Great British Energy Bill

Lord Hamilton of Epsom Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 11th February 2025 Lords Chamber

GB Energy will fundamentally increase the levels of green energy that is generated and free us from the fluctuations of foreign energy markets. We believe that these are settled matters that the Minister himself has spoken to from the Dispatch Box. We have more sympathy for the issue of long-duration energy storage. On that point, it would be useful if the Minister could say that it is his belief that the strategic priorities for GB Energy will engage in long-duration energy storage.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

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

[Earl Russell (LD)]

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ashcombe (Con)]

My Lords, I support my noble friend Lady Noakes in this first amendment, because the four objectives outlined are highly relevant. In particular, I shall focus on the second objective, energy security, where maintaining a balanced mix of electricity generation is crucial. As we know, this includes baseload nuclear, renewables, gas and supplementary power by interconnectors.

My primary concern, as will not surprise your Lordships, is gas. It is essential not only to continue production from our existing North Sea fields but to allow further exploration and development in order that we may discover more. At this point, I very much thank the Minister for the time we spent last week discussing this item.

I think it is relevant to point out that, according to research from the Library, the UK’s indigenous gas supply still met 43% of our national demand in 2023, covering electricity generation as well as commercial and domestic needs. However, to bridge the shortfall, we rely on imports from two main sources: Norway, which supplies 32% of our pipeline but faces a growing political and resource pressures due to the European energy crisis; and the United States, which provides 15% through LNG, with other countries contributing less than 5% each.

The environmental impact of importing gas is significant. As of 2022, emissions from Norwegian imports were 50% higher than those from UK production, while LNG imports from the United States generated more than 3.5 times the emissions. Additionally, electricity accounts for only 25% to 30% of the UK’s total energy demand, with the remainder still dependent on fossil fuels. Many of these same arguments can be used for the continued production of oil, even though it is not, I am glad to say, used in electricity generation.

Given these facts, it is imperative that we continue to utilise the UK’s own resources by lifting the current pause on oil and gas exploration and production. I realise that this is slightly counterintuitive but, by doing so, we can assist the growth agenda, protect our jobs in the North Sea, reduce unnecessary imports, prevent higher global emissions and avoid shifting the environmental burden on to other nations. This amendment will very much assist the objectives of Great British Energy.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I wish to pick up the concern voiced by the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, that GB Energy will pick up some of what I have described as the low-hanging fruit of projects in the energy sector, which can be serviced by the private sector. I do not think that that will happen very much. The putting up of wind turbines and so on by the private sector is well established. It is done by financiers who are more concerned by the feed-in tariff than they are by anything else. They even succeed, as I mentioned in Committee, in being paid at a time when nobody wants the electricity coming from the wind turbines, which I always think is a rather remarkable financial deal to be able to pull off.

Turning to Amendment 39 in the name of my noble friend Lord Frost, I raise with the Minister the question of tiered finance. There will be an awful lot of looking into the activities of GB Energy in investing in things but, in my view, here lies the problem: you will find that there are different layers of finance going into a project that may involve GB Energy. The risk we always run is that, unless the new chairman who has been appointed for GB Energy is incredibly smart, he is going to be left with the worst, highest-risk element of any of these deals being funded by the taxpayer. Of course, this means that, if the thing goes wrong, the private sector will suffer less than the taxpayer, who will lose all their money.

I would like to hear the Minister’s view on tiered finance, including how we will be able to have openness around it. Will it be possible for outsiders to look in on these deals and comment on them? Generally, does the Minister agree with me that the risk to the taxpayer seems extremely high on this? Of course, we will need Treasury authorisation for all these deals—the Treasury may stop them happening in the beginning—but it would be interesting to know how the Minister’s mind is working on this because it strikes me that the taxpayers are standing in the way of the high-risk elements of any of these deals in which GBE gets involved.

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Noakes for opening the debate on this group of amendments, as well as all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate so far.

My noble friend Lord Frost pointed out in Committee that this Bill is even thinner in its contents than Bills that we would normally term skeleton Bills. I completely agree with this characterisation. As it stands, there is nothing in the Bill that tells us what Great British Energy will actually do. What will it invest in? How will it decide where its money goes? What criteria will it use for its investments? We have had three and a half days of Committee over five days on the Bill. We still do not know the answers to these questions.

On the first day in Committee, the Minister said:

“The key thing in the structure of the Bill is the objectives set in Clause 3. They will be informed by the statement of strategic priorities that Great British Energy will operate in, making sure that it will be aligned with the Government’s priorities”.—[Official Report, 3/12/24; col. 1066.]


We have discussed the different objects and objectives of Great British Energy, but I think that we need to return to this topic. It was pointed out by my noble friend Lady Noakes and the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden, that, contrary to what the Minister has claimed, Clause 3 does not set out the objectives of Great British Energy.

Clause 3 establishes the objects of Great British Energy. Those objects set out what GBE will do. Those objects will be the means through which it will try to achieve its objectives, but what those objectives are still eludes us. That is why Amendment 1, tabled by my noble friend Lady Noakes and signed by the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, is so important. It establishes in the Bill the objectives that Great British Energy will have to work towards. Ensuring energy security, increasing long-term energy storage, increasing the levels of clean energy generation and reducing energy costs are all laudable objectives. They are all things that the Government have indicated that they want Great British Energy to work towards, but unless they are put into the legislation, there is no assurance that they will happen.

This point is especially pertinent given the recent refusal to re-commit to reducing energy bills. Noble Lords will be all too aware that during the election campaign the Government pledged to reduce energy bills by £300 per household. We then heard the chair of Great British Energy, Jürgen Maier, speaking on Sky News this weekend and refusing to say whether that promise still stood. Then the Prime Minister, speaking at the National Nuclear Laboratory last week, confirmed this figure and said:

“We said we’d aim for £300 … That’s what I want to achieve”.


We therefore have what appear to be different commitments from the chair and the Prime Minister. The chair will not commit to reducing household energy bills by £300 per year, but the Prime Minister will. Which one is it? If we already have a difference in opinion, and clearly no joined-up thinking before the Bill has even been passed, how can anyone believe that Great British Energy will follow through on its supposed objectives? It is evident that the only way this will happen is if there is a clear statement of those objectives in the Bill.

I turn to the other amendments in this group. My Amendment 20, and Amendment 37, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden, seek to ensure that there are clearer reporting requirements in the Bill. Currently, there are no requirements to submit reports other than the usual ones under the Companies Act 2006. Many noble Lords have argued that this is not acceptable. The reporting requirements in these two amendments are not overly onerous for GBE to comply with, yet the net benefit would be significant.

I have also tabled Amendment 41, which seeks to ensure that Great British Energy is given a specific direction to achieve a 10% minimum return on its investments annually. Like with the rest of the Bill, there has been absolutely no indication of the expectations that will be placed on GBE. Without this, how can anyone be certain that the taxpayer will see value for money from this investment? If £8.3 billion from the public purse is going to be funnelled into a state-operated investment company, I am certain that taxpayers would like some guarantee that it will pay off—or at least some measure of target return.

This brings me to Amendment 49. Given the permissive extent of the borrowing provisions in the Bill, it is pertinent to allow the Secretary of State to implement a restriction on borrowing. The amendment does this via affirmative statutory instrument, allowing the Secretary of State flexibility, while placing greater safeguards on the amount to be spent via Great British Energy.

In the same vein, we also need to ensure that there are adequate safeguards for the financial assistance that the Secretary of State can provide. Amendment 56 does this by preventing Clause 4 coming into force until the Secretary of State has established the conditions under which financial assistance may be provided. Once again, we need clarity around this issue. We need to know when, how and why the Secretary of State would give financial assistance, under what circumstances and with what conditions attached; otherwise, there is a distinct possibility of the Bill becoming a blank cheque to Great British Energy for unlimited sums of public money.

Finally, Amendment 57, in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Effingham, requires the publication of a revised financial framework document. I said in Committee that I did not feel it possible to move forward with the creation of Great British Energy until the Government were more forthcoming on this matter. Regrettably, this elusive information is still being withheld. We need sight of the framework document. Once again, I strongly urge the Government to produce this and allow noble Lords to examine its contents.

--- Later in debate ---

In relation to Amendments 17 and 49, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Offord, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, on borrowing, the Government have committed to capitalise GBE with £8.3 billion across this Parliament. I take what the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, has said, but I have supreme confidence in my right honourable friend the Chancellor and the spending review. It is a government commitment that GBE will be capitalised with £8.3 billion across this Parliament. I cannot go beyond that because it depends on the spending review and, however much I am pressed, I cannot say anything more on this.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

Can the Minister be absolutely clear on the role of the Treasury? He talks about £8.3 billion being allocated to GB Energy, but will the money not actually be held in a sort of escrow account in the Treasury and will GB Energy not have to apply to the Treasury before it can spend any of it? It is rather important whether the ultimate decision lies with the Treasury or GB Energy.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, we need to await the outcome of the spending review and the timetabling of the money to be allocated to Great British Energy. We are trying to establish a balance between wanting to give Great British Energy operational independence and ensuring that the proper controls over public expenditure are kept appropriately. I think the noble Lord, with all his experience of how government works, will have confidence that the Treasury will be keeping a very close eye on this and the processes, and ensuring that public money is spent wisely. My role as a Minister, too, is to ensure that, none the less, GBE has sufficient operational independence to be able to make the kind of decisions that need to be made to get the investment decisions right. We are trying to get, and clearly want to get, a balance between proper control and giving GBE the right ability to make the decisions it needs to make without being excessively micromanaged.

We do not expect that GBE will need to borrow. However, if it turned out at some point in the long term that a Government decided that, and GBE asked for more borrowing facility, the normal processes of His Majesty’s Treasury would come into play. As a public body, GBE would require explicit agreement from His Majesty’s Treasury before being able to borrow from external providers, if HM Treasury agreed that this would be beneficial. We should also bear in mind that the chief executive officer of Great British Energy will be the accounting officer. That too should give a great deal of comfort on the proper expenditure of public money.

On Amendments 20 and 37, on the reporting requirements that were the subject of much discussion in Committee, I do not want to restate previous arguments, but much of the content proposed in the amendments would already be included in the annual report and accounts of Great British Energy, which, as I said, will be laid before Parliament. Also, the Treasury already has the ability to request specific reporting information from arm’s-length bodies through the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000. Furthermore, GBE will be required to follow the provisions of the Government Financial Reporting Manual, which sets out details of required reporting by arm’s-length bodies through annual reports and accounts; these are additional to the requirements of the Companies Act 2006.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Vaux: we have had a series of engagements between Committee and Report on the issue of additionality. I well recognise that this is an important matter, and noble Lords have been right to raise it. Let me be clear here: additionality will be an important principle for Great British Energy, and it will form part of the way in which Great British Energy assesses its opportunities and investment decisions. In the context of the noble Lord’s amendment, I am very happy to confirm our expectation that Great British Energy will include reporting on additionality as part of its annual report and accounts. I also confirm that all investment into and expenditure of Great British Energy will be subject to future business cases, including the cost and benefits of these investments, and the monetised and non-monetised impacts of Great British Energy’s future activities will also be considered.

Additionally, Great British Energy is part of the Government’s major projects portfolio. We therefore expect a summary business case for these activities to be published in due course. Moreover, we expect the outcomes of future spending reviews to be made public through the Chancellor’s Budget announcements, as is customary.

On Amendment 39, on the subject of Great British Energy’s chair, which was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Frost, and returns to a point he raised in Committee, one accepts that it is important to ensure the quality and performance of the chair, but the existing framework and best practices, which I outlined extensively in Committee, already provide robust mechanisms for oversight and accountability. I will again say—the noble Lord, in a sense, challenges me on this—that the decision on scrutiny of appointments normally falls to discussions between the Secretary of State and the relevant Select Committee chair. It is a procedure that the previous Government followed; we will continue with that. Moreover, the proposal for an annual review of the chair by external auditors seems to be way over the top. I have already said that GBE will be subject to the normal accountability arrangements. I would expect Ministers, in addition, to meet the chair of GBE frequently, as Ministers in my department do in relation to a number of public bodies for which they are accountable. As ever, we are trying to find the balance between holding GBE properly to account and putting our trust in it, in the quality of people around the board led by the chair, and in the senior officials that they then appoint to do the job properly and effectively.

In relation to Amendment 41, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Offord, on the rate of return, I think this is going into too much detail and is inappropriate for Parliament to insist on. The Bill we have before us is focused solely on making the minimum necessary provisions to enable the establishment of this operationally independent company. Adding the proposed detail risks too narrowly restricting the company in carrying out its activities, not least because GBE’s work will extend beyond investments. We do not want to be restrictive and put a rate-of-return requirement on all its activities. For me, one of the most important activities that GBE will do is to carry out a lot of the groundwork to enable investors to come in. We know that we have a big problem with the manifold delays in energy infrastructure development and investment. We, of course, seek to reform the planning system and find other ways in which we can speed up development, but GBE has a vital role to play in relation to that too.

I will resist Amendments 56 and 57, on the commencement of the powers in the Bill. These amendments would delay the designation of GBE under Clause 1 and the ability of the Secretary of State to provide financial assistance to it under Clause 4. Those clauses are fundamental to GBE’s ability to start its operations as soon as this Bill is passed.

I am very grateful to noble Lords for their interventions and contributions. I understand that they wish to ensure that GBE is properly held to account. I hope I have convinced them that we will indeed hold GBE to account. Equally, I must fly the flag for operational independence and for the ability of the board to do the job we set out for it to do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Hanworth (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendment 10 is a minor amendment and the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, has asked me to speak on it in his absence. I believe his amendment evinces frustration at the tendency of those who are averse to nuclear energy to exclude it from their definition of “clean energy”. He has therefore proposed that the Bill should state that clean energy means renewable energy, nuclear energy and energy produced from sources other than fossil fuels.

In assessing the hazards of nuclear energy, one must separate the issues of nuclear cleanliness, by which I mean the absence of nuclear pollution, from issues of nuclear safety. The latter range from concerns about the accidental spillage of radioactive materials to the risks of rare occurrences such as the accidents of Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima.

A degree of laxity characterised the early nuclear industry, but the industry has since developed a stringent attitude towards cleanliness. The radioactive emissions of our nuclear power stations are negligible. They are a fraction of the emissions from the granite rocks of Aberdeen, and the human exposure is far less than that of a high-flying airline passenger on a scheduled flight. The industry’s attitude to cleanliness extends far beyond the question of radioactive contamination; I have seen the senior management of a nuclear power station become apoplectic at the discovery of a cigarette butt embedded in a gravel pathway.

The major accidents that I mentioned were occasioned by the meltdown of nuclear power stations embodying pressurised water reactors. They have led to a heightened emphasis on the safety of such power stations. That is evident in the design of the Hinkley C power station, where the consequences of the worst imaginable malfunctions would not extend beyond the power station itself. The same is true of the current designs of small modular reactors, which are also pressurised water reactors.

The SMRs employ a nuclear technology that is set to be replaced by fourth-generation technologies endowed with passive safety. A molten-salt reactor provides an example: in the unlikely event of a rupture of the containment vessel, the molten salt and the nuclear reagents would escape into wider containment, after which the nuclear reaction would cease and the salt would crystallise at 300 degrees Centigrade. Such reactors are fit to be employed close to industrial processes that require abundant heat and electricity. An unfortunate fact, to which I must testify, is that we are failing to support the development of such reactors. We are leaving it to others to develop the technologies that are vital for achieving our net zero ambitions.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 10 as well, because the future of nuclear is very important if we are going to lead to a much cleaner environment in which to live. It is an important source of power generation that does not emit filth, like so many of the others do.

I shall pick up on the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Liddell, about Drax. I have a slight problem with Drax because, although it makes out that it is using renewable fuel, it seems to be cutting down quite a lot of trees in North America to feed it, and the stuff that comes out of the chimney is highly polluting. The fact that it is not as polluting as coal does not mean it is not polluting at all.

We have to look very closely indeed at the use of some renewables—I am not including solar and wind here. I mentioned in Committee that we are growing oil-seed rape to turn into vegetable oil that then gets refined and put into aircraft, but all the way through that process we are emitting CO₂ and that is what we are supposed to be combating. Drax is emitting CO₂ as well.

--- Later in debate ---

I will make just a very final, final point. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, asserted that this harvesting is bad for biodiversity; she and I are always on the same side when it comes to biodiversity, and I feel extremely apologetic in having to make a counterclaim. One of the things done by the independent advisory board that I chair was to commission a systematic review of the impacts on biodiversity of biomass harvesting in the south-eastern United States. In fact, there are two studies: we commissioned one and another was carried out independently by scientists at Oxford University, led by my noble friend Lady Willis of Summertown. Both reviews concluded that, far from having a negative effect on biodiversity, the thinning process has either a neutral or even perhaps a slightly positive effect on biodiversity—so, again, one must not jump to simple conclusions.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

What the noble Lord told us about being on the advisory board of Drax is very interesting. But how about the shipment of all this timber across the Atlantic and the burning of it in the United Kingdom? That seems to me to pollute the atmosphere, as well as contributing to CO₂ emissions.

[Lord Krebs (CB)]

I thank the noble Lord for those questions. As I said, it is not my job to defend what Drax does. I am asked not to do that but to hold its feet to the fire on the sustainability questions relating to the sourcing. With regard to the life cycle analysis, Drax has an obligation to report the life cycle emissions of the power station, and the regulator scrutinises that reporting.

On the question of emissions from the stack at the UK power station, as I am sure the noble Lord is aware, under the UNFCCC accounting system, the accounting for those carbon losses are in the source country, not in the consumer country. Whether that is sensible is a matter for debate, but the fact is that the US has to declare the loss of carbon, and therefore in the UK’s accounting that counts as zero because the US has already accounted for it. Many people think that the consumer, not the producer, should have to account for it. It is not my part to adjudicate on that debate, but it is a perfectly valid debate to have.

--- Later in debate ---

Meanwhile, on my main point, I hope to have a more positive reply from my noble friend the Minister, who has been very helpful in other respects. I hope we have some positive news.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

I will speak to government Amendment 8 about community energy supplies. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, said that, when she was at Eton, there was nobody there who wanted to have a small modular nuclear reactor near to their home. This is something that I think may be more widespread than just Eton. I suspect that many people will be looking at the value of their houses and thinking that if they have a small modular reactor power station nearby, the value of their house may drop.

Therefore, I ask the Minister whether his idea of community energy supplies includes offering either cheap or free energy to people who live in the locality. That would make an awful lot of difference to the acceptability of SMRs—I once again declare my modest shareholding in Rolls-Royce—because then you might well have a situation where a buyer of a house that is slightly close to a small modular reactor gets a deal for either cheap or free energy. It is very important to make these things acceptable to people in the locality. I suspect that, if it is possible for the people who are putting in the small modular reactor to say to people locally that they can have cheap or free energy, that may well go an awful long way to making these things acceptable in a way which they otherwise would not be.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

Before the noble Member sits down, will he address the point that many of the sites that have been earmarked for SMRs are existing nuclear sites? Any effect on property values has probably already happened, and those sites clearly have an appeal for such SMR projects.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

I totally accept that fact, and people have certainly got used to having much bigger reactors on those sites and so will not worry about it. I have ambitions, though, for SMRs that go way beyond existing sites. There are not that many of them in this country, and I hope that we will have an awful lot more. When I come to move my amendment later on in the evening, I will be making reference to the fact that we might have a small modular reactor for specific purposes.

[Baroness Hayman (CB)]

My Lords, I will intervene very briefly on this debate, and I declare my interest as chair of Peers for the Planet. I have just a couple of points on the issues that have been raised. First, to follow up on what the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, said, the idea of ensuring that communities gain the benefits of infrastructure that is near to them applies not only to small modular reactors but to many other things. In particular, the House knows of my concern for onshore wind and an increase in onshore wind developments. We have to do that in a way so the community, first, understands why we are doing it, and secondly, sees some benefit from those projects, whether on an individual or community level.

The other thing—and I of course welcome the government amendment on community energy—is that I very much agree with the spirit of what the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said. Some of us get very weary trying to inject the same issues of principle into legislation after legislation. Skills and the needs of the workforce, and the way we practically turn aspirations for green growth and green jobs into satisfying, well-paid, sustainable jobs, has to be done through the nitty-gritty of skills training, passporting and making sure that the opportunities are there for transition and for young people. It is enormously important that the Government and GBE do not lose sight of that.

In exactly the same spirit, we have banged on—if that is a parliamentary phrase—about home insulation and energy efficiency on any number of Bills. If I may say so to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, it is probably slightly inelegant to put that in the Bill as a hypothetical for what GBE might want to do, but the spirit of what he is saying, and the fact that this has been such a recurring theme, is absolutely central: it has so many benefits in saving money, saving emissions, increasing health and ensuring that we lift people out of the poverty that is occasioned by the housing in which they live. I hope that the Minister can give us some encouragement that the warm homes strategy, or whatever we are calling it this time—we have called it lots of different things over the years but have not been very successful in delivering it—will be a high priority for the Government.