House of Lords

Tuesday 3rd December 2024 Lords Chamber

Tuesday 3 December 2024

14:30

Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of London.

Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe

Tuesday 3rd December 2024 Lords Chamber

Question

14:37

Asked by

[Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate]

To ask His Majesty’s Government when they expect to announce the appointment of members for the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)]

My Lords, the Prime Minister announced the new UK delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe via Written Ministerial Statement on 14 November. We value the work of the UK delegation and look forward to working with its new leader, the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, and all other appointees.

[Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)]

I thank the Minister for that positive response. The Council of Europe is a very important body containing representatives from many countries, not just members of the EU. Can she confirm that the Government will give full, ongoing support to our parliamentary representatives with a view to further enhancing good relations with these neighbours, who share our beliefs in the rule of law, human rights and democracy?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I am very pleased to confirm that to the noble Lord, and I pay tribute to the work that he has done to promote the Council of Europe both in this House and earlier in his career as a Member of the European Parliament. It is important that we play a leading role in the Council of Europe, and we will continue to support our delegation in any way possible. My honourable friend Stephen Doughty, the Minister for Europe, will meet the delegation early in January, and it will be supported by our officials in Strasbourg as well. We look forward to working closely with it.

[Lord Touhig (Lab)]

My Lords, for the first time, Britain’s delegation to the Council of Europe has Labour, Conservative, Liberal Democrat, Cross-Bench and nationalist members. While we will have different views on many issues, it is my fervent hope that we will be united on matters important to Britain. In order that we achieve that, will my noble friend and her colleague Stephen Doughty meet the delegation on a regular basis so that we work to ensure that Britain plays a fully engaged and constructive part in the Council of Europe—the vision and legacy of Churchill, established by the Treaty of London signed in St James’s Palace 75 years ago?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I am very happy to confirm that on behalf of my honourable friend the Minister for Europe and I welcome the invitation to meet the delegation. We have 18 Members of this Parliament and 18 substitute Members. We have a very good delegation, as he says, representing both Houses and all parties.

[Lord Ricketts (CB)]

My Lords, while we are on the subject of UK delegations to European assemblies, does the Minister share my disappointment that we still do not have a UK delegation to the EU-UK Parliamentary Partnership Assembly? The European Parliament delegation is up and raring to go. Is it not a bit odd that it seems keener on a parliamentary reset than the Westminster Parliament?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, for his question. I do not know precisely why the nominations for this delegation have not yet been resolved. I believe that we on this side have resolved the issues; I do not know whether the noble Lord on the Front Bench opposite can shed some light. I understand that a change of Government, new roles and a change of leader will inevitably cause some delay, but I hope we can get this resolved very soon.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, could the Minister help us any more with any speculation as to what she thinks might be causing the delay? It is really not a good look that we have not yet got our act together to nominate the Westminster side of the parliamentary assembly with the European Parliament. It has been quite a few months since the general election. Some of us are very hopeful about the reset, and I am sure the Prime Minister does not want to keep meeting his EU counterparts with them saying, “Where are your Westminster people?”

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

The delay, I believe, is not something that is within my control, if I can put it that way. We are keen to get this moving. As soon as we receive the names from the Opposition in the other place then we will be in a position to move this forward. We want to engage with this on a cross-party basis, so being sympathetic and patient is the right approach. However, I am sure that noble Lords on both sides will have noted the eagerness to make progress from the noble Baroness and will take that into account.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, how much does our membership of this assembly cost us annually?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

My Lords, the cost of our membership of the Council of Europe is something in the region of £40 million per year.

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

My Lords, the Council of Europe remains one of the fora which is shared by Britain and Poland. Will the Minister please suggest to our delegation that the council puts on its agenda Poland’s breach for 75 years of the need to restore property that was stolen from Jewish and indeed non-Jewish victims in the Second World War? If they will not pay compensation, will they at least display a commemorative plaque?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I am sure that the leader of our delegation, the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, was listening closely to what the noble Baroness said. To remind noble Lords, the Council of Europe came out of the Second World War. The founding of the institution was led by Churchill and Bevin. We are very proud to be members of it, and the priority that it places on the rule of law and securing human rights is something that we can justifiably be proud of.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, I understand that the first meeting of the EU-UK body to happen since the election is pencilled in for mid-January. Will there come a point between now and then when, if the Government have not heard from the Conservatives as to who their members will be, they will at least announce who the other nominated members will be, so that we can at least get started?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I am conscious that this is a Question about the Council of Europe, but I can see the connection, and noble Lords are right to use this opportunity to raise these kinds of questions. I genuinely hope that we do not have to get to that position and that we can get the complete delegation identified and the names shared with both the House and Europe as soon as possible.

[Baroness Hooper (Con)]

My Lords, in the 10 years when I was very happily a member of the delegation to the Council of Europe, one of the most important functions that we had was to appoint the judges to the European Court of Human Rights. Can the Minister tell us whether the Government are giving any advice to the delegation in this respect?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

We have not as yet, because, as noble Lords will know, the delegation has only very recently been identified. The noble Baroness is right to say that that is one of the key functions of the parliamentary assembly, and we will look at who will be the best person both for the Council of Europe and the priority that the UK places on the important role of the European Court of Human Rights. We will take the appropriate action when the time comes.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords, as a former member of the committee of the Council of Europe that chose the judges, I suggest to my noble friend the Minister that the committee would be wary if there were undue pressure from the Government on the members in relation to the selection.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

That is quite right. I hope that I chose my words sufficiently carefully in my previous answer. Perhaps the term “appropriate action” is where I should have placed a little more emphasis. My noble friend is correct to remind me and other noble Lords of that fact.

Planning Reforms: Net-zero Carbon Emissions

Tuesday 3rd December 2024 Lords Chamber

Question

14:46

Asked by

[Lord McNicol of West Kilbride]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to ensure that their proposed planning reforms contribute to the delivery of net zero carbon emissions.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)]

My Lords, the planning system can of course play a powerful role in supporting the transition to a low-carbon future and in helping to shape places in ways that contribute to reaching net-zero carbon emissions. The recent National Planning Policy Framework consultation sought views on how best to strengthen planning policies to support clean energy and net-zero emissions. We are considering the response to that and will publish the updated framework before the end of the year.

[Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend the Minister for her response. Nye Bevan said in 1947 that

“we shall be judged for a year or two by the number of houses we build”,

but we shall be judged over decades

“by the type of houses we build”.

There is an opportunity with both retrofit and new build for the UK to be a world leader in the field of green standards and build, but that requires long-term planning and strategic oversight. Planning regulations and rules, combined with the proposed planning and infrastructure Bill, offer the vehicle to deliver that. Therefore, can my noble friend the Minister reassure me that the future homes standard will not be watered down, and that the presumption will be in favour of incorporating proven renewable technologies that both reduce consumers’ bills and help save the planet?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for his question. I agree with both him and Nye Bevan: this is a very important issue, and we need to set out how we support the transition to a low-carbon future in a changing climate. The National Planning Policy Framework will set that out, including the ways that both shaping places and building homes can contribute to radical reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and support renewable and low-carbon energy and associated infrastructure. The place-making aspect is very important. As someone from a new town, I have seen the benefit of good place-making. Of course, when my town was built, the idea of net zero was not on the scene, but we now need to take that into account too. We have consulted widely on the future homes standard, and we are currently considering further representations on solar. As I said, we will publish the NPPF before Christmas and the future homes standard early in the new year.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, as the noble Baroness just said, the Government will publish their conclusions on the NPPF by the end of this month. The consultation document suggested important new policies on housing targets, the grey belt, solar energy and wind farms. Will the House have an opportunity to debate the Government’s conclusions?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for his contribution to all the discussion on this issue during the passage of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill. The NPPF will be published before Christmas and there will be an Oral Statement to both Houses, so there will be a chance to question that Statement then. I will take back his point about a debate on this subject, but of course, any noble Lord is able to submit any topic for debate, as we know.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, what is the Government’s view of the World Climate Declaration, signed by some 2,000 scientists and professionals, who say that there is no climate emergency at all and that the pursuit of net zero is very damaging, particularly to the poorer countries of the planet?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am afraid I do not agree with that statement. We do need to reduce the carbon emissions in this country, and our Government have a clear mission to do that. It runs through every departmental objective, particularly in my department in the delivery of new homes.

[Baroness Hayman (CB)]

My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register. High standards of energy efficiency not only reduce emissions; they also give people lower bills and warmer, healthier homes. Will the Minster assure me that we have learnt the lessons of the downgrading of building standards nearly a decade ago? Retrofitting is far more expensive and disruptive, so can we see in the new standards really high-quality energy-efficiency methods, in particular solar, for new buildings, both domestic and business?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for the great contribution she has made in this area. We do need to learn lessons from what has happened in the past. The consultation sought views on revisions to the NPPF to increase support for renewable energy schemes, tackle climate change and safeguard environmental resources. Of course, ensuring that transition to clean power will help boost our energy independence, which is vital, reduce energy bills, support the high-skilled jobs and SME innovation we all want to see, and tackle the climate crisis. So, yes, we do take this very seriously. Those things will not be watered down. We are currently working on solar for the Future Homes Standard and we will be making more announcements shortly.

[Lord Grantchester (Lab)]

My Lords, one of the urgent challenges to deliver net-zero carbon emissions is to facilitate the delivery of onshore wind and solar, persistently denied by the previous Conservative Governments. Delivery of solar via grid connections to rural areas necessitates these reforms to speed up developments. The extension of regional mayors could be vital in this respect, as in the creation of a mayor for Warrington in Cheshire. Is my noble friend the Minister’s department working closely with DESNZ and Defra to enable these reforms to go ahead?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My noble friend is quite right about onshore wind and solar, and that is why the Chancellor announced in July the immediate removal of the inexplicable ban on onshore wind in England. The planning restrictions in place in England since 2015 could have led to a single objection to an onshore wind turbine preventing it being built. As I said, we are considering further the issues of solar, particularly the importance of connections to rural areas. His point about mayors is well made. We will be making a Statement about the English Devolution White Paper in the next few days. That will give powers to mayors to do the right thing and to drive this clean energy agenda forward in a way that is right for their area.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as laid out in the register. In their press release of 23 September, the Government said that all social housing will have to achieve an EPC rating of C. Can the Minister tell the House how much additional grant funding the Chancellor will allocate to support local authorities and councils to achieve this for existing properties?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

There has been significant additional funding for affordable housing, and some of that will of course be used for the net- zero agenda. That funding was found in spite of the £22 billion black hole we found in our budgets, and I am very pleased that we have been able to do that. It is important that, as we drive forward a revolution in social housing, building more of it than we have seen for generations, we make sure that those new social homes do not have to be retrofitted and are at the highest standard of net zero.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, building regulations —approved document L, in fact—set out how properties should be heated, so it is within the Government’s remit to change the building regulations to ensure that new properties have non-fossil fuel sources of heating, or indeed to require them to do so. What consideration have the Government given to amending building regulations as soon as possible—not waiting for the NPPF to be published and implemented—in order to ensure that new homes get non-fossil fuel sources of heat?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness. I am sure the NPPF will answer her question when it is published, before Christmas.

[Lord Ravensdale (CB)]

My Lords, I declare my interests as listed in the register. A Written Ministerial Statement from December last year is preventing a number of sustainable developments from being built across the UK, including Salt Cross in Oxfordshire, because it is constraining local authorities’ efforts to build houses that go beyond current building energy-efficiency regs. Can the Minister say what plans the Government have to revoke that Written Ministerial Statement and allow these developments to go ahead?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord, and I will take back the point on the Written Ministerial Statement, but plan makers’ powers have not been restricted. The Planning and Energy Act 2008 permits plan makers to set at the local level energy efficiency standards which go beyond national building regulation standards, provided that they do so in a manner consistent with national policy.

Illegal Migrant Returns Agreements

Tuesday 3rd December 2024 Lords Chamber

Question

14:56

Tabled by

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what progress they have made towards securing additional illegal migrant returns agreements with foreign governments.

[Lord Goodman of Wycombe (Con)]

On behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, and with his permission, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in his name on the Order Paper.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)]

The UK utilises a range of returns agreements and operational returns arrangements to facilitate the readmission to home countries of those with no right to remain here. We continue to engage with foreign Governments to maintain, develop and improve operational return processes and co-operation.

[Lord Goodman of Wycombe (Con)]

I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer. The Government recently signed a returns agreement with Iraq. Can he explain how this will work, given that the central Government of Iraq control part of the country and the Kurdish authorities another? In addition, can he give his assessment of the likely impact on this agreement of the current acceleration of hostilities in Syria?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his question. As he knows, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary visited Iraq last week and has engaged with the Government of Iraq to look at co-operation on a number of fronts, to try to stop small boats, to facilitate returns and to look at other issues to do with criminality, terrorism and co-operation between the two authorities on law enforcement matters. Further details of the engagement and discussion will be announced in due course. I hope the noble Lord recognises that that is another step to go with the 9,400 returns we have made and the 1,520 foreign national offenders we have deported, both since 5 July.

[Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, of course illegal immigration has to be dealt with but, frankly, I am more concerned about the impact of the 2.5 million people the last Government allowed in legally in the last two years. What assessment have the Government made of the impact of that on already creaking public services such as schools and hospitals? Where are all these people going to live, given that we are failing to build enough housing for people already in the country, and how on earth is it possible to integrate such a huge number of people arriving in such a short period of time?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My noble friend— I still call him that from days gone by—will be aware that only last week the Prime Minister announced a potential White Paper on net migration. Early in the new year and beyond, we will look at the issue of net migration. This Question focuses on return agreements. We have a significant number of return agreements in place with China, Moldova, Iraq and a whole range of other countries. I am very happy to supply him with the long list; it would take far too long if I read it all out today.

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, I declare my interest in that I am supported by RAMP. Voluntary removals, as opposed to enforced removals, have made up the majority of all removals every year since 2007. Voluntary removal is cheaper and more humane and does not require immigration detention. What are the Government’s plans to develop a more effective voluntary returns programme that provides independent advice and support to individuals, so that this route can be used to greater extent?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his question. It is really important that we have voluntary returns where people have no right of abode in the United Kingdom. Of the 9,400 returns since we have had custody of this post on 5 July 2024, 2,590 were enforced returns but the other 7,000-ish were voluntary returns. We need to encourage that, because if people have been through a range of mechanisms to ensure they have no right of abode in the United Kingdom, then, quite frankly, they have no right of abode.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, on 26 November I tabled a Written Question to the Minister asking why the Government do not routinely collect data on foreign national offenders who have been in prison for than more 12 months at the end of their sentence, whether they are deported and, if not, why not. Unfortunately, he did not provide me with an adequate Written Answer. Is he able to say now whether the Government intend to collect that data and, if not, why not?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Lord will be aware that the Government intend to look at a whole range of data. One of the reasons we have deported more than 2,500 people forcibly, including 1,500-plus people who are foreign national offenders, is that we recognise that when people have completed their sentence, there is the right to remove them if the Government wish to remove them. We get notification when foreign national offenders complete their sentences, and we will certainly examine that issue. Perhaps the noble Lord could ask his own Front Bench why there were 100,000 such foreign offences last year alone.

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

Is the Minister aware that in the past few weeks the police in the Republic of Ireland have been stopping buses coming over from Northern Ireland, checking identity and immigration status and sending people back to Northern Ireland? Has he had any discussions with the Irish Government on this, and is it affecting in any way the common travel area?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I take what the noble Baroness has said at face value. I have not had any exposure to that issue—it has not come across my desk—but I will take it away and reflect on it. I assure her that there is co-operation between the Irish authorities and the United Kingdom authorities—and, indeed, the Northern Ireland Assembly—on all matters relating to the common travel agreement area.

[The Lord Bishop of London]

My Lords, I welcome the action that the Government are taking to get on top of the asylum backlog and to process claims formerly deemed as inadmissible. I appreciate, therefore, that more individuals may be found ineligible for asylum and may need to return. Therefore, are the Government going to review the current safeguarding policies in place for enforced return and, if so, how?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate for her question and comments. We will certainly keep that under review. It is important that people have both safeguarding properly implemented and any removal, either forced or voluntary—going back to a question raised earlier—done in as humane a way as possible. I will certainly reflect on the points she has made and give her further clarification in writing.

[Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)]

My Lords, we welcome that 9,400 have been returned, and I congratulate the Minister on that. How many of those 9,400 came here on small boats, and which countries were they returned to?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am very pleased that the noble Lord welcomes that, because it is in fact a 19% increase on when his party was in office before 5 July. The 1,500 foreign national offenders are a 14% increase over the year in which his party was last in office. I cannot get into it today because it would take too long to look at where the 9,400 are from and how many came from where, how and when, but let me reassure him. We are about processing asylum, stopping the small boats and putting in security. [Interruption.] The noble Lord is heckling, saying, “How many in small boats?”. Let us look at the next 12 months and see how many have come in small boats then. It will be far fewer than when his Government were in office.

[Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)]

My Lords, on the over 9,000 people who have been deported—a cross-section of people, as the Minister mentioned—where can we find the detailed information on where they have been deported to? It appears to be quite difficult to find clarification. My brief second point is on Iraq, which the Minister mentioned. Can he confirm to this House whether the death penalty is still in place in Iraq?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I do not know whether it is fashionable to say this, but I do not know the answer to the question about the death penalty in Iraq. I will certainly find out and write to the noble Baroness accordingly.

Where they have been deported to is a range of countries, which again is too long to list. The noble Baroness will be aware that there are lots of countries where those transfers are taking place, including Zimbabwe, Iraq, Senegal, Gambia and Algeria. If she wishes to know about the 9,400, that is like asking whether one can name the crew of a particular ship. I cannot, but I can find someone who can.

[Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I welcome the prospect of a returns agreement with Iraq, but some of those who come across from Iraq on boats may not be anxious to return, for one reason or another. They may, of course, get rid of their passports and conceal where they came from. Do the Government have any idea how to deal with that problem?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The Government are obviously continually trying to look at that very issue, and that is a fact of life. Since 5 July, four flights have taken place and they are the four biggest return flights in the United Kingdom’s history, with 852 people leaving on them. It is an objective of this Government to remove those people who are identified as not having the right to live in the United Kingdom. We have started doing that with nearly 1,000 people—852 on four flights. We will continue to do that with the 9,400 we have mentioned. That number will only rise and will continue to do so.

Undersea Cables

Tuesday 3rd December 2024 Lords Chamber

Question

15:07

Asked by

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the recent severing of two fibre optic cables in the Baltic Sea and of the arrangements in place to protect undersea cables serving the United Kingdom.

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, I refer to my interest as chair of the National Preparedness Commission and beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

[The Minister of State, Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (Lord Vallance of Balham) (Lab)]

We are working closely with international partners following the breakage of two subsea telecommunications cables in the Baltic Sea a fortnight ago. It is important that we let those investigations run their course. Subsea cables are critical to UK telecommunications digital infrastructure, and we are committed to maintaining and enhancing the security and resilience of that infra- structure. We will continue to co-ordinate with security partners, the subsea cables industry and international bodies on this issue.

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply and the recognition of the criticality to the UK of these subsea connections. What consideration are the Government giving to protection and making sure that we can recover quickly in circumstances in which those cables are disrupted or severed? I understand that in Australia, for example, the equivalent of Ofcom requires a licence from those making those connections, and that licence must specify what arrangements are in place for the immediate repair of any severed cable. Are we considering such measures or any others?

[Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for that question. There are 64 cable systems that leave the UK, with 116 cables. About 200 cables break every year around the world, and 10 to 20 of those are in the UK. There is a system of payment from the companies for a ship which gives 24-hour, seven-days-a-week coverage for repairs, as well as systems, of course, to get other commercial repairs done at a slower pace. We work closely with others around the world, including the Australians, and are aware of that model. There are rather specific circumstances which mean that, at the moment, that does not work here, but the ability to get ships rapidly to broken cables is important and that is facilitated by the planning arrangements in place.

[Lord Stirrup (CB)]

My Lords, protection is important, but there is no such thing as a perfect defence. Apart from repair, resilience is crucial in this area as in so many others. What stress-testing has been carried out to identify the range of impacts that could result from interruptions to our undersea infrastructure? What measures would be necessary to ameliorate the impact of those interruptions?

[Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)]

The cable system is regularly reviewed. As I said, 10 to 20 cable breaks occur per year, largely as a result of fishing, anchor pullage and undersea landslips. DSIT, the MoD and other parts of the system review this under the national risk assessment to keep looking at what is required for a resilient system.

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

My Lords, do we have an agreed retaliation doctrine?

[Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)]

As I have said, the view is that, of the 10 to 20 breaks per year, nearly all are due to fishing vessels, anchors and natural events under the sea. Clearly, that is not a retaliation issue. I think the noble Earl is talking about malign attacks, and we have to wait for the outcome of the investigations into the current breaks.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords, the German Defence Minister was quick off the mark in ascribing the damage to sabotage. Do the Government agree? Do they point the finger at the Chinese or the Russians?

[Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)]

At the moment, the answer is neither, because an investigation is being undertaken by Lithuanian, Swedish, Finnish and German ministries to try to understand exactly what went on. Until that report is out, it is premature to speculate.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, it is not just undersea fibre-optic cables which bring vital supplies to our shores. UK energy security is highly dependent on undersea gas pipelines and electricity interconnectors. Recently, we have seen reports of suspicious Russian ships near Norwegian gas hubs. Pat McFadden has warned of cyberattacks on our energy networks. Can the Minister reassure us that the UK Government are actively working with our allies to provide adequate protection for our undersea energy infrastructure?

[Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)]

I thank the noble Earl for the question. This is an important area. As I have said, most of the breaks are not malign, but there is, of course, that risk. Regular reviews are undertaken as part of the national risk assessment. The MoD works with DSIT and others to look at what the risks are. We also work continuously with partners, including NATO. In 2023, there was a specific NATO action to look at critical undersea infrastructure co-ordination to make sure that a response and detection system was in place.

[Lord West of Spithead (Lab)]

My Lords, the joint maritime operations centre, together with the embedded national maritime intelligence centre, are able to monitor shipping throughout our EEZ and European waters, so we know where those ships are. We know which Russian ships in particular are involved in this sort of operation. We have now purchased the RFA “Proteus”, which we should be able to get to where these events are happening. When will we get the second ship? When will we be on top of one of these when it is doing something? I do not know about retaliation, but would we then be able to arrest a ship in our EEZ that was damaging one of our cables?

[Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for the question. It is quite a long way from my brief in DSIT. If I may, I shall try to get somebody to answer it for him.

[Lord Rogan (UUP)]

My Lords, according to experts, around 75% of transatlantic undersea cables in the northern hemisphere pass through or near Irish Sea waters. As a country that spends around 0.2% of its GDP on security and defence, the Republic of Ireland does not possess anywhere near the capability to protect them. Has this job fallen to the United Kingdom Government? If so, who is paying the bill?

[Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)]

The detection of breaks is done from land, but the ability to repair them is through an agreement with the commercial companies, which pay into a fund that allows a ship to be on 24/7 standby to provide protection. That is paid for by the companies that put the cables in place.

[Viscount Camrose (Con)]

My Lords, we of course recognise and share the Government’s and House’s concern about increased Russian military activity around these undersea cables. I was pleased that the Minister a couple of times referenced the risk assessments going on, but can he tell the House a little more and expand on his earlier answers about those risk assessments? How do they take place and how often do they occur?

[Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)]

The national risk assessment is undertaken regularly and led by the Cabinet Office. In this instance, DSIT is the department responsible for the risk to the cables overall, but it is in collaboration with the MoD, the Cabinet Office and others, particularly in relation to assessing risks other than those that I have outlined.

[Lord Trefgarne (Con)]

My Lords, are these cables used only for civilian purposes or also for military purposes?

[Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)]

The cables provide the connections that we need for all purposes across telecommunications.

[Baroness Stuart of Edgbaston (CB)]

My Lords, may I tempt the Minister again to stray a little from his brief and to return to naval support? At the moment, RFA “Proteus” is the only ship that protects our undersea cable structure. Is his department making representations to the strategic defence review to ensure that a second vessel is purchased?

[Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)]

There are two vessels. The “Sovereign” is the repair vessel I referred to, which the cable companies pay for and is on standby 24/7 to repair the cables. “Proteus” has a different purpose; it is an MoD vessel that can take account of all underwater structures. It is not a DSIT vessel but an MoD vessel with broad responsibilities.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, one way to mitigate risk is to have redundancy in the capacity of the cables, but redundancy costs money for the commercial organisations that own those cables. What is DSIT doing to ensure that there is sufficient redundancy to give us the protection that we need?

[Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for a very important question. As I said, there are some 64 cable systems and 116 cables. We have a lot of redundancy in the system. Despite getting 10 to 20 breaks every year, they do not lead to an interruption because of that redundancy. Three things are important for the redundancy: the number of cables, the geographical diversity or spread of the cables—which provides protection—and the 24/7 emergency repair capability, with a planning consent that allows the vessel to get in very quickly.

Respect Orders and Anti-social Behaviour

Tuesday 3rd December 2024 Lords Chamber

Statement

The following Statement was made in the House of Commons on Wednesday 27 November.

“With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a Statement on the Government’s action to tackle anti-social behaviour.

From residential neighbourhoods to busy high streets, from rolling countryside to city centres, and from idyllic villages to bustling towns, the places of Britain should be a source of local pride. As well as being safe, they should feel safe for those who live and work in them, yet the dismal reality is that in too many areas the opposite is true. In the last year of the previous Government, shop theft soared by 29% to a 20-year high, street theft surged by 40% and anti-social behaviour reached new heights in our towns and cities. That is the Conservative Party’s legacy on law and order.

Up and down the country, people feel uneasy or even unsafe. Unruly gangs roam the streets, creating intimidation and fear; noisy off-road vehicles speed around, disturbing the peace; illegal drugs are abused with brazenness; public spaces are awash with litter and graffiti; and an epidemic of shop theft is plaguing retailers, big and small, while their staff are subjected to intolerable levels of abuse and violence.

At its core, this is about respect: respect between citizens, respect for our society and the expectations underpinning it, and respect for the rule of law. All those are woven into the fabric of our democracy, but, after years of neglect, that fabric has become worn. We saw a disgraceful illustration of that in the summer when serious disorder erupted in some towns and cities. We see it on a smaller scale every day as decent, law-abiding people suffer due to the selfishness of others.

More than a third of people—36%—in England and Wales report experiencing or witnessing some type of anti-social behaviour in their local area, while about a million incidents of anti-social behaviour were recorded by police in the year to June 2024. We must never make the mistake of dismissing this menace as low-level or trivial; to do so would be an insult to the victims. It may manifest itself in different ways in different areas, but wherever and however it occurs there is an adverse impact on neighbourhoods and communities.

Anti-social behaviour chips away at people’s sense of pride and confidence in their local area. It ruins their enjoyment of public spaces. For those affected by the most serious and persistent cases, their quality of life is damaged. One victim quoted in a report on anti-social behaviour published recently by the Victims Commissioner said:

‘Every day I’m crying … It makes me anxious … and it actually makes me physically sick’.

Another said:

‘It’s totally isolating and nobody can understand the pressure it puts on you’.

I am sure that all honourable Members across the House will be familiar with accounts like those from the all too frequent interactions we have with our constituents on these issues.

Earlier this month, I visited Leyton in east London, where I heard from local councillors about the importance of partners working together to tackle anti-social behaviour. More recently, the Home Secretary and I met victims of anti-social behaviour and shop theft, Annie Valentine and Brian Roberts from Blackpool and Tim Nye from Sheffield, to hear about their concerns at first hand.

This cannot go on, and the Government will not stand for it. That is why the Prime Minister has made safer streets a central pillar of our agenda for change. A key part of that mission is the work that the Home Secretary is leading alongside police to put visible neighbourhood policing back at the heart of our communities. By restoring that crucial link between police forces and the people they serve, we will ensure that residents and businesses have the reassurance they want and need, as well as deterring would-be offenders. As we implement our neighbourhood policing guarantee, we are determined to tackle anti-social behaviour head on. Today, I can update the House on that work.

To turn things around and effectively combat the problem, it is clear that fresh impetus is needed, which is why we committed in our manifesto to introducing respect orders, which will enable tough restrictions to be placed on the worst adult perpetrators of anti-social behaviour. Those subject to a respect order could be banned from a town centre as well as being compelled to address the root cause of their behaviour; for example, through mandated alcohol and drug treatment. The orders will be applied for by police, councils or social housing providers, and issued by the courts.

Importantly, there will be a power of arrest available for all suspected breaches, protecting communities and town centres from further harm. We are going even further: anyone who breaches a respect order will have committed a criminal offence and may face up to two years’ imprisonment, an unlimited fine or a community order. These new powers will be piloted first to ensure that they are as effective as possible.

We will also crack down on the scourge of off-road bikes in public parks, dangerous e-scooters on pavements, and street racing, all of which inflict misery on local communities. Under strengthened police powers, officers will no longer be required to issue a warning before seizing vehicles involved in anti-social behaviour.

Retail crime harms lives and livelihoods and must be dealt with as the serious threat that it is. We will introduce a new, specific offence of assaulting a retail worker and we will end the effective immunity for shop theft of goods worth less than £200.

The task of making our country safer will not be completed overnight, but this is a Government of action. The work of change is under way and, as we step up this vital effort, we are guided by the simple and unshakeable belief that our streets belong to the decent, law-abiding majority. For far too long, gangs, yobs and thieves have been running amok, and that is not going to happen any more. Under this Government, the safety and security of the public will always come first. We will be unrelenting in our mission to restore respect and take back our streets”.

15:19

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for bringing this Statement to the House. As Conservatives, we stand against anti-social behaviour in all its forms. It is not right that people feel unsafe in their communities and that the consequences of anti-social behaviour are felt by shops, businesses and residents alike. We welcome all efforts to tackle anti-social behaviour, but I ask the Minister whether he believes that respect orders are anything

“more than a press release or a rebrand”,—[Official Report, Commons, 27/11/24; col. 794.]

as the honourable Member for Stockton West said in the other place. Does the Minister think that respect orders are necessary, given that they are near-identical to existing powers held by the police?

We completely reject the notion that the previous Conservative Government was anything but the party of law and order. That Government launched the anti-social behaviour action plan, backed by £160 million of funding and with over 100,000 hours of police and another uniform patrols undertaken to tackle anti-social behaviour hotspots. Given that the Minister’s party seems keen on releasing serious offenders early, how does this align with its plan to decrease anti-social behaviour? Surely many of these dangerous individuals, who have been released on to our streets before they have served their sentence in full, will need more than a respect order to prevent them reoffending.

The Minister for Policing told the House of Commons that

“respect orders are different from criminal behaviour orders”.

She continued:

“Criminal behaviour orders are attached where there is a conviction, and the Crown Prosecution Service applies in court for that criminal behaviour order. Respect orders will not require a conviction”.—[Official Report, Commons, 27/11/24; col. 795.]


Will the Minister outline what sort of behaviour will be covered by a respect order and what the penalties will be for them?

The previous Conservative Government created over 20,000 police officers and fulfilled our manifesto commitment on this. By March this year, the police headcount hit its highest ever number on record. We are most definitely the party of law and order, and I will repeat the question asked in the other place, which was left unanswered by the Minister there—perhaps the Minister will answer me now. It was

“the last Government increased funding for frontline policing by £922 million for this year—will the Government match that increase next year?”—[Official Report, Commons, 27/11/24; col. 795.]

[Baroness Doocey (LD)]

My Lords, a return to proper neighbourhood policing, with officers who know and are known to the communities that they serve, is absolutely essential to tackle the misery caused by anti-social behaviour.

The part of the Statement about respect orders raises a number of issues, which we will return to, no doubt, when we look at the policing Bill. For example, what burden of proof will be required for the courts to approve such an order, and how will police work with communities to ensure that repeated reporting and gathering of evidence has the desired effect? How will the courts deal with applications in a timely manner, given the enormous backlog of cases already before them? What will be the bar for anyone who breaches these orders to find themselves in jail? It is an easy headline to say that offenders will end up in prison, but there is currently such an acute shortage of prison spaces that the Government are already having to release people early. What safeguards will be in the Bill to ensure that these orders do not inadvertently reinvent the Vagrancy Act, in effect, criminalising homelessness?

I particularly welcome the Government’s commitment to removing the de facto threshold of £200 for attracting any action on goods stolen from shops. Last week, one of my friends went into a local pharmacy, where she was picking up a prescription. A few minutes later, a young man walked in, carrying a very large bag, and set to clearing the shelves of all the over-the-counter medication. When somebody who was standing there mentioned the police, he just laughed. Afterwards, the staff said that he comes in on a regular basis but that they are too scared to try to stop him.

Sadly, this is not an isolated story: it is part of a rising tide sweeping the country. The numbers are staggering. In 2023, the Association of Convenience Stores recorded 5.6 million incidents of shoplifting—more than a fivefold increase from the previous year. That is 46,000 thefts every day.

Can the Minister say anything about how the Government intend to deploy technology to make it easier for retailers to log crime by repeat offenders, thereby helping to build a picture that can be used to prosecute? I took a quick look at the Met’s reporting tool over the weekend. The website estimates that it takes 15 minutes to report a non-violent shoplifting offence. I cannot imagine that many shopkeepers, particularly those with small shops, will spend 15 minutes reporting a crime that almost invariably will not end in a prosecution. Will the Minister look at introducing a national scheme for reporting shoplifting, where retailers can quickly access a dedicated platform and report crime in just a few minutes? No one wants to watch people walking out of a shop without paying for goods or, indeed, racing down the footpath on an e-scooter. It unsettles everyone, leaves the most vulnerable feeling unsafe and chips away at our collective sense of security.

I hope the Minister will welcome suggestions and inputs from all sides when we come to discuss the Bill.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)]

I am grateful for the contributions of both His Majesty’s Opposition Front Bench and the Liberal Democrat Front Bench. I reassure the House that we will have plenty of opportunity to discuss these matters because this Statement, in effect, trails legislation that will come into effect at a later date, if passed by both Houses. So we will consider it over the next few weeks and months.

I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, is against anti-social behaviour. I would expect nothing less of him. It is a shame that when in office his party reduced the number of PCSOs by 55% since 2010. It is a shame that confidence in policing fell by 65% when he was at the Home Office and his colleagues were in office. It is a shame that trust in policing fell by 69% over the same period. It is a shame that shop theft, which the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, raised, has risen by 29% over the past year. It is a shame that the former Minister refused to implement suggestions that we will bring forward in the Bill on shop theft and attacks on shop workers. It is a shame that he took 14 years to reinstate the number of police officers in service when he took office in 2010. When I was Police Minister—

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

I was not the Minister.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I do not blame the noble Lord personally. He carries the collective weight of the Conservative Government of the last 14 years on his shoulders. He may not like that, but he is in front of me now and he has to account for the Government he supported in Parliament, in both the House of Commons and the House of Lords, as I have to account for this Government.

I will be helpful to the noble Lord. He talked about respect orders. The respect order will be introduced through the crime and policing Bill when it comes before this House and the House of Commons in the new year. We expect to pilot respect orders once the legislation is passed so that we can learn lessons from them. We expect that they will be introduced for persistent adult offenders involved in public drinking, drug use or other anti-social behaviour—that goes to some of the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey. The orders will be targeted at individuals involved in persistent anti-social behaviour as a whole.

I will answer the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, then return to those of the noble Lord, Lord Davies, shortly. The courts must be satisfied on the balance of probabilities that an offence has occurred. The same legal tests will be in place as those that are in place now for civil injunction policies. The police and local authorities can apply for respect orders. The pilot scheme will be a chance to look at and, I hope, iron out some of the issues that might be raised. It is for the courts to determine how to handle someone who breaches an order; that could mean a community sentence or a jail sentence. We are trying to look at prison places generally; I will return to that point.

The noble Baroness asked the important question of whether this will criminalise homelessness. I hope I can genuinely reassure her that being homeless in itself will not be treated as anti-social behaviour. That would be the case if there were aggravating factors, such as alcohol or misbehaviour of some sort, but simply being homeless would not be a qualifying factor for a respect order.

Respect orders are different from civil injunctions because they are aimed at higher levels of anti-social behaviour. The important point is that the police will be able to undertake those orders very quickly—if the Bill is passed by both Houses. Again, there will be an opportunity for us to debate these matters in due course.

The noble Lord, Lord Davies, mentioned the early release of prisoners and asked whether respect orders would be effective if a prisoner committed a further offence. Let me tell the noble Lord: if a prisoner on licence committed a further offence, they would not need a respect order; they would be back in prison very quickly as a result of breaching the licence conditions for which they were released early.

If the noble Lord reflected carefully on this he would know that, were he was standing where I am standing now, he would be defending a government policy for limited early release of prisoners to give space. Dare I say it, the noble Lord’s Government did not build prison places during their time in office. Again, I do not wish to hang 14 years of policy and decisions entirely on his shoulders but he has to take responsibility. When he asks for things from this Government, he has to reflect on the fact that there were things he and his Government did not do when they were in office. Indeed, they left us with a black hole to deal with, as well as these issues.

The noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, welcomed our proposals on shoplifting actions and shop theft, as I prefer to call it, and the change to the £200 limit. She may be interested to note that, when I was the shadow Minister in another place 10 years ago, I opposed the order that introduced the £200 limit for the very reasons why we are now removing it. It sent a signal that low-value shoplifting and shop theft can be tolerated. That will not lead the police to look at the issue she mentioned. The 29% rise in shoplifting in just the last year of the previous Government is an indication that we need to take action, and we will.

We will also take action on the important issue the noble Baroness mentioned of protection for shop workers, and the creation of an aggravated offence in the event of shop workers being attacked. Shop workers deserve our respect. They often uphold legislation on alcohol sales, solvent sales, knife sales, tobacco sales and other sales. When they are subject to anti-social behaviour, there should be consequences for those individuals who engage in that behaviour. Her suggestion on how we record those incidents is interesting; we will explore that during the passage of the legislation.

The 13,000 neighbourhood police officers that the Government intend to put in place will be funded by additional resources. Half a billion pounds was announced last week, so the noble Lord, Lord Davies, will now be aware of the extra funding that he asked about. Again for the benefit of the noble Lord’s checklist, another £260 million was announced last week. More money will be announced during the first two weeks of December for a proposed police settlement, which will be out for consultation for the year after. It is extremely important we take action on shoplifting.

Finally, the noble Baroness mentioned e-bikes. One plan in the legislation—so it has to go through both Houses—is to give police powers to seize e-bikes and other bicycle-type machinery involved in anti-social behaviour. I regard riding an e-bike on a pavement as anti-social.

I want to make noble Lords aware of an important difference in this legislation regarding the police’s ability to take action. At the moment, police can take action on these issues but they have to give a warning. The proposals in the legislation will remove the need for a warning, so that if somebody is riding an e-bike or, indeed, an off-road bike in an anti-social way, that bike can be seized immediately, with consequences for the individual.

I welcome the welcome from the noble Lord, Lord Davies. I hope that, in due course, the House will scrutinise but welcome these proposals.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch (Non-Afl)]

My Lords—

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

My Lords, Back-Bench questions will follow shortly. The Minister has not yet finished.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

For the benefit of doubt, I will now sit down. Having finished my, I hope, helpful response to the Opposition Front Bench and His Majesty’s loyal Opposition, I will now take questions from the House.

15:35

[Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)]

My Lords, living on Dartmoor, I am aware of increasing anti-social behaviour in rural communities, including county line drug running, electric bikes frightening livestock, the stealing of agricultural equipment and stealing from small local shops. Can the Government explain their approach to ensuring public safety and security of low-population rural communities, as the Minister’s Statement makes no mention of rural communities? I would welcome the Minister’s explanation on this issue.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The policing of rural communities is extremely important. I live in north Wales and I represented a semi-rural community in the House of Commons for 28 years. It is extremely important. I will give the noble Baroness three points, if I may, as a starter. First, there are going to be 13,000 additional neighbourhood police officers who can be deployed, in her case, by Devon and Cornwall Police to look at, with their proportion, how they develop them to build community resilience at a local level.

Secondly, on off-road biking and 4x4 biking, there will be measures—yet to be implemented but subject to scrutiny by this House and, if passed, implemented—to put in place the ability to seize those vehicles and to take action. Protections will also be put in on the important issue she raised about machinery theft.

Thirdly, the whole government approach to shop theft says that it is not an acceptable crime; it has consequences. Individuals in this House all pay more for their shopping because of shop theft. There are shop workers who are attacked because of shop theft and there are organised criminal gangs which need to be broken to stop shop theft. What we trying to do, which I hope will reassure the noble Baroness, is tackle those three issues, and many more, in the forthcoming police Bill.

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

My Lords, I very much welcome this Statement from my noble friend. I also welcome the forensic analysis he gave of the performance of the previous Government in office, which I hope he will be able to develop in future answers. All these welcome objectives are fundamentally dependent on the recruitment of more police officers. It is good that new recruits are being brought along at the moment, but surely another avenue that should be explored is to encourage those experienced police officers who are coming close to retirement age and are wondering whether to retire or not to remain in office. It is not just numbers we need but the experience that can be gleaned only by years of being in the police.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I agree with my noble friend 100%. It is important that we do not just recruit additional officers. The way that we will deal with the 13,000 neighbourhood police, PCSOs and special constables will be around how we better recruit and engage with those individuals. He makes an extremely valid point that it is important that we recognise experience, try to maintain and keep that experience, and deploy it against the issues that this whole House will want police deployed against: in this case, primarily shop theft, anti-social behaviour and serious organised crime.

[Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister mentioned, gently, that this side of the House had been in power for a long time, so I would like to gently remind him that the Mayor of London is Labour and is also the police and crime commissioner. Yet, since October last year, we have witnessed weekly hate protests where anti-Semitism is rife, and supporters of Hamas and terrorism openly call for the annihilation of Jews while waving swastikas on placards. This is not just anti-social behaviour; these are hate crimes which we continue to witness. So I ask the Minister: when are the Government intending to put a stop to them?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Hate crime is pernicious and I would support the noble Baroness’s contention that hate crime, whether against the Jewish community or people who are legitimately protesting about Palestinian issues—not Hamas, Palestinian issues—is an important potential crime. If crimes are committed and the police wish to pursue those crimes at a local level, they can do so; there are powers in place to make arrests where criminal activity takes place in any form of protest.

The noble Baroness shakes her head, but there are powers now available for the police to arrest people on the basis of hate crime. If the police exercise that power, that is a matter for the police. The noble Baroness would not expect a Minister to undertake those arrests. The police make a judgment; they can make arrests and bring matters to court. Indeed, they have done on a range of crimes, particularly against the Jewish community in the current climate.

[Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers (CB)]

My Lords, in order to qualify for a respect order, will behaviour have to be criminal? If not, what criteria will it have to satisfy?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his question. I want to get to the exact wording correct. With the respect order particularly, it does not have to be criminal behaviour. It can be behaviour that potentially causes alarm, distress or harassment. Again, I say to the House that those matters will be tested as we go through Committee. There will be opportunities to clarify what that means and put down some legal guidelines during Committee in this House. The idea of the respect order is to tackle what I would term low-level anti-social behaviour. If criminal actions have been taken, criminal sanctions are available to police to make arrests accordingly. I hope we can reflect on that during Committee.

[Lord Sikka (Lab)]

My Lords, it will take more than an authoritarian approach to tackle anti-social behaviour. Public spaces for socialising and supporting people have shrunk as hundreds of youth clubs, community centres, libraries and adult education courses have completely disappeared. What is the Government’s programme for restoring such public spaces and creating a sense of community and belonging?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

This is extremely important. It goes slightly wider than my brief in the Home Office. We end up with the criminal justice end of the business. But my noble friend makes an extremely important point. It is important that we give support to communities through other government departments to address open spaces, play areas, youth clubs and other distractions. One of the other activities that the Government are undertaking is trying to invest in those areas over the next 12 months. But, specifically, my end of the business is when that does not work.

[The Lord Bishop of Manchester]

My Lords, I declare my interest as the co-chair of the national ethics committee of the National Police Chiefs’ Council. However, it is more in my role as Bishop of Manchester that I am speaking now. I get to go out from time to time at night with Street Angels or Street Pastors groups, as they are sometimes called. Many of these originated in the churches, but they are not exclusively church-based organisations. They provide gentle support on the streets, often late at night in city and town centres, helping to keep the peace. They help to deal with people who have become distressed—perhaps somebody who has had too much to drink and is either not safe themselves or cannot keep those around them safe.

The police I have worked with over the years really appreciate the work these volunteer organisations do. They are definitely not vigilantes; they are simply there to be caring, kind and supportive. But they defuse situations and help release police time to deal with situations that only police officers can deal with. So could the Minister indicate what role His Majesty’s Government see for these sorts of voluntary civil society organisations in supporting respect and keeping our streets safe?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate for his question. I wholeheartedly endorse and thank those involved in that community work and community spirit, encouraging people who may be straying into difficult areas for a range of reasons, helping them to modify their behaviour and potentially pointing them in the long-term direction of further help. It is extremely important, and the Government are trying not to replace voluntary activities but to support them. However, they will retain the ability, if these orders are passed by both Houses, to put a new sanction in place that tackles persistent anti-social behaviour of a low-level kind, which is very disruptive to individuals in the evening, but sometimes in the daytime.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch (Non-Afl)]

Do the Government have under consideration non-crime hate incidents, which I understand the police find to be very difficult to adjudicate on and often very time-wasting?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Lord will be aware that the Government are undertaking a review of non-crime hate incidences. There are two aspects to this: a number of reports are made that are very low level and potentially waste police time, but there is also the importance of gathering intelligence. That goes back to the noble Baroness’s point: sometimes intelligence can be gathered through a non-crime hate incident that leads to a wider strategy to deal with a particular policing incident. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary has been clear that the College of Policing and the chief constables council need to review non-crime hate incidents to make sure that those at the lower level do not lead to police, with their limited resources, having to deal with issues that perhaps they should not be dealing with.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords, in which type of courts will respect orders be heard? Whichever type it is, will additional days be provided, because every court is overburdened?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I expect these cases to be heard in magistrate’s courts, but again, those issues can be tested in Committee. The Bill will be considered in this House in Committee for a significant period, having been considered first by the House of Commons. That is why we are trialling respect orders, and we will put a number of pilots in place if the legislation is passed. The lessons learned from that will be considered —how long it takes to deal with a respect order, which court it goes to, the length of the trial period we put in place and what resources are required to deal with it.

[Lord Swire (Con)]

My Lords, regarding the Minister’s remarks about tightening up the legislation surrounding e-bikes, we are seeing those used increasingly for mobile theft all around the capital. Can he look at the increasing menace of normal bicycle riders riding on pavements and knocking over, often, elderly people or children? In parks, they are subject to by-laws, which are simply not enforced. The whole of London is criss-crossed with cycle lanes. Should there not be a penalty for those who continue to ignore signs and ride their cycles on pavements?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I may be going off script here, but I agree with the noble Lord. There is not a day when I come into London that I do not see someone jump a traffic light or ride on a pavement. Those matters are covered by existing sanctions, if the police can track those individuals. Many cyclists behave perfectly reasonably, which is also important, but if individuals break the law which is currently in place, the police should take sanctions against them.

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

My Lords, my noble friend the Minister has already dealt with the number of prison places but not with the shortage of prison officers left by the last Government. He also has not dealt with the last Government destroying the Probation Service. Does he have any plans to deal with those two issues?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The Government will have plans to deal with those issues, but they are the responsibility of the Ministry of Justice. If my noble friend will allow me, I will draw his comments to the attention of my noble friend Lord Timpson, who represents the Ministry of Justice in this House.

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

My Lords, crime and anti-social behaviour in rural areas has been mentioned. I draw two things to the Minister’s attention—can he tell me how to classify them? I recently spoke to a rural family who kill all the hares on their land because, if they do not, people come in four-wheel-drive vehicles, smash through the vehicles and hedges, and course on their land. The second thing—which I have direct experience of—is people sitting in lay-bys, launching drones and flying them around rural buildings to see what is worth coming back to steal at night. How are the police expected to deal with those people?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I reassure the noble Lord that, if the proposed legislation is passed—that is a matter for both Houses—the ability to seize off-road bikes used to commit anti-social behaviour will be in it, and that will be done without warning. If individuals break through and undertake criminal damage, without the legislation being in place, the police can take action now—if they can track and identify the alleged offenders. So I hope that there will be future powers, but there are also existing powers to do that.

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

The people who are flying these drones are not coming on to land illegally; they are whizzing them around the buildings, photographing and going away.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Having finished with off-road biking, I was moving on to the point about drones. The noble Lord makes an extremely valid point, and we will examine that issue and the use of drones as part of the legislation. It is not in the Statement today, but the point about the illegal use of drones and their use for criminality is certainly valid. I will take that away as part of the discussions prior to the introduction of legislation in this House.

[Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)]

I welcome and support the Statement from the Government and the initiative they have taken. But, more particularly, I look forward to the legislation that is coming. In my area of Battersea, the Co-op does not display meat or fish because it is stolen regularly. A niece of mine works in a bank in the north of England where staff now have to wear body cameras because of the assaults or near- assaults they suffer. When I go to the vets, I see a statement that says, “Please respect our staff”. Everywhere we look, we see the loss of respect, so any steps that can be taken will be welcome.

However, we are all guilty of failing to see the pace at which change is taking place and of failing to respond with the techniques available to us. We need more police but, in particular, we need to make greater use of technology. We get very upset about facial recognition technology and other such things, on the civil rights front. We are all guilty of running away from the need for identification, using technology for that purpose.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend for those points. These issues are consistently under examination by the Home Office. Going back to the potential legislation and the remit of the Statement, the two big issues in the Statement show that there is a real focus on shop theft, from a very low level through to a very high level. That should be put into policing plans on shop theft as a matter of urgency, with changes to the law made accordingly to reflect that.

On protection for shop workers, they are doing a job and should not be attacked in the course of their work for upholding legislation on sales or for resisting theft. I note the abuse they sometimes get, particularly from people who are undertaking anti-social behaviour in a more formal way. I declare an interest as a member of the shop workers union. That is the thrust of the two bits of legislation that are linked in the Statement, and I hope that will be welcomed by this House in due course.

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I very much welcome the return of genuine neighbourhood policing, which is so necessary, particularly on our housing estates. But, as the noble the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, said, it is about the numbers of police officers. Does the Minister agree that it is very important that the status of neighbourhood policing is raised, not among the public—they understand it—but within the police force itself, so that people who are serving the local community as local neighbourhood police are seen as just as important and just as good at tackling crime as those in other parts of the Metropolitan Police and police forces in the United Kingdom?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is absolutely right that it is important that people know who their police officers are, see them visibly and have the trust and confidence to give them information that might help reduce anti-social behaviour or other criminal activity. It is important that police engage with the community in a way that gives them confidence for that information to come forward and that, as they have done in the past, at a local level police use their antennae to pick up on information that needs to be addressed by the wider policing family in tackling criminal activity.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, magistrates’ courts are a fantastic resource, but at the moment there is a backlog of 370,700 cases. What will the Government do to make magistrates’ courts viable to deal with the sort of cases we are talking about?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that question. She will know that it falls within the purview of the Ministry of Justice, for which I am not the accountable Minister. However, it is a very real issue and my noble friends Lord Timpson and Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede are very focused on improving that situation. We inherited that legacy, but it is important that criminal justice is speedy and visible. I will draw her comments to the attention of my noble friends.

Great British Energy Bill

Committee stage
Tuesday 3rd December 2024 Lords Chamber

Committee (1st Day)

15:56

Clause 1: Great British Energy

Amendment 1

Moved by

[Lord Offord of Garvel]

1: Clause 1, page 1, line 2, leave out “company” and insert “subsidiary of the National Wealth Fund”
Member's explanatory statement
This would probe into the relationship between Great British Energy and the National Wealth Fund - formerly the UK Infrastructure Bank.

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who are present for this important debate, which deals with an essential topic for the future of our nation: our energy production, security and ownership. I will also speak to Amendments 3 and 5 in my name.

Amendment 1 seeks to probe into the relationship between Great British Energy and the National Wealth Fund, which was formerly known as the UK Infra- structure Bank. Amendment 3 seeks to probe into the fact that Great British Energy may be designated a company only if it is wholly owned by the Crown. Amendment 5 would specify that Great British Energy would be owned by the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero.

We cannot discuss this Bill without giving due consideration to Great British Energy’s relationship with the UK Infrastructure Bank. We have not seen an explanation of how this body is different from the UK Infrastructure Bank, which was set up to do the exact same thing that Great British Energy claims it will do. In fact, Great British Energy is almost a duplicate of the UK Infrastructure Bank, which was established to provide loans, equity and guarantees for infrastructure to tackle climate change, funded by £22 billion of taxpayers’ money. Great British Energy seeks to do something extremely similar, or so it claims, but the Bill gives far greater powers to the Secretary of State. I must ask why this is and why taxpayers should be burdened twice.

The UK Infrastructure Bank Bill had important accountability and reporting measures which have been removed from this Bill. It had a clear and structured framework for accountability and transparency. It was governed by rules to ensure that taxpayers’ money was used efficiently and was subject to rigorous annual reporting, providing the public with the necessary details on its investments and performance.

16:00

Given all of this, why, then, has Great British Energy been set up to replicate so much of what the UK Infrastructure Bank is already doing? The two institutions overlap in many areas, from providing funding for green energy projects to ensuring that infrastructure investments are scaled up to meet net-zero targets. If we are to create another institution with overlapping responsibilities, we should ask what the real added value is here.

As I said, the UK Infrastructure Bank was set up with specific checks and balances to prevent the misuse of funds and ensure that the public has visibility into its operations. Great British Energy hands over far greater powers to the Secretary of State, yet there is no explanation of why such sweeping authority is necessary, nor are there are any safeguards to ensure that these powers are not abused or left unchecked. The Secretary of State will therefore have the power to make key decisions without sufficient scrutiny. Again, we must ask: what accountability will there be for the £8.3 billion of taxpayers’ money being handed over? The Bill seems to grant too much discretion without the proper frameworks to hold this body to account.

If we are to create a new company with such significant powers and such an enormous financial commitment from taxpayers, we must ensure that there are clear and enforceable accountability measures. Otherwise, how can we trust that the British taxpayer will get value for money if we are not putting in place the necessary safeguards and reporting structures to ensure transparency and greater governance?

I have outlined the similarities between the UK Infrastructure Bank and Great British Energy, and I have highlighted that the UK Infrastructure Bank has far more accountability and reporting measures. Amendment 1 in my name will therefore ensure that Great British Energy is a subsidiary of the UK Infrastructure Bank.

I will now speak briefly to Amendments 3 and 5 in my name. In Clause 1, page 1, lines 2 to 6, the Bill states that Great British Energy may be designated a company only if it

“is wholly owned by the Crown”.

However, this brings to light issues surrounding equity. If Great British Energy were to raise equity, as suggested in Clause 4, “Financial assistance”, it will no longer be wholly owned by the Crown as required by the Bill. Therefore, the Secretary of State will not be able to designate a company as Great British Energy. These two clauses do not align with each other, and the Bill therefore cannot be read as a coherent draft piece of legislation. I hope that the Minister will recognise this confusion that I seek to address in Amendment 3 in my name. Therefore, I look to the Minister to clarify how these two clauses work cohesively alongside each other, and to confirm whether the ownership of Great British Energy, as outlined in Clause 1, is an issue in the drafting of this legislation.

If the Government’s intention is indeed for Great British Energy to be wholly owned by the Crown, Amendment 5 in my name will specify that Great British Energy will be owned by the Secretary of State in a professional capacity. This amendment seeks to add clarity to the ownership of Great British Energy and will result in both the designation and ownership of Great British Energy to fall under the responsibility of the Secretary of State.

I am pleased to be able to open this group and look forward to the corresponding debate over the course of today. The designation of a company as Great British Energy and the ownership of the company are central to the Bill and, as such, they should be central to the deliberations of our debate in this place. I beg to move.

[Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments 4, 6 and 7 in my name. I start by reminding the Committee of my interests as a micro-generator of hydroelectricity.

Amendments 4, 6 and 7 are designed to probe—a bit like Amendment 3 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Offord—whether it might be desirable to allow Great British Energy to accept minority equity finance. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, for his support on this. As these are simply probing amendments, I will try to be brief.

As the Bill is currently drafted, Great British Energy can be designated as such only if it is wholly owned by the Crown and will lose its designation automatically if that changes. It follows, therefore, that none of its shares can be owned by another party, and therefore no equity finance could be raised, at least at the Great British Energy level, from parties other than the Crown.

I can imagine situations where being able to introduce external capital into GBE could be a good thing. Clearly, I can understand why the Government would wish to retain control, which is why in my amendments I have set a required level of ownership of at least 75% of the issued share capital. Shareholders with more than 25% have the right to block special resolutions; so as long as the Crown controls 75% or more, it would still have full control of the company.

In that aspect, Amendments 4, 6 and 7 are more restrictive than Amendment 3 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Offord of Garvel, although they are probing the same question. Can the Minister explain why the Government feel that they need GBE to be wholly owned and why they would not want the flexibility to raise external equity finance in future, while retaining control?

I am also interested to hear the answers to the questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Offord, on his Amendment 1 on the relationship with the former UK Infrastructure Bank, now called the National Wealth Fund. I see from the letter that the Minister kindly sent us after Second Reading that the activities of GBE will in fact be carried out, at least initially, by the National Wealth Fund,

“in line with the NWF’s investment and operating principles”.

The letter goes on to say:

“This will enable GBE to invest quickly and draw on the NWF’s experience and existing pipeline of projects”.


That raises a serious question as to why we really need GBE at all. If the National Wealth Fund’s investment and operating principles and its existing experience already cover what GBE is being set up for, as the Minister’s letter confirms, and if it already has an existing pipeline of projects, would it not make more sense simply to provide the National Wealth Fund with the additional finance and resources to carry out the activities that are envisaged for Great British Energy—whatever those are, given the lack of detail in the Bill—and to leverage the experience and scale already built up in the National Wealth Fund? Are we in danger of duplicating responsibilities and adding another unnecessary layer of cost and bureaucracy with the Bill?

We could go further. The Bill carves out an area of activity that is currently already covered by the National Wealth Fund’s objectives and activities—again, as confirmed by the Minister’s letter—and puts that into a vehicle that has substantially less clarity on the way it will behave and substantially less accountability for what it does, as both your Lordships’ Constitution Committee and the noble Lord, Lord Offord of Garvel, have pointed out. One wonders what the Minister would have said if the previous Government had tried to do that—I suspect we know.

While Amendment 1 is a probing amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Offord, might have hit on a very neat solution in proposing to make GBE a subsidiary of the National Wealth Fund, where it would be subject to the accountability regime that already exists, which has already been accepted by Parliament. It would not in any way prevent Great British Energy meeting its objectives, but it would solve a lot of the issues that will come up later around accountability and transparency, as well as reducing the possibilities of cost duplication and ensuring that the expertise already built up in the National Wealth Fund is fully utilised. It would streamline the way the two organisations work together, removing the potential for future conflicts. There is no reason why the subsidiary could not still be separately located in Aberdeen as planned. In fact, ownership by the National Wealth Fund would not stand in the way of any of the plans that the Government say they have for Great British Energy.

The more I think about it, the more it seems that a simple change of ownership from direct to indirect would solve a lot of the issues that we will debate as this Committee goes forward, with no obvious downside for the Government or their plans for Great British Energy. I strongly encourage the Minister to give Amendment 1 serious consideration.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, I support what both my noble friend Lord Offord of Garvel and the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, have said about the confusing overlap between what is now the National Fund Wealth and Great British Energy. I am one of those sad people who look at annual reports and accounts, and I was anxiously waiting for the UK Infrastructure Bank’s reports and accounts, which finally dropped last Monday. Through that, I discovered that it had legally changed its name to the National Wealth Fund two or three weeks ago, although no announcement seems to have been made about that at the time.

I agree that Amendment 1 is a very neat way of tucking Great British Energy into a more satisfactory set of governance and oversight arrangements, which we wrestled with when the UK Infrastructure Bank was set up. But my main reason for speaking today is in connection with Amendment 3 in the name of my noble friend Lord Offord of Garvel and Amendments 4, 6 and 7 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Vaux.

I do not support these amendments, because I think the concept of minority stakes in government-controlled companies is a complete nonsense. Over the whole history of nationalised industries and publicly owned corporations and companies, there are relatively few examples of entities in which minorities held equity stakes. The exceptions are normally accidents of history—such as in the case of RBS/NatWest—rather than acts of conscious design.

I cannot think of a single good reason to encourage the Government to seek private capital in Great British Energy, as opposed to seeking to leverage private capital alongside public investment in projects that need public involvement to help to de-risk them. Equity is always more expensive than debt, and minority holdings in illiquid shares are even more expensive. The Government do not need to pay that premium. They can borrow money, to the extent that GBE needs it, by issuing government debt. That will be much cheaper than raising equity for GBE, even after the post-Budget bond yield increases.

Equity costs more to raise than debt because it carries more risk than debt. It is the first bit of the capital stack to be wiped out in liquidation—at least, that is what happens in the private sector. But does anybody believe that minority holders would be wiped out if the state decided to liquidate an insolvent Great British Energy? The Secretary of State has so many powers over Great British Energy that in practical terms the Government will find it very difficult, if not impossible, to escape underwriting all the liabilities of Great British Energy, and that includes its minority holdings. If the Government did try to wipe out the minority holdings in a liquidation, I predict a decade or more of shareholder litigation.

Having minority holdings can also engage a lot of unnecessary legal problems around protections for minorities that are built into our company law to prevent minorities being treated unfairly. It can raise issues about dividends, which are not normally part of the regime for state-owned enterprises since retained earnings, if there are any—and history tells us that there are not usually any—are generally kept within the public corporation. I am not a fan of state-owned activity, but we should accept it for what it is, which is taxpayer or debt-funded activity, and not try to mimic the real world where equity investors genuinely do take on risk.

[Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB)]

My Lords, I added my name to my noble friend Lord Vaux’s Amendments 4, 6 and 7. This was largely because when the Bill went through its stages in the other place, the Government made frequent references to the fact that an essential quality of Great British Energy was that it would be flexible, vibrant, resilient and fleet of foot. These are all good qualities to allow this new company to take advantage of opportunities in the marketplace, maybe even sudden ones when, say, an international investor is looking to throw its weight behind a tidal initiative or a new hydrogen production plant but is looking for a commitment from the UK Government in the form of some investment from GBE.

What happens in these circumstances if the Treasury reduces its annual funding for GBE in future or if GBE’s annual budget has already been spent and there is a danger of this vital project going overseas unless GBE invests? Will the opportunity just get missed or, as my thinking goes, should GBE be truly flexible, vibrant, resilient and fleet of foot and be able to go out into the financial marketplace and draw in sufficient funds to promote and thus enable this one-off opportunity?

I recognise that, to be effective, GBE must be part of government and yet not part of government. That is why the figure of 75% government ownership is crucial; 24% of outside investment would not prevent the Government remaining in total control and, more importantly, being seen to be in total control, but it could also mean that the private sector could help contribute to the success of GBE.

Your Lordships may ask why the private sector cannot just invest in the proposed investment itself. The answer is that by investing in the parent company, GBE, the private sector would be hedging its bets by spreading its risk across the renewable sector generally rather than just putting its money into, say, a hydrogen project or whatever. Furthermore, allowing GBE to attract some outside investment would be a good way of taking some of the risk away from the Treasury.

There may of course be other ways of doing this, such as issuing class A shares with a different standing from ordinary shares, but I do not believe they would ever be as attractive as the solution in our Amendments 4, 6 and 7.

The noble Lord, Lord Vaux, and I are keen to see GBE succeed, but we think it needs the greater flexibility of being able to attract some investment from outside government.

16:15

[Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)]

My Lords, I approach this amendment, and many others that are coming, broadly with sympathy and understanding about the enormous complexities of what we are dealing with. Obviously, I also wish to see us succeed, in the sense that a nation with a bad, interrupted or poor energy supply will be a nation drained of blood. It will be an absolute catastrophe if we do not somehow get all this right; whether in five, 10, 15 or 28 years remains to be seen, but right we must get it, because the dangers are overwhelming.

I also declare my interests in the register as connected to energy-related firms. Also, at one stage in the not very distant past, I attempted to do the same two jobs as the Minister is trying to do now, which is, first, in his department, to begin to piece together in very precarious and dangerous world conditions all the necessary equipment and organisations for energy policy success and, secondly, to explain it all to the House of Lords. That is a double job, which I am sure he will try to do with all his abilities, but this is very tough going in a very dangerous area.

We now come also to a third vast task that lies behind these amendments in particular, which is: do we need entirely new relations, far away from the old polarities of left and right in politics, between the state, with all its overload and difficulties in the digital age, and the role of the markets and the private corporations in achieving the energy transition that we somehow have to achieve? That question hangs in the air. One can see these questions about the relationship between GBE and other bodies and whether it should collaborate and have minority stakes, and so on, as the shower of questions that come out of that task. I hope that somewhere, in government and indeed in the politics of all parties, that is being worked on. We have to develop a whole new generation of co-operation, particularly in the energy field and in infrastructure, to replace the difficulties and problems that we and Labour ran into with PFI 10 or 15 years ago, which was a good idea but it did not work, and unless we understand why it did not work, we will not get it right this time.

The amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, are of course probing but are very interesting. I beg the Labour Government of today, who want a national reset, a renaissance and all that, not to fall for the old socialist Adam, which is that you can solve problems by creating more and more institutions, bodies and bureaucracies. That is not the way—we have to be cleverer than that. That is the old socialisation pattern, which always goes too far and never works.

So I am in considerable sympathy with these amendments and I hope that, when the Minister answers, he will show some sympathy for the importance of flexibility and the importance in the energy field of not making too many rigid definitions and delineations. The trouble, as we will find as we debate, is that everything is connected to everything else. We are trying to rule out nuclear in debates on later amendments, but in fact you cannot—nuclear is intimately connected with all other public investment decisions. We are trying to work out about the National Wealth Fund, which is very interesting. It is having a show here in Parliament tomorrow and I am looking forward to hearing its views in detail on its relationship with GBE.

We had the famous letter from the Minister, describing some of the connections and linkages that he wants to see developing, telling us how all these things are going to be linked together. He lists straight off six or seven organisations that have to work together: the National Wealth Fund, Great British Nuclear, the Crown Estate, the National Energy System Operator, the Climate Change Committee—and of course there are dozens of others beyond those. There is the office of energy resilience; there are regional co-operation planning organisations—dozens of them. I can hardly read my writing, but there is a list that practically goes off the page of organisations that think they are in the business of investing in either the supply chains or the actual projects related to energy transition.

This is the biggest thing since—in fact, it is far bigger than—the Industrial Revolution. It is the most enormous project ever undertaken in the modern world and certainly in this nation. There is a huge amount of co-ordination and tidying up to do before we have even started. Yet, in examining this one further new organisation, far from tidying up, we are tidying down—we are untidying—the pattern of the future. So these are very important amendments and I look forward very much to some clear answers on how we can go forward towards a greater effectiveness and focus in this whole area, rather than scattering assignments, arrangements and responsibilities in every direction, always with great complications and always at great cost.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Offord in his amendment but, funnily enough, not for the same reasons that he does. He says that Great British Energy should become a subsidiary of the National Wealth Fund. I am very worried—I do not know whether anybody else is—about the enormous powers that Great British Energy will give to the Secretary of State. It strikes me that we are right back to Ministers choosing winners, when on the whole the role of government in choosing winners has been pretty abysmal.

I am old enough—I am reluctant to admit how old I am in case somebody suggests I should retire—to remember Ted Heath, who started out as being the “Selsdon Man”, supposed to believe in free trade and free enterprise, and then bailed out Upper Clyde Shipbuilders. I do not think he did that because he thought he was choosing a winner—I think he knew he was choosing a loser—but he was, of course, faced by critical political embarrassment at the fact that this shipbuilding company was going bust, and he had the thought that he would use taxpayers’ money to try to bail it out.

I have been reading that the fund will be have £8.5 billion of taxpayers’ money put into it and it will be sitting there and there will be the temptation for Government Ministers to say, “Oh well, we’ll bail out this or that company, or we’ll take a punt on the fact that we do not have a battery maker” and perhaps the reason for that is that the market will not support that; or, with electric cars, for instance, we are having great difficulty making enough of them. So we will see taxpayers’ money being put into ventures which the private sector would never support. But it will be done for good political reasons. No doubt, rather like DeLorean, we will find that the enterprise will be pitched in some part of the country where there is high unemployment and not enough activity and the Government might think that they will be able to buy themselves a few votes in those areas or whatever. But, for all the wrong commercial reasons, we will end up using taxpayers’ money on ventures that will never succeed and would have been picked up by the private sector if they were profitable.

This is what worries me about energy generally. We rather fancy that people who put up wind turbines are really concerned with renewable energy. I have to tell your Lordships that they are not; they are financiers. What they do, long before they put up any wind turbine, is put up an experimental one to find out how much wind is blowing over a long period, and then they work the feed-in tariffs and, by the time they have done all that, they then have a cash flow on which they can then borrow money and put up the wind turbines. So it is a financial venture which is basically controlled by government in terms of all the criteria that matter and I do not really see that venture capital using taxpayers’ money has any great role to play in this. So I support my noble friend’s amendment and hope that he puts it to a vote.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, I rise very briefly. I thank noble Lords for bringing forward these amendments. These are really important issues that are worth examining in Committee. However, on these Benches we do not feel that any of these amendments really provide proper solutions to some of the problems that are contained within this Bill.

We feel that GB Energy is separate and distinct from the National Wealth Fund; as GB Energy grows and develops over time, that will become clearer. We welcome the setting up of GB Energy, and we think it is absolutely essential that Britain has a chance to own and manage part of its energy resources and that we are investing in having our energy security and independence.

I read recently on the old Government’s website a press brief from No. 10 during the Sunak Government, which proudly proclaimed that they had spent £40 billion subsidising home owners and businesses through the energy price crisis that we had in the last few years. Obviously, that cannot continue, and our bill payers are suffering, which is not good for us.

We do not really feel that having minority equity stakes is the answer to these problems either. There are problems in this Bill: the Government have chosen to have a very short Bill; the strategic priorities are not written up and are not ready; Clauses 5 and 6 give more control than the Government should have without adequate parliamentary scrutiny—I recognise that this has been picked up by reports in this House. Those are all matters we can discuss and work constructively with the Government to find solutions to them. Ultimately, this is a useful conversation, but we do not see the answers within these amendments; we see the answers within other amendments that are yet to come.

[The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath) (Lab)]

My Lords, we have started our proceedings in Committee with a very interesting discussion about the relationship between Great British Energy and the National Wealth Fund. I certainly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Offord, on the importance of our debates on energy and net zero more generally and with the noble Lord, Lord Howell, about the complexities of our energy system and the challenges that we have undoubtedly set ourselves. The recent report by NESO, the National Energy System Operator, sets out those challenges, but gives us some confidence that we can achieve them.

Amendment 1, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Offord, seeks to require that Great British Energy must be a subsidiary of the National Wealth Fund. Clearly, he indicated he wanted to explore in more detail the relationship between the two organisations. I should say at once to the noble Lord, Lord Howell, that we are certainly not creating organisations for the sake of it. As someone who has spent most of my life dealing with NHS structures and restructuring, I have learnt over the painful years that simply creating new organisations and merging other ones very rarely leads to a successful outcome. We believe that Great British Energy is a key component of our energy and net-zero strategy; that is why it was a manifesto commitment and why we are determined to plough on with this proposal.

On the relationship and the difference between the National Wealth Fund and Great British Energy, the Government have stated very clearly that we see the National Wealth Fund as the state-owned investment bank and wealth fund. It will invest across clean energy sectors, including green hydrogen, green steel, gigafactories and ports, as well as other sectors central to delivering our industrial strategy. On the other hand, Great British Energy will be the UK’s state-owned energy company. It will own, manage and operate key energy projects across the country, including making investments across the clean energy sector and supporting the development of clean energy technologies. It will also support local power and community energy projects as well as supply chains. This is a distinct role, which is why GBE should be a stand-alone company focused on its important mission.

16:30

I always enjoy the interventions of the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton. He said that Ministers should not be attempting to pick winners. I sympathise with that, but Ministers will not be attempting to pick winners. We will have an expert company—GBE—working under the framework of the Secretary of State’s strategies, as referred to in Clause 5. We have appointed a chair of great calibre.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

Is it not the case that the Secretary of State can override the chair of Great British Energy?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

The noble Lord is referring to a power of direction. We are coming on to relevant amendments later in the Bill, but let me make it clear that this power is often contained in legislation, although we believe it will be used very rarely indeed. I certainly would not expect it to be used. I think the noble Lord is suggesting that the Secretary of State will attempt to micromanage Great British Energy through the power of direction. I simply do not believe that this will happen under any Secretary of State.

I listened to what the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, said about duplication. At the beginning, we think it is sensible for GBE to use the National Wealth Fund’s expertise. He suggested that this is duplication; I think it is a pragmatic, sensible approach. We have certain expertise within the National Wealth Fund that can help as we establish GBE, but they are complementary functions. Having listened to the debate, I can assure noble Lords that my department will work closely with His Majesty’s Treasury to provide clarity to the market on how the two institutions will complement each other, and set out how this relationship will evolve in time.

I turn to Amendments 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Offord, Lord Vaux and Lord Cameron. There was an interesting discussion about whether GBE could or should be allowed to raise equity through the sale of shares while it remained majority-owned by the Crown. Amendment 3 proposes enabling external equity ownership of Great British Energy without its losing its status as a Crown-owned company. Similarly, Amendments 4, 6 and 7 specify enabling third-party ownership of up to 25% of the shares in Great British Energy without its losing its status as a Crown-owned company. Amendment 5 seeks to specify that Great British Energy is owned by the Secretary of State, rather than by the Crown.

We do not think that it is necessary for Great British Energy to sell its own shares to bring in external equity funding, or any funding, for its projects. In the case of the example which the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, gave, it would, though, be possible for Great British Energy to encourage private sector investment into the scheme to which he referred, or to co-invest with external partners, each taking an equity stake in a project that Great British Energy wished to support. I understand that the model has been used successfully by similar bodies, such as the former Green Investment Bank.

Clause 4 enables the Secretary of State to provide financial assistance to Great British Energy. This is so it can take action to meet its objectives. To be clear, our intention is for Great British Energy to become financially self-sufficient in the long term. It will invest in projects that expect a return on investments, but it would be prudent to ensure that the Secretary of State has the power to provide further financial support, if required.

Just as private sector companies would rely on the financial strength of their corporate group to raise funds, that could be the case for providing GBE with further financial support for specific projects in the future. However, we believe that any such financial assistance should be provided by the Secretary of State and, as such, be subject to the usual governance and control principles applicable to public sector bodies, such as His Majesty’s Treasury’s Managing Public Money.

It is also unnecessary to specify that Great British Energy is owned by the Secretary of State rather than the Crown. The Bill simply follows normal legislative practice in its drafting. For instance, Section 317 of the Energy Act 2023, which the Government of the noble Lord, Lord Offord, took through, expresses the ownership requirement for Great British Nuclear in the same way. Other legislation, including Section 6 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, uses the same formulation. Clause 1(6) of the Bill explains that

“wholly owned by the Crown”

means that each share is held by a Minister of the Crown, which includes the Secretary of State, or a company wholly owned by the Crown, or a nominee of either of those categories.

We also think that it is entirely appropriate for the Secretary of State to be the sole shareholder in Great British Energy. I very much agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, on this. Introducing minority third party ownership, whether held by one minority shareholder or several, would add unnecessary complexity to its governance. A shareholder agreement or agreements would need to be put in place. They would need to cover elements relating to the control of Great British Energy, setting out which matters required approval of a simple majority of shareholders and which might require unanimous consent. For an organisation such as Great British Energy, playing such a key part in our mission to deploy clean energy—I take note of what noble Lords have said about parliamentary accountability—is it not surely right that Ministers both are accountable for their actions and can exercise full shareholder rights?

This has been an interesting debate. I am aware of noble Lords’ issues around the role of Great British Energy and the National Wealth Fund and its ability to draw in private sector investments, but we think—and it was a manifesto commitment—that this is a very important body that should stand alone. We are grateful that the National Wealth Fund is able to provide some support at the moment, but we think that this is the right way forward.

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

I thank noble Lords for their insightful contributions on the designation of a company as Great British Energy and the ownership of such a company. I welcome the amendments from the noble Lords, Lord Vaux and Lord Cameron—Amendments 4, 6 and 7. They were designed to probe the benefits of having flexibility to allow minority external equity ownership of Great British Energy. However, I cannot disagree with anything that the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, said about introducing private equity into what is, in effect, government-underwritten risk, which means that it really should be debt.

The fact we are debating this indicates that there is no clarity about the substance and purpose of the Bill or about the exact ownership of Great British Energy. Given that we are debating £8.3 billion of taxpayers’ money, and that there is no limitation on how that financial assistance can be given or structured, we have a concern that will continue through Committee.

The experience of the House was brought into the debate by the noble Lords, Lord Howell and Lord Hamilton, who looked back over previous generations to instances of how overarching powers given to Secretaries of State can be used if not abused, sometimes with the best of intentions. Again, it speaks to how there could be more clarity in the Bill about how those powers will be allocated. We believe that accounting and reporting measures are absent from the Bill and that we need further detail and clarity on the priorities and plans of Great British Energy. I expect that we will return to those matters on Report but, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 1 withdrawn.

Amendment 2

Moved by

[Lord Frost]

2: Clause 1, page 1, line 3, at end insert “, in order to advance the objectives set out in subsection (1A).
(1A) The objectives which the Secretary of State must seek to advance in designating a company as Great British Energy are—(a) reducing household energy costs in a sustainable way, and(b) promoting the United Kingdom’s energy security.”

[Lord Frost (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 2 in my name, and I thank my noble friend Lord Offord for his Front-Bench support for it. I draw noble Lords’ attention to my interests as set out in the register, and I note my regret that I could not be here for Second Reading.

The purpose of my amendment is to establish why the Government are creating Great British Energy and what its underlining objectives and purposes are. Ideally, this would be clear from the Bill or the related documentation, but it is such a thin Bill that calling it a “skeleton” Bill really does not do it justice. Its rather evanescent, wraith-like provisions provide no solidity other than giving a fig leaf of cover to the willed actions of the Secretary of State. I think that we as legislators and the British people are owed a bit more than that from the Bill.

Before I come to the detail, I note that the Bill includes a requirement for the articles of association to contain a statement of “objects”. Of course, objects are not the same as objectives, and what is now Clause 3(2) bears that out. The objects there described are process requirements on the company and limits on where it may spend its very generous taxpayer funding: production of energy, reduction of carbon emissions, energy efficiency, security of supply and so on. They are a “what”; they not the “why”.

The Bill also includes a requirement, in Clause 5, for Great British Energy to have strategic priorities and plans but, again, there is absolutely no constraint on the Secretary of State as to what those strategic priorities may be. Really, this is not good enough for a vehicle for £8 billion of taxpayers’ cash. It is important to have a clear idea of why Great British Energy exists and what its purposes are. That is what my amendment is there to secure and why it is written as it is.

My amendment sets out two objectives for Great British Energy:

“reducing household energy costs in a sustainable way”

and

“promoting the United Kingdom’s energy security”.

In putting those two objectives forward, I am not inserting my own view to substitute for that of the Government. Rather, I am ventriloquising into the Bill, looking at the political statements, spoken and in writing, of the Government and the party opposite and trying to use them to ascertain why they feel this Bill and this company are necessary.

I will briefly take noble Lords through this. I look first, of course, at the Labour Party manifesto— a document whose probative status has been quite significantly weakened in recent months, one might say, but it is all that we have. Number four of the six priorities of the party says:

“Set up Great British Energy, a publicly-owned clean power company, to cut bills for good and boost energy security”.


Those are the two purposes set out in my amendment. Similarly, the launch document for Great British Energy, which was published on 25 July, says that:

“In an unstable world, the only way to guarantee our energy security and protect billpayers permanently is to speed up the transition away from fossil fuels”,


et cetera. At Second Reading in the Commons on 5 September, the Secretary of State said that the Bill would “protect family finances”. The Energy Minister said that it would

“guarantee our energy security and protect bill payers”—[Official Report, Commons, 5/9/24; col. 529.]

once again.

It seems a fair reading to see these as the underlying purposes of Great British Energy and to see them reflected in the Bill. If the Minister, speaking for the Government, thinks differently on this, then perhaps in winding up he could explain what the Government see as the objectives of Great British Energy instead and why they should be different from those in this amendment.

Noble Lords may ask why, if those purposes are understood by all concerned to be the objectives of Great British Energy, they need to be reflected explicitly in the Bill. There are a few reasons. The first, which I have touched on, is simple transparency. The hard-pressed British taxpayer needs to know why they are being asked to stump up over £8 billion.

16:45

The second reason is that the Government seem to be doing a classic baptists and bootleggers operation with the Bill. The Government, having justified the creation of Great British Energy on the grounds I have just set out, have said a lot this autumn about energy security, however feebly justified, but rather less about protecting bill payers. Indeed, it is hard to avoid the sense that the Government are now trying to sidestep their commitment to cut bills, having repeatedly promised that Great British Energy would cut household energy bills by an average of £300. I could give many examples of where people who are now Ministers have commented on this. To give just one, Rachel Reeves, now the Chancellor, said on 19 June:

“Great British Energy, a publicly owned energy company, will cut energy bills by up to £300”.

It is a very clear commitment, but the Government are now reluctant to repeat this pledge and, indeed, defeated an amendment on this point in the Commons last month.

The £300 commitment has been replaced, sidestepped, shifted to one side and replaced by what the Energy Minister described in the Commons as a commitment to

“protect bill payers in the long term”.—[Official Report, Commons, 5/9/24; col. 528.]

Who knows when that will be? One might even think the Government are no longer confident that this vast expenditure of taxpayers’ money will reduce bills at all. Could the Minister tell us, in winding up, how much he thinks energy bills are likely to fall by 2030 once Great British Energy is up and running?

That brings me to my third point. Many observers, in which I include myself, are sceptical that the planned operations of Great British Energy are, in reality, likely to achieve what they purport. They are unlikely to fulfil either of the objectives in my amendment. After all, subsidies to renewables already stand at about £12 billion a year. That is a fact—it is in the Government’s accounts. The OBR estimates that this number will go up to £15 billion by the end of the Parliament.

This is not the place to review all the arguments on this point—we debated them on 14 November and I am sure we will discuss them again—but many of us are doubtful that public money funnelled into renewable energy that delivers power only when the wind blows and the sun shines is likely to increase our energy security. Many of us doubt that renewables are likely to reduce household energy costs. We look at the persistent increase in electricity prices since the renewables programme began in 2004—now giving us the highest prices in Europe—and wonder when the benefits are to come.

I take one view on this. No doubt Ministers and other noble Lords in the Committee take a different view. Reality will tell us who was right, but to be confident when we test what reality tells us we need to know what we are measuring against. My noble friend Lord Gascoigne noted in speaking on the railways Bill last month that the purpose clause he advocated was needed as a

“barometer setting out exactly what this Bill is seeking to do and what should be the Secretary of State’s overriding concern when making a decision”.—[Official Report, 6/11/24; col. 1506.]

The same is true in this case. When the Secretary of State sets the strategic priorities in Clause 5, what are they supposed to be strategic about? When we reach 2030, whoever is in government at that point, we will need to know whether Great British Energy has succeeded against the tests it set itself—not whether it has fulfilled its objects or gone through the right processes, but whether it has succeeded against objectives connected to its underlying raison d’être.

That is why I submit that there needs to be a clear set of objectives in the Bill—for purpose, guidance, and to enable a judgment about success or failure. That is why Amendment 2 is necessary. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s reactions and the contributions from all noble Lords. Meanwhile, I beg to move.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Frost for bringing forward this amendment. It crystalised in my mind that the Bill is a solution in search of a problem. It does not have a clear statement of what it is trying to achieve. Without that, it is likely that Great British Energy will end up with a set of activities that lack proper cohesion.

Like my noble friend Lord Frost, I have been searching back through what the Government have been saying, from the manifesto through to the “founding statement” and the Bill. The Government have been quite clear that they regard energy security and keeping bills low as important objectives of their Great British Energy project.

Being able to specify overarching objectives is logically separate from what we have in Clause 3: the objects of the company. These objects are designed to constrain Great British Energy to doing particular things that in turn will, in theory, deliver the objectives. If the objective is to deliver energy security, that can be delivered in a number of ways. Some could argue that having more oil and gas would be one way of giving us greater energy security. That is not the way that the Government have chosen, so through Clause 3 they restrict what Great British Energy will do to clean energy. As my noble friend Lord Frost said, after a number of years we should be able to judge whether they have achieved energy security through the way they have chosen to set up Great British Energy and the specific objects that it has been given.

My noble friend Lord Frost has outlined the way that the sands seem to be shifting on whether bills will be reduced. I heard on the radio this morning that the Prime Minister will reiterate his £300 promise this week. We look forward to hearing what he will say. Reducing bills and holding them down is clearly something that the Government have been promising for a good number of months by way of Great British Energy, and they need to be judged on whether they achieve that. They are choosing to do it through clean energy, as proposed in the Bill. We will need to look in due course at whether that objective has been achieved.

I have just a couple of drafting quibbles with my noble friend’s amendment. First, and most importantly, I do not think that the objective relating to bills should be confined to household energy bills. We know that the energy bills borne by British industries are ruinously high—much higher than those of all our competitors. Energy bills should be reduced for all energy consumers, not just households.

My second quibble is that the second objective in my noble friend’s amendment refers to “promoting” the UK’s energy security. I do not think it is good enough for this organisation to promote energy security; it should achieve energy security. I hope that, if my noble friend brings this amendment back at a later stage, he will bring a somewhat tougher version. However, these are minor quibbles with the drafting and do not detract from the fact that his amendment is very good.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I would like to support my noble friend Lord Frost’s amendment because we have to judge this Bill on what it achieves, rather than on the processes it goes through. I have a slight problem, because it seems to me that if you want lower energy prices, you want to recognise the advances made by technology and have lower feed-in prices paid by the consumer. That is the way you get energy prices down; but, of course, if Great British Energy is investing in the companies, it wants the feed-in prices to be as high as possible, so the companies make profits.

It seems to me that there is a conflict here, with government standing on both sides of the commercial argument. Let us face it, my noble friend Lady Noakes is right: the price industry is paying for energy as a result of this extraordinary pursuit of net zero is making us extremely uncompetitive in world marketplaces and makes the reindustrialisation of this country something we can only dream about. No company is going to locate in Britain to start a business here if it is paying much higher energy prices than in the rest of Europe, as my noble friend Lord Frost has reminded us.

The Government have to be much clearer in their own mind on what they are trying to achieve with Great British Energy. Just saying that it is going to lower energy prices is not quite good enough, really; you have to say how it is going to lower energy prices. That is something we all want to see, but it is very difficult to attain. Perhaps the Minister can explain how all this is going to be done.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

My Lords, I just wish to make one submission on this amendment, in support of my noble friend Lord Frost. Clause 1(1A)(a), proposed by the amendment, contains the phrase

“reducing household energy costs in a sustainable way”.

The great merit of this is that “sustainable” has two meanings in this context: first, that the low prices are sustained over a long period, which is clearly a good thing; and secondly, that they are sustainable in the sense that they are good for the environment. It is a very well-drafted purpose clause and I commend it to the Committee.

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

I rise to speak to Amendment 2, in the name of my noble friend Lord Frost and my own. This amendment brings critical clarity to the purposes of the Great British Energy Bill. It clearly outlines the two primary objectives the Secretary of State must pursue when designating a company as Great British Energy: first, reducing household energy costs in a sustainable manner; and secondly, promoting the UK’s energy security. I should add that I would not in any way quibble with my noble friend Lady Noakes’s amendments to both those provisions.

These objectives reflect the values of economic responsibility, national sovereignty and long-term sustainability. In the face of rising energy prices and global uncertainty, ensuring that energy remains affordable for British households and businesses is paramount. Reducing costs while maintaining a focus on sustainability means we can protect consumers without compromising the environment. Moreover, energy security has never been more important. The UK’s reliance on foreign energy sources leaves us vulnerable to geopolitical instability—today we still import 40% of our energy. By emphasising energy security in this amendment, we are prioritising the resilience of our national energy infrastructure. A secure energy supply is not just a matter of economic policy; it is a matter of national security.

This amendment provides the framework for a holistic energy strategy that benefits consumers, supports industry and strengthens our nation. As Conservatives, we on these Benches believe that the Government’s role is not to overregulate or restrict but to create the conditions for growth and sustainability. Therefore, Great British Energy must not be a mere title, but an institution, if at all, that advances these vital objectives of lowering energy costs and ensuring energy independence for future generations.

It is imperative that we recognise the significance of Amendment 2, not only in the context of the Bill but as a cornerstone of sound legislative practice. Providing a clear statement of purpose ensures that any future actions taken under this Bill align with the objectives of affordability and energy security. Without such a guiding clause, we risk leaving the interpretation of the company’s aims open to ambiguity or to shifting priorities over time. Does the Minister not agree that a purpose clause of this nature would greatly improve the clarity of the legislation? If he does not agree to support this clause, could he outline on what grounds that decision has been taken?

This amendment would also serve to reassure the British public and industry stakeholders that Great British Energy will not deviate into activities that may undermine these core objectives. We have seen in the past how well-meaning initiatives can become overly bureaucratic or lose sight of their founding principles. A purpose clause acts as a safeguard, compelling policymakers and administrators to remain true to the Bill’s intent.

17:00

To those who may argue that such specificity is unnecessary, I suggest that clarity fosters confidence. At a time when public trust in institutions is fragile, transparency in our legislative process matters. A purpose clause does not bind the hands of future Governments unduly; rather, it provides a clear framework within which they can operate and, indeed, innovate.

Let us not forget the broader geopolitical and economic context within which we are legislating. As we have seen with energy crises across Europe, over-reliance on foreign imports can leave nations exposed to sudden shocks. This amendment would equip Great British Energy with the mandate to bolster domestic resilience, reducing our exposure to such vulnerabilities. It also aligns with our broader net-zero commitments, as energy independence and sustainability often go hand in hand. By investing in clean, home-grown energy sources, we would reduce costs for consumers in the long term while cutting emissions. Is that not the win-win for households, industry and the environment that we all want to achieve by 2050?

Finally, I return to the principles we should be prioritising: prudent economic stewardship, self-reliance and forward-looking governance. This amendment is an opportunity to embed these principles in the DNA of Great British Energy at its birth. I urge the Minister to consider the benefits of a more explicit legislative framework and to recognise that this amendment is not an imposition but merely a refinement of the Bill’s ambitions. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, which would ensure that Great British Energy is both practical and purposeful, with clear measurable goals that would directly benefit the British people and our economy.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, that was an interesting debate, led by the noble Lord, Lord Frost, proposing an addition to Clause 1 which would set Great British Energy’s objectives as

“reducing household energy costs in a sustainable way, and … promoting the United Kingdom’s energy security”.

The noble Lord asked why we are doing this. He then, to be fair, referred to the—I think three—debates we have had on energy policy in the last few weeks, in which we clearly set out our aims and drive towards clean power and net zero. We see Great British Energy, with the provision of financial assistance from the Secretary of State, as being at the heart of our clean power mission. It will speed up the deployment of mature and new technologies, as well as local energy projects. It will support the Government’s aim of decarbonising our electricity system by 2030, while ensuring we can meet future demand as we further decarbonise the economy.

I noted the intervention from the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, and I thought I detected some scepticism about net zero. I remind him that his party, over 14 years, has made various statements in support of net zero. I note that Mrs Thatcher, at the UN General-Assembly in November 1989, said:

“the environmental challenge which confronts the whole world”—

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for giving way again. I think he will be the first to acknowledge that two wrongs do not make a right.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, it was more than two. I can quote Prime Minister May, and I acknowledge her leadership in this country being the first to enshrine the 2050 net-zero carbon target. Prime Minister Johnson only recently addressed COP 26 in Glasgow; I think we all acknowledge the leadership the noble Lord, Lord Sharma, showed there. The noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, announced to the UN the £11.6 billion in international climate finance for the period 2021-22. Although we are having this friendly discussion about future energy policy, there is still some consensus on the need to decarbonise our energy supply, and Great British Energy is part of the way we are going to do it.

The key thing in the structure of the Bill is the objectives set in Clause 3. They will be informed by the statement of strategic priorities that Great British Energy will operate in, making sure that it will be aligned with the Government’s priorities. We have been clear that the first statement, which will be published in 2025—after due consultation and discussion with the devolved Governments and with Jürgen Maier, the chair of Great British Energy—will ensure that GBE is focused on driving clean energy deployment to boost energy independence, create jobs and ensure that UK taxpayers, bill payers and communities reap the benefits of clean, secure, home-grown energy.

Of course, the issue of energy bills is very important. We are relying strongly on the advice of the Climate Change Committee, of which the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, is probably not a great fan—but none the less, over 14 years his party listened to it. The committee said that a clean energy future is the best way to make Britain energy independent, protecting bill payers, creating good jobs and tackling the climate crisis.

The independent National Energy System Operator confirmed a few weeks ago that our 2030 clean power goal is achievable and can create a cheaper, more secure energy system. More broadly, the OBR—another body to which the previous Government paid great attention; they ran into trouble when they did not—highlighted that delayed action on reaching net zero will have significant negative fiscal and economic impacts. The Committee on Climate Change has said that the net costs of the transition, including upfront investment, ongoing running costs and costs of financing, will be less than 1% of GDP over the entirety of 2020 to 2050—lower, it said, than it concluded in its 2019 Net Zero report.

I have already said that we will publish the statement of priorities in 2025. How will GBE be judged? It will be judged on its performance against the statement of priorities within the context of the objectives set by Clause 3.

[Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)]

The Minister has said again that the objectives of the company are set out in Clause 3. I am afraid that is not correct. The objects of the company are set out in Clause 3. As the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, said, those objects restrict the activities—they do not set out the objectives. Nowhere in the Bill are the objectives of the company—what it is trying to achieve—laid out. I have not yet heard an argument from the Minister as to why that is.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

I really do not read Clause 3 in that way. Subsection (2) says:

“The statement must provide that Great British Energy’s objects are restricted to facilitating, encouraging and participating in”.


One way to read that is that Great British Energy’s objects are around the following four paragraphs, informed by the strategic priorities and plans that the Secretary of State will prepare over the next few months.

[Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)]

There is only one way to read the words the “objects are restricted to”. That is what the clause says.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, may not be as familiar with company law as the noble Lord, Lord Vaux. The object of a company, which is what the clause refers to, is a constitution document, and it restricts what a company can do. That is what company law sets up for it. The Minister is trying to read “objects” in a broader sense. It is very clear that the clause refers to the legal documentation that will surround the full legal implementation of Great British Energy as a company. It does not have any other meaning.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, it is always helpful to have that kind of clarification, because I certainly was not intending to mislead the Committee in any way. From what I see in Clause 3, I am clear that GBE can participate in, encourage and facilitate the production, distribution, et cetera—informed, as I say, by the strategic plans and priorities. But I will obviously look at that and, if I have got myself confused, I will certainly reflect on it.

[Lord Frost (Con)]

My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for his response and to all those who contributed to our discussion, including the mini-discussion at the end about the difference between objectives and objects, which is important and I am sure we will return to it. I do not want to detain noble Lords long but, as the Minister repeated the words of Lady Thatcher on this subject, I cannot forbear repeating her words in her final work on it:

“By the end of my time as Prime Minister I was also becoming seriously concerned about the anti-capitalist arguments which the campaigners against global warming were deploying”.


She—rightly, in my view—added:

“We should be suspicious of plans for global regulation that all too clearly fit in with other preconceived agendas. We should demand of politicians that they apply the same criteria of commonsense and a sense of proportion to their pronouncements on the environment as to anything else”.


Those wise words are worth bearing in mind today when we discuss this issue.

I am not sure that we have entirely got to the bottom of this issue, and I suspect that we will have to return to it in some form on Report, because it is so fundamental to what the Bill is about. For now, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 2 withdrawn.

Amendments 3 to 7 not moved.

Clause 1 agreed.

Clause 2: Crown status

Debate on whether Clause 2 should stand part of the Bill.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, I tabled the Clause 2 stand part notice to probe the reasons why Clause 2 rules out Crown status for Great British Energy, but I also tabled it to explore further one of the topics we have already discussed: the relationship between Great British Energy and the National Wealth Fund.

As we debated at Second Reading, the Bill is a partial cut-and-paste job on the UK Infrastructure Bank Act. The main difference is that some important chunks did not get all the way over to the paste bit of the instruction. One way in which this Bill and that Act differ is that Clause 2, which deals with Crown status, has no counterpart in the 2023 Act. I do not know why the 2023 Act was silent on this, and I do not think we debated it when we went through the UK Infrastructure Bank Bill, as it then was. But, since the National Wealth Fund is fairly closely controlled by the Treasury, it may well have Crown status.

As we have discussed, the precise relationship between Great British Energy and the National Wealth Fund is something of a mystery, and I have to say that it remains so after the Minister’s letter to noble Lords after Second Reading. The Minister told us in that letter that the Government will set out the relationship in detail

“as Great British Energy scales up”—

I think that is code for saying, “We will make it up as we go along”.

The Minister said, as has been referred to, that in the early days Great British Energy investments will be made by the National Wealth Fund. This is another plea for him to explain how the interaction between the National Wealth Fund and Great British Energy will work in the context of one possibly having Crown status and the other very definitely not.

17:15

We have had almost no details on the much-trumpeted “partnership arrangement” with the Crown Estate and do not know how it will work in practice. However, for the purpose of this stand part debate, will the Minister explain how Crown status, which presumably attaches to the Crown Estate but not to Great British Energy, will affect activities under their partnership? Will the partnership itself have Crown status? That seems unclear.

I am no expert in constitutional law, but my understanding is that Crown status carries with it some exemptions from planning law and immunity from some prosecutions. I am not arguing for Great British Energy to have Crown status, because I think it should have as few freedoms as possible, but I seek in this short debate to find out the practical effect of not having Crown status, given that two of the closest partners that appear critical to the early success of Great British Energy have, or may well have, Crown status.

[Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)]

My Lords, I support my noble friend Lady Noakes. We cannot let this clause float by with a nod of the head, because it omits vital developments—as our debates have done—in the whole pattern of energy supply and energy-environmental compatibility across the planet. They are developing fast in other countries but get no mention here, confirming that this piece of legislation, while sounding fine and fitting into the jigsaw of the past, is already out of date and being bypassed by major developments in the global politics of energy and the environment.

I will give the Committee two examples. The first is zonality. The thinking in many circles, certainly in America and increasingly here, is that energy security, which we discussed in relation to the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Frost, will have to be considered in zonal rather than national terms; in other words, national, centralised organisations, even National Grid, do not fit into the pattern of a future that will deliver security, clean energy and affordability. If one applies a zonal lens to this scene—I listened to senior officials from the National Energy System Operator talking strongly about this the other night—many of the arguments we are having around Clause 1 fall to bits.

Secondly, US corporations, big corporations in other countries and some in this country are beginning to recognise that grid thinking and the centralised patterns of energy delivery compatible with net zero and our other objectives are never going to happen. We will have increased climate violence and it is too late to prevent the growth in carbon emissions which is going on now and continuing faster than ever. Methane, which is 80 times as lethal as carbon dioxide, is also growing very fast, according to the latest figures. Despite all our efforts, climate violence is coming and many feel that it is here already. Big corporations in America and some here are losing faith in the capacity of our system—a transformed, completely renovated grid system of transmission of power and a necessary pattern of generation which is reliable and does not stop when the wind stops—to supply their needs.

Such corporations are investing, or planning to invest, and finding out from National Grid that they have to wait 15 years to get any electricity, to adjust from gas to electricity, or whatever it is, and, in doing so, realising that they are on a futile course unless they can get their own assured, dedicated source of electricity. That is why we are reading in the papers about ideas for converting old coal stations to mini-nuclear power stations, and other technologies. All these things are racing ahead but none is mentioned in Clause 2. It is, in fact, if we are frank with ourselves, a completely unrelated and irrelevant clause.

Therefore, one’s inclination is to shrug one’s shoulders. I hope that when we come back to these things in detail at a later stage, we will have a rather more focused image of what is really happening in the world of energy supply, carbon dioxide and methane growth, climate violence, or anything else of which there is not much of a sign in this clause.

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak in favour of my noble friend Lady Noakes’s stand part notice. This clause deals with the Crown status—or more accurately, the lack of Crown status—of Great British Energy, and it is imperative that we probe the Government’s reasoning and consider the implications of this approach.

Clause 2 states clearly:

“Great British Energy is not to be regarded as a servant or agent of the Crown or as enjoying any status, immunity or privilege of the Crown”.


Additionally, it specifies that the property of Great British Energy

“is not to be regarded as property of, or property held on behalf of, the Crown”.

Let us pause and consider what this means. Great British Energy is envisaged as a significant player in the energy sector, with the Government making it central to our net-zero ambitions and national energy security. It may well handle substantial public funds, represent the UK’s interests domestically and internationally, and carry out critical projects on behalf of the Government. Yet the Government have deliberately chosen to sever this body from the legal, financial and symbolic framework provided by Crown status.

I pose the question: why? Why has this decision been taken, and what are the potential consequences? There are three areas of concern I wish to highlight; the first is accountability and oversight. Without Crown status, Great British Energy sits outside the constitutional framework that traditionally governs Crown bodies. Will this weaken Parliament’s ability to scrutinise its actions? Will the Comptroller and Auditor-General have clear access to audit its books? In an age of heightened public interest in corporate governance and transparency, these questions should be considered.

Secondly, on legal implications, by denying Crown status, Great British Energy forfeits the legal immunities and privileges that might ordinarily protect a public body in its dealings. Does this leave it more vulnerable to litigation? Could it become ensnared in disputes that detract from its primary mission?

Thirdly, this is a public body intended to work for the public good. Denying it Crown status might send a message—rightly or wrongly—that it is not fully embedded within the public sector, raising questions about its mission and accountability to the public interest. I do not suggest that Crown status is a necessity in all circumstances. Indeed, there may be good reasons for taking this route, such as granting Great British Energy greater operational flexibility or shielding the Government from certain liabilities—but these reasons have not been clearly articulated by the Government, and they deserve to be.

As we face unprecedented challenges in energy policy, the creation of Great British Energy is a momentous step. Its structure and status must instil public confidence, ensure robust accountability, and align seamlessly with the broader aims of our national strategy. Clause 2, as it stands, leaves too many unanswered questions.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, we think Clause 2 is very important. It ensures that Great British Energy will serve the public as an independent company and operate in the same way as other UK companies. Before I come on to the main body of the argument, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Howell, that he had some interesting points to make about the role of advanced nuclear reactors tied into industrial processes and data centres. We are watching very carefully what is happening in the US and we are in discussion with some of the companies themselves. I very much take his point about that.

The clause ensures that Great British Energy will not have any special status, immunity or privilege normally associated with the Crown, nor will its property be seen as the property of the Crown. It will also be subject to the same legal requirements as other companies. This is in line with the vision we have had for Great British Energy from the beginning: that it should be an operationally independent and agile market player, and we want to ensure it remains that way. If we were to leave out the clause, either Great British Energy would be regarded as a servant or agent of the Crown and have the immunity or privilege associated with that status; or, at least, there would be ambiguity as to whether it has that status.

I understand that the courts in recent years have been faced with questions about whether certain persons or bodies had Crown immunity, and the issue was not clear in the legislation—for example, the Commissioners of Customs and Excise, and the Commissioners of Prisons. The clause avoids that ambiguity and the possibility of any litigation arising regarding Great British Energy’s status. Examples of how this might arise in the context of Great British Energy, are, first, that Crown bodies are generally not covered by the requirements of the Employers’ Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Act 1969; and, secondly, that parts of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 do not bind the Crown. We would not want Great British Energy to be exempt from that legislation or for it to be unclear whether it is bound by such legislation.

As I mentioned earlier in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, we expect Great British Energy and the National Wealth Fund to work well together. It is while Great British Energy is being established that it will utilise the National Wealth Fund’s existing expertise, which I think has been widely acknowledged. This is work in progress, and I cannot say very much more than that at the moment. We are not making it up as we are going along. There are earnest discussions between ourselves, His Majesty’s Treasury and Jürgen Maier, the chair of Great British Energy, and we will work closely with His Majesty’s Treasury to provide clarity to the market on how the two institutions will complement each other and how their relationship will evolve over time.

I also acknowledge that the partnership with the Crown Estate will be hugely valuable. On the question of the Crown Estate’s own position, I will have to seek further advice and write to the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, because I do not have the answer at the moment.

Clause 2 agreed.

Clause 3: Objects

Amendment 8

Moved by

[Lord Naseby]

8: Clause 3, page 2, line 13, after “encouraging” insert “investing in”

[Lord Naseby (Con)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 8, I will also speak to Amendments 9, 12, 13, 14, 31 and 32 in my name. They are focused on Clause 3, “Objects”, and they arise from a key part of the energy world that has problems with those objects as they exist in the Bill. I will refer particularly to the hydrogen industry; all my remarks will be on that industry’s reading of the Bill as currently drafted.

I have had discussions with the leading and largest trade association, Madano, which has 120 members across the value chain for Hydrogen UK. It is concerned that the current definition of clean energy in the Great British Energy Bill lacks clarity and could unintentionally hinder the growth of the UK hydrogen sector. That is why I am seeking to amend the definition in the Bill.

The proposed amendments aim to provide an inclusive definition of clean energy that includes CCUS-enabled hydrogen. The amendments are supported by Hydrogen UK and the Carbon Capture and Storage Association to address the concerns they have about limiting sector growth and investment. The UK’s unique twin-track approach to hydrogen production that supports the use of CCUS-enabled hydrogen and electrolytic hydrogen is, in my judgment, a major strength that can help kick-start the UK hydrogen industry. Excluding critical CCUS-enabled hydrogen production technology at this early stage would harm the UK hydrogen industry.

17:30

So, how will the amendments that I have put forward support the UK hydrogen industry? First, they give confidence. They will secure investment, because a narrow definition of clean energy will limit investment in sustainable energy resources, slowing the growth of green industries such as hydrogen. And hydrogen presents the UK with a massive opportunity for economic growth, due to its natural geological and geographical advantages, supply-chain support and existing industrial skill set. A clear definition of clean energy will allow GB Energy to build confidence and bring in investment. This will create jobs. Hydrogen UK’s most recent economic impact assessment estimates that the hydrogen sector in the UK could support approximately 30,000 direct jobs by 2030, but that will happen only if CCUS- enabled hydrogen projects reach FID.

It will help to achieve net zero. GB Energy is the flagship policy of this Government’s plans to reach net zero by 2050, and I support that. Hydrogen has a wide range of uses, from local transport to aviation to industrial decarbonisation, and is essential for decarbonising hard-to-reach sectors of business. It would show good global leadership. That is really thanks to the healthy pipeline of projects, a supportive policy environment and existing energy expertise. The UK is well positioned to become a global hydrogen leader and build robust supply chains here. But, above all, it supplies energy security. CCUS-enabled hydrogen has a critical role to play in protecting the UK’s energy security, because hydrogen can store energy to balance offshore wind and solar. When the wind is not blowing and the sun is not shining, hydrogen is there to give us the future energy security that we need as a nation. I believe that what this industry has done and is doing is vital to enhance this Bill and I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to five amendments in this group, so I apologise that I will be a few minutes—but at least they are not in five different groups. I start with two amendments on heat pump technology. They both seek to explore how Great British Energy could have a greater and more useful and productive role in helping with the uptake of heat pumps.

Amendment 16 would set an objective for GB Energy to ensure the uptake and use of heat pumps. Amendment 17 would set an objective for GB Energy to ensure the uptake and use of heat pumps, including by leading efforts to develop a mortgage opt-in financing scheme, where payments for heat pumps could be included in mortgages on an opt-in basis. Helping people to decarbonise home heating has been a long-running and difficult issue. Very little progress has been made in these areas, which are responsible for a quarter of our total CO₂ emissions. We all need to recognise and work together to ensure that policies and plans are put forward to bring people with us on the journey to net zero, and that means ensuring that vulnerable and low-income households are supported through the transition.

Heat pumps are up to four times more energy-efficient than gas boilers and they are a crucial element of the Government’s plans to decarbonise home heating. I welcome a lot of the measures that have recently been announced by the Government as part of the warm homes plan, including boosting the budget for the boiler upgrade scheme, supporting more households to switch to a heat pump and removing unnecessary planning restrictions which were a blockage to people taking up and installing heat pumps. While I recognise that these measures are useful and help to remove some barriers, my worry remains that they are still not enough to get us back on track to meet our heat-pump targets.

To meet the UK’s climate change target, the Government need to install 600,000 low-carbon heat pumps annually by 2028. The 2024 progress report to Parliament from the Climate Change Committee identified heat-pump installations and the training of heat-pump installers as being “significantly off track”. In 2023, less than half the number of heat pumps were installed to keep us on track for these goals. While figures have improved a little this year, it has not been dramatic enough to make progress. The marketplace faces continued resistance from many of the gas boiler companies; there is still a prevalence of disinformation and cost barriers and a lack of installers necessary to get these heat pumps installed. So I wish to explore with the Minister and with the House whether it is worthwhile giving GB Energy a role in this space, to help progress with the installation of heat pumps and to help us meet these challenging targets. To be frank, I do not see much of another plan from the Government that is going to get us anywhere near where we need to be in time. Furthermore, has any consideration been given to bringing the warm homes plan and the associated budget within the control of GB Energy?

Turning to Amendment 17, I wish to acknowledge from the outset that this is not my idea; this is an idea I read about and it originates from the noble Lord, Lord Deben. It made sense to me. This would be a way of helping people who own a house and have a mortgage to overcome the cost barrier to the installation of heat pumps. I think it is sensible and possibly worth pursuing further. So, I wanted to ask the Minister and to explore with the House whether GB Energy could act as a facilitator and a broker to help make this happen. There are significant government grants available—£7,500 for installing a heat pump—but that still leaves over half the cost with the householder. That is still a significant amount of money and it is a barrier to people taking this up. However, if the total cost of the heat pumps that was left over could be put on a mortgage, that could spread over a longer term and the process would become inherently much more affordable. So I will be interested in the Minister’s comments on whether that is something that GB Energy might have a role in helping to facilitate.

I will now move on to Amendment 23. To be clear, this is a probing amendment. Sorry, that was not written in the amendment. The amendment prevents GB Energy facilitating, encouraging and participating in carbon capture and storage, as the Government have already allocated a budget for CCS to be spent elsewhere. I tabled this amendment so that the whole House could gain a better understanding of the proposed role for GB Energy in the CCS sector and in this space. I want to hear from the Minister what the objectives are. What value will GB Energy add here, why are they investing in it and what are the proposed outcomes that will flow from that investment?

I understand from the Minister that the Government do not want to put a list in the Bill and that they are keen to maintain flexibility for GB Energy. GB Energy is about investing in emerging technologies, helping them to get off the ground and taking on some of the risk that needs to be taken to help create new markets. It is about crowding in and not crowding out private capital. Those are clear objectives. It is a tightrope that needs to be walked, but there is a clear purpose there. I am not against GB Energy having a role in CCS, but I wish to understand a little better what that role is, what is planned and what percentage of GBE’s proposed budget might be spent in this area.

Against that background, I am concerned about the availability of budget and government resources for GB Energy. I know that government discussions around budget resources are ongoing, that £100 million has so far been pledged over the first two years, and that a total of £8 billion over the five years of this Parliament is proposed, but that is not a huge budget resource and there is a growing list of priorities and possible areas for GBE to invest in. Eventually, we could end up in a position where the cake is cut so small that each slice begins to have a very diminishing value.

Of course we need to set up the organisation, but only £100 million-worth of investment will be available to GBE for the year 2025-26, other than what might come from the National Wealth Fund. Time is running out for GB Energy to make these investments, because the ambition here is obviously to decarbonise our energy by 2030. If you are 25 or 26 making these investments, once you have made them they need to create real things that make a real difference. We are running out of time.

I speak also to Amendment 24, which is similar to Amendment 23 but looks at GB Energy’s role in nuclear and at the relationship between GB Energy and GBN. I do not have time to go through it all, but basically I want to explore all the points I made on CCS in relation to GBN. I note the Minister said in the letter he wrote to us that the detail is being worked through and that considerations are being given to how GBN’s functions could be best aligned with GBE. Briefly, can he confirm that there are no plans for GBN to become part of GBE, and that the plan is that they will always be separate organisations but will have close working relationships with each other? Again, I assume that that is about initial investment and risk-taking in new nuclear technology.

My worry these amendments address is that, without proper strategic priorities, the ever-growing areas that GB Energy could invest in will leave it with inadequate resources to do the core job that I want to see, which is renewable energy. The Government have made £200 billion available for carbon capture and storage, so I do not quite see why GBE also needs to be involved in it.

Amendment 25, to which I have added my name, is in the name of my noble friend Lord Bruce. Unfortunately, he cannot be here, so I will speak to his amendment, which would require GBE to have consideration

“to measures that ensure oil and gas supply chains contribute to … the development of renewable technology during transition to net zero … the decarbonisation of remaining oil and gas production, and … the reduction of oil and gas production consistent with net zero”.

I pay tribute to my noble friend and his years of experience in Aberdeen and the North Sea oil and gas sectors, and his very real concern to ensure the transition is indeed just. These processes are extremely difficult even in the best of times and with the best will, so it is important to ensure oil and gas workers are protected and treated fairly, that adequate support is given to them, and that they are able to transition into the green energy and technologies of the future. We need these people and their skills, and we need these industries to ensure we can deliver the green technology that we need. However, these processes can be bumpy. It is in all our interests to ensure that their rights and futures are protected, and that these British industries continue to be supported and flourish, and are able to transition. All projections to and through net zero envisage oil and gas as part of the plan, so this will continue to be part of our energy mix even in net zero.

The oil and gas sector currently accounts for £25 billion of UK GDP and supports around 200,000 jobs. The plans are that even more people will be employed in the green sectors. The simple purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the decline of the oil and gas supply chain does not proceed faster than the expansion of the renewable sector. If we get the balance right, the UK can deliver net zero at home and help develop it abroad; if we get it wrong, we could depress one successful if declining sector before the new sector arrives to take it forward.

Just before I finish, I give my support to Amendment 18, which will no doubt be spoken to very well by my noble friend Lady Grender. It calls for GB Energy to support an emergency home insulation programme. This is one of the key amendments to the Bill from my party. The best energy of all is the energy we never need to burn, use and consume. More must be done on energy efficiency to support our home owners and bill payers to make sure that they can afford to keep their homes warm and safe. Finally, I lend my support to Amendment 91 on tidal barrages. With that, I think I have run out of time.

17:45

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I rise on the final note of the contribution of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, on those amendments to speak to my Amendment 91, which he just mentioned. It is in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Finlay of Llandaff and the noble Lords, Lord Storey and Lord Woodley. I know it enjoys support from all parts of your Lordships’ House. It would insert the following new clause after Clause 7:

“Within six months of a designation under section 1(1) coming into effect, Great British Energy must publish an assessment of the potential use of tidal barrage projects to support decarbonisation of the energy sector”.


That sits comfortably with the other amendments in this group. I strongly support what the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, said about the use of hydrogen, what the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said about heat pumps, and what I think my noble friend Lady Boycott will say about biomass.

I also thank the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, with whom I have already had one meeting—he promised that at Second Reading and I am grateful to him for it. It is partly about whether we can reduce reliance on forms of energy that come with a price tag connected to slave labour in places such as Xinjiang. If one is to stop using sources that have a human rights dimension, we have to find alternatives. In a way, that is what these amendments seek to do: to look at what some of the other alternatives may be. I also know that the Minister has kindly agreed to meet with me and the metro mayor for Merseyside, Steve Rotheram, along with his noble friend, the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, in due course, so we can talk further about the Mersey barrage, which I will come back to in the course of my remarks.

The noble Lord, Lord Naseby, talked about security and diversity—very important concepts that have come out in all the previous groups we have talked about. We should make sure that we are not so dependent on any one source that anyone else can then hold us to ransom. I would add to security and diversity the need for more reliance in the United Kingdom on ourselves and a reduction in dependency on countries such as the People’s Republic of China or Russia. I think all of us were horrified to see the dependency that Germany had at the beginning of the war in Ukraine, and we must learn the lessons of that.

Why tidal energy? I am grateful to the House of Lords Library for producing some notes on this for me. However, I have been interested in this issue since the 1980s, when I served in another place on the Environment Select Committee, but also because I founded the Mersey Barrage All-Party Parliamentary Group. This idea had not come out of the blue. In fact, tidal barrages have been around for many years. The first was thought of by the French in 1921. It did not come to pass until 1966, when the La Rance barrage, quite close to Saint-Malo in Brittany, opened. So this is not a fantasy or something out of dystopian fiction; they have been done and here are decades of experience.

Tidal energy could be a crucial pillar for delivering the objectives of the energy Bill. It would strengthen the UK’s renewable energy mix, complement intermittent sources such as wind and solar, drive the green industrial strategy by fostering innovation, create jobs and support regional economic growth. The United Kingdom is uniquely positioned to be a global leader in tidal energy.

We can learn from projects such as the La Rance estuary barrage in France, but we can also learn—I think the noble Lord, Lord Howell, will be particularly interested in this—from the experience of South Korea, where the largest operating tidal power station is based: the Sihwa Lake project, which produces 254 megawatts of energy. It is a 43.8 kilometre artificial lake constructed as a land reclamation project in 1994. It used a 12.7 kilometre seawall at Gyeonggi Bay and, after some false starts, if you look at its history, nevertheless, construction led to 552.7 gigawatts of electricity generated by the tides. I asked what that really means to a layman like me, and I was told that it is the equivalent of 862,000 barrels of oil, or 315,000 tonnes of CO₂, equivalent to the amount produced by 100,000 cars annually. It has 10 water turbine generators, enough to support the domestic needs of a city with a population of about half a million. After some false starts initially, as I said, it led to some very positive developments in the ecosystem there as well.

That neatly takes me to the Mersey barrage, an idea that, as I said, has been around for over 30 years now. There has recently been a new public consultation, which closed last month. I know that when the Metro mayor comes to meet the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, there will be an opportunity to discuss the findings of that.

None of these things, whatever energy we produce, comes with no downside—we all accept that—but there are surprisingly few downsides to the use of tidal barrages. Merseyside would argue that the green industrial revolution could be started off there, and Britain’s renewable energy coast could be there, on the River Mersey and in the Irish Sea. It would power hundreds of thousands of homes and create many jobs. I visited Cammell Laird a few weeks ago to see the wonderful renaissance that has taken place there, alongside the extraordinary renaissance of the Port of Liverpool; these are big success stories that need to be understood and learned more widely. Listen to what the mayor himself says: “There is a strong strategic case for taking forward a Mersey tidal power project and we are developing detailed plans for how it could be made a reality. I also believe there is a strong moral case for it too—our planet’s future depends on it.”

As people such as the noble Lord, Lord West, will confirm, the Mersey has a huge tidal range—green energy to power every home in the city region for more than 100 years. Surely that is something worth giving serious consideration to. It is predictable, so it complements offshore wind and solar energy; but it is predictable in a way that they are not always. It should be a key part of the diversity that we heard about earlier. It is a well-established technology with minimal decommissioning needs. I would also point the Minister to other experience, not just overseas. The Orbital O2 project in Orkney is the world’s most powerful underwater turbine: 2,000 homes there receive their energy from it, and more than 2,200 tonnes of carbon are cancelled as a result of the work of the project.

Then, of course, there is the Severn barrage project, which has been around a long time and has had many advocates, not least on the Official Opposition Benches over the years. I know that some noble Lords, one of whom cannot be here today, are great supporters of it, as are some of my noble friends. This is an issue that has captivated the party of the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, who is in his place, and others. The idea was dropped back in 2010, but it was resurrected in 2024, with New Civil Engineer reporting that a new independent commission had been established. It estimates that 7% of the United Kingdom’s electricity could be generated, and challenges such as cost, risk and environmental impacts, which have previously halted major barrage projects, are believed to be capable of being overcome by the use of new technologies.

The UK could be in a position to be a global leader. I certainly think this is worthy of exploration, and that is all the amendment commits us to doing. This should not be seen as some sort of science fiction, as some projects undoubtedly appear to be from time to time. It is not unrealistic, and there are already very good examples, which I have cited. It is worth looking at further, and if the Minister cannot support the amendment, I hope he feels that the principle of delving further into the potential of barrages should be part of what Great British Energy seeks to achieve.

[Baroness Boycott (CB)]

My Lords, I very much support what the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, said about tidal power. I have followed what has happened on the Severn, and it is terrific to see that it is now coming back into play. Tides are probably our most reliable power source in the UK. There will always be a tide, when there might not be some wind.

I support pretty much all the amendments in this group which look at diversifying the sources of energy—all of what the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, said. I shall speak specifically to Amendments 30 and 33, which would exclude biomass from the definition of clean energy, and there are many reasons for this. Over the past few years, it has become completely clear to me and, I think, to many other noble Lords—including the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, who is not in his place, and who spoke about this issue during a Question of mine a couple of weeks ago—that while biomass is okay on paper, in theory, and on a very small scale in practice, it is not at all okay on the big scale at which we practise it. We cannot go on using it to reach net zero. I do not know whether noble Lords saw the “Dispatches” and “Panorama” programmes; also, an Ofgem investigation has found that biomass energy generators in the UK have “misreported”—that is not my word—the data on where they get their wood from. In other words, it is not waste wood. The idea was that offcuts and waste wood were used and burnt. That in itself was a fallacy, because the burning of wood releases so much carbon, but the story gets worse.

As the Wildlife and Countryside Link put it:

“Bioenergy which burns woody biomass actively harms nature restoration efforts and will not contribute to GB Energy’s goals of clean energy, energy independence, nor cheaper energy bills.”


This is before you get to the negative health impacts of sourcing and burning biomass, the damage it is doing to the renewable energy brand, or, importantly, habitat destruction, which so often gets missed in the race towards net zero.

I want to raise a couple of wider bioenergy issues. I am really worried by the idea of BECCS—bioenergy with carbon capture and storage, which the Government seem intent on believing is an inherently negative emission technology. Let us look a little further. The assumption is based on the idea that all biomass inputs are waste—which not even our sustainability requirements require—or are balanced out by regrowth. If it was entirely the former, let us be clear that burning waste wood releases more emissions than natural degradation, through which carbon is absorbed by the soil—and that is before you get to all the other environmental benefits of leaving forestry residue in the forest where it belongs. If we assume the latter to be true, it is only the case after several decades and, again, only if the trees are actually replanted. In short, there is no way to verify that biomass is carbon neutral at any point.

I feel that this has gone so far that it would even be worth the department itself sending someone out to where these pellets are apparently sourced from—in North America and in the province of British Columbia. Perhaps there is something that DESNZ or its predecessor, BEIS, has already done, which I have heard rumours about. I would be very grateful if the Minister could tell me if this has happened or is planned.

Biomass is not carbon negative. I understand that the Minister’s department baked BECCS into our carbon budgets over a decade ago and that they are ongoing in future carbon budgets, but the logic is flawed and, at its worst, truly deceitful. Just because we classify something as renewable or carbon negative does not mean that it is. We do not have time to grow the trees to absorb the carbon we are pushing into the atmosphere. As the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, said, we are cutting trees down in North America and Canada, turning them into wood pellets, shipping them by various means back across Canada and the Atlantic, often to a power plant in Yorkshire where they are belting out carbon into the atmosphere, and we are calling this clean and renewable. My Lords, it is not.

My question for the Minister—apart from whether he is on this mission to find out the extent of this—is whether he will rule GBE out of involving itself with biomass power generation, and will he come back to me on what investigations his department has done in the past few years? Can we be honest at this point and remove the absurd assumption that biomass is inherently carbon-neutral at the point of use?

18:00

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, I rise to speak in favour of Amendment 18, not Amendment 28— to be clear. I regret that I was unable to be here for Second Reading.

This amendment inserts two additional objects for GBE. The first is to implement

“an emergency home insulation programme with targeted support for people on low incomes”.

The second is to have as a clear object

“the expansion and development of renewable energy and technology”.

I also support many of the amendments in this group, particularly those in the name of my noble friend Lord Russell. Most of my comments will address his Amendments 16 and 17, which, alongside the spirit of my own amendment, seek to promote an eco-friendly and affordable way to heat homes.

On these Benches we would argue that these amendments are essential if the welcome aims of the Bill are to be fulfilled; namely, to reduce dependence on fossil fuels, drive down costs for individual households and ensure long-term security of supply. Failure to give these two issues due prominence, especially when it comes to insulation, would be like running a hot bath with the plug missing. My amendment focuses on getting GBE to support and innovate on behalf of its customers, because GBE, like any other part of our society or any other organisation, should be working towards and contributing to net zero.

The UK has one of the worst records in western Europe when it comes to losing heat from homes—three times faster than neighbouring countries—resulting in exorbitant costs, poor health and a level of wastage which is breathtaking. The greatest impact of our older, damper, leakier housing stock is on those who can least afford it; and it particularly impacts on people who live in the private rented sector. While residents might be able to access help with insulation from their local authorities at present, that is not what this amendment attempts to achieve. It is about the rollout of a proper emergency home insulation programme—yes, for this winter but, above all, as a long-term measure to improve living conditions and drive down costs. I ask that the Minister particularly addresses our aim for an emergency scheme. The benefit is obvious and has been laid out by the Climate Change Committee in the past. Demand for energy can reduce if we deal urgently with the energy which is lost and seeping out of homes that are not insulated and are leaking heat.

The potential savings are significant. The New Economics Foundation estimates that £2 billion alone could be saved for the NHS from reducing cold and damp in current housing. In addition, home energy efficiency is highly necessary to get us to the net-zero target. Regrettably, according to the previous Conservative Government’s own Climate Change Committee, while the UK over recent years should have installed nearly 3 million individual measures in energy efficiency, the last Government achieved just under 16% of that target. This was such a wasted opportunity to help those who need it most, in the leakiest of homes.

The worst part of this historical record is the abandonment of targets for energy efficiency and insulation in 2015, allowing houses to be built without energy-efficiency measures at all. We urge this new Government to make this record of lost opportunities a thing of the past, and to adopt an emergency programme of insulation through the scheme proposed to support those on low incomes. While we are of course aware that the Government’s warm homes plan is due next year, if this Bill is intended to champion the consumer alongside the objective of energy efficiency, which is one of the best ways to help them, it should be included within this legislation, particularly given how far these programmes have, tragically, lagged behind and how much progress and catch-up now need to be made.

I ask that the Minister responds in the context of the warnings from Age UK and Disability Rights UK about the urgent and imminent impact of the changes to the winter fuel allowances. This is something that could be reduced as an impact, crisis and concern right now, if countless vulnerable pensioners were lifted out of fuel poverty with the emergency programme we have described.

Leading the way in previous years, my noble friend Lady Pinnock introduced an amazing scheme that I urge the Minister to look at called the Kirklees Warm Zone scheme—noble Lords may have heard her reference it once or twice in the past—that offers over 170,000 households support with an insulation programme, regardless of the tenure of the property. It was an award-winning programme over a three-year period, and the largest domestic insulation scheme in the UK. It is estimated that approximately 55,000 tonnes of CO₂ were saved in that period, and it helped to dramatically reduce fuel poverty and won many awards for sustainability.

In October, Wokingham Borough Council launched a new home decarbonisation advice service aimed at supporting residents who want to make their homes more energy efficient and reduce their energy bills. Eastleigh, as part of a much wider consortium of local authorities, secured home upgrade grants to help vulnerable households. I have given the Minister those three local government examples where there is such a strong appetite for the emergency action that we are trying to bake into this legislation.

The second part of the amendment would also reinvigorate an ambition that has fallen away in recent years for the UK; namely, to be a global leader in development and expansion of renewable energy, which many noble Lords have talked about in this group. This is an ambition, sadly, that the Conservative Government dropped like a wet, cold potato when they ditched—according to the Sun, not me—the “green crap”. This new ambition today should be baked into primary legislation. We should immediately remove the last Government’s restrictions on new solar and wind power. When it comes to renewables, we should be innovating and proudly leading. From insulation and heat pumps to wind, wave and solar, the UK is uniquely able to lead in this, in part because of the geography.

We are ambitious for what this Bill can achieve and, as a result, what the UK can achieve. We believe that investing in renewable power now will ensure that 90% of the UK’s electricity is generated from renewables by 2030. Innovation that is referred to in this amendment would include things such as a rooftop solar revolution, with strong incentives and a guaranteed fair price for electricity sold back into the grid, for instance.

Finally, this part of the amendment is connected to jobs that can be created in this area. I think everyone would agree that one of the best examples of that over a few years now is Hull, where the new blade factory with a recent contract worth £1 billion is yet another example of how growth in jobs can be generated through great innovation in this area. That is why the amendment refers to expansion and development: it is with these schemes in mind.

Our ambition as a nation must be to be a leader in this, and it should have no limits. I hope noble Lords and the Minister will support this amendment, its intentions and the spirit of the other amendments as the Bill progresses through Committee.

[Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB)]

My Lords, I do not believe that the Bill should be too specific on the investment targets of GBE. As I said in an earlier group, I believe that GBE should remain flexible and fleet of foot, adapting itself over the years to the development of science and changes in the marketplace.

Nevertheless, there is no harm in us discussing where we think some of the current opportunities lie. In that context, and in the context of the amendments in this group, I will touch on both heat pumps and tidal energy. Unfortunately, it was not clear from reading the script that the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, referred to hydrogen. Had I known this, I would definitely have been supporting his amendments, because I am very keen on hydrogen. It has a crucial part to play in our energy infrastructure, as a storage of intermittent power—as the noble Lord himself mentioned—as well as in the making of steel and in transport. Hydrogen fuel cell cars have a range of more than 1,000 miles. Hydrogen is a really important part of our infrastructure. As I said at Second Reading, I hope that GBE will support the hydrogen industry.

I turn now to heat pumps. Heating and hot water make up around 40% of the UK’s energy consumption and nearly one-third of our greenhouse gas emissions. I see a role for GBE not so much in individual domestic heat pumps but in community heat pumps—particularly where, to coin a phrase, we can use the heat under our feet. Many major population centres in the UK are above, or adjacent to, hot, sedimentary aquifers at, say, 500 to 2,000 metres depth, with temperatures ranging from 25 to 60 degrees and higher. These, combined with an at-scale community heat pump, have huge potential to produce heat for hundreds of thousands of homes, factories, hospitals and greenhouses. In Holland, they hope to meet 23% of their heat demand by 2050 using geothermal heat.

We have geothermal resources in the UK; we have the heat beneath our feet. We also have the drilling skills left over from oil and gas explorations to use in this nascent industry. The industry is poised to deliver growth, renewable heat and employment. It just needs a small amount of government focus and pump priming.

I turn to tidal energy and the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Alton. I strongly believe that it is imperative for the UK to play to its strengths in the whole energy field. One of its real strengths is its range of tides. While in Gibraltar, for instance, the tidal range is only about one metre, in the Solway Firth it can be eight metres or, in the Bristol Channel, 15 metres- plus. We also have tidal races around our shores and between our islands which flow at great speed and with considerable power.

Of course, tidal power is classed as intermittent, but it is guaranteed and predictable. We know now how much power we can produce from a given site between the hours of 6 pm and 7 pm on today’s date in 2124 because, if we build, say, a tidal lagoon now, we know it will still be producing electricity almost for free in more than 100 years’ time.

We have tidal races in our firths and between our islands but, to me, the most compelling solution for harnessing our tidal power are large, offshore tidal lagoons. Any site with a depth of between five and 10 metres, and a tidal range in excess of five metres, can produce guaranteed power. They are better than a barrage across a bay because you can have turbines all round, not just on one side. This means they are almost half the price per output of power. They can be any shape, with curves in any direction that can follow the required underwater contours to produce maximum return on investment. There are about 20 ideal sites around the UK coastline.

I come from southern England, as compared to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and the other side of the channel from the noble Lord, Lord Wigley. If noble Lords look up, they might be able to imagine a wall of water the height of this Chamber and several miles long. This is the sort of power that the Severn Estuary can produce four times a day. One lagoon in Bridgwater Bay alone—right next door to Hinkley Point, with its connections to the grid—could produce 1,900 megawatts. These lagoons do not have to be shut down for repairs. If a turbine—one of 20 or 30—needs servicing, it is lifted out for maintenance, while the rest just keep on turning.

As opposed to a barrage across an estuary, these lagoons do not upset shipping traffic in any serious way, because they sit at the side of shipping channels in the shallow waters. Furthermore, their environmental effect makes only peripheral difference to the course of the tide, migratory fish, wading birds and so on. They have the support of most environmental NGOs. There are numerous sites for these lagoons, from the north to the south of the UK. There is a seven-hour tidal difference between Bristol and Solway. If the tides are used on both flood and ebb, this gives an almost consistent baseload of power for England—and that is before we tap into some of the Scottish tidal ranges. Tidal lagoons as a whole could provide three times the capacity of Hinkley Point. We must play to our strengths. Tidal power is our natural advantage and I believe it would be well worth the focus of GBE.

18:15

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, I apologise for coming in late. I am here at the behest of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, who apologises to the Committee that she cannot be here to speak in support of Amendment 91, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Alton. I very much support the points that he made.

The noble Baroness has asked me to make a brief contribution to the debate. I wholeheartedly agree with the points she has asked me to raise. These relate mainly to the importance of tidal power in both its devices, which we heard analysed a moment ago. Tidal range is one part of the possibility of creating tidal power; tidal stream is the other. Tidal stream has not yet been well developed and that could be something for the future, but tidal range most certainly has been. There is a predictability about it which gives it a tremendous advantage.

Tidal range devices use water height. The differential between high and low levels in the Severn, for example, is an enormously important factor. Using the same principles, there are locations suitable for lagoons as well—certainly around the coastline of Wales, in Swansea Bay and up around Anglesey. I understand that the Marine Energy Council recommends reaching a gigawatt of tidal stream capacity by 2035. This would be an enormous contribution.

The noble Lord, Lord Alton, spoke about the possibility that 7% of the UK’s electricity needs could come from the Severn Barrage. That would have the advantage of providing very important construction work, which could make a massive contribution to the south-east Wales economy. Given what has happened recently to the steelworks in Port Talbot, those jobs are very much needed. I hope that the Government will look seriously at this.

The case for this type of electricity generation is overwhelming. I hope the Government will give it the attention it deserves.

[Baroness Hayman (CB)]

My Lords, I rise very briefly, first to declare my interest and secondly to comment on some of the amendments in this group.

I have sat in the Minister’s chair, so I understand that he will not want to add a long list of exclusions or inclusions to the objects of the Bill. Even with that in mind, I hope that he will have listened carefully to the issues that have been raised. They are important and there is a theme to them.

I support the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott. Two issues have come out of the debate for me. The case for energy efficiency, insulation and heat pumps was made very powerfully by the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell. It is important that GB Energy looks to how it can provide a long-term, consistent environment for the policies that each Government pick up and put down. Industry, which has to be a key partner, finds this so frustrating and retrenches from investing in the skills training and expansion that are needed if we are effectively to retrofit the millions of homes in this country.

As we said in the debate on a Question earlier today, this is important not only for carbon reduction. We saw what happened from 2014: emissions from buildings fell by two-thirds after the change in policy. It is therefore really important that someone is boosting this and making sure that it is there for the long term to provide that stable environment. GBE will be in a position to do that, particularly if it is tied in with what we discussed in the Question earlier about the planning framework, again providing a clear and consistent road map for those who will need to invest in this.

The other thing that came out of the debate was that we have to be innovative, look to our strengths and be open-minded about sources of renewable energy. We have to understand that some of those sums that we had in our heads 20 years ago, about the cost of wave power, tidal power or whatever, have changed. They have changed financially but also in other dimensions, such as energy security and our priorities in energy. It is important that GBE is in there supporting those things.

I absolutely support Amendment 17. It may not be for the Bill but, as part of the innovative thinking we need from GBE, we need to look at such things as financial instruments. When we know that solar panels or heat pumps will pay off over the years but people are not going forward with them simply because they cannot afford the capital expenditure, it is important that we look not only at upping the government grant—helpful though that is in some instances. Houses can have mortgages on them for 10, 20 or 30 years. The costs of that investment can be spread in other and innovative ways, so I hope that the Minister can respond supportively to that amendment.

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Naseby for introducing his thoughtful and technical amendments, which no doubt would improve the quality of the Bill should they pass. I also thank all noble Lords who have spoken on this group. Each amendment contributes meaningfully to the Bill’s ultimate aim by ensuring that governance reflects accountability, fairness and long-term sustainability.

I will limit my remarks to Amendments 8, 9, 12 and 13. Amendment 8 proposes the addition of “investing in” alongside “encouraging”. This is quite important, because it seeks a balance between fostering enterprise and ensuring strategic government investment to safeguard our national energy. We want a partnership between government and the private sector. By explicitly including “investing in”, the amendment aligns with our commitment to a dynamic and sustainable energy sector.

Amendment 9, by adding “one or more of”, would bring clarity and flexibility to the Government’s strategic objectives in advancing energy policies. It would ensure that the Government could prioritise specific energy initiatives based on strategic needs without being overburdened by one limiting obligation. It reflects the core principles of pragmatism and efficiency, ensuring that resources can be allocated where they can deliver the greatest impact.

We know that energy security and innovation in this area—referred to by my noble friend Lord Howell as bigger perhaps than the Industrial Revolution—require adaptability. Whether we are investing in offshore wind, nuclear power or emerging technologies, the amendment would allow for a tailored approach that maximised value for taxpayers’ money and strengthened our energy independence. I urge colleagues to support it to make sure that we have smart, effective and flexible governance in the Bill.

My noble friend Lord Naseby’s Amendment 12 is again quite technical. It seeks to insert the phrase “directly or indirectly” into Clause 3, which would again enhance the Bill by acknowledging the interconnected nature of emissions reductions and energy initiatives. This addition would ensure a pragmatic approach to addressing climate goals. Emissions reductions often involve complex supply chains and secondary impacts. Recognising these indirect contributions reflects our understanding of the broader economic and technological dynamics that drive innovation and decarbonisation. For example, investments in nuclear power or advanced grid infrastructure may not lower emissions immediately but they create the conditions for sustainable reductions in the long term, towards 2050 net zero. The amendment therefore provides the flexibility needed to pursue bold initiatives while holding true to the principle of cost-effectiveness for taxpayers. By adopting it, we would make the Bill more robust, practical and reflective of real-world energy systems. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Finally, my noble friend Lord Naseby’s Amendment 13 proposes the substitution of the word “produced” with “derived” in Clause 3. Again, this is a technical and seemingly small change, but it holds significant importance for our energy policy. “Derived” more accurately captures the diverse and evolving sources of energy in our transition to a low-carbon future. Energy comes increasingly from various integrated systems, including renewable sources, nuclear, tidal—as we have heard in great detail—and hydrogen. The term “produced” can be limiting, whereas “derived” acknowledges the broader, more dynamic approach needed to secure our energy future. The amendment provides the flexibility to encompass a wide range of energy sources and technologies, ensuring that our energy policies remain adaptable and forward thinking. It should reflect our commitment not only to reduce emissions but to foster innovation and maintain energy security in the face of global challenges.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, this was a very interesting group. It clearly refers to a range of technologies in which Great British Energy could invest. I should start by saying that we intend GBE to be operationally independent and it is not for us to rigidly define what it should do or in which technologies it should invest.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, of course anticipated my list argument because she has used it herself a number of times, but I take her point about ensuring long-term certainty and a stable environment for some of these crucial sectors. I recognise that GBE has great potential so to do, particularly in sectors where investment from the private sector may initially be difficult. I also take her point about how this has to be aligned with planning reform, enhanced grid connections and infrastructure.

Amendments 8, 9, 12, 13, 14, 23, 31 and 32, in essence, relate to technologies specific to GBE’s objects in Clause 3. Amendment 23 from the noble Earl, Lord Russell, would prevent Great British Energy being involved in CCUS projects, whereas the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, would ensure that both carbon capture and storage and hydrogen fell within the scope of the Bill. The Government view both hydrogen and CCUS as vital to our drive towards net zero and to ensuring a just transition for industries based in the North Sea.

18:30

As part of our transition to home-grown clean energy, we see hydrogen and CCUS as safeguarding our energy security, and we are focused on deploying CCUS technologies to ensure that CCUS-enabled blue hydrogen can serve as a critical enabler in the transition to a net-zero energy system. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, that the Climate Change Committee described CCUS as a necessity, not an option, for maintaining our climate commitments. His enthusiasm for hydrogen was very clear. I can confirm that we do not think his amendments are required, because we believe that CCUS and blue hydrogen are within the scope of the Bill. The Bill defines clean energy as energy produced from sources other than fossil fuels, as defined by the Climate Change Committee. The fact that blue hydrogen does not meet the definition does not at all prevent its production or use falling within Great British Energy’s other objectives in Clause 3. This clause allows GBE to facilitate, encourage or participate in projects, such as CCUS or CCUS-enabled hydrogen, that would contribute to the reduction of greenhouse gases from energies produced from fossil fuels. I have made clear that the Government support both technologies. The Bill is drafted to reflect this, and it is further demonstrated—as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, remarked—by the recent announcement in relation to CCUS of £21.7 billion funding over the next 25 years.

On the point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, we are very wary. In a sense, this is coming from two points: on the one hand, noble Lords are concerned about too much interference from Ministers in the day-to-day operations of GBE, and, on the other, there is a temptation to try to specify here what it ought to be doing. I understand that quite fully, because noble Lords have some important issues to raise about certain clean power technologies, but I think the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, is right: we really need to resist the temptation to say how GBE will divide its resources.

The budget for 2025 is relatively modest, of course. The promise is £8.3 billion in the lifetime of the Parliament. I accept the issue of speed, but we also have the multi- year spending review to come over the next few months.

Amendments 16 to 18 from the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, are on heat pumps and home insulation, which are clearly very important matters. They are major challenges to which we in Government are giving urgent consideration. We are also working across government on new requirements for new homes. We debated that only last week in relation to solar energy. I think we are making good progress on solar, and we are setting up a task force to give us added momentum.

Amendment 16 proposes the addition of an object relating to uptake and use of heat pumps. Amendment 17 would do the same but include efforts to develop financing options for heat pumps—we find that interesting, and I will certainly draw the remarks made to my department’s attention. Obviously, I am clear that the Bill enables Great British Energy to undertake these activities. I certainly agree that ensuring the uptake of heat pumps, including exploring ways to spread the cost, would reduce greenhouse gas emissions from gas boilers and would contribute to energy efficiency. There is no question but that home insulation and an expansion and development of renewable energy are also within scope of the Bill.

I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, on the subject of vulnerable households, that we have kick-started delivery of our ambitious warm homes plan. This will help people find ways to cut energy bills and deliver warmer, cleaner-to-heat homes, with up to 300,000 homes to benefit from upgrades next year. We will continue to refine the warm homes plan. It was very interesting that she mentioned a number of local authorities and initiatives that they have taken. When I was a councillor in Birmingham in the 1980s, we had a scheme in the inner city called enveloping, which essentially took whole streets, put completely new roofs on and made other developments. If you go there now, you will still see the benefits. I very much take this whole-community approach that she mentioned.

On nuclear power, I say to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that the Budget provided additional funding for Sizewell C for the next financial year, and we are engaged in the final investment decision over the next few months. We have the SMR programme—money has been allocated to Great British Nuclear—and then potentially AMRs ahead. Clearly, that is an identified spending stream for the future. It would be unnecessarily constraining to say that GBE could not go into the nuclear field at all, but I take the point he raised about CCUS and nuclear energy. I would not want to preclude GBE from going there if it thought that was a wise thing to do.

[Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)]

My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt again—the Minister has been very patient—but can we be very clear on what he just said? Is he saying that GBE can involve itself and will be involved one way or another in part of the nuclear sector or not? This is very important: we need about 500 SMRs or AMRs to have the slightest hope of getting anywhere near net zero. At the moment we are plodding along, not very fast at all, and it requires all hands to the helm. So far, I understand that GBE is supposed to stand quite clear of nuclear. That does not make sense, because it is all one ball of wax, frankly. We have to get nuclear right, and only then will we get any hope of net zero.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

Yes, I want to be absolutely clear: nuclear clearly falls within the definition of clean power, so it would be within the competence of Great British Energy to invest and do the other things in the Bill in relation to nuclear. However, we have Great British Nuclear, which I believe will continue. We are still finalising discussions, but GBN is focusing at the moment on small modular reactors. The department is involved in major funding of the nuclear developments, but GBE could also invest in nuclear energy. I hope that is clear.

I turn to oil and gas. Amendment 25 from the noble Earl, Lord Russell—and the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, who was not able to be present—would require Great British Energy to consider oil and gas supply chains and a reduction in and decarbonisation of oil and gas production. I say to the noble Earl that I understand the need for a just transition and acknowledge the skills of people working in oil and gas in the North Sea.

The Bill is focused on making the minimum necessary provisions to enable the establishment of this operationally independent company. Clause 3 provides the framework for Great British Energy’s functions and limits the areas where it can act, but it does not say how Great British Energy should deliver its functions or objectives. One of the worries about the noble Earl’s amendment is that it would widen the intention of this clause, perhaps unnecessarily. I say to him that, as we invest in the UK’s energy potential, we want to rebuild supply chains at home, of course. In relation to oil and gas, we want to help the transition and use the skilled workers in the most effective way possible. Oil and gas production in the North Sea will be with us for decades to come, so we want to manage the North Sea in a way that ensures continued support for that sector but enables some of the workers there to transition to other sectors, particularly in energy where they have such expertise.

Amendments 30 and 33 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, wish the Government to confirm or state that biomass is not included in the definition of clean energy in the Bill. Although I understand that many noble Lords share her viewpoint, as was clear from the Oral Question we had a few weeks ago, the Government believe that biomass plays a role in balancing the energy grid when intermittent renewables are not available. It is well evidenced that sustainably sourced biomass can provide a low-carbon and renewable energy source. That view is supported by both the Inter- governmental Panel on Climate Change and the Climate Change Committee.

Biomass sourced in line with strict sustainability criteria can be used as a low-carbon source of energy. Woody biomass that is sustainably sourced from well-managed forests is a renewable, low-carbon source of energy, as carbon dioxide emissions released during combustion are absorbed continuously by new forest growth.

The noble Baroness mentioned the Ofgem investigation, which she will know was about incorrect data being provided. It would be fair to say that Ofgem did not find the process at fault; it was the data provided. She asked me what visits officials in my department had made to the US. Officials have been in contact with US regulators but I would be happy to provide her with more details on what we have been doing.

The noble Baroness also mentioned BECCS, as it is known, or bioenergy with carbon capture and storage. Again, the Committee on Climate Change and the International Energy Agency recognise that BECCS can play a significant role in supporting net-zero targets through the delivery of negative carbon emissions with the co-benefit of producing low-carbon energy.

The noble Lord, Lord Alton, spoke eloquently and passionately to Amendment 91 on tidal barrages. I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, too, who suggested that tidal barrage and, in particular, lagoons play to the UK’s strength. The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, also spoke. The National Energy System Operator—NESO—is leading a network innovation allowance project aimed at establishing a holistic knowledge base on the potential development and impacts of tidal barrage in Great Britain within the context of grid operability. That is a very important development that I hope picks up the point that noble Lords have raised—the situation may have changed over the past 10 or 20 years.

I look forward to discussing the Mersey barrage with the noble Lord, Lord Alton. When I did this job at the Department of Energy and Climate Change from 2008 to 2010, I chaired a forum that we established on the Severn estuary potential, so I would certainly be interested in taking discussions forward on the Mersey barrage.

I hope that I have reassured most noble Lords that the energy technologies they wish to see supported can be covered in the Bill, but Great British Energy must be allowed to make its own decisions within the context of the objectives and strategic priorities the Secretary of State will set.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

I thank the Minister for his detailed response to all the amendments in this group. I want to follow up with a quick question. I and the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, asked the Minister whether any consideration will be given to rolling the warm homes plan into GB Energy. The answer might be that no consideration will be given, or that the Minister does not have an answer—though he could possibly have one in a minute. I am happy to take a written response or come back to it at a later stage.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I am not aware of any intention. I will certainly write to him if I have got that wrong but I am not aware of any intention to do it. The whole issue of home insulation and heating is crucial to getting to net zero and we are giving it a huge amount of attention.

18:45

[Lord Naseby (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the depth of the Minister’s answer. He may well be right that Amendments 8, 9, 12, 13 and 14 are unnecessary. I would like to reflect on that. I am far less convinced on Amendments 31 and 32 and I reserve the right to come back on Report if necessary. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 8 withdrawn.

Amendment 9 not moved.

Amendment 10

Moved by

[Lord Vaux of Harrowden]

10: Clause 3, page 2, line 14, after “storage” insert “, trading”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would add energy trading to the allowed objects of Great British Energy.

[Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)]

My Lords, given the relevance of this amendment, I remind the Committee of my interests as a generator of small-scale hydro.

Before I get on to the specifics of the amendment, I will try to clear up a confusion that crept into the debate on the previous group, at the risk of reopening the mini debate we had at the end of the second group. There is still confusion between “objective” and “object”, and the Minister is still guilty of falling into that trap. The objectives are what the company has to try to achieve. The “objects” in Clause 3 are what the company is restricted to being able to do. If it is not in the objects, the company cannot do it—it is not allowed to. If it is in the objects, the company is allowed to do it but does not have to. Therefore, putting something into Clause 3 does not mean, as the Minister has suggested, that we specify what GBE should be doing or making, or in any way restrict its ability to make its own decisions. That is a really important difference. I suspect that a number of noble Lords who tabled amendments to Clause 3 think that they are adding an objective. They are not.

That said, my Amendment 10 is designed to allow GBE to do something, not to tell it to do it. Since the removal of the feed-in tariff system, of which I am a recipient, there has been only a very limited incentive for people to install greater domestic renewable generation capacity than the amount that covers their own usage. Own usage brings quite a substantial return because it replaces the cost of buying electricity from a main supplier plus the VAT, but the only way to be paid anything for any excess you send into the grid is the smart export guarantee, and the rules around that are simply that the amount has to be positive. That can be, and in many cases is, as low as a penny per kilowatt hour. That is not much of an incentive to add an extra couple of panels on to your roof, or whatever it might be beyond your own needs.

There are now some higher smart export guarantee rates but they can be reduced at will by the electricity companies. There is no guarantee of them, so when you consider installing solar panels or any other renewable generation there is no incentive to install more than you want to use yourself. The cheapest and easiest way of increasing renewable generation—because you already have the scaffolding up and the builders—is to add two or three more panels, but you will do that only if there is a return from doing so.

So would it not be a great thing if you were able to sell your excess to your neighbours, at a discount from the full retail price but at more than the smart export guarantee? That way, both the generator and the consumer would win. At the moment, the only way to achieve that is to hardwire your neighbours into your system, and that is an extremely expensive and not very practical thing to have to do.

One potential solution to that problem is peer-to-peer trading, which would allow neighbours to buy your excess electricity over a trading platform. With trading via peer-to-peer networks, neighbourhoods, districts or entire towns can join forces and trade their self-produced electricity. This is not just a theoretical concept; there are projects all over the world investigating the possibilities of this approach in field trials. There are working examples as far afield as Spain, Switzerland, Bangladesh, the Netherlands and many more. There are also studies in the UK, such as the one by Repowering London, UK Power Networks and EDF in Brixton. The technology is available now.

The huge advantage of peer-to-peer trading is that it can incentivise greater installation of solar and other technologies at no cost to the Government or to the consumer. GBE can take a role in this process as a trading hub, or it could support local trading hubs. The trading operations themselves could be financed by taking a fee for using the trading platform. It is also a great way to create community energy networks. There are wider advantages than the purely financial. Peer-to-peer networks can improve resilience, improve energy access and reduce losses from long-distance transmission.

That links quite nicely, I think, to the Amendments 11 and 15, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, which would add community energy to the objects, and to Amendment 20, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, which looks at local energy planning. I would support both of those amendments, alongside Amendment 10, as I believe they are highly complementary.

All that Amendment 10 does is add the trading of electricity to the allowed objects of GBE. This would allow it to create, manage or support peer-to-peer trading arrangements, for all the reasons that I have given. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will look favourably on it. It would be odd and rather sad if this interesting and relatively new technological way of incentivising small-scale generation was not allowed under GBE’s objectives.

I shall not comment on the other amendments in this group as the tablers have not yet spoken to them, but a number certainly appear to be very sensible and constructive suggestions. I look forward to hearing more detail. I beg to move.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak to two amendments in this group: Amendments 11 and 15. Before I do so, I want to thank the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, for his amendments. They fit well with the amendments on community energy. I was thinking about this subject myself. It is an essential system that needs to be put into place as part of that broader community energy scheme so that people can trade their energy; that would be better for all of us.

Amendments 11 and 15 both seek to include community energy in the objects of the Great British Energy company. It would be

“restricted to facilitating, encouraging, and participating”.

One of our key aims in debating this Bill is to work to ensure that community energy is both in the objectives for GB Energy and on the face of the Bill. The development of community energy has ground to a halt since the end of the feed-in tariff here in the UK. In Europe, by contrast, it is a very different story, where these systems are far wider, better understood and embedded in local societies. They are championed by their Governments and they are bringing great local benefits.

Community energy accounts for only around 0.5% of the UK’s electricity, but it has been estimated by the Environmental Audit Committee and others that it has scope for exceptional growth and could generate up to 8 gigawatts in combination with local power networks. Power for People, which has been supporting these amendments, estimates that community energy could power 2.2 million homes, save 2.5 million tonnes of CO₂ and help to create some 30,000 jobs. Community energy programmes are good ways of providing local jobs and are a useful means of addressing local fuel poverty. This is a continuation of the work that was started by Pippa Heylings in the other place; I have promised her that I will continue that work here as the Bill progresses.

Our view is quite simply that there is no Great British Energy without Great British community energy. Our vision for this Bill is that there should be an “out of the box” system, whereby every hamlet, local parish, town council and small village can pick up the phone and find an end-to-end system for creating a small-scale community energy programme.

GB Energy is perfectly placed to provide this tailored service. It is a one-stop shop turning ideas into reality, helping with systems choices, design, planning, building, local grid connections, finance arrangements, shared part ownership, et cetera. GB Energy should crowd in finance and not crowd out private investment, and this is one area where development is well suited to that. The big players and big companies are not investing in community energy; this stuff will not get off the ground unless GB Energy does it. There is no other market here; there is no competition.

Local community energy should be included in the energy transition, and communities should benefit from the local energy that they host or generate. We have tabled a forthcoming amendment on community benefit, which will be published shortly and debated in January when we come back for the second day of Committee. It seeks proposals for ensuring that local communities benefit from the renewable energy projects undertaken by Great British Energy.

We can make the national grid more resilient; it saves wasting energy in unnecessary transmission. We are currently transmitting energy from far up north to down south, losing a third of it on the way. As has been said, a trading system should be established so that local communities can sell excess energy. These systems make the grid more resilient, more robust and more stable. They help our communities to prosper and to benefit from that which they host.

The energy transition affects us all, in much the same ways that the Industrial Revolution did. We all need to make changes to the way we heat our homes, the way we travel and many other aspects of our daily lives. Such societal-level changes require broad and continuing levels of community engagement, participation and support if they are to be successfully enacted and carried through to completion, especially when the changes needed must take place at the speed and scale that is required here.

My personal view is that too much of what has been done to date is overly centrally controlled; it is much more “done to” than “done with”. We need community buy-in. We need to provide ways and means for our local communities to both participate in and benefit locally from the changes that we require them to make. Without this sustained local support, the whole net-zero project is in danger of being derailed by a lack of common purpose and want of determination to be part of the change that is required. Community public support is the key factor for the success of the whole project.

In some ways, this has been a strange task. There is broad cross-party support for the need for community energy. This was shown quite clearly in the other place, with many MPs supporting a Motion on this issue. There have been reassuring words of support in the other place, particularly from the right honourable Ed Miliband, the Energy Secretary, who said:

“I know that many Members of the House are passionate about the issue of local power, so let me reassure them that the Government are committed to delivering the biggest expansion of support for community-owned energy in history”.—[Official Report, Commons, 29/10/24; col. 776.]


Equally, here in your Lordships’ House, the Minister responded positively at Second Reading to the issue of local community energy. He has already spoken about his involvement in Birmingham and I know that he is passionate about the work that he did. He knows the difference that this makes.

The founding statement for GB Energy itself also has strong words of support for the principle and objectives of community energy, saying that

“we will be investing in community-owned energy generation, reducing the pressures on the transmission grid while giving local people a stake in their transition to net zero”.

19:00

In preparing for today, I also had the opportunity to listen to Jürgen Maier, who recently appeared before the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee. He also gave very strong statements and talked about an interesting concept of local community energy in a box, ready to go, ready to deploy anywhere in the country to get this stuff done. That brings me to the fundamental question: why are we debating this amendment if there is broad cross-party support for community energy? The answer is that despite the words and ambitions, we have actually made no progress on placing community energy, and a commitment to community energy, in the Bill.

The simple truth is that, even with the best will in the world, without having a clear and defined commitment in GB Energy’s objectives and getting this in the Bill, there are no guarantees that this stuff will happen, will happen in the future, and will happen under the next Government if the next Government are of a different political persuasion. GB Energy is an arm’s-length body and we call on the Committee and the Minister to support giving it a specific remit to support community- owned energy projects by including community energy in its objectives and in the statement of strategic priorities.

[Lord Ravensdale (CB)]

My Lords, I declare my energy interests in the register. I will speak to my Amendment 19 and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, for her support of that amendment. This amendment is very straightforward and we have had some discussion already in the second group around cost and the importance of cost and reflecting that, but I will put a bit of a different slant on that.

Noble Lords will be very familiar with the energy trilemma and balancing the competing demands of cost, sustainability and security. Any public organisation that has energy system responsibilities should be focusing on and balancing these objects. We look at NESO, for example. This was set up in the Energy Act 2023 with a cost, sustainability and security duty. Likewise, Ofgem has cost and security considered in its consumer duty and a sustainability duty was added as part of that 2023 Act as well.

However, when I reviewed the objects—I was very grateful for the education provided by the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, on the difference between objects and objectives and that is certainly something we need to come back to—cost was conspicuous by its absence. My first point is that we really should be considering system alignments and consistency across all those UK energy system organisations in terms of their objects and duties. Cost, sustainability and security should be running as a golden thread through all of them so that all those organisations are aiming at the same thing. Great British Energy is a central player in the energy system. It will be making significant investments of public money and aiming to crowd in private investment. Through these investments it will presumably be aiming to lower the cost of energy, which is a key government objective, as well as decarbonisation and security objectives.

My second point is on the importance of cost. We have already heard about the UK having the highest industrial electricity prices in the developed world. They are now four times those in the US. This not only has the obvious impact on bills but is a real brake on growth. I have spoken to a number of industrial companies recently which want to set up in the UK but cannot make the numbers stack up in their business cases because of our high electricity prices so are taking their business elsewhere. For the Government to achieve their number one mission of economic growth, they need to have a laser focus on reducing electricity prices and I know the Minister and the Government are very focused on this area. I hope the Minister can consider this small change and come back with a government amendment on Report which would really help align GBE with the critical priorities of the Government.

My Amendment 34 seeks to clarify the definition of security of supply. I look at Clause 3 and can see clear definitions for “clean energy”, “distribution”, “fossil fuel” and “greenhouse gas” but cannot see a definition for “security of supply”. Noble Lords have made the point in earlier debates about the importance of energy security. It is important to clarify this term: first, because the definition can be very broad; and, secondly, because it can mean different things to different people.

I have some personal experience here in that I recently chaired an energy security task force for the Midlands region and we spent a fair bit of time debating what we really meant by energy security. It is not as straightforward as it first appears. Many when considering this term would jump straight to fuel security and having sovereign energy so that we are not dependent on foreign states and can avoid the energy price spikes that we saw following the invasion of Ukraine. Of course, there is also price predictability: we could have fuel security but volatile prices remain. System reliability is also key so that people can access energy when they need it. Cybersecurity and physical security are other important aspects.

It is very important that in the primary legislation we are clear on what is meant by terms and help guide stakeholders, including business and industry, on how GBE will undertake its duties. I would welcome some further engagement with the Minister on how the Government would define this term and I again hope that he can consider this and come back with a government amendment on Report.

Finally, my Amendment 20 relates to local area energy planning. Great British Energy could play a really important role in energy system governance and I have been encouraged to hear from the Government the renewed focus on local planning, with a potential role for GBE in local power plans and local area energy plans which could bring in the focus on community energy, spoken to earlier by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Lord, Lord Vaux.

Given the role of GBE, the Government have an opportunity with the Bill to set out in more detail how energy system governance will work at a local level. The story of net zero so far has been a top-down one—in essence, central planning from the Government, which needs to be done—but that transition will not succeed unless this is matched by a bottom-up governance approach from local areas to regions to the national level. So much of the knowledge rests in those local areas; for example, the condition of housing stock relating to energy efficiency measures, and local energy infrastructure.

Local area energy plans could be the foundation of how energy system governance is planned and undertaken at a local level. The issue we have seen over recent years with local area energy plans is their patchwork nature. We have many in place but with varying levels of quality and robustness in how they are set out within local authorities. I note that only 31% of local authorities are covered by local area energy plans. These plans need to be delivered to a consistent standard, with robust data and analysis, and consideration should also be given to how this can be aligned to meet the input requirements necessary for regional energy strategic planning to undertake that flow-up of governance.

Three things are needed: guidance from government on what a local area energy plan is, as has already been set out in Wales; funding for stretched local authorities to develop these plans; and an oversight function to co-ordinate and ensure that those local plans are joined up. There is a really good opportunity here. If GBE is the organisation that is going to take on all or some of those roles, setting that out in the Bill would be an excellent step forward in firming up that crucial local governance function to stakeholders, and unlock local planning of energy. I would be grateful if the Minister could perhaps give us more detail on the role of Great British Energy in this area.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, I will just intervene very briefly indeed in support of the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, with regard to Amendment 34 and the question of system reliability. In my previous incarnation I represented a constituency that had the Dinorwig pumped storage scheme. That scheme was brilliant in terms of being able to help guarantee the availability of electricity when it was needed. Half-time in the cup final was a traditional way of interpreting that, when there was a surge of demand. It had the capability of going from zero to full output in eight seconds.

The economic benefit of that is obvious in having a system that does not need to match the total maximum demand. The peaks of that graph are cut off and equalised in a way that makes a lower capacity, and therefore lower total capital investment, a viable proposition. The point I put to the Minister is this: a number of pumped storage schemes are being developed at the moment. There is a significant number in Scotland, including some of the larger ones, but they are also in Wales. They have been waiting for years to get the necessary information on which to base investment decisions. There is one using an old slate quarry hole in Talysarn in my former constituency. It is raring to go but, until it gets the details of the prices that will apply, it obviously cannot make an investment decision. We are talking about tens of millions of pounds, possibly hundreds of millions, and a benefit to the overall system.

In responding, can the Minister give any comfort by way of the timescale by when the framework for such decisions can be made? We really need to get on with it. I am quite sure that those in charge of Great British Energy will also need this information.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I have always been a great supporter of small nuclear reactors, because it strikes me that they have the enormous advantage of supplying a locality and not getting involved, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said, with massive transmission costs. That would be all cut down, which has enormous advantage. Of course, Rolls-Royce is making small nuclear reactors to go into submarines, so we are probably better on the technology than most other people might be.

I have always had a worry that local people would react adversely to a planning application for a small nuclear reactor, because they would see it as devaluing their houses. Despite all-party support in Parliament, this will not stop local concerns raising their heads. I refer back to what the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said on that. I thought the answer was quite simply to offer people in the locality free electricity, and so immediately they would have an advantage. But from what the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, said when speaking to his amendment, that would not actually work. That is why I want to be absolutely clear about this. He seemed to say that wiring up all the local houses to the nuclear reactor—oh, he is shaking his head. Now I am confused. Could the noble Lord intervene and explain what he meant?

[Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)]

The nuclear reactor would just pump into the grid, which will be attached to everybody’s houses. The network I was talking about was one with the ability for house A, which has solar panels, to sell its excess electricity to house B, which does not. But a nuclear reactor would pump electricity into the grid and be available to all the houses.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

That is enormously reassuring. I will support his amendment, even though that was a concern I had.

I think the answer to getting small nuclear reactors planning permission is to offer free electricity to people in the locality. When they come to sell their houses, they will find that any depreciation in the price from being near to a nuclear reactor will be off-set by the fact that they have free electricity written into the sale of the house. That would balance things out. That is very reassuring, and I am glad we cleared it up. I am grateful to the noble Lord and thank him. I very much support his amendment.

[Lord Hardie (CB)]

My Lords, I support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, in a past life I sat on the Front Bench where the Minister is and resisted amending legislation by making additions.

I appreciate the Minister’s reluctance to accept amendments that might constrain Great British Energy once it is established, but Amendment 10 is in a different category. It does not constrain Great British Energy; it empowers it to facilitate, encourage or participate in community schemes that trade in excess energy locally if that is what GBE wishes to do.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, I start by underlining what the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, said about the difference between objectives and objects. It really does repay all noble Lords taking part in debates on the Bill to understand the differences between them. That is why earlier I supported my noble friend Lord Frost’s amendment trying to set objectives for the Bill. It may or may not have been the right list of them, but it would have been an important addition to the Bill.

19:15

However, in Clause 3 we are saying what the Great British Energy company can do and, by implication, what it cannot. It is really important to be clear. Many speeches—including a moment ago from the noble Earl, Lord Russell, who was the singing the praises of community energy—have ended up saying that must not lose the opportunity to make this happen through the Bill. But adding it as an object will not make it happen at all. It is important to understand that.

I added my name to Amendment 19 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, as he noted, because it mentions cost. In many of the debates we have about energy supply and the challenges of net zero, people forget about the importance of costs. My noble friend Lord Frost’s earlier amendment phrased the objective in terms of consumer bills. The amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, is narrower because it deals with the cost of energy supply, which is one component of the bills for consumers. Nevertheless, it is well worth supporting as something to ensure that Great British Energy has the ability to carry out activities that can reduce the cost. That is very important.

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden, for his valuable contributions to this group. The amendments noted are crucial for ensuring that Great British Energy remains aligned with its goals of promoting energy security, affordability and sustainability. This fifth group of amendments focuses on the objectives and duties of Great British Energy.

I begin with Amendment 10, which turns the focus on the trading element of GBE. By explicitly including trading, the amendment demonstrates a forward-thinking approach to GBE’s role. While market dynamics naturally encourage competition and efficiency, active participation in energy trading enables GBE to enhance price stability, bolster supply resilience and reduce market volatility. This strategic involvement not only fosters a more competitive energy landscape but empowers consumers by offering greater choice and flexibility. In doing so, it strengthens the UK’s energy security, ensuring the system remains adaptable to both domestic demands and global shifts, while at the same time promoting long-term sustainability and cost effectiveness free from overreliance on dominant energy providers.

Furthermore, on Amendment 11 to Clause 3, the insertion of the line

“including from schemes owned, or part owned, by community organisations”

is important when addressing the need for a more inclusive energy system that empowers local communities. By specifically including community energy schemes, this amendment acknowledges the growing role of grass-roots initiatives in the energy transition. It ensures that GBE will actively support, facilitate and encourage energy generation models that are owned or part-owned by local and community organisations. This naturally leads us to Amendment 15 to Clause 3, which outlines measures to increase low-carbon and renewable energy schemes owned or part-owned by community organisations.

This approach not only helps democratise energy production but empowers communities to take control of their energy future, fostering a more decentralised and resilient energy system. Community-led schemes have proven essential in driving local economic growth, creating jobs and promoting energy independence. By ensuring that GBE is aligned with these objectives, we not only advance environmental sustainability but cultivate a more equitable and diverse energy landscape, one that shifts power back into the hands of local communities.

Amendment 19 proposes important

“measures for reducing the cost of the supply of energy”.

This is a critical step in aligning GBE with the Government’s key missions for this Parliament. The Labour Government committed not only to

“make Britain a clean energy superpower”

but to deliver cheaper bills for British households. The amendment is a fair and necessary step to ensure that the Government deliver on their promises. By incorporating the reduction of energy costs into Great British Energy’s legislated objectives, it would ensure that affordability, alongside security and sustainability, remained a core consideration in its operations.

This leads us seamlessly to Amendment 34 to Clause 3, which would insert a definition of

“security of the supply of energy”

into the objects of GBE. The inclusion of system reliability, price predictability, fuel security and cybersecurity is vital to fully encompass the concept of energy security. This clear and detailed definition ensures that GBE’s mission is comprehensive and aligned with the broader goal of delivering a secure and sustainable energy future for all.

Amendment 27 would ensure that GBE took no action that risked the sustainability of commercial shipping. This is a key consideration in the broader context of balancing the development of renewable energy sites with other vital sectors, such as fishing and shipping. As we know, 90% of goods in the UK are transported here by sea. Ports, often specialising in certain goods, are essential to our economy, and well-established shipping lanes must remain open to ensure the smooth operation of this vital sector. If we are to invest in offshore energy infrastructure, we must not overlook the potential risks posed to these critical maritime routes.

The amendment draws a parallel with the Crown Estate amendments. It specifically aims to ensure that GBE does not take any action that could jeopardise the sustainability of commercial shipping. With offshore energy production, particularly offshore wind, continuing to grow, it is crucial that this growth is balanced with the needs of commercial shipping. If we are to meet our energy goals, we must not undermine the sector that is responsible for bringing nearly all the goods we rely on.

While offshore wind is undoubtedly a critical part of the UK’s energy future, accounting for 17% of our electricity in 2023, up from 14% in 2022, we must recognise the impact that the siting of wind farms and other offshore developments could have on existing industries. GBE has a responsibility to ensure that the growth of sustainable energy does not come at the expense of shipping lanes, port operations or coastal communities.

Amendments 20, 28 and 29 are designed to protect local communities. Amendment 20 would clarify the role of GBE in local area energy planning and governance, ensuring that decisions regarding energy infrastructure were made in collaboration with local authorities. As the energy landscape evolves, it is essential that local communities are not only kept informed but are actively involved in shaping their energy future.

By explicitly requiring GBE to engage with local authorities, the amendment fosters a more inclusive and transparent approach to energy planning, enabling communities to have a say in how energy systems are developed, managed and integrated at the local level. Such involvement is critical for addressing region-specific needs, ensuring that energy solutions are tailored to the unique characteristics and priorities of different areas, from rural communities to urban centres. The amendment supports the broader goal of decentralising energy governance, empowering local authorities to take a more proactive role in shaping the energy systems that affect their residents. It would also ensure that local insights were considered in the development of energy infrastructure, from renewable energy projects to the distribution and storage of energy.

Amendments 28 and 29 address the wider concerns that may be raised by local coastal communities. As we continue to develop renewable energy infrastructure, it is crucial that we consider the impact of such development on the very communities that depend on the seas for their livelihoods and way of life, including the tourism sector, which many coastal areas rely on. I hope the Minister will acknowledge that to achieve the Government’s 2030 renewable energy targets it is essential to balance the need for sustainable energy development with the preservation of those communities. Their voices must be heard; they are important working people, and their livelihoods must not be unduly impacted by offshore energy projects. The presence of offshore developments, particularly wind farms, can have significant consequences for local tourism, which is often a key economic driver for those communities. We must ensure that any developments do not disrupt the natural beauty or accessibility of those areas, which attract visitors year round. This is an additional consideration, not directly addressed by these amendments but worth highlighting.

We may return to this on Report, as I believe that a review and/or an annual report might go some way to reassuring Parliament that GBE is making decisions that truly benefit all stakeholders. Such a mechanism would ensure that potential trade-offs were identified, quantified and fully considered, especially as we navigate the complexities of offshore energy and its impact on local communities.

I trust that the Minister has listened carefully to the concerns raised by all noble Lords and hope that the Government will consider improving the Bill to ensure that GBE properly considers the impacts of its activities on fishing, shipping, coastal communities and the environment. We must not lose sight of the importance of those local industries and the people whose livelihoods depend on them.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, and the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, in relation to Clause 3. It does set statutory limits on Great British Energy’s objects, and these must be reflected in the company’s articles of association. However, the four objects in Clause 3 have been broadly drafted, so although they impose a restriction, it is very wide and intended to cover all the conceivable activities that Great British Energy may engage in. If I have confused the Committee by loose terms, I apologise.

In Amendment 10, the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, proposes adding “trading” to Clause 3(2)(a). I will resist this because, although trading is not explicitly referenced, the current objects in the Bill allow Great British Energy to facilitate or encourage the supply of clean energy. We see no reason why that activity could not include the encouragement or facilitation of a trade in clean energy. But, if the noble Lord has examples of schemes that are operating, we would be interested in the details.

19:30

I noted the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, on SMRs. In particular, he talked about community support. I will say two things. First, in surveys that we are doing, there has been growing public acceptance of the value of nuclear energy. This has clearly increased since Putin’s invasion of Ukraine and the issue of energy supply. None the less, we have a more positive picture of public support. Secondly, we are working on a new siting policy, which will bring greater flexibilities to where nuclear power stations can be sited in the future. I take the noble Lord’s point about the potential of small modular reactors.

Amendment 19 proposes to add to GBE’s objects measures for reducing the cost of the supply of energy. It does not provide anything that GBE cannot do already within the framework of its existing objects. Obviously, we have discussed in some detail the issue of energy prices and our belief that the long-term development of clean energy is the best way to secure long-term price stability.

The founding statement set out Great British Energy’s purpose, priorities and objectives, including its mission statement and five functions. The first statement of strategic priorities, which will be published in 2025, will ensure that GBE, as a publicly owned energy company, is focused on driving clean energy deployment to boost energy independence, create jobs and ensure that UK taxpayers, bill payers and communities reap the benefits of clean, secure, homegrown energy.

On local and community energy, the amendments tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, would essentially include GBE support for community energy schemes in the Bill. Amendment 20 would add an additional object to Clause 3 specifically related to local area energy planning and the governance of the local energy system. As the noble Earl, Lord Russell, kindly said, I very much share in the support for community energy, and I assure him that it will be an integral part of Great British Energy’s local power plan. We believe that, through Clause 3, the Bill clearly allows GBE to support both community energy projects and local authority energy projects. I see great potential for partnerships here.

The production, distribution, storage and supply of clean energy obviously extends from very large-scale offshore wind projects to local and community-driven projects that directly support local people. We believe that facilitating, encouraging or participating in low-carbon and renewable energy schemes owned by community organisations is clearly within the scope of the objects as drafted. The legislation does not restrict the size or type of clean energy projects supported by Great British Energy. I emphasise that local area energy plans led by local authorities can be created in collaboration with stakeholders in their areas, as in Greater Manchester.

We see local power plans as enhancing existing support for community energy by partnering with, and providing funding and support to, local and combined authorities and community energy groups; this fits with what the noble Earl said. Importantly, we also think that it will offer commercial, technical and other practical project assistance to help community energy groups with funding and establishing themselves perhaps across the UK. Finally, the local power plan will ensure coherence with other existing public sector advisory functions, funding and finance organisations operating in the local energy space. I will give great consideration to community energy between Committee and Report.

Amendments 27, 28 and 29, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, propose three additions to Clause 3 to prevent GBE taking action that will risk the sustainability of commercial shipping, coastal communities and tourism. The noble Earl raised some interesting points about this. Our understanding is that projects in which GBE is involved will be subject to all relevant regulations and statutory stakeholder engagement to understand the potential impacts of development on the matters covered by the noble Earl’s amendments. In line with other energy developers, GBE will have to consider the impact of its activities, and any associated risks, on commercial shipping, coastal communities and tourism, within the context of relevant planning and environmental protections.

On security of supply, Amendment 34, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, proposes defining

“security of the supply of energy”

in Clause 3. Clause 3(2)(d) enables Great British Energy to respond to any potential future energy crisis and to deliver measures to support security of supply. The noble Lord will know that we think that the best way to guarantee energy security is to build homegrown energy, but I take the substance of what he said. He wanted to see a definition of “security of the supply” of energy. The problem with trying to define this is the list system: the issue is what is excluded from his very careful definition. That is why we resist the noble Lord’s amendment, but I assure him that we see security of supply as very important, and clearly, Great British Energy has the ability to take that into account.

This has been an interesting debate, and I hope that noble Lords will feel that I have responded appropriately.

[Lord Ravensdale (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his response to my amendments. I wanted briefly to clarify something he said in responding to my Amendment 19. He essentially made a link between a clean energy system and price stability, therefore making the argument that “costs” was not required in the objects. But there are of course wide variations in the costs of a clean energy system: there are expensive clean energy systems, and cheaper ones. NESO is developing a wide range of scenarios here. So I argue that we cannot rely purely on making that link—the organisation needs to take costs into account more broadly as well.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

I very much take that point. Clearly, my department is cognisant of costs. Much of our discussion with His Majesty’s Treasury on the resources made available obviously takes in those constraints. The point I made earlier is simply that we believe—and we are supported by NESO, the Committee on Climate Change and the OBR—that the best way to secure stable prices in the future is to charge on to clean power net zero.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

Could the Minister give some comfort to those waiting to invest in pumped storage schemes about the timescale on which information will be available to enable them to do so?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I cannot give the noble Lord chapter and verse today but will certainly write to him with what we can say in public.

[Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who took part in this interesting debate and the Minister for his fairly fulsome answer. On Amendment 10, I am not totally convinced that trading is covered by the objects as they stand but I will read his answer in Hansard to see whether I can convince myself that he is right. As he says, the issue is that if it is not in the objects, it is not allowed. I want to make sure that it is allowed—not that it has to happen—in the same way that he argued the other way around on the security definition. That said, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 10 withdrawn.

Amendments 11 to 20 not moved.

House resumed.

North-west Syria

Tuesday 3rd December 2024 Lords Chamber

Statement

The following Statement was made in the House of Commons on Monday 2 December.

“Last week, we witnessed a major new offensive by opposition groups in north-west Syria. On Wednesday 27 November, Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham—HTS—along with several other opposition forces started to move towards Aleppo. By late Friday night, they were in control of the majority of Aleppo city. They had also captured Saraqeb, which intersects Syria’s most strategic motorways. As I stand here, we do not know if HTS will succeed in pushing further south towards the city of Hama, which sits approximately 100 kilometres south of Aleppo. What we do know is that these developments mark the biggest shake-up of the conflict lines in Syria since 2020.

In response, Russian airstrikes have increased on Idlib province—HTS’s heartland—and on Aleppo. There have also been reports of Iranian-aligned groups moving into Syria to back up the Assad regime. Events are moving quickly, and the trajectory is unclear. My primary concern, in the immediate term, is the impact on civilians and, of course, the delivery of humanitarian assistance. It will be particularly worrying if we see more large-scale attacks against civilians by the regime or Russia. I call directly on all actors involved, including Iran and Russia, to act in accordance with international humanitarian law, and not to target civilians or civilian infrastructure, including health facilities. Humanitarian actors should be granted full humanitarian access on the ground.

In response to recent developments, we have been rapidly engaging key partners and interlocutors to assess the situation and co-ordinate responses. I spoke earlier to my Turkish counterpart, and I reiterated my concern about the potential for new escalation and the impact on civilians. I will be travelling to the region this weekend, where I plan to engage with a range of partners on the latest developments, and on Wednesday I will be speaking to the UK-funded White Helmets, a Syrian organisation operating in north-west Syria, to better understand how it and other non-governmental organisations are responding to the situation and supporting people on the ground.

The UK issued two statements over the weekend, including one with the US, Germany and France calling for de-escalation and the protection of civilians to prevent further displacement and disruption of humanitarian access. This is the right focus as the situation develops, but the current fighting underscores that the situation in Syria is not sustainable.

Thirteen years into the conflict, no side has won or can decisively win on the battlefield, including Assad. A frozen conflict is not the same as peace. Syrians continue to flee the country, drugs and arms smuggled from Syria threaten the region, and Iran and Russia continue to exert influence, propping up the Syrian regime. The underlying reasons for this conflict remain unaddressed.

Recent developments in the north-west only underscore the urgent need for a Syrian-led political solution to the conflict in Syria, in line with UN Security Council Resolution 2254. We urge all parties to re-engage with this process and the efforts of UN Special Envoy Pedersen.

I recognise that this escalation raises other questions. First, on consular assistance, I make it clear that my department’s long-standing advice is against all travel to Syria due to the ongoing conflict and unpredictable security conditions. Consular support is not available within Syria, and all British embassy services in Damascus are suspended. I reiterate our long-standing advice: any British nationals in Syria should leave the country by any practical means.

We are closely monitoring the wider humanitarian situation. In north-west Syria, 4.1 million people, 80% of whom are women or children, were already in need prior to this escalation. There is currently no humanitarian corridor for those fleeing, which increases terribly the risks to their safety.

The UK has spent over £4 billion since 2011, our largest ever response to a single humanitarian crisis. In October, we announced a further £3 million to provide life-saving emergency assistance and healthcare to the most vulnerable citizens fleeing the Lebanon conflict into Syria. Many of them will be in north-west Syria.

Too many Syrians have tragically been displaced multiple times as a result of conflict. They bear the brunt of horrific violence. Sadly, more still will be displaced by this latest escalation, and I underline my concern about what we might see should Russia or the Assad regime start a campaign of bombardment on the area.

The UK has stood by the Syrian people, and we will continue to do so. Our assistance aims to improve humanitarian conditions for those in the direst need. We work with local and international NGOs and UN organisations to provide health, nutrition, child protection, water, sanitation and education services throughout Syria, including in the north-west.

As the situation develops, we are working closely with humanitarian actors on the ground to understand the impact and the need created by the latest escalation. We call on all parties to ensure full and unhindered humanitarian access throughout the affected areas and to protect civilians. For too long, the Syria conflict has been considered frozen. But if we have learned one thing in recent years, it is that there is no such thing. It is incumbent upon us to use this moment to find new momentum for the political track and to address the underlying causes of this conflict.

I commend this Statement to the House”.

19:42

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for the opportunity to respond to this Statement. As I am sure many in this House will be aware, the developments in Syria are worrying on two fronts. We have seen an extremist rebel group take land in Aleppo and the first Russian airstrikes there since 2016. The threat to civilians is immense and these actors will only compound the region’s suffering. As the Minister says, there has been more than a decade of turmoil and tragedy for the innocent people of Syria, which is heartbreaking. As the shadow Foreign Secretary said in the other place:

“With the eyes of the world focused on other conflicts, we cannot forget the brutality, the loss of life and the destruction that has taken place in Syria, or its consequences. More than half a million people have already been killed, with millions injured or maimed, with some being victims of chemical weapons”.—[Official Report, Commons, 2/12/24; col. 62.]


As the situation escalates, can the Minister inform the House what conversations have taken place with regional and international partners on the threat that the actions of the extremist rebels and the existing brutal regime poses to our interests? Furthermore, as Syria is the world’s largest source of Captagon, a highly addictive and dangerous illicit substance which has recently been seen in hospitalisations in Europe, what effect does the Minister think these developments will have on its production? Will he also review the security and defence implications and the terrorism risks of these developments?

Your Lordships’ House will know that the UK has been in the vanguard of the humanitarian response, of which we are all extremely proud. The previous Government invested £4 billion in support that has reached millions of people, saving lives with food, shelter, water, medicines, vaccinations and improved sanitation. What plans does the Minister have to ensure aid reaches the right people? Does he know how that aid will be transmitted, allowing those who genuinely work in the voluntary sector access to travel to Syria without being halted by the latest round of sanctions in October?

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I commend the noble Earl for standing in on international affairs issues; he would be very welcome to continue to participate on these issues. I agree with him that the spectre of the conflict that took place a number of years ago is still with us. It was a frozen conflict in many respects, but there was no sustainable peace.

Obviously, the speed of Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham’s advance took the Assad regime off guard. That pernicious regime is economically and morally bankrupt, but perhaps there is less surprise that some groups are taking advantage of the duration of the conflict in Gaza. As much as the Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has said that he is seeking to defeat Islamic terrorism, al-Qaeda in Syria has made a dramatic move for territory that may well have much wider ramifications across all Syria’s borders, including for Israel, Lebanon, Turkey, Jordan and Iraq. The latter two are still struggling to restore normality after the 2016 freezing of hostilities.

My colleague Calum Miller MP reminded the House of Commons after he spoke with the Jordanian ambassador that there are still 1.3 million Syrian refugees in Jordan. I saw fairly recently the Syrian refugees in Lebanon, who, on a humanitarian basis, have also been victims of the extension of the conflict against Hezbollah. What ministerial discussions are taking place with the Foreign Minister of Jordan on a shared security assessment between the UK and our friends in Amman? Do we plan to have high-level discussions with Turkish officials, given their key involvement with a number of the groups in this part of Syria, not least their contact with HTS?

If we continue to proscribe HTS, as we will, have the Government carried out an assessment of what it represents today? There has been considerable press reporting that HTS has sought to distance itself from our proscription on the grounds that it was simply a different name for al-Qaeda in Syria. Is our assessment of the presence of HTS the same?

It was noticeable that, after the visit by the Foreign Minister of Iran to Damascus to meet Assad, the very next leader to offer him full support was the leader of the UAE. In recent years we have supplied the UAE with over £400 million of arms exports. Given its support of the Assad regime, that it is hard to judge the extent of what may happen next, and the ease with which Russia, Iran and the UAE have offered support to Assad, can the Minister reassure the House that none of the arms we have sold to the UAE will be used in potential conflict in Syria? Given that in certain parts beyond the north-west there is already violence within the Kurdish groups and Turkish interests, there is a real potential that this will spread—which, as the noble Earl said, will compound the humanitarian situation.

Secondly, with regard to the UAE, the UK’s 2020 Syria sanctions regime is still in place. Have we had contact with UAE officials to ensure that they are fully aware that any support they provide to the Assad regime must, from the United Kingdom’s perspective, be consistent with our Syrian sanctions regime?

Finally, given that our principal interest is UK national security, have the Government had discussions with our allies in Washington? With a new Administration in Washington, there is a potential change of policy regarding the force posture of the 1,000 US troops in the region. US officials were at pains to say that they are watching the situation very closely and the US has no position on the recent incursions of HTS. However, the 1,000 troops are part of a combined operation which continues to incarcerate those the UK has considered a potential threat to the UK. At this time of great uncertainty and complexity, national security should be a priority for us all, as it is across all parts of this House. If the Minister could update us on our discussions with the United States regarding their essential force there, that would be extremely beneficial.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Collins of Highbury) (Lab)]

I thank both noble Lords for their questions. Of course, my starting point is to say that the Assad regime has created the conditions for the current escalation through its ongoing refusal to engage in a political process, and its reliance on Russia and Iran. The regime and all actors in Syria’s conflict must support and engage with the negotiations, as called for by UN Security Council Resolution 2254.

I think both noble Lords share the UK Government’s concern about escalation. This new escalation, particularly the large-scale attacks by the regime, and Russia’s attacks against civilians, will undoubtedly cause new surges in displacement and increased human suffering if continued, as both noble Lords said.

Both noble Lords asked about our diplomatic engagement with regional neighbours. We issued a national statement on 1 December, as noble Lords will be aware, calling for the protection of civilians and civilian infrastructure, the need for talks and a return to the political process. On 1 December we also released a joint statement on the issue with the Governments of Germany, France and the United States, urging de-escalation by all parties and the protection of civilians and infrastructure.

As my honourable friend in the other place, Hamish Falconer, said, we are urgently talking to our regional counterparts to reiterate these messages and to follow through with direct discussions. The Minister met his Turkish counterparts on 2 December to reiterate this point—an issue the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, raised. The UK Special Representative for Syria spoke to UK-Syrian civil society about developments to ensure that the diaspora was fully aware of what we were doing. The UK Deputy Permanent Representative will participate in the UN Security Council session taking place today. I am not sure whether he has already spoken or not, but we will certainly be heavily engaged in that.

I welcome the noble Earl to his place on this matter. He also focused on the humanitarian situation, acknowledging—as I also acknowledge—the huge amount of support the United Kingdom has given: £4 billion over the period of the conflict. I also recognise what the previous Government did. We gave an additional £4 million to the United Nations in October to ensure that support is ongoing, particularly food, education, healthcare and other life-saving assistance for civilians in north-west Syria in particular.

The noble Earl asked how we ensure that this reaches the people it needs to reach. We are working through the United Nations and NGOs to ensure that that happens. Of course, as the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, knows, we had quite lengthy discussions on the Syrian sanctions in Grand Committee. There were calls for exemptions to ensure that NGOs and the people needed to supply, support and distribute that aid are not affected or impacted by those sanctions. I give that reassurance to the noble Earl.

On arms, as the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, knows, we have a rigorous arms export process, and that process will apply wherever it goes. So I reassure him that that will very much be in place.

We need to focus on working with our allies, but we also need to ensure that in Syria, as in Ukraine, there can be no impunity for violations of international humanitarian law and human rights law. We will continue to provide leadership in holding perpetrators to account. Russia must change tack on its destructive support for the regime’s military campaign and instead support de-escalation and a political settlement.

The noble Earl also raised the issue of Captagon production and distribution. Of course, that is an issue on which we have already had quite serious debates in this Chamber—how we can stop that and influence things, working with our allies. It is an extreme danger, and we will continue to enforce that.

When I was watching the debate in the other place, I saw Emily Thornberry, chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, raise the serious issue of refugees, particularly in other countries but in Turkey as well, and ensuring that their safety is considered and that they are not returned to another situation. We are acutely aware that HTS is a proscribed terrorist organisation and an extreme danger, but this action, as was rightly pointed out, could lead others to come in and benefit from this situation.

The reason we made this Statement is to show Parliament that we are absolutely committed to keeping an eye on this, to engaging with regional neighbours and to ensuring that de-escalation is our No. 1 priority.

19:59

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, under the unwelcome cover of darkness, there have been conflicts in Gaza, Ukraine and Sudan, and we have seen even today the announcement of martial law in South Korea. Now there are these unwelcome developments in north-east Syria, with the re-emergence of ISIS and other proxies. I would like to ask the Minister about the position of the Kurdish community and other minorities. Kurdish forces and other ethnic and religious minorities are facing renewed threats from the proxy terrorist groups of regional powers. This marks the re-emergence of yet another bloody chapter in the existential struggle faced by those communities.

In 2019, I visited north-east Syria and Bardarash in northern Iraq, where 11,000 people fled from the violence sweeping across that part of the world at that time. As we approach the 10th anniversary of the liberation of the Syrian city of Kobani—a crucial moment in the defeat of ISIS, with considerable sacrifices made by Kurdish forces at the time; some 12,000 Kurdish fighters lost their lives in that struggle—we should note the reports coming from Aleppo and the Shahba region that there are again thousands and thousands of people fleeing for fear of their lives.

What can the Minister tell us about the position of the Kurdish community and other minorities? Can we increase diplomatic and humanitarian support? What is our strategy to support stability and the protection of those populations in northern Iraq and northern Syria in the long term?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I tried to address that issue in my previous Answer. We have raised humanitarian aid to north-west Syria. In particular, we have focused on working with NGOs to ensure that the aid gets to the groups that need that sort of protection. We have also engaged with the forces operating in that area. Obviously, we have had no contact with HTS but, as a member of the global coalition against Daesh, UK officials have engaged with the Syrian Democratic Forces and the democratic Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria. We are continuing that engagement to ensure that what they did to ensure that Daesh did not get a hold continues, and we will offer that sort of protection.

We have expressed particular concern about the human rights situation in SNA-controlled north-west Syria, including the arbitrary arrests and the lack of justice and accountability. We will focus on that and raise that concern. I hope that reassures the noble Lord of our actions.

[Lord McInnes of Kilwinning (Con)]

My Lords, I will follow the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, on minorities. One of the minority groups that is very concerned in the Aleppo region is the Armenian community. In 2011, there were 200,000 Armenians in the Aleppo region, but that figure is now 10,000. If that community were to fear that it could face the kind of genocidal outpourings that have happened in other areas of the Middle East over the last 10 years, the Armenian Government have offered to relocate as many of those Armenians as they wish to Armenia. Would His Majesty’s Government give support to the Armenian Government to do so and engage with them if that situation were to arise?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

As a general point, one of the things that we are concerned about doing is giving support to refugees who have fled Syria, and we are working with all neighbouring countries. I do not have a specific response on Armenia, but I have taken the noble Lord’s point and will certainly raise it in the department. As a general principle, we are very concerned to ensure that those fleeing the conflict are properly supported in neighbouring countries.

[Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)]

My Lords, we need to remember that Bashar al-Assad has been kept in power by Russia to do all his dreadful, bloody work over 20 years or thereabouts. I am not quite sure where HTS comes from or what its stance is as it sweeps down from Aleppo, but we need to remember that Kissinger once remarked that there are many situations where one rather wishes both sides could lose—and I am afraid that this may be one of them.

More broadly, these situations arise again and again, and there will be many more in this high-tension area, where everything is amplified by the digital age and hyper-connectivity and where the bloodshed seems to increase all the time. Each time, we issue Statements, we talk with our allies, we wring our hands a bit and we go to the United Nations and have a good chat. Then, somehow, the situation slides on away from us, which is extraordinary, because 20 years ago we thought that democracy was winning everywhere, but now it seems to be sliding away. Are we really using all the modern communications technology, of the kind that the Chinese in particular use with great effect, to maintain the case against bloodshed, killing and Russian troublemaking and the case for democracy, balance and a sensible commitment to a degree of freedom and the rule of law? Our story needs to be brushed up a great deal.

Are we making full use of the Commonwealth of 56 Nations, although I understand that there are soon to be rather more than that? Are we making enough use of our UN representations, with the desperate need for UN reform at every level, despite having Russia and China sitting in there like cuckoos in the nest? This is a world in which the medium is the message 10 times over. It needs a constant and new story to be developed. I ask that we think of that and do not just assume that, having issued a Statement and talked to a few of our allies, there is nothing more we can do.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I absolutely share the noble Lord’s views about our values and how we can restate them. I attended the whole of the United Nations General Assembly, including many events where we engaged with civil society. Our policies should not be just about Government-to-Government relationships, and that is why the noble Lord is absolutely right about the Commonwealth. It is a commonwealth family as well as a commonwealth of peoples. The Commonwealth institutes great people-to-people and parliamentary contact, which restates the importance of democracy.

We also translate our policies through soft power, a term that I do not particularly like. Through the BBC World Service and other means, we are using greater, more effective communication tools and ensuring that we counter what the Russians are doing. It is important that we see the value of that sort of people-to-people communication.

I restate the position on Syria that I said earlier: we are supporting the United Nations Resolution 2354 and a political process that engages as many groups as possible. It is a political process; this is not a war that can be won by conflict. This situation can be resolved only by political dialogue and we urge all parties to engage in that.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

Can the Minister assure us that the Government are also talking to the Greek Government about refugees? What happens is that refugees move further and further, and the Greeks are in a really difficult position now with Syrian refugees. Can we be assured that we are working with the Greek Government too?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I reassure the noble Lord that we are working with all regional neighbours, and we are focusing on both that diplomatic effort and the support for refugees. We are also working in terms of an EU response to that sort of migration. I reassure the noble Lord that we are doing that.

[Lord Winston (Lab)]

My Lords, the drug Captagon was mentioned in the opening of this very short debate. As I am sure the Minister knows, this is a rather complex drug which has a number of different compounds, including amphetamine-like drugs. The spectre of hordes of terrorists fuelled with that sort of drug is really quite alarming. Does the Minister know whether we have adequate protection against such drugs as this at border control? Have we detected those drugs at customs or anywhere else in Britain?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

In relation to the specific question, we are unaware of any Captagon being on the UK’s streets. However, shipments have been seized in Europe and this presents a wider threat to our allies in the Middle East. Certainly, we are sharpening global awareness of the risks posed by Captagon. In March 2024 we co-hosted an event with Jordan which brought together the international community alongside expert researchers to discuss the impact of the trade in the region, and in March last year, in co-ordination with the US, we imposed sanctions on 11 individuals who facilitated the Captagon industry in Syria, including politicians and businesspeople, so we are very focused on the dangers.

[Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)]

My Lords, it is appalling but, I suppose, not particularly shocking that once again the Syrian people find themselves in this terrible situation, caught between two vicious forces and, indeed, a multiplicity of other actors, with the country being used as a melting pot for the interference of so many, such as Russia, Iran and so on.

On the humanitarian aid point, the UK has been extremely generous in welcoming Syrian refugees. The Minister mentioned that over £4 billion has been given over the past 13 years. I had the opportunity to visit one of the camps in Jordan and saw what UK aid has been doing there. Has the Minister considered whether there is a need for an increase in the ODA budget to cope with what is likely to be the outworking of this latest crisis, as well as all the other pressures that have been referenced already in the Chamber?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

What my honourable friend said in the other place is that we are looking at how ODA is distributed and what more we can do, and I mentioned the additional £4 million to the United Nations. Certainly, this is something that we have to be very cognisant of. I keep saying that the refugee situation is imposing heavy burdens on neighbouring countries that could exacerbate the situation and we are very concerned to ensure that we get the aid to those who need it as quickly as possible through the NGOs, as I previously said, but I hear what the noble Lord says.

Great British Energy Bill

Committee stage
Tuesday 3rd December 2024 Lords Chamber

Committee (1st Day) (Continued)

20:13

Amendment 21

Moved by

[Lord Offord of Garvel]

21: Clause 3, page 2, line 18 at end insert—
“(e) the production of nuclear energy.”Member’s explanatory statement
This would amend Great British Energy’s objects to include the production of nuclear energy.

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 21 is in my name. The UK led the world, becoming the first country to split the atom. This was followed in 1956 by the world’s first nuclear programme and a nuclear power station at Calder Hall—Windscale. At its peak in the 1990s, the UK generated approximately 13 gigawatts of power from nuclear energy, but this has slipped to around six gigawatts today. This story of decline stands in stark contrast to our modern understanding of nuclear power as the only current form of reliable, secure, low-carbon electricity which can be deployed at scale in the UK and therefore has to be considered a key component in the drive for net zero.

In January this year the previous Government published their policy paper, Civil Nuclear: Roadmap to 2050, and this was considered vital so that nuclear could offer the reliable, resilient and low-carbon power we need to reach net zero by 2050 and ensure our energy security so that we are never again dependent on the likes of Putin. Many other nations, including the USA and France, have endorsed a net-zero nuclear declaration which calls for a global tripling of nuclear energy by 2050.

Global energy is increasingly based around electricity. That means that the key to making energy systems clean is to turn the electricity sector from being the largest producer of CO₂ emissions into a low-carbon source that reduces fossil fuel emissions in areas such as transport, heating and industry. While renewables are expected to continue to lead, nuclear power can also play an important part, along with fossil fuels, using carbon capture, utilisation and storage, and indeed the removal of flaring, turning our hydrocarbon fields into the greenest in the world. Countries envisaging a future role for nuclear account for the bulk of global energy demand and CO₂ emissions, but to achieve a trajectory consistent with sustainability targets, including international climate goals, the expansion of clean electricity would need to be three times faster than at present. It would require 85% of global energy to come from clean sources by 2040, compared with just 36% today. Along with massive investments in efficiency and renewables, the trajectory would need an 80% increase in global nuclear power production by 2040.

We recognise the importance of renewables in achieving net-zero goals. However, going for a 100% renewable energy scenario represents a considerable gamble, especially given that grid balancing and storage technologies are still relatively nascent. One of the most pressing concerns is that solutions to renewables’ inherent variability fail to materialise quickly enough, and Britain either has to live with constraints and interruptions to its energy supply—an economic no-no—or pivot back towards an energy mix of yesteryear, reliant on fossil-fuelled power plants to provide a dependable baseload of electricity, albeit at a great environmental cost. If this were to transpire, the UK would seriously risk reneging on its 2050 net-zero target.

A lack of investment in existing and new nuclear plants in advanced economies would have implications for emissions, costs and energy security. In the case where no further investments are made in advanced economies to extend the operating lifetime of existing nuclear power plants or to develop new projects, nuclear power capacity will decline.

Nuclear power blends the best attribute of renewables, zero-carbon generation, with the best of fossil fuel power stations, dependability. According to the International Energy Agency, over the past 50 years, the use of nuclear power has reduced CO₂ emissions by over 60 gigatonnes —nearly two years-worth of global energy-related emissions.

The Prime Minister has made a vital promise to lower energy bills for households across the country—a commitment that resonates deeply with families facing financial pressures—but to ensure that this promise is more than just words, the Government must take decisive action to secure a diverse, competitive and sustainable energy supply. One critical way to achieve that is by expanding the production of nuclear energy.

Nuclear energy has the potential to significantly increase the UK’s energy supply. By introducing more nuclear power into the grid, we create a stable and abundant source of electricity. This additional capacity can ease pressure on prices by reducing reliance on imported fuels, particularly during global energy crises. With a greater supply of energy comes the opportunity for competition. Competition in the energy market pushes prices down for consumers, ensuring that families and businesses benefit from fairer, and lower, energy costs. Nuclear energy, as a reliable and low-cost source of power in the long term, plays a key role in fostering this competitive environment.

In respect of this amendment, nuclear energy is not just a technological option but a strategic necessity for the UK’s future. As the Government themselves have stated, nuclear energy

“will play an important role in helping the UK achieve energy security and clean power”.

To fulfil this vision, surely the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero must place nuclear energy at the core of its policies and strategies.

With 40% of the UK’s energy currently imported, this leaves us vulnerable to global market volatility and geopolitical tensions. Nuclear energy, with its long operational lifespan and domestic production potential, reduces our reliance on foreign energy sources. As electrification expands across sectors, from transport to heating, the demand for clean and reliable electricity will surge. Nuclear energy can meet this demand, ensuring a secure and steady energy supply for the long term. I beg to move.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Morris of Bolton) (Con)]

My Lords, I must inform the House that if Amendment 21 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment 24 for reasons of pre-emption.

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

I draw attention to my interests as outlined in the register and thank my noble friend for introducing this amendment. His insights underline the importance of collaboration as we address the dual challenges of energy security and achieving net-zero carbon emissions.

The amendment would build on prior commitments and take the steps needed to ensure that nuclear energy plays a full role in our energy mix. The amendment is not a new initiative but an essential next step in fulfilling the Government’s stated commitments to nuclear energy. It would ensure that we moved from exploration and consideration to concrete action in facilitating, encouraging and participating in the production of nuclear energy. By accepting it, we can bridge the gap between aspiration, implementation and participating in the production of nuclear energy.

The Government have already acknowledged the importance of nuclear energy, but acknowledgement alone will not suffice. There must be a tangible, unequivocal commitment to its production. This includes setting clear targets for both large-scale nuclear reactors and, more importantly, small and advanced modular reactors. A stronger commitment sends a signal to investors, developers and the broader energy sector that the UK is serious about leading the world in advanced nuclear technology.

Public investment is critical to establishing a foundation for nuclear development, but, equally, we must incentivise private sector involvement. This requires the Government to offer meaningful incentives, loan guarantees, tax breaks or grants so that private investors see nuclear as a viable and profitable area to support. Such a strategy will not only unlock funding but drive innovation, reduce costs and bring nuclear projects online faster.

I must also highlight the critical role of Great British Nuclear, which my noble friend mentioned earlier. Established by the previous Government, GBN is uniquely positioned to co-ordinate and drive nuclear development across the country. The Government should not only recognise the value of GBN but ensure that it is fully resourced and empowered to develop on its mission. GBN can act as a central point for collaboration between public and private stakeholders, fostering innovation and scaling up nuclear energy production.

The importance of nuclear energy in securing the UK’s future cannot be overstated. It is vital for energy independence, affordability and achieving our climate goals. By accepting this amendment, the Government would take a decisive step towards fostering a robust nuclear sector, one that combined public investment, incentivised private participation, reduced barriers to progress and built on the foundation laid by Great British Nuclear.

I was delighted to hear earlier in the Committee the Minister mention a new siting policy. As he will know, this will be crucial in supporting the ambitions of data companies such as Microsoft to base operations in the UK. If we can deliver security of supply of energy, with that will come jobs, new technologies and the possibility of levelling up those areas of the country which so desperately need it.

[Lord Ashcombe (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak very quickly in support of my noble friend Lord Offord. Nuclear fuel is very much a positive, as it is a baseload generator, which to me is critical. That is what we are short of in this country. Unfortunately, wind, solar, whatever, are not always with us. The excess that is produced by wind and solar when they are actively working, which is fantastic, could then be used to drive hydrogen production—we have touched very briefly on that in this House this afternoon. Hydrogen is the clean fuel of the future, possibly the cleanest; but we need to be able to store and then burn it, in times of need, to generate the electricity that will reduce our dependence on gas generation, particularly, which I know we are all in favour of. I just wanted to add that to this small debate, knowing that nuclear reactors are also most useful for data centres.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I really cannot disagree with anything noble Lords have said in this debate, although I do not believe we need an amendment. I utterly agree that nuclear power is essential to the future; it provides the essential baseload; it is safe, secure and reliable. We have great opportunities in the UK to develop nuclear energy and the supply chain, even more than we have now. Obviously, Rolls-Royce, from a UK company point of view, has great potential.

We are keeping a very close eye on Hinkley Point C; the operational date that has been given for the first unit between 2029 and 2031 is very crucial. We are working very hard to get Sizewell C to final investment decision in the next few months. We have the SMR programme, and I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, about the importance and value of the work of Great British Nuclear. We are regularly engaged with GBN, and I pay tribute to the great work that its chair and chief executive are doing.

I have met a number of companies who are very interested in developing AMRs. We have all seen the experience of companies such as Amazon, in the US, linking small modular reactors and advanced modular reactors with data centres; clearly, we wish the UK to be very much part of that. In terms of the UK’s growth agenda, if we combine military and civil nuclear defence requirements, we know that the nuclear skills task force has now estimated that we need about 40,000 extra people in the industry by 2030, and moving on with even more people by the 2040s. This is at once a challenge and a huge opportunity, because the careers that are offered in the nuclear industry are secure and well paid, and it is a very exciting industry to go into.

The noble Lord, Lord Offord, quoted figures from the IEA. Although we have seen a global downturn in nuclear energy, it is right to now talk about a renaissance. At international gatherings, it is pretty clear that there are countries coming back to nuclear, as we are, and other countries that wish to develop nuclear energy for the first time. This is very encouraging; we know that, in terms of popular opinion, there is a much more positive attitude among the public towards nuclear energy.

In saying I do not believe that the amendment is necessary, I do very much embrace the comments of the noble Lords and I can assure them that, in the department, we see nuclear energy as having an essential role for the future.

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

I thank the Minister for his clarity and unequivocal support of nuclear, and, indeed, for his reply to my noble friend Lord Howell of Guildford, who asked a specific question in relation to the GB Energy Bill. GB Energy can, if required, participate in nuclear, but the clear understanding is that discussions are ongoing with GB Nuclear. So I would encourage the Government to continue to clarify what that will look like and how it will be funded going forward.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

If I may come back on that, the noble Lord may have seen that the energy Select Committee had a hearing at which the chair of Great British Energy and then the chair of Great British Nuclear gave evidence. It is clear from what they said that we will have no difficulty at all in establishing a co-operative relationship.

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

That is noted. I thank the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

Can I ask my noble friend why the new power station in Somerset is costing four times as much as an identical one in South Korea? Surely this will add to energy costs, not detract from them.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

I am not sure which “noble friend” that was aimed at, but I will have a go if the noble Lord likes. I was at the department when we started talking about Hinkley many years ago. Two or three things happened. First, it took an awfully long time to come to a final investment decision. Secondly, EDF thought it could bring a design model from France and place it in Hinkley Point C without having to make design changes. The reality was that it had to make thousands of design changes because of the requirements of the regulatory system in the UK.

20:30

The good news is that work is progressing very well indeed at the second unit at Hinkley Point C because it learned an awful lot from its experience with the first unit. The additional good news is that Sizewell C is an 80% replica above ground of Hinkley Point C. The lessons learned from the first unit at Sizewell for the second unit mean that we should see improvements.

The model that is being used for the financing of Sizewell is to bring in a number of private sector investments to provide the commercial discipline in relation to cost and timing. Although the noble Lord is right to point to the cost and time overruns at Hinkley, we are learning and are confident for the future. The whole point about small modular reactors is that their modular nature should enable great efficiencies to be secured as more modulars are built in factory mode and then placed on site.

Amendment 21 withdrawn.

Amendment 22

Moved by

[Lord Ashcombe]

22: Clause 3, page 2, line 18, at end insert—
“(e) the exploration of oil and gas in the North Sea where the UK’s energy security is compromised.”Member’s explanatory statement
This would amend Great British Energy’s objects to include the exploration of oil and gas in the North Sea where the UK’s energy security is compromised.

[Lord Ashcombe (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 22 in my name is about energy security. Energy security is a matter of utmost importance—a foundation on which our homes, businesses and industries depend. We must ensure that our nation can provide reliable power to keep the lights on and our economy running.

I was not in this country during the 1970s but lived in the Republic of Ireland. We suffered power cuts that caused significant disruption. I recall a farming friend who lost his entire pig herd due to a lack of ventilation—a stark reminder of the devastating consequences when power systems fail. We cannot afford to let such a situation arise here.

While I wholeheartedly support the goal of achieving net zero by 2050, we must temper ambition with pragmatism. The United Kingdom accounts for 1% of global carbon dioxide emissions, compared with 33% from China and 12.5% from the United States. While we strive for cleaner energy, we must be realistic about the scale of transformation required. Getting electricity production to net zero by 2030 is a noble aspiration, but it remains a significant challenge.

Progress has been made. According to the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, the UK’s carbon dioxide emissions decreased by almost 50% between 1990 and 2023, including a 6.6% drop in the year ending 2023. Electricity generation contributes 11% of our greenhouse emissions. Efforts to reduce this share are ongoing. However, our energy mix relies on a delicate balance. Nuclear power—which we have just discussed—and biomass provide baseload capacity most of the time, while solar and wind offer renewable contributions that are inherently variable. Interconnectors, though helpful, depend on surplus supply from neighbouring countries.

The swing producer in our energy system remains gas, which under certain circumstances—when the wind is not blowing and the sun is not shining—supplies upwards of 60% of our energy needs. As the Government push for greater electrification, whether in transport, heating or industry, the strain on our grid will only increase. Targets for offshore and floating wind are ambitious, as are those for solar power, which raises concerns about land use and its impact on food production—an amendment for later discussion, I am sure.

Onshore wind also faces resistance, and these challenges make clear that gas generation will remain a critical component of our energy mix for years to come. Let us not forget that electricity accounts for only 20% to 25% of the energy consumed in this country, and that 87% of UK homes rely on gas for heating and hot water, yet domestic gas production declined by 10% between 2022 and 2023 and nearly 14% to August this year, according to Offshore Energies UK.

This leaves us increasingly reliant on imports, as our current production is about 40% of requirements. Imported gas comes via pipelines from Europe or as LNG shipments. Global instability, such as sanctions on Russia, has tightened supply, while demand in Europe has risen. Norway, a trusted ally, provides the majority of gas imported by pipeline, some 35%, placing many of our eggs in one basket. The additional 25% required comes as LNG, sourced from countries such as the United States and Qatar, both of which have indicated that their supplies will increase. This has a significantly higher carbon footprint—on average four times more than our domestic production—due to transport and production methods.

The North Sea Transition Authority’s 2024 Emissions Monitoring Report indicates that UK gas production is a top-quartile performer according to kilograms of carbon dioxide equivalent per barrel of oil equivalent—kgCO₂e/boe. The NSTA report also shows a good methane emissions performance—arguably a greater concern than carbon dioxide emissions—with the UK having an intensity of 1 kgCO₂e/boe versus the global average of 16 kgCO₂e/boe. I apologise for all the figures.

New UK developments are being delivered far more cleanly than the average of current existing UK developments. New UK developments are significantly cleaner than imports, producing emissions roughly 10 times cleaner than LNG imports. We are fortunate to have an abundance of hydrocarbons in our offshore waters. Despite the decline, there is still potential for two or three decades of production, as I mentioned at Second Reading. Exploiting this resource responsibly would protect some 200,000 direct and indirect jobs, sustain some critical industries and provide a bridge to the renewable future. Moreover, recommencing the issuance of oil and gas licences would help reduce global emissions by avoiding the higher carbon intensity of imports, stabilise our energy and bolster our economy.

However, I must caution that the current tax regime risks an 80% slump in investment in the UK oil and gas industry over the next five years, according to OEUK. This would undermine both energy security and our ability to transition effectively. Lifting the ban on new exploration and production licences, while ensuring robust environmental standards, offers a pragmatic path forward. It will protect jobs, reduce emissions and, most importantly, help secure the energy future of the United Kingdom. I very much look forward to the Minister’s response and beg to move.

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Ashcombe, whose amendment I support, for his insightful contributions on the important issue of energy security. This issue cannot go unaddressed when discussing the Bill because of the consequences to our country’s energy production, supply and security. Indeed, Clause 3 explicitly states that GBE’s objects

“are restricted to facilitating, encouraging and participating in … measures for ensuring the security of the supply of energy”.

However, the Bill makes no provision to ensure the security and future of our energy supply, and I express my deepest concern that the tunnel-vision focus on renewable energy to achieve the Government’s overly ambitious target of clean energy by 2030 will inevitably compromise our energy security.

The UK’s energy security should indeed be at the forefront of the debate on the Bill. 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. However, this is simply not true. Instead, the Government’s renewable plans will cost the British people and our national energy security.

We on these Benches of course recognise the need to cut household energy bills for families, to accelerate private investment in energy infrastructure, and to protect and create jobs in the energy industry across the UK, but the Bill gives no indication as to how this will be achieved. It does not include any measures to ensure the effective delivery of a reduction in household energy bills, nor an increase in British jobs, nor the long-term security of our energy supply. We understand that the purpose of Great British Energy will be to assist the Government in ramping up renewables to achieve their self-imposed target of 100% clean energy by 2030. This is a target that I believe to be driven by political ideology and which industry experts have described as aggressive, unrealistic and expensive, requiring far more than the allocated £8.3 billion of funding.

It is an undeniable truth that renewable energy will always be naturally unreliable. As my noble friend Lady Bloomfield brought to our attention at Second Reading, over the last couple of months, as was the case this time last year and in March, we have seen another dunkelflaute. Indeed, in March, the measure of how often turbines generate their maximum power failed to reach 20%, and we have recently seen levels drop to nearly zero. Relying on new interconnectors to Belgium and Holland will not offer energy security if their wind farms suffer the same weather conditions as ours or if their countries’ needs are greater than ours.

All this being said, it is therefore vital that we acknowledge the UK’s North Sea oil and gas industry when we discuss the future of our energy production and security. This industry has suffered under the Government, as they increase their taxes on North Sea oil to punitive levels. Energy firms have described increasing the windfall tax by 3%—with the headline rate of tax now a staggering 78%—and extending this to 2030 as a devastating blow. This hike will cut investment in UK natural resources and oil and gas production, as indicated by my noble friend Lord Ashcombe, which will make the UK increasingly dependent on imported supply. This will compromise our energy security, but consumers will also be exposed to price fluctuations. The country will become increasingly dependent on imported electricity and will therefore be forced to pay the market price for power as fossil fuel powered generators are closed at a quicker pace than we are ramping up the necessary capacity to replace them.

Not only this, but if investment in UK oil and gas decreases then the revenue generated from the energy profit levy, which the Government are relying on to help fund GBE, will decrease. By pressing ahead with ending oil and gas licences—a move no other major economy has taken—£12 billion in tax receipts have been lost from the North Sea. This, combined with the £8 billion which will be spent on GBE, is a staggering £20 billion of taxpayers’ money.

Analysts have spoken out and warned about relying on North Sea oil taxes to fund the Government’s green energy plans while the Government tax the operators to the point that revenues fall by 80%, as indicated by my noble friend Lord Ashcombe. We must address the fact that the revenue generated from the energy profit levy, or windfall tax, may fall if investment in UK oil and gas decreases. Alongside private sector investment, the Government are relying on windfall tax revenues to fund GBE and support the transition to clean power by 2030. Furthermore, the £8 billion allocated to GBE does not compensate for the amount of investment in energy projects that will be doomed by the Government’s plans to prematurely shut down the UK oil and gas sector.

The North Sea oil and gas industry is not only critical to the UK energy supply but a bedrock for many economies and communities. Economic ecosystems have developed around this industry. It is therefore critical that we manage the energy transition properly. The Government’s plan for GBE, combined with the energy profits levy, puts the industry at risk at this vital time. The proposed increases and the removal of the investment allowances could be detrimental to investment. Offshore Energies UK has warned that the tax increase could see investment in the UK cut from £14 billion to £2 billion between now and 2029. That is not scaremongering; it is what the industry is telling us.

20:45

The only detail we have heard about the number of jobs to be created by GBE came from the Secretary of State’s hand-picked chair of that body, who said that “hundreds” of people will be employed at the Aberdeen headquarters. We have since found out that the chair himself will be based in Manchester. More importantly, these few hundred people will hardly make up for the 200,000 jobs the Government are putting at risk with their plans to shut down the North Sea and the missed opportunity for jobs thanks to the go-slow on nuclear. On the Secretary of State’s watch, we have already seen thousands of jobs in the industry lost.

I thank my noble friend Lord Ashcombe for moving the amendment, which gives vital consideration to the role the North Sea oil and gas industry might play if our national energy is compromised. I support my noble friend’s efforts and thank him for his contribution. The establishment of GBE is an effort to fulfil the Government’s rushed, unprecedented and unilateral target for clean power by 2030, which will come at a great cost to the North Sea oil and gas industry and the UK’s energy security. I am therefore thankful to my noble friend for bringing this issue to the forefront of the debate on the Bill.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

I hope the Committee will forgive me. I was slow on the uptake and should have preceded my noble friend instead of following him. I think doing so is legitimate within the rules of Committee.

I very much support my noble friend Lord Ashcombe’s amendment. The Minister has already made the point that I have the greatest possible reservations about net zero. This is not because I have some tremendous hang-up and that I want to pollute the atmosphere and make the place less liveable than it might otherwise be, but because we are now reaching the point on net zero where the costs are starting to come in and getting very severe indeed. That is why we have to think very closely and carefully about where we go from here.

We have done an awful lot to lower our net emissions into the atmosphere, largely by closing down vast areas of our generation industry, in which coal-fired power stations have now been phased out almost completely. What has happened? We think we are setting a wonderful example to the rest of the world but our net emissions come down and world emissions go up. That is hardly surprising, because the Chinese and the Indians are still building coal-fired power stations. They account for massive amounts of coal-fired energy, which keeps their energy prices low and makes them very competitive with the rest of the world. Are we really going to see a change of heart from China and India? Will they suddenly say, “No, no, we’ve been polluting the atmosphere too much and we must now start cleaning everything up and working to net zero”? I do not think they will. They want to keep their competitive position.

That is why it is so essential, to refer back to my noble friend’s amendment, that we continue to accept that we will need oil and gas for much longer than we might originally have thought. The cost of saying we will not explore for any more oil and gas in the North Sea is absolutely massive in terms of jobs for people living in Scotland. The pigeons are starting to come home on all this. That is one of the reasons why I have the greatest possible reservations about driving on towards this net-zero target: the costs are becoming prohibitive. Our energy prices are already higher than almost everybody in Europe. This will cost us jobs and competitiveness in the world generally for years to come.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, one of the joys of debating energy is that, on every occasion, we come back to the substance of the whole argument about energy and where we are going. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ashcombe, for stimulating such an interesting discussion. The noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, in a sense, has brought this into the open. Clearly, it was his Government who signed up to the legislation on net zero by 2050. The last Government, as much as we do, saw the huge risks involved in climate change and the need to take action.

The international position is that, despite what the noble Lord says, the fastest growth in use of renewable energy is occurring in China. The International Energy Agency indicated in its recent renewable energy report that we will see a 2.7 times increase in the use of renewables globally between now and 2030. So, there is a global movement towards clean power and net zero. Yes, it is going at different paces, but we believe the UK can gain great advantage by taking a leadership role. The National Energy System Operator—NESO—has shown that there is a pathway to clean power by 2030. We are now committed to taking that and turning it into an action plan, which I hope we will be able to publish very shortly.

I would not deny that North Sea oil and gas still have important roles to play, and I am of course listening to what noble Lords say about the tax situation and proposals, and the investment issue. Clearly, the Government are in very close discussions with the industry. Our aim is an orderly transition, and that is what we mean to achieve. So we clearly see the value of what happens in the North Sea, and we need it to continue to provide supplies to the UK in the years ahead. Equally, however, we need to manage the transition to clean power and net zero.

On the issue of jobs, obviously, the number of people employed by GBE will not balance out the people who may be lost to the oil and gas industry in the future. This is important. It does not really matter where the chair comes from; the point is that the headquarters of GBE will be firmly based in Aberdeen. I have already referred to the extra 40,000 people we need in nuclear by 2030. If you look at the other sectors we are talking about investing in—CCUS, hydrogen—all of them will need more people. So, the energy sector as a whole will provide a huge number of opportunities, but I accept that, if there is a reduction in the number of people employed in the North Sea, it is our responsibility, with industry, to help manage that transition effectively.

In the end, we may disagree about this, but the Government are confident that we are right to go towards clean power as quickly as possible. We have had endorsement, both from the Committee on Climate Change and the Office for Budget Responsibility, that investing in clean energy now will pay dividends in the long term.

[Lord Ashcombe (Con)]

I am grateful to the Minister and, indeed, to my noble friends. I continue to worry that, as we import LNG, our effective emissions, by passing the problem elsewhere, are significantly higher than they would be using our own production. That is an important fact in this debate. We may have to come back to this issue on Report, but for now, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 22 withdrawn.

Amendments 23 to 34 not moved.

Clause 3 agreed.

Clause 4: Financial assistance

Amendment 35

Moved by

[Lord Offord of Garvel]

35: Clause 4, page 2, line 32, leave out “grant”
Member's explanatory statement
This would probe into the types of financial assistance which can be provided to Great British Energy by the Secretary of State.

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak in support of amendments tabled to Clause 4 of the Great British Energy Bill, particularly those in my name and the name of my noble friend Lady Noakes. These amendments are crucial as they aim to provide clarity, ensure accountability and protect the taxpayer in what is undoubtedly an ambitious and complex policy area.

Let me first address the central issue that these amendments seek to probe: the nature and scope of the financial assistance the Secretary of State can provide to Great British Energy. We all agree that our energy future is crucial, both for achieving net zero and for ensuring security of supply in an increasingly uncertain world. However, noble intentions must be underpinned by rigorous safeguards, and the current wording of Clause 4 leaves far too much ambiguity.

Amendments 35, 37 and 38 in my name are designed to question the breadth of the financial powers the Bill affords the Secretary of State. It is entirely appropriate to scrutinise these provisions. The taxpayers of this country, who have faced significant financial pressures in recent years, deserve reassurance that the Government are deploying their public funds prudently. The inclusion of vague terms such as the ability to provide assistance by way of guarantees, indemnities and other financial assistance could allow for open-ended commitments.

These are not theoretical concerns. History is replete with examples of well-meaning initiatives that spiralled into financial mismanagement. By narrowing or better defining these provisions, we can ensure that GBE operates within a framework that prioritises efficiency, accountability and value for money.

I turn to Amendment 36 in the name of my noble friend Lady Noakes. This amendment questions the inclusion of specific provisions under subsections (2)(b) to (2)(d). These allow for financial support in connection with acquisitions, liabilities or the provision of assets. While there may well be situations in which such support is necessary, we must ask what checks and balances will be in place and what mechanisms will ensure that public money is not used to underwrite reckless decision-making or speculative ventures.

These amendments are not designed to obstruct the creation of Great British Energy or its objectives; rather, they are about ensuring that its financial underpinnings are solid, transparent and accountable. British principles dictate that the Government must always act as a careful steward of public funds, balancing ambition with fiscal prudence. It is also worth noting that robust safeguards will strengthen the Bill. Clear financial rules do not hamper innovation; they foster confidence for investors, for industry and for the British people.

In conclusion, I urge the Government to take seriously the concerns raised by these amendments. By supporting them, we send a clear message that while we are committed to achieving our energy goals, we will not do so at the expense of fiscal responsibility. The energy transition must be sustainable, in not only environmental terms but economic ones. I beg to move.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, in this group I have Amendment 36, which partially overlaps Amendment 37 from my noble friend Lord Offord of Garvel. My noble friend asked some general questions about the financial assistance clause. My Amendment 36 is somewhat narrower: it is trying to find out exactly how paragraphs (b) to (d) actually work.

I understand how paragraph (a) works: the Secretary of State gives money to Great British Energy, or possibly lends it money, or guarantees or indemnifies something that Great British Energy does. However, when we get to paragraph (b), somehow the financial assistance is provided by the Secretary of State acquiring shares or securities, but Great British Energy does not appear to be involved at all in that transaction.

21:00

Similarly, the next paragraph seems to involve the acquisition by the Secretary of State of an undertaking or assets. Again, how is Great British Energy involved? Since, in Clause 4, financial assistance has to be provided “to” Great British Energy, it is a complete mystery to me how the construct of subsection (2) provides that the acquisition of assets or shares can be financial assistance “to” Great British Energy, as the nexus to Great British Energy is not established in any way in that subsection.

I have to say I am completely defeated by Clause 4(2)(d) when it says that financial assistance may be “pursuant to a contract”. What kinds of contracts are we talking about? Does Great British Energy have to be party to the contracts or not? I am mystified by it.

We can contrast this with the much simpler formulation in the UK Infrastructure Bank Act 2023. That provides a much more straightforward framework, because the Treasury has a clear understanding of what financial assistance is and how it is to be provided. The drafting of Clause 4 of this Bill leaves me concerned that there is no clear view of what financial assistance is within the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero.

My noble friend Lord Offord has not spoken to his other amendments in detail. I had a number of comments on them, but I imagine that we are trying to speed through to the conclusion of this day’s Committee and I will refrain from commenting further.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I support this amendment, but for all sorts of different reasons from those given my noble friend Lady Noakes. I am very worried that this money will be wasted. At the end of the day, there is a whole mass of commercial companies out there that are more than happy to invest in energy projects of one sort or another as long as they show a return. Why we need taxpayers’ money is slightly beyond me. I do not quite understand why that will make a big difference, unless the taxpayers’ money goes into projects that are completely uncommercial and therefore lose money for the taxpayer.

This comes back to the remarks I made earlier about the Government trying to pick winners. They have no record of success on this whatever. Indeed, if Ministers were so good at picking winners, no doubt they would be doing it commercially somewhere else and not bother to be in this place. It worries me that, at the end of the day, they will be left with nothing but the non-commercial aspects of development of energy projects rather than those that work and make money, because if they work and make money, the private sector will invest in them anyway.

I would like to know the Minister’s view on this, because it strikes me that there is a contradiction in terms. There are not going to be a mass of profitable projects that Great British Energy can invest in; there will merely be those that people say are not profitable and do not work. Therefore, the only way of getting them going is to shove taxpayers’ money into them and probably lose it. That is why I support my noble friend’s amendment.

[Lord Cryer (Lab)]

My Lords, before I move on to the substance of the quite extensive amendments, let me say that this has struck me as being a very constructive and interesting debate, with some genuinely deeply interesting contributions. For those of us who served in the House of Commons—I was there for 22 years, and I am fairly new here—what is striking is that the way of working here seems to be that we have confrontation only when it is necessary. For those who do not know, at the other end of the Corridor, it tends to be the other way round; you have confrontation whether you need it or not.

Amendments 35, 36, 37 and 38 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Offord, and the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, seek to understand how the specific mechanism envisaged in this clause might be used and why it represents financial assistance. The Government have committed to capitalise Great British Energy with £8.3 billion, as we are all acutely aware, over this Parliament.

Clause 4 gives the Secretary of State the power to provide financial assistance to Great British Energy—simply put, to allow the Secretary of State to fund the company. Subsection (2)(a) allows the Secretary of State to provide financial assistance in the form of a grant to Great British Energy. That provision might be used while Great British Energy is in its initial set-up phase, and before it can undertake revenue-generating activities. It could also be used in circumstances where the Secretary of State required Great British Energy to undertake non-revenue-generating activities.

At Second Reading, and in conversations inside and outside the Chamber, noble Lords have asked how Great British Energy will be able to raise equity. Subsection (2)(b) allows the Secretary of State to acquire shares in Great British Energy. This will be an important mechanism by which the Secretary of State will fund Great British Energy through this kind of equity injection. This method has been used to fund other public bodies, such as the formerly publicly owned but no longer publicly owned Green Investment Bank.

Great British Energy must be wholly owned by the Crown, so it will not be possible for other parties to acquire shares. Subsection (2)(c) allows the Secretary of State to acquire assets on behalf of Great British Energy. This provision might be used while Great British Energy is in its initial set-up phase, before it can undertake its own acquisitions. It could also be used in circumstances where it might be more appropriate for an asset to sit on the balance sheet of the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero—or DESNZ, to use one of the worst acronyms I have ever heard—rather than on that of Great British Energy.

Subsection (2)(d) allows the Secretary of State to enter into contractual arrangements with Great British Energy. This might be used where Great British Energy acts as an agent of the department under a contractual arrangement; for example, to deliver a support scheme. Subsection (2)(e) allows the Secretary of State to incur expenditure on behalf of Great British Energy, similarly to how I have already set out with regard acquiring assets. This provision might be used while Great British Energy is, again, in its initial set-up phase, before it can undertake its own acquisitions and operations, and/or where it might be more appropriate for expenditure to sit on the balance sheet of DESNZ rather than on that of GBE.

Similar provisions can be found in other legislation; for example, in Sections 320 and Section 129 of the Energy Act 2023, the latter regarding financial assistance in respect of carbon capture and low-carbon hydrogen production. There is therefore nothing unusual about the inclusion of these forms of assistance.

Amendment 39 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, who I am glad to see is now in her place, seeks to make the provisions of Clause 4 regarding the ways in which the Secretary of State can provide financial assistance to GBE subject to a condition that a plan be developed for the transition to clean energy. We must resist this amendment because it is not needed and would produce what could be perceived as an unhelpful result, although I appreciate that the noble Baroness may simply be probing the Government’s priorities in providing financial assistance to GBE. Her amendment would mean that the Secretary of State would have no means of providing funding to GBE until the condition had been met and would, in effect, prevent the company being set up, recruiting any resources or undertaking any of the general activities required to create a new business. This would be a highly unusual provision and would curtail GBE’s ability to operationalise its activities through lack of financial assistance.

We have already set out GBE’s mission and five functions in its founding statement. Its mission is to drive clean energy deployment to boost energy independence, create jobs and ensure that UK taxpayers, bill payers and communities reap the benefits of clean, secure, homegrown energy. I am happy to reassure the noble Baroness that in due course GBE will clearly set out plans as to how it will contribute towards the transition to clean energy and the nature of interventions in specific sectors.

Amendments 40, 41, 42, 44, 45 and 108 are in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Offord. Amendment 40 requires any financial assistance to GBE to be included in the national debt. I am happy to assure the noble Lord that this is the case. Therefore, the amendment is superfluous to the situation. As a company wholly owned by the Secretary of State, GBE will sit fully within the consolidated accounting boundary of DESNZ. It will be on the department’s balance sheet and funds provided to it will be shown transparently through not just GBE but the department. Similarly, investments in projects or businesses made by GBE will also be shown in its annual report and on its balance sheet.

Amendment 41 seeks to require that GBE cannot sell shares without the approval of Parliament. Clause 1 already requires that GBE must be wholly owned by the Crown. It is entirely appropriate for that to be the case and for the Secretary of State to be the sole shareholder—we debated that earlier this evening. GBE will not be able to sell its shares to a third party, so the amendment is not needed.

If the amendment also includes the Secretary of State as a party who may acquire further shares in GBE—which, as set out in Clause 4, is one of the means by which the Secretary of State may provide financial assistance to the company—it is not necessary to require additional parliamentary approval for these individual issuances of share capital, not least because Parliament’s approval is already being sought through the Bill to allow the Secretary of State to provide financial assistance to GBE.

Amendment 42 seeks to limit financial assistance to GBE, above the announced commitment of £8.3 billion, without laying regulations approved by a resolution of each House. I again resist this amendment, as there are existing parliamentary controls and processes if any additional financial assistance were considered for GBE in the future. Any spending of public money requested by the Government must be voted for in the other place. There is an annual process that we are probably all aware of: the estimates cycle. Although I acknowledge that your Lordships’ House has no role in the estimates process directly and passes supply and appropriation Bills without debate, the other place provides the required degree of scrutiny, including the use of Divisions.

Amendment 44 would require the Secretary of State to produce an annual report on all financial assistance provided by GBE and to lay it before Parliament. I resist this amendment because, again, it is unnecessary. The reporting requirements upon GBE are already sufficient to achieve the objective of the noble Lord’s amendment. Detail on any financial assistance received from the Secretary of State will be included in the accounts of GBE, submitted as part of its annual report and accounts, as per its obligations under the Companies Act 2006.

Amendment 45 requires the Secretary of State to make regulations, to be approved by both Houses, to define the conditions that the Secretary of State may impose on financial assistance provided to GBE. I again resist this amendment. It is right that the Secretary of State can set out appropriate conditions for financial assistance provided to the company, but it would create a great deal of inflexibility if the Secretary of State were required to itemise any potential conditions in regulations. Where conditions for financial assistance are occasionally outlined in legislation, these are typically not limiting, as is the case in sections of the Energy Act 2023 relating to Great British Nuclear—GBN. In that case, Section 320 details financial assistance to GBN, and subsections(3)(a) and (3)(b) stipulate some potential conditions. However, that list of conditions is explicitly exhaustive and their application is left to the discretion of the Secretary of State. The Energy Act provides some good examples of the types of conditions that the Secretary of State may decide to put in place for GBE, but it is important that the legislation grants flexibility to the Secretary of State not only to provide financial assistance in any manner but to set any conditions deemed appropriate.

I assure the noble Lord that, while there is a broad power, it will of course be subject to the normal spending and budgeting controls. It will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny through the estimates process and to HM Treasury financial delegation controls, which are applicable to all government departments and tailored to mitigate specific risks, and it will be overseen by the accounting officer of the department, who can be called before various Select Committees, particularly the Public Accounts Committee.

Amendment 108 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Offord, seeks to add a new clause allowing the Secretary of State to limit the ability of GBE to finance itself through borrowing. Noble Lords will be aware that, as a publicly owned company, GBE will not be permitted to borrow money from commercial bodies without explicit permission from His Majesty’s Treasury. Generally, the Exchequer can always borrow money more cheaply than financing from the private sector. If circumstances were to change and GBE received such permission, then, because it is a public sector body, any borrowing by Great British Energy would appear as a liability on the Government’s balance sheet and therefore would be transparent and visible to any interested party, including us.

21:15

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

I would be most grateful if the Minister could answer my question. Is there not a danger that, if there is a profitable energy project, the private sector will pick it up and make money on it but, if it is much dodgier and more speculative, and it might lose money and the risk is much higher, GBE will be left with it and probably lose money for the taxpayer?

[Lord Cryer (Lab)]

I see the point the noble Lord is making, but that is a matter for the board. I have a certain degree of faith in the Secretary of State and we have an extremely competent chair with a well-proven track record. In due course, we will hopefully have a board with a similar track record. I do not think we will be dealing with the sort of people who fritter money away because they happen to fancy it. But that is a matter for the board of GBE.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

At the outset, the Minister said that Great British Energy was going to be capitalised at £8.3 billion. That formulation was used in the manifesto, the July statement, et cetera. He then seemed to imply that the amount of financial assistance given under Clause 4 was not within the £8.3 billion. Could he clarify whether it is or not?

[Lord Cryer (Lab)]

Yes, it is within the £8.3 billion.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

Perhaps I could take us on to another aspect of the £8.3 billion. Helpfully, the noble Lord confirmed in response to my noble friend Lord Offord’s Amendment 40 that financial assistance would be included in general government debt, so we expect to see the £8.3 billion in the measurement of debt. At Second Reading, I raised the issue that I could not see the £8.3 billion in the Budget Red Book and therefore within the forecasts produced by the OBR for government debt—one of the key items in the Chancellor’s fiscal rules. I failed to ask the Minister for direct confirmation of that at the time. I do so now: is the £8.3 billion included in the current OBR forecasts for government debt?

[Lord Cryer (Lab)]

As far as I know, the answer to that question is yes. That is to the best of my knowledge. If it is not, I will have to write to the noble Baroness.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

I would be very grateful if the noble Lord would write, because it is very difficult to see the £8.3 billion. The £125 million for 2025-26 is visible in DESNZ’s departmental numbers, but it is not clear that anything else is. If the Minister is right, there is no problem. If he is wrong, it looks like another potential black hole in the nation’s finances—one wholly of this Government’s making. So it is important that we sort this out.

[Lord Cryer (Lab)]

I have answered the noble Baroness’s question to the best of my ability; I will write to her.

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for his response to these amendments. I reiterate that the core aim of these amendments is to protect the taxpayer, ensure proper scrutiny and secure the financial integrity of Great British Energy, so I am sure we will come back to that on Report. I am very taken with the advice given by my noble friend Lord Hamilton of Epsom, that nationalised industries do not have a great track record of producing profits and returns for the taxpayer. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 35 withdrawn.

Amendments 36 to 42 not moved.

Amendment 43

Moved by

[Lord Alton of Liverpool]

43: Clause 4, page 3, line 5, at end insert—
“(6) Financial assistance under this section must not be provided if there exists credible evidence of modern slavery in the energy supply chain of any company designated Great British Energy.”

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 43, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans for their support. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for indicating his support and that of his colleagues. I in turn am very happy to support his Amendment 100, which is grouped with Amendments 43 and 109.

I begin by thanking the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, for making good on his promise of a meeting to discuss this amendment, and for the involvement at that meeting of the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China. The noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, is co-chair of IPAC with Sir Iain Duncan Smith, Member of Parliament. He, she and I are all sanctioned by the People’s Republic of China with four other parliamentarians. The noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, regrets being unable to be here this evening.

During the meeting with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, we discussed a number of questions I had raised at Second Reading. I would be extremely grateful if, when he comes to reply this evening—if he is in a position to do so—he could answer the question I put to him about the Foreign Prison-Made Goods Act 1897. In addition, can he say what assessment he and his officials have made of the implications of the Proceeds of Crime Act, which in the context of the Uighurs has been to the Court of Appeal on other issues, and for that matter of compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights? I mention that as a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which is about to be reconstituted tomorrow. I hope it will look at this question of human rights compatibility.

I should also mention the reports that have appeared on BBC World in the last couple of days. One of those reports concerns tomato purée being sold in the UK under the false label of being Italian, when it was actually made by slave labour in Xinjiang. Reports included details of Uighurs who were beaten and subjected to electric shocks for not meeting their targets. Last night, “Panorama” reported that other Uighur Muslims told BBC Eye—the World Service investigations unit, made possible by a grant from the FCDO—that if they failed to pick 450 kilograms a day, they would be strung up by chains from the ceiling and beaten until they fainted.

The BBC showed huge factories linked to the detention camps, with millions of square feet of space. It is easy to imagine solar panels being made in such places, which of course are not open to inspection. They are part of a vast collocated complex, which aims to undercut all competition and replace capacity, crucial to domestic and military needs in the United Kingdom, with a world dependent on an authoritarian state with hegemonic ambitions.

This amendment returns to the question that I raised at Second Reading and poses a simple question to the Committee: do we want a slavery-free green transition, or are we content to allow the laudable aims of the Government to be achieved through forced labour? Some noble Lords may disagree with the framing of the question, perhaps because they are fearful of overstatement. Unfortunately, as I have just described, the reality is that stark. My argument revolves around the following three predicates. First, China dominates much of the renewables supply chain—an issue that was raised earlier in our debates by the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, and others. Secondly, forced labour is widely and credibly demonstrated to be present throughout the Chinese renewables supply chain. Thirdly, net-zero targets are unachievable without Chinese-made renewables. Therefore, the argument runs that 2030 cannot be achieved without slavery.

Let me unpack those predicates, beginning with China’s dominance. According to the International Energy Agency:

“Solar … is on course to account for two-thirds of this year’s increase in global renewable power capacity and further strong growth is expected in 2024”.


Indeed, the Minister referred to that in earlier exchanges. The International Energy Agency also said:

“China has invested over USD 50 billion in new PV supply capacity—ten times more than Europe—and created more than 300,000 manufacturing jobs across the solar PV value chain since 2011. Today, China’s share in all the manufacturing stages of solar panels (such as polysilicon, ingots, wafers, cells and modules) exceeds 80%. This is more than double China’s share of global PV demand. In addition, the country is home to the world’s 10 top suppliers of solar PV manufacturing equipment”.


This is a concerning picture.

Yet this should not come as any surprise. It is no secret that China has, for a long time, wished to develop strategic monopolies over the renewables sector, together with other areas of critical infrastructure. As I have argued here before—some might say rather tediously, and I apologise if that has been the case—we have allowed ourselves to become more and more dependent on the CCP regime as our own national resilience has simultaneously been emasculated. As recently as 2020, Chairman Xi Jinping gave a speech to the seventh session of the Communist Party’s finance and economy committee, in which he said that China will aim to form a counterattack and deterrence against other countries by fostering killer technologies and strengthening the global supply chain’s dependence on China.

The problem is broader than photovoltaics. The production of rare earths, which noble Lords will know is essential to the renewables supply chain, is again utterly dominated by China. As far back as the 1990s, Deng Xiaoping himself is reported to have said:

“The Middle East has oil, China has rare earths”.


A report by the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies says that

“China dominates the supply chain, accounting for 70% of global rare earth ore extraction and 90% of rare earth ore processing. Notably, China is the only large-scale producer of heavy rare earth ores. This dominance has been achieved through decades of state investment, export controls, cheap labour and low environmental standards”.

It is not just think tanks that are exercised about the degree of UK renewables market exposure. As James Basden, co-founder of Zenobē, said last year, China controls

“the supply chain all the way from the minerals through to assembly and distribution. That means both our power sector and automotive sector are very dependent on Chinese products”.

Suffice it to say, nobody disputes that China has a stranglehold on the renewables supply chain.

I turn to my second predicate: forced labour is unavoidable in the renewables supply chain. Forced labour is widely and credibly demonstrated to be present throughout the Chinese renewables supply chain. The problem is especially pronounced in the solar supply chain. According to Jenny Chase, the head of solar analysis at BloombergNEF:

“Nearly every silicon-based solar module—at least 95 percent of the market—is likely to have some Xinjiang silicon in it”.


Why would it be a problem for 95% of the market to have Xinjiang silicon? First, it is important to understand that polysilicon material is crucial—it is the single primary material needed to produce most solar panels.

Solar panels that do not use polysilicon enjoy a negligible share of the global solar-power market. Most crucially of all, according to a 2023 report by Crawford and Murphy, all manufacturers of this material in Xinjiang are tied to Uighur forced labour. The reason for this is that the entire process used to create metallurgical-grade silicon from mining to production is highly dependent on state-sponsored labour transfer programmes.

21:30

In 2021 Murphy and Elma published their landmark report, In Broad Daylight, which I cited at Second Reading, in which they set out the connection between labour transfer schemes in China and the solar industry. The report names a number of companies using labour transfer schemes. In the years following that, the problem has only got worse. The 2023 report, Over-exposed, says:

“None of the companies that were engaged in state-sponsored labour transfers in 2021 has announced any changes to its recruitment methods or shown any resistance to participation in the PRC Government’s programmes. Indeed, since that time, the PRC Government’s labour transfer programme has only increased in scale and the pressure on companies to absorb the workers the state deemed to be surplus remains high”.

The report names Canadian Solar, JA Solar, Jinko Solar, LONGi Solar, Maxeon Solar Technologies/SunPower, Meyer Burger Technology AG, Qcells, REC, Tongwei Solar, and Trina Solar. All companies were found to participate in state-imposed forced labour schemes. I note here that Canadian Solar was a major beneficiary in the recent solar development announcements made by the new Secretary of State. I note, too, that all the information used to compile these important reports comes from publicly available documents, many of which are Chinese government documents.

And what exactly are these labour transfer schemes that we would be signing up to and continuing to invest British taxpayers’ money in? The PRC has placed millions of citizens from the Uighur region into what it calls “surplus labour” and “labour transfer” programmes. Local governments and labour agencies are required to meet quotas for these programmes. As of September 2020, the Government of the Xinjiang Uigur autonomous region claims to have placed 2.6 million Uighurs and others in these state-sponsored programmes. In 2021, the Government reported as many as 3.2 million people transferred, and it appears that the programme is growing significantly.

Those who are conscripted into the programmes are compelled to transfer to work in farms and factories across the Uighur region, as well as into the interior of China. For those who do not come directly from the internment camps, the Government required that at least one person from every household in southern Xinjiang accept a state-mandated labour transfer to a factory or farm. And in December 2021, government directives required that all people who were able to work must be in some form of work. The PRC claims that these labour transfer programmes are part of a national campaign for poverty alleviation. However, the programmes involving Uighurs and other minority citizens operate differently from other poverty-alleviation programmes throughout China, because the constant threat of internment makes refusing the state-sponsored work placement impossible for individuals from the Uighur region.

Labour transfers are deployed in the Uighur region within an environment of unprecedented fear and coercion. Refusal to participate in any government programmes, such as labour transfers, for reasons perceived to be religious in any way is viewed as equivalent to aligning oneself with the three evils of separatism, terrorism, and religious extremism. Thus, anyone who refuses to work or attempts to walk away from their job risks internment or imprisonment. Therefore, the programmes are tantamount to the forcible transfer of populations, forced labour, human trafficking and enslavement by international definitions and protocols. I place on record here my gratitude to the Helena Kennedy Centre at Sheffield Hallam for its excellent brief on this point.

I turn to the third leg of the argument, namely that renewable targets are currently unachievable without slavery. On the face of it, the arguments seem to stack up worryingly. China controls the supply chain and state-imposed forced labour is present throughout it. How, then, will we meet our 2030 targets without slavery? The conundrum is that we appear to need Chinese solar to meet our climate targets, but Chinese solar is badly tainted, as I have described, with modern slavery.

This is not just about modern slavery and Uighur genocide: the CCP regime is the world’s biggest polluter, and it uses the Uighur region as its national hub for oil, gas and coal, fuelling their factories with cheap coal. So, the solar panels of Xinjiang are not only made by slave labour but have a higher carbon footprint than those manufactured elsewhere in the world.

So, what do we do? Despite this deliberately created monopoly, built on the broken backs of slaves, we do not have to become complicit. Other countries are facing the same dilemma and are acting to address it. German solar companies are calling on the German Government to support the domestic solar industry and help resurrect it. The US Government have included a ban on imports from a silicone producer in Xinjiang. Canada has banned the import of solar panels from specific Chinese companies, while Australia has called for more local renewable energy production and manufacturing and a “certificate of origin” scheme to counter concerns about slave labour.

What is clear is that if democratic nations like ours are to achieve decarbonisation, this will need a mix of approaches: developing alternatives not dependent on polysilicon, rebuilding domestic solar supply chains, focusing procurement on companies that have shifted supply chains out of Xinjiang, and developing better tools for reliable sourcing.

All this hinges on our Government insisting that they will not be purchasing solar panels from companies that use slave labour, prioritising instead ethical sourcing and labour practices and recognising that such firm action is the way to create demand for responsible production.

I hope that I have not exhausted the Committee, but these are crucial questions, and they involve much of the £8 billion that we are setting aside for these programmes. Rebuilding our national resilience and reducing our dependency on authoritarian states who threaten our freedoms should be in the DNA of every policy the Government promulgate. I beg to move.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, my Amendment 100 seeks to insert a new clause after Clause 7 that would require Great British Energy to verify its supply chain in respect of unethical practices and to attempt to engage in ethical supply chain practices only. I will also speak in favour of the principles contained in Amendments 43 and 109 in this group, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and supported by others.

To be clear, I believe in people and planet, and we should not have to choose one or the other. The two are intertwined and co-dependent. Our goal of reaching net zero must not come at the expense of supporting repressive regimes which do not support the human rights of their own citizens, or on the back of slave labour.

The truth is that it is certain that a proportion of the supplies and materials used in this country as part of our efforts to decarbonise have unknown ethical origins or, if we look more closely, are probably produced in regimes with modern slavery practices.

Polysilicon manufacturers in China account for some 45% of the world’s supply, and some 80% of the world’s solar panel manufacturing. As the noble Lord, Lord Alton, alluded to, Sheffield Hallam University has linked forced labour in China’s labour transfer programme directly to the global supply chain of solar panels. Some 11 companies were identified as engaging in forced labour transfer, including all four of China’s largest polysilicon producers. Some 2.7 million Uighurs are subject to state detention and coerced work programmes.

The combination of unethical practices, cheap labour and deliberate foreign policies means that China controls much of the world’s rare earth materials and manufacturing that is necessary to produce solar panels. China built more renewable technology than the rest of the world combined last year. But China is still opening and highly dependent on coal mines. It is time for China itself to choose which side of the green revolution it is on.

It is not in our national interest to continue with such foreign power dependence in order to secure our net-zero goals. What actions are the Government considering or planning to undertake, along with our allies and partners, to verify supply chains and build our own manufacturing capacity, particularly for solar panels, so that we are not dependent on foreign countries for the materials we need to decarbonise, and so that we can be certain that the products we use are not the result of human suffering? I hope the Prime Minister raised these important issues in his recent meeting with the Chinese President.

My amendment would place a duty on GB Energy to verify and engage in ethical supply chain practices. This is not the end of the journey, but it is a start. Of course, these problems extend way beyond GB Energy and these measures should be implemented nationally.

Amendment 43 says that no financial assistance must be provided

“if there exists credible evidence of modern slavery in the energy supply chain”.

Amendment 109 calls for a warning to be placed on any products sourced from China that are used by GB Energy. Although I support the spirit and intention of both these amendments, my worry is that the Government will not be able to support them and that they will fail.

My fear is that if Amendment 43 passed it would put GB Energy at an unfair disadvantage in relation to other competitors in the industry operating in the UK. For this reason, the Government will most likely reject it. On Amendment 109, I expect that the implication of labelling these products might simply be to prevent their purchase by GB Energy, while other competitors in place in the UK marketplace without this labelling requirement would be able to continue their supply. Again, my worry is that this would do more to put GB Energy at a disadvantage versus its competitors operating in this country. The Government will probably reject the amendment on those grounds.

My hope is that my amendment or a newly tabled one on Report might help us to find a way forward together on this important issue, which we all need to make progress on. To be clear, this issue goes well beyond GB Energy, and the real long-term solutions to it sit with the verification of supply chains, strong and determined diplomacy, the creation of and investment in solar panel manufacturing on our own or along with our allies, or the research and development of new forms of manufacturing processes for these technologies. These are essential issues, but I suspect we will need to engage constructively together to find a way forward prior to Report, and that the solution, ultimately, goes beyond the scope of the Bill and GB Energy.

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for their amendments. We all agree that modern slavery is one of the great scourges of our time. It is estimated that tens of millions of people are trapped in forced labour worldwide, many of them in sectors tied to energy production and manufacturing. Indeed, as the noble Lord and the noble Earl pointed out very eloquently, renewable energy technologies such as solar panels rely on materials such as polysilicon, much of which is sourced from regions where reports of forced labour and human rights abuses are widespread.

These amendments seek to ensure that GBE operates with integrity and accountability in its supply chain practices. Each amendment addresses a crucial aspect of ethical responsibility, and together they would bind the Government to ensure clean energy does not come at the expense of human rights, ethical labour practices or transparency. I encourage the Government to look at this matter carefully. Can the Minister explain what measures will be put in place to ensure that there is oversight of Great British Energy’s supply chains? If Great British Energy is to represent the values of this nation, there is a strong case for tougher measures to prevent public funds being spent in a way that supports or sustains supply chains that exploit human beings.

On Amendment 109, while I recognise the sensitivity and complexity of this issue, it is crucial that we approach it with transparency and courage. Consumers and stakeholders have a right to know the origins of the products they use and the conditions under which they are made. I hope the Minister will listen carefully to the arguments made on this matter; we on these Benches will be very interested to hear his reply.

As a publicly backed entity, Great British Energy has an opportunity to set an example and be a model to other countries. I am sure the Government agree there are opportunities here and we look forward to hearing their response.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for his expert introduction to the amendment. I also thank the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for his wise comments. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Offord, that we are, of course listening very carefully to this important debate, and I have no doubt whatever about the gravity of the issue. The amendments seek to highlight the importance of ensuring that our supply chains are protected from forced labour, and I wholeheartedly support this.

21:45

As a Government, we are committed to tackling the issue of forced labour in supply chains, including the mining of polysilicon used in the manufacture of solar panels. I refer to guidance issued by the last Government, published in July 2023, which highlighted the risk of doing business in Xinjiang. It urged businesses with supply chains in this province to exercise caution as they may

“face particular reputational, economic and legal risks, due to extensive and credible evidence of forced labour programmes, targeting Uighur and other ethnic minorities.”

There is, of course, also the enforcement action which can be taken against those who fail to report, as required under Section 54 of the Modern Slavery Act.

Great British Energy will be expected to respect human rights under the Human Rights Act. It will be subject to the existing provisions in legislation on forced labour supply chains under the Modern Slavery Act 2015, and under the Procurement Act 2023 when this is fully in force in February 2025. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, asked about another piece of legislation. We are still working on it, and I will definitely come back to him with a response.

The Procurement Act, which the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and I happily debated, will strengthen public sector contracting authorities to exclude suppliers and disregard their bids where there is sufficient evidence of modern slavery, which extends to supply chains across all countries, including China. This will apply whether or not there has been a conviction. GBE will also be committed to building supply chain activity in the UK to accelerate the deployment of key UK energy projects. Under the Procurement Act, where Great British Energy is a contracting authority, it will be able to disregard tenders where it is aware of forced labour or modern slavery existing in the supply chain. In addition, Section 54 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 requires companies with a turnover of £36 million or more to publish an annual modern slavery statement setting out steps which they have taken to prevent modern slavery in both their operations and supply chains.

There are, in addition, other legal mechanisms. The UK supports voluntary due diligence approaches taken by UK businesses to respect human rights and the environment across their operations and supply relationships, in line with the UN guiding principles on business and human rights and the OECD guidelines on multinational enterprises. In summary, the Government expect UK businesses, including Great British Energy, to do everything in their power to remove any instances of forced labour from their supply chains, and they should not approve the use of products from companies that may be linked to forced labour.

I turn to the issue raised by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. Clearly, forced labour in supply chains is wide ranging in nature. The Bill, with its relatively narrow focus on setting up an operationally independent company and on making the minimum necessary provision for that purpose, is not the appropriate vehicle for tackling this issue. However, I want to assure the noble Lord, Lord Alton, that we are committed to tackling forced labour in supply chains. We have recently announced the relaunch of the solar task force, which has previously focused on identifying and taking forward the actions needed to develop resilient, sustainable and diverse supply chains free from forced labour. This is obviously very important, given our ambitious target to increase our solar capacity by 2030, to which the noble Lord, Lord Alton, referred.

The UK’s main solar industry trade association is leading the industry’s response by developing and piloting the Solar Stewardship Initiative to further develop a responsible, transparent and sustainable solar value chain. The UK Government supported this effort by co-sponsoring the development and publication of Action Sustainability’s Addressing Modern Slavery and Labour Exploitation in Solar PV Supply Chains Procurement Guidance. This provides further tools to the industry to ensure the responsible sourcing of solar panels.

In conclusion, we do not think that the Bill is the right vehicle for this but, through the reconvened solar task force, we assure the House that we are working widely across Whitehall and with industry stakeholders to take forward the actions needed to develop supply chains that are resilient, sustainable, innovative and free from forced labour. We will set out these actions in the solar road map, which is expected to be published in spring 2025.

In the meantime, I am very happy to engage further with the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and to feed his views into the task force. I hope to make progress.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

I am indebted to the Minister—I will come back to that in a moment—and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Offord, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for their contributions to this debate. I was heartened by the in-principle support that they gave for what these amendments are seeking to achieve. I pick up a point from the noble Lord, Lord Offord, about the consumer having the right to know the origins of products. I feel very strongly about that and there is much more that we can do about it in due course.

I am a free trader, but I am always struck that it was Richard Cobden who drew lines in the sand. He said no to free trade when it came to human beings in the slave trade and no when it came to the opium trade. A three-day debate in the House of Commons led to the overturning of that trade, which to this day has some relevance in the context of China. Consumers can play their part in those activities and campaigns, because they can say no by voting with their feet, but they have to know what the origins are. That means that we have to do more to detect them. The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, often says that we can look at the cotton that comes out of places such as Xinjiang to detect its DNA, or at silicon or other raw materials.

And we should go right back in those supply chains. I made the point at Second Reading that 25,000 children are believed to work in cobalt and lithium mines in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. So these are things that matter a great deal to a lot of people in different places, and we can do more about them.

I know the Minister is no stranger to these issues. He was right to mention the Procurement Act and the joint efforts we made successfully to raise amendments to that. As he knows, I was involved in the modern slavery legislation in 2015, and I always give great credit to noble Baroness, Lady May, as she now is, who was then the Home Secretary, in bringing forward what was bipartisan and bicameral legislation.

Picking up a point that others have made this evening, the noble Lord, Lord Cryer—whose father I had the privilege of serving with in the other place— said earlier today that what he likes about this House is the willingness to try to find solutions, being less confrontational and working with one another to find ways forward. I hope we will try to do that.

It is difficult to square the circle. There are contradictions and inconsistencies here; it feels almost like Jekyll and Hyde in some respects. We have the Business Secretary, Jonathan Reynolds, saying:

“I give … an absolute assurance that I would expect and demand there to be no modern slavery in any part of a supply chain that affects products or goods sold in the UK … I promise … that, where there are specific allegations, I will look at those to ensure that”


this happens.

“It is an area where we have existing legislation, and indeed we would go further if that was required”.—[Official Report, Commons, 5/9/24; cols. 418-19.]


So I welcome what the Government have been saying, but the reality, when you start to look at supply chains and where these products are made, does not sit very comfortably with those promises.

On the basis of what has been said evening, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 43, and I hope we can find scope to come forward with something on which we can agree at Report stage.

Amendment 43 withdrawn.

Amendments 44 and 45 not moved.

Clause 4 agreed.

House resumed.

Joint Committee Appointments

Tuesday 3rd December 2024 Lords Chamber

Message from the Commons

A message was brought from the Commons that they have appointed a Select Committee of six Members to join with the Committee appointed by the Lords, as the Joint Committee on Human Rights; and have appointed a Select Committee of twelve Members to join with a Committee appointed by the Lords as the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy.

House adjourned at 9.55 pm.