Great British Energy Bill

Lord Howell of Guildford Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 13th January 2025 Lords Chamber

The important thing is that we need to recognise that a lot of households will need alternatives to what they have now if we are going to get to net zero. In the drive to achieve the target by 2030, I hope the Minister will recognise that the Government should not concentrate just on the low-hanging fruit but should recognise that there are people in particular parts of the country who really need a solution to their problem within the five-year timescale. I hope the Minister will able to give a positive response to that.

[Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB)]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendment 87 in my name and to take this opportunity to thank my noble friend Lord Trenchard for lending his most welcome support to the amendment and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for introducing this little group so eloquently and strategically. He is absolutely right to point out that the difference between his amendment and the amendment in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Trenchard is the difference between an Oral Statement which can just be debated and, in our case, the need for a Motion of resolution in each House of Parliament. To put his mind at rest, I cannot believe that that would need to delay the process at all. It could be called in exactly the same amount of time—probably half a day, an Oral Statement possibly taking an hour, or 30 minutes in each House.

The Minister, who I do not think is replying to this group, said in response to the first group that he believes and hopes that Clause 6 will never be used. But the very fact that it is in the Bill means that it is there to be used should the circumstances arise and I believe that the magnitude is such that it is important to debate it and to carry each House with the Government. I cannot believe that that would be a delaying tactic; I think it is absolutely essential. The noble Lord also, in reference to the question of giving directions, equated the situation to that of the National Health Service. It is clear to me that, were such a direction to be given to the National Health Service, that would be debated in each House of Parliament as well, particularly in the circumstances that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, related of a potentially dangerous one-off situation which we understand Clause 6 envisages.

Words were said earlier about Drax and I do not wish to dwell on that, but Drax is a major contributor to the whole of the Yorkshire and Humberside regional economy. I believe that we should go back to growing the fast-growing willow coppice and—a name I can never pronounce—miscanthus, as that would help Drax to have a local source of produce on which to rely. It would also help the farmers at this very difficult time for them.

On the question of directions and consultation raised by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, and others such as my noble friend Lord Trenchard, it is important for it to be in the Bill that, before giving a direction, the Secretary of State must consult. Clause 6(3)(b) simply says

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

Well, it would be helpful, if there were a situation of some danger, for local authorities to be consulted, because they are the first responders in many cases. I am slightly baffled that they have not been mentioned so far. Do the Government intend to consult them? In previous debates it was also raised by the Association of British Insurers that, in these circumstances, potential and actual investors may need to be consulted if such an emergency were to arise. I do not think they have been mentioned so far. Again, is that something the Government have in mind?

I want to sound fairly relaxed about this, but I do believe that the amendment in the names of myself and my noble friend Lord Trenchard is preferable to the wording of the noble Earl’s Amendment 66 and I hope that the Government will respond favourably to our very modest request that a resolution should be debated in each House of Parliament and potentially voted on before the directions are adopted. I hope the Minister will also respond to my queries about who is to be consulted and why there are not more of them listed in the Bill. With those few remarks, I commend my amendment.

[Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)]

My Lords, it must be maddening for the Minister that a Bill specifically designed to exclude investment in the nuclear sector keeps on dragging back to the nuclear sector. This is for the obvious reason that these issues are completely and utterly inseparable. Investment in the energy sector generally has got to take account of all the different aspects, and nuclear is obviously one of them.

The Minister raised the question yet again of Sizewell C being a replica, and obviously he thinks I am being very boring on this, but can I plead with him to go back to his department and point out the obvious fallacies in the whole replica concept? If Sizewell C were to go ahead, it would be being constructed in the late 2020s and the early 2030s, probably for completion and producing kilowatts in the late 2030s or later. That will be approximately 25 years beyond the original design of Hinkley C, which was originally conceived under the Blair/Brown Government in the late 2010s.

Everyone in the civil nuclear sector knows that this is a highly fluid situation in which technology is rapidly developing and is going to create, along with the arrival of new things such as AI, a completely new set of designs, which will mean that by the late 2020s the Hinkley design will be frankly out of date. The idea that something that is 20 years old should be replicated is absurd in any advanced technology, and particularly absurd when it comes to electricity generation and civil nuclear power. If one just thinks about it for a moment, one will realise the replica argument carries absolutely no weight at all. I very much hope that any new nuclear installations—whether 300, 500 or gigawatt size—are definitely not going to be a replica of what has occurred at Hinkley C.

This is a view that is held very widely in France, where they say this design is unbuildable and should never be repeated, and it is the view of many other technicians involved in new nuclear development, which I strongly welcome in all sorts of shapes and sizes, but the idea that we should build a replica 20 years after the last one is frankly absurd. Please would the Minister go back to his department and point this out?

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I rise briefly to support the amendments in this group. It is clear from this and other groups that the mood of the Committee is in favour of fuller accountability to this House of the activities of GB Energy. This is not micromanaging; it is simply accountability and transparency. How the actions that are taken by GB Energy are directed, as is addressed by Amendment 66 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and addressed more fully in Amendment 87 in the name of my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering, is an essential part of that.

Financial markets have periods of irrational exuberance where greed triumphs over caution and experience. Most recently, we have seen the ill-fated wave of SPACs: special purpose acquisition companies. They are generally launched with great excitement and fanfare and with very loose objectives and end in disappointment. GB Energy is clearly a serious undertaking and its chances of success will be greatly aided by rigorous discipline and concentration of force. Applying strong parliamentary oversight of its directions can only aid that.

Amendment 86 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, and Amendment 86A in the name of my noble friend Lord Trenchard, will help in the rigour of those directions. The clause as drafted is simply too vague, as has been pointed out by other noble Lords. There is great and relevant knowledge in the five bodies nominated between these two amendments. It would seem essential for all directions that the Secretary of State should access this knowledge to ensure that these directions are as beneficial as possible.

I ask the Minister: how specific do his Government intend those directions to be? Will they prioritise jobs, bills, net zero or the commerciality of GB Energy itself? Having such directions is vital to ensure that GB Energy does not drift off course and stays aligned with the Government’s will. But the risk of conflicting objectives is confusion and muddle.