House of Lords
Introduction: Baroness Gustafsson
Oaths and Affirmations
Legal Aid: Social Welfare and Family Law
(1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bach (Lab)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and I refer the House to my declared interest.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede) (Lab)
My Lords, legal aid is a vital part of the justice system. It underpins our plans to build a justice system that works for victims, supports access to justice and ultimately upholds the rule of law. The previous Government left the legal system facing significant challenges. This Government are committed to ensuring an effective, efficient and sustainable legal aid system, and we have already begun to stabilise the sector and explore ways in which we can rebuild our justice system.
Lord Bach (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for his reply. I know that he, like me, believes that the virtual decimation of early legal advice as a direct consequence of the LASPO Act remains an affront to access to justice. Is he aware that every report published on this issue strongly agrees that early legal advice saves the state money by avoiding court and time spent? Of course, we know how sparse resources are, but does he not agree that common sense dictates that restoring early legal advice urgently by an increase in legal aid is a necessary, humane and financially sensible thing to do?
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for that question, and I agree with the sentiment behind it. The Government are committed to ensuring there is an effective, efficient and sustainable legal aid system and are working toward that end. Our response to the Crime Lower consultation was published on 14 November and confirmed that we will be uplifting the lowest police station fees, introducing a new youth court fee scheme and paying for travel time in certain circumstances. Together, these changes will provide a £24 million boost for criminal aid providers.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, on a related matter, may I suggest that, to reduce the backlog in criminal cases, the Government increase the number of judicial sitting hours? I also suggest that the Government give earnest consideration to the recent proposal by the former Justice Minister Mr Chalk that criminal cases of intermediate gravity should be dealt with by a Crown Court judge and two justices, rather than by a jury.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
I thank the noble Viscount for that question. As he will be aware, the department is going through an allocation process as a result of the recent Budget. The question of sitting hours and days will be looked at as part of that allocation review. He raised the question of an intermediate court, which I think was in the Auld report. That is being looked at, but a number of questions arise from that suggestion, which was made more than 20 years ago. I can say to the noble Viscount that it is something that is being considered.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, as the Minister will know from his past life, many unrepresented litigants appear before family judges and magistrates without any legal advice. Very often, there have to be adjournments because the facts are not available because the parties are so in dispute they cannot give an accurate account. Does the Minister agree that this is not only a waste of court time but a waste of money? Early legal advice in family cases would save a great deal of money.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
Of course, I am sympathetic to the point the noble and learned Baroness makes. As she said, I have substantial experience of dealing with litigants in person in family courts. The debate about early legal advice is also being considered as part of the allocation arrangements as a result of the Budget, but I am sympathetic to the point she makes.
Lord Beith (LD)
My Lords, is the Minister concerned about the combined effect of the restrictions on scope for legal aid, the enormous complexity of trying to get an exceptional circumstances funding application through, and the creation of advice deserts in many parts of the country? These are severe barriers. The Minister has been strongly in support of legal aid over many years, as I know well, but does he have any hope of making progress on this matter?
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for that question, specifically on the point of advice deserts. There is no doubt we are facing substantial challenges in that respect. The previous Government allowed the number of duty solicitors available to drop by 26% between 2017 and 2023. The MoJ and the Legal Aid Agency are working with providers where there are specific issues; for example, setting up a list of providers available to provide immigration advice to clients in the south-west.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Bach’s Question is rightly focused on social welfare law and family law, which all too often get forgotten. One of the real pressures on the system is dealing with domestic abuse cases. The courts have introduced a system recently in certain courts, called the pathfinder courts, where there is an early assessment of domestic abuse allegations and the effect trying them will have on children. Could the Minister tell us whether the Government support those pathfinder schemes and how they are getting on?
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
I pay tribute to my predecessor, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy. When I was in opposition, he made a point of encouraging me to visit a pathfinder court in Dorset. I was very impressed by what I saw, and the Government are pleased to carry on that initiative. Again, I am afraid the further rollout of pathfinder is also subject to those allocation discussions, which are ongoing, but I absolutely endorse the point my noble friend makes about the importance of pathfinder, not least because it is a way of highlighting and cracking down on domestic abuse in the court system.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, until 2012, there was funding for the excellent support scheme for specialist providers of social welfare and housing law. What consideration are the Government giving to its revival? If the Minister is not aware of plans, will he undertake to look at this?
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
I will undertake to look at that. I am not aware of it in detail; I know that various pilots have been undertaken. I will write to the noble Lord.
Lord Burnett of Maldon (CB)
The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and the noble Lord, Lord Bach, have referred to the cost that falls on the courts as a result of the removal of legal aid for parents in dispute over their children. That is robbing Peter to pay Paul. I wonder whether the Government could take account also of the wider costs of the removal of legal aid in family cases which flow because parents at war are not as economically effective as they would otherwise be. People at war become ill, and there is untold damage done to the children as they are caught up in protracted disputes that need not happen. When the Minister is undertaking the review he referred to, would he take those matters into account?
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
I think the noble and learned Lord has hit the nail on the head. Private family law hearings are a destructive process. It is not unusual for situations to get worse for the people engaging in them, in my experience. Having the legal representation helps the court, and it is something I hope we can work towards over time. However, there are other initiatives, such as the pathfinder project, such as early legal advice, such as mediation vouchers, which we would like to use to divert couples away from the court system where it is appropriate and there is not risk to the children.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend the Minister, in response to my noble friend Lord Bach, referred primarily to criminal legal aid. What does he think are the implications for the principle of equality before the law, which underpins the rule of law, of the disastrous impact of LASPO—introduced by the coalition Government—on the provision of legal aid and advice for social welfare law, as referred to by my noble friend?
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
I agree with the sentiments behind my noble friend’s question, but the reality of the situation is that building back better and more comprehensive support will take time. It is a step-by-step process. I understand the frustration which she expresses; nevertheless, I agree with her sentiments and we are working towards that end.
Curriculum and Assessment Review
(1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Holmes of Richmond
To ask His Majesty’s Government whether the Curriculum and Assessment Review led by Professor Becky Francis will seek to prioritise digital literacy, artificial intelligence literacy, media literacy and financial literacy, alongside reading, writing and mathematics.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, and declare my technology and financial services interests as set out in the register.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
My Lords, the curriculum and assessment review is independent. The review will make recommendations to the Government based on evidence and widespread sector engagement. The ambition in the review’s terms of reference is for
“a curriculum that ensures … young people leave compulsory education ready for life and ready for work”,
with digital skills. This may include the other areas that the noble Lord mentions, but it will be for the review to consider that in the context of its overall recommendations.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
Does the Minister agree that we need not only to significantly increase the levels and quantity of digital, AI, media and financial education but to ensure that it is personalised, flexible, relevant and responsive? One reason alone is that low levels of financial literacy currently cost the country £20 billion and individuals at the sharp end almost £500 a year. Does she agree that if we enable the levels of literacy we need, this will deliver immeasurable benefits to individual flourishing, levels of innovation and economic, social and psychological growth, for the benefit of us all?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble Lord makes an important point about the breadth that we need in the teaching that goes on in our schools and in the skills, attributes and knowledge that young people have when they leave school to enter into life and into work, as I said. That is why this Government set up the curriculum and assessment review: to use the evidence being gained from the wider engagement to make recommendations about how we can improve on providing skills in all those areas, and particularly ensure that the curriculum supports students with special educational needs and those from disadvantaged backgrounds, to close some of the gaps in pupils’ learning.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a state secondary schoolteacher. Does the Minister agree that it is ridiculous that our children leave school now with a very good knowledge of the religions and their gods but cannot have a working knowledge of Microsoft Office?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I do not think it is strictly true that large numbers of young people do not have a working knowledge of important areas of digital skills and computing. Of course, increasing numbers of them take GCSEs and A-levels in computing, but the noble Lord makes an important point about it being important to have the necessary skills for life. The curriculum and assessment review will consider that, and this Government will take decisions on it when we receive that review.
Baroness Blower (Lab)
My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that, whatever the outcome of the curriculum review, a pedagogical focus on oracy would assist in the teaching of all the important skills that young people clearly need as they enter the world of work, and in being able to discuss issues such as anti-racism?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My noble friend is absolutely right. We need to make sure that young people are able to express themselves and to engage in discussion and debate. That is why we welcome, for example, the work that Geoff Barton and his Oracy Commission have carried out in this important area. It is also why developing language skills is vital in early years to enable children to thrive. We are funding evidence-based early language interventions, targeting children who need extra support with their speech and language development.
Baroness Humphreys (LD)
My Lords, these Benches support the prioritisation talked about in this Question. There have long been calls to include this on the school curriculum. But young people are generally digitally savvy, and the problem is often the older generations, who struggle with everything going online and are not digitally literate in many cases. What are the Government doing to encourage local authority libraries to offer free courses on digital education to older adults?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I make no judgment about the digital skills of Members of this House, but the noble Baroness makes an important point about the need to ensure that adults can also access digital skills. In referring to libraries, she is also talking, I think, about the importance of being able to access the hardware as well to do that. We continue to fund the essential skills legal entitlement through the adult skills fund, which will enable an opportunity for fully funded study for eligible adults who are 19 years and over and who do not have either essential English and maths skills up to level 2 or digital skills up to level 1. This will ensure that, alongside what is happening in schools, adults have the crucial basic digital skills that they need to access the modern world.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, one of the early themes coming out of the curriculum review is that teachers feel that there has been overstipulation about the content that they have been required to teach. The Government having a review after 10 years is entirely appropriate. We are encouraged by Professor Francis’s remarks about her concern that,
“by alleviating accountability and prescription, we risk facilitating poor practices that further marginalise disadvantaged young people”.
Can the noble Baroness be clear with the House that there will be no slippage in the academic rigour in the curriculum, particularly focusing on closing the attainment gap in school and post 16?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I can, I hope, reassure the noble Baroness that this Government are absolutely committed to ensuring higher standards in our schools—particularly with respect to English and maths, for example, which are fundamental and important skills—and that we do more to close the attainment gap in both English and maths. In recent years, this has grown between those who achieve the highest levels and those who do not achieve so well, and between those who are advantaged and those who are disadvantaged. Everybody in our schools needs access to the most rigorous and effective curriculum and teaching, which is what this Government are committed to delivering.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
We will hear from the Cross Benches, then the Conservative Benches.
Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)
My Lords, in addition to the subjects being considered, will the review look at the provision of the infrastructure behind them—for example, libraries for books and, for music, peripatetic teachers, instruments and music itself?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
Notwithstanding the very difficult financial situation that this Government inherited, we are committed—
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I am sorry, but I am tempted by murmurs opposite to remind noble Lords that we have inherited a considerable fiscal challenge—in fact, a £22 billion black hole that we have had to close. Notwithstanding that, the noble Lord makes an important point about the importance of continued funding and particularly capital funding, where we have already made some progress in the most recent spending review, and where this Government will continue to prioritise the needs of our children—both the teachers and the equipment they need to learn.
Lord Baker of Dorking (Con)
Is the Minister aware that, of the students this year taking GCSE, fewer than 20% took computer science? That is appalling. At the same time, a report from 6,000 companies up and down the land, big and small, showed that the biggest thing restricting their growth in profit was their inability to appoint data analysts. Does she not accept that she has responsibility in this matter, and that children leaving school at 18 should be trained in artificial intelligence, data analysis, virtual reality and cyber security? If she does not introduce these changes next year, the Government she supports will not reach the economic growth that they hope for.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I am sure the noble Lord will know that, in its first report, Skills England identified a lack of digital skills as one of the key areas holding back productivity, and where we need to make progress. I assure him that, whether in schools or later on in life, we will put a priority on the skills that are so important to ensure growth in our economy—and, therefore, future investment in further skills development.
NHS: Anti-obesity Medication
(1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to ensure that the prescription of new anti-obesity medication by the NHS is cost effective.
Lord Cryer (Lab)
I recognise my noble friend’s interest in this issue. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence—NICE—makes recommendations on whether new medicines, including obesity medicines, should be routinely funded by the NHS in England, based on an assessment of their costs and benefits. The NICE process ensures that new medicines do not displace funding for other, more effective treatments and services. The NHS in England is required to fund NICE-recommended treatments, usually within three months of the final guidance.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome my noble friend to the Front Bench and wish him well—especially if he is going to give some good replies to my questions too. My concern is the potential cost of the new drugs to the NHS, which could be crippling. Secondly, my concern is about youngsters who have type 2 diabetes. I foresee the possibility that these drugs could be prescribed to children and teenagers. That is a great worry for all of us—to see people self-administering in that way.
There are alternatives and there are cheaper alternatives. It behoves us to explore all of those before we start embarking on massive expenditure programmes. Could I get an assurance from my Minister that we are doing everything that we can with the private sector—the producers of food and drink—to ensure that we reduce the amount of sugar, particularly, and that we seek reformulation of food and drink, which will be much cheaper than spending a lot of money on an alternative new drug?
Lord Cryer (Lab)
I am very grateful to the noble Lord. Of course, I will always give him the answers that he seeks. He touches on a lot of issues there—his question alone is probably worth a QSD. However, touching on one or two, the whole reason for the existence of NICE is to examine value for money for the taxpayer and effectiveness. Drugs are not approved and licensed simply for the sake of it, and certainly are not doled out by the NHS for the same reason. There is a range of measures in place. The weight-management services, which are available across the country, extend from the most basic end, using an NHS app, through a range of services and across a range of agencies through to surgery and the use of drugs. When he touches on the use of drugs by children, I think what he is talking about is not so much the drugs that are prescribed but children getting access potentially to the online world and getting online drugs that are not prescribed—which is a whole different issue.
Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con)
Is the Minister aware of the reported deaths from semaglutide in the UK, according to the Yellow Card advisory service, and is he further aware that there are very many complications from these anti-obesity drugs, including nausea, vomiting, constipation and many other unpleasant symptoms. Is it not time to be rather more cautious before we prescribe these drugs?
Lord Cryer (Lab)
I recognise the noble Lord’s distinguished history, and again he touches on a range of issues. I will say just a couple of things. The idea that the drugs are licensed and prescribed in a trivial way is wide of the mark. The process that is overseen by NICE and the MHRA is very rigorous; it is one of the most rigorous processes in the world and it is internationally recognised as such. As for prescribing, of course that is up to the individual physician, GP or hospital service, and I do not believe that, in the vast majority of cases, GPs or other medics would prescribe drugs on the basis of a sort of trivial view of these things. As to the deaths, they are obviously deeply regrettable. I think the noble Lord is touching on a particular recent death that has been in the news, and we all regard that as deeply regrettable, but I do not feel, because it is very recent, that I can comment on it.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, I am on the side of the Minister. All drugs have complications and, not surprisingly, these new drugs are also a source of complications. It is for that reason that a proper monitoring of longer-term prescribing of weight-loss drugs is carried out properly, as is the prescribing itself. When it comes to cost, £11.9 billion every year is the cost of dealing with overweight and obesity, and the current plans that are being consulted on, on the use of weight-reduction drugs, are, in my mind, appropriate and properly controlled. I hope the Minister will agree that properly controlled trials, which it is intended that NICE and NHS England will carry out, are appropriate, especially when monitored by general practitioners and secondary care doctors.
Lord Cryer (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord, who makes a number of good points. He is mainly talking about the MHRA and NICE. The MHRA continuously works with national and international partners and agencies to monitor drugs and make sure that they are prescribed properly. He also touched on the problem of obesity, which I probably should have mentioned before. A majority of people in this country, certainly adults, are overweight, and 30% of adults live with obesity, leading to illnesses such as diabetes, heart disease, kidney disease and bladder problems—a whole range of problems that are perfectly preventable. But trying to persuade people to eat more healthily has not worked in the past, which is why we are going down the path that we are at the moment, with weight-management services and, in certain cases only, the prescription of drugs that are very closely monitored. The process that the drugs go through before they are available to the public is extremely rigorous.
The Lord Bishop of London
My Lords, Henry Dimbleby’s National Food Strategy independent review details the factors that impact on our ability to eat healthily. They include having the facilities at home to be able to prepare fresh food and having the time to do so; it is also about where you live. About 3.3 million people cannot reach any food store selling raw ingredients by public transport. When it comes to combating obesity, what steps are the Government taking to assist low-income families, in particular, with accessing healthy and nutritious meals?
Lord Cryer (Lab)
I am grateful for the question. What the right reverend Prelate is really talking about is conditions rather than medicine, which touches on an important part of the 10-year plan for health that was introduced recently by the incoming Government. That is about moving towards a system of prevention rather than cure. Prevention is always more sensible than cure and, in the longer term, it is actually a great deal cheaper as well. The right reverend Prelate talked about social and economic conditions that will take a long time to address, with the best will in the world.
Lord Rennard (LD)
My Lords, I have recently become a user of a weight-loss injection, on medical advice and in order to improve my diabetic control. Does the Minister not think that we need to move on from the current short-term system of assessing the value of drugs to a much longer-term consideration of cost-benefit analysis measured over some decades, taking into account the benefits of things such as improving health and emotional well-being, reducing the costs of other NHS treatments, including for depression and anxiety, and considering in the long run the benefits of more people paying HMRC and fewer needing support from the DWP?
Lord Cryer (Lab)
I appreciate what the noble Lord says but, again, the processes that lead to drugs becoming available on the NHS are extremely rigorous. The noble Lord seemed to imply, or he said, that the processes that lead to drugs becoming available on the NHS were somehow curtailed or somehow short. They are not. They go on for a very long time. The latest obesity drug has been going through those processes for many months and is still not available. It might be available in the very near future, but it is not available at the moment because it is going through such a rigorous process.
Evaluation in Government Policy-making
(1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Lord Kempsell
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to improve the use of evaluation in government policy-making.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)
My Lords, I recognise the work of the noble Lord, Lord Kempsell, in establishing the Evaluation Task Force, which is playing an important role in improving the use of evaluation across government. I also congratulate him on his new job. The Evaluation Task Force works with departments to ensure that evaluations of programmes are carried out and published. It also assesses the quality of evidence in business cases which inform public spending decisions. This Government remain committed to evidence-based policy-making and are using this to reform and improve our public services and enhance the value for money they deliver.
Lord Kempsell (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her gracious reply. Vast amounts of public money are spent every day, but far too little attention is given to assessing whether those spending decisions actually achieve their desired outcome through good evaluation. In the wake of the Budget, which announced some of the highest levels of public spending in this country’s history, how do the Government intend to ensure that every pound of taxpayers’ money is not just well spent but that that spending is well evaluated?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
The Autumn Budget announced a new public sector reform and innovation fund, which will support the development of new approaches to improving public services. This will deploy £100 million over the next three years to deliver innovative public service reforms in partnership with mayors and local leaders. The project’s primary focus is on experimentation and learning and will complement ongoing reform programmes and activities delivered by departments. Of course, evaluation—good evaluation—will continue to be key.
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab)
My Lords, is it not very clear that the Government are looking to make sure that evidence-based policy-making and evaluation become the norm? When I was last in government, I introduced numerous evidence-based programmes that were nearly all abandoned by successive Governments, including the one that the noble Lord who asked the Question was a member of. We have lost evidence-based policy-making that would have meant that today we had fewer children in care. Through supporting the evidence base for early intervention, fewer of them would have needed to go into care; that was proved through the evaluation. How are we going to get back to that sort of position?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
This Government intend to use evaluation and evidence-based policy-making as the norm. We want to get away from the position we saw under the previous Government, where political decisions—including the Rwanda scheme—were more about newspaper headlines than value for money for taxpayers.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, will the Government’s Evaluation Task Force be looking at the costs and benefits we have had at a local level rather than from central government? Will it also be looking at the extra costs of outsourcing as opposed to occasionally insourcing? The question of care home and children’s home provision has already been mentioned; they are clear areas where there is waste, because giving the contracts to outsourcers gets them excessive profits, as they provide poorer services at a higher cost.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
Absolutely. The fund I spoke of in response to the noble Lord’s initial supplementary will be working in partnership with local authorities, local leaders and mayors across the country. We are very clear that we need to drive out waste and ensure that we get value for money. When we talk about value for money, it is also about better outcomes for the people we serve.
Baroness Finn (Con)
In 2019, only 8% of major government spend was evaluated. Thanks to the Evaluation Task Force, it is now 44%. This figure should rise further still by Christmas. However, the outstanding 10DS team—the data science team responsible for this work—has apparently been moved from No. 10 and its responsibilities dispersed. There were also plans to publish a register of all government evaluations online this year. Can the Minister update us on that publication, and give assurances that the excellent work of 10DS will continue?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I welcome the noble Baroness to her place. I look forward to working with her in her new role. We see the Evaluation Task Force as a key element of our work, and we are planning to launch the evaluation registry in spring 2025 so that the public can get the transparency they deserve.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that the consideration of the previous Government to ban onshore wind generation is something that would have benefited from such an Evaluation Task Force?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
My noble friend makes a really interesting point. Had the previous Government evaluated the potential benefit of the scheme, they would have found that the policy they pursued damaged our energy security and led to higher bills for both consumers and businesses.
Lord Macpherson of Earl’s Court (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that a budget for evaluation should be built into new programme settlements from the beginning, as happened with the New Deal in 1997? It is a practice which, sadly, has been rarely followed since then.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
It feels entirely appropriate that evaluation should be built into any new policy area, and the intention is for this to happen. When the Evaluation Task Force was created, an evaluation academy was also set up, which addresses the skills gap that was perceived to be present within the Civil Service, so there is a training scheme whereby more than 2,000 civil servants have been trained in their respective departments. One would hope that no major project would be launched without evaluation being built in from the start.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, will the Minister take this opportunity to deny the reports in the press suggesting that Defra was consulted only the night before the Budget on the impact of introducing inheritance tax on small farms? As a result, it is said that the Treasury has grossly underestimated the number of farms affected. What does that say about the evaluation of government policy?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I respect the noble Lord’s right to raise that question in this place. However, I will write to him on that matter; this is not something that I can respond to today.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, does the Minister accept that while it is of course important that we know the financial cost of everything, there are aspects of public policy—such as culture, the arts, music, et cetera—where we need to also understand the value? Is it not unacceptable that we should know the price of everything and the value of nothing?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
If I were to say yes, that would probably be quite a short answer. We are looking at social value as well as value for money purely in financial terms as part of our approach.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Kempsell, will be aware that on 25 March, just slightly more than three months before the general election, the then Minister for the Cabinet Office, John Glen, addressed the Evaluation Task Force annual conference at the QEII Centre. The noble Lord’s Question caused me to look this up on GOV.UK. In the speech Mr Glen said:
“A recent internal review by the Prime Minister’s Implementation Unit”
found that
“only eight percent of government spend on major projects is properly evaluated”.
He went on to say that the Government had been trying to correct this situation since the spending review of 2021—11 years into government. This speech was made a further three years after that point. Will my noble friend join me in thanking the noble Lord for creating this opportunity to let your Lordships’ House know about another element of the inheritance left by 14 years of his party’s Government?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for that question. One would question why, when the 2019 Cabinet Office review found that only 18% of spending on the government major projects portfolio had robust evaluation plans in place, we ended up with the shocking Covid corruption that has led to us needing to recoup a lot of the money. I speak for the whole country when I say the country wants its money back.
Special Public Bill Committee (Property (Digital Assets etc) Bill)
The Senior Deputy Speaker
That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords be appointed to the Special Public Bill Committee on the Property (Digital Assets etc) Bill [HL]:
Anderson of Ipswich, L (Chair), Bassam of Brighton, L, Clement-Jones, L, Cryer, L, Holmes of Richmond, L, Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L, Sandhurst, L, Shamash, L, Stansgate, V.
Radio Equipment (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2024
(1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 9 October be approved.
Relevant document: 4th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 11 November.
Judicial Pensions (Amendment) Regulations 2024
(1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 15 October be approved.
Considered in Grand Committee on 11 November.
Terrorism Act 2000 (Alterations to the Search Powers Code for Northern Ireland) Order 2024
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent
That the draft Order laid before the House on 15 October be approved.
Relevant document: 5th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 13 November.
Packaged Retail and Insurance-based Investment Products (Retail Disclosure) (Amendment) Regulations 2024
Baroness Blake of Leeds
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 7 and 10 October be approved.
Relevant document: 4th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 13 November.
Crown Estate Bill [HL]
Monday 18th November 2024
(1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Crown Estate Bill [HL] 2024-26 View all Crown Estate Bill [HL] 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 5-R-I Marshalled list for Report - (1 Nov 2024)
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, I have it in command from His Majesty the King to acquaint the House that His Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Crown Estate Bill, has consented to place his interests, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
Motion
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Livermore) (Lab)
My Lords, this Bill focused on modernising the Crown Estate by removing existing limitations that hamper its ability to compete and invest as a commercial business and to ensure it has a sustainable financial future for years to come. In doing so, it supports the Crown Estate to build on its strong track record of creating long-term shared prosperity for the nation.
I thank all noble Lords who have given their time and expertise to scrutinise the Bill during its passage through your Lordships’ House, genuinely strengthening the Bill in the process. Specifically, I formally thank the noble Baroness, Lady Vere, for her constructive engagement and scrutiny—in particular, on the partnership between the Crown Estate and Great British Energy and the disposal of national assets. On the latter, the Government are continuing to advance this in relation to the seabed with legal experts and will progress it in the other place if necessary. On pre-appointment scrutiny, which the noble Baroness also raised, my officials are continuing to engage with the Cabinet Office, as discussed at Report.
I sincerely thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, for her engagement on the Bill. She was instrumental in ensuring that this House had access to the draft memorandum of understanding, which improved the scrutiny we were able to give to the Bill. I also thank the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for the thoughtful scrutiny he provided throughout the debates.
On specific amendments, my thanks go to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, for her engagement on climate change, which resulted in a genuinely meaningful difference to the Bill; to the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, on the important issue of salmon farming, where I recognise the strength of feeling in this House; and to my noble friend Lord Hain, for his amendment on the Crown Estate commissioners, which will ensure the commissioners continue to act in the best interests of Wales. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, for his engagement around the law relating to ownerless land and the process of escheat.
Finally, I thank my Bill team, who behind the scenes put in a significant amount of time and effort—specifically, Sophie Gladman, James Watkinson, Ella Waters, David Fairbrother and Will Smith.
I am grateful for the engagement with the Bill and its broad support across all Benches, which will ensure that the Crown Estate can operate successfully for many more decades to come. I beg to move.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I intervene briefly to congratulate my noble friend on getting this Bill as far as he has. I was very pleased to see that His Majesty the King has given consent to a Bill which will make him many times richer over the course of the next decade or so—that is good. I ask why the Duke of Cornwall has not been included in this. We have been debating his involvement for some time and it would be good to know whether the Duchy approved this Bill or not.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, I briefly thank the Minister and all his Bill team, and Members of the House who have taken part in the debates on this Bill and contributed to many worthwhile and positive changes to the draft legislation. From these Benches, I reiterate that we support this partnership with the Crown Estate and believe it is important as part of our energy transition.
My sincere belief is that the Bill leaves us in a stronger and better place than when it arrived. We have all worked constructively to make important amendments. I thank the Minister for his courteous engagement and positive response to the issues that noble Lords have raised with him.
The publication of the business case, largely thanks to my noble friend Lady Kramer, has meant that the memorandum of understanding has given confidence and a better understanding of the partnership with GB Energy and how it will operate in practice. That was a key element in the House’s understanding.
The Minister has spoken from the Dispatch Box on the cap on the level of borrowing. That was most welcome as there is no cap in the Bill.
I thank all those who raised the important issue of devolution of the Welsh Crown Estate. A compromise agreement from the noble Lord, Lord Hain, ensured that there were concessions and that all the commissions from the devolved regions have a place.
I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, and the Minister on working together to agree an environmental duty. I also thank the Minister for adding a duty to report on the relationship with Great British Energy. Taken together, it is extremely important that these duties are written into the Bill and included in the framework agreement, and that the Crown Estate needs to report on them. These are not constraints but real responsibilities for the Crown Estate, which will need to meet them. They are safeguards that will exist for evermore.
It was a pleasure to move the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, which might perhaps be taken up in the Commons. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Vere, for her amendments. I am disappointed that her amendment on pre-appointment scrutiny for the chair of the Crown Estate board has not come back today, but that too may be taken up in the Commons.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for having made a bit of progress with regard to Wales in the Bill. Having the nominated person is a step in the right direction. It does not deliver everything that we and the noble Lord, Lord Hain, were pressing for, but I hope we will return to this. I have coming up for Second Reading a Private Member’s Bill on the devolution of the Crown Estate to Wales, as Scotland benefits from, but I thank the Minister for a small step in the right direction.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, the core objectives of this Bill were of course supported by all sides of your Lordships’ House, and there has been a bit of progress on so many fronts. There are a number of issues where I still have some concerns, and I know that there is some unease on these Benches. I hope that the Government will deliberate further.
I note the improvements relating to environmental concerns that were raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman. They were somewhat addressed by the Government. I am sure that she would have liked them to go further, but it was progress none the less. I hope that the Government do not seek to reverse the changes relating to salmon that were spearheaded by my noble friend Lord Forsyth.
I remain disappointed that sensible checks on unconstrained borrowing did not make it into the Bill. They garnered significant support from these Benches, but sadly we did not get that vote over the line. I appreciate the Minister’s comments about the sale of certain assets, particularly the seabed, which all noble Lords should be concerned about.
I am grateful to the Minister, his Bill team and all noble Lords who participated on the Bill. On a personal note, after more than 3,000 spoken contributions in eight years, this is my last outing at the Dispatch Box. I look forward to serving your Lordships’ House from the Back Benches.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken today. My noble friend Lord Berkeley will know that only the King’s consent is required for this Bill. Once again, I thank all noble Lords for their efforts on the Bill and thank the noble Baroness, Lady Vere, for all her exchanges from both sides of this Dispatch Box over the past year. She has always been ferocious in this House but friendly outside it, which has been the perfect combination. I wish her well in what she does next.
Future of the Post Office
(1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for the Statement. Like my honourable friend Andrew Griffith in the other place, I am pleased that the Government are building on the work of my right honourable friend Kevin Hollinrake to hasten the payments to the victims of the Horizon IT scandal. I am grateful to the Minister for this important update. Will she commit to regular updates going forward?
We learned with regret last week that the Post Office feels that it has no choice but to make radical decisions, announced by the chairman in the transformation plan, to reduce costs. We are told that this potentially threatens 115 branches and 1,000 jobs. This news prompts a variety of questions to the Minister. First, the Statement makes it clear that the Government expect the Post Office to consult postmasters, trade unions and other stakeholders. How disappointing that the communities that rely on these services have not been specifically mentioned. Surely the Minister agrees that the Post Office’s customers are an important group that should be consulted. Can the Minister therefore reassure the House that where closures are threatened, local communities are fully involved in the consultation process? Can she also assure the House that this will not herald another front in the Government’s current assault on rural communities, as epitomised by the family farm tax, and that the Government will review the family farm tax and other measures that affect rural communities to see how we can better support them?
In announcing these plans, the chairman of the Post Office said that the changes to national insurance in the Budget have made business more difficult for post offices. Can the Minister tell the House whether an impact assessment on the changes announced in the Budget for the Post Office was prepared and, if not, why not?
Business rates and national insurance contributions are going up. The threshold for paying them is going down, and obligations around the minimum wage are going up. It is impossible to conceive that, taken individually, these measures have not had some impact on all small businesses, but collectively they are devastating. As I do not believe that the Government would have been irresponsible enough to make these changes without assessing their likely impact, can the Minister commit to publishing all impact assessments?
The Post Office chairman made clear that his plans are subject to government funding. Can the Minister make a commitment that such funding will be forthcoming? Business rightly hates uncertainty.
Finally, it is welcome that the chairman has committed to increasing the number of banking hubs to 500 by 2030. We welcome that but, as my honourable friend in the other place noted, the devil is in the detail. I will repeat his question: has the Minister engaged with colleagues in the Treasury to discuss the impact of last week’s news on the banking framework negotiations, which are essential to underwrite this rollout of hubs?
Lord Stoneham of Droxford (LD)
My Lords, I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, to his new Front-Bench role. The Post Office organisation is another problem area left by the previous Government. The Horizon compensation payments are still moving too slowly; there is confusion over the new IT systems in the Post Office; and the Post Office has been suffering from a lack of leadership for an organisation dealing with severe competitive pressures. Now we face, in recognition of high overhead costs, the announcement of the possible closure of 115 Crown post offices, with further damage to our high streets.
I have two initial questions. First, are the Government looking at simplifying the Horizon compensation process and speeding up decision-making? Secondly, is the expectation that many of the Crown post offices will be replaced by sub-post offices and franchise operations? On high streets and in rural areas, long-term sustainability of the post office network is vital to many communities, not least for those who cannot currently use digital alternatives to the post office services for cash, banking and financial services. Liberal Democrats have put forward proposals for the mutualisation of the Post Office. This would also give sub-postmasters more independence and control. It is welcome that the Government have announced broader reforms for the organisation and will publish a Green Paper next year. Can the Minister assure the House that this will include consideration of how mutualisation could ensure that the Post Office is fit for the future?
Will the Government also take this opportunity seriously to consider how to strengthen the role that post offices play in our communities so that they can offer more local services, from community banking to government services?
During many of the Horizon debates, when the Government were on the Opposition Benches, speakers often reminded us that then Ministers were the owners of the Post Office. The Secretary of State has levers to pull, so the fundamental question is how the Government choose to use this leverage now. Can the Minister confirm that the Government will use this ownership to ensure that, whatever happens, local communities will continue to have long-term access to Post Office offerings—all the services, including DVLA and passport services, that currently are on offer?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Information and Technology (Baroness Jones of Whitchurch) (Lab)
My Lords, I also welcome the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, to his new role. I look forward to working with him on the many issues that we will no doubt discuss. I am pleased to have this opportunity to keep the House updated on the future of the Post Office, but before I start it is worth reiterating the point made in the Statement:
“the Government inherited a Post Office that is simply not fit for purpose, following”,
frankly,
“disinterest from the previous Government, a toxic culture in head office and years of under-investment”.—[Official Report, Commons, 13/11/24; col. 806.]
That is the legacy we are now grappling with.
I would like to keep the House updated on the need very urgently to ensure that all postmasters who have been victims of the Horizon scandal get full and fair redress. Anyone who has heard some of the individual stories will know how difficult it has been for affected postmasters. It is important that the Government deliver on this commitment to speed up the delivery of redress. This issue is occupying us, and we are determined to resolve it.
Noble Lords will know that the number of cases settled with full and fair compensation has nearly doubled in the past four months since the Government came to power, compared with the four months prior to that. We have also taken steps to make it easier for postmasters who were victims in this scandal to get full and fair redress quickly, not least by fixing some payments for those applying under the Horizon shortfall scheme and for those applying under the Horizon convictions redress scheme, which was launched in July. Nevertheless, we need to do more, and I assure noble Lords that we have our foot on the accelerator.
The noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, asked about the Budget. Clearly, we had to make tough choices in the Budget to fix the foundations of our economy and restore economic stability. We make no apology for that. The alternative to taking action was more economic instability, more austerity and more decline. There are mitigations in place to protect small businesses. These include an increase in and expansion of the employment allowance to simplify and reform employer national insurance contributions. There is also a permanent reduction of 40% of business rates relief for eligible retail properties.
On who was consulted and whether the Government engaged with the Post Office on its strategic review, Ministers have of course been kept informed and have met with Nigel Railton, the new chair. His announcement clearly sets a useful ambition for the future of the Post Office, but these changes depend on funding, which will be discussed through the spending review. The noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, asked who will be consulted. As we have made clear, it will be all stakeholders. That will include any of the communities that might be affected, but no decision has been made on any of those potential closures. We very much hope that alternative activities can be found for all those post offices so that they can remain in business, but the noble Lord will know the difficulties in all that because they are currently making a considerable loss. Nevertheless, we will consult.
The Government have a manifesto commitment to look for ways to strengthen the Post Office network, in consultation with sub-postmasters, trade unions and customers. The Post Office is required by government to maintain a network of 11,500 branches; the Post Office has confirmed that its transformation plan will not impact that commitment.
On the long-term future of the Post Office, the Government are clear that there is more that can be done and we will be considering what customers, communities and postmasters would like to see from a modern Post Office network. The noble Lord rightly said that there is a future; we see a good future for post offices, not only increasingly as banking hubs, potentially, but in providing a means for people to access all the public services the noble Lord mentioned. So there is a good, strong future if we can get the Post Office’s finances on an even keel.
The Post Office’s directly managed branches, which are the loss-making element, need to be addressed. The Post Office is in dialogue with the unions and postmaster representation bodies about future options for those branches. As I say, no decision has been taken by the Post Office on any specific locations and, whatever the outcome, the Post Office will continue to deliver a network of at least 11,500 branches, as required by the Government.
The need for rural provision is a point well understood by the Government. We recognise the important role that post offices play in their communities, and it is clear that branches in some rural areas often play a particular role as community hubs. Mr Railton’s announcement is not about changing the access criteria that the Government set for the Post Office, which would ensure a network of branches across the country, including in rural areas.
Finally, the noble Lord raised the issue of mutualisation. The Government have made it clear in our manifesto that we will look for ways to strengthen the Post Office network in consultation with sub-postmasters, trade unions and customers. Our department is working on this at an early stage, and a wide number of options are being explored, including long-term structural options such as mutualisation.
I stress again to noble Lords that we see a positive future for the Post Office network. This is not a question of managed decline; it is a positive vision for the future. We just need to get the nuts and bolts right at this stage.
Lord Arbuthnot of Edrom (Con)
My Lords, like the Minister, I believe in the Post Office. I see its future as a network of essential hubs spread throughout the country, holding communities together and giving people the chance to do their banking, to meet on a social basis, and to interact with the Government, other agencies and more services, including healthcare. That future would build up the country’s resilience. If that is right, should we not be expanding the network rather than reducing it?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
First, I pay tribute to the noble Lord for all the work he has done on this over the years. Nobody knows the challenges better than he does, and I absolutely agree: there is potentially a rosy future for post offices in exactly the way he described—as a network of basic service provision hubs, in addition to the banking hubs that we also see expanding. We need to ensure that we get the finances of this right, but we can all see the potential of the Post Office network to provide far more than it already does. It can provide a community hub, in the way that we were just talking about, but also a public service hub. Particularly as we move towards a lot of services being digital and online, post offices will have a role to provide for people who are digitally excluded in some way, so that they have that point of contact and a person can help them access those services, face to face. They have an essential role in the future, in the way that the noble Lord talked of.
Lord Beamish (Lab)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a member of the Post Office Horizon Compensation Advisory Board. Along with my good friend the noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot, I have been campaigning on this for over 15 years, and the toxic culture of the Post Office is very clear to me. It goes very deep. From the Post Office inquiry, it is clear that individual investigators pursued individual sub-postmasters in a vicious way.
What has been done to ensure that those individuals no longer work for the Post Office? Separately, what role have the Government taken regarding Fujitsu? Have they approached Fujitsu to ensure that it pays proper compensation for its role in this national scandal?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
I pay tribute to my noble friend for his considerable work campaigning on this issue. We all owe him a debt of gratitude for that. He is right that there is a toxic culture from the top down. I, and my department, believe that the new leadership at the Post Office will address that issue from the top down. That is partly to do with some of the individuals who are still there, and we are waiting for the result of the inquiry before we can potentially take any action against them. There are issues too about the senior pay of too many people at the Post Office. Quite frankly, we need to rationalise it and make it fit for the 21st century from the top down. That is the way we are approaching this issue.
With regard to Fujitsu, again, my noble friend will know that we are trying to find a way to embed a new system that will replace Horizon. Work is ongoing to make sure that this is happening; it is not happening as quickly as we would like. Fujitsu is, in a sense, still providing some of the services because we do not have an alternative to provide them at the moment. The sooner we can get a modern IT system that is fit for purpose into the Post Office the better. We are working towards being able to do that.
Viscount Brookeborough (CB)
My Lords, the Minister appears quite optimistic, but does she not accept that the withdrawal of some of these post offices through closures hits the most vulnerable people in rural communities? It is no good saying that this will be coped with; withdrawal means that many people will not have these services available.
I was on an inquiry to do with financial services a few years ago. When bank branches were closing, we were assured that post offices would be able to do the banking job for small businesses. Nobody really knew what was going on at the time but they were told that they would have to cope. We are, however, now closing post offices. Talking of consultation, we asked every bank whether they had consulted and they said yes. We could not find one branch that was not closed as a result of consultation yet there is simply nobody who will say that local financial services should be closed.
The Minister talks about the ambitions of the Post Office. What about the ambitions of the clients and the public? This is very serious, because the banks and the Post Office are bouncing off each other and reducing services one by one. It is unacceptable.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
I reiterate that we are ambitious for the Post Office. No decision has been taken about any potential closures of any post offices. There is a consultation taking place and we are trying to find a way to keep those post offices open in whatever way we can, whether that is providing different services or under different management. There is a guarantee that in both rural and urban areas a minimum provision of post offices must be provided, and the Post Office has confirmed to us that it will maintain that agreement, so it is a mistake to assume that they will close. I do not think there is any evidence of that at the moment. We are trying to find an alternative way to keep them open.
Lord Wigley (PC)
In an earlier answer the Minister used the words “including rural areas”, but I ask her to think in terms of “especially rural areas”. The reality is that in many rural areas the banks have closed down; this is certainly true in rural Wales. Some of the most vulnerable people in the community need access to post offices with a whole range of services, not just those available in shops. Will she please give a special place to rural areas in her consideration?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
I hear what the noble Lord says. I reiterate that we absolutely understand the important role that post offices play in their communities in rural areas. We are aware of the role that they play as community hubs, if nothing else. The Post Office’s proposals are not about changing the access criteria that the Government have set for the Post Office, so those criteria will continue. That will ensure a network of branches across the country, particularly in rural areas.
Lord Swire (Con)
My Lords, the way that services are to be provided is changing, from banking services to remote GP diagnostics, so the Post Office and its invaluable network should change and adapt as well. Will the Government look at some innovative ways where we can, for instance, co-locate post offices in shops or pubs and do much more, rather than looking at them as some kind of rather outdated form of delivery, particularly for rural communities?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
The noble Lord is right that we need to look at innovative ways where post offices can be co-located. A lot are already co-located in other retail shops. Those the ones that are more profitable, as far as I understand it, so that may well be the future, but there is probably more that we can do to expand that innovation, bearing in mind the community role that we see for them for the future and how important that will be. We have an open mind. The Green Paper that we are launching next year will allow all that debate to take place. We do not want to rush a solution. However, I reiterate that we see a positive role for the Post Office in the future, but let us make sure that we consider all the proposals, get them on the table and work with consumers and the unions, and then everyone can sign up to the proposals for the future.
Lord Sahota (Lab)
My Lords, last week there was a long, well-researched report on the “News at Ten” that some of the managers who were there at the height of the Horizon problems are still there and still bullying some of the sub-postmasters, which is quite sad. Are the Government aware of that?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
As I say, it is true that some of the individuals are still there. We await the outcome of the inquiry—it is about to come to an end—before we consider whether any further action needs to be taken against any individuals. In the meantime, a restructuring is taking place at the head office. Obviously some jobs may need to go as a result of all that, but we need to make the head office fit for the 21st century. It needs to be a leaner organisation at that point.
Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)
My Lords, given the structure of the Post Office at the moment as an arm’s-length body and the acceptance of it as an important part of the community and the country, is the Minister convinced that this arm’s-length structure, which failed so dismally in the past, is appropriate for the future?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
The Green Paper will enable us to look at all those issues. As I said, we said in our manifesto that one of the options we are considering is mutualisation, which may be a way forward, so nothing is off the table at this point. We will consider any option for a more efficient way of organising the Post Office, to make sure that the guarantees we think are essential for its long-term future are built into it but that it can be profitable.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, following the question from my noble friend Lord Arbuthnot, I declare an interest as a former MP representing a number of sub-postmasters. Some of them were unfairly accused and investigated of wrongdoing but, rather than fighting their corner, gave up the lease and paid out money that, with hindsight, they never owed. Is there a way of trying to identify that cohort and including them in the compensation scheme?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
I will need to double check that. One of the complications is that there are already four schemes running on different principles. I will need to double check the definitions of the groups the noble Lord is talking about, but I believe that they are included. If I am mistaken, I am sorry, but I believe they are included in one of the schemes. I understand that people who left before the Horizon scandal came to light—I apologise if I have got this wrong—will be included in one of the schemes.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I add my voice to others speaking up for the rural network. Could the noble Baroness examine the model currently on the table, which seems defective? The price of stamps has gone up incrementally over the past two years, yet the service has gone down. Saturday deliveries have been taken away and I understand that posties, who are the heroes on the ground delivering the post in all weathers, have been told they can have no overtime this autumn. Could she use her good offices to examine that and make sure that we have a rural network that is fit for purpose?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
The noble Baroness is talking about the Royal Mail service, rather than the Post Office. I know that there are separate discussions with the Royal Mail about the future delivery programme. I do not have the details in front of me, but if I can find details, I will write to the noble Baroness.
Lord Desai (CB)
Could the noble Baroness make sure that, for villages where there is no post office, there will be a mobile service at least twice a week? That would help residents to have some access to postal services.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
The noble Lord makes a very good point and I hope that that can be included in the Green Paper as one aspect of this. I reiterate that we see a future for community hubs. It may be that we need fixed premises for that to work in practice, rather than for it to be something that just visits. For more isolated communities, that may well be a solution. Whatever happens, we want to guarantee to all communities in the UK that they will be able to access a post office to do the business that they need to do in order to access public services, driving licences and all the things we were talking about earlier. They will need to have some form of post office within easy reach. That is certainly one way of looking at it.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, I declare my financial services and technology interests, as set out in the register. Would the Minister agree that the country is suffering from an epidemic of financial exclusion and digital exclusion, with the two often walking painfully hand in hand? Would not the golden principles of financial inclusion and digital inclusion be two excellent elements on which to fund the Post Office going forward?
Would she also agree that a significant part of the difficulties experienced by sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses was that computer evidence was taken almost on the nod? Would she agree that it is high time we reversed the burden of proof with computer evidence to what it was pre changing it to this iniquitous position?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I think we have all learned the lesson from the Horizon scandal that you cannot assume that the computer is always right. I absolutely agree with the noble Lord that we need to be much more sceptical when presented with that kind of evidence in future.
On digital exclusion, the noble Lord is absolutely right. It is a huge issue for the Government and we are taking it very seriously. A huge piece of work is going on around this. Obviously, our ambition is to make sure that everybody has the skills and capacity to go online and access services, because it is to their benefit; it makes their life easier. The proposals we have—for example, the Government’s One Login service, will always have the option for individuals to go in person to a post office to access those services as an alternative. We will make sure that people are not excluded. But the real challenge relates to the discussion we were having earlier with the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, about education and skills; it is our intention to make sure that people have the skills, education, capacity and equipment to go online and have all the advantages that the digital world will offer them.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
My Lords, I understand that no joined-up assessment has been made of the impact of potential closures on local economies. Could the noble Baroness correct me if I am wrong? I ask her to commit to making an impact assessment of the Budget adding £25 billion to employers’ employment costs, which will drive down confidence, especially in small businesses, for either awarding pay rises or hiring staff. This will have a great impact on local post offices—added to this new question of insecurity. Could the noble Baroness commit the Government to making an impact assessment of local employment prospects should these closures go ahead, and to bringing that impact assessment to this House?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, this is a matter for the Post Office and the strategic review it has carried out. It will have to make the decisions about the cost-effectiveness of its proposals. We are talking and liaising with them, and I reiterate the point I made earlier: no decision has been taken yet. A full consultation is taking place with, among others, the unions about the future of these properties that are potentially on the line. We are looking for alternative ways to keep those post offices open.
On the issue of the Budget, as I said earlier, we had to make some difficult choices, but we have increased the employment allowance to simplify and reform employers’ national insurance contributions, and we have delivered a permanent reduction of 40% in business rates relief for eligible retail properties, which will include a lot of high street post offices as well.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, have any discussions taken place on the future of the post office in Parliament? This is a very valuable service to all of us who work in the Palace.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
I agree with the noble Baroness. I think we would all agree with her that that post office provides a very valuable service. I hope it is on the list of the 11,500 we have been promised that we can keep. I will certainly join with the noble Baroness to make sure it is included.
Great British Energy Bill
Monday 18th November 2024
(1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Great British Energy Bill 2024-26 View all Great British Energy Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 29 October 2024 - (29 Oct 2024)
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
That the Bill be now read a second time.
The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath) (Lab)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to open the debate on the Great British Energy Bill and to welcome the interest shown by so many noble Lords. I particularly welcome the maiden speech of my noble friend Lady Beckett. It is almost impossible to do justice to her remarkable career and her service to the country and my own party. It is a long time ago, but I particularly valued the discussions I had with her when she was shadow Health Secretary. I wish her a long and happy membership of your Lordships’ House.
I welcome too the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Mackinlay; he comes to this House with considerable experience in the other place. He earned the admiration of so many people in the country and in Parliament for his brave battle following sepsis. He is very welcome to your Lordships’ House and we look forward to what he has to say.
Our country faces huge challenges, more than two years on from Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, as families continue to pay the price for Britain’s energy insecurity. At the same time, we are confronted by the impacts of the climate crisis all around us, not as a future threat but as a present reality.
On climate change, human activity has already resulted in warming of 1.3 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, leading to widespread impacts on people and nature. Professor Penny Endersby, chief executive of the Met Office, has made it clear that if we do not limit temperature rises to 1.5 degrees Celsius, we will see many more weather and climate extremes, including loss of food, water and energy security, leading to increased global conflict, so we have to act fast to reduce emissions to get to net zero. The pace of that reduction is as important as the eventual date when net zero is achieved, because it is cumulative emissions which determine global temperature rises. As the Climate Change Committee has said:
“The faster we get off fossil fuels, the more secure we become”.
That is why the Government’s mission is to make Britain a clean energy superpower, delivering a decarbonised power sector by 2030 as part of an acceleration to net zero. In the first four and a half months of the new Government, we have: lifted the ban on onshore wind; consented some major solar farm developments; agreed major developments in carbon capture, usage and storage; signalled our support for the role of nuclear power as an essential baseload for our electricity generation; conducted a hugely successful allocation round, which delivered a record number of new clean energy projects; announced funding of carbon capture, utilisation and storage; signalled reforms to the planning system and the grid to speed up consent connections; and launched Great British Energy.
We see Great British Energy as a new way of doing things at the heart of our clean power mission. It is a new, publicly owned and operationally independent clean energy company, designed to drive clean energy deployment to create jobs, boost energy independence and ensure that UK taxpayers, bill payers and communities reap the benefit of clean, secure homegrown energy. Headquartered in Aberdeen, with branches in Glasgow and Edinburgh, it will own, manage and operate clean energy projects across the country, generating abundant homegrown electricity and accelerating the energy transition. Backed by a capitalisation of £8.3 billion of new money over this Parliament, Great British Energy will work in partnership with the private sector, local authorities and communities to spread skilled jobs and investment across the country.
We have published Great British Energy’s founding statement and announced its first major partnership, with the Crown Estate, to exploit our offshore wind asset. Progressing the Great British Energy Bill to Royal Assent is the next stage of GBE’s journey, giving it the statutory footing needed to deliver on our ambitions.
The Bill itself draws on best practice from previous legislation, including the Great British Nuclear provisions in the Energy Act 2023, and the UK Infrastructure Bank Act, which have set up successful government companies. The Bill is drafted deliberately to give GBE the flexibility and independence that it needs to carry out its functions and achieve its objectives over time, giving it space to develop and grow. It is focused solely on making the necessary provisions to support the company, provide the finance and set the appropriate guardrails to ensure that it delivers on the Government’s ambitions.
The Bill underpins the wider programme needed to deliver both Great British Energy and our wider mission to establish the UK as a clean energy superpower. The founding statement for GBE confirms that the company will have five key functions to support this: first, project investment and ownership, by investing in energy projects alongside the private sector, helping to get them off the ground; secondly, project development, by leading projects through development stages to speed up their delivery while capturing more value for the British public; thirdly, local power plans that support local renewable energy generation projects through working with local authorities, combined authorities and communities across the UK; fourthly, building supply chains across the UK, boosting energy independence and creating jobs; and, fifthly, exploring how GBE and Great British Nuclear will work together.
Great British Energy will be accountable to Parliament. It will be overseen by an independent board and benefit from industry-leading expertise and experience. The appointment of Jürgen Maier, the former CEO of Siemens UK, as start-up chair exemplifies this; he brings a wealth of experience to the GBE board. His background, in a variety of roles across sectors, positions him to drive GBE’s mission to innovate and to expand the UK’s clean energy capabilities.
The case for GBE is simple: it will speed up the delivery of the clean energy we urgently need. The only way to protect families from the risk of future price shocks is to accelerate the transition away from volatile fossil fuels and towards clean energy. GBE will mobilise and crowd in investment from the private sector, and it will invest in technologies such as wind, solar, tidal, hydrogen, nuclear, and carbon capture. In the October spending review, the Chancellor announced £25 million to establish the company, with a further £100 million of capital funding to spend in 2025-26 so that GBE can get to work. By backing clean energy projects up and down the country, GBE will help to build a new era of energy independence, firmly establishing us as a clean energy superpower.
GBE will ensure investment in clean energy and create good jobs across the country. We have made progress on the rollout of renewables over the last two decades, but the reality is that we have underdelivered on the jobs that should have come with it. GBE will help to support our plan to create the next generation of good jobs, with strong trade unions and decent wages, by joining forces with our national wealth fund and the British jobs bonus, and working hand in hand with industry to build supply chains up and down the country and driving the reindustrialisation of Britain.
Great British Energy will generate a return for the taxpayer and will own, manage and operate clean energy projects around the country.
I will briefly go through the details of the Bill. Clause 1 allows the Secretary of State to designate a company as Great British Energy, provided that it is “limited by shares” and “wholly owned” by the Crown. A company has already been incorporated for that purpose, so it can be designated as soon as the Bill receives Royal Assent.
Clause 2 ensures that Great British Energy is not regarded as a “servant or agent” of the Crown and will be subject to the law in the same way as any other company.
Clause 3 restricts the objects of Great British Energy, providing the framework for it to carry out the functions I mentioned, which are
“facilitating, encouraging and participating in … the production, distribution, storage and supply of clean energy … the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from energy produced from fossil fuels … improvements in energy efficiency, and … measures for ensuring the security of the supply of energy”.
Clause 4 enables the Secretary of State to provide financial assistance to GBE, which is key to unlocking the £8.3 billion committed. Financial assistance to GBE will occur in line with its agreed financial framework and His Majesty’s Treasury’s delegations. Financial assistance may be provided in any form, including grants, loans, guarantees and indemnities, as well as through acquisitions and contracts.
Clause 5 requires the Secretary of State to provide Great British Energy with more detail on where it should prioritise and focus its activities, via a “statement of strategic priorities”. The clause also requires GBE to secure that its articles of association provide for the company to
“publish and act in accordance with strategic plans”—
which must reflect the Secretary of State’s strategic statement—and for it to update those plans whenever the Secretary of State’s strategic statement is revised or replaced.
Clause 6 allows the Secretary of State to direct GBE; for example, in the interests of national security. The Secretary of State is not able to do so until they have consulted GBE and such other persons as they consider appropriate. Any directions given must be published and laid before Parliament by the Secretary of State.
Clause 7 ensures that GBE is subject to parliamentary and public transparency by requiring its annual reports and accounts to be laid before Parliament.
Clause 8 sets the territorial extent of the Act and the date on which it will come into force, which is immediately once passed to enable GBE to start delivering benefit for the people of this country.
The Bill will help ensure that every part of the UK has a role to play in delivering energy independence for our country. With GBE, we will harness the UK’s clean energy potential and ensure we are never again at the mercy of volatile global fossil fuel markets. It will speed up delivery and drive investment. It will create good jobs and build supply chains. It will protect family finances and ensure energy security, reaping the benefits for all. I commend the Bill to the House. I beg to move.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, for so ably introducing this debate on a Bill which relates to one of the most critical issues this country must address: energy security. I very much look forward to the maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Mackinlay of Richborough and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Beckett—a very warm welcome to them both.
This Bill gives the Secretary of State total power to establish the publicly owned Great British Energy, which will receive £8.3 billion of British taxpayers’ money. The purpose of Great British Energy will be to assist the Government in ramping up renewables, which will always be naturally unreliable, to achieve their unachievable target of 100% clean energy by 2030. I am fully in favour of ambitious targets, but this is a target driven by political ideology which industry experts have described as aggressive, unrealistic and expensive—requiring far more than the allocated £8.3 billion of funding. Yet the Bill contains little detail on how this will be achieved. We have not seen a business plan or a framework agreement, nor do we understand how the Secretary of State and Great British Energy will be held accountable.
Over the past month, as was the case both this time last year and in March, we have seen another dunkelflaute, indeed in March the capacity factor—the measure of how often turbines generate their maximum power— failed to reach 20%, and for the past two weeks it has been virtually zero. The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicts that average wind speeds in the UK will decline and that wind droughts will become more frequent. Relying on new interconnectors to Belgium and Holland will not offer energy security if either their wind farms suffer the same weather conditions as ours or their countries’ needs are greater than ours. Indeed, it is possibly only Xlinks’ proposed HVDC cable bringing solar and wind-generated energy from Morocco to the UK that comes close to offering baseload power as well as exclusive supply.
Throughout the election campaign, the Government repeatedly promised that Great British Energy would cut household energy bills by an average of £300. A similar claim was made by at least 50 MPs as well as by both the Science and Work and Pensions Secretaries of State. The Chancellor said:
“Great British Energy, a publicly owned energy company, will cut energy bills by up to £300”.
In an interview in June, the Secretary of State claimed that Great British Energy would lead to a “mind-blowing” reduction in bills by 2030. However, the quotes in the weekend press from the wind farm industry are damning. They say that the rush to deliver by 2030
“would create very short-term resource constraints, spikes in prices and the consumer risks losing out”—
a fear also expressed in the recent NESO report that supply chain pressures might add a whopping £15 per megawatt hour to the price of our electricity.
I therefore express my deepest concern that in the other place the Government voted against a Conservative amendment to make cutting energy bills by £300 a strategic priority for Great British Energy. By doing this, they voted against an amendment that would hold them to their word and to their election promise. the Minister confirm by how much they anticipate energy bills to fall by 2030? The pledge to cut household energy bills by up to £300 was not the only promise the Government made. They also promised that Great British Energy would create 650,000 jobs. Yet this too was defeated from becoming a strategic objective of Great British Energy and is absent from the Government’s Explanatory Notes to the Bill and the Great British Energy founding statement. Why?
These are not trivial matters; they are promises that are important to people, and the Government have already put 200,000 jobs at risk through their plans to shut down North Sea oil and gas. The Secretary of State has made huge promises which greatly impact people’s energy bills, their businesses and their jobs. It is therefore crucial that the Government are held accountable. Will the Minister tell the House how the creation of Great British Energy will impact employment in the UK?
The Government have said that Great British Energy is part of their plans to ramp up renewables, which they say will result in cheaper energy and greater energy security. This is simply not true. Instead, the Government’s renewables plans will cost the British people. First, analysis by Cornwall Insight found that the contracts for difference round that the Secretary of State bumped up will increase people’s energy bills. Secondly, if we build renewables faster than we can develop and connect them to the grid, the constraint payments needed by 2030 could increase bills by hundreds of pounds. Why was the need for long-term energy storage not realised before the approval of all these huge solar farms being built on prime agricultural land?
Thirdly, the cost of the transition to renewable energy will be paid for by consumers, through environmental levies on bills. The Office for Budget Responsibility has forecast that this tax will increase by 23% by 2030, highlighting the upfront cost of the Government’s ambition to decarbonise the grid by the end of the decade. In fact, households in the UK are expected to pay the equivalent of £120 per year, via green levies, to fund the Government’s race for clean energy. This is far from the Government’s promise that Great British Energy and the race to renewables would cut bills.
It is clear that the cost of investment in renewable energy projects will be incorporated into prices. Not only will consumers be burdened by environmental levies but experts have warned that the funding required to build new electricity pylons and overhead wires, enabling the connection between wind and solar farms to the grid, is and will be added to bills in the form of network charges. The Government have not modelled the cost of constraint payments, network costs or green levies. What is more worrying is that they have deprioritised new technologies such as small and advanced modular reactors.
The inescapable truth is that intermittent, non-dispatchable renewable energy sources can never compete on level terms with nuclear power, which can harness the extremely high-energy density of nuclear with very little fuel and very little waste. For its entire lifecycle, it is the lowest-carbon electricity source and that is even before the potential uses of its excess heat, such as the creation of green hydrogen, are taken into account. Shockingly, solar requires 17 times more material and 46 times as much land for the same installed capacity as nuclear. Moreover, these new technologies will not only bring supply chain opportunities, jobs and inward investment but will attract data centres such as Microsoft to the UK if we can deliver the kind of co-located energy sources as offered by such companies as TerraPower, X-energy and others.
In the meantime, by increasing the windfall tax by 3% in the Budget, the headline rate of tax imposed on UK oil and gas firms is 78%. Energy firms have described this as “a devastating blow”. This hike will cut investment in UK natural resources and oil and gas production and will make the UK increasingly dependent on imported supply. Not only will this compromise the UK’s energy security but consumers will be exposed to price fluctuations. If investment in UK oil and gas decreases, the revenue generated from the energy profit levy, which the Government are relying on to help fund Great British Energy, will decrease. Twelve billion pounds in tax receipts have been lost from the North Sea by pressing ahead with ending oil and gas licences, a move no other major economy has taken. This, combined with £8 billion which will be spent on Great British Energy, is a staggering £20 billion.
I come back to the details of the Bill, or the lack thereof. I repeat that we have not seen a business plan or a framework agreement. This is deeply concerning. We have learnt that Great British Energy will be headquartered in Aberdeen—incidentally, in a country totally opposed to nuclear power—but that the chair will be based in Manchester. Another promise was that Great British Energy would turn a profit for the taxpayer, yet there is nothing in the Bill that elucidates an investment profile or even a targeted rate of return. Why not? The British taxpayer must be able to see what the Secretary of State is doing with £8.3 billion of their money.
We have also not seen an explanation of how this Bill is different from the UK Infrastructure Bank, which was set up to do the exact same thing. Great British Energy is almost a duplicate of the UK Infrastructure Bank. This was established to provide loans, equity and guarantees for infrastructure to tackle climate change, funded by £22 billion. Great British Energy seeks to do something extremely similar but gives far greater powers to the Secretary of State. The UK Infrastructure Bank Bill had important accountability and report measures which are removed from this Bill. Why is this and why should taxpayers be burdened twice?
Furthermore, how is Great British Energy going to link in with the underresourced Great British Nuclear, which has yet to receive this Government’s encouragement to craft a vision that industry, government and the private sector can work collectively towards? Indeed, the word “nuclear” does not even appear in the Government’s new industrial White Paper, and the Minister reported at the all-Peers briefing last week that Great British Energy will not be investing in nuclear at all. What is going to happen to Wylfa?
In conclusion, this legislation is premature, lacking in detail and fuelled by an unrealistic target which will be unnecessarily costly to the people, jobs and economy of this country. This is particularly concerning given the wide-ranging powers the Bill gives to the Secretary of State and the absence of accountability measures and a business plan. We need clarity from the Government on the priorities and intention of Great British Energy. I hope that the Minister—indeed, the Minister for Nuclear—for whom I have the greatest respect, will engage constructively with these concerns.
Baroness Hayman (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interest as chair of Peers for the Planet. I thank the Minister for his interaction before this Second Reading debate and for the very clear and positive way in which he explained the Bill.
I look forward to both maiden speeches, and it is a particular pleasure for me to speak before the noble Baroness, Lady Beckett. We celebrated last month the fact that it is 50 years since we both entered the House of Commons, in 1974. She, of course, had a much longer career in the House of Commons—and a very prestigious one—than I did; I spent much more time in your Lordships’ House. It is an enormous pleasure to be reunited in the discussion of this important Bill.
I welcome the Bill and the opportunities that it presents in accelerating progress towards the Government’s clean power ambitions and delivering emissions reductions. The objectives the Government have set out for GBE are laudable, but it will be a large, complicated agenda, with a short runway to achieve it.
I do not share the gloom of the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield; I think that there are opportunities here. I certainly do not take the view that this is cost, cost, cost that we should not indulge in. We have all known, from the day that the noble Lord, Lord Stern, reported and from the reports that have gone through ever since, that the costs to this country and the costs to this world of not taking action on climate change are, in 10, 20 and 30 years, far higher than the costs of action.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, that, as currently drafted, the Bill is very broad-brush—a skeleton without much flesh. It is clear that much will depend on the statement of strategic priorities and plans, which will be given by the Secretary of State under Clause 5. I hope that, as the Bill progresses through your Lordships’ House, we will be able to see the draft statement of strategic priorities. We need to have clarity here, as there will undoubtedly be some difficult decisions and difficult trade-offs to make as we progress.
In its 2024 progress report, the Climate Change Committee said that in order to make greater progress in decarbonising energy,
“British-based renewable energy is the cheapest and fastest way … The faster we get off fossil fuels, the more secure we become”.
It is really important that the projects that GB Energy participates in, facilitates or encourages—in the words of the Bill—are those which will be most effective in helping to deliver emissions reductions and the decarbonisation of energy.
At present, it is not clear how projects will be assessed and prioritised. Despite what the Minister said at the beginning, the accountability to Parliament that he suggested was there is, in fact, very thin indeed. It consists of the Secretary of State having a responsibility to publish the reports and accounts submitted to Companies House by GBE; frankly, I do not think that is good enough for such an important issue.
Apart from consulting with the devolved powers, which is welcome, there is no requirement for the Secretary of State to consult with any of our expert bodies, such as the CCC, the NESO or the wider energy sector in producing the statement of strategic priorities.
I have no doubt at all about the intentions of the Minister or the Secretary of State, but I gently ask them to reflect on how they would have approached a Bill as skeletal as this one when they were in Opposition. We need to set up GB Energy to be an organisation that is future-proof, robust and sustainable for the next 50 years, not just the next five.
On its funding, it is welcome that GB Energy is receiving £8.3 billion of government funding in this Parliament. However, the crucial question is how this will be split between the different objectives. There will need to be an assessment of what proportion should go to, for example, the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions or improvements in energy efficiency, and some clarity on how competing funding options will be prioritised as necessary. While £8.3 billion sounds like a lot of money—and it is—it can be very quickly spent, and there needs to be hard-headed discussions on how it should be spent. It would be helpful if, in his response, the Minister could say a little about how the Government plan to assess and prioritise projects to ensure that they benefit communities and offer best value for money for the taxpayer.
Energy UK has highlighted that it is important that GB Energy avoids conflicts of interest and market distortions by crowding in to areas where the private sector is already active. There is a real issue as to whether, if there are projects which can easily attract private sector funding, it would be appropriate for a government-owned company to compete. To ensure that it delivers additional emissions reductions, it will need to prioritise areas which are more nascent, need greater investment to scale up and will be less likely to happen without government partnership and support. Equally, it would be a real missed opportunity if a large proportion of the £8.3 billion were to find its way to fund projects already receiving significant public subsidy.
There are a few issues that are not mentioned in the Bill. We know that it is crucial we take the public along with us on the journey to net zero. One of the ways to do that is to give the public a real stake in progress. This is precisely what community energy projects do—or, I should say, could do, if there was a proportionate and fair playing field for them to operate in. I am sure that other noble Lords will raise these issues, which were debated at length during the passage of the Energy Bill 2023. I hope the Minister will be able to give some detail tonight about how GB Energy will be able to help remove the blockages that currently exist.
In his opening remarks, the Minister made it clear that the Government hope that GB Energy will bring in its wake new highly skilled jobs across the UK. Again, there is nothing in the Bill to explain how this will be implemented and how we can ensure that the skills of workers in our oil and gas industries are not lost, and that those workers are supported to transition to new green jobs, should they wish to do so. We also need to ensure that younger workers are being skilled-up to join the new green economy.
NESO’s advice to DESNZ highlighted the huge challenge ahead to achieve a clean power system by 2030 and concluded that this is possible with the right interventions, in a way that does not overheat supply chains and can offer
“Opportunities for local growth and good jobs”
and for
“positive impacts on nature, the environment and public health”.
Before I end, I will focus briefly on those positive impacts on nature. As the Minister knows, we are in a double-headed crisis. Climate change and biodiversity loss are two sides of the same coin: one exacerbates the other. In establishing a new company that will control substantial assets, there will be in many cases an opportunity for it not only to reduce emissions but to work to restore our native biodiversity and towards our mandated Environment Act targets—for example, by incorporating nature-based solutions and habitat restoration in the building of renewable infrastructure. Again, I am sure that is an issue which other noble Lords will wish to debate during the passage of the Bill.
The Bill and the creation of GB Energy offer real opportunity to move forward on the aspiration of achieving a zero-carbon grid, freeing us from the volatility and unpredictability of fossil fuel prices. I look forward to working with other noble Lords to ensure that, when we return the Bill to the Commons, it will establish an organisation that is effective, transparent and accountable, and equipped to take on the challenges it will undoubtedly face.
Baroness Beckett (Lab) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, I hope noble Lords will understand, perhaps even sympathise, when I say that it is with considerable trepidation that I rise to address your Lordships’ House for the first time. For one thing, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, pointed out in her kind remarks, I am not used to being new here. I am also very mindful that this noble House will have courtesies and conventions of its own with which I am as yet unfamiliar. Perhaps I should say at once that if I am found to be in breach of any such courtesies or conventions, it will be only by inadvertence or misadventure and never through deliberate disregard.
The trepidation to which I made reference is tempered somewhat by the extraordinary courtesy and kindness I have been shown here ever since my introduction. That commenced, of course, with Black Rod, her officers and staff, and the assistance and support I have received from them, but it has been faithfully followed by officers and staff at literally every level in the House, and not least by Members themselves.
I was conscious from the outset of having Members I regard as friends in every section of this House, not least because among the great good fortune I have experienced over the years has been the considerable privilege of chairing a Joint Select Committee of both Houses, namely the Select Committee that scrutinises the national security strategy. In that context, I have been lucky enough to work with some of the most distinguished and senior Members of this House. Of course, among the most long-standing and close of my many friends here are my two distinguished sponsors, the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, and the noble Baroness, Lady Merron. This is only the most recent of the many debts of gratitude I owe them for the friendship they have shown over the years both to my husband and to myself.
I am particularly pleased to have the opportunity to participate very briefly in today’s debate for two principal reasons. First, I recall some years ago hearing our Prime Minister speak—I think at a Labour Party conference, but I would not swear to it—when he suggested that, in the years ahead, some country was going to become the world leader in a number of key policy areas, including climate change. He said: “Why should it not be Britain? Why should it not be us?” It was a challenge I strongly welcomed then, as now. I hope the Bill we debate today—and I recognise the concerns raised by some, including the party opposite—will help to shape our approach in the future, facilitating the spread of clean energy.
My second reason for welcoming this debate is that the issue and the impact of climate change has formed the background to and context of a substantial part of the work I have been able to undertake hitherto. When the then Prime Minister invited me to preside over bringing together the departments of agriculture and of environment to form the basis of Defra, one of my reactions was to think, “That’s reform of the common agricultural policy and the follow-on to the Kyoto Protocol—this is going to be a lot of work”, as indeed it proved to be.
That was my second reaction. As I recall, the then Prime Minister had first told me that the scientific modelling of the then raging foot and mouth outbreak indicated that it would continue and perhaps even strengthen, and told me that my first duty was to work to bring it to an end. The words “hospital pass” sprang for the first but not the last time at once into my mind.
I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the world-class civil servants and experts with whom I had the great good fortune to work, respected as they were and are across the world. It is my hope that we still have in this country practitioners of that quality, so that Britain may find itself once again among the major contributors to addressing threats of such importance and relevance to us all. Indeed, the two main issues on which I hope to engage in future in your Lordships’ House are the two great threats of nuclear weapons and of climate change. It was a former Chief of Defence Staff and a Member of this House who I heard years ago refer to nuclear weapons as: “The greatest threat to the continued existence of the human race, second only”—these are his words—“to climate change”.
I confess to a slight feeling of irritation when I hear no doubt well-meaning people talk, as they sometimes do, of the threat we collectively pose now to the planet. The planet will be fine. It is the human race, along with the rest of life on the planet, whose continued existence is at risk. However, I of course welcome the serious degree of concern which such comments reflect, and wish I could be sure and confident that that degree of concern is universally shared, especially at the most senior levels of power and responsibility across the world.
I have been advised that the underlying purpose of a maiden speech to your Lordships’ House is in effect to introduce oneself to this noble House, so perhaps I should say at once that I am extremely conscious of having enjoyed considerable good fortune over my years in public life. I did not set out to pursue a life in politics, although, as I say, in doing so I have enjoyed considerable good luck along the way.
Even my first job in an engineering apprenticeship taught me a number of useful life lessons. I went from a quiet convent school to an engineering factory in Manchester’s Trafford Park, which then housed a workforce of some 20,000 strong, including about 2,000 apprentices, of which some 20 were women. Apart from the discipline of physically clocking in and out, especially at lunchtime, I learned the necessary ability to at least appear impervious to anything said to or around you, often at considerable volume—something which remains occasionally relevant and useful to this day.
Those days, however, reinforced what has since been a lifelong love for British manufacturing, and I always felt myself blessed to have over 40 years in my then constituency the last manufacturer of rail rolling stock in this country to have capacity to design, manufacture, test and service new trains, and, separately but equally importantly, the civil aviation headquarters of Rolls-Royce, a source of great pride to all who live in and associate with the city of Derby.
I am honoured to be a Member of this noble House and will endeavour to make a useful contribution here—in which endeavour I know I will enjoy much assistance and support, for which I should be extremely grateful.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
My Lords, I look forward to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Mackinlay of Richborough, who is very welcome to this House.
It is a great personal pleasure to follow the truly excellent maiden speech of my noble friend Lady Beckett. I told her that I would say it was excellent even if it was not, but it turned out to be exactly as expected—brilliant. My noble friend has made a contribution to public life that is second to none. She served in the Governments of Harold Wilson, James Callaghan, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. There are others who have served as many Prime Ministers, but many of those other Prime Ministers lasted only 49 days. While my noble friend Lady Harman has the longest continuous record as a female Member of the other place, my noble friend Lady Beckett has the longest service of all as a female Member of Parliament at 45 years.
She was first elected in October 1974. There was a break between 1979 and 1983 when there was a misunderstanding with the electorate of Lincoln, who elected a Conservative and indeed continued to elect Conservatives until 1997, when my noble friend Lady Merron was elected on behalf of Labour. In 1983 my noble friend Lady Beckett became the Member of Parliament for Derby South, and she served the people of Derby South until 2024. She never forgot Lincoln, if for no other reason than because she married Leo Beckett, the chair of the Lincoln constituency Labour Party. Leo and Margaret—if I may call her that, just for this remark—were always together, the most famous couple in the Labour Party, more Jennie and Nye than Victoria and David but very much loved. Sadly, Leo died in 2021 and is much missed by everybody.
Within months of entering the House of Commons in 1974, my noble friend was made a Whip. Over the next 35 years she held a series of offices, including Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Leader of the House of Commons and Foreign Secretary. But a description of her distinguished career does not adequately describe the characteristics that will make her so important and valuable a contributor to this House.
She is wise. In those years in government from 1997 to 2010, she was the wise owl whose advice we wanted. In 1997 there would have been those who thought she might be an early casualty, but the Prime Minister—like all the Prime Ministers who followed—very quickly realised that there was no more reliable and insightful person on his Front Bench than my noble friend. She ended up as his Foreign Secretary, leaving government on the same day as the Prime Minister, although the next Prime Minister had her back on the Front Bench within 18 months.
She is loyal. She has been a member of our party for even longer than those 50 years. She is universally loved. She held our party together during the dark days that followed the tragic death of John Smith. When she announced her retirement, the East Midlands Labour Party gave her a dinner that was massively oversubscribed, a love fest that few politicians in either party could have inspired.
Above all, she is trusted. Her commitment to our party will not prevent her saying when we are on the wrong track. She is a great public servant with profound loyalty and commitment to our country. Her words are always worth listening to. She is seldom wrong in her judgments.
It is particularly good that my noble friend Lady Merron, now on the Front Bench, was a successor to my noble friend Lady Beckett in Lincoln in 1997, when finally it was won back after 18 years. The current Member of Parliament for Lincoln is my son, Hamish. He could not be prouder to be one of my noble friend’s political children. She is so very welcome and will hugely enhance the deliberations of your Lordships’ House.
I thank the Minister for his clear and helpful exposition of the Bill, which I greatly welcome. I was unable to determine from her contribution whether the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, was in favour of the Bill; I took the view that she was probably not, but it was not clear. The merit of the Bill is that it will bring British public ownership back into the United Kingdom energy system, albeit through a state-owned private company.
All agree that the clean energy revolution that is required will not come from either public or private sector investment alone. There has to be a combination, and the effect of the creation of Great British Energy is likely to promote the crowding in, not the crowding out, of private sector projects in this field. They have to operate together. The Government’s description of the working of the company seems right:
“Led by its own CEO, Great British Energy will be overseen by an independent fiduciary Board, rather than ministers, benefitting from industry-leading expertise and experience across its remit. Trade unions will have a voice and representation within Great British Energy”.
The creation of Great British Energy right at the start of this Government, coupled with the commitment of £8.3 billion for Great British Energy to invest, shows both the urgency with which the Government are addressing the issue and that they have hit the ground running on it. I strongly welcome the early partnership with the Crown Estate in offshore wind power—this is exactly the sort of drive and leadership that Great British Energy can give. I also welcome the early appointment of Jürgen Maier. To have secured the services of a serious, successful figure in the private sector of his stature shows the depth of the commitment and the likely ability of GB Energy to deliver results.
I completely understand the wisdom of setting up an entity in private company form, albeit wholly owned by the state. It imposes the private sector disciplines on the company, including the need for a sensible return on investment, but in a way that allows this company to pursue the overarching aims of the Government to deliver on the aims of clean energy. I also underline the point made time and again by the Secretary of State that the promotion of our clean energy agenda will be a major contributor to the creation of a whole new infrastructure, the creation of community energy projects and the widespread retrofitting of the built environment to growth, upon which the future of our economy depends.
I thoroughly welcome the Bill and what it demonstrates about the Government’s readiness and commitment to addressing the climate emergency. I have two questions on which I would welcome assistance from my noble friend the Minister. The first is how this Bill fits in with the state subsidy and competition regime in law. There are limits on what state subsidies may be given by the state, particularly in the context of competition law, which prevents a state subsidy warping a Minister. Can the Minister say a little about what limits there are on the subsidies that the Government can give to Great British Energy and on the subsidies that Great British Energy can give to third parties?
My second query is that the Bill does not address the strategic objectives of Great British Energy, which will come from a statement by the Secretary of State. We are well acquainted with the aims of this Secretary of State, but would it be better, from a constitutional point of view, to incorporate the strategic aims in the Bill so that they cannot be subverted subsequently without parliamentary approval? We know that this House has always been keen to repel skeleton Bills.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests in energy-related companies, institutions and organisations, as in the register. I join most heartily in the comments made on the maiden speech we have already heard in this debate, by the noble Baroness, Lady Beckett. She seems to have held an enormous portfolio of high offices over the years, and the way she has swept through the offices of state makes many of us look like part-time politicians. She was Secretary of State for Trade, as the noble Lord just mentioned, Foreign Secretary and—if my memory serves me right, and it serves me wrong more and more nowadays—I think she was leader of her party as well. Anyway, she is a considerable and major figure who we are honoured to have among us as we grapple with the huge new issues sweeping into politics and policy today.
Obviously, I am also looking forward to my amazing noble friend Lord Mackinlay’s maiden speech, which I am sure we will all listen to with enormous interest.
An entirely new politics of energy is taking shape at the moment, at a very rapid rate. I am referring not just to the prospects of President Trump, who, of course, has announced that he will break totally with all the major assumptions on which this Bill and many other energy policies are based, so we will have to think anew on all that. I am talking about the fact that we are heading into yet another era of oil and gas surplus. It all goes up and down in very volatile ways; it always has and will continue to do so.
The new Secretary of State, Mr Miliband, has said that he has, I think, three priorities—he has many, but three in particular. The first is to save the planet; that is the climate change challenge, of course. The second is to create jobs. That is certainly right, because we are heading into a considerably bigger change in world energy than the Industrial Revolution. There will obviously be a huge shift in the patterns of jobs, training and the education behind them.
The Secretary of State’s third concern is lower energy prices. I am very glad to hear that, too, because it makes me uneasy all the time, as I am sure it makes all of your Lordships, that probably 3 million or 4 million families wake up every morning in this United Kingdom of ours in desperation and apprehension about the coming winter and how on earth they are going to pay—or even try to pay—for the necessary energy for putting hot food on the table, heating, cooking, hot water and a comfortable home, which they know they cannot do. The sums still do not add up. Energy cap or no energy cap, they are impossible prices for millions and millions of households in what is supposed to be a mature and rich country in which we look after our citizens. So I am very glad that he puts that as one of his trio. Maybe there are others.
So how will this new body, the Great British Energy company, help tackle all this? The first thing I would add, which has not come up very much in any of our recent energy debates, is that we must be clear about what the real situation is. To get to an all-electric society by 2030, which I think is the Government’s aim—or is it by 2035? I am not quite sure—will require five times more electricity than we are generating now. People say “No, no, that can’t be true”. I was just looking at the briefing from the voice of the energy industry, which says, “Oh, it’s all right. Today, the UK’s electricity grid is powered more by renewable and low-carbon sources of energy than fossil fuel”. Wait a minute; that cannot be right. It sounds right and it may be true at this moment, but, if we are talking not about the electricity grid but about the UK’s economy, that is powered vastly more by fossil fuels than by renewable energies of any kind. This is a complete misapprehension of the reality, which is that renewable energy provides slightly under 10% of the nation’s total energy usage. It is the other 90% that has to be decarbonised if we are to get anywhere near net zero by 2030 or 2035. It is important to start with a realisation of the colossal hill we have to climb to get to a situation where net zero of any kind, even by 2050, is faintly achievable.
Some 27 million households now use about 6 kilowatts of electricity a day. If all gas and oil are illegal and unavailable—just not there—by 2030, each household will need 29 kilowatts, on average. Obviously, some will need much more; some less. This is about 4.5 to 5 times what is currently produced. This nation produces about 65 megawatts of electricity a day, half of which comes from renewables. On good days, all of it comes from renewables but, averaged out over a year, 30 to 40 megawatts come from renewables.
The most sober estimates are that, between now and 2030 or 2035, we will need 200 gigawatts of clean, green energy, plus a back-up system of intermittency, because the wind does not blow all the time and we have not finished redeveloping and rescuing our nuclear industry. The decisions have not yet been made and we have all the problems of storage and hydrogen yet to solve—although they will play their part in in the future and their place will come.
In short, fossil fuels may be fading over the next 20 to 30 years, but in modern economies electricity demand will not fade. On the contrary, it will grow. Although there are mitigations, which I will address in a moment, they will not help the fact that we have to produce vastly greater amounts of electricity. The question is, who will pay?
There are good things in what the Minister and others have said: that this Government are anxious and realise that, being short of money, they will have to rely on the private sector. I would like to hear much more about the private sector, if we are talking about sovereign wealth funds, pension funds with £3 trillion, insurance funds or other international sources of investment. They have the money and the Government have the challenge and the need to finance this colossal energy transition. Somehow, we have to think of new ways to bring these two sides together, possibly as the grandson of the private finance initiatives of the end of the last century—something, at any rate, that faces up to the fact that very large new sums of investment are required.
Will they save the world, as the Energy Secretary wants? Well, we produce about 1% of emissions at present, a tiny little bit. Carbon emissions are rising faster than ever; methane emissions are 80 times as vicious in global warming and are rising faster than ever. Carbon capture and storage will need to capture the carbon that we will still be producing, because obviously will go on burning gas or electricity for many years to come. These schemes are beginning, but they have not got very far and we have not heard much about them.
Meanwhile, the wider world is still dedicated heavily to coal. The Secretary of State wants more jobs. Of course, there will be a lot more green jobs, but many jobs will be lost in the energy transition—thousands in oil and gas and in many other parts of the industry as well, particularly where that industry’s high energy costs undermine our competitiveness and we lose exports.
Lower bills? I just cannot see it. The consumer will have to pay somehow, in some way, for the huge transition. Far from being a world leader, as several people have suggested, we are falling dangerously behind. I will enumerate the real reasons why we are in serious difficulty.
First, the nuclear situation is a mess. Hinkley is turning out to be immensely expensive, years behind on timing, and years over budget. A proposal for Sizewell C as a replication of Hinkley is a very questionable proposition. No private investor will touch Sizewell C with a bargepole. It will cost £20 billion, take 10 years to build, and will not help at all with the move towards net zero.
Secondly, the entire grid needs a remake to accommodate the switching stations bringing our electricity—which has to increase on a great scale—from the North Sea to the market. We can bring it to the coast; it then has to be transmitted to consumers, homes and industry by an entirely new system of pylons. As an example, the Hinkley transmission system, which is being put in now, has taken 10 years to get going. It took seven years of planning argument followed by three years to build.
Thirdly, about 1,000 to 1,500 new pylons will be required. We are told by the national grid that they cannot go underground. I would like to hear a lot more about what Great British Energy can do to change that situation because that will involve years and years of planning as well.
Fourthly, the interconnector system, on which we rely very much, from all the countries around us, as well as from Morocco, is falling behind and not yet under way at the pace that it should be.
Fifthly, according to the Times, we are trying to take the whole thing at breakneck speed, and we all know that in politics the faster you push people without consent, the slower the realisation.
Sixthly, heat pumps are not yet fully efficient, especially below 40 degrees Fahrenheit, and therefore cannot solve the problems of heating domestic homes in the way we want.
Seventhly, this new organisation seems to be part of a sort of political or institutional indigestion. We now have GBE; we already have Great British Nuclear—how they are related I have no idea. We have NESO, which is the operator of the whole system of energy, or is said to be. We have Ofgem, of course, and the national wealth fund, which is deeply involved in this area. We have the UK Infrastructure Bank and many more ministries. All of these have a finger in the energy pie.
The need for co-ordination, and the working out of salaries of every individual, will be colossal. I think that we have an old “socialist Adam” showing through here. It is like the old Neddy system, on which I served many years ago—it is all right as long as we deal with the big boys in the trade unions and the corporations, and the other 99% of enterprises in this nation can go hang. That, I am afraid, will not solve the problem any more than some of these other organisations.
All the world is on fire at the moment, and energy reliability is absolutely essential for a modern industrial nation. This morning, we had Lord Cormack’s memorial service, at which someone reminded us that Lord Cormack would ask, wisely, about new policies: “Is it a plan or is it a story?” Even after listening to the marvellous clarity of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, I am, frankly, not at all sure which this is. I am sure that the Great British Energy system needs to get its climbing boots on, because the mountains it has to climb are very high and very dangerous. This is the serious situation we face, and which we are only just beginning to address. There is a long, long way to go.
Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, who demonstrated his long-standing interest and expertise in this area.
It was also a huge privilege and pleasure to have been here for the maiden speech of my noble friend Lady Beckett. Her speech demonstrated once again why she is such a towering figure in the Labour movement. My noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton expressed perfectly why we are so lucky in your Lordships’ House to be able to benefit from my noble friend’s experience and wisdom. I add my own thanks to her for all the kindness she has shown to me and the advice she has given me over the many years that I have known her. I am sure I speak for many Members of this House, not least those who came from the House of Commons, when I say that.
Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Lab)
I welcome the Bill, not only because it fulfils one of the Government’s manifesto commitments to establish the first new, national, publicly owned energy company in our country for more than 75 years but because it is a key plank in our commitment to reach net zero. The company, as legislated for in the Bill, has the potential to contribute to the UK’s energy independence and climate goals, create good jobs directly and through its supply chains, support pathways for the oil and gas workforce, and deliver long-term revenue streams for the public.
Of course, state ownership of UK energy assets is already widespread, especially offshore wind, but the unfortunate fact is that it is state ownership by the Governments of France, Denmark, Sweden and Norway rather than the UK. Today, more offshore wind is owned by the city of Munich than by the UK public. Surely if it is right for the Danish, French, Swedish and Norwegian publics to own our offshore wind and clear energy, the British public deserve a stake as well.
I believe that GB Energy will make us stronger in an insecure world and provide us with a national energy champion. However, it is essential that GB Energy has a sharp focus on creating quality jobs, both directly and through its supply chain. At the moment, while the UK has installed more offshore wind than any other country but China, we lag far behind European countries, including Denmark, Germany and Spain, in terms of supply-chain and job creation. That has to change. China has begun manufacturing cheaper and bigger offshore wind turbines, and we cannot let a situation develop where we become as dependent on China for offshore wind turbines as we are today for solar panels.
If we do not see GB Energy playing a key role in delivering the Government’s industrial strategy, we risk a backlash to the clean energy transition, as touched on by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, so we need GB Energy to have a strategy that includes long-term proactive commitments, underwriting demand, and using its procurement powers so it can build up the UK supply chain and deliver a just transition pathway for North Sea oil and gas workers.
My noble friend the Minister may be aware, for example, of the proposal for a small modular reactor national manufacturing centre of excellence, which would present a British high-value manufacturing industry-led approach to deliver an SMR, the first of its kind here in the UK and, as it happens, would be based in South Yorkshire. I hope my noble friend the Minister will agree that this is exactly the type of UK-based manufacturing that the Government and GB Energy should be supporting.
As my noble friend the Minister said in opening, the GBE founding statement said that the company’s mission would be
“to drive clean energy deployment, boost energy independence, create jobs”.
Will my noble friend the Minister consider the point being made by the TUC that we should strengthen the Bill by adding a requirement, perhaps to the objectives in Clause 3, that Great British Energy contribute to the UK’s commitments to a just transition and to the creation and maintenance of quality jobs, so that this commitment is actually enshrined in legislation? GB Energy needs to look across all areas, including wind turbines, small nuclear reactors, solar and clean hydrogen power. It should be clear about how companies can access funding through GB Energy’s £8.3 billion capitalisation.
My noble friend the Minister referred to carbon capture and storage in opening. I am sure he will be aware of the concern of the Carbon Capture and Storage Association that the Bill defines clean energy primarily as energy produced from non-fossil fuel sources. This could inadvertently restrict investments by GBE in technologies such as carbon capture and storage, reduce the potential for public/private projects, as the noble Lord, Lord Howell, referred to, and hinder the UK’s ability to meet net-zero targets. My noble friend Lady Liddell has also raised this issue, and she is in her place today. I hope the Minister will be able to comment on these concerns in his closing remarks.
This has been an extremely interesting debate so far. I am looking forward to hearing the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Mackinlay of Richborough. I see that by his side he has the noble Baroness, Lady Laing of Elderslie. I do not know if this is unparliamentary language, but she was my “old mucker” in the Commons, when she was Chairman of Ways and Means and I was First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means. We enjoyed lively exchanges at times with the noble Lord, Lord Mackinlay. I want to say how much I admire his bravery—I know many here do—in overcoming so many obstacles, which is epitomised by him being here today. I look forward to his speech and to hearing my noble friend the Minister’s response to the points made on this very welcome Bill.
Lord Ravensdale (CB)
My Lords, I live and work in Derby, so it is a particular delight to see the noble Baroness, Lady Beckett, make her maiden speech. She is a living legend in the city of Derby, having served Derby South for 41 years—an incredible achievement.
I declare my interests, including as a chief engineer for AtkinsRéalis and a director of Peers for the Planet. I support the Bill; as the Minister said, it is a means of supporting more private investment in the industry and much-needed investment in energy in the UK. However, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, on the benefits to the House of being able to see the strategic priorities and plans in order to allow us to assess the aims in more detail as the Bill progresses through your Lordships’ House.
I will make three high-level points. First, there is the issue of cost, which was put across very well by the noble Lord, Lord Howell. It is at times like this that I regret the inability to use visual aids in your Lordships’ House. If I could, I would have projected a graph on one of the screens showing the changes in industrial electricity prices over the past five years, by country. In Italy and Germany, prices have increased by around 50%. In France, the figure is 93%, and in the UK there has been a 124% increase in industrial electricity prices over the period since 2019, which highlights the particular challenge of energy prices here. In the USA, prices have increased by 21% over that period and are now a quarter of the price we see in the UK.
Beside the obvious effects on bill payers for households and businesses, this has a real effect on the number one mission of the Government, the highest-priority mission, which is getting economic growth going again in the United Kingdom. Many companies I have spoken to in recent months have set out that they want to invest in the UK but cannot make the numbers and the business case stack up, due to that high electricity price, if they are energy-intensive users. That really needs some focus. The reason I mention it in the context of the Bill is that, looking at the objects of Great British Energy, we see set out, quite clearly, decarbonisation, sustainability and security of supply. But we do not see cost, which is conspicuous by its absence.
I would come at this from the point of view of join-up across the other agencies within government that are looking at the energy system—for example, the National Energy System Operator. The legislation that set up NESO, the Energy Act 2023, clearly set out its responsibilities in terms of costs, sustainability and security—the three sides of the energy trilemma. From the point of view of consistency and systems alignment, there is a real opportunity here for the Government to consider that as an object or duty for Great British Energy, given its priority for economic growth and the other missions.
My second point is on systems governance. It is welcome how the Government have set out the importance of local governance in terms of the energy system. In recent years we have seen a lot of work done on top-down energy system governance, but we have not seen the corresponding plan for how the energy system is to be governed from the bottom up, from local authorities up to regions up to the national level. That is vital if we are to deliver a coherent energy transformation to net zero over the coming years. It has been really encouraging to hear about the potential role of Great British Energy, as the Ministers set out in their remarks here and in the other place, in local power plans and local area energy planning. The issue we have seen over recent years with local area energy plans is their patchwork nature—varying levels of quality and robustness in how they are set out within local authorities. But they are essential in delivering the scale of investment we need for net zero. So I urge the Government to use the Bill as an opportunity to more clearly set out how that local governance structure is going to work, particularly in the context of NESO, which is responsible for the regional energy strategic planner role. If Great British Energy has a separate role within the energy system, that energy governance needs to be set out more clearly in the Bill.
My third point is on nuclear. The Minister in the other place set out quite clearly, as did the Minister here in his remarks, the need for a separation between Great British Nuclear and Great British Energy, which is absolutely the right way to go. Great British Nuclear needs that clear role and stakeholders on its board who have expertise in nuclear. But we need to see the roles and responsibilities more clearly set out and split between Great British Nuclear and Great British Energy, so I would welcome clarity on that.
I will finish with a few final questions. One of the objects is the distribution of clean energy. Can the Minister clarify what the role of Great British Energy is in relation to NESO in this respect? Another object is on security of supply, but that can encompass many things, from reliability to fuel security to physical security to cybersecurity. Can the Minister say how the Government would define security of supply within the Bill?
I look forward to working with the Minister and his team as this Bill goes forward to Committee.
Viscount Hanworth (Lab)
My Lords, I express my admiration for the maiden speech we have already heard, and I look forward to the one that will follow immediately.
The Bill seeks to establish the parameters and rules affecting a new government-owned clean energy company that will pursue the objectives of a transition to clean energy. The name of this enterprise conforms to those of Great British Nuclear and Great British Railways. These are boastful and grandiloquent titles that tend to conceal a lack of substance.
It is too early to pass judgment on Great British Energy, but so far we have scant information regarding its programme. Some indication of its purpose can be gathered from a policy paper titled Great British Energy Founding Statement, published in July this year. Here we learn that Great British Energy seeks to
“clear a path for those emerging technologies which could revolutionise the entire sector”.
Examples that are given in the document concern
“floating offshore wind, tidal, hydrogen generation and storage, and carbon capture”.
There is also mention of nuclear power, which falls under the auspices of Great British Nuclear. It is yet to be determined how the functions of Great British Nuclear can be aligned with those of Great British Energy. However, a clear impression is conveyed that nuclear energy is to be regarded as a secondary consideration.
The Great British Energy project seeks to redress the failures of the privatised energy industry. At present the Government have little leverage over the privatised companies that dominate the energy sector. They cannot easily guide them towards their vision for the future. It is unrealistic to propose that this can be achieved by renationalising the UK electricity-generating companies. They are controlled by foreign energy conglomerates and international financial consortia, which remit to their owners substantial dividends and interest payments.
The considerable financial resources that would be required to renationalise the companies and to compensate their owners are not available to the Government. Prior to privatisation, the supply of electricity was governed by the Central Electricity Generating Board, and the profits of the industry were fungible. They could be devoted to the maintenance of the generating capacity of the national grid, and they could be used to aid the research and development that was undertaken by the UK Atomic Energy Authority.
Nowadays, the only way in which the industry’s profits could be deployed for such purposes is by imposing levies on the private companies of the industry. The previous Government did this hesitantly by imposing levies on the oil and gas companies. But this has been a temporary measure to defray the exorbitant energy bills that have been affecting domestic consumers. It appears that the present Government share these inhibitions. Nevertheless, there are indications that the levies will continue and that the money raised will be used to support the transition to clean energy.
Perhaps it is hoped that, eventually, Great British Energy will become a major player in the energy markets, capable of deriving large profits that could be deployed for the maintenance and development of energy infrastructure. The company will be sustained by a grant of £8.3 billon for the duration of the current Parliament. It will be encouraged to pursue joint enterprises with private industry and to seek capital funds from institutional investors. It has been declared that the Secretary of State will be the sole shareholder of the company. This seems to impose a limitation on its ability to raise finance.
Since it would be precluded from issuing shares, it will have no opportunity for attracting individual personal investments from ordinary citizens. If it were able to do so, this might be one way of avoiding the danger of its falling into the hands of institutional investors intent on reaping excessive returns.
I feel it appropriate now to broaden the discussion to consider more generally the strategy for a transition to a carbon-free economy, and to question what appear to be some of the Government’s assumptions. I am perplexed by the lack of attention being paid to the intermittence of the so-called renewable sources of energy, which are the energies of the wind, sun and tides. The energy from tides should be described as variable, as opposed to intermittent, but at present that energy contributes little to the total supply.
In electricity generation, the intermittence of renewable energy is redressed by activating gas-fired power stations that are on standby. To achieve the target for staunching the emissions of carbon dioxide these must be eliminated, or else their emissions must be captured and stored, but the technology for large-scale carbon capture and storage is not available. Notwithstanding the reliance placed upon it by some parties, one is inclined to be sceptical about its prospects. Nor, given the insecurity of its supplies and the volatility of its price, does it seem appropriate to continue to rely on natural gas as a major source of energy.
Another way of redressing the intermittence of renewables is to rely on supplies of electricity generated abroad and imported via cables. This implies an undesirable dependence on supplies that are largely beyond our control. In the case of a temporary restriction of supply, it is possible to limit the demand for electricity by raising its price to encourage consumers to limit their usage and manufacturers to suspend their operations, but this is bound to have damaging consequences.
A heavy dependence on renewable sources of energy implies a need to store the energy by accumulating it when it is plentiful and drawing upon its stores when it is scarce. The only viable means of storing energy on a large scale is to use its surpluses to generate hydrogen. The gas can be used to power electricity generators when there is a dearth in the supply of renewable energy. For this option to be viable, a vast and expensive infrastructure is needed for generating, storing and using the hydrogen. When these facilities are taken into account, the costs of using renewable energy on a large scale seem excessive.
It should be observed that the storage of hydrogen would be in direct competition with the storage of carbon dioxide captured from the emissions of industrial processes. Both gases would require to be sequestered in caverns, which could be salt caverns on land or exhausted oil wells at sea. At present, Britain has a dearth of facilities for gas storage. This is because we have been able to rely in the past on plentiful supplies of North Sea gas, which could be treated as if they were on tap.
This analysis points inevitably to the need to exploit nuclear energy to generate our electricity. The need to generate hydrogen, to be used either as a store of energy or directly in industrial processes, could be met most effectively by high-temperature electrolysis powered by nuclear energy. The conclusion must be that it would be cheaper to rely on nuclear power for satisfying most of our energy requirements than to depend upon renewable sources of energy.
Nuclear power is a tried and tested technology that can be implemented rapidly. However, Britain’s nuclear programme has been beset by hesitation and delay. It seems that we are intent on relying on foreign suppliers to create a fleet of small modular reactors. We have failed to support our native projects that have been pursuing advanced nuclear technologies, and we have driven away some promising projects of foreign origin that have sought to establish themselves in Britain.
Lord Mackinlay of Richborough (Con) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, I am particularly grateful to be in this place and very lucky because, just over a year ago, my luck had sincerely run out. I have to give thanks to my dear wife, now Lady Mackinlay, for her forthrightness and robustness—her insistence that a DNR notice and palliative care were not in order for me, and that they should fight for me until the end. But once we got over that small hiatus, I thank the NHS for keeping me alive, getting me on my feet and getting me into the state that I am in today.
I give particular thanks to the right honourable Rishi Sunak, the previous Prime Minister, for including me on the Dissolution Honours List. I hope it was a recognition that I had a little more to give to the political life of this country but which I could no longer do adequately as an MP at the other end—a job that I thoroughly enjoyed. I am sure that noble Lords who have taken that route into this place will know exactly what I am talking about.
I give my great thanks to the staff of this House—I am looking at some who I have had a relationship with for many years. My thanks go to Black Rod, the doorkeepers and the many other staff who have rallied round and offered me help and assistance. I might look like I need help but it is not quite as deep as you might think. Many noble Lords in this House, once they see my office on the first floor—right next to a lift and very close to here—will be green with envy; I have a rather nice room on my own, complete with fridge. They might get an invite and a welcome there in due course.
On 28 September last year, completely out of the blue, and within 12 hours of feeling perfectly well, I was given a 5% chance of living. The sepsis started from nowhere. They said that it was down to pneumonia, but I had had no symptoms and a clear chest. It was completely out of the blue, which highlights the danger of the disease. It is not a disease in itself; it is yourself trying to fight off a disease, and doing it particularly badly and going into overdrive.
There is a lot to be learned about sepsis. It is a killer of 48,000 people a year in the UK. Some will be, dare I say it, very end-of-life, and so little can be done, but there will be many tens of thousands of others whose lives could be saved—or bits and pieces that could be saved—and that is worth doing. I will be devoting a lot of my efforts and the voice that this place gives me to, among other things, highlighting sepsis, working with great charities such as the UK Sepsis Trust, which I have already done a lot of work with. This is not a condition or disease where we are looking for some magic bullet that has yet to be found, as might be true of some forms of cancer. This is easily solvable if you find it and recognise it early—if you can recognise that your loved one is feeling possibly the worst that they have ever felt in their whole life. Thankfully, my wife asked the question: could this be sepsis?
I got through it, after seven months under NHS care. I spent a lot of time just over the bridge in St Thomas’ Hospital. I am very grateful that so many colleagues from the other place, and some from this House, could come and visit me regularly. That is what kept me going. I did not feel that I was really out of the swing of politics for too long, despite laying in a bed for a very long time.
I was unlucky; many people go through sepsis and lose nothing. They might find themselves with brain fog or temporary conditions from which they will recover, but many people do lose bits and pieces. They might lose a few fingers or a bit of a foot. I was very unfortunate; because of the extent of the clotting, I lost all four limbs. They were all amputated on the same day, 1 December last year—a day that, for obvious reasons, I will not forget. After the NHS having spent probably many hundreds of thousands of pounds keeping me alive over a long period, you then come to the question of what we should do to get people like me on their feet.
Do we provide them with appropriate prosthetics? The prosthetics we see here are trial ones—I know we should not use props in this place, but I hope that noble Lords might forgive me today. They are provided by the private sector and on a trial. The NHS, obviously not wishing to spend too much money on items that perhaps will not get used, might give me these prosthetics in year 3. But I want to get on with life in year 1, and I am doing that with this type of prosthetics. To his great credit, the new Secretary of State had a meeting with me and many other multiple amputees last week to discuss this very point. Could the NHS please adjust its way of doing things, so that it is focused on the patient rather than on a menu of what is usually done—a page saying, “We do this in year 1, this in year 2 and this in year 3”?
What was I in my normal old life? I was—and still am—in practice as a chartered accountant and chartered tax adviser, as in my register of interests. There are not many across both Houses, so noble Lords will not be surprised to hear that finance Bills have always been of great interest to me. Sadly, in the last few years of being in the Government at the other end, I did not have too much good to think about many of the finance Bills, so I used my mother’s great saying, “If you have nothing good to say, best say nothing”.
However, that does not apply now, does it? I am over on this side and, if noble Lords want to hear my thoughts on various aspects of the Finance Bill that will be before us—I know we do not have too much influence at this end—I wrote about the IHT APR position on X, or Twitter, over the weekend, and much support that has had. That 20% rate of IHT is not really true if you have to extract money out of a cash-poor business, and then CGT, dividends or income tax has to be paid to get the wedge of cash required to pay the 20% IHT—but that is straying into another field.
Why did I choose “Mackinlay of Richborough”? Looking around, I have noted that many ex-MPs have taken the name of their dear constituencies that they represented for so long. I thought that was right for me, too. I had an unusual constituency: South Thanet. It went from Cliftonville in the north, right the way around through Broadstairs, Ramsgate and Sandwich Bay, into Sandwich and then the hinterlands of Kent, with some beautiful villages. But, right in the middle of the north and south bits, is a place called Richborough. Not many people know that—they do not know the significance of it. It is a hugely significant part of this country. It was where the Romans first came ashore, and there is a substantial Roman fort. I will not go into its history, which is easily available if noble Lords look up Richborough fort on English Heritage—they will find more about it than they probably ever wanted to know. Additionally, in the First World War, there was a major port at Richborough—a proper working port, long since not used because of silting up. It was the site through which much of the apparel for the First World War passed—it was hugely significant in its day.
Nobody lives in Richborough now, to my knowledge, although there might be the odd farm cottage. But one of the reasons why I thought Richborough was such a good name was that it used to have a major power station, fired by good old Kent coal from the Kent coalfields. It was significant in the provision of energy. That has long since been blown up—it went in around 2013. The cooling towers could be seen from north Kent. I was a keen sailor, and you could see it off Whitstable, miles and miles away across the flats of Thanet. But it is long gone and has been replaced with proposals for a huge battery farm, which will be part of the mix of renewables into the future. It is the site where interconnectors from Belgium, Germany and France come in to make up the difference when the renewables we are discussing today fail us—we will probably be using energy on the back of German coal, but never mind that. There is a massive solar panel field nearby and a bigger one has been proposed, and there is even a biogas facility.
So all around that area of Richborough is the past, the present and the potential future of energy provision. That is why I took the name, because this is will be the subject of the future. I fought, through all my years since 1991, to extricate Britain from the European Union. I know this is not a day for contentious speeches, so I will steer clear of contention—a little—but energy will be the discussion point for the next 10, 15 or 20 years. I founded the Net Zero Scrutiny Group of Peers and MPs because of its importance. I am minded of a phrase, although nobody can tell me who came up with it: it is either Benjamin Franklin, General Patton or John F Kennedy—take your pick. It is, “If everybody is thinking the same, nobody is thinking”. My worry is that, on this topic, nobody is really thinking because we have all been working to the same pattern and the same hymn sheet.
This is too expensive, complex and important, and it will change our lives too much—when, frankly, most of the rest of the world is giving up—for us just to let this go through on the nod. That is why I thought today’s debate on GB Energy was a good one to be making my maiden speech in—not least because I can have 15 minutes rather than about five. But this topic will run, and I will take a full part in it.
On that name Richborough, I sincerely thank the outgoing Prime Minister, who represents the seat of Richmond. The name is not only a nod to my former constituents, who were so bold and so brave—I am so thankful that they supported me for those nine and a bit years that I was an MP for them. It is also a little nod to the outgoing Prime Minister, who so graciously gave me this life peerage to continue my work. I thank noble Lords for listening. Today is a day of non-contentious speeches, including from me, but there will be a lot more around the corner.
Lord Lilley (Con)
My Lords, it is a great privilege and pleasure to follow and pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Mackinlay of Richborough. His was an outstanding maiden speech from an outstanding new Member of this House—robust, inspiring, informative, energetic and with a touch of provocation, which he uncharacteristically toned down.
My noble friend Lord Mackinlay is a friend whom I knew before his illness to be as courageous intellectually as he proved to be physically. He is a fighter and a winner, and, mercifully, his lovely wife Kati is also a fighter. We are grateful to her for ensuring that my noble friend is with us today. He entered the Commons in 2015 for South Thanet in a forcefully fought general election, when both Nigel Farage and the comedian Al Murray had the temerity to stand against him. I am glad to say that he saw both jokers off and had the last laugh.
As I rapidly discovered when I got to know him after he entered the House in my last Parliament as an MP, he is refreshingly different from so many of the new intake. He is not just a spad and a PPE graduate, like so many of them; he has a science degree and an accountancy qualification. So he takes into account facts and figures, which is terribly refreshing in Parliament. Noble Lords will find that they have to contend with his facts and figures in debates to come.
My noble friend told me that his mother gave him a piece of advice early on in life: above all, to your own self be true. That he always has been, and it is perhaps one reason, he says, why he did not become a Minister in the House of Commons: he was quite prepared to back up his beliefs with his vote, and clearly the Whips did not think he would cease to do so if they tried to buy him off. But he had more influence in the House of Commons than many who did have a period on the Front Bench, as most of them did during the rapid turnover in the last Parliament. This influence was not least through the Net Zero Scrutiny Group, which I have the privilege to belong to, as well as the Common Sense Group and the European Research Group, in all of which he was an influential person. We look forward with enthusiasm to hearing his combative and well-informed contributions to this House in the years ahead.
I also pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Beckett. She, like me, was President of the Board of Trade, and we presidents must stick together. Probably not all presidents would meet her approval currently, but I have always admired her contribution in the House of Commons over an enormous period of time.
I want to welcome this Bill, which is essentially a prospectus—an incredibly attractive investment opportunity. I use the word “incredibly” advisedly. It is backed by 22 of the most prominent people in this country—members of the Cabinet. True, none of them has ever launched a company before. Indeed, none of them has ever worked in the private sector. But that perhaps gives them a clarity of view which enables them to see investment prospects that have escaped the attention of commercial businesses up and down the country.
The principal promoter of the Bill is of course the Secretary of State, Ed Miliband. It can be said that no company he has been involved with has ever failed—because he has never been involved with any company. He will have the power to issue directions to the board about anything. There is no limitation in the Bill on what he can direct them to do or not to do. He has said, however, that he will use that power sparingly—which will be a disappointment to the board: only rarely will it have his superior wisdom to guide it on the true path.
We are asked to endorse this prospectus before the priorities and strategy of the new company have been published: they will be in due course, but they have not been yet. Investors may be concerned that the Government are putting up costs in the sector in which all the investments are to be made but are saying the prices are going to come down by some £300 per family. Investors might think, “Well, how on earth is it going to make a profit, with rising costs and falling prices?”. But do not worry, the Government have abandoned their promise to cut prices by £300 per family and have rejected all amendments in the other place which would have made that part of the duties of the company, as promised by the Labour Party at the last election. Anyway, as a nationalised company, it will clearly bring the cost control of HS2 and the profit-making capacity of the Post Office to the businesses in which it invests. That must give us all great confidence for the future.
I do not see noble Lords reaching for their chequebooks to invest in this—although clearly the noble Baronesses, Lady Winterton and Lady Hayman, will be, as indeed will the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer. They have all welcomed it and they will be putting in their money in—or they would if they could. Sadly, the Government have concluded that they might not be able to attract equity investors into this rather strange company that will not tell us quite what its priorities and strategies are going to be. I think the only previous company that was ever successfully launched like that was the South Sea bubble company, which said in its prospectus that its purposes would be revealed “at a later date”. And it went on to have initial great success—before the bubble burst.
Setting irony aside, this Government have said that, even though they do not expect to be able to attract investors to put their own money into the company, they are going to take £8.3 billion out of the pockets of taxpayers and put it in. But, more than that, they say it is going to crowd in investment several times that amount into the sector. Will it do so? Yes, it will. I am not being ironic here. It will succeed in attracting other companies to invest alongside it, because other companies will know that, if they invest in projects in which Great British Energy has invested taxpayers’ money, the politicians are not going to let those projects fail. That is why they will be attractive to the private sector: because they know the Government will always come and bail them out, because of the embarrassment of failure. That is why—and the only reason why—a nationalised company such as this can crowd in investment from outside. I think we should all realise that that is the case.
It is significant that the Minister, who spoke with great clarity and little conviction about this Bill, did not give any example of any similar nationalised concern that has ever met the expectations that have been raised for it as they have been raised for this. We know that doing the same thing again and expecting a different outcome is supposedly Einstein’s definition of madness. I suspect that is what we are being asked to vote for today.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
I have always been an admirer of sovereign wealth funds. They enable significant investment, targeting strategic national priorities for the benefit of their relevant populations. They can be consistent long-term enablers of plans for national leadership in their focus on identified industries. So I very much welcome this Bill wholeheartedly.
I also welcome—and commend the maiden speech of—my noble friend Lady Beckett. Her words were inspirational and I well recall when years ago she brought about the merger of the Department for the Environment and the Agriculture Ministry into the new department we have today. I also welcome the noble Lord, Lord Mackinlay. I have long been an admirer of his courageous path back into the House. I look forward to both his future remarks and those of my noble friend.
There can be no higher or more important task than transforming the national economy towards a more sustainable future, to stabilise the threat of ever more damaging climate change. The science is indisputable. The world is accelerating through the threshold of 1.5 degrees warming above pre-industrial levels, jeopardising the two degrees limit in the Paris Agreement. That public ownership does not occur more in the UK is curious: indeed, allowing—almost welcoming—foreign ownership of all parts of the economy has often been a long-term detriment to the interest of the nation. It enables foreign owners to set their own objectives and priorities to their own overseas interests and enables virtually unfettered reshaping of the relevant company invested in.
Other countries undertake national plans. For example, in France, the French have prioritised nuclear power, and the Danes have Ørsted to focus on offshore wind projects, including projects in the UK. I am sure the Government are correct to focus on all renewable energy in the pursuit of net zero and more competitive sources in the long term. The Government are to be congratulated on bringing this legislation forward so early in the new Parliament. It must start as soon as possible.
However, I have one major concern. How can this energy public ownership be protected in future from attacks by some rogue future Conservative Administration? Is the Minister confident that all necessary steps are contained in the legislation to keep Conservative privatisations and other asset stripping or sell-offs from undermining this public investment in projects? The debate between the relative merits of public ownership and state enterprise is ultimately sterile. There are good and bad examples to be found within both definitions. The emphasis must be to enable effective management to be accountable for their stewardship.
I am concerned that in Clause 1(4), the Secretary of State has the power to revoke the designation of Great British Energy by notice. Am I right to be alarmed that this is an open goal for the Conservatives? Public money under public ownership of such a fund should be consistent and for the long term. It must be shielded from short-term political interference and be appropriately financed.
On previous assessments, total infrastructure requirements on the pathway to net zero have been assessed at £28 billion per year. While that ambitious investment by government may be beyond reach in the near term, is my noble friend confident that £8.3 billion of capitalisation over the course of this new Parliament will be sufficient? Does he envisage this to be sufficient essential investment, and is he confident in the checks and balances necessary to provide effective value for money for public funds? When he comes to reply, can my noble friend explain how recent announcement of investments in carbon capture and storage may go ahead in conjunction with the structure of the Bill? In this, I refer to the remarks of my noble friend Lady Winterton.
Great British Energy must be more than a bit player in hastening the nation towards energy security from renewable power sources. While welcoming the Bill and noting the issues debated in the other House, I draw attention to a few areas of interest in the setting of objects under Clause 3 and strategic priorities under Clause 5. Great British Energy aims to ensure that clean, home-grown energy makes Britain a clean energy superpower by 2030. NESO’s recent Clean Power 2030 report identifies demand flexibility as a key factor in achieving clean power. Does the Minister agree with this assessment and acknowledge that the UK’s clean energy plan should also focus on the demand side, which, unlike supply-side flexibility, is not subject to the same administrative, regulatory or cost barriers that are often seen with supply chain solutions for clean energy? Does he support NESO’s plans to offer the demand flexibility service, a scheme facilitated by the smart metering network, all year round?
Alongside the Government investment, does the Minister agree that the smart metering network can help households to adopt more flexible, cost-effective behaviours through better understanding their usage? While investment in clean, home-grown energy is urgently needed, there are also existing assets that can help the Government’s mission to make Britain a clean energy superpower. Does my noble friend the Minister agree that in a time of fiscal constraint, alongside this Bill, the Government need to take advantage of existing national assets, such as the smart metering network, as this can help manage energy demand and can be harnessed to unlock wider benefits, such as identifying and targeting support to retrofit energy-inefficient housing?
Furthermore, it seems counterproductive to withdraw renewable energy sources by temporarily closing down their supply at various times. Can my noble friend the Minister confirm that energy storage is part of the objects contained within the Bill? With GB Energy set to turbocharge production into renewable energy, all of which we will need in the grid, does my noble friend agree that maintaining grid stability and reducing balancing costs will be vital for hitting the clean power ambition and maintaining UK energy security? Will he also look at how the smart metering network can help the Government deliver that much-needed stability and flexibility?
One of the aims of the Bill is to ensure more value for bill payers and taxpayers. Does the Minister agree that existing infrastructure, such as smart meters which provide more accurate information about energy usage, leading to lower consumption and bills, also has a major part to play in the Government’s plans to reduce those energy bills? For example, although the Bill outlines ambitious plans for clean energy development in the future, many households continue to face fuel poverty. Does the Minister acknowledge that we could better utilise existing infrastructure to deliver solutions more quickly, whether by saving users money on their bills or by providing anonymised data, which can identify those most at risk of or living in fuel poverty who would benefit from that targeted assistance? Can he confirm that encouragement and examination of these smart meters and their progress will be part of the Government’s agenda?
It is interesting that this Second Reading debate is happening today when, next Wednesday, we will be drawing the nation’s attention to Fuel Poverty Awareness Day. I draw my remarks to a close by noting how appropriate it is that my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath is once more the Minister introducing a landmark piece of legislation, as it was he who oversaw the climate change legislation in your Lordships’ House in 2008. I wish this legislation as much success as he brought with that Bill.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register. It is a great privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, who as always put his finger on some very important points that I will come to later. It has been a particular pleasure to listen to two outstanding maiden speeches. The noble Baroness, Lady Beckett, is clearly going to bring great wisdom to this House and I very much welcome and look forward to many contributions from her in future. My noble friend Lord Mackinlay spoke from the heart. It was a really stirring speech and raised some very pertinent issues about sepsis; I hope that we revisit those as a House and that the Government will be receptive. I look forward to working alongside him in future.
The Minister set out the Bill’s aims very clearly, and I thank him for that. As we debate this issue, the Government are representing the country at COP 29 in Azerbaijan—I think that conference comes to an end at the end of this week—and it is right that they are there, representing the nation. I hope that in raising points about this prospective legislation and criticising it, we do not lose sight of the undoubted challenge of the age, climate change. I hope that recognition of that challenge will remain a largely bipartisan approach. Although the way we tackle it may vary, and we may have differences on that, the global response needs to recognise that the challenge does not recognise ideologies: it is a question not of ideology but of survival, and I hope we approach it on that basis.
I had the great honour of being the Lords Minister in the Department of Energy and Climate Change at the time of the Paris Climate Change Conference and worked there alongside Amber Rudd, who was outstanding. I had the great privilege of signing the climate change treaty at the United Nations on behalf of the United Kingdom. That treaty was an important milestone and we must not lose sight of the fact that, as I say, this is the challenge of the age. The issues we are raising are issues of how we meet that challenge. As a party, we need to remember that Margaret Thatcher first identified this important challenge, and that has been followed by notable contributions by my noble friends Lord Deben and Lord Sharma, Amber Rudd and many others. We should not apologise for that.
As I say, this is not an ideological issue but we have been raising issues across the Chamber about what is not a plan but an aspiration, with a lot of power seemingly concentrated in the hands of the Secretary of State. I think we are right to raise questions about that £8.3 billion. It is not a lot of money compared to the challenge but it is a lot domestically, and we must make sure not only that it helps to deliver energy security and green energy, but that it represents value for money. We have not heard enough on that so far, and no doubt we will pick up on that as the legislation proceeds.
There are questions about that and about the reduction in energy prices, which was made much of during the election campaign. That £300 reduction in energy bills was not mentioned at all by the Government as the legislation proceeded through the Commons, and again, they have not mentioned it today. Can we pin this down? What is that reduction going to be? If not £300, why was that the claim made during the campaign and what is the reduction going to be? These are issues that people will rightly want addressed.
Then, there are the competing bodies—at least, they seem to be competing—and how they mesh together. How will the Climate Change Committee, British Nuclear and the UK Infrastructure Bank work together? In a Bill as brief as this, these things are necessarily not dealt with in sufficient detail. I wonder whether the Minister could pick that up in his closing speech.
How is the performance of the bank to be reviewed? That, again, is a fair question. So much power is concentrated in the hands of the Secretary of State, who no doubt has expertise in this; I do not think that is at issue. He tells us—and I am sure we will take it at face value—that he knows what he is doing. But that might not always be the case. How is that power going to be exercised by others? We need some system of reviewing that power.
Lastly, I turn to the much more specific issue of the siting of Great British Energy in Scotland. The Minister mentioned that it is headquartered in Aberdeen, and some offices are in Glasgow and Edinburgh. I realise that it is a Scottish company, but there are going to be issues with ensuring that power is devolved around the country. Energy projects are going to be sited around the country, and in an island nation such as ours, I think that is right. As you would expect, I have specific concerns about Wales, particularly in the light of the Crown Estate Bill, in respect of which Wales, to my mind, was short-changed. It is about to be short-changed again, and I hope the Minister can address that issue, too, when he sums up.
With that, I look forward to participating in consideration of this legislation as it proceeds through the House.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, in congratulating and welcoming today’s perfect pitch, well-judged and outstanding maiden speeches, may I also scatter some stardust in the direction of the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, who I admire and like? The Government are fortunate to have him to drive forward their Great British Energy Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Bourne, was right to remind us that this relatively small Bill carries a large ticket—some £8 billion of taxpayers’ money—and as the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, and my noble friend Lady Hayman said earlier, it will rightly be subject to scrutiny and amendment in your Lordships’ House.
I support a mixed economy of ownership: partnerships between the public and private sector and more community-owned energy, along with diversity of supply—everything from ever more resources for nuclear fusion technology to hydrogen, wind, solar and tidal barrages. In another place during the 1980s and 1990s, I founded and was chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for a Mersey Barrage. Although the then Government promised me they would consider the barrage project as part of the non-fossil fuel obligations and renewable energy policy, it never happened. The Mersey barrage would deliver enough clean, predictable energy to power hundreds of thousands of homes for 120 years, creating thousands of local jobs and turning the Liverpool City Region into a worldwide centre of excellence. I hope the Minister will agree to meet me and Steve Rotheram, the Mayor of the Liverpool City Region, to help ensure that the unique opportunity provided in this Bill is not squandered, as it was some 40 years ago.
In introducing the Bill in another place, the right honourable Ed Miliband rightly pointed to the absurdity—referred to by noble Baroness, Lady Winterton, earlier—of the city of Munich owning more of our offshore wind capacity than do the British Government. He has a point, but the missing reference was, to mix a metaphor, not to the elephant in the room but to the CCP dragon, and that is what I want to address my remarks to today. We all know that dragons wallow in sulphurous caves, snorting fire. Perhaps that is why China is responsible for around one-third of global CO2 emissions. It has pumped out more pollution in eight years than the UK has in 220 years. It is building the equivalent of two new coal-burning power stations every week. It is doing this to build its industrial and military might and certainly not to do its bit toward tackling climate change.
Mingyang Smart Energy, China’s largest wind turbine firm, is involved in several projects in the North Sea. What are we thinking of, handing over such important capability in the net-zero transition to an entity that comes from an authoritarian and hostile state, and doing so as the European Union is launching its antitrust investigation into Chinese turbine manufacturers? Recall that the Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security says that China has been able to
“successfully penetrate every sector of the UK’s economy”,
that
“Chinese money was readily accepted by HMG with few questions asked”,
and that external experts concluded
“very strongly that HMG did not have any strategy on China, let alone an effective one”.
Instead of resilience, we have dependency. We currently have a trade in goods deficit of £32.3 billion, which we seem intent on adding to. A Civitas report documents over £140 million paid to United Kingdom universities by Chinese companies. Some are involved in military projects and some have links to institutions complicit in, facilitating or directly involved in the Uighur genocide, nuclear development, military research, espionage and hacking. Civitas identified “an existential threat” and says that China’s ambition at a global level is
“to become a technological and economic superpower, on which other countries are reliant, that represents the greatest risk to the UK”.
In recognising that threat, your Lordships’ House gave all-party support to my successful amendments to the Procurement Act, the Health and Care Act and the Telecommunications Security Act, and to remove some of the 1 million Chinese-made surveillance cameras now in the UK. I have also raised with RUSI the flooding of our markets with Chinese-made electric cars, Chinese-made cellular modules that are components in non-Chinese-made cars, and other electronic equipment which can be used to spy on us and to displace cars made by workers in democratic countries. South-east Asia is awash with Chinese EV car plants and sales, and it is producing electric long-haul lorries and mass-produced cheap EV cars for the mass market.
China is doing this to dethrone and destroy our automotive industry and to enhance its ability to withstand a blockade following the military occupation of Taiwan. It will also cost around 100,000 European car workers their jobs by the end of the decade. Many will lose those jobs because we simply cannot compete with slave labour. The Secretary of State has said that there should be no modern slavery in any part. So, can the Minister say what assessment has been made of reports that there are 96 companies relevant to the automotive sector and the production of electric cars operating in the Uighur region, including 38 that have documented previous engagement in state-sponsored labour transfer programmes, as highlighted by the International Labour Organization, and reports from Human Rights Watch detailing the use of slave labour in aluminium production, with Xinjiang accounting for 9% of total global supply?
I note the call from 50 legislators for Volkswagen to end its presence in Xinjiang and the damning red flag notice to Volkswagen from Morgan Stanley Capital. A US congressional select committee has found that two Chinese EV battery producers—CATL and Gotion High-tech—have links to companies operating in Xinjiang and forced labour programmes. The committee’s report connected both companies to XPCC, a Chinese paramilitary company sanctioned for its links to gross human rights violations in Xinjiang. Its customers include BMW, Volkswagen, Mercedes, Volvo, Stellantis and Renault. I note that Hikvision and Dahua, now banned across the UK from so-called sensitive sites and with links to Uighur internment camps, are selling EV chargers and kit boasting a facility to—I quote from their own advertisements—“scan licence plates and check them against the DVLA database”.
The supply chain story does not end there. Quite recently, as part of an inquiry into the Democratic Republic of the Congo, I took testimony from Nobel Peace Prize laureate Dr Denis Mukwege. He raised concerns about Chinese exploitation of critical minerals for green technology in the DRC. Cobalt is essential in making lithium-ion EV batteries. Around 75% of global cobalt supply comes from the DRC and 80% of its output is owned by China. CATL is linked to the Chinese state enterprise CMOC, which operates multiple copper cobalt mines in the DRC. Some 25,000 children are working in cobalt mines. Dr Mukwege asked what weight is attached to the use of child labour when it comes to our own purchasing policies. I hope the Minister can tell us.
I draw the Minister’s attention to the report of Sheffield Hallam University’s Helena Kennedy Centre for International Justice, entitled In Broad Daylight: Uyghur Forced Labour and Global Solar Supply Chains. It indicates that the PRC has placed millions of indigenous Uighur and Kazakh citizens from Xinjiang into what the regime calls “surplus labour” and “labour transfer” programmes, or as we should call them, modern-day slavery state-operated programmes. To be clear, workers cannot refuse the work or refuse employment, or challenge the inhumane conditions of work. We are talking about the forcible transfer of a population and enslavement. The report concludes that the solar industry is particularly vulnerable to forced labour in the Uighur region and identified 90 Chinese and international companies whose supply chains are affected.
In 2023, another report from Sheffield Hallam University, Over-Exposed, found that transparency has decreased in the solar industry, making it increasingly difficult to verify whether supply chains are free from risk of Uighur forced labour.
In responding to these findings, could the Minister ask his friends in the Ministry of Defence what response it has made to the December 2023 BBC report that the British Army was investing £200 million in solar panels made by companies believed to have an exceedingly high exposure to forced labour in China? The PRC’s global market domination across the solar photovoltaic supply chain has been expanding rapidly, with 93% of global polysilicon and about 2.1 million tonnes used in almost all solar panels produced in China, and about half of that is produced in Xinjiang. The Secretary of State has confirmed that he is worried about slave labour in the supply chains. Was the Secretary of State warned about companies involved in solar panel production in Xinjiang before awarding contracts to them and, if so, why did he go ahead?
I want to talk also about the Forced Prison-Made Goods Act 1897. Given that Xinjiang has been referred to as a vast prison, and that British law prohibits the importation of prison-made goods, what consideration has been given to the compatibility of the importation of goods made by Uighur prison labour with that Act of Parliament?
Against the backdrop of the 2021 House of Commons decision to name a genocide by the CCP against Uighurs in Xinjiang, the admirable Labour Member of Parliament Sarah Champion, chair of the International Development Select Committee, tabled in another place an all-party amendment to this Bill to tackle what she called,
“a sinister dependency on … forced labour programmes”—[Official Report, Commons, 29/10/24; col. 734.]
in the supply chains for solar panels. She said also that the UK has become
“a dumping ground for dodgy solar”—[Official Report, Commons, 5/9/24; col. 486.]
and tainted solar goods.
That has other implications for the UK. In July, during the Kings Speech debate, I raised the Mallard Pass solar project, which uses Xinjiang-produced solar panels. On 1 August, in reply to a Written Question, the Minister said:
“Ethical procurement is considered at paragraphs 4.104-109”
of the Secretary of State’s planning decision. Is it not the case that, elsewhere in the planning decision, it states that human rights concerns are not a reason to refuse a planning application? If so, why is that? Should not this Bill be used to change it?
Today, Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer met Xi Jinping. Reports suggest that he raised sanctions against seven parliamentarians, of whom I am one. These are trivial in comparison with Uighur genocide. Can the Minister tell us whether that issue was raised? If so, what was the response?
On several occasions, I have been privileged to stand with the Minister when he moved amendments on forced organ harvesting in China. In a powerful speech, particularly relevant to this Bill and to Uighur slave labour in Xinjiang, he said:
“It is now a multimillion-pound commercial business in China”.
He went on to say:
“Millions of Chinese citizens are currently detained in labour camps. UN experts estimate that at least 1 million Uighurs are being held in camps in the region of Xinjiang… Companies from the West are complicit in this. Adidas, Nike, Zara and Amazon are among the western brands which, according to a coalition of civil society groups, currently benefit from the forced labour of Uighurs in Xinjiang. In July this year, a 13-tonne shipment of hair products from Xinjiang, worth more than $800,000, was seized by US Customs and Border Protection. This shipment included wigs made from human hair, which is hugely concerning considering the many reports and personal testimonies of female Uighur Muslims having their heads forcibly shaved in the camps”.
The now Minister then reminded the Grand Committee that parliamentarians had the opportunity to strengthen the legislation and
“prevent British complicity in such crimes and to send an important signal to other countries”.
He reflected that issues such as 5G and potential Chinese investment in new nuclear energy presented dilemmas but concluded that,
“there must be a time when we make a stand”.—[Official Report, 28/10/20; cols. GC 141, 142.]
The noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, was sanctioned with me for doing precisely that. Although she is unable to participate today, we will work together at later stages in moving all-party amendments to create a human rights-centric approach to greener energy supply chains. Let us put that insistence in the Bill and amend it accordingly. Let us do as the Minister said and make a stand.
Lord Duncan of Springbank (Con)
My Lords, it is a privilege and a pleasure to follow the powerful words of the noble Lord, Lord Alton. I declare my interest in both decentralised and nuclear energy.
When I first picked up the Bill, I was surprised at how slight it appeared to be. As I have listened to the debate, I was reminded of some remarks from “Blackadder”. Noble Lords might recall the episode in question, when Blackadder decided that he was going to become an explorer. Lord Melchett says to him:
“The foremost cartographers of the land have prepared this for you; it’s a map of the area that you'll be traversing”—
and he hands him a blank sheet of paper—
“They’ll be very grateful if you could just fill it in as you go along”.
I get the impression that much of the serious work of the Bill will be filled in later, and that in itself is a principal challenge.
The noble Lord, Lord Howell, raised some very interesting points about where we currently stand and the importance of honesty. Our challenge as a nation right now is that many people in the land believe that we are close to achieving many of our aims in decarbonising our electricity, and they are wrong. However, they believe that because quite often they are misled by well-intentioned individuals.
The challenge remains very simple. When I last checked the current electricity generation and its sources today at 5 pm, over half was generated by gas. Renewables accounted for less than 10%. That is an extraordinary gulf that we will have to bridge in very short order. Tellingly, much of our resilience comes not domestically but from our interconnectivity to the continent. Since we have these periods of great calm which affect not just the United Kingdom but this part of Europe more broadly—the North Sea itself and the basin—we cannot always rely upon securing electricity generated by renewables from across the sea either.
I have great hopes for Great British Energy because I think it has the opportunity to address some of the more fundamental issues. If I am being frank, I am a little disappointed that nuclear does not play a greater role in that. I understand the shortcomings of some of the large-scale nuclear, but small modular reactors really have a part to play. Given that baseload will become absolutely critical as we become more reliant upon renewables, we need to be able to ensure that when the lights drop, we can get them back on.
The other revealing element from the data about generation today was that only 3.2% is from storage. This is a key element missing from Great British Energy. We need to up our storage capacity. When I was a Member of the European Parliament, I campaigned strongly to ensure that we did just that, and the European Union continued to turn its back on it.
I hope that in the unfolding of this piece of legislation, we will see an opportunity for storage to have a much more significant part to play because, truthfully, renewables are by their nature intermittent. If we have a wide enough array of them, we might be able to draw upon that; if we have interconnectors, they might be able to help us. But if we cannot store it, we are simply going to be reliant upon good luck at particular points. Sadly, as we enter into winter periods, when we simply do not have the certainty within the renewable sector, we really have a problem. I hope the Minister will have something to say about that; namely, how we might up our renewables storage.
I am also struck as I think about this in terms of the honesty I touched on at the beginning. I understand why the party now in government chose to say that bills would be reduced by £300, because in elections you do not say that bills will go up—you say they will go down. That is a natural part of winning a campaign. The key thing, however, will be to live up to that.
I am not expecting the Minister to confirm that £300 figure today, but it is important that people confronted with ever-increasing bills can plan with certainty and affordability to ensure that they can stay warm during the challenging winter months. That will be a critical aspect of the confidence that will be necessary for Great British Energy to move from being—as it is at the moment—quite a short Bill, to a flourishing opportunity for investment in the key elements we require to move ourselves towards a net-zero future.
I take on board the points made by others—that we alone cannot do that. We are generating and are responsible for a very modest amount of carbon. However, our leadership in this area—which the Bill can offer some of—could well be powerful. It can then begin to demonstrate how we as a nation can decouple our economy and our electricity from our carbon generation. If we can get that right, we have a message to sell to those who can follow in our pathway. Equally, as we link this to other aspects of funding on a global basis, we can then help fund others to join us on that journey.
It will not be easy; it will be costly. Again, this goes back to honesty. No one is going to be better off because of this. This will involve a significant contribution of funds, and the Government must be frank about that. However, if we get it right, get focused and are careful, and if we recognise, as I have said already, the importance of small modular reactors and the necessity of storage—which I will come back to at the later stages of the Bill, and I hope to meet the Minister for a brief chat about some of these things—I think this has the opportunity to deliver.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, I am not entirely sure that it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, for reasons that will become clear in a moment. I think it would have been better in my case if I had preceded the noble Lord; nevertheless, it is obviously a pleasure to follow him, not least because he is a fellow Deputy Speaker of the House.
I rise in support of the Bill and its objectives. I begin by congratulating my noble friend Lady Beckett on her maiden speech and the noble Lord, Lord Mackinlay of Richborough, on his. The House is very fortunate to have heard two such remarkable maiden speeches in the same debate.
My noble friend Lady Beckett is someone with enormous parliamentary experience. She was first elected to another place over 50 years ago; I well remember her as the candidate for Lincoln in 1974. She was later the able—if only temporary—leader of my own party. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, has said everything that one might wish to be said about her remarkable career. She is very welcome to this House. She mentioned that she knows something of it in advance through chairing the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy. As a member of that committee, I know what she means.
I also pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Mackinlay of Richborough. What a remarkable personal story. He has attracted the most universal admiration for what he has been through. I do not know about other noble Lords, but I, for one, will never forget the reception he got when he returned to another place just before the end of the last Parliament—which was itself remarkable.
The Bill is the centrepiece of the Government’s strategy to achieve net zero and, as such, will pave the way for a wide range of measures in the years ahead. Noble Lords have spoken about a wide variety of different aspects of energy policy. If I may say so, I thought the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, gave a pretty comprehensive description of the range of current relevant factors in the energy debate. Other noble Lords have used their speeches to focus on other areas.
In directing my remarks to Clause 5(1), I will make one point that I wanted to bring to the House’s attention. It is a pity that the noble Lord, Lord Duncan, has temporarily left his place, because I wanted to raise the issue of long-duration energy storage. LDES is not exactly an acronym that trips off the tongue, but it is vital to the transformation to net zero which the Bill hopes to promote.
Your Lordships’ Committee on Science and Technology—of which I am a member—looked at this issue earlier this year, and today is a relevant moment to bring our main conclusions to the attention of the House. Your Lordships may want to know what long-duration energy storage is. Medium-duration energy storage refers to technologies best suited to storing energy for between four and 24 hours—batteries, for example—or up to a few days at most. Long-duration energy storage applies to technologies that store energy across multiple days, weeks, months or even years.
In this country we are going to need both medium- and long-duration storage, but in my remarks today I want to refer only to long-duration energy storage and the technologies that could provide it. We are going to need government policies in support of long-duration energy storage in the UK and wider changes in the energy system required to facilitate its deployment.
To reach the UK’s net-zero targets, our energy system, as other noble Lords have mentioned, must be transformed. This is going to involve its substantial electrification, where fossil-fuel use in transportation, heating and industry will need to be replaced by electricity, in parallel with the expansion and decarbonisation of the electricity supply. This will replace fossil-fuelled electricity generation with low-carbon alternatives. Renewable energy, predominantly from wind and solar, is expected to play a major role in the UK. The Climate Change Committee forecast in its balanced pathway scenario that electricity demand is likely to double by 2050.
However, renewable energy from wind and solar will deliver a variable supply of electricity due to changes in the weather. If noble Lords want an example, they need look no further than what life was like in the UK two weeks ago. At the beginning of November, the UK experienced a period of anticyclonic gloom, which occurs when an anticyclone of high pressure traps pockets of wet weather close to the ground. In turn, this creates a period of dull, grey and cloudy weather, with a high chance of mist and fog. If noble Lords look back just two weeks, the weather was dull, grim and grey—not remotely windy or sunny. In fact, a place called Odiham in Hampshire received zero minutes of sunshine for the first week of November.
By contrast, about a month earlier, just over half of UK electricity came from zero-carbon sources—including solar, which briefly at that point during the day peaked at providing 83% of all the electricity being used that day. The noble Lord, Lord Duncan of Springbank, is not the only person who looks up the amount of energy being used at any given moment.
The balance between renewable sources and baseload provided by nuclear and gas can and does change. That is just a fact of energy life. The electrification of heating and transport means that demand for electricity will be larger and more variable over time. Climate change and its effects on weather will also impact renewable energy demand. The electricity system will need to be substantially expanded and made more resilient—another word I emphasise to your Lordships tonight—to ensure that it can deliver a secure power supply whatever the load demands or weather systems that we experience. This question of resilience is a key factor behind what makes long-duration energy storage so important. Energy storage technologies that allow energy generated by renewables to be stored over time and used when required will be increasingly essential in achieving net zero.
The one sentence that I would like your Lordships to remember tonight is this: I believe that a strategic reserve of stored energy will be an indispensable part of our future energy policy, and that it will be for the body set up by this Bill to deliver it. I would be interested to hear what the Minister says on this point. The Royal Society estimates that a substantial volume of long-duration storage, enough to supply approximately one-third of current annual UK electricity generation, could ultimately be needed. This could fulfil different roles on the grid and there are facilities for the storage of it. Hydrogen is probably the leading candidate for long-duration energy storage over weeks and months. Low-carbon hydrogen can be produced—for example, from electrolysis, where electricity is used to split water into hydrogen and oxygen. The hydrogen can then be stored under moderate pressure in, for example, underground salt caverns, as has already been mentioned, or converted in depleted gas fields and later burned to produce electricity or converted into gases that are easier to transport, such as ammonia. Perhaps my noble friend the Minister can give an updated response in the light of the new Government’s deadlines and targets and some of the key institutions responsible for planning, operating and regulating the energy system.
The national grid used to be considered so boring that people went to sleep if you talked about it. Now, on the contrary, how we use our national grid and how, for example, we enable the vast new wind power resources to connect to it from the North Sea is anything but boring. In fact, it will be pretty controversial, not least because of the need for more high-tension pylons to carry the electricity from where it is generated to where it is needed onshore.
The scale of long-duration energy storage needed and the benefits to the grid are vital. The Select Committee report said:
“Domestic energy storage is not just about a resilient decarbonised grid—it is about the security and stability of the whole economy. The global energy crisis that began in 2021 has been an object lesson in the UK’s vulnerability to global wholesale energy price fluctuations, and the consequent effects on inflation. The UK had less storage capacity than comparator nations”.
In his reply, perhaps my noble friend the Minister can give some indication of what role he sees for long-duration energy storage in the future. I gently remind him that the subtitle of the Select Committee’s report published earlier this year was “Get on with it”. The Minister’s response will be an important clue as to the scale of the task ahead and our chances of success.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, paragraph 4.52 of the Companion says that it is usual for a Member making a maiden speech to be congratulated by the next speaker only, on behalf of the whole House, plus the Front Benches if they wish. I shall be complying with that paragraph.
This is a seriously flawed Bill. At first sight, it looks a bit like the 2023 UK Infrastructure Bank Act, which set up the body that has renamed itself the national wealth fund, although it is of course no such thing. I shall return to that organisation later, because it seems entwined in how Great British Energy will work. I did not support the 2023 legislation in principle or in its detail, but it does at least have more substance than the Bill before us today. I shall explore that in Committee, but I flag for now that the 2023 Act sets out key governance requirements and requires periodic reviews of the UK Infrastructure Bank’s effectiveness and impact, which are mysteriously absent from this Bill.
Another major difference is that much of the detail of the operation of the UK Infrastructure Bank was available to the House in the form of a draft of the framework document, which was then finalised after the Act received Royal Assent. Importantly, that document covers strategic objectives, which have already been referred to, but also operating principles and investment principles, as well as details of the company’s capitalisation and financial objectives. It was quite substantial and ran to 28 pages. What do we have for this Bill? As far as I can see, we have nothing at all. The so-called founding statement published by the Government in July said that a framework would be established “in due course”. I hope that the Minister can update the House today on what that time-hallowed phrase means in practice for the framework for Great British Energy. I am sure that he is well aware that his job of getting this Bill through your Lordships’ House will be very much easier if the Government publish the draft framework document well in advance of Committee.
For example, we need to know how the financial regime for Great British Energy will work and what its financial remit will be so that we can be sure that this Bill contains appropriate guardrails and accountability measures. We also need to understand what money will be involved and how it will flow into and out of Great British Energy. The Labour Party in opposition talked up a green prosperity plan with a price tag of £28 billion every year, but that of course did not survive contact with reality. It eventually ended up with a plan to capitalise Great British Energy with £8.3 billion of new money over the whole of this Parliament. It might be a shadow of the earlier plans but it is nevertheless a significant sum.
One of my pastimes is reading Budget documents, so I have been hunting for the £8.3 billion in this year’s documents. I have to tell noble Lords that there is no £8.3 billion in the Government’s spending plans. Instead, there are a couple of references in chapter 3 of the Red Book to
“providing funding to kickstart Great British Energy”,
amounting to £125 million, which the Minister referred to earlier. That comprises £100 million capital funding for clean energy projects and £25 million to set up the Aberdeen headquarters. However, that £125 million is for 2025-26 only. There is no sign of anything after that.
Intriguingly, chapter 4 of the Red Book goes on to say:
“As GBE is established, the investment activity will be undertaken by the National Wealth Fund”,
which apparently will help Great British Energy
“to make initial investments as quickly as possible and draw on the National Wealth Fund’s resources, experience and pipeline of projects”.
I have never understood why Great British Energy was needed, given the existence of the UK Infrastructure Bank/national wealth fund, which my noble friend on the Front Bench referred to earlier. That was set up to do lots of the green things referred to in the Bill before us.
Can the Minister explain the relationship between Great British Energy and the national wealth fund? Will the wealth fund’s pipeline of investments be made by Great British Energy or by the wealth fund? Will the investments be funded from Great British Energy’s £100 million, which applies only for 2025-26, or will they come out of the wealth fund’s rather larger budget, which by the way is also rather hard to find in the Budget documents?
This is all rather opaque, and that is before we try to understand what kinds of investments will be talked about. Will they be loans or equity investments? If they are equity investments, will they be controlling stakes or minority stakes? If they are loans, where will they sit in the creditor hierarchy? To what extent will the private sector be involved? We have answers to none of these questions.
The UK Infrastructure Bank—and I assume this will continue to apply to the national wealth fund—is supposed to make a financial return on its investments, and it is also required to adhere to the additionality principle, so that it does not crowd private finance out. Do these requirements apply to Great British Energy? We need answers to that.
This is not only a Bill with almost no content, it is a dangerous Bill, because it grants almost unfettered powers to the Secretary of State for Energy and Net Zero, as other noble Lords have pointed out. He sets the statement of strategic priorities; he decides what financial assistance is given and on what terms; he has an untrammelled power of direction; and, as the owner of 100% of the shares in the company, he has the power to appoint or remove any or all of the directors. Parliament has no say in any of this and, as I mentioned earlier, it does not even receive a periodic review of effectiveness and impact, as is the case with the UK Infrastructure Bank, also known as the national wealth fund.
We need to look at all these areas in Committee, but I hope that, when the Minister winds up today, he will explain what transparency and accountability arrangements the Government see as ensuring that Parliament can effectively hold Ministers to account.
Lastly, to pick up on a point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, can the Minister confirm that the Subsidy Control Act 2022 applies to Great British Energy? Assuming that the promised £8.3 billion finds its way to Great British Energy somehow, there would be limitless opportunities for Great British Energy to subsidise activities and distort competition. It is clearly important that it is fully subject to the 2022 Act and I hope that the Minister will confirm that.
I am not a fan of the big state, or of state involvement in commercial activities. Nor do I worship at the altar of net zero. I do not like this Bill at all, but I accept that, as a manifesto Bill, it will become law. It is, however, the duty of your Lordships’ House to work during the passage of the Bill to achieve clarity, accountability and transparency about Great British Energy, all of which are currently missing from the Bill.
Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB)
My Lords, I am a supporter of Great British Energy, its purpose and the proposed flexible approach inherent in the Bill. We need to quickly adopt the new generating technologies we have available to us. Apart from the drive to net zero, the main reason for my support is based on the issue of energy security. Having long maintained that the food security of our nation is the most important role that any Government have to play, I now think that energy security must come a pretty close second. Our cherished peaceful security from wars, and even worldwide pandemics, seems more precarious now than for most of the past 80 years; thus our ability to import electricity, or the fuel to generate it, must also be more precarious. But, if we invest wisely and we can harness the sources of power we are blessed with—wind, sun and tide—we can creep nearer to that energy security; and investing wisely is precisely what we all hope GBE will do.
One of the features I like about the proposals is that GBE will be taking equity in the businesses it chooses to support, and not just giving loans or grants. In other words, it can enjoy the upside of a successful business, as opposed to shouldering only the downside risks that loans or grants allow. I was pleased to hear that the Government have an expectation that, at some time in the future, GBE will, hopefully, contribute to its own funding. I was also pleased to hear that the Government expect that some of its investments will fail. Frankly, if it invests only in guaranteed successes, it will not be doing its job. So, although it sounds odd, I hope that some of its investments will fail—but not too many.
However, hopefully, GBE’s ownership by government will give the private sector the confidence it needs to invest in this exciting energy transitional arena. I am advised that, for a successful transition of our electricity landscape, we need to attract some £400 billion-worth of capital into power generation in the next 10 years. In that context, £1.6 billion per annum does not sound like very much. However, hopefully—I fear there is a lot of hope here, including from me—GBE’s investments, if well used and specifically targeted to reduce risk to private capital, should pull in some of the outside investment that is so badly needed.
But GBE’s role will need to be not only to use money in a wise and, I would hope, “magnetic” way—magnetic in that it will attract other investments. It must also be an enabler. GBE needs to become a real driver of projects, using all the powers at its disposal to try to help clear away some of the barriers to the production and use of renewable energy. As we all know, one of the biggest barriers lies in our planning system and our judicial review system, which can cause excessive delays, and thus costs, in so many of our infrastructure projects. I am sure all noble Lords will have read about the Lower Thames Crossing, where, before a single spade has been put in the ground, apparently more money has already been spent on planning and reviews than Norway has spent on completing the longest road tunnel in the world.
On this subject, it has always interested me that in France, where they pay over the odds for land compulsorily taken by the state, property owners often fall over themselves to offer their land for a state-run project. Of course, these owners do not object at planning inquiries, nor do they instigate judicial reviews. Maybe there is a lesson there for our Treasury—maybe it saves money in the end.
When it comes to energy projects, GBE must ensure there is generous community involvement. In Denmark, the local community gets 20% of the profits of a local wind farm. We need to do something similar here, and then, hopefully, our communities will be falling over themselves to have a magnificent wind farm on their doorstep—and I do think our modern wind turbines are magnificent.
I will leave others to speak about community energy companies themselves, which need all the support we can give them. However, in terms of speedy delivery of projects, the difficulty arises when dealing with National Grid infrastructure, such as pylons—“the plumbing”, as it was referred to in the debate last Thursday. This infrastructure needs to grow to at least four times its current size to deliver power to everywhere it is needed and receive power from all the generating sources that are going to come along. Some projects are currently being told they will be delayed by 10 years or more for the want of a connection; we really cannot afford such delays.
The problem is that no project could possibly afford to financially involve every community along the whole route of its delivery line. So, what is to be done? First, the National Grid has to work with generators to pull together various projects, particularly North Sea projects, to minimise the number of power lines needed from source to delivery point. Then, I fear, a calculation has to be made by GBE and the National Grid as to the extra costs of burying cables in certain places—these costs are slowly coming down—versus the costs of planning delays and judicial reviews caused by objectors to such essential schemes. But I am afraid that I see this issue remaining the biggest fly in the ointment of our desired speedy energy transition.
I turn briefly to the details of the Bill. With all the talk of flexibility and this new GBE being agile and fleet of foot, it surprised me that it should be specifically forbidden by law from going to the open market to raise some of its own money when needed. Clause 1(4) says it can only
“be wholly owned by the Crown”.
That is a mistake, and we should amend it in Committee. A minimum of 80% Crown investment would suffice to keep it essentially a Crown entity but with some financial flexibility. A small amount of private sector money, when needed, would not go amiss.
I bristled at the total power being given to current and future Secretaries of State. Again and again, the efficiency and success of GBE appears to depend on guidance and control by the Secretary of State. Nowadays, as has been made clear by other speakers, very few Secretaries of State will have the relevant business or entrepreneurial experience and skills that might help them to take good decisions.
Having said that, I am not sure what the right solution is. GBE has to be a company independent of and yet part of government to effectively exert the power it needs, but to involve Parliament in any detailed decision-making role would clearly not be efficient. Parliament seems incapable of moving forward on the restoration of its own infrastructure, so it definitely should not be let loose on the national electricity infrastructure.
Thus I fear that having the Secretary of State report directly to Parliament after having widely consulted, as envisaged in the Bill, is probably the best answer to protecting taxpayers’ money. But—and this is a big but—we definitely need to firm up the consultation and reporting. For a start, Clause 6(3)(b), leaving the Secretary of State to decide who he consults with and how he responds to that consultation, is an unnecessary surrender on the part of the taxpayer. Then, for the only reporting to Parliament in Clause 7 to be what I would describe as the minimal information required by Companies House is totally inadequate. The Secretary of State must present to Parliament his own detailed annual report as to how GBE is progressing with its mandate—both the how and the why. I also like the idea of an independent review being carried out every few years, similar to Section 9 of the UK Infrastructure Bank Act 2023; it is the idea of the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, not mine.
I have just two further points to end with. First, the question of whether SMRs fit under the remit of GB Energy or of GB Nuclear needs to be resolved very quickly, as others have said. These generating units will be vital to our electricity supplies over future decades and we need to get their rollout under way as soon as possible.
Secondly, I have great faith in the future of hydrogen. Apart from gradually helping to heat our homes, hydrogen can be used, free of CO2 emissions, in the production of steel, the production of which currently creates 8% of the world’s CO2. More importantly, hydrogen will be critical for the decarbonisation of our road transport system. In the UK, road transport currently contributes some 26% of our greenhouse gas emissions. Noble Lords should know that a hydrogen fuel cell battery can give a car a range of over 1,000 miles. Because of this characteristic, such batteries are really the only serious contender to providing a zero-carbon fuel for our HGV fleet.
I have this theory that our current electric cars, with their low mileage range, heavy weight and high use of rare earth metals, will disappear from the marketplace in coming decades, in the same way as fax machines and video recorders—both miracles of their time—have now both completely disappeared. I believe that hydrogen fuel cell cars have a much brighter long-term future, if we can get the hydrogen.
That brings me to the point of mentioning hydrogen in the context of the Bill. For a start, GBE needs to look favourably on any hydrogen projects that come before it, but I also believe that all wind farms, on land or offshore, and solar parks above a certain output should be obliged by law to have a direct connection to a hydrogen production plant. That way, whenever their power is not needed by the grid—in the middle of the night, say, for wind farms—they can be creating green hydrogen to decarbonise our transport system or as a long-term generating fuel, as the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, mentioned. The point is that no more should millions or even billions of pounds be paid to wind farms for not producing electricity. In times of excess production, or when the grid cannot accept their power, they should all be producing green hydrogen as a form of power storage.
As noble Lords will have gathered, I support this Bill. I look forward to working with the Government to improve it in Committee.
Lord Naseby (Con)
My Lords, we know that the challenges of the age can be met only by energy. We have before us the vehicle to achieve that objective: Great British Energy. Of course, a fair number of questions have been raised in the other place and this afternoon, particularly about the relationships with the other energy corporations and agencies. I will not get involved in that; I do not want to duplicate those questions. Although many of them are valid, the situation we face calls for an independent vehicle such as the one we are debating in the Bill. In historical terms, looking at the state of our railways and comparing them with those on the continent of Europe, where they are all nationalised, I think for once that we need again to look at the success Europe has had in not dissimilar circumstances.
I will raise four points to look at in more detail in Committee, partially because some of them came up many years ago when I was on the energy Select Committee in the other place. The one that did not come up then was hydrogen, on which we just heard some wise words. I have had a meeting with the boilermakers’ union, which knows exactly what was put in when almost all gas domestic heating was put in. That was done highly successfully over many years. Work has been done on hydrogen mixed with gas. The indication is that it is successful and that all that needs to change is the burner to the boilers. If that is the situation, it would save huge sums of money for the infrastructure for heating the vast majority of the homes in the United Kingdom. Yes, certain areas will need heat pumps, but no way can heat pumps ever overtake this opportunity for domestic heating at this point in time. That means we need to look at the definition of clean energy in the Bill. I will put down an amendment to that effect.
Secondly, there has been much discussion about small modular reactors, which is absolutely right. I had discussions with Rolls-Royce two and a half years ago, when it claimed it was just about ready to go forward. It is not the present Government’s fault but, if Rolls-Royce was ready then, I cannot understand why there was no decision. I asked questions of my noble friends on the Front Bench on that when we were in government, and we still do not have a decision. I say to the Minister: if I and, more importantly, Rolls-Royce are right, let us please have a decision on that.
Thirdly, I have had some talks with and briefings from the UK Sustainable Investment and Finance Association. I hope very much that the Minister has had the same. If he has not then I would be delighted to hand over the briefing I received, but I am sure he has had it. Therefore, I do not need to go into great detail, but it raised five areas that I think should all be looked at very carefully.
Fourthly, the area that nobody has raised, as far as I know—and I have been sitting here all afternoon—is the situation in small countries around the world. We have a Commonwealth and our own small-country groupings. We need to recognise that we must help them deal with their problems, which will not be similar to ours in most cases. We should be considerate and understanding. After all, the Commonwealth is a family, and we should help them in that relationship.
The Bill is a good one, as far as I can see. As I said, I will put down some amendments, but I wish the Government well. It is so important that this is successful and I will do my best to help it on its way.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests, especially as honorary president of National Energy Action. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Beckett, and the noble Lord, Lord Mackinlay, on their excellent maiden speeches. They are both remarkable role models in their own right. I also congratulate the Minister, who has sat through all the speeches today and displayed his staying power and great interest in this subject. I wish him well through the passage of the Bill.
The country is facing twin challenges of energy and food security. They are both extremely serious and should be tackled together. Specifically, I agree with all those who have said that the remit of the Bill is extremely broad—too broad. I hope we can clarify that through its passage, as one of my concerns is that this is a potentially massive land grab.
I would like to explore how relationships with those affected by the decisions will be handled. There is talk of consultations, but there must be more joined-up decisions between the Government, investors, local authorities, local communities and consumers. Take the position of offshore wind farms: consent for the wind farm is currently given separately from consent for the substation needed to land the energy onshore, then separate planning permission is sought for the overhead power lines. These pylons to transfer electricity long distances, losing up to 10% of the energy in transmission, are deeply unpopular among those in rural communities, who have to live with them but recognise that they have absolutely no benefit to those living there. Can the Minister explain and define the engagement process with interested parties—for example, farmers, fishermen, residents, consumers and industry? What form will that consultation take?
The Bill seems to give a blanket power to the Secretary of State to decide. There is very little parliamentary oversight, merely reports to Parliament. In Clause 5:
“The Secretary of State must prepare a statement of strategic priorities for Great British Energy”.
He
“may revise or replace the statement”,
but need only
“lay a copy of the statement, and of any revised … statement, before Parliament”.
We need to amend that to have greater parliamentary oversight over the Secretary of State’s powers, so that they are not completely untrammelled.
There needs to be formal consultation with the interested parties before decisions are made. Take the example of the spatial squeeze; it has raised very real concerns among fishermen about how their fishing grounds risk being squeezed out by offshore wind. I wonder whether the Minister has already had the opportunity to meet with farmers, and particularly with fishermen, to address their concern about this spatial squeeze. What form does the Minister expect the relationship with these interested parties to take—not just with farmers and fishermen but with intensive energy users, such as brickmakers, those in ceramics and others in the manufacturing sector? What form of consultation will there be?
The Minister referred briefly to finance and talked about some finance coming from the national wealth fund. He will be aware that the Association of British Insurers has been closely engaging with the Treasury on the development of this fund, and I was very pleased to receive a briefing from it. The ABI hopes that the national wealth fund’s success will be in
“unlocking investment, delivering economic growth and creating new green high skilled jobs”,
but it has identified current barriers that could prevent this happening. They include the need for
“a national transition plan … sector specific investment roadmaps, especially for the five priority sectors identified by government”.
I will name them:
“green steel, green hydrogen, industrial decarbonisation, gigafactories, and ports”.
It also identifies the need for
“greater engagement between investors and local authorities to develop investable propositions”.
To ensure the success of Great British Energy and the funding from the national wealth fund, how does the Minister expect the current barriers identified by the ABI to be addressed?
I turn to sustainable sources of energy. We had a little debate on Drax at Oral Questions last week. It raised the question of why we are importing woodchip from abroad when we could use more sustainable, locally produced willow coppice and miscanthus, easily meeting the Government’s own sustainability criteria. Equally, we should use offshore and onshore wind energy locally, close to where it was produced. That would reduce the need for pylons; as I fear the Minister will find out, rural dwellers do not accept them criss-crossing the countryside, bringing no benefit to them locally.
The Minister did not mention energy from waste. Together with renewable energy, this is a very powerful strand of energy source in Denmark, Sweden, Austria, Germany and other European countries. It disposes of household waste and creates energy. What is the Government’s position on this?
Environmental levies of £2 billion are added to energy bills, primarily in the standing charge to every household and business, which goes towards future infrastructure. I ask the Minister to name any other utility or public service whose future infrastructure is paid for up front by the consumer.
Offshore-generated wind coming on shore at massive power stations poses problems, particularly when transported long distances to the national grid. We are soon to see offshore floating turbines to replace fixed turbines at sea. I urge the Minister to address these problems and to meet with the fishing fleet to avoid dangers not just of their grounds being squeezed but to marine life, porpoises and dolphins from the constant buzz of turbines. What happens to wind turbines and electric vehicle batteries at the end of their working lives? How will they be disposed of? These two issues alone, among others, create real environmental challenges.
At COP 24 the Prime Minister agreed and signed up to an 80% reduction in emissions. This will impose a heavy burden on households and businesses alike going forward, while countries that deny climate change, such as the US, China, India and Brazil, continue to pollute regardless to ensure that their industries remain competitive.
In conclusion, I simply ask how this Bill to create Great British Energy will benefit Great Britain, given the massive impact the work of the company will have on the countryside, local communities, industry and consumers.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a small-scale generator of hydroelectricity. I welcome the intentions behind the Bill: an affordable, secure and decarbonised power system must be a good thing. I suspect that the stated timeframe of the next five years is rather overoptimistic but, again, I commend the intention. I caution against rushing the transition too much. We must ensure that we do not undermine our energy stability, and rushing could create that risk, make it more expensive than it might otherwise be and undermine the intention of reducing energy costs over the period. Again, the intention is good.
However, the Bill does not do anything beyond allowing for the creation of the company. It sets out only some very broad parameters as to what it may do. In that, as we have heard, it is quite similar to the UK Infrastructure Bank Act 2023. Indeed, whole clauses of the Bill seem to have been copied verbatim from that Act, and I suspect that we will have many of the same debates that we had then. I seriously considered taking my Second Reading speech on that Act and changing the name, but I decided against that.
However, there are important differences between this Bill and that Act. First, like the UK Infrastructure Bank Act, there is a requirement in Clause 5 for the Secretary of State to
“prepare a statement of strategic priorities for Great British Energy”.
In the case of the UK Infrastructure Bank, the then Government provided a detailed draft of that statement, along with the detailed framework document referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. We were able to see what the bank was intending to do and the assumptions around, for example, whether it would be required to make a positive return. That was extremely helpful. In this case, I understand that the Government have no intention to provide such a draft before the Bill is passed. I hope that that is wrong, but it sounds as if we will be having these debates rather in the dark, which is deeply unsatisfactory but, rather depressingly, becoming something of a theme.
The Government have made many claims about the benefits from GBE, which the Minister has repeated today. Being something of a finance nerd, it was therefore with great excitement and enthusiasm that I turned to the impact assessment. Let me give your Lordships some highlights from that. The total net present social value from GBE is given as not applicable; the business net present value is not applicable; the net cost to business per year is not applicable; the CO2 equivalent change in greenhouse gases, which is its core purpose is—guess what?—not applicable. In fact, in every single section of the impact assessment, it says not applicable. But I read on, and it goes on to say that:
“This legislation is not expected to have any direct benefits associated with it”.
Which is, I suppose, straightforward. We are being asked to scrutinise a Bill where we are not going to be allowed to see the statement of strategic priorities and for which there is no meaningful impact assessment for what the Government are planning to do.
That makes my next point even more important. Apart from a requirement to publish a report and accounts that simply comply with the Companies Act 2006, there is absolutely no reporting and accountability required for Great British Energy in the Bill. Given that we know nothing about the strategic priorities, that has to be unacceptable. It is in stark contrast with the UK Infrastructure Bank Act, where there is a whole section requiring an independent report to be laid before Parliament on,
“the effectiveness of the Bank in delivering its objectives, and … its impact in relation to climate change and regional and local economic growth”,
and, importantly,
“(including the extent to which its investments … have encouraged additional investment … by the private sector)”.
That references the additionality concept that the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and others have referred to. With the UK Investment Bank, that report is to be laid before Parliament, and is carried out initially after seven years and then at five-yearly intervals.
It is surprising that the Government do not feel that something similar should apply here and that they actively excluded that clause from their copy-and-paste exercise. They have made all sorts of claims about what GBE will achieve but seem unwilling to have the actual performance measured and reported on. I confess to finding that rather shocking. Can the Minister please explain why the Government felt they should copy the UKIB Act but exclude all meaningful accountability aspects, especially given their own support in opposition for the independent review clauses in the UKIB Act? This is something of a change of tune, I think. Infrastructure is, by definition, long-term, so the UKIB timeframes were long—seven years. GBE is talking about completing the decarbonisation within five years, so it must be the case that shorter duration performance-reporting periods should apply.
The impact assessment says that:
“All investment into and expenditure of GBE will be subject to future spending reviews and business cases, which will set out in detail the monetised and non-monetised impacts of GBE’s activities”.
That sounds promising. Can the Minister explain how and when those spending reviews and business cases will be published, and whether they will be made available for scrutiny by Parliament? Perhaps more importantly, how will the actual performance of GBE against those business cases be reported on and scrutinised? I am absolutely certain that we will have many more debates on this element, especially if we do not see the statement of strategic priorities.
During the debates on the UKIB Bill, we had many discussions about how important it was that the activities of the bank should be aimed at crowding in private investment and avoid crowding out private investment. I said during those debates that,
“if the bank simply ends up becoming a cheaper form of subsidised finance in situations where private finance is already available, we will have failed”.—[Official Report, 14/6/22; col. 1555.]
The same sentence applies with bells on in this case. The Government keep repeating the mantra that every £1 of public investment will generate £3 of private investment. I wish it was that simple. If done badly, it can have the opposite effect, so it is critically important that the reporting that I have said we need covers that aspect of additionality. It must be about not just how much we have spent—anyone can spend money—but how effectively we have spent it and what the real impact on private investment has been. Does the Minister agree?
Speaking of the UK Infrastructure Bank—now rather misleadingly called, as we have heard, the national wealth fund—there is clearly quite considerable overlap between the activities of the two entities. Indeed, the UK Infrastructure Bank was set up originally to do quite a lot of what this entity will do. Can the Minister please shed some light on how that overlap will be managed and how duplication between the two entities will be avoided?
The UKIB Act includes details on the composition of the board; this Bill does not. Can the Minister please explain what the Government have in mind about the composition of the board of GBE?
The Bill includes some very broad financial assistance provisions. We have heard that it is intended to provide equity finance of £8.3 billion over this Parliament. However, other forms of finance appear to be completely unlimited and subject to no obvious scrutiny. Can the Minister please explain what is intended in that respect, and what accountability and controls will exist around it? How will any borrowing by GBE be treated within the UK debt figures?
Somewhat related to that, GBE can be designated only if
“it is wholly owned by the Crown”,
and the designation will terminate automatically if it ceases to be wholly owned. That would preclude the possibility of raising any external equity finance into GBE, although I suppose it might be possible into a subsidiary entity. Has the Minister considered whether some flexibility—perhaps allowing minority external equity into GBE—might be advantageous?
Finally, on a different subject, I have a proposal to add an element to GBE’s objects. Since the end of the feed-in tariffs, the only way that domestic generators of electricity can receive any income from any excess electricity that they generate above their own usage requirements is through the smart or export guarantee. Although there are now some better export rates, most are still very low compared with the retail price of electricity. There is little incentive for people to install excess capacity over and above their own usage requirements—for example, putting another two or three panels on their roof. It would surely be a good thing to incentivise people to install more than they need.
I believe there is a way that that can be done at zero cost for the Government, through a peer-to-peer trading facility that would allow generators to sell any excess, perhaps to their neighbours. The only way of doing that at the moment—which I know to my cost—is to wire them in, which is extremely expensive. This facility would allow the generator to earn more than the smart export guarantee rates, so providing a greater incentive to install more capacity, and would allow the neighbours to obtain the excess power at a discount to their own retail cost—a win-win situation. All that is required is a trading company to stand in the middle, and perhaps to take a cut of the trade to cover the costs of the activity. That is a role that GBE could easily undertake, thereby incentivising people to increase domestic renewable generation at, as I said, no cost to the taxpayer. In order to do that, I think that “trading” should be added to the objects in Clause 3(2)(a).
I support, in concept, what the Government are trying to do, but there is an awful lot to do to improve the Bill, especially around the areas of accountability, where it is woefully lacking.
Lord Ashcombe (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests as an insurance broker for the energy industry, as set out in the register.
The Bill before us, dealing with the creation of Great British Energy, has the laudable aim of decarbonising the power sector by 2030. That is an ambitious target, especially given the broader commitment for the United Kingdom to reach net zero by 2050. Achieving such a transformative goal requires careful handling, not only in its practical implementation but in securing the support and understanding of the population.
Energy is foundational to growth for any nation, and growth is something we undoubtedly need. As outlined in the founding statement of GBE, published by DESNZ on 25 July, the company’s mission is to
“drive clean energy deployment, boost energy independence, create jobs and ensure UK taxpayers, billpayers, and communities reap the benefits of clean, secure, home-grown energy”.
However, such aspirational language does not appear within the Bill itself, nor are there clear metrics by which Parliament might assess its ongoing success. Other noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, have addressed these omissions in great depth. I am not going to repeat their arguments here other than to say that I agree.
Instead I shall turn to Clause 3 and the stated objectives of GBE. Electricity generation accounts for approximately 20% of the UK’s overall energy demand. Our current energy mix highlights the challenges ahead: 31% from wind; 28% from gas; 15% from nuclear as a constant baseload; 8% from biomass, largely from Drax, whose environmental credentials merit scrutiny; and 5% from solar, with the balance met by interconnectors with Europe. The other 80% of UK energy is hydrocarbon-based.
The Bill envisages that most of the new clean power will come from offshore wind, onshore wind and solar. However, the scale of expansion is extremely challenging. According to the National Energy System Operator’s report Clean Power 2030, offshore wind capacity must triple and solar capacity must more than triple, while onshore wind needs to double. These are staggering targets that far exceed our historical rate of progress.
As has been noted many times in your Lordships’ House, the wind does not always blow, and the sun does not always shine. Gas, as the swing fuel, is consequently frequently called on, sometimes accounting for 60% or more of generation—it has been 55% this afternoon—during lean or cold periods. Conversely, during periods of overproduction, typically when the wind blows too hard, surplus power must be shed, meaning that the producers are paid a curtailment fee to not generate. The situation will be exacerbated as more renewable power comes online. Hydrogen production, which has been discussed by various noble Lords and which I will address shortly, has the potential to address that issue.
While the construction of fixed wind and solar farms is well understood, it is unlikely that GBE will play a significant role in that technological development. It will need to deploy resources in the floating offshore wind arena, which is still in its infancy but has a significant upside. In addition, GBE might contribute to solving the associated planning, environmental and conservation challenges by encouraging the integration of clean energy production in all new infrastructure.
Equally daunting are the upgrades to our grid infrastructure. An estimated £40 billion will need to be invested annually until 2030 to enable the increased generation targets. I am afraid that collectively that dwarfs the £8 billion available to GBE. I am all for ambition, but one must ask: are these goals realistic and achievable?
Importantly, how does that correlate with the much-touted £300 saving per household that was so widely discussed before the election? It seems increasingly elusive.
It is certain that gas will remain a key component of our energy mix for years to come. The UK currently consumes nearly 1 billion barrels of oil equivalent annually for its energy. We are fortunate to have significant hydrocarbon reserves within our territorial waters. At the end of 2023, the North Sea Transition Authority estimated 3.3 billion barrels of oil equivalent in reserves, which are likely to be produced; 6.1 billion BOE in contingent resources, representing known but undeveloped assets awaiting regulatory or investment approval; and 3.5 billion BOE in mean exploration prospects—that is, potential resources yet to be discovered. These reserves, weighted 70% towards oil and 30% towards gas, could meet over half the UK’s expected energy demand over the next two to three decades. However, production is falling at more than 10% annually, outpacing reductions in consumption and exposing us to increased reliance on imports.
The 200,000 jobs connected to the hydrocarbon industry, both directly and within the supply chain, which will decline rapidly as the industry is shut in, are hugely significant. While some of these skilled workers may transition into the renewable power industry, we must ask ourselves: will it be all of them?
Beyond employment, the economic contribution of oil and gas remains substantial. According to the Office for Budget Responsibility, revenues from offshore corporation tax, petroleum tax and the energy profits levy raised £5 billion in 2023-24. Although those revenues will decline over time, they remain significant. Furthermore, the Office for National Statistics reported that the extraction of crude petroleum and natural gas contributed £27.6 billion to the UK economy in 2023, accounting for 1.2% of the total economic output of £2,369 billion. These figures remind us of the industry’s enduring impact and the need for a carefully managed transition.
Recent gas discoveries, such as the Selene and Baker fields, underscore the remaining potential of the North Sea, yet these projects depend on competitive regulatory and fiscal conditions, which are not guaranteed. Projects already licensed, such as Jackdaw and Rosebank, which are essential to our energy security, are before the courts, resulting in further delays and potential cancellation, which could put further strain on our domestic production.
It cannot be right that we are importing increasing volumes of LNG to satisfy our gas needs when we have abundant resources of our own. Imported LNG is often produced under less stringent environmental controls and must be transported across oceans, increasing our carbon footprint threefold. Furthermore, are we not merely transferring the problems to others rather than addressing them ourselves? This does not reduce emissions, which is the ultimate goal, and it undermines our commitment to true environmental responsibility. That clearly highlights the need for the ongoing issuance of licences in our territorial waters. I strongly urge the Government to reconsider their current position and take action to support this vital initiative.
Other noble Lords have discussed nuclear generation. It is certain that the country needs a smorgasbord of generation types, and nuclear must be an important part.
I see two further areas in which GBE may make a positive impact. First, renewable generation is inherently intermittent and, while battery storage can address short-term issues, it cannot manage significant downtimes. Excess renewable electricity could be used to produce green hydrogen by electrolysis with no greenhouse gas emissions, which in turn could fuel hydrogen turbines during low renewable production periods. Developing the necessary storage and turbine infrastructure should be a priority for GBE, preventing curtailment payments and generating electricity with the cleanest of fuels.
Secondly, the development of carbon capture, utilisation and storage is crucial to the UK and to other countries. Due to geology, the UK has significant CCUS potential, amounting to the equivalent of approximately 200 years of current carbon emissions. Its development will be crucial to UK decarbonisation and that of other countries. It is of course not a single solution to emissions reduction but could provide a crucial route for some sectors, such as large industrial users and gas-fired power generation. GBE should play a leading role in advancing this technology.
While I commend the ambition of the Bill, I fear it may overreach in its expectations of the industry’s capacity to deliver. Simultaneously, it underestimates the continued importance of hydrocarbon resource in ensuring our energy security. Without sufficient oversight or clear metrics, GBE risks becoming an unchecked entity with uncertain outcomes. Nevertheless, we must remain steadfast in our commitment to net zero by 2050. If managed prudently, we may even reach that target sooner, without jeopardising the growth and prosperity of our nation.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
My Lords, I declare my interest as chair of the Labour Climate and Environment Forum. I add my name to the commendations given to the maiden speech of my noble friend Lady Beckett. She was my boss when I was chief executive of the Environment Agency. She was a very scary lady, but hugely kind and incredibly supportive. She taught me a tremendous amount. Our House will be a better and more thoughtful place for her presence and wisdom.
I welcome the Bill—it seems that not many people do—and the opportunity that GB Energy will provide to use public money to leverage and create direction for private investment to tackle climate change and meet our net-zero objectives. Unlike practically everybody else, I am going to simply raise five points for my noble friend the Minister. All of them are about Great British Energy and the content of the Bill.
First, community energy has already been raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman. The propaganda text around GB Energy’s creation has been very explicit about GB Energy playing a big role in supporting community energy. Community energy schemes are really important if we are to persuade communities that the disruptions and downsides of renewables and rewiring the grid have something in it for them by way of cheaper, greener and more secure energy. Local power plans, which I hope include community schemes, are one of the five priorities for GB Energy in its founding statement. If it is a real commitment for GB Energy to deliver community energy schemes, why not put that requirement in the Bill?
Community energy schemes currently generate around only 0.5% of the UK’s electricity. Studies by the Environmental Audit Committee and others estimate that this could increase twentyfold in 10 years, powering 2.2 million homes and saving 2.5 million tonnes of CO2 every year. It can create jobs, reduce local people’s bills and boost local infrastructure investment. Lots of other nations have seen community-led renewable energy schemes growing over the last 10 years, but we are stuck at the level it was when feed-in tariffs ended. We have not grown since.
What is most worrying about not having a statutory requirement for GB Energy to support community energy in the Bill is that Jürgen Maier, who was much praised by the Minister as the chair of GB Energy, is already on record as saying at a parliamentary hearing that he did not believe that community energy had the potential to generate gigawatts. That is totally at odds with the assurances given by the Government both in the Labour manifesto and during the passage of this Bill in the other place. If we are to have the confidence of investors and communities, and not have confusion on the role of GB Energy in this area, we need community energy in the Bill.
My second point leads on from that, to some extent. It is about the Secretary of State’s statement of strategic priorities. It is important that we see this in draft, at least in Committee. Community energy is only one issue that we want to see in it. Without sight of the statement of strategic priorities, we are being asked to buy a pig in a poke to some extent. Can the Minister tell us when we might see the Secretary of State’s statement of strategic priorities?
The third issue I want to go on about is in my capacity as a long-playing record. Many noble Lords around this House can remember what a long-playing record is, whereas vast quantities of the British public would not have a clue what I am talking about—but I am a long-playing record in this respect. Although GB Energy clearly has excellent net-zero objectives—that is what it is there for, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, said—we face a twin crisis of climate change and biodiversity recovery. GB Energy needs to be given an objective on biodiversity recovery.
It will have a role in de-risking and accelerating clean energy developments. There is always a possibility, at that point, that there could be a trade-off between biodiversity and delivering net zero, but it is not either/or—it is both/and. We need to be smart, and GB Energy needs to be given objectives on both net zero and biodiversity recovery; they need to complement each other.
There is a quick way around this. We could support the Private Member’s Bill in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, which would give the twin objectives of climate and biodiversity to all relevant public bodies. I think it is important that we have these twin objectives for GB Energy. There are lots of examples of similar—although not quite the same—entities, which are virtually independent of the state but are sponsored and wholly owned by the state, that kind of lose the plot. The Forestry Commission plants trees, but it does not do very much to plant trees for biodiversity and climate change. The water companies, which are basically creatures of the public purse, have gone seriously off the rails. I hope we can make sure that GB Energy does not get a rush of blood to the head with its new-found independence and become so fixated with net zero that it cannot do anything else.
My fourth point is on accountability, which has already been raised. We can all read the published accounts of plcs from Companies House. They do not cast much light on many occasions. It is important that this body, which has an important role and a fair slug of public money, provides more back to both Parliament and the public on how it is delivering on its role. It needs to provide a report on a regular basis about the Secretary of State’s strategic priorities and how they are being delivered. If the Secretary of State has not had the foresight to see community energy and biodiversity recovery as strategic priorities, we need reports on these—whether they are strategic priorities or not.
I do not want to see some of the inflexibility that I have heard described around the House today in requiring more and more burdensome reports from this company. It is being set up specifically to give flexibility to allow the Government to influence the direction of an emerging set of technologies as they emerge. We do not want to strangle it at birth with reporting requirements, but there needs to be a happier medium between that and simply the Companies House report.
Last but not least, you could not expect me to do a speech in this House without talking about land use. Great British Energy will inevitably be engaging with spatial issues, such as new grid infrastructure and other energy development locational issues. Any planning role or role that engages with land use and spatial issues will need to complement the existing work of both private and public bodies, including the National Energy System Operator, in producing the strategic spatial energy plan. Spatial energy issues are important, but they need to be resolved in the context of all the pressures on land—for example, other infrastructure types, housing, flood risk management, food production, biodiversity, forestry and carbon sequestration, to name but a few.
The previous Conservative Government promised me the publication of a land use framework for England as a Christmas present last Christmas. I thank the new Labour Government for their commitment to producing a land use framework for England. I know it is there in draft and I had hoped we might be out to consultation by this Christmas. That would be a nice Christmas present. Can the Minister confirm that the Government see the importance of setting the strategic spatial energy plan in its broader land use context and framework? I think it is called joined-up government. If so, when might the land use framework consultation emerge?
Finally, I wish good luck to the Minister in responding tonight. The discussion has been amazingly wide, right across the energy policy agenda and beyond, for a very tiny Bill for a very specific purpose. It is going to be a bit like summarising the entire works of Proust in 21 seconds.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing this Bill today. I declare my interests as a member of the advisory board of Penultimate Power UK Ltd and as a consultant to Japan Bank for International Co-operation. I, too, congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Beckett, and my noble friend Lord Mackinlay of Richborough on their excellent maiden speeches.
In the debate on the King’s Speech, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of King’s Heath, explained the Government’s aim to make this country a clean energy superpower. He told your Lordships that the Government were focused on achieving clean electricity by 2030, with a system based on renewables and nuclear power, and then building on that momentum to achieve the ultimate goal of net zero by 2050.
It is not widely understood that the electricity grid provides only around one-fifth of our total energy consumed. The Minister said:
“The Great British Energy Bill, put forward in the gracious Speech, will establish a publicly owned company to spearhead our mission to become a clean energy superpower”.—[Official Report, 18/7/24; col. 33.]
Although he mentioned nuclear power as well as renewables, it appears that His Majesty’s Government have little interest in nuclear. In his briefing on the Bill, the Minister said that GBE, for now, would invest solely in renewables. That will disappoint the noble Baroness, Lady Winterton, who asked whether GBE could fund an SMR factory in South Yorkshire. Can the Minister confirm that he agrees that nuclear power provides energy that is just as clean as that from renewables? Could he also confirm that there is a compelling need for firm baseload power that does not suffer from intermittency? Large-scale, affordable energy storage is still decades away.
It is surprising that the Government have introduced this Bill to set up GBE without clarifying how GBE is going to relate to Great British Nuclear—GBN. GBN’s remit is not sufficiently clear, but, if the Government properly recognised our need for new nuclear and the huge contribution it could make to achieving clean energy, surely the two bodies should be combined, or at least work together. I was pleased to hear the Minister say that the Government will explore how GBE will work with GBN, but there is nothing at all, yet, in the Bill about this. The noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, expressed similar concerns in his well-informed speech, with all of which I was in full agreement.
There is of course, as my noble friend Lady Bloomfield well explained, a third government body in this space—the former United Kingdom Infrastructure Bank, now known as the national wealth fund. Its website explains that it will continue to make private sector investments against a clear set of priorities, with a focus on “crowding in” private finance to sectors and technologies that are critical to the UK’s clean energy and growth ambitions.
Clause 3 of the Bill before us today states the objects of GBE, of which the first is the provision of clean energy. Another object is improving energy efficiency. But pursuing a dual system of renewables and gas which you only use when there is not enough wind is inherently inefficient and leads to excessively volatile and unnecessarily high prices. These objects are substantially the same as several of the objectives of the national wealth fund, contained in Clause 2 of the UKIB Act. The NWF is set to be capitalised with £27.8 billion, compared with £8.2 billion for GBE, and that only within the course of this Parliament. GBN is clearly the poor cousin as it does not have any money to make investments. It has only the £342 million of net assets showing on its balance sheet on 31 March 2023. This again shows the low priority that the Government give to nuclear power. How is GBN going to make a contribution to funding the procurement of at least two SMRs, as declared?
In January this year, the former Secretary of State designated the former British Nuclear Fuels Ltd as GBN under the Energy Act 2023. According to Companies House, the Secretary of State referred to in the Act as the “person of significant control” is the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, Ed Miliband. Can the Minister tell the House what ambitions the Secretary of State has for nuclear in the next five years? Could he tell the House whether the last Government’s 24-gigawatt target for nuclear, which many think too low, is still in place, and, specifically, what are the targets for large-gigawatt stations, SMRs and AMRs?
It is widely accepted that we need firm baseload power to provide electricity when the wind does not blow and the sun does not shine. My noble friend Lord Frost, in his excellent speech on 14 November, drew attention to the fact that in the week of 3 to 10 November, wind accounted for a mere 10% of electricity generated. I have checked this fact on the National Grid’s energy dashboard website. What that means, as was so well explained by my noble friend Lord Howell, is that wind power provided only around 2% of the country’s energy consumption during that week. As noble Lords are well aware, we have not seen much sunshine lately.
In the same week, solar power accounted for 0.7% of electricity generated: that is, 0.14% of total energy consumed. During that same week, gas-fired power stations accounted for 52.2%, nuclear for 14.3% and electricity imports for 11.3%—even that was more than the contribution from wind. And what do imports do for energy security? Do these facts not suggest that we absolutely cannot rely on renewables to continue to decarbonise the grid, or even begin to replace our much larger industrial energy consumption, which is still dependent largely on oil and gas?
Even those of us who are not convinced that the slight increase in the proportion of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere in recent years—from 0.037% in 2000 to 0.042% in 2024—controls nearly all aspects of climate strongly support the development of clean energy. But if we need firm baseload energy, as shown in the week of 3 November, why do we not prioritise nuclear power now? The Government have said that they will work with the private sector to double onshore wind, triple solar power and quadruple offshore wind by 2030. They will invest in carbon capture and storage, and hydrogen and marine energy, and ensure that we have the long-term energy storage our country needs. That would all be prohibitively expensive, and we are already losing our remaining manufacturing competitiveness because our electricity is among the most expensive in the world: twice as much as in Japan and more than twice as much as in the United States.
The OBR’s economic outlook forecasts that subsidies to gas providers to maintain a fleet of power stations “just in case” will have to quadruple. Is it not true that the Government continue to push the 2030 net-zero agenda harder and faster than ever, but without any proper cost-benefit analysis? My noble friend Lord Frost has queried why we need subsidies at all if the real cost of offshore wind is £44 per megawatt hour, as suggested by NESO—well below current market prices and the prices agreed in auction rounds. Onshore wind projects have been subsidised since the first wind farm at Delabole in Cornwall in 1991. Why are we still subsidising them? Why are electricity consumers forced to pay much higher prices for their electricity because a significant part of those charges are subsidies for renewables? That has distorted, and continues to distort, the market.
The proposal to transfer renewables electricity subsidies to gas bills does not solve the problem; it merely delays it for another day. But if subsidies are justifiable, why is the consumer not subsidising nuclear technologies too? Can the Minister justify continuing to force the consumer to pay for wind but not nuclear? The Government have provided a tiny amount of financial support to developers of nuclear technologies, compared with other countries such as the United States and France. France generates around two-thirds of its electricity from nuclear power. By 2018 the United States was generating half its emissions-free electricity from nuclear sources.
GBN is concentrating on selecting winners in the SMR competition. There are four companies still in the race, of which three are American-owned. Only Rolls-Royce represents British industry and technology. There are other technologies, some of which were invented here, such as the high temperature gas-cooled reactor technology invented at Winfrith, Dorset in 1965 by the UKAEA. The IP is owned by the Japan Atomic Energy Agency. The Japanese Government, who are still constrained in their domestic development of nuclear power because of the 2011 Fukushima disaster, have wanted to collaborate with overseas Governments, especially the UK, in supporting the commercial development of this technology. The demonstrator has been running in Japan for more than 10 years and is inherently safe. The heat energy produced by an HTGR at 950 degrees Celsius enables the decarbonisation of many industrial processes, including the production of green hydrogen at scale.
Unless the Government change course very soon, we will miss the chance to become the manufacturing and distribution hub for EMEA—this invaluable technology, which is now languishing in phase B of the Government’s AMR competition. They have committed a mere £55 million from the future nuclear enabling fund, to be shared between two successful bidders, but there is no commitment that this competition will continue; its only purpose is to construct a demonstrator by the early 2030s, in time for potential AMRs to support net zero by 2050. We will have missed the boat by a country mile.
We have the chance to put together a public-private UK-Japan consortium to commercialise this technology now. We should press ahead with that, and with Rolls-Royce’s SMR technology, using home-grown knowledge and experience developed over 60 years of supporting the Royal Navy’s nuclear fleet. New nuclear builds would support thousands of highly-skilled jobs, directly and in the supply chain, during construction and then for decades during operation, often in remote areas of the country. They would reuse locations where existing grid connections are in place.
The Bill is very short and says little about the governance of the company. Some of it is similar to the UKIB Act but it gives little indication of what the company will do and how it will operate. The Government claim that
“GBE will take a stake for the British people in projects and supply chains that accelerate technologies for the future”.—[Official Report, 18/7/24; col. 33.]
Yes, the Government should do this but GBE, as envisaged by the Bill, does not provide the answer. As my noble friend Lord Lilley said in his powerful speech, we need to know much more about the strategies and priorities of GBE.
We may or may not be close to a climate emergency or climate crisis, but we are most certainly facing an energy apocalypse now. The Government should urgently reconsider the role of nuclear energy and bring GBE together with GBN now, properly capitalised to act as a catalyst in averting the energy emergency we face; or, at the very least, they should devise a structure whereby possible nuclear energy projects are evaluated in a manner similar to renewables projects. Furthermore, the Bill gives the Secretary of State very great powers. He is required to inform Parliament of general or specific directions, but he is not accountable to Parliament at all in respect of his position of control within GBE. Parliamentary oversight needs to be strengthened.
I apologise for going on for so long, but this is very important. I look forward to working with noble Lords on all Benches to carry out our duty to scrutinise and improve this Bill.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to wind up in this debate. I welcome to the House the noble Baroness, Lady Beckett, with her 45 years of experience and her wisdom. I know that she will make an important contribution here. I also welcome the noble Lord, Lord Mackinlay. Not only did he beat Al Murray and Nigel Farage on the same night but I am so delighted that he beat sepsis as well. I wish him well in his campaigning in this House—it was emotional for me when he entered, so I wish him well.
We on these Benches welcome this important and timely Bill. But, like many of your Lordships, we have concerns with it and how it is set out. These relate to the clarity of the strategic objectives, the purpose, the definition and the scope, as well as the lack of reporting, accountability and oversight within the Bill. The noble Baronesses, Lady Bloomfield, Lady Hayman and Lady McIntosh, and the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, all raised this.
Other areas of the Bill are not defined well enough, which leaves us in a difficult position as legislators. The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, said that it is a “seriously flawed” Bill. I do not agree with that—it is an important Bill—but some points need clarification. I hope to work with Members across the House to help clarify some of these matters, because the Bill is important to our energy security and our future. I thank the Minister and his Bill team for meeting us all, cross-party, before the debate. This is important, and I welcome his commitment, his openness and his approach to the Bill.
The Bill is very short—in some respects, it is perhaps too short for its own good. It establishes Great British Energy, a publicly owned company owned solely by the Secretary of State. Some Members questioned whether other options might be appropriate, looking at whether that could be expanded slightly or changed. The Bill fulfils a Labour Party manifesto commitment to achieve net zero and to make energy generation clean from carbon by 2030.
Great British Energy’s founding statement says:
“Great British Energy stems from a simple idea: that the British people should have a right to own and benefit from our natural resources. That these resources belong to all of us and should be harnessed for the common good”.
What is not to agree with there? We definitely agree with that. Backed with an initial capitalisation of some £8.3 billion over this Parliament, the plan is that GB Energy will work closely with industry, local authorities, communities and other organisations to make progress on our energy independence. It should be noted that this funding does, however, drop to £125 million in 2025-26.
GB Energy will invest in and partly own new projects, crowding in and not crowding out private finance. This is key to the energy transition, but this will be a difficult tightrope for that organisation to walk—that is a very small space. It aims to take on elements of risk, invest in emerging technologies and lay the groundwork for investment, helping to build the UK supply chains and deliver much-needed jobs and growth.
We have the third-best wind resources in the world, and they are still largely underdeveloped. We also have some of the highest domestic energy bills in Europe. But our continued dependence on the importation of gas must end. If we continue to lack energy independence, we will continue to be vulnerable to the vast fluctuations in the international markets. It is always our domestic bill payers who suffer. Today, we are at the start of a cold spell in winter. Continued international tensions mean that the gas and energy markets are rising as we speak.
The energy transition will bring short-term costs, but it will bring long-term benefits and security, and it will reduce bills permanently. However, energy bill payers must be supported and must benefit from that transition process. Equally, huge costs come from simply doing nothing. It is estimated that, in 2022-23, the energy bill support scheme cost the Government £6 billion, with absolutely no long-term benefits. So when the Conservatives go on about costs, they should remember that the biggest cost of all is that of doing nothing. The promise is that GB Energy will save some £300 a year. I hope that it does and that that happens soon.
I turn to our areas of concern with the Bill. The first is the general lack of funding available. There is a big, long shopping list of stuff that needs to be done, and my concern is that, because Labour cut its green budget virtually in half before the general election, there is not enough money to do everything on that list. Therefore, priorities will have to be set, which means that the money needs to be spent very wisely.
Can I ask the Minister to provide the House with further clarity on what, if any, borrowing powers GB Energy will have and how they will be used and monitored? Further, will the national wealth fund be supporting GB Energy and, if so, how? Many Members have asked that. It is also unclear whether GB Energy will be able to use debt financing powers and how that would sit on Treasury balance sheets. When does he believe GB Energy will be able to make its own investments?
A great concern for us is the lack of any written strategic priorities for GB Energy. A plan needs to be made and there needs to be scope in the Bill for parliamentary oversight of it. I welcome the comment by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, that this needs to be in the Bill. It is clear from discussions with the Minister that the plan is not yet written and is unlikely to be ready before we finish scrutinising the Bill. That puts us, as a House, in a difficult position. The legislative cart has been put before the strategic priorities horse.
We need to find a way forward through that. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, said it was a skeleton without any flesh. There are ways in which we can find solutions—we could delay Report; we could ask for a draft publication to be made available; we could even ask for heads of terms to be agreed with the Minister, or verbal assurances to be given by the Minister from the Dispatch Box. We should have an opportunity for parliamentary oversight. That is really important. Moreover, there should be opportunities for a further strategic review of those priorities if they change.
There is no overall reporting or accountability for GB Energy in the Bill. Other than what it must provide—like every other UK company—to Companies House, there is literally no reporting. That is not good enough, and it needs to change. Many Members have raised that in the House. We added a reporting duty to the Crown Estate Bill. My suggestion is that a similar thing is done here for GB Energy—it could have agreed headings and things that need to be reported on. Reporting needs to happen, and there needs to be parliamentary scrutiny.
What is the area for GB Energy? The Bill has such an inclusive and broad range that it is impossible to know what is included and what is not. It could virtually spend 98% of its money on nuclear energy or it could spend 98% on carbon capture and storage, despite the fact that that has already been given £22 billion. There are no definitions at all and, looking around the House, I think that worries noble Lords considerably. They do not know where the money will be spent and what the priorities are. The House as a whole is asking for clarification on those issues.
We understand that the Government do not want to be restricted, that a lot of this money will be seed money and enabling money, and that the Government want freedom to do that work. However, that needs to be balanced against the need for some clarity of what we are signing up to and approving.
There is also a need for a general environmental duty. We put one in the Crown Estate Bill. That should be copied over. I welcome the support of the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayman and Lady Young, for a nature recovery duty as well. We will support that; it is an important duty. I ask the Minister to consider that.
Clause 6 was raised by the noble Lords, Lord Lilley and Lord Bourne. It gives the Secretary of State sleeping powers. I note that he has to consult with GB Energy beforehand and to report to the House afterwards. Are those powers really necessary? Are they appropriate? Should the Minister maybe come to the House before using those powers and seek some kind of approval? I do not know—they seem a little over the top for what is necessary. They are copied from the nuclear industry. We are talking about windmills and stuff here. Do we need that power?
Other elements are missing from the Bill altogether. Community energy is something that we on these Benches will be concentrating on a lot. Community energy must appear in the Bill and in the strategic objectives for GB Energy. I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayman and Lady Young, for supporting this. The founding statement makes welcome claims, and the Minister gives his assurances. However, the reality is that there is nothing in the Bill or in the strategic priorities.
We all want community-led energy to succeed and to experience accelerated growth from its very small base of 0.5% of our energy, but this will happen only if those who invest to make that growth happen have the confidence that this Government truly support this as a way forward. Vague promises are not investment options. Real-worth investment in this sector requires firm commitments from the Government, so I will seek to work with the Minister to make sure that we write this into the Bill and the strategic objectives, because, without that, it will not happen. It is an important part of the energy transition, an important part of taking communities with us and an important part of strengthening and decentralising our grid. In fact, I would like to see a plug and play system designed for community energy, linking together planning, investment and everything else that needs to happen across the piece, so that this stuff can really get off the ground. When will this investment in community energy come?
There is no point in creating renewable energy if we cannot plug it in when it is finished. Similarly, there are real issues around grid capacity and grid connections—lots of noble Lords raised that. My understanding from the Minister is that the grid is not in or crucial to the Bill, so where will the funding for grid connections come from? How that will be done is really important. Similarly, home heating accounts for 18% of CO2 emissions in this country. I call on the Minister to look at using GB Energy as a vehicle for helping to get heat pumps into homes. We need 600,000 heat pumps to be brought into our homes annually by 2028. There is no mechanism and no promise of doing that at the moment. The noble Lord, Lord Deben, suggested allowing people to borrow against their mortgages to pay for the cost of heat pumps. I suggest that GB Energy could be a vehicle to help make that happen, making it affordable to homeowners so we can get this stuff done.
In the transition, jobs and skills are really important as well. The noble Lord, Lord Ashcombe, and others mentioned this. There was not much in the Budget. The Budget itself, despite all the investments, is not creating real long-term growth, so I really encourage the Minister and the Government to invest more in jobs and skills so that the green transition benefits people and brings benefits to them.
Spatial planning has also been mentioned. A number of new organisations are being created here; the landscape is changing. We have NESO, Ofgem, the Crown Estate, GBN and GBE. How will they all work together? These are questions that people asked.
Finally, to wrap up, I encourage the Government to look at future-proofing GBE to make sure that it outlasts this Government and the next.
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
My Lords, I begin by welcoming the noble Baroness, Lady Beckett, and the noble Lord, Lord Mackinlay of Richborough, to this House and congratulate them on two magnificent maiden speeches.
We are debating a Bill that grants the Secretary of State sweeping powers to establish Great British Energy, a publicly owned energy company, with an £8.3 billion allocation of taxpayers’ money. With the Government unilaterally accelerating the target for zero-carbon electricity to 2030, it is obvious that the Bill is ideologically fuelled, with energy analysts such as LCP Delta stating that there is “zero chance” that the Government will meet that 2030 goal.
The substance of the Bill is equally concerning. Despite its far-reaching aims, the Bill is notably lacking in detail, as my noble friend Lord Lilley pointed out. There is no clear business plan, no accountability framework and no specific road map for how the Government intend to deliver on these unrealistic promises. In short, the Bill seems more about political grandstanding at COP 29 than about practical solutions.
During the last election, the Government made countless promises to working people that this Bill would reduce their energy costs. Yet, what we see today is a Bill that is short on details and long on empty promises. When the Government had the chance to enshrine this pledge in law, they voted in the other place against a Conservative amendment that would have made the £300 reduction a legal priority for GBE. Why, then, have the Government refused to commit to the very promise they made to the British public? I join my noble friend Lady Bloomfield in asking the Minister to give guidance on how much energy bills are expected to fall by 2030: maybe not by £300, but can we please have at least an indication of how that will be fulfilled?
Labour’s plan to create 650,000 green jobs across the country by 2030 as part of the green prosperity plan also need to be substantiated. Again, there is no mention of this in the Explanatory Notes or the founding statement. While they made this bold claim again in their manifesto, they have failed to provide any concrete details on how this would be achieved, leaving many workers concerned about their future. There is a genuine fear that without proper planning and support, individuals could find themselves jobless or unable to transition their skills to new industries.
While this Government claim to be the party for working people, they have failed to anticipate where the jobs for these working people will come from in the Great British Energy Bill. As mentioned by my noble friend Lady Bloomfield, 200,000 jobs already exist in the North Sea oil and gas sector. We know that 40,000 of those are at risk under the current plans, so again, my question to the Minister is quite simple: what is the plan to deliver on these pledges on jobs, when jobs are already being lost in the existing oil and gas sector?
The Government’s 2030 target to decarbonise the UK electricity grid sounds bold but in reality, the National Energy System Operator has called it immensely challenging. Is not this clean energy target really about infrastructure? NESO’s latest report lays bare the scale of the hurdles we face. To come even close to hitting this target, we need to invest £40 billion a year, every year, to fund grid upgrades, renewable generation and storage capacity. When you start looking at the facts, you see that this should not be reduced to a political slogan. It is a monumental challenge that requires far more than the details outlined in the Great British Energy Bill.
We are told by energy players that, in order to meet this 2030 target, we need to overhaul the national grid. Again, I ask the Minister: where is the national grid even mentioned in this Bill? If the Government are truly serious about addressing the energy crisis, why is the grid, the very backbone of our energy system, not even part of the conversation? Where are the clear policies on expanding grid infrastructure? Where is the commitment to solving the grid bottleneck that hampers renewable energy connection at the moment? Why are we talking about targets without addressing the structural issues that will make or break any decarbonisation effort?
I must agree with the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, who said last week in our energy debate that:
“The UK is world class in setting targets”,—[Official Report, 14/11/24; col. 1954.]
but less so at delivering actions. How can we decarbonise when the grid cannot even handle today’s demand, let alone the future of renewable energy? If we are serious about the 2030 target, then surely the grid must be at the heart of this Bill, not an afterthought.
Let us consider the Bill’s relationship with the UK Infrastructure Bank, which was highlighted by a number of noble Lords, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Vaux. The bank was launched with a £22 billion fund and comes and with a clear and structured accountability and transparency framework. It is governed by rules that ensure that taxpayers’ money is used efficiently, and it is subject to rigorous annual reporting, providing the public with the necessary details on its performance and investments. If we are to create another institution with overlapping responsibilities, it is fair to ask: where is the real added value here?
In fact, Great British Energy hands over far greater powers to the Secretary of State. As highlighted by my noble friend Lady Noakes, £8.3 billion of taxpayers’ money will be handed over with too much discretion and without the proper frameworks to hold this body to account. How can we trust that the British taxpayer will get value for money if we are not putting in place on day one the necessary safeguards and reporting structures to ensure transparency and proper governance?
We have had the benefit of two such debates before today’s Second Reading, and in this time a number of themes have been discussed in your Lordships’ House. As my noble friend Lord Ashcombe pointed out, there is a consensus that at the moment, our energy system is run approximately 75% hydrocarbon and 25% non-hydrocarbon. We need to flip that on its head and make it 75% non-hydrocarbon, 25% hydrocarbon, but that does not mean zero hydrocarbon, and it does mean that we need more room for nuclear power.
In fact, in the debate last week, the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Madingley, said that we have a real good chance in the UK to meet these targets because of our pre-eminent position in science and technology. Therefore, when we hear the warnings of the industry that we are going too fast and the sudden acceleration is simply unachievable, I think there is a red warning flag that must be heeded.
We understand that, if it is £300 per household and there are almost 28 million households, that comes to £8 billion and we know that renewables cannot deliver at a return of £8 billion on top of £8 billion in five years, because renewables returns come over 20 years and not five years. So why are unreasonable numbers being put out into the public domain? Is it actually a good use of taxpayers’ money to put £8 billion into renewables? For example, there is a target of 100 offshore wind farms, with £35 billion committed and another £60 billion in the pipeline. Rather than being crowded in, the private sector has already decided this is a good area to invest in. Would the money not be better targeted, as was said, at the plumbing and the national grid? As we said last week, it was designed to send energy from Scunthorpe to Stornoway and is now sending energy from Stornoway to Scunthorpe.
These questions have been raised by a number of noble Lords across the House. We also have the issue of the North Sea oil and gas being shut down too quickly. There will be a real knock-on effect on our net zero by 2050 target. At the moment, more than half the renewable investment comes from hydrocarbon companies reinvesting their profits, and the skills of the people required to do the transition exist in the oil and gas sector.
Having had these two debates and the Second Reading, we have given this Bill a really good airing, and there are some warnings for the Government in accelerating this. We cannot be in a situation where the Government put forward bold targets and empty promises: we must have details. It is not reasonable to take on trust that £8 billion of taxpayers’ money will be well spent; we need some transparency and accountability in the Bill to ensure the funds are used effectively.
In conclusion, we have heard grand pledges on lower energy bills, but I think it is only fair that the Government back them up with some concrete actions, or at least some commitments. Again, with the promise of green jobs, we have yet to see any plans as to how those jobs are going to be protected. There are already workers facing job insecurity in the transition towards a low-carbon economy. As we have discussed, despite all the talk of decarbonisation, we still have not addressed the major issue of infrastructure.
So I ask, in conclusion, how can we trust the Government’s ambitions when the foundations for success are not set out more clearly in the Bill? Where is the plan for infrastructure? Where is the commitment to accountability? Where are the protections for the British taxpayer? And, most important of all, how will Great British Energy result in cheaper energy for UK consumers?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I begin by thanking all noble Lords who have taken part in this—yet again—very interesting debate about energy, climate change and the future. I particularly welcome the maiden speech of my noble friend Lady Beckett; her emphasis on UK climate leadership was particularly welcome, and hospital passes are something I certainly know a bit about. I was also very moved by the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Mackinlay. I echo his tribute to the Sepsis UK, with whom I have worked in the past, and I am glad he was able to meet the Secretary of State. I certainly agree with him about the importance of Parliament being able to scrutinise energy policy and I look forward to his further engagement in these debates.
The noble Lord made a reference to what was happening globally. I would say, though, that the International Energy Agency has shown very recently in its Renewables 2024 report that there will actually be a massive—2.7 times—increase in renewables leading up to 2030. It is clear that countries are not turning away from it. It is also clear that there is a global renaissance in nuclear energy, in which the UK will play a full part. This is the fourth time I have said this, because the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, asks the same question each time. What more can I do to say that nuclear is a very important part of what we are developing in the future, in terms of low-carbon and clean energy?
I think my noble friend Lord Grantchester and the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, really said it: in this area, government intervention is essential, and the link to climate change is absolutely critical here. The noble Lord, Lord Bourne, was so right: we are talking about the survival of the human race—nothing less than that.
Lord Lilley (Con)
I tabled a Question some time ago to ask the Government whether they knew of any peer-reviewed science or any science collected by the IPCC which suggested that there would be extinction of the human race if we did nothing worldwide—not as much as we are doing now, but nothing—and they said that there is no such peer-reviewed science. Why does the Minister rely on alarmism?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
I am not alarmist at all. I rely on report after report showing the consequences. Shall we turn to our own independent Climate Change Committee? The noble Lord supported the Conservative Government over a 14-year period. I did not see that Conservative Government disowning the independent advice they had received. He might as an individual, but I do not think his Government did. Noble Lords opposite, when they run down organisations such as the Climate Change Committee—or, indeed, the OBR, as they seem to now—need to remember that they listened to and reflected on the advice of those bodies during that 14-year period.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, that if climate change is critical, energy security comes a close second. That is, of course, what makes the Bill so important, so I hear what noble Lords are saying. The noble Lords, Lord Offord, Lord Duncan and Lord Bourne, the noble Baronesses, Lady Bloomfield and Lady Hayman, my noble friend Lord Hanworth, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and a number of other noble Lords have commented on the structure of the Bill, with concerns about a lack of detail and questions about the accountability of GBE to Parliament, how it is to be reviewed, and its relationship with the national wealth fund, Great British Nuclear, the Crown Estate, NESO, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, mentioned, the Climate Change Committee.
I also say to the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, that the fact that GBE is going to be headquartered in Scotland of course does not inhibit its UK-wide responsibilities. I have noted what he had to say about investment in Wales.
However, I accept that there are a number of organisations here and I will take it upon myself to write to noble Lords, setting out how we think the relationships will work together, as I think that will inform our discussions in Committee. On the structure of the Bill, noble Lords will know that this was laid in the Commons very soon after the election as an early priority of the Government. Because of that, we have focused, inevitably, on the provisions that are fundamental to the establishment of Great British Energy. Clearly, we are still working through some of the policy issues on which we need to come to a view, including, of course, discussing them with GBE and the devolved Governments. That is why the Bill, to an extent, does not have the detail which noble Lords wish to see.
However, I have listened very carefully. We will come to Committee, and I hope I can respond constructively to some of the issues that noble Lords have raised. Equally, I want to ensure that GBE is operationally independent and able to make its own decisions within the structure of the Bill and the strategic priorities laid down by the Secretary of State. We are listening very carefully to what noble Lords have to say.
As I said to the noble Lord, Lord Howell, last week in our debate on energy, I fully accept that our drive towards clean power by 2030 is but one aspect of the decarbonisation of society in this country and the move to net zero. In relation to transport, heating and industrial processes, this is a huge challenge and one which we are committed to achieving. The noble Lords, Lord Offord and Lord Ashcombe, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, asked about the clean power target. There are a number of different ways of reading the report from NESO, but it is quite clear that the number one message from NESO was that it is possible to build, connect and operate a clean power system for Great Britain by 2030 while maintain security of supply. I accept that it is very challenging—there is no doubt whatever about that—and the NESO report contains a number of those challenges. However, this is independent advice; it says that it can be done and we believe it can be done. It is very challenging, but it is doable.
On cost, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said, the biggest cost is doing nothing. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, said, the Climate Change Committee has said that the net cost of transition will be less than 1% of GDP over the entirety of 2020 to 2050. The OBR has highlighted that delayed action on reaching net zero will have significant negative fiscal and economic impacts and that acting early could
“halve the … cost of getting to net zero by 2050 compared to acting late”.
I noted also the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, on this.
I come to the Bill itself. The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, raised that we have partly used the UKIB legislation as a model for some of the clauses in this Bill. The noble Lord and the noble Baroness were particularly focused on the make-up of the board of directors. The fact is that we have brought in clauses from the Great British Nuclear provisions in the Energy Act. The structure very much follows that. We do not think that it was necessary to put into primary legislation provisions in relation to the board, because this will be covered. It is a company, and so will be encompassed within company law, the code of practice and sound corporate governance. GBE will have a chair and a chief executive officer, both of whom will be accountable to Ministers. It will have a board of directors that follows sound corporate governance practice, including the provisions of the UK Corporate Governance Code and those published by the Financial Reporting Council.
We want GBE and the national wealth fund to work closely together. As Great British Energy scales up, we will set out how the two institutions will collaborate and complement each other. On the issue of crowding out investment, surely my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer was right. The whole point about GBE is to speed up the deployment of mature and new technologies but with a focus on where this can complement existing private sector activities.
I must say that the references that the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, made to HS2 and the Post Office were a bit rich, considering the record of the Conservative Government’s stewardship, or not, over 14 years.
I will come on to Clause 3, the objects, which has drawn quite a lot of comment. I say to my noble friends Lady Winterton and Lord Grantchester and to the noble Lords, Lord Cameron and Lord Naseby, among others, that emerging technologies such as CCUS or hydrogen could be very much part of GBE’s portfolio once it is operational. I noted the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, on waste. On Drax, we had a good run on that a couple of weeks ago, although I may not have convinced noble Lords of the Government’s position. I look forward to discussing storage with the noble Lord, Lord Duncan, and my noble friend Lord Stansgate. I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ashcombe, on the potential of floating offshore wind.
We, of course, are reluctant to see a list of technologies. Noble Lords sitting on the Front Bench will be readily aware of the list argument, and it is well taken. If you list, you are at risk of excluding other technologies. One must be very careful not to constrain the ability of GBE in its operational independence and its ability to spot the technologies that need supporting. I do accept, with my noble friend Lady Young, that community energy has huge potential in itself and as a way to leverage public support generally for the kinds of changes that we need to see happen. We certainly believe that GBE will deliver a step change in investment in local community energy projects and will work strongly in partnership with local authorities and community groups to deliver this. I know that local authorities would welcome a much stronger partnership to enable this to happen. I take the point from the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, and my noble friend Lady Young about biodiversity. I look forward to discussing that further with them and in Committee.
I come now to my favourite topic: nuclear energy. First, we want to make sure that GBN can carry on with its work—the technology appraisal of the shortlisted technologies for the SMR programme is particularly important—and that it will work in complementary ways to GBE without there being duplication of effort. I picked up the important contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale. I say to the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, that nuclear power is not being underprioritised in my department. I need no persuading of the importance of nuclear energy. It acts as the essential baseload, and when it is aligned with gas that, in future, will be abated by CCUS, we will have the right balance to complement the intermittency of renewable energies.
On nuclear and resources, we have just announced a huge resource allocation to Sizewell C to get it over the next two years. We are working very fast towards final investment decisions over the next few months; we have the SMR programme and we are very excited by the potential of AMRs. I very much take what my noble friend Lady Winterton said about the potential of SMR manufacturing in the UK.
A number of noble Lords mentioned the grid and planning and what they described as the roadblocks to developers. I very much take that point. We have already signalled, in parallel with GBE, our intention to reform the planning system to enhance our grid connections. I take the point about the delays to the connection which developers are suffering at the moment. Clearly, we have to do something about that, but GBE’s main priority will be to help developers get through some of the roadblocks and focus on the energies that need support.
I noted with interest the comments the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, made about the impact on farmers and on fishing fleets. I accept that consultation and environmental assessments must continue to be made in any more streamlined planning process and expansion of the grid.
My noble and learned friend Lord Falconer and the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, raised the question of state subsidies and competition law. As an operationally independent company, GBE will be subject to the same legal and regulatory framework as other entities in relation to subsidy control and competition law, such as the Subsidy Control Act 2022. The Bill does not alter that framework.
I hear what noble Lords say on Clause 5 in relation to strategic priorities and the statement. It is unlikely that we will have published the statement of strategic priorities before Royal Assent, but I have listened to what noble Lords have said. I will reflect on that and I am sure we will discuss it further in Committee. Noble Lords seem to be indicating that they would like to discuss it in Committee.
On power of direction, the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, was particularly assertive that the Secretary of State would wish to take almost micromanagement control. I assure him that that is not the intention. It is a backstop, reserve power.
On the annual accounts and reports, there will, of course, be accountability. The chief executive officer will be the accounting officer. The National Audit Office will oversee. Ministers will answer to Parliament. Select Committees can invite GBE in to give evidence. Noble Lords will debate. We will have Questions and more general debates.
I listened to noble Lords and I understand that they have looked at the UKIB legislation. We will reflect on that, but my noble friend Lady Young is right: there is a balance here between due accountability and not putting a load of bureaucratic micromanagement on this organisation, which is not what we want to happen.
I absolutely agree with noble Lords that we must make the most of the supply chain. I picked up the point about skills and managing the transition in the North Sea.
The noble Lord, Lord Alton—my noble friend, if I may call him that—and I have worked together on these issues. I congratulate him on his work and the huge effort that he has made in Parliament, the influence that he has had on legislation, and the help that he gave me around enforced organ harvesting, particularly in Xinjiang province but in China more generally. At this stage, we expect UK businesses, including GBE, to do everything in their power to remove any instances of forced labour from their supply chains. They should not approve the use of products from companies that may be linked to forced labour. I am very happy to talk to the noble Lord about the energy potential of Merseyside, as he suggested, and to discuss the issues that he raised so eloquently.
I have reached the time limit. This has been a very good debate and I am most grateful to noble Lords. I would like to think that contributions were constructive, and I look forward to debating this in Committee.