion sterling—though other studies say it will be quite a lot more than that. Moreover, unless everyone else in the world is willing to bear the same costs, our spending that much will have precisely zero effect on the global climate.

In contrast, look at adaptation. It is not easy to find hard figures about the costs of adaptation but, if we look at the 2021 technical report on this, prepared for the Climate Change Committee in 2021, we see that it shows the cost of adaptation as only £8 billion a year by 2050 and £13 billion to £20 billion, non-discounted, as far out as 2080—and by then, I hope, that will be a very small proportion of our GDP. The orders of magnitude of those figures surely suggest that adaptation might actually be a more productive route than mitigation. I therefore agree with the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, that more will need to be spent on things such as flood protection and reservoirs.

Let us look at one example at the micro level, also mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs: the calls for Britain to adapt to the health consequences of rising temperatures. We should dig in deeper and ask: what are the consequences of hotter, drier summers and warmer, wetter winters? At the moment, seven times as many people die from cold as from heat in Britain. Rising temperatures are likely to be beneficial. No less than the Government Actuary’s Department wrote in April this year that

“it is the low winter temperatures that have a greater effect on the number of deaths … since the start of the millennium … A decline in deaths from cold temperature periods has more than offset any increase in the number of deaths associated with warmer temperature over the same period”.

I am not sceptical about adaptation; I am sceptical about mitigation. I suggest that the rational thing to do is move away from the current high-cost mitigation efforts, which involve massive investment in unproductive renewables, huge changes in lifestyles and the crushing of economic growth, and pursue mitigation in a different way. We should invest in effective energy production—such as nuclear, gas and other technologies as they emerge. Meanwhile, we should spend the manageable sums that we need to on adaptation so we can adjust to the perfectly manageable consequences of slowly rising temperatures as they emerge.

Parliamentary Democracy in the United Kingdom

Lord Frost Excerpts

Tuesday 25th April 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Frost (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for giving us an opportunity to speak on this important subject, even if I do not, I am afraid, recognise her bleak and at times rather fantastic and comic picture of what is going on in this country at the moment. I also look forward to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lichfield’s maiden speech.

In the short time I have, I want to take a step back. As a concept, modern parliamentary democracy is linked to the concept of the nation state. They rose together. We saw the growth of democracies in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, then again after 1990 as peoples found their independence and wanted to give it institutional form. So, although plenty of nation states are not democracies, there are, I think, no democracies that are not also nation states. That is not surprising. The nation state allows for the creation of a common demos, common loyalties and the readiness to settle political differences within an agreed set of rules.

It follows from this that, when the nation state weakens, confidence in democracy weakens. That is just what we saw in this country over the past nearly 50 years during our membership of the EU. Then, we were in practice only a limited democracy. Fewer and fewer issues could be settled in national elections. Policies on trade, agriculture, fisheries, the environment, employment, social issues, migration and citizens’ rights could be changed only by agreement in Brussels, whatever our national electorate said.

It is no wonder that people switched off and stopped believing that voting could change everything. Luckily, we have now escaped that, or at least, 95% of us have escaped that, since the Windsor Framework unfortunately preserves some of these weaknesses—I hope not for too long. Overall, we have brought politics back home. We have revived political life. We can debate and change everything again in this country. Of course, many people clearly are uncomfortable with that, and it sounds like the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, may be one of them. They call it populism when a democracy reflects citizens’ actual views but for me, it is a strength. Our democracy is healing. Politics is coming back to life.

Net-zero Emissions: Behaviour Change

Lord Frost Excerpts

Thursday 20th October 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Frost (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the right reverend Prelate, the Government and the Minister for proposing and enabling this debate today. It is an extremely important subject. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, for her committee’s report on this subject, as has been mentioned.

We all agree, I think, that decarbonisation is a very desirable goal, but that aspiration is different from the specific net-zero 2050 policy. That target was essentially invented by the Climate Change Committee in 2019, passed through secondary legislation in this Parliament with limited debate and, since then, has been creating radical change to the economic structure of this country. My own party is just as much to blame for this situation—possibly even more so—as the parties of noble Lords opposite.

To be fair to the Climate Change Committee, it correctly stated in 2019 that there would need to be policy change to deliver this goal. It specifically mentioned decarbonisation of industry, the grid, insulation, renewables, boilers, carbon capture and storage, and so on. Now, however, we find, first, that all these technical measures are extremely expensive to install; secondly, they make energy and normal life very expensive for people; and, thirdly, they are increasing the unreliability of the energy sector, worsened by the destruction of energy supply that is actually reliable and by the addition of too many renewables that destabilise the grid.

We see a situation where the technology does not deliver the goal or aspiration by 2050 and behavioural change is beginning to fill that gap, which I find somewhat troubling. I will make three remarks. First, “behavioural change” is a nice phrase, but let us look at what it actually means: it means making it harder for people to do things that they would otherwise choose to do. One of the Government’s slogans is:

“Make the green choice affordable”.


Another way of putting that is: subsidise substandard and ineffective technologies, chosen politically by government, which people would not choose to use otherwise. Behavioural change, then, reduces human welfare, making people do things that they do not want to do, rather than things they do.

Secondly, if we take the phrase at face value, behavioural change should be voluntary. It means encouraging or nudging, but it often feels as though that is not what is being described. In 2021, the Climate Change Committee said:

“Behaviour change … comes through consumer adoption of low-carbon technologies such as electric cars”.


You do not get any choice about that: from 2030, you have to buy an electric car. That is not nudging but compulsion. The same is true for heat pumps from 2025 and closing roads for cyclists—it is all compulsion.

The same is true of the aspiration to learn from the pandemic set out in the committee’s report, from which I note my noble friend Lord Lilley wisely dissented. Yes, behavioural change was encouraged during the pandemic, but the key aims were achieved by legal compulsion: making it illegal to leave your home and meet people, and fining you if you did so. That is not nudging but simple compulsion, and if people mean legal compulsion, they should say it.

Finally, we are already in a society where far too much is governed by politics, which is too much in every sphere of everyday life. I worry that behavioural change and climate measures are shrinking the private space of individuals. They turn every decision—every time you go to the supermarket or travel—into a political act, which is a bad thing for society. Free societies should have large spaces where there is free choice.

I conclude by urging the Government on this. They have done quite enough encouragement of behavioural change as it is; there is no need for more. The right way to the decarbonisation goal is on the supply side. Provide the energy that people need but do not tell them not to use it. The right way forward is from natural gas to nuclear, with renewables at the margin, and investment in new technology—batteries and hydrogen—so that we have the low-carbon power that a modern industrial society needs. That is the way forward.

Economy: The Growth Plan 2022

Lord Frost Excerpts

Monday 10th October 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Frost (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to take part in this debate and to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, who is a voice of clarity and forthright speaking in this Chamber. I congratulate my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe on her appointment once again to the Front Bench, in the Cabinet Office.

This country faces serious underlying problems, which my noble friend Lord Bridges and others have set out, and in my view this Government are beginning to tackle them. This will create turbulence but there is really no choice.

My noble friend Lord Lilley referred to the achievements of the Thatcher Government in the 1980s. One of her close advisers, John Hoskyns, said:

“It is not enough to settle for policies which cannot save us, on the grounds that they are the only ones which are politically possible or administratively convenient.”


Unfortunately, too many of those who have opposed the Government’s growth plan seem to want to do just that, thinking that the right way forward is just more of the same: more super-zero interest rates, more public spending and more clever policies, and the whole thing run by clever officials and institutions who are very invested in how things are now. The task before us is different. It is to make politically possible what is necessary for the country to begin to recover, and I believe that this is what the Government are setting out in the growth plan. I welcome that. I have spent a lot of the last year, within and outside government, urging the Government to get more serious about low taxes, reform and change. I am very happy that they have begun to do so.

The situation that we face as a country is difficult but it is not as bad as that which many others face. It is not as bad as for those trapped in the eurozone, who have no control over monetary policy or much else of the normal role of a Government. The report a week or so ago from Deutsche Bank researchers attracted a lot of attention in the hysteria of the last couple of weeks, pointing out that our economy might shrink slightly, by 0.5% in 2023. What attracted less attention was it saying that Germany’s economy would shrink by 3% or 4%. We must keep these things in proportion.

We have had a productivity and growth problem since 2008—which I note in passing is the period of the deepest integration of this country in the single market and of the highest inward migration. Re-joining the single market and reversing those trends will not help our growth performance at all; it did not help then and it will not help now.

The right way forward is set out in the growth plan: the gradual normalisation of monetary policy, which is essential if we are to solve the productivity problem. Zero interest rates harm the motor of a free market economy. The only way forward is medium-term fiscal discipline while letting fiscal policy take the strain in the short run, and supply side structural reform.

When the economy does not grow, you get competition for static resources, which is why we have what my right honourable friend the Prime Minister called the anti-growth coalition. The fact that so many people do not like the term shows that it has captured something real about attitudes. These people’s vision of the country seems to be to keep everything as it is. They do not want change. They are happy to see our country as a shabby-genteel aristocratic family, trying to keep up appearances but not ready to go out to work.

This will not be easy. Politicians must explain what needs to be done. However, I take inspiration again from the words of Margaret Thatcher, who said:

“First you win the argument, then you win the election.”


If the Government stick to their guns, I am confident that they will do both those things.