Great British Energy Bill

Lord Fuller Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 17th December 2024 Lords Chamber

Finally, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, for tabling Amendment 51A. We also believe in a just transition and the need for that to happen alongside support for skills and jobs. One of our issues is that, despite the money invested in the Budget, we still see very low levels of predicted growth coming forward as a result of that investment. There is more for all of us to think about and do to make sure that the transition is a just one that creates green jobs and growth, and that we actually help people transition from the old industries—if I can call them that—to new green industries. This is the second industrial revolution; this stuff is not going away. All the jobs of the future will be green jobs, or we will not have jobs. We need to do more as a society to support that transition.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly in strong support of Amendment 55, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh. Of course we want to consult widely with farmers, fishermen and communities; after all, these are the people who are most likely to be greatest affected by the generation of renewable energy in the countryside. However, that energy will be consumed in the cities, and so those people will not necessarily see the benefits. The harms could be damaged landscapes, the consumption of land, and the introduction of noise and general disruption from construction. We are looking at towering turbines and new pylons. In my own area, in Norfolk, Diss faces being surrounded—fenced in—on both sides by two huge lines of pylons as part of our drive to net zero. Acres of land are lost to solar, with the loss of jobs in the countryside and the debilitating hum of battery storage.

What can the Minister say about the extent to which the consultation will be coupled with reassurances and promises of compensation for those in parts that are most affected—possibly a reduction in electricity or energy bills? It should not be just the generality of everyone’s electricity or energy bill but particularly those people who are most affected.

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Whitty, Lord Hamilton, Lord Teverson, Lord Grantchester and Lord Fuller, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Young, Lady Boycott, Lady McIntosh and Lady Bennett, for their thoughtful contributions so far to this debate. This group has dealt with the critical subject of the strategic priorities of Great British Energy, and we must recognise the importance of this issue.

I begin with Amendment 46. As we discussed on the first day in Committee, the drafting of the Bill is concerningly lacking in detail. Unlike other Bills we have scrutinised in this House, the Great British Energy Bill lacks a clearly defined purpose and does not set out the company’s strategic priorities and plans. I am grateful that Amendment 46 looks to define the impacts of Great British Energy’s strategic priorities: the security of energy supply and the diversification of the ownership of energy facilities for the benefit of people and communities.

By explicitly stating that Great British Energy’s strategic priorities will assist in the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and improve energy efficiency, we would ensure that the £8.3 billion of taxpayers’ money is used effectively for the Government’s stated purpose. Not only this but it is critical that Great British Energy looks to achieve a secure energy supply, as mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. We saw how that was disrupted with the war in Ukraine. This is not an issue that can go unaddressed when discussing a Bill that the Government claim is so consequential to our country’s energy production, supply and security.

In fact, Clause 3 explicitly states that

“Great British Energy’s objects are restricted to facilitating, encouraging and participating in … measures for ensuring the security of the supply of energy”.

However, the Bill makes no provision to ensure the security and future of our energy supply. We are concerned that there may be some tunnel vision here on renewable energy to achieve the Government’s unilateral, and perhaps overambitious, target of clean energy by 2030; that would inevitably compromise our energy security. I am grateful to the noble Baronesses for addressing this concern in their amendment.

Amendment 47 in my name requires the statement of strategic priorities and plans to include the reduction of household energy bills by £300 by 2030. Throughout the election campaign, the Government repeatedly promised that Great British Energy would cut household bills by an average of £300. A similar claim was made by at least 50 MPs, the Science Secretary and the Work and Pensions Secretary, and even the Chancellor said:

“Great British Energy, a publicly owned energy company, will cut energy bills by up to £300”.


In an interview in June, the Secretary of State himself claimed that Great British Energy would lead to a “mind-blowing” reduction in bills by 2030. As the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, put it so eloquently, the public are hearing this message and must not be misled.

It is worrying that in the other place the Government voted against a Conservative amendment to make cutting energy bills, quoting the £300, a strategic priority for Great British Energy. By doing that, the Government voted against an amendment that would hold them to their word. They voted against ensuring delivery on their promise to cut energy bills for the British people. Why do this? If it is not £300, what is it? The public genuinely believe that Great British Energy, as a new energy company, will supply them with cheap electricity. Can the Minister give the Committee a cast-iron guarantee that GB Energy will cut energy bills? By how much will they be cut?

The pledge to cut household energy bills by up to £300 was not the only promise the Government made during their election campaign. They also promised that Great British Energy would create 650,000 jobs, yet this too was defeated from becoming a strategic object of Great British Energy and is absent from the Government’s Explanatory Notes on the Bill and the Great British Energy founding statement. Why is this? Amendment 48 in my name would ensure that the Government are held to their word and that the creation of 650,000 new jobs is included in the statement of strategic priorities.

These are not trivial matters: they are promises that are important to people. The Government have already put 200,000 jobs at risk with their plans to prematurely shut down North Sea oil and gas. The public are aware of this transition and they want a just transition, but they are hearing of an acceleration in offshore oil and gas to the detriment of jobs and no commitment given as to the new jobs that will replace them. The Secretary of State has made huge promises that greatly impact people’s energy bills, their businesses and their jobs. It is therefore critical that the Government are held accountable.

Amendment 49 in my name would introduce a specific strategic priority for Great British Energy to develop UK energy supply chains and require that an annual report is produced on the progress of meeting this strategic priority. It is essential that our transition to net zero does not increase our reliance on foreign states, as has been mentioned many times, and particularly not on hostile foreign states. I think we all want to see a “Made in Britain” transition, where our offshore wind turbines are constructed by British manufacturing companies and erected by British high-skilled workers, and deliver clean, cheap energy for British homes and businesses. With that in mind, my Amendment 49 would make domestic supply chains a strategic priority for Great British Energy. In this transition to net zero, we are presented with great opportunities for investment and for new jobs. As with employment, we must ensure that British people and domestic companies benefit from the increase in investment we hope to see in the coming years. Therefore, we must not simply outsource this transition; the transition will not be just if it benefits only Chinese companies.

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, for tabling Amendment 55. It is critical that the Secretary of State must consult with various groups and local communities, including farmers and fishermen, when implementing a statement of priorities that will almost certainly have significant implications for them. I remind noble Lords of Amendments 26 and 110, to which I spoke on the first day in Committee. I raised the importance of local community consultation when the activities of Great British Energy might result in the erection of pylons.

I also draw the attention of noble Lords to Amendments 106 and 107, which will no doubt be addressed in future debate. I too have expressed my concern on the impact of Great British Energy’s functions on coastal communities and commercial fishing. I seek to ensure that an annual report is prepared and published to assess those potential impacts.

I turn to Amendment 50 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Russell. I do not intend to be repetitive, but this too is a fundamental issue with the Bill—it lacks strategy. How can the Minister expect the Committee to have thorough debate when the details of the Bill are so vague? The Bill lacks substance and we need to clarify the strategic priorities. However, by addressing amendments such as Amendments 50, and Amendment 73 which will come later in the debate, we can begin to address some of these glaring omissions.

EV Strategy: (ECC Committee Report)

Lord Fuller Excerpts

Wednesday 16th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, this is an important debate at a pivotal moment for the personal mobility that underpins our economy and growth. The report explains in great detail that the choice of an electric vehicle affords much greater driving pleasure, greater acceleration, lower maintenance costs for home chargers, competitive daily charges and, thanks to direct-drive motors, the consignment of the grinding of gears to the history books—but if only this mode shift were that simple.

The market for EVs was already stuttering when the report was published in February. Since then, there have been further dramatic changes, as the growth as a proportion of the whole market has stagnated. We are literally at a fork in the road for electric vehicles. The report highlights a number of things that must be done for us to get back on track.

Before I talk about the rollout of chargers, I thank my noble friend Lord Leicester for his comprehensive list of electric vehicles that are made in this country. He missed out one that is close to home for us both, in Norfolk, because Lotus Cars is shortly to be manufacturing its Type 135 in our great county.

To return to the provision of charging infrastructure, the report makes it clear that it is much easier for the market to provide charging points along the motorways and main roads, while there are few incentives on the B roads and in out-of-the-way places. As a council leader back in 2018, I recognised that it was really important for the council to take a lead in the provision of this public infrastructure. Our approach was grounded in the understanding that not every motorist has a long gravel drive; many live in flats or terraced homes, and simply do not have anywhere to park outside their home—a point that other noble Lords have made. Our council understood that we would never get the wide uptake of EVs unless we democratised the opportunity for anybody to charge a vehicle close by, so we invested in the fat cables in our car parks to serve the first generation of fast chargers, with better app support. We have now extended the number of installations in our leisure centres and other public buildings with a second generation, taking advantage of government funding and adding our own resources to decarbonise.

However, we still needed to drive forward, having done our bit to begin with. Two years ago, we made a big offer to each of the 120 town and parish councils in our district. We would procure, install, maintain and manage an electric charging point in the grounds of their village hall or bowls club car park; all they needed to do was find that space. We would hook it up to the mains, and the app would ensure that any electricity consumed by chargers would be refunded, with a margin for themselves.

A third of our population lives in rural villages, and we wanted all residents and their visitors to be able to charge, especially as we had lost so many rural petrol stations. We would provide a real choice of mobility technologies for everybody in the countryside—and, of course, by putting the capital costs of these chargers on to the local council tax payer, those amortisation costs would then not fall in a surcharge on the pence per kilowatt hour on the public charges, which the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, and the report have enumerated. We did not want to discriminate against those who could not charge at home.

These parish councils are valued partners and make an enormously positive contribution to our national life, but, two years on, I regret to say that only a single installation has been made under our offer to the villages. Although there are a few in the pipeline, our offer ran flat. Yes, the market will provide on the highway and, yes, urban authorities can upgrade their lamp-posts, but we can and must do more in the countryside.

I want to relay some of the reasons why our parish councils did not take up our offer. Some parishes simply assumed that there was not enough electricity, notwithstanding that we were going to have a survey as part of the offer. The offer was rejected on the basis of hearsay, rather than evidence. Some market towns felt that taking a lead locally and installing charging points was a service—a service that, on principle, they did not seek to provide. Others felt that they were not going to get used, so why bother? A few cited the lack of mobile coverage in the countryside as an issue; unless you have a mobile connection, you cannot connect to the app and download the code, and so the electric charger would not work—but that is of course notwithstanding that most village halls in most parish councils now have wifi.

There were cases where the parish council wanted to learn more but could not persuade the village hall committee to get on board. Some were just simply unrealistic. Sometimes in rural areas there is just not the oomph in the network to provide the sort of rapid charging found at a service station. They were rejected on that basis, and therein lies a real case of the excellent being an enemy of the simply satisfactory. Finally, and notably, most local councillors just did not want people hanging around the village hall. I was disappointed. There was a pocketful of excuses.

I tell these disappointing stories because they are part of my real-life experience, and if there is to be a plan for more electric cars, we will need a national strategy that takes some of these concerns into account. As the SMMT has observed to me, just making the plan is worthless unless the market participants can look beyond defeatism or prejudice. Having a plan is one thing but delivering it is another. Only when we have leadership across the whole of the public sector—that includes some of our 9,000 parish councils, as well as principal authorities—will we get universal, not just urban-based, coverage.

It is important to make progress quickly because, unless we start to address some of these headwinds, we will never get progress. I was pleased that the report makes it clear that home-based charging is nearly always cheaper, but home-based charging is just one of the costs. It has become clear to me, especially since February, when the report was written, that, leaving the simple energy cost per mile to one side, the total cost of EVs is now rising fast, and is making the internal combustion engine even more competitive once again.

Although electric cars are now subsidised by manufacturers, as the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, said, the upfront purchase costs are still more expensive—especially when taking into account the interest payments, which are not the same as when interest rates were 0.5%. There are also insurance costs: a function of providing a like-for-like replacement, plus some astonishingly risk-averse repair quotations for minor prangs in the car park that see write-offs, are now driving premiums to eye-watering levels. Depreciation is ruinous. It has destabilised the motor traders, who have been trying to catch a falling knife on the impaired value of their stock. The private motorist, as we have heard, is at a serious disadvantage to the corporate purchaser, with no tax incentives or opportunities for salary sacrifice and other things. Of course, battery range is not what it was thought to be—my noble friend made that point so clearly.

I will not dwell further on the 20% versus 5% VAT level, but it is discriminating against people who live in flats and do not have the long gravel drive or large diesel 4x4 to fall back on. We know from the SMMT that the fiscal drag is bringing electric cars into the luxury super-charged tax rate, at another £500 per year. Who would buy such a car with their own money? The costs, over and above the mileage costs, are running away.

We hear now that road charges have been mooted. I can understand why the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, mentioned this, because it is a truth that we will have to grip. Not only is the total cost of ownership of electric versus combustion becoming much more significant but, if we then end up with road pricing, it will be the nail in the coffin. It would dramatically increase the cost of running an electric car.

I am not going to dwell further on the increasing proportion of electric vehicles against internal combustion engines in sales, but the policy is destabilising UK motor dealers, and undermining European and domestic manufacturers, by encouraging a flood of Chinese imports of uncertain quality and with concerns over embedded IT. This well-intentioned regulation is undermining our economic stability and electronic security, delegating production and wealth creation to parts of the world with lower environmental standards. Given the importance of cars to the global economy, we cannot ignore this global context. We must approach EVs and our policies as part of economic security, which in turn is part of our national security.

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

My Lords, there has been a bit of chuntering so I should explain that the Clock was wrong; the noble Lord has not taken more than 15 minutes.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. I noticed that it was showing eight minutes when I started, so I think I have some more time.

I was talking about the role of electric vehicles and our treatment, in trade and tariffs, of our economic and national security. A dilemma is around the corner. After the US elections, will we follow the Canadians with a 100% tariff on Chinese EVs, or will we pursue a more EU-aligned strategy that combines a less aggressive tariff approach with tighter regulation—but at the risk of hobbling UK production? Informed commentators know that the upcoming UK policy choices on such matters as tariffs and trade are being watched closely in Beijing and Washington, as well as by our new friends in Brussels, who are the subject of a renewed charm offensive from London.

Whether it is America, China or Europe, the trade treatment of EVs here in the UK will set the tone for global trade negotiations in a much more complicated trading environment in an unstable world. One thing is for sure, though: if we side with our allies on protectionist tariffs, this will drive up the costs of UK electric vehicles still further, which will increasingly aggravate the move to electric. But if we side with China, this could kill off our industry anyway and leave us reliant on imports for ever. These are big dilemmas.

There is nothing more democratic than the freedom to get about. This report has made an important contribution to this important market at a single point in time, but it is a fast-moving target. I wish the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, well in navigating this complex macroeconomic, security and environmental situation. My view is that the fiscal approach, our environmental regulations and government policy targets need to be urgently tweaked—not done away with—to ensure that customer preference for electric vehicles is maintained, not further undermined with our economy damaged. This is not a market that can afford to go into reverse but, unless there is a change in tone, gears will continue to grind. Let us hope the engine does not seize up completely.

King’s Speech

Lord Fuller Excerpts

Thursday 18th July 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Fuller (Con) (Maiden Speech)]

My Lords, in my maiden speech I am delighted to follow the convention of thanking those who have made me so welcome in your Lordships’ House since my introduction in March, including the doorkeepers, the clerks and staff, and the many friends from all sides, but especially from local government, and particularly from my own county of Norfolk. These include my noble friend Lady Shephard of Northwold, as well as my noble friend Lady Eaton, who has provided so much guidance and support.

Since my introduction, I have been seeking a moment to make a mark on two issues that are close to my heart and where I think I can make an informed impact. The first is the business of food production and food security, and the second is the importance of good housing as the foundation of building strong communities. This debate gives me the opportunity to talk about both, because at its heart it is about the two most basic human needs: food in your belly and a roof over your head.

Perhaps I can tell noble Lords a little bit about myself. I have pursued a career in the agricultural supply industry, which for nearly 20 years I combined with the leadership of a local authority in Norfolk, a position I recently relinquished to concentrate on my duties here. I was raised in the Norfolk seaside town of Gorleston-on-Sea, which I am proud to have as my territorial designation. As befitting somebody from the coast, I have a strong belief in the utility of the picture postcard. Keen observers in your Lordships’ cloakroom will note that my own peg is illustrated with an image of the superb Gorleston beach rather than my name. I would show you one of these postcards, but as a keen new Member I have learned from the Companion that display of visual aids is forbidden during debate.

Gorleston is a wonderful part of Great Yarmouth, a historic borough that provided the homecoming for a Norfolk man, Nelson, upon his victorious return from the Battle of Copenhagen. It now plays an important role in our nation’s energy security, having evolved global leadership in many aspects of clean energy production while benefiting from the world’s largest wind farm array on our doorstep. I was schooled in Suffolk and graduated from the University of Reading with a degree in agriculture. I clearly remember visiting the farm of the noble Lord, Lord Benyon, as part of our studies. Eyes have often glazed over when I discuss my role in the fertiliser industry but, hey, we all have to eat and my business sits at the foundation and is one of a number of enablers of our entire food chain.

The entire agricultural supply trades support an army of farmers, who have created our countryside and our natural environment and whose dedication, professionalism and innovation have made our agriculture the most innovative, sophisticated and productive in the whole world, and responsive to external shocks such as the Ukraine situation. The supply industries have innovated the technical advances that prove that there is not a binary choice between farming and wildlife. No longer is there a contest between food production and the environment. They can live alongside each other and be achieved together.

Perhaps more than any other, the food, drink and agriculture sector is dominated by unlisted family-owned businesses. These firms have an eye to the long-term thinking that builds generational wealth in our islands. Not all have deep pockets, but they tend to be embedded in their communities, spending money locally and enjoying the loyalty of staff who work with them for decades. I read the newspapers and am greatly concerned that unlisted family businesses, the bedrock upon which our economy is founded, could be pivoted into short-term thinking, salting away capital rather than investing if mooted changes to property reliefs are introduced. Any Government should tread carefully on capital taxation of such businesses. I know more than most that there is no such thing as unearned income when you put your family’s wealth on the line when building a firm to make better futures for those who work with you. Remember, these are the people who feed us.

As a nation that produces only two-thirds of the food we consume, where we have competitive and comparative advantage on matters such as genomics, we should exploit it. But chasing regulatory alignment with our closest neighbours in a way that hobbles our food chain, with counterproductive carbon taxes and trade barriers that do nothing to reduce emissions yet drive up domestic prices, will do nothing to help our exports of beer, bread and cheese to global audiences and help earn our place in the world.

I am grateful that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, mentioned food security in his opening remarks, but lately it has been overlooked. Food security is something that we must focus on in times of international unrest and extreme weather. We celebrate those who put food on the kitchen table across the nation and deliver that most basic survival need of all—nourishment.

I have another, completely different string to my bow. What I have learned in nearly two decades as a council leader is that when you arrive at the council offices on a Monday morning to find people there with all their possessions in a plastic bag, having been made homeless over the weekend, it focuses the mind. If you cannot sort it, who will? Fixing housing issues is not just about building homes, but it is a critical issue facing us all. Over the years I have chaired two local plans, throughout the 2010s delivering 1% of this nation’s entire social housing additions, replaced every home lost to right to buy and more besides, been in the top 10 for the new homes bonus—the reward for delivering houses, not just talking about them—and played a leading role in building physical and social infrastructure up front alongside the construction of new homes.

I know a little bit about this. The planning problem is not just with councils. Councils cop the blame in the press because they hold the ring between the proponents and the objectors. It is the national agencies, often with their heavy-handed overregulation, that must share the blame for most of the delays and obfuscation in the planning system by adding costs that we cannot afford. While the modernisation of planning committees might be an eye-catching announcement in the press notices yesterday, a clear restatement of the equality of the three limbs of sustainable development—social, economic and environmental—and the recalibration of the balance between them, so that one limb does not have a veto over the others, would be more useful. It is time that the veto over delivering new affordable homes, establishing new communities and building new infrastructure is removed from Natural England, which in my experience, and that of your Lordships’ Built Environment Committee, has been found wanting.

Not building new homes does nothing to clean up our rivers. Wheeling out rogue algorithms on bat numbers should not blindly condemn communities to congestion for ever. Forcing councils to hire people in yellow coats to tell ramblers how to walk their dogs in the name of GIRAMS regulations is simply pointless posturing. Preening, self-serving bureaucracy by unaccountable agencies acting as activists rather than as regulators must be rolled back if we are to progress.

It is now clear to me that preventing the reform of nutrient neutrality rules last year might have been good politics, but artisan journeymen such as bricklayers, plumbers, roofers and tilers have been caught in the cross-fire and paid the price in lost work and failed businesses. This has made it even harder for us to meet the targets.

Ah, the targets—we have been in this place before. All I will say is that simply wishing for houses to be built is not a strategy; to make progress here, we need to recognise that there is a world of difference between funding new homes and financing them. Funding is writing the cheque; financing is putting that deal together. They are completely different disciplines. In a world where writing the cheque is not easy, the Government must give more licence to local planning authorities, such as district councils in the travel-to-work areas to which the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, referred and which surround our cities, to set up development corporations, pull deals together and take the risk on upfront infrastructure delivery, with repayment as the new homes are occupied.

I am conscious that I am slightly over time but, as this is my maiden speech, I hope that noble Lords will forgive me. I sat on the CIL review in 2016-17 and—to go into one detail—I find it astonishing that local authorities are prevented from borrowing against projected infrastructure income, in the way that they can with Section 106. I could point to many other examples. Only by fixing such things will we allow more homes to be built. Simply hoping that our wishes come true will not be enough.

Everything that I have done in my career has brought me to this place to talk about these two most consequential issues of our time. I am proud to be debating the importance of good food placed on kitchen tables in new homes—food and shelter. These are the two most basic needs for individuals, without which there can be no true foundations for a healthy society and a vibrant economy. I stand by to play my part in helping our nation provide for these needs, and I wish the new Government well in seeking to fulfil them.