Airbus

Lord Skelmersdale Excerpts

Tuesday 26th June 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, as the noble Lord would expect, I reject virtually all of what he had to say. I agree that it is important that we make it clear to business that we listen to its voices and concerns.

[Lord Skelmersdale (Con)]

My Lords, noble Lords and business are demanding clarity, as my noble friend well knows. Will he accept that there will be no clarity until there is a positive interaction with the European Council and other European authorities?

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, my noble friend is right to point out that we are in the middle of negotiations with the Commission, and it is important that we get those right. Obviously, there will not be clarity until negotiations are completed.

High Street Retailers

Lord Skelmersdale Excerpts

Wednesday 25th April 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Henley]

I will leave that to my right honourable friend and he will respond as is appropriate. The point I want to stress—as I did in my original Answer and in the one I just gave—is that this is a changing environment. The noble Lord no doubt buys things online. There is an increase in people buying things online; that is quite simply what is happening. I cited the figures: 4.5% of retail was online 10 years ago and the figure is now 17%. That trend will continue. The retail sector must look at ways of adapting. Having said that, the noble Lord should not think that all online trade is necessarily going to Amazon and other warehouses; a lot of online business is conducted by the shops themselves. It is a varied picture, but it is up to the sector itself to adapt to those changes.

[Lord Skelmersdale (Con)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Rebuck (Lab)]

My Lords—

[The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Evans of Bowes Park) (Con)]

My Lords, it is the turn of the Conservative Benches.

[Lord Skelmersdale]

My Lords, we all know that this country is short of housing, especially affordable housing. Many years ago, there was a campaign to live above the shop. Is it not time for a campaign to live in the shop?

Smart Meters Bill

Lord Skelmersdale Excerpts

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 24th April 2018 Grand Committee

I have heard of a number of instances, particularly with SMETS 1 meters, where people have changed supplier; the existing meter has been taken out and replaced with one from another supplier and the meter is identical and made by the same manufacturer, but on a different leasing arrangement. So I would like to understand how we get over that short-term and, indeed, long-term problem. There is a real cost implication for consumers and the leasing costs of the equipment have been a major factor in the cost of the rollout so far for the suppliers. How do we get round that issue? Is there a legislative way, or an instruction or whatever, to solve that problem with SMETS 1 meters now as we move on with the programme?

[Lord Skelmersdale (Con)]

My Lords, is there not actually a rather bigger problem than the one the noble Lord has just explained? At the moment smart meters are offered to consumers. They do not actually have to have them. This whole scenario falls absolutely flat unless there is an imposition on the energy companies, whether gas or electricity, to install smart meters in their customers’ premises.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Grantchester in his Amendment 4 and reiterate his important suggestion. He accepts that his amendment is not necessarily the definitive way forward and is inviting the Government to engage with him and others to try to find a form of words, process and activity that would enable a national plan to come forward that we could all get behind. I hope that when the Minister responds he might signal that this is something he will consider.

Like the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, I have come to this relatively late. Those who have not been living the ups and downs of this over the past few years are completely and utterly shocked that it could have got to this stage without some very serious consequences. At a superficial level—I know it is more complicated than this—the initial programme has had to be restarted and reset but is now about to stop, and people are being laid off and made redundant because there is no guarantee that the SMETS 1 meters will be continued after October 2018. A completely new, untested and uncertain scheme involving SMETS 2 will be brought in on top of that and will therefore go back over ground already covered in a way that is as yet unforeseen.

At the same time, the whole costs of this are hidden and difficult to ascertain. The process under which levers can be exercised on people is not clear and the role of Ofgem, the regulator, is very passive in relation to the capacity it has now. It all smacks of being a complete and utter train crash of enormous proportions, and the only solution appears to be to keep ploughing on. British pluck is all very well but it has not always been the most successful way forward, particularly in matters involving technology.

I urge the Minister, when he comes to respond, to think very carefully about the way in which the Opposition are proposing this and about the support we have received from others. If we do not come out of this with a clear and approachable process—whether it is this national plan or not—the real danger is that consumers will literally be switched off in the sense that they will not wish to be involved in this. As a result, the huge upside of this, the benefits of bringing in a new technology, opening up innovation and bringing in new thinking about how we manage our energy supply—which was the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson—will be lost if consumers are not prepared to walk along. This is not about individual customers having a better time; it is about how we as a country can cope with the energy demands that we will face, and minimising them while strengthening our approach as we go through. This is a terrific chance to get this right in a proper and positive way.

Nuclear Safeguards Bill

Lord Skelmersdale Excerpts

Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 1st March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Teverson]

I thank the Minister for his response. No doubt this debate will continue when we debate the Brexit and energy security report on the Floor of the House. I will just say—to all Ministers who are present—that the whole of history tells me that this is going to be a very difficult ask. It seems obvious, in terms of getting it right for the nation, that it ought to happen, but I suspect that it will be a lot more difficult than perhaps the Minister hopes. I will reflect on the answer and see whether there is anything more exacting we can say on Report—but at this stage I beg leave to withdraw.

[Lord Skelmersdale (Con)]

Before the noble Lord withdraws his amendment, as he said he would, I have noted that this debate has been entirely about new build, but surely one of the great problems in this area will be the experts needed for decommissioning.

[Lord Teverson]

I thank the noble Lord for his contribution. He is absolutely right. Experts are needed not only for decommissioning but for keeping going the existing fleet of nuclear power stations, which provide some 20% of low-carbon energy to our energy system at the moment. We also need nuclear co-operation agreements so that we have not just people but spare parts and everything else for this sector. I can see that the Minister wishes to intervene.

Whistleblowers

Lord Skelmersdale Excerpts

Monday 27th November 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I would be more than happy to look at that matter. Of course, as I made clear, the FCA is conducting a further review, but there are the protections within the Employment Rights Act 1996, as amended—as the noble Lord will be aware—by the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998. Whether under those two pieces of legislation gagging orders would be prohibited or would in fact apply needs looking at.

[Lord Skelmersdale (Con)]

My Lords, I urge my noble friend to have some caution in this area. It is one thing to concentrate on whistleblowers as result of activities at work, but we have seen recent cases—not least in that of a former Prime Minister—where a whistleblower has cost the police vast of amounts of money to no effect whatever, as far as I can see.

[Lord Henley]

My noble friend makes an interesting point which goes slightly beyond the Question, but we should bear it in mind. We are looking here at the protections offered by the Employment Rights Act 1996, as amended by the Public Interest Disclosure Act.