Great British Energy Bill

Lord Cameron of Dillington Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 13th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)]

My Lords, I declare an interest, as in the register, in connection with energy-related companies. I will raise two questions on Amendments 59 and 65 in this bunch of amendments before the Minister starts to wind up—if that is what is coming next. I know that Amendment 59 is about household energy bills, but I start by observing that, as far as industrial energy bills are concerned, it is a disgrace—frankly, it was not much better under the previous Government—that, according to government figures, we now have some of the most expensive electricity prices in the entire world. That cannot be right. It obviously undermines our competitive power and economic growth. Obviously, therefore, it is holding back the whole investment in the energy transition and it is a classic case of shooting ourselves in both feet. That is the electricity scene.

As for household energy bills, there is an irony here, because the truth, as I shall try to demonstrate in a few words, is that the best chance of keeping down domestic energy bills, with all the other circumstances, many of which are completely unpredictable, is not through anything that Great British Energy is empowered to do at present, as the Bill stands. It lies in cutting down the colossal costs of having standby facilities in standby production from some combined cycle gas generation, but even more in having some cheaper forms of nuclear development than those we have had in the past—or indeed in the present, because all our current nuclear developments are wildly over cost.

The key lies in getting private money into shorter-term, smaller and more flexible, nuclear modules. That is what we should be doing; it is what many other countries doing, and it will be the way in which to greatly reduce the overall cost of having a reliable energy supply for a modern industrial nation, which includes facilities for 3,000 hours a year when the wind does not blow. Today is probably one of them, as my noble friend Lord Trenchard was arguing. A strong, intermittent standby system has to be there, and we know it is very expensive, by definition, if it is not being used all the time. We cannot sell electricity all the time—on the contrary, in many cases, as we can read in the newspapers today and yesterday, colossal sums of taxpayers’ and consumers’ money have to be paid in order to not produce electricity. There is a fatal difficulty here that we have to resolve.

The point is that, if we want costs to be held down, the way to do it is by making sure that private money can be mobilised, which it can for smaller nuclear reactors, whereas we all know that private money does not wish to touch with a barge pole a so-called replica of the gigantic Hinkley C EPR design, which is a difficult design and bound, although it calls itself a replica, to be miles over cost and cost-forming of the Government at Sizewell C as well. That is a way to ensure that costs and energy bills stay up, and that is the opposite of what we are trying to achieve.

The simple answer to this bit of the excellent Amendment 59, which I totally support, is that, if we can now begin to get a grip on the whole nuclear side and bring GBN together with Great British Energy and work in a serious approach to managing our, at present, wildly costly and unmanageable energy supply, we will begin to get a chance of getting that £300 off bills. Personally, I think it going to be very hard to achieve, but that is the one way it can be done—by getting private money in, because the Government have not got any money and have to go to the consumer, the taxpayer and the borough to get the money. We all know what that is costing, and all of it ends up in charges on taxpayers and working people and their hard-earned earnings.

That has to be answered, if this is going to stand. I hope that the Minister will go to his colleagues in the department, and maybe in the Treasury as well, if he can get any response from them, and point out that this just does not make sense. It does not fulfil the aims that the Government want, the Opposition want and all parties want. As the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and others have said, this is not a bipartisan issue, at least in this House, because we all know on both sides of this House that this does not make sense—and this viewpoint should be passed on to the Secretary of State politely within the department, so he can modify his approach, particularly on the nuclear side, where I worry a great deal that we are on the wrong track. We are heading to the wrong track, while others are racing ahead. That is all I wanted to say on Amendment 59.

Amendment 65 is interesting, because it is really about the level of demand that the National Grid will be able to meet. Many people—again, bipartisan—are worried that the estimates that seem to be in the mind of the department are miles too low. The figure of 200 gigawatts is being pushed around—others say 300 gigawatts. Today, there is something more in the newspapers that should make the Government think again on this one. We are told that we are going to have colossal data centres. Indeed, it says in one newspaper that we will have one of the world’s biggest data centres to move into the age of AI, modern innovation and investment and the kind of society and industrial and consumer pattern that will have in the second half of the present century. That is what we must be doing. Bit data centres are hugely expensive in energy demand; they drink up energy in colossal volumes—and that is on top of the hope or ambition of the Government for decarbonised, clean energy by 2030, or maybe 2035. Maybe it is to be 95%; there are all sorts of modifications coming out all the time. On top of that, I think that this demand will push up any reasonable estimate from 300 gigawatts to 500 or 600 gigawatts. We are moving into a hyper-electric, super-electric age and data centres will add vast amounts of demand to the system.

There are 40 million cars and trucks in this country still running on petrol; they will need to move over to EV as well. The chances of having a National Grid system fully invested to meet that kind of demand on even the 2050 timescale, let alone 2030 or 2035, is very small indeed. Does the Minister accept that, as we move into this all-electric age, there will be considerable increases in demand and that, if there is going to be effective supply for them, we must have the conversation and, what is more, the detailed explanations implied in Amendment 65. GBE should be able to go to the National Grid and say, “Can you link us up?”. The many industrial firms thinking of going over from gas-fired furnaces to electric furnaces should be able to go to the National Grid and say, “Can you link us up?” What answer are they going to get? Are they going to be told, “Come back in 15 years”, or are they going to be told, that it is all right and that we are investing to meet these colossal demands for increased electricity from every kind of energy transition, the related digital underpinning and the necessary data centre operations, which we now know we have to have in order to compete in the 21st century? Is that realised? That is my question on Amendment 65. Many other excellent comments have been made, but those are the two on which I would greatly value an answer from the Minister.

[Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB)]

My Lords, I support the last speaker on Amendment 65. When I saw Amendment 65 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Offord, on the readiness of the National Grid for this brave new world, I realised that this is probably the key amendment to the Bill in terms of the success of Great British Energy. I am not sure that putting it into the Bill will actually make a ha’porth of difference, but there is no doubt that the issue is going to decide whether GBE is a success or not.

We need to quadruple, if not more, the size of the National Grid network, both to get power to all those new electric cars and heat pumps, et cetera, and to take power from all those new wind farms, solar roofs, et cetera, but with all the objections to the wires and pylons, I cannot see the National Grid delivering the necessary increase in this network any time soon. So, as the amendment states, GBE can really invest only in projects that have a guaranteed connection, however worthy they may be in other aspects. If no connection is likely to be in place by the time of the completion of the project, then GBE should probably save its money.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, I rise to open this group of amendments, all on consultation and oversight, and to move my Amendment 66 in this group. Amendment 66 seeks to prevent the Secretary of State from directing GB Energy unless they have previously delivered an Oral Statement to both Houses of Parliament. Our view is that this is a reasonable check and balance on the use of these powers. My amendment does not stop the Secretary of State from giving strategic directions; it simply requires that, before doing so, the Secretary of State must have previously given this Oral Statement to both Houses.

We recognise that, for the Government, this is a reserve power that would be used only in emergencies. We also recognise that the Bill as written requires the Secretary of State to have previously consulted with GB Energy and any other persons the Secretary of State considers appropriate, and that the directions must be laid before Parliament. Our concern is that these are both very powerful controls given to the Secretary of State and, even with the condition to lay the direction before Parliament, that is done only after the direction is given. There is no opportunity for Parliament to discuss in any form the direction given or the reasons for it, or to have any opportunity to amend it before the direction is given to GB Energy. Parliament also has no say or chance to contribute to the form the direction should take. There is no way that Parliament can change the shape of it or amend it. These powers are absolute: GB Energy is directed in statute that it must comply with the directions given under this part of the Bill.

I draw the Committee’s attention to the fourth report of the 2024-25 Session of the House of Lords Constitution Committee, published on 28 November, which says of these provisions that,

“we are concerned that clauses 5 and 6 amount to ‘disguised legislation’. … This is of constitutional concern because there is no parliamentary oversight over the making of the statement of strategic priorities or the directions to Great British Energy”.

I must admit that I have to agree with that assessment. Our view is that, if there is a level of need such that directions from the Secretary of State are required, then there is also a level of concern such that a Statement should be provided to both Houses of Parliament.

When matters have gone this badly wrong, it is also important that Parliament should be given the opportunity to scrutinise what went wrong and why and what proposals the Secretary of State is bringing to make them right again. It is important that Parliament is given the right to look at how the new plans might work in practice and to be able to advise and raise objections with and suggest improvements to the Secretary of State. The Minister may come back on this amendment and may speak of this being a reserve power. He may say that these will be used rarely, if they are ever used at all; but when they will be needed, they will be needed urgently. The Minister may also argue that the Secretary of State would have previously consulted with GB Energy and others as the Secretary of State saw fit. This is all correct, but consultation in private could amount to no more than delivering the unhappiness on behalf of the Government and instructing the direction to GB Energy. These meetings happen in private, and Parliament is not privy to any of this information or the outcomes.

The Minister may also argue that these powers have been used in—and, indeed, directly copied from—the nuclear energy Bill. To that, I might kindly argue that nuclear accidents and nuclear emergencies are of a different order of magnitude to our renewable sector, although I do recognise the need for urgency when it comes to our energy supply and energy security. I also recognise that GB Energy will have a role in the nuclear sector—although that is to be strictly defined as yet—and, if the Minister wishes, a government amendment to my amendment could call for an exemption for either a nuclear accident or a national energy security emergency. I would be interested in the Minister’s response to my amendment, and I would be happy to discuss this with the Minister prior to Report.

For all other cases, my view is that an urgent Statement can be tabled in both Houses in a matter of mere days, and this can run concurrently while the Minister fulfils his other obligations in respect of consulting with GB Energy and others. Our view is that this is a carefully crafted amendment which seeks to balance the need to address emergency issues against the need for proper and full parliamentary scrutiny to take place. These may be reserve powers, but they are absolute powers, and they are under the sole control of the Secretary of State. They are enacted after consultations and are merely reported to Parliament after they have been enacted.

I ask the Government to think carefully. I know that they might feel that these powers are safe in their hands, but how would the Minister feel if, for example, Labour were to lose the next general election and these powers were in the hands of another Administration? I think it is in that light that the Government should reflect on whether there is a need for a further check and balance on these powers.

Turning to the other amendments in this group, Amendment 87, in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, and the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, goes further than my amendment. It says:

“A Minister must table a motion for resolution in each House of Parliament on any directions given to Great British Energy under this section before the directions are adopted”.


I am generally supportive of this amendment, but I have two concerns about it. First, holding a vote will take more time. Secondly, if Parliament, for whatever reason, decided not to approve the directions, I wonder what the consequence would be, because these directions are only given in emergency situations. That is an unlikely consequence, but I do not necessarily agree that having a vote actually helps in this case. What I am interested in is parliamentary scrutiny and conversation, not Parliament having the right to have a vote on this issue.

Finally, Amendment 86, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, amends Clause 6 by adding that consultation should take place with the National Energy System Operator, the Climate Change Committee and the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority. This amendment is helpful, but to my mind it does not resolve the issue; the issue is one of parliamentary scrutiny, and Amendment 86 does not provide further parliamentary scrutiny. The heart of this, for me, is simply having greater opportunities for parliamentary scrutiny while not delaying emergency actions. That is what I am trying to balance. I beg to move.

[Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB)]

My Lords, Amendment 86 in my name is, as noble Lords will realise, very similar to Amendment 56 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, which was spoken to last month by the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale. The point is that we all have concerns about the overwhelming statutory powers of the Secretary of State to control, and give random formal directions to, GBE. As I said at Second Reading, we are worried that modern politicians are no longer likely to have had experience of running a business, particularly an investment business, which is what this is. On the whole, the same applies to civil servants who might be advising the Secretary of State. They also usually have little experience of the nitty-gritty of day-to-day private sector business and its associated hour-by-hour assessment of risk and, more to the point, when to take that risk. In other words, you cannot always be totally safety conscious.

Probably the key person with whom the Secretary of State should be consulting is a private sector investment analyst, or even a team of private sector investment analysts, as the noble Lord, Lord Petitgas, was saying early on in the previous discussions. That might be hard to spell out on the face of the Bill, so I will leave that one hanging. As noble Lords can sense, however, I am not at all happy that a politics-orientated—maybe even a party- politics-orientated—Secretary of State of either party should be able to give any direction at all on the issue of practical investment to a hopefully business-orientated board of GBE. I support Amendment 68 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Russell.

The next thing to say is that Clause 6(3)(b) is superfluous. It states that the Secretary of State should consult

“such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate”.

It is legally meaningless. The Secretary of State could take it or leave it. If he consults with no one, he can claim he did not consider anyone appropriate, so he is under no obligation to consult anyone, apart from Great British Energy, as it stands in Clause 6(3)(a). We therefore need some more specific recommendations.

It is of course right that the Secretary of State should have to consult GBE—after all, it will implement whatever direction he or she gives it—but the Secretary of State should also consult NESO. After all, it is responsible for driving the delivery of our power through the national grid and other transmission companies—we discussed this on another group—so, clearly, it needs to be consulted.

Then there is the Climate Change Committee, which is in very close touch with the state of play of the progress to net zero. It is also in touch with the latest science and knows the priorities of what is most needed to get us to net zero. It will have a view on what could or should be the essential focus of GBE, so it should also be consulted.

Then of course there is Ofgem, which represents the consumers and is their voice, so it seems only right that it should also be consulted on any formal direction from the Secretary of State to GBE. There may be others, and I take the point from the noble Earl, Lord Russell, about the fact that my list is of consultants, rather than Parliament, which might be able to influence the direction of the Secretary of State in a more formal way—although I hope that a consultation exercise would also influence his decision-making process.

In his response to Amendment 56 last month, the Minister seemed to say that the amendment was unnecessary because the Secretary of State would be in permanent consultation with all the organisations involved anyway, but he was at that time talking about the consultation on the strategic priorities in Clause 5 and here we are talking about later specific directions given by the Secretary of State to GBE. After all, the Government themselves put Clause 6(3) in the Bill, so they must have thought that highlighting the importance of consultation, and whom it is with, was important and necessary. In my view, they did not make it specific enough, or possibly wide enough, so I hope they can accept that they should enlarge their constituency of consultees.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB)]

My Lords, I sympathise with the amendments on land use put down by the noble Lord, Lord Fuller. He wishes to ensure that in this very densely populated country of England we use our limited available land wisely. England—not the UK—is, I think, the fifth or sixth most densely populated country in the world. That includes countries such as Singapore, which are, in essence, city states. So, it is right that we use our land wisely: per head of population, we do not have much of it. Furthermore, as I have said on several occasions, it is the primary duty of any Government to ensure that they can feed their subjects. I believe that the food agenda comes as high as—if not higher—than the defence agenda, although they are clearly very closely interlinked.

However—I am sure noble Lords could all sense a “but” coming down the line, though I shall try to be gentle with the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, as he requested—I am not certain that this is the right way to approach this issue. Land use must be planned in the round. We all need to step back and examine our needs from land as a whole, which include food, biodiversity, flood relief, forestry, access for leisure and health, much-needed housing and of course energy.

The noble Baroness, Lady Young, and others, including me, have been banging on about this for several years now. We need a land use framework in the round. I am afraid that a uni-purpose focus such as found in the noble Lord’s amendments, however sensible it may seem in today’s circumstances and business, can only limit our ability to sensibly plan a wider, step-back, more holistic strategy.

For a start, circumstances may change. I see our land use framework as a constant work in progress as the world changes around us. Such changes may include the way our food is produced, the latest imminent threats from foreign countries or the importance of energy to our economy—thus, in this context, the ever-changing balance between food security and energy security.

While today the priority of the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, is clearly food security over energy, it may be that in the future grade 3 land, for instance, is superfluous to our food security and better off focused on biodiversity or energy. I am afraid that I am not able to support these amendments, however much as a retired farmer I sympathise with their very good intentions.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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