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?

Great British Energy Bill

Lord Cameron of Dillington Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 3rd December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, I support what both my noble friend Lord Offord of Garvel and the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, have said about the confusing overlap between what is now the National Fund Wealth and Great British Energy. I am one of those sad people who look at annual reports and accounts, and I was anxiously waiting for the UK Infrastructure Bank’s reports and accounts, which finally dropped last Monday. Through that, I discovered that it had legally changed its name to the National Wealth Fund two or three weeks ago, although no announcement seems to have been made about that at the time.

I agree that Amendment 1 is a very neat way of tucking Great British Energy into a more satisfactory set of governance and oversight arrangements, which we wrestled with when the UK Infrastructure Bank was set up. But my main reason for speaking today is in connection with Amendment 3 in the name of my noble friend Lord Offord of Garvel and Amendments 4, 6 and 7 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Vaux.

I do not support these amendments, because I think the concept of minority stakes in government-controlled companies is a complete nonsense. Over the whole history of nationalised industries and publicly owned corporations and companies, there are relatively few examples of entities in which minorities held equity stakes. The exceptions are normally accidents of history—such as in the case of RBS/NatWest—rather than acts of conscious design.

I cannot think of a single good reason to encourage the Government to seek private capital in Great British Energy, as opposed to seeking to leverage private capital alongside public investment in projects that need public involvement to help to de-risk them. Equity is always more expensive than debt, and minority holdings in illiquid shares are even more expensive. The Government do not need to pay that premium. They can borrow money, to the extent that GBE needs it, by issuing government debt. That will be much cheaper than raising equity for GBE, even after the post-Budget bond yield increases.

Equity costs more to raise than debt because it carries more risk than debt. It is the first bit of the capital stack to be wiped out in liquidation—at least, that is what happens in the private sector. But does anybody believe that minority holders would be wiped out if the state decided to liquidate an insolvent Great British Energy? The Secretary of State has so many powers over Great British Energy that in practical terms the Government will find it very difficult, if not impossible, to escape underwriting all the liabilities of Great British Energy, and that includes its minority holdings. If the Government did try to wipe out the minority holdings in a liquidation, I predict a decade or more of shareholder litigation.

Having minority holdings can also engage a lot of unnecessary legal problems around protections for minorities that are built into our company law to prevent minorities being treated unfairly. It can raise issues about dividends, which are not normally part of the regime for state-owned enterprises since retained earnings, if there are any—and history tells us that there are not usually any—are generally kept within the public corporation. I am not a fan of state-owned activity, but we should accept it for what it is, which is taxpayer or debt-funded activity, and not try to mimic the real world where equity investors genuinely do take on risk.

[Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB)]

My Lords, I added my name to my noble friend Lord Vaux’s Amendments 4, 6 and 7. This was largely because when the Bill went through its stages in the other place, the Government made frequent references to the fact that an essential quality of Great British Energy was that it would be flexible, vibrant, resilient and fleet of foot. These are all good qualities to allow this new company to take advantage of opportunities in the marketplace, maybe even sudden ones when, say, an international investor is looking to throw its weight behind a tidal initiative or a new hydrogen production plant but is looking for a commitment from the UK Government in the form of some investment from GBE.

What happens in these circumstances if the Treasury reduces its annual funding for GBE in future or if GBE’s annual budget has already been spent and there is a danger of this vital project going overseas unless GBE invests? Will the opportunity just get missed or, as my thinking goes, should GBE be truly flexible, vibrant, resilient and fleet of foot and be able to go out into the financial marketplace and draw in sufficient funds to promote and thus enable this one-off opportunity?

I recognise that, to be effective, GBE must be part of government and yet not part of government. That is why the figure of 75% government ownership is crucial; 24% of outside investment would not prevent the Government remaining in total control and, more importantly, being seen to be in total control, but it could also mean that the private sector could help contribute to the success of GBE.

Your Lordships may ask why the private sector cannot just invest in the proposed investment itself. The answer is that by investing in the parent company, GBE, the private sector would be hedging its bets by spreading its risk across the renewable sector generally rather than just putting its money into, say, a hydrogen project or whatever. Furthermore, allowing GBE to attract some outside investment would be a good way of taking some of the risk away from the Treasury.

There may of course be other ways of doing this, such as issuing class A shares with a different standing from ordinary shares, but I do not believe they would ever be as attractive as the solution in our Amendments 4, 6 and 7.

The noble Lord, Lord Vaux, and I are keen to see GBE succeed, but we think it needs the greater flexibility of being able to attract some investment from outside government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, I rise to speak in favour of Amendment 18, not Amendment 28— to be clear. I regret that I was unable to be here for Second Reading.

This amendment inserts two additional objects for GBE. The first is to implement

“an emergency home insulation programme with targeted support for people on low incomes”.

The second is to have as a clear object

“the expansion and development of renewable energy and technology”.

I also support many of the amendments in this group, particularly those in the name of my noble friend Lord Russell. Most of my comments will address his Amendments 16 and 17, which, alongside the spirit of my own amendment, seek to promote an eco-friendly and affordable way to heat homes.

On these Benches we would argue that these amendments are essential if the welcome aims of the Bill are to be fulfilled; namely, to reduce dependence on fossil fuels, drive down costs for individual households and ensure long-term security of supply. Failure to give these two issues due prominence, especially when it comes to insulation, would be like running a hot bath with the plug missing. My amendment focuses on getting GBE to support and innovate on behalf of its customers, because GBE, like any other part of our society or any other organisation, should be working towards and contributing to net zero.

The UK has one of the worst records in western Europe when it comes to losing heat from homes—three times faster than neighbouring countries—resulting in exorbitant costs, poor health and a level of wastage which is breathtaking. The greatest impact of our older, damper, leakier housing stock is on those who can least afford it; and it particularly impacts on people who live in the private rented sector. While residents might be able to access help with insulation from their local authorities at present, that is not what this amendment attempts to achieve. It is about the rollout of a proper emergency home insulation programme—yes, for this winter but, above all, as a long-term measure to improve living conditions and drive down costs. I ask that the Minister particularly addresses our aim for an emergency scheme. The benefit is obvious and has been laid out by the Climate Change Committee in the past. Demand for energy can reduce if we deal urgently with the energy which is lost and seeping out of homes that are not insulated and are leaking heat.

The potential savings are significant. The New Economics Foundation estimates that £2 billion alone could be saved for the NHS from reducing cold and damp in current housing. In addition, home energy efficiency is highly necessary to get us to the net-zero target. Regrettably, according to the previous Conservative Government’s own Climate Change Committee, while the UK over recent years should have installed nearly 3 million individual measures in energy efficiency, the last Government achieved just under 16% of that target. This was such a wasted opportunity to help those who need it most, in the leakiest of homes.

The worst part of this historical record is the abandonment of targets for energy efficiency and insulation in 2015, allowing houses to be built without energy-efficiency measures at all. We urge this new Government to make this record of lost opportunities a thing of the past, and to adopt an emergency programme of insulation through the scheme proposed to support those on low incomes. While we are of course aware that the Government’s warm homes plan is due next year, if this Bill is intended to champion the consumer alongside the objective of energy efficiency, which is one of the best ways to help them, it should be included within this legislation, particularly given how far these programmes have, tragically, lagged behind and how much progress and catch-up now need to be made.

I ask that the Minister responds in the context of the warnings from Age UK and Disability Rights UK about the urgent and imminent impact of the changes to the winter fuel allowances. This is something that could be reduced as an impact, crisis and concern right now, if countless vulnerable pensioners were lifted out of fuel poverty with the emergency programme we have described.

Leading the way in previous years, my noble friend Lady Pinnock introduced an amazing scheme that I urge the Minister to look at called the Kirklees Warm Zone scheme—noble Lords may have heard her reference it once or twice in the past—that offers over 170,000 households support with an insulation programme, regardless of the tenure of the property. It was an award-winning programme over a three-year period, and the largest domestic insulation scheme in the UK. It is estimated that approximately 55,000 tonnes of CO₂ were saved in that period, and it helped to dramatically reduce fuel poverty and won many awards for sustainability.

In October, Wokingham Borough Council launched a new home decarbonisation advice service aimed at supporting residents who want to make their homes more energy efficient and reduce their energy bills. Eastleigh, as part of a much wider consortium of local authorities, secured home upgrade grants to help vulnerable households. I have given the Minister those three local government examples where there is such a strong appetite for the emergency action that we are trying to bake into this legislation.

The second part of the amendment would also reinvigorate an ambition that has fallen away in recent years for the UK; namely, to be a global leader in development and expansion of renewable energy, which many noble Lords have talked about in this group. This is an ambition, sadly, that the Conservative Government dropped like a wet, cold potato when they ditched—according to the Sun, not me—the “green crap”. This new ambition today should be baked into primary legislation. We should immediately remove the last Government’s restrictions on new solar and wind power. When it comes to renewables, we should be innovating and proudly leading. From insulation and heat pumps to wind, wave and solar, the UK is uniquely able to lead in this, in part because of the geography.

We are ambitious for what this Bill can achieve and, as a result, what the UK can achieve. We believe that investing in renewable power now will ensure that 90% of the UK’s electricity is generated from renewables by 2030. Innovation that is referred to in this amendment would include things such as a rooftop solar revolution, with strong incentives and a guaranteed fair price for electricity sold back into the grid, for instance.

Finally, this part of the amendment is connected to jobs that can be created in this area. I think everyone would agree that one of the best examples of that over a few years now is Hull, where the new blade factory with a recent contract worth £1 billion is yet another example of how growth in jobs can be generated through great innovation in this area. That is why the amendment refers to expansion and development: it is with these schemes in mind.

Our ambition as a nation must be to be a leader in this, and it should have no limits. I hope noble Lords and the Minister will support this amendment, its intentions and the spirit of the other amendments as the Bill progresses through Committee.

[Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB)]

My Lords, I do not believe that the Bill should be too specific on the investment targets of GBE. As I said in an earlier group, I believe that GBE should remain flexible and fleet of foot, adapting itself over the years to the development of science and changes in the marketplace.

Nevertheless, there is no harm in us discussing where we think some of the current opportunities lie. In that context, and in the context of the amendments in this group, I will touch on both heat pumps and tidal energy. Unfortunately, it was not clear from reading the script that the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, referred to hydrogen. Had I known this, I would definitely have been supporting his amendments, because I am very keen on hydrogen. It has a crucial part to play in our energy infrastructure, as a storage of intermittent power—as the noble Lord himself mentioned—as well as in the making of steel and in transport. Hydrogen fuel cell cars have a range of more than 1,000 miles. Hydrogen is a really important part of our infrastructure. As I said at Second Reading, I hope that GBE will support the hydrogen industry.

I turn now to heat pumps. Heating and hot water make up around 40% of the UK’s energy consumption and nearly one-third of our greenhouse gas emissions. I see a role for GBE not so much in individual domestic heat pumps but in community heat pumps—particularly where, to coin a phrase, we can use the heat under our feet. Many major population centres in the UK are above, or adjacent to, hot, sedimentary aquifers at, say, 500 to 2,000 metres depth, with temperatures ranging from 25 to 60 degrees and higher. These, combined with an at-scale community heat pump, have huge potential to produce heat for hundreds of thousands of homes, factories, hospitals and greenhouses. In Holland, they hope to meet 23% of their heat demand by 2050 using geothermal heat.

We have geothermal resources in the UK; we have the heat beneath our feet. We also have the drilling skills left over from oil and gas explorations to use in this nascent industry. The industry is poised to deliver growth, renewable heat and employment. It just needs a small amount of government focus and pump priming.

I turn to tidal energy and the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Alton. I strongly believe that it is imperative for the UK to play to its strengths in the whole energy field. One of its real strengths is its range of tides. While in Gibraltar, for instance, the tidal range is only about one metre, in the Solway Firth it can be eight metres or, in the Bristol Channel, 15 metres- plus. We also have tidal races around our shores and between our islands which flow at great speed and with considerable power.

Of course, tidal power is classed as intermittent, but it is guaranteed and predictable. We know now how much power we can produce from a given site between the hours of 6 pm and 7 pm on today’s date in 2124 because, if we build, say, a tidal lagoon now, we know it will still be producing electricity almost for free in more than 100 years’ time.

We have tidal races in our firths and between our islands but, to me, the most compelling solution for harnessing our tidal power are large, offshore tidal lagoons. Any site with a depth of between five and 10 metres, and a tidal range in excess of five metres, can produce guaranteed power. They are better than a barrage across a bay because you can have turbines all round, not just on one side. This means they are almost half the price per output of power. They can be any shape, with curves in any direction that can follow the required underwater contours to produce maximum return on investment. There are about 20 ideal sites around the UK coastline.

I come from southern England, as compared to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and the other side of the channel from the noble Lord, Lord Wigley. If noble Lords look up, they might be able to imagine a wall of water the height of this Chamber and several miles long. This is the sort of power that the Severn Estuary can produce four times a day. One lagoon in Bridgwater Bay alone—right next door to Hinkley Point, with its connections to the grid—could produce 1,900 megawatts. These lagoons do not have to be shut down for repairs. If a turbine—one of 20 or 30—needs servicing, it is lifted out for maintenance, while the rest just keep on turning.

As opposed to a barrage across an estuary, these lagoons do not upset shipping traffic in any serious way, because they sit at the side of shipping channels in the shallow waters. Furthermore, their environmental effect makes only peripheral difference to the course of the tide, migratory fish, wading birds and so on. They have the support of most environmental NGOs. There are numerous sites for these lagoons, from the north to the south of the UK. There is a seven-hour tidal difference between Bristol and Solway. If the tides are used on both flood and ebb, this gives an almost consistent baseload of power for England—and that is before we tap into some of the Scottish tidal ranges. Tidal lagoons as a whole could provide three times the capacity of Hinkley Point. We must play to our strengths. Tidal power is our natural advantage and I believe it would be well worth the focus of GBE.

Great British Energy Bill

Lord Cameron of Dillington Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 18th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB)]

My Lords, I am a supporter of Great British Energy, its purpose and the proposed flexible approach inherent in the Bill. We need to quickly adopt the new generating technologies we have available to us. Apart from the drive to net zero, the main reason for my support is based on the issue of energy security. Having long maintained that the food security of our nation is the most important role that any Government have to play, I now think that energy security must come a pretty close second. Our cherished peaceful security from wars, and even worldwide pandemics, seems more precarious now than for most of the past 80 years; thus our ability to import electricity, or the fuel to generate it, must also be more precarious. But, if we invest wisely and we can harness the sources of power we are blessed with—wind, sun and tide—we can creep nearer to that energy security; and investing wisely is precisely what we all hope GBE will do.

One of the features I like about the proposals is that GBE will be taking equity in the businesses it chooses to support, and not just giving loans or grants. In other words, it can enjoy the upside of a successful business, as opposed to shouldering only the downside risks that loans or grants allow. I was pleased to hear that the Government have an expectation that, at some time in the future, GBE will, hopefully, contribute to its own funding. I was also pleased to hear that the Government expect that some of its investments will fail. Frankly, if it invests only in guaranteed successes, it will not be doing its job. So, although it sounds odd, I hope that some of its investments will fail—but not too many.

However, hopefully, GBE’s ownership by government will give the private sector the confidence it needs to invest in this exciting energy transitional arena. I am advised that, for a successful transition of our electricity landscape, we need to attract some £400 billion-worth of capital into power generation in the next 10 years. In that context, £1.6 billion per annum does not sound like very much. However, hopefully—I fear there is a lot of hope here, including from me—GBE’s investments, if well used and specifically targeted to reduce risk to private capital, should pull in some of the outside investment that is so badly needed.

But GBE’s role will need to be not only to use money in a wise and, I would hope, “magnetic” way—magnetic in that it will attract other investments. It must also be an enabler. GBE needs to become a real driver of projects, using all the powers at its disposal to try to help clear away some of the barriers to the production and use of renewable energy. As we all know, one of the biggest barriers lies in our planning system and our judicial review system, which can cause excessive delays, and thus costs, in so many of our infrastructure projects. I am sure all noble Lords will have read about the Lower Thames Crossing, where, before a single spade has been put in the ground, apparently more money has already been spent on planning and reviews than Norway has spent on completing the longest road tunnel in the world.

On this subject, it has always interested me that in France, where they pay over the odds for land compulsorily taken by the state, property owners often fall over themselves to offer their land for a state-run project. Of course, these owners do not object at planning inquiries, nor do they instigate judicial reviews. Maybe there is a lesson there for our Treasury—maybe it saves money in the end.

When it comes to energy projects, GBE must ensure there is generous community involvement. In Denmark, the local community gets 20% of the profits of a local wind farm. We need to do something similar here, and then, hopefully, our communities will be falling over themselves to have a magnificent wind farm on their doorstep—and I do think our modern wind turbines are magnificent.

I will leave others to speak about community energy companies themselves, which need all the support we can give them. However, in terms of speedy delivery of projects, the difficulty arises when dealing with National Grid infrastructure, such as pylons—“the plumbing”, as it was referred to in the debate last Thursday. This infrastructure needs to grow to at least four times its current size to deliver power to everywhere it is needed and receive power from all the generating sources that are going to come along. Some projects are currently being told they will be delayed by 10 years or more for the want of a connection; we really cannot afford such delays.

The problem is that no project could possibly afford to financially involve every community along the whole route of its delivery line. So, what is to be done? First, the National Grid has to work with generators to pull together various projects, particularly North Sea projects, to minimise the number of power lines needed from source to delivery point. Then, I fear, a calculation has to be made by GBE and the National Grid as to the extra costs of burying cables in certain places—these costs are slowly coming down—versus the costs of planning delays and judicial reviews caused by objectors to such essential schemes. But I am afraid that I see this issue remaining the biggest fly in the ointment of our desired speedy energy transition.

I turn briefly to the details of the Bill. With all the talk of flexibility and this new GBE being agile and fleet of foot, it surprised me that it should be specifically forbidden by law from going to the open market to raise some of its own money when needed. Clause 1(4) says it can only

“be wholly owned by the Crown”.

That is a mistake, and we should amend it in Committee. A minimum of 80% Crown investment would suffice to keep it essentially a Crown entity but with some financial flexibility. A small amount of private sector money, when needed, would not go amiss.

I bristled at the total power being given to current and future Secretaries of State. Again and again, the efficiency and success of GBE appears to depend on guidance and control by the Secretary of State. Nowadays, as has been made clear by other speakers, very few Secretaries of State will have the relevant business or entrepreneurial experience and skills that might help them to take good decisions.

Having said that, I am not sure what the right solution is. GBE has to be a company independent of and yet part of government to effectively exert the power it needs, but to involve Parliament in any detailed decision-making role would clearly not be efficient. Parliament seems incapable of moving forward on the restoration of its own infrastructure, so it definitely should not be let loose on the national electricity infrastructure.

Thus I fear that having the Secretary of State report directly to Parliament after having widely consulted, as envisaged in the Bill, is probably the best answer to protecting taxpayers’ money. But—and this is a big but—we definitely need to firm up the consultation and reporting. For a start, Clause 6(3)(b), leaving the Secretary of State to decide who he consults with and how he responds to that consultation, is an unnecessary surrender on the part of the taxpayer. Then, for the only reporting to Parliament in Clause 7 to be what I would describe as the minimal information required by Companies House is totally inadequate. The Secretary of State must present to Parliament his own detailed annual report as to how GBE is progressing with its mandate—both the how and the why. I also like the idea of an independent review being carried out every few years, similar to Section 9 of the UK Infrastructure Bank Act 2023; it is the idea of the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, not mine.

I have just two further points to end with. First, the question of whether SMRs fit under the remit of GB Energy or of GB Nuclear needs to be resolved very quickly, as others have said. These generating units will be vital to our electricity supplies over future decades and we need to get their rollout under way as soon as possible.

Secondly, I have great faith in the future of hydrogen. Apart from gradually helping to heat our homes, hydrogen can be used, free of CO₂ emissions, in the production of steel, the production of which currently creates 8% of the world’s CO₂. More importantly, hydrogen will be critical for the decarbonisation of our road transport system. In the UK, road transport currently contributes some 26% of our greenhouse gas emissions. Noble Lords should know that a hydrogen fuel cell battery can give a car a range of over 1,000 miles. Because of this characteristic, such batteries are really the only serious contender to providing a zero-carbon fuel for our HGV fleet.

I have this theory that our current electric cars, with their low mileage range, heavy weight and high use of rare earth metals, will disappear from the marketplace in coming decades, in the same way as fax machines and video recorders—both miracles of their time—have now both completely disappeared. I believe that hydrogen fuel cell cars have a much brighter long-term future, if we can get the hydrogen.

That brings me to the point of mentioning hydrogen in the context of the Bill. For a start, GBE needs to look favourably on any hydrogen projects that come before it, but I also believe that all wind farms, on land or offshore, and solar parks above a certain output should be obliged by law to have a direct connection to a hydrogen production plant. That way, whenever their power is not needed by the grid—in the middle of the night, say, for wind farms—they can be creating green hydrogen to decarbonise our transport system or as a long-term generating fuel, as the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, mentioned. The point is that no more should millions or even billions of pounds be paid to wind farms for not producing electricity. In times of excess production, or when the grid cannot accept their power, they should all be producing green hydrogen as a form of power storage.

As noble Lords will have gathered, I support this Bill. I look forward to working with the Government to improve it in Committee.