Economy: The Growth Plan 2022

Viscount Trenchard Excerpts

Monday 10th October 2022 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Trenchard (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, although I regret to say that I find it difficult to agree with anything she said.

I congratulate my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe on her well-deserved reappointment to government. At difficult times such as those we face today, it is encouraging that your Lordships’ House has her experience and wisdom at the centre of the spider’s web in the Cabinet Office, so to speak. She made a good fist of a difficult hand. I am a strong supporter of the political philosophy of the Prime Minister and her Government, and agree with her instinct that it was necessary to move fast and far in order to achieve the growth in the economy that we all desperately need.

I also congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham on his thought-provoking valedictory speech and the noble Baroness, Lady Gohir, on her passionate maiden speech.

I welcome in particular the Government’s decision to reverse the planned rise in corporation tax. The proposed increase from 19% to 25% amounted to an increase of more than 31%—nearly one-third—which would have acted as a deterrent to those thinking of setting up new companies here. The evidence of how effective low corporation tax is for economic activity is particularly strong if one looks at the example of Ireland, whose economy has thrived beyond best expectations.

The accelerated reduction in the rate of basic income tax is welcome. However, does my noble friend the Minister not agree that, to compensate for the unexpectedly rapid and large increase in mortgage rates, there is a strong case for the reintroduction of interest tax relief on principal private residences?

Does my noble friend agree that, to deal with energy costs and energy security, there is a need to adopt without further delay a new and much more ambitious strategy with regard to nuclear power? I mean not only the nuclear generation of electricity but—this is often overlooked—the use of nuclear power to generate industrial heat for our manufacturing and transport industries. Dr Tim Stone, the chairman of the Nuclear Industry Association, recently lamented the fact that we have thrown away our leading position in nuclear power.

In the 11 years from 1956 to 1967 we built 27 new nuclear reactors. In 1978, both France and the UK had 6.4 gigawatts of nuclear power. Today, France has 61 gigawatts and we have less than one-tenth of that, 6 gigawatts, and much of that is to be decommissioned over the next few years. The Government’s plan, set out in their vision for Great British Nuclear, must be fulfilled, expanded and delivered at speed and at scale.

The most important supply-side reforms to which the Government have committed involve the removal of unnecessary costs for businesses. It will come as a relief to companies up and down the country that departments will be required to review, replace or repeal retained EU law, which will otherwise disappear through sunset regulations by the end of next year. That is an enormous task which can be achieved only with full support and co-operation by all departments and regulators. Wholesale regulatory reform is essential to overcome our perennial problem of low productivity, which is essential for the Prime Minister’s growth plan to be achieved and sustainable. Financial services rules such as MiFID II have severely restricted the development of innovative challenger asset-management companies. The Government have already made some moves with regard to solvency too, but the proposed reduction in risk margins still falls short of what the industry believes to be appropriate. The financial regulators should be re-merged into a single body. If this is a step too far at present, at least they should both be given competitiveness objectives ranking equally with their primary objectives.

I look forward to other noble Lords’ contributions.

Energy Bill [HL]

Viscount Trenchard Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 7th September 2022 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Trenchard (Con)]

My Lords, I strongly support Amendment 225, which seeks to introduce a requirement to construct gas storage facilities to hold 25% of forecast consumption by 2025. I understand that past Governments have not believed that the country has any particular need for gas storage facilities, given that we have extracted large amounts of gas from the North Sea. I am sceptical that we will find it possible, or indeed necessary, to reduce our reliance on gas as quickly as the Government’s net-zero policy currently requires.

However, the extreme volatility in the price of natural gas on the international markets means that British consumers are much more exposed to massive and rapid price increases than consumers in countries that maintain much more significant gas storage facilities, such as Germany. Even if the Government accelerate the development and commercial deployment of more new nuclear reactors than they have planned so far, we will still need large amounts of reliable energy that is not subject to intermittency. Increasing gas storage facilities as an urgent priority will mitigate the risks we face today, and I hope that the Minister will support this.

My noble friend Lord Moylan explained why he selected 25% as the proportion of forecast demand each year beyond 2025. My noble friend Lady McIntosh suggested that this should be defined in days—I think it would be 91 days at 25%, as an average, but surely we use much more gas in winter than summer. I doubt that our consumption of gas will steadily decline in the years beyond 2025 but, so far as it does, I am not saying that it is not a good thing. If the Government are correct and reduced demand in 2028 or 2030 is realised, storage facilities holding 25% of forecast demand may hold 30% or 35%. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s thoughts on this very useful amendment.

[Baroness Worthington (CB)]

My Lords, I will briefly speak to this group of amendments. It is clear that the resilience of our energy system is absolutely crucial. As recent events have shown, a non-resilient system poses great threats, in both rising costs and vulnerable people suffering.

I will ask about the best approach to delivering the enhancement of gas storage that I think we all agree on. It seems clear to me that, in Clause 10, the Government are considering making an intervention into energy markets to guarantee a certain volume of fuel supply, because of the perceived worry that investment into these sectors is slowing—quite rightly in my view, because they have a limited lifespan. The fossil fuel industry will have to quickly adapt to a rapidly electrifying energy system in which its product will be less needed. So, in time, we will see a diminishing market, in part because of government policy—and that is completely correct, as we move away from polluting forms of energy. But this opens up the risk that there will be a gap between private sector investment and our needs, as we will still rely on these fuels during the transition. It seems to me that the Government have convinced themselves that an intervention on core fuels for transport is necessary for this reason—the fear that a gap will open.

Has a similar analysis been done on the gas market in light of recent events? Would it not therefore make sense to consider some kind of holistic intervention into the market for energy security purposes, rather than a piecemeal, fuel-by-fuel approach? Does that complement, or supplement, the approach of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, providing some way through this that we can perhaps discuss during Committee and then come back to on Report?

I support Amendment 240, but would the VAT exemption apply to larger systems, like schools and other buildings, or is it just for personal home use? It seems to be sensible to try to level this up so that people can make use of it.

Energy Bill [HL]

Viscount Trenchard Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 5th September 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 1, 2, 3 and 4, as well as Amendment 5, on which my noble friend Lord Moylan made an extremely interesting speech, as were the speeches just made by the noble Lords, Lord Ravensdale and Lord West. I declare my interest in energy matters as an adviser to Mitsubishi Corporation—one of the world’s largest producers of heat pumps, as well as of all connectors and the switching stations associated with them, both here and overseas—and the Kuwait Investment Office, with which the linkage, through its oil and gas production, is obvious.

I am afraid this sounds suspiciously like a Second Reading debate rather than a Committee debate. That is perhaps inevitable, given that we are in the midst of a first-class energy crisis—the biggest certainly in my active lifetime. Naturally, your Lordships are taking any opportunity—as we are entitled to do—to relate remarks on this enormous Bill to the very difficult dilemmas that the nation now faces, with no obvious way out, a cacophony of new views about what should be done, an absence of views about the international dimension, which I will mention in a moment, and a general bewilderment that, somehow or other, we will have to borrow a great deal more money to prevent real suffering, collapse and bankruptcy across a large part of the enterprise and small business sector, and so on.

I am not going to support Amendments 1, 2, 3 and 4 because they do not add much to the purposes, or indeed deficiencies, of the Bill. If they did, I would say let us support them, but that is not what they do.

I want to comment in passing on my noble friend Lord Moylan’s remarks on pump storage. He mentioned the Dinorwig installation in north Wales. I had the honour and pleasure of authorising not the original installation itself but the expansion in the early 1980s. One interesting fact for your Lordships is that it was capable then of delivering within 12 minutes 2 gigawatts into the system. The remarkable fact is that it never needs to work at all to be an enormous addition to our generating system and an enormous saving. Why? It is because the fact of what it can do enables the rest of the power system and all the power stations to operate at slightly higher capacities, with lower safety margins, than they otherwise would—in the knowledge that this extra is always there. So we have the extraordinary situation of a vast installation that never need actually operate to make substantial savings. That is one of the anomalies of the national energy system that we have to familiarise ourselves with.

As for the amendments—to a Bill that, frankly, does not leave me totally happy anyway—first, I am unhappy about the lack of any address in the amendments, let alone in the Bill, to the international dimension; at most, they very slightly address it. I admit there is a section on interconnectors, and that is very important. In fact, the interconnector element in our future diversity of supply is going to increase substantially; I think the Bill mentions 18 gigawatts of interconnectors. I understand that Morocco is thinking of adding an enormous 3 gigawatts of clean energy—solar energy using linked cabling from Morocco all the way to the UK—and there will be many similar sources. They all raise very complicated issues since they have to be managed under direct current, because you cannot put alternative current underwater; they have to have amazingly extensive energy transformations from direct current back to the AC that we can use inside our system.

The truth is that the resilience and security of our system is going to depend not less but more on the international environment, international supply and the sorts of issues that have been raised by the horrors of Ukraine and Russia’s determination to distort to the maximum the entire energy system of western Europe—and that includes us physically. All these issues need addressing in intense detail, but I do not see that detail mobilised in the Bill.

Secondly, the amendments talk, as does the Bill, about our climate commitments. Obviously our climate commitment in law, in the Climate Change Act, is to achieve net zero by 2050, but what actually are our climate commitments? I would like to hear from the Minister what new thinking is going on in this respect. Surely the aim of our endeavours in our climate commitments is to limit global emissions and greenhouse gases. The question that we have to ask ourselves, again and again, as we struggle towards net zero, is not only whether we can afford it—and many people say it is going to cost a lot of money—but whether, when we have got there, it will have any effective impact on curbing the growth of global emissions, getting to the Paris targets and halting greenhouse gases. There seems to be an assumption that the greenhouse gases will stop at the white cliffs of Dover if we can achieve net zero. It does not work like that. I am afraid the world is integrated, in the sense that greenhouse gases are increasing very rapidly, and our efforts and contribution need to be rethought again and again in order to make a serious impact on that.

Achieving net zero by 2050 with clean power and electricity requires a multiplication by about seven or eight times of our existing clean power sector—that is, wind, solar and now of course nuclear, which is recognised by the European Union as part of the ESG group and therefore clean energy. That needs to be multiplied by six or seven times, including a vast increase in wind power and solar power, as well as in our nuclear power. That would mean several new nuclear power stations, but they are not being built and are not going to be. No one is planning on building them. We are building one now but it is in considerable difficulties. The ex-Prime Minister said in his outgoing speech that he wanted to build a lot more, but that would be 10 or 15 years away, and the chances of the system working and doing so efficiently, if it is a replication of Hinkley C, are very slight indeed.

All that is just to get to net zero. Beyond that, we must have legislation—and understanding in that legislation—to achieve a genuine contribution to climate change curbing. That is not going to be done. Adaptation is going to be needed on a massive scale to prevent really bad heat in summer, really cold winters and enormous flooding that will affect us as well as many others. That is the element that is not in the Bill, and the amendments would not add very much to it.

As to minimising costs, which the amendment mentions—it is also mentioned in the Bill itself and in the explanatory documents for it—how is this to be done? We will not minimise costs by trying to build, very rapidly, these enormously expensive new, large-scale nuclear stations. We will not minimise costs unless we remain totally integrated into the world energy supply system or unless we deal, day by day, on a sensitive basis, with our Norwegian suppliers of natural gas and electricity. If we take our mind off that for a moment, that gas will probably go elsewhere, as is happening now as Germany tries to fill up its strategic gas storage tanks, as are many other countries. All this is creating not stability, resilience or security but the opposite.

I therefore ask the Minister that when he turns down this amendment, as he no doubt will—he is quite right to do so, because it is unnecessary and adds nothing—he gives us a little assurance that in this new and changing situation, this long-term future which we have to build on and in which, by failing to build on that of 40 years ago, we have now plunged ourselves into this terrible crisis, these things are being addressed and will be taken account of. Perhaps as we go through the Bill clause by clause, we will hear something from him about how the new situation is to be addressed. I do not think this amendment does it; nor, frankly, does the Bill.

[Viscount Trenchard (Con)]

My Lords, I must declare my interest as a member of the advisory board of Penultimate Power UK Ltd. By the Government’s own admission, the Bill introduces 26 separate measures, based roughly on three pillars, which aim to give the Bill a modicum of coherence. Many of the amendments in this group, however, seem also to be intended to serve as a kind of preamble to the Bill, which, as my noble friend Lord Moylan and others have said, would improve it.

Amendment 1, as eloquently spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, seeks to add a principal purpose to the Bill. Amendment 7, spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, aims to do the same thing. However, these amendments would add not one principal purpose but three. Furthermore, I consider that principal purposes (a) and (b) in Amendment 1 are in conflict with each other, in the sense that while delivery of the country’s climate change commitments is obviously highly desirable, it conflicts with purpose (a) in that resilience and reliability are not served, at least in the short term, by abandoning natural gas as a source of energy with unnecessary haste. Actually, purpose (b) is also in conflict with purpose (c), because it is hard to argue that maintenance of the climate levy helps to minimise costs to consumers or protects them from unfair pricing.

I therefore urge my noble friend the Minister not to accept this amendment, or indeed Amendments 2, 3 and 4 in this group in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Blake of Leeds, and the noble Lord, Lord Lennie. I understand why they want to introduce a requirement for a strategy and policy statement in line with the Bill, but I regret that the Bill does not cover the whole of the country’s energy strategy or policy. Furthermore, these amendments give a higher priority to meeting climate change commitments than they do to developing reliable sources of energy, which protect the consumer against the risks of intermittency.

That is why I support Amendment 5 in the name of my noble friends Lord Moylan and Lord Frost, and the noble Lord, Lord West of Spithead. This amendment recognises that the Government must have regard to the Ten Point Plan for a Green Industrial Revolution, the Net Zero Strategy, the British Energy Security Strategy and all the other strategies; but that, crucially, they need to compensate for the huge reliance on wind and solar energy contained in those strategies by ensuring that we will have electric power to replace that generated by renewable sources, which are subject to intermittency.

As my noble friend Lord Moylan pointed out, it is necessary for the Government and the public to understand how much achieving the objectives of net zero by 2050 will actually cost. The Government have been, and continue to be, far too cautious in their policy towards nuclear power, but Amendment 5 will require the Government to support nuclear to a far greater extent than they have done so far, because nuclear is completely reliable and not subject to intermittency. One of the points in the 10-point plan covers the delivery of new and advanced nuclear power, while the subsequently published strategies increasingly recognise its greater importance.

Much has been made of the Prime Minister’s commitment in May that we will build one new nuclear power station every year, instead of one every decade. But he did not clarify whether he was talking about a new power station such as Hinkley Point C, with two large reactors each generating 1.6 gigawatts of electricity, or perhaps a bank of NuScale reactors, producing 77 megawatts, or of U-Battery reactors delivering 4 megawatts each. Could the Minister clarify how much new nuclear capacity the Government expect to commission every decade or year?

Nuclear Energy (Financing) Bill

Viscount Trenchard Excerpts

Report stage
Thursday 24th March 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to oppose this amendment. It is not that I am out of sympathy with the concerns and motives behind it; I am all for any moves that create a more explicit explanation of the real, full value of modern nuclear power and the way in which it is developing. Nevertheless, I oppose the amendment because, if you are talking about value for money, it is wildly unrealistic and out of touch with reality, as the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, rightly indicated.

Let us certainly have a good argument about value, but what is the value, first, of national security? What is the value of building up a large chunk of our electricity power for low-carbon reliability in the future when, although we all want to see more wind and sun and so on in the package, we know that any part of a complex energy system can go down or be disrupted at any time? There has to be diversity and a large block of reliable, low-carbon power from modern nuclear, with full provision for taking care of the difficult problems of waste which we discussed in Committee, and all the rest. But there is a value in the national security of having a large section of our power coming from nuclear, ready to come in—at a cost, yes—when the wind does not blow, when there are interruptions in oil or gas supplies, and all the rest, as we are experiencing now, when prices go crazy, when LNG, the frozen gas on which we rely, is beckoned by higher bids from China and turns away from us.

What on earth is the value of having this provision? What is the value of diversity in our system, in having conserved the system which we have now which, alas, is grossly overconcentrated either on renewables, which can go down occasionally, or on gas? We were never meant to have as much gas in our electricity production as we have now. When I was looking after these matters a long time ago—and I should declare my registered interest on that—1% of British electricity came from gas, and Sir Denis Rooke, the then chairman of British Gas, was very opposed to an increase. Now it has gone to the other, mad extreme: we are now at 45% to 50%, and when gas problems go badly wrong internationally, as they have, and we have a sevenfold increase in the gas price, we are hit directly through our gas and electricity prices. So the case for a large chunk of renewable energy through nuclear increases by the day, particularly now that we may get an acceptance that nuclear electricity is green electricity and is approved under ESG rules and so on.

I put it to our Liberal Democrat friends that they must face the issue that there is a value—yes—but it cannot be put into money, because it has to be measured in terms of security, diversity, back-up for wind when the wind does not blow, hydrogen production and a variety of other things. There must be some realism in the stance of great political parties in addressing this issue: that is all I plead for. Therefore, I think this amendment is unrelated to the real needs of our security and our national prosperity, and to the whole helping of the poorest and the most vulnerable in society in the future. It cannot be the right amendment to make.

[Viscount Trenchard (Con)]

My Lords, as acknowledged by the noble Lord, Lord Oates, Amendment 1 was debated in Committee. And, as acknowledged by the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, just now, I also thought that my noble friend Lord Howell explained very well, both in Committee and today, that value for money is totally subjective. The judgments that have to be made will, of course, take account of the financial plans for projects. I thought that the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, was spot on in referring to Switzerland, whose electricity grid depends almost entirely on hydro and nuclear. It is hard to put a price on the huge value that energy security gives that country.

Amendment 3, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Oates and Lord Stunell, is unnecessary, because the Secretary of State will clearly consider this point in assessing any applicant company under the designation process. Furthermore, Ofgem is bound to protect consumer interests as part of the consultation process. I recognise that electricity bills are already rising exponentially, and I expressed concern in Committee that payments under the RAB model will further increase the subsidies that consumers are required to pay. The solution here is to reduce the subsidies paid to renewables projects, to provide a more even balance between support for those sectors and support for the nuclear sector, which has been left out in the cold until very recently.

As for Amendment 10, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Oates, and others, I fear that the costs of administering such a complicated exemption would far outweigh any possible benefits to the particular groups of people concerned. Besides, there are other groups facing difficulty in meeting higher electricity bills, such as pensioners, who are seriously disadvantaged by the suspension of the triple lock. The best way to assist the people whom noble Lords who put their names to this amendment seek to assist is to enable a stable, well-funded energy mix, including a significant amount of nuclear, both large gigawatt plants and smaller, more flexible SMRs and AMRs. On the latter, the Government are trying to reinvent the wheel and are moving much too slowly in the case of JAEA’s HTGR technology, which has been operating for 10 years and is inherently safe.

I hope that the Prime Minister’s much greater enthusiasm for nuclear, revealed in recent weeks, will lead to rapid changes to the very cautious current plans of BEIS, in three phases, merely to establish a demonstration by the early 2030s. We need this technology yesterday, and we should be rolling it out commercially before the end of the decade. The Times reported last week that Ministers are exploring the creation of a state-owned nuclear company that would take stakes in future nuclear projects, to reduce our reliance on foreign energy. That is very welcome. What a pity it is that such a company was not in existence before Hitachi made the decision to cancel the Horizon project in September 2020.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I speak in favour of Amendments 1 and 3 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Oates, and in favour of Amendment 10, also in his name and to which I have attached my name.

Speaking for the first time on Report on the Bill, I am getting something of a sense of déjà vu. I do not know whether the ministerial Front Bench has brought its snacks this time, but it can sit and watch the show as we see enthusiasm from both Labour and Tory Benches for new nuclear power.

It is interesting to go back to the Explanatory Notes. The policy background that explains the purpose of this Bill is

“a clean energy system that is reliable and affordable for energy consumers”.

These three amendments particularly address that last point—although the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Howell, on reliability were also interesting. The words that he used were interesting: “decentralised”, “security” and “stability”. Why put all your eggs in a few large baskets rather than into an extremely decentralised system of renewables, storage and, particularly, energy conservation? That is a genuinely diverse and secure supply. Ask the Japanese about what happened after Fukushima, and they will tell you that, if nuclear goes wrong, you can lose the lot—and then you have a very large problem, as the Japanese did.

With regard to security and affordability, there is an interesting letter in the Financial Times this morning, headed:

“Arguing for more nuclear power was wrong then too”,


from Andrew Warren, chair of the British Energy Efficiency Federation, in Cambridge. It picks up my point that the cleanest, greenest energy that you can possibly have is the energy you do not use. It also comes to the point about value for money and the argument that new nuclear is essential. Mr Warren says that

“back in 2006, when the then Labour government … committed to a ‘family’ of further nuclear power stations”,

it was on the basis that our usage of electricity was going to go up enormously and therefore we needed new nuclear power stations, which of course did not happen. The letter points out:

“UK electricity consumption has in fact gone down by over 15 per cent since 2006. In other words, all that expectation of demand growth which was used to justify new nuclear power stations was grossly exaggerated … by over 30 per cent.”


As Mr Warren notes,

“no new nuclear power stations have been added to the system. The system hasn’t collapsed, and it’s also far less carbon intensive.”

I can imagine that many noble Lords might say at this point, “Well, yes, but we have to electrify transport and home heating”. However, if—to use a word associated with the Prime Minister—we went gung-ho on energy efficiency and a modal shift to walking, cycling and public transport instead of private cars, we could greatly reduce the kind of assumptions that are made. The policy background suggests that the UK electricity supply will need to double and low-carbon sources quadruple by 2050. If we build a different kind of society that needs less power, that is an extremely cost-effective way forward.

To come back to cost effectiveness, I have looked at some figures on this. The Nuclear Industry Association has suggested that the proposed new nuclear plants at Sizewell, Wylfa and Bradwell could come in at £60 per megawatt hour. We have just seen, in the most recent offshore wind projects selected for round 3 of the contract for difference allocations, strike prices as low as £39.65 per megawatt hour. The noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, referred to concerns about green subsidies. These do not need subsidies because they are cheaper than any other source of power. That is offshore wind, without even coming to the fact that onshore wind, which I am delighted to see the Government now moving towards, is much cheaper again, as indeed is solar.

Of course there is Hinkley Point C, with a £92.50 contract. The nuclear industry says, “Oh, it will all get better eventually”. It is confident about the £60 figure—and we know how confidence about the cost of nuclear power has worked out in the past—and that over the long term it will eventually get to £40, which is what offshore wind is delivering now.

I particularly want to address Amendment 10, as the noble Lord, Lord Oates, did so effectively in introducing this group, to which I have attached my name, and to look at where we are with fuel poverty. From 1 April, 27% of UK households are expected to be in fuel poverty—and that is a watered-down definition of fuel poverty—so that is 6.3 million households. Each year around 10,000 people die prematurely as a result of cold homes. Again with regard to the policy landscape, if we insulated those homes, those people would not die prematurely. It is interesting that the charity National Energy Action notes that this seems to be within the bounds of some perverse statistical acceptability; we just accept it as being normal and continue to go on as we are.

--- Later in debate ---

I hope the Minister can confirm that the Government will take a close look at this and carefully consider whether there is anything we should do to close these gaps, particularly by looking at the circumstances in which we might wish to have the ability to revoke a nuclear generation licence.

[Viscount Trenchard (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord McNicol, tabled an amendment similar to Amendment 2 in Committee. The Minister could not accept it because it appeared to rule out EDF as an investor in Hinkley Point C or Sizewell. It also attempted to restrict sourcing of nuclear fuel to domestic producers, which the noble Lord has dropped from his revised amendment. My noble friend explained that the Government do not support investment in our critical infrastructure at the expense of national security, which was good to hear. I ask the Minister to tell your Lordships what progress the Government have made on replacing proposed Chinese investment in Hinkley Point C and Sizewell C.

Amendment 2 is an improvement on the version debated in Committee, but the link to Amendment 6 requires the Secretary of State to establish a list of foreign powers or entities that are barred from involvement in the UK’s civil nuclear sector. Amendment 2 covers nuclear companies owned wholly or in part by a power or entity included on this list, but ownership in part could mean just one share. Surely this amendment should restrict only significant shareholdings; perhaps 5% would be an appropriate trigger.

Furthermore, the requirement on the Secretary of State imposed by Amendment 6 would clearly be massively burdensome, if not impossible. It is quite adequate that the Secretary of State should deal with each application separately and assess the shareholders at the time of application.

I said in Committee that I was inclined to support the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden, who has experience in these matters and always takes a well-considered view. He has persisted in seeking more safeguards in the Bill by bringing back his amendments, but now aligned with the generally accepted definition of “persons of significant control” of UK companies. Those are usually persons holding more than 25% of the shares in a company or having the right to appoint a majority of the board of directors.

The noble Lord, Lord Vaux, is also surely right in his purpose in tabling Amendments 7 and 8 that designated nuclear companies should promptly notify the Secretary of State of any change in persons of significant control. However, I am not sure that it is necessary to state this explicitly in the Bill, and there could well be cases where the Government welcome changes in the shareholding structure of nuclear companies. As my noble friend explained to your Lordships in Committee, the Secretary of State may attach any conditions he deems appropriate to the designation of a nuclear company, and I believe that this will give him the flexibility to make whatever stipulations he needs to with regard to the balance of shareholdings in such a company.

The noble Lord, Lord Vaux, made some further good points today, although I must say that I consider his suggestion that a Chinese company might take a 51% stake in a Japanese company to be very unlikely, based on my experience of working in the Japanese stock exchange. Nevertheless, I look forward to the Minister’s reply to those points.

[Lord Oates (LD)]

My Lords, this group addresses the foreign ownership and transparency issues which we have just heard about, and it includes the amendment in my name and that my noble friend Lord Stunell, on transparency issues.

I very much support the compelling arguments made by the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, and I hope that the Minister will be able to address them. I was also pleased in Committee to support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McNicol. He has brought back one that addresses the concerns that were raised in Committee, and he will certainly have the support of the Liberal Democrats. I think it fair to say that Peers on all sides of the House are concerned about the foreign ownership issue, so I hope the Minister can give us some comfort on this. However, if he cannot accept the amendment and if the noble Lord, Lord McNicol, chooses to divide the House, he will have our support.

Amendment 9, in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Stunell, deals with transparency. As drafted, Clause 13(2)(a) allows the Secretary of State to withhold any material which they believe would

“prejudice the commercial interests of any person”.

As I said in Committee, this is an enormously wide loophole which does not take any account of the degree of prejudice to the public interest of withholding that disclosure. Surely it is only proper in order to ensure effective public scrutiny that Ministers are not able to hide information behind claims of prejudice to commercial interests through wide loopholes such as this. These projects are being funded by the public and they have the right to know all relevant material, except in exceptional circumstances.

We already know how reluctant the Government and their agencies are to provide information on costs which is overwhelmingly in the public interest, but it goes wider than that. I note that in a reply to a Written Question from the noble Lord, Lord Alton, about meetings between Ministers and the China General Nuclear Power Group, the response was that no minutes were kept of that meeting. I am not clear whether that is within the Ministerial Code, but it goes to show that there is a reluctance to share information here.

The record of transparency in nuclear affairs is poor. This amendment would require the Secretary of State, if he withholds information, to make it clear that it was seriously prejudicial to commercial interest and to set out to Parliament his reasons for withholding it. I hope that the Minister can address those issues in his response.

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Trenchard (Con)]

My Lords, I wish to speak in support of Amendment 12, ably proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, and my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe. I tried to put my name to it on Tuesday but, because the Marshalled List was printed on Tuesday, it does not appear.

I do not think I need to repeat the arguments that have already been explained, but I want to ask the Minister how quickly the Government can take action to correct the situation in which nuclear projects are excluded from green financing. It was surprising and deeply disappointing that when the Treasury published the UK Government Green Financing Framework in June last year, nuclear projects were specifically excluded. Page 18 of the document states:

“Recognising that many sustainable investors have exclusionary criteria in place around nuclear energy, the UK Government will not finance any nuclear energy-related expenditures under the Framework.”


Does my noble friend not agree that this exclusion sent entirely the wrong signal to the market? The whole point is that “sustainable investors”, as the paper describes them, take their lead from the Government, which influences their ESG policies. Is it not now a matter of some urgency to withdraw this framework and replace it with one that rightly includes nuclear so that this damaging market distortion is removed?

Even the EU, despite continuing opposition from Germany, introduced a Complementary Climate Delegated Act on 2 February. The objective of the EU taxonomy is to step up the transition away from fossil fuels by drawing on all possible solutions to help the union reach its climate goals. The Commission has acknowledged that there is a role for private investment in gas and nuclear activities in the transition. It still does not acknowledge a continuing significant role for nuclear in a climate-neutral future, which it still maintains will be mostly based on renewable energy sources. The technical screening criteria contained in the EU delegated Act and the equivalent regulation referred to in the amendment are still concerned with transition to net zero rather than what is at least as important: to secure the continued supply of energy and electricity that rely on reliable sources of firm baseload power, such as nuclear, which are not dependent on whether the sun shines or the wind blows.

As for Amendments 13 and 14, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, exaggerates the nuclear waste issue. My noble friend Lady Bloomfield explained in Committee that the Energy Act 2008 already requires nuclear projects to have in place a funded decommissioning programme. Besides this, as your Lordships are aware, progress is being made in identifying suitable sites for geological disposal facilities.

I remind the noble Baroness that all the used nuclear fuel ever produced in the world since the 1950s would fit into one football pitch to the height of approximately 10 yards, so I do not think the trains she talked about will have very many wagons. Has she ever expressed any concern about the massive costs and energy requirement that will be incurred in disposing of millions of wind turbines and solar panels when they reach the end of their operational lives? Furthermore, France and some other countries reprocess and recycle nuclear fuel, which can make it even more productive. Some advanced reactor technologies are designed to run on used fuel. Happily, the noble Baroness has said she will not move her Amendments 13 and 14, which is good news, but if she had I would have voted against them.

[Lord Oates (LD)]

My Lords, I am happy to give Amendment 11, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McNicol, the support of these Benches. It is particularly important given the failures of the early cost recovery model in the United States. Whatever one’s view of nuclear energy, we really do not want to end up spending more than $20 billion, like they did, and getting no new nuclear plants at all. South Carolina in particular spent $9 billion before Westinghouse went bankrupt. If we are to go ahead with this, we certainly need to ensure that it delivers something at the end of it.

On Amendment 12, I will not go into the detailed debate about the taxonomy issue. The one thing I will say, in the context of the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, is that whether or not nuclear is regarded as a sustainable means of producing energy, it is certainly not clean. It produces significant amounts of waste that have to be dealt with. Nearly 70 years after our first nuclear plant came online, there has been a scandalous failure to provide a permanent solution. We heard from the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, that discussions are ongoing about the geological disposal facility. I am sure we will hear more from the Minister on that. This has been going on for years and years and there is no permanent solution.

I note that the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, is not going to move her amendments. We certainly discussed this in some detail in Committee so I will not dwell on it further, but the nuclear industry’s failure to take its responsibilities seriously in this way is notable. Indeed, until the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority was set up there was no national plan to deal with waste at all. It has done a great job trying to quantify the level of the situation—of course, we have seen bills and disposal costs go up and up year on year—but it is a really important point and I am grateful to the noble Baroness for bringing her amendments to the attention of the House.

Nuclear Energy (Financing) Bill

Viscount Trenchard Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 8th March 2022 Grand Committee

[Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)]

My Lords, we are getting to the important issue—quite rightly raised by the noble Lord, Lord Vaux—of control, the involvement of foreign companies and, behind them, possibly foreign Governments in this vital part of our energy security. There is one thing that I would like to know before the Minister replies. He will remember, as will most of your Lordships, that my right honourable friend Theresa May, back in 2016 after she became Prime Minister, ordered a review of Hinkley Point C, in particular the involvement of Chinese interests in that vast project, which is now going ahead. Everyone got quite agitated at the time. I remember the Chinese ambassador walking around saying, “Has there been a coup? What’s happened? What’s gone wrong? Was the Chancellor of Exchequer not in Beijing the other day agreeing that this was a new golden area of co-operation between China and the United Kingdom and, in the words of Xi Jinping, that there was going to be ‘unlimited’ partnership in all sorts of investments?” The Chinese, along with EDF and the French, were welcomed with open arms to get the Hinkley Point C project off the ground.

After a while, there was a review, which concluded that Hinkley Point C should go ahead, to the great delight of the Chinese. The whole thing was a very good bargain for them: not only did they get involved in Hinkley Point C, but they had a promise of involvement in Sizewell C and, even better for them, a promise of bringing in Hualong technology and managing their own project at Bradwell-on-Sea. This was a great delight and was going to be the poster boy project for the Chinese, as they moved into massive sales of Chinese technology and development, which would go well beyond a GDA for Bradwell into the possibility of building and managing a nuclear power station right at the middle of our system.

The review that Theresa May authorised was thorough and went into considerable detail into the conditions that there should be on the Chinese going forward. I would like to know from the Minister whether those conditions still prevail or whether they have been modified 10 years later, under further pressures, when the public attitude towards Chinese involvement has changed 180 degrees. We have moved from an age of loving everything Chinese to getting rid of everything Chinese. Has there been a change? It would be helpful if he could describe to what extent we have moved on that and to what extent those review conditions of 2016 still prevail.

[Viscount Trenchard (Con)]

My Lords, I agree with the amendments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden. The noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, introduced the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McNicol, extremely impressively, but I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, that they go too far by effectively excluding all companies owned by foreign powers.

It is a matter of great regret to me that, in collaborating with Japan on nuclear energy, the projects at Wylfa, Ynys Môn, of Hitachi’s Horizon, and at Moorside, Sellafield, of Toshiba, were both cancelled. Perhaps if the Bill before the Committee had already been on the statute book, there would have been a good chance that either or both might have been rescued. If either project had gone ahead, it was expected that one or both of the state-owned banks in Japan—the Japan Bank for International Cooperation, on which I declare my interest as a consultant to that bank, and the Development Bank of Japan—would have provided both or part of the equity and debt for those projects. On the face of it, if the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord McNicol, were enacted, it would be impossible for those banks to participate, which would have killed the projects by another means.

Nuclear Energy (Financing) Bill

Viscount Trenchard Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 21st February 2022 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Trenchard (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interests as a consultant to the Japan Bank for International Cooperation and as a member of the advisory board of Penultimate Power UK Limited.

I welcome this Bill, which adds to the range of financing structures available for nuclear power station projects. Construction of gigawatt-sized nuclear reactors involves enormous investments in excess of £20 billion, with very long periods before revenues begin to accrue. The nuclear sector deal of June 2018 set out an ambition to reduce capital costs by 30% by 2030. This Bill should facilitate a reduction in the cost of capital for such projects. As Humphrey Cadoux-Hudson, managing director of EDF UK, explains, out of Hinkley Point C’s contract-for-difference price of £92.50, only £12 to £13 was the cost of construction. Operation and waste management represented another £25, and the rest is the cost of finance.

The RAB model is already established in the UK as a way of financing large infrastructure projects. There were around £160 billion worth of RAB assets in the country in 2018, such as Thames tideway, a £4.2 billion project whose weighted average cost of capital will be 2.5% until completion of construction and testing. That compares with around 9% for Hinkley Point C, which is borne by consumers.

The RAB model increases the options for financing nuclear projects and supports the Government’s recognition of the essential role that firm baseload nuclear power must play in meeting both our rapidly increasing demand for electricity and our much bigger need for low-carbon industrial energy. Many people are not aware that the two are different and that currently only 20% of our total energy consumption is electricity, while 80% is domestic and industrial heat, transport, and industrial processes, which at present are principally supplied by gas. Renewable energy cannot replace fossil-fuelled industrial heat.

As I mentioned in the excellent debate on nuclear power introduced by my noble friend Lord Howell of Guildford on 9 December 2021, there are many reasons why the Government should prioritise any opportunities to collaborate with Japan on nuclear energy, to mitigate the damage caused by the cancellation of the Horizon project and Toshiba’s NuGen project at Sellafield Moorside.

The Government have committed to provide £385 million towards advanced nuclear research and development. I welcome their decision to support Rolls-Royce’s SMR programme. The 10-point plan committed the remaining £175 million to research and development of AMR technologies. My right honourable friend the Energy Minister confirmed on 2 December that the Government had decided to focus on high-temperature gas-cooled reactors as their technology choice moving forwards, with the objective of building a demonstrator by the early 2030s. I suggest that this is too modest an objective. As my noble friend Lord Goodlad said, we do not have the luxury of time.

The HTGR technology developed by the Japan Atomic Energy Agency is based on an early British design, the Dragon reactor, developed at Winfrith in Dorset in 1965. The 21st century version has been licensed and operating in Japan for more than 10 years. It is inherently safe and would complement Rolls-Royce’s SMRs well as HTGRs produce heat up to 950 degrees centigrade and would serve a different but essential sector of the UK economy, such as replacing fossil fuels in industrial processes, manufacturing and the production of green hydrogen. The reactors are much smaller than the relatively large Rolls-Royce SMRs, producing around 50 megawatts thermal or 22 megawatts electrical, ideal for embedding in industrial clusters.

Does my noble friend not agree that the Government are proceeding much too slowly in seeking only to establish a demonstrator? The Japanese Government and JAEA are keen to commercialise this already proven technology in the UK and would welcome ministerial engagement at an early date to discuss how this might be best achieved. The RAB model enabled by the Bill we are debating today will provide increased opportunities to finance smaller nuclear projects as well as very large ones such as Sizewell C.

However, I have reservations about saddling consumers with too much by way of additional levies on their electricity bill. Does the Minister agree that the allocation of risk must be fair, transparent and robustly regulated to protect the consumer if the burden is to be applied through regressive electricity bills rather than general taxation? I look forward to other noble Lords’ contributions and the Minister’s winding-up speech.

Future UK-EU Relationship on Professional and Business Services (EU Committee Report)

Viscount Trenchard Excerpts

Thursday 22nd July 2021 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Trenchard (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I declare my financial services interests as stated in the register. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, on securing this debate. I am glad that we just squeezed it in before the Summer Recess.

It was a great pleasure to serve on the EU Services Sub-Committee, under the excellent chairmanship of the noble Baroness. She skilfully led the committee—whose members represent different strands of opinion on Brexit and its effect on our services industry—to agree this report, and indeed our subsequent short report, without dissent.

Three minutes is not enough time to begin to comment on the myriad important issues identified in the reports, so I shall mention just three. First, we thought that the Financial Services Act was a missed opportunity to make major changes to our financial regulations. Since the return of powers to our regulators allows for a more flexible and innovative regime, it is still unclear precisely how Parliament will scrutinise regulations and hold the regulators to account. The report of the Taskforce on Innovation, Growth and Regulatory Reform, led by my right honourable friend Iain Duncan Smith, shows how the UK can seize the opportunities available from Brexit by reshaping its regulatory approach. Does my noble friend the Minister agree that we need to be swifter and bolder in reforming our cumbersome rulebook?

Secondly, a combination of Covid and new rules restricting travel to the UK for artists and creative support teams from the EU has increased costs and reduced opportunities for many festivals and events organisers. Can my noble friend confirm that the Government will continue to work with the EU and with member states to make it easier and cheaper for touring performers and crews to travel both to and from the UK?

Thirdly, our report called for a mutual commitment to high standards of intellectual property protection. The Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys argues that divergence from EPO standards, such as the introduction of the grace period or the need for the ability to extend patent terms, should be resisted unless agreed as global standards in multilateral fora such as WIPO and Group B+. Does my noble friend the Minister think that this will present a problem in negotiating accession to the CPTPP, or does he think that our acceptance of CPTPP rules on patents would encourage the EPO to be more flexible in working towards international harmonisation of patent rules and a common rulebook for itself, the Japan Patent Office and the United States Patent and Trademark Office?

Turkey: Free Trade Agreement

Viscount Trenchard Excerpts

Tuesday 27th April 2021 Grand Committee

[Viscount Trenchard (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, for introducing this debate. Turkey is our 19th-biggest trading partner, with the total trade volume amounting to £18.7 billion in 2019. The Government stated that they intended

“to ensure that customs processes are as simple, clear, and predictable as possible”.

Does my noble friend the Minister agree that this is most encouraging? However, notwithstanding these additional customs checks, Turkish exports to the UK increased by nearly 13% in the first quarter. The benefits of trade derive from imports as well as exports, as my noble friend Lord Hannan of Kingsclere explained so well.

I congratulate the International Agreements Committee on its report, which drew the UK-Turkey agreement to the special attention of the House because it is politically important and because, although its overarching objective is to maintain provisions in the precursor EU-Turkey agreements, it differs from them in certain important respects. It introduces rules of origin requirements on industrial goods traded between the UK and Turkey. It also omits certain technical barriers to trade and aspects of competition policy. Some provisions of the agreement rely on the EU-UK trade and co-operation agreement and are subject to review after the TCA formally enters into force. The agreement does not cover services, which account for only 19% of the UK’s trade with Turkey, but it is good news that a review intended to enhance the agreement is set to start within two years. Does my noble friend the Minister agree that services trade and subsidy notifications similar to those in the Japan CEPA might be useful enhancements?

It is welcome that the Government have issued guidance to assist firms exporting to and importing from Turkey but the new rules of origin declarations, particularly against the background that Turkey is not allowing one single declaration for multiple shipments but is requiring separate declarations for each shipment, create difficulties. Credit is due to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, my noble friend the Minister and their team for sorting out such a large number of continuity free trade agreements during December, including this complex deal with Turkey, which is, I understand, the fifth-biggest trade deal that we have negotiated since Brexit.

Turkey is also an important partner for geostrategic, security and other reasons beyond trade, as was pointed out by the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley. I look forward to hearing other noble Lords’ contributions and the Minister’s winding-up.

Economic Partnership Agreement: Kenya

Viscount Trenchard Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd March 2021 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Trenchard (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, for introducing this debate. Along with other noble Lords, I most heartily congratulate the noble Lord, Lord McDonald of Salford, on his entertaining maiden speech. Your Lordships’ House will gain a great deal from his experience and perspectives as the global Britain programme accelerates.

During the last few weeks of the implementation—or transition—period, all eyes were on the discussions with the EU, led by my noble friend Lord Frost. I trust that we are likely to see rather more of him in your Lordships’ House in future. He successfully concluded the trade and co-operation agreement with the EU on Christmas Eve, a wonderful Christmas present for the British people.

Little attention has been given to the impressive performance of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for International Trade and her team in sorting out a large number of continuity free trade agreements during December. As of now, the UK has secured continuity or enhanced continuity trade agreements with almost all the 70 countries with which we had previously signed up to free trade agreements as members of the EU. Last month it was announced that we have applied to join the CPTPP, a free trading area with a combined GDP of £9 trillion. This is very exciting and enormously significant for global Britain.

It is also to be celebrated that we have now signed up to seven free trade agreements covering 14 African countries. Important among those agreements to which we signed up in December was that with Kenya. In terms of volume of traded goods, it was perhaps not the most important, but in terms of geostrategic significance I submit that it was rather more important. Some observers have said that the agreement may have a negative effect on economic integration among the members of the East African Community. However, under Article 143 of the agreement, the other members of the EAC are entitled to make an accession request to the UK-Kenya EPA Council.

The International Agreements Committee of your Lordships’ House asked why the Government did not transition the market access regulation into UK law. It seems clear that the reason no other partner state of the EAC chose to ratify the EU-EAC EPA is that they could enjoy duty-free and quota-free access through the EU’s market access regulation. Beyond this, all the other partner states had an additional incentive not to ratify the agreement, as they are least developed countries and, as such, already benefit from duty-free, quota-free access under the EU’s generalised scheme of preferences LDC framework.

Kenya has seen sustained growth for over a decade, rooted in fundamental reforms which have made the Kenyan economy competitive and increased its attractiveness to international investment. I welcome this agreement.

Trade Bill

Viscount Trenchard Excerpts

Report stage & Report: 3rd sitting (Hansard) & Report: 3rd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 6th January 2021 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Trenchard (Con)]

My Lords, I hesitate to speak in connection with Northern Ireland matters and have tended to leave these matters to those with more experience of the Province. Like many noble Lords, I regret that the Northern Ireland protocol introduces uncertainties into the status of the Province as an integral part of the United Kingdom.

Amendment 17 is fair enough, except that it is unnecessary in a trade Bill. It is not necessary to complicate the Bill in this way because it is incumbent on the Government to comply with the requirements of the protocol. This includes, as noble Lords are aware, an affirmation of the place of Northern Ireland in the United Kingdom customs territory. Furthermore, the Government would not be able to enact any FTA not consistent with our international obligations. I believe that there is a strong case for saying that entering into the withdrawal agreement and the Northern Ireland protocol breached Article 50 of the Lisbon treaty. As the noble Lord, Lord of Kerr of Kinlochard, knows well, because he drafted it, the treaty clearly states that the terms of withdrawal of a member state shall be agreed against the background of that state’s future relationship with the European Union. The EU, in my view, wrongly decided to cajole us into negotiating and agreeing the terms of withdrawal separately, and ahead of, agreeing what our future relationship should be. I trust that the Joint Committee will continue to make progress in mitigating the damage the protocol may do to the Belfast/Good Friday agreement.

Amendment 18 covers only north-south trade. It does not mention east-west trade. Amendment 26 covers east-west trade, but not in precisely the same terms. I believe that neither amendment is relevant or necessary in this Bill, although it is most important that facilitations should be agreed which minimise damage to both north-south and east-west trade.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Haskel) (Lab)]

I call the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon. He is not there, so we will move on to the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Humphreys (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, for tabling this important amendment and presenting us with the opportunity to debate, yet again, the issue of powers and responsibilities in areas of devolved competence being overlooked or ignored—in this Bill and, as we have seen, in other Brexit Bills that have recently come before Parliament.

I acknowledge, as does the Senedd’s External Affairs and Additional Legislation Committee, that the regulation of international trade is a matter reserved to the UK Government, and that on the other hand the implementation obligations arising from international agreements are primarily the responsibility of the devolved Governments and legislatures. Another of the Senedd’s committees—the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee—agrees with this analysis, pointing out that the international trade agreements covered by this provision will encompass a wide range of policy areas that fall within the legislative competence of the Senedd, including agriculture and fisheries.

It is of some comfort that Clause 2 of this Bill confirms the respective responsibilities of the two Parliaments by confirming that non-tariff regulations can be made by UK and Welsh Ministers, alone or concurrently, and are then subject to the affirmative procedure in the appropriate Parliament. Nowhere in this clause, however, is there a recognition of the role of the Welsh Government in trade agreements in their areas of devolved competence. I accept that the agreements themselves are a reserved matter, but omitting the devolved Administrations from playing any part in the process indicates the desire of the UK Government to control and create trading agreements in their favour—agreements that might not meet the needs of the devolved nations.

Sadly, we are faced once again with an example of the UK Government ignoring the powers and responsibilities of the Senedd and the other devolved Administrations, and the lack of a reference to them in Clause 2 makes their omission obvious to all. It is another example from this Government of what I have referred to before as “attempted constitutional change by stealth”.

Actions such as these are perceived in Wales as making a mockery of the promise of taking back control. Control is now seen as being consolidated in Westminster, and evidence is mounting that these omissions act merely as a recruiting sergeant for those who wish to promote an independence agenda.

This amendment seeks to provide that, if trade agreements contain provisions relating to the devolved competences of Scottish, Welsh or Northern Ireland Ministers, the consent of those Ministers is required to authenticate that agreement, and it has my full support.

[Viscount Trenchard (Con)]

My Lords, I regret that I cannot support Amendment 24 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. It would weaken the authority of our negotiators in agreeing the best possible terms in an international trade agreement for the whole United Kingdom.

In an earlier debate, on Amendment 6, my noble friend Lord Lansley explained that although the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, maintained that that amendment did not restrict the prerogative powers of the Government, it did in fact do so by placing limits on the prerogative powers to proceed with negotiations. The arrangements in the CRaG Act, together with the further measures that the Government have taken to increase parliamentary involvement, are sufficient.

Noble Lords will be aware that the negotiation and entering into of international treaties are a function of the Executive exercising their prerogative powers and are a reserved matter for the United Kingdom Parliament.

We should also remember that international trade is an exclusive competence of the European Union, and that member states have the power to block ratification only in the case of trade agreements that include matters other than trade matters and which are shared competences. It seems to me that this amendment would further weaken the prerogative powers and would be likely to give rise to arguments about the extent of the devolved competences described and contained in Schedule 1, which could be exploited by a Government with whom we were negotiating a free trade agreement. Can my noble friend confirm that the Government are already taking the views of the devolved Administrations fully into account? Subject to this assurance, I believe that the amendment would create more uncertainty and should not be accepted.