Gas Boilers and Heaters: Replacement Programme

Lord Oates Excerpts

Tuesday 12th January 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

We are committed to keeping the winter fuel payment to ensure that older people have the security and dignity they deserve, but we do have boiler grants, as my noble friend referred to them, through the green homes grant that are specifically designed and targeted at poorer members of society.

[Lord Oates (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register. We need to ensure that green hydrogen is the predominant form of hydrogen used in the gas grid and elsewhere. To that end, what consideration have the Government given to using contracts for difference to drive down costs and encourage innovation in the production of green hydrogen, as we did so successfully for offshore wind during the coalition Government?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I understand that the noble Lord is very keen on green hydrogen and I agree with him on these points, but we are committed to consult on the preferred hydrogen business model in quarter 2 of 2021 to finalise a decision next year. Alongside this we will bring forward further details in 2021 on the revenue mechanisms that will be available to support these proposed business models.

Agreement on Climate Change, Trade and Sustainability

Lord Oates Excerpts

Monday 11th January 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)]

My Lords, we have already abolished tariffs on, I think, 100 new environmental goods and services. We keep this subject under close review and consult the relevant bodies on it. Where we can do further liberalisation, we would like to do so, of course.

[Lord Oates (LD)]

Can the Minister tell the House what measures the Government intend to take to ensure that the fundamental rights and values of nature that lie at the heart of the Terra Carta, or earth charter—Prince Charles’s excellent initiative, launched today—are reflected in the UK’s approach to future trade agreements?

[Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)]

My Lords, when I heard reports of this initiative this morning, I thought it was timely, happening as it is on the day of this Question. I very welcome it and we look forward to building on it.

Green Homes Grant Scheme

Lord Oates Excerpts

Wednesday 6th January 2021 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Oates]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the effectiveness of the Green Homes Grant scheme.

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

The green homes grant voucher scheme opened for applications in September 2020 and so far has received over 58,000 applications. There will be an independent evaluation of the processes and effectiveness of the voucher scheme, including a comprehensive analysis of scheme outcomes and evidence collected from scheme applicants and other stakeholders. This will begin this month and will run until 2023.

[Lord Oates (LD) [V]]

My Lords, given that the figures the Minister has given us show that the scheme has achieved less than 10% of its original target, does he recognise that no programme to upgrade the 28 million homes that require it will be successful if it is designed as a short-term stimulus measure, as this scheme was? Rather than downgrading quality requirements, will the Government therefore commit to a long-term sustained scheme over five or 10 years, which would incentivise the building industry to develop the skills base and create the jobs required to deliver such a major programme?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

We are not downgrading the quality requirements, but the noble Lord makes a good point. We have had a number of these schemes over the years and we will look at what we can do in the future as well.

Energy White Paper

Lord Oates Excerpts

Wednesday 16th December 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Grantchester (Lab)]

My Lords, for those watching on catch-up TV, this is the Government’s White Paper introduced in the Commons on Monday. I start by congratulating the Minister on bringing forward this energy White Paper in 2020. His department has indeed done well, after all this time, to fulfil frustrated expectations, and we recognise its importance.

As Emma Pinchbeck of Energy UK says:

“Today’s White Paper is a hugely significant step in the transformation of our energy system”.


The White Paper sets out a historic suite of rhetoric, hyperbole and slogans, but it does have many of the good intentions needed to take on the climate challenge and look to the horizon of energy objectives by building positive, realistic steps, being bold and aggressive, and providing platforms for future development to fill the gaps in our abilities at the moment. But it needs to deliver good solutions in a fair and honest way, sensitive to the needs of everyone across all our communities. In this regard, is the Minister satisfied that the White Paper pays enough regard to the rural aspects of energy and is sufficiently rural-proofed where infrastructure and access to power are limited?

We can be pleased with much that is included here as a necessary first next step. It fills some of the holes in the scattergun 10-point environment plan, and points towards the many more strategies needed in 2020 but which can now come forward only in 2021.

We welcome the support needed to help vulnerable and fuel-poor households over the next six years and the plans for a simpler method of switching energy suppliers through smarter applications. The biggest challenge is to get the buy-in and behavioural change needed so that people do not feel disadvantaged and neglected. When will the Government publish their fuel poverty strategy?

The key elements of the future energy mix set out here are that of at least 30% wind and a doubling of nuclear, with further investments in new technology developments and decarbonisation. Much will depend on the integration of technologies—for example, carbon capture and storage alongside hydrogen power development—but the £1 billion promise of a cluster of carbon capture and storage solutions merely replaces the error-strewn cutbacks of previous Conservative Governments. It is good that the Government learn from their mistakes, even if they may learn slowly.

Much comment has been generated by announcements concerning the nuclear sector. The announcements last week, followed by the White Paper details, will go a long way towards helping relations with the French in the Government’s present negotiations, especially concerning EDF and Sizewell C in Suffolk. This will secure a dependable baseload of energy for London and the south-east. However, the Government have yet to state their preferred funding model, with further delays before progress can be made. With the lack of appetite to pay for another nuclear plant, is the Minister concerned that the pace of change needed points rather more to the development of small modular reactors through the demonstrator advanced modular reactor—AMR—to unlock the potential £300 million private sector match funding? SMRs have the advantage of being factory reproduced, being positioned adjacent to cities of 400,000 to 500,000 and leading to many more UK-based jobs. The agility of rolling out seven of them would match one Sizewell C, with far less disruption to coastal communities. They would also be far less vulnerable to attack or cyberintervention.

The energy White Paper is clearly deficient in the creation of jobs and the retraining and reskilling that would be required. The widespread view is that the £160 million investment in ports is merely a drop in the ocean compared with the scale of the need. Has the Minister’s department a proper plan to develop the new skills required for those in fossil fuel industries? Will the department work with trade unions and colleges to develop this plan with the Department for Education?

This integration and companion development of technologies also points to a far more ambitious plan for wind, CCS and hydrogen to work alongside each other. The ambition must be to meet the challenges of heating the nation’s homes and buildings with hydrogen gas. Years ago, the Government abandoned the zero-carbon home standard due in 2016 and still there is no date or plan for new homes to be zero-carbon. Today, 80% of the buildings that will still be standing in 2050 have already been built. Yet the Government have still to come forward with comprehensive retrofit plans for insulation and heat conversions. Does the Minister commit to working with local authorities to develop a comprehensive street-by-street plan to be published next year?

It is disappointing that the White Paper continues to ignore tidal power, after the very useful Hendry review, and the jobs it would create. The White Paper continues also to underplay the clear need for energy storage development, long regarded as a solution for intermittent renewable generation. Yet again, it continues to ignore the call for the inclusion of international aviation and shipping in the targets, as recommended by the Committee on Climate Change.

With a clear need for a zero-carbon power sector by 2035, and for carbon pricing, there is still a lack of clarity to the plans needing to be implemented in merely a few weeks’ time in the new UK emissions trading scheme, due to start in January.

The Government need to recognise the need for a series of right decisions to be taken more quickly. Monday’s Question on the advice of the Committee on Climate Change highlighted how, already, the Government’s nationally determined contribution is out of date. With the delays in publication, this White Paper should now meet the fourth and fifth carbon budgets, but the pace of change needed is accelerating. The remorseless warming of the climate continued into 2020—this year—regardless of the world economy suffering the shock and falls in economic activity following the pandemic. Regrettably, the White Paper is nowhere near the requirement set by the Climate on Climate Change to meet the sixth carbon budget. I finish by asking again: what plans do the Government have to fill in the gap between this White Paper and the sixth carbon budget? Those plans will be needed for COP 26.

[Lord Oates (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I welcome the ambition and vision set out in the White Paper; however, as the Minister will be aware, ambition and vision are necessary but not sufficient conditions for success. What we need now is attention to detail and practical, credible implementation plans. Sadly, the White Paper lacks them.

First, while it rightly emphasises the need to secure a fair deal for consumers, the White Paper fails to set out credible means of doing so. Can the Minister tell us why the paper envisages the cost of decarbonising our energy system continuing to be piled on to electricity bills? It should be borne fairly across the economy, because placing the transition costs on bills is both highly regressive and counterproductive if we want, as the paper rightly suggests, to shift from gas use to electricity. Will the Government correct this omission and act to reduce electricity bills by shifting this burden?

Secondly, the White Paper places an emphasis on expanding offshore wind generation. I welcome that, but there is no reference in the Statement to onshore wind generation, one of the cheapest forms of generation available, and it is referred to only fleetingly in the paper. Can the Minister explain this?

Thirdly, nuclear continues as a government obsession, even though it is now ruinously expensive compared with non-carbon sources of energy. The physical engineering requirements for nuclear have always been extremely challenging, but the financial engineering required is now impossible. And yet we continue, despite the fact that, over 60 years since the UK’s civil nuclear programme began, we still have no means of safe, long-term storage of high-level nuclear waste—waste that is deadly for longer than any human civilisation has ever survived. How can the Minister justify such an economically and morally illiterate policy?

Fourthly, the White Paper envisages 5 gigawatts of hydrogen capacity by 2030. Can the Minister clarify whether this is green or blue hydrogen CCUS and tell us who will assume long-term liability for CO₂ storage under the Government’s plans for carbon capture and storage? Does not this liability issue further underline why our focus should be on green hydrogen? Does the Minister recognise that we need to invest heavily now in contracts for difference to further drive down the rapidly reducing costs of green hydrogen in the way that was done previously on wind generation?

Fifthly, the Government have relied in their Statement on the ability of home energy efficiency upgrades to reduce domestic energy bills. The Liberal Democrats agree that energy efficiency measures are critical to tackling emissions and reducing bills, but this is another area where government action falls short of its rhetoric. The Government told us that the Green Homes Grant would deliver 600,000 home energy efficiency upgrades by the original end date in March next year. It is likely to be a fraction of that. Can the Minister tell us the actual numbers that will be delivered by that date?

My noble friend Lord Stunell, a former DCLG Minister with huge experience in this area, could have told the Government that this would be the case. In fact, he did tell the Government—repeatedly. Does the Minister not recognise that there is no hope of upgrading the 28 million homes that need it unless we have a long-term investment programme that provides industry with the confidence to invest in the recruitment and skills training required?

Finally, will he agree to consult my noble friends Lord Stunell and Lord Foster of Bath, who, as former Ministers, both have extensive experience in this area and could help the Government prevent mistakes like this reoccurring in the future?

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

I thank the noble Lords, Lord Grantchester and Lord Oates, for their comments, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, who was fairly positive in pointing out some of what he agreed with. He said that the Statement was largely positive, with some good solutions, and that he was pleased with much of it—although he did have some critical questions, which I will come to. The noble Lord, Lord Oates, was slightly less positive, and had some questions which I will attempt to address as well.

Both noble Lords raised the issue of poorer households, and they were right to do so. We have set out measures that will help households manage their energy consumption and keep bills fair and affordable, providing financial support for the most vulnerable and low-income households of at least £6.7 billion over the next six years. That includes the Green Homes Grant that the noble Lord, Lord Oates, referred to, which could see lower-income households save up to £600 a year on their energy bills, and the warm home discount scheme through to 2026 to cover 750,000 extra households. I understand the ambition that the noble Lord, Lord Oates, wishes us to meet, and I think we are making a good start, even if we do not perhaps match exactly what he would like to see.

Both noble Lords raised the subject of low-carbon electricity, which is vital. We are committed to fully decarbonised electricity generation by 2050. The current trajectory should see us largely decarbonised in the late 2030s. They both also referred to offshore wind power, and we have a manifesto commitment of 40 gigawatts of offshore wind, including 1 gigawatt of floating wind, by 2030, which will support up to 60,000 jobs.

Both noble Lords raised the important subject of hydrogen. We are aiming for 5 gigawatts of hydrogen capacity by 2030, which will unlock £4 billion in investment and support for up to 8,000 jobs. That is why we are supporting the deployment of power with CCUS by 2030, as the noble Lord, Lord Oates, referred to.

Nuclear power was raised. We believe that nuclear power continues to be an important source of clean, reliable and safe energy as part of our net zero mix. It will help result in lower costs for consumers. With the existing nuclear fleet largely retiring over the next decade, we do need further capacity. That is why the Government are entering into negotiations with EDF on the Sizewell C project in Suffolk, with a view to making an investment decision on a large-scale nuclear project before the end of this Parliament.

The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, asked about the Committee on Climate Change’s advice on carbon budget 6. It is fair to say that, across the majority of our policies, our ambition to 2030 is broadly equivalent to that set out in the Committee on Climate Change’s advice. The White Paper actually goes further than the CCC in the deployment of low-carbon hydrogen production by 2030. We believe that our NDC is in line with its recommendations. Consistent with that ambitious plan, we want to create the space for companies to innovate and find new and better ways to achieve this target. As always, we remain grateful to the CCC for its advice. We will set out our approach to its reports and to achieving our emissions reductions targets in the net zero strategy next year.

The issue of SMRs was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester. I agree with him that this is an area that will be fruitful in the future and one that we need to move forward with and support.

Trade Bill

Lord Oates Excerpts

Report stage & Report: 2nd sitting (Hansard) & Report: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 15th December 2020 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Oates]

14: After Clause 2, insert the following new Clause—
“Conditions for trade agreements: climate change obligations
(1) The United Kingdom may only become a signatory to an international trade agreement if the conditions in subsections (3) and (4) are satisfied.(2) The Secretary of State may not lay a copy of an international trade agreement before Parliament under section 20(1) of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 unless the conditions in subsections (3) and (4) are satisfied.(3) The condition under this subsection is that a Minister of the Crown has made a statement to Parliament that the agreement is compliant with— (a) the Climate Change Act 2008 as amended by the Climate Change Act 2008 (2050 Target Amendment) Order 2019 (S.I. 2019/1056); and(b) the United Kingdom’s international obligations to tackle climate change, including but not limited to, the agreement adopted under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in Paris on 12 December 2015.(4) The condition under this subsection is that—(a) a Minister of the Crown has made a statement to Parliament confirming that the agreement will not give rise to a net increase in greenhouse gas emissions; or(b) a Minister of the Crown has laid before Parliament a detailed schedule of measures to mitigate in full any net increase in greenhouse gas emissions arising from the agreement.”Member’s explanatory statement
The new Clause ensures that trade agreements cannot be signed or approved if they are not consistent with the UK’s climate change obligations or if the Secretary of State has not made statements to Parliament confirming that the agreement will not increase greenhouse gas emissions.

[Lord Oates (LD)]

My Lords, Amendment 14 is in my name and those of my noble friend Lord Purvis, the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, and the noble Lord, Lord Hain. The amendment sets out the conditions that must be met before a trade deal may be signed or laid before Parliament. Its objective is to ensure that trade agreements that the United Kingdom enters into comply with our domestic and international climate change obligations and do not lead to an increase in greenhouse gas emissions.

Proposed new subsection (3) of the amendment would require that, prior to signing a free trade agreement or laying it before Parliament, a Minister of the Crown would have to make a Statement to Parliament, confirming that the agreement is compliant with the United Kingdom’s domestic obligations under the Climate Change Act 2008. as amended by the Climate Change Act 2008 (2050 Target Amendment) Order 2019, and that it is compliant with our international obligations, including, but not limited to, the Paris Agreement on climate change.

Proposed new subsection (4) would require a Minister to make a Statement to Parliament, confirming that the agreement will not give rise to an increase in greenhouse gas emissions, or, if the Minister is not able to do so, to lay before Parliament a detailed schedule of measures to mitigate in full against any increase in greenhouse gas emissions arising from that agreement.

Mitigating any increase in emissions is the absolute minimum standard we should expect; wherever possible, we should be using trade deals to secure reductions in emissions. Some are sceptical that trade agreements can be used in this way; they believe either that increased trade must inevitably result in additional emissions and we just have to live with that, or that trade in itself is a bad thing that should be curtailed. As a spokesperson on climate change for the Liberal Democrats—a liberal green party that believes in the importance of trade—I reject both arguments. Just as trade has increased collective prosperity over centuries and seen millions lifted out of poverty around the world, the opportunity now exists to use our trade policy to play an important role in tackling climate change. However, we have to be willing to take that opportunity, and to make the climate and ecological emergency that we face central to our trade policy thinking.

Sadly, at present, we are not doing so. At best, we are tipping our hat in that general direction and then passing by on the other side of the road as far as matters of trade are concerned. For example, the Government’s impact assessment for the recently concluded Japan rollover deal suggests that the agreement will add 0.28% to domestic greenhouse gas emissions, and that it could increase fossil fuel consumption by the same percentage. The impact assessment does not indicate the impact on Japanese domestic emissions, although one might conclude that the increase will be significantly higher, given that the estimated benefits from the agreement are worth £15 billion, £13 billion of which accrue to Japan and just £2 billion to the United Kingdom. The assessment is also unclear on whether trade-related maritime emissions will increase due to the agreement; at present global freight shipping accounts for at least 3% of global greenhouse gas emissions.

Whatever the actual figures, any increase in greenhouse gas emissions cannot be acceptable at a time when the world is already on course to see increases in global temperatures at a level that the International Panel on Climate Change warns us will lead to “catastrophic consequences” for our planet. We cannot just shrug off trade-related increases in emissions, whatever their size, and say, “Oh well, it’s an inevitable result of a trade agreement—nothing we can do about that”. If that were really the case, I might join those in your Lordships’ House who have a less positive view of trade, but it is not the case. If we choose to, we can work with our trading partners, and with the World Trade Organization, to ensure that trade agreements become an opportunity to tackle climate change, rather than vehicles that compound it.

In the first place, we should prioritise trade and trade agreements with countries that share a commitment to, and a sense of urgency about, tackling climate change. We cannot continue with an approach that celebrates our effectiveness in reducing carbon emissions in the UK when, in truth, we are simply offshoring them through trade that sucks in manufactured goods from high-carbon economies. We need to think carefully about how we approach our new trading relationships to ensure that they do not further exacerbate this trend, which is counterproductive to our climate objectives and damaging to our domestic industry because of the absence of—to coin a phrase—a level playing field. For example, there is much enthusiasm in government circles about the idea of the United Kingdom acceding to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, but have we really thought about what it will mean to be in a trade partnership with countries such as Australia, Vietnam and Malaysia, which remain heavily focused on coal-fired power generation and continue to invest in new coal-generation capacity? How would such a partnership be compatible with our climate goals? There is no point purporting to be committed to tackling the climate emergency if we continue to take decisions that will further fuel it. Equally, we should be clear that we will not pursue a trade agreement with the United States so long as the current US Congress’s fast-track Trade Promotion Authority is in place. As noble Lords may be aware, it includes as one of its objectives

“to ensure that trade agreements do not establish obligations for the United States regarding greenhouse gas emissions”.

Using our trade policy, by contrast, to prioritise agreements with low-carbon economies and support the decarbonisation of high-carbon economies could give an important lead to the world, not only in reducing trade-related emissions but in driving wider change in high-carbon economies.

Secondly, once we prioritise the countries we wish to enter into trade deals with, we need the trade agreements themselves to have climate and the environment at their heart. That does not mean a few warm words accompanied by passing references to the international agreements that the parties are already signed up to. It means dedicated chapters setting out concrete new actions agreed to by both parties. These will obviously vary from agreement to agreement, but they could include preferential treatment of environmental goods, removal of non-tariff barriers to trade and environmental services and technologies, agreements to phase out fossil-fuel subsidies, commitments on decarbonising merchant fleets, concordats on joint approaches to environmental trade measures at the WTO, et cetera. We should also be joining countries such as New Zealand and Norway, which, with others, have been pioneering an Agreement on Climate Change, Trade and Sustainability.

Whatever the precise measures, the key point will be to ensure that we have an ambitious negotiating agenda and to signal clearly to potential FTA partners that deals will not be concluded unless tackling climate change is at their heart. Sadly, the Government have demonstrated no such determination in their approach to date. In introducing the Bill in the other place, the Secretary of State did not refer to climate change once, and there is precious little evidence that the Government have even fully considered the opportunities offered by trade agreements to leverage action on climate change, let alone taken them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Oates (LD)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this important debate for their contributions, and I thank the Minister for his response. He said that no evidence had been offered that the Government had ever not met their obligations, but the Government’s own impact assessment of the recent trade agreement with Japan, for example, says that this will lead to a rise—albeit a small one—in greenhouse gas emissions. That does not seem to me to be the way we should be using trade: we need to use it to bring down emissions. He also said that it was unfair to say the Government did not have action plans. The noble Lord, Lord Callanan, admitted to me following a question from the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, a few weeks ago that the Government did not have a credible short-term action plan and that, according to Hansard, one would be forthcoming soon. So I am not sure about the Minister’s point on that.

The Minister did not address the important point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman. She was referring, I think, to Section 42 of the agriculture Act under which the Government are required to report that measures in an FTA are consistent with the maintenance of levels of statutory protection in relation to a number of issues, one of which is the environment. Could the Minister please tell us definitively—or he can write to us—whether, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, asked, that covers climate change, because that is important?

It will not be a surprise to hear that I do not really agree with a word that the noble Lord, Lord Mann, said. As I set out in my opening remarks, I believe in free trade—that it has brought many benefits and raised many people in the world out of poverty. I do not take the protectionist approach that he does, but I share his regret that he did not table his own amendments and I look forward to seeing them at future points in the Bill.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, said, we led the world with the Climate Change Act and we could lead the world again as the champions of free, fair and green trade. As she said, words and targets may be positive—I do not decry for a moment that we have set these very positive targets—but as long as they are just targets, they are just words. What we need now is action across the piece, including on trade. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 14 withdrawn.

Comprehensive Economic Partnership (EUC Report)

Lord Oates Excerpts

Thursday 26th November 2020 Grand Committee

[Lord Oates (LD)]

My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to debate this report. I have the privilege of serving on the International Agreements Sub-Committee and the rapid production of such a comprehensive report is due in no small part to the skills of our chairman and those of the clerk to the committee, Dominique Gracia, and her team, who have done a brilliant job pulling it together in such a constrained timetable.

In the limited time we have available for debate, I want to focus particularly on the data provisions in the agreement, how we use trade agreements to advance decarbonisation and the importance of building trust in trade policy.

First, on data provisions, the IAC received evidence from Dr Emily Jones and Beatriz Kira, of the Blavatnik School of Government at Oxford, which raised a number of concerns. In particular, I hope the Minister can tell us more about the decision of CEPA to expand the scope of protection of mandatory disclosure of source code and software beyond that in the EU deal to include algorithms expressed in that source code. Will the Minister tell us in his response the reason for that expansion, which is a matter of concern given the impact that algorithms can have on decision-making and the need for this to be transparent to the public?

Secondly, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, has said, while it is welcome that the agreement retains the references in the EU deal to international environmental commitments, including the Paris Agreement, and commits both parties to working to secure mutual environmental aims, it seems like a missed opportunity not to have sought more, particularly on green technologies and services. The impact assessment predicts an increase in greenhouse gases as a result of the treaty, and while in itself it is not a significant increase, we need to think about how we can use trade policy to bring down greenhouse gas emissions, not to raise them—however small the amount may be.

In future deals, we will need to take a radically different approach, and we have an opportunity to do so in the New Zealand negotiations, given New Zealand’s credentials in this regard and its ground-breaking initiative to negotiate an agreement on climate change, trade and sustainability with Norway, Costa Rica, Iceland and Fiji. I hope we will take the opportunity this offers to create a forward-looking trade agreement with New Zealand which puts protection of the planet at its heart.

Next, I want to address the issue of public trust in our trade policy, which has not been well served by the way in which the Government have tried to oversell this agreement. Announcing the deal on 11 September in a press statement, the Secretary of State for Trade said:

“The agreement we have negotiated …. goes far beyond the existing EU deal”.


However, the impact assessment for this agreement suggests that it will increase UK GDP by £1.5 billion per annum in the long term, whereas the impact assessment for JEEPA, the Japanese-EU trade agreement, published in May 2018, estimated that it would increase UK GDP by £2.1 billion to £3 billion over the long term—a significantly larger figure. The Government will doubtless argue that the figures cannot be compared because they are modelled differently. However, if the Government will not provide us with comparative modelling, we can only go by their own previously published figures, and they do not in any way bear out the Government’s claims that this deal provides significant benefits over JEEPA—in fact, they show the contrary.

Overselling in this way undermines trust. That may be less important in respect of this deal, which has not given rise to significant public concern, but it will be a real problem when we come to more controversial deals, such as a potential agreement with the United States. I therefore urge the Minister to ensure that lessons are learned from this experience and, in future, that deals are communicated objectively on their merits rather than spun to be something other than they are. In this case, the Government should simply have stated the reality: that a rollover deal, with a few additions and a few subtractions, had been secured. That was the reality, full stop. That is what the Government should have said.

Trade Bill

Lord Oates Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 13th October 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Inglewood (Non-Afl) [V]]

My Lords, I shall intervene briefly in support of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, and speak to Amendment 77. We all know that carbon, and in particular net zero by 2050, are currently important political topics. I am afraid that, as far as many people are concerned, that is often where it starts and more or less where it ends, and thereafter it is thought to be something to do with the Government.

In recent months, in my capacity as chairman of the Cumbria local enterprise partnership, I have been involved on the fringe of how carbon policies should be developed and applied in the county. The key to doing that is to develop a language and accounting standards appropriate to accurately measuring the important aspects of the matter and then generating debate about it. The trouble is that to most people these things are at best unfamiliar, very often counterintuitive and almost incomprehensible.

We cannot, I believe, make serious progress in this area—to be serious, progress has to be accepted by the population at large—unless there is a widespread understanding and acceptance of these things in the same way as traditional accounting and economics are the basis of current politics. Green accounting and green economics will be as important as traditional accounting and economics. Indeed, they already are, and we are going through a revolution that is just getting under way. That has already been mentioned in the discussion about this amendment.

On top of that, if ever John Donne was right, it was when he said that no man is an island. I have been criticised by my scientist friends for saying that increasing the levels of carbon in the atmosphere is like putting the globe into a microwave. That may be bad science, but I think it makes the point. It is the globe that is the battlefield upon which this contest is fought, so it does not matter where the emissions originate; they impact everywhere. Therefore, as is frequently and rightly commented, how our economic life impacts both domestically and on the rest of the world is not simply a domestic issue, hence the importance of the amendment. I believe that it goes back to metrics, the language and engendering an understanding of the issues.

The crucial point about this particular topic is that it cannot be kept in a silo. Environmental policies and problems affect everyone around the globe. It is therefore very important that the Government take the lead in ensuring that these matters enter the general debate of political discourse, and it seems to me that what we are discussing with this amendment would be a very good place to start. We could begin to show that we are serious about what we are saying and to uphold our country’s credentials as one that is concerned about the environment.

[Lord Oates (LD)]

My Lords, in speaking to the amendments I declare my interest as chair of the advisory committee of Weber Shandwick UK and as a non-executive director of the Center for Countering Digital Hate.

The Government’s policy on climate change, particularly their policy of net zero UK emissions by 2050, is a laudable one that is widely supported across this House, but regrettably one of its most notable features is the absence of any plan to achieve it. Just last week, in answer to a Question in the House from the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, about sponsorship of COP 26 and concern that oil companies among others might use it for a spot of greenwashing, the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, told the House:

“We are looking for companies committed to reaching net zero by 2050 with a credible short-term action plan to achieve this.”—[Official Report, 6/10/20; col. 516.]


In view of that Answer, I asked him whether he did not think it was time that the Government themselves had a credible short-term action plan to meet that goal. He agreed that it was, but, sadly, that one does not exist, although it is promised—“shortly”, I think he said, which I am afraid did not give me much reassurance.

COP 26: Sponsors

Lord Oates Excerpts

Tuesday 6th October 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

We are looking for both monetary and value-in-kind sponsorship. Value in kind refers to goods and services that are acquired, or highly desirable, in exchange for branding, etcetera. There is of course no question of companies taking part in negotiations.

[Lord Oates (LD)]

My Lords, in his reply to the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, the Minister said that sponsorship would be restricted to companies committed to net zero by 2050, with credible and short-term action plans to achieve it. In the light of that criteria, does he not think it time that the Government themselves had a credible short-term action plan?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

Indeed, and we will be setting this out in due course.

Oil and Gas Industry

Lord Oates Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd September 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan (Con) [V]]

I do not accept that we are sleepwalking into a crisis. We are devoting huge expertise and energy to planning for the transition. Renewables and nuclear have an important role to play in the transition, as do oil and gas. However, the noble Lord will have to be patient and wait for the energy White Paper, when all these matters will become clear.

[Lord Oates (LD)]

My Lords, what discussions have the Government had with the oil and gas industry about utilising its expertise as we establish the UK’s green hydrogen production? What assessment have the Government made of the potential for the hydrogen industry to provide replacement high-skilled jobs for those lost in oil and gas as we decarbonise the economy?

[Lord Callanan (Con) [V]]

The noble Lord is consistent in advocating for the hydrogen sector, and it is true that the oil and gas sector has an important contribution to make to the UK’s energy transition. Its world-class supply chain has many of the essential skills and capabilities to support emerging technologies such as hydrogen and carbon capture and storage. The noble Lord will be aware that we launched the Hydrogen Advisory Council on 20 July to help inform the development of a UK hydrogen strategy, which we intend to publish early next year.

Energy: Hydrogen

Lord Oates Excerpts

Thursday 17th September 2020 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Oates]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether the Hydrogen Advisory Council will develop a fully-funded hydrogen strategy for the United Kingdom.

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

My Lords, the Hydrogen Advisory Council was established in July to formalise Government/industry engagement. The council and its working groups will inform the development of a UK hydrogen strategy, which will be published before COP 26 early next year. Similarly, those involved in the council and the working groups will of course play a role in its implementation. The strategy will include discussion around the costs associated with the expansion of the UK hydrogen economy and how these might be met.

[Lord Oates (LD)]

I thank the Minister for his reply. Will he join me in celebrating Britain’s leading role in hydrogen technology? We are making world-first hydrogen buses in Ballymena, Falkirk and Yorkshire, and world-first hydrogen boilers in Worcester and Preston, and building the world’s first green hydrogen gigafactory in Sheffield. Does he agree that, if we are to maintain our competitive edge, our hydrogen strategy must do three things: grow supply and demand in parallel, establish regional hydrogen hubs, and start with technologies that are available now and easy to scale up, such as hydrogen buses and trains?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

The noble Lord is entirely correct. He makes a very good point that this is an important new developing technology that we will want to support as much as we can. The UK is well placed to play a leading role in all the areas that he mentions, and when the hydrogen strategy is published it will take account of all those factors.