Great British Energy Bill

Report stage
Tuesday 11th February 2025 Lords Chamber

Report (Continued)

21:20

Clause 5: Strategic priorities and plans

Amendment 21

Moved by

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

21: Clause 5, page 3, line 8, at end insert—
“(1A) The Secretary of State must comply with subsection (1) within the period of six months beginning with the day on which this Act comes into force.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to prepare a statement of strategic priorities for Great British Energy within the period of six months beginning with the day on which this Act comes into force.

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

My Lords, in moving Amendment 21, I acknowledge and thank the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for putting his name to it. It requires the Secretary of State to prepare a statement of strategic priorities within a period of six months from the day on which the Act comes into force.

As noble Lords will know, we had extensive discussion about the statement of strategic priorities in Committee, and I am glad to say that we have had a lot of constructive discussion between Committee and Report. In recognition of the concerns raised on the length of time that Great British Energy could be operating without a set of strategic priorities, I am glad to bring forward this amendment, which clarifies the length of time in which the first statement of strategic priorities should be prepared.

In addition to this amendment, I make a commitment at the Dispatch Box that the Government will publish a Written Ministerial Statement when the first statement of strategic priorities is published, so that this House and the other place will be informed. I hope that noble Lords will support this amendment. I beg to move.

[Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)]

My Lords, briefly, I thank the Minister for tabling Amendment 21. It is identical to an amendment I tabled in Committee, and introduces a time limit of six months for the publication of the statement of strategic priorities. Given the importance of that statement, as we have had many discussions around, and that it is the only place where the aims for GBE will be set out, it is clearly essential that the publication should not be delayed. I am very grateful to the Minister for accepting the principle.

I was going to ask the Minister whether the statement will be accompanied by an impact statement or assessment, or whether the business cases and spending reviews will be published. He pre-empted that on the first group, and I am grateful for his positive answers to those questions.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister and his Bill team for listening and constructively engaging with the many discussions that we have had on the issue of Great British Energy’s statement of strategic priorities and for bringing forward this helpful amendment.

I will be brief, as we have had a lot of discussion on this, particularly in Committee. Our position is that we support the intentions of the Bill and recognise that the Government are acting at speed to establish Great British Energy. However, we have always said that the Bill is too short for its own good. We recognise the difficult position that the Minister finds himself in. It is for Great British Energy, as an independent organisation, to write its own strategic priorities, as long as they are consistent with the objects set out in Clause 3. Great British Energy obviously needs to be established in order to write the strategic priorities, and discussions are required with the devolved Administrations.

Against these needs, we as parliamentarians were being asked to approve the Bill with no sight of the strategic priorities prior to the Bill being passed, or even after it is passed and the strategic priorities have been finalised. This was an issue that the Constitution Committee rightly highlighted as an area of concern. To us, it felt a little like we were being asked to sign a blank check, and your Lordships were rightly nervous about the implicit ask in the Bill as it was drafted.

From these Benches, we have consistently argued for progress on these matters and for the reaching of constructive compromise. Compromise needs to rightly balance the actions and operational independence of Great British Energy and, at the same time, the justified right of parliamentary scrutiny and oversight of the strategic priorities. Is this amendment absolutely perfect? No. Does it do a good and worthwhile job of balancing these competing needs and moving the issue forward? Yes, it very much does. I welcome the words the Minister has spoken from the Dispatch Box about a Written Ministerial Statement. This is an essential compromise, and I thank the Minister for this good progress.

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak in support of the amendment in my name and that in the name of my noble friend Lord Trenchard. They represent an important step in ensuring that the development and operation of Great British Energy are aligned with the national interests and strategic needs of our energy sector.

Amendment 21, put forward by the Minister, ensures that the Secretary of State must prepare the statement of strategic priorities for GBE within six months of the passing of the Bill. This timely approach is crucial, as it establishes an early foundation for the strategic direction of Great British Energy, permitting the organisation to operate with clarity and purpose from the outset.

The inclusion of Amendment 26 in my name is equally important. It requires that the statement of strategic priorities must specifically address the development of supply chains in the United Kingdom. This is vital to ensure that the Great British Energy objectives are not only met but integrated into the broader goal of strengthening domestic industries and fostering economic resilience within our own borders. The definition of supply chains in this amendment reinforces the need for a comprehensive and interconnected approach to the creation and sale of commodities relating to Great British Energy’s work.

Finally, Amendment 33, proposed by my noble friend Lord Trenchard, brings an added layer of scrutiny and collaboration by mandating consultation with Great British Nuclear and the National Wealth Fund before the publication of the statement of strategic priorities. This amendment will ensure that Great British Energy’s strategies are developed in consultation with relevant stakeholders, thereby promoting a more cohesive and informed approach to energy policy.

These amendments collectively reflect our commitment to a strong, secure and sustainable energy future. I support them, and I encourage the Minister to do the same.

[Viscount Hanworth (Lab)]

My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendment 33, which is somewhat misplaced in this group. I have been asked by the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard—

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, is not here to move Amendment 33.

[Viscount Hanworth (Lab)]

I have been asked to speak on his behalf. Is that liable? That was his request.

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Cryer) (Lab)]

Yes.

[Viscount Hanworth (Lab)]

I will be brief.

The noble Viscount declares an interest as a member of the advisory board of Penultimate Power. In speaking to his amendment, I will rely on text that he has provided. He is concerned that Great British Energy might be devoted to the pursuit of the immediate agenda of NESO—the National Energy System Operator—to the detriment of the nuclear agenda, which has a longer time scale. The recent NESO documents have concentrated on wind and solar power, alongside the capture and storage of carbon dioxide emitted by standby stations, but they barely mention nuclear power.

The noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, acknowledges that the Minister declared that it would be within the competence of Great British Energy to invest in nuclear power and to do the other things in relation to nuclear. Here I must use the own words of the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard:

“I’m afraid that on reflection I don’t think that was clear enough. The Minister’s mention of GBN suggests that its continuation restricts the scope of GBE in relation to nuclear”.


He goes on to say:

“The Minister seemed to be saying that GBE could always invest in a nuclear power project; but that this should fall primarily within the scope of GBN. The Energy Act 2023 specifies that GBN’s objectives are to facilitate nuclear energy projects. However, it is silent on the provision of financial assistance for such projects”.

21:30

The noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, observes that, whereas Clause 4 of the Bill enables the Secretary of State to provide financial assistance to clean energy projects—which has been quantified at £8.3 billion over the course of this Parliament—there is no indication of the share that might be devoted to nuclear power. However, nuclear must form the backbone of our energy system and, in order to develop the supply chain and to assemble the skilled workforce, we need to get started now.

According to this opinion, the parallel existence of GBN and GBE confuses the issue, which makes it necessary that the GBE Bill should specify that clean energy indicates nuclear. That has already been the burden of Amendment 10. The noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, asks the Minister to clarify the role of the Infrastructure Bank, which was established by the Act of 2023 and which has become the National Wealth Fund. He is concerned that its objectives should include support for nuclear.

Finally, the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, makes a revealing observation that 18.3% of our energy supply on 8 February was imported from abroad and that it contained a substantial amount of power generated by French nuclear power stations. This dwarfed the contribution of wind, at 7.6%, and of our own nuclear fleet, which amounted to 10.2% of the total. I thank noble Lords for their indulgence in allowing me to speak on his behalf.

[Lord Cryer (Lab)]

I apologise for intervening. For future reference, moving an amendment on behalf of another Member is permissible, but reading a speech out on behalf of another Member is not, according to the guide.

[Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)]

My Lords, as the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, pointed out, it is a bit odd if we think about it. Since we started on this Bill, the Prime Minister has been making some very lively speeches, but going in a different direction. According to the newspapers, he wants to power the energy-hungry data centres needed for artificial intelligence. We all know about those: they are being built and they cannot get enough juice. He expects this own party to back small nuclear reactors in their constituencies. The headline is, “Starmer to Push Past Nimbys and Build Many New Nuclear Plants”. This is all extremely welcome to me. It is the sort of tone we have to adopt 10 times over to meet the challenges and the vast amount of clean electricity that we need. So it is strange that we are here in the meanwhile pursuing an area where nuclear is “verboten”, to use a German term. The noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, has got a point. I would like a comment from the Minister on whether we are still on the right track or whether we should scrap the whole thing and start with a different policy of him backing the Prime Minister.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Howell, who speaks with such authority on energy matters, I have to say that is my view that we are on the right track. I do not see any inconsistency in government policies and actions and I thank noble Lords for their support for my Amendment 21.

Turning to Amendment 26, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Offord, let me make this clear: the founding statement outlined that supply chains would be a key focus in the work of Great British Energy. It says:

“The sustainability of UK supply chains plays a key role in achieving greater energy security. Great British Energy will help to drive forward greater investment in clean, home-grown energy production and build supply chains in every corner of the UK. Great British Energy will work with industry to accelerate the deployment of key energy projects and support the transition to an affordable, decarbonised power system by 2030 built using domestic manufacturing and supply chains”.


That is an important statement of principle.

I can also reiterate that GBE will help drive the growth of supply chains in the industry by working with my department, the Crown Estate, the National Wealth Fund and other parts of the public sector to deliver a comprehensive package of support for domestic clean energy supply chains in everything from offshore wind to carbon capture and storage.

I turn to the amendment tabled by the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, and spoken to so eloquently by my noble friend. On the point about NESO, it was asked to report to the department on what we needed to do to get to clean power by 2030, so it is no accident that its focus would be on renewable energy. But in fact it did not ignore nuclear. In the Clean Power Action Plan which followed from the NESO report, there is an extensive section on nuclear power. On page 80 it says:

“Nuclear will play a key role in achieving Clean Power 2030 … and our long-term net zero objectives”.


Since then, we have published the new policy statement for consultation, which, as we debated earlier, essentially brings in a more flexible siting policy for the future. The Secretary of State has indicated the importance of nuclear energy in providing an essential baseload.

I say to the noble Lord, Lord Howell, that I do not see any conflict. We think it is very important to get Sizewell C over the line, and obviously we are now into SR discussions about the final investment decisions, and we see great potential in relation to small modular reactors. Of course, we are very interested in the developments we have seen in the US of the links between the big tech companies and the developers of advanced nuclear technology. Clearly, I am working with colleagues across government to make sure that the UK can take the potential of this as well. So, I want to assure the House that we see nuclear energy as having a very important role to play in the future.

[Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)]

The Minister has been very clear, but at the moment it just still does not add up. At the moment about 6% of our electricity comes from nuclear—that is what it has shrunk to. We have four and a half years until 2030. Nothing nuclear is being built except Sizewell C, where they are clearing the ground and have already spent £10 billion—miles above what they originally estimated—and apparently the word is going around that it will be ready in the mid-2030s. I suspect that it will be more like 2040. If the private investor is not attracted by it, whereas they are attracted by these SMRs, is there an agenda we have not quite heard about and the SMRs are going to be rushed forward, starting next summer? As in other countries, will they be built in series on the endless sites that are now becoming available—the old Magnox sites, maybe some of the new sites? All sorts of areas are possible and are so far acceptable to the public, although there is a lot of explaining to do. Is that the plan and, if so, can we hear it?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, the contribution of nuclear was more than 6%—I think it is about 13% or 14% as of today. Clearly, it will go down, because a number of the current nuclear power stations are due to go offline. However, I must pay tribute to EDF for going through the proper consent process. There have been extensions to a number of existing nuclear power stations and, in a statement it issued I think about three or four weeks ago, it made it clear that it saw further potential for extensions, subject to the regulatory provisions being required.

On Hinkley Point C, the company says that it expects the first unit to go online between 2029 and 2031. With two units, that will be 3.2 gigawatts. Sizewell C will follow. It is a replica of Hinkley Point C: 80% above ground, another 3.2 gigawatts. With the SMR programme, Great British Nuclear is going through a technological appraisal; it is in negotiation with the companies, and this is all subject to the spending review. Clearly, we want to see a long-term projection of new nuclear power stations opening, giving us energy security but also developing a much stronger UK supply chain. Although we will see a dip in the contribution that nuclear power provides, in time, it will start to go up again. I do not think there is a conflict; I think it is just a recognition of what has happened. It is worth making the point to the party opposite that there has been a lot of messing around in terms of decision-making on Hinkley Point C. There was disappointment at what happened at Wylfa. We are now getting this back on track.

Amendment 21 agreed.

Amendment 22 not moved.

Amendment 23

Moved by

[Lord Offord of Garvel]

23: Clause 5, page 3, line 8, at end insert—
“(1A) The statement of strategic priorities under subsection (1) must include the reduction of household energy bills by £300 in real terms by 1 January 2030.”Member's explanatory statement
This ensures that the statement of strategic priorities includes the reduction of household energy bills by £300 by 1 January 2030.

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 23 and 24 in my name. These amendments would require the statement of strategic priorities to include the reduction of household energy bills by £300 per household by 2030 and the creation of 650,000 jobs in the UK by 2030. As noble Lords will recall from our debates in Committee, throughout the election campaign, the Government repeatedly promised that GB Energy would cut household energy bills by an average of £300 per household. In fact, a similar claim was made by at least 50 MPs, and the Science Secretary said:

“I can tell you directly … by the end of this Parliament that … energy bills will fall by up to £300”.


On 19 June last year, the Chancellor said:

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


Finally, in an interview in June, the Secretary of State claimed that Great British Energy would lead to a “mind-blowing” reduction in bills by 2030. Considering that the Government had no qualms about repeating this promise time and again and appeared proud to do so, it is strange that they do not commit to this promise by including it in the drafting of this legislation.

That was not the only promise made by the Government. They also said that GB Energy would create 650,000 new jobs. Despite this, in the other place, the Government voted against Conservative amendments to make cutting energy bills by £300 and creating 650,000 new jobs a strategic priority for GB Energy. In so doing, they were voting against amendments that would hold them to their word.

Only last week, in a rather unconvincing interview on Sky News, the chair of GB Energy admitted that the Government’s pledge that GB Energy would create 1,000 jobs at its headquarters could take 20 years to deliver. In the same interview, he repeatedly refused to say when household bills would be cut, although the Prime Minister promised that GB Energy would save consumers £300 each. These promises are important to the British people, and the Government have already put at risk 200,000 existing jobs in North Sea oil and gas. They impact on people’s energy bills, their business and their jobs.

It is essential that the Government are held to account. We know there is a transition; we know that those 200,000 jobs can transition to the direction of travel in renewables and nuclear, but by accelerating unilaterally, there is going to be a gap, and the problem is that we are going to lose skills in the middle.

With that said, I look to the Minister to confirm exactly by how much consumers can expect their energy bills to fall—by £300, or pick another number. Will he give a commitment that GB Energy will reduce household energy bills, and how many jobs exactly will GB Energy create in the UK by 2030? I look forward to receiving a clear and positive reply, and I intend to test the opinion of the House on these matters.

21:45

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, it seems to me that this is not the sort of thing that ought to be in this Bill. I do not remember Conservative Party immigration legislation ever mentioning numbers, despite everything that was said by it. That brings complete disrepute to legislation and Governments at the time; I do not think that we should be attracted into that situation with this Bill.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, it is clearly the Government who have come up with this number: that they are going to reduce energy bills by £300 per household. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, that it is nothing to do with the Opposition. This issue is very important. This is a commitment that has been made by the Government. We should have it in legislation to make sure that it is delivered on; if we do not, it will indicate that the Government are not serious about this matter. It matters very much to people in this country that we reduce their energy bills. Many of us think that it is not going to happen. On the other hand, the Government have constantly assured us that it is going to happen and that, somehow, energy bills are going to come down. I think that many people in this country are looking forward to that, because we want to see a dividend for all this greenery. We have heard already from the noble Lord on the Liberal Democrat Benches that this is the effect of green energy: it brings down your electricity bills. Well, as far as most people in this country are concerned, so far, we have just seen our energy bills go up and not down. I think there is a lot of cynicism around that green energy does not deliver lower prices.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, would the noble Lord like to comment on the energy bills when his Government were in office?

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

The British people made a decision on the previous Conservative Government. They did not think much of our record and thought even less of our manifesto, so they made it quite clear that they do not want to know anything about the previous Conservative Government. What we are now interested in is what the manifesto of the Labour Government, who are now in power, said. What happened to us is irrelevant because we have been virtually wiped out.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

With the greatest respect, if the noble Lord starts to preach to this Government about energy prices, it is right for me to point out that the highest energy prices occurred under his Government’s stewardship.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

That may well be so; it was probably as a result of our pursuing these green policies, which has led to higher prices and which some of us think was probably rather mistaken. We are now in a position where we continue to pursue a green agenda.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, the prices were the highest prices we had because the previous Tory Government failed to do anything about our dependence on foreign gas. When the war in Ukraine happened, gas prices spiked and the noble Lord’s Government ended up spending £40 billion on subsidising bill payers across domestic and businesses. That money was spent for absolutely nothing—no long-term benefit at all.

[Lord Petitgas (Con)]

It seems to me that, earlier, the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, answered a question that was not the exam question. I do not understand why he brought immigration numbers into the equation, and I do not understand why—

[Lord Cryer (Lab)]

Order! We cannot have an exchange like this.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

I thank my noble friend for answering the question for me.

[Lord Petitgas (Con)]

It was a different exam question.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

I just do not know where we think we are going on this. Surely the only thing that matters is the commitments that this Government have made. They have now been in power for six months, and the commitments that they make are the things that matter. What the previous Government did has been rejected by the electorate, and we must now to look at things again. I do not think that we should be held by anything that happened in previous Governments, because the electorate made it quite clear that they did not want to have anything to do with it.

What matters now is the commitments made by the Labour Government. If they think that they are going to reduce our energy bills by £300 in real terms, that should go down in legislation as a commitment from them. It is a figure that they have come up with; we did not dream of it. It was even in the Labour manifesto at the election, was it not? Therefore, we should see this commitment put down in statute so that something is done to keep to it.

I cannot quite understand the attitude of the Liberal Democrats, because they are keener than anybody on ensuring that we do not produce our own oil and gas from the North Sea. The Labour Government have cancelled the exploration licences for there, which means that we will be dependent on foreign supplies whatever happens. How the noble Earl can say that is a terrible problem when he supports not developing our own resources in the North Sea I cannot imagine.

This amendment is certainly something that we should vote for. The Government should be more than happy to be pinned down on this commitment, since they have made it quite clear that they believe in it. If they believe in it, why do they do not put it down in the Bill?

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

Can I press the noble Lord before he sits down? How is this amendment consistent with the conventions of the UK Parliament? It seems to me that it is not, and I would like an explanation, please.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

The noble Lord probably knows more about the consistency of the UK Parliament than I do, but this seems to me to be infinitely sensible. I did not ask the Labour Government to commit themselves to lowering energy bills by £300, but they have done so. Therefore, they should be happy to see it in the Bill. I do not what the problem is, really.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

On a point of personal clarification, I mentioned it because there was an undertaking, made publicly, that net immigration would come down to 10,000.

[Lord Cryer (Lab)]

Order! We are not discussing an immigration Bill. We are discussing an energy Bill, so could we stick to order and stick to the scope of the amendment?

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, I shall speak against Amendments 23 and 24. If the Conservative Benches had put forward something saying that Labour should be held to account for the promises that they have made, then yes, they should. Should those promises be enacted in this overpoliticised amendment? No, because that is not the way that we do things.

This is a very politicised amendment. It does nothing to help bill payers, nothing to make Great British Energy any better at delivering for bill payers and nothing to reduce costs for bill payers. Amendments 23 and 24 are amendments for leaflets and nothing more. They are pointless, petty grandstanding.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

What? Leaflets?

[Earl Russell (LD)]

Yes, they can write a quick leaflet saying that they held the Government to account, when actually they achieved nothing other than tabling an amendment. The last Tory Government had a de facto ban on onshore wind, did little to develop renewable technologies, left us dependent on Russian gas and ended up spending £40 billion subsidising bill payers to import foreign gas, for little or no long-term benefit. The previous Government gave up on delivering on nearly all energy-efficient measures and left UK citizens in cold and damp homes. We believe that, if done well, GB Energy will provide energy security, reduce energy bills, create green jobs and kick-start economic growth. Many of these arguments also apply to Amendment 24.

Without wasting time, our response is much the same as to the previous amendment. Frankly, we feel that holding the Government to account by enacting something in a Bill is pretty delusional. It would be far better to do that outside of the Chamber.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I resist these two amendments. My noble friend Lord Rooker, who knows more about parliamentary procedure than almost anyone in either House, is absolutely right about the inappropriateness of these kinds of amendments. I do not want to carry on this enjoyable debate with the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, but I think it takes the biscuit in view his Government’s record. Also, as the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, said, I do not recall the last Government ever agreeing to change legislation in the way that has been suggested.

I want to allow the noble Lord, Lord Offord, to call a vote tonight, as I am sure he is very anxious to do, but the fact is that the only way to guarantee energy security and protect bill payers is to speed up the transition to homegrown energy; that is what we were elected on, that is the basis of this Bill and we are receiving huge support for doing so. Surely, the experience in the last few months and years of the kind of gas price shocks that we have seen, which have helped to drive increases and led to the introduction of the price cap, tells us that we have to get out of our dependence on fossil fuels and rely on homegrown energy.

As far as bills are concerned, the independent National Energy System Operator has confirmed that our 2030 clean power goal is achievable and can create a cheaper, more secure energy system. The Climate Change Committee confirms that a clean energy future is the best way to make British energy independent and protect bill payers, create good jobs and tackle the climate crisis.

As far as the question of employment is concerned, our expectation across this Parliament, in the early stages of the company, is that Great British Energy will employ 200 to 300 people at its Aberdeen headquarters. But, more substantially, through its activities and investments, GBE will also create and support thousands of jobs across the country. This is what we should focus on. I hope that, as the noble Lord, Lord Offord, puts this to the vote, the House will reject it.

[Lord Brownlow of Shurlock Row (Con)]

Before the Minister sits down, can he help me? I have been here since just after the debate started and the Minister has made some incredibly positive contributions today and has transitioned well from health to his current brief, but I am surprised that, in his answer to this particular amendment, he has not mentioned the £300. We have had a variety of quotes from various Labour politicians in the election campaign who mentioned £300, which is a specific point in the amendment. Will the Minister comment on when he thinks this Government will reduce energy prices, and will it be by up to £300?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

I am very grateful to the noble Lord for his kind intervention. I actually did this job from 2008 to 2010, so I have some experience in this area. I am not going to answer the question in the way that he has asked me to. I am confident that the policies we are putting in place will lead to homegrown, secure energy and that, as a result, we will see a reduction in real terms in prices over the years ahead.

[Lord Brownlow of Shurlock Row (Con)]

My Lords, may I just come back and apologise, as I did not know—

[Baroness Hayman (CB)]

My Lords, we are on Report. Reference was made earlier to the conventions of the House. It seems to me that the debate is getting very diffuse and not within the advice in the Companion about behaviour on Report.

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

We should give the Chair more powers.

[Baroness Hayman (CB)]

Yes.

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

My Lords, I remind you all of what the Prime Minister said:

“I stand by everything in our manifesto and one of the things I made clear in the election campaign is I wouldn’t make a single promise or commitment that I didn’t think we could deliver in government”.


The number of £300 is not our number. The number comes from the Labour manifesto and a commitment to the British people.

The great British people think that GB Energy is a new electricity company that is going to deliver them cheaper energy; what we have discovered is that it is actually an investment plan employing 200 people in Aberdeen. It is a big delta: 650,000 jobs compared to 200 jobs rising to 1,000. These are not our numbers; these are the Government’s numbers. All these amendments are trying to do is hold the Government to account on commitments made in the election campaign, and I wish to test the opinion of the House.

21:59

Division 4

Ayes: 121

Noes: 131

22:09

Amendment 24

Moved by

[Lord Offord of Garvel]

24: Clause 5, page 3, line 8, at end insert—
“(1A) The statement of strategic priorities under subsection (1) must include the creation of 650,000 new jobs in the United Kingdom by 1 January 2030 resulting directly or indirectly from Great British Energy’s pursuit of its objects under section 3.”Member’s explanatory statement
This ensures that the statement of strategic priorities includes the creation of 650,000 new jobs in the UK by 1 January 2030.

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

My Lords, I beg to move.

22:09

Division 5

Ayes: 119

Noes: 130

22:20

Amendments 25 and 26 not moved.

Amendment 27

Moved by

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

27: Clause 5, page 3, line 12, leave out “consult the Scottish Ministers before including” and insert “not, without the consent of the Scottish Ministers, include”
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment, and my amendment at page 3, line 13, provide that the Secretary of State must not, without the consent of the Scottish Ministers, include in a statement of strategic priorities anything which concerns a matter provision about which would be within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 27 I will speak also to government Amendments 28 to 32 and 34. They relate to Clause 5 and the role for the devolved Governments in developing the Secretary of State’s strategic priorities for Great British Energy.

Clause 5 currently requires the Secretary of State to consult respective devolved Governments before including any references to matters within devolved competence in a statement of strategic priorities. Throughout the passage of the Bill, and through positive discussions with devolved Government Ministers, the case has been made to me and my ministerial colleagues that this requirement to consult should be changed to a requirement to obtain the consent of the devolved Governments.

Clearly, it is fundamental to the success of Great British Energy that it can operate across the UK. These amendments, to require the consent of the devolved Governments in relation to matters within devolved competence in a statement of strategic priorities, demonstrate our commitment to close collaboration and a resetting of relationships with the devolved Governments.

As I have previously set out to your Lordships’ House, Clause 5 is not a power to legislate in respect of devolved matters but rather enables the Secretary of State to provide Great British Energy with guidance on where the company should focus its activities. It is clear that we need to work together across the UK to achieve net-zero ambitions and drive economic growth. Given this, and the strength of feeling on this issue in the devolved nations, we have agreed with the devolved Governments to bring forward these government amendments.

I want to state for the record, on the related matter of Clause 6 and the process for issuing directions, our view that, where a direction relates to a matter that is within the legislative competence of one or more of the devolved legislatures, the relevant devolved Government would be considered an appropriate person under Clause 6(3)(b) and would therefore be consulted before a direction was issued by the Secretary of State.

I am pleased to share with the House that Motions for legislative consent for the Great British Energy Bill have been passed by the Senedd, the Scottish Parliament and, this morning, the Northern Ireland Assembly. This is good progress, and I hope noble Lords will agree to support these amendments. I beg to move.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, I welcome the progress that has been made on these issues. There will be times when there may be differences of opinion, but on devolved matters it is right that the devolved authorities should have the proper say. I welcome the change being proposed by the Government.

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for tabling these amendments on devolution, which I welcome. They follow concerns that we raised in Committee. I emphasise that it is important that consultations on devolution are published. Amendment 27 proposes a significant change to the current wording of Clause 5, and we agree that we need to move away from “consult” to “consent”.

The key tenet here is the Sewel convention, which we know well in this House. It is not a trivial matter of semantics; it reflects the principle that the devolved Administrations must have a genuine say in matters that affect their legislative domain. At the end of the day, the Scottish Parliament in particular has responsibility for significant aspects of energy policy, including renewable energy, energy efficiency and environmental protection. We have mirrored that in Amendment 29 for the Welsh Government.

All in all, we think that by requiring consent from the Scottish and Welsh Governments we can ensure that the energy priorities are developed in a way that respects the distinct needs and perspectives of each nation. I urge the Government to monitor those relationships carefully.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Offord and Lord Wigley. I commend the amendment to the House.

Amendment 27 agreed.

Amendments 28 to 32

Moved by

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

28: Clause 5, page 3, line 13, leave out “subject”
Member's explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement to my amendment at page 3, line 12.

29: Clause 5, page 3, line 16, leave out “consult the Welsh Ministers before including” and insert “not, without the consent of the Welsh Ministers, include”
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment, and my amendment at page 3, line 17, provide that the Secretary of State must not, without the consent of the Welsh Ministers , include in a statement of strategic priorities anything which concerns a matter provision about which would be within the legislative competence of the Senedd Cymru.

30: Clause 5, page 3, line 17, leave out “subject”
Member's explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement to my amendment at page 3, line 16.

31: Clause 5, page 3, line 20, leave out from “must” to “in” in line 21 and insert “not, without the consent of the Department for the Economy in Northern Ireland, include”
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment, and my amendment at page 3, line 22, provide that the Secretary of State must not, without the consent of the Department for the Economy in Northern Ireland, include in a statement of strategic priorities anything which concerns a matter provision about which meets the conditions in subsection (6)(a) and (b).

32: Clause 5, page 3, line 22, leave out “subject”
Member's explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement to my amendment at page 3, line 20.

Amendments 28 to 32 agreed.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, it is 10.25 pm. We still have six more groups to go. There was no agreement to go beyond 10 pm, and indeed the Order Paper says that the House should sit until 10 pm. We had three and a half days in Committee, and I expressed my reservation about getting Report done in one day. A number of things have happened today which are beyond people’s control, so it was a challenge anyway. I ask the Chief Whip to adjourn the House.

[Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, I have been clear with the Opposition that we are going to complete Report stage of the Great British Energy Bill today. I made that clear in my meeting with the noble Baroness last week.

In my time in the House—which will be 15 years in June—and particularly in over three years as Opposition Chief Whip, I always played fair with the Government. On more than one occasion I sat here until 2 am or even 3 am so that the Government could get their business through, often on Bills that the noble Baroness was trying to get through this House. The Opposition, who were the Government only a few months ago, would have been absolutely furious if I had come to that Dispatch Box to ask for the House to be adjourned at only 10.26 pm. The Government have a right to get their business through. The Opposition have the right to oppose and the House has the right to scrutinise legislation. All these things can be accommodated very easily, but if the Opposition are determined not to play fair then we get into these difficulties. It is unnecessary.

I can only imagine the complaints from the noble Baroness if I was behaving like this last year. It is wrong, it is unnecessary and it does the Opposition no credit whatever. We need to complete Report tonight. We have only two amendments left to vote on—I have been advised that that will be Amendments 46 and 50. With a bit of good will on all sides, we can complete Report easily before midnight.

Amendment 33 not moved.

Amendment 34

Moved by

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

34: Clause 5, page 3, line 28, leave out subsection (7)
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is made in consequence of my other amendments to this Clause.

Amendment 34 agreed.

Clause 6: Directions

Amendments 35 and 36 not moved.

Clause 7: Annual accounts and reports

Amendment 37 not moved.

Amendment 38

Moved by

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

38: After Clause 7, insert the following new Clause—
“Sustainable developmentGreat British Energy must keep under review the impact of its activities on the achievement of sustainable development in the United Kingdom.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment requires Great British Energy to keep under review the impact of its activities on the achievement of sustainable development in the United Kingdom.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, in moving my Amendment 38, I begin this group by referring to the letter I sent to all Peers on 5 February.

This amendment relates to a new clause to be inserted after Clause 7, which requires Great British Energy to keep under review the impact of its activities on the achievement of sustainable development in the United Kingdom. Throughout our debates I have been clear that a healthy natural environment is critical to a strong economy and sustainable growth and development. Our commitment to the environment is unwavering, including through meeting the Environment Act 2021 targets, such as halting biodiversity decline in England by 2030. I have also been clear that through driving clean energy deployment and supporting decarbonisation, Great British Energy will support the delivery of our carbon budgets and net zero, helping protect nature from the impact of further climate change.

I thank noble Lords for their engagement in debates on nature and biodiversity. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, and Peers for the Planet for their constructive engagement ahead of Report. We are clear that we want to work together, across the United Kingdom, to achieve our net-zero ambitions, and we are going to carry on working together in this regard.

We see sustainable development as a broad category, recognised by the UN, covering the economy, the environment and society. The legislative amendment will be explained further in the framework document that governs the relationship between my department and Great British Energy. The framework document will be published in 2025, following Royal Assent of the Bill, to ensure that it reflects the final form of legislation.

22:30

The framework document will outline, as specified in the Act, that Great British Energy would continue to keep under review the impact of its activities on the achievement of sustainable development in the United Kingdom. It will state that sustainable development means having regard to the impact of Great British Energy’s activities on the environment, society and the economy. This includes, where relevant, consideration of Great British Energy’s contribution to achieving targets set by, or under, Part 1 of the Climate Change Act 2008 and Sections 1 to 3 of the Environment Act 2021, and any equivalent legislation in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. It also includes, where relevant, considerations of climate change adaptation. The framework document will also specify that Great British Energy will include in its annual report a report of its activities in relation to sustainable development.

I hope that noble Lords will feel that this amendment reflects a lot of the discussions and debate we have had. I beg to move.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak to my Amendment 40. I am rather disappointed that the Minister did not refer to the other amendments in this group.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

With great respect, my Lords, I think the form is that I move my own amendment and then respond to other amendments in the group when I wind up.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

I am grateful for that clarification.

I welcome the government amendment in this group. However, I seek a specific assurance from the Minister as to exactly how and when the Government will ensure that the impact of GB Energy’s activities will not harm sustainable development in the United Kingdom. Why I prefer the wording of my amendment to the Minister’s, and why I regret the fact that the framework document will not be available before the passage of the Bill through Parliament, is because the Environment Act 2021 set out very clear environmental standards that have to be followed in subsequent legislation.

Amendment 40 addresses the issue of Great British Energy operating in such a way as to meet the criteria and environmental standards in the Environment Act 2021, which set out clear standards for environment and animal welfare that any project approved by GB Energy should meet. The projects we have discussed during the passage of the Bill potentially risk criss-crossing the countryside, covering the landscape with intrusive miles of pylons and overhead transmission lines, as well as massive solar farms and battery storage plants, the latter also posing a fire risk. Up to 10% of land currently farmed could be taken out of production, with a consequential effect on farming and food security to create a strand of energy which will bring no local benefits whatever but feed energy into the already well-fed National Grid.

I call on the Government to address offshore wind farms in a clear and pragmatic way, with one planning application for any future offshore wind farm taken at the same time as permission to build an onshore substation, to take the electricity generated and, at the same time, any proposal for onward transmission of the energy through overhead power lines and pylons.

Other damaging aspects of offshore wind farms at severe odds with sustainable development are their impact on fishers and fisheries. Wind farms damage marine life and sea mammals, and interfere with fishers going about their business. I am grateful to the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations for its briefing, which clearly highlights the threat from offshore renewables, primarily winds but also wave and tidal.

Ten per cent of UK seas will be designated as highly protected marine areas, where fishing will be banned. The worst-case scenario could result in the loss of half of the UK’s fishing waters, some 375,000 square kilometres: Scotland would lose 56% of its fishing waters and England and Wales 36% of theirs. Even if the worst-case assumptions are not realised, 38% of UK waters are likely to be lost, threatening the very existence of UK fishing businesses and causing severe harm to coastal communities.

I feel that the sentiments expressed in Amendment 40 sum up those also expressed in Amendments 47 and 48, in the name of my noble friend Lord Offord, and Amendment 51, in the name of my noble friend Lord Fuller. All I seek this evening is an assurance that farmland and residential properties will be protected from massive solar farms, battery storage plants and the like, and the impact of major substations bringing electricity onshore from these offshore wind farms. The long lines of unwelcome, intrusive overhead lines transmitting the energy to the National Grid should be removed or reduced and spatial rights for fishers should be recognised. I hope that the Minister will look kindly on the assurance that I seek.

[Baroness Hayman (CB)]

My Lords, I have added my name to the new clause proposed in Amendment 38 by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath. I thank him and his officials for the amount of time and effort that they have put into finding what is a very good resolution to the issues that we raised at earlier stages in the Bill. Obviously, in some ways, I would have preferred my own amendment as it stood in Committee, which would have put into the Bill an obligation on GBE to contribute to the targets under both the Environment Act and the Climate Change Act.

After discussion, I understand why the Minister wants to put in the phrase “Sustainable development” and to have that contribution. That is indeed the model that we adopted as a House during the passage of the Crown Estate Bill. I would not be happy with this amendment, were it not for the assurances that the Minister has just given at the Dispatch Box on what will be included in the framework document, so that we will actually see reference to contribution to achieving targets under both those Acts in the framework document. We will also see a commitment to tackling the issue of adaptation there, because none of us who has observed or experienced the weather—and the results coming out from international institutions—in the last six months will have any doubt that we have challenges already baked in by climate change and biodiversity loss that have to be met, as well as the efforts to stop things getting worse. I am very grateful for those assurances.

In some ways, a commitment to sustainable development may seem more nebulous than tying down to those particular commitments, but I believe it is really important that we acknowledge that there are differing forces—differing demands and aspirations—that have to be taken into account when we make decisions on infrastructure and investment, or whatever it is. Sustainable development, as defined by the UN, is about taking the economic, environmental and social effects of developments into account when decisions are made. Lots of difficult decisions will have to be made and there are lots of balances that have to be struck, whether about pylons or achieving net zero, and whether about growth or biodiversity and nature. We have to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time, and to actually recognise that all those strands have to be taken into account.

If we are going to get through and make the right decisions, frankly, we will have to be, first, very smart, and secondly, very frank with people about how we assess the different pressures and how we have come to individual decisions in individual cases. I have been very impressed by the work of the Crown Estate, looking at its different drivers and objectives and how it brings those into force when it looks at decision-making for investment, and I hope that GBE will be able to do exactly the same. So once again I end by thanking the Minister for the work he has done in bringing this amendment forward.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, for whom I have the greatest respect. I know that the whole of your Lordships’ House applauds her and Peers for the Planet for their enormous amount of work, but I am afraid that, on this occasion, I disagree with her. I speak to Amendment 40, to which I have attached my name, and government Amendment 38, to which the noble Baroness has offered her support. I am afraid that

“must keep under review … sustainable development”

is a very weak form of words.

I understand that the noble Baroness seeks compromise and is taking what she can get. It would be lovely to be in a situation where we can start with a government Bill that says these things and then look to improve it. None the less, in speaking to Amendment 40, I am in the curious position of agreeing with the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, about the amendment and totally disagreeing with lots of the things she said. If offshore wind farms are spaces from which fishers are barred, they can become wonderful marine refuges, and if we are talking about damage to the seafloor, then deep sea trawling is the issue we should be talking about, and, most of all, damage to marine life. Indeed, if we are talking about biodiversity, solar farms managed in the appropriate way can be vastly better for biodiversity than arable farmland, in which the soil and the whole environment are totally trashed.

I am aware of the time, so I will not take long, but I want to point to what this amendment says and contrast “take all reasonable steps” to achieve the legally binding targets versus “keep under review”. This is much stronger wording, it is the right wording for a country that has a state of nature that is in a state of collapse, where there is so much that needs to be protected and improved, and for which we have the legally binding targets to which this amendment refers.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, I rise very briefly to say that I too have put my name to this amendment and I am delighted that the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, have been able to negotiate this compromise. It is important that this is in the Bill; it will make a difference and I am very pleased to see it here. It also reflects the language that was used in the Crown Estate Bill and that is particularly useful for GB Energy because of the strong connection they have with one another. I welcome the words that the Minister used at the Dispatch Box, mentioning the Climate Change Act 2008 and the Environment Act 2021. I welcome the monitoring that is taking place on this.

I have some sympathy with the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh. These are obviously all very difficult conversations, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, put that quite well. Actually, the way we talk about it, the spirit in which we put these things into place and how we make them work in practice are the big challenges that we all have, going ahead, but I am very pleased to see this here.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 40 and 47. I have recent ministerial experience of the Environment Act and the powers available under it, which is why I tabled some Questions for Written Answer. I was somewhat confused by the responses from the Government. When I asked whether they would publish their assessment, under Section 20 of the Environment Act, about not having the effect of reducing the level of environmental protection, I was informed by the Minister that the information was “legally privileged”. It surprised me that the Government, who are committed to the environment—I do not dispute that—are not prepared to share with the House why they do not think this will have an adverse impact on the natural environment. I went further, asking which provisions would be “environmental law” or would impact, and I was referred to Clause 3.

Under the Environment Act, the Minister is not required to ask the advice of the Office for Environmental Protection, but I would be grateful to know whether he, or any other department, has done so. Again, that sort of information would be useful to this House, recognising that we still do not have the strategic priorities—we have the objects, but nothing wider than that—in our consideration of this. I know for sure, from living in Suffolk—I referred to this in my earlier contribution today—of the significant impact that this energy infrastructure can have.

22:45

That is why I wanted to talk also to Amendment 47, which refers to offshore energy installations. We have already heard about the impact on the marine environment. I signed off the largest number of marine conservation zones this country has ever had. I did some of that deliberately—working around situations such as Dogger Bank—conscious of our needs as a country to also make progress with energy development. Nevertheless, despite the intricacy there—the science continues to evolve and there are plenty of records looking into that—one of the things that often gets lost, but which I managed to get into the previous Government’s industrial strategy, was not only the impact of offshore but the impact of offshore energy onshore. That is particularly true in the areas around Saxmundham, Aldeburgh and Walberswick, which are part of Ramsar sites and international designations that are almost beyond belief anywhere in the United Kingdom; they are probably the most protected areas.

I was then further confused when I asked further Questions about whether the Government intended to apply the environmental principles duty to the Great British Energy company. The response I got from the Government was that Ministers would consider it when setting up the company, and then GB Energy

“will … be subject to relevant environmental regulation”.

For me, that is not good enough. I then asked another Question about whether

“the duty to conserve and enhance biodiversity”

will be applied, to which I got an answer that was not contradictory but was different. It said that,

“as a non-departmental public body, the company will be required to comply with the biodiversity duty”.

Why does this matter? It matters because we are very alert to the challenges that we face with biodiversity in this country and around the world. We have a responsibility to do that when we consider the huge installations that are happening. Sizewell C will be built—I strongly support that; I support a lot of this development—but what is confusing to people in communities around the country is that we are prepared to trash sites of scientific interest and the like, while not being prepared to put energy infrastructure on brownfield sites closer to where the energy is needed. That is causing the frustration that people have.

So that is why I wanted to rise today: to say, “Actually, I’m afraid the Government’s amendment to me is so weak as water that it is absolutely ridiculous. You could probably consider it to be one polluted by sewage on how useless it is”. I could use stronger language. I believe that the amendment put forward by my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering would be much stronger and suitable to serve the purpose that is intended. Candidly, having put a lot of legislation through both Houses of Parliament in my previous roles, I assure noble Lords that people should not think that that will give any extra protection on environmental grounds, because it simply will not. All it will do is tick a box in an agenda item. “Have we considered this environment?” “Yes, we have.” “Does it make a difference?” “No.” “Does it make it worse?” “Maybe. Who cares? We just move on.” That is not the approach that we should be taking.

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)]

My Lords, I was not going to say anything at this point because it is getting late in the evening, but I was pretty staggered by that last intervention. I found it pretty rich, coming from a Minister who signally emasculated Defra and knocked the legs out from underneath it. The statement of environmental principles to which she referred was significantly reduced as a result of the work that happened around that period. So I actually think that we should thank the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, and—

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

I am very happy to have that discussion outside, but I think it is a complete impugnment of all that we did achieve. I assure the noble Baroness that the strategy for our ground-breaking biodiversity plan is under way. I wish the Environment Secretary, Steve Reed, well in getting on with some of this stuff. It is ridiculous to try to suggest that the work the Conservative Government did in Montreal did nothing; it did a hell of a lot for the environment and I want the Labour Government to continue it and to succeed—we all do. That is why this amendment that the Government propose is not enough.

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)]

Strangely enough, I find myself agreeing with the noble Baroness’s sentiments on this amendment. We should thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, and the Minister for reaching an agreement so that we can get something in the Bill. Amendment 40 would have been a lot stronger, but at least we have got something. We now need to ride heavy shotgun on what is contained in the framework to make sure that that happens.

I cannot take a lecture from the noble Baroness, because I know for a fact that Defra was severely prejudiced in its ability to do any of this work by the way that she operated when she was in that department.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 51. Before I get into the substance of what I want to say, I want to say how proud I am that the Conservative Government passed the Environment Act that resulted in cleaner water, purer air, less waste and lower emissions. Only the Conservatives could have done that, and I know my noble friend Lady Coffey had a hand in that.

At an earlier stage of this Bill, I probed the Minister on the environment protections for tidal energy. Upon reflection, the amendment was too tightly drawn around tidal and insufficiently drawn for protections for other types, such as wave and barrage energy. Further, I do not think that sufficient attention was paid in my earlier remarks to coastal and estuarine environments, which are all part of the offshore scene. I have altered my approach to ensure that all marine proposals must consider the environmental impacts of their introduction. I welcome the Government’s late acceptance of some of these principles and their belated tabling of Amendment 38. On this side, we are grateful for it, but, as my noble friends have said, it does not go quite far enough.

My amendment would require the Secretary of State to assess the impact on the environment and animal welfare standards of the installation and generation of tidal, barrage and wave energy, together with its associated cabling. Amendment 38 talks generally about sustainability in its widest sense. My amendment seeks to define what sustainability means. It is not just carbon; it is about the wider impacts on flora and fauna. I noted and listened carefully to what the Minister said about the framework documents that have come forward, but they are in the future and we are in the now. It is certainty that we crave.

I will not detain your Lordships, because it is late, with my tale of my visit in November to the Saint-Malo tidal barrage—the world’s first, opened nearly 60 years ago. However, I want for a moment to consider the environmental costs of that valuable piece of infrastructure in France. There are lessons from history to be learned as we look forward to a post-carbon world. While saving the environment by reducing carbon emissions on the one hand, the French have damaged it on the other. My amendment seeks to direct Great British Energy to strike the appropriate balance between the desirability of reducing emissions and the essentiality of protecting flora and fauna in these places.

In commenting on the Saint-Malo barrage, Thomas Adcock, an associate professor in the department of engineering science at Oxford University, said there has been a “major environmental impact” on La Rance estuary as a result of that tidal barrage, and that

“this would make it very difficult to get permission to do such a barrage again”.

Researchers point to the adverse impacts on marine life due to the altering of sedimentation patterns, as well as the impact on oxygen and nutrient levels in the water. Sand-eels and plaice have disappeared, while silting has reduced the number and variation of other fauna. It is in the public interest that this is considered, so that mitigations can be put in place. My amendment seeks to ensure that, when the Government’s tilted sustainability balance is engaged, it must give sufficient weight to flora and fauna under the environmental pillar, not just pull the decarbonisation trump card out of the top pocket. This is why my amendment is needed and why it goes beyond Amendment 38.

I am not starry-eyed about the practicality of building big machines that can survive in the most hostile environments, pounded by seas and eaten by saltwater corrosion. I am involved in the liquid fertiliser business, so I know more than most how hard it is to engineer these things in tough, salt-aggressive places, but that does not mean that we should not try. It is hard to engineer reliability in some of these unforgiving places, so the installations will be larger and more environmentally intrusive, and require more maintenance than is needed on land.

That is why this amendment is serious. It will require GB Energy to take into account a number of factors and to continuously monitor these when assessing offshore energy proposals—for example, the cumulative impact of installations when considered alongside nearby projects; the transboundary impacts, when activities in other countries may be impacted, such as commercial fishing; any interrelationships where one receptor, such as noise, can have a knock-on impact on others to disturb species, and in particular subsea noise, which impacts on marine mammals; physical processes, which include changes to the sedimentary flow; and navigational risk assessments, because sometimes vessels can be deflected into the path of others.

Taken together, consideration of these factors would ensure that some of the most delicate marine and coastal habitats, such as that introduced by my noble friend Lady Coffey—the 321 square kilometre Cromer Shoal Chalk Beds marine conservation zone, one of 91 such zones established by the last Government—would be protected.

I am not against harnessing this most inexhaustible supply of offshore energy, including tidal. The energy is there, it is year-round, it is predictable and reliable, and it deserves to be won and should be won. It is just remarkable that the Secretary of State is not required to give the appropriate directions to GB Energy to balance not just the carbon environmental benefits but environmental safeguards in the widest sense.

This evening, we sat on the water Bill. That Bill is the consequence of not thinking ahead about what might happen when a public utility gets carried away. Let us put the protections in the Bill now to constrain Great British Energy, and require the Secretary of State to ensure that a private body established for a public purpose acts in the wider public interest, not its private self-interest, and sets an example to others.

In summary, I agree with the sentiment of Amendment 38, but it does not go far enough. We must not allow carbon alone to trump all other environmental considerations. I will listen carefully to the debate, but I feel that, because of the inadequacy of government Amendment 38, if adjustments are not made then I may seek to divide the House accordingly.

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 47 and 48 in my name and in support of Amendment 51 in the name of my noble friend Lord Fuller.

The threat posed to the environment by the rapid installation of renewable energy technologies is familiar to this House, as it was discussed extensively in Committee and during debates on the Crown Estate Bill. We know that the UK is the second-largest offshore wind market in the world, and that allocation round 6 under this Government has awarded 5.4 gigawatts of offshore energy contracts across fixed and floating offshore wind and tidal stream. Indeed, the Government have committed to quadruple offshore wind by 2030 as part of their wind revolution.

The speed and scale of the Government’s offshore wind developments raise significant concerns about the impact on our ecosystem. While offshore wind farms may have the potential to have positive impacts on natural habitats, we must not neglect the potential harm that wind or tidal technologies may have on our natural environment. On that note, I support Amendment 51 in the name of my noble friend Lord Fuller, which follows a similar line to Amendments 47 and 48 in my name.

Through their so-called unprecedented relationship, the Crown Estate and GB Energy have a duty to assess and mitigate the impact of their activities on the environment. By law, GB Energy must assess, report on and minimise the impact of its activities on our environment in seeking to ramp up renewables and phase out fossil fuels.

I welcome Amendment 38 in the name of the Minister. We stand by to support the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, if she pushes her Amendment 40 to a Division. Meanwhile, I remain to be satisfied by the Minister’s response to my Amendments 47 and 48, and will consider testing the opinion of the House.

23:00

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, how good it is to see so many Opposition Members taking such an interest in this Bill.

First, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, for her support for my amendment. As she rightly said, it has to be seen alongside my Dispatch Box commitment in relation to the framework document. I agree with her about the frankness required in some of these difficult decisions and the balances that must be drawn. I take her point about the Crown Estate; I will draw her comment to the attention of Great British Energy.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett—who I thought might get up to support my amendment but, as ever, I remain disappointed in that regard—said that this is a weak amendment, but it is not so. It is a strong amendment that fits with the architecture of the Bill. One has to read it alongside the commitment that I have made tonight at the Dispatch Box. The one thing I can say is that it is not, and will not be, a tick-box approach. We will ensure that it is much more than that.

On Amendment 40, let me be clear: the core focus of Great British Energy is to tackle the energy crisis and deliver clean power. While its mission naturally aligns with environmental and biodiversity goals, additional statutory obligations might undermine its ability to execute its primary objectives effectively. The point here is that GBE will be fully subject to all existing environmental and climate regulations, ensuring strict compliance with environmental safeguards. If we place additional duties on a new organisation, that risks overcomplicating its mandate. My amendment already ensures that GBE will continually assess its impact on sustainable developments, aligning with climate and biodiversity commitments. In the light of my amendment and the commitments that I made regarding Great British Energy’s framework document, we are surely broadly aligned in terms of a dedication to ensure that the environment and the climate crisis are dealt with collectively.

If made, the effect of Amendments 47, 48, 51 and 53 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Offord of Garvel and Lord Fuller, would be Great British Energy being required to cease facilitating, encouraging or participating in the relevant activity if it is found to be causing significant harm to local communities, environmental damage or significant welfare issues. Amendments 47, 48 and 51 propose a new clause after Clause 7 which would require the Secretary of State to assess the impact of Great British Energy’s activities in relation to offshore wind installations and generation, as well as the decommissioning of oil and gas structures.

I do not think that these amendments are necessary for three reasons. First, GBE projects will already be subject to the UK’s rigorous planning processes and environmental regulations, including environmental impact assessments, habitat regulations assessments and statutory community engagement. These ensure full consideration of local environmental and social impacts before any project proceeds.

Secondly, existing regulations—the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017, the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017, and the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017—already require scrutiny. GBE will be held to the same high standards as any other developer.

Thirdly, on decommissioning, let me clarify that GBE will not be involved in decommissioning oil and gas structures. Even if it were, the UK’s strict decommissioning regulations require robust safety and environmental assessments before any decision is made. More broadly, our environmental commitment remains firm. We will meet the Environment Act targets, halt biodiversity decline and safeguard marine protected areas. Given these reassurances, I hope that noble Lords will not press their amendments.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, before the Minister sits down—

[Noble Lords]

No!

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, 30 seconds. The Minister referred to rigorous planning standards. I note a government press release of 26 January saying:

“Sweeping reforms under the Planning and Infrastructure Bill will take an axe to red tape that slows down approval of infrastructure projects”.


Is the Minister confident that there will still be rigorous planning standards after the changes that the Government have announced?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, we are on Report, but I will answer this. Of course, we are talking about speeding up the planning processes without impacting on the environmental protections that we have. That is our aim and what we will achieve.

23:05

Division 6

Ayes: 125

Noes: 103

23:16

Amendment 39

Moved by

[Lord Henley]

39: After Clause 7, insert the following new Clause—
“The Chair of Great British Energy(1) The Chair of Great British Energy may not be appointed until the appointment has been scrutinised by the—(a) Treasury Committee of the House of Commons, or any successor committee, and(b) Energy Security and Net Zero Committee of the House of Commons, or any successor committee.(2) The Chair of Great British Energy must undergo an annual review on their performance and this review must be—(a) carried out by external auditors;(b) submitted to the Secretary of State and laid before Parliament.”

[Lord Henley (Con)]

My Lords, my noble friends are not here at this stage. This was part of the first group that was discussed somewhat earlier, and I think quite a lot of us feel that this was not properly answered by His Majesty’s Government. I wonder whether we could have a further response from the Minister on Amendment 39, because I am concerned that the House has not yet had a proper explanation. I beg to move.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I have great respect for the noble Lord, but I am not sure whether he was present when we debated it. I thought I gave a very full response to the noble Lord, Lord Frost. I referred to the issue of whether the appointment of the chair of GBE was subject to scrutiny by a Select Committee and said to the House that, following normal practice and the practice of the last Government, this would be a matter for discussions between the Secretary of State and the chair of the Select Committee. I think it was a very full and appropriate response.

[Lord Henley (Con)]

I am afraid I am not happy with that and I think I would beg to test the opinion of the House.

23:18

Division 7

Ayes: 102

Noes: 123

23:27

Amendment 40

Moved by

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering]

40: After Clause 7, insert the following new Clause—
“Duty of Great British Energy to meet environmental criteriaGreat British Energy must, in the exercise of its functions, and when delivering the objects in section 3 and statement of strategic priorities in section 5 of this Act, take all reasonable steps to contribute to the achievement of environmental targets set under the Environment Act 2021.”

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I beg to move, and I wish to test the opinion of the House.

23:28

Division 8

Ayes: 106

Noes: 120

23:39

Amendments 41 and 42 not moved.

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendment 42.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Finlay of Llandaff) (CB)]

I have already called it. We have finished that group.

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

My Lords—

[Noble Lords]

Order!

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Finlay of Llandaff) (CB)]

My Lords, for the convenience of the House, I remind the noble Lord that I called that group but we have now moved on to the next amendment in the list.

Amendments 43 and 44 not moved.

Amendment 45

Moved by

[Lord Vaux of Harrowden]

45: After Clause 7, insert the following new Clause—
“Reviews of Great British Energy’s effectiveness and impact(1) The Secretary of State must appoint an independent person to carry out reviews of—(a) the effectiveness of Great British Energy in delivering its strategic priorities, and(b) the extent to which its investments in particular projects or types of project have encouraged additional investment in those projects or types of project by the private sector.(2) After each review, the independent person must—(a) prepare a report of the review, and(b) submit the report to the Secretary of State.(3) On receiving a report, the Secretary of State must—(a) publish the report, and(b) lay a copy of the report before Parliament.(4) The first report must be submitted to the Secretary of State within the period of 3 years beginning with the day on which this Act comes into force.(5) Subsequent reports must be submitted to the Secretary of State at intervals of not more than 3 years.(6) In this section, references to an “independent person” are to a person who appears to the Secretary of State to be independent of—(a) the Department of Energy and Net Zero, and(b) Great British Energy.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would require an independent review of the effectiveness of Great British Energy in achieving its objectives and the extent to which it has encouraged private investment every 3 years.

[Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)]

I am really puzzled as to why I am not allowed to speak to my amendment.

I will speak to two amendments in this group—I hope on a more constructive basis than we have seen on some of the other discussions just recently. I apologise that there are two very similar amendments in the group, Amendments 43 and 45. This was caused by a quirk in our system that meant that when I made some changes to Amendment 43, so that it became Amendment 45, I was not allowed to withdraw Amendment 43. Please ignore Amendment 43 as Amendment 45 is the one I will speak to. I apologise for the confusion. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, the noble Lord, Lord Offord, and the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, for their support on this.

Amendment 45 introduces a requirement for an independent review of the effectiveness and impact of Great British Energy. This, effectively, mirrors the review process set out in the UK Infrastructure Bank Act which applies to the National Wealth Fund. As we have discussed in depth, much of this Bill was copied directly from the UK Infrastructure Bank Act, and with good reason. The two entities are very similar in what they will do and, indeed, the wealth fund will be investing on behalf of GBE in the initial stages of its development.

The independent review clause in the UKIB Act, however, was left out when the Bill was drafted, which is a glaring omission. The main difference between Amendment 45 and what is in the UKIB Act is the timeline. The National Wealth Fund must commission a report after no more than seven years and then every five years. Because the Government have stated that they hope the GBE will have achieved decarbonisation by 2030, it must be appropriate that the review for GBE should take place before then, so Amendment 45 requires a shorter timeframe, with a first review after three years and every three years thereafter. It is better that we have a review when we are still able to take remedial action rather than just something that sets out after the event why we succeeded or failed. On the other hand, the annual independent review, as proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Offord, in Amendment 42, is unnecessarily onerous. I hope we can find a balance here that works.

In Committee, the Minister said:

“I am prepared to consider the principle of a review between Committee and Report”.—[Official Report, 15/1/25; col. GC 225.]


Since then we have had a number of very constructive discussions, for which I am very grateful. I am therefore optimistic that the Minister will be able to satisfy me that the Government will introduce a suitable independent review process. Again, I stress the additionality principle that I explained in an earlier group. If the noble Lord is able to satisfy me on the independent review and confirm that any review would be expected to cover the extent to which GBE is creating additionality, I would be delighted not to move Amendment 45.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Finlay of Llandaff) (CB)]

My Lords, for clarity, we are debating Amendment 45.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, particularly for his patience because I think this was originally in the first group, so he has done great service. We have had a very constructive discussion with the noble Lord. I am happy to confirm that the Government will bring forward an amendment on an independent review of effectiveness at Third Reading.

I am also aware, as the noble Lord said, that his amendment includes an additionality element. I am happy to confirm that additionality will be an important principle of Great British Energy—I said that earlier this evening, or this afternoon or many hours ago—particularly in respect of its investment activity. As such, we expect that it will be covered for the requirement for the independent review to consider the effectiveness of Great British Energy and to have regard to the stated strategic priorities in doing so. I look forward to bringing an amendment to the House at Third Reading.

[Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for those confirmations and, on that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 45 withdrawn.

23:45

Amendment 46

Moved by

[Lord Offord of Garvel]

46: After Clause 7, insert the following new Clause—
“Impact assessment on erection of pylons(1) Great British Energy must assess the potential impact of the erection of pylons which occurs under or in support of its functions on—(a) local communities, and(b) the environment.(2) If the assessment under subsection (1) determines that the erection of pylons—(a) will cause significant harm to local communities, or(b) will cause significant environmental damageGreat British Energy must not facilitate, encourage or participate in the relevant activity.(3) Within 12 months of the day on which this Act is passed and annually thereafter, Great British Energy must produce an annual report on the impact of the erection of pylons used to support its activities on local communities and the environment, and lay all such reports before Parliament.”Member's explanatory statement
This would require Great British Energy to assess and report on the impact on local communities and the environment of the erection of pylons used to support its activities.

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 46 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Effingham. This seeks to place a duty on Great British Energy to produce an assessment on the impact that the erection of pylons will have on local communities and the environment. Following such an assessment, if the erection of pylons will cause significant harm and damage to the above-listed categories, GB Energy must not continue to build them. The amendment also seeks to include an annual report on the impact of the construction of these pylons that must be laid before Parliament so that the proper accountability measures are in place.

To achieve the Government’s rushed and ideological target for clean energy by 2030, it has been proposed that nearly 1,000 kilometres of new power lines will have to be built. It is the undeniable truth that the infrastructure of the electricity network will need to be built at a far faster rate than it has been in the past decade if the Government are to meet this pledge.

The reality is this: it would be possible to find a way of distributing and transmitting electricity that will not permanently damage the countryside if the Government were to uphold our 2035 target. We understood this; we committed to exploring the use of undergrounding, because the energy system operator said that in the long term that can save costs and it will avoid irreparable damage to our countryside. It is strange that the Government have dismissed this advice, choosing to base their energy policy on ideology. This is particularly true, given that an official report into the East Anglia network has discovered that in the longer term it is cheaper to bury the cables underground. The evidence suggests that, if the Government stick to our original target, they may save £600 million through the use of underground cables rather than pylons.

However, if the Government insist on achieving a decarbonised grid by 2030 at the expense of the British countryside, it is essential that GB Energy assesses and reports on the impact of their use of pylons and ceases activity if it is causing significant environmental damage.

I am minded to test the opinion of the House. I urge all noble Lords to support this amendment.

[Lord Ashcombe (Con)]

My Lords, I understand that transporting electricity will continue to be a challenge; much of it is generated offshore in Scotland, but the need is far greater in the south. Pylons are not loved infrastructures by most but are a necessary evil. There is therefore an absolute need to assess their effect on not only those communities that live nearby but the environment, as pylons march across the countryside, often through much of our most scenic areas, not to mention the flora and fauna.

I suggest that pylons are not the only method of transport; my noble friend Lord Offord mentioned underground cables, and sea cables are also an option. There remain environmental factors, but power still has to come ashore to the areas of demand. The onshore issues therefore still remain.

The spend to achieve this, according to NESO, is some £40 billion a year for six years until 2030. I suggest two items of practicality: can the infrastructure be built on time, and do we actually have the workforce to complete this massive task? Local communities deserve nothing less than an assessment of the potential impact for the years to come.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, we come to the issue of pylons. This is of course an interesting issue; I well understand that pylons are not necessarily popular with the public. They are, I am afraid, just a consequence of what we need to do to expand the grid.

The projects that Great British Energy is involved in may require the erection of pylons, but the assurance I can give is that they will be subject to existing rigorous planning processes and the relevant regulations, as with any similar projects, including environmental impact assessments and statutory stakeholder engagement. We recognise that poorly sited pylon projects can have an impact on the local area, as has been mentioned, such as in relation to wildlife, heritage or sense of place. That is why we are retaining the checks and balances in the planning system and why we want to ensure that all developers continue to engage with communities.

Noble Lords have mentioned offshore solutions. We are already building an extensive offshore network. Indeed, the latest network design from NESO means that, by 2035, three times as much undersea cabling could be laid than pylons across Britain, so we are not ignoring the potential but we will need pylons. We are not reducing the planning regime in any way at all; we want to speed it up, but we will have the protections in place and environmental considerations will come to the fore.

We do not need this amendment. I am quite satisfied that the provisions in statute at the moment are sufficient.

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

My Lords, I believe that the Government’s tunnel-visioned focus on renewable energies means that the grid will have to be developed at a far greater rate than if we turned our attention to gas and nuclear. Renewables are by nature less dense in energy and require more infrastructure to connect their assets to areas of high demand. It is striking that, as reported by NESO, we will need twice as much grid to be built in the next five years as we have built in the last 10 years combined.

Under this Government, communities are being overridden and their concerns ignored. This is not the way to undergo a successful clean energy transition. By choosing to bring forward unilaterally their clean energy target by five years to 2030, the Government have shown that it is ideological dogma. Where is the community benefit scheme that we set out when in government?

NESO has also said that all grid projects need to be met on time and that three will have to be fast-tracked ahead of schedule. If that does not happen, the Government will not meet their target and families will pay billions of pounds in extra curtailment costs. This is the cost of these accelerated power plans. We must balance carefully the necessity of enhancing our energy infrastructure with the preservation of the landscape and the communities that rely on it.

This is not simply about building pylons; it is about ensuring that the energy transition does not come at the expense of the environment or local economies. That being said, I hope that noble Lords will look to support the amendment in my name. I wish to test the opinion of the House.

23:52

Division 9

Ayes: 84

Noes: 120

00:03

Amendments 47 to 49 not moved.

Amendment 50

Moved by

[Lord Fuller]

50: After Clause 7, insert the following new Clause—
“Duty to meet national food security criteriaGreat British Energy must, in the exercise of its functions and when delivering the objects in section 3 and statement of strategic priorities in section 5 of this Act, take all reasonable steps to prevent the use of agricultural land classified as grade 1, 2 or 3a for solar energy production.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would require Great British Energy to take all reasonable steps to prevent the use of agricultural land classified as grade 1, 2 or 3a for solar energy production.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak in support of my Amendments 50 and 52.

They say that a nation is never more than three meals away from revolution. In the 80 years since we had to dig for victory, we have developed ever more exotic tastes, which in turn have spawned new crises from which only a first-world nation could suffer. Who can forget the filo pastry incident? While memories of hunger have faded, the need to put bread on the table has not gone away. Our nation sustains itself on the kindness of strangers, and the proportion of food that we grow ourselves has diminished and is now barely over 60%.

Last year, we had a nasty shock: the weather was bad, and a record number of farmers put land into environmental schemes. Only at the very last moment did Defra realise the jeopardy that we were placing ourselves in. Those schemes were suspended and limited plantings resumed, but it was too late to stop a 25% reduction in wheat production last harvest.

This year, it looks as though plantings have bounced back. However, that 25% fall in food production was a salutary warning about the fragility of our food supplies and a warning that we should not recklessly discard our farmland. It was a wake-up call because when land is converted to solar production, it is locked away for a generation—

[Earl Russell (LD)]

I think the reduction in last year’s harvest was due to the persistent wet weather and not anything to do with solar power.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, if I may correct the noble Earl, Lord Russell, I said that bad weather played a part but that a major contributory factor was the volume of land that was placed into environmental schemes, not solar. I am going to go on to solar in a moment, because we will then be talking about the future and not the past.

When land is converted to solar production, it is locked away for a generation—at least 30 years—and the ability for farming to bounce back and repair the shortage that we saw last year falls away. That Rubicon is crossed. Food in your belly ranks as the most basic human need. When the chips are down, you cannot eat a solar panel, to mix metaphors. Quite simply, these amendments make it clear that GB Energy should not entice, invest, promote or encourage land-hungry solar farms to be built on our best and most versatile land.

When I tabled similar amendments in Committee, I contemplated that GB Energy should be prevented from buying grade 1, 2 or 3 land for the purposes of renewable energy production more generally. I invited the Minister to meet me to discuss the issues that I raised. I am grateful to him for having done so. In the meantime, I have taken standings from other quarters. As a result, I have adjusted my approach this time to limit the scope of my amendments to grade 1, 2 and 3a land only and to restrict it to the promotion of solar panels alone, rather than renewable sources that are less hungry for land. I hope that, by modifying my approach, the Government might do likewise.

Your Lordships’ Library tells me that grade 1, 2 and 3a land comprises 42% of the cultivated area of Great Britain. By difference, therefore, 58% of agricultural land would still be available for solar energy under my proposal. It is not the best and most versatile land that feeds us. For solar, 58% is plenty to go at; it is about 12 times the size of Norfolk or over two and a half times the size of Wales.

Last time, the Minister rejected my proposal on the basis that there really was nothing to worry about. It was not expected, he said, that any more than 1% of the land—much less than is currently devoted to golf courses, apparently—would ever be submitted for renewables and that this really was not something that GB Energy should be concerned about, and certainly not him. On another occasion, the Defra Minister told your Lordships’ House that grade 1 and 2 land would not be part of the large-scale solar scene—move along, nothing to see here—and that, in any event, this was not the place to debate these matters.

They might not be worried but I am, because the Government have lost control of the numbers on solar. Let us examine those numbers. In Lincolnshire, a county that does more than any other to put bread on our table, already 2% of the land is under threat. Worse, thanks to my noble friend Lord Frost, who is not in his place, we learned that the majority of the Heckingham proposal is predominantly for the best grade 1 land under the rules laid down 60 years ago.

In response to a Written Question last November, the Government told me that only two farms, amounting to 1,400 hectares, were being assessed under the NSIP regime. There are five such schemes in the county of Norfolk, where I live, comprising over 7,500 hectares. We were told from the Dispatch Box that there would be no grade 1 or 2 land included in the Sunnica proposal, but there was.

Warm words and soft soap have been spoken around the Government’s proposals for a land use framework. That is something that should be welcomed, but they are only proposals, they are subject to consultation, and, in any event, they would be advisory and not statutory, and so not something that you could hang your hat on. Nevertheless, we now learn that this framework contemplates that fully 9%—not the 1% we were assured—of our farmland will be subsumed under non-agricultural uses to meet our renewable energy and other environmental objectives.

On so many levels, the Government’s rhetoric is at odds with the reality. They have lost control of the numbers and in so doing are imperilling our food security, which is national security.

Given that the Government’s promised indications have unwound so quickly—rather like a summer shower evaporates on a hot solar panel—I do not consider that the Minister has earned the benefit of the doubt on this matter. For this Bill is before us now, this evening—or should I say this morning? It is in the here and now, so this is the moment to ensure that Ministers are required to give direction to GB Energy to take sufficient and proportionate account of our food security alongside energy security.

I will not dwell quite so deeply as I did before on the reasons why we should be concerned about the impact of the uncontrolled growth of solar panels on our food supply. Suffice to say that on the economics, a farmer would do well to earn £200 an acre from the fruits of his labour, having invested millions in plant and equipment, and taking his chances with the risks of weather and the market. By contrast, solar developers are offering him the chance to sit on the beach with an index-linked £900 per acre or more for the next 40 years. The incentive there is to go way beyond the 1% and put our nation’s food security at risk. It is our responsibility to contain and to prevent the uncontrollable contagion—in fact, a stampede for solar on the best and most versatile land, leaving us vulnerable and ever more susceptible to the supply shocks and inflation on the food goods that every person must buy every day.

I am grateful to the Minister for facilitating a meeting with the new chairman of Great British Energy. At that meeting, Herr Maier conceded that his company would be a private company but one that would need to act in the public interest. That was reassuring, although I was struck by how it seemed to be news to him that saving customers £300 a year was within his remit. However, now that this important public principle has been accepted, I really do not see the prejudice in enshrining those public benefits in statute to direct the Secretary of State to balance food security alongside energy security, to avoid the risk that a private company established under the Companies Act 2006, with statutory duties to promote its own self-interest, will not get carried away on a frolic of its own in pursuing its own energy-related objectives while blind to the wider impact.

That is why I have presented this amendment in the way that I have. Amendment 50 is significantly less restrictive than the one I previously suggested. It follows the pattern in principle of government Amendment 38, but it is related to ensuring that solar farms and energy security versus food security are correctly balanced—in fact, the appropriate balance with the Secretary of State’s directions to GB Energy to balance between energy and food security and the public and private interests.

I do not want anybody to misrepresent what this amendment is demanding. It is not a ban on solar; well over 50% of the land would still be available for it. It is not restricting renewable energy on our best land. I am not saying that GB Energy should not invest in solar in any way, shape or form; I am saying that the best land should be reserved for food production, and the less good can be preserved for other purposes. It is in the national interest that it is done this way.

The Minister has said that he has sympathy with my arguments but that this is not the device or place to make these points. However, I fundamentally disagree. As a private company with £8.3 billion burning a hole in its pocket, you would expect GB Energy to set the tone, to provide expectations and to be the physical expression of what the Government expect, so this is exactly the right place and moment to shape our nation’s future energy supplies. If we do not do it here and now, where will it be done, and when, or are we just prepared to risk further legislation to rein in GB Energy later, as we have needed to do this evening with the water Bill that flows through this House?

I am very interested to hear what other noble Lords may have to say on this matter. It is a serious one, and there is nothing more serious than ensuring that our nation is fed. I hope that the noble Lord, even at this late stage, will concede, as he has done on the similarly worded Amendment 38, that this is a reasonable, sensible and proportionate way of ensuring that GB Energy does not get carried away on solar. If he does not, I regret to say that, even at this late hour, I am prepared and minded to test the opinion of the House.

00:15

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak in support of my noble friend Lord Fuller’s amendment. In tabling it, he raises a matter of utmost importance: our nation’s food security and the agriculture industry, which has been subjected to punitive tax measures by the Government.

This debate is not about whether we should install renewable energy technologies; it is about where we should develop renewable energy. At best, we can hope that, indirectly, GB Energy will help to power and heat British homes in a bid to achieve clean power by 2030. However, it is imperative that the Government’s race to renewables does not come at the expense of British agriculture and food production. It should be known that, when land is used for solar farms, it does not see agricultural use for decades. We must look to protect the most versatile and fruitful land to feed the nation. This is not to say that there will not be land that can be used for renewable energy production. Ultimately, we cannot find ourselves in a position where we have warm homes but no food on our plates. Our energy security trumps food security.

My noble friend raised his concerns in Committee but, regretfully, the Minister’s response was rather unsatisfactory. It is essential that the protection of agricultural land for renewable energy development is embedded in law. With that in mind, I urge all noble Lords to support my noble friend. The amendment in his name presents us and the Government with an opportunity to take decisive action to reserve agricultural land for food production. I will support my noble friend Lord Fuller if he wishes to test the opinion of the House.

[Lord Cryer (Lab)]

My Lords, I turn to Amendments 50 and 52 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, and spoken to in his prose poem of a speech. The importance of maintaining our natural resources to support UK agriculture and of supporting local stakeholder consultation in affairs that affect their surroundings and quality of environment are values that we share with the noble Lord. However, for the reasons that I will now set out, I must resist these amendments.

Great British Energy will be subject to the same rigorous planning processes that currently exist to protect agricultural land and minimise the effects on food security. The National Planning Policy Framework includes the preservation of agricultural land for food production as a key consideration in its legal framework governing renewable energy products. It emphasises the need to protect the best and most versatile agricultural land—namely, as the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, said, grades 1, 2 and 3A.

More broadly, looking beyond these specific amendments, the Government recognise that food security is national security—again, as the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, said. The Government do not believe that the accelerated rollout of solar generation poses a threat to food security; I will come on to that in a minute. The total area used by solar farms is very small: even in the most ambitious scenarios, less than 1% of the UK’s agricultural land would be occupied by solar farms. Furthermore, solar generation can be co-located with agriculture, and many projects are designed to enable continued livestock grazing alongside energy generation. Innovation may also reduce the impact of solar farms on agriculture. The emerging science of agrivoltaics is developing innovative ways in which solar can be integrated with arable farming

On statistics, it has often been argued that the land use framework says that 9% of land will be used for energy development. The noble Lord, Lord Fuller, mentioned the 9% figure; although he did not actually say that that would cover energy generation entirely, it was implied. This is not actually correct. The 9% figure covers agricultural land that would be used for the creation and restoration of habitats—I emphasise “restoration of habitats”—such as woodland, heathland, grassland and peatland. It does not cover generation alone. Defra will publish in the near future a land use consultation as an important first step in starting a national conversation on land use. There is also evidence that solar can improve biodiversity in certain areas and under certain circumstances when it is installed on agricultural land.

For these reasons, I hope that the noble Lord is assured that Great British Energy will always consider the effects on our agricultural land as a necessary element of its regulatory approvals and will, therefore, withdraw his amendment—although I am not holding my breath.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, I listened carefully to what the Minister said. I will not respond in detail and this is not the place, save to say that you do not have to be an expert or a regular listener to “Gardeners’ Question Time” to know that not much grows in the shade. The suggestion that agrivoltaics on arable land might be some sort of amelioration is for the birds.

I am itching to withdraw this amendment, but the Minister and I are so far apart. He says “less than 1%”. The land use framework contemplates more than 9% being taken out of production. There is an appropriate tension to be drawn between food security and energy security. I am afraid that I have not received the assurances that I require. Therefore, I beg leave to test the opinion of the House.

00:20

Division 10

Ayes: 67

Noes: 115

00:30

Amendment 51

Tabled by

[Lord Fuller]

51: After Clause 7, insert the following new Clause—
“Offshore energy(1) The Secretary of State must assess the impact of offshore energy installation and generation which occur under Great British Energy’s functions on—(a) the environment, and(b) animal welfare.(2) If the assessment under subsection (1) determines that the relevant offshore energy installation and generation is causing—(a) environmental damage, or(b) significant animal welfare issues,Great British Energy must cease facilitating, encouraging or participating in the relevant activity.(3) For the purposes of this section “offshore energy installation” means any installation that is offshore for the purposes of energy generation, including wind, tidal and wave energy installations.”Member's explanatory statement
This would require the Secretary of State to assess the impact on the environment and animal welfare of the installation and generation of offshore energy technologies and its associated cabling.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, I am disappointed that the Minister did not adequately engage on the issues that I raised. For example, he mentioned biodiversity as being a matter, but that is not included at all, in any way, shape or form, in the Amendment 38 that he moved. I just think there is an insufficient balance between carbon and those other matters on sustainability.

It looks like we may have lost the battle this evening, but make no mistake: Labour’s war on the countryside continues. In the circumstances, I will not press this to the vote, and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment with disappointment.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)]

The noble Lord should not have spoken to the amendment if he intended not to move it, but we will take that as not moved.

Amendment 51 not moved.

Amendments 52 and 53 not moved.

Clause 8: Extent, commencement and short title

Amendment 54

Moved by

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom]

54: Clause 8, page 4, line 15, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
(2) This section comes into force on the day on which this Act is passed.(2A) Other sections in this Act come into force on the day the Secretary of State publishes an assessment on the expected impact of this Act on the number of jobs in Aberdeen.”

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, the reason why I am degrouping this amendment, and indeed Amendment 55, is because there have been developments that affect both these amendments.

Amendment 54 asks the Government to publish an assessment of the expected impact of the Bill on the number of jobs in Aberdeen. Since tabling the amendment, we have had a very remarkable interview with the new chairman of Great British Energy, who goes by the name of Jürgen Maier. For some reason, he did not seem even to know that the Government were committed to lowering people’s energy bills by £300. When he was asked about this, he just sort of waved the whole thing away. He also was asked about the number of jobs that were going to be brought to Aberdeen, and he said 300, which I think is a sort of top whack for the number of people he is going to employ in Great British Energy in Aberdeen. I think there was some hope that there would be rather more jobs than that in Aberdeen, but he did not seem to think that that was very important at all and, indeed, was something that stretched out to the next 10 or 20 years. He did not seem to want to be committed to any of this at all.

I think the Government have a slight problem if that is going to be the spokesman for renewable energy via Great British Energy, and I am not absolutely certain that they have the right man for the job. It seems to me important that you have somebody who stands up for the whole business of renewable energy and the ambitions—indeed, some of the things we voted on this evening—and objectives of Great British Energy. I think he should have a rather clearer idea of what he is trying to do because, if he does not, he will do nothing but bring embarrassment to the Government and everybody who believes in renewable energy.

The other thing, of course, that we must look for when it comes to jobs in Aberdeen is the renewal of the licences for the Jackdaw and Rosebank fields. I gather the Government are looking at this quite closely. It does seem to me to be absolute madness—which can only really be entertained by the Energy Secretary, Mr Ed Miliband—that, at the end of the day, we envisage a future where, inevitably, we are going to need oil and, for some extraordinary reason, that oil cannot come from our oil fields; the oil and gas will have to be imported from other countries, with, of course, a greater carbon footprint than there would otherwise be. That does not seem to be anything other than complete insanity.

I think the world is coming to realise that, although there have been these very ambitious goals of reaching net zero, the fact is that we are going to need fossil fuels for much longer than most people think. If that is the case, we might as well use our own sources of oil and gas and employ our own people, rather than employ Americans and people in the Gulf and import it from there. As I say, there will be a larger footprint if the whole thing is imported into this country from abroad.

So it strikes me that we have our priorities very seriously mixed up on this, and the Government will have to change their attitude on all of this, because otherwise we are going to make ourselves look absolutely ridiculous and do nothing to lower global emissions, which is the objective we are all trying to get.

My Amendment 55 deals with the viability of the Government reaching their net zero target. This, for me, has been very much affected by the breakfast I had this morning with people at JCB, who are very keen that we move to a much greater production of liquid hydrogen, because they believe that that is the one fuel that can actually drive heavy vehicles such as theirs, and that that fuel has a great future there. The good news about liquid hydrogen is that they think it could be very effectively used not only in heavy vehicles such as lorries and so forth but also in trains. They were not so happy that this was an answer for aviation—but aviation is a big and growing business, as the Government recognise, with their dedication to building a fourth runway at Heathrow. Obviously, aviation is going to be a growth business as more people fly around the world, and if we are not going to have a constant source of CO₂ emissions from that, we have to move to a better fuel.

So there are many reasons why hydrogen ticks many boxes, but the problem about it is that it is not actually a silver bullet but a golden bullet. It is extremely expensive to produce and uses very large amounts of electricity. So I hope that what we will be looking at is using small modular reactors dedicated to actually producing hydrogen. Perhaps—and I am not saying this will happen—this will be able to bring the price down to a level that is bearable and something we can live with, because, if we could get the price of liquid hydrogen down, it would make a massive difference to the ability to run heavy vehicles and aircraft and other forms of transport without polluting the atmosphere and increasing the CO₂ footprint, which is one of the problems that we have today. I look forward to what the Minister has to say about both my amendments and I beg to move.

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak briefly in support of my noble friend Lord Hamilton of Epsom’s Amendments 54 and 55. My noble friend referenced an interview given on 3 February 2025, in which the chair of Great British Energy, Jürgen Maier, admitted that only 200 to 300 jobs would be created in Aberdeen by Great British Energy and it could take up to 20 years for the 1,000 promised jobs to materialise. Yet in January, the Energy Minister, the Member for Rutherglen in the other place, confirmed that the Government’s plan for Great British Energy to create 1,000 jobs in Aberdeen “has not changed”. It seems that we are told one thing by Ministers and another by Great British Energy’s chair.

It seems that the Government have given Great British Energy the responsibility for delivering on their commitments, but Great British Energy does not agree that Ministers’ ambitions are its responsibility. While Ministers and Great British Energy executives can disagree, the British people will be left without the tangible benefits they were promised. It strikes me that this should be of great concern to Ministers, who will be ultimately accountable for Great British Energy’s failure to deliver on the promises they themselves made.

Turning to Amendment 55 in the name of my noble friend Lord Hamilton, I supported his decision to probe the costs and viability of the Government’s net-zero targets. We have already had discussions around this question, most notably when we discussed pylons in an earlier group. We agree that the Government’s net-zero targets are driven by ideology and need to be reviewed to ensure that they are practically and affordably achievable. I hope that the Minister will look kindly on my noble friend’s amendment in his reply.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I always look kindly on the contributions made by the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, and enjoy debating these with him. However, sadly, I am not going to respond sympathetically to either of his amendments, perhaps to his disappointment and surprise.

The amendments would delay the designation of Great British Energy under Clause 1 and the ability of the Secretary of State to provide financial assistance under Clause 4. I must object to that. It is essential that Great British Energy starts its operations as soon as possible.

On Amendment 54, I will just say this: anyone who has met Juergen Maier will have been impressed with the quality and energy, and breadth of knowledge, experience and wisdom, that he brings to the job. He certainly has the backing of His Majesty’s Government.

We need to put to rest this nonsense around Aberdeen. I have stated very clearly already this evening that we expect Great British Energy to employ 200 to 300 people, initially at its Aberdeen headquarters. The substantial issue is that GBE’s activities will create and support thousands of jobs across the country.

As far as the continental shelf is concerned, I readily acknowledge the great contribution that it has made to the United Kingdom and the work of the skilled people who work in the North Sea. However, it is a declining asset. We have said that it will continue to play an important role in the future, but the future of energy in this country is to move to clean power as soon as we possibly can. We want to see continued extraction from the North Sea while that is necessary. We want to ensure a just transition for people working in the industry to other sectors, because they have a huge contribution to make.

In respect of the 200 or 300 people, the fact is that we are talking about this Parliament. As the years go by, there will be more jobs in Aberdeen and the GBE contribution will be enhanced.

I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, will recognise that the Government are fully on top of these issues, and that we have a consistent, coherent policy to lead us to energy security, and will not press his amendment.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I am extremely worried if the Government do not recognise that there are certain liabilities that seem to be carried by Mr Jürgen Maier. I do not think he is going to be an adequate spokesman for GB Energy, or indeed for alternative energy. His interview, with a very mild and pretty passive Scottish journalist, was a complete car crash.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, this is not the appropriate place to criticise a man of his stature and of the seniority which he brings. Noble Lords have had an opportunity to meet him, and they were generally impressed by the approach that he took. I would like to leave this morning’s debate with a sense that the House recognises that we have made a really good appointment. I express my full confidence in him.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

I have no doubt that Mr Jürgen Maier will be very grateful for the confidence of the Minister, but I do not think that it is necessarily shared that widely. I would like to test the opinion of the House.

00:44

Division 11

Ayes: 31

Noes: 110

00:54

Amendments 55 to 57 not moved.

House adjourned at 12.54 am.