Great British Energy Bill

Debate between Lord Fuller and Lord Offord of Garvel

Report stage
Tuesday 11th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak very briefly in support of the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, in her Amendment 13. It is said that when you are in a hole, stop digging—especially when it is a bloody great big one. It seems to me that it was the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, who dug himself into the mire by talking about CCC accounting principles, just delegating it to the regulators, so it is all right then, greenwashing away the IMO shipping carbon costs. He undermined his case, and it demonstrates how biomass burners such as Drax use smoke and mirrors to obfuscate. If the noble Baroness had tested the opinion of the House, she might have had much more support than she might have imagined. It is time to stop the classification of biomass as clean energy and I welcome her intervention.

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

My Lords, I will briefly include a consideration of the second group of amendments, talking about the definition of clean energy, and I express my gratitude to my noble friend Lord Trenchard. These amendments address a matter that many in this House have questioned during our debate: Great British Energy’s role and involvement in the production of nuclear. There is no doubt that nuclear energy in some shape or form will have a critical role to play in achieving the Government’s net zero targets. If the Government, via GB Energy, are to recognise the importance of nuclear, it is only right that they consult Great British Nuclear before investing in nuclear technology. That is where Amendment 36, proposed by my noble friend Lord Trenchard, becomes so crucial.

I also support Amendment 10, also proposed by my noble friend Lord Trenchard. This explicitly includes nuclear energy in the definition of clean energy. We know that it offers a reliable, low-carbon source of energy. In addition, Amendment 7, tabled in my name, includes

“the production of nuclear energy”

as part of GBE’s objectives, which complements Amendment 10 and further solidifies nuclear energy’s central role in being part of our long-term solution for energy security and decarbonisation.

Finally, turning to Amendments 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 11, proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Liddell of Coatdyke, which would expand the definition of clean energy, we support the intention behind them to ensure that we remain inclusive of all potential technologies.

To conclude, I urge the Minister to consider the amendments in my name and those of my noble friend Lord Trenchard carefully, as they would help to ensure a clean, secure, sustainable energy future for the UK.

Great British Energy Bill

Debate between Lord Fuller and Lord Offord of Garvel

Report stage
Tuesday 11th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 47 and 48 in my name and in support of Amendment 51 in the name of my noble friend Lord Fuller.

The threat posed to the environment by the rapid installation of renewable energy technologies is familiar to this House, as it was discussed extensively in Committee and during debates on the Crown Estate Bill. We know that the UK is the second-largest offshore wind market in the world, and that allocation round 6 under this Government has awarded 5.4 gigawatts of offshore energy contracts across fixed and floating offshore wind and tidal stream. Indeed, the Government have committed to quadruple offshore wind by 2030 as part of their wind revolution.

The speed and scale of the Government’s offshore wind developments raise significant concerns about the impact on our ecosystem. While offshore wind farms may have the potential to have positive impacts on natural habitats, we must not neglect the potential harm that wind or tidal technologies may have on our natural environment. On that note, I support Amendment 51 in the name of my noble friend Lord Fuller, which follows a similar line to Amendments 47 and 48 in my name.

Through their so-called unprecedented relationship, the Crown Estate and GB Energy have a duty to assess and mitigate the impact of their activities on the environment. By law, GB Energy must assess, report on and minimise the impact of its activities on our environment in seeking to ramp up renewables and phase out fossil fuels.

I welcome Amendment 38 in the name of the Minister. We stand by to support the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, if she pushes her Amendment 40 to a Division. Meanwhile, I remain to be satisfied by the Minister’s response to my Amendments 47 and 48, and will consider testing the opinion of the House.

Great British Energy Bill

Debate between Lord Fuller and Lord Offord of Garvel

Committee stage
Wednesday 22nd January 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments 111 and 112 in my name, and in support of Amendment 113, in the name of my noble friend Lord Fuller.

Amendment 111 would require the Secretary of State to assess the impact on the environment and animal welfare standards of the installation and generation of offshore wind energy technologies. Amendment 112, also in my name, similarly requires an environmental impact assessment, but with the focus on the decommissioning of oil and gas structures.

The threat posed by the installation and generation of offshore wind farms and tidal energy is not new to the House. Many will be familiar with these concerns, as we on these Benches raised such issues in Committee in debates on the Crown Estate Bill, and discussed the purpose of electricity generation and the Crown Estate’s role in the stewardship of our seabed.

In considering the amendments in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Fuller, we must again address the Crown Estate’s strategic and unprecedented partnership with Great British Energy, which is estimated to result in up to 30 gigawatts of new offshore wind developments reaching seabed lease stage by 2030. We should expect to see considerable and accelerated growth in offshore renewable energy projects, with offshore wind contributing significantly to these efforts. The UK is the second largest offshore wind market in the world. Under the new Government, allocation round 6 has awarded 5.4 gigawatts of offshore energy contracts across fixed and floating offshore wind and tidal stream.

The speed and scale of these planned developments raises concerns about the impact on the marine ecosystem, as expressed by bodies such as Birdlife International. As stewards of our seabed and investors in and facilitators of offshore renewable energy projects, the Crown Estate and GB Energy have a duty to assess the impact of offshore energy installation and generation. GB Energy must restrict such installation and generation if it is found to cause the environment and its associated animals harm. Environmental concerns linked to the installation of offshore energy projects and the operation of these technologies include, but are not limited to, increased noise levels, the distortion in light pollution, and the potential impact on carbon storage and the biodiversity of the seabed and its composition.

In an overview of the ecological impacts of offshore wind on the marine environment, Birdlife International highlighted the impact of the installation and operation of offshore wind farms on marine animals. It found that the installation and generation of offshore wind technologies produces underwater noise, affecting the echo location behaviour of marine mammals. Porpoises, seals and marine birds have been shown to be displaced by wind farms, with some marine birds displaying consistent avoidance behaviour during breeding seasons. Noise pollution produced by piledriving has also been found to impact the behaviour of pelagic fish.

I have briefly outlined the impacts on our environment caused by offshore wind, yet other technologies also have the potential to cause significant harm. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Fuller for addressing the threat tidal energy poses to the fish which inhabit our seas. As he will no doubt discuss this impact in more detail, I will succinctly outline the problems associated with tidal energy generation, which is foreseen to increase rapidly in the coming years. Tidal turbines in open water could result in additional mortality caused by rotor blade collision. This is significant, as tidal waters serve as key feeding areas for fish, as well as passage corridors for migratory fish. Other risks include changes in underwater noise, electromagnetic fields and habitats, and displacement.

Finally, I hope the Minister will listen to the concerns highlighted in the amendments in this group and will confirm to the Committee that he recognises that Great British Energy is in a unique and critical position to assess and minimise the impact of offshore energy installations on our environment and the marine life which inhabits it.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to my Amendment 113. I have previously tabled amendments to the Bill on land, and now I return to the sea, which well fits someone whose territorial designation is Gorleston-on-Sea in the county of Norfolk.

These amendments require the Secretary of State to assess the impact on the environment and animal welfare standards of the installation and generation of tidal energy technologies and their associated cabling. When we consider tidal energy, I am not thinking just about the fish, important though they are—in the tidal races, the machines can mash their flesh—but about sea-birds and the rest of the marine flora and fauna. I am thinking about not just living creatures but the wider environmental effects that may happen slightly away from the installations of the machines themselves, in the associated cabling that links those machines to land—a topic I will return to.

I am not against harnessing this almost inexhaustible supply of energy. The energy is there; it is year-round, predictable and reliable. It deserves to be won and it should be won. But I am not starry-eyed about the practicality of building machines that can survive in the most hostile environment, pounded by the seas and eaten away by salt-water corrosion. I am involved in the liquid fertiliser business, so I know more than most how hard it is to reliably engineer things in these tough, salt-aggressive environments. It is hard to engineer reliability in these unforgiving places, but that does not mean we should not try.

We know that tidal generation is best located where the water flows fastest—where it is choked through the channels, so that the speed naturally increases—so the machines can operate most effectively. Last November, I visited Saint-Malo and saw for myself the world’s first tidal barrage power station, opened in 1966; it is nearly 60 years old. It was a really impressive spectacle. It is cheap energy, but it has not come without cost. Thomas Adcock, an associate professor in the department of engineering science at the University of Oxford, says that there has been a “major environmental impact” on the Rance estuary as a result of the tidal station. He said that

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

Researchers point to the adverse impacts on marine life of altering sedimentation patterns, as well as the impact on oxygen and nutrient levels in the water. I saw for myself that the fast-flowing water passing through the 24 turbines left nowhere for the fish to go. Sand-eels and plaice have disappeared, and the silting has reduced the number and variation of other fauna. Sand-eels are the subject of the very first post-Brexit EU fishing trade spat, and of course they are the preferred diet of British sea sea-birds, so this is an important matter. It is in the public interest that this all be taken into account, so that mitigations can be put in place.

My amendment would require GB Energy to take into account a number of factors and to continuously monitor them when assessing energy proposals. Examples include the cumulative impacts of the installations when considered alongside the predicted impacts of other projects in the area; transboundary impacts, whereby activities in other countries, such as commercial fishing, may be affected, as we have seen; and interrelationships whereby impacts on one receptor, such as noise, can have a knock-on effect on another and disturb species. Examples include sub-sea noise, which my noble friend mentioned, physical processes such sedimentation flow —we saw this in France—and the updated navigational risk assessment possibly deflecting vessels into the path of other sensitive zones.

For offshore tidal proposals, perhaps with tethered devices, we must have regard to the cables that will transfer the energy to the coast. Coming from Norfolk, I take particular interest in the Cromer shoal chalk beds marine conservation zone. It is one of 91 such protection zones established by the last Government, by an organisation lately chaired by my noble friend Lord Banner. The MCZ is a protected inshore site 200 metres off the north Norfolk coast, extending about 10 kilometres out to sea and covering 321 square kilometres. It protects our diverse species. It is predominantly sandy, but the chalk beds provide a stable surface for seaweeds and static animals to settle and grow, and they are home to the Cromer crab, one of the important exports of our county; it is an important source of economic activity too. So, even though marine energy machines may be some miles offshore, we need to consider the whole cable system as well, particularly if it passes through places like the Cromer MCZ on its way to the grid.

None of this is mentioned in the Bill, which is a slim Bill with fat consequences. The Secretary of State is not required to give directions to GBE to take these important environmental safeguards into account. My previous amendments observed that GB Energy is a company: there is to be a fiduciary board, and it is established under the Companies Act 2006 to promote its private self-interest. So, unless it is constrained, we should not be surprised if GB Energy acts in its private interests, not the country’s interests. If it follows purely commercial principles, why should it need to take the marine environment into account unless it is directed to? This amendment would require the Secretary of State to provide such directions.

I expect the Minister to say, “This is all very well but it is not really necessary”. However, we must learn lessons from the water Bill, which flowed through this House as an example of what to do when you have a private company that is established for public purposes yet strays from the path. I do not want a repeat of that. Success does not look like having successive legislation later to cure the unintended consequences of GB Energy getting carried away because it acts in the private interest, not the public one.

Let us put protections in the Bill now. This amendment would provide a simple safeguard, along with those proposed by my noble friend Lord Offord of Garvel, so that the Secretary of State is directed to ensure that sensible precautions are taken to protect our fisheries, sea-birds and other flora and fauna in the whole end-to-end tidal generation system, from the coast all the way to the grid. I am not trying to block tidal power and I am certainly not seeking to add cost or complexity—still less a set of directions or to provide excessive control. My concern is to make sure that this private body, established for public purpose, acts in the wider public interest—not just its self-interest—as to its environmental responsibility and sets an example to others.

Great British Energy Bill

Debate between Lord Fuller and Lord Offord of Garvel

Committee stage
Tuesday 17th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[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.