Biomass Generation

Baroness Young of Old Scone Excerpts

Wednesday 12th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness will know that Ministers do not comment on share prices at the Dispatch Box, for very good reasons.

We need to be clear that Ofgem’s investigation was thorough and rigorous. I have a great deal of trust in the work of Ofgem. The noble Baroness will know that there was no suggestion that Drax was awarded subsidies incorrectly under the existing renewables obligation or contracts for difference arrangements. It was more to with the documentation. The investigation found no evidence to suggest that Drax had been issued with subsidies incorrectly, and Ofgem was confident in its conclusions. Drax made a redress payment because there is a scheme within Ofgem for companies to do that. I must say that £25 million is substantial; I think it was a good indication to Drax that it needs to get its documents in order—and I very much hope that it has done so.

Of course, we will be looking to Ofgem to ensure that that happens, that everything is proper and that, under the new arrangements, we are satisfied that Drax can meet the criteria. This has not been an easy decision. In our debate yesterday, I was interested in the response of the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, who essentially said that she welcomed the progress; she was not overwhelmed with the decision, but there was an acknowledgement that we are making progress and understand the sensitivities.

One has to come back to the issue of biomass and its sustainability. The UK’s Committee on Climate Change and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change recognise that bioenergy can play a significant role in decarbonising economies. We support the use of sustainable biomass generators only if it meets our sustainability criteria. I have said we are going to toughen that up. At the end of the day, it is a difficult question. I think we have come to a sensible arrangement, which, after all, is a short-term arrangement in the lifetime of the generators of four years from 2027 to 2031.

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)]

I would like to ask the Minister which issues will be taken into account for the decision after 2031. I welcome this as a first step towards reducing and hopefully eliminating our reliance on biomass as a sustainable fuel. I recognise that it is difficult at the moment to commit to what will happen in 2031. However, it might be useful to know from the Minister exactly what criteria will surround the decision about 2031, because it will take some time to make that decision. We will probably use up quite a lot of the time between now and then arguing about what the decision is going to be.

In particular, I would like some clarification on the Government’s position and expectation on the Drax carbon capture, utilisation and storage programme. Is that going to continue under the current arrangement, or will it be subject to a separate negotiation? Will it involve additional payments to Drax to fund that programme? How material will the outcome of that programme be on reaching a decision on what happens after 2031?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I cannot say very much more about how we will review post 2031, but I am very happy to talk to my noble friend about her views. I am not unaware of her views about the continuation of the subsidy, as she spoke to me a few months ago.

We probably have to go back to the analysis of NESO and the advice we received on the impact on our electricity system covering the period 2027 to 2031 if support for Drax was withdrawn in 2027. It said that

“having large-scale biomass available in this period could have a significant impact in mitigating potential risks to electricity security of supply and could also support the delivery of clean power by 2030. The analysis showed that without large-scale biomass, security of supply would not be ensured in scenarios with additional supply losses. While alternative options could deliver the same outcomes, these options have greater delivery risks”.

That is clearly one of the factors that would have to be considered in any long-term review, and there will be other factors as well.

Having reached this agreement, I should say to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that I do not know yet when the statutory instrument will be coming. Work has to be done on that. We also normally have to consult on a draft SI. I think it will probably be some months before we get to debate it, but I understand the importance of that debate.

We have made no decision about the deployment of large scale BECCS. I think I said earlier that we are going to have an independent review, looking at options for greenhouse gas removal, including how large-scale power BECCS and DACCS can assist us. Again, I cannot answer that question, but it is clearly something that we are giving very earnest consideration to at the moment. The noble Baroness speaks with great authority. If she and other noble Lords want to feed in ideas to the department about the long-term review, I would be very happy to take them.

Great British Energy Bill

Baroness Young of Old Scone Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 11th February 2025 Lords Chamber

Interestingly, a 20% blend for off-grid properties will not only meet but exceed the carbon budgets straightaway, up to 2035. As I said, millions of people rely on this fuel oil at the moment, and it costs them a lot of money. I hope that Great British Energy will be conscious of the need for oil consumers too, and that it will include the change that I hope will come as a result of some of the things that I put in my amendment—I shall not go into them now—and bring people the comfort that they can still heat their homes, businesses or properties in a cost-effective way. The fuels are available now, the people are available to do it and the series of changes involved would be easy and quick to make. I look forward to my noble friend the Minister’s response to this group.

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 13, to which I have put my name.

I am very clear that biomass is not clean energy. It has substantial downsides: the harvesting cycle does not replace carbon in an equivalent way until many years have passed; and the same goes for the impact on biodiversity—there is not a like-for-like replacement at all.

If we were to grow our own biomass here in the UK, the land take would be substantial and would compromise land uses for multiple other requirements for which we need land, as outlined in the land use framework. If the feedstock comes not from the UK but from overseas sources, that is not a secure source and we are putting ourselves in a position of vulnerability—as indeed we are from other overseas sources of fuel at the moment. It is not a sustainable and secure feedstock.

I welcome the Government’s Drax Statement yesterday, provided that it is only a first step to a rapid phase-down of Drax; I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that. Can he also confirm whether the Government support the recent Ember report on subsidies post-2031, which shows that the case for a 2030 clean power system for the UK is possible, while reducing considerably our reliance on this expensive, imported biodiversity-unfriendly biomass?

On Amendment 44 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, I will ask the Minister for clarification. Will the review of biomass power, which was signalled in the Drax announcement, cover absolutely all the points made by the noble Baroness in subsections (2)(a) to (e) in the new clause proposed by Amendment 44? Can he give us some clarity on that?

I was not intending to comment on Amendment 2 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Liddell, on carbon capture and storage, but I am afraid that I will have to. I really do not like being on the opposite side from the noble Baroness, because she is a bit of a fighter and two Scots against each other might not be a good idea. But I think we are making a big mistake in overrelying, in the carbon budgets, on carbon capture and storage. I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Howell—this is an out-of-body experience for me—and disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Liddell; this is all the wrong way round. The reality is that carbon capture and storage projects are failing worldwide at the moment; they are not proceeding well, and investment is being withdrawn. This is the emperor’s new clothes. We are all saying, “There’s a bloody great hole”—

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)]

Sorry, Hansard.

There is a huge hole in the carbon budgets, in which we have all colluded by saying, “Well, carbon capture and storage will fill that hole”. But what happens if it is the emperor’s new clothes and it does not work? We have to be very wary and understand what is happening at the moment. The Government are, quite rightly, throwing quite a lot of money at carbon capture and storage to trial it out as quickly as possible to find out whether we here in the UK can make it happen. If we can, great; let us replicate it very fast. If we cannot, we have to find some other solutions.

My final point is in support of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley—

[Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness for giving way. I do not want it to sound as though CCUS is the answer to everything, but surely the whole concept of carbon sinks, of trying to preserve our forests—which are rapidly disappearing—and of developing new freshwater areas around the world in desert areas, as has been proposed in a very elaborate series of schemes, is doing just that: they are trying to capture carbon directly out of the atmosphere or from projects which are belting out carbon. What is wrong about that? I do not quite see why she is so dismissive.

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)]

I am probably breaking the rules here—I should address the House rather than the noble Lord—but nature-based solutions, which create biodiversity and other benefits, such as benefits for human health, mental health, water purification and flood control, are excellent schemes if they can be made to work effectively and cost effectively, bearing in mind all the benefits. Carbon capture and storage from industrial processes or, indeed, from air sources—from carbon that is already out there—is the bit that is not yet tested and not yet proven. We need to get ahead and decide whether we can make that work in the UK, which, I hope, is what the Government are trying to do. Perhaps the Minister will confirm that.

On Amendment 35, I share the joys with noble Lord, Lord Berkeley—not in the same house, I may say—of being an off-grid home owner who wants to do their bit for carbon reduction. At the moment, the choice for the average home owner in a rural property of an aged sort, which is highly dependent on oil because they are off the gas grid, is not terrific. You live in trembling fear of the wretched boiler breaking down: in an emergency situation such as that, the choice that then faces you is either just slamming in another oil-fired boiler, or else shelling out 20-odd thousand and waiting in the cold for six months while they work out how to put in an air source heat pump, which will probably not work at all anyway. It is not a choice. We need options for that rather beleaguered population in the country, many of whom live in aged, drafty houses and have very little assets of their own to be able to upgrade or may have a listed building of the sort you cannot upgrade.

Renewable liquid fuel seems to allow a simple transition using existing kit rather than having to capitalise up front for a totally new technology. It could produce—literally from next week, if you wanted it to—carbon reductions of up to 80%. I support the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and I hope the Government can do that too.

[Lord Krebs (CB)]

My Lords, I did not intend to speak in this debate, but I will say a few words about biomass and Drax. In so doing, I have to declare a conflict of interest in that I chair Drax’s independent advisory board on sustainable biomass.

The point I want to make is very simple: the devil is in the detail. There are circumstances under which biomass is not sustainable as a source of energy, where it does not replace the carbon emitted from the chimney stack by the growth of new trees. On the other hand, there are circumstances under which it is carbon neutral. Therefore, the crucial thing is to understand whether Drax is sourcing its material in a sustainable way.

It is not my job here to defend Drax and it is certainly not my job to comment on government subsidy, but I can say that there is a very detailed literature on forest carbon. If any noble Lords wish to make assertions about the carbon neutrality or otherwise of biomass burned by Drax at its power station, they should first study this literature in great detail and not rely on second-hand reports on “Panorama” or in other media outlets. So, I simply urge those noble Lords who wish to comment on Drax to study the detail.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Boycott (CB)]

Okay.

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)]

My Lords, may I add to the outbreak of harmony by thanking the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the Minister for Amendment 8? As the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, said, it is great to see local community benefit coming on to the face of the Bill. Especially since all the supporting material about GB Energy is very strong on community energy schemes, it just seemed rather crazy that it was not in the Bill, so I say thank you for that.

Ideally, of course—we environmentalists are miserable people who always want more, so I am moving on to Amendment 22, to which I also have added my name—with the Government having gone as far as Amendment 8, which puts community energy schemes on the face of the Bill, it would be quite nice to get slightly more specific recognition that such schemes need to be part of the strategic priorities. Therefore, can the Minister say why he will not accept Amendment 22, which I assume he will not support?

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I shall join in the general outbreak of harmony that has struck your Lordships’ House and welcome government Amendment 8 on community energy. This is one more demonstration that campaigning works—but, boy, does it often take quite a long while. I really must commend Community Energy England, Green Alliance, and Peers for the Planet, which have all been pushing this issue for a very long time. I also commend your Lordships’ House collectively, because your Lordships may recall that, in the previous Government’s Energy Bill—now an Act—this was the last amendment standing, as we defended again and again the need to include community energy on the face of that Bill. Perhaps this is a demonstration to your Lordships’ House that it is a good idea to stand up for principles, because eventually you will get there, even if it takes some time.

To echo the remarks of the noble Baronesses, Lady Young and Lady McIntosh, yes, we would like to see the Government go further, both in the strategic priorities and in the sense that we need long-term, stable policies. I remember meeting so many community energy groups that were just about ready to go when the feed-in tariff was ripped out from underneath them and their projects collapsed after so much voluntary effort had been put in. The people doing this need the certainty to know that this will work and deliver, and that means long-term, stable policies.

Turning to Amendment 14 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, I can say that, based on the clarification that he has just provided, the Green group will be pleased to support his amendment, should he press it to the vote.

In the previous group, we were talking about Drax, which has benefited from £6 billion of subsidies since 2012, which the people and the planet cannot afford anymore. Imagine if that £6 billion had gone into home energy efficiency instead; there is good evidence to show that we would have needed so much less generation in the first place. The cleanest, greenest energy that you can possibly have is the energy that you do not need to use. There are not only the environmental benefits and the cost-of-living benefits, as huge as they are; there are also the public health benefits, since so many people live in unhealthy homes. Your Lordships’ House often talks about productivity and all the people of working age who are not in paid work. The quality of our homes is a big issue there, and that must not be forgotten as an added bonus, as well as the environmental and cost-of-living ones.

Great British Energy Bill

Baroness Young of Old Scone Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 11th February 2025 Lords Chamber

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

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

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

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)]

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

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

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Great British Energy Bill

Baroness Young of Old Scone Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 15th January 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, as I said, I think we have acted properly with the impact assessment, which is based on the Bill. GBE has yet to commence its work. I have said that I will write to noble Lords detailing how we see GBE being held to account, in terms of its reporting and accountability, and I will add some more information about how that relates to the statement of strategic priorities in Clause 5.

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)]

I hope that in writing this note, which I welcome, the Minister will give us an account of how GBE will report on the strategic priorities set by the Government, and that they will include not just climate but environmental and biodiversity targets. They are the twin crises that GBE is helping to solve.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

The noble Lord mentioned that the minimum requirement was the nine-month reporting window under the Companies Act. Could he give us an idea now of what he sees as a desirable reporting timeframe? If he would like to reflect, perhaps he could include those thoughts in his letter.

Great British Energy Bill

Baroness Young of Old Scone Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 13th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Fuller’s Amendments 67, 73, 104 and 105, which I have also signed. I first congratulate him on a polished and passionate introduction to his first amendments.

Amendments 67 and 104 would prevent GB Energy supporting renewable energy projects on, or owning, land that is grade 1, 2 or 3 to prevent the loss of good agricultural land. Amendments 73 and 105 would encourage GB Energy to pursue developments on land that has designations of grade 4 or 5 or on non-agricultural land.

The nationally significant infrastructure projects that have been signed by our Secretary of State have already had a detrimental impact on our best and most versatile farmland. In answer to my Written Question on 2 December about the agricultural impact of the Cottam, Mallard Pass and Gate Burton solar farms, the Minister—who is sitting in his place and is also doing such an able job of shepherding this Bill through this House and Committee—stated:

“For each of these cases, the Examining Authorities’ Reports have been published alongside the Secretary of State’s Decision Letters”,


so I had to find the answers myself. The examining authorities are clear that best and most versatile land, including grade 2, is being lost to existing solar developments. It seems hasty that some of the largest and most controversial solar developments appear to be being signed off with little or no weighting given to the quality of the land or food security. The justification seems to be that the land will be returned to agriculture after 30 or so years, as my noble friend pointed out. Unfortunately, we need to eat for those 30 years.

At Cottam, 5% of the area was best and most versatile land. The report said

“according to the ExA, the Proposed Development would not meet the requirements of the NPPF in this regard and subsequently accorded this a negative weighting”.

At Mallard Pass, 40.7% of this project was best and most versatile land, with the remaining 56% grade 3b —so captured by this amendment but not by “best and most versatile”. The report said

“the ExA acknowledges that there is a corresponding degree of conflict with the Government’s Food Strategy aim of broadly maintaining domestic production at current level, and that there is a potential higher agricultural yield and associated economic benefit from the farming of BMV land that would be lost”.

In answer to my Oral Question prior to Christmas, the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, conceded that the Sunnica project had a negative albeit slight impact on farming. In answer to an Oral Question from my noble friend Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, the noble Baroness stated that grades 1 and 2 farmland were not being developed for solar. As my research has demonstrated, this is not entirely true for important grade 2 farmland nor for grade 3a.

It is clear from these examples that the Government’s goal of energy security from renewable energy trumps food security every time. I ask the Minister two questions: with so much land of grade 4 and below in the UK, including in areas with strong solar radiation, why is the Secretary of State so eager to approve sites which undermine our food security? Why are the Government not being straight that this is happening? I had to dig for some time to answer these questions after the replies I was given. Are the Government seeking to hide the embarrassing details of these actions? Research from SolarQ demonstrates that solar development is falling disproportionately on grades 1, 2 and 3 land, and underproportionately on weaker grades. Why is this?

The proposed changes to the National Planning Policy Framework would remove the protection for agricultural land for food production, simply requiring that poorer land be preferred. Given that the current NPPF is already undermining best and most versatile land use, weakening its protection makes a bad situation worse and makes my noble friend Lord Fuller’s amendments even more important.

At present, it seems that this Government will approve any renewable energy project development that anyone cares to put forward, without an overall strategy for where those projects are best placed. Our Government began development of a land use framework that would help inform and clarify this decision-making. The current Government have committed to continuing this work and publishing that framework in the not-too-distant future; I believe consultation is expected to begin at the end of this month. That would allow for an open discussion about our priorities and a rational process for determining where we want our solar and wind energy infrastructure to make sure that each of our limited and precious acres is put to its best use.

It is clear that our best farmland is not being treasured or protected by the Government and it is critical that we use every opportunity to protect it. In the Great British Energy Bill, we have the chance with these amendments to prevent at least part of the industry pursuing damaging developments that are not in our national interest.

I hope the Minister will see the wisdom of putting these protections in the Bill. Would he be willing in his department’s involvement in the land use frame-work also to ensure that renewable energy project development happens on our least agriculturally productive land?

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)]

My Lords, this group of amendments pick up the right issue but produce the wrong solution. There is no doubt about it: we need the land use framework to come forward very swiftly to avoid the sort of piecemeal decision-making that we are hearing about, not only on food security and energy but on all sorts of other issues.

To try to task GB Energy with this role is entirely the wrong approach, because the reality is that GB Energy is simply a medium-sized company aimed at investing in a comparatively small number of projects, and again would be a very partial solution to these big dilemmas about how we use the very scarce land we have at our disposition in this country. I want the Minister to press his colleagues in other government departments, because we require a multi-department land use framework that will take a multifunctional look at how we use land. We need not just to look at the strategic spatial energy plan, which will also talk about locational issues and land use in respect of energy; that spatial plan must be nested within the land use framework, and it is increasingly pressing that it comes forward.

The noble Lord, Lord Fuller, asked us to be gentle with him. I will say very gently that in this House we do not talk for 12 minutes on an amendment.

[Lord Bellingham (Con)]

My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Fuller, who put forward a very convincing argument, supported by my noble friend Lord Roborough.

I will make three very brief points. First, surely one of the key lessons of the Ukraine crisis concerns food security. That means taking very seriously our attitude to grade 1 agricultural land. I do not agree with the noble Baroness that this is not the right mechanism for trying to entrench the value of that land. This is a narrow amendment that seeks to put the responsibility on Great British Energy, which is, after all, being created by statute. I can think of no better way of trying to curtail the use of this land in ways that undermine food security.

Secondly, I hope the Minister will find time to comment on the point that my noble friend made on tenant farmers. If a landowner, large or small, decides to embark on a solar project, that is something that he has the right to apply for: it is his land and, arguably, farmers are being encouraged to diversify. If there is a tenant on that land—for example, a family who might well have an expectation to go on farming that land for at least one more generation, maybe for 40 or 50 years—under the 1948 Act, the farmer in question cannot be kicked out if the landowner wants the land for farming. However, if the land will be allocated for other uses and permission is given for a solar array on that land, the tenant has no choice but to vacate his farming operation.

Of course, there will be issues with compensation, but we are talking about a situation that could be incredibly damaging and unfair to a group of farmers in this country. It is a large group of farmers, who are already under a lot of pressure because of other government policies. I urge the Minister to look specifically at that point. If he cannot respond to it today, could he ensure that he writes to Ministers in other departments to clarify it?

Finally, the Government have been quite cavalier in appreciating and valuing local opinion. I will give an example from Norfolk. I declare my interest as a landowner in Norfolk, although what I will discuss is nowhere near where I live. There is a group of solar array applications east of Swaffham on the A47. I think there are five sites—my noble friend Lord Fuller will correct me if I am wrong—amounting to 6,000 acres and straddling about four villages east of Swaffham. There is a huge amount of local opposition. Does the Minister think it right that these people should be ignored? Would it not be far better if the applications went through a local planning process? Indeed, there would be an appeal—but, if so, the local residents would obviously have the chance to put their point of view. Currently, there is a feeling that, in the interests of trying to get these key infrastructure projects through, local people are being ignored and cast to one side.

With those few remarks, I support my noble friends Lord Fuller and Lord Roborough, and wish them well with their amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Goschen (Con)]

My Lords, I remind the Committee of my interests in that I own a farm in Devon.

My noble friend Lord Fuller has done the Committee a service by raising the issues of planning and land resource allocation more generally in the context of the Bill. I listened carefully to the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, and I think she is right: this is a very much broader issue than this relatively narrow Bill. None the less, this is an important moment to raise such issues. I very much hope that we will get a substantive response from the Minister when he addresses these considerations.

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)]

I was promised by the Conservative Government a land use framework by Christmas 2022; I did not get it. I was promised it by Christmas 2023; I did not get it. I would like it now from a Labour Government.

[Viscount Goschen (Con)]

My Lords, knowing that the noble Baroness has waited so long puts my noble friend’s 12 and a half minutes into perspective. I dare say the Minister will ride to her rescue very shortly.

This is an important issue. We have had a number of agricultural debates over recent weeks, and one of the key themes has been the need to put food production at the very centre of agricultural policy. The view of the farming community is that that really is not the case at the moment. Farmers need clarity around the policy framework in the context of this Bill and, indeed, more broadly.

I listened carefully to the remarks of a number of contributors that even solar installations are long-cycle, high-capital-intensity investment decisions. There is an issue around whether land taken for solar would ever, in reality, be repurposed for agriculture.

I recognise that this is a broader issue in many respects than the narrow confines of the Bill but it is important for the Government to give us the context.

--- Later in debate ---

The current levels of transparency and accountability the Bill includes are a long way from satisfactory for a company that will be able to spend initially £8.3 billion of taxpayers’ money—a figure that, I remind your Lordships, can be increased without limit. If the Minister disagrees with the content of the amendment, I hope at least he will have sympathy with the intent, and will be willing to have further discussions on this and, hopefully, will come up with his own amendments to improve the transparency and accountability of the company on Report.

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 90A in my name. At the time that I tabled it, it was a simple little amendment at the fag end of a Bill. Instead, it is now an amendment that threatens to be hated by my own Front Bench and is obviously getting between many Members of the Opposition and whatever they have in mind before they can execute it. But I want to speak to what I think is a very sensible little amendment. Great British Energy has an important role; it has considerable public investment behind it and there is, probably across the Committee, agreement that the reporting requirement in the Bill—that GBE would be required only to submit a normal Companies House report—is simply not enough.

With the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, I tabled Amendment 116, which we discussed earlier in the course of the Bill, which gave an objective to GB Energy, as part of its strategic objectives set by Government, to help to deliver the statutory targets for both climate and biodiversity enshrined in the Climate Change Act and the Environment Act. The Minister promised to reflect further on Amendment 116 between Committee and Report—which assumes that we will eventually finish Committee, which is highly doubtful as we are progressing at the moment.

As a minimum, the Bill should require Great British Energy to report on its achievement of the Secretary of State’s strategic priorities for GBE, including the climate and biodiversity targets, as well as on the progress of community energy. It would be rather strange to determine strategic objectives for GBE without requiring it to report on progress on achieving them.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, it has just gone 10 pm. We are just over half way through the Government’s stated targets for this evening. As the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, said, it is highly unlikely that we can finish another eight groups any time soon.

It is a firm convention that the House rises at 10 pm between Monday and Wednesday, and there has been no agreement to the contrary. We have had, thus far to date, one and a half days in Committee against a committed three days. This is a significant Bill; £8.3 billion worth of taxpayers’ money is going into it. We owe it the scrutiny that such public spending, rightly, should deserve. I ask the Government Chief Whip whether he will resume the House now or fairly soon after.

Great British Energy Bill

Baroness Young of Old Scone Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 17th December 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Young of Old Scone]

46: Clause 5, page 3, line 8, at end insert “which in his or her opinion will assist the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, improvements in energy efficiency, the security of energy supplies and a more diverse ownership of energy facilities (including community ownership) that benefit people and communities.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)]

My Lords, if one were of a nervous disposition, one would be alarmed at the clearing of the Chamber that the simple act of standing up to move an amendment can provoke in this House.

I will speak to Amendment 46 in my name and those of the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayman—who, alas, cannot be with us today due to family illness—and Lady Boycott. It deals with the priorities that the Government will set for Great British Energy, and returns to the issue of community energy, which was given an airing by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, in the previous Committee session.

Amendment 46 inserts into Clause 5 a specific requirement that the strategic objectives of GB Energy should include delivering reductions in emissions, improvements in energy efficiency, security of energy supplies and a more diverse range of ownership of energy facilities—especially community energy schemes—whether connected to the grid or providing energy solely for local communities.

The mention of community energy in the debate about Clause 3 was very much about the objects of GB Energy. The amendments in this group are more about framing the articles of association of the company, in line with the strategic priorities that the Government impose on GB Energy. Clause 5 is more specifically about what the Government will determine on the strategic priorities and plans for GB Energy. I believe that the Bill should specify that the key issues outlined in this amendment be included in the objectives and plans. Clause 3 is about what GB Energy could do; Clause 5 is about what it will do. It is important that these priorities are on the face of the Bill.

In the case of community energy schemes, your Lordships will be glad to hear that I do not intend to repeat the excellent case made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, in speaking to his amendment to Clause 3.

The grouping of amendments in Committee on this Bill has been interesting—I think that is the word—but it has had one silver lining in that it has given us opportunity to debate energy community for a second time. One can never have too many debates about community energy.

Much of the promotional material around Great British Energy has been clear that it will play a role in supporting community energy. Community energy schemes are important if we are to persuade local communities that the disruption and downsides of renewables development and rewiring the grid have something for them by way of cheaper, greener, more secure energy in which they have a stake.

Local power plans, including community energy schemes, are one of the five priorities for Great British Energy that were put forward in the founding statement. If all these assurances and promises represent genuine commitment, why not put this in the Bill, as my amendment proposes, as indeed does Amendment 50 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, which I also support?

During the debate on his amendment in the previous Committee session, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, indicated praise for Jürgen Maier, who is on record supporting a role for GB Energy in community energy. But Mr Maier is also on record as saying at a parliamentary hearing that he did not believe that community energy had the potential to generate gigawatts. This does not gel with the assurances that we have been given by the Government both in their manifesto and during the passage of this Bill in the other place.

I very much welcome the fact that my noble friend the Minister undertook to give greater consideration to community energy schemes and their place in the Bill between Committee and Report. I hope he will reach a conclusion on the basis of that consideration, which would result in the role of Great British Energy in community energy appearing in the Bill to ensure, above all, that confidence is not lost by communities or investors alike.

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

I thank my noble friend for giving way. She has asked me a question so I might as well answer it. What that means is that the Government have not committed ourselves to a position, but we are looking seriously at the arguments that we received when we debated this issue last time.

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for that intervention. It reveals the importance of having more than one debate about community energy that he has now said that twice. I beg to move.

[Baroness Boycott (CB)]

I will speak to my Amendment 46A and to Amendment 46, to which I have added my name. I also support Amendments 50 and 51A in this group, among others. I tabled Amendment 46A because I want to ascertain from the Minister whether this was something that GB Energy would or could be doing. As drafted, this amendment, very simply, requires Great British Energy to deliver a public information and engagement campaign on the work it is doing as part of the transition to clean energy—about renewables, reducing greenhouse gas, improving energy efficiency and contributing towards energy security.

The first inquiry that I was part of in the then newly established Environment and Climate Change Committee, which was under the wonderful chairmanship of the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, was on public engagement —or, to be quite honest, after many months of looking at it, the lack of it. Shortly after that inquiry, the Skidmore review also identified that public engagement is the missing piece of the puzzle. I am really not sure how much the dial has moved since then in this Government and certainly in the previous one. With GBE being a government-owned company, we could decide here and now, today, that the Government are going to take an active role in this; I think, and many others agree, that this would have a very beneficial knock-on effect.

The reason it is important may not be abundantly obvious at first, so I shall just lay out why I believe it is crucial. As we found on the committee, 32% of emissions reductions up to 2035 rely on decisions by individuals and households, while 63% rely on the involvement of the public in some form or another. We need to tell the public what we are doing and why we are doing it. We know that the public support the transition to net zero. Even last week there was a new poll that found that across all the major parties there was a high amount of support for anything to do with the environment. But you cannot expect people to support something if they do not know the reasons or what it is going to mean for them. We are not shepherds herding sheep, but we need to explain why it is happening,

I have real faith that the public will largely—if not exclusively—support all the energy infrastructure that we need to decarbonise the grid, including pylons wherever they have to be put, and they will be up for getting EVs and charging them in the middle of the night at times when electricity is abundant. They will do all these things because if they can buy into the common good, then you are in a win-win situation. But we must engage them, and the continued absence of a public engagement strategy leaves lots of space for lots of very negative voices to chip away with misinformation about why we do not need to do this and how we are not really in a climate emergency. Explaining these changes and how they are going to come in is crucial to secure public consent and address all the concerns that both the public and too many sections of the media, sadly, have.

I also fully support the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, who made a wonderful introduction to it. I just add that with such little accountability, as the Bill stands, and as the Minister has said, we are not going to see a draft strategic priority statement before the Bill passes. It is important that there is some constraint around what the statement includes. The contents of this amendment are fully consistent with the objects in Clause 3 but correct a wrong area where GB Energy has the ability to invest in a wide range of “things or areas” but has no long-term security of knowing roughly what its strategic priorities will be.

I do not believe that this is too prescriptive. It seems to be wholly consistent with everything I have heard the Minister say in this House—and, indeed, the Secretary of State in the other place. I challenge the Minister to come up with something that he thinks GB Energy ought to have a role in, either now or in the future, that does not feasibly come under the list in this amendment.

It has to be said that my amendment is broad, so a few points apply to both it and the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Young. I will say a few words on emissions reductions. This has to be the overarching purpose, which, from conversations we have had with the Minister, I think is the case. But it is important that as a principle it is a publicly funded company which is not at present aligned to our emissions reduction targets. We should have no issue in including this in the Bill as its priority.

Everything to do with energy efficiency must be an area where GBE has a meaningful contribution by bringing in investment. The CCC has highlighted that we are really behind and that progress is slow. The warm homes plan—which I greatly welcome; indeed, I tabled an amendment to the last Energy Bill, now an Act, which included a warmer homes and business plan—aims to see 300,000 homes upgraded over the next year. I ask the Minister whether his department has yet produced a credible plan for the year after that. I am thinking particularly about the target to reach 600,000 heat pump installations by 2028.

These are large numbers. I remind noble Lords that we have 29 million homes in this country—more each year—which at present are likely to need retrofitting. As for security of the supply, I understand the Minister sees this as critical to what GB Energy will achieve. Indeed, his department’s 2030 clean power target, which this Bill helps to achieve, will mean more renewable energy. There should be no issue about including this as well. I also include community energy, which I can see has had a lot of airtime already. That is really important for bringing the public along on our journey, because if you can look out of your window and see a turbine and think, “That is powering and heating my home” or “The solar panels on my roof are feeding into the grid as well as cooking my dinner”, we will come up against a lot less opposition to all renewable developments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)]

I thank noble Lords who took part in this debate, including the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and my noble friend Lord Grantchester. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, is no doubt watching Parliamentlive.tv and cheering us on as we speak. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Offord, for his party’s support for community energy and for the remarks about land use, which we will come to in Amendments 67, 73, 104 and 105. It highlights the need for a land use framework for England. I was kind of hoping that we would get it for Christmas, but it looks like it might be slightly later. We were supposed to get it last Christmas, as well.

I was delighted to hear that the Minister welcomes the further amendments on community energy, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that will come up in our next session. It will be the third opportunity for the Minister to tell us that he is pondering. Perhaps I should change my wish for a land use framework this Christmas to a wish for some new arguments in favour of community energy before our next debate, because it is becoming slightly repetitive. On the other hand, a good case can bear repetition.

The Minister clearly understands the importance of community energy. I am not sure he quite understands the distinction I was making between the objectives of GBE—which are about what it can and, by implication, cannot do—and strategic priorities and plans, which are what, in the Government’s view, it must do and do now. That is a material difference. In order to inform these reflections between Committee and Report, and in view of the wide support around the Chamber for community energy issues being addressed in the Bill, will the Minister meet with some of us who have indicated that very wide support?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

I would be happy to do so.

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for that. In the meantime, I will withdraw the amendment, though perhaps not before dwelling briefly on the statement from the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott. She talked about looking out your window and seeing the local wind turbine in which you would have some skin in the game as a result of a community energy scheme, and so think kindly on it rather than it being the enemy. That reminded me of how the Labour Party used to feel about Arthur Scargill: “He may be a bastard, but he’s our bastard”. There may well be hope for this policy.

In begging leave to withdraw the amendment, I reserve the privilege to decide, when the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, is back in harness, whether this should return on Report. That will very much depend on what the Minister tells us about the outcome of his reflection between Committee and Report. I wish him a happy Christmas while he does that.

Amendment 46 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 116, which is in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, who cannot be with us today, and to which I added my name. I was greatly encouraged by the Minister’s words at Second Reading that he looked forward to discussing biodiversity further in Committee. I do not think I have ever heard a Minister say that before, and now is his moment.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, has previous with this sort of amendment, having tabled similar amendments to a variety of previous Bills, so colleagues may now be familiar with her modus operandi in this respect. The amendment aims to address the challenges of how the objectives, strategic priorities and other functions of GBE fit with the legally binding targets in the Climate Change Act 2008 and the Environment Act 2021, which the Government have a statutory requirement to achieve.

At Second Reading there was recognition that when making decisions about the rollout of renewable energy, clean power and the associated infrastructure, it is important that we bring together all the different responsibilities, issues and trade-offs in one scheme—one structure or place—so that Great British Energy and the Government are fully equipped with all the information to weigh up these decisions and to take account of all these different factors in an integrated way, rather than in the siloed approach to decision-making that we distressingly see all too often in government. This is particularly important where there are legally binding targets that the Government have to achieve and where it would be distinctly unhelpful if Great British Energy were working in the opposite direction.

We have a real opportunity here to set the long-term strategic direction by putting in place the right frameworks to provide a stable structure for Great British Energy to make decisions and to be as transparent as possible in its decision-making, both now and into the future. The aim is to try to make sure that the projects invested in are the most effective at delivering on GBE’s objects but operate in such a way that they do not militate against the Government’s achievement of the binding climate change and biodiversity targets. We want to be cunning; we need to learn to walk, talk and chew gum at the same time. We want to achieve the strategic climate objectives that Great British Energy is there to deliver but we also want to achieve other objectives—it is both/and, rather than either/or.

The amendment does not imply that in every single case Great British Energy needs to contribute to the statutory binding targets, but it does aim to ensure that they are considered from the outset when Great British Energy makes decisions—and indeed when the Government make decisions—about strategic priorities; that it factors them into the decision-making process and, where reasonable, contributes in a positive way to the statutory target achievement; and certainly that it does not make it more difficult for the statutory targets to be achieved.

I have said that the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, has previous on this. Noble Lords who took part in the Crown Estate Bill recently will have heard the her argue for a clause very similar to this. She successfully persuaded the Government of the need to join up the functions of the Crown Estate with the climate and nature targets. During that Bill’s passage, the Minister agreed both in Committee and on Report that:

“It is right that the public and private sectors make every contribution they can to help achieve our climate change targets”.—[Official Report, 14/10/24; col. 75.]


I hope we can persuade the Minister that this is an even more important case than the Crown Estate having an eye to the climate change and biodiversity targets, and that GB Energy will have an appreciable impact on both of those targets. We need to hardwire it in from the outset, particularly since, as was outlined in the previous debate, we have not yet seen GB Energy’s strategic priorities and plans.

I hope the Minister will accept that what was good for the Crown Estate goose applies equally to the GB Energy gander. I want to make a festive allusion, if noble Lords will pardon my lame attempt: I hope the Minister will agree that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, and that GB Energy should have a similar requirement laid on it as was accepted and passed for the Crown Estate. I hope we can persuade the Minister of that.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, very briefly, I offer Green group support for Amendment 56 and, in particular, Amendment 116, which has broad support, as we see from the signatures. I declare my interest as a member of the advisory committee, as I think it is now called, Peers for the Planet. The noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, has already said many of the things I was going to say. I just add that I can go back even further than she did, to the Pension Schemes Act 2021. That was an historic moment, with climate being written into a finance Bill for the first time ever.

I have been in your Lordships’ House for five years, and we have had win after win, as the noble Baroness just outlined. It really is time for us to stop having to bring this to the House to be inserted, taking up so many hours of your Lordships’ time to get us to the point at which clearly the Government should have started.

I will add an additional point to what the noble Baroness, Lady Young, said. In the recent election, Labour explicitly said that it was aiming to take a joint nature and climate approach to its way of operating the Government. This surely has to be written into the Bill.

To set the context, a nature recovery duty was discussed in the other place. My honourable friends Siân Berry and Adrian Ramsay were prominent in that, along with people from other parties. We are one of the most nature-depleted corners of this battered planet, but our statutory duty is at the moment only to stop the decline, not even to make things better. We surely cannot be creating such an important new institution as this without building nature into its statutory obligations. The Government regularly remind us that the economy and GDP growth is their number one priority, but the economy is a complete subset of the environment. The parlous state of our environment is an important factor in the parlous state of our economy.

Great British Energy Bill

Baroness Young of Old Scone Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 18th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as chair of the Labour Climate and Environment Forum. I add my name to the commendations given to the maiden speech of my noble friend Lady Beckett. She was my boss when I was chief executive of the Environment Agency. She was a very scary lady, but hugely kind and incredibly supportive. She taught me a tremendous amount. Our House will be a better and more thoughtful place for her presence and wisdom.

I welcome the Bill—it seems that not many people do—and the opportunity that GB Energy will provide to use public money to leverage and create direction for private investment to tackle climate change and meet our net-zero objectives. Unlike practically everybody else, I am going to simply raise five points for my noble friend the Minister. All of them are about Great British Energy and the content of the Bill.

First, community energy has already been raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman. The propaganda text around GB Energy’s creation has been very explicit about GB Energy playing a big role in supporting community energy. Community energy schemes are really important if we are to persuade communities that the disruptions and downsides of renewables and rewiring the grid have something in it for them by way of cheaper, greener and more secure energy. Local power plans, which I hope include community schemes, are one of the five priorities for GB Energy in its founding statement. If it is a real commitment for GB Energy to deliver community energy schemes, why not put that requirement in the Bill?

Community energy schemes currently generate around only 0.5% of the UK’s electricity. Studies by the Environmental Audit Committee and others estimate that this could increase twentyfold in 10 years, powering 2.2 million homes and saving 2.5 million tonnes of CO₂ every year. It can create jobs, reduce local people’s bills and boost local infrastructure investment. Lots of other nations have seen community-led renewable energy schemes growing over the last 10 years, but we are stuck at the level it was when feed-in tariffs ended. We have not grown since.

What is most worrying about not having a statutory requirement for GB Energy to support community energy in the Bill is that Jürgen Maier, who was much praised by the Minister as the chair of GB Energy, is already on record as saying at a parliamentary hearing that he did not believe that community energy had the potential to generate gigawatts. That is totally at odds with the assurances given by the Government both in the Labour manifesto and during the passage of this Bill in the other place. If we are to have the confidence of investors and communities, and not have confusion on the role of GB Energy in this area, we need community energy in the Bill.

My second point leads on from that, to some extent. It is about the Secretary of State’s statement of strategic priorities. It is important that we see this in draft, at least in Committee. Community energy is only one issue that we want to see in it. Without sight of the statement of strategic priorities, we are being asked to buy a pig in a poke to some extent. Can the Minister tell us when we might see the Secretary of State’s statement of strategic priorities?

The third issue I want to go on about is in my capacity as a long-playing record. Many noble Lords around this House can remember what a long-playing record is, whereas vast quantities of the British public would not have a clue what I am talking about—but I am a long-playing record in this respect. Although GB Energy clearly has excellent net-zero objectives—that is what it is there for, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, said—we face a twin crisis of climate change and biodiversity recovery. GB Energy needs to be given an objective on biodiversity recovery.

It will have a role in de-risking and accelerating clean energy developments. There is always a possibility, at that point, that there could be a trade-off between biodiversity and delivering net zero, but it is not either/or—it is both/and. We need to be smart, and GB Energy needs to be given objectives on both net zero and biodiversity recovery; they need to complement each other.

There is a quick way around this. We could support the Private Member’s Bill in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, which would give the twin objectives of climate and biodiversity to all relevant public bodies. I think it is important that we have these twin objectives for GB Energy. There are lots of examples of similar—although not quite the same—entities, which are virtually independent of the state but are sponsored and wholly owned by the state, that kind of lose the plot. The Forestry Commission plants trees, but it does not do very much to plant trees for biodiversity and climate change. The water companies, which are basically creatures of the public purse, have gone seriously off the rails. I hope we can make sure that GB Energy does not get a rush of blood to the head with its new-found independence and become so fixated with net zero that it cannot do anything else.

My fourth point is on accountability, which has already been raised. We can all read the published accounts of plcs from Companies House. They do not cast much light on many occasions. It is important that this body, which has an important role and a fair slug of public money, provides more back to both Parliament and the public on how it is delivering on its role. It needs to provide a report on a regular basis about the Secretary of State’s strategic priorities and how they are being delivered. If the Secretary of State has not had the foresight to see community energy and biodiversity recovery as strategic priorities, we need reports on these—whether they are strategic priorities or not.

I do not want to see some of the inflexibility that I have heard described around the House today in requiring more and more burdensome reports from this company. It is being set up specifically to give flexibility to allow the Government to influence the direction of an emerging set of technologies as they emerge. We do not want to strangle it at birth with reporting requirements, but there needs to be a happier medium between that and simply the Companies House report.

Last but not least, you could not expect me to do a speech in this House without talking about land use. Great British Energy will inevitably be engaging with spatial issues, such as new grid infrastructure and other energy development locational issues. Any planning role or role that engages with land use and spatial issues will need to complement the existing work of both private and public bodies, including the National Energy System Operator, in producing the strategic spatial energy plan. Spatial energy issues are important, but they need to be resolved in the context of all the pressures on land—for example, other infrastructure types, housing, flood risk management, food production, biodiversity, forestry and carbon sequestration, to name but a few.

The previous Conservative Government promised me the publication of a land use framework for England as a Christmas present last Christmas. I thank the new Labour Government for their commitment to producing a land use framework for England. I know it is there in draft and I had hoped we might be out to consultation by this Christmas. That would be a nice Christmas present. Can the Minister confirm that the Government see the importance of setting the strategic spatial energy plan in its broader land use context and framework? I think it is called joined-up government. If so, when might the land use framework consultation emerge?

Finally, I wish good luck to the Minister in responding tonight. The discussion has been amazingly wide, right across the energy policy agenda and beyond, for a very tiny Bill for a very specific purpose. It is going to be a bit like summarising the entire works of Proust in 21 seconds.

EV Strategy: (ECC Committee Report)

Baroness Young of Old Scone Excerpts

Wednesday 16th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as chair of the Labour Climate and Environment Forum. I too am very honoured to have served on this inquiry. I am always amazed by the skill of the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, in chairing what was a motley crew and her skill this afternoon in being able to name in exquisite detail all the schools we worked with, with no notes whatever. Doesn’t it just make you spit?

Sales of new battery electric vehicles are up—I do not think we should be excessively gloomy. They went up considerably in 2023, but of course that was happening mainly in fleets, and private new car demand for electric vehicles declined substantially during that same year.

I want to deal with four of the issues that have been raised already by noble Lords but perhaps focus on aspects that have not yet been covered. The whole charging infrastructure is the first. There are now 70,000 public charging points and 850,000 domestic and workplace points, and that is still substantial growth. Some 80% of current electric vehicle owners have their own off-street parking, so we must make sure that we do not end up with a situation of haves and have-nots. Equalising tax on charging is really important.

The mixed signals that we got from the previous Government about whether it was going to be a 2030 or 2035 phase-out date did not help the charge point operators—it undermined their prospects of investment. We need to make sure that the clarity around the date of the phase-out—which was in the manifesto, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford mentioned—is honoured and sustained, so that everybody is very clear about the trajectory to which we are working.

There are considerable incentives in place at the moment for charge point installation—such as the rapid charging fund and LEVI, which is a local authority scheme—but they have not accelerated charge point rollout to quite the rate that we wanted. For example, the LEVI rules keep changing, making it very difficult for folk to deal with. There are a number of laggard local authorities that have done nothing since the scheme was opened, and that needs to be subject to government action. Local authorities are key in making charge points available for people who have not got access to driveway parking, and collaboration between charge point operators and local authorities is fundamental. The LEVI scheme and some of the initiatives put in place by the last Government to make it successful need to be continued and looked at, to make sure that they have not been lost sight of in the transition.

The Government have been consulting on-street charging. It would be good to know from the Minister when the results of that consultation are likely to emerge and what is going to happen as a result of them. There is a view that there is a need for Section 50 licences to allow on-street charging to happen, but these are quite expensive and very slow. Why not grant permits to deliver on-street charging in the way that utilities have standing permits to operate the works necessary to keep them moving?

As the noble Lord, Lord Birt, indicated, the rapid charging fund is dragging. It is only a pilot scheme so far. When it is rolled out in full, it needs to include the provision that was in the pilot of having HGVs included. It would be good to hear from the Minister when the full scheme will be introduced.

There is a cross-pavement charging grant, but the guidance on how that will operate has not yet been published. As a result, the money that was set aside for it has literally not been utilised. Can the Minister say what plans the Government have to take forward the cross-pavement charging grant? To be frank, I think that it is not a good idea. I would be much more in favour of looking at how we can ensure that, within communities, there are sufficient accessible charging points, so that people can be assured that they will find one within a decent walking distance of their house, rather than having the prospect of intrusion into pavements by works sponsored by a grant to individuals.

The second point I want to cover is that of upfront costs. The vast majority of people who are buying electric vehicles at the moment are buying them through workplace or other leasing schemes, so I am not as downcast as some previous speakers have been. The second-hand market, which is a really important part of the vehicle market, is struggling. That is partly because of a lack of clarity about depreciation as a result of uncertainty around battery health. I would be grateful if the Minister could tell us what is happening with the support scheme for battery assurance certificates. It has been consulted upon; when will it come about? Could the Minister also tell us how the fairly substantial investment that the Government have put into battery development and initiatives such as solid-state batteries is going?

Commercial fleet operators are key, and the upfront costs of trucks are still very expensive—by a factor of three, compared with diesel. The current government grant schemes are pretty small, so perhaps we need a combination of increased grants and tax incentives, as well as tax disincentives. Disincentivising tax on diesel trucks will help create the market for electric vehicles in the commercial sector.

I turn to one of the bees in my bonnet that the committee discussed: marketing and communications. The reality is that the climate change challenge is one of the biggest that the world has ever faced, yet we do not have a government-co-ordinated marketing scheme for electric vehicles to persuade the public that some of their concerns and fears are being met and are not as huge as they think they are, using modern marketing techniques, social media and all those sorts of things. Under the previous Government, we frequently had Ministers in front of the committee who told us that that was an example of the nanny state and that the Government did not do that.

The reality is that there needs to be a concerted campaign against what is a big disinformation campaign. If you read local and national newspaper reports on electric vehicles, you would think that they are the Antichrist and liable to eat babies if left unattended. Range anxiety is said to cause stress, but range anxiety is rapidly becoming a non-entity. There are groundless fears about spontaneously combusting batteries, and of battery life and resale value. All those fears are not justified by the evidence but the tabloids, and other far more reputable newspapers, continue to peddle them like billy-o. The time has come for the Government to recognise that it is important to take forward a concerted campaign with modern marketing techniques and good information reliably provided to the public, and that this must not be left on some government website for the public to have to seek out. That is long overdue.

I will finish with the ZEV mandate. I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, who is not in his place, that the timescale should be adjusted, although I agree with him that some of the market incentives need to be geared up. We must not forget that it is important to bring in electric vehicles at a greater rate not only for climate change but for the manufacturers themselves. Increasingly, the world is looking for electric vehicles, rather than diesel and petrol. If we are to keep our place at all as an exporter of UK vehicles, we need to make sure that we can meet that requirement and do not see a diminution in the pace of moving our manufacturing capability towards electric vehicles.

I hope that the Minister will be able to give us strong assurances that the Government are not spooked by the manufacturers’ push-back at the mandate, and that there will be a strong campaign for the promotion of electric vehicles and a tweaking of the grants, taxes and other mechanisms, as noble Lords have spoken about today. We do not want to break stride. We need to find ways of addressing the hiccups and bumps in the road that mean that the manufacturers are feeling uncomfortable. We need to meet their legitimate concerns, but not by changing that date.

The mandate is one of the biggest tools in the toolbox. Electric vehicle sales are going up, especially in the lease market. We are seeing heavily discounted prices, which are good for the customer as well as for the climate. If you look at the exact calculations for the 2024 target, which with proper adjustments is about 18.5%, you will see that we are on target to meet it, and therefore should not be panicking now. So let us keep up the pace, drive down the carbon and the costs, drive more feedstock into the second-hand market, and make a real contribution to the huge challenge that is climate change.

No doubt the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, would have hysterics at any suggestion of taxation benefits or subsidy. But the reality is that we are rapidly seeing a closure of the upfront cost between electric and petrol vehicles, and that is as long as the subsidy needs to persist—we are not talking about it being in place for a very long time. We are talking about these sorts of subsidies being time limited by the point when electric vehicles can hold their own in that market.

I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, for his strenuous efforts on the committee to keep us honest. Many of his points were absolutely admirable, but I think the point at which I parted company from him was this: he does not believe that the costs of not doing this are higher than the costs of doing it, and that climate change down stream has huge costs that are now dreaded by the reinsurance and insurance market, the banking sector and every sensible business. Of course, if you do not believe that, a cost now is a bogeyman, and a cost in 20 or 30 years that you do not believe in is not worth thinking about. It was fun.

Offshore Petroleum Licensing Bill

Baroness Young of Old Scone Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 26th March 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)]

My Lords, it is difficult to follow the noble Baroness—I seem to have drawn the short straw on that one—but it is also difficult to follow the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, because it is quite distressing to witness the death throes of a dinosaur.

This is a wholly unnecessary Bill. Its only virtue is that it is brief. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, said that the North Sea Transition Authority, for which the Bill is allegedly meant, has been quoted as saying that it does not need or want it.

The Minister kindly wrote to us in February and held a briefing meeting early in March. He tried, and I should say failed, to outline the benefits of the Bill, so let us look at some of the anticipated and promoted benefits. One is jobs. Whether or not it is 200,000 for oil and gas and associated industries, the argument pursued by the Government is that we have to keep these jobs up and that it would be really bad for us to see all these people becoming unemployed or having to change their profession. In fact, they have skills that would admirably fit the transition to low-carbon technologies. Rather than giving the go-ahead for continued licensing in the North Sea and slowing the decline path of North Sea gas and oil, we should get a greater move on with the development of new low-carbon technologies, including by attracting the billions of pounds of potential investments that the Government tell us are out there.

New green jobs using these people’s skills is the humane way to transition from old to new technology, rather than perpetuating oil and gas to support old jobs. This is the sort of illogical thinking that we have come to expect from this Government, in this area. It is like the logic that we heard them use when talking about commissioning new gas-fired power stations to provide resilience to fluctuations in sun and wind power renewables, rather than going straight towards low-carbon, hydrogen, medium-term storage solutions, as advocated by the Science and Technology Select Committee. The only result of commissioning new gas-fired power stations is likely to be a whole load of stranded assets.

The Minister also talked about energy security, and new oil and gas licences helping to safeguard that energy security to ensure that we do not rely on hostile states. That argument does not stack up either. Only 20% of the oil produced in the UK is refined here; 70% is refined in Europe. I do not accept the belief of the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, that we can force trade from having the wrong sort of oil here, with the remainder bartered with Europe. If we end up in a situation where there is a lack of security, international tension or even an international war, having 70% refinable in only Europe will leave us vulnerable.

Some 75% of our oil is exported, since it is the wrong grade for domestic consumption, and 50% of our natural gas comes from outside the UK. None of us wants to see that rise, as liquefied natural gas has a higher carbon footprint than domestic gas, but the answer is not to slow down the transition from a fossil fuel that is on its way out, but to speed it up through increased investment in renewables. They are the future, after all, and that is the most secure way forward.

I too believe that we should increase the burden on carbon capture, storage and use to meet the net-zero target. Carbon capture needs a whole load more technological development before we can really dream of relying on it for carbon removal in any major way. The proof of concept, developed into real schemes on the ground, simply is not happening fast enough or with enough security and science.

[Lord Lilley (Con)]

After the noble Baroness’s gratuitous insult at the beginning, I am grateful to her for giving way at this point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lilley (Con)]

That was very kind of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. She is an apologist for the noble Baroness, Lady Young. Now I have almost forgotten what I was going to ask. Is the noble Baroness, Lady Young, happy that we should do without carbon capture and storage at a risk, according to the estimates of the Climate Change Committee, of doubling the total cost—trillions of pounds—of meeting the net-zero target?

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)]

I would be delighted to be confident that carbon capture and storage would fill a substantial gap, but so far we do not have the practical evidence that it can be done. Until that is so, we should not increase the burden on a technology that is not yet established or proven. I personally think that, when the Climate Change Committee put the carbon capture and storage element into the net-zero budget, it was being a bit optimistic, as it was about some other issues. When one looks at the amount of public subsidy going towards Drax—the ultimate dream for carbon capture, storage and reuse—one wonders whether this is another example of the overdue influence of industry.

The noble Lord talked about tax revenues and I was a bit speechless in response: “We are getting tax revenues from something that is quite harmful, but the tax revenues are important; therefore, we have to keep doing the harmful thing”. That is like saying that people smuggling is pretty profitable, even if it is harmful, so we should have a national people smuggling enterprise that brings in some reserves and revenue for the Government. I do not accept the tax revenue issue.

The benefits of the Bill are far from what they are cracked up to be and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, will be glad that I will talk about some downsides. The first is marine protected areas. We know that more than a quarter of the oil and gas blocks approved in the October 2023 round were within marine protected areas. Our marine protected areas are in poor condition; only 8% offer effective protection for nature, which is the reason they were created. The clue is in the title. MPAs are an important component of the Government’s Environment Act targets and their international commitment, under the global biodiversity framework, to protect nature effectively in 30% of the sea by 2030. We helped lead that framework at COP and now we are authorising additional licensing of blocks in marine protected areas, as part of the commitment in the Bill.

The International Union for Conservation of Nature, which is the United Nations official body, has guidance that recommends that no industrialised activities take place within MPAs. The Bill clearly rejects that guidance. Just in case noble Lords do not know what the impacts on MPAs are, I should say that they are not the same as for wind power. Some of them are about oil itself. That does not include gross oil spills; generally speaking, we must praise the oil industry around this country—not necessarily elsewhere—for having been fairly successful in reducing the risk of major oil pollution incidents. However, persistent micro-spills do quite a lot of damage to the water quality, from the top to the bottom of the sea. There are also other pollutants from other chemicals used in the operation of oil and gas extraction.

The second issue sounds a bit weird, but is quite important. There is a lot of evidence that seismic survey noise really impacts marine mammals in particular, as well as commercially important fish species and the invertebrates on which they all live. We do not yet know enough about how strong the harm is, but we know that it is substantial.

The third issue is direct destruction of seabed habitats—for example, cold-water corals and deep-sea sponge communities. It is not just that I am carrying a flag for deep-sea sponges, though as a biodiversity fan I am sure they are very lovely; they are actually important carbon storage mechanisms, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, my partner in crime, and important for nutrient cycles that help keep our oceans clean. We ignore at our peril the biodiversity and conservation downsides.

I personally think this Bill is unnecessary, unwanted and damaging to climate, biodiversity and, as we have said before, our own international reputation, which should not be discounted. It is very easy to say that the only argument we can put is that it will not look good, but that is not what we are talking about. We have taken a leadership role in the world on this issue, and persuaded other countries—of the sort that the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, felt would not be persuaded—to do the right thing rather than the wrong thing. We would be junking that international reputation, as we have done successively with several announcements over the last year and a half.

If the Government really want to waste their political capital driving this Bill through, it needs substantial amendment. First, we need to exempt completely marine protected areas from the oil and gas exploration and production blocks. Secondly—and you would expect this from somebody who has spent their life in government on a land use framework—we need a sea use framework. I understand that the Government are already working on a marine spatial prioritisation programme, designed to allocate and prioritise sea space for currently competing activities. Exactly the same problem that we have on land, we have at sea. I urge the Government to complete that work programme quickly, and to add a further test—a spatial prioritisation test—to the carbon intensity and net importer tests already in the Bill, inadequate as they are. This would make blocks available for licensing only if such activities could be shown to be compatible with the achievement of the objectives of the Environment Act and climate change targets. That would be set out in a marine spatial prioritisation programme.

To be honest, the Minister knows in his heart that the North Sea Transition Authority and the nation do not need this Bill. The Climate Change Committee says that there will be a need for some oil and gas after net zero, but that does not justify the development of new North Sea fields. Although we could amend this Bill, it is bit like the pig in lipstick: we could put lipstick on the pig but it will still be a pig. Why does the Minister not just withdraw this silly Bill and we can all go home for Easter?

Biomass Strategy 2023: Cross Sectoral Sustainability Framework

Baroness Young of Old Scone Excerpts

Wednesday 15th November 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

The noble Baroness knows that I do not agree with her on this. The biomass that is used for generation in the two main plants is sustainable. There are very strict sustainability criteria attached to it, and the generators are measured against those criteria by Ofgem.

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome the commitment to the cross-sectoral frame- work, provided that it is statutory rather than voluntary. Does the Minister regard this as a significant change from the Government’s previous position, when they decided to appoint a senior member of Drax management to the Climate Change Committee that advises government on biomass policy at a time when Drax had received £11 billion in public subsidy for biomass?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

There has been no significant change in government policy. The sustainability criteria for biomass have existed for a while now, in concert with other biofuel strategies across government. Of course, if we can take the opportunity to make those criteria even better and even more sustainable, we will do so.