King’s Speech

Viscount Chandos Excerpts

Tuesday 19th May 2026 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Chandos (Lab)]

My Lords, I will begin by marking the sad and sudden loss of the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, as did the noble Lord, Lord Horam, last Thursday. Professor Lord Skidelsky’s distinction as an economist and historian was a shining advertisement for the excellence of UK higher education. He was also a stimulating colleague and friend to many of us in this House. I congratulate all the maiden speakers, singling out my noble friend Lord Hobby, if only because he is my very welcome roommate.

I wish to speak about education and culture. Both are central to the sort of society that I believe all noble Lords wish to promote and live in, but they are also vital drivers of economic growth, directly and indirectly, short-term and long-term. In the context of education, I declare an interest as a trustee of LAMDA for a few more months, and, in relation to the creative industries, as a director of Digbeth Loc. Studios and the Theseus Agency.

The gracious Speech did not contain a lot on education in general and higher education in particular, although I welcome the education for all Bill—even if the devil is likely to be in the detail. Nearly three years ago, the Industry and Regulators Committee of your Lordships’ House, in its report on the OfS and higher education, flagged the looming financial crisis for the sector. The OfS, backseat-driven by the last Government, insisted that all was well. Since then, the accuracy of these predictions has unfortunately become ever clearer.

Mergers such as those recently announced between the Universities of Greenwich and Kent, and King’s College London and Cranfield University, may bring some improved resilience to the sector, but these will not solve the chronic underfunding described by my noble friends Lord Isaac and Lord Smith. The OfS funding for smaller, specialist institutions is an essential support for world-leading conservatoires and other institutions. Can my noble friend the Minister say when the process for awarding the next round of these grants will begin? The OfS requires universities to provide rolling five-year financial forecasts, yet, too often, decisions on grants, essential to an institution’s viability, have been left until the last minute.

The funding crisis in the cultural and arts sector is if anything even greater than that in higher education. The Hodge review, which I hope we will get the opportunity to debate in this House before the Summer Recess, set out a number of modest recommendations for increasing funding. Although the Government accepted these and all the review’s recommendations, they will only scratch the surface of the funding gap. From where will the rest of this gap be plugged? It should have been, as I have previously argued, from the lottery, where the new operator, awarded the licence under the last Government without any enforceable sanctions for failing to deliver on its ambitious financial promises, is struggling to maintain even previous levels of support for good causes. What does my noble friend the Minister intend to do to ensure that the lottery operator delivers on its promises?

Net Zero (Economic Affairs Committee Report)

Viscount Chandos Excerpts

Monday 16th October 2023 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Chandos (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, has made a masterly introduction to this debate on the Economic Affairs Committee’s report Investing in Energy: Price, Security, and the Transition to Net Zero, a profoundly complex and challenging subject. I was proud to be a member of the committee at the time of the inquiry and, like the noble Baroness, I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, for his excellent chairmanship and the work of other committee members and the staff.

A week is a long time in politics, so the 65 weeks that have elapsed since the publication of this report is an age. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Frost, I believe that its analysis and conclusions stand up well to the changes during this time, although three different Prime Ministers and, in particular, breathtaking U-turns by the current incumbent of 10 Downing Street—in residence but not in power—have continued to move the goalposts hugely on government policy. I should draw the attention of the House to my interests as disclosed in the register and in the report: as a trustee of the Esmée Fairbairn Foundation—a major funder of environmental causes in the UK as well as, through its endowment, an investor in sustainable energy funds—and as a personal shareholder in Greencoat UK Wind.

Within the committee, we debated whether the challenge of balancing the issues of cost, security and achieving net zero could helpfully be described as a trilemma. I argue that it is even worse, not least in mangling the English language: it is a quadrilemma, as security must not involve unacceptable conflicts with, or compromises of, our foreign policy. For that reason, in the short to medium term the committee concluded, based on evidence we received from witnesses across the range of interested parties, that there needs to be further selective investment in fossil fuel production to meet the country’s need for energy security, consistent with other foreign policy objectives. But my personal view, at least partly shared by the committee, I think, is that to help meet the net-zero target, which is not an essay crisis with a last-minute deadline but a continuous path of action and emissions reductions over the next 27 years, the Government may need not just to prioritise the approval of short lead-time projects but to find ways to underwrite shorter periods for exploration of new fields. Stranded reserves may need to remain stranded.

In my remaining time, I will touch on two big themes: technology and money. The astonishing creativity of scientists and the technology sector as a whole must not be an excuse for inaction now. Technology in a wide range of areas, such as hydrogen, network transmission, carbon capture and, most significantly, nuclear, lies at the heart of the progressive improvements and reductions in emissions that are essential to achieve the underlying objectives of net zero: keeping global warming to no more than 1.5 degrees centigrade, and, importantly, a 45% reduction in emissions by 2030—seven years’ time.

Investment, both pure science and commercial, is highly important. However, a realistic assessment of how quickly technology can deliver results must be factored into the policies the Government adopt. Investors in hydrogen projects see no prospect of it being a valid means of storage in this decade. The Government have placed great weight on small modular reactors riding like the cavalry to the rescue, but the technology is still unproven. The first licence in the US was granted at the beginning of this year after the expenditure by the company concerned of half a billion dollars over 10 years.

Finally, on money and timescale, if a week is a long time in politics, then an hour is a long time for hedge fund traders. That seems to be the only explanation for the Prime Minister’s claim that recent decisions were essentially long-term ones. Net zero cannot be achieved without the expenditure of money. Just kicking the can down the road beyond the next election, perhaps betraying a lack of confidence from the Prime Minister that it will be his problem, is not acceptable. A Labour Government will make that investment within the constraints—

[Lord Mott (Con)]

My Lords, can we keep all our speeches to five minutes, please? Could the noble Viscount now wrap up his comments?

[Viscount Chandos (Lab)]

A Labour Government will make the investment that this Government have failed to.