Great British Energy Bill

Earl Russell Excerpts

3rd reading
Tuesday 25th February 2025 Lords Chamber

It would be nice to have that broad set of criteria as soon as possible and for it to be shared with Parliament. To be asked to pass this amendment before we know what on earth the judgments will be, what they will be based on, or who the polymath will be who can somehow convincingly second-guess the market is asking quite a lot of us. I can see how the amendment adds something to the accountability side, but that something is very vague. I hope that there will be more efforts by the Government before long to give us a clearer idea of what “effectiveness” is, how it will be judged, how much the market will be overridden by views in five years’ time, and whether, in fact, it is going to work at all.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak first to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, which is supported by the noble Lord, Lord Vaux. These Benches are pleased to see that continued progress has been made and that this government amendment has been brought forward. There has been a unanimous voice across the House that there needed to be more reviews in the Bill and that it was important to have this amendment, so we are pleased to have it in place.

I echo what was said on the Government’s amendment to the amendment and the addition of proposed new subsection (4)(a), which requires a copy of the review to be sent to the devolved Ministers 14 days before it comes to Parliament. My assumption is that that is there so that the devolved authorities have a chance to comment on the review and that those comments have a chance to come before Parliament, but it would be useful if the Minister could confirm why that new subsection has been added and what the Government’s thinking is on it.

We welcome the review, but it is happening over a five-year timeframe, with the first review completed at the important date of 2030. If the Government recognise the need for the review, why not have it on a more regular basis? A three-year or four-year timeframe would be more useful for this proposed new subsection to have the effect that the Government intend it to have.

I turn beyond the amendment to what I want to say at the end of Third Reading. These Benches have been consistently supportive of the Government and their objectives in this Bill. We believe that, done well, GB Energy will help to secure our energy independence and reduce our reliance on volatile international gas markets, which have proved so costly for UK bill payers and our economic prosperity.

The previous Conservative Government spent some £40 billion subsidising bill payers, and that money provided no long-term benefit to our overall energy security. Just this week, the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit published a report on the anniversary of the invasion of Ukraine, stating that £140 billion has been spent by the UK on the international gas markets since 2021—the equivalent of £1,300 per person. Again, this has brought no long-term benefits.

We have the third-best wind resources in the world, so it is great to see that these are finally being properly developed to bring us long-term energy security and to reduce costs for our energy bill payers. The CBI reported this week that the green economy contributed £80 billion in gross value added to the UK economy last year and grew at a rate of 10%—three times faster than the rest of the UK economy.

Having said all that, I always felt that the Bill was a little bit too short and lacked the content that it needed; that has caused us some challenges when scrutinising it. We welcome all the amendments that have been passed; we believe they add value and that the Bill leaves this place in a stronger position than when it arrived. I am particularly grateful to the Minister and his Bill team for including community energy in the Bill. This is a really important amendment, and it will benefit our communities and help with the energy transition. Community energy has been supported by MPs and noble Lords on all sides, so this is a win for everybody. I am grateful to Power for People, which has provided support to all of us on these matters, and we will continue to press the Government, as others have already mentioned, on the future of the community energy fund.

We also welcome the other amendments that were tabled: the amendment on strategic priorities; and the amendment that the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, negotiated with the Minister on sustainable development.

Finally, if noble Lords will excuse me, I want to say something about the words that we use as parliamentarians and how we talk to each other on the issues of climate change. I deeply regret the end of the political consensus on climate change. My personal feeling as a relatively new Peer in this House is that while bits of our debates on this Bill were excellent, there were too many moments when points were repeated, purely party-political points were made that did not improve or challenge the Bill, filibustering took place, or we had numerous votes that took place very late at night.

The public support action on climate change. Polling consistently shows 70% support. The public also want to see reductions in their energy bills; they do not much care, frankly, how that happens, but it requires all of us to make progress. These matters are challenging enough to address with a sense of consensus, and they are made even more difficult when political hostility is added to the mix. My final point is that we must all work better together so that we can all achieve more.

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

My Lords, in concluding for His Majesty’s loyal Opposition, I thank noble Lords from across the House for their tenacity in scrutinising the Bill, and in particular the noble Lords, Lord Alton of Liverpool and Lord Vaux of Harrowden, for their amendments. On my own Benches, I note the contributions of many noble friends, who have done sterling work to temper what is a misguided piece of legislation which will not deliver cheaper energy for UK households or businesses.

GB Energy is flawed because it exposes the conflict at the heart of this Government between the Chancellor’s stated priority of economic growth on the one hand and, on the other, the accelerated pursuit of net zero at any cost that the Energy Secretary has made his ideological obsession. While this scrap rages at the centre of Whitehall, there is only one loser: the public, who, it has been confirmed today, will be loaded up with the price of net zero to the tune of another £111 per household this year. That is directly because of this Government’s policies and a far cry from the promise in the Labour manifesto of a reduction in energy bills by £300 per year per household—a manifesto pledge which this Government have refused to include in this legislation.

As the Bill has progressed through your Lordships’ House and the other place, the chasm between rhetoric and reality has indeed been exposed. I believe that in a decade we will look back and ask why we invented this cardboard cut-out company. But despite our deep scepticism, it would be churlish not to wish GB Energy a positive start, so I offer some start-up advice. With its £8 billion of borrowed money, the first order of business should be a feasibility study of all the energy sources available to us in the UK. If it does so, it will discover the following. The dash for renewables at any price is a folly. In doing so, we are loading excessive costs on to our energy bills, to the point now where our industrial energy in the UK is five times more expensive than in the US and seven times more expensive than in China. All the while, we are offshoring jobs from the UK to China, turning UK revenue into Chinese profits. This is impoverishing our nation.

The Government are denying the facts. We are an energy-rich country, and our hydrocarbon industry is the envy of the world in terms of compliance and sustainability. Surely it is irresponsible to refuse to even explore the opportunities that onshore gas could bring, while of course undertaking an assessment of risk. The fact that this Government’s policy continues to tilt towards shutting down offshore oil and gas is surely an affront to the hundreds of thousands of skilled workers in Aberdeen and the north of Scotland. They surely deserve better than this.

Meanwhile, both parties agree that nuclear is efficient and clean, but it should be accelerated. We should cut the red tape by unleashing our homegrown engineers while being unafraid to learn from those, such as the Koreans, who have been able to roll out nuclear energy more quickly and at a lower cost.

If GB Energy does this feasibility study, it will realise the facts and then it should pivot net zero accordingly to ensure that our transition to a cleaner energy system is both fair and affordable to UK households and industry. For the sake of the country, we can only hope that it does so.

Finally, I believe it is important to state unequivocally that my own party must reflect on the last 14 years of government energy policy. The verdict of the electorate in July was clear and resounding. As many noble Lords are aware, an error does not become a mistake until one refuses to correct it, and I would encourage the current Government to heed these wise words.

Biomass Generation

Earl Russell Excerpts

Wednesday 12th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

My Lords, I begin by welcoming a more limited role for Drax in our energy power system. However, we must acknowledge that because of the Government’s ideological energy policy—which prioritises naturally unreliable renewable technologies —more biomass subsidies are required. This would not be the case if the Government focused their attention on flexible and reliable baseload power. We must look for a more pragmatic approach: one which prioritises cheap, stable and reliable energy. It goes without saying that Drax’s biomass plant is not clean nor is it cheap. In fact, according to non-profit think tank Ember, burning wood at Drax produces a staggering four times the emissions of our last coal power plant. It is the UK’s biggest polluter, producing double the emissions of our largest gas station, operated by RWE at Pembroke.

As a result, the Government have to make difficult decisions which result in high levels of subsidy, burdening the taxpayer further. Will the Minister confirm what estimates have been made as to how much CO₂ will be released by burning trees at Drax for another four years, and how that compares to using gas to generate the same power?

Ultimately, we must consider the cost of the new agreement. At £160 per megawatt hour in today’s money, the new deal for Drax is 15% higher than its existing agreement of £138 per megawatt hour. Indeed, Baringa’s analysis has shown that bill payers will continue to pay over £450 million a year in subsidies to burn trees. Will the Minister confirm that the Government intend to carry out an independent analysis of how much the increased strike price will cost the British taxpayer? Will he give his word that Drax will not be allowed to burn wood from primary forests during its generation? Finally, while we welcome the new sustainability criteria, will he explain what steps will be taken to make this enforceable in practice?

[Earl Russell (LD)]

I thank the Government for their Statement on short-term support for large-scale biomass generation as part of the UK’s energy generation mix. The Government inherited from the Conservatives a system where large-scale state subsidies are provided for the burning of biomass. This form of energy generation currently plays an important role in our energy system, providing some 5% of our national energy needs. These subsidies are worth some £2 million a day. Over time, Drax has received billions of pounds in government subsidies and from bill payers because wood pellets are classed as a source of renewable energy. Lucrative government subsidies are due to come to an end in 2027, hence the Statement before us today. The new agreement reached with Drax will run from 2027 to 2031 and will see the power station used only as a back-up to cheaper renewable sources of power such as wind and solar.

We can have lots of arguments about the sustainability calculations used to justify Drax. I listened with interest to the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, speaking on the Great British Energy Bill on Report last night, and I am not a scientist and do not have the exact answers. What I will say is that shipping wood across the Atlantic has a carbon footprint. Repeated incidence of old-growth forest being felled and burned undermines credibility and must stop.

Finally, the very fact that the Government are looking at carbon capture and storage to prolong the life of Drax is telling. Labour’s new plan will allow for four more years of unabated wood burning, which produces 18% more CO₂ than burning coal, according to the IPCC data. It takes nearly 100 years for this carbon to be pulled back from the atmosphere. Climate change driven by CO₂ emissions is clearly the greatest threat to humanity’s survival. Even a 100-year, long-term carbon-neutral Drax is hardly beneficial to anything we need to achieve to effect any real change in the race for humanity’s survival.

The Liberal Democrats see biomass as a fundamentally inefficient method of producing electricity, and we strongly believe that it should not qualify as a form of renewable energy. The Government’s plan to continue to subsidise the Drax power plant causes environmental harm and is not beneficial compared to investment in renewable energy. It does not provide good value for money for our bill payers. We are concerned that, although this plan would cut the amount of wood Drax is burning by 50%, the price is still lucrative—indeed, I see in the news that Drax’s share price has risen by 11% this week.

We are deeply concerned about the destruction of primary forests. The new agreement states that the wood must be 100% sustainably sourced. How will the Government verify that this is the case, when it has not been in the past? Further, I ask the Minister to publish the 2022 KPMG report into Drax’s record on claiming subsidies on a false basis. Are the Government prepared to publish that report?

The new proposals will see a halving in the use of Drax and a saving on subsidies of £147 million. Will those savings be redirected into other renewable projects? Under this proposal, Drax can step in to increase energy generation and provide flexibility where it is needed. Is this not just an energy marriage of convenience? Will the Government consider reclassifying Drax as being not a renewable source? It is time to stop calling it such; if the Government need that power generation for flexibility, clearer labels should be given.

The Liberal Democrats are clear that we would ensure that 90% of the UK’s electricity is generated from renewables by 2030—and that would not include biomass. When will the statutory instrument be published? I am pleased that the Government have halved the subsidies for Drax, but I hope that further progress is possible.

Finally, I wish to challenge the Minister. This Government should agree to ask NESO to write an independent report, to be produced relatively quickly, examining: the impacts of ending all subsidies to Drax; how those funds could be replaced and used for alternative renewables technologies; and what the resulting impact would be on our energy security and journey to net zero.

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

I am grateful to the noble Lord and the noble Earl for their comments. I understand, of course, that this is a sensitive area and that there are concerns, as noble Lords across the House have expressed. Equally, we have taken advice from the National Energy System Operator. It has advised us that Drax will play an important role in delivering security of supply between 2027 and 2031. It is true that we could seek to replace Drax, but that would probably be with new gas-fired power stations. We believe that there would be significant risks in relying on that approach, and that what has been taken is a pragmatic decision.

I noted what the noble Lord, Lord Offord, said. I would point out, though, that it was the then Secretary of State for DESNZ who, under the Conservative Government, put their name on the planning approval for Drax’s plans for BECCS at the Selby site. The decision letter stated that the project would

“support the transition to Net Zero by 2050”.

I will respond to some of the points that noble Lords have made. The important thing is that the agreement reached ensures that Drax plays a much more limited role in the system, providing low-carbon dispatchable power only when that is really needed. Drax currently runs around two-thirds of the time; that means it provides power, even when other renewable sources are abundant. Under the new arrangement, Drax is being supported to operate only at a maximum load factor of just 27%, operating less than half as often as it currently does. This will be guaranteed by the design of the dispatchable contract for difference that has been agreed. What that means is that when renewable power is abundant, Drax will not generate and consumers will benefit from cheaper wind and solar instead.

On cost, the new deal halves the subsidies for Drax compared with existing support. That is the equivalent of a saving of nearly £6 per household per year. Our analysis shows that this will save consumers £170 million in subsidy in each year of the agreement, compared with the alternative of procuring gas in the capacity market.

Your Lordships’ House has expressed a lot of concern about the obviously important questions on the measurement of sustainability over the past few months. I too was interested in the analysis by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs—this was some time last night—as the chair of the challenge group that exists at Drax. We will increase the proportion of woody biomass that must come from sustainable sources from 70% to 100%. We will significantly cut the allowable supply chain emissions to a level in line with the stricter regulations currently operating in the rest of Europe, as some noble Lords here have asked for, and exclude material sourced from primary forest and old-growth forest from receiving support payments. There are substantial penalties if these criteria are not met.

I know that there is concern about the regulatory system, but Ofgem has shown that it is prepared to act, and has acted. We will continue to make sure that our independent regulator has the support it needs to do what is necessary. We should have some faith in Ofgem’s ability to monitor and police this.

On the future of Drax, this new arrangement takes us from 2027 to 2031. We have not made any decisions post 2031, but we want to have proper options. We are setting up an independent review to consider how options for greenhouse gas removal, including large-scale power BECCS and DACS, can assist the UK in meeting our net-zero targets.

On the KPMG reports, Ofgem considered those as part of its detailed investigation into Drax. These are internal reports that the company commissioned and I cannot make a commitment on that, but I will take it away to see what I can do.

Overall, it seems to me that this is a—what is the word?—pragmatic response to a challenging question. The fact is that Drax makes an important contribution to our generating capacity. Equally, noble Lords will know that the Government have taken note of their concern about the general issue of sustainability by increasing the requirements. This is a four-year agreement and, clearly, we will come back to this important issue in the next few years.

Rosebank and Jackdaw Oilfields

Earl Russell Excerpts

Wednesday 12th February 2025 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I am not going to speculate on individual projects. The noble Lord will understand that I cannot say anything that would prejudice future regulatory decision-making. What I can say is what the Government are doing. The noble Lord knows that on 29 January the Court of Session published its judgment in relation to the Rosebank and Jackdaw oil and gas fields, setting out that previous consents granted to those two fields were unlawful as they failed to take into account the emissions from burning the fuel produced.

If developers wish to proceed with these projects, they will have to reapply for consents, this time considering scope 3 emissions, as required by the Supreme Court judgment last year. The judgment itself is of course a matter for the courts, but we took action in October, in light of the original Finch judgment, to consult on revised environmental guidance. The consultation closed on 8 January, and we are working towards publication of finalised guidance as soon as we possibly can. Once that is in place, the Government will resume making decisions with respect to environmental impact assessments for offshore oil and gas developments, and the court confirmed it is in the interests of good administration for that consultation and guidance to be treated properly.

That is the situation. I say again that I recognise that, although the UK continental shelf may be a declining asset, it is an important one. We believe we have reached a sensible position of not allowing new licences, but there are a number of applications that have already received licences that need to go through the consent process. The guidance, when published, will set out the parameters on which the applicants can apply. We will then have to see the outcome of that proposal.

In the meantime, I acknowledge the work that has been carried out in the North Sea. The noble Lord knows we are very committed to a just transition for people involved who will be coming out of the industry. I acknowledge the importance of the industry and the role that it has to play for many years to come.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, I welcome the commitment that this Government aim to deliver a fair, orderly and prosperous transition in the North Sea, a transition in line with our climate and legal obligations. The Liberal Democrats are opposed to new oilfields at Jackdaw and Rosebank. Instead, we call on the Government to increase the amount, scale and pace of investment in our renewable energy future.

Will the Government confirm whether they will treat any further licence requests for the Jackdaw and Rosebank oilfields as existing or new applications? I can see no prejudicial reasons why that question cannot be answered today.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

First, my Lords, we need to draw a distinction between licensing and consenting. Licensing gives rights to search and bore for petroleum in the UK continental shelf, and those are vested in the Crown. The NSTA is a non-departmental public body, sponsored by my department, that is responsible for maximising the economic recovery of oil from the North Sea. Blocks of the North Sea are allocated to operators in that way. The operators can then explore for oil and gas under the licence. At that point, there is often a five-year gap between licensing and consenting. What we have said is that we will not consent to any new licenses, and we will shortly be consulting on that.

I am sorry, but I am not going to comment more in relation to individual projects such as Rosebank and Jackdaw. I have to be very careful as a Minister in the department in relation to future processes that will be gone through in which we exercise decision-making. I am sorry, but I really cannot go any further than that.

Great British Energy Bill

Earl Russell Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 11th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)]

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

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

[Earl Russell (LD)]

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

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

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

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

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

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

[Earl Russell (LD)]

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

[Lord Petitgas (Con)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Cryer (Lab)]

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

[Earl Russell (LD)]

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

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

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

What? Leaflets?

[Earl Russell (LD)]

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

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

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

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

“must keep under review … sustainable development”

is a very weak form of words.

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

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

[Earl Russell (LD)]

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

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

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

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

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

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

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

[Earl Russell (LD)]

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

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Great British Energy Bill

Earl Russell Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 11th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 37 in this group and to Amendment 1, which has been introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and to which I have added my name. Before I start, I thank the Minister and his team for the very constructive and helpful discussions that we have had since Committee. We have made good progress and I am very grateful. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, for their support for my Amendment 37.

The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, has already introduced Amendment 1 with her usual clarity, so I will try not to repeat her too much. As we discussed at some length in Committee, this Bill creates GBE as an entity, but nowhere does it set out what GBE is actually expected to achieve—what its aims or objectives are. As the noble Baroness just pointed out, Clause 3 sets out its “objects”, but we should be completely clear that the objects set out only what the company is allowed to do, not what it is intended to achieve. The only place where the company’s aims will be set out will be in the statement of strategic priorities in Clause 5. However, we have not seen these, even in draft. They will be published sometime in the future and are not subject to meaningful parliamentary scrutiny. They will be laid before Parliament, but there is not even the level of scrutiny that may be applied to a negative statutory instrument. Your Lordships’ Constitution Committee described this as being “disguised legislation”.

It is important that the Bill should include, at least at a high level, some statement as to what GBE is actually intended to achieve. The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, should be commended for not trying to score political points with her Amendment 1, which is why I have supported it. I think that she has tried to align the objectives in her amendment with what the Government have said are the goals for GBE, so I hope the Minister will look kindly on it. If not, and if the noble Baroness were to divide the House, I would be minded to support her.

My Amendment 37 covers similar ground to my amendments in a later group. I apologise: I was told at a late stage to degroup them on the advice of the Public Bills Office, for some esoteric reason that I am not sure I fully understand. These amendments all try to inject some much-needed transparency and accountability into the Bill—something that is currently somewhat lacking. The only reporting that GBE must do, as it stands, is the annual report and accounts that it must file in accordance with Section 441 of the Companies Act. We had a lot of discussions on this in Committee and the Minister undertook to write to set out the additional requirements that will apply to GBE as a publicly owned entity. I thank him for his letter, which I think satisfies the first three proposed new paragraphs of my Amendment 37. The element that would still not be covered, as the noble Baroness just pointed out, is the assessment of the extent to which the investments or partnerships entered into by GBE have encouraged additional investment by the private sector.

This is extremely important. If all that GBE does is make investments that would happen anyway in the private sector then that would not be a good use of public money. Indeed, it could actually damage the creation of a thriving market for financing green energy—the well-documented concept of crowding out. There is an important role for GBE, just as there is for the UK Infrastructure Bank, now called the National Wealth Fund, to act as a catalyst to kick-start or accelerate investment in new technologies where the private sector is not yet ready to invest. There is a good precedent for this: it can be very strongly argued that the offshore wind industry, now so successful, would have been much slower to develop without the initial backing of the European Investment Bank, which the UK Infrastructure Bank was designed to replace in this country.

If the Minister will confirm clearly that he would expect GBE to report in its annual report and accounts on the extent to which it achieves additionality then I will be happy not to press Amendment 37.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 17 in this group. This probing amendment seeks further clarity from the Minister on the Government’s commitments to Great British Energy’s budget. It seeks information on the timing of the delivery of the budgets that have been promised and further clarity on Great British Energy’s ability to borrow funds in the future.

I have raised a probing amendment on Report because, as we have heard, this money is still subject to the spending review, and we have seen recent announcements from the Chancellor surrounding growth. For those reasons, we seek clarity that the £8.3 billion up to 2029 is available as promised and will be delivered. We previously saw cuts to Labour’s £28 billion green deal before the election. The key thing—and I hope the Minister will agree—is that there is absolute clarity on these matters; that is needed for securing the £60 billion in private investment. We need clarity and consistency in policy direction, which I hope this Government will maintain.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

I am grateful to the noble Earl. He said that he thinks that green energy will lower costs. So far, green energy has actually raised costs. Why should it lower costs in the future?

[Earl Russell (LD)]

I thank the noble Lord for his intervention. Green energy over time will lower costs. There is an initial hump to get over with investment, but the trouble that we need to address is our increasing and continued dependence on the vast fluctuations in foreign gas markets. We saw what happened with the war in Ukraine, and we saw that the noble Lord’s Government had to invest £40 billion towards subsidising bill payers—money that was invested for no long-term benefit. We must get away from those things and we must have energy security. These are investments in Britain and in reducing our bills, and they are worthwhile doing. It is really important that GB Energy invests in these emerging technologies. That is why I have raised my amendment on GB Energy’s ability to borrow; if GB Energy cannot borrow it will not be able to make these key investments.

Amendment 20, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Offord of Garvel, and the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, is about the annual report and financial assistance provided to GB Energy. We expect this to happen, so do not feel that the amendment is necessary.

We support the spirit of Amendment 37, but expect the Treasury to require all these areas to be reported on. Having reflected on what was said in Committee and the Minister’s response, we expect GB Energy’s reporting requirements to be similar to those of the Crown Estate. It would be useful if the Minister could confirm that.

Amendment 39, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Frost, and supported by the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, is one of the strongest Conservative amendments to be tabled on Report. We have some sympathy with proposed new subsection (1), which is similar to an amendment I moved in Committee. At that stage, it did not win the Minister’s favour—I suspect that that might be the case again today. Where I slightly part company with noble Lord, Lord Frost, is in relation to the annual review for the chair of GB Energy. My view is that an important and good annual review would not be one that was fully made public. To me, that seems a slightly strange request, and may be counterintuitive to the object which he seeks.

I am going to stop there as I have run out of time and there are a lot of amendments in this group.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

I support Amendment 1, in the name of my noble friend Lady Noakes. I should declare at this point that I live about five miles away from Sizewell B nuclear power station and one that is about to be built, Sizewell C, and less than a mile away from other energy infrastructure that is still going through the planning process.

A lot of my time at the other end was taken up with considering the importance of energy, not only for a long-term sustainable future but the security issues rightly referred to in these objectives. The reason these objectives matter is that this is an unprecedented situation, where we are handing, in effect, a blank cheque to an arm’s-length body. Admittedly, it will have strategies set by the Secretary of State, but, as has been pointed out, there will be absolutely no reference to Parliament in its consideration. That is why the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Frost has attraction, in proposing at least having a direct connection with two Select Committees of the other place and a relationship with the chair of GB Energy. As my noble friend pointed out, these are the reasons that the Government gave us for having this new entity. Therefore, it would make a lot of sense for the Government to accept this amendment directly.

On Amendment 17, where I disagree with the noble Earl, Lord Russell, is that I do not believe we should get into legislation that dictates the amount of taxpayers’ money that will be spent. I have seen that happen before in legislation, and then all of a sudden money starts getting wasted. The whole purpose of this financial vehicle is to de-risk and bring in external private investment. That is a sensible approach, especially given the amount of uncertainty, which I appreciate the Government are trying to address in other ways. Nevertheless, for something such as energy security, a significant amount of investment is going to be required right across not just Great Britain but the United Kingdom, and this is a critical moment for our nation. That is why, while I think there will be money well spent, we should not be dictating a minimum.

The amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden, is really sensible. This company will be in an unusual situation—not unique, but unusual—and the extra information required, particularly in proposed new paragraph (d), is the core essence of why this company is being set up: it is stepping forward to try to get others to do so.

If anything, what has evolved over many years is the need for transparency and understanding. The amount of trust that people have in how their taxpayers’ money gets spent really matters in the contract that Parliament and government have with the electorate—the taxpayer. So, elements such as this will enforce the rationale rather than just necessarily seeing energy bills tick upwards, unfortunately.

So if Amendments 1 and 37 are pressed, I will certainly support them—although, regrettably, not Amendment 17 from the noble Earl, Lord Russell.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendment 8 relates to Clause 3 and makes it clear that community energy is within scope of the objects of Great British Energy. I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for his support and for our engagement between Committee and Report.

We had an interesting and somewhat lengthy debate in Committee on the role of community energy. I have always recognised the important role that community energy can have as we strive for clean power and net zero. Following positive discussions across the House, particularly with the noble Earl, Lord Russell, I accepted that the role of community energy could be made explicit in the Bill. That is why this amendment has been tabled. It sets out a clear intention that local and community energy is important for Great British Energy and the Government.

GBE will enhance existing support for community energy. This will be done through partnering with, and providing funding and support to, local and combined authorities, as well as community energy groups. This is very important. To support community energy groups to access funding and to establish themselves in all areas of Great Britain, GBE will provide commercial, technical and project-planning assistance, increasing the capability and capacity to build a pipeline of successful projects in local areas. This has clearly been missing in the current arrangements, where lots of local groups want to develop community energy but find it difficult to access advice and access the pathway to finance. GBE has a really important role to play here. I beg to move.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, I support government Amendment 8 and will speak to my Amendments 14 and 25. I am deeply grateful to the Minister for putting community energy in the Bill with Amendment 8. It is now clear that Great British Energy may facilitate, encourage and participate in those things mentioned in Clause 3(2)(a) to (d) through projects involving or benefiting local communities.

I am really pleased, as this is a win for MPs on all sides of the other Chamber and for noble Lords on all Benches in this Chamber. There is notable strong cross-party support to see community energy in the Bill. It was a key objective for us, and I am delighted that we have had a successful negotiation and got this done. We have the third-best wind resources in the world. It is our view that there can be no Great British Energy without Great British community energy. With this amendment, our objective has been achieved.

It is worth noting that, as the Minister said, GB Energy has a unique role here. When Jürgen Maier was before the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee he talked about a system coming “out of the box”. That is exactly it—going into local communities, GB Energy will be able to deliver community energy and engage with them from start to finish.

I remind the House that community energy could deliver up to 8 gigawatts and power 2.2 million homes, saving two nuclear reactors-worth of energy. It could remove 2.5 million tonnes of CO₂ and provide over 30,000 jobs. What is not to like about that? I am delighted that we have made progress on this and I thank the Minister.

Moving on, my Amendment 25 is a probing amendment in response to a question that my counterpart, Pippa Heylings, asked in the Commons this week about the fact that, at the moment, the £10 million community energy fund is oversubscribed. Some 100 projects are unable to get funding, and the money is due to run out in May. While I greatly appreciate getting community energy into the Bill, can the Minister provide clarity on what will happen with that fund? Is he able to put more money in? Is there an interregnum until GB Energy can start funding it? Ed Miliband gave very strong words in support of community energy but did not really answer my honourable friend’s point about the money. If the Minister can provide any more certainty or say whether this is being looked at, that would be appreciated.

Amendment 14 is our warm homes plan and emergency home insulation plan. It requires the Government to transfer the responsibility for the warm homes plan to GB Energy should it be requested. We have some of that coldest, dampest and most miserable homes in Europe. UK housing stock accounts for around 7% of total carbon emissions. They are among the least energy-efficient homes in Europe, with 12 million homes in England alone currently falling below adequate energy efficiency standards. The UK Climate Change Committee has said that residential retrofits need to increase to a rate of 500,000 a year by 2025 and 1 million a year by 2030 to meet our climate targets. This is a huge and daunting task. It is one of the biggest infrastructure tasks of the 21st century.

Our citizens have suffered cold, damp, draughty and unhealthy homes for far too long. In the single largest housing-related cost burden to the NHS in 2023, some £50 million was spent fighting cold-related illness. Homes cost more to heat than they should because they do not retain the heat that the homeowners pay for. The best energy of all is the energy that we never use, in particular the energy that we do not waste on absolutely nothing. Energy efficiency remains a missing part of overall energy policy. Citizens should not have to choose between heating and eating. In this country, 6 million people live in fuel poverty, while at the same time we are wasting this energy. It is utter madness.

The last Government completely failed to tackle this problem. They cut the funding and the ambition to deliver warm homes and to insulate our homes. That was not good enough. Carbon Brief calculated that UK energy bills were £22 billion higher over the past decade than they should have been because the Conservatives cut the “green crap”. The number of homes being insulated each year at the start of 2024 was 98% below 2012 levels. Of that £22 billion, £5 billion was due to poorly insulated homes and £3 billion was because homes were being built that were not meeting energy efficient standards.

However, no Government of any persuasion has ever managed to tackle this problem. It is a tough nut to crack, even with the best will in the world. Going house-by-house and retrofitting our mixed housing stock is an extremely challenging undertaking. I welcome this Government’s commitment to the warm homes plan and the £6.6 billion in funding that has already been provided. The programme that the Government are setting out will provide low-interest loans to support families to invest in insulation, encourage low-carbon heating and enable the retrofitting of our homes. The Climate Change Committee has estimated that £3.15 billion is probably the total cost of getting this done, but I welcome what the Government are doing. My amendment is not a criticism of that but is here to support.

The burden is on the private sector, where 90% of these properties are owner-occupied and not meeting standards. We need to do stuff with the over-65s, because that is a particular problem. We need to tackle fuel poverty, as we have 2.26 million homes in fuel poverty as of 2022. We need new financing options, particularly green mortgages, so that private home owners can take the cost of making these measures and put them against their mortgage, and we need similar situations for people in the private rented sector.

This is good, though. The New Economics Foundation has said that every £1 spent of public investment could generate £4.60 in capital expenditure and £6.90 in broader economic activity; this is good for our homes and our economy. It could create thousands of green jobs and increase local UK supply chains.

I am worried about the delivery of these plans; that is why I have put this amendment forward. I recognise that the Government are exploring these issues as we speak and that my amendment is a bit radical and left field. I say to the Minister that this is difficult, and at a time when the Government are also trying to put in solar panels and heat pumps. I am not the only person to be concerned about delivery of these plans. I recognise that GB Energy is an independent organisation. My amendment is not prescriptive; it is simply about not ruling out options from the start. It is about making sure that that door is not closed to GB Energy from before it is set up; it is about making sure that there is space for those conversations to take place.

If my amendment passes and GB Energy never approaches the Government or the Minister to say that it wants to take any of this on, for whatever reason, then my amendment does no damage at all; it makes no difference whatever. It comes into play only if GB Energy approaches the Minister and says that it has the skills and the contacts within the industry, that it fits with its community energy plans, and that it wants to do this and make a difference. This amendment, if it does nothing else, allows these conversations to take place, and I think that is a good thing. I dare the Government to be different and take a different approach to this daunting and challenging task.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock) (CB)]

My Lords, I apologise. I failed to make it clear at the beginning that, as Amendment 9 is an amendment to Amendment 8, I have to call Amendment 9.

Amendment 9 (to Amendment 8)

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Russell (LD)]

The aim of my amendment is not that GB Energy should pay for it; I feel that GB Energy would be a good body to deliver it.

[Baroness Boycott (CB)]

Okay.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Earl Russell]

14: After Clause 3, insert the following new Clause—
“Warm Homes Plan and emergency home insulation(1) The Secretary of State must accept any request from Great British Energy to have responsibility over the delivery and implementation of the Warm Homes Plan.(2) If Great British Energy makes a request under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must provide support to Great British Energy following the transference of responsibility.(3) If Great British Energy becomes responsible for the delivery and implementation of the Warm Homes Plan, that delivery must include an emergency home insulation programme which—(a) provides targeted support for people on low incomes,(b) seeks to achieve to the reduction of household energy bills, and(c) contributes to the achievement of the United Kingdom’s climate and environmental targets.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Government to transfer responsibility for the Warm Homes Plan to GBE should it be requested and further requires GBE to introduce an emergency home insulation programme that would seek to reduce household energy bills, and contribute to achieving climate and environmental targets.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

I appreciate the Minister’s response and what the Government are doing in relation to the warm homes plan. I also appreciate the commitment he has given, in time. My amendment is not prescriptive; it is simply about keeping those conversations open. I think that GB Energy could fundamentally have a role in delivering all or part of the plans, and I wish to test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Petitgas (Con)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 15 I will also speak to Amendment 16 in my name. I will start with Amendment 16, which seeks to establish baseline investment governance for GBE. Remarkably, the Bill as drafted provides no clear framework for GBE’s investment decision-making process, leaving critical questions of accountability unanswered. This amendment is a necessary safeguard for three reasons.

First, it addresses the glaring governance gap that I just spoke about. The Bill delegates ultimate authority to the Secretary of State but offers no clarity on how GBE itself will assess value for money or who, within GBE, will be accountable for such decisions. Without defined governance structures, we risk approving an open-ended cash flow without proper oversight. This is simply not acceptable when billions of taxpayer pounds are at stake.

Secondly, it highlights the need for financial expertise and accountability. At Second Reading the Minister suggested giving GBE free rein to pursue opportunities with an entrepreneurial spirit—I think he mentioned independence today. While I sympathise with this ambition, GBE is neither a venture capital fund with a proven investment committee nor a publicly traded company like Ørsted in Denmark, subject to rigorous market scrutiny. In the absence of such mechanisms, it is imperative that His Majesty’s Treasury provides oversight. We need experienced financial professionals—dare I say grown-ups in the room?—to ensure value for money, while balancing financial returns with broader strategic goals.

Thirdly and lastly, Amendment 16 is designed to ensure public trust and confidence. Some may argue that setting governance requirements could stifle innovation. On the contrary, clear accountability and oversight would enhance GBE’s credibility and reassure taxpayers that their money is being managed responsibly. Without these safeguards, we risk undermining trust in this ambitious initiative.

This amendment does not constrain GBE’s mission; it strengthens it by ensuring robust governance and responsible stewardship of public funds. In summary, we are asking for clarification from the Minister of how GBE’s spending will be monitored and how the Government will ensure value for money.

Amendment 15 seeks to establish a cap on the level of funding for GBE. While the Government have allocated £8.3 billion for this initiative, the Bill lacks clarity on whether additional funding may be sought without parliamentary oversight. This amendment is prudent and necessary, again for three reasons.

First, it ensures fiscal discipline and taxpayer protection. GBE’s mission is to attract private investment into renewables but, as we have said several times, there is absolutely no shortage of private capital in this sector. Companies such as Iberdrola, SSE and National Grid have already committed billions to clean energy projects, so there is a clear risk that GBE’s funds will be directed towards high-risk or less attractive ventures like a magnet. As the noble Lord, Lord Mandelson, once said, when politicians try to pick winners, losers invariably find the politicians. A funding limit would safeguard taxpayers, while allowing GBE to prove its effectiveness and build a track record.

Secondly, Amendment 15 aligns with precedents and market practice. Other government initiatives aimed at crowding in private investment have operated within defined financial limits. Moreover, to me, GBE’s structure resembles that of a venture capital fund holding minority stakes in multiple projects. It would be unheard of for such a fund to operate with open-ended financial commitments. That would undermine investor confidence and fiscal accountability.

Thirdly and lastly, a cap signals discipline, not doubt. Some may argue that limiting funding could project a lack of ambition. On the contrary, in an era of fiscal scarcity, such a measure would demonstrate resolve and responsible stewardship of public resources. It would also encourage efficiency in achieving GBE’s objectives while maintaining credibility with Parliament and the public.

This amendment would not hinder GBE’s goals. It strengthens them by ensuring accountability and the prudent use of public funds. I am minded to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 15.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, I rise from these Benches to speak against Amendment 15 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Petitgas. His amendment seeks to add a limit on the maximum amount of money that the Secretary of State can provide to GBE—anything above and beyond the £8.3 billion that the Government have committed to. We strongly oppose this amendment. The noble Lord talked about resolve, strength and all these things, but I do not agree with any of that. It is not for the Opposition to use an amendment to legislation to determine what funds a Government can spend on something in the future, when we do not know what is going to happen.

Just this week we have talked about the Drax situation; the Government have halved the subsidies to Drax. The money that the Government are saving from having to subsidise Drax is money that could well go to GB Energy—for example, to fund the long-duration energy storage that we desperately need, so that we can do the transition and keep the lights on. The money should be used for other renewables projects.

It is for the Government to make day-to-day spending decisions and they are accountable for the decisions they make, as GB Energy is accountable to the Treasury and the public for how it spends its money. Ultimately, the Government themselves are responsible to the public, but I do not think it is for the Opposition to put a cap on what Governments can spend. Core spending is a decision for the Government, so this would be a highly unusual amendment and, if it is put to a vote, we will oppose it.

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

My Lords, I support the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Petitgas. In tabling his amendments, my noble friend looks to protect the taxpayer while securing the financial integrity of GB Energy, establishing that GB Energy’s attempt to ramp up renewables must not come at the cost of fiscal responsibility and £8.3 billion. The drafting of Clause 4 is far too ambiguous. We must introduce sufficient safeguards by limiting the scope that the financial powers in the Bill afford the Secretary of State. The taxpayer is coughing up a significant £8.3 billion into an investment vehicle that, as my noble friend Lord Petitgas said, has the potential to completely de-risk the profits of multi-million pound energy companies. Meanwhile, the Government have cancelled winter fuel payments, introduced an NI jobs tax and launched a raid on British farmers, all to save money.

The reality is that £8.3 billion is actually a very tricky number. On the one hand, it is a lot of money, a big, significant investment into energy. On the other hand, in the scheme of energy investment required, it is a relatively inconsequential figure, especially when we talk about wind farms being built out to the potential tune of £100 billion. Either way, whether we consider that to be a big or a small number, the taxpayer deserves to know that the Government are deploying public funds appropriately. The Bill contains no limitation on how much financial assistance GB Energy will receive, there is no cap on the money that can be pumped into GB Energy and nor does the funding have to undergo any approval. What is to stop GB Energy becoming a bottomless pit?

Clause 4 states:

“The Secretary of State may provide financial assistance to Great British Energy”.


But, again, we are lacking in detail on ways to hold the Secretary of State and GB Energy accountable. We have seen no method to restrict the amount of financial assistance the Secretary of State may provide, nor do we understand how the success of each investment will be measured, or indeed reported on. I trust that the Minister will take these amendments seriously. Our transition to net zero must be done with an eye to fiscal responsibility, ensuring that the energy transition is both sustainable and affordable.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I offer Green support for Amendment 18 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and a range of other distinguished Members of your Lordships’ House. I will also speak to my Amendment 19, which goes further than the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Alton, but which demonstrates just how moderate and reasonable his amendment is. Your Lordships’ House, the British Government and many parts of British society have long expressed their absolute horror at modern slavery, so surely we can put this into this important Bill, where it is such a crucial issue, as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, identified.

The noble Lord mentioned the Democratic Republic of the Congo and how the issues of modern slavery there, as well as child labour amounting to modern slavery, are very much an issue in terms of the energy supply chain. My amendment refers to

“credible evidence of deforestation or human rights abuses”.

I will take human rights abuses first. Much of what is happening in the Democratic Republic of the Congo might not fit the definition of modern slavery, but it absolutely fits the definition of human rights abuses. I note that I was at a briefing today with the DRC Foreign Minister, Thérèse Kayikwamba Wagner, who gave us the news, which has since been more widely reported, that, sadly, the ceasefire that had been called in the eastern Congo had been broken by M23, backed by the Rwandan Government. We have already seen nearly 3,000 people killed and some 3,000 people injured, and we heard from the Foreign Minister that, sadly, they expect those figures to rise very significantly. These are violent human rights abuses—there is simply no other term.

To tie this to the Great British Energy Bill, it is worth noting that the DRC produces 70% of the world’s cobalt, yet it somehow disappears without trace and reappears out the other side as legal, apparently appropriately sourced material, without any traceable chain to account for that. Of course, the people of the Democratic Republic of the Congo do not benefit financially from that. It is others—damaging, dangerous, aggressive forces—who benefit from it.

I wrote the amendment in this particular way because it goes back to the passage of what became the Environment Act, during which a number of noble Lords here today had much the same debate, with the tying together of deforestation and human rights abuses. One of the issues here is that indigenous people are responsible for protecting huge amounts of the world’s forests, and abuse of their rights is very much tied to the destruction of deforestation. I will note just one stat: if deforestation was a country, it would be the third-largest emitter of carbon behind China and the US. Much of that deforestation is of course linked in particular to agriculture. But in the DRC and parts of Latin America in particular, mining and deforestation are intimately linked.

So, your Lordships’ House has before it two amendments. I do not plan to push mine to a vote, but I offer the Green Party’s strongest support to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for his amendment. How could we not vote to ensure that there is action on modern slavery?

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak also in favour of Amendment 18 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, and supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, and the noble Lords, Lord Offord and Lord Teverson. I will speak briefly and will not repeat the arguments that I made in Committee.

We believe in people and planet, and we should never have to choose one or the other. The two are intertwined and co-dependent. Our goal of reaching net zero must not come at the expense of supporting repressive regimes that do not support the human rights of their own citizens, or on the back of slave labour.

In brief, we are very supportive of the intentions behind this amendment, but we feel that the ultimate solutions lie above and beyond GB Energy. The real solutions in the UK are about working with our allies and partners to develop our own manufacturing capacity for solar panels in particular, so that we are free of those from China. California has made progress on this; it can be done, particularly working with our European allies. This is really important stuff that the Government need to get to grips with.

We do not want to see GB Energy put at an unfair disadvantage vis-à-vis every other private contractor or engineering company doing solar panels in the UK. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, has already spoken about this, but I know that noble Lords will be very grateful to Jürgen Maier for having come and spoken to us. Unfortunately, I was off at the time, but my understanding is that it was a very good and productive meeting, and that he gave very strong and powerful arguments and responses to questions that were put to him on these issues. GB Energy, as we know, also has lots of stringent reporting requirements in place, including under the Modern Slavery Act.

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

Earl Russell Excerpts

Monday 3rd February 2025 Grand Committee

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

My Lords, these regulations were laid before the house on 28 November 2024.

We know that to reach our net-zero commitment and reduce our reliance on international fossil fuels, we must use all the tools we have available. Currently, heating accounts for 23% of the UK’s carbon emissions. Two of our key technologies for decarbonising heat are heat pumps and heat networks.

Heat networks present us with an opportunity to enable a more resilient and flexible future for the UK’s heat, reducing carbon emissions and our future bills. Heat networks are particularly important, as they are in a unique position to exploit larger-scale and local low-carbon energy sources, such as large, efficient heat pumps and waste heat from industry or from natural sources that would otherwise be dumped. Proven internationally to provide affordable, low-carbon heat, heat networks are especially suited to dense urban areas. The Government expect that about 20% of the UK’s heat demand will be met by heat networks by 2050, which will be a significant increase from the current figure, which is about 3%.

We want to do everything that we can to support the much-needed growth of the heat network sector, but we also want to ensure that we deliver a fair deal for heat network consumers. Heat networks currently function as an unregulated monopoly: the 470,000 households that are supplied by heat networks cannot change their supplier if they are dissatisfied with their service or obtain redress if they are unfairly treated. The lack of regulation means that consumers are not guaranteed a fair service: heating is less reliable, suppliers are less transparent and it is harder for consumers to represent themselves or make complaints.

We have been working with consumer groups and have engaged in research that will allow, and has allowed, us to identify where this is happening in the market and what we can do to put in place measures to prevent such activity. These regulations are what we need to put in place to ensure that customers are protected. They stem from the Energy Act 2023, which provides powers for the Secretary of State to introduce regulations across Great Britain that will protect heat network consumers in a way that is rightfully comparable with other regulated utilities.

This statutory instrument seeks to provide protections to heat network consumers that are comparable with activities such as those in the gas and electricity sector. The instrument introduces an authorisation regime to be implemented by Ofgem; this will work in a similar way to the gas and electricity licensing regimes. It takes an outcomes-based approach to reflect heat networks’ diversity of scale and their nascent market position.

The regulations ban running a heat network without an authorisation. Existing heat networks are automatically given an authorisation in order to phase in market regulation. The conditions for authorisation are set by either the Secretary of State or Ofgem, and apply rules for running a heat network. Ofgem will be able to monitor compliance with regulations and act where appropriate.

Actions Ofgem can take include issuing information notices for compliance data, investigating suspected non-compliance, inspecting commercial premises of authorised persons and issuing a range of orders requiring remedial action. Consumer redress orders can also be issued, requiring that affected consumers are given compensation.

These regulations require Ofgem to publish statements of policy on how powers are used. Penalties will be proportionate to the authorised person’s size and the scale of harm that their non-compliance has caused. Additionally, the instrument gives Ofgem powers to set minimum performance standards. Although the scope of these standards is not defined in this instrument, these will include quality of service, outage minimisation and treatment of vulnerable customers.

This instrument also applies Parts 1 and 2 of the Consumers, Estate Agents and Redress Act 2007, with some modifications to apply them to heat networks. These create the roles of consumer advocacy bodies for heat network consumers, providing access to advice. It also extends the Energy Ombudsman’s redress scheme to these consumers. The regulations automatically enrol all heat networks into the scheme.

The commencement dates for some of the provisions are slightly different. This is because delays to the passage of the Energy Act mean that Ofgem cannot commence regulatory activities before January 2026. However, to ensure that heat network consumers are afforded some support before then, we are establishing the roles of the consumer advocacy, advice and redress scheme providers earlier, in April 2025.

Finally, this instrument makes amendments to the Heat Networks (Scotland) Act 2021, following extensive consultations with the Scottish Government. These amendments were made to ensure that Ofgem can regulate consistently across Great Britain.

My department has carried out two consultations to inform these regulations. The first consultation was on creating a market framework, in 2020; the second was on consumer protection, in 2023. Across both consultations, broad support for the structures created in this instrument was expressed. There is an ongoing consultation on the contents of the authorisation conditions, the outcome of which will be published before the authorisation regime commences.

In summary, this instrument represents the important first step in introducing comprehensive utility regulation to the heat network market. It lays the groundwork for a much fairer and just sector where heat network consumers are protected. We expect that this will provide a very good foundation for growing the sector in future. Putting consumer protection at the heart of our agenda is, we believe, a way to inspire public confidence. I beg to move.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, I am pleased to say that we are very supportive of the heat networks regulations before us. We broadly welcome these moves, which will start to regulate the heat networks market in England, Wales and Scotland.

These regulations will bring in some much-needed consumer controls and protections for the customers of heat networks. As the Minister said, heat networks are a form of deregulated energy distribution, where heating, cooling and hot water are circulated from central sources of generation to multiple endpoints of use. These can include domestic dwellings as well as public and commercial buildings.

Frankly, it is shocking that heat networks have been largely unregulated to date, despite being an essential utility that is presently used by nearly 500,000 households in the UK. The only legislation that currently applies specifically to heat networks are the Heat Network (Metering and Billing) Regulations, which apply only to metering and billing.

Heat network customers have significantly fewer rights and protections compared with any other energy utility customers in the UK. A report carried out by the Competition and Markets Authority in 2018 found that the existing market was, in effect, a monopoly. It raised concerns about customer protections as this market grows and moves forward. To date, this market has been allowed to operate mostly unregulated. In all other aspects, heat network customers have fewer rights and consumer protections than any other energy customers.

We welcome the Government’s intention to grow this share of the energy market and we recognise that the extension of heat networks can bring benefits to customers as we make the energy transition. We welcome the use of large-scale heat pumps and novel uses of waste heat, particularly in urban areas. The recently announced Bunhill 2 Energy Centre, which will provide heat and hot water to more than 1,350 homes, a school and two leisure centres in Islington, with waste heat from the London Underground, is an example of this type of innovation. In future, waste heat from industrial processes or data centres could be used to provide new forms of domestic heat and hot water from heat that is currently used just as a by-product and released into the atmosphere.

I note the Government’s stated intention to see that some 20% of the UK’s heat demand is met by heat networks by 2050. These regulations are about creating those basic consumer protections for heat network customers so that they have the same protections as everybody else. We want to make sure that this heat network market is fit for purpose so that it can grow and new customers can enter it. At the moment, the lack of consumer protection is the main barrier to growing this market, so we fully agree with the Government on these points. The lack of a properly regulated market needs to be resolved, and we support the Government doing so.

This instrument uses the powers in Chapter 1 of Part 8 of the Energy Act 2023. It defines “regulated activities” in relation to heat networks and provides that anyone carrying out these activities needs an authorisation. Authorisations are to be granted by the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority, GEMA, and in practice by Ofgem. Ofgem will also have relevant enforcement powers and authorisations under the instrument. The regulations give it the powers to carry out this role, including investigative powers to collect information and issue different types of compliance notices, consumer redress orders and variable penalties.

What support will the Government give to very small heat networks and small community heat networks, particularly those with fewer than 50 members? Obviously, with new regulations there is some level of new burden, so are the Government aware of that and doing everything they can to support them in the transition?

As the Minister said, these regulations are only the first step in introducing a much fuller regulatory regime in the months and years to come. The authorisation regime run by Ofgem will come into force on 27 January 2026, but the provisions on consumer advocacy and the redress scheme to be operated by the Energy Ombudsman will come into force on 1 April 2025. How will those two systems work together? What will happen in that interregnum? Will the Minister and the Government ensure that, as they move from one regulatory regime to another, consumers will be protected through that transition?

I want to ask about historical legacy issues, in particular the money the Government gave to people in heat networks. Once these regulations come into force, what will happen to any legacy issues, conflicts or problems that pre-date these regulations?

Finally, in a statement in the other place it was made clear, as the Minister has said, that the Government want to grow heat networks to 20% by 2050. This has not had a lot of discussion in this place or the other place. We welcome this policy, but will the Minister take a moment to say how they plan to grow the heat network market? Beyond these regulations and making the regulatory framework work, what steps are planned to help increase the use of heat networks? What investment framework are the Government looking to use to help bring about more heat networks? What other mechanisms do they have in mind to help grow this market? How will it be reported on? What organisations will oversee the delivery of the increase in heat networks? Finally, does the Minister see a role for GB Energy in increasing the number of heat networks?

Great British Energy Bill

Earl Russell Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 22nd January 2025 Grand Committee

There are two missing great chunks of this issue. There is the recognition that the environmental impact is enormous, and that it requires intimate co-operation —an issue we have come back to again and again of co-operation with new or existing nuclear sites, maybe with small reactors on them instead of the big ones. There will have to be co-operation there, because most of the nuclear sites are on the sea and most of the switching stations obviously have to be on the sea as well, presumably in similar places. I do not know; this is all left completely undecided and undiscussed. It is certainly not mentioned in the Bill at all and I would like some comments from the Minister on that.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

I am sorry, but I am just a little confused which amendment the noble Lord is speaking to. This is obviously not Second Reading and we are not making general speeches. Could he help me with which amendment he is speaking to?

[Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)]

I had actually finished but I spoke repeatedly to the environment amendment. I mentioned it six or seven times. I am not sure what the noble Earl’s motive is. I thought that ought to be clear. Is it not clear?

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Earl Russell]

122: Clause 8, page 4, line 15, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
“(2) This section and section 5 come into force on the day on which this Act is passed.(2A) Sections 1 to 4, 6 and 7 come into force on the day the statement required by section 5(1) is laid before Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment means the Bill cannot come into force unless the statement of strategic priorities has been laid before Parliament.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, I stand to open the very last group of amendments as part of the final day in Committee on the Bill. This group is on commencement and, in moving Amendment 122, I will also speak to Amendments 123 and 124. I will be very brief on my amendments in this group, as I feel that I have already spoken to them in the group on strategic priorities during day 2 in Committee, a debate that was so nobly led by the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden, who I note is in his place. We had a very good and useful conversation on the strategic priorities as part of that group.

Amendment 122 would require that the strategic priorities are laid before Parliament. I have also tabled Amendment 123, which would require that they be laid before and approved by Parliament, and Amendment 124, which is, as I said, more of a compromise on these issues. It says that the Act

“cannot come into force unless a document setting out the thematic headings of the statement of strategic priorities has been laid before Parliament”.

That last amendment is where I really want to be on these issues.

My sense is that there is a general concern across the House, and across parties, on the need for some further clarity on the strategic priorities, but I welcome the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, at Second Reading. He made a welcome statement that some work should be done to try to find a solution on this. I also recognise that the Minister is in a difficult position here and that there is a need to get on with the Bill. I recognise that these things are being negotiated with the devolved authorities.

My last amendment is really an attempt to try to find a solution to these issues, and my hope is very much that a solution can be found. I hope that the Minister can say something on that solution today and maybe, after further consideration prior to Report, give at least the heads of terms of the kind of things that will be in the strategic priorities. On that, I think we can progress. My worry is that it otherwise feels, from our point of view, a bit like we are signing a blank cheque on these matters. That being said, those are my amendments.

I turn to the three other amendments in this group. Amendment 125, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Offord of Garvel, is on the publication of a financial framework document and calls for that document to be published before the Act is passed. From my personal point of view, I would like to see some progress on the financial document and what it might contain. I am not certain that I would refuse to pass the Act if it were not published prior to then.

Amendment 126 is in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton of Epsom, and the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard. This amendment says that the Act cannot come into force until its impact

“on the number of jobs in Aberdeen”

has been published. We do not feel that we would support that amendment. The development of offshore renewable energy will help to create jobs, and GB Energy will be headquartered in Aberdeen. The exact manner of how that happens is to be seen, but green energy and green jobs are good for our future and the Bill is good for our energy security.

We have had a few conversations about the cost of this Bill and GB Energy. I kindly remind the Conservatives that they spent over £40 billion subsidising energy bills as a result of the war in Ukraine. While that money was useful to those who were suffering in fuel poverty, in the longer term it did absolutely nothing to generate energy security for our country and our future. The biggest cost is doing nothing. To continue to do nothing is not an option that remains open to us, either in terms of preserving our future or of looking after bill payers. In the main, therefore, we welcome the Bill.

I turn, finally, to Amendment 127 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton of Epsom, and the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, which calls on the Secretary of State to publish a report on the cost and viability of the Government’s net-zero strategy. That is not necessary before the Bill is passed, but I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Frost, who is not in his place. It is important that the Government are clear on figures, and those figures should be updated. However, when we have these conversations on cost, they are, unfortunately, very one-sided. The cost is always on one side of the equals sign and not on the other. There is a huge cost in doing nothing. We have seen LA go up in flames, and there are huge predicted costs to the global economy and our future.

The Government, to my mind, must do more in continuing to look at reforming the electricity market mechanism. The Government’s projected direction of travel is for us to electrify, and it is important that we continue to look at the cost of electricity and that the Government continue to work on providing social tariffs and making sure that those in need can afford to heat their homes. With that, I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

Yes, but the fact that a number have gone already because the industry is declining is not a compelling reason for destroying even more, in my view—but I hear what the Minister says.

Of course, this contrasts tremendously with the inaugural address from President Trump, saying, “Drill, baby, drill”. He is quite keen on expanding the oil industry in the United States, which is interesting because he slightly gives the impression that the United States has been rather laggardly in producing oil. I have some quite interesting statistics from the Library that indicate that, throughout the Biden years, despite all the green initiatives that were produced, the United States was actually the biggest producer of oil in the world. In 2020, it produced 11.3 million barrels a day, and in 2023 it produced 12.9 million barrels a day. Of that, it was using about 8 or 9 million barrels for its own consumption and exporting the rest. The idea being put out by the Trump regime that drilling for oil will somehow be a new venture is quite interesting; it has been going on, fit to bust, under the Biden Administration—you slightly wonder how that ties in with all the green credentials that he was boasting about, when they were producing these vast quantities of oil. They were way ahead of the Russians, who were the second-biggest producer of oil, at about 10 million barrels a day.

We are now in an interesting situation, as there seems to be a recognition by the Trump regime that we will go on needing hydrocarbons and oil way into the future. At the end of the day, the idea that we can somehow phase all this out in this country slightly defies credibility because, as we have discussed already, the reserves of oil are higher than they have ever been, and we will go on needing it for quite some time. It is rather extraordinary that we do not produce our own oil in the North Sea for our requirements. As it is, we will have to import it from other places, creating CO₂ emissions and so forth on the way.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

I was listening to what the noble Lord was saying, and the truth is that North Sea oil is declining by 7% a year—which will not change—and that we have the third-best wind resources in the world. North Sea oil will never meet our energy needs and, if we do not find alternative forms of energy, we will be dependent on the international markets, which will mean huge variability, no security and huge cost to our bill payers. Surely the best thing to do is use the third-best renewable resources in the world that we have to back that up with a system that works.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

I find that an interesting comment because, at the end of the day, wind energy is totally dependent on the feed-in tariffs that end up on everybody’s electricity bills. That is one reason why we are paying such enormous sums of money for electricity at the moment. The idea that wind is somehow a cheap option does not seem to be quite working out.

The broad point is that anybody who looks at the energy demands of this country knows that we will go on needing oil for quite some time to come. It seems extraordinary that we then depend on imports of oil from around the world, with all the CO₂ emissions that go with that, rather than producing our own. I can see no logic in that at all. The production of oil in the North Sea may be declining, but that does not mean that we should not, therefore, give licences to produce more oil from the North Sea if we actually need it in this country. That seems inexplicable when we are importing it from elsewhere.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, that is a very interesting comment indeed.

I turn to Amendment 127, the effect of which I resist because in the end, it is inconsistent with our intention to set up GBE as quickly as possible. I understand noble Lords’ concerns about information being available now, but we are keen to see GBE up and running. The statement of strategic priorities will ultimately be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. We want GBE to play a full part in the discussions on it and the framework document will be extensive, following normal procedure.

On that basis, the Government are not willing to move in that area. However, I am looking at some of the issues around the statement of strategic priorities, particularly in relation to timing, and will perhaps give a sense of some of the pointers that will be raised in it. I will continue to have discussions with noble Lords on that between Committee and Report.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I start by reflecting the Minister’s last sentence in his response to this group of amendments. I thank him and his officials for the open nature with which they have engaged and continue to engage with us. The prospect of further discussions on these issues prior to Report is very welcome from my point of view.

As I have said, I recognise the need to set up GB Energy at speed, and I recognise that it needs to exist to feed into the strategic priorities. I particularly welcome the Minister’s last sentence. As I said, my amendments in this group were about trying to find a compromise and a way forward. I also welcome his comments from the Dispatch Box on the framework document, guaranteeing that it will be produced and will be extensive and follow the proper course of action. Again, those are welcome documents, and I am sure that Members of this Committee will note them.

It is welcome that GB Energy will be headquartered in Aberdeen. It is my opinion that GB Energy will help to create good and stable green jobs. The Minister said that 90% of oil and gas offshore jobs have high levels of transferrable skills. I think we can all agree that we need a just and fair transition for the people who work in our oil and gas industry, and we all need to keep that in mind. The Committee will also note the Minister’s comments on Amendment 127. With that, I thank all noble Lords for taking part in what has been an interesting set of debates.

Amendment 122 withdrawn.

Small Modular Nuclear Reactors

Earl Russell Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, as the SMR contracts have been delayed, has the proposed twentyfold increase in AI been included in the clean power plan? What are the Government’s proposals to deliver the energy required and meet our energy net-zero targets if SMRs will not be ready before 2032?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, obviously, we are all very excited by the potential of AI. My understanding is that current electricity demand from, for example, data centre growth—which is part of the package that the noble Earl is referring to—would in 2022 account for 4.05% of UK electricity consumption. NESO’s analysis of future energy scenarios reckons that data centres could increase annual electricity demand by between 27 and 62 terawatt hours by 2050, with estimates of total annual electricity demand ranging from 533 to 700 terawatts hours. Obviously, we are giving this a great deal of consideration.

Clean Heat Market Mechanism Regulations 2024

Earl Russell Excerpts

Monday 20th January 2025 Grand Committee

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

I am grateful to the Minister for setting out the contents of the regulations before us. I am afraid that I share some of the scepticism of my noble friend Lord Lilley. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for referring to the warm homes scheme. He is aware of my disappointment that the discount is not going to be revisited, and I say that as honorary president of National Energy Action.

My understanding is that the heat pumps that are the subject of this measure simply are not as efficient as oil-fired central heating. I say that as where I live in the north of England, it is all oil-fired central heating; we are off grid and we cannot use gas. I walked past a surgery in the north of England that did not have just one heat pump; it had fitted three heat pumps, which probably means that one heat pump was not sufficient to generate the heat required.

My understanding—and I would be grateful if the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, could confirm this—is that, without log fires or some other secondary heating, heat pumps heat only to a top temperature of about 16 degrees. If you are retrofitting an existing building, as many of the windows may not be able to accommodate the size of the heat pump or the radiators that connect to it, substantial renovation may be required.

Furthermore, I am grateful to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, which highlighted that the starting point referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, of around 40,500 installations per year is—in its word, at paragraph 56 of its 10th report—“ambitious”. The department expects the scheme to help ensure the installation of at least 77,000 heat pumps a year in existing homes between 2024-25 and 2028-29. I ask the Minister a simple question: is that feasible and realistic?

My noble friend Lord Lilley quoted £2,000 as the cost of an ordinary boiler. I recently got two quotes for a boiler. The boiler itself was not the issue. For the fitting, even that of an oil-fired boiler, you are looking at something in the region of £8,000 to £10,000. I repeat: if you live off-grid in a very rural area, it would be nice to think that heat pumps were an alternative, but, given the state of the current market, I just do not see them as feasible if they heat up to only 16 degrees when, in just the past two weeks, we have regularly had temperatures of freezing or down to minus 10. With those few remarks, I press the Minister to comment on these queries.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, we are supportive of these regulations and the other actions that this Government have already taken—particularly in removing the outdated 1-metre rule on the requirement for planning permission—since coming into office. We are hopeful that, taken together with the other measures that the Government talk about, these measures will help us begin to make progress towards the target of 600,000 heat pumps by 2028 and help us to fulfil the need to meet these same figures every year going forward.

There are both supply-side actions and demand-side actions in this SI. We feel that the combination makes some valuable reforms. Most of all we welcome the work that has been done with industry after listening to concerns, making some much-needed reforms and finding ways forward on these issues. Our worry, though, is that, as welcome as these changes in the regulations are, they may not be sufficient in and of themselves to deal with the scale of the problem. In making this point, I quote the conclusion of the House of Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, which has already been mentioned:

“The DESNZ expects the scheme to help ensure the installation of at least 77,000 heat pumps a year in existing homes between 2024/25 and 2028/29. We consider this, from a starting point of around 40,500 installations per year, to be ambitious”.


Before I turn to the SI, judging by the debate on this measure in the other House, a little background information would be useful.

These regulations amend and reform a system that the Conservative Government brought in but mainly failed to make work in practice. The last Government compounded these problems by failing to work alongside and with industry and others in order to find amendments to the proposals, such that industry itself was prepared fully to support them and get behind them. These problems then led to further internal discussions about the policy itself, which further derailed progress. This problem meant that the implementation never really got resolved and, as a result, we are a long way behind on these targets. In short, the Conservatives had clear targets for the installation of heat pumps but failed to deliver them.

I give this background only because the Conservative Opposition spokesperson appeared to disown or not acknowledge that this is a reform of their policy. It may be that the Conservative policy has changed. If that is the case, I hope that the Conservative spokesman can make that clear.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lilley (Con)]

They are of course three times more efficient on average—though not necessarily in cold weather. But electricity is four times as expensive as gas per therm.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

I welcome the intervention and will come back to the noble Lord on his point. During this transition, it will take a huge effort across government and beyond—and beyond the scope of this instrument—to meet the scale of these changes.

The regulations establish the new UK-wide heat market mechanism to promote the development of the market for retrofit installations of heat pumps in existing buildings. The CHMM is to launch on 1 April 2025 and run for an initial period of four years. In the interests of time, I will not go on too much, but there are two big changes from previous proposals. First, they propose to reduce the payment in lieu of any missing heat pump credits to £500 from the first year from the £3,000 proposed by the previous Government. Secondly, the period over which boiler sales are counted has been delayed to give the obligated parties more time to prepare. The Government have said:

“As set out in the consultation response published in November … We have also aligned the periods over which boiler sales and heat pump installations will generate obligations and credits, respectively, providing manufacturers with more time to prepare”.—[Official Report, Commons, Second Delegated Legislation Committee, 13/1/25; col. 4.]


The big change is that the new Minister has engaged and listened to industry and has managed to make some of the adjustments required by working in partnership. This approach has been welcomed by industry. Removing penalties and allowing more time is pivotal to finding common solutions. The approach of giving manufacturers more time to scale up the supply chain and expand sales without penalising customers is good and needs to continue while hitting some very ambitious and fast-approaching targets.

The ongoing relations with manufacturers and industry are clearly key to delivering this policy. How do the Government intend to continue these better relations while making sure that targets are met and that unnecessary costs are not passed on to consumers? I want to make it clear that this is not a boiler tax. The Conservatives, when this was their policy, were very keen that those words were not used to describe it.

Review mechanisms and relations with industry are crucial to delivering this policy. I note that any adjustments would require further legislation and that would change the whole impact assessment. Any increases in the target in future schemes would require further secondary legislation. I note that the Government have said that they will not force consumers and that this is about working in partnership. My worry is about the confidence that the Government have in the ability to deliver the volume of heat pumps required in the time available.

I would like briefly to ask the Minister about some wider points. The cost of getting a heat pump is still a barrier to entry. I welcome the fact that the Government have continued the £7,500 grant, which, to their credit, the Conservatives not only introduced but increased. Since that increase, we have had a remarkable uptake in the number of heat pumps. But, as we have heard, installing a heat pump is about a system-wide change. It is more than just installing a heat pump; often it involves under-floor heating and changing radiators. On average, this seems to be costing consumers at least an additional £5,000.

We have had some conversations as part of the GB Energy Bill about green mortgages. Are the Government considering finding ways that the additional costs, not just of heat pumps but other renewable energy technology, can be added to mortgages? Quality and innovation are clearly important as well, as is making sure that these are good-quality products.

The noble Lord, Lord Lilley, intervened on electricity market reform, and to some extent I agree with him. Our electricity is still very expensive—some of the most expensive in Europe. The Government’s policy is to get people away from gas and on to electricity. What plans do they have to make sure that electricity is affordable and to introduce social tariffs for those struggling to pay their bills?

On disinformation, misinformation and ignorance, according to the Government’s own policy document, only 51% of people in the UK know about heat pumps. There is disinformation and misinformation in this space—for example, that heat pumps do not warm our homes enough—so it is important that the Government have a strong public information campaign for the take-up of heat pumps, about what they are, how they work and what they do.

Finally, heat pumps can save the average household £300 a year, so they would go a long way towards Labour meeting its manifesto pledge. I wish the Government well, but these things are complicated.

Electricity Capacity Mechanism (Amendment) Regulations 2024

Earl Russell Excerpts

Monday 20th January 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Lilley (Con)]

My Lords, I want to use this as an opportunity simply to ask a question of the Minister. Why do we not take the advice of Professor Dieter Helm, in his review of energy policy, which was that instead of us providing the capacity mechanism centrally, we require anyone providing electricity into the system—wind generator, solar generator or whatever—from an intermittent source to provide firm power, in other words to pay for some capacity for the times when the wind is not blowing? If that were done, this whole arrangement would be unnecessary. We would have a much clearer idea of the total cost of intermittent energy if the supplier were also paying for some of the back-up capacity that is necessary to meet the occasions when intermittency prevents delivery of the power.

The only argument I have heard against this is that, if you do it wind farm by wind farm, the aggregate amount of capacity would be statistically greater than is necessary to meet the fact that some wind farms will be producing when others are not, but that surely can be overcome by saying that a certain statistical proportion of the necessary capacity should attach to any intermittent generator. Then we would have a more rational, more credible and more manageable system than the one that we have under these regulations.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, this instrument revokes and alters several provisions of the assimilated EU regulations relating to the internal electricity capacity market. The draft regulations make changes necessary for the operation of the capacity market following our withdrawal from the European Union and they revoke the 10-year approval requirements. We do not oppose these changes—I just say that to start with.

Our electricity capacity market was introduced in 2014. The measure is designed to ensure that maximum output is always available and thus that we can maintain sufficient electricity capacity to meet future predicted demand, always ensuring the security of electricity supply. As we have heard, the capacity market covers generation, storage, consumer-led flexibility and interconnector capacity. It is about ensuring the security of this supply at all times. Auctions are held annually, one year and four years ahead of delivery, to ensure that we have supply when we need it and can meet future peak demand in a range of scenarios, based on advice from the capacity market delivery body, the National Energy System Operator.

The capacity market was originally approved when we were part of the EU and was made under the European Union’s state aid rules for a period of 10 years. Following our withdrawal, this requirement was brought in and enshrined in our domestic law as part of the assimilated electricity regulations. The capacity market will continue to be required to maintain the security of supply and investor confidence. This market will be of even greater importance as we seek to decarbonise our electricity generation by 2030 and, at the same time, see an ever-growing increase in electricity demand. The draft regulations revoke the requirement that

“Capacity mechanisms shall be temporary”

and

“shall be approved … for no longer than 10 years”,

and other references to such mechanisms being temporary. The draft instrument also revokes several provisions that require minor correction. As I said, we do not oppose the recommendations in the instrument, but I wanted briefly also to turn to some broader points.

As we seek to reach net-zero carbon generation by 2030 and beyond, the Government have a continued dependency on unabated gas and propose that carbon capture and storage should be used as a key part of our energy mix. Indeed, the clean power 2030 plan has around 35 gigawatts of unabated gas on standby for security of supply, and this requirement for gas capacity will remain throughout the early 2030s until more low-carbon dispatchable power comes on board to replace it. Although required, back-up reserve gas generation that is used intermittently and only when necessary is also very expensive, understandably. The Government have agreed to invest some £22 billion over the next 25 years in carbon capture technology to help make sure that we can have this unabated gas without adding to our greenhouse gas emissions.

The week before last there was a debate in the Chamber on the Science and Technology Committee’s report on long-term energy storage. We have also had a couple of Questions about the Russian shadow fleet and the attack on Baltic power cables. Of course, renewable energy is not always reliable, and everybody knows that it needs to be backed up by a wide variety of other sources to help ensure the security of supply. On that basis, can I ask the Minister about the Government’s proposed energy mix going forward to net zero and beyond? I am a little concerned that we continue to have this requirement: it is basically solar, wind and dispatchable gas backed by CCS and nuclear. Will the Minister say a word about how the Government will keep this mix under continuous review? I encourage them to invest in alternative renewable technologies, such as wave, tidal and geothermal, that are able to provide the dispatchable power that we need. What is the Government’s thinking on that?

We must also ensure that all the wind energy we generate is available and can be used. As I said, there is also a need to radically increase our medium and long-term energy storage, which is available to help us get through periods when other sources of renewable energy are not on tap. I hope that the reforms to the capacity market already announced will help make that happen. More must also be done to reduce demand; as the Government know, the best energy is the energy we never use.

Turning to this SI, I note that, as the Explanatory Memorandum says,

“there is a requirement to review the Electricity Capacity Regulations … at least every five years to determine whether they are meeting their objectives and remain fit for purpose”,

and I note that the Minister said the Government will continue to keep the controls in place. As we are going through such a rapid period of change, we welcome the fact that the Government have brought forward the plan to decarbonise our power generation by five years, but what consideration have they given to the need to review these mechanisms more than every five years? What might trigger that? What is the Government’s thinking on those matters?

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

My Lords, these regulations represent an essential step in ensuring the continued security of electricity supply in Great Britain. This SI builds on the work initiated by the previous Conservative Government, which reviewed electricity market arrangements in 2022. The task in hand is to amend the existing provisions of the Energy Act 2013 following the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union and align our national electricity market with the post-Brexit reality. These amendments are crucial to ensure that the capacity market can continue to operate effectively and flexibly in a changed regulatory environment.

As we transition towards a low-carbon energy future, securing a reliable electricity supply requires robust mechanisms that incentivise investment in reliable and flexible energy sources. The amendments introduced by these regulations are intended to bolster the capacity market’s role in supporting the security and reliability of electricity supply in a period of evolving energy needs and shifting market conditions.

These changes enable the UK to pursue an independent course, while ensuring that the capacity market continues to provide the stability and security our energy grid requires. By revoking outdated EU provisions, the UK can define its own market mechanisms that better reflect national priorities, including transition to a low-carbon energy future and enhancing energy resilience across Great Britain.