National Policy Statement for Nuclear Energy Generation

Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist Excerpts

Wednesday 21st May 2025 Grand Committee

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

My Lords, noble Lords will know that I always welcome every opportunity to talk about nuclear power in all its forms. I echo the appreciation by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, of the Minister’s support for the nuclear industry. Of course, I endorse all the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, about the obvious opportunities for nuclear power generation in Wylfa and Trawsfynydd in north-west Wales. I hope that this Government will work closely with their colleagues in Cardiff Bay to bring these projects about as speedily as possible.

It has also been good to welcome a new voice on these Benches. My noble friend Lady Maclean of Redditch will certainly prove to be an enthusiastic Member of the House, as evidenced by her barnstorming maiden speech.

The importance of nuclear energy in securing the UK’s future cannot be overstated. It is essential for energy independence, affordability and achieving our climate goals. We must adopt a diverse and balanced energy mix, one that is secure, sustainable and capable of providing affordable, reliable power for generations to come. In this mix, nuclear power plays an indispensable role. It is clean, reliable and can provide the baseload power necessary to complement intermittent renewables such as wind and solar.

The updated national policy statement, EN-7, represents a welcome and crucial step forward in the UK’s energy strategy. It is vital that the future of the UK’s energy generation is guided by a long-term vision grounded in a pragmatic understanding of what the future requires. Nuclear energy is central to that vision.

Of course, we must be mindful that innovation in nuclear technology comes with challenges. The development of SMRs and AMRs requires significant investment, careful regulation and rigorous safety standards. To an extent, the statement acknowledges some of these concerns and I welcome the Government’s commitment to ensuring the highest safety standards. Nuclear power has long been one of the safest and most secure energy sources available, and it will continue to be so with the right regulatory framework in place.

Here I stress that it would be enormously helpful if regulation between the international regulatory authorities could be aligned, as the Minister suggested it might be, thereby cutting down the expensive and time-consuming duplication of processes.

Energy security is one of the most pressing challenges of our time and nuclear energy will play a pivotal role in tackling this reality. The geopolitics of 2025 mean that energy is no longer just an industrial policy but at the very heart of national defence. The UK now imports 70% of its gas, largely from Norway and the USA. Additionally, 20% of peak UK gas comes through the pipeline between Norway and the UK.

Despite this, to achieve the Government’s clean power 2030 target, we are shutting down our domestic production of oil and gas, which supports an entire sector of jobs, brings tax revenue to the Exchequer and encompasses part of that 72% of hydrocarbons which we still rely on and will continue to rely on through the necessary transition period. It is particularly concerning that industry bodies, particularly Energy UK, have questioned whether the Government’s focus on clean power by 2030 could actually divert resources away from nuclear projects in the short term.

The UK completely removed all coal-fired power in 2024. It was largely replaced by both gas and naturally unreliable renewables. Relying on any one technology makes an electricity grid less resilient. However, nuclear power is zero carbon and will be integral in stabilising the grid when so much electricity comes from intermittent renewables. Even the former Prime Minister Tony Blair has argued that:

“Nuclear power is going to be an essential part of the answer”


to net zero. Writing in the foreword of a report by his think tank, the Tony Blair Institute, he rightly acknowledges that small modular nuclear reactors, nuclear fusion and other advanced technologies can help lower the emissions of the electricity sector.

So we welcome the updated EN-7, which emphasises the development of SMRs and AMRs alongside traditional gigawatt-scale nuclear plants. SMRs, in particular, offer significant benefits such as smaller footprints, lower costs and faster construction, making nuclear power viable in areas where large-scale plants are impractical. As the Minister stated, AMR technologies offer the potential to co-locate safely alongside data centres and heavy industrial users of power, such as the Port Talbot steelworks, providing dedicated power outside the grid.

We can also look towards nuclear power’s capabilities in meeting the UK’s ambitious sustainable aviation fuel mandate. This requires 22% of sustainable aviation fuel use in total jet fuel demand by 2040. This must not be overlooked: unlike intermittent renewable sources, nuclear power provides the steady, reliable energy supply demanded by large-scale SAF production. I hope the Minister recognises that significant investment is required to ensure the scalability and sustainability of nuclear energy in this sector.

By supporting nuclear innovation, we can position the UK as a global hub for nuclear expertise and technology, attracting investment from around the world. This is not merely about energy; it is about securing the UK’s future growth and prosperity. It is about ensuring that Britain remains a leader in high-tech industries, while creating jobs and fostering growth in communities across the nation—particularly those left-behind communities in the Midlands, Wales and the north-east. A strong, homegrown nuclear sector is central to achieving this.

We must also acknowledge the UK’s role as a global leader in nuclear innovation. Many of these advanced reactor designs are being developed right here in Britain. With the support of EN-7, we can strengthen the UK’s nuclear sector, positioning the country as a world leader in nuclear energy, but may I first make a few suggestions to the Government?

NESO needs to prioritise the siting work for advanced nuclear technologies. Sites identified as having potential must be reserved as strategic national assets now. Many of these could be currently designated as brownfield, such as those being identified in the Midlands near water and transmission lines; they must not be covered over by houses or solar farms for short-term gain.

The Government need to share the heavy lifting on the production of the appraisal of sustainability. Having to evaluate all possible alternative sites and flood protection for the entire life of the project is an onerous burden for developers, as highlighted by my noble friend Lady Coffey. The Minister will know that I have concerns about the method of gaining community support. While this is important in general terms, as the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, outlined, endless contact between developers and communities with potential sites could become counterproductive—unless they are in Wylfa or Trawsfynydd, perhaps. Lastly, the Government should ensure that the Committee for Climate Change has a nuclear advocate—it has long been missing from its mix.

To conclude, the updated EN-7 represents a positive step towards a cleaner, more secure and more prosperous energy future for the UK. By embracing nuclear energy, we can achieve energy independence, stabilise our grid, reduce emissions and create economic opportunities across the country. Finally, I very much look forward to the end of spring—in six weeks’ time—as, I am sure, does the Minister.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, is very experienced and knows that departmental spring is not entirely consistent with meteorological science. I very much take the point, however, that we all want to see a final investment decision on Sizewell C—except the noble Lord, Lord Howell—and great progress on the SMR programme.

This has been a really interesting debate, and I just make it clear that the contributions that noble Lords have made today will be fed into the consideration of our final version of EN-7. In a sense, the debate does not finish here; we will make sure that the contributions are considered very carefully by officials before we receive final advice on the contents.

I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Maclean, on a very lively, excellent maiden speech. We look forward to her future contributions. She will discover that the West Midlands is not overrepresented in your Lordships’ House, so it is very good to see her here. I did not know about Redditch tights—I now know—but I do know about the potential of Redditch. I also share her view about the need to encourage the aspirations of young people in Redditch, and I know about the work being done on the educational system there to try to improve aspirations, including through access to higher and further education.

This debate has been very encouraging. When I last had this job in 2008 to 2010, there was much more of a mixed view, inside and outside Parliament, about the role of nuclear. There has been a huge change in attitudes and in support for nuclear. We know that from the regular polling that my department has done on public attitude following Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. Among experts and political parties, there is generally now a baseload of support for nuclear, which is really encouraging. Given the long lead times of investment decisions and build for nuclear, having stability for the companies that wish to take this forward is absolutely crucial, as it is in terms of building a UK supply chain. This kind of debate is therefore very encouraging in that respect.

I know that the noble Lord, Lord Howell, was disappointed with EN-7. On future demand, there is clearly a range of estimates for what we need based on assumptions including the extent of electrification, the role of hydrogen and the growth of artificial intelligence. I assure him that we are not wedded to a single estimate, but we clearly have to flex the supply of electricity generation according to how we go forward in relation to the future.

On EN-7 and his argument that it insufficiently mentions SMRs, we believe that EN-7 caters to SMRs throughout. We do not refer to broad categories such as SMRs as planning decisions will reflect the facts of each set of plans rather than what they are called. The different characteristics of SMRs are addressed, particularly when it refers to phased development and cooling, where we recognise that different stations may be cooled in completely different ways.

The noble Lord, Lord Howell, made a number of remarks about Sizewell C that I do not think other noble Lords agree with. I know that he thinks that the replication of Sizewell C in relation to Hinkley Point will not lead to improvements in productivity, but I point him to the improvement in productivity between unit one of Hinkley Point C and unit two. To be fair, we know that Hinkley Point C has had many challenges, and clearly we are all anxious to see further progress made, but it has made progress. There is no doubt that it has learned about how to build on a huge site using the modular approach in many ways. I am convinced that Sizewell C will benefit hugely from it. Pulling the plug on Sizewell C and saying that we will put all our eggs in the SMR basket would be greeted with consternation within the industry. That is not the way to go forward.

I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, about the RAB model. That was an important consideration. I was interested in what she had to say about the coalition agreement in 2010, and I still remember the decision made to withdraw support from Sheffield Forgemasters in 2010, which I think was a big mistake. I pay tribute to Sheffield Forgemasters, the work it is now doing and its potential.

On the financing of SMRs, there are plenty of companies which are knocking on our doors saying, “Just give us the green light. We can develop all this. We do not need any public money”. Allow me to be a little sceptical, particularly when it comes to first-of-a-kind development. Coming back to the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Maclean, about the share of GDP spent on public finances, et cetera, nuclear is one of those areas where you need public and private partnership. Of course we will develop our policies over the next few months, in particular in relation to advanced modular reactors, and look at the best way we can encourage private finance, because clearly we need the private sector to finance the development of AMRs in future. However, at the moment, and we have seen this with Sizewell C, public finance will be involved with the development of SMRs. Public finance is involved.

Clearly noble Lords are impatient for us to get to the end of the current programmes. We have basically inherited GBN’s assessment of SMRs. We cannot intervene now. It is working as hard as it possibly can to get decisions to government very quickly. Of course it is then tied into the spending review process, as it has to be, but the spending review outcomes are going to be known within a very short space of time. I do not accept that we are at risk of falling behind. I know from various discussions that I have had with other countries that there is huge interest in the GBN process. I hope that at the end of the process we will have a decision that will enable us to go forward with confidence and with the huge opportunity of developing a UK supply chain.

On the various contributions of the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, I first thank him for all the work he has done in the Midlands, showing the potential that we have in the Midlands, both east and west. He and his colleagues, uniquely, have brought the east Midlands and the West Midlands together, which as he and anyone living in the Midlands will know, is one of the greatest challenges known to men and women. Even though Brum is only a few miles away from Derby and Leicester, pulling them together is hard. He and his colleagues have done that and my department is very interested in the work that he is doing. I have already met him and I hope that he will carry on this work. It is worth saying that we already have huge assets. For instance, at the grid in Warwick, we have great skills and I am sure that we will contribute more in the future. That is probably not a departmental view, but noble Lords will know where I stand on these matters.

On community support, I very much take the point. It is an unknown quantity at the moment. With the existing sites that are listed in EN-6, we know that there was broad support in the local community for the development of new nuclear. We do not really know what the appetite will be in those areas that are new to nuclear. I take the point about the need for communications—mainly by the developers but I accept that the Government have a role. I should say that today we published our Community Benefits and Shared Ownership for Low Carbon Energy Infrastructure working paper for consultation, which may be helpful in encouraging communities to host infrastructure, receiving high-quality benefits in a consistent manner by building on existing voluntary approaches to community benefits.

On the noble Earl’s point about the Strategic Spatial Energy Plan, this will not be limited by EN-6 but will be consistent with it, as it obviously should be in EN-7. He asked about the threshold of 50 megawatts in England and 350 megawatts in Wales. This applies to planning applications, so it would naturally incorporate entire projects and entire sites. We think it unlikely that a developer would split a complex nuclear project into multiple planning applications to try to game the system. If they did, we could call in the applications and treat them as nationally significant infrastructure projects. I think that, given the scale of investment that is concerned, that is very unlikely.

I turn to the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, I take her point on population density. We had a lot of discussions about that before we published EN-7 and we are continuing to look at it in the EN-7 consultation. Any change we make has got to be broad-based and based on strong evidence. There is obviously a balance between safety, certainty of industry and public confidence. We are still considering this point. We are of course reviewing the national policy statement at least every five years and the review will give us an opportunity to revisit this as evidence develops and we gain experience of community attitudes in, say, urban populations, which we do not really know at the moment.

A very important point was made about water. EN-1 requires applicants to consider water quality and resources in detail, covering both construction and operation. Obviously, they need to engage early with the Environment Agency and water companies, but it is a substantive point. Of course, we have the more general issue of the need to build reservoirs, and I am well aware of some the discussions taking place about this at the moment.

My judgment on Sellafield, having revisited it after a gap of 14 years, is that it has made considerable progress. There is a long way to go, but I pay tribute to the work that is being done, the current leadership at Sellafield and the good relationships it has with the workforce. My judgment is that we need to see Sellafield as part of the future rather than just a legacy of the past. The skills developed at Sellafield—and, generally, in nuclear decommissioning—contribute to the industry as a whole. Confidence in the future and new nuclear depends on our being seen to deal with waste and decommissioning as effectively as possible.

We did not know that the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, was such an expert and had such experience. His constructive approach to new nuclear in north Wales is very much appreciated. He has made the point to me, and I very much accept it. He will know that Wylfa offers many attributes; that is why it is listed in EN-6. I also understand the issue about Trawsfynydd and isotope production. Isotopes are a matter for my colleagues in the Department of Health, and I encourage the noble Lord to talk to them about that.

I visited Wylfa in 2009 and met many people in the workforce there. At that point, they were very keen to see nuclear development continue. It is a matter of great regret that the Horizon project fell apart, but we certainly consider Wylfa to be a site that offers many attributes.

On the issue of the sites listed in EN-6 that missed out, we are saying, in essence, that we have those sites and they continue to have much to offer, but we want a more flexible siting to allow more areas to come in. Before this was published, I was very keen not to suggest that, suddenly, the sites we listed in EN-6 were being overlooked, because they are not. Clearly, they offer many advantages.

My noble friend Lord Browne made a number of important contributions. On Scotland, it is interesting that, between 2004 and 2021, nuclear energy accounted for 25% to 43% of annual electricity generation. Scotland has this hugely rich heritage, and it is a tragedy that, at the moment, we cannot see new nuclear developments in that country. Let us hope that we see a change.

My noble friend’s remarks on the COP declaration on nuclear energy—on the risk of proliferation and the security issues that arise—were very important. The COP declaration itself and the addition of a number of countries—which, as he mentioned, was announced in the previous COP—are to be encouraged.

We are strong supporters of the International Atomic Energy Agency, which has such a vital role to play on nuclear deproliferation. Its work in Ukraine over the past year or two has been amazing and the people involved in that deserve great credit. The UK is one of its strongest supporters and is acknowledged as such. I have had a series of meetings with the agency to talk about these matters.

I totally agree with my noble friend about the UK’s potential with the SMR programme globally. I know that we need to make progress quickly, but we have not missed, and will not miss, the boat. We have a great opportunity.

I very much take the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, about the energy needs of AI, which will make huge electricity demands but can make great contributions to improving our energy efficiency and the efficiency of the whole energy sector. We want AI to be linked to decarbonised energy. That is what is so exciting about what is happening in the US and the support that companies such as Amazon are giving to AI centres linked to nuclear power stations. We are looking at that carefully. Over the next few months, we want to work to ensure we have policies that make it as easy as possible for these to be developed using funding from private finance. The noble Earl asked me a question about one or two SMRs. He does not really expect me to be in a position to answer that. We will just have to be patient at this point.

Geological disposal is important, of course. EN-7 makes a number of points about waste, its importance and how it needs to be factored into the developers’ considerations and applications. I cannot give timelines on geological disposal. The noble Earl will understand that the Lincolnshire position is difficult at the moment, and we are not absolutely certain about where we are going with that. Clearly, the long-term future in relation to waste is geological disposal, but interim storage is of the highest quality and can assure safety. It fits into the general position. I cannot comment on the CNC role and security issues. All I will say is that security at our existing sites and new sites is crucial.

I fear I am going over my time, but I must refer to the important contribution by the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield. We are totally agreed on the importance of nuclear energy and safety standards. Let me reassure her that our review of the regulatory system will not put safety at risk. I will make just one point about international collaboration. Surely we can do more to share knowledge and information. If in the US, for instance, a technology has been given approval, there must be ways in which we can have reciprocity. I am convinced of that. In relation to the collaboration between regulators, we need to do much more. A comment was made earlier about the roles of Natural England and the Environment Agency. We have to ensure that these regulators work together and in a timely way.

Perhaps I can pass on oil and gas, as we have debated that many times, but nuclear innovation is very important. The Prime Minister’s visit to the UK National Nuclear Laboratory in Springfields only a couple of months ago was a signal of the Prime Minister’s support for nuclear and our innovation.

I am sorry that I have taken so long, but this has been a really interesting debate. The contributions of noble Lords have been very helpful. They will be carefully considered by my officials before advice is given to Ministers.

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

I apologise to the Committee. I should have started my speech by drawing attention to my registered interests. I still have a small legacy involvement with a Canadian nuclear company.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness.

Energy Grid Resilience

Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist Excerpts

Tuesday 6th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, Mighty Oak was a successful programme to test plans for full electricity restoration in the event of a national power outage. It was very successful and generated a number of learning points, and we now have a strong governance framework for oversight of the implementation of those recommendations. That work will also feed into the resilience review that my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster announced in July 2024.

I assure my noble friend that there is absolutely no complacency whatever, and nor is there any in relation to the energy security system and cybersecurity threats he referred to. It is certainly a key priority for the Government. We work closely with the National Protective Security Authority and the National Cyber Security Centre and we are certainly not complacent on this.

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

My Lords, I can reassure the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that I do not wish to denigrate the contribution of renewables but, with the increasing electrification of heating and transport, can the Minister explain how the grid can remain resilient without more reliable baseload power, such as that provided by nuclear?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness that the baseload that nuclear provides is very important indeed. She knows that we are rapidly approaching the final investment decision on Sizewell C, and the conclusion of the current work of Great British Nuclear in relation to small modular reactors. We are very keen to see the contribution of nuclear recognised. I agree with her that it provides an essential baseload to the system.

Wales: Nuclear Power Generation

Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist Excerpts

Tuesday 29th April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I agree with the last statement by the noble Lord, but I do not agree with what he said. The Government are very focused on development of new nuclear. He knows that, in relation to small modular reactors, we have a process by Great British Nuclear, which is going through a detailed series of negotiations, with final decisions to be made over the next few weeks. We were bequeathed that process by the Government that the noble Lord supported. His party did not open a single nuclear power station. I can tell him that, as far as SMRs are concerned, I have been to many fora discussing this with companies. They are clearly awaiting the outcome of the GBN process, and we will make progress following that.

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome the Question from the noble Lord, Lord Jones of Penybont. The Minister needs absolutely no reminder from me of how important Wylfa is to the people and economy of north Wales, but, since the Government’s own calculations say that the delay is costing £90 million a year in lost revenues and lost opportunities in the supply chain and others, can he tell me what steps the Government are taking to prevent further delays at Wylfa?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I think I have said that we will set out our future ambition for plans in due course. We have focused very much on getting Sizewell C over the line, and we hope a final investment decision will be made over the next few weeks. We have the SMR programme, we are very keen to see the development of AMRs as well, and we will set out our ambitions in due course. But there is no question about our commitment to taking this forward; we took the decision in 2007 to go back to nuclear. What is so disappointing is that the last Government had 14—it is all very well for noble Lords to shake their heads, complaining about what I am saying. They do not want to hear the facts. They had 14 years to sort this out, and they did not.

Ecodesign for Energy-Related Products and Energy Information (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2025

Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist Excerpts

Wednesday 26th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for introducing this SI. I will concentrate most of my remarks on the details of the SI before us rather than the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey.

Before I do that, I turn to the reasons for the regret amendment. Once again, the strength of feeling on these matters is clear to see, as shown by the speakers on various sides of the House. We on these Benches supported the Windsor Framework as a means of moving on from the stalemate following Brexit, but it is far from perfect and there clearly remain real and legitimate concerns about the lack of parliamentary oversight on these matters and the impact that Brexit itself and the Windsor Framework are having on businesses in Northern Ireland.

It is strange that the Government chose not to consult Northern Ireland on this SI. Given its political sensitivity, it would surely always be better to have consulted. I note that there is no legal duty to hold the consultation as the instrument does not make any substantial changes, but I view consultation with Northern Irish authorities as a different class of consultation and more a matter of common courtesy.

I note that the full impact assessment has not been produced. The Explanatory Memorandum says that the changes brought in

“are expected to have no significant direct or no significant indirect, impact on business, charities or voluntary bodies”.

As part of the reset in our relationship with the EU, I hope the Government will review the oversight mechanisms for how they consult the relevant sectors in Northern Ireland. I would welcome a response from the Minister on this point.

I turn to the tabling of the amendment. I must say, although it is absolutely the noble Baroness’s right to table her amendment, that it is hard to see, in my mind at least, that this SI justifies it. Everything that she may wish to say in the main Chamber could have been spoken just as clearly in the Prince’s Chamber at a more convenient time for everyone involved.

The SI itself will ensure that the latest EU rules on product-specific ecodesign and energy labelling automatically apply to Northern Ireland and can be enforced there, as required by the Windsor Framework. The new rules are updating previous Northern Ireland regulations from 2010 and 2011. The new regulations seek to ensure that household and some office items, such as tumble dryers, have a standby mode, and that for other items, such as mobile phones or tablet computers, consumers can acquire some spare parts.

The Government rightly argue that these regulations will bring benefits to Northern Ireland’s residents as they will save money on reduced electricity usage and be able to repair mobile devices if they break, saving the need to buy again from new. If the Department for Energy and Net Zero thinks that these regulations are good for energy efficiency for the people of Northern Ireland, while I welcome the fact that the Minister wants to bring the regulations to the whole of the UK, why can that not happen until March 2026? Is it possible to bring that forward? Clearly, if we could align these regulations across the whole of the UK and get these benefits for everybody, to my mind at least, that would be a good thing. There are staggered start dates for the regulations coming into force to replicate the staggered nature of the EU regulations themselves. The first will come in on 9 May 2025.

This statutory instrument has not been drawn to the special attention of the Houses by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. However, the SI was noted as an instrument of interest by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. It points out that

“while manufacturers from Great Britain (GB) selling into NI or the EU will have to meet the EU’s new product standards, the Department says that “the majority” of the products covered by this instrument will also still be compliant with GB standards”.

The committee also notes that the impact of enacting this SI is that, further forward,

“the legislation always automatically reflects the most up to date EU rules on product-specific ecodesign and energy labelling, removing the need for further secondary legislation to implement updates in UK law when the EU rules are replaced in a way that affects NI”.

The committee recommends that

“it would be helpful to also publicise future changes through a Parliamentary Statement to both Houses”.

Will the Minister respond to this suggestion? In his opening remarks, I think he talked about memorandums of understanding; if could he just clarify that point for me, it would be appreciated.

I note the Minister’s points about being on a journey on these matters. In general, we welcome these measures for ecodesign and would like to see them implemented across the UK.

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

My Lords, I too thank the Minister for introducing this SI, which seeks to update the existing ecodesign and energy labelling regulations for Northern Ireland in line with the Windsor Framework. These amendments ensure that Northern Ireland continues to adhere to EU rules on energy-related products, reflecting the requirements of the framework. While the Government’s intention behind this statutory instrument is understood, there are several aspects that warrant closer scrutiny and further clarification. I note the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, about the ramifications of these regulations on small businesses and consumers, as reiterated by other noble Lords in the House.

Before examining the impact and provisions of the current measures, we should consider the history behind them. The previous Conservative Government had a long-standing commitment to improving environmental standards while ensuring that businesses and consumers were given the tools necessary to thrive in an energy-efficient economy. When the ecodesign and energy labelling regulations 2021 were first introduced in this House, they focused on reducing carbon emissions through ensuring that products in the market met higher energy-efficiency standards. These regulations set minimum standards for products that consume energy, helping to lower energy bills for consumers and reduce the environmental impact across the economy.

In practice, products placed on the Northern Ireland market will remain subject to the EU energy-efficiency and labelling standards. These updates are designed to ensure that Northern Ireland’s product offerings continue to meet the high environmental and energy-efficiency standards set by the EU. These amendments to the ecodesign regulations seek to enhance energy efficiency by imposing stricter performance requirements on a wide variety of products, including household appliances, lighting products and electronics. Can the Minister provide further details on the specific impact these regulations will have on businesses, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises in Northern Ireland? How do the Government intend to ensure that businesses are not burdened by excessive compliance costs or administrative hurdles when adapting to these new requirements?

Great British Energy Bill

Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 11th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Liddell of Coatdyke (Lab)]

My Lords, I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Interests: I am the honorary president of the Carbon Capture and Storage Association. The amendments listed in my name all relate to the same issue so, with the permission of the House, I will group them together. Their purpose is to give clarity and not to exclude vital technology

The UK is at a pivotal moment in energy transition and these amendments would update the Bill to reflect the role of CCUS and hydrogen in achieving a sustainable, reliable and low-carbon energy system. It is a very useful Bill, but it does not explicitly include these technologies in the definition of “clean energy”. Accepting these amendments would be a means for the Government of highlighting to investors and to the industry their commitment to supporting both renewable energy and low-carbon technologies in a balanced and inclusive way.

The purpose of the amendments is simply to broaden the definition of “clean energy” and ensure that GBE can support a wider range of innovations that will foster investment and partnership. That will be crucial to the UK achieving clean power targets by 2030.

In the Carbon Capture and Storage Association, which was established in 2006, we recognise that we have the commitment of the Energy Secretary and, indeed, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who speaks of CCUS often to promote the concept of clean energy. However, to reach out to the myriad companies anxious to develop CCUS, it will be necessary to be a lot more precise. There are many out there who are very keen to get in on the act, not just here but around the world.

In the Bill, “clean energy” is defined as any energy

“produced from sources other than fossil fuels”.

Our argument is that you can “clean” energy. That is what carbon capture is about: cleaning the energy that has already been applied.

Some people think that carbon capture, utilisation and storage is a new concept, but it has been around for at least 25 years. When I was an Energy Minister about 25 years ago, it was described as clean coal technology. In 2006, Dr Chapman established the Carbon Capture and Storage Association. It has grown, and the benefit to the environment has been recognised. I have been to a lot of conferences on carbon capture and storage. It is not a terribly exciting issue to most people—it is to me—but the most recent conference in November was packed out. It was held in Central Hall Westminster and the sheer scale of interest was quite dramatic. Businesses see the opportunity.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the Climate Change Committee have both taken a great interest in CCUS as an integral part of limiting global temperature rises and the route to net zero. Indeed, the Climate Change Committee estimates that the UK needs to capture over 50 million tonnes of CO₂ per year by 2035 to keep in line with emissions reductions.

The ambition, certainly on this side of the House, is to get to a clean power energy system by 2030, as we promised during the election. That might not be possible without carbon capture and storage. Indeed, CCUS is absolutely essential for industries such as cement. Without CO₂ there is no cement industry; CO₂ production is an essential part of the process of creating cement.

CO₂ storage has operated for 25 years in Norway. There are now 50 operational large-scale CCUS facilities worldwide and 44 are under construction. These are countries that are out there, desperate to get in the lead. The IEA has stated that global CCUS deployment has

“tripled over the last decade”.

However, we cannot afford the delays that we have seen in the past. Yesterday, I was delighted to see that Drax can proceed with a £2 billion carbon capture upgrade at its north Yorkshire plant. It is more important to get things moving rapidly now, because there are so many businesses that are interested in carbon capture in the UK which are getting to a stage where they are wondering whether we are going to do anything about it.

Last week, the Public Accounts Committee published a report that was very sceptical about the delivery of CCS. Yes, it does not come cheap, but the much-quoted £22 billion is over 25 years; you do not have to put your hand in your pocket right now for £22 billion to pay for it. However, what we do have to watch is the pressure on the fuel bills for households; they must not carry the cost of other delays. The PAC report challenges the department more than the industry, not least on dispersed sites and the slow response to issues that we saw repeatedly with the previous Government—not helped by repeated reshuffles.

The time for CCUS is now. It will create jobs, not least for those currently in the energy industries who can bring knowledge and experience to the table. All I ask is for the Government to make clear their commitment and to get this country in the lead in cleaning up our energy systems. We will all benefit. I commend Amendments 2 to 6, 11 and 12 to the House.

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 7 in the name of my noble friend Lord Offord, to which I have added my name. This modest amendment merely asks the Government to insert

“the production of nuclear energy”

at the end of Clause 3, page 2, line 18. I also pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Trenchard, who sadly is unable to be in his place today, for his Amendments 10, 33 and 36, which all focus on the nuclear sector.

The Minister for nuclear will not be surprised that I bring this back on Report. He will understand that we merely wish to ensure that nuclear energy plays its full role in our energy mix; putting it on the face of the Bill signifies the Government’s intention that it should do so. I will not repeat the arguments in full that I made at Second Reading. The Government have already acknowledged the importance of nuclear in various speeches at Nuclear Week in Parliament, and the recent announcement that the nuclear national policy statement, EN-7, is to be updated is very welcome.

By accepting this amendment, the Government can bridge the gap between their stated aspiration and its implementation. It will also send a strong signal to investors, developers and the broader energy sector that the UK is serious in its ambitions for nuclear. While we can sadly no longer aspire to claim a world first in the development of new nuclear technologies—Canada has already claimed that crown—it is not too late to be building domestic supply chains and a home-grown industry that will contribute to our own energy security. At the same time, one must of course recognise the potential for creating good-quality jobs and careers in areas such as north Wales that need them most.

Of course, the relationship between Great British Energy and Great British Nuclear remains the big unknown. If properly resourced, GBN could have been uniquely positioned to co-ordinate and drive nuclear developments across the country. It still can. It was created 18 months ago and the small modular reactor drawdown was launched in October 2023. We await the outcome of that competition and I hope that the Government will pick up the pace.

Finally, noble Lords have been silent about the equally important relationship between Great British Energy and UK Industrial Fusion Solutions or the International Atomic Energy Agency. While the STEP project at West Burton will not help the Government towards their 2030 ambitions, in the long term fusion remains the holy grail and is one sector where the UK really does lead the world. I ask the Minister to give the House a clear assurance that Great British Energy will have a role in developing our nuclear energy capability.

[Viscount Hanworth (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendment 10 is a minor amendment and the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, has asked me to speak on it in his absence. I believe his amendment evinces frustration at the tendency of those who are averse to nuclear energy to exclude it from their definition of “clean energy”. He has therefore proposed that the Bill should state that clean energy means renewable energy, nuclear energy and energy produced from sources other than fossil fuels.

In assessing the hazards of nuclear energy, one must separate the issues of nuclear cleanliness, by which I mean the absence of nuclear pollution, from issues of nuclear safety. The latter range from concerns about the accidental spillage of radioactive materials to the risks of rare occurrences such as the accidents of Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima.

A degree of laxity characterised the early nuclear industry, but the industry has since developed a stringent attitude towards cleanliness. The radioactive emissions of our nuclear power stations are negligible. They are a fraction of the emissions from the granite rocks of Aberdeen, and the human exposure is far less than that of a high-flying airline passenger on a scheduled flight. The industry’s attitude to cleanliness extends far beyond the question of radioactive contamination; I have seen the senior management of a nuclear power station become apoplectic at the discovery of a cigarette butt embedded in a gravel pathway.

The major accidents that I mentioned were occasioned by the meltdown of nuclear power stations embodying pressurised water reactors. They have led to a heightened emphasis on the safety of such power stations. That is evident in the design of the Hinkley C power station, where the consequences of the worst imaginable malfunctions would not extend beyond the power station itself. The same is true of the current designs of small modular reactors, which are also pressurised water reactors.

The SMRs employ a nuclear technology that is set to be replaced by fourth-generation technologies endowed with passive safety. A molten-salt reactor provides an example: in the unlikely event of a rupture of the containment vessel, the molten salt and the nuclear reagents would escape into wider containment, after which the nuclear reaction would cease and the salt would crystallise at 300 degrees Centigrade. Such reactors are fit to be employed close to industrial processes that require abundant heat and electricity. An unfortunate fact, to which I must testify, is that we are failing to support the development of such reactors. We are leaving it to others to develop the technologies that are vital for achieving our net zero ambitions.

Heat Networks (Market Framework) (Great Britain) Regulations 2025

Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist Excerpts

Monday 3rd February 2025 Grand Committee

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

My Lords, these regulations represent a pivotal step in securing the long-term sustainability of heat networks across Great Britain. Heat networks are central to the UK’s decarbonisation strategy, particularly in densely populated areas, and are projected to supply 18% of the nation’s heat demand by 2050. Presently, more than 500,000 households and businesses are already connected to these networks, which, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, rightly observed, historically have operated without formal regulation.

The previous Conservative Government made notable progress in modernising this sector, investing £32 million through the heat network efficiency scheme. This funding allowed network operators to replace outdated and inefficient equipment, resulting in improved reliability and more efficient heating for consumers. Heat networks are expected to play a crucial role in reducing carbon emissions, particularly in areas where individual heating solutions are less feasible, such as, as the Minister suggested, dense urban environments.

The measures in the SI seek to establish a structure of regulation for the heat networks market designed to ensure that heat networks operate in a way that benefits the consumer. The key provisions include: the licensing of heat suppliers; stronger consumer protections; regulatory oversight from Ofgem; and performance reviews on data and reporting. Additionally, the regulations will encourage market development to foster innovation, competition and the integration of renewable energy solutions, which will be essential for meeting the UK’s climate goals. These provisions are designed to create a fairer, more transparent and consumer-friendly heat network sector, while supporting the transition to clean energy, making it a central pillar in the Government’s wider decarbonisation agenda.

Notwithstanding the comments made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, about the lack of regulation in this market, Energy UK has acknowledged that the current level of regulation is lighter than that for gas and electricity, which is understandable given the market’s current stage and variability. However, it also recognised the need for regulation to become more robust as the market matures. While the measures to encourage investment in the sector are welcomed, Energy UK advocates for further efforts to promote wider connections to heat networks and enhance investment, particularly in underserved areas.

Despite the positive progress these regulations represent, several challenges remain. On consumer protection, how can we ensure that vulnerable consumers are adequately safeguarded and fully informed of their rights? Regarding investment and market growth, what additional steps can be taken to incentivise further investment in heat networks and ensure that the sector remains competitive? Could we see measures such as tax incentives or grants for businesses in local authorities looking to develop new networks or to expand existing ones? As the market evolves, how do we maintain the right balance between regulation and innovation—fostering growth without stifling creativity and new ideas? It is essential that these regulations allow space for technological breakthroughs and market experimentation. Finally, given that heat networks often operate as local monopolies, how can we ensure fair competition and prevent consumers being locked into poor-value contracts? The introduction of transparency measures, dispute resolution mechanisms and regulatory enforcement will be essential in addressing these concerns.

In conclusion, these regulations are a vital step in creating a fair, efficient and sustainable heat network market. They aim to protect consumers, encourage investment and support our climate objectives. As we move forward, we must ensure that these regulations continue to adapt to meet the evolving needs of the sector. To that end, ongoing consultation with stakeholders, consumers and innovators will be critical to ensuring that the heat network market thrives, while the interests of the public are protected.

I end with a plea to the Minister to keep a watchful eye on Ofgem, which has seen its workload increase exponentially over the last few years. I hope that his department continues to monitor Ofgem’s increasing responsibilities and to ensure that its resources are increased to match.

[Lord Whitty (Lab)]

My Lords, could I ask the Minister one question? I apologise to him: I realised this was being done today only about 20 minutes ago.

A significant number of existing heat networks are run by local authorities or hived-off organisations owned by local authorities. The aim of this legislation, as far as consumers are concerned, I have strongly supported for a long time, including during the proceedings of the Energy Act. I am very much in favour of consumer protection and consumer redress as spelled out in part of these regulations, but I have been told elsewhere that those protections and certainly those forms of redress are different if they are for consumers of heat networks run by local authorities, compared with a private sector or mixed ownership of the heat network. I would like to know whether that is true in principle. If it is at all true, perhaps the Minister could write to me and explain what the situation is.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I am most grateful to noble Lords who have taken part in this short but none the less interesting and, I think, important debate. As the noble Earl, Lord Russell, the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, and my noble friend Lord Whitty have suggested, the development of heat networks is a very important one, and we want to see considerable progress over the next few years.

I also think it is important that the sector itself has broadly supported the regulatory proposals. I believe, and I think it was explicit in what the noble Baroness said, that that confidence will allow them to invest in the future and develop the market, which is what we earnestly hope for and wish to see.

In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, I accept that this is another responsibility that is being placed on Ofgem. I have had quite considerable experience in dealing with regulators in my time in government. I think Ofgem discharges its responsibilities very seriously, and I have confidence in its ability to discharge this new responsibility. In a sense, it is simply extending the principles of the current regulation of gas and electricity to network heating, so it is something I am confident it will be able to do.

In response to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, I make it clear that from April this year, heat network consumers will also be able to seek redress from the Energy Ombudsman scheme and, through Citizens Advice and Consumer Scotland, will have access to advice and advocacy services afforded to the gas and electricity markets. In answer to the noble Baroness, we think this will be particularly helpful to the vulnerable customers she mentioned.

The noble Earl asked me about retrospection. The new arrangements will not be able to be applied retrospectively. The fact he raised this shows why it is so important that we get a move on in introducing these new regulations, and how customers were at risk under the previous arrangements.

As far as fair competition is concerned, again, I very much accept that point. Indeed, this work arose from the Competition and Markets Authority, and Ofgem is well used to intervening in areas where it feels that competition is not being fairly adopted. I am confident that it can deal with that. The data gathered by Ofgem—and, of course, it will have this ability to require data to be provided to it—will enable it to identify emerging issues and trends and adapt regulation as the heat sector develops and grows. As I see it, regulation will be proportionate and organic, marching in step with the way the market itself develops.

I inform the Committee that we will be introducing further regulations this year: first, to introduce protections against insolvency and debt management; and, secondly, to create an entity to implement mandatory technical standards. Putting those together will provide the foundation for this market to grow in future. Market growth seems to me to be a fundamental question, so we are working to expand the existing heat network market through capital funding via the green heat network fund, which will establish heat network zones in key locations. This will allow heat network developers to deploy large-scale district heat networks in dense urban locations, where, as I have said already, they are best suited to provide low-carbon heat.

On support for smaller heat networks, my understanding is that, first, Ofgem will take a proportionate and outcomes-based approach to regulation, providing guidance and supporting small operations.

To come back to the legacy issue and add a bit more information, on legacy issues with existing heat networks, we will take action to guide heat networks through legacy challenges that they face with existing heat networks, with remedial works implemented over time. One advantage of giving authorisation to current schemes is that, once they have been given an authorisation, they then come under these regulations. In one way, if there are pre-existing issues, at some point they will be authorised, and then they can be dealt with under these regulations. So, in fact, although strictly speaking it cannot be retrospectively applied, I hope that that can bring comfort to customers who are really concerned about the situation as it is.

I understand also, in relation to vulnerable customers, that a priority services register will enable vulnerable consumers to access additional support relating to their heat network, including receiving communications in an accessible format, assistance reading their meters and the ability to nominate another person to act on their behalf when dealing with their heat provider.

In relation to the point raised about regulation and customer prices, Ofgem will have direct powers to intervene on prices with a general authorisation condition, to set prices fairly, with data-driven interventions proceeding from January 2026.

On the point raised by my noble friend Lord Whitty, first, I acknowledge the work of local authorities of in some ways even pioneering district heating systems. My noble friend may know that in the heart of the city of Birmingham we had a district heating system that ran right through the city centre, and we can see the potential area. I have also been informed about the South Westminster Area Network, which is being established through close working between Westminster Council and Westminster business improvement districts. That is a new approach to procurement; it took four months to bring forward a partner, which is much quicker than for many of the schemes and developments.

The point that my noble friend raised is a new one to me, and I hope that he does not mind me just checking it out and coming back to him on it. On the face of it, it seems puzzling, but I think that I need to find out some more information about it. But I take his point that we want local authorities to continue to take a lead in developing some of these network heating schemes and, clearly, the public must have confidence in how that is done.

Finally, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, asked me about Great British Energy. He will know that we believe that, in the development of local plans and the role of GBE in doing that, there is clearly potential to give encouragement to community energy schemes and network schemes. I cannot really say any more about that, but I shall draw those remarks to the attention of the start-up chair of Great British Energy.

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

I should just clarify my remarks about Ofgem. In no way was I intending to imply that its work was anything other than exemplary—I was just commenting on the increasing workload that we are putting on Ofgem.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

I did not take it as a criticism at all. The noble Baroness is absolutely right that we are asking Ofgem to do a lot—but her experience and mine is that it is very capable of doing that.

ECO4 and Insulation Schemes

Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist Excerpts

Wednesday 29th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

My Lords, the energy company obligation scheme and the Great British Insultation Scheme were established to improve the energy efficiency of homes—one of the best ways to cut consumer energy bills and keep people warm. This is particularly true for those experiencing fuel challenges. We took significant steps to improve the energy performance rating of homes. By the time we left office, 70% of social housing had an energy performance rating of A to C, up from 24% in 2010. In fact, almost half of the measures installed under the GBIS have been to low-income households.

The installation of solid wall insulation makes up a small proportion of the work undertaken by the ECO schemes and the Great British Insulation Scheme. It is worrying, however, that we have seen examples of substandard solid wall insulation under the schemes as identified by TrustMark.

It is with that in mind that we welcome and support the action announced by the Government last week, in which Ofgem will oversee the repairs and remediation. We are also grateful to hear of a review into the quality of solid wall insulation in other schemes and that additional on-site audits will be conducted to inform future action. It goes without saying that installers should fund the necessary repair work to remedy impacted households, which may experience issues with damp and mould.

However, we look to the Minister to provide clarity. Will the Government publish a full list of the 39 companies suspended from the scheme for carrying out poor-quality work? Can the Minister explain how the suspended companies will be required to remedy their work, and how will the Government ensure that the remedied work meets the necessary standards? Finally, will the Minister clarify exactly what action will be taken to ensure that every household which had solid wall insulation implemented under the schemes is thoroughly and properly informed and provided with the necessary information to rectify the work?

I am sure that all noble Lords in your Lordships’ House can all agree that households should have warm homes that are both cheap and efficient to run.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, I gather from looking at the press release more than the original Statement that 65,000 applications will be checked through Ofgem procedures. Today I met someone who is affected by this, and I want to emphasise just the worry that the 65,000 or whatever will have over the future of their houses, their saleability, their onward renting or the damages to landlords. This is a real concern.

How many of the 39 companies that the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, mentioned, were part of the TrustMark scheme? That scheme, which I believe all those contractors should have been a part of, is described as “Government Endorsed Quality”. What really worries me regarding future schemes—I know there is a big ambition on the part of this Government to carry on retrofitting—is that there will be a loss of confidence.

The one question I would really like an answer from the Minister on is about what I think is wishful thinking: namely, the Government’s view that all these issues will be replaced or rectified by the original installers. I do not wish to accuse the department of being naive, but let us be clear: the majority building business model is that when you get into trouble, you go into liquidation. I and, I think, other people really want to understand who will then bear the cost of those rectifications where that happens, as I suspect it will quite regularly.

Small Modular Nuclear Reactors

Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a little early to give a definitive view to my noble friend but clearly the role of the Civil Nuclear Constabulary is a very important one. I reassure him that in the 14-year gap since I was last responsible for that force, there have been huge improvements in the way in which the constabulary works. I keep this matter under very close oversight.

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

My Lords, it is welcome news that the Minister has indicated there will be a decision by Great British Nuclear on SMR technologies in the spring. However, we still await any guidance on advanced modular reactors, let alone details on how they can come to the market and generate much-needed clean energy here in the UK from the early 2030s. A number of privately funded developers—newcleo, X-energy, TerraPower and others—are ready to go and want GBN to have a parallel process alongside the SMR competition to help them realise their ambitions in the UK as soon as possible. Will the Minister please give a clear indication on when a plan for AMRs will be published? Will His Majesty’s Government support those that want to get on with things in the meantime, invest in the UK, boost economic growth, and create thousands of jobs through their supply chains?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her questions and we certainly take account of what she said. We all see the potential of AMRs. We have also seen that some of the major west coast companies in the US are interested in reaching agreements with project developers for AMRs to be sited near data centres in order to produce decarbonised energy. The noble Baroness’s Government produced an alternative routes to market consultation. We are currently considering the results of that and will make announcements in due course. I understand what she said about the role of GBN. These matters are all under earnest consideration at the moment.

Great British Energy Bill

Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 15th January 2025 Grand Committee

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 95, I will speak also to my Amendments 96 and 97, on accountability to Parliament. This group is all about GB Energy reporting to Parliament. As I have said, the Bill is quite short and some bits are missing, so I think noble Lords are just looking for as much reassurance as the Minister can give on these matters.

As the Bill stands, there are no real basic requirements for GB Energy to produce an annual report, or requirements for it to report to Parliament, beyond those in Clause 7 and what the Minister has said at the Dispatch Box today. I note that GB Energy will be subject to the same general reporting as other arm’s-length government organisations.

My Amendment 95 would ask GB Energy to publish an annual budget report, which would be sent to the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee or a successor committee of the House of Commons. That report must include but not be limited to,

“a breakdown of current and expected funding sources … spending per sector … grid spending … future spending … estimations of future profitability”.

It goes on:

“A representative of Great British Energy must appear before the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee, or any successor Committee, if requested”.


Amendment 96 says:

“Great British Energy must publish an annual report and send it to the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee, or any successor Committee, of the House of Commons”,


and that that report

“must consider Great British Energy functions and activity in the contribution to the following … supporting local communities and economies … the achievement of the United Kingdom’s climate and environmental targets … the relationship with The Crown Estate … a just transition to green energy … a jobs and skills transition into the green economy”.

It would also provide that Great British Energy must appear before that committee if requested.

Amendment 97 would require GB Energy to commit to an ongoing sustainable development review of its activities. It states:

“Great British Energy must keep under review the impact of their activities on the achievement of sustainable development in the United Kingdom”.


This would require GB Energy to keep under constant review the impact of its activities on sustainable development goals, as recognised by the United Nations, the Commonwealth and other bodies that refer to human rights developments, which aim to meet the economic, environmental and social needs of the present, while also ensuring the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.

At the outset I acknowledge to the Committee that my amendment is a direct copy of one tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, and so skilfully negotiated with the noble Lord, Lord Livermore, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, as part of the Crown Estate Bill. It was agreed as a government amendment to that Bill as it left your Lordships’ House. I wish to put on the record my thanks to both of them for their work in getting the amendment into the Bill. My reasons for bringing the amendment here again are, as I said, simply to mirror the other Bill, because the two organisations are so closely interlinked. For me, this is a minimum backstop amendment. I have added my name to Amendment 116, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, and I continue to support it, but I wish to make clear that if that amendment falls, this one is a kind of backstop.

My amendments are relatively straightforward, so I will turn to the other amendment in this group, Amendment 117, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist. This would hold Great British Energy accountable to the relevant parliamentary committees of both Houses of Parliament.

The Minister has said—I already suspected that this would be the case with an arm’s-length body—that this would be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. It is good that he has confirmed that from the Dispatch Box. I just wanted to indicate my full support for the amendment and the principles that it sets out. It is obviously important that all bodies that the Government set up should be subject to parliamentary scrutiny from the Select Committees.

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak to the amendments in this group, which contains amendments in my name and those of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, one of which he moved. I thank the noble Earl for introducing this group; I appreciate the sentiment and spirit of his amendments, and his support for mine.

I do not wish to repeat noble Lords’ arguments from previous groups, but these amendments again seek to shape the governance, accountability and sustainability of the proposed Great British Energy entity. They have been drafted in line with the values of responsible governance, fiscal prudence and national interest, so, although I will not repeat his arguments, or those of my noble friend Lady Noakes from earlier, I wholeheartedly agree with the comments made by my noble friend Lord Roborough on the first group.

On Amendment 95, which would require GBE to publish an annual budget report, I appreciate the sentiment of ensuring transparency in how public funds are utilised. On these Benches, we have always championed the prudent use of taxpayers’ money, and this amendment acknowledges that principle. However, we must ensure that such reporting is not merely a box-ticking exercise. The report must provide meaningful insights, ensuring that GBE operates efficiently and delivers value for money. We cannot allow an additional layer of bureaucracy to stifle innovation or create unnecessary costs. Therefore, I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Russell, on the spirit of this amendment, and I look forward to hearing from other noble Lords about how the reporting requirement could best be used to ensure that GBE operates in the best interests of the nation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to my Amendments 106 and 107 in this group and to support my noble friend Lady Bloomfield’s Amendment 118. These amendments are closely aligned with Amendments 27, 28 and 29 in the name of my noble friend Lord Effingham, which were debated on the first day in Committee. Amendment 106 introduces a new clause that ensures that Great British Energy must annually report on the impact of activities on coastal communities. Amendment 107 similarly requires GB Energy to report on its impact on commercial fishing.

The Government have committed to substantial wind developments, promising to double onshore and quadruple offshore wind by 2030. It goes without saying that there is a difficult balance to strike when undertaking considerable developments while minimising the damage to the communities and industries that are most likely to be affected. That said, we must not lose sight of the communities and sectors to which GB Energy’s activities may be costly. I remind noble Lords that the Government have said that GB Energy will work closely and collaboratively with local communities to achieve their clean energy targets. I therefore see no reason why they should not consult and report on the impact of its functions on the communities they suggest will reap the rewards of GB Energy.

The impact of GB Energy’s activities and the Government’s green energy agenda on communities throughout the UK has been a recurring theme and a point of serious concern throughout the debate on the Bill. Last year, I highlighted the burden facing rural communities in particular, as the Government looked to ramp up transmission and distribution infrastructure. It is essential that the energy transition, and GB Energy’s role within it, do not come at the expense of the communities and associated industries.

Many in this House urged the Minister to ensure that the Secretary of State and GB Energy consult local communities. I point to the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, who rightly raised concerns that offshore wind development risks forcing fishermen out of the seas in which they operate. It is essential that we carefully consider the use of our country’s marine space. Preliminary results from the Plymouth Marine Laboratory concluded that all the proposed offshore wind farms in the UK are predicted to impact fishing, with fishermen pointing to both financial and safety concerns resulting from the construction and operation of offshore wind farms. Ultimately, this is an issue of spatial competition.

Amendment 115 of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, is broader, addressing the impact of GB Energy’s activities on both fishing and commercial shipping. He is right to extend the scope to commercial shipping. I turn to the UK Harbour Masters’ Association, which notes the challenges faced by the sector from offshore renewable energy installations. It calls for a report on the impact of such installations on the shipping industry and insightfully draws a link with commercial fishing, noting that fishing vessels may be squeezed out of their usual channels and enter shipping routes to avoid sites of renewable energy generation. We must not ignore the worries and recommendations of these industry bodies. With this in mind, many environmental, biodiversity and wildlife bodies have called for GB Energy to deliver for nature alongside climate. I welcome and support my noble friend Lady Bloomfield’s Amendment 118, which requires GB Energy to make

“a positive contribution to nature recovery”.

Careful consideration is key to the success of GB Energy. We must not isolate but include those communities and sectors that will be most impacted by the Government’s attempts to create this green energy superpower. Additionally, we ought to consider how GB Energy will act in a way that seeks to benefit both the climate and biodiversity, which are inextricably linked.

I look forward to hearing the contributions of all noble Lords in the debate on this group of amendments, and the Minister’s response.

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 118 in my name would introduce a new clause which requires GB Energy and its partners to make only investments that make a positive contribution to nature recovery. As my noble friend Lord Offord of Garvel rightly explained, the UK is facing both a climate and a nature crisis.

Nature recovery, the restoration of our country’s biodiversity and the climate are matters that are so closely interwoven. They cannot and should not be considered in a separate capacity. Therefore, if GB Energy is to be established in an effort to achieve clean energy by 2030 and net zero by 2050 and to reduce the UK’s carbon emissions in an attempt to tackle climate change, GB Energy ought to operate in a way which looks to make a positive contribution to nature recovery.

The Government themselves recognised the ties between climate and nature recovery. Indeed, they were elected on a manifesto which said:

“The climate and nature crisis is the greatest long-term global challenge that we face”


and

“The climate crisis has accelerated the nature crisis”.


The omission of a nature recovery duty is another shortcoming of the Bill. Climate change and the loss of biodiversity both compound and reinforce one another. The Royal Society has acknowledged that a flourishing ecosystem has the ability to combat the effects of climate change. We know that the UK’s biodiversity is under serious threat, yet we know that natural habitats have a significant role to play in absorbing and storing carbon and regulating the climate.

Wildlife and Countryside Link has called for nature recovery to be put in the Bill and the amendment in my name would do just that. It recognises that restoration of the UK’s nature has the ability to provide up to a third of the climate mitigation effort that is required if we are to achieve net zero by 2050. Rightly, it describes the Government’s failure to include a nature recovery duty as a “missed opportunity”.

A nature recovery duty ought to be a general principle of GB Energy. It would hold the Government to account on the manifesto they were elected on. It would introduce a clear condition, ensuring that GB Energy and its partners operate in a way which seeks to contribute to the biodiversity targets introduced by the previous Government in the Environment Act.

Nature recovery must not be seen to inhibit the facilitation of the production, distribution and storage of clean energy. Instead, it must go hand in hand with the objectives of GB Energy, helping to protect and restore carbon-rich habitats. Indeed, it is complementary to the objectives of GB Energy surrounding clean energy generation and distribution.

We must be cautious that the establishment of this body to rapidly ramp up the installation and generation of renewable energy technologies does not adversely affect biodiversity in the UK. We must seek to mitigate the risk of further diminishing or undermining the UK’s natural assets. The amendment in my name would do just that by embedding a nature recovery duty into law.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, I shall speak to my Amendments 114 and 115. I agree very much with the spirit of the other amendments in this group. I say to the Minister that only one of my amendments is labelled as a probing amendment but they are both, in effect, probing amendments and I would not expect them to proceed beyond Committee as I have written them.

Amendment 114 is about national defence. Clearly, even since I wrote the amendment, this has become even more important in terms of offshore infrastructure, as we saw in the Baltic at the end of last year and following the serious shenanigans of “Eagle S”, the shadow Russian oil tanker which disrupted cables in the Baltic Sea, after which there was a NATO conference yesterday.

The purpose of this amendment is to hear from the Minister that GB Energy, in its offshore investments, will be plugged into the Ministry of Defence, and that the Ministry of Defence—which, if I may be slightly candid about it, has not always been positive about renewable energy onshore—will fully engage in these investments.

I think this is going to get more and more important. All sorts of technologies are coming out to ensure that, as soon as cables or pipelines are tampered with, it is quickly recognised and action can be taken. There is an Oral Question on this area in the House tomorrow, and I will be pressing more on the defence side, as we need to be a little more upfront in our reaction, as the Finns have been. I am really probing to see where that co-ordination with the Ministry of Defence is going to happen.

Great British Energy Bill

Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 13th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 59 and to speak to Amendments 60, 61, 63, 65, 69, 70, 72 and 76 in my name.

Amendment 59 requires an annual report on how Great British Energy’s activities are contributing to reducing consumer household energy bills by £300. This frequently repeated claim, that the purpose of Great British Energy is to save each household £300 on their energy bills, seems conspicuously absent from the legislation, which states that the “objects” of Great British Energy are only to facilitate, encourage and participate in the production of energy,

“the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions … improvements”

in

“energy efficiency, and … measures for ensuring security of … supply”.

It is imperative that the Government be held accountable for their promises. The Secretary of State has reiterated that clean energy will deliver cheaper energy, and this has been repeated in this House, in the other place, on the campaign trail, in videos and on leaflets. It is therefore important to enshrine accountability for that ambition in the Bill that creates the institution of Great British Energy. We must introduce a mechanism by which the Secretary of State and Great British Energy are accountable to households for their pledge to reduce bills through investment in renewables, and for their specific promise to reduce household bills by £300 per household.

Amendment 60 in my name also seeks to introduce a mechanism by which the Secretary of State and Great British Energy are held accountable. Amendment 60 holds the Government to their word by requiring Great British Energy to report to the Secretary of State on the progress made towards creating 650,000 new jobs—another election pledge.

Amendment 61 in my name introduces a specific strategic priority for Great British Energy to develop UK energy supply chains and requires that an annual report be produced on the progress of meeting this strategic priority. It is essential that our transition to net zero does not increase our reliance on foreign states, particularly hostile foreign states. I am sure we can all agree that we want the so-called “clean energy” transition to utilise British industry, whereby offshore wind turbines and solar panels are produced by domestic manufacturing companies and erected by British workers. It is with that in mind that I bring Amendments 61 and 76.

Amendment 61 requires a fixed percentage of materials sourced or purchased as part of any investment made by Great British Energy to be produced in the UK and supplied from UK manufacturers. The transition to net zero presents our country with a great opportunity for investment and job creation; we must ensure that it is domestic companies and the British people who benefit from the increased investment promised by Great British Energy.

We must not outsource our energy transition. Amendment 72 in my name requires Great British Energy to report on the impact it has on imported energy. The Government’s target to achieve clean energy by 2030 must not increase our reliance on imported energy, which risks jeopardising our energy security and exposing British consumers to price spikes. It is already concerning, given that the hike in the windfall tax to 78% is already cutting investment in UK natural resources and oil and gas production, and will make the UK increasingly dependent on imported supply.

The distribution and transmission of electricity is intrinsic to the production of clean energy as set out in Clause 3. It is therefore critical that Great British Energy should take all reasonable steps to ensure that access to the national grid is ready for any energy infrastructure invested in by Great British Energy, and Amendment 65 in my name works to do just that.

The “Great Grid Upgrade” is without doubt a necessary component of our journey to net zero by 2050. Currently, new energy infrastructure—new wind turbines and new solar farms—have a significant wait time for grid connection. That is why the previous Government commissioned the Winser review, setting out recommendations on how to reduce this timeframe. The previous Government accepted advice on all areas—all 43 recommendations—to ensure that we could continue the work to drive down construction and connection times.

Despite the work that we on these Benches initiated in government by accepting these recommendations, the timeframe for obtaining grid connections for a new project can be as long as 10 years. In fact, a project without grid connectivity today might not come online until the mid-2030s, well beyond the Government’s ambitious goal of grid decarbonisation by 2030. It is therefore essential that the development of the national grid coincide with the development of renewable energy production.

Amendments 69 and 70, in my name, require GBE to report to the Secretary of State on the impact of each investment on carbon emissions and on the progress made by GBE towards reducing those emissions. I am grateful to my noble friends Lord Petitgas and Lord Trenchard, whose Amendment 80 would require Great British Energy to produce a quarterly unaudited and an annual audited report, including on the rate of returns for and the carbon emissions resulting from each investment. I support my noble friends’ amendment, which neatly covers both emissions resulting from, and the rate of return of, each investment. I expect that the latter will be debated thoroughly in the following group.

Supposedly, Great British Energy is to be established to drive the Government’s clean energy by 2030 goal and net-zero target, yet the Bill makes no provision for reporting on the impact of each investment on carbon emissions, which is critical if the Government are to achieve that pledge. Amendments 69 and 70 in my name, and Amendment 80 in my noble friend Lord Petitgas’s name, seek to rectify that, as does Amendment 85A in my noble friend Lord Hamilton of Epsom’s name, which I wholeheartedly support.

Finally, I return to the strategic priorities of Great British Energy as set out under Clause 5. As I have discussed previously, it is critical that we have sufficient oversight of and reporting measures on the financial assistance provided to Great British Energy. In that vein, Amendment 63 requires Great British Energy to report on the projected cost of fulfilling all its strategic priorities.

I trust that the Minister has listened to and carefully considered the array of issues raised in the amendments in my name and in those in my noble friends’. We must not lose sight of the sweeping powers that the Bill provides to the Secretary of State in issuing Great British Energy with directions over which Parliament will have no oversight. We must give due consideration to the purpose and impact of each direction. I beg to move.

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 77 in my name

“would require … 75 per cent of all materials purchased as part of an investment by Great British Energy”

to be produced in the UK. I will speak only briefly, as my noble friend Lord Offord of Garvel’s Amendment 61, for which I thank him, similarly requires a fixed percentage of materials sourced or purchased as part of any investment made by Great British Energy to be produced in the UK and supplied by UK manufacturers. However, I will make some additional points.

It is essential that the race to clean energy by 2030 and net zero by 2050 benefit British industry. As my noble friend Lord Offord explained, we must not outsource our energy transition. I draw attention to the warning from the former head of MI6 that the courting of Chinese investment risks handing power to Beijing. Up to 40% of solar panels in Britain are produced by companies linked to forced Uighur labour in eastern China. Furthermore, Chinese businesses have funded or provided parts for at least 14 of the 15 offshore wind projects in, or about to be in, operation. Firms owned by the Chinese Government have large stakes in three projects, together producing the energy for 2 million homes. While the Government’s energy agenda is overly ambitious, it could benefit the domestic manufacturing industry if we look to prioritise British industry over that of foreign states.

I am sure that the Government will have no hesitation in supporting my amendment, considering that the Secretary of State has repeatedly said that Great British Energy will deliver jobs for the British people. Can the Minister tell the Committee what impact Great British Energy will have on British industry? Will he confirm that the Government’s clean energy targets will not increase our reliance on foreign supply chains?

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist]

78: Clause 6, page 3, line 38, at end insert—
“(1A) The Secretary of State must give a specific direction to Great British Energy that it must re-invest all profits into the company.”Member's explanatory statement
This would require Great British Energy to re-invest all profits back into the company.

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 78 and speak to the other amendments in this group on Great British Energy. It is essential that we approach the future of energy in this country with the urgency that it warrants. The energy security of this nation is far too important to be left to chance. Today we have a pivotal opportunity to shape the future of Great British Energy in a way that prioritises transparency, accountability and the long-term benefit of the British people.

My Amendment 78 requires that all profits made by Great British Energy be reinvested in the company. This is a crucial provision that would seem to be self- explanatory. It is designed to ensure that Great British Energy focuses on long-term growth and the sustainable development of the UK’s energy infrastructure. It is crucial. If we are to establish a state-run energy company, it must operate with financial discipline and focus. Reinvesting profits ensures that GBE’s resources are used to strengthen its core business, to innovate and to contribute to the UK’s energy independence, rather than being diverted elsewhere. We must ask ourselves whether we want a national energy company that builds the future of Britain or one that becomes a drain on the public purse, burdened by external obligation?

I turn to Amendments 79, 81 and 82, tabled by my noble friend Lord Petitgas. Amendment 79 seeks to prevent Great British Energy from investing in projects that are reliant on government subsidies. Let it be clear. Subsidies distort markets, breed inefficiencies and create dependency. My noble friend sees this as a critical step in ensuring that Great British Energy operates as a self-sustaining entity. By preventing reliance on subsidies, we are ensuring that Great British Energy focuses on projects that stand on their own merits, fostering true innovation and competition. This is about making Great British Energy a commercially viable entity that does not lean on taxpayer funding but instead drives growth through its own strategic investments.

Amendment 81 introduces a critical measure of accountability and transparency. It requires that all investments made by Great British Energy undergo an independent third-party valuation. We cannot allow public funds to be spent without rigorous scrutiny. Independent valuations, such as the one that the UK Infrastructure Bank endured, will serve as an essential safeguard against potential mismanagement, ensuring that every investment is sound, justifiable and aligned with the long-term interests of our energy sector and taxpayers. This amendment goes beyond the traditional notion of financial oversight. It is about ensuring that every decision made by Great British Energy is transparent, free from political influence and fully accountable to the public. As we are entrusting a significant portion of taxpayers’ money to GBE, it is only right that we have an independent mechanism in place to assess whether the investments are wise and sustainable.

Amendment 82 limits Great British Energy’s investments to UK-registered companies. This is a straightforward yet powerful measure. Britain’s energy security in our national economy must be the top of this Government’s priorities when discussing this Bill. In an age when national security and economic resilience are increasingly under threat, why should we allow public money to flow into foreign companies when it can support British jobs, British innovation and British energy security? Investing in foreign registered companies undermines this goal. We must ensure that any investment of public money supports British interests first and foremost.

I now address the important amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Effingham, Amendments 83, 84 and 85, which ensure proper governance of fiscal prudence for Great British Energy. Amendment 83 refers to the cost control and prioritisation of resources. It seeks to limit the size of Great British Energy’s delegation to the UN Convention on Biological Diversity, ensuring that taxpayer money is used efficiently and that the company remains focused on its primary mission rather than on unnecessary expenses for international events. Amendment 84 requires Great British Energy to publish its principles and criteria for evaluating investments. This promotes transparency and clarity for universities, companies and innovators seeking backing, while ensuring that the investment process is accessible and competitive.

Finally, Amendment 85, which my noble friend Lord Effingham tabled jointly with my noble friend Lord Trenchard, mandates that Great British Energy does not co-invest with Chinese state-owned companies without prior notice to the International Trade Committee. It requires Great British Energy to not co-invest with Chinese state-owned companies without giving prior notice to the International Trade Committee of the House of Commons. In light of ongoing concerns about foreign influence, particularly from state- controlled enterprises, this amendment would provide a necessary safeguard. It ensures that any such investments are subject to proper scrutiny, maintaining the integrity of our energy sector and the security of British taxpayers’ money.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I support these amendments. I have certain reservations about my noble friend Lady Bloomfield’s Amendment 78, because it assumes these investments will make money. I have a bit of a problem with that. The real difficulty, as we have discussed, is that all the low-hanging fruit when it comes to investment in renewable energy has already been picked by the private sector. It does this quite simply by calculating a return on guaranteed income. Therefore, what worries me is that Great British Energy will be left picking up the bits that other people do not want to touch. The chances of it making money are probably quite small. Of course, it will have to count off the losses against the profits, so you need to have something at the end of the day. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, has achieved something little short of miraculous by investing other people’s money and actually making money, but that is an exception rather than the rule. The chances of Great British Energy squandering billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money are rather higher than it making any profits for anybody.

Clearly, accountability is very important when it comes to these sorts of sums. We should do everything we can to ensure that taxpayers’ money is looked after in the best way possible. Everybody should have great reservations about believing—to come back to the point I made earlier—that politicians are able to pick winners. The record on this has been absolutely abysmal. The chances of more money being lost than made are, I am afraid, very great indeed.

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

My Lords, I urge the Minister to give serious consideration to the amendments in this group. They are designed not only to strengthen the accountability and transparency of Great British Energy but to ensure that the promises made to the British public, particularly on national security and economic prudence, are fully delivered. During the last election, the party opposite made numerous promises to the British people, including a commitment that Great British Energy would first and foremost protect and benefit the British people. At the same time, we must remember that this is not just about creating another energy company but about establishing a cornerstone of national resilience—an entity that must operate with the highest standards of responsibility, transparency and accountability to the taxpayers who are entrusting it with significant public funds.

My noble friends’ amendments reflect three core principles: fiscal restraint, operational transparency and the safeguarding of national interests. As we consider these amendments, whether on reinvesting profits into the company, ensuring strict investment criteria or introducing greater scrutiny of foreign involvement, I urge us to draw from the examples set by the erstwhile UK Infrastructure Bank. When the bank was established, it was supported by clear frameworks for accountability, transparency and rigorous oversight, ensuring that taxpayer money was spent efficiently and aligned with national priorities. Let us learn from this experience and ensure that Great British Energy, in its critical role in our national energy strategy, is similarly held to account.

We must remember that the future of energy is not just about ensuring supply but about safeguarding our economy, our security and the well-being of future generations. By taking these steps, we will ensure that Great British Energy not only is accountable to the public but operates with the highest standards of governance, efficiency and integrity. The amendments before us are crucial to delivering that vision and I commend them to your Lordships, but at this stage I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 78 withdrawn.