Renewable Energy: Costs

Lord Oates Excerpts

Thursday 14th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Oates (LD)]

My Lords, I welcome this debate and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Frost, for initiating it. It follows our recent debate initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, and it feels a bit like it is a band reunion with some of the stars missing. We rehearsed a number of arguments from last time.

The noble Lord, Lord Frost, protests that his position is not ideological, but I am afraid that I do not really buy that. He told us in his speech the other week:

“In my view, we are not in a climate emergency”.—[Official Report, 24/10/24; col. 769.]


I think science would beg to differ from that. I am all for us having the most open debates; we should have had greater debates on these issues, particularly at the time that we adopted net zero. That was the right thing to do, but we did not have sufficient debate. However, it is important that those debates seek to illuminate rather than to obfuscate the issues, and I fear that that is often what the noble Lords, Lord Frost and Lord Lilley, organisations such as the Global Warming Policy Foundation and others seek to do, a bit like what the tobacco industry sought to do, confusing all the science—and we all know the cost of that.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, quoted that old adage about knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing. But in a way, the noble Lord, Lord Frost, disputes the price of everything but he knows the cost of nothing. We heard very convincingly from Lord Browne about the realities of these costs. We know that from the figures that are provided by the Government, which I have heard some noble Lords on the Official Opposition Benches disputing, but which were quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, in his speech last week or the week before. What he did not do was compare like with like; he took one figure which he had taken off the carbon price on gas and compared it with something else which was not in the graph and which told a completely different story. That is not very illuminating.

The noble Lord, Lord Hain, described the noble Lord, Lord Stern, speaking at a Cabinet meeting some years ago and making clear that the costs of inaction were much greater than the costs of acting: that the costs of combating climate change would be high—that is true—but the costs of not doing so would be higher.

The noble Lord, Lord Frost, did not talk at all about the external costs of burning carbon fuels. We have known a long time about those impacts. In fact, as long ago as 1965, in a report from the President’s Science Advisory Committee to President Lyndon Johnson, that council warned that the burning of fossil fuels

“may be sufficient to produce measurable and perhaps marked changes in climate”

by the year 2000. As we know from internal papers of Exxon, the oil company, which were exposed by Inside Climate News, the oil companies knew about this very well themselves. In May 1981, an internal memo from Exxon stated:

“We estimate now that the doubling time”


for CO₂ in the atmosphere

“is about 100 years. This permits time for an orderly transition to non-fossil fuel technologies should restrictions on fossil fuel use be deemed necessary”.

The memo went on to predict a

“3°C global average temperature rise and 10°C degrees at the poles if CO₂ doubles … Major shifts in rainfall/agriculture … polar ice … melt”.

A number of presentations, documents and memos internally in those companies, with the American Petroleum Institute, which made clear the dangers of globally catastrophic effects.

However, we know what happened. After that time, companies such as Exxon, which had been very forward-looking in research on the impacts of carbon dioxide, suddenly changed their leadership on that and went about the process not of continuing to research—it closed down its research on that—but seeking others to do research to try to undermine climate science, the very climate science some of which they had pioneered. It is very much like big tobacco. We need to bear that in mind. Those costs were known about, and if we had acted earlier, the costs we would be dealing with now would be much easier.

The noble Baroness, Lady Finn, quite rightly talked about costs to households. We have to think about how we move into this transition, which is why it is so important that we have the real facts available and that we do it in a way that is as fair and has as least impact as possible on individuals. However, as she may know, average household expenditure on energy actually fell between 2013 and 2020. A lot of that was to do with measures that had been taken in the coalition Government through the levies in terms of energy efficiency of people’s homes and reducing energy consumption, and that should be a key area that we focus on.

The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich made the important point that the most vulnerable and the least resilient nations are likely to be the most impacted by climate change. On the costs, the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, last week stated:

“If continuing to do nothing … were likely to result in the extinction of the human race, or even its immiseration, almost no costs would be too great to avoid it”.


However, he went on to say that he had put down a question to the Government some time ago about

“whether they knew of any peer-reviewed science, or science produced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—whose job it is to consider the science—which forecasts that, if we do nothing over the coming centuries, it will lead to the extinction of the human race or even its immiseration”.—[Official Report, 24/10/24; cols. 795-96.]

But he did not actually ask that question. What he asked was whether there was any peer-reviewed science which said that the human population would be exterminated within the next century, and of course he got the answer, no. Again, it is this obfuscation of the actual facts.

When I think about the external costs, I think about some of the kids I taught many years ago in a school in Zimbabwe, which I mentioned last time. Shortly after my father died, that school, very movingly, sent me a photograph of a playground it had built and dedicated to his memory. At the bottom of the slide there is a six year-old little girl with a big smile—it is a beautiful picture. I think of that person, who has contributed almost nothing to the carbon in the atmosphere, but who will be one of the people most impacted by what we do, and to whom we have a moral obligation.

In a post on Facebook, one of the pupils I had previously taught was not talking about climate change; he was explaining why the school was named after St James. The Anglicans had this habit of naming a mission after a saint, but also adding the area where the mission was situated. In our case it was St James Zongoro. The name Zongoro is from the river, but the river is slowly dying because of climate change. That river is dry most of the time. They cannot feed their fish ponds any more, and they are increasingly impacted by severe weather events. It is those vulnerable people who are one of the reasons why we have to continue with this. We have been a leader in renewable energy; we should continue to be so, and we should be honest and open about the costs of doing that, the benefits and the values.

Climate Agenda

Lord Oates Excerpts

Thursday 24th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Oates (LD)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as chief executive of United Against Malnutrition and Hunger.

I start by congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady May of Maidenhead, on her excellent and moving maiden speech. I was chief of staff to the Deputy Prime Minister when the noble Baroness was the Home Secretary. It is fair to say that the DPM office and the Home Office did not always agree on things, and in fact the noble Baroness was a cause of some suspicion of me among my fellow advisers. One time we were all having a drink when somebody posed the question, “Who’s your favourite Conservative Cabinet Minister?”, and to the consternation of many I said it was the noble Baroness. This was quite shocking to them; I think the noble Lord, Lord Clarke of Nottingham, was generally the more favoured Conservative Cabinet Minister. I said it because, despite the policy differences we often had with the Home Office, I was always a great admirer. It was not just because, like the noble Baroness, I am a child of a vicarage but because politics never appeared to her to be a game, as it did to some people. It always seemed that she was serious about government and its role in serving the public; she never shied away from difficult problems and was always willing to confront and adapt to inconvenient truths. I know I was not alone; my noble friend Lady Featherstone, who was a junior Minister in the Home Office, was also a huge admirer. It is great to have the noble Baroness in this House. On this occasion we will agree; we may disagree in future.

The noble Lord, Lord Lilley, whom I congratulate on getting this debate, opened by saying how important it was to have an open and honest debate around the figures, and I entirely agree. One needs to be honest about the costs of net zero. But as the noble Baronesses, Lady May and Lady Hayman, the noble Lord, Lord Deben, and many other noble Lords said, we have to be honest about the costs of inaction as well. The noble Lord, Lord Lilley, spoke about cheap energy, but he did not say anything about the actual costs of that carbon energy—the external costs, which the noble Lords, Lord Browne of Madingley and Lord Willetts, referred to. The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, talked, from his actuarial background, about the scale of risk and how we are probably underestimating, rather than overestimating, it.

The noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron, complained recently about carbon pricing as if carbon emissions do not have a cost. They have a severe cost. The noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, and the noble Baroness, Lady May, referred to small island states. The cost to them is utterly existential.

The noble Baroness, Lady May, also talked about what happens when agriculture fails as a result of climate change. She spoke movingly about how wide ranging the impacts can be, including on modern slavery. In my work around malnutrition and hunger, we see how climate is driving hunger, malnutrition and conflict. The costs are huge, not only to the people who are directly impacted; the costs will also come home to us in terms of migration, et cetera.

Earlier this week, or perhaps at the end of last week, Concern Worldwide (UK) published a report on the climate impacts on nutrition. It is not just that crops are failing; climate heating is having an impact on their nutritional value as well.

The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, spoke about the series of misery that we were going to impose by acting on net zero. Let me tell him this. Some 38 years ago I worked in a rural school in Zimbabwe. I am still in touch with many of the pupils I taught then, who are now somewhat older. They report the impacts of climate change as increased extreme weather events and drying rivers; they are unable to fill their fish ponds anymore. This is causing misery for people now—misery that is replicated all across the world.

It is coming home to roost here as well, because rising temperatures and changes in precipitation patterns are altering vector breeding habits and pathogen development. The All-Party Parliamentary Group on Malaria and Neglected Tropical Diseases recently organised a visit to Ethiopia, which I was lucky to attend. We visited the Gelan health centre on the outskirts of Addis Ababa with the Global Fund. As many noble Lords will know, Addis Ababa is high up and is traditionally a non-malarial area. Well, at that health clinic on the outskirts of Addis, they were seeing the first evidence of transmission of malaria in that area as warming happens.

These mosquito-borne diseases are spreading with climate. Dengue has seen a thirtyfold increase in the past 50 years. There are more than 5 million cases globally and transmission has started across Europe, with local transmission now in Spain, France and Italy. I recently visited south-west France. When I returned, I went to give blood. They asked me, “Have you been abroad?”, and I said, “Only to France”. They asked where. I told them, “Somewhere near Cognac”, and they got out their maps. They said, “I’m sorry, you can’t give blood until after the quarantine period. That is now a tropical virus area”. It is expected that dengue will be transmitted locally in London by 2060. Think about the costs of those sorts of things to our economy.

The noble Lord, Lord Lilley, said that India, China and Africa do not give a damn what we do regarding climate. That is absolutely untrue. I was recently in South Africa, talking to the Portfolio Committee on Electricity and Energy. We had been saying that we were going to issue licences for more oil and gas and then announced that we were opening another coal mine. The committee said, “Why on earth should we do any of the things that you say we should on net zero when you’re doing this?” Example is contagious—nothing is more contagious. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, said in her excellent speech, the quality of the leadership we show is critical as well.

There are also huge economic opportunities from leadership. The noble Lord, Lord Browne, spoke about our sustainable green finance capability in the UK. We have a real opportunity to develop that. There are opportunities with energy efficiency in our homes—the savings that we could make for people on their household bills and the jobs that could be created. Look at what happened to household energy between 2010 and 2020. Household energy costs fell. Why? Because consumption fell. Why? Because the green levies were funding insulation and reductions in consumption. As the noble Lord, Lord Deben, said, if we had continued with that, we would have made massive savings.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, said that it was quite rich for those on this side of the argument to be accused of saying that it will be all right on the night. I fully agree with her. The noble Lords, Lord Lilley, Lord Frost and Lord Moynihan, and others, like to pose as the hard-headed realists in the face of starry-eyed idealists like me and others, I suppose. However, they are the fantasists. Because they do not like some of the things that we will need to do, some of which will be difficult, they pretend that this does not exist. The noble Lord, Lord Frost, says that he does not believe in the climate emergency. Well, I am afraid science does. We need to act—and act now—because, as the noble Lord, Lord Deben, said, the longer we wait, the more it will cost.

Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill

Lord Oates Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 7th May 2024 Lords Chamber

When it comes to priority countries that the FCDO has stated are potentially at risk of breaching international law, what is the decision-maker reasonably asked to do? I would be grateful if the Minister could provide clarity. At the moment it seems that in this area, for those two aspects, one part of the Bill is contradicting the other.

[Lord Oates (LD)]

My Lords, I share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Deben, that these amendments simply highlight the mess that the Government have got themselves into with the Bill as a whole. The Bill imposes some extraordinary obligations on public bodies, which I presume is the reason for paragraph 6 of the Schedule—it is necessary only because of those extraordinary measures.

Most of the amendments in this group do not deal with the fundamental issue that the Bill is incoherent. Amendment 18, in trying to deal with this issue, potentially gives huge powers to Ministers to profoundly shape or change the nature of the Bill by their powers to set out what should be regarded and disregarded in terms of international law obligations. Amendment 28 pretends that the overall issue with the Bill—which is the reason that paragraph 6 of the Schedule exists in the first place—does not exist. Fundamentally, as the noble Lord, Lord Hain, said, this is a very bad Bill. These amendments just underline why.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, that I wish the Bill was specific and addressed the manifesto commitment of the Conservative Party. The Labour Party has made it absolutely clear that we are opposed to boycotts, disinvestment and singling out Israel. The problem with the Bill is that it is wide. It covers all kinds of issues that will place public bodies in a very difficult position. In the debate on this group of amendments, we have senior legal people all saying basically the same thing: this will end up in court. When that fear of ending up in court occurs—when people read a law and say, “This is so complicated that we don’t know what it means; it will end up with us in court”—what happens then? It is the chilling effect. There will be decisions made not in the interest of the public body but on the basis of it not being sure that it is capable of making this decision. That is the important thing.

I support my noble friend’s amendment on extending the exceptions. The Schedule lays out other obligations on public bodies, not least very positive legislation that this Government have implemented on modern slavery, on other international law issues, on labour-related misconduct and so on. They are naturally there because these public bodies have already been told that these obligations are on them. There will be a lot of confusion. I agree with my noble friend’s point about taking into account potential breaches of international law by the UK but not those by other countries in the supply chain. Most of our experience of labour issues is that those supply chains can be incredibly convoluted. You do not know the origin of certain products. We have had debates in this Chamber about the use of cotton grown in Xinjiang by slave labour and being sold in British shops. Companies have decided to find out where that goes.

My noble friend also raised the Rana Plaza disaster of 2013. I remember it well, and I am sure that the Minister does, too, because many of our retail companies were selling products made in factories that were incredibly unsafe and used child labour. That disaster will stay in my mind. The government response at the time was, “There are potential breaches of international law. We will give the ILO extra money to go and investigate Bangladesh so that it commits to its proper responsibilities”. We did that.

The Government in this legislation are saying, “There are all sorts of factors that we can’t take into account—and even if we can, there are exceptions, the Secretary of State has to be involved, and we know it’s going to end up in court.” That is the problem with this legislation. It is not straightforward dealing with BDS. I wish it were. We will come on to that in the other group.

I have been trying to work out at what point I should read out the guidance on the Occupied Territories in Palestine that the Government have issued to companies. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, please read it. The noble Baroness is nodding; she has read it. Great. I shall read it into the record, although it may take longer than the 10 minutes I am allowed.

“The UK has a clear position on Israeli settlements: The West Bank, including East Jerusalem, Gaza and the Golan Heights have been occupied by Israel since 1967. Settlements are illegal under international law, constitute an obstacle to peace and threaten a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. We will not recognise any changes to the pre-1967 borders, including with regard to Jerusalem, other than those agreed by the parties … There are therefore clear risks related to economic and financial activities in the settlements, and we do not encourage or offer support to such activity. Financial transactions, investments, purchases, procurements as well as other economic activities (including in services like tourism) in Israeli settlements or benefiting Israeli settlements, entail legal and economic risks stemming from the fact that the Israeli settlements, according to international law, are built on occupied land and are not recognised as a legitimate part of Israel’s territory. This may result in disputed titles to the land, water, mineral or other natural resources which might be the subject of purchase or investment … UK citizens and businesses should be aware of the potential reputational implications of getting involved in economic and financial activities in settlements, as well as possible abuses of the rights of individuals. Those contemplating any economic or financial involvement in settlements should seek appropriate legal advice”.


That is the Government’s advice, recently issued. As the noble Lord, Lord Deben, said, we are saying that there is one policy for the private sector and another for the public sector. That is absolutely crazy. There are so many contradictions in this legislation that it beggars belief. I hope that the Minister will think hard about the complex nature of the Bill, and perhaps give it due consideration. I shall not repeat my comments on the next group, but we have often said, “Let’s sit down together and come to a solution that meets the requirements that were set out in the manifesto”. This legislation does not; that is why it is so wrong.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Oates (LD)]

My Lords, I am pleased to support the noble Lord, Lord Warner, in his Amendment 20, which, as he set out, would delete Clause 3(7) of the Bill. I do so because what is already a very bad Bill is made worse by this subsection. First, it singles out Israel as the only country which cannot be exempted from the provisions of the Bill, even should a future Government decide that such an exemption should be made. The noble Lord, Lord Mann, has set out why that is potentially problematic in relation to the IHRA anti-Semitism definition. Moreover, Ministers have frequently argued that legislation should not single out individual countries but rather should apply common principles. Clause 3(7) goes completely against that approach and, in doing so, sets a dangerous precedent. Like the noble Lord, Lord Warner, I seriously doubt that it will do anything to tackle anti-Semitism; in fact, it is most likely to be counterproductive.

Secondly, as we have heard, Clause 3(7) conflates Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories, contradicting long-standing British-government policy and violating UN Security Council Resolution 2334, which was co-authored by the UK, voted for by the UK, and requires member states to distinguish between Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories. As far as I can see—and we have heard a lot about local government and other public bodies not setting foreign policy—the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities is promoting legislation that directly contradicts UK Government policy and the UK-authored Security Council resolution as part of a Bill whose declared objective is to prevent public bodies contradicting government policy.

This contradiction of settled UK foreign policy has serious ramifications which Ministers are trying to avoid by pretending that the Bill is compliant with Resolution 2334. At Second Reading in the other place and in response to Dr Philippa Whitford, who asked why the Bill did not distinguish between Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories as required by the resolution, Michael Gove stated that

“they are separated in the Bill. I am afraid the hon. Lady is wrong”.—[Official Report, Commons, 3/7/23; col. 592.]

His claim is apparently that the separation of Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories between paragraphs (a) and line (b) of subsection (7) satisfies the requirements of Resolution 2334, but of course that is nonsense. The resolution does not call for the semantic separation of the State of Israel and the Palestinian territories; rather, it

“Calls upon all States, bearing in mind paragraph 1 of this resolution, to distinguish, in their relevant dealings, between the territory of the State of Israel and the territories occupied since 1967”.

It is absolutely clear that the “relevant dealings” of the Bill explicitly do not distinguish between the two, because subsection (7) applies equally to them. I hope the Minister will address this issue, because she seemed herself to stray towards this sort of Govian sophistry at Second Reading in this House.

Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill

Lord Oates Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 20th February 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Oates (LD)]

My Lords, like other Members of this House I feel a sense of profound shock at the rise in anti-Semitism since the appalling attacks of 7 October. As my noble friend Lord Palmer of Childs Hill said, the Jewish community feels increasingly and understandably beleaguered, and we must do all we can to support it. But, like my noble friend, I believe that this is a very bad Bill and I do not believe it will do anything to combat anti-Semitism. Indeed, I fear it will do the opposite.

If that were not bad enough, the Bill tramples on fundamental rights of free speech and peaceful protest, provides extraordinary powers to Ministers and enforcement authorities and, as my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire points out, effectively introduces an offence of thought crime. Above all, it is an ill-considered mess of misjudgments, prejudices and confusions, all competing to contradict one another.

In 1988 I spent some time teaching in a rural school in Zimbabwe. When I was there, one of the students asked me to try to visit his father in South Africa. This was in the dying days of the apartheid regime, although that was not at all clear then. There was a state of emergency, and I saw at first hand the vile nature of that regime.

When I came back to the UK, my first engagement in campaigning was on the milk crates outside South Africa House and in the boycotts of the student Anti- Apartheid Movement, inspired very much by campaigners such as the noble Lords, Lord Hain and Lord Boateng, who spoke so powerfully. My decisions about boycotting South African goods were personal and were motivated by political and moral disapproval. They did not represent my individual foreign policy; they represented my moral and political disapproval. Thank goodness that local authorities, from Lambeth to Sheffield, Glasgow and all around the country, were prepared to stand up and make their voice heard.

Some years later, I had the privilege of working in the first democratic Parliament in South Africa. I can absolutely attest to what the noble Lord, Lord Boateng, said: the absolute saving grace of the UK was that local authorities and others had been prepared to take financial decisions on the basis of moral and political disapproval when, sadly, our Government were not prepared to do that and were seen as an aider and abetter of the apartheid regime.

Much was made, both in the Second Reading debate in the other place and repeated by the Minister today, about not having rival foreign policies, but Clause 3(7) conflates Israel and the Occupied Territories, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark pointed out. This seems to represent the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities running an alternative foreign policy to the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, rather than local authorities doing the same. That has really grave implications. I hope that the Minister can tell us what representations have been received from British diplomatic posts across the globe about the impacts of this Bill, which goes absolutely contrary to Resolution 2334 and other international obligations, as other noble Lords have said.

When I picked up the Bill, I was concerned that it seemed pretty worrying, but when I looked through it and I read just some of the clause headings, as highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, such as “Disapproval of foreign state conduct” and “Related prohibition on statements”, it brought to mind exactly that apartheid regime in South Africa. These are the sorts of clauses that you would find in the law and order amendments Acts, and of which John Vorster and Hendrik Verwoerd would have been proud.

We have to think very carefully about the precedents that we are setting in this Bill. As we have heard, not only would it prevent local authorities taking financial decisions of the form we have debated but it prohibits people stating that they would have acted in such a way if they had been able to, but they could not do so because it was not lawful. The Minister tried to make a distinction and claim that a local authority leader, for example, could state that they were in favour of a boycott or investment decisions about a particular territory if they did so in their personal capacity. But if somebody said, for example, “I don’t believe in investing in the Occupied Territories or Xinjiang”, their constituents asked, “Then why is your local authority not following that belief?”, and they said, “Because the law doesn’t allow me to”, they would commit an offence under the Bill, if I understand it rightly, subject to an unlimited fine. That is extraordinary. It is even worse than that, because it is not just if you say that—this is where the thought crime comes in—but if it is thought that you are likely to say something like that, and if you are thought likely to contravene the applicable provision of the Bill.

We will go through this in much greater detail in Committee, but this is a hugely flawed Bill. It is massively politically divisive at a time when there is no need for political division because, as the Liberal Democrat Front Bench and the Official Opposition Front Bench have made clear, people are happy to come together to try to address the actual issue without bringing about these draconian rules, which have absolutely no place in our democracy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

That is my sense, but I will obviously check where we are. I would also make it clear that things such as conference centres and so on are obviously outside the remit. I will come back to the noble Lord on the exact definition, if I may, and we can perhaps discuss it in Committee in any event.

I will now address concerns that this Bill represents a change in the UK’s foreign policy. The noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, and others, will be pleased to know that the Government have been clear throughout the Bill’s passage that nothing in this Bill changes the UK’s position on Israeli settlements. They are illegal under international law, present an obstacle to peace and threaten the viability of a two-state solution. The Government continue to urge Israel to halt settlement expansion immediately.

I reassure the House that the Government’s assessment is that the Bill distinguishes between Israel and the territories it has occupied since 1967. It is therefore compliant with UN Security Council Resolution 2334. The Government believe very strongly in the importance of complying with international obligations under the UN Charter.

[Lord Oates (LD)]

Could the Minister tell us how the Bill distinguishes this, because the clause applies to them all equally? Could she set that out?

UK-EU Trade and Co-operation Agreement

Lord Oates Excerpts

Thursday 29th April 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Frost (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness draws attention to an important issue that is central to how we operate the single market of the United Kingdom. We are in the middle of the process to which she refers but I will look into the matter and, if necessary, write to her.

[Lord Oates (LD)]

Does the Minister agree that the parliamentary partnership assembly provided for in the TCA could play a critical role in ensuring that parliamentarians at Westminster and Stormont can engage with the European Parliament, which remains a co-legislator in Northern Ireland on single market issues? Given their power of initiative in both Houses, will the Government take the lead in ensuring that this partnership assembly is established as a matter of urgency, as recommended by the House of Lords EU Committee?

[Lord Frost (Con)]

My Lords, we are of course very supportive of the dialogue between this Parliament and the European Parliament. We supported these provisions in the TCA. I am aware that discussions are taking place between parliamentarians here and Members of the European Parliament in Brussels. I look forward to briefing the House in due course on how those discussions will be taken forward; it is important that they now move forward quickly.

Budget Statement

Lord Oates Excerpts

Friday 12th March 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Oates (LD)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lords, Lord Cruddas and Lord Khan, on their maiden speeches.

The Budget provided the Chancellor with the opportunity to set out a clear vision for building back better. It was a chance to take the bold steps necessary to unleash the much talked of “green industrial revolution”. Instead, it took comfort in timidity and greenwash. As a result it was a Budget of squandered opportunities in the face of unprecedented challenges.

One area entirely absent from the Budget was the long-term programme needed to upgrade the energy efficiency of 28 million homes in the UK, which account for 35% of UK energy use and 20% of carbon emissions. I acknowledge that designing such programmes is not easy. The coalition had the Green Deal, which failed for largely the same reasons that the Green Homes Grant scheme is failing—namely, the absence of any long-term vision at the Treasury.

The Federation of Master Builders has estimated that a long-term national retrofit strategy could create 100,000 new jobs over four years and half a million over 20 years—skilled jobs offering new opportunities in every part of the United Kingdom. But to be successful the Government must do two things. First, they must provide the long-term certainty to allow industry to invest in the skills required to deliver this massive programme and for private capital to have the confidence to come in behind government initiatives. Secondly, they must provide consumers with incentives to upgrade the energy efficiency of their homes, such as stamp duty reductions or council tax discounts. We are asking consumers to do a challenging thing and we need to make it worth while if we are to get the take-up needed.

A national refit programme may not have the glamour of moonshots to new technologies, but there is no path to net zero without one. The absence of any reference to it in the Chancellor’s Statement left a gaping hole in his Budget and threatens any hope of meeting our obligations under the Climate Change Act.

Financial Services Bill

Lord Oates Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading (Hansard) & 2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 28th January 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Oates (LD)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hammond of Runnymede, and the noble Baroness, Lady Shafik, on their excellent maiden speeches. I look forward to the important contributions they will both undoubtedly make to the House.

On Monday 9 November last, the Chancellor made a Statement to the House of Commons in which he set out the Government’s vision for financial services. He pledged, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, reminded us, to put

“the full weight of private sector innovation … behind the critical global effort to tackle climate change and protect the environment.”—[Official Report, Commons, 9/11/20; col. 621.]

Just two hours later, his colleague, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, John Glen, got to his feet to introduce the Second Reading of this Bill. In his opening speech, which lasted over 25 minutes, he did not refer to the climate and ecological emergency once. He made no mention of green finance, climate risk disclosure or the critical role the financial services industry will have to play if we are seriously to tackle climate change.

The omission of any reference to climate change, replicated by the Minister this afternoon, was not the result of an oversight on the Economic Secretary’s part. Far from it; it was simply a logical consequence of the fact that the Bill does absolutely nothing to address the climate emergency we face. The Economic Secretary had a number of answers for this failure when he got around to the matter in Committee. First, he argued that these issues were not relevant for discussion, as they were not directly related to the Bill—a strange and circular argument, as their absence from the Bill was precisely the complaint he was addressing. Secondly, he argued that the regulators were making progress on climate-related issues and we should let them get on with it. Finally, he said:

“The Bill grants the Treasury a power to specify further matters in the accountability framework at a later date, which could be used to add a requirement to explicitly have regard to green issues in the prudential framework, if appropriate … I can assure the Committee that the Treasury will carefully consider a green ‘have regard’ in the future.”—[Official Report, Commons, 24/11/20; col. 157.]


Essentially, he was telling Parliament, “It’s not for you to worry your little heads about these things, and to ensure that you don’t have to, the Bill will take the powers away from Parliament in this regard and vest them in the Treasury and the regulators, who know best.”

We on the Liberal Democrat Benches do not think that they know best. History does not cause us to put much faith in the willingness of the Treasury, or of unaccountable regulators, to act. Nor does it give us any faith in their ability to determine the appropriateness, or otherwise, of action on such critical matters for our planet. We agree with the Chancellor that financial services have a key role to play in tackling climate change, but we believe that it is for Parliament to determine that role. Accordingly, we will bring amendments forward in Committee to ensure that the Bill does exactly that. They will do this, first, by requiring the Prudential Regulation Authority to have regard to climate-related financial risk when setting capital adequacy requirements and, secondly, by ensuring that credit-rating agencies have to take climate risk into account in setting credit ratings. Thirdly, they would bring forward the date when the recommendations of the task force on climate-related disclosure will be mandatory from 2025 to 2023.

We will also seek amendments to ensure that, in setting general rules, the FCA has regard to the climate-related financial risks to which FCA investment firms are exposed and that the FCA, in setting Part 9C rules, and the PRA, in setting capital requirement regulation rules, have regard to the UK’s domestic and international climate obligations. I look forward to working on these issues with the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, and other members of Peers for the Planet, the excellent organisation which she chairs.

I welcome the lead that the Government have taken in setting the net-zero target. I applaud the Treasury for moving on the TCFD recommendations, so far as they have gone, and for their positive words on green finance. However, the awful truth is that action in every respect of our response to the climate emergency is glacially and catastrophically slow. We are way off line to meet the Climate Change Act’s original 80% reduction target, let alone the revised net-zero one. There is a time when the talk of distant targets for which none of us will be held accountable has to end and the activity and action to meet them has to start. That time is now. The climate crisis is not something that might happen in some distant future if we do not get our act together. It is happening right now. Just ask those on the front line of the crisis; ask the people of the small island states who live with the prospect of being literally wiped off the map. Ask the farmers facing ever more erratic weather patterns and deteriorating soil conditions in Africa or South Asia. Ask householders in the UK who are becoming ever more susceptible to flood risk; ask the firefighters in California or New South Wales.

As we speak, the world is on course for three degrees of warming. The devastation that would cause is beyond contemplation. We know the threat that we face, and what we have to do to mitigate it, but that does not guarantee that we will do it. A global pandemic was number one on the Cabinet Office’s risk register. We knew it would happen one day, yet it seemed so far off that, when it suddenly arrived, we met it almost completely unprepared. We cannot afford to do the same with climate change. So I urge the Government to use this Bill to start, however modestly, to match their fine rhetoric with action and to ensure that the financial services industry is able to play its full part in combating climate change.

G7 Summit

Lord Oates Excerpts

Thursday 21st January 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, it would be slightly impertinent of me on President Biden’s first day in office to set out an agenda for him. I think we all look forward to hearing that. I say again that we look forward to the COP 26 conference in Scotland. Within the G7 period and leading up to it, we will keep tackling climate change and preserving biodiversity will be at the heart of our efforts.

[Lord Oates (LD) [V]]

Does the Minister believe that the Government’s decision to refuse full diplomatic status to the EU ambassador to the UK will help or hinder our ability to build the consensus needed for a successful G7 summit? While he is at it, will he explain why the UK, uniquely in the world, would take such a staggeringly petty, pointless and self-harming decision?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, we have slightly moved away from the rather positive and optimistic approach of this discussion so far. The G7 will embrace the presence of the EU, as always, and of major democracies in the European Union.

EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement

Lord Oates Excerpts

Friday 8th January 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Oates (LD) [V]]

My Lords, the Minister’s suggestion in his opening remarks that the people of this country were not free when we were members of the European Union is deeply offensive, and I ask that he withdraws it.

Last week, we had three minutes to speak on an 85-page Bill to give domestic effect to this agreement. Today, we are given two minutes to debate the detail of the most important trade agreement we are ever likely to sign. To call this a farce is an understatement. It is a mockery of parliamentary accountability and scrutiny. The Government have repeatedly heard representations from across this House expressing deep opposition to the continuation of farcical procedures such as this. When will they listen?

In the time available, I will focus on two issues: the collaboration between the UK and the EU on energy issues and scrutiny of EU energy measures; and the decision to withdraw from the Erasmus scheme. As the Minister will be aware, the energy sector is concerned about the impact that our withdrawal from the single energy market will have on formal collaboration with the EU on research projects. This is particularly important as the UK and the EU seek to decarbonise their energy supplies. What reassurance can the Minister give the House on this point?

Secondly, Northern Ireland will continue to be governed by the rules of the single energy market. What provisions do the Government intend to put in place for the Northern Ireland Assembly and this Parliament to scrutinise EU legislative measures governing that market, and how will the people of Northern Ireland and their representatives be able to influence the rules that now apply to them?

Lastly, will the Government reconsider their position on Erasmus? The Minister just told the House that we are not walking away from Europe, so why leave the Erasmus scheme, which includes many non-EU countries? The Turing scheme proposed as a replacement is not only vaguely defined; more importantly, it is a unilateral scheme, meaning that we will not gain from an exchange of students, which is what makes Erasmus such a rich experience for students and countries taking part. I appeal to the Government to rethink this.

European Union (Future Relationship) Bill

Lord Oates Excerpts

3rd reading & 2nd reading & Committee negatived & 2nd reading (Hansard) & 2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords & 3rd reading (Hansard) & 3rd reading (Hansard): House of Lords & Committee negatived (Hansard) & Committee negatived (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 30th December 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Oates (LD)]

My Lords, we are directed to debate this 85-page Bill, which hands extraordinary executive powers to Ministers and gives effect to a trade agreement running to over 1,000 pages, in three-minute speeches, without hesitation, scrutiny or amendment, and to pass it in less than a day.

I, for one, have no intention of supporting a Bill representing such an unprecedented and indefensible contempt of Parliament and the public. The European Parliament, by contrast with ours, will have the opportunity to properly scrutinise the deal during the period of its provisional application, which runs until 28 February. It was open to the Government to arrange matters to provide a similar opportunity to our Parliament. They chose not to—so much for parliamentary sovereignty.

Who can blame the Government for hiding from scrutiny? Far from being a triumph, this trade deal betrays our young people, abandons Gibraltar and undermines our businesses, our farmers and our fishing industry. It provides tariff-free access to the UK market for trade in goods, in which the European Union has the overwhelming advantage, and no comparative access to the EU market for services, in which the UK excels. It is inherently unstable because tariff-free access is dependent on maintaining alignment with the EU and, should we diverge, it explicitly provides for the imposition of tariffs.

The deal provides a 25% reduction in fishing quotas for EU boats in UK waters instead of the 80% which was promised and allows tariffs to be imposed if we go further than that. It ties us in to an abundance of new UK-EU governance structures wholly unaccountable to this Parliament. So much, again, for parliamentary sovereignty.

It is a deal which compromises our prosperity and our security and for which the British people will pay a heavy price in lost jobs and lost opportunities. It is not even the end of Brexit, just an inherently unstable prelude to the neverending negotiations that will follow.

So, four and a half years on, the Brexit illusion ends, not with the easiest trade deal in history, but with the first that constrains trade rather than liberalises it. It is a deal with instability woven throughout and red tape wrapped all around it. To get even this threadbare deal, there was nothing the Government were not willing to sacrifice. First, they sold out Northern Ireland, subjecting it to EU law over which its people will have no say. They then sold out our service industries, the most important sector of our economy. Next, they sold out our young people by breaking their pledge on Erasmus and finally, after all the bluster and baloney, they sold out the fishing industry too.

In the end, they sold out the British people by promising things that were never possible and proving it by failing to deliver them. So much for having our cake and eating it. With this deal we discover that we have not eaten it and we have not got it either.