Domestic Premises (Energy Performance) Bill [HL]

Lord Teverson Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords & 2nd reading (Hansard)
Friday 7th February 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a trustee of an organisation in the south-west called Regen SW.

I am someone who loves quizzes—pub quizzes, family quizzes at Christmas—but when it comes to English literature I am useless, except perhaps for two classics, I suppose. One is A Tale of Two Cities by Charles Dickens, with its first line:

“It was the best of times, it was the worst of times”.


I can get that one. Then of course there is the first line of Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice:

“It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife”.


It is a quotation that I think is amazingly sexist. I am told that even in 1813, when she wrote it, it was meant purely ironically. However, while working out what I was going to say in this debate, I came across an even better first line:

“UK homes are not fit for the future”.


Of course, that is the first line in the climate change committee’s report into housing in the UK that was published under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Deben, exactly one year ago.

Why is the UK housing stock not fit for the future? UK housing accounts for 14% of our carbon emissions, a major amount. Between 2017 and 2018, that actually rose by 1%. One of the outcomes of that, and one of the major themes of my noble friend Lord Foster, is that we still have 2.5 million households in the United Kingdom classified as suffering fuel poverty. My noble friend Lord Redesdale mentioned how many of us have talked through these subjects over many years. If I am right, that number has gone up and down, but it has never gone significantly down. It has changed with the changing price of energy bills over time.

One reason that it is not working is because of the chopping and changing of policies that we have heard about. There was Warm Front under Labour, Green Deal under the coalition and the energy company obligation. ECO, one of the current policies, has taken the low-hanging fruit but is now finding it more difficult to find ways to increase household efficiency. We have had others as well, including the renewable heat incentive, the future of which we do not know. There has been very little continuity of policy in this area.

As other noble Lords have mentioned, that has had a secondary effect in terms of skills. It is not so much that we do not have the skills in the UK economy to do what is needed in this area, it is that we train people, build them up, get them in programmes and when those programmes stop, the companies make them all redundant. They all go and we have to re-employ them two or three years later and upgrade their skills until we have a new programme and, we hope, some stability into the future.

One of the other areas that does not work, as mentioned by other noble Lords, is that where we have the regulations we do not check that they are enforced. There is laziness from contractors, builders, planners and even local authorities in making sure that our intentions, even when they are a regulatory or legislative necessity, are applied. Part of that is due to local government cutbacks but there is also a mentality that, once we have made a regulation, we can almost say “Well, that’s it; cheerio, job done” when in reality we have to make sure that it is enforced.

As a result of that, in terms of energy efficiency levels and energy performance criteria just 1% of our housing stock in the UK is A-rated. That means that 99% does not come up to the standards that we will need for the future. That is why our housing stock is not fit for the future. I recommend, having come across it, the Scottish Government’s programme of effectively interest-free loans to get a lot of this to move on. Germany has a very effective scheme as well.

I welcome my noble friend’s Bill in this area because, as he has explained so well and simply, it puts the obligations the Government have given themselves morally and as targets in such things as the clean growth strategy into legislation. As I have said, that is not everything because we then have to make sure that those regulations are applied, but at least this is a first step. That is why it is very important that this moves forward. As the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, has said, this should really become a government Bill rather than a Private Member’s Bill.

I remember that in the Energy Acts during the coalition and afterwards we had a thing called the energy trilemma: the conflict between energy security, the cost of energy and therefore energy poverty, and decarbonisation. The great thing is that, now we are in 2020, it is no longer a trilemma. Renewable energy and decarbonisation are cheaper than traditional fossil fuels and can give us security at the same time. The great vision on energy for the future is that we can go ahead with confidence in that area.

On this Bill we are looking at the opposite of a trilemma—perhaps we might call it a “tribonus”. If we manage to do this, we will not only decarbonise our economy and have lower energy bills through energy efficiency, which means less fuel poverty, but have the added bonus of increased health and all the implications that more healthy homes and families will have on the National Health Service.

We all know those first two lines of A Tale of Two Cities. The next two are:

“it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness”.

This is the age of wisdom in that we know all the technical fixes that can do what my noble friend Lord Foster is asking, but we have the foolishness yet to have grasped that opportunity and apply it to what we are doing. That is the challenge. It is a truth universally accepted on these Benches that we have to get on with this. I ask the Minister to take this Bill and make sure that it goes through both Houses of Parliament so that we can start this journey.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Lord Teverson Excerpts

Wednesday 5th February 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Duncan of Springbank]

Never will it be moved away, not that I will never confirm.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, COP 15 back in 2009 was organised by the Danish Government in Copenhagen. It was chaotic and Denmark suffered humiliation globally—I must put it as strongly as that. We do not know who is leading for our country, there are question marks about the location and we are supposed to be chairing the conference partly with Italy, so there are many unknowns. My question is simple: do the Government understand that if they do not get this right and the conference is chaotic, this country will be humiliated on the global stage?

[Lord Duncan of Springbank]

The stakes could not be higher. The question of who is to lead on this issue is simple: the Prime Minister will set the direction and the pace. The question of who delivers that has yet to be put in place, but the important thing to recognise is that there are fewer than 7,000 hours until we reach that point. The strategy we put in place will deliver, but equally we must ensure that other nations are able to step up to the plate and deliver alongside us. Even if we reach net zero tomorrow, the problem will remain. We must do more to bring others alongside.

Climate Change: COP 26 and Civil Society

Lord Teverson Excerpts

Wednesday 15th January 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Duncan of Springbank]

The noble Baroness is right to state that COP 25 in Madrid did not have the full participation of civil society. One of the simple reasons was that COP 25 was due to be in Santiago. I suspect that a number of people had booked tickets there and discovered that they could not get a refund. However, I suspect that in Glasgow there will be full participation in those proceedings, because right now there is a great appetite to explore and express those views. In response to the second part of the question, I can say that Glasgow was chosen because it is seventh-highest in the world in the global destination sustainability index. We also have a direct train line into the venue, which will ensure a lower carbon footprint. I believe that there will be a legacy left in Glasgow, and that the Governments of Scotland and the UK will continue to build on it.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, I congratulate the Government on getting COP 26 in Glasgow. It is a great thing for the country. It is also important because of the climate emergency which the other place has declared. I was pleased to hear the Prime Minister say in October that there would be a cabinet committee for climate change, to ensure that it was across Government. How many times has it met under the chairmanship of the Prime Minister?

[Lord Duncan of Springbank]

The noble Lord will be aware that very soon after that was announced, there was an election, and shortly after the election there was Christmas. Unfortunately, the cabinet committee has not yet met, but it will meet this month, very shortly. I will report back to this House on what has been discussed at that meeting.

European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill

Lord Teverson Excerpts

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard continued) & Committee stage & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard continued): House of Lords
Tuesday 14th January 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Altmann (Con)]

My Lords, very briefly, I want to add my support to the thrust of these amendments. I express sympathy with my noble friend the Minister. I suspect that, having listened to the arguments around the House, he would very much welcome the opportunity to try to keep to the manifesto commitments, which were so ably outlined by the noble Lord, and recognise the will of the people of Northern Ireland, who, as we have heard from across the House, support the thrust of these amendments, so brilliantly moved by the noble Lord, Lord Hain.

This does not delay the legislation but is about damage limitation. I implore my noble friend to take this back to the department and champion this House’s role of ensuring that the other place properly considers the implications of what is being proposed in this legislation. From looking at the debates in the other place, I do not believe that the sentiments expressed across this House and the wisdom that we have heard this evening were fully reflected there.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, the EU committee of which I am a member has spent a lot of time on Northern Ireland issues. Although I do not visit the Province regularly, I used to do business there and greatly enjoyed it; it is a fantastic part of the United Kingdom.

What really worries me goes back to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord McCrea: this denial by the Prime Minister that there is any problem here, when clearly there is. Yes, we have it in the protocol that the Province is to be part of the UK customs territory—but in reality it is part of the single market and the European customs union. It is de jure part of the UK and de facto part of the EU in terms of its economy.

The recent report by the EU committee stated:

“Notwithstanding the statement in Article 4 of the protocol that Northern Ireland is part of the customs territory of the UK, the practical implication of the protocol’s provisions on customs will be the introduction of a regulatory border for goods travelling from Great Britain to Northern Ireland. The introduction of such a border within the UK will have financial and political consequences”—


which is probably an understatement.

I was in the EU committee when the current Secretary of State for Brexit, Stephen Barclay, said, on the advice of his senior civil servants, that there would indeed be that border down the Irish Sea, and that there would be documentation; it would not be frictionless. So I find it very difficult to understand why we have this very trite statement, as always, by the Prime Minister, when that is not the case.

To emphasise what the noble Lord, Lord McCrea, said, I will quote what has been said today by the EU’s chief Brexit negotiator, Michel Barnier. He stated that the protocol on Northern Ireland outlined in the withdrawal agreement means that checks on goods moving from Great Britain to Northern Ireland would have to be in place. He said:

“The implementation of this agreement foresees checks and controls entering the island of Ireland. I look forward to constructive co-operation with the British authorities to ensure that all provisions are respected and made operational.”


We have not heard a great deal from the European Union on this issue. I suspect that it is very wary about entering the politics of Northern Ireland. But that silence has now broken, and it is very firm. So it would show respect to the Province if the Government could be honest about what is foreseen.

[Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)]

My Lords, I very much support the amendments moved by the noble Lord, Lord Hain, and I am very grateful for the detailed way in which he explained them. It could not be clearer; he covered pretty much every aspect. This has been reinforced by everybody else who has spoken. It is difficult to avoid the reality.

Let me first address the political dilemma. The Government have had an election, they have a majority of 80 and they can do what they wish in the House of Commons; we know that. The Minister has effectively got instructions that all amendments must be resisted. However, the Prime Minister’s personal reputation and integrity rest on this issue. He has explicitly said that there will be no checks—and in a sense, these amendments are trying to put into law the Prime Minister’s promise of what the protocol would mean. We all know the difficulty is that any analysis of the protocol does not square with the promise—unless the Prime Minister has got some way of explaining that which none of us has yet come across.

A useful analysis of the protocol has been produced by the Institute for Government, which makes it clear that the protocol means that while Northern Ireland will remain part of the customs territory of the UK, customs checks and controls will apply for goods moving from Great Britain to Northern Ireland because that ensures that customs checks or controls are not required between Northern Ireland and the Republic. That is the essence of the protocol in a nutshell.

The consequences of that, therefore, are that not only will there be checks but that exports into Northern Ireland from the rest of the UK will be subject both to customs checks and, potentially, tariffs. There is an argument that these tariffs could be reimbursable, but that immediately introduces a bureaucracy of having to regulate them, and apply, and when and how long that takes. So let us be honest; we are facing a dilemma.

As has been said, the Northern Ireland economy is one of small businesses and is vulnerable and fragile. For many of those businesses, the practicalities of dealing with this could be life-threatening and could effectively destroy their viability. Indeed, one begins to wonder how the pattern of trade might change, inasmuch as businesses in Northern Ireland may find that trading with the mainland of the UK is just too difficult; and, indeed, businesses on the mainland of the UK may decide that Northern Ireland is too much trouble. Somebody trying to order something online through Amazon may find that it does not supply Northern Ireland, or will only supply it at a premium, or will charge a tariff which may or may not be reimbursable. These are the kinds of complexities that we are facing and envisaging, and everybody who has spoken recognises that to be the case—and I think it is reasonable.

I do not envy the Minister’s position, but I would love him to have a conversation with the Prime Minister and say, “Prime Minister, you have categorically stated that there will be no checks or tariffs. It would be helpful if everybody else in the Government could have it explained to them how this is going to be achieved, because I have not come across anyone who yet knows how it can be done”. So the amendments are well-intentioned and constructive. They are about saying, “We have a promise and this is how it should be delivered.”

Given the Benches I am speaking from, I should make it clear that I accept that we are leaving the European Union at the end of January and that the Bill needs to be passed in good time and in good order. I certainly do not regard this as anything other than a genuine recognition of a crucial issue that needs to be addressed on behalf of the people of Northern Ireland. I do not have to repeat, but I will, that it has cross-party, business, and community support—literally, unanimity—across the entire Province that says, “Please help us through this dilemma.” I hope that the Government will recognise that they have an obligation to do so.

Perhaps I might raise one other slightly unrelated issue in relation to these clauses. The commitment to non-diminution of rights within the agreement is enshrined in Northern Ireland legislation—in other words, it applies to it—but there has been some concern, particularly in the debates we have already had about Henry VIII clauses and other clauses, that this does not apply to any other legislation passed by the United Kingdom Government. Does the Minister accept that if the UK Government can amend aspects of legislation in Northern Ireland—or, for that matter, elsewhere, but Northern Ireland in this context—the non-diminution of rights would be meaningless if UK law could compromise that and only Northern Ireland law is protected? I hope I have made myself clear and I would be interested to hear the Minister’s comments on that.

In conclusion, the Minister can be in no doubt about the feeling across the House. I have said, both publicly and privately to the Minister, that his engagement on these and all other issues is warmly admired and respected—there is no question about that. His commitment and sincerity in wanting to get the right results is not in doubt or in question, but he is defending a difficulty here on behalf of the Government.

He has between now and next week. It is probably a forlorn hope, but I think he should have a conversation with the usual channels and the Government to say that this issue is really causing a great deal of fractious difficulty and the Government need to show in very real terms that they are going to address it. If they could in some way or other accept these amendments or bring forward a government amendment that followed that through, a lot of mistrust might be evaporated and the situation might be regarded as one in which the Government have demonstrated a genuine determination to get to the right place, which is unfettered access.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Duncan of Springbank]

Yes, I am content to put in a letter the elements I have set out today, with the appropriate detail and clarity which I may have lacked in my explanation this evening, so that the Committee can see exactly what I seek to put on the record. I am occasionally guilty of being expansive—I know that my Chief Whip looks daggers at me occasionally—but I am happy to put that down in a letter in appropriate time, so that the Committee can consider it and make sure that there is no dubiety in what I seek to put forward. I am happy to give that commitment and I will ensure that it is there in good time.

Again, I bring myself back to the important point: I believe that we seek the same outcome, which is to secure Northern Ireland’s place within the family of nations that is the United Kingdom, and to ensure that there are no impediments to the trade within the Province of Northern Ireland as it seeks to trade within its important relationships with the rest of the UK. On that point, I am sorry that I am not able to give more positive support, but I will do all I can in the next few days to set out in writing the Government’s position.

[Lord Teverson]

For simple clarity, can the Minister confirm whether he agrees with Monsieur Barnier in his analysis?

[Lord Duncan of Springbank]

Having been a Member of the European Parliament, I know that one of the challenges is that Commission officials can sometimes be too expansive in the way that they express themselves, for purposes that are not always clear. I am afraid that I do not know exactly why Monsieur Barnier said what he did but he may well fit into that category. I am also conscious that I did not answer the question of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce. If he will forgive me, I will write to him, and on that point, I conclude my remarks.

Electricity Supplier Obligations (Excluded Electricity) (Amendment) Regulations 2019

Lord Teverson Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd October 2019 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and Northern Ireland Office (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)]

My Lords, it is like I have never been away. This statutory instrument amends the Electricity Supplier Obligations (Amendment & Excluded Electricity) Regulations 2015. The existing legislation supports the competitiveness of energy-intensive industries by exempting eligible businesses from a proportion of the costs of funding renewable electricity. This instrument amends the existing legislation to: include the manufacture of grain mill products; clarify the application of state aid requirements which exclude firms in difficulty from the scheme; and improve the scheme’s overall operation.

The sectors eligible for the existing exemption scheme employ over 300,000 workers and account for more than a quarter of total UK exports. Many are located in areas of economic disadvantage and provide good, well-paid jobs. While our industrial gas price is internationally competitive, our electricity prices for medium and large industrial users are the highest in western Europe and have been for some time. Clearly, electricity costs have a significant impact on the competitiveness of such enterprises. The industries affected operate in international markets, so higher electricity costs place them at a competitive disadvantage, resulting in the risk of carbon leakage, which is when companies choose to move their production to countries with less ambitious climate policies.

Existing legislation covering energy-intensive industries allows eligible businesses to receive an indirect exemption of up to 85% of the costs of funding renewable electricity schemes. When an eligible business applies successfully for the exemption, its electricity supplier receives a reduction in the costs which it passes on to the eligible business. This approach mitigates the cost of the renewable electricity schemes, supports industrial competitiveness and provides certainty for businesses. The costs of the exemption are distributed to other electricity users.

As I said, the regulations add the grain mill products sector, as it now meets the criteria for inclusion in the scheme. The regulations clarify the information that applicants must give to enable the department to assess their eligibility. They also improve the scheme by ensuring that a business that uses a new meter will have to accrue only three months of data before applying; and that, when electricity meters are shared by more than one business, the proportion of electricity which is exempted will be updated more rapidly. Certificates will now expire at the end of June rather than March, thereby reducing the risk of businesses facing a gap in receiving the exemption. Businesses are also now able to submit their quarterly reports on any day of the quarter, resulting in increased flexibility for them.

In conclusion, these regulations will extend and improve the existing legislation and support the competitiveness of energy-intensive manufacturing industries in the UK. I beg to move.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, I am interested that the Minister did not mention carbon leakage, because that is absolutely the core of what this is about. It is about reducing our own carbon footprint. If industry migrates to China or to south-east Asia, that has no effect in any way on global emissions even though it reduces our carbon footprint. At that point we lose employment and all the advantages of business that he outlined.

There is a completely different and topical approach to this issue. Professor Dieter Helm, in his report earlier this year or at the end of last year to the department, said that one of the things that needs to happen if we are serious about electricity prices, energy prices and a carbon-neutral economy is that we should have external carbon tariffs. On our European position, whether we are inside or outside, it is interesting that the President-elect of the Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, said that external carbon tariffs were a way forward as a core part of her Green Deal package for Europe. Whether we have equivalence when we are outside is another question.

Has the Minister’s department looked at all strategically at this question, rather than fiddling around with which industry, sector, business, conglomerate or corporate should be in this definition? I have no idea why flour milling should be, but it is great that it needs to be. I have no argument with that. I have not come across that industry in this context before. Would moving forward in this external way not solve all these problems at a stroke? I suspect that a lot more might be produced internationally, but it seems the direction of travel.

I am not sure that the Minister mentioned businesses in distress, which are now excluded from this for state aid reasons. I do not necessarily disagree with it, but I want to understand it more. Has that exemption been used in the past? Perhaps we can understand some examples and what effect it had.

[Lord Lennie (Lab)]

The contracts for difference scheme demands that certain high-energy industries pay what is in effect a tax to fund a levy to help subsidise and encourage the generation and production of renewable electricity. Within the scheme, energy-intensive industries, or EIIs, can apply for an exemption from having to pay. This SI adds flour milling to the list of those industries eligible to apply for an exemption, to help the milling industry remain internationally competitive—what you might call flour power.

The SI also seeks to hasten the responsiveness to applicants seeking such exemptions. Where a meter is used for shared purposes either within or between companies, it allows speedier and more accurate removal from the scheme of those activities which do not qualify for such a reduction. It extends EII certificates from the end of March to the end of June each year, giving business more time to report and lessening the chance of a gap between reporting and granting of exemptions

I have some questions. Does the scheme apply to all flour millers and all flour milled, or is it restricted to flour milled for the human food chain only? Graded grains make finer flour, as the phrase goes. Is the scheme just for human-chain flour, or is it for other flour used for animal feed purposes? Is the Minister satisfied that the changes proposed in the scheme will ensure the long-term future of the flour milling industry internationally as well as helping to stabilise food security post Brexit?

The next review of the EII scheme is not due until 2023. Given the Government’s welcome shortening of their climate change targets, should not this review also be brought forward to determine any revisions that may be necessary to the scheme to help meet these obligations?

I understand that the feed-in tariffs scheme closed in April 2018, so why does paragraph 2.3 of the Explanatory Memorandum state that eligible EIIs,

“are also eligible for reductions in the costs of funding two other policies that support renewable electricity generation, namely the Renewables Obligation (RO) (in England and Wales and in Scotland) and the small-scale Feed-In Tariff (FIT) schemes”?

If that scheme has closed, why does the Explanatory Memorandum use an active word, or has the scheme been replaced and renewed in ways that we have not yet heard?

The Government announced a control mechanism for low carbon levies in 2017: in effect, that they would have to prove that they were value for money. Can the Minister provide any up-to-date assessment of that decision?

[Lord Duncan of Springbank]

It has been a remarkably short and sweet debate. Long may such debates continue. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, that I did mention carbon leakage, as it happens.

[Lord Teverson]

I apologise.

[Lord Duncan of Springbank]

Not at all. The noble Lord is quite right in one respect: the notion of carbon leakage is potentially worse for global emissions, because moving from an area where there are high standards to one where they are lower runs the risk of one’s emissions being increased.

The issue of carbon border tariffs is fascinating. I spent a great deal of time as a Member of the European Parliament and a rapporteur looking at carbon border tariffs around the emissions trading scheme. The challenge with that was that, even at an EU level, it was hard to get a consensus to support it. I do not want to set any hares running, but I want to consider it carefully because we cannot rule anything out in the future.

However, the present scheme is designed as best we can to ensure a level of competitiveness, which I think we can appreciate. We need to recognise where the energy-intensive industries can become more efficient and thereby reduce their emissions, and where there are certain process emissions which are simply the output of an equation in chemistry and will always produce a certain number of carbon dioxide molecules. There are important things that we need to explore.

On businesses in distress, an example that might fit here is the steel industry but, in truth, it would have qualified even had it not been in distress, because it was already within the carbon intensives. We are looking at the supply chain, as we drop down from the larger sector to the smaller parts of the supply chain which may be in distress as a consequence of a bigger impact somewhere higher up. Rather than me simply saying this, I will write to the noble Lord to set this out in some detail and I will happily place a copy of that in the Library so that he can see exactly where that rests.

The question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, relating to the flour mills themselves is an interesting one, because it is a question that I also asked myself. Do all flour mills automatically qualify? The answer is, no, they do not; they still have to meet the obligations set inside. A flour mill would be eligible to take part because it is now within an industry that is recognised as qualifying, but the individual mill itself would still have to meet the criteria to qualify for inclusion in order to secure the benefits. That would apply to all sectors, so it is not an automatic inclusion, although some industries or sectors are pretty much in their entirety all within that.

As to the longer-term question, I would hope that this will help flour milling to be competitive at the European and global levels. Food security remains one of the prime considerations across the EU and here at home. On the issue of whether we will review this, I think we should in fact be constantly reviewing these issues. I appreciate that my making that statement and a review actually occurring might not be hand in glove, but I recognise that, on the glide path to COP 26 next year in Glasgow, we should look at all our obligations in this regard to make sure that they are all being delivered as expected. If we are not careful, we could become complacent and simply rely upon that which worked in the past. We want to make sure that it works going forward.

When the noble Lord raised the question of feed-in tariffs, I also had a little twinkle in the back of my mind that they were closed. They are in fact closed to new entrants but there are existing recipients who benefit from the payments, and that is why they are cited in the body of the Explanatory Memorandum. They are few in number and, if the noble Lord would like, I will happily set out how many still qualify under the feed-in tariff scheme within this wider obligation.

On that basis, I think I am content to move these regulations forward.

Frequent Flyer Airmiles Schemes

Lord Teverson Excerpts

Monday 21st October 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Duncan of Springbank]

I would much rather that we were able to address 100% of the individuals who take flights. That is why we are participating very strongly in the International Civil Aviation Organization—ICAO—to try to make sure that it addresses this matter at an international level. There are means which can be taken; the next meeting will take place in 2022, and the Government stand ready to play their part.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister will understand that that is an international offsetting mechanism, which will not work. As individual car drivers we pay 58p per litre in fuel duty, and on top of that we pay VAT. The airlines pay absolutely zero tax on aviation fuel. Surely that is wrong. Would it not be an excellent way to address this, when we chair COP 26 in Glasgow next year, to have as one of our objectives that all airlines internationally should pay their fair tax and their fair contribution to remedying environmental damage?

[Lord Duncan of Springbank]

To be very clear, the UK has an air passenger duty which raises £3.6 billion a year. It is the highest such tax in Europe—many countries in Europe do not have such a tax—and that money goes a long way to address climate change issues, which are of importance to the Government.

Gas Tariffs Code (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Lord Teverson Excerpts

Thursday 26th September 2019 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and Northern Ireland Office (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)]

My Lords, I did not expect such a packed House for my statutory instrument. Let me give your Lordships some background. EU legislation governing our energy markets will be incorporated into domestic legislation via the withdrawal Act retained law. The department is working to ensure this energy legislation continues to function smoothly after exit, and supports a well-functioning, competitive and resilient energy system for consumers.

What does this statutory instrument do? The Article 50 extension to 31 October means that additional EU law will now be retained. Chapters 2, 3 and 4 of the TAR code, which established network code on harmonised transmission tariff structures for gas, have applied since 31 May. We need to amend our previous legislation, the Gas (Security of Supply and Network Codes) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, to address inoperabilities in these additional chapters—for example, with reference to the naming of EU institutions. This supports our aim to retain regulatory functions and frameworks in all eventualities by keeping Great Britain and Northern Ireland’s gas markets working effectively, and by providing continuity for UK industry and its consumers.

The aims of TAR are to increase transparency and the coherence of tariff structures for gas sale and purchase and procedures used to set tariff structures. Tariff structures cover ways in which transmission system operators collect revenues associated with the provision of services at entry and exit points, and collect via capacity and commodity-based transmission tariffs and non-transmission tariffs.

Chapters 2, 3 and 4 applied across the UK and the EU from 31 May 2019. Regulations need to be amended by this statutory instrument to correct deficiencies in what will be the retained EU law—namely, where we state EU entity functions and references to EU institutions and bodies. Deficiencies need to be removed or replaced with reference to UK entities—for example, replacing “member states” with references to UK elements. The regime introduced by TAR is retained, subject to these amendments. The statutory instrument aims to maintain existing domestic rules while amending or removing provisions no longer functioning on exit day. It also aims to retain technical specifications wherever possible, with the result of maximising business continuity for market participants and cross-border gas trading.

In conclusion, the regulations are an appropriate use of the powers of the withdrawal Act to maximise business continuity for UK market operators, facilitate continued efficient international trade in gas, and help to protect security of affordable gas supplies for UK consumers. On that basis, I commend these regulations to the House.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, first, I welcome the Minister to his role. I know this has already been done by our official Front-Bench spokesman, but I very much welcome that he has taken on this broader brief, particularly when the areas of climate change and energy are of great importance—globally as well as within this country. I have no issue with this secondary legislation, but it enables us to ask some key questions related to energy markets, Brexit and, in particular, gas.

The first area that I want to explore is the island of Ireland. As the Minister will be well aware, there is a single energy market across the Irish Sea. I notice particularly that this statutory instrument covers the whole United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland. It is important for the Minister at this stage, particularly in the context of potential no deal, which this secondary legislation is about, to assure us that the single energy market, which includes gas as well as electricity, remains coherent. There are ways of making it remain coherent, given the total dependency that there is on energy supplies between both sides of the border in a no-deal situation. The Republic of Ireland is almost completely dependent on the UK for its gas supplies—gas is starting to come through from its own fields, but that is far from full at the moment—and any disruption of that totally integrated market would be very negative for both the Province of Northern Ireland and the Republic.

I also want to ask about interconnectors, which are an increasingly important part of our energy strategy, and rightly so; I have welcomed many times the fact that we have pushed the interconnector concept forward in relation to energy balancing within the UK, particularly with the increase in renewables. When it comes to gas, we have three interconnectors: one is with Ireland, of course, but we also have them with the Netherlands and Belgium. Again, I seek the Minister’s reassurances—I hope with some reason—that those interconnectors will continue to work, given the fact that we have had, albeit on the electricity side rather than gas, a number of energy incidents recently that mean that our energy security is particularly important in this area. As I understand it, PRISMA and the systems around it will stay in place but, as we come out of the internal energy market if we have a no-deal Brexit, I am not confident that those interconnectors will be quite so straightforward as they might be.

I wish to push the envelope slightly into the important area of oil. As I understand it, the Government have said that when we leave the European Union, however we do so, one area that has not been dealt with in terms of a rollover of European law will be the reserves of petroleum held by the UK after Brexit, and that the Government do not feel bound by the European Union rules on fuel reserves, which I think would mean some 85 million barrels of petroleum being held within our reserves. Rather, they are looking to the International Energy Agency rules, which would reduce that to 35 million barrels, under half that figure. I understand that some of that reserve is actually held in the Rotterdam/Antwerp area. If that is the case, I wish to be reassured by the Minister that in the event of no deal we would still have access to those reserves abroad.

Given the situations in Saudi Arabia with the drone attack, in the Strait of Hormuz, in Iran and in Venezuela, I caution strongly that at this time we should not look to reduce our petroleum reserves in the United Kingdom. This is fundamental to our national security and I urge severe caution on the Government. I would be very interested to hear the Minister’s response to that.

In the Mansion House speech by the previous Prime Minister, and indeed this has since been confirmed by the previous Minister, Claire Perry, we intended to remain—if we could, difficult though that may be outside the single market—a member of the internal energy market, where we have been one of the greatest proponents of liberalisation and one of the countries that has done most to set up that internal market. I wonder whether it is still government policy to try to remain within that energy market, which covers gas as well as electricity.

One of the fears of the gas industry on Brexit is about our need for labour mobility. This industry, more than almost all others, depends on the mobility of expertise and the way that it operates. Why should the Minister be confident of keeping that expertise in circulation following Brexit?

Lastly, this statutory instrument mentions the transmission systems operator. Since the electricity brownout during the Summer Recess, there has been a question about conflict of interest and whether National Grid is the right body to remain as the transmission systems operator. Will the Minister comment on this with reference to the gas side of that operation?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Duncan of Springbank]

I thank all noble Lords for their participation in this short but none the less instructive debate. I will begin where the noble Lord, Lord McNicol, left off, to answer some of the questions specific to the statutory instrument.

The issue to remember is that because we did not leave on 31 March, the legislation that had been passed at that point as retained law had to incorporate the fact that this piece of EU law was passed on 31 May and therefore became part of EU retained law. The reason we have brought this back now is that there are certain elements of that retained law which would need to be adjusted to be functional after Brexit within domestic law. The changes are relatively modest but none the less critical.

The answer to why it was done via the affirmative procedure is simple: because it has elements in relation to fees. As to whether it represents any shift in our policy, at a fundamental level the answer is no. This is simply a tidying-up exercise, which is modest in its implications but none the less critical to make sure that there is a functioning statute book after Brexit. As to the transfer of powers to Ofgem—it was not in my briefing pack but it is now—in the transfer of powers from the EU regulator ACER to Ofgem, no additional powers are created.

Those are the specific answers to the questions on the statutory instrument. I will now turn to the questions raised by noble Lords and begin, in order, with the noble Lord, Lord Teverson. One of the important things to stress about the market on the island of Ireland is that it is a single electricity market, not a single gas market. The gas does not cross the borders, only the electricity. The UK Government remain fully committed—as do the Irish Government—to ensuring the single electricity market on the island of Ireland. We believe that will be a priority for both Governments to ensure.

There is an interconnector transferring gas from the United Kingdom into the Republic of Ireland and we do not anticipate that that will be affected by any of these issues. The gas market across the EU is a remarkably—I want to use the term without meaning it as a pun—liquid market, but it is a very significant and successful market.

When it comes to interconnectors with the EU, touching on some of the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, we secure only 5% of our gas from the EU. It is a modest amount. Will that be affected by some of the geopolitics on the continent of Europe? We do not anticipate so, but have reserves which will allow us to secure continued use of gas during any such period.

My noble friend Lord Howell raised the wider situation on the continent of Europe. It is important to look at some of the real challenges this creates for the continent, the EU and ourselves. The first thing to stress is that we believe the Nord Stream pipeline is a problematic reality, which is why we are supportive of where Ukraine stands. However, there are also serious issues for the states to the east of the European Union. In this country we are moving swiftly towards decarbonisation but Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and others are presently faced by the impossible devil’s dilemma of having to continue with their indigenous coal reserves being utilised or importing from Russia. Noble Lords can appreciate the dilemma that creates for the EU as it seeks to determine a decarbonised agenda. We have been, as a number of noble Lords have noted, a very liberalising influence in trying to secure the movement going forward to help those countries decarbonise, but it is, as my noble friend Lord Howell correctly stresses, one of the greater challenges faced by the continent today.

We will seek to continue to be participants in the energy markets of the EU. Brexit will have an impact on that and it is very difficult for me to anticipate exactly how we shall continue in that area. For example, one of the issues on which we have been a great leader inside the European Union is emissions trading, where we have sought from a leadership position to encourage the decarbonisation through a market-based regime. Exactly how we will continue to do so after Brexit remains to be determined. Part of the difficulty, with which noble Lords will be very familiar, is that we are unable to begin to negotiate the future relationship until we have established the departure. Some of these questions which rightly should not only be answered now but should have been some time ago have not been answered. On that basis, we cannot do it unanimously and must wait until such time as we can move this forward with the EU after Brexit.

[Lord Teverson]

I thank the Minister for giving way. What I am trying to get at here is that the previous Government—the previous Prime Minister and her Ministers—were able to say, “We want to remain a part of the internal energy market. We may not achieve it, but that is our intent”. I am very aware that the present Prime Minister is trying to quite substantially change the political agreement within any withdrawal agreement, and I am trying to determine what government policy relating to this is known. Is the position the same or has it changed?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Duncan of Springbank]

I do not believe that the Brexit situation changes the dynamic of how we approach the wider question of gas storage. We need to make sure that the storage is adequate for any—in fact, every—eventuality. Brexit itself has not changed the policy on that. It will be our intention to ensure that it is not only adequate but able to anticipate whatever challenges come ahead. We will remain committed to that end.

[Lord Teverson]

I will not interrupt again. However, I feel that this is a really important national issue. Will the Minister confirm or give us assurance that, following Brexit, the Government will not—immediately or within a short period of time—reduce the amount of petroleum reserves that have to be held in this country?

International Climate Action

Lord Teverson Excerpts

Thursday 26th September 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. He has made me feel like a climate criminal because part of his Statement was on replacing wood-burning stoves internationally. I have two of them, I am afraid, but I burn my own wood—it takes three years to dry—and I replace the trees on my very modest property. I hope he will forgive me.

I do not mean this negatively, as everything the Labour Front Bench said was true, but it is easy to sermonise on this stuff. I know this from my own experience: I have solar thermal panels to heat my water; I have wood-burning stoves; and there are various other things that I do. Even I, as an individual, can criticise hugely in terms of the agenda set by Greta Thunberg at that conference. Her speech—my goodness—is not the sort we would make in this place. It was very different—not a politician’s speech—but it was very hard-hitting and absolutely bang on in terms of what we have all managed to do so far. We can congratulate ourselves on our 42% reduction, which is good in terms of other international indices, but we have a long way to go. The Government, since 2015, have lost pace on this, but they have started to pick up again.

I welcome this Statement. I welcome the fact that our Prime Minister went to New York, went to the United Nations, spoke with other people and made this announcement about international aid when, so often within the government party, there is a lot of criticism of how much money we spend abroad as opposed to in the UK, so I give him full credit for that. It is good to hear that the United Kingdom was seen as one of the positive countries trying to push this agenda forward. I also welcome from his Statement a fact we knew already: that we have captured the COP 26 conference, which is at the end of next year. That puts a pressure on all of us as parliamentarians here and at the other end to push that agenda consistently, not just when it is fashionable—over the period at least leading up to 2026. It was being advertised as a joint Italy-UK conference, so I would be interested to understand from the Minister how this will happen.

What representations are the Government making to President Bolsonaro of Brazil about the Amazon—not necessarily in New York, because I understand the Prime Minister’s visit there was cut short for some reason? The President has has made very strong statements that the Amazon is a completely sovereign issue for Brazil. As it is an ex-colonised country, I sort of understand that, but how are we making representations there? I would also like to understand where the money is coming from—I do not mean this negatively. Is this additional money or is it part of the DfID budget? I would be very interested to hear where those funds come from and over what time they will be expended.

Those are my questions, but I want to be positive here. I welcome that we have this emphasis on green growth. I also welcome the commitments made at the Labour Party conference in terms of climate, green growth and green package—we did a similar thing in the Liberal Democrats’ one. What has been quite clear is that, over the last three or four years, this topic has not been very often debated in this House. We now need to make sure that this remains a permanent part of our agenda—and in Parliament generally—over the long term and is not a one-off.

[Lord Duncan of Springbank]

My Lords, I welcome the contribution from both noble Lords. Tackling climate change will be, perhaps, the most significant challenge that we as a planet face. It is important to recognise that there is work to be done at home and abroad. That is why the UN conference in New York was important, because it gave us an opportunity to talk to the wider communities about not just what we want them to do, but how we can demonstrate what we have been doing ourselves. That is how we will make the difference. We have to able to show that we are not just talking the talk but walking the walk.

I will address some of the key issues brought forward by the two speakers, beginning with the noble Lord, Lord McNicol. The commitment made by the Labour Party to reach net zero by 2030 is quite an ambitious claim. We have taken advice from the Committee on Climate Change which says that we can move there by 2050. We would welcome the Labour Party submitting its proposals to the Committee on Climate Change to establish whether indeed they can be realised in that time available. The advice we have just now from that committee is that that is not possible, but we will welcome any information that Labour is able to supply on the functional pathways which have been explored by the Committee on Climate Change.

This is an area in which there is rhetoric all too often. That is why it is important to look at commitments here. We are the first major economy to commit to net zero by 2050, following the advice of the Committee on Climate Change, which has again set out the clear pathways we can follow to achieve that. We have committed to increase our individual commitments to climate change. We have doubled our international climate finance, which is a not insignificant amount of money. We have committed to align all our overseas development aid with the Paris agreement—one of the first major nations to do that. There is clearly much more that we have to do, but that is at least the beginning of the process.

When it comes to international support, our climate finance has so far helped 57 million people cope with the effects of climate change in the adaptation and mitigation sectors. Some 26 million people will have improved access to clean energy; 16 million people have avoided or reduced their greenhouse gas emissions via the funding. We have installed 1,600 megawatts of clean energy capacity. Some £3.8 billion of public finance has been mobilised for climate change. As to where the money comes from, for the declarations we have made it has been new money, coming primarily from taxpayers. It is the commitment of taxpayers themselves that we need to be able to ensure as we go forward. As to what we are doing at home, it is important to recognise that there is a role for government and for individuals. The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, raised wood-burning stoves, which have become very popular. We need to make sure that we address the sustainability issues of these, and the example that he gave suggests that his approach is sustainable.

We are making great headway. As the noble Lord, Lord McNicol, has pointed out, the decarbonisation of energy generation is extraordinary. In a very short period, we have moved towards certain days of the week when no coal is used in the generation of our electricity; that is extraordinary. In some respects, and this is where the gas bridge concept will come in, moving towards lower or lighter hydrocarbons is critical in helping us to decarbonise. This is seen in the Americas, where lighter hydrocarbons are easing out the use of coal. This is the first area in which we have achieved significant decarbonisation.

When we come to the concept of, “Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country”, each household will have to answer particular questions. How well insulated are our homes and roof spaces? Are we moving forward considering the efficiency of different types of boilers? There will come a point when we will ask about the use of gas as a means of providing heat and energy in our homes. We have made substantial progress with the UK car fleet but that is quite modest compared against the journey yet to be taken. That is why we need to think about new technologies and ensure that the prices of the vehicles themselves are within the reach of the ordinary household. There is no point in trying to use a stick when modestly priced cars are not available to take this forward.

I could go on at some length, but I suspect that other questions will reveal some of the answers.

Nuclear Power Stations

Lord Teverson Excerpts

Monday 9th September 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Duncan of Springbank]

The noble Lord will be aware that the French nuclear system is based primarily on riverine cooling, whereas that in the UK is based on marine cooling. Two plants in France had to be turned off because of the situation in the rivers. We do not have any issues in that regard, but we will learn lessons because it is important to do so. The Office for Nuclear Regulation must learn lessons not only from what happens at home but from what happens abroad.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, before the Summer Recess, the Government agreed that the UK should have a zero-carbon target for 2050. I cannot remember if that was from this Government or the May Government. Can the Minister confirm that that is still the Government’s position, although what is more important is meeting the recommendations of the Climate Change Committee? When will we have an updated clean growth strategy?

[Lord Duncan of Springbank]

It was our Government. We will have an updated clean growth strategy because it is absolutely vital. We will need to be bold about taking ourselves forward to net zero by 2050, because our present initiatives are not adequate to deliver that. There will need to be a significant refresh not just of the wider clean growth strategy but of all aspects of this covering all government departments.

EU and Sudan: EUC Report

Lord Teverson Excerpts

Wednesday 7th December 2011 Grand Committee

Moved By

[Lord Teverson]

To move that the Grand Committee do consider the report of the European Union Committee on The EU and Sudan: on the Brink of Change (18th Report, HL Paper 160).

[Lord Shutt of Greetland]

My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, speaks, I am told that an earlier person who sat in this chair said that there were 15 speakers signed up for the first debate and nine signed up for the second debate this afternoon. If all contributions, other than those of the openers and the winders, are kept to seven minutes, it should allow the Grand Committee to adjourn at 7.45 pm.

[Lord Teverson]

I thank the noble Lord for his contribution. I would say to him that of all the committees I have ever chaired, this is one that does not do what it is told the most, but it may be that on this occasion it might actually listen.

The story of South Sudan could, in many ways, be described as the best of fairy tales. We had the independence of Sudan back in 1956 and civil war started almost immediately and lasted up until 1972. Then we had a few years of peace and resolution, followed from 1983 right the way through to 2005 by a second civil war in this very sad, war-torn nation—the largest of the African nations. Yet, with 2 million people having perished and some 5 million having been displaced, and despite all that grief and pain which afflicted that nation during those 40 or so years, we had through the hard work, mostly of the United States, a comprehensive peace agreement. A very plain agenda was set out in 2005 and peace broke out. Most importantly, at the beginning of this year, there was a referendum of the people of South Sudan. Perhaps unexpectedly for those who feel pessimistic about Africa as a continent that in the past has not always been able to deliver democracy, the referendum went ahead very effectively. It was praised for the way in which it was handled and declared, with 98 per cent saying yes to independence. That result was respected by the Sudanese Government in Khartoum. Earlier this year, on 9 July, independence was declared with the blessing of Khartoum and the Sudanese Government—in fact, President al-Bashir was there and was respectfully received. We had in that moment the only instance in Africa of a constitutionally arranged division of a state and of a new state being born. That is quite something when we think about the history of that nation and those peoples.

Already at that time, there were great challenges. One of the things that I remember most about this inquiry, as I am sure will my fellow members of the sub-committee, is taking evidence from what were effectively two ambassadors, the head of mission of South Sudan, yet to be an independent state at that time, and the ambassador of Sudan. I meet them in Peers’ Entrance. They were chums. They were slapping each other’s backs, and it was excellent to see them together. They came up to the committee and there was great bonhomie as they started, but as we asked them questions, there was greater division and disagreement on key issues. I remember, as an example of an issue still to be resolved, the ambassador of Sudan saying to the head of mission of South Sudan, “Well, you’ve had $9.5 billion of oil revenues since the CPA in 2005. What has happened to that money?”. I am afraid that there was little answer. That was one of the problems and hazards mentioned in the report. It was a matter not so much of corruption, although that clearly exists, as of the use and disbursement of public and state funds in South Sudan. As is so often the case where there has been a liberation army, there is an army that still has to be paid and takes up a huge amount of the public exchequer. Security sector reform, therefore, is still a major area of concern.

Demarcation is another. There is no proper demarcation of boundaries between north and South Sudan. There are issues of citizenship. Neither South Sudan nor Sudan will allow dual citizenship of both states, so people have to decide. Once they have decided, there is great pressure for them to migrate back to the state where they have citizenship. That leads to a severe mismatch of skills and job opportunities throughout those two nations. There is a challenge of development. South Sudan has one of the highest maternal mortality rates in the world. It has no tarmaced roads outside Juba, its capital, and it has decided even now to move that capital from Juba to a more central location. It has hardly any schools and an illiteracy rate of some 75 per cent.

There is, of course, the continuing problem of oil. The only way that South Sudanese oil—80 per cent of the old country’s oil—can be exported, used and turned into revenue for the Government is through Port Sudan. There has to be an arrangement between the two countries. There was no agreement about the cost of transporting that oil or any such fiscal arrangements. Both countries depend absolutely on that revenue. For South Sudan, it accounts for some 98 per cent of government income.

The other challenge is the province of Abyei. I should explain that under the comprehensive peace agreement, Abyei was not allocated between the two states. How that should happen was to be agreed by the time of independence through consultation with its citizens or by referendum. That did not happen. At around the time of independence, more Sudanese forces occupied Abyei, and there was a very difficult military situation. All those challenges have reached the great situation of a new member state of the world community.

What has happened since then? We have an agreement that Ethiopian troops should come in and be peacekeepers and that the north Sudanese and South Sudanese militias should withdraw. The Ethiopian troops are there; that is the good side. However, neither of the Sudanese nations have withdrawn their own troops. In Sudan itself there are continuing problems in North Kordofan and the Blue Nile province. Unfortunately, there has been no Arab spring in Sudan, and there is little sign of it as yet.

South Sudan, too, suffers from internal violence to do with the unity of the state. There is also a situation with provincial governors, particularly Mr George Athor, one of the generals not appointed to be the governor of a state, who has taken on resistance within South Sudan. Violence in South Sudan is of great importance as well. Oil production in the south has gone down by 25 per cent, and there have been continuing disputes, many difficulties and no prices agreed. Most recently, there have been interruptions of supply. Trade between the two countries has declined in other ways and has sometimes been severed.

One of the other big problems, particularly at the Sudanese level, is a lack of trust in the world community to help deliver the solution that maybe Khartoum was looking for. One thing has not happened for good reasons, as those of us who see the violence, difficulties and human rights record of north Sudan will know. Part of the deal was that Sudan would be let back into the international community and would no longer be listed as a terrorist state by the United States. That has not happened.

However, there has been some good news. There is no war at the moment. The United Nations high-level implementation panel continues to do its good work. The transitional Government of Salva Kiir in South Sudan has some diversity in terms of gender balance and of bringing in members of other tribes. It is not completely dominated by the Dinka. Ironically, because oil reserves in South Sudan are not infinite and plans for pipelines through Uganda or Kenya to the coast are not feasible, the two nations are locked together and, in a way, have to resolve the dispute on oil for them both to survive fiscally. So there is good news out there and there is still, at the moment, world attention.

Those are the challenges within Sudan and South Sudan. I very much welcomed the government response, mainly because it almost completely agreed with our report. It is very difficult to see how we should move forward. We found the response from the European Union high representative more difficult. One of the key areas dealt with the European Union, particularly the External Action Service, having been very slow in setting up a delegation in Juba and in delivering what we would expect the European Union to be able to do. We did not receive a proper response from the high representative on that. We still look forward to it, and I am sure it will come in due course.

I was asked before this debate what I wanted to get out of it. I always saw that what we want to avoid is South Sudan, the world’s newest state, becoming one of its failed states. I want this debate to be a part of that. However, we need a stable north Sudan as well. It also has its challenges; it has lost 50 per cent of its oil revenue. We need stability in north Sudan for this part of the world to succeed. The other thing that I want to come from this debate is for South Sudan not to decline into obscurity and be forgotten as we deal with other issues in the world. If this part of Africa does not succeed and does not manage to turn around and deliver the promises of the comprehensive agreement, the world will come to regret it. What should the EU do? It is quite clear to me. The EU will not be a lead player but it is important in delivering justice, security reform, education and health structures—everything that makes a society work and gives optimism that a society can be successful.

Lastly, it is very important that other players play their full part as well. I should love to see a way for the United States to re-engage in this. We understand that it is very difficult for the US because of the situation with Sudan and the al-Bashir Government. However, the US has real leverage in this area. The other country that has leverage is the customer for that oil: China. China intervened in the disputes over oil when it stopped being delivered. I hope it will use its leverage further with the troika of the UK, the United States and Norway. Both Europe and the United Kingdom should work closely with China to make sure that South Sudan becomes the success that we always hoped it would be. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead]

No? Good. This was not in the report but I was told that in an exchange she was made to feel that there was some criticism of her on that score. Clearly, if that was not the case—

[Lord Teverson]

Perhaps I can make it clear that that was absolutely not the case.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Teverson]

My Lords, my noble friend the Minister should not be quite so downbeat about her contribution. There can be very few debates where she is asked so many questions about so many issues, some of which I had not come across previously. I am sure that, for the areas that have not been completely covered, there will be an opportunity to write to noble Lords.

I conclude by thanking all noble Lords for their contributions. A broad range of issues have been brought up that were not necessarily covered by the report. I thank particularly the noble Lords, Lord Chidgey and Lord Alton, for their insights and their practical experience. I thank also the noble Baroness, Lady Kinnock, for her giving us much of her experience and an in-depth view of the European Union side of this issue—we are a European Union Committee at the end of the day. I am slightly less pessimistic about Europe’s role than some of my noble friends.

We were very pleased indeed to have Dame Rosalind Marsden as a witness. We welcomed her appointment and we hope that she will be part of making sure that the EU’s role is delivered.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Elton, for sitting through the debate. His brief contribution did not get an answer, but I was pleased to read that the Kenyan Government have made it quite clear recently that if President al-Bashir landed on Kenyan soil, he would be whisked away to the International Criminal Court. The Kenyan ambassador was banished from Khartoum as a result, but that is the right way forward.

I thank lastly the clerk of the Committee, Kathryn Colvin, and our secretary, Bina Sudra. If the Grand Committee would indulge me, I would like to thank also our policy analyst, Oliver Fox, who has provided excellent service to this sub-committee during the number of years that he has worked in that role for us. He has now left to join the External Action Service. Although he is dealing only with Switzerland at the moment, he will hopefully have an opportunity to fix South Sudan in the future as well.

Motion agreed.